Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/18/13 Page 1 of 65 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-1112
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.,
`
`
`
`
`-against-
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc.; Apple Inc.; BlackBerry
`Corporation
`(fka Research
`In Motion
`Corporation); Huawei Device USA, Inc.; and
`Motorola Mobility LLC.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. (“ContentGuard”), by and through its undersigned
`
`attorneys, based upon personal knowledge with respect to its own actions and on information and
`
`belief as to other matters, for its complaint avers as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`ContentGuard
`
`ContentGuard is a leading innovator, developer, and licensor of digital rights
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`management (“DRM”) and related digital content distribution products and technologies.
`
`ContentGuard is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Texas with its principal
`
`place of business at 6900 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 850, Plano, Texas, 75024.
`
`2.
`
`ContentGuard’s long history of innovation in the DRM space began in the 1990s
`
`at Xerox Corporation’s legendary Palo Alto Research Center (“Xerox PARC”), where brilliant
`
`scientists envisioned a future in which people would rely on the Internet to supply the broadest
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1031, p. 1
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/18/13 Page 2 of 65 PageID #: 2
`
`array of digital content the world had ever seen. At that time, however, no one had yet invented
`
`an effective means to prevent piracy of digital content, which could be readily copied and
`
`distributed by personal computers. Many believed that the problem was essentially unsolvable—
`
`and that, as a consequence, the distribution of movies, videos, music, books, “apps,” and other
`
`digital content over the Internet would be blocked by copyright owners and others with a vested
`
`interest in protecting such content.
`
`3.
`
`A well-known commentator—John Perry Barlow—summarized the “digitized
`
`property” challenge as follows: “If our property can be infinitely reproduced and instantaneously
`
`distributed all over the planet without cost, without our knowledge, without its even leaving our
`
`possession, how can we protect it? How are we going to get paid for the work we do with our
`
`minds? And, if we can’t get paid, what will assure the continued creation and distribution of
`
`such work? Since we don’t have a solution to what is a profoundly new kind of challenge, and
`
`are apparently unable to delay the galloping digitization of everything not obstinately physical,
`
`we are sailing into the future on a sinking ship.”
`
`4.
`
`While they fully understood the “profoundly new kind of challenge” posed by the
`
`arrival of the Internet, Xerox PARC’s scientists had a different vision of the future, firmly
`
`believing that a solution to what Barlow called the “immense, unsolved conundrum . . . of
`
`digitized property” could in fact be found. Xerox PARC’s scientists thus began to explore DRM
`
`solutions that would not only prevent piracy, but would also enable musicians, authors,
`
`photographers, publishers, and producers to share, track, and control their content. Through a
`
`series of revolutionary inventions in the 1990s, Xerox PARC’s scientists laid the technological
`
`foundation for what would ultimately become the prevailing paradigm for distributing digital
`
`content over the Internet.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1031, p. 2
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/18/13 Page 3 of 65 PageID #: 3
`
`5.
`
`In 2000, Xerox Corporation partnered with Microsoft Corporation to form a new
`
`company, ContentGuard, to pursue the DRM business. Xerox contributed key personnel, as well
`
`as all of its then-existing and future DRM-related inventions and technologies to ContentGuard.
`
`In the press release announcing the formation of ContentGuard, Steve Ballmer, Microsoft’s
`
`President and Chief Executive Officer, hailed ContentGuard’s innovations in the DRM space,
`
`noting that “the secure and safe delivery of digital media is of primary importance to not only
`
`everyone in the business of content distribution, but consumers of this information as well.” The
`
`joint Xerox and Microsoft press release announcing the formation of ContentGuard, and an
`
`advertisement produced at the time, are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B.
`
`6.
`
`Staffed by a team of scientists and technology veterans from Xerox and
`
`Microsoft, ContentGuard continued its path of innovation, developing both hardware and
`
`software solutions to solve the vexing problem of digital piracy. ContentGuard has invested
`
`more than $100 million to develop these DRM solutions and bring them to market.
`
`7.
