UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:13-cv-103
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`ALFONSO CIOFFI, an individual,
`MELANIE ROZMAN, an individual,
`MEGAN ROZMAN, an individual, and
`MORGAN ROZMAN, an individual,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`vs.
`
`GOOGLE, INC.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Alfonso Cioffi, Melanie Rozman, Megan Rozman, and Morgan Rozman
`
`(together, “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows for their Amended Complaint against Google, Inc.
`
`(“Google”):
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the
`
`United States Code. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant
`
`to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.
`
`2.
`
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over Google because Google has transacted
`
`and is transaction business in the Eastern District of Texas that includes, but is not limited to the
`
`use and sale of products and systems that practice the subject matter claimed in the patents-in-
`
`suit.
`
`3.
`
`Venue is proper in the district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b) because a
`
`substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`Google - Exhibit 1005, page 1
`
`

`
`where Google has done business and committed infringing acts and continues to do business and
`
`to commit infringing acts.
`
`PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff Alfonso Cioffi is the co-inventor and co-owner of the Patents-in-Suit,
`
`and lives in Murphy, Texas, within the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff Melanie Rozman is the daughter of the co-inventor, the late Al Rozman,
`
`and co-owner of the Patents-in-Suit, and lives in Murphy, Texas within the Eastern District of
`
`Texas.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff Morgan Rozman is the daughter of the co-inventor, the late Al Rozman,
`
`and co-owner of the Patents-in-Suit, and lives in Murphy, Texas within the Eastern District of
`
`Texas.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff Megan Rozman is the daughter of the co-inventor, the late Al Rozman,
`
`and co-owner of the Patents-in-Suit, and lives in Murphy, Texas within the Eastern District of
`
`Texas.
`
`8.
`
`Collectively, Alfonso Cioffi, Melanie Rozman, Morgan Rozman and Megan
`
`Rozman are the joint and one hundred percent (100%) owners of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`9.
`
`On information and belief, defendant Google is a Delaware Corporation having its
`
`principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheater Parkway, Mountain View, California 94043.
`
`On information and belief, Google is in the business of providing web browsers (Chrome),
`
`mobile web browsers (Chrome for Android) and hardware installed with Chrome and Chrome
`
`for Android (e.g., Chromebooks and Nexus mobile devices), and that a significant portion of
`
`Google’s revenue derives from the use of these technologies. On information and belief, Google
`
`has done and continues to do business in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`PATENTS
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiffs are the owner of all rights, title and interests in U.S. Reissue Patent
`
`RE43,103 (the “’103”), entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROTECTING A
`
`COMPUTER SYSTEM FROM MALICIOUS SOFTWARE.” The ‘103 Reissue Patent was duly
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`Google - Exhibit 1005, page 2
`
`

`
`and legally issued on January 10, 2012 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A
`
`true and correct copy of the ‘103 Reissue Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiffs are the owner of all rights, title and interests in U.S. Reissue Patent
`
`RE43,500 (the “500”), entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROTECTING A
`
`COMPUTER SYSTEM FROM MALICIOUS SOFTWARE.” The ‘500 Reissue Patent was duly
`
`and legally issued on July 3, 2012 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ‘500 Reissue Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiffs are the owner of all rights, title and interests in U.S. Reissue Patent
`
`RE43,528 (the “’528”), entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROTECTING A
`
`COMPUTER SYSTEM FROM MALICIOUS SOFTWARE.” The ‘528 Reissue Patent was duly
`
`and legally issued on July 17, 2012 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true
`
`and correct copy of the ‘528 Reissue Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Mr. Cioffi wrote to
`
`Google on December 11, 2012, placing Google on notice of the ‘528 Reissue Patent.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiffs are the owner of all rights, title and interests in U.S. Reissue Patent
`
`RE43,529 (the “’529”), entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROTECTING A
`
`COMPUTER SYSTEM FROM MALICIOUS SOFTWARE.” The ‘529 Reissue Patent was duly
`
`and legally issued on July 17, 2012 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true
`
`and correct copy of the ‘529 Reissue Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D. Mr. Cioffi wrote to
`
`Google on December 11, 2012, placing Google on notice of the ‘529 Reissue Patent.
`
`14.
`
`Reissue Patents ‘103, ‘500, ‘528 and ‘529 are collectively herein referred to as the
`
`“Patents-in-Suit.”
`
`COUNT 1 – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘103 REISSUE PATENT
`
`Paragraphs 1-14 are incorporated by reference as if stated fully herein.
`
`On information and belief, Google has been and is directly infringing, either by
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`literal infringement or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘103 Reissue Patent in this judicial
`
`district and elsewhere in the United States by making, using, offering to sell, and selling (1) all
`
`versions of Google Chrome in existence as of the filing of the amended complaint, and all later
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`Google - Exhibit 1005, page 3
`
`

