Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 1 of 20
`
`Patrick H. Hicks, Bar No. 004632
`phicks@littler.com
`Kelsey E. Stegall, Bar No. 14279
`kstegall@littler.com
`LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
`3960 Howard Hughes Parkway, #300
`Las Vegas, Nevada 89169.5937
`Telephone:
`702.862.8800
`Local Counsel
`-
`
`Michael A. Oblon*
`District of Columbia Bar No. 459363
`moblon@jonesday.com
`JONES DAY
`51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20001
`Telephone: 202.879.3939
`
`Keith Davis*
`Texas State Bar No. 24037895
`kbdavis@jonesday.com
`JONES DAY
`2727 North Harwood
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: 214.969.4528
`
`H. Albert Liou*
`Texas State Bar No. 24061608
`aliou@jonesday.com
`JONES DAY
`717 Texas Ave. Suite 3300
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone: 832.239.3939
`*To apply for admission pro hac vice.
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`ALLEGIANT TRAVEL COMPANY
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEVADA
`
`ALLEGIANT TRAVEL COMPANY,
`
` Case No.
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`R2 SOLUTIONS LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
` COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
` JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRIGEMENT
`
`- 1 -
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 2 of 20
`
`INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Allegiant Travel Company (“Allegiant”) brings this action arising under the
`
`Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §
`
`1 et seq., seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement of United States Patent Nos. 7,698,329
`
`(“the ’329 Patent”); 8,190,610 (“ the ’610 Patent”); 8,307,029 (“the ’029 Patent”); 8,527,623 (“the
`
`’623 Patent”); 9,558,175 (“the ’175 Patent”); 10,176,272 (“the ’272 Patent”); and 8,341,157 (“the
`
`’157 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”).
`
`2.
`
`Allegiant seeks this relief because Defendant R2 Solutions LLC ( “R2”), has accused
`
`Allegiant of infringing the Patents-in-Suit and has engaged in a patent enforcement campaign
`
`resulting in 22 lawsuits. R2’s actions have placed a cloud over Allegiant and its technology
`
`platforms. Allegiant believes it is not infringing the Patents-in-Suit and therefore asks this Court to
`
`declare Allegiant’s legal rights so that Allegiant may be granted relief from the uncertainty
`
`regarding its rights caused by Defendant.
`
`PARTIES
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Allegiant is a Nevada corporation having a principal place of business at
`
`1201 North Town Center Drive, Las Vegas, Nevada 89144. Founded in 1997, Allegiant provides
`
`travel and leisure services to under-served cities in the United States. Allegiant operates a low-cost
`
`passenger airline marketed primarily to leisure travelers in under-served cities. Allegiant also
`
`provides booking for certain third party travel products such as hotel rooms and ground
`
`transportation via Allegiant’s website, www.allegiantair.com.
`
`4.
`
`Allegiant employs over 3,800 employees, including department of Information
`
`Technology (IT) employees who reside or work in Nevada. Allegiant’s Las Vegas offices are also
`
`the headquarters for Allegiant’s corporate operations, including the operation, development, and
`
`maintenance of Allegiant’s website and information technology systems. Allegiant’s maintenance
`
`department is also headquartered in Las Vegas, where Allegiant’s technicians maintain its aircraft
`
`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
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 3 of 20
`
`fleet via Allegiant’s Federal Aviation Administration approved maintenance program.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant R2 Solutions LLC (“R2”) is a limited liability company organized under
`
`the laws of the State of Texas, with its principal place of business at 6136 Frisco Square Blvd.,
`
`Suite 400, Frisco, Texas, 75034. On information and belief, R2 has no employees and conducts no
`
`business operations other than filing patent lawsuits and entering agreements to settle patent
`
`lawsuits and/or license patents in return for a fully-paid upfront fee.
`
`6.
`
`R2 is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Acacia Research Corporation, a Delaware
`
`corporation. Acacia Research Corporation also wholly owns Acacia Research Group LLC, a Texas
`
`limited liability company that also has a principal place of business at 6136 Frisco Square Blvd.
`
`Suite 400, Frisco, TX 75034. On information and belief, Acacia Research Corporation and Acacia
`
`Research Group LLC conduct no business operations other than creating subsidiary companies that
`
`file patent lawsuits and enter agreements to settle patent lawsuits and/or license patents in return for
`
`a fully-paid upfront fee.
