Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 23-1 Filed 03/21/17 Page 1 of 163 PageID #: 1241
`Case 1:16—cv—00830-RGA Document 23-1 Filed 03/21/17 Page 1 of 163 PageID #: 1241
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 23-1 Filed 03/21/17 Page 2 of 163 PageID #: 1242
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`
`
`
`
`ATLAS IP, LLC
`
`
`A Florida Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.,
`An Illinois Corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`No. 1:15-cv-10746
`Hon. Milton I. Shadur
`
`JURY DEMANDED
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, Atlas IP, LLC (“Atlas”) hereby alleges by way of complaint against defendant,
`
`Commonwealth Edison Company (“ComEd”) as follows:
`
`THE PLAINTIFF AND THE PATENTS IN SUIT
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Atlas is a Florida LLC with a principal place of business at One SE Third Avenue,
`
`Suite 1200, Miami, Florida 33131.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Atlas is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,371,734 (“the ‘734
`
`patent”), entitled Medium access control protocol for wireless network (Exhibit A).
`
`
`
`3.
`
`The invention of the ‘734 patent, the application for which was filed in January
`
`1993, is directed to “a reliable medium access control (MAC) protocol for wireless, preferably
`
`radio frequency (RF), LAN-type network communications among a plurality of resources, such
`
`a[s] a battery powered portable computers.” ‘734 Patent, col. 5, lines 10-14.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Representative claim 1 of the ‘734 patent reads:
`
`A communicator for wirelessly transmitting frames to and receiving frames from a least
`one additional communicator in accordance with a predetermined medium access control
`protocol, the communicators which transmit and receive the frames constituting a Group,
`each communicator including a transmitter and a receiver for transmitting and receiving
`the frames respectively,
`the medium access control protocol controlling each
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 23-1 Filed 03/21/17 Page 3 of 163 PageID #: 1243
`
`communicator of the Group to effect predetermined functions comprising:
`
`designating one of the communicators of the Group as a hub and the remaining the
`communicators of the Group as remotes;
`
`the hub establishing repeating communication cycles, each communication cycle having
`intervals during which the hub and the remotes transmit and receive frames;
`
`the hub transmitting cycle establishing information to the remotes to establish the
`communication cycle and a plurality of predeterminable intervals during each
`communication cycle, the intervals being ones when the hub is allowed to transmit
`frames to the remotes, when the remotes are allowed to transmit frames to the hub, and
`when each remote is expected to receive a frame from the hub;
`
`the hub transmitting a frame containing the cycle establishing information which
`establishes both an outbound portion of the communication cycle when the hub transmits
`frames to the remotes and an inbound portion of the communication cycle when the
`remotes transmit frames to the hub, the frame containing the cycle establishing
`information also establishing the predetermined intervals during the outbound and
`inbound portions of the communication cycle when each remote is allowed to transmit
`and receive;
`
`the remotes powering off their transmitters during times other than those intervals when
`the remote is allowed to transmit frames to the hub, by using the cycle establishing
`information transmitted from the hub; and
`
`the remotes powering off their receivers during times other than those intervals when the
`remote is expected to receive a frame from the hub, by using the cycle establishing
`information transmitted from the hub.
`
`THE DEFENDANT AND THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS
`
`
`
`5.
`
`ComEd is an Illinois Corporation with a principal place of business at 10 South
`
`Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60680-5398.
`
`
`
`6.
`
`ComEd had, before January 2013, installed among its customer base a network of
`
`smart meters supplied by General Electric. Such smart meters communicate to an access point
`
`over a neighborhood area network (“NAN”) using a communication module supplied by Silver
`
`Spring Networks, Inc. (“Silver Spring”).
`
`2
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 23-1 Filed 03/21/17 Page 4 of 163 PageID #: 1244
`
`
`
`7.
`
`The communication between the smart meters and access points over the NAN
`
`utilize licensed 902-928 MHz band.
`
`
`
`8.
`
`The smart meters and access points communicating over the NAN (“Accused
`
`Products”) and are designed to form a communication group.
`
`
`
`9.
`
`The Accused Products each include a transceiver consisting of a transmitter and
`
`receiver that transmits and receives packets of data.
`
`
`
`10.
