Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 1 of 39 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. _____________
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`)))))))))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Sound View Innovations, LLC (“Sound View”), for its Complaint for Patent
`
`Infringement against Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) alleges as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Sound View is an intellectual property licensing company. Sound View’s patent
`
`portfolio includes more than 900 active and pending patents worldwide, including approximately
`
`500 U.S. Patents. Sound View’s patents were developed by researchers at Alcatel Lucent
`
`(“Lucent”) and its predecessors. Lucent is home to the world-renowned Bell Laboratories,
`
`which has a long and storied history of innovation. Researchers at Lucent’s Bell Laboratories
`
`have developed a wide variety of key innovations that have greatly enhanced the capabilities and
`
`utility of personal computers. Common features such as computer networking and user interfaces
`
`have benefited from Lucent’s research and development efforts.
`
`2.
`
`Patents enjoy the same fundamental protections as real property. Sound View,
`
`like any property owner, is entitled to insist that others respect its property and to demand
`
`compensation from those who take it for their own use. Facebook has, and continues to use
`
`Sound View’s patents. Moreover, despite Sound View’s repeated attempts to negotiate,
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 2 of 39 PageID #: 2
`
`Facebook refuses to take a license, but continues to use Sound View’s property.
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`3.
`
`This action arises under 35 U.S.C. § 271 for Facebook’s infringement of Sound
`
`View’s United States Patent Nos. 5,991,845, (the “’845 patent”), 6,125,371 (the “’371 patent”),
`
`6,732,181 (the “’181 patent”), 7,366,786 (the “’786 patent”), 7,412,486 (the “’486 patent”),
`
`8,095,593 (the “’593 patent”), and 8,135,860 (the “’860 patent”) (collectively the “Patents-In-
`
`Suit”).
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff Sound View is a Delaware limited liability company, with its principal
`
`place of business at 2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza, Suite 310, Parsippany, New Jersey 07054.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant Facebook is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
`
`at 1601 South California Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304. Facebook may be served with
`
`process by serving its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road
`
`Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware 19808.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, including 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271 et seq. The jurisdiction of this Court over the subject matter of this action is proper under
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and
`
`1400(b).
`
`8.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Facebook because, among other things:
`
`Facebook is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware; Facebook has committed,
`
`aided, abetted, contributed to and/or participated in the commission of acts giving rise to this
`
`action within the State of Delaware and this judicial district and has established minimum
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 3 of 39 PageID #: 3
`
`contacts within the forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over Facebook would not offend
`
`traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice; Facebook has placed products and services
`
`that practice the claims of the Patents-in-Suit into the stream of commerce with the reasonable
`
`expectation and/or knowledge that actual or potential users of such products and/or services were
`
`located within this judicial district; and Facebook has sold, advertised, solicited customers,
`
`marketed and distributed its services that practice the claims of the Patents-in-Suit in this judicial
`
`district.
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`9.
`
`Sound View incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`10.
`
`The ’845 patent, titled “Recoverable Spin Lock System,” was duly and properly
`
`issued by the USPTO on November 23, 1999. A copy of the ’845 patent is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit A.
`
`11.
`
`Sound View is the assignee of the ’845 patent and holds the right to sue for and
`
`recover all damages for infringement thereof, including past infringement.
`
`12.
`
`The ’371 patent, titled “System And Method For Aging Versions Of Data In A
`
`Main Memory Database,” was duly and properly issued by the USPTO on September 26, 2000.
`
`A copy of the ’371 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`13.
`
`Sound View is the assignee of the ’371 patent and holds the right to sue for and
`
`recover all damages for infringement thereof, including past infringement.
`
`14.
`
`The ’181 patent, titled “Internet-Enabled Service Management And Authorization
`
`System And Method,” was duly and properly issued by the USPTO on May 4, 2004. A copy of
`
`the ’181 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`15.
`
`Sound View is the assignee of the ’181 patent and holds the right to sue for and
`3
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 4 of 39 PageID #: 4
`
`recover all damages for infringement thereof, including past infringement.
`
`16.
`
`The ’786 patent, also titled “Internet-Enabled Service Management And
`
`Authorization System And Method,” was duly and properly issued by the USPTO on April 29,
`
`2008. The ’786 patent stems from a continuation application on which the ’181 patent is based.
`
`A copy of the ’786 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
`
`17.
`
`Sound View is the assignee of the ’786 patent and holds the right to sue for and
`
`recover all damages for infringement thereof, including past infringement.
`
`18.
