Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 29 Filed 03/06/14 Page 1 of 130 Page ID #:309
`
`c1
`
`CD
`
`2
`
`3
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
`& SULLIVAN, LLP
`James R. Asperger (Bar No. 083188)
`j imaspergerquinnemanuel.com
`865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90017
`Telephone: (213) 443-3000
`Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
`
`Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129)
`keviqiohnson,@quinnemanuel.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
`
`0 1 FRK, I (cid:9)
`
`H1FI.
`.r:i(T CIJRJ
`
`4
` j
`(cid:9) OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CENTRA
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`The CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF
`TECHNOLOGY, a California
`corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`VS.
`
`HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS,
`INC. a Delaware corporation,
`HUG NETWORK SYSTEMS,
`LLC, a Delaware limited liability
`company, DISH NETWORK
`CORPORATION, a Nevada
`corporation, DISH NETWORK L.L.C.,
`a Colorado limited liability company,
`and DISHNET SATELLITE
`BROADBAND L.L.C., a Colorado
`limited liability company,
`
`Defendants.
`
`CASE NO. 2:13-cv-07245-NW-JEM
`AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`
`MAR - 6 2014
`
`CENTRAL DISTM OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CASE NO. 2:13..cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1022, p. 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 29 Filed 03/06/14 Page 2 of 130 Page ID #:310
`
`)
`
`)
`
`1
`
`Plaintiff the California Institute of Technology ("Caltech" 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
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`7
`
`1. (cid:9)
`
`This is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent
`8 laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.
`9
`2. (cid:9)
`
`Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe, contributed to and
`
`10 continue to contribute to the infringement of, and/or actively induced and continue
`
`11 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
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`17
`
`3. (cid:9)
`
`Caltech is a non-profit private university organized under the laws of
`
`18 the State of California, with its principal place of business at 1200 East California
`
`19 Boulevard, Pasadena, California 91125.
`
`20
`
`4. (cid:9)
`
`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. (cid:9)
`
`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 Echo Star Corporation
`
`26 ("EchoStar").
`
`27
`
`5. (cid:9)
`
`On information and belief, Hughes Network Systems, LLC ("Hughes
`
`28 Network") is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of
`
`-2- (cid:9)
`
`CASE No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1022, p. 2
`
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 29 Filed 03/06/14 Page 3 of 130 Page ID #:311
`
`)
`
`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."
`6. (cid:9)
`5
`
`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 180112.
`
`9
`
`7. (cid:9)
`
`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
`
`15
`
`8. (cid:9)
`
`On information and belief, dishNET Satellite Broadband L.L.C.
`
`("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."
`
`21
`
`9. (cid:9)
`
`On information and belief, Hughes Defendants’ parent company,
`
`22 EchoStar, and Dish Defendants were previously one company. On information and
`
`23 belief, around January 2008, EchoStar 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
`
`3.. (cid:9)
`
`CASE No. 2:1 3-Cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`AMENDED COMPLAINT - FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1022, p. 3
`
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 29 Filed 03/06/14 Page 4 of 130 Page ID #:312
`
`of both Dish Defendants and EchoStar 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
`
`FAI
`
`5
`
`implementation of advanced technologies that are of potential utility and importance
`
`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% of EchoStar’s
`7
`total revenue and in 2012, Dish Defendants accounted for 49.5% of EchoStar’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.
`11
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`12
`
`11. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under
`
`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 California, and have committed acts of patent infringement
`
`-CASE No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1022, p. 4
`
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 29 Filed 03/06/14 Page 5 of 130 Page ID #:313
`
`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 of herein occurred in this District.
`12
`
`CALTECH’S ASSERTED PATENTS
`13
`15. On October 3, 2006, the United States Patent Office issued U.S. Patent
`14 I 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 ’710 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`17
`
`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
`
`25
`
`24 Forming Turbo-Like Codes" (the "781 patent"). A true and correct copy of the
`’781 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The 1 781 patent is a continuation of the
`26 application that led to the ’032 patent, which is a continuation of the application that
`
`27 led to the ’710 patent.
`
`28
`
`18. On October 9, 2012, the United States Patent Office issued U.S. Patent
`
`CASE No. 2:1 3-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1022, p. 5
`
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 29 Filed 03/06/14 Page 6 of 130 Page ID #:314
`
`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
`
`!AI 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 Ilpatent.
`
`7
`
`19. The Asserted Patents identify Hui Jin, Aamod Khandekar, and Robert
`8 J. McEliece as the inventors (the "Named Inventors").
`
`20. Caltech 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
`
`21. The Asserted Patents are valid and enforceable.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`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 Verd(cid:252) in the
`
`IEEE Transactions on Information Theory. This paper, titled "Design Methods for
`
`CASE No. 2:1 3-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1022, p. 6
`
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 29 Filed 03/06/14 Page 7 of 130 Page ID #:315
`
`1
`
`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
`
`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. (Id.)
`
`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
`
`recognizes:
`
`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. (Id. at 1 & n.8.)
`
`CASE No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1022, p. 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 29 Filed 03/06/14 Page 8 of 130 Page ID #:316
`
`1
`
`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.
`
`Similarly, on information and belief, a 2007 paper titled "Factorizable
`
`Modulo MParallel Architecture for DVB-S2 LDPC Decoding," and published in the
`
`Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Telecommunications, recognizes that the
`
`DVB-S2 standard uses the IRA codes initially disclosed by the Named Inventors of
`
`the Asserted Patents. This paper, authored by Marco Gomes, Gabriel Falc(cid:226)o, Vitor
`
`Silva, Vitor Ferreira, Alexandre Sengo, and Miguel Falcªo, states:
`
`The new DVB-S2 [] standard adopted a special class of LDPC
`codes known 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
`I that are defined in the DVB-S2 standard. (Id. 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
`
`that the DVB-S2 standard uses the IRA codes, stating:
`
`The ETSI DVB S2 [] standard for digital video broadcast
`specifies two IRA code families with block lengths 64800 and
`16200.
`
`(Exhibit I, at 10-1 1.)
`
`31. As such, products, methods, equipment, and/or services that implement
`
`the DVB-S2 standard practice one or more claims of each of the Asserted Patents
`
`because the DVB-S2 standard embodies the invention of the Asserted Patents by
`
`using IRA codes.
`
`32. On information and belief, Hughes Defendants manufacture, use,
`
`import, offer for sale, or sell products, methods, equipment, and/or services that
`
`implement the DVB-52 standard. For example, Hughes Defendants provide satellite
`
`_5 (cid:9)
`
`CASE No. 2:1 3-cv-07245.-MRP-JEM
`AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1022, p. 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 29 Filed 03/06/14 Page 9 of 130 Page ID #:317
`
`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 H1X System product lines. Hughes Defendants have extensively publicized that their
`
`4 flagship FIN System and 1-IX 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 I 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 manufacture, market, offer for sale, sell, distribute, and/or use, among other
`
`17 activities, the Hopper set-top box that implements the DVB-S2 standard.
`
`18 Additionally, for example, on information and belief, Dish Defendants market, offer
`
`19 for sale, sell, and distribute, among other activities, Hughes Defendants’ satellite
`
`20 internet service, among other products and services, under the dishNET brand
`
`21 pursuant to a distribution agreement entered into with Hughes Defendants in
`
`22 October 2012. On information and belief, Dish Defendants purchase certain
`
`23 broadband equipment and services that implements the DVB-S2 standard from
`
`24 Hughes Defendants and offer for sale, sell, provide, and/or distribute this equipment
`
`25 and service to its customers. On information and belief, Dish Defendants use this
`
`26 broadband equipment and service that implements the DVB-S2 standard for testing,
`
`27 consulting and/or support services, among other activities. On information and
`
`28 belief, the dishNET services are primarily bundled with other services offered by
`
`CASE No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1022, p. 9
`
`(cid:9)
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 29 Filed 03/06/14 Page 10 of 130 Page ID #:318
`
`)
`
`1 Dish Defendants.
`
`2
`
`34. Hughes Defendants admit that their broadband satellite systems are
`
`3 compliant with "high-speed DVB-S2." (Exhibit J.) Additionally, Hughes
`
`4 Defendants have touted that implementation of this DVB-S2 standard "provides for
`5 higher throughputs, better coding efficiency, and improved satellite resource
`6 utilization for the outbound channel." (Exhibit K.)
`
`7
`
`35.
`
`Further, Hughes Defendants’ website advertises its HX System and
`
`8 provides a link to a brochure titled "High-Performance IP Satellite Broadband
`
`9 System." (Exhibit L.) This brochure similarly highlights Hughes Defendants’
`
`10 implementation of the DVB-S2 standard, stating that the core component of the 1-IX
`
`11 System, the FIX Gateway, "uses a DVB-S2 carrier . . . for the outbound channel
`12 received by all HX System remote terminals." (Id.)
`13
`36. Hughes Defendants’ website also advertises its HN System and states
`
`14, that it is compliant with DVB-S2. (Exhibit M.)
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`COUNT I
`
`Infringement of the ’710 Patent
`
`37. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the
`
`18 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`19
`
`38. On information and belief, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, Defendants
`
`20 have infringed and are currently infringing, directly and/or through intermediaries,
`
`21 the ’710 patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the
`
`22 United States, without authority, products, methods, equipment, and/or services that
`
`23 practice one or more claims of the ’710 patent. These products, methods,
`
`24 equipment, and/or services include products that implement the DVB-S2 standard,
`
`25
`
`including without limitation products in the HN System and FIX System product
`
`26 lines, satellite internet product lines distributed under the dishNET brand, the
`
`27 Hopper set-top box, network and network services that employ these products,
`
`and/or marketing, consulting, and/or support services provided for these products
`
`-10- (cid:9)
`
`CASE No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1022, p. 10
`
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 29 Filed 03/06/14 Page 11 of 130 Page ID #:319
`
`)
`
`1 and services (collectively, the "Accused Services and Products"). For example, at
`
`2 least Paragraphs 32 and 33 illustrate a limited number of examples of Defendants’
`
`3 direct infringement of the ’710 patent. Defendants have infringed and are currently
`
`4 infringing literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`5
`
`39. On information and belief, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, Defendants
`
`6 have infringed and are continuing to infringe the ’710 patent by contributing to
`
`7 and/or actively inducing the infringement by others of the ’710 patent by making,
`
`8 using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States, without
`
`9 authority, products, methods, equipment, and/or services, including the Accused
`
`10 Services and Products, that practice one or more claims of the ’710 patent.
`
`11
`
`40. Hughes Defendants have had actual knowledge of their infringement of
`
`12 the ’710 patent before the filing date of this Complaint through letters alleging such
`
`13 infringement, or at least have had actual knowledge of their infringement of the ’710
`14 I patent since no later than the filing date of this Complaint.
`15
`41. On information and belief, Dish Defendants have had actual
`
`16 knowledge of their infringement of the ’710 patent before the filing date of this
`
`17 Complaint based on their marketing, sale, and distribution, among other activities,
`
`18 of Hughes Defendants’ satellite internet service and their relationship with Hughes
`
`19 Defendants (see Paragraphs 9, 10, 33). Dish Defendants at least have had actual
`
`20 knowledge of their infringement of the ’710 patent since no later than the filing
`
`21 date of this Complaint.
`
`22
`
`42. Notwithstanding Defendants’ actual notice of infringement,
`
`23 Defendants have continued, directly and/or through intermediaries, to manufacture,
`
`24 use, import, offer for sale, or sell the Accused Services and Products with
`
`25 knowledge of or willful blindness to the fact that their actions will induce others,
`
`26 including but not limited to their customers, partners, and/or end users, to infringe
`
`27 the ’710 patent. Defendants have induced and continue to induce others to infringe
`
`28 the ’710 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 by encouraging and facilitating
`
`-11 - (cid:9)
`
`CASE No. 2:13 -cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1022, p. 11
`
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 29 Filed 03/06/14 Page 12 of 130 Page ID #:320
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`others to perform actions that Defendants know to be acts of infringement of the
`
`’710 patent with intent that those performing the acts infringe the ’710 patent.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants, directly and/or through intermediaries,
`
`advertise and distribute the Accused Services and Products, publish instruction
`
`materials, specifications and/or promotional literature describing the operation of
`
`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
`
`end users. At least consumers, partners, and/or end users of these Accused Services
`
`and Products then directly or jointly infringe the ’710 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
`
`Services and Products are especially made or especially adapted for use in the
`
`infringement of the ’710 patent. The infringing components of these products are
`
`not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-
`
`infringing use, and the infringing components of these products are a material part
`
`of the invention of the ’710 patent. Accordingly, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271,
`Defendants are also contributing, directly and/or through intermediaries, to the
`
`direct infringement of the ’710 patent by at least the customers, partners, and/or end
`
`users of these Accused Services and Products. The customers, partners, and/or end
`
`21
`
`users of these Accused Services and Products directly infringe the ’710 patent by
`
`22
`
`making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States,
`
`23
`
`without authority, the Accused Services and Products.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`44. As but one example of Hughes Defendants’ contributory and/or
`
`induced infringement, Hughes Defendants explicitly encourage their customers to
`
`practice the methods disclosed and claimed in the ’710 patent by using the Accused
`
`Services and Products. (cid:9) As detailed in Paragraphs 34
`through 36, Hughes
`Defendants’ website advertises its 1-IN System and FIX System, and provides
`
`-12- (cid:9)
`
`CASE No. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1022, p. 12
`
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 29 Filed 03/06/14 Page 13 of 130 Page ID #:321
`
`)
`
`1 information and brochures regarding these systems.
`
`(See Exhibits J, K, L, M.)
`
`2 These webpages and brochures highlight Hughes Defendants’ implementation of the
`
`3 DVB-S2 standard. On information and belief, through materials such as these, the
`4 Hughes Defendants actively encourage their consumers, partners, and/or end users
`5
`
`to infringe the ’710 patent through at least use of the HN System and FIX System
`
`6 product lines, knowing those acts to be infringement of the ’710 patent with intent
`
`7 that those performing the acts infringe the ’710 patent.
`
`8
`
`45. As but one example of Dish Defendants’ contributory and/or induced
`9 I infringement, Dish Defendants explicitly encourage their customers to practice the
`
`10 methods disclosed and claimed in the ’710 patent by using the Accused Services and
`
`11 Products. According to Dish Defendants’ 2012 Annual Report (10-K), Dish
`
`12 Defendants lease to dishNET satellite internet subscribers the customer premise
`
`13 equipment. Dish Defendants also advertise, market, offer for sale, and sell to
`
`14 customers the Hopper set-top box on their website. On information and belief, the
`
`15 dishNET customer premise equipment and the Hopper set-top box implement the
`
`16 DVB-S2 standard. On information and belief, through providing this equipment,
`
`17 Dish Defendants actively encourage their consumers and end users to infringe the
`
`18 ’710 patent through at least use of the equipment, knowing those acts to be
`
`19 infringement of the ’710 patent with intent that those performing the acts infringe
`
`20 the ’710 patent.
`
`21
`
`46. Defendants are not licensed or otherwise authorized to practice,
`
`22 contributorily practice and/or induce third parties to practice the claims of the ’710
`
`23 patent.
`
`24
`
`47. By reason of Defendants’ infringing activities, Caltech has suffered,
`
`25 and will continue to suffer, substantial damages.
`
`26
`
`48. Caltech is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages sustained as
`
`27 a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial.
`
`-13- (cid:9)
`
`CASE NO. 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM
`AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Hughes, Exh. 1022, p. 13
`
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`(cid:9)
`

`

`Case 2:13-cv-07245-MRP-JEM Document 29 Filed 03/06/14 Page 14 of 130 Page ID #:322
`
`1
`
`49. Defendants’ continuing acts of infringement are irreparably harming
`
`2 and causing damage to Caltech, for which Caltech has no adequate remedy at law,
`
`3 and will continue to suffer such irreparable injury unless Defendants’ continuing
`
`4 acts of infringement are enjoined by the Court. The hardships that an injunction
`5 would impose are less than those faced by Caltech should an injunction not issue.
`
`6 The public interest would be served by issuance of an injunction. Thus, Caltech is
`
`7 entitled to a preliminary and, a permanent injunction against further infringement.
`50. Hughes Defendants’ infringement of the ’710 patent has been and
`continues to be willful and deliberate, justifying a trebling of damages under 35
`U.S.C. § 284. Among other facts, Hughes Defendants have had knowledge of their
`
`S
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`infringement of the ’710 patent before the filing date of this Complaint through
`
`letters alleging such infringement. Upon information and belief, Hughes
`
`Defendants’ accused actions continued despite an objectively high likelihood that
`
`they constituted infringement of the ’710 patent. Hughes Defendants either knew or
`
`should have known about their risk of infringing the ’710 patent. Hughes
`
`Defendants’ conduct despite this knowledge was made with both objective and
`
`subjective reckless disregard for the infringing nature of their activities as
`
`demonstrated by Hughes Defendants’ knowledge regarding the claims of the ’710
`
`patent.
`
`51. Defendants’ infringement of the ’710 patent is exceptional and entitles
`
`Caltech to attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under
`
`35
`
`22
`
`U.S.C. § 285.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`COUNT II
`
`Infringement of the ’032 Patent
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of the
`
`26
`
`preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`27
`
`53. On information and belief, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, Defendants
`
`PEI
`
`have infringed and are currently infringing, directly and/or through intermediaries,
`
`-14- (cid:9)
`
`CASE No. 2: 13-cv-07245.MRP-JEM
`AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Hu