Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 903-2 Filed 09/15/23 Page 1 of 14
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`

`

`
`
`Mark Holscher (SBN 139582)
`mark.holscher@kirkland.com
`Michael Shipley (SBN 233674)
`michael.shipley@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 South Flower Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 680-8400
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Europlay Capital
`Advisors, LLC and Claria Innovations, LLC;
`Element Entertainment Inc.; Eurocapital and
`Business Development LLC
`
`[Additional counsel on signature page]
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES–CENTRAL DISTRICT
`
`Case No.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`EUROPLAY CAPITAL ADVISORS LLC;
`ELEMENT ENTERTAINMENT INC.;
`EUROCAPITAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
`LLC; CLARIA INNOVATIONS LLC;
`MONTO HOLDINGS PTY LTD.; KINETECH,
`INC.; BRILLIANT DIGITAL
`ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.; AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.; TWITCH INTERACTIVE,
`INC.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 02/27/2023 05:39 PM David W. Slayton, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by D. Williams,Deputy Clerk
`
`Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Gregory Keosian
`
`23STCV04364
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 903-2 Filed 09/15/23 Page 3 of 14
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs Europlay Capital Advisors LLC, Element Entertainment Inc., Eurocapital Business
`Development LLC, Claria Innovations LLC, Monto Holdings Pty Ltd., Kinetech, Inc. and Brilliant
`Digital Entertainment, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned attorneys, bring
`this Cross-Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc.,
`and Twitch Interactive, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”).
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`PersonalWeb Technologies LLC (“Personal Web”) brought an ultimately unsuccessful,
`but hard-fought and non-frivolous patent litigation against Amazon. After finding that the action was
`“exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285, the United States District Court for the Northern District of
`California found PersonalWeb liable for Amazon’s costs and attorneys’ fees in defending against the
`litigation. PersonalWeb is unable to pay that judgment, which Amazon is attempting to enforce even
`though it remains on appeal.
`2.
`Having spent more than a year taking extraordinarily broad post-judgment discovery,
`Amazon’s next apparent step is to have Plaintiffs—PersonalWeb’s direct or indirect owners—held liable
`for PersonalWeb’s judgment debt. Amazon appears bent on using its substantial resources to force
`Plaintiffs to pay for PersonalWeb’s judgment by piercing through multiple layers of limited liability
`afforded by Texas and then Delaware law. Amazon wants to make an example out of Plaintiffs in order
`to deter intellectual property inventors and owners whose patents Amazon may in the future infringe and
`whom it hypocritically labels as “patent trolls.”
`3.
`Amazon’s cause is a popular one amongst tech company executives. But, as the Federal
`Circuit recently explained, “the patent statute does not restrict enforceable patent rights to those who
`practice the patent, to the exclusion of research institutions and their exclusive licensees engaged to
`perform needed enforcement activities in which the inventors, or research institutions, may lack
`expertise or experience.” Thermolife Int’l LLC v. GNC Corp., 922 F.3d 1347, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`4.
`Amazon does not have clean hands. Amazon is the subject of a Federal Trade
`Commission investigation and has been sued for its anti-competitive behavior by multiple state attorney
`generals, including very recently, by the Attorney General of California, and has been repeatedly
`accused of knocking off products it sells on its website and of exploiting its vast trove of internal data to
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`2
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 903-2 Filed 09/15/23 Page 4 of 14
`
`
`promote its own merchandise at the expense of other sellers. (See https://tinyurl.com/2p8x9xts.) Amazon
`now seeks to intimidate those who research, invent and own patented intellectual property but, often—
`through the actions of Amazon and its fellow technology cohorts—cannot or do not practice the patents
`they own or acquire, from enjoying the exclusive rights granted to them as patent owners or exclusive
`licensees.
`5.
`There is no basis in fact or law to facilitate Amazon’s agenda or to afford Amazon the
`remedy it is on the cusp of seeking. PersonalWeb was adequately capitalized. It obeyed corporate
`formalities. It had separate accounts. It was not a conduit or vehicle for fraud.
`6.
