Case 1:16-cv-00774-RGA Document 1 Filed 06/16/16 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1
`
`
`David P. Enzminger (SBN: 137065)
`denzminger@winston.com
`James C. Lin (SBN: 271673)
`jalin@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`275 Middlefield Road, Suite 205
`Menlo Park, California 94025-4004
`Telephone:
`(650) 858-6500
`Facsimile:
`(650) 858-6550
`
`Michael A. Tomasulo (SBN: 179389)
`mtomasulo@winston.com
`Gino Cheng (SBN: 259208)
`gcheng@winston.com
`David K. Lin (SBN: 278404)
`dlin@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
`Telephone:
`(213) 615-1700
`Facsimile:
`(213) 615-1750
`
`Dan K. Webb (pro hac vice)
`dwebb@winston.com
`Kathleen B. Barry (pro hac vice)
`kbarry@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`35 West Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60601-9703
`Telephone:
`(312) 558-5600
`Facsimile:
`(312) 558-5700
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`ACTIVISION | BLIZZARD, INC.
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ACTIVISION | BLIZZARD, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`ACCELERATION BAY LLC, a Delaware
`Limited Liability Corporation,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF
`U.S. PATENT NOS. 6,701,344, 6,829,634,
`6,732,147, 6,714,966, 6,920,497, AND 6,910,069
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NON-INFRINGEMENT - CASE NO.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00774-RGA Document 1 Filed 06/16/16 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 2
`
`
`Plaintiff Activision | Blizzard, Inc. (“Activision” or “Plaintiff”) by and through its attorneys,
`
`allege against Defendant Acceleration Bay, LLC (“Acceleration” or “Defendant”) as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action brought pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §
`
`2201, for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of patents that Acceleration has asserted
`
`against Plaintiff in district court proceedings before the United States District Court for the District
`
`of Delaware.
`2.
`
`Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the “Accused Products” (as defined below)
`
`do not infringe any of the following patents: United States Patent Nos. 6,701,344 (“the ’344 patent”)
`
`(attached as Exhibit A), 6,829,634 (“the ’634 patent”) (attached as Exhibit B), 6,732,147 (“the ’147
`
`patent”) (attached as Exhibit C), 6,714,966 (“the ’966 patent”) (attached as Exhibit D), 6,920,497
`
`(“the ’497 patent”) (attached as Exhibit E), and 6,910,069 (“the ’069 patent”) (attached as Exhibit F)
`
`(collectively, “the Asserted Patents”) under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101,
`
`et seq.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Activision is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at
`
`3100 Ocean Park Boulevard, Santa Monica, California 90405.
`4.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Acceleration is a Delaware limited liability
`
`corporation with its principal place of business at 370 Bridge Parkway, Redwood City, California
`
`94065.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`5.
`
`This is an action under the Federal Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201
`
`and 2202, against Defendant for a declaration that pursuant to the patent laws of the United States,
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., the disputed claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,701,344, 6,829,634, 6,732,147,
`
`6,714,966, 6,920,497, and 6,910,069 are not infringed by Plaintiff. Jurisdiction as to these claims is
`
`conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`6.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Acceleration. Upon information
`
`and belief, Acceleration’s principal place of business is located within this District. In addition, the
`
`1
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NON-INFRINGEMENT - CASE NO.
`
`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 1:16-cv-00774-RGA Document 1 Filed 06/16/16 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 3
`
`
`Court has personal jurisdiction over Acceleration because it has established minimum contacts with
`
`the forum and the exercise of jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and
`
`substantial justice.
`7.
`8.
`
`Venue is proper in this jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).
`
`An actual controversy exists between Defendant and Plaintiff as to whether Plaintiff
`
`infringes the Asserted Patents.
`9.
`
`On March 12, 2015, Acceleration filed a complaint (the “Activision Complaint”) with
`
`the District Court of the District of Delaware under 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. alleging that Activision
`
`infringes the Asserted Patents through the manufacture, use, sale, importation and/or offer for sale of
`
`its software products and services, including World of Warcraft, Destiny, and Call of Duty:
`
`Advanced Warfare (the “Delaware action”; all products accused in the Delaware action are referred
`
`to in this Complaint as the “Accused Products”). The Activision Complaint further alleged that
`
`Activision contributes to and induces infringement of the Asserted Patents by others. A true and
`
`correct copy of the Activision Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
`10.
