Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS Document 44-2 Filed 02/01/18 Page 1 of 25
`Case 1:16-cv-O4586—LTS Document 44-2 Filed 02/01/18 Page 1 of 25
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS Document 44-2 Filed 02/01/18 Page 2 of 25
`
`BROADSIGN INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– x
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`Civil Action No.: 1:16-cv-04586 (LTS)
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`:
`––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– x
`
`
`T-REX PROPERTY AB,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff, BroadSign International, LLC (“BroadSign”), brings this action for a
`
`declaratory judgment against Defendant, T-Rex Property AB (“T-Rex”). BroadSign seeks,
`
`among other things, a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of U.S. Patent
`
`No. RE39,470 (“the ’470 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,382,334 (“the ’334 patent”); and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,430,603 (“the ’603 patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”), and that BroadSign
`
`has intervening rights with respect to the ’470 patent. In support thereof, BroadSign alleges as
`
`follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`2.
`
`1. This is an action for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity
`
`of the ’470 patent, the ’334 patent, and the ’603 patent, and for intervening rights to the ’470
`
`patent.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`3.
`
`2. Plaintiff is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of
`
`business located at 453 N. Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis, Missouri 63141. BroadSign is an industry
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS Document 44-2 Filed 02/01/18 Page 3 of 25
`
`leader in the business of providing digital out-of-home software and solutions for digital signage
`
`and displays in venues such as airports, cinemas, shopping malls and offices.
`
`4.
`
`3. Upon information and belief, Defendant T-Rex is a company organized and
`
`existing under the laws of Sweden.
`
`5.
`
`4. Upon information and belief, T-Rex’s business is directed to owning and
`
`enforcing in litigation the Patents-in-Suit. Upon information and belief, over the last several
`
`years, T-Rex has filed approximately 59 patent infringement lawsuits against 80 defendants in 17
`
`judicial districts throughout the United States. Upon information and belief, T-Rex does not
`
`itself manufacture or sell any products or offer for sale any products or services in the United
`
`States.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`5. This action arises under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§2201, et
`
`seq., and under the Patent Laws of the United States, as enacted under Title 35 of the United
`
`States Code. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq.,
`
`and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, 2201, and 2202.
`
`7.
`
`6. This Court has both general and specific personal jurisdiction over T-Rex
`
`because T-Rex regularly conducts its enforcement and licensing business in New York State. T-
`
`Rex has also conducted business in and directed at New York pertaining to the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`T-Rex has at least conducted business in New York by filing suit in this forum state in an attempt
`
`to enforce the Patents-in-Suit. T-Rex most recently filed suit in the United States District Court
`
`for the Southern District of New York on February 1, 2016, asserting these same three Patents-
`
`in-Suit in an action against Blue Outdoor Holdings, LLC and its subsidiaries (T-Rex Property
`
`AB v. Blue Outdoor LLC, et. al., 1-16-cv-00733-DLC). T-Rex has filed numerous other suits
`
`asserting one or more of these patents in the United States District Court for the Southern District
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS Document 44-2 Filed 02/01/18 Page 4 of 25
`
`of New York located including the following: T-Rex Property AB, v. Adspace Networks, Inc., 1-
`
`15-cv- 09073-DLC, filed on November 18, 2015 (’470 patent and ’334 patent); T-Rex Property
`
`AB, v. Interactivation Health Networks, LLC, et al., 1-15-cv-08259-PKC, filed on October 20,
`
`2015 (’470 patent); T-Rex Property AB, v. Wellness Network, LLC, 1-15-cv-07847-PKC, filed
`
`on October 5, 2015 (’470 patent); and T-Rex Property AB, v. Captivate, LLC, 1-15-cv-04188-
`
`PAE, filed on May 29, 2015 (’470 patent and ’334 patent).
`
`8.
`
`7. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) and 1391(c) because
`
`T-Rex is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district and has conducted business in
`
`this judicial district. Additionally, T-Rex has accused at least two of BroadSign’s customers
`
`(Blue Outdoor Holdings and Adspace Networks) of patent infringement through their use of
`
`BroadSign’s products in this judicial district, and such products are being used in this judicial
`
`district.
`
`A SUBSTANTIAL CONTROVERSY EXISTS BETWEEN THE PARTIES
`
`9.
`
`8. Upon information and belief, T-Rex is the assignee and owner of the right, title
`
`and interest in and to the Patents-in-Suit, including the right to assert all causes of action arising
`
`under the Patents-in-Suit and the right to any remedies for infringement.
`
`10.
`
`9. Upon information and belief, the business of T-Rex in the United States is to
`
`enforce one or more of the Patents-in-Suit against operating businesses that provide information,
`
`advertising, medical information and other content on digital displays over a digital signage
`
`network in locations that are accessible to the public such as at airports, in elevators, in shopping
`
`malls and at medical facilities (hereinafter referred to as “Digital Content Providers”).
`
`11.
`
`10. BroadSign is a supplier of hardware and software solutions to operators of
`
`networks of digital displays. BroadSign'sBroadSign’s platform includes an interface for
`
`managing a network of BroadSign Players associated with the digital displays, and among other
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS Document 44-2 Filed 02/01/18 Page 5 of 25
`
`things, upload desired content, book and manage advertising campaigns and monitor network
`
`health. The BroadSign Players organize the content based on booked advertising campaigns and
`
`enable content to be played on the associated digital displays.
`
`12.
`
`As a supplier of digital out-of-home media products to the digital advertising
`
`industry, Plaintiff is under threat of litigation because T-Rex’s aggressive litigation strategy
`
`involves asserting the Patents-in-Suit against both customers and suppliers. T-Rex has filed
`
`complaints alleging patent infringement of the Patents-in-Suit against suppliers similarly-situated
`
`to BroadSign, including suppliers of digital out-of-home media software and/or hardware. T-
`
`Rex has filed complaints against BroadSign’s direct-competitor suppliers, including at least:
`
`Barco, Inc., Prismview, LLC (A Samsung Electronics Company), Table Top Media, LLC, Clear
`
`Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc., GPS Industries, LLC, Quality Systems Technology, Inc., Four
`
`Winds Interactive, LLC, AutoNetTV Media, Inc., Cardinal Health, Inc., Zoom Media Corp.,
`
`ANC Sports Enterprises, LLC, iPort Media Networks, LLC, Reach Sports Marketing Group,
`
`Inc., RMG Networks Holding Corporation, and Time-O-Matic d/b/a Watchfire.
`
`13.
`
`Each of these suppliers has supplied software and/or hardware products to
`
`advertising customers in the digital out-of-home media space, and T-Rex’s complaints allege
`
`infringement of the Patents-in-Suit against those products.
`
`14.
`
`In its complaint against Barco, Inc., T-Rex alleged that the “infringing devices
`
`and systems include Defendant’s digital signage network that employs Barco’s digital signage
`
`platform, including its digital displays, digital media players, and DISplay Studio software
`
`platform.” T-Rex Property AB v. Barco, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-6938 (N.D. Ill. July 1, 2016); T-
`
`Rex Property AB v. Barco, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-6940 (N.D. Ill. July 1, 2016). Barco’s “digital
`
`signage network that employs Barco’s digital signage platform, including its digital displays,
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS Document 44-2 Filed 02/01/18 Page 6 of 25
`
`digital media players, and DISplay Studio software platform” makes it a direct competitor in the
`
`same industry as BroadSign.
`
`15.
`
`In its complaint against Prismview, LLC (A Samsung Electronics Company), T-
`
`Rex alleged that “the infringing devices and systems include Defendant’s digital signs, other
`
`electronic displays and its PrismView digital signage software and systems that are used to
`
`control the display of images on its digital sign(s) and other electronic display(s).” T-Rex
`
`Property AB v. Prismview, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-00404 (E.D. Tex. June 16, 2016).
`
`Prismview’s “digital signage software and systems that are used to control the display of images
`
`on its digital sign(s) and other electronic display(s)” make it a direct competitor in the same
`
`industry as BroadSign.
`
`16.
`
`In its complaint against Table Top Media, LLC, T-Rex alleged that “the
`
`infringing devices and systems include Defendant’s digital signage network and displays that use
`
`the Android OS based digital signage platform.” T-Rex Property AB v. Table Top Media, LLC,
`
`Case No. 1:16-cv-6932 (N.D. Ill. July 1, 2016). Table Top Media’s “digital signage network and
`
`displays that use the Android OS based digital signage platform” make it a direct competitor in
`
`the same industry as BroadSign.
`
`17.
`
`In its complaint against Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc., T-Rex alleged that
`
`“the infringing devices and systems include Clear Channel’s digital advertising network and the
`
`Clear Channel Airports digital media and advertising network, which is also marketed as the
`
`ClearVision Network and/or the ClearVision Airport Television Network.” T-Rex Property AB
`
`v. Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc. et al, Case No. 6:16-cv-00974 (E.D. Tex. June 30,
`
`2016); T-Rex Property AB v. Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc., Case No. 5:12-cv-01162
`
`(N.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2012). Clear Channel Outdoor’s “digital advertising network and the Clear
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS Document 44-2 Filed 02/01/18 Page 7 of 25
`
`Channel Airports digital media and advertising network, which is also marketed as the
`
`ClearVision Network and/or the ClearVision Airport Television Network” make it a direct
`
`competitor in the same industry as BroadSign.
`
`18.
`
`In its complaint against GPS Industries, LLC, T-Rex alleged that “the infringing
`
`devices and systems include Defendant’s Visage Media Network.” T-Rex Property AB v. GPS
`
`Industries, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-00458 (E.D. Tex. June 30, 2016). GPS Industries’s “Visage
`
`Media Network” make it a direct competitor in the same industry as BroadSign.
`
`19.
`
`In its complaint against Quality Systems Technology, Inc., T-Rex alleged that
`
`“the infringing devices and systems include Defendant’s digital signage network, including its
`
`digital signage platform, displays, and Quest Player software.” T-Rex Property AB v. Quality
`
`Systems Technology, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-6942 (N.D. Ill. July 1, 2016). Quality Systems
`
`Technology’s “digital signage network, including its digital signage platform, displays, and
`
`Quest Player software” make it a direct competitor in the same industry as BroadSign.
`
`20.
`
`In its complaint against Four Winds Interactive, LLC, T-Rex alleged that “the
`
`infringing devices and systems include Defendant’s digital signage network and displays that use
`
`FWI’s Content Manager and FWI’s Content Player Software.” T-Rex Property AB v. Four
`
`Winds Interactive, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-6934 (N.D. Ill. July 1, 2016). Four Winds
`
`Interactive’s “digital signage network and displays that use FWI’s Content Manager and FWI’s
`
`Content Player Software” make it a direct competitor in the same industry as BroadSign.
`
`21.
`
`In its complaint against AutoNetTV Media, Inc., T-Rex alleged that “the
`
`infringing devices and systems include Defendant’s digital network that uses 1-2-1 VIEW’s
`
`content management software.” T-Rex Property AB v. AutoNetTV Media, Inc., Case No. 1:16-
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS Document 44-2 Filed 02/01/18 Page 8 of 25
`
`cv-6649 (N.D. Ill. July 1, 2016). AutoNetTV Media’s “digital network that uses 1-2-1 VIEW’s
`
`content management software” make it a direct competitor in the same industry as BroadSign.
`
`22.
`
`In its complaint against Cardinal Health, Inc., T-Rex alleged that “the infringing
`
`devices and systems include Defendant’s Pharmacy Health Network.” T-Rex Property AB v.
`
`Cardinal Health, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-5484 (N.D. Ill. May 23, 2016). Cardinal Health’s
`
`“Pharmacy Health Network” makes it a direct competitor in the same industry as BroadSign.
`
`23.
`
`In its complaint against Zoom Media Corp., T-Rex alleged that “the infringing
`
`devices and systems include Defendant’s Zoom Fitness Video Network, which includes…digital
`
`signage.” T-Rex Property AB v. Zoom Media Corp., Case No. 0:16-cv-581 (N.D. Ill. March 21,
`
`2016). Zoom Media’s “Zoom Fitness Video Network, which includes…digital signage” make it
`
`a direct competitor in the same industry as BroadSign.
`
`24.
`
`In its complaint against ANC Sports Enterprises, LLC, T-Rex alleged that “the
`
`infringing devices and systems include Defendant’s digital media software, signage operation
`
`and control systems, which include integrated digital signage, and media management and
`
`playback software that is used to broadcast dynamic images” and “vSOFT, Defendant’s
`
`proprietary media management and playback software.” T-Rex Property AB v. ANC Sports
`
`Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 0:16-cv-581 (D. Minn. March 7, 2016). ANC Sports Enterprises’s
`
`“digital media software, signage operation and control systems, which include integrated digital
`
`signage, and media management and playback software that is used to broadcast dynamic
`
`images” and “vSOFT, Defendant’s proprietary media management and playback software” make
`
`it a direct competitor in the same industry as BroadSign.
`
`25.
