13-cv-07245-PA-~, Document 1 Filed 10/01/13 11'~9~ 1 of 55 Page ID #:if-
`
`Case
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`
`8
`9
`10
`
`11
`12
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`!.ames R. As£_erg~r (Bar No. 083188)
`J una~erger@qu Lilllemanuel.com
`865 S. FlgueToa St., 1Oth Floor
`Los Angeles, Callfmnia 90017
`Telephone: (213) 443-3000
`Facs1mile: (213) 443-3100
`
`Kevin P.B. Jolmson (Bar No. 177129)
`kevil}jolmson@qu in nemanuel.com
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
`Redwood Shores~ California 94065
`Telephone: (650; 801-5000
`Facsimile: (650) 801 -5100
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff the California
`Institute of Technology
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`~;:;~~.13 - 0 7 2 4 5 6A-
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`0
`...............
`~ .. ...,.
`' "'··!..,
`o..;
`
`.,_N
`
`Uu;
`
`Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INfRINGEMENT
`
`13
`14
`15
`-r() 16
`17
`Jj
`
`The CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF
`TECHNOLOGY, a California
`corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS,
`NC.rl' a Delaware corporation,
`I
`HUuHES NETWORK SYSTEMS,
`LLC, a Delaware limited liability
`ompany, DISH NETWORK
`c
`CORPORATION a Nevada
`orporation, DISH NE WORK L.L.C.,
`c
`Colorado limited liability company,
`a
`nd DISHNE SATELLITE
`a
`BROADBAND L.L.C., a Colorado
`r
`tmited liability company,
`
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`~\ol 23
`~·
`24
`~ ~
`-
`~
`,_
`I
`~~
`~ i
`0
`28
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1021, p. 1
`
`

`
`Case
`
`: 13-cv-07245-PA-{E~ Document 1 Filed 10/01/13 Pa9e 2 of 55 Page ID #:19
`
`1
`
`Plaintiff the California Institute of Technology ("Cal tech" or "Plaintiff'), by
`
`2 and through its undersigned counsel, complains and alleges as follows against
`
`3 Hughes Communications, Inc., Hughes Network Systems, LLC, DISH Network
`
`4 Corporation, DISH Network L.L.C., and dishNET Satellite Broadband L.L.C.
`
`5 (collectively, "Defendants"):
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`This is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent
`laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.
`
`2.
`
`Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe, contributed to and
`
`continue to contribute to the infringement of, and/or actively induced and continue
`
`to induce others to infringe Caltech's U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710, U.S. Patent No.
`
`12 7,421,032, U.S. Patent No. 7,916,781, and U.S. Patent No. 8,284,833 (collectively,
`
`13
`
`"the Asserted Patents"). Caltech is the legal owner by assignment of the Asserted
`
`14 Patents, which were duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and
`
`15 Trademark Office. Caltech seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`3.
`
`Caltech is a non-profit private university organized under the laws of
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`18
`
`the State of California, with its principal place of business at 1200 East California
`
`19 Boulevard, Pasadena, California 91125.
`
`20
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Hughes Communications, Inc. ("Hughes
`
`21 Communications") is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
`
`22 Delaware, with its principal place of business located at 11717 Exploration Lane,
`
`23 Germantown, Maryland 20876.
`
`On
`
`information
`
`and belief, Hughes
`
`24 Communications is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hughes Satellite Systems
`
`25 Corporation, which
`
`is a wholly-owned subsidiary of EchoStar Corporation
`
`26 ("EchoStar").
`
`27
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, Hughes Network Systems, LLC ("Hughes
`
`28 Network") is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT ]NFRINGEMENT
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1021, p. 2
`
`

`
`Case 13-cv-07245-PA-¥'~ Document 1 Filed 10/01/13 Pagy 3 of 55 Page ID #:20
`..
`
`• '
`
`'
`
`1 Delaware, with its principal place of business located at 11717 Exploration Lane,
`
`2 Germantown, Maryland 20876. On information and belief, Hughes Network is a
`
`3 wholly owned subsidiary of Hughes Communications. Hughes Communications
`
`4 and Hughes Network, collectively, are referred to as "Hughes Defendants."
`
`5
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, DISH Network Corporation ("DISH Corp.")
`
`6 is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Nevada with its principal
`
`7 place of business located at 9601 South Meridian Boulevard, Englewood, Colorado
`
`8 80112.
`9
`7.
`
`On information and belief, DISH Network L.L.C. ("DISH L.L.C.") is a
`
`10
`
`limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Colorado with its
`
`11 principal place of business located at 9601 South Meridian Boulevard, Englewood,
`
`12 Colorado 80112. On information and belief, DISH L.L.C. is a wholly owned
`
`13 subsidiary of DISH Corp.
`14
`8.
`On information and belief, dishNET Satellite Broadband L.L.C.
`
`15 ("dishNET") is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of
`
`16 Colorado with its principal place of business located at 9601 South Meridian
`
`17 Boulevard, Englewood, Colorado 80112. On information and belief, dishNET is a
`
`18 wholly owned subsidiary of DISH Corp. On information and belief, dishNET and
`
`19 DISH L.L.C. are related entities. DISH Corp., DISH L.L.C., and dishNET,
`
`20 collectively, are referred to as "Dish Defendants."
`On information and belief, Hughes Defendants' parent company,
`
`9.
`21
`22 EchoStar, and Dish Defendants were previously one company. On information and
`
`23 belief, around January 2008, Echo Star and Dish Defendants became two separate
`
`24 companies (the "spin-off').
`25
`10. On information and belief, the business relationship among Dish
`
`26 Defendants, EchoStar and Hughes Defendants remains extremely integrated. The
`
`27 same individual serves as the Chairman of both Dish Defendants and EchoStar.
`
`28 Further, since the spin-off, a substantial majority of the voting power of the shares
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INrRI"NGEMENT
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1021, p. 3
`
`

`
`Case
`
`: 13-cv-07245-PA-~--, Document 1 Filed 10/01/13 Pa~ 4 of 55 Page ID #:21
`
`1 of both Dish Defendants and Echo Star is owned beneficially by the Chairman, or by
`
`2 certain trusts established by the Chairman. Additionally, on information and belief,
`
`3 in addition to the Chairman, an individual responsible for the development and
`
`4
`
`implementation of advanced technologies that are of potential utility and importance
`
`5 to both Dish Defendants and EchoStar serves on the board of both companies. On
`
`6 information and belief, in 2010, Dish Defendants accounted for 82.5% ofEchoStar's
`
`7 total revenue and in 2012, Dish Defendants accounted for 49.5% ofEchoStar's total
`
`8 revenue. Additionally, on information and belief, in October 2012, Dish Defendants
`
`9 and Hughes Defendants entered into a distribution agreement relating to Hughes
`
`10 Defendants' satellite internet service:
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`11. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under
`
`12
`
`11
`
`13 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`14
`
`12. Hughes Defendants are subject to this Court's personal jurisdiction. On
`
`15
`
`information and belief, Hughes Defendants regularly conduct business in the State
`
`16 of California, including in the Central District of California, and have committed
`
`17 acts of patent infringement and/or contributed to or induced acts of patent
`
`18
`
`infringement by others in this District and elsewhere in California and the United
`
`19 States. As such, Hughes Defendants have purposefully availed themselves of the
`
`20 privilege of conducting business within this District; have established sufficient
`
`21 minimum contacts with this District such that they should reasonably and fairly
`
`22 anticipate being haled into court in this District; have purposefully directed activities
`
`23 at residents of this State; and at least a portion of the patent infringement claims
`
`24 alleged herein arise out of or are related to one or more of the foregoing activities.
