decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


To read comments to this article, go here
Microsoft's Complaint against TomTom, as text
Thursday, March 05 2009 @ 11:40 PM EST

Here's the complaint filed by Microsoft against TomTom, NV and TomTom, Inc., alleging patent infringement, as PDF and as text. We'll be setting up a Timeline page for it after TomTom files its answer.

We also provide the exhibits, as PDFs, some of which are the patents being litigated. Don't read them unless you are free to look at such patents, as usual.

Here's the relief Microsoft is asking for: a judgment that TomTom has infringed each of Microsoft's patents, that it was willful, hence justifying treble damages and pre-judgment interest, plus compensatory damages and interest and costs, and "in no event less than a reasonable royalty", expenses, costs and attorneys fees, and, finally, a permanent injunction.

The filings:

02/25/2009 1 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT and JURY DEMAND against defendants (NO Summons(es) issued)(Receipt # SEA 24188), filed by Microsoft Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Complaint, # 2 Exhibit B to Complaint, # 3 Exhibit C to Complaint, # 4 Exhibit D to Complaint, # 5 Exhibit E to Complaint, # 6 Exhibit F to Complaint, # 7 Exhibit G to Complaint, # 8 Exhibit H to Complaint, # 9 Civil Cover Sheet, # 10 Transmittal email)(PM) (Entered: 02/27/2009)

02/27/2009 2 REPORT on the filing or determination of an action. E-mailed to the US Patent Office. (Attachments: # 1 AO 120 Form completed by counsel) (PM) (Entered: 02/27/2009)

03/02/2009 3 NOTICE Microsoft Corporation's Corporate Disclosure Statement ; filed by Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation. (Wichman, Adam) (Entered: 03/02/2009)

You might find it interesting to read the USPTO's current examination standards [PDF], in a January 7, 2009 memo from John J. Love, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, "SUBJECT: Guidance for Examining Process Claims in view of In re Bilski", sent to "Technology Center Directors Patent Examining Corps", which I guess means the examiners. Here's the meat of it:
We are presently studying the full ramifications of the court's clarification and other recent developments in the law. In view of the Bilski decision, the guidelines are being redrafted to reflect the most current standards for subject matter eligibility. Until the guidelines are completed, examiners should continue to follow the current patent subject matter eligibility guidelines appearing in MPEP 2106, with the following modification.

As explained in a memorandum dated May 15, 2008, entitled "Clarification of 'Processes' under 35 USC 101", a method claim must meet a specialized, limited meaning to qualify as a patent-eligible process claim. As clarified in Bilski, the test for a method claim is whether the claimed method is (1) tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) transforms a particular article to a different state or thing. This is called the "machine-or-transformation test". It should be noted that the machine-or-transformation test from Bilski is slightly different from the test explained in the May 15 Clarification memo, which was based on the Office's interpretation of the law prior to Bilski.

There are two corollaries to the machine-or-transformation test. First, a mere field-of-use limitation is generally insufficient to render an otherwise ineligible method claim patent-eligible. This means the machine or transformation must impose meaningful limits on the method claim's scope to pass the test. Second, insignificant extra-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process. This means reciting a specific machine or a particular transformation of a specific article in an insignificant step, such a data gathering or outputting, is not sufficient to pass the test.

That last paragraph is the important part. Keep in mind that Microsoft also filed a complaint [PDF] with the ITC, which is described on the new ITC Law Blog.

***************************************************

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
a Washington Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOMTOM N.V., a Netherlands Corporation,
and TOMTOM, INC., a Massachusetts
Corporation,
Defendants.
Case No: _______________________

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
INFRINGEMENT

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") for its Complaint For Patent Infringement against Defendants TomTom N.V. and TomTom, Inc. (collectively, the "Defendants"), alleges as follows:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation is a Washington corporation having its principal place of business at One Microsoft Way, Redmond, Washington 98052.

2. Founded in 1975, Microsoft is a worldwide leader in computer software, services and solutions for businesses and consumers. Since 1979, Microsoft has been headquartered in the Seattle, Washington metropolitan area, currently employs more than 20,000 people in the Seattle area, and occupies nearly 8 million square feet of facilities at its Redmond campus.

(1)

3. Microsoft has a long history of technical innovation in the software and hardware products it develops and distributes. These software products include operating systems for servers, personal computers, embedded devices, smartphones, PDAs, and other intelligent devices; server applications for distributed computing environments; information worker productivity applications; business solution applications; high-performance computing applications; software development tools; operating systems for automotive applications; and various navigation-related software products and services.

4. Upon information and belief, Defendant TomTom N.V. is a Dutch corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Netherlands having a principal place of business at Rembrandtplein 35, Amsterdam 1017 CT, Netherlands.

5. Upon information and belief, Defendant TomTom, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Massachusetts and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of TomTom N.V. TomTom, Inc.'s principal place of business is located at 150 Baker Ave Ext., Concord, Massachusetts 01742.