`
`The ’486 patent, titled “Method And Apparatus Providing A Web Based
`
`Messaging System,” was duly and properly issued by the USPTO on August 12, 2008. A copy
`
`of the ’486 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
`
`19.
`
`Sound View is the assignee of the ’486 patent and holds the right to sue for and
`
`recover all damages for infringement thereof, including past infringement.
`
`20.
`
`The ’593 patent, titled “Method for Managing Electronic Information, the Related
`
`User Terminal and the Related Information Source,” was duly and properly issued by the
`
`USPTO on January 10, 2012. A copy of the ’593 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
`
`21.
`
`Sound View is the assignee of the ’593 patent and holds the right to sue for and
`
`recover all damages for infringement thereof, including past infringement.
`
`22.
`
`The ’860 patent, titled “Content Interpolating Web Proxy Server,” was duly and
`
`properly issued by the USPTO on March 13, 2012. A copy of the ’860 patent is attached hereto
`
`as Exhibit G.
`
`23.
`
`Sound View is the assignee of the ’860 patent and holds the right to sue for and
`
`recover all damages for infringement thereof, including past infringement.
`
`BACKGROUND FACTS
`
`24.
`
`On July 15, 2014, Sound View sent a letter to Facebook notifying Facebook of its
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 5 of 39 PageID #: 5
`
`infringement of ten patents. Of those ten patents, three of them are Patents-in-Suit. More
`
`specifically, with respect to those three Patents-In-Suit, Sound View notified Facebook of
`
`representative Facebook features that infringe those patents, including, for example, that its
`
`Target Advertisement feature was infringing the ’593 patent, and that its Account Verification
`
`was infringing the ’181 and ’786 patents. In its July 15, 2014 letter, Sound View explained its
`
`intention to allow Facebook to continue to use the inventions covered in those patents through a
`
`license from Sound View. Sound View further requested a meeting to discuss the matter in more
`
`detail and review claim charts with Facebook.
`
`25.
`
`Several letters were exchanged between the parties, but Facebook did not accept
`
`Sound View’s request for a meeting.
`
`26.
`
`On August 10, 2015, Sound View sent an additional letter to Facebook notifying
`
`it of its infringement of an additional six patents. Of those six patents, three of them are Patents-
`
`in-Suit. More specifically, with respect to those three Patents-In-Suit, Sound View notified
`
`Facebook of representative Facebook features that were infringing those patents, including, for
`
`example, that its server applications that use POSIX threads were infringing the ’845 patent, that
`
`its Messages platform and other systems that use HBase and/or HydraBase data structures were
`
`infringing the ’371 patent, and that its Chat, Messenger, and other applications that utilize
`
`Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (“XMPP”) were infringing the ’486 patent. In the
`
`August 10, 2015 letter, Sound View again requested to meet with Facebook to discuss the matter.
`
`Sound View indicated that it hoped to be able to present Facebook with a company overview as
`
`well as some representative claim charts in an effort to reach a licensing agreement.
`
`27.
`
`Several additional letters and emails were exchanged, but Facebook has not
`
`accepted Sound View’s request to meet. For example, on February 4, 2016, Sound View
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 6 of 39 PageID #: 6
`
`informed Facebook via email that it infringes two additional Sound View patents. One of those
`
`patents, the ’860 patent, is at issue in this lawsuit. Sound View informed Facebook that all
`
`Facebook systems that utilize a Wireless Universal Resource File infringe the ’860 patent.
`
`28.
`
`As of the date of the filing of this Complaint, Facebook has not explained why it
`
`continues to use Sound View’s patents without permission. As of the date of the filing of this
`
`Complaint, Facebook has not claimed that it does not infringe any of the Patents-in-Suit, and has
`
`not challenged the validity of any of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`29.
`
`Facebook has refused to engage in any meaningful discussions about reaching a
`
`license agreement to end its infringement of Sound View’s patents. Instead, Facebook continues
`
`to willfully infringe Sound View’s patents so as to obtain their significant benefits without
`
`paying any compensation to Sound View.
`
`30.
`
`After about eighteen months of Facebook’s failure to provide any substantive
`
`response and unwillingness to meet in an attempt to negotiate a license agreement that remedies
`
`Facebook’s unlawful conduct, Sound View is now forced to seek relief through litigation.
`
`COUNT ONE
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’845 PATENT
`
`31.
`
`Sound View incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`32.
`
`The ’845 patent generally relates to improved, recoverable computer spin locks
`
`that prevent simultaneous access of shared memory structures in multi-processing environments.
`
`In the context of the ’845 patent, a “lock” is a computer mechanism that ensures mutually
`
`exclusive access to a shared computer resource. In the context of the ’845 patent, if a lock is
`
`busy, a process attempting to acquire the lock can wait or “spin” until the lock is released. An
`
`implementation in which a process repeatedly tries to acquire the lock in a tight loop is called a
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 7 of 39 PageID #: 7
`
`“spin lock.”
`
`33.
`
`At the time of invention of the ’845 patent, both software-based and hardware-
`
`based spin locks were known as mechanisms of providing exclusive access to shared resources.
`
`In one such spin lock algorithm, all processes operating in a multi-processor system frequently
`
`access, attempt to write to, and cache a spin lock control variable. Because each update will lead
`
`to cache invalidation messages being sent to all other processors, such algorithms can
`
`overburden the caching system and hence, are not viable for processor-scalable architectures,
`
`i.e., shared memory multiprocessors.
`
`34.
`
`A scalable spin lock protocol known before the ’845 patent was called the MCS-
`
`lock protocol. However, the MCS-lock protocol was vulnerable to process failure in that if a
`
`process terminated while waiting for the lock, once it received the lock it would never release it.
`
`Similarly, while owning or releasing the lock, the death of the process would prevent ownership
`
`from being passed on to a subsequent process. In other words, the MCS-lock protocol was not
`
`recoverable.
`
`35.
`
`Another vulnerability of the MSC-lock protocol was the window of time between
`
`the initial swap in the lock acquisition code and a subsequent assignment into the queue. If a
`
`process died or terminated after executing the swap, but before setting the next field, then the
`
`queue would become “broken” or fragmented at that point. Attempting to recover from such a
`
`fragmented list would have been difficult.
`
`36.
`
`The ’845 patent solved that discrete computer-based problem and improved upon
`
`the MCS-lock protocol by providing a recoverable spin lock, i.e., one that does not become
`
`permanently unavailable even if one or more of the processes in the queue structure (i.e. spinning
`
`on the lock) terminates. To ensure the integrity of the queue structure, the recovering spin lock
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 8 of 39 PageID #: 8
`
`system disclosed in the ’845 patent reassembles the linked list queue structure after processes
`
`that have failed or terminated are removed, and assigns exclusive access of the lock to a new
`
`process if the process that had previously owned the lock had terminated.
`
`37.
`
`The capability of recovering a spinning lock as described in the ’845 patent is
`
`particularly useful for servers such as transaction processors which consist of several processes
`
`that are often in continuous operation. The ability to determine the process having exclusive
`
`access of a standard spinning lock in spite of any sequence of process failures is a key
`
`requirement for recoverability. If the process having exclusive access can be reliably determined,
`
`then the shared data guarded by the lock can be returned to use if that process has terminated.
`
`38.
`
`In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, Facebook has infringed at least claim 13 of the
`
`’845 patent by having made, designed, offered for sale, sold, provided, used, maintained, and/or
`
`supported a Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX) and robust mutual extension locks
`
`(Robust mutexes). Facebook’s infringement is continuing.
`
`39.
`
`On August 10, 2015, Sound View informed Facebook that its server applications
`
`that use POSIX threads infringe the ’845 patent. However, Facebook has not stopped infringing.
`
`40.
`
`Facebook uses POSIX threads for concurrent computations, with the goal of
`
`maximizing throughput by fully utilizing its machines’ CPU and RAM. POSIX threads allow
`
`Facebook to run multiple processes using the same shared resources.
`
`41.
`
`Facebook utilizes Robust mutexes to protect shared resources. The Robust mutex
`
`acts like a key to control access to a resource. Only the thread that has the key (or mutex) can
`
`use the resource. In order for a thread to use a resource, the thread must first acquire the key (or
`
`mutex). If the mutex is already locked by a thread, the next thread waits for the mutex to
`
`become available. Nodes representing the threads are queued in a linked list, which is a common
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 9 of 39 PageID #: 9
`
`data structure. More generally, a linked list is an ordered collection of finite homogeneous data
`
`elements called nodes, where the linear order is maintained using links or pointers. Facebook
`
`uses a singly linked list data structure for its POSIX threads. When a thread waits for a mutex,
`
`that thread is in a linked list associated with the mutex being waited upon. Once the mutex is
`
`released, the first thread in the mutex queue will be executed. If a waiting thread dies, it is
`
`removed from the linked list and the linked list is reassembled. If a thread that owns the Robust
`
`mutex terminates, another thread will have the opportunity to take over and clean up the state
`
`that was protected by the mutex.
`
`42.
`
`For example, Facebook infringes claim 13 by:
`
`a.
`
`performing a method for providing multiple processes (such as threads)
`
`with mutually exclusive access to a shared resource in a system having a lock (such as a Robust
`
`mutex) associated with the shared resource, possession of the lock signifying exclusive access to
`
`the shared resource, wherein processes desiring access to the shared resource spin on the lock
`
`(e.g., wait for ownership of the mutex) until the lock is acquired,
`
`b.
`
`maintaining a linked queue structure of data records (such as the nodes in
`
`the linked list) corresponding to a queue of processes including processes spinning on the lock
`
`(such as the threads waiting for the mutex) and a process possessing the lock (such as the thread
`
`possessing the mutex), one data record per process (such as a thread);
`
`c.
`
`transferring the lock (the mutex) from the process possessing the lock
`
`(such as the thread with the mutex) to a process next in the queue (such as the thread waiting for
`
`the mutex in queue);
`
`d.
`
`conducting a cleanup process (such as in a pthread cleanup) if one or more
`
`processes in the queue have terminated (such as when they are dead threads), said cleanup
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 10 of 39 PageID #: 10
`
`process removing said one or more terminated processes from the queue (such as releasing the
`
`mutex and removing a dead waiter from the chain) and reassembling the linked queue structure.
`
`43.
`
`Facebook has infringed and continues to infringe the ’845 patent, which has
`
`damaged Sound View. Sound View is entitled to recover from Facebook the damages sustained
`
`by Sound View as a result of Facebook’s wrongful acts in an amount adequate to compensate
`
`Sound View for Facebook’s infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. In committing these acts
`
`of infringement, Facebook acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted
`
`infringement of a valid patent, and Facebook actually knew or should have known that its actions
`
`constituted an unjustifiably high risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable patent.
`
`44.
`
`The infringement by Facebook of the ’845 patent was, and continues to be,
`
`deliberate and willful, entitling Sound View to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to
`
`attorney fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`COUNT TWO
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’371 PATENT
`
`45.
`
`Sound View incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`46.
`
`The ’371 patent generally relates to an improved multi-versioned database
`
`management system and method that creates multiple versions of data records affected by update
`
`transactions and increases capacity of memory by deleting versions of data records in response to
`
`associated time stamps and a measurable characteristic of the memory. In the context of the ’371
`
`patent, “measurable characteristics of the memory” are measurable characteristics describing,
`
`relating to, or otherwise associated with a utilization or capacity of the memory. In the context
`
`of the ’371 patent, “update transactions” refers to transactions that modify portions of the
`
`database such as “write” or “put” transactions.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 11 of 39 PageID #: 11
`
`47.
`
`Database managers (DBMs) have long been used in computer systems to manage
`
`large amounts of data. A DBM is a control application that supervises or manages interactions
`
`between application tasks and a database. The ’371 patent inventors recognized that two
`
`important DBM functions are: to ensure: (i) data recovery (in response to a database crash
`
`caused by, for example, a power outage, or a program crash), and (ii) data integrity. Data
`
`recovery involves rebuilding at least part of a database after all or part of its data is corrupted or
`
`lost, based on the last known valid or uncorrupted state. With respect to data integrity, latency in
`
`DBMs was largely intolerable. Latency refers to the time differential between a request for data
`
`and subsequent receipt of data. Latency is largely impacted by the type of computer memory on
`
`which the database is stored. There are two classifications of computer memory, volatile
`
`memory and non-volatile memory. Volatile memory is memory which does not retain data after
`
`power is lost, and is typically characterized by fast access to data. Non-volatile memory is
`
`memory that retains data after power is lost and is typically characterized by slower access to
`
`data. As a general matter, volatile memory is more expensive than non-volatile memory. Early
`
`computer database systems were divided among main (volatile) memory and disk (non-volatile
`
`memory). Those disk-based DBMs frequently failed to meet the performance requirements of
`
`contemporary information management systems (IMSs) because of the latencies inherent with
`
`non-volatile memory transactions.
`
`48.