`
`In its complaint against iPort Media Networks, LLC, T-Rex alleged that “the
`
`infringing devices and systems include Defendant’s digital place-based media networks that
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS Document 44-2 Filed 02/01/18 Page 9 of 25
`
`operate under the iPort Optical Network and the Your Life Your Skin Network branding.” T-Rex
`
`Property AB v. iPort Media Networks, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-1583 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 29, 2016).
`
`iPort Media Networks’s “digital place-based media networks” make it a direct competitor in the
`
`same industry as BroadSign.
`
`26.
`
`In its complaint against Reach Sports Marketing Group, Inc., T-Rex alleged that
`
`“the infringing devices and systems include Defendant’s digital place-based media network.” T-
`
`Rex Property AB v. Reach Sports Marketing Group, Inc., Case No. 0:16-cv-070 (D. Minn. Jan.
`
`13, 2016). Reach Sports Marketing Group’s “digital place-based media network” make it a
`
`direct competitor in the same industry as BroadSign.
`
`27.
`
`In its complaint against RMG Networks Holding Corporation, T-Rex alleged
`
`infringement of the Patents-in-Suit because “content management systems, which include, for
`
`example and without limitation, the Symon Design Studio to manage and schedule broadcast
`
`content for display in its corporate headquarters in Texas at least during certain demonstrations
`
`for customers or for prospective customers.” T-Rex Property AB v. RMG Networks Holding
`
`Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-738 (N.D. Tex. March 5, 2015). RMG Networks Holding’s
`
`“content management systems, which include, for example and without limitation, the Symon
`
`Design Studio to manage and schedule broadcast content for display…for customers or for
`
`prospective customers” make it a direct competitor in the same industry as BroadSign.
`
`28.
`
`In its complaint against Time-O-Matic (d/b/a Watchfire), T-Rex alleges that
`
`Watchfire’s “digital display boards that operate on a digital information system through its Ignite
`
`software, user manuals, and other documents that instruct customers” to infringe the Patents-in-
`
`Suit. T-Rex Property AB v. Time-O-Matic, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-1488 (C.D. Ill. Dec. 23,
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS Document 44-2 Filed 02/01/18 Page 10 of 25
`
`2014). Watchfire’s “digital display boards that operate on a digital information system through
`
`its Ignite software” make it a direct competitor in the same industry as BroadSign.
`
`29.
`
`11. To date, at least fiveseven (57) BroadSign customers who are Digital Content
`
`Providers have been sued by T-Rex for patent infringement on one or more of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit. One of those customers, Health Media Network, LLC ("“HMN"”), was sued on May 27,
`
`2016, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in an action entitled
`
`T-Rex Property AB v. Health Media Network, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-05673 (hereinafter, the
`
`"“TRex/HMN Action"”). In the T-Rex/HMN Action, T-Rex accuses BroadSign’s customer of
`
`infringing the ’470 patent and identifies the allegedly infringing devices and systems as the
`
`defendant’s “digital health media advertising network.” The accused “digital health media
`
`advertising network” which T-Rex claims to infringe the ’470 patent is the product that
`
`BroadSign sold and delivered to HMN. HMN has no other platform provider for its “digital
`
`health media network.”
`
`30.
`
`12. In the T-Rex/HMN Action, HMN has also been accused by T-Rex of
`
`infringing the ’334 patent. Again, T-Rex identifies HMN'sHMN’s “digital health media
`
`advertising network” provided to HMN by BroadSign as the allegedly infringing product. HMN
`
`has no other platform provider for its “digital health media network.”
`
`31.
`
`13. In the T-Rex/HMN Action, HMN has also been accused by T-Rex of
`
`infringing the ’603 patent. Again, T-Rex identifies HMN'sHMN’s “digital health media
`
`advertising network” provided to HMN by BroadSign as the allegedly infringing product. HMN
`
`has no other platform provider for its “digital health media network.”
`
`32.
`
`14. In another action filed by T-Rex against a BroadSign customer, T-Rex, in its
`
`Amended Complaint against ContextMedia Inc. and ContextMedia Health, LLC, filed on July
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS Document 44-2 Filed 02/01/18 Page 11 of 25
`
`11, 2016, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:16-
`
`cv-04826 (“the ContextMedia Amended Complaint” attached hereto as Exhibit A), accuses the
`
`defendants' "’ “Digital Waiting Room Screen"” product of infringing the '‘470 Patent, the '‘334
`
`Patent and the '‘603 Patent. The ContextMedia defendants have no other platform provider for its
`
`"“Digital Waiting Room Screen"” product other than the BroadSign platform.