`
`ContentGuard expanded
`
`its commitment
`
`to research and
`
`innovation by
`
`developing end-to-end DRM systems and products embodying ContentGuard’s inventions, an
`
`effort that continues today. ContentGuard also provided DRM research expertise to various
`
`industry players that wished to have the freedom to custom-build and operate their own DRM
`
`systems. In addition to its extensive collaboration with Microsoft, ContentGuard also partnered
`
`with companies such as Hewlett-Packard, Adobe, TimeWarner, and Accenture to assist them in
`
`developing DRM solutions.
`
`8.
`
`To further accelerate the evolution of the marketplace for digital content,
`
`ContentGuard also led the way in enabling industry groups to better understand DRM system
`
`requirements and to develop appropriate DRM specifications and industry standards that would
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1031, p. 3
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/18/13 Page 4 of 65 PageID #: 4
`
`allow for DRM
`
`interoperability between content providers, distributors, and device
`
`manufacturers. Among other things, recognizing the need for standardized mechanisms to
`
`facilitate trusted interoperability between DRM systems, ContentGuard engineers developed a
`
`standards-based rights description language called eXtensible Rights Markup Language
`
`(“XrML”). XrML, which is deployed in Microsoft DRM products, advanced the state of the art
`
`of rights expression languages by introducing features such as improved identification
`
`capabilities of the digital resource, user, and issuer.
`
`9.
`
`ContentGuard’s important contributions to the DRM field have been widely
`
`recognized. The New York Times hailed ContentGuard as a “pioneer in th[e] field of digital-
`
`rights management.” The Los Angeles Times similarly noted that ContentGuard held “the
`
`technological building blocks necessary to make the digital delivery of music, movies and other
`
`files secure.” Another market commentator remarked that ContentGuard “has almost single-
`
`handedly driven DRM interoperability.”
`
`10.
`
`To this day, ContentGuard continues to innovate and invest in researching new
`
`and innovative DRM technologies and products that enable the distribution of rich multimedia
`
`content on smartphones, tablets, e-readers, laptop computers, smart televisions, set top boxes,
`
`and other electronic devices manufactured and sold worldwide. Among other things,
`
`ContentGuard recently released an “app” under its own name that allows users to share
`
`documents, PDFs, and photos securely and privately. To determine the areas of research and
`
`development investment, ContentGuard leverages the expertise of its engineers and product
`
`development team.
`
`11.
`
`ContentGuard’s DRM innovations remain immensely relevant—and immensely
`
`valuable—today. The availability of rich multimedia content is a key driver of the enormous
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1031, p. 4
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/18/13 Page 5 of 65 PageID #: 5
`
`success experienced by manufacturers of devices such as smartphones, tablets, and e-readers—
`
`including Defendants—whose commercial value is largely driven by the capability of such
`
`devices to download, play, and display digital content. Without effective DRM protection, many
`
`owners of digital content would not allow their content to be available on those devices. As the
`
`president of the World Wide Web Consortium remarked in pointed language “Reject DRM and
`
`you risk walling off parts of the web.”
`
`12.
`
`Virtually every smartphone, tablet, and e-reader produced and sold around the
`
`world relies on ContentGuard’s DRM technology. ContentGuard’s new content-sharing “app”
`
`and other products that are currently under development similarly rely on ContentGuard’s
`
`foundational DRM technology. Without that technology, many companies that invest billions of
`
`dollars to produce movies, videos, books, music, and “apps” would be unwilling to distribute
`
`such digital content over the Internet.
`
`B.
`
`13.
`
`The Defendants
`
`Defendant Amazon.com Inc. (“Amazon”) is a corporation organized under the
`
`laws of the State of Delaware and registered to do business in the State of Texas, with a principal
`
`place of business at 410 Terry Ave, North Seattle, WA 98109. Amazon is doing business and
`
`infringing ContentGuard’s DRM patents in the Eastern District of Texas and elsewhere in the
`
`United States.
`
`14.
`
`Defendant Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) is a corporation organized under the laws of
`
`California and registered to do business in the State of Texas, with a principal place of business
`
`is 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, CA 95014. Apple is doing business and infringing ContentGuard’s
`
`DRM patents in the Eastern District of Texas and elsewhere in the United States.
