Case 1:99—mc-09999 Document 779 Filed 08/09/14 Page 1 of 15 Page|D #: 55100
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`VEDANTI SYSTEMS LIMITED and
`
`MAX SOUND CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`V.
`
`GOOGLE, INC., YOUTUBE, LLC, and
`ON2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Na./\_.H‘\-./‘\_.H‘u-./V-_.fl‘~./‘-/‘-/‘u./M.-/\-u./\n_.H
`
`C.A. No.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiffs Vedanti Systems Limited (“VSL”) and Max Sound Corporation (“Max Sound")
`
`file this Complaint for patent infringement against Defendants Google, Inc. (“Google”),
`
`YouTube, LLC (“YouTube”), and On2 Technologies, Inc. (“On2") (collectively “Defendants”)
`
`and allege as follows:
`
`1.
`
`This case arises out of Defendants’ willful infringement of United States Patent
`
`No. 7,974,339 and Defendants’ incorporation of this patented technology into products made,
`
`used, sold, offered for sale, andfor imported, including, but not limited to, VP8, VP9, WebM,
`
`YouTube, Google Adsense, Google Play, Google TV, Chromebook, Google Drive, Google
`
`Chromecast, Google Play-per-view, Google Glasses, Google +, Google’s Simplify, Google Maps
`
`and Google Earth. In short, Defendants’ infringement pervades virtually every website and
`
`product offered by Google and its Defendant subsidiaries.
`
`1
`
`IPR of US Pat. No. 7,974,339
`
`Google Inc.
`GOOG 1009
`
`

`
`Case 1:99—mc-09999 Document 779 Filed 08/09/14 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 55101
`
`2.
`
`Despite Google’s well-publicized Code of Conduct — “Don’t be Evil” — which
`
`it explains is “about doing the right thing,” “following the law,” and “acting honorably,” Google,
`
`in fact, has an established pattern of conduct which is the exact opposite of its claimed piety.
`
`3.
`
`Indeed, time and time again. Google has willfiilly infringed the patents and used
`
`the proprietary information of others without offering to compensate the owners of those patents
`
`and/or proprietary information. This case is yet another of the many occasions on which Google
`
`has unlawfully taken, rather than developed for itself andfor paid for, valuable and proprietary
`
`technology that is core to the functioning of its many businesses and products.
`
`PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff Vedanti Systems Limited is a British company having its principal place
`
`of business at 43 Overstone Road London W6 OAD.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff Max Sound Corporation is a Delaware corporation having its principal
`
`place of business at 2902A Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90404.
`
`6.
`
`Google is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, and
`
`has a principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California
`
`94043 andfor is conducting business through an affiliate located at this address. Google may be
`
`served through its registered agent for service of process, Corporation Trust Company, at
`
`Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, YouTube is a limited liability company organized
`
`under the laws of the State of Delaware, and headquartered in San Bruno, California. YouTube
`
`is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Google. YouTube is in the business of the sharing and display
`
`of user-generated and corporate media video. Available content on YouTube includes video
`
`clips, TV clips, music videos, and other content such as video blogging, short original videos,
`
`

`
`Case 1:99—mc-09999 Document 779 Filed 08/09/14 Page 3 of 15 Page|D #: 55102
`
`and educational videos. YouTube may be served through its registered agent for service of
`
`process, Corporation Trust Company, at Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street,
`
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801.
`
`8.
`
`On information and belief, On2 is a corporation organized under the laws of the
`
`State of Delaware, and has a principal place of business in Clifton Park, New York. On2 is
`
`wholly-owned subsidiary of Google. On2, formerly known as The Duck Corporation, engaged
`
`in the business of developing video compression technologies known as codecs. In February
`
`2010, Google acquired On2 for an estimated $124.6 million. On2 claims the authorship of a
`
`number of video codecs, including video codecs known as VP8 and VP9. On2 may be served
`
`through its registered agent for service of process, Corporation Service Company, at 2211
`
`Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware 19808.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`9.
`
`This civil action for patent infringement arises under the Patent Laws of the
`
`United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims presented
`
`herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`10.
`
`Defendants make, import, use, sell, andfor offer for sale the Accused
`
`Instrumentaiities (as defined below) within the United States, including this District, that infringe
`
`one or more claims of United States Patent No. 7,924,339 entitled “Optimized Data
`
`Transmission System and Method" (the ‘"339 Patent"). The ’339 Patent was duly and legally
`
`issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on July 5, 201 1. A true and correct
`
`copy of the ’339 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
`
`11.
`
`The ’339 Patent is referred to herein as the “Asserted Patent.”
`
`

