Case5:15-cv-01694-PSG Document1 Filed10/14/14 Page1 of 8
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` C.A. No.
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`)))))))))))))
`
`
`
`
`GOOD TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
`and GOOD TECHNOLOGY SOFTWARE,
`INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`MOBILEIRON, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Good Technology Corporation and Good Technology Software, Inc. (“Good”) hereby
`
`allege for their Complaint against defendant MobileIron, Inc. (“MobileIron”) on personal
`
`knowledge as to its own actions and on information and belief as to the actions of others, as
`
`follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`1. Good is a pioneer in technology and products that are critical to the backbone and
`
`safety of smartphones and tablets, which have become critical technology in today’s society.
`
`2. Good’s innovations in the area of mobile data and device management have
`
`resulted in broad intellectual property protection for Good’s innovations, including more than
`
`100 issued patents and pending patent applications, many of which are early, highly-cited, and
`
`foundational patents.
`
`3.
`
`Since 1996, Good has spent hundreds of millions of dollars researching,
`
`developing, and marketing its solutions, which have revolutionized and improved users’
`
`experiences on remote devices and provided a secure environment to access the most sensitive
`
`business and personal data.
`
`
`
`MobileIron, Inc., Ex. 1015 - Page 001
`
`

`

`Case5:15-cv-01694-PSG Document1 Filed10/14/14 Page2 of 8
`
`4.
`
`In 1997, Good, formerly known as Visto Corporation, created the first product that
`
`enabled users to securely access corporate email and other business data. Over the late 1990s
`
`and early 2000s, as smartphone devices were increasingly being seen in the marketplace, Good
`
`evolved this product to support “push” email, automatically synchronize data, and provide
`
`security controls such as “remote wipe”—features smartphone users utilize repeatedly
`
`throughout the day.
`5. Good’s innovations have become the de facto standard for secure access to email
`and other business data on smartphones and tablets. Without these security and management
`
`functions, businesses and government agencies—such as banks, healthcare providers, life
`
`sciences and high tech companies, and many others—would not be able to utilize new and
`
`innovative devices and apps to increase workforce efficiency and productivity. Good has entered
`
`into intellectual property agreements with technology leaders, such as Blackberry (formerly
`
`known as Research In Motion), Microsoft and Nokia.
`
`6. Nevertheless, Good’s innovations have been the subject of widespread copying by
`
`other competitors who have unfairly attempted to capitalize on Good’s pioneering efforts and
`
`success by imitating Good’s innovative technology and product offerings.
`
`7. One of Good’s principal imitators is MobileIron. Instead of pursuing independent
`
`product development, MobileIron has chosen to use Good’s innovative technology and product
`
`offerings, in violation of Good’s valuable intellectual property rights. As alleged below in detail,
`
`MobileIron has made its MobileIron products work through widespread patent infringement.
`
`PARTIES
`Plaintiffs Good Technology Corporation and Good Technology Software, Inc. are
`
`8.
`
`Delaware corporations with their principal place of business at 430 N. Mary Ave., Suite 200,
`
`Sunnyvale, CA 94085.
`
`9. Defendant MobileIron is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
`
`at 415 East Middlefield Road, Mountain View, CA 94043.
`
`2
`
`
`MobileIron, Inc., Ex. 1015 - Page 002
`
`

`

`Case5:15-cv-01694-PSG Document1 Filed10/14/14 Page3 of 8
`
`10. MobileIron is doing business and infringing Good’s patent-in-suit in Delaware and
`
`elsewhere in the United States.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`11. This is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
`United States, Title 35, United States Code, including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 et seq. and 281-285.
`
`Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`12. MobileIron is transacting and/or has transacted business within the State of
`
`Delaware. MobileIron, directly or through intermediaries, is committing and/or has committed
`
`acts of infringement in the State of Delaware, including at least distributing, selling, offering for
`
`sale, advertising, using and/or supporting products or services that fall within one or more claims
`
`of Good’s patent-in-suit. MobileIron is therefore subject to the personal jurisdiction of this
`
`Court.
`
`13. MobileIron, directly or through intermediaries, has committed acts of infringement
`
`in this District, including at least distributing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, using and/or
`
`supporting products or services that fall within one or more claims of Good’s patent-in-suit.
`
`Both parties reside in the District of Delaware. Accordingly, venue to adjudicate whether
`
`Good’s patent-in-suit is infringed is appropriate in the District of Delaware pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1391 and 1400(b).
`
`14. For example, MobileIron provides hardware and software solutions (in traditional
`
`forms, cloud-based, and software as service (SaaS)) for providing and securing remote access to
`corporate resources and services, including through authentication (the “MobileIron Products”).1
`MobileIron is currently marketing and selling its products and services, including its MobileIron
`
`
`1 By way of example only, this would include the MobileIron Enterprise Mobility Management
`platform and associated software, including at least one of the following services/solutions:
`MobileIron Sentry, Web@work, AppConnect, AppTunnel, File Manager, Filemanager with
`SharePoint Client, Android Email+, Web@work, Mobile@work, Docs@work, MobileIron Core
`(continued...)
`
`3
`
`
`MobileIron, Inc., Ex. 1015 - Page 003
`
`

`

`Case5:15-cv-01694-PSG Document1 Filed10/14/14 Page4 of 8
`
`Products, in Delaware and elsewhere in the United States. MobileIron also has commercial
`
`relationships with various technology partners to promote, sell, offer for sale, and/or advertise
`
`MobileIron accused products and services in this State and this District. For example,
`
`MobileIron’s software is available to customers in Delaware through the Apple App Store and
`
`Google Play markets. The MobileIron Platform has been deployed by the Nemours/Alfred I.
`
`DuPont Hospital for Children in Wilmington Delaware and in Nemours pediatric specialty
`clinics in Delaware.2
`15. MobileIron also uses websites to market accused products and services in
`
`Delaware, and enable users of its sites to inquire about (and receive) additional information and
`
`product support. MobileIron’s website also allows residents of this State and this District to
`
`search for and apply for employment positions with MobileIron.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`16. Good holds all right, title, and interest in and to United States Patent No. 8,117,344,
`
`entitled “Global Server for Authenticating Access to Remote Servers” (“the ’344 Patent”), which
`
`was duly and legally issued by the USPTO on February 14, 2012 in the name of Daniel J.
`
`Mendez, et al. A copy of the ’344 Patent is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`Count 1: Infringement Of U.S. Patent No. 8,117,344
`17. Good refers to and incorporates herein the allegations of Paragraphs 1-16 above.
`
`18. MobileIron makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, exports, supplies, and/or distributes
`
`within and from the United States, products and/or services that provide authenticated access to
`
`services, including at least one or more versions of the following: The MobileIron Enterprise
`
`Mobility Management platform and associated software, including at least one of the following
`
`
`
`(...continued from previous page)
`(formerly the MobileIron VSP), Mobile Content Management, Mobile Security, Mobile
`Application Management, and/or Tunnel.
`2 See http://www.mobileiron.com/en/customers/case-study/nemours.
`
`4
`
`
`MobileIron, Inc., Ex. 1015 - Page 004
`
`

`

`Case5:15-cv-01694-PSG Document1 Filed10/14/14 Page5 of 8
`
`services/solutions: MobileIron Sentry, Web@work, AppConnect, AppTunnel, File Manager,
`
`Filemanager with SharePoint Client, Android Email+, Web@work, Mobile@work, Docs@work,
`
`MobileIron Core (formerly the MobileIron VSP), Mobile Content Management, Mobile
`
`Security, Mobile Application Management, and/or Tunnel (“the ’344 Accused Products”). In
`
`addition, MobileIron provides these products and/or services to distributors, resellers, developers
`
`and/or users.
`
`19. MobileIron has been and is now directly infringing the ’344 Patent in this District
`
`and elsewhere by making, using, offering for sale, selling, importing, exporting, supplying and/or
`
`distributing within, to, and/or from the United States the ’344 Accused Products, in violation of
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a). On information and belief, MobileIron had and has prior knowledge of the
`’344 patent.3 On information and belief, MobileIron uses advertising, marketing and sales activity
`to knowingly entice distributors, resellers, and/or end user customers to infringe the ‘344 Patent
`
`by using, offering for sale, selling, or distributing the ‘344 Accused Products in an infringing
`
`manner—e.g., to provide authenticated access to services via a global server. Furthermore, on
`
`information and belief, MobileIron provides distributors, resellers, and/or end user customers
`
`technical support and services as well as detailed explanations, instructions and information as to
`
`arrangements, applications and uses of the ‘344 Accused Products that knowingly promote and
`
`demonstrate how to use the ‘344 Accused Products in a manner that would infringe the ‘344
`
`Patent—e.g., to provide authenticated access to services via a global server. Thus, MobileIron
`
`has indirectly infringed one or more claims of the ’344 Patent by actively and knowingly
`
`inducing such use of the claimed methods and systems by its distributors, resellers, and/or end
`
`user customers using the ‘344 Accused Products in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`Additionally, MobileIron has contributorily infringed one or more claims of the ’344 Patent by
`
`providing the ’344 Accused Products directly or by way of distributors and/or resellers to end
`
`
`3 See paragraph 20.
`
`5
`
`
`MobileIron, Inc., Ex. 1015 - Page 005
`
`

`

`Case5:15-cv-01694-PSG Document1 Filed10/14/14 Page6 of 8
`
`users, with the intent that these end users in turn combine the ’344 Accused Products, which
`
`have no substantial non-infringing uses, with available hardware and/or software to infringe one
`
`or more claims of the ’344 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`20. On information and belief, MobileIron had and has knowledge of the ’344 patent
`
`arising out of Good’s public notice of the patent and MobileIron’s prior conduct as relates to
`
`Good’s patent rights and business. Good has provided public notice of the ’344 Patent on its
`website.4 Moreover, on information and belief, MobileIron has become aware of the ‘344 patent
`in light of litigation in the pending case of Good Tech. Corp. v. MobileIron, Inc., Case No. 5-12-
`
`cv-05826 (N.D. Cal.). Furthermore, it is Good’s understanding that MobileIron in fact monitors
`
`Good’s patent portfolio. Therefore, upon information and belief, MobileIron had and has
`
`knowledge of the ’344 Patent, MobileIron has been and is aware of its infringement, and
`
`MobileIron’s infringement has been and continues to be willful.
`
`21. Good has been irreparably harmed by MobileIron’s acts of infringement of the ’344
`
`Patent, and will continue to be harmed unless and until MobileIron’s acts of infringement are
`
`enjoined and restrained by order of this Court. Good has no adequate remedy at law to redress
`
`MobileIron’s continuing acts of infringement. The hardships that would be imposed upon
`
`MobileIron by an injunction are less than those faced by Good should an injunction not issue.
`
`Furthermore, the public interest would be served by issuance of an injunction.
`
`22. As a result of MobileIron’s acts of infringement, Good has suffered and will
`
`continue to suffer damages in an amount to be proved at trial.
`
`
`4 See, for example: http://www1.good.com/good-dynamics-platform/boxtone.html,
`http://media.www1.good.com/documents/US8117344.pdf, http://au.good.com/legal/other-
`legal.html, http://au.good.com/secure-mobility-solution/mobile-application-containerization.
`
`6
`
`
`MobileIron, Inc., Ex. 1015 - Page 006
`
`

`

`Case5:15-cv-01694-PSG Document1 Filed10/14/14 Page7 of 8
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`WHEREFORE Good requests the following relief:
`
`a.
`
`That MobileIron and its parents, affiliates, subsidiaries, officers, agents,
`
`servants, employees, attorneys, successors, and assigns, and all those persons in active concert or
`
`participation with them, or any of them, be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from making,
`
`using, importing, exporting, distributing, supplying, offering for sale, selling, or causing to be
`
`sold any product or service falling within the scope of any claim of the ’344 Patent, or otherwise
`
`infringing or contributing to or inducing infringement of any claim thereof;
`
`b. A finding that MobileIron has infringed the ’344 Patent;
`
`c.
`
`That Good be awarded its actual damages;
`
`d. That Good be awarded pre judgment interest and post judgment interest at
`
`the maximum rate allowed by law, including an award of prejudgment interest, pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 284, from the date of each act of infringement of the ’344 Patent by MobileIron to the
`
`day a damages judgment is entered, and a further award of post judgment interest, pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1961, continuing until such judgment is paid, at the maximum rate allowed by law;
`
`e.
`
`That the Court order an accounting for damages through judgment and post-
`
`judgment until MobileIron is permanently enjoined from further infringing activities;
`
`f.
`
`That the Court declare this to be an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 285 and requiring MobileIron to pay the costs of this action (including all disbursements) and
`
`attorney’s fees as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285;
`
`g. That the Court award enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`h. That the Court award supplemental damages for any continuing post-verdict
`
`infringement up until MobileIron is permanently enjoined from further infringing activities;
`
`i.
`
`That the Court award a compulsory future royalty in the event an injunction
`
`is not awarded;
`
`j.
`
`That the Court require MobileIron to pay interest on such damages at the
`
`legal rate;
`
`7
`
`
`MobileIron, Inc., Ex. 1015 - Page 007
`
`

`

`Case5:15-cv-01694-PSG Document1 Filed10/14/14 Page8 of 8
`
`k. That MobileIron pay Good’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and
`
`l.
`
`That Good be awarded such other and further relief as the Court deems just
`
`and proper.
`
`DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
`Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and in
`
`accordance with Civil Local Rule 38.1, Good demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable in
`
`this matter.
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Edward G. Poplawski
`Laura E. Evans
`S. Ferrell Alman, Jr.
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`633 West Fifth Street, 15th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(323) 210-2900
`epoplawski@wsgr.com
`levans@wsgr.com
`falman@wsgr.com
`
`
`
`Dated: October 14, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`SEITZ ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP
`
` /s/ Benjamin J. Schladweiler
`Collins J. Seitz, Jr. (#2237)
`Benjamin J. Schladweiler (#4601)
`100 S. West Street, Suite 400
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 576-1600
`cseitz@seitzross.com
`bschladweiler@seitzross.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs Good Technology
`Corp. and Good Technology Software, Inc.
`
`8
`
`
`MobileIron, Inc., Ex. 1015 - Page 008
`
`