Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 1
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`YODLEE, INC.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`PLAID TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C. A. No. _____________
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Yodlee Inc. (“Yodlee”) for its complaint against Plaid Technologies Inc.
`
`(“Plaid” or “Defendant”) requesting damages and other relief, and alleging as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for infringement of United States Patent No. 6,199,077 (the
`
`“’077 patent”), United States Patent No. 6,317,783 (the “’783 patent”), United States Patent No.
`
`6,510,451 (the “’451 patent”), United States Patent No. 7,263,548 (the “’548 patent”), United
`
`States Patent No. 7,424,520 (the “’520 patent”), United States Patent No. 7,752,535 (the “’535
`
`patent”), and United States Patent No. 8,266,515 (the “’515 patent”) (collectively, “Asserted
`
`Patents”) under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Yodlee is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`State of Delaware with a principal place of business at 3600 Bridge Parkway, Suite 200,
`
`Redwood City, California 94065. Yodlee develops software and services that allow users to
`
`view all financial and other personal accounts in one place. Yodlee also develops applications to
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 2
`
`help consumers manage their finances online through features such as personal financial
`
`management, bill payment, expense tracking, and investment management.
`
`3.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Plaid is a corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place of business at 25 Maiden
`
`Lane, San Francisco, California 94108. According to its website, Plaid offers a competing
`
`software application programming interface (“API”) that allows users and developers to interact
`
`with financial institutions.
`
`4.
`
`Upon information and belief, the officers of Defendant Plaid formerly operated
`
`under the name CopperDog Inc. (“CopperDog”), which was also a corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place of business at 4230
`
`Stoney Brook Rd, Clemmons, NC 27012.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States of America, United
`
`States Code, Title 35, Section 1, et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.
`
`6.
`
`Venue is proper in the District of Delaware under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1400(b).
`
`7.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Plaid because Plaid is incorporated in
`
`the State of Delaware and has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities
`
`within this State and District.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff Yodlee was founded in 1999. Over the past fifteen years, it has become
`
`the leading provider of account aggregation services and personal financial management
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 3
`
`applications through software it developed from the ground up. More than 750 organizations in
`
`over 10 countries use Yodlee’s services and applications, including 9 of the 15 largest banks in
`
`the United States. Yodlee has over 16 million paid users and reaches more than 100 million end
`
`users through its network of financial institutions. In October 2014, Yodlee completed its initial
`
`public offering.
`
`9.
`
`According to its website, Defendant Plaid considers itself to be “the API for
`
`banking data.” The API gives developers the ability to integrate with banking institutions and
`
`access and authorize personal user accounts at those institutions.
`
`10.
`
`On February 11, 2012, Zach Perret, co-founder of Defendant Plaid and president
`
`of CopperDog, signed a nondisclosure agreement (“NDA”) with Yodlee. The NDA was a
`
`proactive measure taken prior to granting CopperDog access to Yodlee’s confidential
`
`technology. By signing the agreement, Zach Perret and his company CopperDog agreed to
`
`protect the secrecy of Yodlee’s confidential information and technology and not use that
`
`confidential information and technology for unauthorized purposes.
`
`11.
`
`On April 5, 2012, Zach Perret signed a 30-day evaluation license agreement
`
`(“Evaluation Agreement”) giving him, William Hockey, another co-founder of Defendant Plaid
`
`and the technical contact at CopperDog, and the company access to use and explore Yodlee’s
`
`software development kit (“SDK”). Specifically, the Evaluation Agreement provided access to
`
`Yodlee’s core technology in the form of C# source code, Java binary files, sample application
`
`codes, and development environments. The Evaluation Agreement also provided use of
`
`Yodlee’s aggregation services to pull real user account data from financial institutions.
`
`12.
`
`On April 6, 2012, Zach Perret was provided login credentials to Yodlee’s
`
`developer resources. The login credentials allowed downloading of a multitude of confidential,
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 4
`
`and highly informative, technical documents including the “Yodlee Aggregation SDK FAQs,”
`
`“Yodlee Aggregation SDK Quick Reference Guide,” “Yodlee SDK Developers Guide v11.0,”
`
`“Yodlee PersonalFinance SDK Implementation Guide v11.0,” and application files.
`
`13.
`
`According to its website, at around this time Defendant Plaid started operations,
`
`acquiring its first customer shortly thereafter. On July 20, 2012, Plaid became an official
`
`corporation of the State of Delaware.