`
`The Accused Products operate to transmit and receive information about customer
`
`natural gas and electric usage.
`
`
`
`11.
`
`The Accused Products form a group of at least one device operating in remote
`
`mode (smart meter), and one device operating in base mode (access point).
`
`
`
`12.
`
`The access point transmits at least one frame of data to a smart meter that initiates
`
`a communication session, and which allows the smart meter to calculate the duration of the
`
`communication session and its constituent intervals before the smart meter transmits to the
`
`access point during the communication session.
`
`
`
`13.
`
`During the communication session, the access point and smart meter will transmit
`
`and receive packets of data to and from one another consisting of an interrogation message from
`
`the access point to the smart meter, and utility usage and machine state data from the smart meter
`
`to the access point.
`
`
`
`14.
`
`During the transmission period, the smart meter expects to receive a packet of
`
`data in the form of, inter alia, an acknowledgement.
`
`
`
`15.
`
`During the reception period, the smart meter sends packets of data to the access
`
`point including utility usage and machine state data.
`
`3
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 23-1 Filed 03/21/17 Page 5 of 163 PageID #: 1245
`
`
`
`16.
`
`The access point establishes communication cycles with the smart meter that
`
`repeats. During each such communication cycle, there are intervals during which the access
`
`point and the smart meter transmit and receive frames.
`
`
`
`17.
`
`A smart meter has the ability to power off its transmitter during times other than
`
`those when it is transmitting data.
`
`
`
`18.
`
`A smart meter has the ability to power off its receiver during times other than
`
`those when it is receiving data.
`
`
`
`19.
`
`Once a smart meter has transmitted data packets to the access point, if its receiver
`
`has been powered down, it activates its receiver to await the reception of data from the base.
`
` JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`
`
`20.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1338(a).
`
`
`
`
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`Venue is proper in this Judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendants by virtue of their
`
`continuing business operations in this Judicial District.
`
`Count I – Infringement of the ‘734 Patent
`
`Atlas hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-22.
`
`The accused smart meters and access points described herein infringed the claims
`
`
`
`
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`of the ‘734 patent before the expiration thereof, as shown in the chart attached as Exhibit B.
`
`
`
`
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`Atlas was injured by the defendants’ infringement of the ‘734 patent.
`
`Atlas has not made or sold, or had made or sold for it, any product covered by the
`
`claims of the ‘734. Of Atlas’s predecessors in interest in the ownership of the ‘734 patent, only
`
`Digital Ocean Inc. made or sold, or had made or sold, products covered by the claims of the ‘734
`
`4
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 23-1 Filed 03/21/17 Page 6 of 163 PageID #: 1246
`
`patent. Digital Ocean marked all such products with the ‘734 patent number.
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Atlas respectfully requests that this Court award it damages adequate to
`
`compensate it for the defendants’ infringement of the patents in suit, and such further relief as
`
`the Court deems appropriate.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ George C. Summerfield
`George C. Summerfield
`STADHEIM & GREAR
`400 North Michigan Avenue
`Suite 2200
`Chicago, Illinois 60611
`(312) 755-4400
`summerfield@stadheimgrear.com
`
`COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
`ATLAS IP, LLC
`
`Date: March 24, 2016
`
`5
`
`5
`
`

`

`6
`
`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 23-1 Filed 03/21/17 Page 7 of 163 PageID #: 1247
`
`communication cycle by transmitting a
`The access point [hub]establishes a
`
`functions of remotes.
`hub,and the smart meters toperform the
`access point to perform the functions of the
`The wireless protocol designates the
`messages [frames].
`communicate using, inter alia, scheduled
`The access point and smart meters
`
`described below.
`the access point and the smart meters
`wireless protocol specifies the functions of
`the 902-928 MHz frequency band. The
`communicate via a wireless protocolover
`The access point and the smart meters
`
`communicate with one another.
`communication module [remotes] that
`meters equipped with a Silver Spring
`point [hub] and General Electric smart
`networks (“NANs”) comprising an access
`ComEd has established neighborhood area
`
`ComEd System
`
`intervals for outbound and inbound
`A “communication cycle” is “a series of
`1- 3, 11, 18.
`49, 11:28-30, 13:67-14:14, 43:3-17, Figs.