`
`versions, (2) Google Chrome for Android 4.0, 4.1, and all later versions, (3) Chromebook
`
`versions Cr-48, Series 5 XE500C21, AC700, Series 5 XE550C22, Series 3 XE303C12, C7 and
`
`X131e, Chromebox models Series 3 XE300M22-A01US, Series 3 XE300M22-A02US, and all
`
`similar computers sold by Google with Chrome pre-installed, and (4) the Nexus 4, Nexus 7 and
`
`Nexus 10 devices (collectively, the “Chrome Products”), that infringe one or more claims of the
`
`‘103 Reissue Patent. Google is thus liable for infringement of the ‘103 Reissue Patent pursuant
`
`to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`17.
`
`Individual end-users of the Chrome Products (“Chrome Users”) directly infringe,
`
`either by literal infringement or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘103 Reissue Patent in this
`
`judicial district and elsewhere in the United States by using Chrome Products which incorporate
`
`methodologies that infringe one or more claims of the ‘103 Reissue patent. On information and
`
`belief, Chrome Users cannot use the Chrome Products without infringing the ‘103 Reissue
`
`patent. Google has known of the ‘103 Reissue Patent since at least the filing of this amended
`
`complaint. Google’s inducement and contributory infringement of the ‘103 Reissue Patent
`
`includes, but is not limited to, actively encouraging and instructing Chrome Users to use Chrome
`
`Products in ways that infringe the ‘103 Reissue Patent. Given that Chrome Users cannot use the
`
`Chrome Products without infringing the ‘103 Reissue Patent, Google has known that Chrome
`
`Users’ use of these products directly infringe the ‘103 Reissue Patent. As a result of Google’s
`
`knowledge of the ‘103 Reissue Patent, and knowledge that use by the Chrome Users constitutes
`
`direct infringement of the ‘103 Reissue Patent, Google has knowingly induced Chrome Users to
`
`infringe the ‘103 Reissue Patent, and knowingly contributed to the infringement by Chrome
`
`Users of the ‘103 Reissue Patent, in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States. The
`
`Chrome Products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial
`
`noninfringing use. Google is thus liable for inducing and contributing to the infringement of the
`
`‘103 Reissue Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and (c) from at least the filing of this
`
`amended complaint and after.
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`Google - Exhibit 1005, page 4
`
`

`
`
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`COUNT 2 – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘500 REISSUE PATENT
`
`Paragraphs 1-17 are incorporated by reference as if stated fully herein.
`
`On information and belief, Google has been and is directly infringing, either by
`
`literal infringement or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘500 Reissue Patent in this judicial
`
`district and elsewhere in the United States by making, using, offering to sell, and selling
`
`(1) Google Chrome for Android 4.0, 4.1, and all later versions, and (2) the Nexus 4, Nexus 7 and
`
`Nexus 10 devices (collectively, the “Chrome Mobile Products”), that infringe one or more claims
`
`of the ‘500 Reissue Patent. Google is thus liable for infringement of the ‘500 Reissue Patent
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`20.
`
`Individual end-users of the Chrome Mobile Products directly infringe, either by
`
`literal infringement or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘500 Reissue Patent in this judicial
`
`district and elsewhere in the United States by using the Chrome Mobile Products which
`
`incorporate methodologies that infringe one or more claims of the ‘500 Reissue patent. On
`
`information and belief, Chrome Users cannot use the Chrome Mobile Products without
`
`infringing the ‘500 Reissue patent. Google has known of the ‘500 Reissue Patent since at least
`
`the filing of this amended complaint. Google’s inducement and contributory infringement of the
`
`‘500 Reissue Patent includes, but is not limited to, actively encouraging and instructing Chrome
`
`Users to use the Chrome Mobile Products in ways that infringe the ‘500 Reissue Patent. Given
`
`that Chrome Users cannot use the Chrome Mobile Products without infringing the ‘500 Reissue
`
`Patent, Google has known that Chrome Users’ use of these products directly infringe the ‘500
`
`Reissue Patent. As a result of Google’s knowledge of the ‘500 Reissue Patent, and knowledge
`
`that use by the end-user constitutes direct infringement of the ‘500 Reissue Patent, Google has
`
`knowingly induced end-users of the Chrome Mobile Products to infringe ‘500 Reissue Patent,
`
`and knowingly contributed to the infringement by end-users of the Chrome Mobile Products to
`
`infringe the ‘500 Reissue Patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States. The
`
`Chrome Mobile Products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`Google - Exhibit 1005, page 5
`
`