`
`14.
`
`On November 16, 2012, Zach Perret was provided another set of 30-day
`
`evaluation login credentials to Yodlee’s developer resources.
`
`15.
`
`On November 16, 2012, Defendant also received two pricing proposals from
`
`Yodlee that would grant Defendant a one-year license to use Yodlee’s aggregation APIs. Along
`
`with those pricing proposals were hyperlinks to four documents containing Yodlee confidential
`
`technical and security information. Two of those documents, “Yodlee Categorization Engine
`
`Overview v11.0” and “Yodlee Data Model v11,” contain notices that the technology presented in
`
`the documentation is “protected by one or more U.S. Patents or Patents Pending.” Furthermore,
`
`it is highly likely that both of these documents were read by both co-founders of Defendant
`
`because both documents state that they should be read by the “Product Functional Lead” and
`
`“Technical Lead” of the licensee. Upon information and belief, in the case of Defendant, those
`
`people are Zach Perret and William Hockey, respectively.
`
`16.
`
`On January 10, 2013, Defendant entered into a one-year services agreement
`
`(“Services Agreement”) to begin fully licensing Yodlee’s services. Pursuant to the Services
`
`Agreement, Defendant was required to pay Yodlee on January 21, 2013.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 5
`
`17.
`
`After three months of maintaining Defendant’s user environment without
`
`payment, on April 9, 2013, Defendant was notified that the contract would be terminated if
`
`payment was not received by April 15, 2013.
`
`18.
`
`On April 15, 2013, Defendant stated that it wanted to cancel the Services
`
`Agreement and avoid full payment. Defendant sent a payment amount for a portion of the total
`
`outstanding, and the Services Agreement was terminated.
`
`19.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has used the knowledge acquired through
`
`its prolonged use of Yodlee’s technology, including Yodlee’s technical documentation,
`
`developer resources, and aggregation platform, to develop competing software and services that
`
`also infringe the Asserted Patents. Upon information and belief, by leveraging its infringing
`
`software and services, Defendant has managed to raise at least $2.8 million in funding as of
`
`September 2013.
`
`20.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has sold and offered for sale and
`
`continues to sell and offer for sale use of its software and services in the United States, including
`
`in Delaware. Defendant instructs its customers on how to use and access its software and
`
`services from publicly available documentation on its website. Defendant encourages its
`
`customers to visit its developer page which provides code and support helpful to use and access
`
`its software and services.
`
`21.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has used and continues to use its
`
`software and services in the United States, including in Delaware, to provide account
`
`aggregation and personal financial management services to its customers.
`
`22.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has knowledge of the Asserted Patents by
`
`at least the date of this Complaint. Upon information and belief, at least Plaid founders Zach
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 6
`
`Perret and William Hockey were aware since 2012 that Yodlee had issued and pending patents
`
`relating to its account aggregation and personal financial management technology.
`
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`23.
`
`The ’077 patent, titled “Server-Side Web Summary Generation and Presentation,”
`
`issued on March 6, 2001. A copy of the ’077 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`24.
`
`The ’783 patent, titled “Apparatus and Methods for Automated Aggregation and
`
`Delivery of and Transactions Involving Electronic Personal Information or Data,” issued on
`
`November 13, 2001. A copy of the ’783 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`25.
`
`The ’451 patent, titled “System for Completing a Multi-Component Task Initiated
`
`by a Client Involving Web Sites without Requiring Interaction from the Client,” issued on
`
`January 21, 2003. A copy of the ’451 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`26.
`
`The ’548 patent, titled “Method and Apparatus for Restructuring of Personalized
`
`Data for Transmission from a Data Network to Connected and Portable Network Appliances,”
`
`issued August 28, 2007. A copy of the ’548 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
`
`27.
`
`The ’520 patent, titled “Method and Apparatus for Restructuring of Personalized
`
`Data for Transmission from a Data Network to Connected and Portable Network Appliances,”
`
`issued September 9, 2008. A copy of the ’520 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
`
`28.
`
`The ’535 patent, titled “Categorization of Summarized Information,” issued July
`
`6, 2010. A copy of the ’535 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
`
`29.
`
`The ’515 patent, titled “Categorization of Summarized Information,” issued
`
`September 11, 2012. A copy of the ’515 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 7
`
`30.
`
`The Asserted Patents have been assigned to Yodlee and Yodlee is the owner of all
`
`right, title, and interest in and to those patents, including the right to sue, enforce, and recover all
`
`damages, past and future, for all infringements.