`
`25
`
`13. Dish Defendants are subject to this Court's personal jurisdiction. On
`
`26
`
`information and belief, Dish Defendants regularly conduct business in the State of
`
`27 California, including in the Central District of California, maintain employees in this
`
`28 District and elsewhere in Califomia, and have committed acts of patent infringement
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1021, p. 4
`
`

`
`Case :13-cv-07245-PA-~E'I)1 Document 1 Filed 10/01/13 Pa~e 5 of 55 Page ID #:22
`
`1 and/or contributed to or induced acts of patent infringement by others in this District
`
`2 and elsewhere in California and the United States. As such, Dish Defendants have
`
`3 purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting business within this
`
`4 District; have established sufficient minimum contacts with this District such that
`
`5 they should reasonably and fairly anticipate being haled into court in this District;
`
`6 have purposefully directed activities at residents of this State; and at least a portion
`
`7 of the patent infringement claims alleged herein arise out of or are related to one or
`
`8 more of the foregoing activities.
`9
`
`14. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391
`
`10 and 1400 because Defendants regularly conduct business in this District, and certain
`
`11 of the acts complained ofherein occurred in this District.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`CAL TECH'S ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`15. On October 3, 2006, the United States Patent Office issued U.S. Patent
`
`14 No. 7,116,710, titled "Serial Concatenation of Interleaved Convolutional Codes
`
`15 Forming Turbo-Like Codes" (the "'710 patent"). A true and correct copy of the
`
`16
`
`17
`
`'710 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`16. On September 2, 2008, the United States Patent Office issued U.S.
`
`18 Patent No. 7,421,032, titled "Serial Concatenation of Interleaved Convolutional
`
`19 Codes Forming Turbo-Like Codes" (the '"032 patent"). A true and correct copy of
`
`20 the '032 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The '032 patent is a continuation of
`
`21
`
`the application that led to the '710 patent.
`
`22
`
`17. On March 29, 2011, the United States Patent Office issued U.S. Patent
`
`23 No. 7 ,916, 781, titled "Serial Concatenation of Interleaved Convolutional Codes
`
`24 Forming Turbo-Like Codes" (the '"781 patent"). A true and correct copy of the
`
`25
`
`'781 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The '781 patent is a continuation of the
`
`26 application that led to the '032 patent, which is a continuation of the application that
`
`27
`28
`
`led to the '710 patent.
`18. On October 9, 2012, the United States Patent Office issued U.S. Patent
`
`COMPLAINT fOR PATENT INfRINGEMENT
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1021, p. 5
`
`

`
`Case
`
`: 13-cv-07245-PA-{E_~ Document 1 Filed 10/01/13 ~a~e 6 of 55 Page ID #:23
`
`1 No. 8,284,833, titled "Serial Concatenation of Interleaved Convolutional Codes
`
`2 Forming Turbo-Like Codes" (the "'833 patent"). A true and correct copy of the
`
`3
`
`'833 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D. The '833 patent is a continuation of the
`
`4 application that led to the '781 patent, which is a continuation of the application that
`
`5 led to the '032 patent, which is a continuation of the application that led to the '710
`
`6 patent.
`
`7
`
`19. The Asserted Patents identify Hui Jin, Aamod Khandekar, and Robert
`
`8 J. McEliece as the inventors (the "Named Inventors").
`
`9
`
`20. Cal tech is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to each of the
`
`10 Asserted Patents with full and exclusive right to bring suit to enforce the Asserted
`
`11 Patents, including the right to recover for past damages and/or royalties.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`21. The Asserted Patents are valid and enforceable.
`
`BACKGROUND TO THIS ACTION
`
`22. The Asserted Patents disclose a seminal improvement to coding
`
`15 systems and methods used for digital satellite transmission. The Asserted Patents
`
`16 disclose an ensemble of codes called irregular repeat-accumulate (IRA) codes,
`
`17 which are specific types of low-density parity check (LDPC) codes. The IRA codes
`
`18 disclosed in the Asserted Patents enable a transmission rate close to the theoretical
`
`19
`
`limit, while also providing the advantage of a low encoding complexity.