`
`Case 1:99—mc-09999 Document 779 Filed 08/09/14 Page 4 of 15 Page|D #: 55103
`
`12.
`
`VSL is the owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interests in the Asserted
`
`Patent, and is entitled to sue for past and future infringement thereof.
`
`13.
`
`Max Sound and VSL have agreed that Max Sound shall have the right to enforce
`
`VSL’s patent rights on VSL’s behalf.
`
`14.
`
`A “codec” is a device or computer program capable of encoding or decoding a
`
`digital data stream or signal.
`
`15.
`
`Defendants are engaged in the business of developing, using, and selling a
`
`Variety ofvideo computer programs, including those commonly referred to as the VP8, VP9,
`
`H.264, and WebM video codecs (collectively the “Accused Codec Instrumentalities”).
`
`16.
`
`Defendants embed these Accused Codec Instrumentalities into products that
`
`Defendants make, use, and sell, including in this District, such as the Android operating system
`
`used in many mobile phones and tablet computers (collectively “the Accused Android
`
`lnstrumentalities”).
`
`17.
`
`Defendants use these Accused Codec Instrumentalities to deliver video content
`
`from Defendants’ websites and products such as VP8, VP9, WebM, YouTube.com, Google
`
`Adsense, Google Play, Google TV, Chromebook, Google Drive, Google Chromecast, Google
`
`Play-per-view, Google Glasses, Google +, Goog1e’s Simplify, Google Maps and Google Earth
`
`(collectively the “Accused Website and Product Instrumentalities”).
`
`18.
`
`Defendants distribute software such as the Chrome web browser that implements
`
`the Accused Codec lnstrumentalities (collectively the “Accused Software Instrumentalities”).
`
`19.
`
`Collectively, the Accused Codec Instrumentalities, the Accused Android
`
`Instrumentalities, the Accused Website and Product Instrumentalities, and the Accused Software
`
`lnstrumentalities comprise the “Accused Instmmentalities.”
`
`

`
`Case 1:99—mc-09999 Document 779 Filed 08/09/14 Page 5 of 15 Page|D #: 55104
`
`20.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants directly and/or indirectly import,
`
`manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sell the Accused Instrumentalities within the United
`
`States, including this District, that infringe one or more claims of the Asserted Patent.
`
`21.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`VSL and the ’339 Patent
`
`22.
`
`In 2001, Constance Nash, one of the two named inventors of the '33‘) Patent, had
`
`the goal of offering to the public an Internet subscription service to deliver digitized video of
`
`musical concerts via the Internet.
`
`23.
`
`After reviewing and testing numerous video compression and decompression
`
`technologies for use with the subscription services, Ms. Nash concluded that none of the then-
`
`existing video compression technologies could provide the level of video quality necessary to
`
`launch the project.
`
`24.
`
`The then-existing video standards resulted in jittery, low-quality video and sound
`
`for large-sized video files.
`
`25.
`
`The available technologies relied solely on compression, 1‘. e., the encoding of
`
`digital information by reducing the number of bits in the representation, by identifying and
`
`deleting unnecessary bits (“lossy" compression).
`
`26.
`
`Ms. Nash hired Alex Krichevsky to work for VSL. Together, Ms. Nash and
`
`Mr. Krichevsky developed the technology, specifically a video codec (the “VSL Codec”), and
`
`the inventions described in the ‘339 Patent.
`
`27.
`
`The VSL Codec implemented a proprietary and unique system of optimizing data
`
`transmission using methods for key frame partitioning, slicing and analyzing pixel variation of
`
`