`
`15.
`
`BlackBerry Corporation (“BlackBerry,” fka Research In Motion Corporation) is a
`
`corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and registered to do
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1031, p. 5
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/18/13 Page 6 of 65 PageID #: 6
`
`business in the State of Texas, with a principal place of business at 5000 Riverside Drive, Irving,
`
`Texas 75039. BlackBerry is doing business and infringing ContentGuard’s DRM patents in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas and elsewhere in the United States.
`
`16.
`
`Huawei Device USA, Inc. (“Huawei”) is a corporation organized and existing
`
`under the laws of Texas and registered to do business in the State of Texas, with a principal place
`
`of business at 5700 Tennyson Parkway Suite 500, Plano, TX 75024. Huawei is doing business
`
`and infringing ContentGuard’s DRM patents in the Eastern District of Texas and elsewhere in
`
`the United States.
`
`17.
`
`Defendant Motorola Mobility LLC (“Motorola”) is a corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of Delaware and registered to do business in the State of Texas, with a
`
`principal place of business at 1303 East Algonquin Road, Schaumberg, Illinois. Motorola is
`
`doing business and infringing ContentGuard’s DRM patents in the Eastern District of Texas and
`
`elsewhere in the United States.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`18.
`
`This is a civil action arising in part under laws of the United States relating to
`
`patents (35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 283, 284, and 285). This court has federal jurisdiction of such
`
`federal question claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`19.
`
`Personal jurisdiction is proper in the State of Texas and in this judicial district.
`
`Among other things, Defendants conduct business, sell infringing products, and are engaged in
`
`activities that lead to infringement of ContentGuard’s DRM patents in the State of Texas and in
`
`this judicial district.
`
`20.
`
`Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1400(b).
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1031, p. 6
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/18/13 Page 7 of 65 PageID #: 7
`
`THE PATENTS IN SUIT
`
`21.
`
`On November 8, 2005, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent
`
`No. 6,963,859 (“the ’859 Patent”) entitled “Content rendering repository.” ContentGuard holds
`
`all right, title and interest to the ’859 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ’859 Patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit C.
`
`22.
`
`On April 21, 2009, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`7,523,072 (“the ’072 Patent”) entitled “System for controlling the distribution and use of digital
`
`works.” ContentGuard holds all right, title and interest to the ’072 Patent. A true and correct
`
`copy of the ’072 Patent is attached as Exhibit D.
`
`23.
`
`On August 10, 2010, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`7,774,280 (“the ’280 Patent”) entitled “System and method for managing transfer of rights using
`
`shared state variables.” ContentGuard holds all right, title and interest to the ’280 Patent. A true
`
`and correct copy of the ’280 Patent is attached as Exhibit E.
`
`24.
`
`On August 16, 2011, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`8,001,053 (“the ’053 Patent”) entitled “System and method for rights offering and granting using
`
`shared state variables.” ContentGuard holds all right, title and interest to the ’053 Patent. A true
`
`and correct copy of the ’053 Patent is attached as Exhibit F.
`
`25.
`
`On September 11, 2007, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent
`
`No. 7,269,576 (“the ’576 Patent”) entitled “Content rendering apparatus.” ContentGuard holds
`
`all right, title and interest to the ’576 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ’576 Patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit G.
`
`26.
`
`On February 5, 2013, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`8,370,956 (“the ’956 Patent”) entitled “System and method for rendering digital content in
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1031, p. 7
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/18/13 Page 8 of 65 PageID #: 8
`
`accordance with usage rights information.” ContentGuard holds all right, title and interest to the
`
`’956 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ’956 Patent is attached as Exhibit H.
`
`27.
`
`On March 5, 2013, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`8,393,007 (“the ’007 Patent”) entitled “System and method for distributing digital content in
`
`accordance with usage rights information.” ContentGuard holds all right, title and interest to the
`
`’007 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ’007 Patent is attached as Exhibit I.
`
`28.