`Legitimate businesses often fail. Their creditors go unpaid. But that does not entitle the
`creditors to go after the business owners. (Notably Plaintiffs are also creditors of PersonalWeb who may
`not be fully repaid. That, after all, is why PersonalWeb is currently in a receivership.) In its zeal,
`Amazon seeks a result that would fundamentally alter the corporate ecosystem by undermining
`principles of corporate separateness essential for the efficient functioning of business enterprises.
`7.
`Plaintiffs are accordingly entitled to a declaration from the Court that there is no basis to
`pierce PersonalWeb’s corporate veil to make Plaintiffs jointly liable as debtors on Amazon’s attorneys’
`fee award.
`
`PARTIES AND RELEVANT NON-PARTIES
`8.
`PersonalWeb is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business
`formerly in Tyler, Texas. Certain secured creditors petitioned this court to put PersonalWeb into
`receivership in a related action that is pending in this Court. See Brilliant Digital Entertainment, Inc., et
`al. v. PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC, No. 21VECV00575 (L.A. Super. filed Apr. 27, 2021) (“Related
`Case”). Amazon has intervened in the Related Case.
`9.
`Plaintiff Brilliant Digital Entertainment, Inc. (“BDE”) is a Delaware corporation whose
`principal place of business is Los Angeles, California. BDE holds a secured note from PersonalWeb
`under which, as of March 31, 2021, PersonalWeb owed BDE $2,871,948 in principal and about $2.7
`million in accrued interest.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`3
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 903-2 Filed 09/15/23 Page 5 of 14
`
`
`
`10.
`Plaintiff Kinetech, Inc. (“Kinetech”) is a Delaware corporation whose principal place of
`business is Los Angeles, California. Kinetech is a wholly owned subsidiary of BDE. Kinetech holds
`68.977 percent of the equity in PersonalWeb.
`11.
`Plaintiff Europlay Capital Advisors LLC (“ECA”) is a Delaware limited liability
`company whose principal place of business is Los Angeles, California.
`12.
`Plaintiff Element Entertainment Inc. (“Element”) is a Delaware corporation whose
`principal place of business is Los Angeles, California.
`13.
`Plaintiff Eurocapital Business Development LLC (“EBD,” and together with Element and
`ECA, “Europlay”) is a Delaware limited liability company whose principal place of business is Los
`Angeles, California.
`14.
`Plaintiff Claria Innovations LLC (“Claria”) is a Delaware limited liability company
`whose principal place of business is Los Angeles, California. Claria holds a secured note from
`PersonalWeb under which, as of March 31, 2021, PersonalWeb owed Claria $264,600 in principal and
`about $325,000 in accrued interest. Claria is owned by Europlay.
`15.
`EBD holds 9.791 percent of the equity in PersonalWeb. ECA also holds a secured note to
`PersonalWeb under which, as of March 31, 2021, PersonalWeb owes ECA $532,622 in principal and
`about $550,000 in accrued interest.
`16.
`Plaintiff Monto Holdings Pty Ltd. (“Monto”) is an Australian limited entity (the
`equivalent of a corporation) with its principal place of business in Australia. Monto currently holds a
`secured note from PersonalWeb under which, as of March 31, 2021, PersonalWeb owes Monto
`$10,020,609 in principal and about $2.6 million in accrued interest, which was assigned to it on or about
`October 31, 2018, by non-party Topodia, Ltd. (“Topodia”), formerly a Cyprus entity that was a
`subsidiary of Monto. Monto also holds 20.022 percent of the equity in PersonalWeb, which was
`originally held by Topodia.
`17.
`Non-party SAM Ventures is an investment partnership comprised of partners at a law
`firm. SAM Ventures holds 1.1 percent of the equity in PersonalWeb.
`18.
`Non-Party PersonalWeb, Inc. is a Texas Corporation that holds a 0.110 percent interest in
`PersonalWeb.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`4
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 903-2 Filed 09/15/23 Page 6 of 14
`
`
`
`19.
`Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`business in Seattle, Washington.
`20.
`Defendant Amazon Web Services, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Amazon.com,
`Inc., and a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Seattle, Washington.
`21.
`Defendant Twitch Interactive, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc.,
`and a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California. (All
`defendants, collectively, “Amazon”).
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`A.
`The Creation of PersonalWeb.
`22.
`In January 2010, Claria (then a limited liability company 10 percent owned and managed
`by Europlay) acquired technology and intellectual property that was developed by a company called
`Claria Corporation and assigned for the benefit of that corporation’s creditors to Jellycloud (Assignment
`for the Benefit of Creditors), LLC, in its sole and limited capacity as the assignee of the former Claria
`Corporation’s assets (“Jellycloud ABC”) dealing with personalized targeted online advertising and web
`pages. PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC was formed to restart the former Claria business using its
`technology to develop personalized web-based advertising products.
`23. When that effort proved unsuccessful, PersonalWeb reconveyed the personalized targeted
`online advertising technology acquired from Claria and shifted gears to focus on developing a student-
`focused chat and file sharing platform, which became known as StudyPods. The StudyPods concept
`combined two technologies developed by other companies. It employed a patented technology for data-
`processing systems that use a hash algorithm to assign each data item a substantially unique name that
`depends entirely on the item’s content. These “True Names Patents” were jointly owned by Level 3
`Communications, LLC (“Level 3”) and by Kinetech, which had been acquired by BDE in 2007 for $2
`million. The other technology was a research search engine and natural language processor developed
`by Topodia.
`24.
`Kinetech and Level 3 were parties to an agreement between Kinetech, Inc. and Digital
`Island, Inc. (as predecessor in interest to Level 3), dated September 1, 2000 (the “DI Agreement”).
`Pursuant to the DI Agreement, Kinetech and Level 3 each owned a fifty percent (50%) undivided
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`5
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 903-2 Filed 09/15/23 Page 7 of 14
`
`
`interest in and to the True Names Patents (including U.S. Patent Nos. 5,978,791, 6,415,280, 6,928,442,
`7,802,310, 7,945,539, 7,945,544, 7,949,662, 8,001,096 and 8,099,420.) The interests of Level 3 were
`limited to an exclusive field, with all remaining rights held by Kinetech.
`25.
`To facilitate development and exploitation of the True Names Patents and the
`development of StudyPods, in July 2011, Kinetech contributed the True Names Patents to PersonalWeb
`and Topodia contributed its search engine technology to PersonalWeb. In exchange, Kinetech received a
`68.977 percent equity interest in PersonalWeb and Topodia received a 20.022 percent interest, which
`was subsequently assigned to Monto on October 21, 2018. The remainder of the equity of the company
`is held by EBD (9.791 percent), non-party SAM Ventures (1.1 percent), and non-party PersonalWeb,
`Inc. (.110 percent).
`
`26.
`These transactions were fully and properly documented.
`27.
`Along with the equity investments in PersonalWeb, over the years up to April 2021,
`BDE, Europlay, Claria, and Topodia (with Monto assuming Topodia’s rights and obligations in 2018),
`loaned PersonalWeb in excess of $13.7 million in the aggregate at a commercial rate of interest so
`PersonalWeb could continue product development, pay its employees, and pay daily operating expenses.
`These loans were fully and properly documented including by a variety of Promissory Notes, Security
`Agreements, and UCC filings, as amended from time to time.
`28.
`Each Plaintiff is a separately incorporated or organized entity entitled to its limited
`liability and corporate separateness.
`
`6
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 903-2 Filed 09/15/23 Page 8 of 14
`
`
`
`29.
`PersonalWeb had its own offices, email system, accounting system, bank accounts, and
`intellectual property. It filed separate tax returns. PersonalWeb also abided by all of the corporate
`formalities that are required of a company chartered under the Texas Limited Liability Company Act.
`30.
`PersonalWeb was adequately capitalized at the inception of the patent litigation discussed
`below. In addition to the True Names Patents—originally acquired by Kinetech for $2 million and
`extensively licensed and previously validated in litigation—it had approximately $13.7 million in loans
`that Plaintiffs advanced to it.
`31.
`Claria owns no equity in PersonalWeb at all.
`32.
`Plaintiffs are also separate from each other. Europlay does not share any common
`ownership or employees with BDE or Monto. They do not share offices, equipment, email systems, or
`accounts. BDE sub-leases an office from Europlay under a written lease and for which it pays monthly
`rent.
`
`33.
`PersonalWeb had its own bank accounts. Plaintiffs did not intermingle any of their funds
`with each other or with those of PersonalWeb. All intercompany transactions were documented and
`properly accounted for.
`34.
`PersonalWeb did not make any capital distributions to its owners. It also did not regularly
`pay the interest accruing on its secured notes to Europlay, Claria, BDE, and Topodia/Monto. On a few
`occasions, the most recent of which occurred in 2017, PersonalWeb made payments credited to interest
`or principal on the Secured Notes. These payments generally coincided with settlements or licensing
`agreements regarding the True Names Patents. At the time of these payments, PersonalWeb was
`adequately capitalized with both intellectual property that was well-valued at the time—it, after all,
`merited the settlements—and cash.
`
`B.
`The PersonalWeb Patent Litigation.
`35. While developing StudyPods, PersonalWeb also began enforcing its rights under the True
`Names Patents as their prior owners had done since the late 1990s. It filed a series of patent
`infringement litigations and continued to file patent applications and continuations expanding the family
`of True Names Patents. These enforcement efforts met with success. PersonalWeb settled litigation
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`7
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 903-2 Filed 09/15/23 Page 9 of 14
`
`
`against Microsoft, Hewlett Packard, Nexsan, NEC, and IBM, amongst others, receiving aggregate
`licensing fees in the mid eight-figure range as a result.
`36.
`As PersonalWeb prosecuted the True Names cases, various alleged infringers instituted
`inter partes review of certain of the asserted claims of the True Name Patents before the Patent Trial and
`Appeal Board (“PTAB”), resulting in extended stays of the ligations. The PTAB ruled that certain of the
`asserted claims of the patents were invalid as anticipated from the prior art. The U.S. Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB as to certain of the asserted claims of certain of the True
`Name Patents. But for one key patent (the “‘310 Patent”) the Federal Circuit twice reversed the PTAB’s
`prior art findings. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 917 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2019);
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 848 F.3d 987, 994 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Due to delays and stays
`caused by the PTAB proceedings, multiple actions against alleged infringers such as Google, EMC
`Corporation, VMware and Apple recommenced after the second Federal Circuit decision upholding
`various asserted claims.
`37.
`A significant source of alleged infringement were Amazon Web Services customers who
`used its data storage and computing services. PersonalWeb commenced infringement actions against 85
`Amazon customers after the second Federal Circuit ruling, expecting such cases to be consolidated.
`Those cases were ultimately consolidated in a multidistrict litigation in the United States District Court
`for the Northern District of California. See In Re: PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC et al., Patent
`Litigation, MDL No. 2834, 18-md-02834-BLF (N.D. Cal.).
`38.
`In 2018, Amazon sued PersonalWeb for a declaration of non-infringement in the United
`States District Court for the Northern District of California. See Amazon.com Inc. v. PersonalWeb
`Technologies LLC, No. 5:18-cv-00767-BLF (N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 5, 2018). PersonalWeb
`counterclaimed, alleging that Amazon infringed its patents. Amazon’s declaratory judgment action was
`joined with the MDL against the Amazon customers. The court subsequently selected PersonalWeb’s
`action against Amazon subsidiary Twitch Interactive, Inc. as a representative infringement case against
`an Amazon customer in the MDL. See PersonalWeb Technologies LLC, v. Twitch Interactive, Inc., No.
`5:18-cv-05619-BLF (N.D. Cal.).
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`8
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 903-2 Filed 09/15/23 Page 10 of 14
`
`
`
`39.
`On April 4, 2019, the district court ruled that certain of PersonalWeb’s infringement
`claims were barred by res judicata and the so-called “Kessler doctrine,” because a prior lawsuit brought
`by PersonalWeb against Amazon had been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. In re PersonalWeb
`Techs., LLC, et al. Pat. Litig., No. 18-MD-02834-BLF, 2019 WL 1455332 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2019). The
`Federal Circuit affirmed on June 17, 2020. In re PersonalWeb Techs. LLC, 961 F.3d 1365, 1379 (Fed.