`
`20
`
`23.
`
`In September 2000, the Named Inventors of the Asserted Patents
`
`21 published a paper regarding their invention, titled "Irregular Repeat-Accumulate
`
`22 Codes" for the Second International Conference on Turbo Codes. (Exhibit E.) This
`
`23 paper has been widely cited by experts in the industry.
`
`24
`
`24. Experts recognize the importance and usefulness of the IRA codes
`
`25 disclosed in the September 2000 paper by the Named Inventors of the Asserted
`
`26 Patents. For example, a paper praising these IRA codes was published in August
`
`27 2004 by Aline Roumy, Souad Guemghar, Giuseppe Caire, and Sergio Verduin the
`
`28 IEEE Transactions on Information Theory. This paper, titled "Design Methods for
`
`COMPLAINT roR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1021, p. 6
`
`

`
`Case
`
`: 13-cv-07245-PA-~~ Document 1 Filed 10/01/13 Pagp 7 of 55 Page ID #:24
`
`1 Irregular Repeat-Accumulate Codes," states:
`
`IRA codes are, in fact, special subclasses of both irregular
`LDPCs and irregular turbo codes . . . . IRA codes are an
`appealing choice because the encoder is extremely simple, their
`performance is quite competitive with that of turbo codes and
`LDPCs, and they can be decoded with a very-low-complexity
`iterative decoding scheme.
`
`(Exhibit F, at 1.) This paper also notes that, four years after the September 2000
`
`paper, the Named Inventors were the only ones to propose a method to design IRA
`
`codes. (!d.)
`
`25.
`
`The current standard for digital satellite transmissions embodies the
`
`invention of the Asserted Patents by using channel codes that are IRA codes. This
`
`digital satellite transmission standard is titled "Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB);
`
`Second generation framing structure, channel coding and modulation systems for
`
`Broadcasting, Interactive Services, News Gathering and other broadband satellite
`
`applications" (the "DVB-S2 standard").
`
`26. Experts in the industry recognize that the DVB-S2 standard uses the
`
`IRA codes initially disclosed by the Named Inventors of the Asserted Patents. For
`
`example, a 2005 paper published by the highly regarded Institute of Electrical and
`
`Electronics Engineers (IEEE), titled "A Synthesizable IP Core for DVB-S2 LDPC
`
`Code Decoding," and authored by Frank Kienle, Torben Brack, and Norbert Wehn
`
`recogmzes:
`
`The LDPC codes as defined in the DVB-S2 standard are IRA
`codes,
`thus
`the encoder realization
`is straight forward.
`Furthermore, the DVB-S2 code shows regularities which can be
`exploited for an efficient hardware realization.
`
`(Exhibit G, at 1.)
`
`27. Moreover, this paper provides credit to the September 2000 paper
`
`authored by the Named Inventors of the Asserted Patents for the origination of the
`
`IRA codes that are defined in the DVB-S2 standard. (!d. at 1 & n.8.)
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COMPLAlNT FOR PATENT INFRTNGEMENT
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1021, p. 7
`
`

`
`Case
`
`: 13-cv-07245-PA-~E~ Document 1 Filed 10/01/13 ~a~e 8 of 55 Page ID #:25
`
`1
`
`28.
`
`Similarly, on information and belief, a 2007 paper titled "Factorizable
`
`2 Modulo MParallel Architecture for DVB-S2 LDPC Decoding," and published in the
`
`3 Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Telecommunications, recognizes that the
`
`4 DVB-S2 standard uses the IRA codes initially disclosed by the Named Inventors of
`
`5
`
`the Asserted Patents. This paper, authored by Marco Gomes, Gabriel Faldio, Vitor
`
`6 Silva, Vitor Ferreira, Alexandre Sengo, and Miguel Falcao, states:
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`The new DVB-S2 [) standard adopted a special class of LDPC
`codes lmown by IRA codes [] as the main solution for the FEC
`system.
`
`(Exhibit H, at 1.)