`
`On May 29, 2007, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`7,225,160 (“the ’160 Patent”) entitled “Digital works having usage rights and method for
`
`creating the same.” ContentGuard holds all right, title and interest to the ’160 Patent. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ’160 Patent is attached as Exhibit J.
`
`29.
`
`On November 12, 2013, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent
`
`No. 8,583,556 (“the ’556 Patent”) entitled “Method for providing a digital asset for distribution.”
`
`ContentGuard holds all right, title and interest to the ’556 Patent. A true and correct copy of the
`
`’556 Patent is attached as Exhibit K.
`
`CONTENTGUARD’S EFFORTS TO LICENSE DEFENDANTS’ USE OF ITS DRM
`TECHNOLOGIES
`
`30.
`
`Throughout its history, ContentGuard has prided itself in being an innovator and
`
`leader in the DRM field. ContentGuard’s revolutionary DRM technologies are embodied in its
`
`extensive portfolio of DRM patents and patent applications, which was developed during the past
`
`two decades and now comprises over 300 issued patents and 160 pending applications.
`
`31.
`
`Following its early partnerships with companies such as Hewlett-Packard, Adobe,
`
`Microsoft, Technicolor and TimeWarner, ContentGuard successfully licensed its DRM
`
`technologies for use in smartphones and tablets to companies around the world, including Casio,
`
`Fujitsu, Hitachi, LG Electronics, NEC, Nokia, Panasonic, Pantech, Sanyo, Sharp, Sony, Toshiba,
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1031, p. 8
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/18/13 Page 9 of 65 PageID #: 9
`
`and others. These companies embraced ContentGuard’s DRM technologies and agreed to
`
`license use of those technologies for substantial royalties.
`
`32.
`
`ContentGuard’s numerous patent license agreements were executed without
`
`ContentGuard having to take legal action, or even threaten litigation, to protect its intellectual
`
`property rights.
`
`33.
`
`Defendants have refused to take a license, instead choosing to infringe
`
`ContentGuard’s DRM patents and free-ride, notwithstanding ContentGuard’s willingness to
`
`accept the fair and reasonable terms agreed to by Defendants’ competitors.
`
`34.
`
`ContentGuard has made numerous attempts to negotiate a license agreement with
`
`Amazon. Despite ContentGuard’s good-faith efforts, Amazon has refused to pay for its use of
`
`ContentGuard’s DRM technologies.
`
`35.
`
`ContentGuard has made numerous attempts to negotiate a license agreement with
`
`Apple. Despite ContentGuard’s good-faith efforts, Apple has refused to pay for its use of
`
`ContentGuard’s DRM technologies.
`
`36.
`
`ContentGuard has made numerous attempts to negotiate a license agreement with
`
`BlackBerry. Despite ContentGuard’s good-faith efforts, BlackBerry has refused to pay for its
`
`use of ContentGuard’s DRM technologies.
`
`37.
`
`ContentGuard has made numerous attempts to negotiate a license agreement with
`
`Huawei. Despite ContentGuard’s good-faith efforts, Huawei has refused to pay for its use of
`
`ContentGuard’s DRM technologies.
`
`38.
`
`ContentGuard has made numerous attempts to negotiate a license agreement with
`
`Motorola. Despite ContentGuard’s good-faith efforts, Motorola has refused to pay for its use of
`
`ContentGuard’s DRM technologies.
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1031, p. 9
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/18/13 Page 10 of 65 PageID #: 10
`
`39.
`
`Defendants’ refusal to agree to pay for their use of ContentGuard’s DRM
`
`technologies on the fair and reasonable terms and conditions agreed to by competitors has left
`
`ContentGuard no choice but to commence this litigation.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ COMMON ACTS OF INFRINGEMENT
`
`40.
`
`Defendants are properly joined in this action because (a) ContentGuard’s claims
`
`herein are based on the same transaction(s), occurrence(s) or series of transactions or occurrences
`
`relating to Defendants’ making, using, offering for sale, and selling of the accused products and
`
`processes; and (b) questions of fact common to all Defendants will arise in the action.
`
`41.