`remotes.” ‘734 Patent at 5:42-66, 10:33-
`communications to and from the
`control protocol to control
`been designated by the medium access
`A “hub” is a “communicator that has
`
`‘734 Patent at 1:41-43.
`A “frame” is “an ordered group of bits.”
`
`LAN-like functionality.”
`power consumed while still permitting
`between the resources to save electrical
`receivers of the means for communicating
`deactivating the transmitters and
`“protocol for selectively activating and
`A “medium access protocol” is a
`
`104109 at *16 (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2014).
`Jude Med., Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`of communication.” Atlas IP, LLC v. St.
`A “communicator” is “a device capable
`
`Construction
`
`communication cycles, each communication
`the hub establishing repeating
`
`communicators of the Group as remotes
`Group as a hub and the remaining the
`designating one of the communicators of the
`
`predetermined functions comprising:
`communicator of the Group to effect
`control protocol controlling each
`the frames respectively, the medium access
`and a receiver for transmitting and receiving
`each communicator including a transmitter
`and receive the frames constituting a Group,
`protocol, the communicators which transmit
`with a predetermined medium access control
`one additional communicator in accordance
`frames to and receiving frames from a least
`A communicator for wirelessly transmitting
`
`Claim 1
`
`Atlas IP, LLC v. Commonwealth Edison Co., No. 1:15-cv-10746
`
`Exhibit B
`
`Case: 1:15-cv-10746 Document #: 25-2 Filed: 03/24/16 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:377
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 23-1 Filed 03/21/17 Page 8 of 163 PageID #: 1248
`
`allowed to transmit frames to the remote
`smart meter [the interval when the hub is
`read request from the access point to the
`length sufficient to transmit a fixed length
`communication cycle,e.g., an interval
`duration of each interval of the
`point informs the smart meter of the
`request message transmitted by the access
`fixed length or duration. The type of
`messages, and the responses thereto, are of
`usage) and power status check request
`The read request (a request for utility
`
`transmission is the starting time.
`message to the smart meter, i.e.,the
`message or the power status check
`access point transmits the read request
`communicated to the smart meter when the
`meter [remote]. The starting time is
`and constituent intervals to the smart
`starting time and duration of the cycle
`The access point [hub]communicates the
`
`communication cycle.
`meter in a subsequent intervalwithin the
`or a power status message to the smart
`and the smart meter sends a read message
`oneinterval in the communication cycle,
`The read request message is sent during
`check message to a smart meter [remote].
`read request message or a power status
`
`7
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2015).
`St. Jude Med., Inc., 804 F.3d 1185, 1188
`may begin transmitting.” Atlas IP, LLC v.
`remotes before the time at which remotes
`must be communicated by the hub to the
`transmission intervals within each cycle
`and duration of the cycle and of remote-
`“[W]e today hold that the starting time
`143 at *42 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 8, 2014).
`Medtronic, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`communication cycle.Atlas IP, LLC v.
`An “interval” occurs within a
`
`Figs. 3, 10-11, 18-19.
`28:64, 32:19- 22, 33:8-27, 37:32-38:33,
`58, 7:12-18, 11:38-55, 13:12-36, 27:54-
`communications.” ‘734 Patent at 5:44-
`
`frame from the hub;
`when each remote is expected to receive a
`allowed to transmit frames to the hub, and
`frames to the remotes, when the remotes are
`ones when the hub is allowed to transmit
`communication cycle, the intervals being
`predeterminable intervals during each
`communication cycle and a plurality of
`information to the remotes to establish the
`the hub transmitting cycle establishing
`
`frames;
`and the remotes transmit and receive
`cycle having intervals during which the hub
`
`Case: 1:15-cv-10746 Document #: 25-2 Filed: 03/24/16 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:378
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 23-1 Filed 03/21/17 Page 9 of 163 PageID #: 1249
`
`meter [remote] powers down the
`In half-duplex communications, a smart
`duplex radio frequency communications.
`with the access point [hub] using half-
`The smart meter [remote] communicates
`
`928 MHz band.