`
`31.
`
`Yodlee has incurred substantial effort and expenses to develop the technologies
`
`leading to the Asserted Patents.
`
`COUNT I
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,199,077
`
`32.
`
`The allegations of paragraphs 1-31 are incorporated as though fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`33.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant had knowledge of the ’077 patent at least
`
`as of the filing of this Complaint.
`
`34.
`
`Upon information and belief, various employees of Defendant, including at least
`
`founders Zach Perret and William Hockey, have been aware that Yodlee’s aggregation and
`
`personal financial management technology was the subject of numerous patents since 2012.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant and at least its founders Zach Perret and William
`
`Hockey used their access to Yodlee’s confidential services and product documentation through
`
`the NDA, Evaluation Agreement, and Services Agreement to learn how to implement the
`
`patented technology, and then proceeded to terminate their Services Agreement so that
`
`Defendant could offer competing software and services based upon the patented technology.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has acted and continues to act with specific intent to
`
`cause infringement of the ’077 patent.
`
`35.
`
`Defendant’s software and services are not staple articles of commerce and have
`
`no substantial uses other than to practice the ’077 patent. Upon information and belief,
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 8
`
`Defendant has acted and continues to act with specific intent to contribute to infringement of the
`
`’077 patent.
`
`36.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has been and is now infringing, inducing
`
`infringement, and contributing to the infringement of the ’077 patent by making, using, selling,
`
`and/or offering to sell, without authority, software and services covered by one or more claims of
`
`the ’077 patent, and/or contributing to or inducing the same by third parties, all to the injury of
`
`Yodlee.
`
`37.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement have injured and damaged Yodlee, and such acts
`
`will continue to cause Yodlee to suffer damages.
`
`38.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement have been conducted with knowledge that the
`
`technology Defendant derived from Yodlee was protected by the Asserted Patents. Thus,
`
`Defendant acted with an objectively high likelihood that its services infringe Yodlee’s valid
`
`patents, and that risk was known by Defendant at least by Defendant’s review of Yodlee’s
`
`technical documents, and by Defendant’s use of the patented technology under the NDA,
`
`Evaluation Agreement, and Services Agreement. Defendant’s acts of infringement have been,
`
`and continue to be, willful so as to warrant the enhancement of damages awarded as a result of
`
`its infringement.
`
`39.
`
`Defendant’s infringement has caused irreparable injury to Yodlee and will
`
`continue to cause irreparable injury until Defendant is enjoined from further infringement by this
`
`Court.
`
`herein.
`
`
`
`COUNT II
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,317,783
`
`40.
`
`The allegations of paragraphs 1-39 are incorporated as though fully set forth
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 9
`
`41.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant had knowledge of the ’783 patent at least
`
`as of the filing of this Complaint.
`
`42.
`
`Upon information and belief, various employees of Defendant, including at least
`
`founders Zach Perret and William Hockey, have been aware that Yodlee’s aggregation and
`
`personal financial management technology was the subject of numerous patents since 2012.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant and at least its founders Zach Perret and William
`
`Hockey used their access to Yodlee’s confidential services and product documentation through
`
`the NDA, Evaluation Agreement, and Services Agreement to learn how to implement the
`
`patented technology, and then proceeded to terminate their Services Agreement so that
`
`Defendant could offer competing software and services based upon the patented technology.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has acted and continues to act with specific intent to
`
`cause infringement of the ’783 patent.
`
`43.
`
`Defendant’s software and services are not staple articles of commerce and have
`
`no substantial uses other than to practice the ’783 patent. Upon information and belief,
`
`Defendant has acted and continues to act with specific intent to contribute to infringement of the
`
`’783 patent.
`
`44.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has been and is now infringing, inducing
`
`infringement, and contributing to the infringement of the ’783 patent by making, using, selling,
`
`and/or offering to sell, without authority, software and services covered by one or more claims of
`
`the ’783 patent, and/or contributing to or inducing the same by third parties, all to the injury of
`
`Yodlee.
`
`45.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement have injured and damaged Yodlee, and such acts
`
`will continue to cause Yodlee to suffer damages.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 10
`
`46.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement have been conducted with knowledge that the
`
`technology Defendant derived from Yodlee was protected by the Asserted Patents. Thus,
`
`Defendant acted with an objectively high likelihood that its services infringe Yodlee’s valid
`
`patents, and that risk was known by Defendant at least by Defendant’s review of Yodlee’s
`
`technical documents, and by Defendant’s use of the patented technology under the NDA,
`
`Evaluation Agreement, and Services Agreement. Defendant’s acts of infringement have been,
`
`and continue to be, willful so as to warrant the enhancement of damages awarded as a result of
`
`its infringement.