`
`29. Moreover, this paper also credits the September 2000 paper authored
`
`by the Named Inventors of the Asserted Patents for the origination of the IRA codes
`
`that are defined in the DVB-S2 standard. (!d. at 1 & n.8.)
`
`30. As even further support, on information and belief, a 2006 industry
`
`paper published in the Journal of Communications Software and Systems, titled
`
`"Design of LDPC Codes: A Survey and New Results" and authored by Gianluigi
`
`Liva, Shumei Song, Lan Lan, Yifei Zhang, Shu Lin, and William E. Ryan, confirms
`
`The ETSI DVB S2 [] standard for digital video broadcast
`specifies two IRA code families with block lengths 64800 and
`16200.
`
`(Exhibit I, at 10-11.)
`
`31. As such, products, methods, equipment, and/or services that implement
`
`23
`
`the DVB-S2 standard practice one or more claims of each of the Asserted Patents
`
`24 because the DVB-S2 standard embodies the invention of the Asserted Patents by
`
`25 using IRA codes.
`
`26
`
`32. On information and belief, Hughes Defendants manufacture, use,
`
`27
`
`import, offer for sale, or sell products, methods, equipment, and/or services that
`
`28
`
`implement the DVB-S2 standard. For example, Hughes Defendants provide satellite
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1021, p. 8
`
`

`
`Case
`
`: 13-cv-07245-PA-~~ Document 1 Filed 10/01/13 Pa~ 9 of 55 Page ID #:26
`
`1 broadband internet access to consumers and broadband network services to the
`
`2 enterprise markets, among other activities, including through their HN System and
`
`3 HX System product lines. Hughes Defendants have extensively publicized that their
`
`4 flagship HN System and HX System satellite broadband internet product lines
`
`5 implement the DVB-S2 standard. On information and belief, Hughes Defendants
`
`6 market and sell, among other activities, certain broadband equipment and services
`
`7 that implements the DVB-S2 standard through the HughesNet brand. On
`
`8 information and belief, Hughes Defendants further sell or provide certain broadband
`
`9 equipment and services that implements the DVB-S2 standard to Dish Defendants.
`
`10 On information and belief, Hughes Defendants use their broadband equipment that
`
`11
`
`implements the DVB-S2 standard for testing, consulting, and/or support services,
`
`12 among other activities.
`
`13
`
`33. On information and belief, Dish Defendants manufacture, use, import,
`
`14 offer for sale, or sell products, methods, equipment, and/or services that implement
`
`15
`
`the DVB-S2 standard. For example, on information and belief, Dish Defendants
`
`16 market, offer for sale, sell, and distribute, among other activities, Hughes
`
`1 7 Defendants' satellite internet service, among other products and services, under the
`
`18 dishNET brand pursuant to a distribution agreement entered into with Hughes
`
`19 Defendants in October 2012. On information and belief, Dish Defendants purchase
`
`20 certain broadband equipment and services that implements the DVB-S2 standard
`
`21
`
`from Hughes Defendants and offer for sale, sell, provide, and/or distribute this
`
`22 equipment and service to its customers. On information and belief, Dish Defendants
`
`23 use this broadband equipment and service that implements the DVB-S2 standard for
`
`24 testing, consulting and/or support services, among other activities. On information
`
`25 and belief, the dishNET services are primarily bundled with other services offered
`
`26 by Dish Defendants.
`
`27
`
`34. Hughes Defendants admit that their broadband satellite systems are
`
`28 compliant with "high-speed DVB-S2."
`
`(Exhibit J.) Additionally, Hughes
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1021, p. 9
`
`

`
`Case 13-cv-07245-PA-JEM Document 1 Filed 10/01/13 PaQ-f 10 of 55 Page ID #:27
`.
`~ )
`
`1 Defendants have touted that implementation of this DVB-S2 standard "provides for
`
`2 higher throughputs, better coding efficiency, and improved satellite resource
`
`3 utilization for the outbound channel." (Exhibit K.)