`
`7.
`
`Evan W. Woolley, who has identified himself as Vice President of Licensing at
`
`Acacia Research Group LLC, and whose business address is 4 Park Plaza, Suite 550, Irvine,
`
`California, 92614, has on at least several occasions contacted Allegiant in his capacity as an agent
`
`of R2, as described in more detail below. On information and belief, Mr. Woolley has
`
`communicated with various other potential licensees of R2’s patents in his capacity as an agent of
`
`R2.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This action arises under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., and
`
`the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
`
`9.
`
`This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`1331, 1338(a), 2201, and 2202.
`
`10.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties because R2 has consciously and
`
`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
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 4 of 20
`
`purposefully directed its patent enforcement activities at this Judicial District, including by
`
`contacting Allegiant’s officers and employees in this District on numerous occasions over the
`
`course of a year to propose that Allegiant enter into a license due to its alleged infringement, as well
`
`as entering into a nondisclosure agreement with Allegiant, a Nevada corporation. R2 is subject to
`
`personal jurisdiction because it has established the requisite minimum contacts with this District,
`
`including by deliberately directing its efforts in enforcing the Patents-in-Suit at Nevada.
`
`11.
`
`Venue in this Judicial District is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) because
`
`R2 is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District, and because a substantial part of the events
`
`giving rise to Allegiant’s claims occurred in this District.
`
`A.
`
`Defendant has established extensive contacts with this District by directing
`its licensing and enforcement efforts with respect to the Patents-in-Suit at
`this District.
`
`12.
`
`Over the past year, Defendant R2 has consciously and deliberately directed written
`
`and oral communications to Allegiant and its officers and employees in this District regarding the
`
`licensing and enforcement of the Patents-in-Suit, and has also entered into an agreement with
`
`Allegiant, a Nevada corporation, relating to the licensing of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`13.
`
`On June 1, 2021, Allegiant’s CEO Maurice Gallagher, a resident of Nevada, was
`
`contacted via letter by Evan W. Woolley, vice president of licensing for Acacia Research Group
`
`LLC. In the letter Mr. Woolley offered Allegiant a license to R2 Solutions’ portfolio of patents that
`
`was formerly owned by Yahoo! Inc.
`
`14.
`
`At that time, R2 had already begun an extensive patent enforcement campaign
`
`relating to its Yahoo! portfolio of patents, filing ten patent infringement lawsuits between January
`
`29, 2021 and June 1, 2021, against a myriad of defendants in different industries. The defendants
`
`sued by R2 included Workday, Inc., Target Corporation, Walmart Inc., Deezer SA, Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc., Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, The Charles Schwab Corporation,
`
`JPMorgan Chase & Co., Roku, Inc., and iHeartMedia, Inc.
`
`- 4 -
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 5 of 20
`
`15.
`
`Each of the lawsuits alleged infringement of patents formerly owned by Yahoo! Inc.
`
`In each of the lawsuits, R2 touted the strength of its portfolio of Yahoo! patents.
`
`16.
`
`For example, the lawsuits against Target Corporation, Walmart, Inc., Deezer, S.A.
`
`Roku, Inc. and iHeartMedia, Inc. alleged that search functionality relating to those companies’
`
`websites or music applications infringed the ’329 patent.
`
`17.
`
`The lawsuits against Workday, Inc., Target Corporation, Walmart, Inc., Deezer,
`
`S.A., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, The Charles Schwab
`
`Corporation, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Roku, Inc. and iHeartMedia, Inc. alleged that those
`
`companies’ data analytics platforms, including through their use of Apache Hadoop with
`
`MapReduce, infringed the ’610 patent. Apache Hadoop is an open source framework for managing
`
`big data sets that is utilized by many different companies across multiple industries.
`
`18.
`
`The lawsuit against Samsung Electronics America, Inc. alleged that its Samsung
`
`SmartThings technology infringed the ’029 patent.
`
`19.
`
`The lawsuits against Workday, Inc., Target Corporation, Walmart, Inc., Deezer,
`
`S.A., Roku, Inc. and iHeartMedia, Inc. alleged that search functionality relating to those companies’
`
`websites or music applications infringed the ’157 patent.
`
`20.
`
`On October 18, 2021, Mr. Woolley emailed Mr. Gallagher to follow up on R2’s
`
`license offer. Mr. Woolley’s email referenced his June 1, 2021 letter “offering a broad license to
`
`the Yahoo! patent portfolio.” A true and correct copy of this email is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`Mr. Woolley reported to Mr. Gallagher that “[s]ince the last correspondence with you, R2 Solutions
`
`has licensed many companies through negotiated deals at our discounted royalty rates, and has
`
`resolved several lawsuits with companies including Samsung, Workday, and Fidelity, to name a
`
`few.” Ex. A at 8.
`
`21.
`
`One week later, on October 25, 2021, Mr. Woolley again contacted Mr. Gallagher
`
`for a call to discuss, among other things, “licensing options for Allegiant Air.” Ex. A at 7. On the
`
`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
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 6 of 20
`
`same day, Mr. Gallagher forwarded the email from Mr. Woolley to Laura Overton, Allegiant’s
`
`General Counsel and Vice President of Legal Affairs, who is also a resident of Nevada. Ex. A at 7.
`
`22.
`
`Later that day, Ms. Overton responded to Mr. Woolley’s email, asking Mr. Woolley
`
`to “forward any future correspondence to Don Niles, [Allegiant’s] external intellectual property
`
`counsel.” Ex. A at 7.
`
`23.
`
`On the same day, Mr. Woolley responded by email to both Ms. Overton and Mr.
`
`Niles, attaching a draft of a “mutually beneficial Non-Disclosure Agreement.” Ex. A at 6.
`
`According to Mr. Woolley, “[t]he NDA will enable us to share more information about the
`
`portfolio, applicability to Allegiant, and licensing options.” Ex. A at 6. The draft NDA was drafted
`
`to be entered between R2 Solutions LLC, a Texas limited liability company, and Allegiant Travel
`
`Company, a Nevada corporation.
`
`24.
`
`On October 27, 2021, Mr. Niles sent an email to Mr. Woolley, copying Ms. Overton,
`
`and returning a copy of the NDA that was signed on behalf of Allegiant. In his email, Mr. Niles
`
`stated: “The only issue we have with the NDA was the Governing Law provision (formerly
`
`paragraph 10) which we deleted. If acceptable, please have R2 Solutions execute and return a copy
`
`to us.” Ex. A at 6.
`
`25.
`
`On the same day, Mr. Woolley sent an email to Mr. Niles and Ms. Overton, stating,
`
`“We would prefer the certainty of having the governing law set out in the NDA. In the attached
`
`redline we propose New York as a neutral jurisdiction. We are comfortable with California as well.
`
`Please let us know if either of those are acceptable to Allegiant.” Ex. A at 6. On information and
`
`belief, R2 was aware that if the NDA did not contain a governing law clause, a dispute under
`
`agreement could be found to be governed by Nevada law.
`
`26.
`
`On October 28, 2021, Mr. Niles responded, stating, “The Governing Law provision
`
`in the NDA seems to undercut the status quo ante protections of the NDA. Allegiant would prefer
`
`to simply not have this provision for this reason.” Ex. A at 5.
`
`- 6 -
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 7 of 20
`
`27.
`
`Between October 28, 2021, and November 29, 2021, Mr. Woolley and Mr. Niles
`
`exchanged nine more emails about the draft NDA’s governing law provision, copying Ms. Overton.
`
`Mr. Niles insisted either on the law of Nevada as the governing law, or proceeding with the NDA
`
`without a governing law provision. On December 6, 2021, Mr. Woolley finally agreed and sent an
`
`email to Mr. Niles and Ms. Overton, attaching a “fully executed NDA between Allegiant and R2
`
`Solutions.” Ex. A at 1. A true and correct copy of the executed NDA is attached as Exhibit B. The
`
`stated purpose of the NDA was for the parties to enter into “licensing negotiations, during which
`
`either Party may disclose certain Confidential Information with the other Party.”
`
`28.