`
`substantial noninfringing use. Google is thus liable for inducing and contributing to the
`
`infringement of the ‘500 Reissue Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and (c) from at least the
`
`filing of this amended complaint and after.
`
`COUNT 3 – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘528 REISSUE PATENT
`
`Paragraphs 1-20 are incorporated by reference as if stated fully herein.
`
`On information and belief, Google has been and is directly infringing, either by
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`literal infringement or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘528 Reissue Patent in this judicial
`
`district and elsewhere in the United States by making, using, offering to sell, and selling the
`
`Chrome Products that infringe one or more claims of the ‘528 Reissue Patent. Google is thus
`
`liable for infringement of the ‘528 Reissue Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`23.
`
`Chrome Users directly infringe, either by literal infringement or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, the ‘528 Reissue Patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in the
`
`United States by using the Chrome Products which incorporates methodologies that infringe one
`
`or more claims of the ‘528 Reissue patent. On information and belief, Chrome Users cannot use
`
`the Chrome Products without infringing the ‘528 Reissue patent. Google has known of about the
`
`‘528 Reissue Patent since at least December 11, 2012 when Mr. Cioffi wrote to Google and put
`
`Google on notice of the ‘528 Reissue Patent. Google’s inducement and contributory
`
`infringement of the ‘528 Reissue Patent includes, but is not limited to, actively encouraging and
`
`instructing Chrome Users to use the Chrome Products in ways that infringe the ‘528 Reissue
`
`Patent. Given that Chrome Users cannot use the Chrome Products without infringing the ‘528
`
`Reissue Patent, Google has known that Chrome Users’ use of these products directly infringe the
`
`‘528 Reissue Patent. As a result of Google’s knowledge of the ‘528 Reissue Patent, and
`
`knowledge that use by Chrome Users constitutes direct infringement of the ‘528 Reissue Patent,
`
`Google has knowingly induced Chrome Users to infringe the ‘528 Reissue Patent, and
`
`knowingly contributed to the infringement by Chrome Users of the ‘528 Reissue Patent, in this
`
`judicial district and elsewhere in the United States. The Chrome Products are not staple articles
`
`or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. Google is thus liable for
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`Google - Exhibit 1005, page 6
`
`

`
`inducing and contributing to the infringement of the ‘528 Reissue Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 271(b) and (c) from at least December 11, 2012 and after.
`
`COUNT 4 – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘529 REISSUE PATENT
`
`Paragraphs 1-23 are incorporated by reference as if stated fully herein.
`
`On information and belief, Google has been and is directly infringing, either by
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`literal infringement or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ‘529 Reissue Patent in this judicial
`
`district and elsewhere in the United States by making, using, offering to sell, and selling Chrome
`
`Products that infringe one or more claims of the ‘529 Reissue Patent. Google is thus liable for
`
`infringement of the ’529 Reissue Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`26.
`
`Chrome Users directly infringe, either by literal infringement or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, the ‘529 Reissue Patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in the
`
`United States by using the Chrome Products which incorporate methodologies that infringe one
`
`or more claims of the ‘529 Reissue patent. On information and belief, Chrome Users cannot use
`
`the Chrome Products without infringing the ‘529 Reissue patent. Google has known of the ‘529
`
`Reissue Patent since at least December 11, 2012 when Mr. Cioffi wrote to Google and put
`
`Google on notice of the ‘529 Reissue Patent. Google’s inducement and contributory
`
`infringement of the ‘529 Reissue Patent includes, but is not limited to, actively encouraging and
`
`instructing Chrome Users to use Chrome Products in ways that infringe the ‘529 Reissue Patent.
`
`Given that Chrome Users cannot use the Chrome Products without infringing the ‘529 Reissue
`
`Patent, Google has known that Chrome Users’ use of these browsers directly infringe the ‘529
`
`Reissue Patent. As a result of Google’s knowledge of the ‘529 Reissue Patent, and knowledge
`
`that use by the Chrome Users constitutes direct infringement of the ‘529 Reissue Patent, Google
`
`has knowingly induced Chrome Users to infringe the ‘529 Reissue Patent, and knowingly
`
`contributed to the infringement by Chrome Users of the ‘529 Reissue Patent, in this judicial
`
`district and elsewhere in the United States. The Chrome Products are not staple articles or
`
`commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. Google is thus liable for
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`Google - Exhibit 1005, page 7
`
`

