Case 1:13-cv-01796-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/01/13 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Memory Integrity, LLC (“MI”), by way of this Complaint for Patent
`
`Infringement (“Complaint”) against the above-named Defendant Apple, Inc. (“Apple” or
`
`“Defendant”), alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the
`
`United States, Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff MI is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of
`
`Delaware with a place of business at 1220 N. Market Street, Suite 806, Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Apple, Inc. is a corporation organized under
`
`the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business at 1 Infinite Loop,
`
`Cupertino, California 95014.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01796-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/01/13 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 2
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court by
`
`reason of their acts of patent infringement which have been committed in this Judicial District,
`
`and by virtue of its regularly conducted and systematic business contacts in this State. As such,
`
`Defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business within this
`
`Judicial District; has established sufficient minimum contacts with this Judicial District such that
`
`it should reasonably and fairly anticipate being haled into court in this Judicial District; and at
`
`least a portion of the patent infringement claims alleged herein arise out of or are related to one
`
`or more of the foregoing activities.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(b).
`
`THE PATENT-IN-SUIT
`
`On November 13, 2007, United States Patent No. 7,296,121 (the “’121 Patent”),
`
`entitled “Reducing Probe Traffic in Multiprocessor Systems,” was duly and legally issued by the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the ’121 Patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint.
`
`8.
`
`MI is the assignee and owner of the right, title and interest in and to the ’121
`
`Patent, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patent and the right to
`
`any remedies for infringement of it.
`
`COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,296,121
`
`9.
`
`The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 8 are hereby
`
`realleged and incorporated herein by reference.
`
`10.
`
`In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), Apple has directly infringed and continues to
`
`directly infringe, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’121 Patent by making,
`
`using, offering for sale, selling, and importing products (the “Accused Instrumentalities”) and by
`
`performing methods that practice the subject matter claimed in one or more claims of the ’121
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01796-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/01/13 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 3
`
`Patent, including but not limited to claim 1, in the United States, including within this Judicial
`
`District, without the authority of MI. For example, Apple has directly infringed the ’121 Patent
`
`by selling products that contain a multicore processor that utilizes a probe filtering unit to reduce
`
`probe traffic in a computer system. The Accused Instrumentalities include, but are not limited to
`
`the Apple iPad 2, Apple iPad 3, and Apple iPad Mini.
`
`11.
`
`Apple has had actual knowledge of the ’121 Patent and its infringement of that
`
`patent since at least the date of service of this Complaint.
`
`12.
`
`Apple is also inducing infringement of the ’121 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b),
`
`since at least the date of service of this Complaint, by actively aiding and abetting others
`
`(including its direct and indirect customers) whose sale, offer for sale, importation, and use of the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities constitutes direct infringement. Apple has engaged in these actions
`
`with either the specific intent to cause infringement or with willful blindness to the infringement
`
`that it is causing. For example, Apple’s actions that actively induce its customers to directly
`
`infringe at least claim 25 of the ’121 Patent include selling the Accused Instrumentalities,
`
`providing user manuals regarding use of the Accused Instrumentalities, and providing technical
`
`support regarding the use of the Accused Instrumentalities, where the use of the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities during normal operation by Apple’s customers infringe at least claim 25 of the
`
`’121 Patent. The use of the Accused Instrumentalities identified above during normal operation
`
`directly infringes claim 25 of the ’121 Patent in at least the following manner:
`
`(a)
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities comprise a plurality of processing nodes
`
`because they contain multicore processors. The cores are connected in a point-to-point
`
`architecture and each core has an associated L1 cache memory;
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01796-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/01/13 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 4
`
`(b)
`
`One of the processor cores requests access to a memory line by
`
`transmitting a probe to the Snoop Control Unit (the probe filtering unit);
`
`(c)
`
`The Snoop Control Unit evaluates the probe using a copy of the L1 data
`
`cache tag RAMs which is representative of the states associated with selected L1 caches
`
`to determine whether a valid copy of the memory line is in any of the L1 caches;
`
`(d)
`
`The Snoop Control Unit transmits the probe only to selected ones of the
`
`cores identified in the evaluating step;
`
`(e)
`
`The Snoop Control Unit accumulates responses from the selected cores;
`
`and
`
`core.
`
`(f)
`
`The Snoop Control Unit responds to the original request from the first
`
`13.
`
`Apple is also committing contributory infringement of the ’121 Patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(c) since at least the date of service of this Complaint by importing and selling the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities to others, including but not limited to its customers, knowing and/or
`
`being willfully blind to the fact that these products constitute a material part of the invention,
`
`were especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the ’121 Patent, and
`
`have no substantial non-infringing uses. For example, the Accused Instrumentalities constitute
`
`a material part of the claimed invention at least because they contain all of the components that
`
`perform the method of reducing probe traffic in a computer system as claimed in claim 25 of the
`
`’121 Patent. The Accused Instrumentalities were made or especially adapted for use in an
`
`infringement of the ’121 Patent and have no substantial non-infringing uses at least because they
`
`contain components whose only purpose is to reduce probe traffic in a computer system as
`
`claimed in claim 25 of the ’121 Patent. The use of the Accused Instrumentalities identified
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01796-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/01/13 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 5
`
`above by Apple’s customers during normal operation directly infringes claim 25 of the ’121
`
`Patent in at least the following manner:
`
`(a)
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities comprise a plurality of processing nodes
`
`because they contain multicore processors. The cores are connected in a point-to-point
`
`architecture and each core has an associated L1 cache memory;
`
`(b)
`
`One of the processor cores requests access to a memory line by
`
`transmitting a probe to the Snoop Control Unit (the probe filtering unit);
`
`(c)
`
`The Snoop Control Unit evaluates the probe using a copy of the L1 data
`
`cache tag RAMs which is representative of the states associated with selected L1 caches
`
`to determine whether a valid copy of the memory line is in any of the L1 caches;
`
`(d)
`
`The Snoop Control Unit transmits the probe only to selected ones of the
`
`cores identified in the evaluating step;
`
`(e)
`
`The Snoop Control Unit accumulates responses from the selected cores;
`
`and
`
`core.
`
`(f)
`
`The Snoop Control Unit responds to the original request from the first
`
`14. MI has been harmed by Apple’s infringing activities.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`MI demands a jury trial on all issues and claims so triable.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, MI prays for judgment as follows:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`An adjudication that Apple has infringed the ’121 patent;
`
`An award of damages to be paid by Apple adequate to compensate MI for
`
`past infringement of the ’121 Patent, and any continuing or future infringement through the date
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv-01796-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/01/13 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 6
`
`such judgment is entered, including prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs, expenses and
`
`an accounting of all infringing acts including but not limited to those acts not presented at trial;
`
`c.
`
`An order that Apple pay an ongoing royalty in an amount to be determined
`
`for any continued infringement after the date judgment is entered; and
`
`d.
`
`Such further relief at law and in equity as the Court may deem just and
`
`proper.
`
`Dated: November 1, 2013
`
`STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC
`
`
`
`/s/ Richard C. Weinblatt
`Stamatios Stamoulis #4606
`stamoulis@swdelaw.com
`Richard C. Weinblatt #5080
`weinblatt@swdelaw.com
`Two Fox Point Centre
`6 Denny Road, Suite 307
`Wilmington, DE 19809
`Telephone: (302) 999-1540
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Memory Integrity, LLC
`
`
`
`6