`Further, Hughes Defendants' website advertises its HX System and
`
`35.
`
`4
`
`5 provides a linlc to a brochure titled "High-Performance IP Satellite Broadband
`
`6 System."
`
`(Exhibit L.) This brochure similarly highlights Hughes Defendants'
`
`7
`
`implementation of the DVB-S2 standard, stating that the core component of the HX
`8 System, the HX Gateway, "uses a DVB-S2 carrier . . ; for the outbound channel
`
`9 received by all HX System remote terminals." (!d.)
`
`10
`
`3 6. Hughes Defendants' website also advertises its HN System and states
`
`11
`
`that it is compliant with DVB-S2. (Exhibit M.)
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`COUNT I
`
`Infringement of the '710 Patent
`
`3 7.
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the
`
`15 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`16
`
`38. On information and belief, in violation of35 U.S.C. § 271, Defendants
`
`17 have infringed and are currently infringing, directly and/or through intermediaries,
`
`18
`
`the '71 0 patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the
`
`19 United States, without authority, products, methods, equipment, and/or services that
`
`20 practice one or more claims of the '710 patent. These products, methods,
`
`21 equipment, and/or services include products that implement the DVB-S2 standard,
`
`22
`
`including without limitation products in the HN System and HX System product
`
`23
`
`lines, satellite internet product lines distributed under the dishNET brand, network
`
`24 and network services that employ these products, and/or marketing, consulting,
`
`25 and/or support services provided for these products and services (collectively, the
`
`26 "Accused Services and Products"). For example, at least Paragraphs 32 and 33
`
`27
`
`illustrate a limited number of examples of Defendants' direct infringement of the
`
`28
`
`'71 0 patent. Defendants have infringed and are currently infringing literally and/or
`
`COMPLAINT !'OR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1021, p. 10
`
`

`
`Case 2 3-cv-07245-PA-JfM) Document 1 Filed 10/01113 Pag' 11 of 55 Page ID #:28
`
`1 under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`2
`
`39. On information and belief, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, Defendants
`
`3 have infringed and are continuing to infringe the '71 0 patent by contributing to
`
`4 and/or actively inducing the infringement by others of the '71 0 patent by making,
`
`5 using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States, without
`
`6 authority, products, methods, equipment, and/or services, including the Accused
`
`7 Services and Products, that practice one or more claims of the '71 0 patent.
`
`8
`
`40. Hughes Defendants have had actual knowledge of their infringement of
`
`9 the '71 0 patent before the filing date of this Complaint through letters alleging such
`1 0 infringement, or at least have had actual knowledge of their infringement of the '71 0
`
`11 patent since no later than the filing date of this Complaint.
`
`12
`
`41. On information and belief, Dish Defendants have had actual
`
`13 knowledge of their infringement of the '710 patent before the filing date of this
`
`14 Complaint based on their marketing, sale, and distribution, among other activities,
`
`15 of Hughes Defendants' satellite internet service and their relationship with Hughes
`
`16 Defendants (see Paragraphs 9, 10, 3 3 ). Dish Defendants at least have had actual
`
`17 knowledge of their infringement of the '710 patent since no later than the filing
`
`18 date of this Complaint.
`19
`42. Notwithstanding Defendants'
`
`actual notice of
`
`infringement,
`
`20 Defendants have continued, directly and/or through intermediaries, to manufacture,
`
`21
`
`use, import, offer for sale, or sell the Accused Services and Products with
`
`22 knowledge of or willful blindness to the fact that their actions will induce others,
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`including but not limited to their customers, partners, and/or end users, to infringe
`
`the '71 0 patent. Defendants have induced and continue to induce others to infringe
`
`the '710 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 by encouraging and facilitating
`
`26 others to perform actions that Defendants know to be acts of infringement of the
`
`27
`
`'71 0 patent with intent that those performing the acts infringe the '71 0 p'atent.
`
`28 Upon information and belief, Defendants, directly and/or through intermediaries,
`
`COMPLAIN r FOR PATENT (NI'RINOEMENT
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1021, p. 11
`
`

`
`Case
`
`: 13-cv-07245-PA-~El\f Document 1 Filed 10/01/13 Pagp 12 of 55 Page ID #:29
`
`\
`
`.
`
`1
`
`advertise and distribute the Accused Services and Products, publish instruction
`
`2 materials, specifications and/or promotional literature describing the operation of
`
`3
`
`4
`
`the Accused Services and Products, and/or offer training and/or consulting services
`
`regarding the Accused Services and Products to their customers, partners, and/or
`
`5 end users. At least consumers, partners, and/or end users of these Accused Services
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`and Products then directly or jointly infringe the '71 0 patent by making, using,
`
`selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States, without authority,
`
`the Accused Services and Products.
`
`43. Upon information and belief, Defendants know that the Accused
`
`10 Services and Products are especia~ly made or especially adapted for use in the
`
`11
`
`infringement of the '71 0 patent. The infringing components of these products are
`
`12 not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-
`
`13
`
`infringing use, and the infringing components of these products are a material part
`
`14 of the invention of the '710 patent. Accordingly, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271,
`
`15 Defendants are also contributing, directly and/or through intermediaries, to the
`
`16 direct infringement ofthe '710 patent by at least the customers, partners, and/or end
`
`17 users of these Accused Services and Products. The customers, partners, and/or end
`
`18 users of these Accused Services and Products directly infringe the '71 0 patent by
`
`19 making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States,
`
`20 without authority, the Accused Services and Products.
`
`21
`
`44. As but one example of Hughes Defendants' contributory and/or
`
`22
`
`induced infringement, Hughes Defendants explicitly encourage their customers to
`
`23 practice the methods dis~losed a~d claimed in the '710 patent by using the Accused
`
`24 Services and Products. As detailed in Paragraphs 34 through 36, Hughes
`
`25 Defendants' website advertises its HN System and HX System, and provides
`
`26
`
`information and brochures regarding these systems.
`
`(See Exhibits J, K, L, M.)
`
`27 These webpages and brochures highlight Hughes Defendants' implementation of the
`
`28 DVB-S2 standard. On information and belief, through materials such as these, the
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT [NrRINGEMENT
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1021, p. 12
`
`

`
`Case 2 3-cv-07245-PA-JtN) Document 1 Filed 10/01/13 Pag~ 13 of 55 Page ID #:30
`
`1 Hughes Defendants actively encourage their consumers, partners, and/or end users
`
`2
`
`to infringe the '710 patent through at least use of the HN System and HX System
`
`3 product lines, knowing those acts to be infringement of the '71 0 patent with intent
`
`4 that those performing the acts infringe the '71 0 patent.
`
`5
`
`45. As but one example of Dish Defendants' contributory and/or induced
`
`6 infringement, Dish Defendants explicitly encourage their customers to practice the
`
`7 methods disclosed and claimed in the '71 0 patent by using the Accused Services and
`
`8 Products. According to Dish Defendants' 2012 Annual Report (10-K), Dish
`
`9 Defendants lease to dishNET satellite internet subscribers the customer premise
`
`10 equipment. On information and belief, this equipment implements the DVB-82
`
`11 standard. On information and belief, through providing this equipment, Dish
`
`12 Defendants actively encourage their consumers and end users to infringe the '710
`
`13 patent through at least use of the equipment, knowing those acts to be infringement
`
`14 ofthe '710 patent with intent that those performing the acts infringe the '710 patent.
`
`15
`
`46. Defendants are not licensed or otherwise authorized to practice,
`
`16 contributorily practice and/or induce third parties to practice the claims of the '71 0
`
`17 patent.
`
`18
`
`47. By reason of Defendants' infringing activities, Caltech has suffered,
`
`19 and will continue to suffer, substantial damages.