`
`Around January 6, 2022, Mr. Woolley commenced a phone call with Mr. Niles and
`
`Ms. Overton to discuss R2’s patents, after which he provided claim charts mapping Allegiant’s
`
`technologies as infringing the claims of the ’329 patent, the ’610 patent, the ’029 patent, the ’623
`
`patent, and the ’175 patent.
`
`29.
`
`After not receiving an immediate response from Allegiant, Mr. Woolley sent follow-
`
`up emails to Mr. Niles and Ms. Overton on January 12, 2022, and again on January 21, 2022. Mr.
`
`Woolley, Ms. Overton, and Mr. Niles then spoke on another conference call on February 16, 2022,
`
`about R2’s licensing proposal. Mr. Woolley followed up two more times on March 7, 2022 and
`
`March 21, 2022, via emails to Mr. Niles and Ms. Overton.
`
`30.
`
`On April 29, 2022, Ms. Overton sent an email to Mr. Woolley explaining that
`
`Allegiant did not believe it infringed the ’329 patent, the ’610 patent, the ’029 patent, the ’623
`
`patent, and the ’175 patent. Ms. Overton also asked Mr. Woolley to identify what was confidential
`
`about R2’s claim charts.
`
`31. Mr. Woolley responded to Ms. Overton by email on the same day, stating that the
`
`confidential information in R2’s claim charts consisted of its mapping of the patent claims onto
`
`Allegiant’s technologies.
`
`32.
`
`On May 12, 2022, Mr. Woolley sent an email to Ms. Overton, disagreeing with
`
`- 7 -
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 8 of 20
`
`Allegiant’s positions in Ms. Overton’s April 29, 2022 email. Mr. Woolley attached new claim
`
`charts mapping Allegiant’s technologies as infringing the ’272 patent and the ’157 patent. After not
`
`receiving a response, Mr. Woolley sent another email to Ms. Overton and Ms. Niles on May 19,
`
`2022 to follow up.
`
`33.
`
`By this time, R2 has expanded its patent enforcement campaign significantly.
`
`Subsequent to June 1, 2021, R2 filed twelve additional patent infringement lawsuits against
`
`companies in various industries. The defendants in those lawsuits included Expedia Group, Inc.,
`
`Roku, Inc., Redfin Corporation, Agoda Company Pte. Ltd., Booking.com Transport Limited,
`
`Booking.com BV, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, FedEx Corporate Services,
`
`Inc., Citigroup Inc., Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc., CVS Health Corporation, and American
`
`Airlines, Inc. The accused patents against these defendants included the ’329 patent, the ’610
`
`patent, and the ’157 patent.
`
`34.
`
`For example, the lawsuits against Expedia Group, Inc., Redfin Corporation, Agoda
`
`Company Pte. Ltd., Booking.com Transport Limited, Booking.com BV, State Farm Mutual
`
`Automobile Insurance Company, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc., Citigroup Inc., Hilton Worldwide
`
`Holdings Inc., CVS Health Corporation, and American Airlines, Inc. alleged that search
`
`functionality relating to those companies’ websites or mobile applications infringed the ’329 patent.
`
`35.
`
`The lawsuits against Expedia Group, Inc., Roku Corporation, Redfin Corporation,
`
`Agoda Company Pte. Ltd., Booking.com Transport Limited, Booking.com BV, State Farm Mutual
`
`Automobile Insurance Company, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc., Citigroup Inc., Hilton Worldwide
`
`Holdings Inc., CVS Health Corporation, and American Airlines, Inc. alleged that those companies’
`
`data analytics platforms infringed the ’610 patent.
`
`36.
`
`The lawsuits against Expedia Group, Inc., Redfin Corporation, Agoda Company Pte.
`
`Ltd., Booking.com Transport Limited, Booking.com BV, FedEx Corporate Services, Inc., Citigroup
`
`Inc., Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc., CVS Health Corporation, and American Airlines, Inc.
`
`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
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 9 of 20
`
`alleged that search functionality relating to those companies’ websites or mobile applications
`
`infringed the ’157 patent.
`
`B.
`
`37.
`
`A real and immediate controversy exists between Allegiant and R2.
`
`R2’s correspondence to Allegiant and its numerous patent lawsuits against other
`
`companies has placed Allegiant in reasonable apprehension of a lawsuit against Allegiant regarding
`
`the alleged infringement of R2’s patents.
`
`38.
`
`Through its communications Allegiant’s officers, employees, and lawyers described
`
`above, as well as its extensive patent enforcement campaign against various companies implicating
`
`their websites and music applications with search functionality, mobile applications, data analytics
`
`platforms, and other information technology platforms, R2 has created a real and immediate
`
`controversy between Allegiant and R2 regarding the alleged infringement of R2’s patents by
`
`Allegiant’s technologies. Allegiant risks a lawsuit by continuing to use its technologies, including
`
`its www.allegiantair.com website, mobile application, and other information technology platforms.
`
`39.
`
`R2’s actions have thus created a substantial controversy of sufficient immediacy and
`
`reality regarding Allegiant’s use of its technologies to warrant the issuance of a declaratory
`
`judgment of non-infringement.
`
`COUNT I: NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’329 PATENT
`
`40.
`
`Allegiant repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1
`
`through 39 as though fully set forth herein.
`
`41.
`
`A true and correct copy of the ’329 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The ’329
`
`patent is entitled “Method for Improving Quality of Search Results by Avoiding Indexing Sections
`
`of Pages.” It issued on April 13, 2010, from an application filed on January 10, 2007. Priyank S.
`
`Garg, Amit J. Basu, and Timothy M. Converse are the named inventors. The ’329 patent contains
`
`14 claims reciting apparatus and methods for ranking a plurality of documents recalled by a search
`
`engine for a query. On information and belief, the ’329 patent is assigned to R2.
`
`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
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 10 of 20
`
`42.
`
`Allegiant, through its systems, products, and processes, including at least the
`
`www.allegiantair.com website, is not infringing any claim of the ’329 patent.
`
`43.
`
`For example, claim 1 of the ’329 patent reads:
`
`1. A method, comprising:
`
`ranking a plurality of documents recalled by a search engine for a query;
`
`wherein the plurality of documents contain certain documents, each document of
`said certain documents containing at least one section that is not used by said
`search engine for recall and one or more sections that are used by said search
`engine for recall;
`
`wherein ranking a plurality of documents includes ranking said plurality of
`documents based, at least in part, on the at least one section of said certain
`documents not used by said search engine to recall documents; and
`
`wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices.
`
`44.
`
`Allegiant’s systems, products, and processes, including at least the
`
`www.allegiantair.com website, do not have the specific functionality claimed by the ’329 patent,
`
`including, for example, ranking a plurality of documents that contain at least one section that is not
`
`used by a search engine for recall, based on said section that is not used by a search engine to recall
`
`documents. Allegiant’s www.allegiantair.com website does not recall “documents”, including
`
`“documents” with sections, in the course of operation. Allegiant does not maintain data in any
`
`“documents.” Further, when Allegiant’s website uses data from third parties, the search is
`
`conducted on the third-parties’ data instead of Allegiant’s own data records.
`
`45.
`
`An actual and justiciable controversy therefore exists between Allegiant and R2 as to
`
`whether Allegiant is infringing the ’329 patent. A judicial declaration is necessary to determine the
`
`parties’ respective rights regarding the ’329 patent. Allegiant is entitled to a judgment declaring
`
`that it is not infringing the ’329 patent.
`
`COUNT II: NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’610 PATENT
`
`46.
`
`Allegiant repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1
`
`through 45 as through fully stated herein.
`
`- 10 -
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 11 of 20
`
`47.
`
`A true and correct copy of the ’610 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D. The ’610
`
`patent is entitled “MapReduce for Distributed Database Processing.” The ’610 patent issued on
`
`May 29, 2012, from an application filed October 5, 2006. Ali Dasdan, Hung-Chih Yang, and Ruey-
`
`Lung Hsiao are the named inventors. The ’610 patent contains 46 claims reciting methods and
`
`systems for treating an input data set as a plurality of grouped sets to enhance the utility of
`
`MapReduce programming methodology. On information and belief, the ’610 patent is assigned to
`
`R2.
`
`48.
`
`Allegiant, through its systems, products, and processes, including at least the
`
`www.allegiantair.com website, is not infringing any claim of the ’610 patent.
`
`49.
`
`For example, claim 1 of the ‘610 patent reads,
`
`1. A method of processing data of a data set over a distributed system, wherein the data
`set comprises a plurality of data groups, the method comprising:
`
`partitioning the data of each one of the data groups into a plurality of data partitions
`that each have a plurality of key-value pairs and providing each data partition to
`a selected one of a plurality of mapping functions that are each user-configurable
`to independently output a plurality of lists of values for each of a set of keys
`found in such map function's corresponding data partition to form corresponding
`intermediate data for that data group and identifiable to that data group, wherein
`the data of a first data group has a different schema than the data of a second data
`group and the data of the first data group is mapped differently than the data of
`the second data group so that different lists of values are output for the
`corresponding different intermediate data, wherein the different schema and
`corresponding different intermediate data have a key in common; and
`
`reducing the intermediate data for the data groups to at least one output data group,
`including processing the intermediate data for each data group in a manner that is
`defined to correspond to that data group, so as to result in a merging of the
`corresponding different intermediate data based on the key in common,
`
`wherein the mapping and reducing operations are performed by a distributed system.
`
`50.
`
`Allegiant’s systems, products, and processes, including at least its information
`
`technology platforms, do not have the specific limitations of the ’610 patent, including, for
`
`example, using MapReduce to process data over a distributed system or to process data from a
`
`plurality of groups having different schema over a computer system. According to the ‘610 patent,
`
`- 11 -
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 12 of 20
`
`
`
`under a MapReduce programming methodology, “a ‘map’ function maps key-value pairs to new
`
`(intermediate) key-value pairs” and “[a] ‘reduce’ function represents all mapped (intermediate) key-
`
`value pairs sharing the same key to a single key-value pair or a list of values.” Allegiant has never
`
`installed a system on its computer servers, such as Apache Hadoop or Apache Spark, that uses
`
`MapReduce or analogous algorithm to process data. Allegiant is not using a MapReduce program.
`
`51.
`
`An actual and justiciable controversy therefore exists between Allegiant and R2 as to
`
`whether Allegiant is infringing the ’610 patent. A judicial declaration is necessary to determine the
`
`parties’ respective rights regarding the ’610 patent. Allegiant is entitled to a judgment declaring
`
`that it is not infringing the ’610 patent.
`
`COUNT III: NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’029 PATENT
`
`52.
`
`Allegiant repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1
`
`through 51 as through fully stated herein.
`
`53.
`
`A true and correct copy of the ’029 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E. The ’029
`
`patent is entitled “System and Method for Conditional Delivery of Messages.” The ’029 patent
`
`issued on November 6, 2012, from an application filed December 10, 2007. Marc Eliot Davis,
`
`Marco Boerries, Christopher William Higgins, Joseph James O’Sullivan, Ronald Martinez, and
`
`Robert Carter Trout are the named inventors. The ’029 patent contains 20 claims, which recite
`
`methods, systems, and apparatus for delivering a message in accordance with delivery conditions.
`
`On information and belief, the ’029 patent is assigned to R2.
`
`54.
`
`Allegiant, through its systems, products, and processes, including at least the
`
`www.allegiantair.com website and Allegiant’s mobile application, is not infringing any claim of the
`
`’029 patent.
`
`55.
`
`For example, claim 1 of the ’029 patent reads,
`
`1. A method comprising:
`
`- 12 -
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 13 of 20
`
`
`
`receiving from a sender, at a computing device, a request to deliver a first message a
`recipient, the request identifying at least one delivery condition set by the sender;
`
`identifying, via the computing device, at least one real world entity (RWE) and
`information object (IO) associated with the at least one delivery condition;
`
`retrieving, at the computing device, W4 COMN data associated with each of the
`identified at least one RWE and IO, the W4 COMN data comprising social data,
`spatial data, temporal data and logical data available to the network associated
`with the at least one RWE and IO;
`
`monitoring, via the computing device, the W4 COMN data for current information
`related to the at least one RWE and IO indicating to determine that the at least
`one delivery condition is met; and
`
`delivering, over a network, the first message when the at least one delivery condition
`is met.
`
`56.