`
`Case 1:99—mc-09999 Document 779 Filed 08/09/14 Page 6 of 15 Page|D #: 55105
`
`video content to significantly reduce the volume of digital video files, while minimizing any
`
`resulting loss of video quality.
`
`28.
`
`Ms. Nash and Mr. Krichevsky filed United States and numerous other
`
`international patent applications that covered some of the methods and systems used in the VSL
`
`Codee.
`
`29.
`
`Germane to this lawsuit, on January 16, 2002, Ms. Nash and Mr. Krichevsky
`
`filed the United States patent application that resulted in the issuance of the '33‘) patent.
`
`Google, H.264, and VP8
`
`30.
`
`During the mid- to late-20005, video compression and streaming technology had
`
`become integral to Google products, including but not limited to the YouTube.com website, the
`
`Chrome web browser, and the Android mobile device operating system.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`Google and Google products began supporting a video codec known as H.264.
`
`The first version of the H.264 codec was completed in 2003 by a standardization
`
`committee called the Joint Video Team, which was formed by the Video Coding Experts Group
`
`and the Moving Pictures Experts Group.
`
`33.
`
`Since that time, H.264 has developed into a widely used codec with substantial
`
`penetration in the optical disc, broadcast, and streaming video markets.
`
`34.
`
`MPEG LA, LLC (“MPEG LA"), a Colorado-based firm, licenses patent pools
`
`that cover essential patents necessary for use in various video codec standards. MPEG LA is not
`
`related to the Moving Pictures Experts Group.
`
`35.
`
`MPEG LA was initially founded in the late 1990s by several international
`
`companies that owned patents necessary to practice the MPEG-2 video standard in order to pool
`
`

`
`Case 1:99—mc-09999 Document 779 Filed 08/09/14 Page 7 of 15 Page|D #: 55106
`
`those patents under a single entity for purposes of granting pooled licenses to those patents and
`
`to generate patent royalties.
`
`36.
`
`Since that time, MPEG LA has asserted that multiple video standards, including
`
`H.264, require a license to its pooled patents, and hundreds of companies have obtained licenses
`
`from MPEG LA for the rights to the H.264 patent pool.
`
`37.
`
`For many years Google refused to obtain a license from MPEG LA to cover its
`
`implementations of the H.264 standard, despite multiple notices from MPEG LA that Google
`
`required a license.
`
`38.
`
`Rather than obtaining a license from MPEG LA for Google’s implementations of
`
`H.264, Google decided instead to seek alternatives to H.264 that would not require paying
`
`royalties to MPEG LA.
`
`39.
`
`VP8 is a video compression standard released by Defendant On2 in September
`
`2008.
`
`40.
`
`As of September 2008, MPEG LA had not established a patent pool that covered
`
`the VP8 codec.
`
`41.
`
`In August 2009, Google targeted VP8 as a potential alternative to H.264 and
`
`initiated negotiations to acquire On2.
`
`42.
`
`In February 2010, Google completed the acquisition of On2.
`
`43.
`
`Through its acquisition of On2, Google obtained ownership of the VP8 codec
`
`and On2’s patents and pending patent applications covering the VP8 codec and possessed a
`
`potential alternative to avoid paying licensing royalties to MPEG LA.
`
`44.
`
`In May 2010, Google announced that its new WebM video file format would
`
`incorporate the VP8 codec.
`
`