`
`For example, all Defendants (a) provide access to the Amazon Kindle “app,”
`
`either preloaded or via their online stores, on one or more of their devices, (b) provide hardware
`
`and software components required by the claims of the ContentGuard DRM patents to enable the
`
`Kindle DRM solution to operate on their devices, and/or (c) test the Amazon Kindle “app” to
`
`ensure it will work reliably for users of their devices. These devices include, merely by way of
`
`example, the Apple iPad, the Amazon Kindle Fire, the BlackBerry Z10, the Huawei Ascend, and
`
`the Motorola Moto X. In each of these devices and many other devices supplied by Defendants,
`
`the Amazon Kindle “app” is and has been used to practice ContentGuard’s DRM patents.
`
`42.
`
`In addition, there is a logical relationship and many actual links between the
`
`infringement claims against the Defendants arising out of their common use of the Amazon
`
`Kindle “app.” Amazon supplies the Kindle “app” that is used by all Defendants and/or their
`
`customers to practice the claimed inventions, and the Kindle “app” operates the same way
`
`relative to the patents in providing the claimed DRM functionality on Defendants’ products.
`
`Moreover, on information and belief, there are licensing and/or technology agreements between
`
`Amazon and the other Defendants in connection with the Kindle “app,” and, on information and
`
`belief, Amazon and the other Defendants collaborate in developing, testing, supporting, and/or
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1031, p. 10
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/18/13 Page 11 of 65 PageID #: 11
`
`optimizing the Kindle “app” for the different accused products. These are just a few of the many
`
`actual links between the infringement claims against Amazon and the other Defendants
`
`indicating that all the Defendants have been properly joined in this action.
`
`43.
`
`Similarly, on information and belief, each of the Defendants have accused
`
`products and methods that use one or more of the Google Play “apps” (Google Play Books,
`
`Google Play Movies, and Google Play Music) to practice the claimed inventions. For example,
`
`Google Play Books and Google Play Music are available and have been used in accused devices
`
`made by each of the Defendants, including, merely by way of example, the Apple iPad, the
`
`Amazon Kindle Fire, the BlackBerry Z10, the Huawei Ascend, and the Motorola Moto X. In
`
`each of these devices and many other devices supplied by Defendants, Google Play Books and
`
`Google Play Music are and have been used to practice ContentGuard’s DRM patents. In
`
`addition, Google Play Movies is and has been used to practice ContentGuard’s DRM patents on
`
`accused devices.
`
`44.
`
`In addition, there is a logical relationship and many actual links between the
`
`infringement claims against the Defendants arising out of their common use of the Google Play
`
`“apps”. Google supplies the Google Play “apps” that are used by all Defendants to practice the
`
`claimed inventions, and the Google Play “apps” operate the same way relative to the patents in
`
`providing the claimed DRM functionality on Defendants’ products. These are just a few of the
`
`many actual links between the infringement claims against the Defendants in relation to the
`
`Google Play “apps” indicating that all the Defendants have been properly joined in this action.
`
`45.
`
`Similarly, on information and belief, each of the Defendants have accused
`
`products and methods that implement one or more versions of a standard known as Unique
`
`Identifier Technology Solution or “UITS.” UITS is a specification that describes a way to
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1031, p. 11
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/18/13 Page 12 of 65 PageID #: 12
`
`embed metadata into unprotected media files so that it is possible to detect when the metadata is
`
`modified. The UITS specification requires metadata about the content and distributor, and
`
`identifiers that distinguish between different purchase events. The metadata is arranged in a
`
`standard way and is cryptographically signed so that tampering can be detected. UITS can be
`
`used for a number of different purposes, such as communicating the copyright or parental
`
`advisory status of a file, verifying retailer sales, transporting redemption codes, and more.
`
`Products practicing the UITS specification infringe at least the ’556 patent. Accused devices
`
`made by each of the Defendants, including, merely by way of example, the Apple iPad, the
`
`Amazon Kindle Fire, the BlackBerry Z10, the Huawei Ascend, and the Motorola Moto X,
`
`practice the UITS specification.
`
`46.
