Case 3:11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS Document 106 Filed 12/06/11 Page 1 of 95
`Case 3:11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS Document 106
`Filed 12/06/11 Page 1 of 95
`
`CALDARELLI HEJMANOWSKI & PAGE LL?
`
`William J. Caldarelii (SBN #149573)
`12340 El Camino Real, Suite 430
`San Diego, CA 92130
`858-720-8080 Telephone
`858—720—6680 Facsimile
`
`Wj c@ehplawfirm.com
`
`FABIANO LAW FIRM
`
`Michael I). Fabiano (SBN #167058)
`12526 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
`San Diego, CA 92130
`61 9~742-963 1 Telephone
`mdfabiano@fabianolawfirm.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Ameranth, Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`AMERANTH, INC.
`
`Civil Action No.: 3:1 l-cv-01810~JLS~NLS
`
`hWN
`\ooo-xicxm
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PIZZA HUT, INC, PIZZA HUT OF
`AMERICA, INC, DOMINO’S PIZZA, LLC,
`DOMINO’S PIZZA, INC, PAPA JOHN’S
`USA, INC, OPENTABLE, INC,
`GRUBHUB, INC, TICKETMOB, LLC,
`EXIT 41, LLC, QUIKORDER, INC,
`SEAMLESS NORTH AMERICA, LLC, and
`O—WEB TECHNOLOGIES LTD,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Case No.3:ll—cv—01810—JLS—NLS
`
`FANDANGO EXHIBIT 102
`
`

`

`Case 3:11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS Document 106 Filed 12/06/11 Page 2 of 95
`Case 3:11-cv-O1810-JLS-NLS Document 106
`Filed 12/06/11 Page 2 of 95
`
`\DOO-QGXU‘t-PUJNH
`
`00“-4C\K)!43-WMl—‘C)\D00‘4O\U}4-5»WNWCD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NMNNNNN[\J[\JWi—l'Wl—‘)—‘i-—Iint)—t)—-l9—:
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Ameranth, inc, for its Second Amended Complaint against defendants Pizza
`
`Hut, inc, Pizza Hut of America, inc, Domino’s Pizza, LLC, Domino’s Pizza, Inc, Papa
`
`Jolin’s USA, Inc, OpenTable, Inc, GrubHub, lnc., Ticketmob, LLC, Exit 41, LLC,
`
`QuikOrder, Inc, Seamless North America, LLC and O~Web Technologies Ltd. (collectively,
`
`c‘Defendants”), avers as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1. Plaintiff Ameranth, Inc. (“Amaranth”) is a Delaware corporation based in San
`
`Diego, California, and having a principal place of business at 5820 Oberlin Drive, Suite 202,
`San Diego, California. Amaranth develops, manufactures and sells, inter alia, hospitality
`
`industry, entertainment, restaurant and food service information technology products and
`
`solutions under the trademarks 21St Century Communicationsm, and 21 st Century
`
`RestaurantTM , among others, comprising the synchronization and integration of hospitality
`
`information and hospitality software applications between fixed, wireless andfor internet
`
`applications, including but not limited to computer servers, web servers, databases,
`
`affinity/social networking systems, desktop computers, laptops, “smart” phones and other
`
`wireless handheld computing devices.
`
`2. Defendant Pizza Hut, lnc. is, on information and belief, a California corporation
`
`having a principal place of business in Plano, Texas. Defendant Pizza Hut of America, Inc. is,
`
`on information and belief, a Delaware corporation having a principal place of business in
`
`Plano, Texas. On information and belief, Pizza Hut, inc. and Pizza Hut of America, Inc. are
`
`agents and affiliates of one another and knowingly and intentionally acted in concert and
`
`under common and coordinated plan, design and control in committing the acts alleged
`
`herein, such that each entity is jointly and severally liable for the acts of each other. Pizza
`
`Hut, Inc. and Pizza Hut of America, Inc. shall be referred to herein collectively as “Pizza
`
`Ha .” On information and belief, Pizza Hut makes, uses, offers for sale or license and/or sells
`
`or licenses restaurant and foodservice information technology products, software, components
`
`and/or systems within this Judicial District, including the Pizza Hut ordering
`
`,1,W
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`C352 No. 3:1l—cv—01818—JLS—NLS
`
`

`

`Case 3:11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS Document 106 Filed 12/06/11 Page 3 of 95
`Case 3:11-cv-O1810-JLS-NLS Document 106
`Filed 12/06/11 Page 3 of 95
`
`#WN
`
`\DOOKJO
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`l4
`
`l5
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`system/product/service, which includes, inter alia, wireless and internet point—of—sale (“P08”)
`
`integration, online and mobile product ordering, integration with social media and/or other
`
`third—party web-based applications, and other hospitality aspects.
`
`3. Defendant Domino’s Pizza, LLC is, on information and belief, a Michigan limited
`
`liability company having a principal place of business in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Defendant
`
`Domino’s Pizza, Inc. is, on information and belief, a Delaware corporation having a principal
`
`place of business in Ann Arbor, Michigan. 0n information and belief, Domino’s Pizza, LLC
`
`and Domino’s Pizza, lnc. are agents and affiliates of one another and knowingly and
`
`intentionaily acted in concert and under common and coordinated plan, design and control in
`
`committing the acts alleged herein, such that each entity is jointly and severally liable for the
`
`acts of each other. Domino’s Pizza, LLC and Domino’s Pizza, Inc. shall be referred to herein
`
`coliectively as “Domino’s.” On information and belief, Domino’s makes, uses, offers for sale
`
`or license and/or sells or licenses restaurant and foodservice infonnation technology products,
`
`software, components and/or systems within this Judicial District, including the Domino’s
`
`Pizza ordering system/product}service, which includes, inter alia, wireless and internet POS
`
`integration, online and mobile product ordering, integration with social media and/or other
`
`thirduparty web—based applications, and other hospitality aspects.
`
`4. Defendant Papa John’s USA, inc. (“Papa John’s”) is, on information and belief, a
`
`Kentucky corporation having a principal place of business in Louisville, Kentucky. On
`
`information and belief, Papa John’s rnakes, uses, offers for sale or license and/or sells or
`
`licenses restaurant and foodservice information technology products, software, components
`
`and/or systems within this Judicial District, including the Papa John’s ordering
`
`system/product/service, which includes, inter alia, wireless and internet POS integration,
`
`oniine and mobile product ordering, integration with social media and/or other third—party
`
`webwhased applications, and other hospitality aspects.
`
`5. Defendant OpenTable, inc. (“OpenTabie”) is, on information and belief, a Delaware
`
`corporation having a principal place of business in San Francisco, California. On information
`
`and beiief, OpenTable makes, uses, offers for sale or license and/or seiis or licenses restaurant
`,2-
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Case No. 3:11—cv-01810—JLS—NLS
`
`

`

`Case 3:11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS Document 106 Filed 12/06/11 Page 4 of 95
`Case 3:11-cv-O1810-JLS-NLS Document 106
`Filed 12/06/11 Page 4 of 95
`
`{\J
`
`\OOOKIGNUEAUJ
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`i2
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`2O
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`and foodservice information technoiogy products, software, components and/or systems
`
`within this Judiciai District, including the OpenTable system/product]service, which includes,
`
`inter alia, OpenTable online and mobile reservations and guest management, integration with
`
`social media andfor other third—party webabased applications, and other hospitality aspects.
`
`6. Defendant GrubHub, Inc. (“GrubHub”) is, on information and belief, a Delaware
`
`corporation having a principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. On information and
`
`beiief, Grubl-Iub makes, uses, offers for sale or license and/or sells or iicenses restaurant and
`
`foodservice information technology products, software, components and/or systems within
`
`this Judicial District, including the GrubI-Iub system/product/service, which includes, inter
`
`alta, GrubHub oniine and mobiie product ordering, integration with social media and/or other
`
`thirdparty web~based applications, and other hospitality aspects.
`
`7. Defendant Ticketmob, LLC is, on information and belief, a California limited
`
`liability company having a principai place of business in Los Angeles, California, doing
`
`business as “LaughStub, LLC” (“LaughStub”). On information and belief, LaughStub makes,
`
`uses, offers for sale or license and/or sells or iicenses entertainment box office management
`
`and ticketing information technoiogy products, software, components and/or systems within
`
`this Judicial District, including the LaughStub system/product/service, which includes, inter
`
`alia, LaughStub oniine and mobile ticketing and reservations, integration with social media
`
`and]or other third’party web—based applications, and other hospitaiity aspects.
`
`8. Defendant Exit 41, LLC (“Exit 4i”) is, on information and beiief, a Delaware
`
`limited liability company having a principal place of business in Andover, Massachusetts. 0n
`
`information and belief, Exit 41 makes, uses, offers for sale or license and/or sells or licenses
`
`restaurant and foodservice information technology products, software, components and/or
`
`systems within this Judicial District, including the Exit 41 ordering system/producflservice,
`
`which includes, inter alia, wireless and internet POS integration, online and mobile product
`
`ordering, integration with social media and/or other third~patty web—based applications, and
`
`other hOSpitality aspects.
`
`
`-3-
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Case No. 3:11—cv—01810—JLS-NLS
`
`

`

`Case 3:11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS Document 106 Filed 12/06/11 Page 5 of 95
`Case 3:11-cv-O1810-JLS-NLS Document 106
`Filed 12/06/11 Page 5 of 95
`
`\DOONJONLfl-hWNw-n
`
`NNNNNNNNNl—‘i—‘P—‘HHWMWHD—d
`coqoxmswwa—onooqcnmnmwwc;
`
`9. Defendant QuikOrder, Inc. (“QuikOrder”) is, on information and belief, an Illinois
`corporation having a principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. On information and
`
`belief, QuikOrder makes, uses, offers for sale or license and/or sells or licenses restaurant and
`
`foodservice information technology products, software, components and/or systems within
`
`this Judicial District, including the Pizza Hut ordering system/product/service, which
`
`includes, inter alia, Wireless and internet POS integration, online and mobile product
`
`ordering, integration with social media and/or other third-party webnbased applications, and
`
`other beepitality aspects.
`
`l0. Defendant Seamless North America, LLC (“Seamless”) is, on information and
`
`belief, a Delaware limited liability company having a principal place of business in New
`
`York, New York. On information and belief, Seamless makes, uses, offers for sale or license
`
`and/or sells or licenses restaurant and foodservice information technology products, software,
`
`components and/or systems within this Judicial District, including the Seamless
`
`system/product/sewice, which includes, inter alia, Seamless online and mobile product
`
`ordering, integration with social media and/or other thirdmparty web—based applications, and
`
`other hospitality aspects.
`
`ll. Defendant O~Web Technologies Ltd. is, on information and belief, an Ohio limited
`
`liability company having a principal place of business in Cleveland, Ohio, doing business as
`
`“Onosys” (“Onosys”). On information and belief, Onosys makes, uses, offers for sale or
`
`license and/or sells or licenses restaurant and foodservice information technology products,
`
`software, components and/or systems within this Judicial District, including the Onosys
`
`ordering system/product/service, which includes, inter alia, wireless and internet POS
`
`integration, online and mobile product ordering, integration with social media and/or other
`
`third—party webubased applications, and other hospitality aspects.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`12. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the United
`
`States, 35 use. §§ 271, 281—285.
`
`
`_4_
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT lNFRlNGEMENT
`
`Case No.3:11—cv—61810-JLS-NLS
`
`

`

`Case 3:11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS Document 106 Filed 12/06/11 Page 6 of 95
`Case 3:11-cv-O1810-JLS-NLS Document 106
`Filed 12/06/11 Page 6 of 95
`
`13. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`l338(a).
`
`14- On information and belief, Defendants, and each of them, have engaged in (a) the
`
`offer for sale or license and sale or license of hospitality, restaurant, food service, ticketing
`
`and/or entertainment technology services, products and/or components in the United States,
`
`including this Judicial District, including services, products, software, components, and/or
`
`systems comprising wireless and internet POS and/or hospitality aspects; (to) the installation
`
`and maintenance of said services, products, software, components and/or systems in
`
`hospitality industry, restaurant, food service, and/or entertainment information technology
`
`systems in the United States, including this Judicial District; and/or (0) the use of hospitality
`
`industry, restaurant, food service, and/or entertainment information technology systems
`
`comprising said services, products, software, components and/or systems in the United States,
`
`including this Judicial District.
`
`15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants, and each of them, as each
`
`Defendant has committed acts of patent infringement in this Judicial District including, inter
`
`atta, making, using, offering for sale or license, and/or selling or licensing infringing services,
`
`products, software, components and/or systems in this Judicial District.
`
`16. Venue is proper in this Judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c)
`
`and 14008)) as regards all Defendants, both separately and together.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`1?. Ameranth was established in 1996 to develop and provide its 2151 Century
`
`CorrununicationsTM innovative information technology solutions for the hospitality industry
`
`(inclusive of, _e,,g,, restaurants, hotels, casinos, nightclubs, cruise ships and other entertainment
`
`and sports venues). Ameranth has been widely recognized as a technology leader in the
`
`provision of wireless and. internet—based systems and services to, inter alia, restaurants, hotels,
`
`casinos, cruise ships and entertainment and Sports venues. Ameranth’s award winning
`
`inventions enable, in relevant part, generation and synchronization of menus, including but
`
`not limited to restaurant menus, event tickets, and other products across fixed, wireless and/or
`
`-5-
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Case No. 3:11wcvw01810~JLS—NLS
`
`A \
`
`OOOKJGWU‘:
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`i3
`
`14
`
`15
`
`l6
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS Document 106 Filed 12/06/11 Page 7 of 95
`Case 3:11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS Document 106
`Filed 12/06/11 Page 7 of 95
`
`th
`\OOO‘h-IQU“!
`
`to
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`is
`
`16
`
`17
`
`is
`
`19
`
`2o
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`internet platforms as well as synchronization of hospitality information and hospitality
`
`software applications across fixed, wireless and internet platforms, including but not limited
`
`to, computer servers, web servers, databases, affinity/social networking systems, desktop
`
`computers, laptops, “smart” phones and other wireless handheld computing devices.
`
`18. Ameranth began development of the inventions leading to the patents—innsuit in the
`
`late Summer of 1998, at a time when the then~available wireless and internet hospitality
`
`offerings were extremely limited in functionality, were not synchronized and did not provide
`
`an integrated system—Wide solution to the pervasive ordering, reservations, affinity program
`
`and information management needs of the hospitality industry. Arneranth uniquely recognized
`
`the actual problems that needed to be resolved in order to meet those needs, and thereafter
`
`conceived and. developed its breakthrough inventions and products to provide systemic and
`
`comprehensive solutions directed to optimally meeting these industry needs. Ameranth has
`
`expended considerable effort and resources in inventing, developing and marketing its
`
`inventions and protecting its rights therein.
`
`19. Ameranth’s pioneering inventions have been widely adopted and are thus now
`
`essential to the modern wireless hospitality enterprise of the 21 st Century. Ameranth’s
`
`solutions have been adopted, licensed and/or deployed by numerous entities across the
`
`hospitality industry.
`
`20. The adoption of Ameranth’s technology by industry leaders and the wide acclaim
`
`received by Ameranth for its technological innovations are just some of the many
`
`confirmations of the breakthrough aspects of Ameranth’s inventions. Ameranth has received
`
`twelve different technology awards (three with “end customer” partners) and has been widely
`
`recognized as a hospitality wireless/internet technology leader by almost all major national
`
`and hospitality print publications, including, The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, USA
`
`Today and many others. Amaranth was personally nominated by Bill Gates, the Founder of
`
`Microsoft, for the prestigious Computerworld Honors Award that Ameranth received in 2001
`
`for its breakthrough synchronized reservations/ticketing system with the Improv Comedy
`
`Theatres. In his nomination, Mr. Gates described Ameranth as “one of the leading pioneers of
`
`,5,
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Case No. 3:11-cv—01810—JLS—NLS
`
`

