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
Paul Allen's Complaint Against the World, as text
Monday, August 30 2010 @ 03:34 AM EDT

So, do you hate software patents yet, now that you've read about Paul Allen's patent infringement lawsuit against the world and his dog?

I think it ought to inspire you, reading Allen's complaint [PDF], that it might get you to the tipping point, or at least help you to understand why most engineers do hate software patents, because they are a drain on the economy and a hindrance to innovation. So we did Allen's complaint as text, sort of as Exhibit A, shall we say, illustrating the point.

But if you can figure out precisely what this litigation is about from this complaint, what the defendants are alleged to have done wrong, you are doing better than I am. It's unbelievably vague.

So are the patents. What is it that these patents do? What's the process or method? I mean, "Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest", a patent on a system for recommending things that might interest you based on your interest in something else? How's this for prior art? When I go to the local hamburger joint, they ask me if I want fries with my burger.

What? It's patent-worthy if the computer asks instead of a human?

Why is Allen stooping to this, you are asking? I mean, suing BestBuy as a patent troll? OfficeMax? That's the legacy he craves? You are not alone. Lee Gomes at the Wall St. Journal, who was one of the first if not the very first mainstream journalist to sniff the gestank of SCO and write about it plainly, now writes about Paul Allen: "This is yet another example of the cynical use of the American legal system to extort money out of successful companies — in the name of protecting innovation and innovators. Shame on Paul Allen for being part of it."

And Gene Quinn on IP Watchdog writes:

Many in the technology sector are wondering what Paul Allen is doing and why he is bringing this lawsuit, which to me seems rather naive. As discussed more fully below, it seems to me that Mr. Allen is attempting to enter the deep, dark world of patent trolls. The tell-tale sign being a complaint without any substantive information and naked recitation of a variety of patents that have “one or more” unspecified claims being infringed for unspecified reasons.
He wants to be the biggest patent troll ever, then?

Allen's suing Google, among others. Of course. Who isn't suing Google these days? Wait. He's suing Apple too. This isn't a favor for a friend, by any chance, is it? Someone who doesn't want his company to be the only one losing big in patent litigation? I mean, if you are a Microsoft competitor, it seems some weird lawsuit is heading your way.

That reminds me. Microsoft is asking the US Supreme Court to overturn the huge loss it sustained in i4i v. Microsoft. It's the largest patent infringement verdict ever to be sustained on appeal. The question presented by Microsoft's petition [PDF] is whether a defense of invalidity requires clear and convincing evidence, rather than just a preponderance of the evidence, even in a case where the lower court failed to take into consideration that there was prior art that the USPTO had not seen prior to issuing the patent. The court has not yet agreed to hear the case. But in this matter, I hope Microsoft is successful.

Allen's suing practically everyone who has been successful in ecommerce on the Internet, except for Microsoft and Amazon, significantly enough, as Todd Bishop pointed out on TechFlash. Why? It makes him look small. I wonder if any of the defendants will notice the omission and raise antitrust issues.

It can't be just money, I don't think, although the huge judgment i4i won may have made folks start to drool uncontrollably, but Allen just pledged to give away half his wealth. Yet the relief he asks for is an injunction or royalties going forward. So money is in this picture. And the Bible does say that a lover of wealth will never feel he has enough. He's been dealing with cancer, successfully that article says, happily, but still he's likely to be having deep thoughts, and I can't help but wonder: is this how he wishes to spend his time, when time is the most precious asset?

Paul Allen's spokesman is defending the litigation, claiming that Allen foresaw many things that later proved to be important, saying the Interval patents cover "a variety of key processes in e-commerce," and that his defunct research company "Interval Research was early —- and right -— on key pieces of the Internet." But Interval Research didn't build any of the products that he claims he foresaw the need for, that I know of. And if you look at the dates he filed for these patents, it raises questions. How far would you have to peer into the future of the Internet in the year 2000, the filing date of this patent? Another was filed in 2000, and this one in 1996. Another one is 1996 also. How much of a prophet are we talking about then?

Here's a relevant interview with Terry Winograd, from 2002, who worked at Interval Research, and notice what he says happened, and I've marked the section that leaps off the page :

Q: And the third company you were involved with was Interval. Talk about that experience.