`transceiver that utilizes the licensed 902-
`A smart meter [remote] has a radio
`cycle]
`inbound portion of the communication
`[remote] to the access point [hub] [the
`message is sent from the smart meter
`which a read message or power status
`communication cycle], and the intervalin
`[remote][the outbound portion of the
`the access point [hub] to the smart meter
`status check request messages is sent from
`interval in which a read request or power
`communication cycle, including the
`information establishing the
`above, these message [frames] contain
`bits,”i.e., they are frames. As explained
`request messages are “an ordered group of
`The read request and power status check
`is allowed to transmit frames to the hub].
`access point [the interval when the remote
`response from the smart meter to the
`interval length sufficient to transmit a read
`receive frames from the hub], and an
`and when the remote is expected to
`
`8
`
`143 at *42 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 8, 2014).
`Medtronic, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`communication cycle.Atlas IP, LLC v.
`An “interval” occurs within a
`
`28:38-44.
`power down circuitry.” ‘734 Patent at
`“Powering off” means “to disable or
`
`Figs. 3, 10-11, 18-19.
`28:64, 32:19- 22, 33:8-27, 37:32-38:33,
`58, 7:12-18, 11:38-55, 13:12-36, 27:54-
`communications.” ‘734 Patent at 5:44-
`intervals for outbound and inbound
`A “communication cycle” is “a series of
`
`‘734 Patent at 1:41-43.
`A “frame” is “an ordered group of bits.”
`
`information transmitted from the hub; and
`the hub, by using the cycle establishing
`the remote is allowed to transmit frames to
`during times other than those intervals when
`the remotes powering off their transmitters
`
`allowed to transmit and receive;
`communication cycle when each remote is
`outbound and inbound portions of the
`the predetermined intervals during the
`establishing information also establishing
`hub, the frame containing the cycle
`when the remotes transmit frames to the
`inbound portion of the communication cycle
`transmits frames to the remotes and an
`communication cycle when the hub
`establishes both an outbound portion of the
`cycle establishing information which
`the hub transmitting a frame containing the
`
`Case: 1:15-cv-10746 Document #: 25-2 Filed: 03/24/16 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:379
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 23-1 Filed 03/21/17 Page 10 of 163 PageID #: 1250
`
`above.
`transmitted from the hub, as explained
`Information about such interval is
`status check request messages [frames].
`which it is transmitting the read and power
`interval of the communication cycle in
`circuitry of the radio transceiver during the
`meter [remote] powers down the receiver
`In half-duplex communications, a smart
`duplex radio frequency communications.
`with the access point [hub] using half-
`The smart meter [remote] communicates
`above.
`transmitted from the hub, as explained
`Information about such interval is
`check request messages [frames].
`receiving the read request and power status
`communication cycle in which it is
`transceiver during the interval of the
`transmitter circuitry of the radio
`
`9
`
`143 at *42 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 8, 2014).
`Medtronic, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`communication cycle.Atlas IP, LLC v.
`An “interval” occurs within a
`
`28:38-44.
`power down circuitry.” ‘734 Patent at
`“Powering off” means “to disable or
`
`the hub.
`establishing information transmitted from
`from the hub, by using the cycle
`the remote is expected to receive a frame
`during times other than those intervals when
`the remotes powering off their receivers
`
`Case: 1:15-cv-10746 Document #: 25-2 Filed: 03/24/16 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:380
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 23-1 Filed 03/21/17 Page 11 of 163 PageID #: 1251
`Case 1:16—cv—00830-RGA Document 23-1 Filed 03/21/17 Page 11 of 163 PageID #: 1251
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00830-RGA Document 23-1 Filed 03/21/17 Page 12 of 163 PageID #: 1252
`Case 2:16-cv-02106-PSG-SS Document 1 Filed 03/28/16 Page 1 of 43 Page ID #:1
`
`Tony M. Diab (SBN 277343)
`(tdiab@shb.com)
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
`Jamboree Center
`5 Park Plaza, Suite 1600
`Irvine, California 92614
`Telephone: 949.475.1500
`Facsimile: 949.475.0016
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`TELESIGN CORPORATION
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No. _____________
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)))))))))
`
`)
`
`TELESIGN CORPORATION,
`
` PLAINTIFF,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`TWILIO, INC.,
`
` DEFENDANT.