`

`Case 3:11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS Document 106 Filed 12/06/11 Page 8 of 95
`Case 3:11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS Document 106
`Filed 12/06/11 Page 8 of 95
`
`information technology for the bettennent of mankind.” This prestigious award was based on
`
`Arneranth’s innovative synchronization of wireless/web/fixed hospitality software
`
`technology. Subsequently, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted Ameranth
`
`a number of currently—issued patents, two of which are the basis for this lawsuit. Ameranth
`
`has issued press releases announcing these patent grants on business wires, on its web sites
`
`and at numerous trade shows attended by several of the Defendants since the first of the two
`
`presently~asserted patents issued in 2002. A number of companies have iicensed patents and
`
`technology from Arneranth, recognizing the value of Ameranth‘s innovations.
`
`921211.!
`
`Patent Infringement (US. Pat. No. 6,384,850)
`
`(35 U.S.C. § 271)
`
`21. Plaintiff reiterates and incorporates the allegations set forth in paragraphs 120
`
`above as if fully set forth herein.
`
`22. On May 7, 2002, United States Patent No. 6,3 84,850 entitled “Information
`
`Management and Synchronous Communications System with Menu Generation” (“the ‘850
`
`patent”) (a true and copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by
`
`reference) was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent & Trademark Office.
`
`23. Plaintiff Ameranth is-the lawful owner by assignment of all right, title and interest
`
`in and to the ‘850 patent.
`
`Direct Infringement, Inducing Infringement, and Contributing to Infringement of the ‘850
`
`Patent by Defendant Pizza Hut
`
`24. On information and belief, defendant Pizza Hut has directly infringed and continues
`
`to directly infringe one or more valid and enforceable claims of the ‘850 patent, specifically
`
`one or more of claims 12 through 15 of the ‘850 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by
`
`making, using, offering for sale or license and/or selling or licensing infringing systems,
`
`products, and/or services in the United States without authority or license from Ameranth,
`
`said systems including but not limited to the Pizza Hut ordering system/product/service,
`
`which includes, inter alia, wireless and internet POS integration, online and mobile product
`
`-7-
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Case No. 3:1imcvw01810-JLS-NLS
`
`OKDOO‘JOWU‘I-P-
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`I7
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS Document 106 Filed 12/06/11 Page 9 of 95
`Case 3:11-cv-O1810-JLS-NLS Document 106
`Filed 12/06/11 Page 9 of 95
`
`ordering, integration with social media and/or other third~party web~based applications, and
`
`other hospitality aspects.
`
`§_e_e_, Egg wwwpizzahutcorn.
`
`25. On information and belief, the Pizza Hut ordering system/product]service, as
`
`deployed and/or used at or from one or more locations by Pizza Hut, its agents, distributors,
`
`partners, affiliates, licensees, franchisees, and/or their customers, infringes the “850 patent,
`
`by, inter alia, enabling product ordering and other hospitality functions via iPhone, Android,
`
`and other interact—enabled wireless handheld computing devices as well as via Web pages,
`
`storing hospitality information and data on at least one central database, on at least one
`
`wireless handheld computing device, and on at least one Web server and Web page, and
`
`synchronizing applications and data, including but not limited to applications and data relating
`to orders, between at least one central database, wireless handheld computing devices, and at
`
`least one Web server and Web page; utilizing an interface that provides a single point of entry
`
`that allows the synchronization of at least one wireless handheld computing device and at
`
`least one Web page with at least one central database; allowing information to be entered via
`
`Web pages, transmitted over the internet, and automatically communicated to at least one
`
`central database and to wireless handheld computing devices; allowing information to be
`
`entered Via wireless handheld computing devices, transmitted over the internet, and
`
`automatically communicated to at least one central database and to Web pages.
`
`26. On information and belief, defendant Pizza Hut has indirectly infringed and
`
`continues to indirectly infringe one or more valid and enforceable claims of the ‘850 patent,
`
`specifically one or more of claims 12 through 15 of the ‘850 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271(b), by actively, knowingly, and intentionally inducing direct infringement by other
`
`persons.
`
`27. On information and belief, customers of Pizza Hut, including consumers and
`
`franchise operators, use the Pizza Hut ordering system/product/service in a manner that
`
`infringes upon valid and enforceable claims of the ‘850 patent. Pizza Hut provides instruction
`
`and direction regarding the use of the l’izza Hut ordering system/product/service and
`
`advertises, promotes, and encourages the use of its system/product/service.
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT XNFRINGEMENT
`
`Case No. 3:11~cv~01819—JLS—NLS
`
`\DOQ-r—JON
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`l3
`
`M 1
`
`5
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS Document 106 Filed 12/06/11 Page 10 of 95
`Case 3:11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS Document 106
`Filed 12/06/11 Page 10 of 95
`
`Jib-FM
`\OGOKJGNU‘!
`
`i0
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`i6
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`28. On information and belief, the Pizza Hut ordering systemfproduct/service infringes
`
`one or more valid and enforceable claims of the ‘850 patent, specifically one or more of
`
`claims 12 through 15 of the ‘850 patent, for the reasons set forth hereinabove.
`
`29. Pizza Hut had knowledge of the ‘850 patent by no later than the date it was first
`
`served with the complaint in this action. After the date it first acquired knowledge of the
`
`patent, Pizza Hut knew or should have known that its continued offering and deployment of
`
`the Pizza Hut ordering system/product/service, and its continued support of consumers,
`
`franchise operators, and other users of this system/product/service, would induce direct
`
`infringement by those users. Despite its knowledge, Pizza Hut continued its infringing
`
`conduct described herein. Additionally, Pizza Hut intended that its actions would induce
`
`direct infringement by those users.
`
`30. On information and belief, defendant Pizza Hut has contributorily infringed and
`
`continues to contributorily infringe one or more valid and enforceabie claims of the ‘850
`
`patent, specifically one or more of ciaims 12 through 15 of the ‘850 patent, in violation of 35
`
`15.8.0. § 271(0).
`
`31. By distributing, selling, offering, offering to sell or license and/or selling or
`
`licensing the Pizza Hut ordering system/product/service, Pizza Hut provides non—staple
`
`articles of commerce to others for use in infringing systems, products, and/or services.
`
`1
`
`Additionally, Pizza Hut provides instruction and direction regarding the use of the Pizza Hut
`
`ordering system/product!service and advertises, promotes, and encourages the use of its
`
`system/product/service. Users of the Pizza Hut ordering system/product/service directly
`
`infringe One or more valid and enforceable claims of the ‘850 patent, specifically one or more
`
`of claims 12 through 15 of the ‘350 patent, for the reasons set forth hereinabove.
`
`32. Pizza Hut had knowledge of the ‘850 patent by no iater than the date it was first
`
`served with the complaint in this action. After the date it first acquired knowledge of the
`
`patent, Pizza Hut had knowledge that its Pizza Hut ordering system/product!service, a non"
`
`staple article of commerce, was used as a material part of the claimed invention of the ‘850
`
`patent, and that there were no substantial non-infringing uses for its ordering
`
`-9-
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT son PATENT rNERrNGEMENT
`
`Case No. 3:11-cv—61810»JLS»~NLS
`
`

`

`Case 3:11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS Document 106 Filed 12/06/11 Page 11 of 95
`ase 3:11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS Document 106
`Filed 12/06/11 Page 11 of 95
`
`system/product/service. Despite its knowledge, Pizza Hut continued its infringing conduct
`
`described herein.
`
`33. On information and belief, the aforesaid infringing activities of defendant Pizza Hut
`
`have been done with Knowledge and willful disregard of Ameranth’s patent rights, making
`
`this an exceptional ease within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`34. The aforesaid infringing activity of defendant Pizza Hut has directly and
`
`proximately caused damage to plaintiff Ameranth, including loss of profits from sales it
`
`would have made but for the infringements. Uniess enjoined, the aforesaid infringing activity
`
`will continue and cause irreparable injury to Ameranth for which there is no adequate remedy
`
`LWN
`\OOOHJCAM
`
`10
`
`at law.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`I3
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Direct Infringement, Inducing Infringement, and Contributing to Infringement of the ‘850
`
`Patent by Defendant Domino’s
`
`35. On information and belief, defendant Domino’s has directly infringed and continues
`
`to directly infringe one or more valid and enforceable claims of the ‘850 patent, specifically
`
`one or more of claims 12 through 1.5 of the ‘850 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 27l(a) by
`
`making, using, offering for sale or license and/or selling or licensing infringing systems,
`
`products, and/or services in the United States without authority or license from Amaranth,
`
`said systems including but not limited to the Domino’s Pizza ordering system/productx’service,
`which includes, inter alia, Wireless and internet POS integration, online and mobile product
`
`ordering, integration with social media and/or other third~party web~based applications, and
`
`other hospitality aspects.
`
`,Sge, gag, wwwdorninoscom.
`
`36. On information and belief, the Domino’s Pizza ordering system/product/service, as
`
`deployed and/or used at or from one or more locations by Domino’s, its agents, distributors,
`
`partners, affiiiates, licensees, franchisees, and/or their customers, infringes the ‘850 patent,
`
`by, inter alia, enabling product ordering and other hospitality functions via it’hone, Android,
`
`and other interact—enabled wireless handheid computing devices as well as via Web pages,
`
`storing hospitality information and data on at least one central database, on at least one
`
`wireless handheid computing device, and on at ieast one Web server and Web page, and
`-10-
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Case No. 3:1l-cv—0I810-JLS-NLS
`
`