`Cir. 2020). PersonalWeb filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. The
`Supreme Court requested the view of the Solicitor General of the United States. The Solicitor General
`explained that the Federal Circuit erred because the Kessler doctrine should not apply absent the first
`court’s having rendered a judgment of non-infringement, although she recommended denying the writ
`on prudential grounds. Certiorari was denied.
`40. While the res judicata and Kessler doctrine appeal proceeded, the district court issued a
`claims construction on the Patents favorable to Amazon. That ultimately led to the entry of summary
`judgment in favor of Amazon. In re PersonalWeb Techs., LLC Pat. Litig., No. 18-MD-02834-BLF, 2020
`WL 6821074, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2020). The Federal Circuit affirmed that judgment in 2021. In re
`PersonalWeb Techs. LLC, No. 2020-1566, 2021 WL 3557196, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2021).
`41.
`In PersonalWeb’s case against Google—which was not part of the MDL—a different
`federal judge in the Northern District of California subsequently ruled that the ‘310 patent and two
`others were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as they were directed to an abstract idea. PersonalWeb
`Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 5:13-CV-01317-EJD, 2020 WL 520618, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31,
`2020). PersonalWeb appealed that ruling, which was subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
`PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 8 F.4th 1310, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
`42.
`Following the entry of summary judgment in its favor in February 2020, Amazon moved
`for an award of its attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which permits a court to award fees to a
`prevailing party in a “exceptional” patent case. See Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 545, 554 (2014). The district court granted Amazon’s motion on October 6, 2020. On March 2,
`2021, the district court entered an order (the “Fee Award”) granting Amazon $4,615,242.28 in fees and
`$203,300.10 in costs. The court subsequently granted a supplemental motion adding $571,961.00 in fees
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`9
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 903-2 Filed 09/15/23 Page 11 of 14
`
`
`and $11,120.97 in costs. PersonalWeb has appealed the Fee Award but the Federal Circuit has not yet
`reached a decision. Enforcement of the Fee Award judgment has not been stayed pending that appeal.
`43.
`On April 27, 2021, Europlay, Claria, BDE and Monto filed the Related Case against
`PersonalWeb to collect on the unpaid balances of the Secured Notes and to preserve the assets of the
`now-insolvent PersonalWeb. The Court appointed a receiver. And on October 3, 2022, the Court of
`Appeal issued an opinion permitting Amazon to intervene in the Related Case. Amazon filed its
`complaint in intervention on December 14, 2022.
`
`C.
`Amazon’s Post Judgment Enforcement Efforts.
`44.
`Following the Fee Award, Amazon began a campaign of aggressive judgment
`enforcement discovery under Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This included
`extraordinarily broad third-party subpoenas on Europlay, Claria, BDE and Monto. These subpoenas’
`document demands significantly exceed the scope of ordinary third-party discovery under Rule 69,
`under which third-parties can be examined only regarding whether they possess any assets that belong to
`the judgment debtor. Amazon has demanded and obtained hundreds of thousands of pages of documents
`directed to the ownership structure, interrelations, internal communications and finances of Europlay,
`Claria, BDE and Monto.
`45.
`The end goal of this discovery is not obscure. Amazon intends to move to add some or all
`of Plaintiffs to the judgment and make them jointly and severally liable for the fee award on an alter ego
`or similar theory. California state law (incorporated into Rule 69) permits such a practice under
`California Code of Civil Procedure § 187. Indeed, Amazon has confirmed that intent in briefings,
`noting, for instance, that it needed BDE and Europlay’s financial statements because those “documents
`are at the core of Amazon’s post-judgment enforcement and effort to prove alter ego liability.”
`46.
`There is thus a live controversy between the parties with respect to whether Plaintiffs, or
`any of them, are alter egos of PersonalWeb.
`47.
`The federal court cannot decide the controversy because adding a new defendant to a
`judgment is outside of its ancillary subject matter jurisdiction and there is no separate basis for federal
`subject matter jurisdiction, such as the complete diversity of the parties.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`10
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 903-2 Filed 09/15/23 Page 12 of 14
`
`
`
`D.
`Plaintiffs Are Not Alter Egos of PersonalWeb
`48.