`
`Plaintiff TeleSign Corporation brings this Complaint for patent infringement
`against Defendant Twilio, Inc. as follows:1
`
`1 Citations to Exhibits that refer to URLs are to true and accurate copies of those URLs as of the date
`visited. Headings are included for readability; the allegations under any given heading are
`not intended to relate solely to that heading and vice versa. All allegations may be applicable
`to any Section, Count, or request.
`
`1
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`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-00830-RGA Document 23-1 Filed 03/21/17 Page 13 of 163 PageID #: 1253
`Case 2:16-cv-02106-PSG-SS Document 1 Filed 03/28/16 Page 2 of 43 Page ID #:2
`
`I. Introduction and Parties
`Plaintiff TeleSign is a California corporation, duly authorized to do business in
`1.
`the State of California, with its principal place of business in Marina Del Rey,
`California.
`2.
`TeleSign is an industry leader in Internet security and user authentication.
`TeleSign is one of the fastest-growing technology companies in North America, sells
`to some of the top websites in the world, and is a market leader in two-step-
`verification technology.
`3.
`TeleSign helps its customers secure billions of end-user accounts worldwide
`and prevent registration fraud.
`4.
`The technology offered by TeleSign gives businesses the ability to connect a
`unique identity with every account to verify new registrations and authenticate users.
`TeleSign helps businesses detect suspicious users and better protect their existing user
`base from account compromise. TeleSign is trusted by some of the world’s largest
`companies to help prevent fraudulent accounts and stop account takeovers.
`5.
`As explained herein, Twilio has harmed TeleSign while benefiting from
`making, selling, offering to sell, and/or using TeleSign’s patented technologies, and
`inducing others to infringe TeleSign’s patent rights without TeleSign’s permission.
`6.
`On information and belief, Defendant Twilio is a Delaware corporation with its
`principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Twilio maintains its principal
`place of business at 645 Harrison Street, San Francisco, California 94107 and can be
`served at 548 Market Street #14510, San Francisco, California 94104.
`7.
`Twilio is reportedly part of the so-called “unicorn club” of companies that are
`valued at over $1 billion. See Exhibit 1.2
`
`2 http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkonrad/2015/05/04/twilio-joins-unicorn-ranks/#205dd3907bf1
`(last accessed March 26, 2016).
`2
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`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-00830-RGA Document 23-1 Filed 03/21/17 Page 14 of 163 PageID #: 1254
`Case 2:16-cv-02106-PSG-SS Document 1 Filed 03/28/16 Page 3 of 43 Page ID #:3
`
`II. TeleSign I
`TeleSign has asserted three patents against Twilio (Patent Nos. 7,945,034;
`8.
`8,462,920 and 8,687,038), in Case No. 2:15-cv-03240-PSG-SS (“TeleSign I”), which
`was filed in this Court on April 30, 2015 and assigned to the Honorable Phillip
`Gutierrez.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`III.
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
`9.
`United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., including §§ 271 and 281. Thus, this Court has
`original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a).
`10.
`Further, because the United States Patent No. 9,300,792 issued just after 12:00
`AM ET on March 29, 2016, this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction.3
`11.
`Twilio is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district. On information and
`belief, Twilio is responsible for acts of infringement occurring in the Central District
`of California (as, for example) alleged in this Complaint, has delivered or caused to be
`delivered infringing products or services in the Central District of California, has
`induced persons in this district to infringe TeleSign’s patents, is doing business in this
`district, recruits personnel from this district, employs employees from this district,
`seeks to employ persons from this district, advertises and markets its products and
`services in this district, seeks to sell its products and services to residents of this
`district (including via its website at www.twilio.com), hosts seminars or shows in this
`district, and did not contest personal jurisdiction in TeleSign I.
`12. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1400(b), 1391(b) and 1391(c).
`
`3 See, e.g., Cerro Wire Inc. v. Southwire Co., 777 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1337 (N.D. Ga. 2011)
`(“Considering the arguments presented by both parties, the Court is persuaded that Cerro's
`approach [applying “absolute time”] is correct and holds that the ’024 Patent was issued just
`after 12:00 a.m. EDT on July 6, 2010, and thus Cerro’s Complaint was filed after the Patent
`issued. Therefore, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this declaratory judgment
`action. Further, the Court finds that this action is the first-filed case regarding the parties’
`dispute over the ’024 Patent.”).