6. Upon information and belief, Defendants are in the business of developing, manufacturing, and selling portable navigation computing devices and software for use on those devices, personal computers, PDAs, and smartphones (hereinafter known collectively as "Portable Navigation Devices and Software"). Upon information and belief, Defendants market and distribute their products worldwide, including in the United States, through their channel business partners and various retail companies, at retail stores, through the websites of retail companies, and on their own websites. Upon information and belief, Defendants do business within the Western District of Washington.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, United States Code.

(2)

8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a).

9. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), 1391(c) and 1400(b). On information and belief, Defendants are subject to this Court's personal jurisdiction, consistent with the principles of due process and the Washington Long Arm Statute, because each Defendant offers for sale and sells Portable Navigation Devices and Software in the Western District of Washington, has transacted business in this District, and/or has committed and/or induced acts of patent infringement in this District. For example, Defendants' own website (e.g., http://www.tomtom.com/page/giftguide?Lid=4&selector=true) allows users to purchase Defendants' products for delivery within this District. The website at http://www.tomtom.com/stores/type.php?ID=2&Country=223 directs users of the Defendants' website to retail outlets selling Defendants' products within this District. Additionally, the website at http://www.tomtom.com/stores/type.php?ID=1&Country=223 directs users of the Defendants' website to online merchants selling Defendants' products for delivery within this District.

PATENT INFRINGEMENT COUNTS

10. Microsoft is the owner of all right, title, and interest in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,175,789; 7,054,745; 6,704,032; 7,117,286; 6,202,008; 5,579,517; 5,758,352; and 6,256,642 (collectively, "the Microsoft patents-in-suit"), which the Defendants are directly infringing and/or inducing others to infringe by making, using, offering to sell or selling in the United States, or importing into the United States, products or processes that practice inventions claimed in the Microsoft patents-in-suit.

11. The Defendants have profited through infringement of the Microsoft patents-in-suit. As a result of the Defendants' unlawful infringement of the Microsoft patents-in-suit patent, Microsoft has suffered and will continue to suffer damage. Microsoft is entitled to

(3)

recover from the Defendants the damages suffered by Microsoft as a result of the Defendants' unlawful acts.

12. Defendants' infringement of the Microsoft patents-in-suit constitutes willful and deliberate infringement, entitling Microsoft to enhanced damages and reasonable attorney fees and costs. Microsoft provided defendant TomTom N.V. notice of its infringement allegations in a June 13, 2008 letter to Peter-Frans Pauwels, Chief Technical Officer of Defendant TomTom N.V. Upon information and belief, Defendant TomTom, Inc. received notice of Microsoft's infringement allegations from its parent, TomTom N.V.

13. Upon information and belief, the Defendants intend to continue their unlawful infringing activity, and Microsoft continues to and will continue to suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law from such unlawful infringing activity unless Defendants are enjoined by this Court.

COUNT I
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,175,789

14. Microsoft realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-13.

15. Microsoft is the owner of all right, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No. 6,175,789 ("the '789 patent"), entitled "Vehicle Computer System with Open Platform Architecture" duly and properly issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on January 16, 2001. A copy of the '789 patent is attached as Exhibit A.

16. The Defendants have been and/or are directly infringing and/or inducing others to infringe the '789 patent by, among other things, making, using, offering to sell or selling in the United States, or importing into the United States, products, including various Portable Navigation Devices and Software that embody or incorporate, or the operation of which otherwise practices, one or more claims of the '789 patent.

(4)

COUNT II
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,054,745

17. Microsoft realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-13.

18. Microsoft is the owner of all right, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No. 7,054,745 ("the '745 patent"), entitled "Method and System For Generating Driving Directions," duly and properly issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on May 30, 2006. A copy of the '745 patent is attached as Exhibit B.

19. The Defendants have been and/or are directly infringing and/or inducing others to infringe the '745 patent by, among other things, making, using, offering to sell or selling in the United States, or importing into the United States, products, including various Portable Navigation Devices and Software that embody or incorporate, or the operation of which otherwise practices, one or more claims of the '745 patent.

COUNT III
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,704,032

20. Microsoft realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-13.

21. Microsoft is the owner of all right, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No. 6,704,032 ("the '032 patent"), entitled "Methods and Arrangements for Interacting with Controllable Objects within a Graphical User Interface Environment Using Various Input Mechanisms," duly and properly issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on March 9, 2004. A copy of the '032 patent is attached as Exhibit C.

22. The Defendants have been and/or are directly infringing and/or inducing others to infringe the '032 patent by, among other things, making, using, offering to sell or selling in the United States, or importing into the United States, products, including various Portable

(5)

Navigation Devices and Software that embody or incorporate, or the operation of which otherwise practices, one or more claims of the '032 patent.