`
`For these reasons, infringement issues in this case will include for all defendants
`
`common questions of fact concerning the Kindle application, the Google Play “apps,” and the
`
`UITS specification, resulting in substantial evidentiary overlap with respect to the design and
`
`operation of the accused devices, as applied to the claims of the asserted patents.
`
`COUNT 1: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’859 PATENT
`
`(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 46 are incorporated by reference as if fully stated herein.
`
`Amazon has been and is now directly infringing and/or indirectly infringing the
`
`’859 Patent by way of inducement and/or contributory infringement, literally and/or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, in this District, and elsewhere, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, including
`
`by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale in the United States or importing into the
`
`United States products covered by at least one claim of the ’859 Patent. Amazon has notice of
`
`the ’859 Patent. Amazon actively induces content providers and/or end users of Amazon
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1031, p. 12
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/18/13 Page 13 of 65 PageID #: 13
`
`products to infringe the ’859 Patent by, among other things, (a) providing access to certain
`
`“apps” (such as the iTunes client, the Amazon Kindle, Amazon Instant Video, and/or Google
`
`Play “apps”) that use the ContentGuard DRM solution claimed in the ’859 Patent, (b) providing
`
`instructions for using such “apps”; (c) providing advertisings for using such “apps”; and (d)
`
`providing hardware and software components required by the claims of the ’859 Patent.1
`
`Amazon engages in the foregoing activities because it specifically intends end users of Amazon
`
`products to use “apps” that deploy, and content providers to distribute content that is protected
`
`by, the ContentGuard DRM solutions claimed in the ’859 Patent. Amazon thereby specifically
`
`intends end users and content providers to infringe the ’859 Patent. Amazon derives revenue
`
`from both its own and the third-party infringers’ infringing activities. Indeed, Amazon’s ability
`
`to sell the accused products is wholly dependent upon the availability of these “apps” and the
`
`digital content they make available to users. Amazon also contributorily infringes the ’859
`
`Patent because there is no substantial non-infringing use of these “apps” on the accused Amazon
`
`products. These “apps” cannot be used with accused Amazon products without infringing the
`
`’859 Patent.
`
`49.
`
`Apple has been and is now directly infringing and/or indirectly infringing the ’859
`
`Patent by way of inducement and/or contributory infringement, literally and/or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, in this District, and elsewhere, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, including
`
`by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale in the United States or importing into the
`
`
`1 See, e.g., http://www.amazon.com/kindle-fire-hd-best-family-kids-tablet/dp/B00CU0NSCU;
`http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201240840;
`http://www.amazon.com/gp/feature.html/ref=kcp_iph_ln_ar?docId=1000301301;
`http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200729450;
`http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201009460;
`http://www.amazon.com/kindle-fire-hd-best-family-kids-tablet/dp/B00CU0NSCU;
`https://developer.amazon.com/sdk/fire/specifications.html.
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1031, p. 13
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/18/13 Page 14 of 65 PageID #: 14
`
`United States products covered by at least one claim of the ’859 Patent. Apple has notice of the
`
`’859 Patent. Apple actively induces content providers and/or end users of Apple products to
`
`infringe the ’859 Patent by, among other things, (a) providing access to certain “apps” (such as
`
`the iTunes client, the Amazon Kindle, Amazon Instant Video, and/or Google Play “apps”) that
`
`use the ContentGuard DRM solution claimed in the ’859 Patent, (b) providing instructions for
`
`using such “apps”; (c) providing advertisings for using such “apps”; and (d) providing hardware
`
`and software components required by the claims of the ’859 Patent.2 Apple engages in the
`
`foregoing activities because it specifically intends end users of Apple products to use “apps” that
`
`deploy, and content providers to distribute content that is protected by, the ContentGuard DRM
`
`solutions claimed in the ’859 Patent. Apple thereby specifically intends end users and content
`
`providers to infringe the ’859 Patent. Apple derives revenue from both its own and the third-
`
`party infringers’ infringing activities. Indeed, Apple’s ability to sell the accused products is
`
`wholly dependent upon the availability of these “apps” and the digital content they make
`
`available to users. Apple also contributorily infringes the ’859 Patent because there is no
`
`substantial non-infringing use of these “apps” on the accused Apple products. These “apps”
`
`cannot be used with accused Apple products without infringing the ’859 Patent.
`
`50.
`
`BlackBerry has been and is now directly infringing and/or indirectly infringing
`
`the ’859 Patent by way of inducement and/or contributory infringement, literally and/or under
`
`
`2 See, e.g., http://www.apple.com/itunes/features/#store;
`http://www.apple.com/itunes/;
`https://itunes.apple.com/in/app/kindle/id302584613;
`https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/google-play-books/id400989007;
`https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/app-for-google-music-free/id485638799;
`https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/google-tv-remote/id422137859?l=es&mt=8;
`http://www.apple.com/in/iphone-5s/specs/;
`http://www.apple.com/in/ipad/specs/;
`http://www.apple.com/in/ipod-touch/specs.html.
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1031, p. 14
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/18/13 Page 15 of 65 PageID #: 15
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, in this District, and elsewhere, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271,
`
`including by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale in the United States or importing
`
`into the United States products covered by at least one claim of the ’859 Patent. BlackBerry has
`
`notice of the ’859 Patent. BlackBerry actively induces content providers and/or end users of
`
`BlackBerry products to infringe the ’859 Patent by, among other things, (a) providing access to
`
`certain “apps” (such as the iTunes client, the Amazon Kindle, Amazon Instant Video, and/or
`
`Google Play “apps”) that use the ContentGuard DRM solution claimed in the ’859 Patent, (b)
`
`providing instructions for using such “apps”; (c) providing advertisings for using such “apps”;
`
`and (d) providing hardware and software components required by the claims of the ’859 Patent.3
`
`BlackBerry engages in the foregoing activities because it specifically intends end users of
`
`BlackBerry products to use “apps” that deploy, and content providers to distribute content that is
`
`protected by, the ContentGuard DRM solutions claimed in the ’859 Patent. BlackBerry thereby
`
`specifically intends end users and content providers to infringe the ’859 Patent. BlackBerry
`
`derives revenue from both its own and the third-party infringers’ infringing activities. Indeed,
`
`BlackBerry’s ability to sell the accused products is wholly dependent upon the availability of
`
`these “apps” and the digital content they make available to users. BlackBerry also contributorily
`
`infringes the ’859 Patent because there is no substantial non-infringing use of these “apps” on the
`
`accused BlackBerry products. These “apps” cannot be used with accused BlackBerry products
`
`without infringing the ’859 Patent.
`
`
`3 See, e.g., http://in.blackberry.com/apps/blackberry-world.html#tab-1;
`http://appworld.blackberry.com/webstore/content/25058915/?countrycode=IN&lang=en;
`http://appworld.blackberry.com/webstore/content/65525/?countrycode=US&lang=en;
`http://in.blackberry.com/apps/blackberry-world.html#tab-1;
`http://appworld.blackberry.com/webstore/content/25058915/?countrycode=IN&lang=en;
`http://in.blackberry.com/smartphones/blackberry-z30/specifications.html.
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`Petitioner Apple Inc. - Ex. 1031, p. 15
`
`

`
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 1 Filed 12/18/13 Page 16 of 65 PageID #: 16
`
`51.
`
`Huawei has been and is now directly infringing and/or indirectly infringing the
`
`’859 Patent by way of inducement and/or contributory infringement, literally and/or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, in this District, and elsewhere, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, including
`
`by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale in the United States or importing into the
`
`United States products covered by at least one claim of the ’859 Patent. Huawei has notice of
`
`the ’859 Patent. Huawei actively induces content providers and/or end users of Huawei
`
`products to infringe the ’859 Patent by, among other things, (a) providing access to certain
`
`“apps” (such as the iTunes client, the Amazon Kindle, Amazon Instant Video, and/or Google
`
`Play “apps”) that use the ContentGuard DRM solution claimed in the ’859 Patent, (b) providing
`
`instructions for using such “apps”; (c) providing advertisings for using such “apps”; and (d)
`
`providing hardware and software components