`
`3
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`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-00830-RGA Document 23-1 Filed 03/21/17 Page 15 of 163 PageID #: 1255
`Case 2:16-cv-02106-PSG-SS Document 1 Filed 03/28/16 Page 4 of 43 Page ID #:4
`
`13. At least because Twilio is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district, it is
`deemed to be a resident of this district; thus, venue is proper in this Court under 28
`U.S.C. §§ 1400(b), 1391(b) and 1391(c).
`14. Moreover, TeleSign is headquartered in the Central District of California,
`where the harm from Twilio’s infringement has been and is being felt.
`15.
`In TeleSign I, Twilio moved to transfer the case, but this Court found that
`venue was proper. See TeleSign I, ECF No. 75, pp. 4-7 (Order Denying Defendant’s
`Motions to Dismiss).
`
`IV. U.S. Patent No. 9,300,792
`16. United States Patent No. 9,300,792 (the “’792 Patent,” “Asserted Patent”) is
`entitled “Registration, Verification and Notification System.”
`17.
`Just after 12:00 AM ET on March 29, 2016, the ’792 Patent issued from U.S.
`Patent Application Serial No. 14/678,815 (the ’815 Application), which had published
`as United States Publ. No. 2015/0215889 (the ’889 Publication) on July 30, 2015.
`18. A copy of the Issue Notification for the ’792 Patent is attached as Exhibit 2.
`19. A copy of United States Publ. No. 2015/0215889 is attached as Exhibit 3.
`20.
`TeleSign owns the right, title, and interest in the ’815 Application, the ’889
`Publication, and the ’792 Patent.
`21.
`Each claim of the ’792 Patent is presumed valid and enforceable.
`22.
`Each claim of the ’792 Patent is valid and enforceable.
`23. U.S. Patent Nos. 8,462,920 and 8,687,038 (asserted in TeleSign I) are referred
`to herein as “Parent Patents” to the ’792 Patent.
`24.
`In TeleSign 1, Twilio moved on the pleadings to find the Parent Patents invalid
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as purportedly directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. This
`Court denied that motion, finding that at least claim-construction was necessary.
`TeleSign I, ECF No. 123. TeleSign disclosed a copy of Twilio’s Section 101 motion
`to the Patent Office before it granted that ’792 Patent. The Patent Office considered
`4
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`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-00830-RGA Document 23-1 Filed 03/21/17 Page 16 of 163 PageID #: 1256
`Case 2:16-cv-02106-PSG-SS Document 1 Filed 03/28/16 Page 5 of 43 Page ID #:5
`
`Twilio’s Section 101 motion (Exhibit 4), but still allowed the Application (Exhibit 5)
`and granted the ’792 Patent.
`25.
`The Patent Office granted the ’792 Patent well after the Supreme Court decided
`Alice on June 19, 2014. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347
`(2014).
`26.
`The claims of the ’792 Patent do not recite a mathematical algorithm.
`27.
`The claims of the ’792 Patent do not recite a fundamental economic or
`longstanding commercial practice.
`28.
`In the 2005 or 2006 timeframe, the state of the art was such that performing the
`steps recited in the claims of the ’792 Patent was not conventional or routine. For
`example, it was not routine to receive a user’s telephone number via a computing
`interface, send a verification code via SMS (short message service) to the user, receive
`a submitted verification via the computing interface, verify the telephone if the
`submitted verification code was the same as the communicated verification code,
`complete a registration based on the received information and the verified telephone
`number, maintain a record of notification events associated with actions that require
`acknowledgement by a user, transmit a message to the telephone number upon
`receiving an indication of an occurrence of an established notification event, and
`receiving from the user an acknowledgement of an action associated with the
`established notification event.
`29.
`In the 2005 or 2006 timeframe, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have
`known to receive a user’s telephone number via a computing interface, send a
`verification code via SMS (short message service) to the user, receive a submitted
`verification via the computing interface, verify the telephone if the submitted
`verification code was the same as the communicated verification code, complete a
`registration based on the received information and the verified telephone number,
`maintain a record of notification events associated with actions that require
`
`5
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`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-00830-RGA Document 23-1 Filed 03/21/17 Page 17 of 163 PageID #: 1257
`Case 2:16-cv-02106-PSG-SS Document 1 Filed 03/28/16 Page 6 of 43 Page ID #:6
`
`acknowledgement by a user, transmit a message to the telephone number upon
`receiving an indication of an occurrence of an established notification event, and
`receiving from the user an acknowledgment of an action associated with the
`established notification event.