COUNT IV
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,117,286

23. Microsoft realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-13.

24. Microsoft is the owner of all right, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No. 7,117,286 ("the '286 patent"), entitled "Portable Computing Device-integrated Appliance," duly and properly issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on October 3, 2006. A copy of the '286 patent is attached as Exhibit D.

25. The Defendants have been and/or are directly infringing and/or inducing others to infringe the '286 patent by, among other things, making, using, offering to sell or selling in the United States, or importing into the United States, products, including various Portable Navigation Devices and Software that embody or incorporate, or the operation of which otherwise practices, one or more claims of the '286 patent.

COUNT V
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,202,008

26. Microsoft realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-13.

27. Microsoft is the owner of all right, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No. 6,202,008 ("the '008 patent"), entitled "Vehicle Computer System with Wireless Internet Connectivity," duly and properly issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on March 13, 2001. A copy of the '008 patent is attached as Exhibit E.

28. The Defendants have been and/or are directly infringing and/or inducing others to infringe the '008 patent by, among other things, making, using, offering to sell or selling in the United States, or importing into the United States, products, including various Portable

(6)

Navigation Devices and Software that embody or incorporate, or the operation of which otherwise practices, one or more claims of the '008 patent.

COUNT VI
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,579,517

29. Microsoft realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-13.

30. Microsoft is the owner of all right, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No. 5,579,517 ("the '517 patent"), entitled "Common Name Space for Long and Short Filenames," duly and properly issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on November 26, 1996. A reexamination certificate was issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for the '517 patent on November 28, 2006. A copy of the '517 patent, including reexamination certificate, is attached as Exhibit F.

31. The Defendants have been and/or are directly infringing and/or inducing others to infringe the '517 patent by, among other things, making, using, offering to sell or selling in the United States, or importing into the United States, products, including various Portable Navigation Devices and Software that embody or incorporate, or the operation of which otherwise practices, one or more claims of the '517 patent.

COUNT VII
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,758,352

32. Microsoft realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-13.

33. Microsoft is the owner of all right, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No. 5,758,352 ("the '352 patent"), entitled "Common Name Space for Long and Short Filenames," duly and properly issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on May 26, 1998. A reexamination certificate was issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for the '352 patent on October

(7)

10, 2006. A copy of the '352 patent, including reexamination certificate, is attached as Exhibit G.

34. The Defendants have been and/or are directly infringing and/or inducing others to infringe the '352 patent by, among other things, making, using, offering to sell or selling in the United States, or importing into the United States, products, including various Portable Navigation Devices and Software that embody or incorporate, or the operation of which otherwise practices, one or more claims of the '352 patent.

COUNT VIII
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,256,642

35. Microsoft realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-13.

36. Microsoft is the owner of all right, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No. 6,256,642 ("the '642 patent"), entitled "Method and System for File System Management Using a Flash-Erasable, Programmable, Read-only Memory" duly and properly issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on July 3, 2001. A copy of the '642 patent is attached as Exhibit H.

37. The Defendants have been and/or are directly infringing and/or inducing others to infringe the '642 patent by, among other things, making, using, offering to sell or selling in the United States, or importing into the United States, products, including various Portable Navigation Devices and Software that embody or incorporate, or the operation of which otherwise practices, one or more claims of the '642 patent.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

38. Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Microsoft respectfully requests a trial by jury on all issues properly triable by jury.

(8)

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Microsoft prays for relief as follows:

A. For a judgment declaring that each Defendant has infringed at least one claim of each of the Microsoft patents-in-suit;

B. For a judgment awarding Microsoft compensatory damages as a result of each Defendant's infringement of the Microsoft patents-in-suit, together with interest and costs, and in no event less than a reasonable royalty;

C. For a judgment declaring that each Defendant's infringement of the Microsoft patents-in-suit, has been willful and deliberate;

D. For a judgment awarding Microsoft treble damages and pre-judgment interest under 35 U.S.C. 284 as a result of each Defendant's willful and deliberate infringement of the Microsoft patents-in-suit;

E. For a judgment declaring that this case is exceptional as to each Defendant and awarding Microsoft its expenses, costs, and attorneys fees in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 284 and 285 and Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

F. For a grant of permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 283, enjoining each Defendant from further acts of infringement; and

G. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: February 25, 2009 KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP

By: s/ Adam R. Wichman
Adam R. Wichman (WSBA No. 38466)
[email address]
John D. Vandenberg (WSBA No. 38445)
[email address]
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

(9)

OF COUNSEL:

David E. Killough (WSBA No. 40185)
[email address]
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
[address]
[phone]
[fax]

David T. Pritikin
[email address]
Richard A. Cederoth [email address]
Douglas I. Lewis [email address]
John W. McBride [email address]
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP [address]
[phone]
[fax]

Marc R. Ascolese [email address]
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP [address]
[phone]
[fax]

Attorneys for Plaintiff
MICROSOFT CORPORATION

(10)


  View Printable Version


Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )