Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 85-1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 1 of 10 PagelD #: 6997
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 85-1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 2 of 10 PagelD #: 6998
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00428-SLR Document 42 Filed 11/18/13 Page 1 of 7 PageiD #: 420
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`HBAC MATCHMAKER MEDIA, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`CBS INTERACTIVEINC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`HBAC MATCHMAKER MEDIA,INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`BRAVO MEDIA LLC; NBC
`ENTERTAINMENT AND UNIVERSAL
`TELEVISION NETWORKS,
`
`Defendants.
`
`HBAC MATCHMAKERMEDIA,INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`ESPN, INC.; DISNEY ONLINE;
`AMERICAN BROADCASTING
`COMPANIESINC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`emeeeeeSeetare”Sera”Seana”eae”
`
`
`
`eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
`Neeeeeeeeteeeeeeeeeeee”
`
`Civ. No. 13-428-SLR
`
`Civ. No. 13-430-SLR
`
`Civ. No. 13-433-SLR
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 85-1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 3 of 10 PagelD #: 6999
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00428-SLR Document 42 Filed 11/18/13 Page 2 of 7 PagelD #: 421
`
`HBAC MATCHMAKER MEDIA, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`CARTOON INTERACTIVE GROUP
`INC.; CNN INTERACTIVE GROUP
`INC.; TNT INTERACTIVE GROUP
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`HBAC MATCHMAKER MEDIA, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`UNIVISION INTERACTIVE
`MEDIA, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`HBAC MATCHMAKER MEDIA, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`VIACOM INTERNATIONALINC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Neeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeee
`
`Neeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
`
`Civ. No. 13-434-SLR
`
`Civ, No. 13-435-SLR
`
`Civ. No. 13-437-SLR
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 85-1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 4 of 10 PagelD #: 7000
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00428-SLR Document 42 Filed 11/18/13 Page 3 of 7 PagelD #: 422
`
`HBAC MATCHMAKER MEDIA, INC.,
`
`_)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`YAHOO! INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civ. No. 13-438-SLR
`
`ORDER
`
`At Wilmington this (Sth day of November, 2013, having considered defendants
`
`CBS Interactive Inc., NBC Entertainment, a division of NBC West, LLC, Bravo Media
`
`LLC, Universal Television Networks, Disney Online, ESPN, Inc., American Broadcasting
`
`Companies, Inc., CNN Interactive Group, Inc., TNT Interactive Group, Inc., Cartoon
`
`Interactive Group, Inc., Univision Interactive Media, Inc., Viacom International Inc., and
`
`Yahoo! Inc.’s (“defendants”) motion for an order of sanctions and dismissal pursuantto
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (D.I. 16),’ and the papers submitted therewith;
`
`IT IS ORDERED that said motion is denied as follows:
`
`1. Background. On March 15, 2013, plaintiff HBAC Matchmaker Media, Inc.
`
`(‘plaintiff’) filed complaints in the above captioned actions against multiple entities
`
`alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,774,170 (“the ‘170 patent”) and 6,002,393
`
`(‘the ‘393 patent”) (collectively, “the patents-in-suit’).
`
`(D.1. 1) Defendants filed answers
`
`to the complaints and counterclaimed againstplaintiff for non-infringement and
`
`invalidity.
`
`(D.I. 10) Plaintiff answered the counterclaims on July 5, 2013.
`
`(D.!. 15)
`
`2. The ‘170 patent, System and Method for Delivering Targeted Advertisements
`
`‘Citations to D.I. # are to Civ. No. 13-428-SLR.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 85-1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 5 of 10 PagelD #: 7001
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00428-SLR Document 42 Filed 11/18/13 Page 4 of 7 PagelD #: 423
`
`
`
`to Consumers, issued June 30, 1998, and the ‘393 patent, System and Method for
`
`Delivering Targeted Advertisements to Consumers Using Direct Commands, issued
`
`December 14, 1999. The patents-in-suit are directed to delivering targeted advertising
`
`in the context of television and radio. (°393 patent, 1:5-10, ‘170 patent, 1:5-10) The
`
`‘393 patent refers in a preferred embodimentto a “television receiver, VCR, display
`
`device set-top-box or modular decoder associated with the video provider (cable, DBS,
`
`telephone, etc.).” (‘393 patent, 5:4-7) The ‘170 patent references cable systems, video
`
`on demand, and pay per view programming.
`
`(‘170 patent, 2:17-60)
`
`3. On May 30, 2013, defendants’ counselwroteto plaintiff requesting thatit
`
`withdraw the claims, as plaintiff's “complaints focus on websites, [while] the patents-in-
`
`suit are clearly directed to targeted advertising in the context of television and radio.”
`
`(D.|. 17 at 1) Defendants further stated that plaintiff's complaint wasindiscriminately
`
`directed towards “any website capable of delivering targeted advertisements without
`
`considering the specific limitations recited in the claims or conducting an adequate
`
`pre-filing investigation to determine whether the accused systemsprovide targeted
`
`advertisements in the claimed manner.” (/d. at 1-2) On June 11, 2013, plaintiff's
`
`counsel responded, but did not withdraw the complaints.
`
`(/d. at 2) Thereafter,
`
`defendants complied with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and,
`
`after further discussions with plaintiff, filed the instant motion.
`
`(D.I. 16; D.I. 17 at 3) On
`
`September11, 2013, the court ordered plaintiff to submit materials relied upon in
`
`performingits pre-filing investigation for in camera review.
`
`4. Standard. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to
`
`sanction a party or attorneys underlimited circumstances. A court can award sanctions
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 85-1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 6 of 10 PagelD #: 7002
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00428-SLR Document 42 Filed 11/18/13 Page 5 of 7 PagelD #: 424
`
`if a party or attorney has presented a pleading for an “improper purpose,” fhe claims or
`
`defenses put forth in a pleading are frivolous, the claims in a pleading are not likely to
`
`be supported by the evidence after investigation, or a party wrongfully denies a factual
`
`allegation. See Brown vy. Interbay Funding, LLC, Civ. No, 04-617-SLR, 2004 WL
`
`2579596, at *2 (D. Del. Nov. 8, 2004); see Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 11 (b). A party or
`
`attorney must perform “an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`Rule 11(b). Sanctions are to be applied only “in the ‘exceptional circumstance’ where a
`
`claim or motion is patently unmeritorious or frivolous,” Ario v. The Underwriting
`
`Members of Syndicate 53 at Lloyds for the 1998 Year of Account, 618 F. 3d 277 (3d
`
`Cir. 2010)(citing Doering v. Union Cnty. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 857 F.2d 191, 194
`
`(3d Cir. 1988).
`
`In patent cases, a reasonable pre-filing investigation is one containing
`
`an infringement analysis, which “can simply consist of a goodfaith, informed
`
`comparison of the claims of a patent against the accused subject matter.” Q-Pharma,
`
`Inc. v. The Andrew Jergens Co., 360 F.3d 1295, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Again, our
`
`case law makesclear that the key factor in determining whether a patentee performed
`
`a reasonable pre-filing inquiry is the presence of an infringement analysis.”) (citations
`
`omitted).
`
`5. Discussion. Defendants argue that plaintiff asserts in a conclusory fashion
`that it analyzed the claims and concludedthat there was a reasonable basis for a
`
`finding of infringement. Defendants complain thatplaintiff has not provided “details
`
`regarding HBAC’sinfringement analysis or underlying claim construction positions
`
`regarding the ‘code comparison’ and ‘instructions/commands'’limitations.” (D.I. 22 at 4)
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 85-1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 7 of 10 PagelD #: 7003
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00428-SLR Document 42 Filed 11/18/13 Page 6 of 7 PagelD #: 425
`
`Defendants then urge the court to conclude, prior to claim construction, that plaintiff's
`
`“ourported infringement theory includes no ‘code comparison’ whatsoever and no
`
`‘commands’ from the user's deviceor‘instructions’ from the ad server that command
`
`the user's device to select an advertisement.” (/d.)
`
`6. The court has reviewed in camera the materials submitted by plaintiff. Email
`
`correspondence from April 2012 discusses the patents-in-suit and alleged infringement
`
`of such and referencespressarticles regarding targeted advertising. An email dated
`
`May 28, 2012, refers to plaintiff's uploading a video from Hulu and reviewing associated
`
`code and specifications.
`
`In May 2012, plaintiff reviewed and discussed the Video Ad
`
`Serving Template. Plaintiff also used WireShark (a packetsniffing software), as early
`
`as May 2012, to analyze the network traffic between a viewer's computer and the
`
`defendants’ servers. Plaintiff provided the court with infringement charts, which were
`
`the subject of emails before the March 15, 2013 filing date. The infringement charts
`
`compare defendants’ systems, limitation by limitation, to claim 69 of the ‘393 patent and
`
`claims 46 and 51 of the ‘170 patent.
`
`7. The court is not prepared to engage in a claim construction exercise,
`wd
`
`construing the claim terms “code comparison,”
`
`“commands,” and“instructions,” atthis
`
`stage of the proceedings, with no context provided by discovery or a motion practice.
`
`See, e.g., Internet Media Corp. v. Hearst Newspapers, LLC, Civ. No. 10-690-SLR, 2011
`
`WL 2559556, at *3 (D. Del. June 28, 2011); Deston Therapeutics LLC v. Trigen Labs.
`
`Inc., 723 F. Supp. 2d 665, 670 (D. Del. 2010); Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. v.
`
`Safeco Insurance Co., Civ. No, 10-1370, 2010 WL 4698576, at *4 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 12,
`
`2010).
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 85-1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 8 of 10 PagelD #: 7004
`
`Case 1:13-cv-00428-SLR Document 42 Filed 11/18/13 Page 7 of 7 PagelD #: 426
`
`
`
`8. The court may address with the parties an early claim construction of
`
`dispositive limitations once a full and fair exchange of fundamental documents has
`
`been accomplished.
`
`In this regard, plaintiff may well be stretching the meaning of two
`
`older patents (clearly directed at television and radio), circa 1998-99, to fit current
`
`internet streaming video technology. Claim 69 of the ‘393 patent recites a “head end
`
`system.” Defendants assert that a “head end”is “the masterfacility for receiving,
`
`processing, and distributing cable television signals” and, thus, is not applicable to the
`
`context of the internet.
`
`(D.I. 17 at 9 &n.4) The court cautionsplaintiff thatit will
`
`entertain a renewed Rule 11 motion,’ if merited, after discovery and a full claim
`
`construction record.
`
`9. Conclusion. Forthe foregoing reasons,plaintiff has, at this juncture, shown
`
`a reasonable pre-filing inquiry and, therefore, defendants’ motion for Rule 11 sanctions
`
`(D.I. 16)° is denied.
`
`United StatesPnJudge
`
`2And/or motion for attorney fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C § 285.
`
`3Corresponding motions in the above captioned actions are: Civ. No. 13-428,
`D.I. 16; Civ. No. 13-430, D.I. 17; Civ. No. 13-433, D.1. 20; Civ. No. 13-434, D.l. 19; Civ.
`No. 13-435, D.1. 16; Civ. No. 13-437, D.I. 16; and Civ. No. 13-438, D.1. 16.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 85-1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 9 of 10 PagelD #: 7005
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00453-RGA Document 85-1 Filed 03/17/17 Page 10 of 10 PagelD #: 7006
`
`THIS EXHIBIT HAS BEEN
`REDACTEDIN ITS ENTIRETY
`
`