`
`In the Delaware action, Defendant elected the following claims to assert against
`
`Plaintiff:
`
`
`
`
`Asserted Patent
`6,701,344
`6,714,966
`6,829,634
`6,732,147
`6,910,069
`6,920,497
`
`Asserted Claims
`1, 6-8, 10, 13-15, and 18
`1, 7, 9, 12, and 13
`1, 4, 5, 19, and 22
`1, 11, 14, 15, and 16
`1, 11, 12, and 13
`1, 8, 9, and 16
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff Activision denies that any of its activities or products infringe any claim of
`
`the Asserted Patents purportedly owned by Defendant.
`12.
`
`Defendant Acceleration alleged that it owned the Asserted Patents, purportedly
`
`having acquired them from the Boeing Company. However, on Plaintiff’s motion, the District Court
`
`of the District of Delaware found that Defendant Acceleration was a licensee and that the Boeing
`
`2
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NON-INFRINGEMENT - CASE NO.
`
`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 1:16-cv-00774-RGA Document 1 Filed 06/16/16 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 4
`
`
`Company had failed to transfer all substantial rights in the Asserted Patents to Defendant
`
`Acceleration prior to the filing of the Activision Complaint. The District Court ordered that the
`
`Delaware Action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction unless Boeing joins that action.
`
`A copy of the District Court’s June 3, 2016 order is attached as Exhibit H.
`13.
`
`Boeing has not joined the Delaware Action, and on information and belief, does not
`
`intend to do so. Therefore, the Delaware Action should be dismissed according to the Court’s June
`
`3, 2016 Order.
`14.
`
`On June 15, 2016, Defendant Acceleration represented to the Patent Trial and Appeal
`
`Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office that “Acceleration Bay and the Boeing
`
`Company entered into an Amended and Restated Patent Purchase Agreement resolving all of the
`
`issues identified by the District Court in its June 3, 2016 Order.” Based on, inter alia, its prior
`
`allegations of infringement and this representation, Plaintiff has a reasonable apprehension that
`
`Defendant may again commence litigation against it on the Asserted Patents.
`15.
`
`There is an immediate, real, and substantial justiciable controversy between Plaintiff
`
`and Defendant as to its purported right to threaten or maintain suit for infringement of the Asserted
`
`Patents, and as to the scope and enforceability thereof, and as to whether Plaintiff infringes any
`
`enforceable claims of the Asserted Patents. This controversy is of such immediacy and reality as to
`
`warrant declaratory relief so that the parties may ascertain their rights and duties with respect to the
`
`Asserted Patents. Therefore, without waiver of any rights, including the right to challenge prudential
`
`standing, Plaintiff brings this declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that the Accused
`
`Products do not infringe any of the Asserted Patents.
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’344 Patent)
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference and realleges all preceding Paragraphs as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`17.
`
`Defendant Acceleration has alleged and continues to assert that Plaintiff and its
`
`products and services infringe the ’344 patent.
`
`3
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NON-INFRINGEMENT - CASE NO.
`
`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 1:16-cv-00774-RGA Document 1 Filed 06/16/16 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 5
`
`
`18.
`
`The asserted independent claims of the ’344 patent read as follows (claim element
`
`enumeration added for convenience):
`
`
`Claim 1
`1-a. A computer network for providing a game environment for a plurality of participants,
`1-b. each participant having connections to at least three neighbor participants,
`1-c. wherein an originating participant sends data to the other participants by sending the data
`through each of its connections to its neighbor participants and
`1-d. wherein each participant sends data that it receives from a neighbor participant to its other
`neighbor participants,
`1-e. further wherein the network is m-regular, where m is the exact number of neighbor
`participants of each participant and
`1-f. further wherein the number of participants is at least two greater than m thus resulting in a
`non-complete graph.
`Claim 13
`13-a. A distributed game system comprising:
`13-b. a plurality of broadcast channels, each broadcast channel for playing a game,
`13-c. each of the broadcast channels for providing game information related to said game to a
`plurality of participants,
`13-d. each participant having connections to at least three neighbor participants,
`13-e. wherein an originating participant sends data to the other participants by sending the data
`through each of its connections to its neighbor participants and
`13-f. wherein each participant sends data that it receives from a neighbor participant to its
`neighbor participants,
`13-g. further wherein the network is m-regular, where m is the exact number of neighbor
`participants of each participant and
`13-h. further wherein the number of participants is at least two greater than m thus resulting in
`a non-complete graph;
`13-i. means for identifying a broadcast channel for a game of interest;
`13-j. and means for connecting to the identified broadcast channel.
`Claim 18
`18-a. A computer network for providing a game environment for a plurality of participants,
`18-b. each participant having connections to at least three neighbor participants,
`18-c. wherein an originating participant sends data to the other participants by sending the data
`through each of its connections to its neighbor participants and
`18-d. wherein each participant sends data that it receives from a neighbor participant to its
`other neighbor participants,
`18-e. further wherein the network is m-regular and the network forms an incomplete graph.
`
`
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff does not infringe any of the asserted claims, at least because, by way of non-
`
`limiting example, the Accused Products do not meet the following claim limitations: claim 1,
`
`elements 1-b, 1-c, 1-d, 1-e, 1-f; claim 13, elements 13-d, 13-e, 13-f, 13-g, 13-h, 13-i, 13-j; and claim
`
`18, elements 18-b, 18-c, 18-d, 18-e.
`20.
`
`Plaintiff’s activities, products, and services have not and do not directly infringe, do
`
`not induce infringement, and do not contributorily infringe any enforceable claims of the ’344
`
`patent.
`
`4
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NON-INFRINGEMENT - CASE NO.
`
`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 1:16-cv-00774-RGA Document 1 Filed 06/16/16 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 6
`
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff’s activities, products, and services have not and do not infringe, willfully or
`
`otherwise, any enforceable claims of the ’344 patent.
`22.
`
`Plaintiff’s activities, products, and services have not and do not infringe, literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, any enforceable claims of the ’344 patent.
`23.
`
`Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court under Rule 57 of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 declaring that Plaintiff is not infringing and has not
`
`infringed the ’344 patent and granting Plaintiff all other declaratory relief to which it may be
`
`entitled.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’634 Patent)
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference and realleges the all preceding Paragraphs
`
`as though fully set forth herein.
`25.
`
`Defendant Acceleration has alleged and continues to assert that Plaintiff and its
`
`products and services infringe the ’634 patent.
`26.
`
`The asserted independent claims of the ’634 patent read as follows (claim element
`
`enumeration added for convenience):
`
`
`Claim 1
`1-a. A non-routing table based computer network having a plurality of participants,
`1-b. each participant having connections to at least three neighbor participants,
`1-c. wherein an originating participant sends data to the other participants by sending the data
`through each of its connections to its neighbor participants,
`1-d. wherein each participant sends data that it receives from a neighbor participant to its other
`neighbor participants,
`1-e. wherein data is numbered sequentially so that data received out of order can be queued
`and rearranged,
`1-f. further wherein the network is m-regular and m-connected, where m is the number of
`neighbor participants of each participant, and
`1-g. further wherein the number of participants is at least two greater than m thus resulting in a
`non-complete graph.
`Claim 19
`19-a. A non-routing table based computer-readable medium containing instructions for
`controlling communications of a participant of a broadcast channel within a network, by a
`method comprising:
`19-b. locating a portal computer;
`19-c. requesting the located portal computer to provide an indication of neighbor participants
`to which the participant can be connected; receiving the indications of the neighbor
`participants; and
`19-d. establishing a connection between the participant and each of the indicated neighbor
`participants,
`
`5
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NON-INFRINGEMENT - CASE NO.
`
`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 1:16-cv-00774-RGA Document 1 Filed 06/16/16 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 7
`
`
`19-e. wherein a connection between the portal computer and the participant is not established,
`19-f. wherein a connection between the portal computer and the neighbor participants is not
`established,
`19-g. further wherein the network is m-regular and m-connected, where m is the number of
`neighbor participants of each participant, and
`19-h. further wherein the number of participants is at least two greater than m thus resulting in
`a non-complete graph.
`27.
`Plaintiff does not infringe any of the asserted claims, at least because, by way of non-
`
`limiting example, the Accused Products do not meet the following claim limitations: claim 1,
`
`elements 1-a, 1-b, 1-c, 1-d, 1-e, 1-f, 1-g; and claim 19, elements 19-a, 19-b, 19-c, 19-d, 19-e, 19-f,
`
`19-g, 19-h.
`28.
`
`Plaintiff’s activities, products, and services have not and do not directly infringe, do
`
`not induce infringement, and do not contributorily infringe any enforceable claims of the ’634
`
`patent.
`29.
`
`Plaintiff’s activities, products, and services have not and do not infringe, willfully or
`
`otherwise, any enforceable claims of the ’634 patent.
`30.
`
`Plaintiff’s activities, products, and services have not and do not infringe, literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, any enforceable claims of the ’634 patent.
`31.
`
`Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court under Rule 57 of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 declaring that Plaintiff is not infringing and has not
`
`infringed the ’634 patent and granting Plaintiff all other declaratory relief to which it may be
`
`entitled.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’147 Patent)
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference and realleges all preceding Paragraphs as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`33.
`
`Defendant Acceleration has alleged and continues to assert that Plaintiff and its
`
`products and services infringe the ’147 patent.
`34.
`
`The asserted independent claims of the ’147 patent read as follows (claim element
`
`enumeration added for convenience):
`
`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
`
`6
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NON-INFRINGEMENT - CASE NO.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00774-RGA Document 1 Filed 06/16/16 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 8
`
`
`Claim 1
`1-a. A method of disconnecting a first computer from a second computer, the first computer
`and the second computer being connected to a broadcast channel, said broadcast channel
`forming an m-regular graph where m is at least 3, the method comprising:
`1-b. when the first computer decides to disconnect from the second computer, the first
`computer sends a disconnect message to the second computer, said disconnect message
`including a list of neighbors of the first computer;
`1-c. and when the second computer receives the disconnect message from the first computer,
`the second computer broadcasts a connection port search message on the broadcast channel to
`find a third computer to which it can connect in order to maintain an m-regular graph,
`1-d. said third computer being one of the neighbors on said list of neighbors.
`Claim 11
`11-a. A computer-readable medium containing instructions for controlling disconnecting of a
`computer from another computer, the computer and the other computer being connected to a
`broadcast channel, said broadcast channel being an m-regular graph where m is at least 3,
`comprising:
`11-b. a component that, when the computer decides to disconnect from the other computer, the
`computer sends a disconnect message to the other computer, said disconnect message
`including a list of neighbors of the computer;
`11-c. and a component that, when the computer receives a disconnect message from another
`computer, the computer broadcasts a connection port search message on the broadcast channel
`to find a computer to which it can connect in order to maintain an m-regular graph,
`11-d. said computer to which it can connect being one of the neighbors on said list of
`neighbors.
`
`
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff does not infringe any of the asserted claims, at least because, by way of non-
`
`limiting example, the Accused Products do not meet the following claim limitations: claim 1,
`
`elements 1-a, 1-b, 1-c, 1-d; and claim 11, elements 11-a, 11-b, 11-c, 11-d.
`36.
`
`Plaintiff’s activities, products, and services have not and do not directly infringe, do
`
`not induce infringement, and do not contributorily infringe any enforceable claims of the ’147
`
`patent.
`37.
`
`Plaintiff’s activities, products, and services have not and do not infringe, willfully or
`
`otherwise, any enforceable claims of the ’147 patent.
`38.
`
`Plaintiff’s activities, products, and services have not and do not infringe, literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, any enforceable claims of the ’147 patent.
`39.
`
`Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court under Rule 57 of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 declaring that Plaintiff is not infringing and have not
`
`infringed the ’147 patent and granting Plaintiff all other declaratory relief to which it may be
`
`entitled.
`
`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 OF PATENT NON-INFRINGEMENT - CASE NO.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00774-RGA Document 1 Filed 06/16/16 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 9
`
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’966 Patent)
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference and realleges all preceding Paragraphs as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`41.
`
`Defendant Acceleration has alleged and continues to assert that Plaintiff and its
`
`products and services infringe the ’966 patent.
`42.
`
`The asserted independent claims of the ’966 patent read as follows (claim element
`
`enumeration added for convenience):
`
`
`Claim 1
`1-a. A computer network for providing an information delivery service for a plurality of
`participants,
`1-b. each participant having connections to at least three neighbor participants,
`1-c. wherein an originating participant sends data to the other participants by sending the data
`through each of its connections to its neighbor participants and
`1-d. wherein each participant sends data that it receives from a neighbor participant to its other
`neighbor participants,
`1-e. further wherein the network is m-regular, where m is the exact number of neighbor
`participants of each participant and
`1-f. further wherein the number of participants is at least two greater than m thus resulting in a
`non-complete graph.
`Claim 13
`13-a. An information delivery service comprising:
`13-b. a plurality of broadcast channels, each broadcast channel for distributing information
`relating to a topic,
`13-c. each of the broadcast channels for providing said information related to a topic to a
`plurality of participants,
`13-d. each participant having connections to at least three neighbor participants,
`13-e. wherein an originating participant sends data to the other participants by sending the data
`through each of its connections to its neighbor participants and
`13-f. wherein each participant sends data that it receives from a neighbor participant to its
`neighbor participants,
`13-g. further wherein the network is m-regular, where m is the exact number of neighbor
`participants of each participant and
`13-h. further wherein the number of participants is at least two greater than m thus resulting in
`a non-complete graph;
`13-i. means for identifying a broadcast channel for a topic of interest; and
`13-j. means for connecting to the identified broadcast channel.
`
`
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff does not infringe any of the asserted claims, at least because, by way of non-
`
`limiting example, the Accused Products do not meet the following claim limitations: claim 1,
`
`elements 1-b, 1-c, 1-d, 1-e, 1-f; and claim 13, elements 13-d, 13-e, 13-f, 13-g, 13-h, 13-i, 13-j.
`
`8
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NON-INFRINGEMENT - CASE NO.
`
`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 1:16-cv-00774-RGA Document 1 Filed 06/16/16 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 10
`
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff’s activities, products, and services have not and do not directly infringe, do
`
`not induce infringement, and do not contributorily infringe any enforceable claims of the ’966
`
`patent.
`45.
`
`Plaintiff’s activities, products, and services have not and do not infringe, willfully or
`
`otherwise, any enforceable claims of the ’966 patent.
`46.
`
`Plaintiff’s activities, products, and services have not and do not infringe, literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, any enforceable claims of the ’966 patent.
`47.
`
`Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court under Rule 57 of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 declaring that Plaintiff is not infringing and has not
`
`infringed the ’966 patent and granting Plaintiff all other declaratory relief to which it may be
`
`entitled.
`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’497 Patent)
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference and realleges all preceding Paragraphs as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`49.
`
`Defendant Acceleration has alleged and continues to assert that Plaintiff and its
`
`products and services infringe the ’497 patent.
`50.
`
`The asserted independent claims of the ’497 patent read as follows (claim element
`
`enumeration added for convenience):
`
`
`Claim 1
`1-a. A method in a computer for locating a computer through which to connect to a network,
`the method comprising:
`1-b. providing an identification of a portal computer or a plurality of portal computers, the
`portal computer or the plurality of portal computers having a communications port or
`communications ports with a call-in port being enabled for communications when the portal
`computer or the plurality of portal computers is in a state to coordinate the connection of a
`seeking computer to the network,
`1-c. wherein the call-in port is a type of communications port;
`1-d. selecting the communications port or communications ports of the portal computer or the
`plurality of portal computers and attempting to communicate with the selected
`communications port or communications ports until communications with the call-in port is
`successful,
`1-e. wherein a port ordering algorithm is used to identify the call-in port, and
`1-f. wherein the communications ports selected by the port ordering algorithm may be
`reordered; and
`1-g. using the call-in port to request that the portal computer or the plurality of portal
`9
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NON-INFRINGEMENT - CASE NO.
`
`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 1:16-cv-00774-RGA Document 1 Filed 06/16/16 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 11
`
`
`computers coordinate the connecting of the seeking computer to the network.
`Claim 9
`9-a. A component in a computer system for locating a call-in port of a portal computer,
`comprising:
`9-b. means for identifying the portal computer, the portal computer having a dynamically
`selected call-in port for communicating with other computers;
`9-c. means for identifying the call-in port of the identified portal computer by repeatedly trying
`to establish a connection with the identified portal computer through contacting a
`communications port or communications ports until a connection is successfully established;
`9-d. means for selecting the call-in port of the identified portal computer using a port ordering
`algorithm; and
`9-e. means for re-ordering the communications ports selected by the port ordering algorithm.
`
`
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiff does not infringe any of the asserted claims, at least because, by way of non-
`
`limiting example, the Accused Products do not meet the following claim limitations: claim 1,
`
`elements 1-b, 1-c, 1-d, 1-e, 1-f, 1-g; and claim 9, elements 9-b, 9-c, 9-d, 9-e.
`52.
`
`Plaintiff’s activities, products, and services have not and do not directly infringe, do
`
`not induce infringement, and do not contributorily infringe any enforceable claims of the ’497
`
`patent.
`53.
`
`Plaintiff’s activities, products, and services have not and do not infringe, willfully or
`
`otherwise, any enforceable claims of the ’497 patent.
