`
`SCHIF F HARDIN LLP
`
`GEORGE C. YU (CSB #193881)
`‘-"Vu (Dschifihardincom
`
`
`DUANE H. MATHIOWETZ (CSB #111831)
`dmathiowctzi’fll‘schiflhardirrcom
`One Market, Spear Street Tower
`Thirty-Second Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Telephone:
`(415) 901-8700
`Facsimile:
`(415) 901-8701
`
`ASHE, P.C.
`OLIVER R. ASHE, JR. (Pro Hac Vice pending)
`11440 Isaac Newton Square North, Ste. 210
`Reston, VA 20190
`Telephone:
`(703) 467-9001
`Facsimile:
`(703) 467-9002
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`IPDEV Co.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`IPDEV CO.,
`
`CASE No,
`
`'14CV1303 GPC JLB
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AMERANTH, INC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DETERMINATION
`OF PRIORITY OF INVENTION
`
`AMONG INTERFERING PATENTS
`UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 291 (PRE-AIA)
`
`
`
`Complaint Filed: May 27, 2014
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCISCO
`
`-1-
`
`COMPLAINT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 291 (PRE-AIA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv—01303—GPC-JLB Document 1 Filed 05/27/14 Page 2 of 8
`
`Plaintiff IPDEV Co. (“IPDEV”) files this Complaint against Defendant Ameranth, Inc.
`
`(“Ameranth”) to seek an adjudication of priority of invention under 35 U.S.C. § 291 (pre—America
`
`lnvents Act (“AIA”)) of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,738,449 (the “IPDEV ’449 patent”) and 5,991,739
`
`(the “‘739 patent”), assigned to IPDEV, over U.S. Patent Nos. 6,384,850 (the “Ameranth ‘850
`
`patent”), 6,871,325 (the “Ameranth ‘325 patent”), and 8,146,077 (the “Ameranth ‘077 patent”;
`
`collectively, the “Ameranth patents”), which on information and belief, are assigned to Ameranth.
`
`
`
`mugs
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff IPDEV is an Illinois corporation located at 414 North Orleans Street
`
`Suite 501 , Chicago, IL 60654-4498. IPDEV owns certain intellectual property assets, including
`
`the IPDEV patents. IPDEV is an affiliated company of QuikOrder, Inc. (“QuikOrder”).
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Ameranth is a Delaware corporation with a
`
`principal place of business at 5820 Oberlin Drive, Suite 202, San Diego, CA 92121-3744.
`
`Ameranth is listed as the assignee of the Ameranth patents.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This is an interfering patents action arising under 35 U.S.C. § 291 (pre—AIA). This
`
`Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 35 U.S.C. § 291 and 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ l39l(b) and (c).
`
`4.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Ameranth. Ameranth has its principal
`
`place of business within this judicial district and has engaged in substantial business activities
`
`within this judicial district. Ameranth is also the plaintiff in a number of patent infringement
`
`actions in this district in which Ameranth has alleged infringement of the Ameranth patents, for
`
`example the consolidated action styled Ameranth, Inc. v. Pizza Hut, Inc., et al., case number 3: 1 1-
`
`cv—01810—DMS—WVG (“the Ameranth patent infringement litigations”).
`
`5.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 139l(b) and (c).
`
`THE AMERANTH PATENT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATIONS
`
`6.
`
`On August 15, 2011, Ameranth filed a complaint alleging infringement of the
`
`Ameranth ‘850 and ‘325 patents in this Judicial District, case number 3: 1 1-cv-l 810, against a
`
`1 A
`
`WN
`
`\DOO\)O\
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
`ATTuRNH‘; AT LAW
`SAN FRANriqro
`
`number of defendants, including QuikOrder.
`
`-2-
`
`COMPLAINT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 291 (PRE-AIA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:14—cv—01303-GPC—JLB Document 1 Filed 05/27/14 Page 3 of 8
`
`7.
`
`On March 27, 2012, Ameranth filed a complaint in this Judicial District alleging
`
`infringement of the Ameranth ‘077 patent against Pizza Hut of America, Inc., Pizza Hut, Inc, and
`
`QuikOrder, case number 3:12-cv—00742-DMS-WVG. This action, along with other patent
`
`infringement actions, was consolidated in the 3: 1 1-cv-1810 action for pre-trial purposes.
`
`8.
`
`IPDEV, while an affiliate of QuikOrder, is not a party to the Ameranth patent
`
`infringement litigations.
`
`THE INTERFERING PATENTS
`
`The IPDEV Patents
`
`9.
`
`On November 24, 1997, Bryan Cupps and Tim Glass filed US. Patent Application
`
`serial number 08/976,793 (the “‘793 application”). The ‘793 application issued on November 23,
`
`1999 as the ‘739 patent. Thus, Cupps and Glass conceived and reduced to practice the invention
`
`claimed in the ’739 patent, which is entitled “Internet Online Order Apparatus and Method,” by
`
`no later than November 24, 1997.
`
`10.
`
`On March 31, 1999, US. Patent Application serial number 09/282,645 (the “‘645
`
`application”) was filed as a continuation of the ‘793 application.
`
`1 1.
`
`On August 22, 2012, US. Patent Application serial number 13/592,199 (the “‘ 199
`
`application”) was filed as a continuation of the ‘645 application. Thus, the ‘199 application also
`
`v‘ claims an effective filing date of November 24, 1997. The ‘199 application issued on May 27,
`
`2014 as the IPDEV ‘449 patent, which is also entitled “lntemet Online Order Method and
`
`Apparatus.” The IPDEV ‘449 patent is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint.
`
`The Ameranth Patents
`
`12.
`
`On information and belief, the Ameranth ‘850 patent, which is attached as Exhibit
`
`B to this Complaint, issued from US. Patent Application serial number 09/400,413 (the “‘413
`
`application”), which was filed on September 21, 1999.
`
`13.
`
`On information and belief, the Ameranth ‘325 patent, which is attached as Exhibit
`
`C to this Complaint, issued from US. Patent Application serial number 10/015,729 (the “‘729
`
`
`
`: application”) and is a continuation of the ‘41 3 application. Thus, the Ameranth ‘325 patent is
`
`28
`SCHIFF HARDIN LLP ‘
`ATTuRNHs AT LAW
`SAN FRAanr n
`
`entitled to an effective filing date no earlier than September 21, 1999.
`
` -3-
`COMPLAINT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 291 (PRE-AIA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:14vcv—01303~GPC-JLB Document 1 Filed 05/27/14 Page 4 of 8
`
`14.
`
`On information and belief, on or about November 16, 2004, in response to a
`
`rejection of the then-pending claims of the ‘729 application for obviousness-type double
`
`patenting, the applicants of the ‘729 application disclaimed the part of the patent term for any
`
`patent that would issue from the ‘729 application that would extend beyond the expiration date of
`
`the term for the Ameranth ‘850 patent.
`
`15.
`
`On information and belief, the Ameranth ‘077 patent, which is attached as Exhibit
`
`D to this Complaint, issued from US. Patent Application serial number 11/1 12, 990 (the “‘990
`
`application”) and claims priority to a series of continuations to the ‘413 application. Thus, the
`
`Ameranth ‘077 patent is entitled to an effective filing date no earlier than September 21, 1999.
`
`16.
`
`On information and belief, on or about August 29, 2008, in response to a rejection
`
`of the then—pending claims of the ‘990 application for obviousness—type double patenting, the
`
`applicants of the ‘990 application disclaimed the part of the patent term for any patent that would
`
`issue from the ‘990 application that would extend beyond the expiration date of the term for the
`
`Ameranth ‘850 patent.
`
`INTERFERENCE-IN-FACT
`
`17.
`
`During the prosecution of IPDEV’s ‘ 199 applications, the applicants amended the
`
`claims by copying claims 1-18 of the Ameranth ‘077 patent and added claims 19-21. The
`
`applicants specifically indicated in a preliminary statement during the prosecution that they had
`
`copied the claims from the Ameranth ‘077 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 135(b).
`
`18.
`
`During prosecution of the ‘199 application, applicants made minor amendments to
`
`claims 1—21 in response to an indefiniteness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 1 12(b).
`
`19.
`
`The following is a comparison of claim 1 of the Ameranth ‘077 patent with
`
`claim 1 of the IPDEV ‘449 patent. Deletions from the text of claim 1 of the Ameranth ‘077
`
`patent in the IPDEV ‘449 patent are indicated by a strikethrough, and additions are indicated by
`
`underlining:
`
`1. An information management and real time synchronous
`
`communications system for configuring and transmitting hospitality menus
`
`\DOG\]G\
`
`1o
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`
`
`28
`SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANCIscu
`
`comprising:
`
`-4-
`
`COMPLAINT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 291 (PRE-AIA)
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 3:14—cv—01303-GPC—JLB Document 1 Filed 05/27/14 Page 5 of 8
`
`a. a central processing unit,
`
`b. a data storage device connected to said central processing unit,
`
`c. an operating system including a first graphical user interface,
`
`d. a master menu including at least menu categories, menu items and
`
`modifiers, wherein said master menu is capable of being stored on said data
`
`storage device pursuant to a master menu file structure and said master menu is
`
`capable of being configured for display to facilitate user operations in at least one
`
`window of said first graphical user interface as cascaded sets of linked graphical
`
`user interface screens, and
`
`e. menu configuration software enabled to generate a programmed
`
`handheld menu configuration from said master menu for wireless transmission to
`
`and programmed for display on a wireless handheld computing device, said
`
`programmed handheld menu configuration comprising at least menu categories,
`
`menu items and modifiers and wherein the menu configuration software is
`
`enabled to generate said programmed handheld menu configuration by utilizing
`
`parameters from the master menu file structure defining at least the menu
`
`categories, menu items and modifiers of the master menu such that at least the
`
`menu categories, menu items and modifiers comprising the programmed handheld
`
`menu configuration are synchronized in real time with analogous information
`
`comprising the master menu,
`
`wherein the menu configuration software is further enabled to generate the
`
`programmed handheld menu configuration in conformity with a customized
`
`display layout unique to the wireless handheld computing device to facilitate user
`
`operations with and display of the programmed handheld menu configuration on
`
`the display screen of a handheld graphical user interface integral with the wireless
`
`handheld computing device, wherein said customized display layout is compatible
`
`with the displayable size of the handheld graphical user interface wherein the
`
`20 3
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`l9
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`WM
`
`4;
`
`13
`
`l4 2
`
`
`
`28
`programmed handheld menu configuration is configured by the menu
`SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
`Ar'mkNi-‘vs AT LAW
`-5- SAN FRANrisr'o
`COMPLAINT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 291 (PRE-AIA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv—01303-GPC—JLB Document 1 Filed 05/27/14 Page 6 of 8
`
`configuration software for display as programmed cascaded sets of linked
`
`graphical user interface screens appropriate for the customized display layout of
`
`the wireless handheld computing device, wherein said programmed cascaded sets
`
`of linked graphical user interface screens for display of the handheld menu
`
`configuration are configured differently from the cascaded sets of linked graphical
`
`user interface screens for display of the master menu on said first graphical user
`
`interface, and
`
`wherein the system is enabled for real time synchronous communications
`
`to and from the wireless handheld computing device utilizing the programmed
`
`handheld menu configuration including the capability of real time synchronous
`
`transmission of the programmed handheld menu configuration to the wireless
`
`handheld computing device and real time synchronous transmissions of selections
`
`made from the handheld menu configuration on the wireless handheld computing
`
`device, and
`
`wherein the system is further enabled to automatically format the
`
`programmed handheld menu configuration for display as cascaded sets of linked
`
`graphical user interface screens appropriate for a customized display layout of at
`
`least two different wireless handheld computing device display sizes in—t—he—same
`
`connected _t_o_tlfi system, and
`
`wherein a cascaded set of linked graphical user interface screens for a
`
`wireless handheld computing device in the system includes a different number of
`
`user interface screens from at least one other wireless handheld computing device
`
`
`
`in the system.
`
`20.
`
`On information and belief, claims 1-18 of the Ameranth ‘077 patent encompass the
`
`‘
`
`same or substantially the same subject matter as claims 1-18 of the lPDEV ‘449 patent.
`
`21.
`
`Consequently, there exists an interference-in—fact between one or more claims of
`
`the Ameranth ‘077 patent and one or more claims of the lPDEV ‘449 patent (and, hence, the
`
`lPDEV ‘449 patent) and vice-versa.
`
`-6-
`
`COMPLAINT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 291 (PRE—AIA)
`
`-D.WN
`
`U1
`
`28
`SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRAN< law
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:14—cv-01303-GPC-JLB Document 1 Filed 05/27/14 Page 7 of 8
`
`
`
`22.
`
`On information and belief, the claims of the Ameranth ‘850 patent comprise
`
`obvious variants of the claims of the Ameranth ‘077 patent (and, hence, the IPDEV ‘449 patent)
`
`and vice-versa.
`
`23.
`
`Consequently, there exists an interference-in-fact between one or more claims of
`
`the Ameranth ’850 patent and one or more claims of the IPDEV ‘449 patent.
`
`24.
`
`On information and belief, the claims of the Ameranth ‘325 patent likewise
`
`comprise obvious variants of the claims of the Ameranth ‘077 patent.
`
`25.
`
`Consequently, there exists an interference-in-fact between one or more claims of
`
`the Ameranth ‘325 patent and one or more claims of the IPDEV ‘449 patent.
`
`26.
`
`The IPDEV ‘449 patent has an earlier effective filing date (November 24, 1997)
`
`than the purported effective filing date for the Ameranth patents (September 21, 1999). Under the
`
`Regulations that govern interference practice at the United States Patent and Trademark Office,
`
`the party with the earlier filing date is designated the “Senior Party” and is presumed to be the
`
`first to invent. 37 CPR. § 41.207(a)( 1) (“Order of invention. Parties are presumed to have
`
`invented interfering subject matter in the order of the dates of their accorded benefit for each
`
`count”); 37 CPR. § 41.201 (“. .
`
`. Senior party means the party entitled to the presumption under
`
`§ 41.207(a)(1) that it is the prior inventor. Any other party is a junior party. .
`
`. .”). Accordingly,
`
`IPDEV is the Senior Party and Ameranth is the Junior Party for the purposes of this interfering
`
`patents action.
`
`27.
`
`Because the IPDEV ‘449 patent has priority of invention over the Ameranth
`
`patents, all claims of the Ameranth patents that interfere with the claims of the IPDEV ‘449
`
`patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) (pre-AIA).
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
`
`A.
`
`That the IPDEV ‘449 patent has priority of invention over the Ameranth ‘850,
`
`‘325, and ‘077 patents.
`
`B.
`
`That, because the IPDEV ‘449 patent has priority of invention over the claims of
`
`\lQUI-bwb)
`
`0000
`
`1
`
`1 1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
`ATTORNEYS AT LAW
`SAN FRANr‘Isfo
`
`the Ameranth ‘850, ‘325, and ‘077 patents, the interfering claims of the Ameranth ‘850, ‘325, and
`
`-7-
`
`COMPLAINT UNDER 35 ll.S.C. § 291 (PRE-AIA)
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-01303-GPC—JLB Document 1 Filed 05/27/14 Page 8 of 8
`
`‘077 patents are invalid.
`
`C.
`
`That the Court deem the case exceptional and award attorney fees in favor of
`
`IPDEV.
`
`D.
`
`Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`Dated: May 27, 2014
`
`SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
`
`By: /s/ George C. Yu
`George C. Yu
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`IPDEV Co.
`
`27502-0065
`sn321 0209871
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 291 (PRE—AIA)
`
`l
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5 6
`
`7 8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`1 l
`
`12
`
`l 3
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
`ATTORNkYS A1 LAW
`SAN FRANF|<(‘0
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:14—cv—01303-GPC-JLB Document 1—2 Filed 05/27/14 Page 1 of 1
`
`m, hyl
`CIVIL COVER SHEET
`1@1544 (Rev, 12m)
`cept
`apersasrcqm
`' aw, cx
`as
`111: IS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained lxetein neither 1”
`lace nor supplement the filing and service of Icgdings pt othcr
`providcd by lmal rules of court, This form, approved by the Judicial Cogmnce ofthe, United States 111 September 197%, Is required fol t c use of the Clerk ofCourt for the
`i u t I e oftht: civil docket shoot. SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON TIE. REVERSE OF THE FORM.
`
`I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
`IPDEV CO .
`
`DEFENDANTS
`AMERAN’I’H,
`INC .
`
`
`(b) County at”Rwidence ofFirst Listed Plaintiff Cook (IL)
`(EXCEPT [N 12.5. PLAINTIFF CASES}
`
`(t) Attorney’s (Firm Name. Addie-.111. and Telephonc NW3
`SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
`One Market: , Spear Twr. , 32nd Fl .
`
`San Francisco , CA
`4 1 7
`' ‘
`~ 87 o O
`
`94 105
`
`Ban D‘ego (CA)
`County ofResidancc ofFirst Listed Defendant
`(IN us, PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
`NOTE:
`IN LAND CONDEMNA’I'ION CASES, EJSE THE LOCATION OF THE
`LAND INVOLVED
`
`Atmmcys (If Known)
`
`'14CV1303 GPC JLB
`
`I]. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place m x" in One 30.1 Only}
`.........
`.
`1_______l
`[IX 3 PM Qmati’on
`(us. Guvcmmcm Not a Patty)
`,
`_
`.
`_
`,
`4
`_
`5:} 4 ”W“!
`(Indicate Cmmslup amexcs m 11cm ill) Gum ”(mm Sm:
`
`l us. Govcmnwnt
`Plaintiff
`
`[.3 2 U-S- anvmmm
`De endxnl
`
`clam ofThiC 51»
`
`Citizen 0;- Subject of:
`Fom‘i CW
`
`
`
`3
`
`III. CITIZENSHIP 0F PRINCIPAL I'ARTIES (Place an "x" in One Box fbr Plaintiff
`{Far Diversity Crises Only)
`and One Box (‘0: Defendant)
`y”.
`DEF
`"I W"
`,q
`.
`{:12 4 1:3 4
`[L3 1
`[:3 1 1mm orPrincipll Hm
`orstms In This Sign
`[:3 2 m 2 momma. undh‘inciml ”a“
`offiminms In Another State
`__
`111:3 3
`Fenian Nation
`
`[:3 5
`
`[:3 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I 'i '. ‘ - (Placem"x"in0nc Box Only)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.1.1 ' 11312111.-3
`, ..
`..
`.
`53W@1111;
`1
`williflifiiflfififfi we
`..
`,
`.
`
`
`
`
`E400 State Reappom‘omm
`2m Appell 23 use 15:
`““50”“ mm“
`\
`} 3m Al. ‘Efl-‘Um"
`
`
`
`
`
`4:10 Animus!
`5:3 362 Pmanal Injury . E3520 00“,. Food & 0mg
`,1
`.
`120 Mm
`I?
`=
`
`
`
`:42: Withdrawal
`Mm Wm {-3525 Drug Mm; Mm
`no Miller Act
`315 $112151».- Pmdwt fl
`430 3mg“ "“1 m3
`
`
`
`28 use 157
`gm CW
`m.
`,-
`m”
`2 x was 331
`140 Negotiable [113th
`“”1"? .
`Wm Pmoml Inlmy-
`
`
`
`
`
`1 460 De
`°
`PC“?
`_
`150 Rwave
`1-3 320 Assault. Libel 8:
`1’10de Lilbilily
`‘
`
`
`E3630 Liz]
`Law:
`=.._
`.
`.
`.
`1y ofOverpayment
`.m-n
`ponutlon
`
`3t. Eufimmuenl oHudgmem ,1"...
`La} 368‘ Asbestos Pumnal
`'
`um
`' "
`‘3 “
`'
`'
`'
`'
`" ‘
`Slanécr
`470 kaetoer Influanmd
`
`
`=
`‘
`:3 151 Medium Act
`:36“ M- a ma
`and CW Orgmintims
`.13330 ”3"“ FW'”“*'
`“Elwp‘m'
`
`
`"
`:3 152 Recovery tfoefizulled
`-------
`“”3"”
`”MW
`C3650 AW” 3°“
`“0 CWW CM“
`
`
`
`
`Emdcuzlmm
`1:: 34° Mm
`mason“, mommy [23560 Occwml
`{:3 490 (minds-i TV
`._1.
`Excl.
`cleans)
`“‘L
`-
`1”“
`Safety/Hulda
`.3153 Racemy ovacxpaymcm
`"“3 345 Simian:
`”3"] 370 0:11:11me A
`.