`
`33.
`
`In the ContextMedia Amended Complaint, T-Rex set forth its basis for alleging
`
`that ContextMedia infringes the ’470 Patent, the ’334 Patent, and the ’603 Patent by comparing
`
`each of the limitations of at least one claim of each patent to the Digital Waiting Room Screen
`
`product, which includes BroadSign components and software (the Broadsign Player).
`
`34.
`
`For example, in the ContextMedia Amended Complaint, T-Rex alleged that each
`
`of the limitations of claim 25 of the ’470 Patent are met by BroadSign’s software within the
`
`Digital Waiting Room Screen product in the form of a prose claim chart.
`
`35.
`
`Claim 25 of the ’470 Patent recites:
`
`
`
`A method of selectively displaying digital information at one or more of a
`
`plurality of locations, said method comprising:
`
`receiving control instructions from at least one external information mediator;
`
`using said control instructions to generate an exposure list, said exposure list specifying
`
`three or more of the following items:
`
`i)
`
`ii)
`
`what information content is to be displayed;
`
`at which of said plurality of locations said information content is to be displayed;
`
`iii)
`
`when said information content is to be displayed for each location at which
`
`content is to be displayed; and
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS Document 44-2 Filed 02/01/18 Page 12 of 25
`
`iv)
`
`how long said information content is to be displayed for each location at which
`
`content is to be displayed
`
`displaying images at one or more of said locations in accordance with said exposure list;
`
`and
`
`permitting said exposure list to be dynamically updated.
`
`36.
`
`T-Rex alleged that the Digital Waiting Room Screen product meets the first
`
`limitation of claim 25 of the ’470 Patent: “receives control instructions from at least one external
`
`information mediator.” See, Exhibit A at ¶ 50. While BroadSign disputes the ultimate issue of
`
`whether its components meet this limitation, the functionality identified by T-Rex that allegedly
`
`meets this claim limitation is provided by BroadSign’s software components within the Digital
`
`Waiting Room Screen product (i.e. the BroadSign Player).T-Rex alleged that the Digital Waiting
`
`Room Screen product meets the second limitation of claim 25 of the ’470 Patent: “generate an
`
`exposure list, with said exposure list specifying three or more of the following items: i) what
`
`information content is to be displayed; ii) at which of the plurality of locations the information
`
`content is to be displayed; iii) when the information content is to be displayed for each location
`
`at which content is to be displayed; and iv) how long the information content is to be
`
`displayed for each location at which content is to be displayed.” See, Exhibit A at ¶ 51. T-
`
`Rex further alleged that the Digital Waiting Room Screen product meets this limitation by using
`
`“smart playlist technology [to curate] programming that is customized to each office
`
`according to its specific patient population.” See, Exhibit A at ¶ 51. While BroadSign
`
`disputes the ultimate issue of whether its components meet this limitation, the functionality
`
`identified by T-Rex that allegedly meets this claim limitation is provided by BroadSign’s
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS Document 44-2 Filed 02/01/18 Page 13 of 25
`
`software components within the Digital Waiting Room Screen product (i.e. the BroadSign
`
`Player).
`
`37.
`
`T-Rex alleged that the Digital Waiting Room Screen product meets the third
`
`limitation of claim 25 of the ’470 Patent: “displays images at one or more of said locations in
`
`accordance with the exposure list.” See, Exhibit A at ¶ 52. T-Rex further alleged that the Digital
`
`Waiting Room Screen product meets this limitation by delivering “condition-specific content to
`
`patients while they wait.” See, Exhibit A at ¶ 52. While BroadSign disputes the ultimate issue
`
`of whether its components meet this limitation, the functionality identified by T-Rex that
`
`allegedly meets this claim limitation is provided by BroadSign’s software components within the
`
`Digital Waiting Room Screen product (i.e. the BroadSign Player).
`
`38.
`
`T-Rex alleged that the Digital Waiting Room Screen product meets the fourth and
`
`final limitation of claim 25 of the ’470 Patent: “permit[] the exposure list to be dynamically
`
`updated.” See, Exhibit A at ¶ 53. T-Rex further alleged that the Digital Waiting Room Screen
`
`product meets this limitation because “content is refreshed daily and sent to screens based on
`
`patient demographic data.” See, Exhibit A at ¶ 53. While BroadSign disputes the ultimate issue
`
`of whether its components meet this limitation, the functionality identified by T-Rex that
`
`allegedly meets this claim limitation is provided by BroadSign’s software components within the
`
`Digital Waiting Room Screen product (i.e. the BroadSign Player).
`
`39.
`
`T-Rex has also alleged in an element by element textual claim chart that each
`
`limitation of claim 22 of the ’334 Patent is met by BroadSign’s Digital Waiting Room Screen
`
`product. See, Exhibit A at ¶ ¶ 63-75. While BroadSign disputes the ultimate issue of whether its
`
`components meet these limitations, the functionality identified by T-Rex that allegedly meets
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS Document 44-2 Filed 02/01/18 Page 14 of 25
`
`these claim limitations is provided by BroadSign’s software components within the Digital
`
`Waiting Room Screen product (i.e. the BroadSign Player).
`
`40.
`
`T-Rex has also alleged in an element by element textual claim chart that each
`
`limitation of claims 42 and 43 of the ’603 Patent is met by BroadSign’s Digital Waiting Room
`
`Screen product. See, Exhibit A at ¶ ¶ 77-87. While BroadSign disputes the ultimate issue of
`
`whether its components meet these limitations, the functionality identified by T-Rex that
`
`allegedly meets these claim limitations is provided by BroadSign’s software components within
`
`the Digital Waiting Room Screen product (i.e. the BroadSign Player).
`
`41.
`
`The claim charts set forth as prose in the ContextMedia Amended Complaint are
`
`sufficient to support declaratory judgment standing. Arris Group v. British Telecomm., 639 F.3d
`
`1368, 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`42.
`
`BroadSign has knowledge of T-Rex’s allegations that the components of the
`
`Digital Waiting Room product provided by BroadSign are specially made and adapted to
`
`function in a way that meets each limitation of at least one claim of each of the ’470, ’334, and
`
`’603 Patents.
`
`43.
`
`In another action filed by T-Rex against a BroadSign customer, T-Rex, in its
`
`Complaint against JCDecaux North America Holdings, Inc. and JCDecaux North America, Inc.,
`
`filed on May 9, 2016, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Case
`
`No. 4:16-cv-00303, accused the defendants’ products (i.e., “Showscreens, a digital media
`
`product that is used in their Mallscape network, Defendants’ digital billboards, and Defendants’
`
`digital airport advertising network, including their Prestige digital network”) of infringing the
`
`Patents-in-Suit. BroadSign is a platform provider for the accused JCDecaux products.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS Document 44-2 Filed 02/01/18 Page 15 of 25
`
`44.
`
`As a direct result of T-Rex’s complaints, customers including ContextMedia and
`
`JCDecaux, have sought indemnification from BroadSign.
`
`45.
`
`BroadSign knows that its hardware and software solutions, including the
`
`BroadSign Player product, is used in HMN’s “digital health media advertising network,”
`
`ContextMedia’s “Digital Waiting Room Screen,” and JCDecaux’s “Showscreens,” “Mallscape
`
`network,” “digital billboards,” “digital airport advertising network,” and “Prestige digital
`
`network.” BroadSign works with customers HMN, ContextMedia, and JCDecaux to make its
`
`hardware and software solutions (including the BroadSign Player product) and to adapt its
`
`hardware and software solutions (including the BroadSign Player product) for use in HMN’s
`
`“digital health media advertising network,” ContextMedia’s “Digital Waiting Room Screen,” and
`
`JCDecaux’s “Showscreens,” “Mallscape network,” “digital billboards,” “digital airport
`
`advertising network,” and “Prestige digital network.”
`
`46.
`
`BroadSign’s hardware and software solutions (including the BroadSign Player
`
`portion of the Digital Waiting Room Screen product) (e.g., Exhibit A at ¶¶ 50-87) are built to
`
`order for its customers.
`
`47.