`54.
`
`Plaintiff’s activities, products, and services have not and do not infringe, literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, any enforceable claims of the ’497 patent.
`55.
`
`Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court under Rule 57 of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 declaring that Plaintiff is not infringing and have not
`
`infringed the ’497 patent and granting Plaintiff all other declaratory relief to which it may be
`
`entitled.
`
`SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’069 Patent)
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference and realleges all preceding Paragraphs as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`57.
`
`Defendant Acceleration has alleged and continues to assert that Plaintiff and its
`
`products and services infringe the ’069 patent.
`
`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 OF PATENT NON-INFRINGEMENT - CASE NO.
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00774-RGA Document 1 Filed 06/16/16 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 12
`
`
`58.
`
`The asserted independent claim of the ’069 patent reads as follows (claim element
`
`enumeration added for convenience):
`
`
`Claim 1
`1-a. A computer-based, non-routing table based, non-switch based method for adding a
`participant to a network of participants, each participant being connected to three or more
`other participants, the method comprising:
`1-b. identifying a pair of participants of the network that are connected
`1-c. wherein a seeking participant contacts a fully connected portal computer,
`1-d. which in turn sends an edge connection request to a number of randomly selected
`neighboring participants to which the seeking participant is to connect;
`1-e. disconnecting the participants of the identified pair from each other; and
`1-f. connecting each participant of the identified pair of participants to the seeking participant.
`
`
`
`59.
`
`Plaintiff does not infringe any of the asserted claims, at least because, by way of non-
`
`limiting example, the Accused Products do not meet the following claim limitations: claim 1,
`
`elements 1-a, 1-b, 1-c, 1-d, 1-e, 1-f.
`60.
`
`Plaintiff’s activities, products, and services have not and do not directly infringe, do
`
`not induce infringement, and do not contributorily infringe any enforceable claims of the ’069
`
`patent.
`61.
`
`Plaintiff’s activities, products, and services have not and do not infringe, willfully or
`
`otherwise, any enforceable claims of the ’069 patent.
`62.
`
`Plaintiff’s activities, products, and services have not and do not infringe, literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, any enforceable claims of the ’069 patent.
`63.
`
`Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court under Rule 57 of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 declaring that Plaintiff is not infringing and has not
`
`infringed the ’069 patent and granting Plaintiff all other declaratory relief to which it may be
`
`entitled.
`
`REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Activision respectfully prays for relief against Defendant as
`
`follows:
`1.
`
`For a declaratory judgment that:
`
`a.
`
`Plaintiff has not and does not infringe, willfully or otherwise, any
`
`enforceable claim of the Asserted Patents; and
`
`11
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NON-INFRINGEMENT - CASE NO.
`
`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 1:16-cv-00774-RGA Document 1 Filed 06/16/16 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 13
`
`
`b.
`
`Defendant, and those acting in concert with it or acting with knowledge of
`
`the judgment herein, are without right or authority to threaten or maintain suit against Plaintiff, or
`
`users of Plaintiff’s products or services, for alleged infringement of the Asserted Patents;
`
`2.
`
`Enjoining Defendant, its officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons acting
`
`in concert or participation with Defendant from initiating infringement litigation against, and from
`
`threatening, Plaintiff or purchasers or users of Plaintiff’s products or services with infringement
`
`litigation or charging any of them verbally or in writing with infringement of the Asserted Patents, or
`
`representing to any of them that infringement has occurred, because of any activities of Plaintiff;
`
`Determining that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285;
`
`For Plaintiff’s costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred herein; and
`
`For such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`Dated: June 16, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`
`By
`
`
`
`/s/ David P. Enzminger
`David P. Enzminger
`James C. Lin
`Michael A. Tomasulo
`Gino Cheng
`David K. Lin
`Dan K. Webb
`Kathleen B. Barry
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`ACTIVISION | BLIZZARD, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NON-INFRINGEMENT - CASE NO.
`
`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 1:16-cv-00774-RGA Document 1 Filed 06/16/16 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 14
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff Activision requests a trial by jury of all issues so triable.
`
`
`
`Dated: June 16, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`
`By
`
`
`
`/s/ David P. Enzminger
`David P. Enzminger
`James C. Lin
`Michael A. Tomasulo
`Gino Cheng
`David K. Lin
`Dan K. Webb
`Kathleen B. Barry
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`ACT