Case 1:17-cv-01503-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/24/17 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`GUADA TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VICE MEDIA LLC,
`
`
`
`
` CIVIL ACTION NO. ______________
`
`
` PATENT CASE
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Guada Technologies LLC files this Original Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`against Vice Media LLC and would respectfully show the Court as follows:
`
`
`
`I. THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Guada Technologies LLC (“Guada” or “Plaintiff”) is a Texas limited
`
`liability company with its principal place of business at 2591 Dallas Parkway, Suite 300, Frisco,
`
`Texas 75034.
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Vice Media LLC (“Defendant”) is a
`
`Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 99 North 10th Street, Suite 204,
`
`Brooklyn, NY 11211.
`
`II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the
`
`United States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of such action under 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`1331 and 1338(a).
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant is subject to this Court’s specific and
`
`general personal jurisdiction, pursuant to due process and the Delaware Long-Arm Statute, due
`
`at least to its business and existence in this forum, including at least a portion of the
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01503-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/24/17 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 2
`
`
`infringements alleged herein. Furthermore, Defendant is subject to this Court’s specific and
`
`general personal jurisdiction because Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
`
`5.
`
`Without limitation, on information and belief, within this state, Defendant has
`
`used the patented inventions thereby committing, and continuing to commit, acts of patent
`
`infringement alleged herein. In addition, on information and belief, Defendant has derived
`
`revenue from its infringing acts occurring within Delaware. Further, on information and belief,
`
`Defendant is subject to the Court’s general jurisdiction, including from regularly doing or
`
`soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses of conduct, and deriving revenue from
`
`goods and services provided to persons or entities in Delaware. Further, on information and
`
`belief, Defendant is subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction at least due to its sale of products
`
`and/or services through the Accused Instrumentality within Delaware. Defendant has committed
`
`such purposeful acts and/or transactions in Delaware such that it reasonably should know and
`
`expect that it could be haled into this Court as a consequence of such activity.
`
`6.
`
`Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). On information and
`
`belief, Defendant is incorporated in Delaware. On information and belief, from and within this
`
`District Defendant has committed at least a portion of the infringements at issue in this case.
`
`7.
`
` For these reasons, personal jurisdiction exists and venue is proper in this Court.
`
`III. COUNT I
`(PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,231,379)
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs herein by reference.
`
`On June 12, 2007, United States Patent No. 7,231,379 (“the ‘379 Patent”) was
`
`duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The ‘379 Patent is
`
`titled “Navigation in a Hierarchical Structured Transaction Processing System.” The application
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01503-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/24/17 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 3
`
`
`leading to the ‘379 Patent was filed on November 19, 2002. A true and correct copy of the ‘379
`
`Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff is the assignee of all right, title and interest in the ‘379 patent, including
`
`all rights to enforce and prosecute actions for infringement and to collect damages for all
`
`relevant times against infringers of the ‘379 patent. Accordingly, Plaintiff possesses the
`
`exclusive right and standing to prosecute the present action for infringement of the ‘379 Patent
`
`by Defendant.
`
`11.
`
`The ‘379 patent is directed to addresses a problem of navigating network vertices
`
`in a programmed computer that has a hierarchically configured decisional network that must be
`
`navigated as part of the processing, and that is constructed to accept inputs or data. (Ex. A at col.
`
`2:25-30). The object of navigating the system is to get the user from one vertex (usually starting
`
`with the first vertex) of the system to the goal vertices as quickly and efficiently as possible. (Id.
`
`at col. 2:9-12). Prior art systems required users to navigate the vertices in set pathways that
`
`made it difficult for a user to reach goal vertices. (Id. at col. 2:10-18). The inventors of the ‘379
`
`patent therefore developed a method in which a user can navigate a hierarchically configured
`
`decisional network in a way that allows the user to skip from one vertex to another vertex that
`
`may be many rows down the hierarchically configured decisional network and/or where the
`
`vertices may not be connected together adjacently. (Id. at col. 3:29-34). This can be
`
`accomplished in one embodiment by associating each vertex with one or more verbal
`
`descriptions (or prompts), and matching words in users’ requests and responses with those verbal
`
`descriptions to enable the selection of vertices that may not be directly connected to the user’s
`
`current location in the hierarchically configured decisional network. (Id. at col. 3:35-43).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01503-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/24/17 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 4
`
`
`
`12.