`
`15. T-Rex has also had direct discussions and in-person meetings with BroadSign
`
`in which T-Rex has demanded that BroadSign take a license to the Patents-in-Suit in order for T-
`
`Rex to stop suing BroadSign'sBroadSign’s customers for patent infringement. On June 28, 2016,
`
`BroadSign and T-Rex met in a meeting room in Landvetter Airport Conference, Gothenberg,
`
`Sweden. During that meeting, BroadSign requested that T-Rex agree to dismiss the pending
`
`lawsuits against BroadSign’s customers and give BroadSign a covenant not to sue that would
`
`cover BroadSign and its customers. In the first week of July, 2016, and without prior discussion
`
`of a license, Mats Hylin, T-Rex’s CEO, sent BroadSign a “Patent Agreement.” The agreement
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS Document 44-2 Filed 02/01/18 Page 16 of 25
`
`required an unspecified monetary payment in exchange for a license. The agreement expressly
`
`provides that one of the purposes for the parties entering into it is so that BroadSign can obtain
`
`from T-Rex a covenant not to sue its customers to the extent they operate digital display systems
`
`consisting of BroadSign’s products. T-Rex assured BroadSign that agreeing to take a license was
`
`the only way to protect BroadSign and its customers from litigation and future law suits.
`
`BroadSign did not request any sample agreements or any draft or form of license agreement.
`
`48.
`
`16. As a result of (a) the T-Rex lawsuits filed against BroadSign’s customers over
`
`the past year accusing BroadSign’s products and services of infringing each of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit, and as a further result of the; (b) the T-Rex lawsuits filed against suppliers similarly-
`
`situated to BroadSign accusing those suppliers’ products and services of infringing each of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit; and (c) the demands by T-Rex that BroadSign take a license to the patents in
`
`suitPatents-in-Suit
`
`to
`
`prevent
`
`further
`
`patent
`
`infringement
`
`actions
`
`against
`
`BroadSign'sBroadSign’s customers, there isexists a real, immediate and justiciable controversy
`
`between T-Rex and BroadSign concerning infringement of sufficient immediacy to warrant the
`
`issuance of a declaratory judgment. There isexists a real and palpable threat of suit by T-Rex
`
`against BroadSign and/or against additional BroadSign customers arising from their use of
`
`BroadSign’s products. This threat is real and not idle. Not only has T-Rex demanded that
`
`BroadSign take a license to the patents in suitPatents-in-Suit and has brought suits against its
`
`customers, but .in addition T-Rex has brought suits against BroadSign’s existing customers and
`
`will likely continue to sue other BroadSign customers and has filed at least 43 patent
`
`infringement suits asserting one or more of these same patents in 17 separate judicial districts
`
`throughout the United States.direct competitors in the same industry.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS Document 44-2 Filed 02/01/18 Page 17 of 25
`
`49.
`
`17. Given the lawsuits against BroadSign’s customers, the demand for licensing
`
`made to BroadSign and T-Rex’s litigious business model and conduct, T-Rex’s actions have
`
`placed a cloud over BroadSign and its business and have injured or are injuringcontinues to
`
`injure BroadSign’s business, creating a concrete and immediate justiciable controversy between
`
`BroadSign and T-Rex. BroadSign cannot simply stand by while its business suffers irreparable
`
`harm to await yet another filing of litigation by T-Rex at a future date. BroadSign seeks a
`
`declaratory judgment so that its business can move forward without the imminent and ever-
`
`present threat of litigation.
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`COUNT ONE
`Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE39,470
`
`50.
`
`18. BroadSign repeats and reasserts each of the allegations contained in
`
`paragraphs 1 through 1549 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`51.
`
`19. BroadSign has not directly infringed and does not directly infringe, either
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’470 patent.
`
`52.
`
`20. BroadSign has not indirectly infringed and does not indirectly infringe any
`
`valid and enforceable claim of the ’470 patent, either by inducing infringement or contributory
`
`infringement.
`
`53.
`
`21. T-Rex has accused BroadSign’s products of infringing at least claims 25 and
`
`26 of the ’470 patent. Claim 26 depends from claim 25.
`
`54.
`
`22. BroadSign’s products do not infringe claim 25 of the ’470 patent, and
`
`therefore do not infringe any dependent claim of claim 26, for at least the reason that
`
`BroadSign’s products do not “receiv[e] control instructions from at least one external
`
`information mediator” as required by the claim.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-04586-LTS Document 44-2 Filed 02/01/18 Page 18 of 25
`
`55.
`
`23. Accordingly, BroadSign seeks a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 2201-02 that no valid and enforceable claim of the ’470 patent is infringed by BroadSign.
`
`COUNT TWO
`Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,382,334
`
`56.
`
`24. BroadSign repeats and reasserts each of the allegations contained in
`
`paragraphs 1 through 1549 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`57.
`
`25. BroadSign has not directly infringed and