`
`20
`
`48. Caltech is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages sustained as
`
`21 a result of Defendants' wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`49. Defendants' continuing acts of infringement are irreparably harming
`
`and causing damage to Caltech, for which Caltech has no adequate remedy at law,
`
`and will continue to suffer such irreparable injury unless Defendants' continuing
`
`acts of infringement are enjoined by the Court. The hardships that an injunction
`
`26 would impose are less than those faced by Caltech should an injunction not issue.
`
`27 The public interest would be served by issuance of an injunction. Thus, Cal tech is
`
`28
`
`entitled to a preliminary and a permanent injunction against further infringement.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT [NFRINCJEMENT
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1021, p. 13
`
`

`
`Case 13-cv-07245-PA-Jf~ Document 1 Filed 10/01/13 Pag!f 14 of 55 Page ID #:31
`
`1
`
`50. Hughes Defendants' infringement of the '710 patent has been and
`
`2 continues to be willful and deliberate, justifying a trebling of damages under 35
`
`3 U.S.C. § 284. Among other facts, Hughes Defendants have had knowledge of their
`
`4
`
`5
`
`infringement of the '71 0 patent before the filing date of this Complaint through
`
`letters alleging such
`
`infringement. Upon
`
`information and belief, Hughes
`
`6 Defendants' accused actions continued despite an objectively high likelihood that
`
`7 they constituted infringement of the '71 0 patent. Hughes Defendants either knew or
`
`8 should have known about their risk of infringing the '71 0 patent. Hughes
`
`9 Defendants' conduct despite this knowledge was made with both objective and
`
`10 subjective reckless disregard for the infringing nature of their activities as
`
`11 demonstrated by Hughes Defendants' knowledge regarding the claims of the '710
`
`12 patent.
`
`13
`
`51. Defendants' infringement ofthe '710 patent is exceptional and entitles
`
`14 Caltech to attorneys' fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35
`15 u.s.c. § 285 .
`16
`
`COUNT II
`Infringement of the '032 Paten!
`
`17
`18
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the
`
`19 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`20
`
`53. On information and belief, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, Defendants
`
`21 have infringed and are currently infringing, directly and/or through intermediaries,
`
`22
`
`the '032 patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the
`
`23 United States, without authority, products, methods, equipment, and/or services that
`
`24 practice one or more claims of the '032 patent. These products, methods,
`
`25 equipment, and/or services include products that implement the DVB-S2 standard,
`
`26
`
`including without limitation products in the HN System and HX System product
`
`27
`
`lines, satellite internet product lines distributed under the dishNET brand, network
`
`28 and network services that employ these products, and/or marketing, consulting,
`
`COMPLA INT !'OR PATENT INfRINGEMENT
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1021, p. 14
`
`

`
`Case 13-cv-07245-PA-J./?') Document 1 Filed 10/01/13 P.ag~ 15 of 55 Page ID #:32
`
`1 and/or support services provided for these products and services (collectively, the
`
`2 "Accused Services and Products"). For example, at least Paragraphs 32 and 33
`
`3
`
`4
`
`illustrate a limited number of examples of Defendants' direct infringement of the
`
`'032 patent. Defendants have infringed and are currently infringing literally and/or
`
`5 under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`6
`
`54. On information and belief, in violation of35 U.S.C. § 271, Defendants
`
`7 have infringed and are continuing to infringe the '032 patent by contributing to
`
`8 and/or actively inducing the infringement by others of the '032 patent by making,
`
`9 using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States, without
`
`10 authority, products, methods, equipment, and/or services, including the Accused
`
`11 Services and Products, that practice one or more claims of the '032 patent.
`
`12
`
`55. Hughes Defendants have had actual knowledge of their infringement of
`
`13
`
`the '032 patent before the filing date of this Complaint through letters alleging such
`
`14
`
`infringement, or at least have had actual knowledge of their infringement of the '032
`
`15 patent since no later than the filing date of this Complaint.
`
`16
`
`56. On information and belief, Dish Defendants have h