`
`The ‘379 patent has been cited as prior art during the prosecution history of
`
`United States patents assigned to IBM, Fujitsu Limited, and Harris Corporation.
`
`13.
`
`Direct Infringement. Upon information and belief, Defendant has been and now
`
`is directly infringing at least claim 1 of the ‘379 patent in the State of Delaware, in this District,
`
`and elsewhere in the United States, by actions comprising making, using, and/or performing a
`
`method for navigating multiple navigable nodes interconnected in a hierarchical arrangement
`
`using the website at https://www.viceland.com/en_us and associated subsites, web pages and
`
`functionality within that website (the “Accused Instrumentality”). For example, the Accused
`
`Instrumentality utilizes a method performed in a system having multiple navigable nodes (the
`
`Accused Instrumentality has different product categories (nodes) for selection by a user (e.g.,
`
`Shows, Schedule, Watch Free, etc.)) interconnected in a hierarchical arrangement (e.g., from the
`
`home page node, users can go to nodes such as “Shows”, “Schedule” and “Watch Free”; and
`
`then within a node, such as Shows, Viceland contains nodes of particular shows which in turn
`
`contain particular episodes). The Accused Instrumentality performs the step, at a first node, of
`
`receiving an input from a user of the system (e.g., Accused Instrumentality utilizes a search box
`
`on the home page node for accepting an input from a user), the input from the user contains at
`
`least one word identifiable with at least one keyword from among multiple keywords (the input
`
`from the user contains one or more words identifiable with at least one keyword, which is used
`
`by Viceland to identify particular episodes from Viceland Shows). The Accused Instrumentality
`
`also performs the step of identifying at least one node, other than the first node, that is not
`
`directly connected to the first node but is associated with the at least one keyword, and jumps to
`
`the at least one node. For example, the Accused Instrumentality identifies a particular episode
`
`relating to the keyword input by the user and allows jumping to those items/nodes without
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01503-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/24/17 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 5
`
`
`traversing preceding generic category nodes (e.g., Shows, “Abandoned”- a particular show, etc.)
`
`in the hierarchy.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of Defendant’s infringing conduct.
`
`Defendant is thus liable to Plaintiff for damages in an amount that adequately compensates
`
`Plaintiff for such Defendant’s infringement of the ‘379 patent, i.e., in an amount that by law
`
`cannot be less than would constitute a reasonable royalty for the use of the patented technology,
`
`together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`15.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant will continue its infringement of one or
`
`more claims of the ‘379 patent unless enjoined by the Court. Furthermore, the Defendant’s
`
`infringing conduct thus causes Plaintiff irreparable harm and will continue to cause such harm
`
`without the issuance of an injunction.
`
`16.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has had at least constructive notice of the
`
`‘379 patent by operation of law, and there are no marking requirements that have not been
`
`complied with.
`
`
`
`IV. JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury of
`
`any issues so triable by right.
`
`V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court find in its favor and against
`
`Defendant, and that the Court grant Plaintiff the following relief:
`
`a.
`
`Judgment that one or more claims of United States Patent No. 7,231,379 have
`been infringed, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by
`Defendant;
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01503-RGA Document 1 Filed 10/24/17 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 6
`
`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`
`e.
`
`Judgment that Defendant account for and pay to Plaintiff all damages to and costs
`incurred by Plaintiff because of Defendant’s infringing activities and other
`conduct complained of herein;
`
`That Plaintiff be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages
`caused by Defendant’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of
`herein;
`
`That Defendant be permanently enjoined from any further activity or conduct that
`infringes one or more claims of United States Patent No. 7,231,379; and
`
`That Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just
`and proper under the circumstances.
`
`
`
`
`October 24, 2017
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`David R. Bennett
`Direction IP Law
`P.O. Box 14184
`Chicago, IL 60614-0184
`(312) 291-1667
`dbennett@directionip.com
`
`
`STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC
`
` /s/ Stamatios Stamoulis
`Stamatios Stamoulis
`Two Fox Point Centre
`6 Denny Road, Suite 307
`Wilmington, DE 19809
`(302) 999-1540
`stamoulis@swdelaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Guada Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`