WINOGRAD: When Dave Liddle was setting up the company he was very interested in having strong connections to Stanford and so he got me involved. I spent a year full time there when they started up, recruiting people and starting projects. I stayed on as a consultant for a few years after that.

Q: You already commented on Action Technologies having, as you phrased it, middling success. Interval and PARC both were interesting cases of inability to commercialize. Would you say that?

WINOGRAD: Yes, I would. I can't add anything to what the business pundits have said over the years, because how things turn into business were never questions that I really focused on. The situations were very different. Obviously Interval started out with much more hindsight because of what had happened at places like PARC. At Interval there was more of an explicit strategy to bring things to market as opposed to PARC, where that wasn't the orientation for many of the people there. The problem is that people who are researchers don't care about that at some level.

Q: Why was Interval unable to succeed in the market?

WINOGRAD: Interval got completely sideswiped by the Web. It was started just before the Web. In fact, my first exposure to Mosaic was through a summer intern at Interval. All of a sudden all of the money and talent and everything else got sucked into the Web. It dried up the pool there, to some extent. It's hard to know what would have happened if the timing hadn't been that way. Interval was looking at devices, at things people use, and at the home, and not looking at putting commerce onto the Internet.

That doesn't really match what Allen's spokesman said, does it? "Sideswiped by the web" means they didn't see it coming, not really, according to Mr. Winograd, anyway. And he says pointblank that Interval was *not* thinking about putting ecommerce on the Internet. I can't help but notice that one of the patents talks about "a display device", not a computer, which would match what Winograd said about devices as opposed to the Internet. What will he claim, that he invented the iPad?

TechFlash has more statements from Allen's spokesman, but his words don't match this interview either:

In a statement, Allen spokesman David Postman called Interval Research “an early, ground-breaking contributor to the development of the internet economy.” He added, “Interval has worked hard to bring its technologies to market through spinning off new companies, technology transfer arrangements, and sales of its patented technology.”

Asked why Microsoft or Amazon wasn’t named among the defendants in the suit, Postman declined to comment on litigation strategy. However, he noted that only a handful of Interval’s hundreds of patents are cited in the suit, and said today’s complaint isn’t necessarily the end of the actions that Interval Licensing might take.

"This is the most recent step in a long process," he said in an email, "but it is not necessarily the end of the process."

Interval has 300 or so patents, and this suit is about only 4 of them.

But key pieces of the internet? Did he read these patents before he said that? Patently O's Dennis Crouch did, and even he says they seem a little thin. Or more exactly, he says these patents focus on what he "might call 'lightweight' usability ideas."

The patents focus on what I might call “lightweight” usability ideas such as a occupying the peripheral attention of a user; organizing audio/visual for display in a browser; and alerting users to items of current interest.

When Interval closed its doors, the patents were transferred to Vulcan Patents LLC (presumably another Paul Allen company) and then to Interval Licensing which remains a Paul Allen company.

The patents are well drafted. Of course, even excellent drafting cannot cure obviousness problems. I suspect that the litigation will focus primarily on whether these inventions were obvious back when the patents were filed? In addition to arguing in court, I expect that the defendants will also appeal to the US Patent Office -- asking the agency to take a second look at the patents via reexamination.

Lightweight. Obvious. I saw one comment on Groklaw that suggested that maybe he's trying to get software declared unpatentable by bringing these patents to the attention of the court. I doubt that, but it actually could happen. As Crouch puts it, "It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court’s foray into patent law over the past four-years will impact this case."

And Quinn:

The complaint alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,263,507, 6,034,652, 6,788,314 and 6,757,682. I would love to be able to provide information and detail as to the theory of infringement, but virtually none was provided in the complaint, hence my characterization above suggesting that perhaps Paul Allen has decided to become a patent troll of the first magnitude. This type of complaint by ambush is fairly typical, particularly with patent trolls. Of course, there may be real infringement here and Allen et al may not really be patent trolls, but the complete and utter lack of information in the complaint is troubling, although it has continually become the modus operandi in the patent infringement litigation world.
He says such vagueness ought not to be allowed, and if he represented any of the defendants, he'd file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim:
Thank goodness that proving patent infringement is not so simple as saying “may patent relates to X and you appear to be doing X.” If it were that simple many hundreds of patent litigators would be out of work. Of course it is not that easy, and filing a lawsuit with such little information ought not to be allowed either. If I were one of the defendants I would file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim because how in the world is this complaint supposed to put the defendants on any kind of notice?
If success is unlikely, why start? And if you are going to sue over ecommerce, why would you not, how could you not, sue Amazon?

Of course, I asked that of SCO lo these many years ago, why do it when you are likely to lose, and while they never answered, I figured it out over time that it was about getting control of Linux and if that couldn't happen, to be as annoying and loud for as long as possible. Is Allen wanting to control the Internet? That's a dream as big as the sky. Or force everyone to pay homage to him, bringing him tribute, as the brilliant father of the Internet or something goofy like that? Don't reject that out of hand. Here's a journalist who thinks that is exactly what it's about, attribution. Credit. On this TechFlash podcast, Bishop jokes that maybe Al Gore will sue him for making that claim.

Bishop and John Cook on TechFlash say on the podcast at the end of that section that they're going to dig into Allen's finances to see if he's broke. But how broke can you be if you feel you can give away half of your stash and still be fine? So I find that hard to accept, but I'll be watching what they come up with.

Maybe he's like my mom. For years, she had a cleaning woman come once a week, and the night before, she'd clean up the house so the woman wouldn't think she was messy. Now that's just silly, but there you are. The human condition is to be ridiculous. So maybe he wants to give more, since we'll all be able to calculate by what he gives away how much he has left. I mean, if you are the 37th most wealthy man in the world, if you used to be 3rd, maybe it's huge in your mind to scramble back up for the sake of your good name?

It makes me laugh just thinking about that. But then, so did my mom's cleaning frenzies.

Here's the piece that stands out to me. Wired had an article in 1999 on Allen's Interval Research, and I can't help but notice that they were not a pure research company by then. They wanted to develop products from the research they had done. And they failed to be successful at it. He never developed products around these patents, the Wall St. Journal reported. He is suing people who actually are successful in ways Interval never was. Sad.

The other odd thing is that he helped Google with funding at one point, as the article points out:

According to Friday's suit, Interval Research was listed in Google's "credits" site in 1998 as an outside collaborator and one of a handful of sources of research funding for Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page's research that resulted in Google. Google declined to comment on any ties to Interval.
Who in the world will ever let him invest in their startup now? It'd be like being offered an apple by the wicked queen in Snow White. Thanks but no thanks.

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

INTERVAL LICENSING LLC,
Plaintiff,

v.

AOL, INC.; APPLE, INC.; eBAY, INC.;
FACEBOOK, INC.; GOOGLE INC.;
NETFLIX, INC.; OFFICE DEPOT, INC.;
OFFICEMAX INC.; STAPLES, INC.;
YAHOO! INC.; AND YOUTUBE, LLC,

Defendants.

___________________________

Case No.

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
INFRINGEMENT

JURY DEMAND

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff Interval Licensing LLC, files this complaint for patent infringement against Defendants AOL, Inc., Apple, Inc., eBay, Inc., Facebook, Inc., Google Inc., Netflix, Inc., Office Depot, Inc., OfficeMax Inc., Staples, Inc., Yahoo! Inc., and YouTube, LLC. Plaintiff Interval Licensing LLC alleges:

THE PARTIES

1. Interval Licensing LLC ("Interval") is a limited liability company duly organized under the laws of the state of Washington, with its principal place of business at [address], Seattle, WA 98104.

2. Interval is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant AOL, Inc. ("AOL") is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business at [address], NY 10003.

3. Interval is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant Apple, Inc. ("Apple") is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of California, with its principal place of business at [address], CA 95014.

4. Interval is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant eBay, Inc. ("eBay") is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business at [address], CA 95125.

5. Interval is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant Facebook, Inc. ("Facebook") is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business at [address], CA 94304.

6. Interval is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant Google Inc. ("Google") is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business at [address], CA 94043.

1

7. Interval is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant Netflix, Inc. ("Netflix") is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business at [address], CA 95032.

8. Interval is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant Office Depot, Inc. ("Office Depot") is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business at [address], FL 33496.

9. Interval is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant OfficeMax Inc. ("OfficeMax") is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business at [address], IL 60563.

10. Interval is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant Staples, Inc. ("Staples") is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business at [address], MA 01702.

11. Interval is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant Yahoo! Inc. ("Yahoo") is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business at [address], CA 94089.

12. Interval is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Defendant YouTube, LLC ("YouTube") is a limited liability company duly organized and existing

3

under the laws of the state of California, with its principal place of business at [address], CA 94066.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1338(a) because this action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. Venue is proper in this Federal Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c) and 1400(b) in that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this district and the defendants have a regular and established practice of business in this district and have committed acts of infringement in this district.

INTERVAL RESEARCH CORPORATION WAS A PIONEER IN THE
TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY

14. Interval Research Corporation ("Interval Research") was founded in 1992 by Paul Allen and David Liddle to perform advanced research and development in the areas of information systems, communications, and computer science. Mr. Allen, who served as Interval Research's chairman, was one of the earliest pioneers of personal computer software. He co-founded Microsoft with Bill Gates in 1975 and later founded Vulcan Ventures in 1986. Mr. Liddle served as Interval Research's president and chief executive officer. He was instrumental in developing fundamental technologies starting in the early 1970s when he worked at Xerox at the Palo Alto Research Center.

15. Starting with Mr. Allen, Mr. Liddle, and a handful of scientists and inventors, Interval Research evolved into one of the preeminent technology firms. It employed over 110 of the world's leading scientists, physicists, and engineers, and was at the forefront in designing next-generation science and technology.

4

16. In addition to the research that Interval Research conducted, it also provided funding and assistance for other projects. For example, Interval Research served as an outside collaborator to and provided research funding for Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page's research that resulted in Google. Indeed, a Google screenshot dated September 27, 1998 entitled "About Google!" identifies Interval Research in the "Credits" section as one of two "Outside Collaborators" and one of four sources of "Research Funding" for Google. See Sept. 27, 1998 Website "About Google!" attached as Exhibit 1.

17. Mr. Brin and Mr. Page also recognized Interval Research's funding in the "Acknowledgements" section of their 1998 research article entitled "Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine" in which they "present Google."

18. As a testament to Interval Research's innovation, it was issued approximately 300 patents in less than a decade. Four of those patents are the patents-in-suit.

19. Interval Licensing LLC owns the patents-in-suit. The company is owned and controlled by Mr. Allen.

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,263,507

20. On July 17, 2001, United States Patent No. 6,263,507 ("the '507 patent") was duly and legally issued for an invention entitled "Browser for Use in Navigating a Body of Information, With Particular Application to Browsing Information Represented By Audiovisual Data." Interval was assigned the '507 patent and continues to hold all rights and interest in the '507 patent. A true and correct copy of the '507 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

21. Defendant AOL has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '507 patent. AOL is liable for infringing the '507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making and using websites, hardware, and software to categorize, compare, and display segments of a body of information as claimed in the patent.

22. Defendant Apple has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '507 patent. Apple is liable for infringing the '507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by

5

making and using websites, hardware, and software to categorize, compare, and display segments of a body of information as claimed in the patent.

23. Defendant eBay has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '507 patent. eBay is liable for infringing the '507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making and using websites, hardware, and software to categorize, compare, and display segments of a body of information as claimed in the patent.

24. Defendant Google has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '507 patent. Google is liable for infringing the '507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making and using websites, hardware, and software to categorize, compare, and display segments of a body of information as claimed in the patent.

25. Defendant Netflix has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '507 patent. Netflix is liable for infringing the '507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making and using websites, hardware, and software to categorize, compare, and display segments of a body of information as claimed in the patent.

6

26. Defendant Office Depot has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '507 patent. Office Depot is liable for infringing the '507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making and using websites, hardware, and software to categorize, compare, and display segments of a body of information as claimed in the patent.

27. Defendant OfficeMax has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '507 patent. OfficeMax is liable for infringing the '507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making and using websites, hardware, and software to categorize, compare, and display segments of a body of information as claimed in the patent.

28. Defendant Staples has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '507 patent. Staples is liable for infringing the '507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making and using websites, hardware, and software to categorize, compare, and display segments of a body of information as claimed in the patent.

29. Defendant Yahoo has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '507 patent. Yahoo is liable for infringing the '507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making and using websites, hardware, and software to categorize, compare, and display segments of a body of information as claimed in the patent.

30. Defendant YouTube has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '507 patent. YouTube is liable for infringing the '507 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making and using websites, hardware, and software to categorize, compare, and display segments of a body of information as claimed in the patent.

31. Defendants AOL, Apple, eBay, Google, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo, and YouTube's acts of infringement have caused damage to Interval, and Interval is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages sustained by Interval as a result of Defendants' wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. Defendants' infringement of Interval's exclusive rights under the '507 patent will continue to damage Interval, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by this Court. Interval reserves the right to allege, after discovery, that Defendants'

7

infringement is willful and deliberate, entitling Interval to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorney's fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,034,652

32. On March 7, 2000, United States Patent No. 6,034,652 ("the '652 patent") was duly and legally issued for an invention entitled "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device." Interval was assigned the '652 patent and continues to hold all rights and interest in the '652 patent. A true and correct copy of the '652 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.

33. Defendant AOL has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '652 patent. AOL is liable for infringing the '652 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, offering, providing, and encouraging customers to use products that display information in a way that occupies the peripheral attention of the user as claimed in the patent.

34. Defendant Apple has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '652 patent. Apple is liable for infringing the '652 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, offering, providing, and encouraging customers to use products that display information in a way that occupies the peripheral attention of the user as claimed in the patents.

35. Defendant Google has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '652 patent. Google is liable for infringing the '652 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, offering, providing, and encouraging customers to use products that display information in a way that occupies the peripheral attention of the user as claimed in the patent.

36. Defendant Yahoo has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '652 patent. Yahoo is liable for infringing the '652 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, offering, providing, and encouraging customers to use products that display

8

information in a way that occupies the peripheral attention of the user as claimed in the patent.

37. Defendants AOL, Apple, Google, and Yahoo's acts of infringement have caused damage to Interval, and Interval is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages sustained by Interval as a result of Defendants' wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. Defendants' infringement of Interval's exclusive rights under the '652 patent will continue to damage Interval, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by this Court. Interval reserves the right to allege, after discovery, that Defendants' infringement is willful and deliberate, entitling Interval to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorney's fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,788,314

38. On September 7, 2004, United States Patent No. 6,788,314 ("the '314 patent") was duly and legally issued for an invention entitled "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device." Interval was assigned the '314 patent and continues to hold all rights and interest in the '314 patent. A true and correct copy of the '314 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.

9

39. Defendant AOL has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '314 patent. AOL is liable for infringing the '314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, offering, providing, and encouraging customers to use products that display information in a way that occupies the peripheral attention of the user as claimed in the patent.

40. Defendant Apple has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '314 patent. Apple is liable for infringing the '314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, offering, providing, and encouraging customers to use products that display information in a way that occupies the peripheral attention of the user as claimed in the patent.

41. Defendant Google has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '314 patent. Google is liable for infringing the '314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, offering, providing, and encouraging customers to use products that display information in a way that occupies the peripheral attention of the user as claimed in the patent.

42. Defendant Yahoo has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '314 patent. Yahoo is liable for infringing the '314 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, offering, providing, and encouraging customers to use products that display information in a way that occupies the peripheral attention of the user as claimed in the patent.

43. Defendants AOL, Apple, Google, and Yahoo's acts of infringement have caused damage to Interval, and Interval is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages sustained by Interval as a result of Defendants' wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof

10

at trial. Defendants' infringement of Interval's exclusive rights under the '314 patent will continue to damage Interval, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by this Court. Interval reserves the right to allege, after discovery, that Defendants' infringement is willful and deliberate, entitling Interval to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorney's fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,757,682

44. On June 29, 2004, United States Patent No. 6,757,682 ("the '682 patent") was duly and legally issued for an invention entitled "Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest." Interval was assigned the '682 patent and continues to hold all rights and interest in the '682 patent. A true and correct copy of the '682 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.

45. Defendant AOL has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '682 patent. AOL is liable for infringing the '682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making and using websites and associated hardware and software to provide alerts that information is of current interest to a user as claimed in the patent.

46. Defendant Apple has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '682 patent. Apple is liable for infringing the '682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making and using websites and associated hardware and software to provide alerts that information is of current interest to a user as claimed in the patent.

47. Defendant eBay has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '682 patent. eBay is liable for infringing the '682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making and using websites and associated hardware and software to provide alerts that information is of current interest to a user as claimed in the patent.

11

48. Defendant Facebook has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '682 patent. Facebook is liable for infringing the '682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making and using websites and associated hardware and software to provide alerts that information is of current interest to a user as claimed in the patent.

49. Defendant Google has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '682 patent. Google is liable for infringing the '682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making and using websites and associated hardware and software to provide alerts that information is of current interest to a user as claimed in the patent.

50. Defendant Netflix has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '682 patent. Netflix is liable for infringing the '682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making and using websites and associated hardware and software to provide alerts that information is of current interest to a user as claimed in the patent.

51. Defendant Office Depot has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '682 patent. Office Depot is liable for infringing the '682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making and using websites and associated hardware and software to provide alerts that information is of current interest to a user as claimed in the patent.

52. Defendant OfficeMax has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '682 patent. OfficeMax is liable for infringing the '682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making and using websites and associated hardware and software to provide alerts that information is of current interest to a user as claimed in the patent.

53. Defendant Staples has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '682 patent. Staples is liable for infringing the '682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by

12

making and using websites and associated hardware and software to provide alerts that information is of current interest to a user as claimed in the patent.

54. Defendant Yahoo has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '682 patent. Yahoo is liable for infringing the '682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making and using websites and associated hardware and software to provide alerts that information is of current interest to a user as claimed in the patent.

55. Defendant YouTube has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '682 patent. YouTube is liable for infringing the '682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making and using websites and associated hardware and software to provide alerts that information is of current interest to a user as claimed in the patent.

56. Defendants AOL, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo, and YouTube's acts of infringement have caused damage to Interval, and Interval is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages sustained by Interval as a result of Defendants' wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. Defendants' infringement of Interval's exclusive rights under the '682 patent will continue to damage Interval, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by this Court. Interval reserves the right to allege, after discovery, that Defendants' infringement is willful and deliberate, entitling Interval to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorney's fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

JURY DEMAND

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

13

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Interval Licensing LLC requests entry of judgment in its favor and against Defendants as follows:

a) Declaration that (1) Defendants AOL, Apple, eBay, Google, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo, and YouTube have infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,263,507; (2) Defendants AOL, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo, and YouTube have infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,757,682; and (3) Defendants AOL, Apple, Google, and Yahoo have infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,034,652 and 6,788,314.

b) Awarding the damages arising out of (1) Defendants' AOL, Apple, eBay, Google, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo, and YouTube's infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,263,507; (2) Defendants' AOL, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo, and YouTube's infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,757,682; and (3) Defendants' AOL, Apple, Google, and Yahoo's infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,034,652 and 6,788,314, to Interval, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest, in an amount according to proof;

c) Permanently enjoining Defendants and their respective officers, agents, employees, and those acting in privity with them, from further infringement, including contributory infringement and/or inducing infringement, of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,263,507, 6,034,652, 6,788,314, and 6,757,682, or in the alternative, awarding a royalty for post-judgment infringement;

d) Awarding attorney's fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 or as otherwise permitted by law; and

14

e) Awarding such other costs and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: August 27, 2010
/s/ Justin A. Nelson
Justin A. Nelson
WA Bar No. 31864
[E-Mail]
Matthew R. Berry
WA Bar No. 37364
[E-Mail]
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
[address, phone, fax]

Max L. Tribble, Jr.
[E-Mail]
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
[address, phone, fax]

Michael F. Heim
[E-mail]
Eric J. Enger
[E-mail]
Nathan J. Davis
[E-mail]
HEIM, PAYNE & CHORUSH, L.L.P.
[address, phone, fax]

Attorneys for INTERVAL LICENSING LLC

15


  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 )