`
`inducing and contributing to the infringement of the ‘529 Reissue Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 271(b) and (c) from at least December 11, 2012 and after.
`
`WILLFULNESS ALLEGATIONS
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`Paragraphs 1-26 are incorporated by reference as if stated fully herein.
`
`On information and belief, Google’s acts of infringement have been and continue
`
`to be willful. Google is infringing the ‘528 and ‘529 Reissue Patents in willful disregard of the
`
`plaintiffs’ rights making this an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. Google has
`
`known of the ‘528 and ‘529 Reissue Patents since December 11, 2012. Despite this knowledge,
`
`and despite an objective likelihood that its actions constituted infringement, Google has
`
`continued to infringe the ‘528 and ‘529 Reissue Patents. This objective risk of infringement is so
`
`obvious that Google either knew, or should have known, of it. Google has disregarded this
`
`obvious objective risk that its actions constitute infringement and indirect infringement of the
`
`‘528 and ‘529 Reissue Patents.
`
`Wherefore, Plaintiffs requests that this Court enter:
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`A.
`
`A judgment in favor of plaintiffs that Google has directly infringed and induced
`
`others and contributed to others to infringement of the Patents-in-Suit;
`
`B.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Google to pay plaintiffs damages resulting from
`
`the infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, along with costs, expenses, pre-judgment and
`
`post-judgment interest;
`
`C.
`
`A judgment holding that the Google’s infringement of the ‘528 and ‘529 Reissue
`
`Patents is willful and a trebling of damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284;
`
`D.
`
`A judgment holding that this action is an exceptional case, and awarding plaintiffs
`
`their attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §285;
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`An accounting;
`
`A post-trial compulsory license for ongoing infringement, after entry of judgment
`
`for infringement;
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`Google - Exhibit 1005, page 8
`
`

`
`F.
`
`Any and all additional relief which the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, Plaintiffs requests a trial by jury of any
`
`issues so triable as of right.
`
`
`Dated: February 7, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ William Davis, III______
`William E. Davis, III
`Texas State Bar No. 24047416
`THE DAVIS FIRM, PC
`111 West Tyler Street
`Longview, Texas 75601
`Telephone: (903) 230-9090
`Facsimile: (903) 230-9090
`Email: bdavis@bdavisfirm.com
`
`Charles Ainsworth
`Texas State Bar No. 00783521
`Robert Christopher Bunt
`Texas State Bar No. 00787165
`Robert M. Parker
`Texas State Bar No. 15498000
`PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C.
`100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114
`Tyler, Texas 75702
`Telephone: (903) 531-3535
`Facsimile: (903) 533-9687
`Email: charley@pbatyler.com
`Email: rcbunt@pbatyler.com
`Email: rmparker@pbatyler.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs Alfonso Cioffi, Melanie
`Rozman, Morgan Rozman and Megan Rozman
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`Google - Exhibit 1005, page 9
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in
`
`
`
`compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this response was served on all counsel who are
`
`deemed to have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(V). Pursuant to Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 5(d) and Local Rule CV-5(d) and (e), all other counsel of record not deemed to have
`
`consented to electronic service were served with a true and correct copy of the foregoing by
`
`email, on this the 7th day February, 2013.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ William E. Davis, III
`William E. Davis, III
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Google - Exhibit 1005, page 10