`Under California law, the “law of the state or other jurisdiction under which a foreign
`limited liability company is formed governs . . . [t]he liability of a member as member and a manager as
`manager for the debts, obligations, or other liabilities of the limited liability company.” Corps. Code
`§ 17708.01. Amazon’s effort to pierce PersonalWeb’s veil is thus governed by Texas law.
`49.
`Under Texas law, “[e]xcept as and to the extent the company agreement specifically
`provides otherwise, a member or manager is not liable for a debt, obligation, or liability of a limited
`liability company, including a debt, obligation, or liability under a judgment, decree, or order of a
`court.” Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 101.114. Because PersonalWeb’s LLC Agreement does not provide for
`such liability for its members, they are not liable under Amazon’s attorney fee judgement under any
`circumstance.
`50.
`Alternatively, the owner of membership interests in a Texas LLC can be held liable for
`the obligations of the LLC on the basis that the owner is the alter ego of the LLC only if the owner
`caused the LLC to be used for the purpose of perpetrating and did, in fact, perpetrate an actual fraud
`primarily for the direct personal benefit of the owner. Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code §§ 21.223(a)(2), (b);
`101.102(a).
`51.
`There is no fraud here, and there has never been. PersonalWeb is not a sham company
`created or used for the purpose of perpetrating a fraud against Amazon. Indeed, earlier in the True
`Names Patent litigation, in a case against Amazon which Amazon claims was, for different reasons,
`effectively res judicata, the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Texas specifically
`found that “PersonalWeb is a legitimate company operating a legitimate business in East Texas.”
`PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. Amazon.com, No. 6:11-cv-658-LED, dkt. #109 at 14 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21,
`2013).
`
`52.
`Because there is no basis to pierce the corporate veil of PersonalWeb, there is no further
`basis to pierce the veils of the companies higher in its capital structure, under the laws of each of their
`respective jurisdictions.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`11
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 903-2 Filed 09/15/23 Page 13 of 14
`
`
`
`COUNT I
`(DECLARATORY JUDGMENT)
`By All Plaintiffs Against All Defendants
`53.
`Paragraphs 1 through 52 are incorporated herein for reference.
`54.
`There exists an actual controversy between Plaintiffs and Amazon concerning whether
`Amazon can pierce PersonalWeb’s corporate veil such that some or all of the Plaintiffs would be liable
`for the fee award.
`55.
`These interests are real and adverse.
`56.
`These interests are ripe for judicial determination that Plaintiffs are not liable to Amazon
`for the Fee Award under an alter ego or veil piercing theory.
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`57. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter judgment as follows:
`a.
`Declaring that Plaintiffs, and each of them, are not alter egos of PersonalWeb.
`b.
`Declaring that respecting the corporate separateness of PersonalWeb would not
`result in fraud or injustice.
`Awarding Plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees and costs of suit.
`Awarding any other relief that is just, appropriate, and equitable.
`
`c.
`d.
`
`Dated: February 27, 2023
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`
` /s/ Mark Holscher
`Mark Holscher (SBN 139582)
`mark.holscher@kirkland.com
`Michael Shipley (SBN 233674)
`michael.shipley@kirkland.com
`Matthew Gamsin (SBN 307830)
`matthew.gamsin@kirkland.com
`Kyle Gosselin (SBN 342575)
`kyle.gosselin@kirkland.com
`555 South Flower Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 680-8400
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Europlay Capital Advisors,
`LLC and Claria Innovations, LLC; Element
`
`12
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-md-02834-BLF Document 903-2 Filed 09/15/23 Page 14 of 14
`
`Entertainment Inc.; Eurocapital and Business
`Development LLC
`
`FRANDZEL ROBINS BLOOM & CSATO, L.C.
`
` /s/ Thomas Robins
`Thomas M. Robins III (SBN 054423)
`trobins@frandzel.com
`Michael Gerard Fletcher (SBN 070849)
`mfletcher@frandzel.com
`Bruce David Poltrock (SBN 162448)
`bpoltrock@frandzel.com
`1000 Wilshire Boulevard, 19th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90017-2427
`Telephone: (323) 852-1000
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Monto Holdings Pty Ltd,
`Kinetech, Inc., and Brilliant Digital Entertainment,
`Inc.
`
`
`13
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`