`

`Case 3:11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS Document 106 Filed 12/06/11 Page 12 of 95
`Case 3:11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS Document 106
`Filed 12/06/11 Page 12 of 95
`
`synchronizing applications and data, including but not limited to applications and data relating
`
`to orders, between at least one central database, wireless handheld computing devices, and at
`
`least one Web server and Web page; utilizing an interface that provides a single point of entry
`
`that allows the synchronization of at least one wireless handheld computing device and at
`
`least one Web page with at least one central database; allowing information to be entered via
`
`Web pages, transmitted over the internet, and automatically communicated to at least one
`
`central database and to wireless handheld computing devices; allowing information to be
`
`entered via wireless handheld computing devices, transmitted over the internet, and
`
`automatically communicated to at least one central database and to Web pages.
`
`37. On information. and belief, defendant Domino’s has indirectly infringed and
`
`continues to indirectly infringe one or more valid and enforceable claims of the ‘850 patent,
`
`specifically one or more of claims 12 through 15 of the ‘850 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271(b), by actively, knowingly, and intentionally inducing direct infringement by other
`
`persons.
`
`38. On information and belief, customers of Domino’s, including consumers and
`
`franchise operators, use the Domino’s Pizza ordering system/product/service in a manner that
`
`infringes upon valid and enforceable claims of the “850 patent. Domino’s provides instruction
`
`and direction regarding the use of the Domino’s Pizza ordering system/product/service and
`
`advertises, promotes, and encourages the use of its systenflproduct/service.
`
`39. On information and belief, the Domino’s Pizza ordering system/product/service
`
`infringes one or more valid and enforceable claims of the “850 patent, specifically one or
`
`more of claims 12 through 15 of the ‘850 patent, for the reasons set forth hereinabove.
`
`40. Domino’s had knowledge of the ‘850 patent by no later than the date it was first
`
`served with the complaint in this action. After the date it first acquired knowledge of the
`
`patent, Domino’s knew or should have known that its continued offering and deployment of
`
`the Domino’s Pizza ordering system/product/service, and its continued support of consumers,
`
`franchise operators, and other users of this system/produot/servioe, would induce direct
`
`infringement by those users. Despite its knowledge, Domino’s continued its infringing
`-1 l-
`
`SECOND AMENDE!) COMPLAINT FOR E’ATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Case No. 3:11-cv—01816—JLS-NLS
`
`\OOOKJQW-DWM
`
`10
`
`11
`
`i2
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS Document 106 Filed 12/06/11 Page 13 of 95
`Case 3:11-cv-01810-JLS-NLS Document 106
`Filed 12/06/11 Page 13 of 95
`
`conduct described herein. Additionally, Domino’s intended that its actions would induce
`
`direct infringement by those users.
`
`41.
`
`011 information and belief, defendant Domino’s has contributorily infringed and
`
`continues to contributorily infringe one or more valid and enforceable claims of the ‘850
`
`patent, specifically one or more of claims 12 through 15 of the ‘850 patent, in violation of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 2718:).
`
`42. By distributing, selling, offering, offering to sell or license and/or selling or
`
`licensing the Domino’s Pizza ordering system/product/service, Domino’s provides non~staple
`
`articles of commerce to others for use in infringing systems, products, and/or services.
`
`Additionally, Domino’s provides instruction and direction regarding the use of the Domino’s
`
`Pizza ordering system/product/service and advertises, promotes, and encourages the use of its
`
`system/product/service. Users of the Domino’s Pizza ordering system/product/service
`
`directly infringe one or more valid and enforceable claims of the ‘850 patent, specifically one
`
`or more of claims 12 through 15 of the ‘850 patent, for the reasons set forth hereinabove.
`
`43. Domino’s had knowledge of the ‘850 patent by no later than the date it was first
`
`served with the complaint in this action. After the date it first acquired knowledge of the
`
`patent, Domino’s had knowledge that its Domino’s Pizza ordering system/product/service, a
`
`non-staple article of commerce, was used as a material part of the claimed invention of the
`
`‘850 patent, and that there were no substantial non—infringin g uses for its ordering
`
`system/product/service. Despite its knowledge, Domino’s continued its infringing conduct as
`
`described herein.
`
`44. On information and belief, the aforesaid infringing activities of defendant Domino’s
`
`have been done with knowledge and willful disregard of Ameranth’s patent rights, making
`
`this an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`45. The aforesaid infringing activity of defendant Domino’s has directly and
`
`proximately caused damage to plaintiff Arneranth, including loss of profits from sales it
`
`would have made but for the infringements. Unless enjoined, the aforesaid