`
`47.
`
`Defendant’s infringement has caused irreparable injury to Yodlee and will
`
`continue to cause irreparable injury until Defendant is enjoined from further infringement by this
`
`Court.
`
`herein.
`
`COUNT III
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,510,451
`
`48.
`
`The allegations of paragraphs 1-47 are incorporated as though fully set forth
`
`49.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant had knowledge of the ’451 patent at least
`
`as of the filing of this Complaint.
`
`50.
`
`Upon information and belief, various employees of Defendant, including at least
`
`founders Zach Perret and William Hockey, have been aware that Yodlee’s aggregation and
`
`personal financial management technology was the subject of numerous patents since 2012.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant and at least its founders Zach Perret and William
`
`Hockey used their access to Yodlee’s confidential services and product documentation through
`
`the NDA, Evaluation Agreement, and Services Agreement to learn how to implement the
`
`patented technology, and then proceeded to terminate their Services Agreement so that
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 11 of 21 PageID #: 11
`
`Defendant could offer competing software and services based upon the patented technology.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has acted and continues to act with specific intent to
`
`cause infringement of the ’451 patent.
`
`51.
`
`Defendant’s software and services are not staple articles of commerce and have
`
`no substantial uses other than to practice the ’451 patent. Upon information and belief,
`
`Defendant has acted and continues to act with specific intent to contribute to infringement of the
`
`’451 patent.
`
`52.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has been and is now infringing, inducing
`
`infringement, and contributing to the infringement of the ’451 patent by making, using, selling,
`
`and/or offering to sell, without authority, software and services covered by one or more claims of
`
`the ’451 patent, and/or contributing to or inducing the same by third parties, all to the injury of
`
`Yodlee.
`
`53.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement have injured and damaged Yodlee, and such acts
`
`will continue to cause Yodlee to suffer damages.
`
`54.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement have been conducted with knowledge that the
`
`technology Defendant derived from Yodlee was protected by the Asserted Patents. Thus,
`
`Defendant acted with an objectively high likelihood that its services infringe Yodlee’s valid
`
`patents, and that risk was known by Defendant at least by Defendant’s review of Yodlee’s
`
`technical documents, and by Defendant’s use of the patented technology under the NDA,
`
`Evaluation Agreement, and Services Agreement. Defendant’s acts of infringement have been,
`
`and continue to be, willful so as to warrant the enhancement of damages awarded as a result of
`
`its infringement.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 12
`
`55.
`
`Defendant’s infringement has caused irreparable injury to Yodlee and will
`
`continue to cause irreparable injury until Defendant is enjoined from further infringement by this
`
`Court.
`
`herein.
`
`COUNT IV
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,263,548
`
`56.
`
`The allegations of paragraphs 1-55 are incorporated as though fully set forth
`
`57.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant had knowledge of the ’548 patent at least
`
`as of the filing of this Complaint.
`
`58.
`
`Upon information and belief, various employees of Defendant, including at least
`
`founders Zach Perret and William Hockey, have been aware that Yodlee’s aggregation and
`
`personal financial management technology was the subject of numerous patents since 2012.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant and at least its founders Zach Perret and William
`
`Hockey used their access to Yodlee’s confidential services and product documentation through
`
`the NDA, Evaluation Agreement, and Services Agreement to learn how to implement the
`
`patented technology, and then proceeded to terminate their Services Agreement so that
`
`Defendant could offer competing software and services based upon the patented technology.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has acted and continues to act with specific intent to
`
`cause infringement of the ’548 patent.
`
`59.
`
`Defendant's software and services are not staple articles of commerce and have no
`
`substantial uses other than to practice the ’548 patent. Upon information and belief, Defendant
`
`has acted and continues to act with specific intent to contribute to infringement of the ’548
`
`patent.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 13 of 21 PageID #: 13
`
`60.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has been and is now infringing, inducing
`
`infringement, and contributing to the infringement of the ’548 patent by making, using, selling,
`
`and/or offering to sell, without authority, software and services covered by one or more claims of
`
`the ’548 patent, and/or contributing to or inducing the same by third parties, all to the injury of
`
`Yodlee.