`‘8]0 talcum Senate
`
`
`3 350 M0101 Vchicl
`“m 3“ Truth m 1mm .
`..
`E 850 Securifics/Cmmnodiliw
`ofVetmn‘ll Benefits
`,1...
`
`[:3160 Stockholders‘ Suits
`“5 M
`v 1'1:
`:3 380 om Peml
`......
`Exchange
`
`:13 190 Other Cmmml
`“‘1‘
`“22:“ 122:;in
`“-1
`Property Damage
`- 862 El
`k m (923) L1] 875 W Chnflangc
`
`
`
`
`‘°
`l
`195 Contract Product Liability
`31.1.11 385 onm Dime: r-------
`12 USC 3420
`~
`
`
`‘96 P.
`hi
`{:3 360 011.11 Person“
`“5.3.3720 Woman “my“ I so: DIWC/DIWW
`mam: Imam,
`390 Other Summary Actions
`
`
`
`
`
`
`..
`t
`.
`~ 5”,] 73!) labor/Mama. Restarting
`- 1;
`(435(8))
`39} Agricultural Acts
`
`
`
`
`"
`.
`'
`._
`1
`.
`.
`& Disclosure Act
`.
`892 Ecotmu'c Stabilization
`
`
`
`a“ 53“) m‘ XVI
`[”3
`_
`3
`4“ Venus
`{35101110111111 to Vacate C3740 Railway Lnbur Act
`M
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`tuber [.1th
`m _
`.
`‘ «m
`I 893 Ennrmmntul Matters
`.1:
`.
`865 RS! (405(8))
`1
`C3790 W ~
`210 Land Londmmulcn
`, $42 Enxplaymmt
`Swim
`~
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`@1533 W ~‘9’§"‘(.
`C3791 Empl Rn Int:
`N220 Foreclosure
`“3 HOW ,
`“1"“! Corpus:
`394 mm Act
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-
`‘
`9
`2
`'
`1““1
`muons
`. 530 General
`.
`l
`.
`$1230 Rem Lem & Ejecmlcnt a 444 we!“
`535091111 PM}
`Securl Am
`., 895 Frcedom ofhfimnanon
`
`M
`540 MMWQZM
`‘
`.1.
`[.3 2411 Tons to Land
`445 Aim. wmmbilitits
`
`
`
`
`um!‘
`‘on
`[:3 996 Appeal <3wa
`m
`{“1
`-
`c
`~
`womu
`
`
`s<oc1vtl Rights
`Dclm'mimtmer
`"~12“ ““1 PM“ “”1“?
`:_l
`.
`[:3
`
`
`“6 3;: “"D‘s‘b‘m’
`555 Prison Condition
`453 X‘fim '
`Equal Access lo Justice
`l”? 290 All 011m Real Propefly
`'
`
`miss 2W ‘WW‘W
`[m1 95° cmm'mfli'y °f
`-l «40 011mCivil Rims
`
`‘1
`:»
`cum,
`
`.
`..
`Appeal to District
`Place an “X" in GM Box 0%
`2 Removed firm
`3 Remamicd from C:
`4 Reinstated or [.13 5 Transferred from C] 6 Mqltidjsuict i:37 Judge: fiom
`State Court
`Magistrate
`Appellate Couxt
`Rcupcncd
`another district
`“$3110“
`Judy en!
`seci
`.
`Cite the US. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cit: jurisdictional statutes unlcss diversity):
`35 U.S.C. 291; 35:271 — Patent Infringement
`tie cscnptlon 0 cause:
`.
`Patent micrferencc
`
`V. ORIGIN
`[X I Original}
`Procecdlng
`
`1
`=
`
`VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`V“- REQUESTED‘ IN [.23 CHECK {F THIS is A CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAIN'I:
`UNDER F,R1C.P.23
`
`DEMAND s
`
`{1] CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
`JURY DEMAND:
`{2! Yes
`[Ellie
`
`VIII. RELATED CASEQS)
`
`
`DOCKET NUMBER
`Sabraw
`1 1—CV-1810; lZ-cv-742
`(Sc: instructions):
`IF ANY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`05/27/14
`
`FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
`<‘ 3"
` JUDGE MAG. JUDGE
`
`macaw 11
`mafia [PP
`moum
`FEMS“
`
`