`
`Allegiant’s systems, products, and processes, including at least the
`
`www.allegiantair.com website and Allegiant’s mobile application, do not have the specific
`
`functionality of the ’029 patent, including, for example, retrieving and monitoring W4 COMN data
`
`consisting of social data, spatial data, temporal data and logical data associated with a real world
`
`entity. Allegiant does not monitor W4 COMN data.
`
`57.
`
`An actual and justiciable controversy therefore exists between Allegiant and R2 as to
`
`whether Allegiant is infringing the ’029 patent. A judicial declaration is necessary to determine the
`
`parties’ respective rights regarding the ’029 patent. Allegiant is entitled to a judgment declaring
`
`that it is not infringing the ’029 patent.
`
`COUNT IV: NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’623 PATENT
`
`58.
`
`Allegiant repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1
`
`through 57 as through fully stated herein.
`
`59.
`
`A true and correct copy of the ’623 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit F. The ’623
`
`patent is entitled “User Vacillation Detection and Response.” The ’623 patent issued on September
`
`3, 2013, from an application filed December 21, 2007. Cameron Marlow, Sihem Amer-Yahia,
`
`Ronald J. Brachman, and Frederick K. Schmidt are the named inventors. The ’623 patent contains
`
`- 13 -
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 14 of 20
`
`
`
`23 claims directed to detecting when a user is in a state of vacillation and responding accordingly.
`
`On information and belief, the ’623 patent is assigned to R2.
`
`60.
`
`Allegiant, through its systems, products, and processes, including
`
`www.allegiantair.com website, is not infringing any claim of the ’623 patent.
`
`61.
`
`For example, claim 1 of the ’623 patent reads,
`
`1. A method for detecting and responding to user vacillation, comprising:
`
`obtaining, by a processor, information associated with on-line behavior of a user;
`
`automatically detecting, by the processor, a vacillation pattern relating to at least one
`object based on the obtained information;
`
`constructing, by the processor, a vacillation event data structure based on the
`obtained information in response to detecting the vacillation pattern, the
`vacillation event data structure comprises information associated with the user,
`the at least one object, and a degree of vacillation demonstrated by the user with
`respect to the at least one object; and
`
`providing, by the processor, information relating to the at least one object associated
`with the vacillation pattern to the user in response to detecting the vacillation
`pattern.
`
`62.
`
`Allegiant’s systems, products, and processes, including at least the
`
`www.allegiantair.com website, do not have the specific functionality claimed by the ’623 patent,
`
`including, for example, detecting user vacillation, recording relevant parameters regarding the
`
`vacillation, and responding accordingly. Allegiant does not run code to detect and respond to user
`
`vacillation.
`
`63.
`
`An actual and justiciable controversy therefore exists between Allegiant and R2 as to
`
`whether Allegiant is infringing the ’623 patent. A judicial declaration is necessary to determine the
`
`parties’ respective rights regarding the ’623 patent. Allegiant is entitled to a judgment declaring
`
`that it is not infringing the ’623 patent.
`
`COUNT V: NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’175 PATENT
`
`64.
`
`Allegiant repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs 1
`
`through 63 as through fully stated herein.
`
`- 14 -
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00828-CDS-BNW Document 1 Filed 05/24/22 Page 15 of 20
`
`
`
`65.
`
`A true and correct copy of the ’175 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit G. The ’175
`
`patent is entitled “Generating an Individualized Web Page Template with Entities of a Web Page
`
`Publisher Organization Associated with Areas of the Template.” The ’175 patent issued on January
`
`31, 2017, from an application filed September 13, 2012. Evgeniy Makeev, Jeff Budzinski, Scott
`
`Roy, Annie Cheng, and Timothy Daly are the named inventors. The ’175 patent contains 20 claims
`
`directed to systems and methods that produce a template for a webpage. On information and belief,
`
`the ’175 patent is assigned to R2.
`
`66.
`
`Allegiant, through its systems, products, and processes, including at least the
`
`www.allegiantair.com website, is not infringing any claim of the ’175 patent.
`
`67.
`
`For example, claim 1 of the ’175 patent reads,
`
`1. A method, comprising:
`
`generating one or more signals or states, or a combination thereof, comprising a
`template for a web page individualized for a particular user utilizing at least in
`part a processor of a computing device;
`
`associating a plurality of areas of the template with a res