`
`61.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement have injured and damaged Yodlee, and such acts
`
`will continue to cause Yodlee to suffer damages.
`
`62.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement have been conducted with knowledge that the
`
`technology Defendant derived from Yodlee was protected by the Asserted Patents. Thus,
`
`Defendant acted with an objectively high likelihood that its services infringe Yodlee’s valid
`
`patents, and that risk was known by Defendant at least by Defendant’s review of Yodlee’s
`
`technical documents, and by Defendant’s use of the patented technology under the NDA,
`
`Evaluation Agreement, and Services Agreement. Defendant’s acts of infringement have been,
`
`and continue to be, willful so as to warrant the enhancement of damages awarded as a result of
`
`its infringement.
`
`63.
`
`Defendant’s infringement has caused irreparable injury to Yodlee and will
`
`continue to cause irreparable injury until Defendant is enjoined from further infringement by this
`
`Court.
`
`herein.
`
`COUNT V
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,424,520
`
`64.
`
`The allegations of paragraphs 1-63 are incorporated as though fully set forth
`
`65.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant had knowledge of the ’520 patent at least
`
`as of the filing of this Complaint.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 14 of 21 PageID #: 14
`
`66.
`
`Upon information and belief, various employees of Defendant, including at least
`
`founders Zach Perret and William Hockey, have been aware that Yodlee’s aggregation and
`
`personal financial management technology was the subject of numerous patents since 2012.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant and at least its founders Zach Perret and William
`
`Hockey used their access to Yodlee’s confidential services and product documentation through
`
`the NDA, Evaluation Agreement, and Services Agreement to learn how to implement the
`
`patented technology, and then proceeded to terminate their Services Agreement so that
`
`Defendant could offer competing software and services based upon the patented technology.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has acted and continues to act with specific intent to
`
`cause infringement of the ’520 patent.
`
`67.
`
`Defendant's software and services are not staple articles of commerce and have no
`
`substantial uses other than to practice the ’520 patent. Upon information and belief, Defendant
`
`has acted and continues to act with specific intent to contribute to infringement of the ’520
`
`patent.
`
`68.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has been and is now infringing, inducing
`
`infringement, and contributing to the infringement of the ’520 patent by making, using, selling,
`
`and/or offering to sell, without authority, software and services covered by one or more claims of
`
`the ’520 patent, and/or contributing to or inducing the same by third parties, all to the injury of
`
`Yodlee.
`
`69.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement have injured and damaged Yodlee, and such acts
`
`will continue to cause Yodlee to suffer damages.
`
`70.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement have been conducted with knowledge that the
`
`technology Defendant derived from Yodlee was protected by the Asserted Patents. Thus,
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 15 of 21 PageID #: 15
`
`Defendant acted with an objectively high likelihood that its services infringe Yodlee’s valid
`
`patents, and that risk was known by Defendant at least by Defendant’s review of Yodlee’s
`
`technical documents, and by Defendant’s use of the patented technology under the NDA,
`
`Evaluation Agreement, and Services Agreement. Defendant’s acts of infringement have been,
`
`and continue to be, willful so as to warrant the enhancement of damages awarded as a result of
`
`its infringement.
`
`71.
`
`Defendant’s infringement has caused irreparable injury to Yodlee and will
`
`continue to cause irreparable injury until Defendant is enjoined from further infringement by this
`
`Court.
`
`herein.
`
`COUNT VI
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,752,535
`
`72.
`
`The allegations of paragraphs 1-71 are incorporated as though fully set forth
`
`73.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant had knowledge of the ’535 patent at least
`
`as of the filing of this Complaint.
`
`74.
`
`Upon information and belief, various employees of Defendant, including at least
`
`founders Zach Perret and William Hockey, have been aware that Yodlee’s aggregation and
`
`personal financial management technology was the subject of numerous patents since 2012.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant and at least its founders Zach Perret and William
`
`Hockey used their access to Yodlee’s confidential services and product documentation through
`
`the NDA, Evaluation Agreement, and Services Agreement to learn how to implement the
`
`patented technology, and then proceeded to terminate their Services Agreement so that
`
`Defendant could offer competing software and services based upon the patented technology.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 16 of 21 PageID #: 16
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has acted and continues to act with specific intent to
`
`cause infringement of the ’535 patent.
`
`75.