`30.
`The recited implementation by a computing system is integral to the claimed
`invention.
`31.
`The claimed solution in the ’792 Patent is necessarily rooted in computer
`technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of
`computer networks.
`32. Adhering to the routine, conventional functioning of the prior art would foster
`problems that the ’792 Patent prevents.
`33.
`The ’792 Patent does not broadly and generically claim ‘use of the Internet’ to
`perform an abstract business practice.
`
`V. TeleSign and Twilio are Competitors.
`Twilio offers technology that is similar to TeleSign’s technology.
`34.
`For example, TeleSign offers two-factor authentication technology (see Exhibit
`35.
`6) as so too does Twilio (see Exhibit 74). TeleSign offers technology to prevent
`fraudulent website registrations (see Exhibit 85) as does Twilio (see Exhibit 96).
`36.
`Twilio and TeleSign directly compete for customers and potential customers.
`For example, in 2015, Twilio began increasing publicity of its phone verification
`services in direct competition with TeleSign. See TeleSign I, ECF No. 24-12, ¶ 28.
`TeleSign and Twilio market their products using the same channels. Id., ¶ 29.
`37.
`38.
`TeleSign and Twilio regularly meet or interact with the same customers and
`potential customers on sales calls and during in-person meetings. Id.
`
`4 https://www.twilio.com/authy (last accessed March 16, 2016).
`5 https://www.telesign.com/products/phone-id/ (last accessed March 24, 2016).
`6 https://www.twilio.com/docs/tutorials/walkthrough/account-verification/ruby/rails (last accessed
`March 27, 2016).
`6
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`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-00830-RGA Document 23-1 Filed 03/21/17 Page 18 of 163 PageID #: 1258
`Case 2:16-cv-02106-PSG-SS Document 1 Filed 03/28/16 Page 7 of 43 Page ID #:7
`
`39. Actual or potential customer(s) have considered and/or are considering using
`TeleSign or Twilio to provide multiple solutions. Id., ¶ 36.
`40.
`Twilio has told customer(s) or potential customer(s) it was developing
`technology intended to offer the same features as TeleSign’s technology. Id., ¶ 31.
`41. Customer(s) or potential customer(s) have compared prices of TeleSign’s
`technology to prices of Twilio’s technology. Id., ¶¶ 42-43.
`42.
`TeleSign has suffered price erosion, lost customers, lost goodwill and other
`harm due to Twilio’s competition and infringement of one or more of TeleSign’s
`patented technologies.
`43. Media reports and third parties consider Twilio and TeleSign competitors and
`providers of similar technologies, such as SMS technology (see Exhibit 107) and 2FA
`technology (see Exhibit 118).
`44. Customers and potential customers consider Twilio and TeleSign competitors.
`See Exhibit 39 at pp. 334-335.9
`45. On information and belief, Twilio has developed and or implemented plans to
`take customers and/or market share from TeleSign.
`46.
`TeleSign sought a preliminary injunction in TeleSign I due to harm caused by
`Twilio’s infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,945,034. See TeleSign I, ECF No. 23.
`
`VI. Twilio’s Prior Knowledge of the ’792 Patent and its related Application.
`47.
`Twilio had received a copy of TeleSign’s original complaint in TeleSign I on or
`about April 30, 2015. TeleSign I, ECF No. 79 at ¶ 29.
`48. On information and belief, Twilio had actual notice of the ’815 application on
`or near April 30, 2015, when it was served with the Complaint in TeleSign I,
`particularly given that the Parent Applications and the ’792 Patent share a
`
`7 https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-product-comparisons-of-global-SMS-vendors-such-as-
`Nexmo-Twilio-and-TeleSign (last accessed March 15, 2016).
`8 https://developer.salesforce.com/page/SMS-2FA (last accessed March 15, 2016).
`9 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9299005 (last accessed March 28, 2016).
`7
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRIN