Case 113-cv-02073-SLR-SRF
`
`Document
`
`Filed 12/20/13
`
`Page
`
`of 18 Page ID
`
`Th1 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS
`LICENSTh1G LLC
`
`Plaintiff
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`
`Defendant
`
`C.A No.________
`
`JTJRY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Parallel Networks Licensing LLC Parallel Networks or Plaintiff files this
`
`Complaint
`
`for patent
`
`infringement against Defendant Microsoft Corporation Microsoft
`
`or
`
`Defendant
`
`and alleges as follows
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff Parallel Networks
`
`Licensing LLC is
`
`Delaware
`
`limited liability
`
`company with
`
`place of business as 1105
`
`Market Street Suite 300 Wilmington DE 19801
`
`Upon information and belief Microsoft
`
`is incorporated
`
`organized and existing
`
`under the laws of the State of Washington Microsoft maintains its principal place of business at
`
`One Microsoft Way Redmond Washington
`
`98052 Microsoft may be served with process
`
`through its registered agent Corporation Service Company 2711 Centerville Rd Suite 400
`
`Wilmington DE 19808
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1056, p. 1
`
`

`

`Case 113-cv-02073-SLR-SRF
`
`Document
`
`Filed 12/20/13
`
`Page
`
`of 18 Page ID
`
`II
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`Plaintiff
`
`repeats and re-alleges the allegations in Paragraphs
`
`and
`
`as though
`
`fully set forth in their entirety
`
`This action arises under the patent
`
`laws of the United States Title 35 United
`
`States Code
`
`et seq This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over this case for
`
`patent
`
`infringementunder 28 U.S.C
`
`1331 and 1338a
`
`Personal jurisdiction exists generally over the Defendant because it has sufficient
`
`minimum contacts with the forum as
`
`result of business conducted within the State of Delaware
`
`Personal
`
`jurisdiction also exists specifically over the Defendant because it directly or through
`
`subsidiaries or
`
`intermediaries makes uses offers for sale sells imports advertises makes
`
`available and/or markets products and services within the State of Delaware that
`
`infringe the
`
`Asserted Patents as described more particularly below
`
`Venue is appropriate in the District of Delaware under 28 U.S.C
`
`1391b
`
`1391d and 1400b Venue is further supported because on September 30 2008 Microsoft
`
`filed
`
`declaratory judgment of patent
`
`invalidity and non-infringement
`
`involving the same patents
`
`Parallel Networks is asserting against Microsoft
`
`in this litigation
`
`Venue is further supported by
`
`the fact
`
`that this District and Court have significant experience with the patents asserted in this
`
`lawsuit and the related technology because of the activities and experience garnered in Oracle
`
`Corporation et at
`
`Parallel Netw orks LLC CA No 06-414-SLR
`
`Del June 30 2006 and
`
`Quinstreet
`
`Inc
`
`Parallel Networks LLC CA No 06-495-SLR
`
`Del Aug
`
`2006 as set
`
`forth in the dockets orders and pleadings associated with each case
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1056, p. 2
`
`

`

`Case 113-cv-02073-SLR-SRF
`
`Document
`
`Filed 12/20/13
`
`Page
`
`of 18 Page ID
`
`III
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`United States Patent No 5894554 the 554 Patent entitled SYSTEM FOR
`
`MANAGING DYNAMIC WEB PAGE GENERATION REQUESTS BY INTERCEPTING
`
`REQUEST AT WEB SERVER AND ROUTING TO PAGE SERVER THEREBY RELEASING
`
`WEB SERVER TO PROCESS OTHER REQUESTS was duly and legally issued by the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office on April 13 1999 after
`
`full and fair examination Three
`
`requests for ex parte reexamination of the 554 Patent were filed on November 27 2006 March
`
`29 2007 and April
`
`2007 respectively On July 24 2012 the United States Patent Office duly
`
`and legally issued an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate No 5894554 Cl confirming the
`
`patentability of claims 12
`
`2012 the United States Patent Office duly and
`legally issued Certificate of Correction for claims 12 49 Parallel Networks is the assignee of
`
`49 On October
`
`all rights title and interest
`
`in the 554 Patent
`
`including the right to recover damages for past
`
`infringement
`
`copy of the 554 Patent
`
`is attached as Exhibit
`
`to this Complaint
`
`United States Patent No 6415335 the 335 Patent entitled SYSTEM AND
`
`METHOD FOR MANAGING DYNAMIC WEB PAGE GENERATION REQUESTS was
`
`duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on July
`
`2002 after
`
`full and fair examination Three requests
`
`for ex parte reexamination of the 335 Patent were
`
`filed on November 27 2006 March 28 2007 and April
`
`2007 respectively On July 17 2012
`
`the United States Patent Office duly and legally issued an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate
`
`No 6415335 Cl confirming the patentability of claims 30
`
`85 On September 11 2012 the
`
`United States Patent Office duly and legally issued Certificate of Correction for claims 30
`
`85
`
`Parallel Networks is the assignee of all rights title and interest
`
`in the 335 patent
`
`including the
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1056, p. 3
`
`

`

`Case 113-cv-02073-SLR-SRF
`
`Document
`
`Filed 12/20/13
`
`Page
`
`of 18 Page ID
`
`right to recover damages for past infringement
`
`copy of the 335 Patent
`
`is attached as Exhibit
`
`to this Complaint
`
`The 554 Patent and the 335 Patent are referred to collectively
`
`as the Asserted
`
`Patents
`
`The Asserted Patents
`
`each disclose methods and apparatuses
`
`for creating and
`
`managing custom Web sites In the summary of the invention section of the Asserted Patents it
`
`is explained
`
`the present invention claims method and apparatus
`
`for managing
`
`dynamic web page generation requests Figure
`
`of the Asserted Patents provides an example
`
`of one embodiment of the claimed inventions
`
`10
`
`Microsoft
`
`is engaged in the business of making developing and selling systems
`
`and software that manage dynamic Web page generation requests More particularly Microsoft
`
`has made offered and continues to offer for sale Microsoft
`
`Internet
`
`Information Services
`
`IIS
`
`versions 7.0 and later
`
`including Application Request Routing
`
`and/or Component
`
`Load
`
`Balancing
`
`and Network
`
`Load Balancing NLB used
`
`for example in conjunction with
`
`Microsofts SQL Server Reporting Services
`
`these and any and all similar products are referred
`
`to herein as the Accused Instrumentalities The Accused Instrumentalities are embodied on
`
`machine readable medium and perform the claimed methods of the Asserted Patents
`
`11
`
`Microsoft has infringed and continues to infringe each of the Asserted Patents by
`
`engaging in acts constituting infringement under 35 U.S.C
`
`271 including but not necessarily
`
`limited to one or more of making using selling and/or offering to sell
`
`in this District and
`
`elsewhere in the United States and importing into this District and elsewhere in the United
`
`States
`
`certain Accused Instrumentalities including but not
`
`limited to Microsoft
`
`Internet
`
`Information Services uS versions 7.0 and later
`
`including Application Request Routing
`
`and/or Component Load Balancing and Network Load Balancing NLB used for example in
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1056, p. 4
`
`

`

`Case 113-cv-02073-SLR-SRF
`
`Document
`
`Filed 12/20/13
`
`Page
`
`of 18 Page ID
`
`conjunction with Microsofts SQL Server Reporting Services for management of dynamic Web
`
`page generation requests
`
`IV COUNT
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE 554 PATENT
`
`12
`
`Plaintiff
`
`repeats and re-alleges the allegations
`
`in Paragraphs
`
`through 11
`
`as
`
`though fully set forth in their entirety
`
`13
`
`Microsoft
`
`has directly infringed and
`
`continues
`
`to infringe directly and/or
`
`indirectly the 554 Patent
`
`in this District or otherwise within the United States by making using
`
`selling offering to sell and/or
`
`importing in or into the United States without authority the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities that infringe one or more claims of the 554 Patent
`
`14
`
`Microsoft has induced and is inducing infringement of the 554 Patent under 35
`
`U.S.C
`
`271b by others in this District and elsewhere in the United States The direct
`
`infringement occurs by activities performed by Microsoft
`
`its contractors and employees and/or
`
`end users of the Accused Instrumentalities in their intended use including the management of
`
`dynamic Web page generation requests
`
`15
`
`Microsoft specifically intends the users of
`
`the Accused Instrumentalities to
`
`infringe the 554 Patent or alternatively has been willfully blind to the possibility that
`
`its
`
`inducing acts would cause infringement By way of example and not as
`
`limitation Microsoft
`
`induces such infringement by its affirmative actions of at least making its web site and/or web site
`
`functionality available to customers and providing links and/or other directions on its website
`
`and/or
`
`the internet
`
`to instruct
`
`and teach users to use the Accused Instrumentalities in an
`
`infringing
`
`manner
`
`Example
`
`instructions
`
`are
`
`found
`
`at
`
`http //www.iis
`
`.net/learn/extensions/configuring-application-reguest-routing-arr/achieving-high
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1056, p. 5
`
`

`

`Case 113-cv-02073-SLR-SRF
`
`Document
`
`Filed 12/20/13
`
`Page
`
`of 18 Page ID
`
`availability-and-scalability-arr-and-hardware-load-balancer
`
`http//technet.microsoft.com/en
`
`us/1ibrary/cc770634 aspx http //www.iis.net/learn/get-started/introduction-to-iis/introduction-to
`
`us-architecture
`
`http //www.iis.net/learn/get-started/whats-new-in-iis-8/installing-iis-8-on-
`
`windows-server-20 12
`
`http //technet microsoft com/en-us/library/cc73
`
`084vws 10 aspx
`
`http //msdn.microsoft corn/en-us/magazine/cc
`
`163357 aspx
`
`and
`
`http //www.ii
`
`net/downloads/microsoft/application-request-routing
`
`On information and
`
`belief Microsofts customers use the Accused Instrumentalities to manage and host dynamic
`
`Web pages as described and claimed in the Asserted Patents
`
`16
`
`Through
`
`its
`
`sales and support activities Microsoft
`
`specifically
`
`intends its
`
`customers to infringe the 554 Patent Microsoft was and remains aware that the normal and
`
`customary use of the Accused Instrumentalities in connection with the management of dynamic
`
`Web page generation requests infringes the 554 patent Thus Microsofts customers by using
`
`the Accused Instrumentalities directly infringe the claimed methods of the 554 Patent
`
`17
`
`Microsoft
`
`possesses
`
`knowledge
`
`that use of
`
`the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities
`
`infringes the 554 Patent For example in October 2008 Microsoft was the subject of
`
`Third-
`
`Party Complaint
`
`in which
`
`customer of Microsoft sought
`
`indemnification for claims of patent
`
`infringement on the Asserted Patents
`
`In November 2008 Microsoft
`
`filed
`
`Complaint
`
`in
`
`Delaware against Parallel Networks predecessor-in-interest
`
`seeking
`
`declaratory judgment of
`
`non-infringement and
`
`invalidity
`
`of
`
`the Asserted Patents Therefore Microsoft
`
`has had
`
`knowledge of the claims of the Asserted Patents and specific knowledge that customers use of
`
`the Accused Instrumentalities infringes the 554 Parallel Networks provided Microsoft
`
`further
`
`notice on September 14 2012
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1056, p. 6
`
`

`

`Case 113-cv-02073-SLR-SRF
`
`Document
`
`Filed 12/20/13
`
`Page
`
`of 18 Page ID
`
`18
`
`Accordingly
`
`reasonable inference is that Microsoft specifically
`
`intends for
`
`others such as resellers and end-users to directly infringe one or more claims of the 554 Patent
`
`in the United States because Microsoft has knowledge of the 554 Patent and Microsoft actually
`
`induces others such as resellers and end-users to directly infringe the 554 Patent by using
`
`selling offering to sell exporting supplying and/or distributing within the United States the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities Upon information and belief Microsoft has generated
`
`significant
`
`revenue in connection with the sales of the Accused Instrumentalities Microsoft knew or should
`
`have known that such actions would induce actual
`
`infringement
`
`19
`
`Microsoft
`
`indirectly infringes one or more claims of
`
`the 554 Patent by
`
`contributory
`
`infringement under 35 U.S.C
`
`271c
`
`Direct
`
`infringement
`
`is the result of
`
`activities performed by resellers and end users of the Accused Instrumentalities Microsoft had
`
`actual notice of the 554 Patent at least by October 2008 and received further notice from Parallel
`
`Networks as of September 14 2012
`
`20
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities include particular functionality within web servers
`
`dispatchers page servers and data sources relating to the management of dynamic Web page
`
`generation requests
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities do not
`
`function in an acceptable manner
`
`absent
`
`the
`
`claimed
`
`functionality for managing dynamic Web
`
`page generation
`
`requests
`
`Furthermore the functionality of managing dynamic Web page generation requests does not
`
`operate in isolation but is designed to operate with the Accused Instrumentalities and absent
`
`the
`
`claimed functionality the Accused Instrumentalities would not operate in an acceptable manner
`
`21
`
`The accused Microsoft
`
`Internet
`
`Information Services uS including Application
`
`Request Routing and/or Component Load Balancing and Network Load Balancing NLB used
`
`for example in conjunction with Microsofts SQL Server Reporting Services are especially
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1056, p. 7
`
`

`

`Case 113-cv-02073-SLR-SRF
`
`Document
`
`Filed 12/20/13
`
`Page
`
`of 18 Page ID
`
`adapted to operate in the Accused Instrumentalities for managing dynamic Web page generation
`
`requests
`
`22
`
`The system and software for managing dynamic Web page generation requests is
`
`not
`
`staple article or commodity of commerce and the use of this system and software is
`
`required for operation of the Accused Instrumentalities Any other use would be unusual
`
`far
`
`fetched illusory impractical occasional aberrant or experimental
`
`23
`
`The system and software for managing dynamic Web page generation requests in
`
`the Accused Instrumentalities are material part of the invention of the 554 Patent and are
`
`especially made or adapted for the infringing manufacture
`
`sale and/or
`
`use of the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities including the Microsoft
`
`Internet
`
`Information
`
`Services
`
`IIS including Application Request Routing and/or Component Load Balancing and
`
`Network Load Balancing NLB used for example in conjunction with Microsofts SQL Server
`
`Reporting Services
`
`are especially made or adapted
`
`for management of dynamic Web
`
`page
`
`requests that infringe the 554 Patent
`
`Because sales and use of the Accused Instrumentalities
`
`including the system and software for managing dynamic Web page generation requests infringe
`
`the 554 Patent Microsofts sales of the Accused Instrumentalities have no substantial non-
`
`infringing uses
`
`24
`
`Accordingly Microsoft makes offers for sale or sells within the United States
`
`component of
`
`patented machine manufacture
`
`combination or composition or material or
`
`apparatus
`
`for use in practicing
`
`patented process constituting
`
`material part of the invention
`
`knowing the same to be especially made or adapted for use in an infringement of such patent
`
`and not
`
`staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1056, p. 8
`
`

`

`Case 113-cv-02073-SLR-SRF
`
`Document
`
`Filed 12/20/13
`
`Page
`
`of 18 Page ID
`
`Microsoft provides to others the Accused Instrumentalities Microsoft has generated
`
`significant
`
`revenue in connection with the sales of the Accused Instrumentalities
`
`25
`
`By providing the Accused Instrumentalities identified above which have no
`
`substantial non-infringing uses Microsoft contributes to the direct
`
`infringement of users of said
`
`applications software and computer equipment As discussed supra at Paragraph 17 Microsoft
`
`possesses knowledge that its use of the Accused Instrumentalities infringes the 554 Patent
`
`26
`
`As
`
`direct and proximate consequence of the acts and practices of the Defendant
`
`in infringing directly and/or
`
`indirectly one or more claims of the 554 Patent Parallel Networks
`
`has suffered is suffering and unless such acts and practices are enjoined by the Court will
`
`continue to suffer injury to its business and property rights
`
`27
`
`As
`
`direct and proximate consequence of the acts and practices of the Defendant
`
`in infringing directly and/or
`
`indirectly one or more claims of the 554 Patent Parallel Networks
`
`has suffered is suffering and will continue to suffer injury and damages for which it
`
`is entitled
`
`to relief under 35 U.S.C 284 in an amount to be determined at trial
`
`28
`
`In addition the infringing acts and practices of
`
`the Defendant has caused is
`
`causing and unless such acts and practices are enjoined by the Court will continue to cause
`
`immediate and irreparable harm to Parallel Networks for which there is no adequate remedy at
`
`law and for which Parallel Networks is entitled to injunctive relief under 35 U.S.C 283
`
`29
`
`Microsoft has known about each of the Asserted Patents as set forth supra at
`
`Paragraph 17 Moreover Microsoft
`
`lacks justifiable belief that there is no infringement or that
`
`the infringed claims are invalid and has acted with objective recklessness
`
`in its
`
`infringing
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1056, p. 9
`
`

`

`Case 113-cv-02073-SLR-SRF
`
`Document
`
`Filed 12/20/13
`
`Page 10 of 18 Page ID
`
`10
`
`activity Microsofts infringement
`
`is therefore willful
`
`and Parallel Networks is entitled to an
`
`award of exemplary damages attorneys fees and costs in bringing this action
`
`COUNT II
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE 335 PATENT
`
`30
`
`Plaintiff
`
`repeats and re-alleges the allegations
`
`in Paragraphs
`
`through 29 as
`
`though fully set forth in their entirety
`
`31
`
`Microsoft
`
`has directly infringed and
`
`continues
`
`to infringe directly and/or
`
`indirectly the 335 Patent
`
`in this District or otherwise within the United States by making using
`
`selling offering to sell and/or
`
`importing in or into the United States without authority the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities that infringe one or more claims of the 335 Patent
`
`32
`
`Microsoft has induced and is inducing infringement of the 335 Patent under 35
`
`U.S.C
`
`271b by others in this District and elsewhere in the United States The direct
`
`infringement occurs by activities performed by Microsoft
`
`its contractors and employees and/or
`
`end users of the Accused Instrumentalities in their intended use including the management of
`
`dynamic Web page generation requests
`
`33
`
`Microsoft specifically intends the users of
`
`the Accused Instrumentalities to
`
`infringe the 335 Patent or alternatively has been willfully blind to the possibility that
`
`its
`
`inducing acts would cause infringement By way of example and not as
`
`limitation Microsoft
`
`induces such infringement by its affirmative actions of at least making its web site and/or web site
`
`functionality available to customers and providing links and/or other directions on its website
`
`and/or
`
`the internet
`
`to instruct
`
`and teach users to use the Accused Instrumentalities in an
`
`infringing
`
`manner
`
`Example
`
`instructions
`
`are
`
`found
`
`at
`
`http //www.iis
`
`.net/learn/extensions/configuring-application-reguest-routing-arr/achieving-high
`
`10
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1056, p. 10
`
`

`

`Case 113-cv-02073-SLR-SRF
`
`Document
`
`Filed 12/20/13
`
`Page 11 of 18 Page ID
`
`11
`
`availability-and-scalability-arr-and-hardware-load-balancer
`
`http//technet.microsoft.com/en
`
`us/1ibrary/cc770634 aspx http //www.iis.net/learn/get-started/introduction-to-iis/introduction-to
`
`us-architecture
`
`http //www.iis.net/learn/get-started/whats-new-in-iis-8/installing-iis-8-on-
`
`windows-server-20 12
`
`http //technet microsoft com/en-us/library/cc73
`
`084vws 10 aspx
`
`http //msdn.microsoft corn/en-us/magazine/cc
`
`163357 aspx
`
`and
`
`http //www.ii
`
`net/downloads/microsoft/application-request-routing
`
`On information and
`
`belief Microsofts customers use the Accused Instrumentalities to manage and host dynamic
`
`Web pages as described and claimed in the Asserted Patents
`
`34
`
`Through
`
`its
`
`sales and support activities Microsoft
`
`specifically
`
`intends its
`
`customers to infringe the 335 Patent Microsoft was and remains aware that the normal and
`
`customary use of the Accused Instrumentalities in connection with the management of dynamic
`
`Web page generation requests infringes the 335 Patent Thus Microsofts customers by using
`
`the Accused Instrumentalities directly infringe the claimed methods of the 335 Patent
`
`35
`
`Microsoft
`
`possesses
`
`knowledge
`
`that use of
`
`the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities
`
`infringes the 335 Patent For example in October 2008 Microsoft was the subject of
`
`Third-
`
`Party Complaint
`
`in which
`
`customer of Microsoft sought
`
`indemnification for claims of patent
`
`infringement on the Asserted Patents
`
`In November 2008 Microsoft
`
`filed
`
`Complaint
`
`in
`
`Delaware against Parallel Networks predecessor-in-interest
`
`seeking
`
`declaratory judgment of
`
`non-infringement and
`
`invalidity
`
`of
`
`the Asserted Patents Therefore Microsoft
`
`has had
`
`knowledge of the claims of the Asserted Patents and specific knowledge that customers use of
`
`the Accused Instrumentalities infringes the 335 Patent Parallel Networks provided Microsoft
`
`further notice on September 14 2012
`
`11
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1056, p. 11
`
`

`

`Case 113-cv-02073-SLR-SRF
`
`Document
`
`Filed 12/20/13
`
`Page 12 of 18 Page ID
`
`12
`
`36
`
`Accordingly
`
`reasonable inference is that Microsoft specifically
`
`intends for
`
`others such as resellers and end-users to directly infringe one or more claims of the 335 Patent
`
`in the United States because Microsoft has knowledge of the 335 Patent and Microsoft actually
`
`induces others such as resellers and end-users to directly infringe the 335 Patent by using
`
`selling offering to sell exporting supplying and/or distributing within the United States the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities Upon information and belief Microsoft has generated
`
`significant
`
`revenue in connection with the sales of the Accused Instrumentalities Microsoft knew or should
`
`have known that such actions would induce actual
`
`infringement
`
`37
`
`Microsoft
`
`indirectly infringes one or more claims of
`
`the 335 Patent by
`
`contributory
`
`infringement under 35 U.S.C
`
`271c
`
`Direct
`
`infringement
`
`is the result of
`
`activities performed by resellers and end users of the Accused Instrumentalities Microsoft had
`
`actual notice of the 335 Patent at least by October 2008 and received further notice from Parallel
`
`Networks as of September 14 2012
`
`38
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities include particular functionality within web servers
`
`dispatchers page servers and data sources relating to the management of dynamic Web page
`
`generation requests
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities do not
`
`function in an acceptable manner
`
`absent
`
`the
`
`claimed
`
`functionality for managing dynamic Web
`
`page generation
`
`requests
`
`Furthermore the functionality of managing dynamic Web page generation requests does not
`
`operate in isolation but is designed to operate with the Accused Instrumentalities and absent
`
`the
`
`claimed functionality the Accused Instrumentalities would not operate in an acceptable manner
`
`39
`
`The accused Microsoft
`
`Internet
`
`Information Services uS including Application
`
`Request Routing and/or Component Load Balancing and Network Load Balancing NLB used
`
`for example in conjunction with Microsofts SQL Server Reporting Services are especially
`
`12
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1056, p. 12
`
`

`

`Case 113-cv-02073-SLR-SRF
`
`Document
`
`Filed 12/20/13
`
`Page 13 of 18 Page ID
`
`13
`
`adapted to operate in the Accused Instrumentalities for managing dynamic Web page generation
`
`requests
`
`40
`
`The system and software for managing dynamic Web page generation requests is
`
`not
`
`staple article or commodity of commerce and the use of this system and software is
`
`required for operation of the Accused Instrumentalities Any other use would be unusual
`
`far
`
`fetched illusory impractical occasional aberrant or experimental
`
`41
`
`The system and software for managing dynamic Web page generation requests in
`
`the Accused Instrumentalities are material part of the invention of the 335 Patent and are
`
`especially made or adapted for the infringing manufacture
`
`sale and/or
`
`use of the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities including the Microsoft
`
`Internet
`
`Information
`
`Services
`
`IIS including Application Request Routing and/or Component Load Balancing and
`
`Network Load Balancing NLB used for example in conjunction with Microsofts SQL Server
`
`Reporting Services
`
`are especially made or adapted
`
`for management of dynamic Web
`
`page
`
`requests that
`
`infringes the 335 Patent Because sales and use of the Accused Instrumentalities
`
`including the system and software for managing dynamic Web page generation requests infringe
`
`the 335 Patent Microsofts sales of the Accused Instrumentalities have no substantial non-
`
`infringing uses
`
`42
`
`Accordingly Microsoft makes offers for sale or sells within the United States
`
`component of
`
`patented machine manufacture
`
`combination or composition or material or
`
`apparatus
`
`for use in practicing
`
`patented process constituting
`
`material part of the invention
`
`knowing the same to be especially made or adapted for use in an infringement of such patent
`
`and not
`
`staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use
`
`13
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1056, p. 13
`
`

`

`Case 113-cv-02073-SLR-SRF
`
`Document
`
`Filed 12/20/13
`
`Page 14 of 18 Page ID
`
`14
`
`Microsoft provides to others the Accused Instrumentalities Microsoft has generated
`
`significant
`
`revenue in connection with the sales of the Accused Instrumentalities
`
`43
`
`By providing the Accused Instrumentalities identified above which have no
`
`substantial non-infringing uses Microsoft contributes to the direct
`
`infringement of users of said
`
`applications software and computer equipment As discussed supra at Paragraph 35 Microsoft
`
`possesses knowledge that its use of the Accused Instrumentalities infringes the 335 Patent
`
`44
`
`As
`
`direct and proximate consequence of the acts and practices of the Defendant
`
`in infringing directly and/or
`
`indirectly one or more claims of the 335 Patent Parallel Networks
`
`has suffered is suffering and unless such acts and practices are enjoined by the Court will
`
`continue to suffer injury to its business and property rights
`
`45
`
`As
`
`direct and proximate consequence of the acts and practices of the Defendant
`
`in infringing directly and/or
`
`indirectly one or more claims of the 335 Patent Parallel Networks
`
`has suffered is suffering and will continue to suffer injury and damages for which it
`
`is entitled
`
`to relief under 35 U.S.C 284 in an amount to be determined at trial
`
`46
`
`In addition the infringing acts and practices of
`
`the Defendant has caused is
`
`causing and unless such acts and practices are enjoined by the Court will continue to cause
`
`immediate and irreparable harm to Parallel Networks for which there is no adequate remedy at
`
`law and for which Parallel Networks is entitled to injunctive relief under 35 U.S.C 283
`
`47
`
`Microsoft has known about each of the Asserted Patents as set forth supra at
`
`Paragraph 35 Moreover Microsoft
`
`lacks justifiable belief that there is no infringement or that
`
`the infringed claims are invalid and has acted with objective recklessness
`
`in its
`
`infringing
`
`14
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1056, p. 14
`
`

`

`Case 113-cv-02073-SLR-SRF
`
`Document
`
`Filed 12/20/13
`
`Page 15 of 18 Page ID
`
`15
`
`activity Microsofts infringement
`
`is therefore willful
`
`and Parallel Networks is entitled to an
`
`award of exemplary damages attorneys fees and costs in bringing this action
`
`VI NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT OF LITIGATION HOLD
`
`48
`
`Defendant
`
`is hereby notified it
`
`is legally obligated to locate
`
`preserve
`
`and
`
`maintain all
`
`records notes drawings documents data communications materials electronic
`
`recordings audio/video/photographic
`
`recordings and digital
`
`files including edited and unedited
`
`or raw source material and other information and tangible things that Defendant knows or
`
`reasonably should know may be relevant
`
`to actual or potential claims counterclaims defenses
`
`and/or damages by any party or potential party in this lawsuit whether created or residing in
`
`hard copy form or in the form of electronically
`
`stored information hereafter collectively
`
`referred
`
`to as Potential Evidence
`
`49
`
`As used above the phrase electronically
`
`stored information includes without
`
`limitation computer files and file fragments e-mail both sent and received whether internally
`
`or externally information concerning e-mail including but not limited to logs of e-mail history
`
`and usage header
`
`information and deleted but recoverable e-mails text
`
`files including drafts
`
`revisions and active or deleted word processing documents instant messages audio recordings
`
`and files video footage and files audio files photographic
`
`footage and files spreadsheets
`
`databases calendars telephone logs contact manager information internet usage files and all
`
`other information created received or maintained on any and all electronic and/or digital
`
`forms
`
`sources
`
`and media including without
`
`limitation any and all hard disks removable media
`
`peripheral computer or electronic storage devices
`
`laptop computers mobile phones personal
`
`data assistant devices Blackberry devices iPhones video cameras and still cameras and any and
`
`all other locations where electronic data is stored These sources may also include any personal
`
`15
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1056, p. 15
`
`

`

`Case 113-cv-02073-SLR-SRF
`
`Document
`
`Filed 12/20/13
`
`Page 16 of 18 Page ID
`
`16
`
`electronic digital
`
`and storage
`
`devices of any and all of Defendants
`
`agents resellers or
`
`employees if Defendants electronically
`
`stored information resides there
`
`50
`
`Defendant
`
`is hereby
`
`further notified and
`
`forewarned
`
`that
`
`any alteration
`
`destruction negligent
`
`loss or unavailability by act or omission of any Potential Evidence may
`
`result in damages or
`
`legal presumption by the Court and/or
`
`jury that the Potential Evidence is
`
`not
`
`favorable to Defendants
`
`claims and/or
`
`defenses To avoid such
`
`result Defendants
`
`preservation duties include but are not limited to the requirement
`
`that Defendant
`
`immediately
`
`notify its agents and employees to halt and/or supervise the auto-delete functions of Defendants
`
`electronic systems and refrain from deleting Potential Evidence either manually or through
`
`policy of periodic deletion
`
`VII PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Plaintiff prays for the following relief
`
`judgment that Microsoft has directly infringed the 554 Patent contributorily
`
`infringed the 554 Patent and/or
`
`induced the infringement of the 554 Patent
`
`judgment that Microsoft has directly infringed the 335 Patent contributorily
`
`infringed the 335 Patent and/or
`
`induced the infringement of the 335 Patent
`
`judgment and order enjoining Microsoft
`
`its employees and agents and any
`
`other persons in active concert or participation with it from directly infringing contributorily
`
`infringing and/or
`
`inducing the infringement of the 554 Patent
`
`judgment and order enjoining Microsoft
`
`its employees and agents and any
`
`other persons in active concert or participation with it from directly infringing contributorily
`
`infringing and/or
`
`inducing the infringement of the 335 Patent
`
`16
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1056, p. 16
`
`

`

`Case 113-cv-02073-SLR-SRF
`
`Document
`
`Filed 12/20/13
`
`Page 17 of 18 Page ID
`
`17
`
`judgment and order requiring Microsoft
`
`to pay Plaintiffs actual damages under
`
`35 U.S.C
`
`284 but in no event
`
`less than
`
`reasonable royalty and supplemental damages for
`
`any continuing post-verdict
`
`infringement up until entry of the final
`
`judgment with an accounting
`
`as needed
`
`judgment and order requiring Microsoft
`
`to pay Plaintiff pre-judgment and post-
`
`judgment
`
`interest
`
`on the damages
`
`awarded
`
`including an award of pre-judgment
`
`interest
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C 284 from the date of each act of infringement of the Asserted Patents by
`
`Microsoft
`
`to the day
`
`damages judgment is entered and
`
`an 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
`
`judgment and order
`
`finding this to be an exceptional
`
`case
`
`and requiring
`
`Microsoft
`
`to pay the costs of
`
`this action including all disbursements and attorneys fees
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C 285
`
`judgment and order
`
`finding that Microsofts infringement
`
`is willful
`
`and
`
`deliberate entitling Plaintiff to enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C 284
`
`In the alternative in the event
`
`injunctive
`
`relief
`
`is not granted as requested by
`
`Plaintiff
`
`an award of
`
`compulsory future royalty and
`
`Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable
`
`VIII DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff hereby demands that all
`
`issues be determined by ajury
`
`17
`
`Petitioner IBM – Ex. 1056, p. 17
`
`

`

`Case 113-cv-02073-SLR-SRF
`
`Document
`
`Filed 12/20/13
`
`Page 18 of 18 Page ID
`
`18
`
`OF COUNSEL
`
`McKooL SMITH PC
`Douglas Cawley
`Christopher Bovenkamp
`300 Crescent Court Suite 1500
`Dallas TX 75201
`214 978-4940
`dcawleymckoolsmith corn
`cbovenkarnprnckoolsrnith corn
`
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT
`TAYLOR LLP
`
`/s/Adarn
`Adam
`Monte
`
`Poff
`Poff No 3990
`Squire No 4764
`Brodzik No 5722
`Gregory
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington DE 19801
`302 57-6600
`apoffycst corn
`msquireycst corn
`gbrodzikycst corn
`
`Dated December 20 2013
`
`ttorneys for Plaintiff Parallel Networks
`Licensing LLC
`
`18
`
`Petitio