`
`Defendant’s software and services are not staple articles of commerce and have
`
`no substantial uses other than to practice the ’535 patent. Upon information and belief,
`
`Defendant has acted and continues to act with specific intent to contribute to infringement of the
`
`’535 patent.
`
`76.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has been and is now infringing, inducing
`
`infringement, and contributing to the infringement of the ’535 patent by making, using, selling,
`
`and/or offering to sell, without authority, software and services covered by one or more claims of
`
`the ’535 patent, and/or contributing to or inducing the same by third parties, all to the injury of
`
`Yodlee.
`
`77.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement have injured and damaged Yodlee, and such acts
`
`will continue to cause Yodlee to suffer damages.
`
`78.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement have been conducted with knowledge that the
`
`technology Defendant derived from Yodlee was protected by the Asserted Patents. Thus,
`
`Defendant acted with an objectively high likelihood that its services infringe Yodlee’s valid
`
`patents, and that risk was known by Defendant at least by Defendant’s review of Yodlee’s
`
`technical documents, and by Defendant’s use of the patented technology under the NDA,
`
`Evaluation Agreement, and Services Agreement. Defendant’s acts of infringement have been,
`
`and continue to be, willful so as to warrant the enhancement of damages awarded as a result of
`
`its infringement.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 17 of 21 PageID #: 17
`
`79.
`
`Defendant’s infringement has caused irreparable injury to Yodlee and will
`
`continue to cause irreparable injury until Defendant is enjoined from further infringement by this
`
`Court.
`
`herein.
`
`COUNT VII
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,266,515
`
`80.
`
`The allegations of paragraphs 1-79 are incorporated as though fully set forth
`
`81.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant had knowledge of the ’515 patent at least
`
`as of the filing of this Complaint.
`
`82.
`
`Upon information and belief, various employees of Defendant, including at least
`
`founders Zach Perret and William Hockey, have been aware that Yodlee’s aggregation and
`
`personal financial management technology was the subject of numerous patents since 2012.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant and at least its founders Zach Perret and William
`
`Hockey used their access to Yodlee’s confidential services and product documentation through
`
`the NDA, Evaluation Agreement, and Services Agreement to learn how to implement the
`
`patented technology, and then proceeded to terminate their Services Agreement so that
`
`Defendant could offer competing software and services based upon the patented technology.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has acted and continues to act with specific intent to
`
`cause infringement of the ’515 patent.
`
`83.
`
`Defendant’s software and services are not staple articles of commerce and have
`
`no substantial uses other than to practice the ’515 patent. Upon information and belief,
`
`Defendant has acted and continues to act with specific intent to contribute to infringement of the
`
`’515 patent.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 18 of 21 PageID #: 18
`
`84.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has been and is now infringing, inducing
`
`infringement, and contributing to the infringement of the ’515 patent by making, using, selling,
`
`and/or offering to sell, without authority, software and services covered by one or more claims of
`
`the ’515 patent, and/or contributing to or inducing the same by third parties, all to the injury of
`
`Yodlee.
`
`85.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement have injured and damaged Yodlee, and such acts
`
`will continue to cause Yodlee to suffer damages.
`
`86.
`
`Defendant’s acts of infringement have been conducted with knowledge that the
`
`technology Defendant derived from Yodlee was protected by the Asserted Patents. Thus,
`
`Defendant acted with an objectively high likelihood that its services infringe Yodlee’s valid
`
`patents, and that risk was known by Defendant at least by Defendant’s review of Yodlee’s
`
`technical documents, and by Defendant’s use of the patented technology under the NDA,
`
`Evaluation Agreement, and Services Agreement. Defendant’s acts of infringement have been,
`
`and continue to be, willful so as to warrant the enhancement of damages awarded as a result of
`
`its infringement.
`
`87.
`
`Defendant’s infringement has caused irreparable injury to Yodlee and will
`
`continue to cause irreparable injury until Defendant is enjoined from further infringement by this
`
`Court.
`
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Yodlee prays for relief as follows:
`
`(a)
`
`judgment that Defendant Plaid has infringed and is infringing the ’077 patent,
`
`directly, contributorily, and by inducement;
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01445-LPS Document 1 Filed 12/01/14 Page 19 of 21 PageID #: 19
`
`(b)
`
`judgment that Defendant Plaid has infringed and is infringing the ’783 patent,
`
`directly, contributorily, and by inducement;
`
`(c)
`
`judgment that Defendant Plaid has infringed and is infringing the ’451 pa