`
`One popular method to solve that latency problem was to map the entire database
`
`into the main memory. For data integrity purposes, however, those conventional main memory
`
`DBMs had to delay the processing of update transactions. For example, the conventional main
`
`memory DBMs had to prevent an update transaction from modifying a data record while another
`
`process was simultaneously relying on that data record. In order to reduce conflicts between
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 12 of 39 PageID #: 12
`
`update transactions and read-only transactions, contemporary databases created multiple versions
`
`of data records, known as multi-versioning. In those multi-version DBMs, read-only
`
`transactions were given consistent, but out-of-date views of certain data records or data record
`
`types.
`
`49.
`
`Although those multi-versioning techniques reduced “waits” and conflicts among
`
`transactions, they conflicted with DBM efforts to utilize main memory capacity efficiently
`
`because main memory continuously expended processing resources collecting data record
`
`versions that were longer needed. The ’371 patent solved this computer-based problem—that of
`
`lacking an efficient means to reclaim main memory space no longer used by multi-version
`
`techniques—by logically and economically aging data record versions in the database. The ’371
`
`patent inventions extend to, and provide benefits to, DBMs that utilize secondary or mass storage
`
`as opposed to main memory.
`
`50.
`
`To solve this discrete computer-centric problem, the ’371 patent teaches a system
`
`that includes each of a time stamping controller, a versioning controller and an aging controller.
`
`The time stamping controller assigns a time stamp to transactions to be performed on the
`
`database, and may be assigned as a function of a time stamp counter. The time stamp operates to
`
`preserve an order of the transactions. The versioning controller creates multiple versions of data
`
`records of the database that are affected by update transactions. The aging controller, which may
`
`be associated, directly or indirectly, with each of the time stamping and versioning controllers,
`
`monitors at least one measurable characteristic and deletes prior ones of the multiple data record
`
`versions in response to the time stamp and the at least one measured characteristic to thereby
`
`increase the data capacity of the database, thus increasing memory capacity.
`
`51.
`
`In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, Facebook has infringed at least claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 9
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 13 of 39 PageID #: 13
`
`and 10 of the ’371 patent by having made, designed, offered for sale, sold, provided, used,
`
`maintained, and/or supported its Facebook platforms, including for example its messaging
`
`platform, that use HBase and/or HydraBase. Facebook’s infringement is continuing.
`
`52.
`
`On August 10, 2015, Sound View informed Facebook that its systems that utilize
`
`the HBase and/or HydraBase infringe the ’371 patent. However, Facebook has not stopped
`
`infringing.
`
`53.
`
`HBase and/or HydraBase is used by Facebook in its Messages platform as well as
`
`its internal monitoring system, its Nearby Friends feature, search indexing, streaming data
`
`analysis, and data scraping for Facebook’s internal data warehouses. HBase was chosen as the
`
`underlying durable data store for Facebook’s Messages platform because it provided high write
`
`throughput and low latency random read performance. It also provided other features including
`
`horizontal scalability, strong consistency, and high availability via automatic failover. Beginning
`
`around 2014, Facebook upgraded the HBase database system with a new open source system
`
`called HydraBase. HydraBase utilizes the HBase framework and minimizes downtime when a
`
`server fails by having each region hosted on multiple region servers (“RegionServers”).
`
`HydraBase did not change the concept of Tables in HBase, and as in HBase, each table in
`
`HydraBase is divided into regions hosted by the RegionServers.
`
`54.
`
`HBase and HydraBase are column-oriented database management systems that
`
`run on top of a Hadoop Distributed File System. Applications store data into HBase and/or
`
`HydraBase tables that are made up of rows and columns. Table cells—the intersection of row
`
`and column coordinates—are versioned. When something is written into one of Facebook’s
`
`HBase and/or HydraBase databases, it is first written to an in-memory store (memstore), and
`
`then is flushed into a store file (StoreFile). When Facebook puts data into HBase and/or
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 14 of 39 PageID #: 14
`
`HydraBase, a timestamp is required and is generated by the RegionServer. Performing a “put”
`
`operation to HBase and/or HydraBase creates a new version of a cell at a certain timestamp. The
`
`RegionServer generates globally unique, time-based transaction IDs for each transaction that is
`
`started and manages the versions.
`
`55.
`
`Facebook controls the number of versions stored in HBase and/or HydraBase.
`
`For example, Facebook sets the maximum number of versions to store at a level that will ensure
`
`that the StoreFile size does not become too large.
`
`56.
`
`During major compaction, excess versions are deleted from the StoreFile. The
`
`number of versions to be deleted is determined by comparing the number of versions stored to
`
`the MaxVersions and/or the Compaction Threshold. If the number of stored versions in the
`
`StoreFile is greater than the Compaction Threshold and/or Max Versions, then the excess
`
`versions are deleted. The versions that are deleted are generally the versions with the oldest
`
`timestamp.
`
`57.
`
`For example, Facebook infringes claim 1 through its:
`
`a.
`
`processing system (such as Facebook’s servers) for use with a database of
`
`data records (such as those within the database managed by HBase / HydraBase), said database
`
`stored in a memory (such as the memstore and StoreFile), comprising:
`
`b.
`
`a time stamping controller (such as the controller that uses the
`
`TIMESTAMP_NOW variable) that assigns a time stamp to transactions (such as put
`
`transactions) to be performed on said database;
`
`c.
`
`a versioning controller (such as that within the RegionServer) that creates
`
`multiple versions of ones of said data records affected by said transactions that are update
`
`transactions (such as put transactions that modify the database); and
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 15 of 39 PageID #: 15
`
`d.
`
`an aging controller (such as the major compaction function) that monitors
`
`a measurable characteristic of said memory (such as the number of versions being stored in the
`
`columns in the StoreFile) and deletes ones of said multiple versions of said ones of said data
`
`records in response to said time stamp and said measurable characteristic thereby to increase a
`
`capacity of said memory (such as the StoreFile).
`
`58.
`
`Facebook has infringed and continues to infringe the ’371 patent, which has
`
`damaged Sound View. Sound View is entitled to recover from Facebook the damages sustained
`
`by Sound View as a result of Facebook’s wrongful acts in an amount adequate to compensate
`
`Sound View for Facebook’s infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. In committing these acts
`
`of infringement, Facebook acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted
`
`infringement of a valid patent, and Facebook actually knew or should have known that its actions
`
`constituted an unjustifiably high risk of infringement of a valid and enforceable patent.
`
`59.
`
`The infringement by Facebook of the ’371 patent was, and continues to be,
`
`deliberate and willful, entitling Sound View to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to
`
`attorney fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`COUNT THREE
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’181 PATENT
`
`60.
`
`Sound View incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`61.
`
`The ’181 patent generally relates to a system that uses a web browser, a login
`
`Common Gateway Interface (“CGI”), and a server’s shared memory’s simple user database to
`
`allow a user to access a list of other users for which the user has access based on validation of at
`
`least the user’s identification and password information, and the user access type. In the context
`
`of the ’181 patent, a “CGI” is a standard for interfacing external applications with information
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 16 of 39 PageID #: 16
`
`servers, such as HTTP or Web servers. A CGI program is executed in real-time, so that it can
`
`output dynamic information. The CGI script is sent to a client’s web browser, which allows the
`
`client to enter a user ID and password.
`
`62.
`
`At the time of the ’181 patent, service provider subscribers were demanding
`
`increased visibility and control of their subscribed communications services in order to ensure
`
`that their networks remained cost-effective and responsive to rapidly changing needs. The ’181
`
`patent extended the customer service management market beyond large corporate customers by
`
`developing a system that provided Internet-based access to an account based on user
`
`authentication that was also able to accommodate additional access to other users from a single
`
`login event.
`
`63.
`
`The ’181 patent solved this discrete computer-centric problem of accessing
`
`information relating to other users without requiring an additional login event by using access
`
`types, CGI scripts and user databases. The ’181 patent provides a web-based presentation
`
`environment and a number of valuable customer service management capabilities that could be
`
`accessed via the web medium. The ’181 patent also provides the flexibility and manageability of
`
`web browser and Internet/Intranet technologies. The customer service management features
`
`were designed to work with the industry standard web browsers of the time, including Netscape
`
`Navigator and Microsoft Internet Explorer.
`
`64.
`
`In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, Facebook has infringed and/or induced others to
`
`infringe at least claims 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the ’181 patent by having made, designed, offered for
`
`sale, sold, provided, used, maintained, and/or supported its Facebook platform that includes an
`
`authorization system with different levels of access, such as the “Page roles” feature with
`
`Facebook Pages. Facebook’s infringement is continuing.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`
`Case 1:16-cv-00116-RGA Document 1 Filed 02/29/16 Page 17 of 39 PageID #: 17
`
`65.
`
`On July 15, 2014, Sound View informed Facebook that its Account Verification
`
`systems infringe the ’181 patent. However, Facebook has not stopped infringing.
`
`66.
`
`Facebook Pages help businesses, organizations, and brands share their stories and
`
`connect with people. Like profiles, Pages can be customized by publishing stories, hosting
`
`events, adding a