`
`Case 1:99—mc-09999 Document 779 Filed 08/09/14 Page 8 of 15 Page|D #: 55107
`
`45.
`
`YouTube now uses WebMN P8 video and has committed to encode its entire
`
`portfolio of videos to WebM.
`
`46.
`
`WebM was enabled in Google Android operating system in late 2010.
`
`47.
`
`After the release of WebMNP8 by Google, however, numerous reviews by the
`
`public concluded that the video quality of WebMfVP8 was significantly weaker than the quality
`
`produced using H.264.
`
`Googlc’s Discussions with VSL
`
`48.
`
`In March 2010, with the understanding that WebM/VP8 was in desperate need of
`
`improvement, Alpesh Patel, VSL’s CEO at that time, communicated with Google’s Nikesh
`
`Atom to discuss licensing VSL’s video technology and/or the possible acquisition ot‘VSL and
`
`the ’339 Patent by Google.
`
`49.
`
`In April 2010, Mr. Patel and Megan Smith, Google’s Vice President of New
`
`Business Development, executed a non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) for the purpose of
`
`engaging in negotiations regarding VSL’s technology.
`
`50.
`
`During those negotiations, Laura Majerus, one of Google’s in-house counsel
`
`advised that if VSL’s patent portfolio read on the H.264 video codec, then Google would seek to
`
`buy the technology or to acquire VSL.
`
`51.
`
`During the course of the negotiations and pursuant to the NDA, VSL provided a
`
`working VSL codec to Google for testing and analysis, and further provided copies of VSL’s
`
`patents, patent applications (including the patent application that led to the ’339 Patent), and
`
`claim charts comparing the inventions claimed in the ’339 Patent to the H.264 standard.
`
`52.
`
`The parties continued to meet over the course of the next eight months. During
`
`the course of those meetings, Google requested, and VSL provided, technical guidance to Google
`
`

`
`Case 1:99—mc-09999 Document 779 Filed 08/09/14 Page 9 of 15 Page|D #: 55108
`
`regarding the implementation of VSL’s technology, the VSL Codec, and the inventions claimed
`
`in the ’339 Patent.
`
`53.
`
`By December 2010, negotiations between the parties stalled, and the parties
`
`terminated discussions.
`
`54.
`
`On December 16, 2010, Ms. Majerus shipped back to VSL materials that VSL
`
`had provided to Google pursuant to the NDA. Ms. Majerus included a cover letter that provided
`
`an itemized list of documents and other things being returned to VSL pursuant to the NDA, with
`
`the only apparent missing components being the claim charts comparing the inventions claimed
`
`in the '33‘) Patent to the H.264 standard.
`
`55.
`
`Included with the materials was a collection of Post-It notes, which appear to
`
`have been authored by Google personnel.
`
`56.
`
`The Post-It notes included statements that suggest that Google intended to
`
`infringe VSL’s patents and that Google’s infringement was knowing and willful.
`
`57.
`
`Examples of such statements in the Post-It notes include the following:
`
`a.
`
`Google engineers should be discouraged from “digging deep” and should
`
`“close eyes to existing IP,” and from talking further to Qualcomm IP engineer Seyfiillah
`
`Oguz who had agreed to assist VSL in providing understanding to Google ;
`
`b.
`
`Google was concerned that its infringement could be considered
`
`“recklessness” (the standard applicable to willful infringement);
`
`c.
`
`Google had concerns that products in development should be carefully
`
`monitored because of potential infringement;
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Google personnel should “try" to destroy incriminating emails;
`
`Google needed to obtain a non-infringement opinion from outside counsel;
`
`

`
`Case 1:99—mc-09999 Document 779 Filed 08l09I14 Page 10 of 15 PagelD #: 55109
`
`f.
`
`Google should evaluate the risk of getting sued for infringement if
`
`GoogIe’s infringing products were “money making”; and
`
`g.
`
`Google should consider a “design around” because it was facing a “risk of
`
`litigation.”
`
`58.
`
`On information and belief, Google began to incorporate VSL‘s patented
`
`technology into WebMfVP8 soon after it initiated negotiations with VSL and received from VSL
`
`confidential information regarding VSL’s patent portfolio.
`
`59.
`
`Indeed, subsequent to meeting with VSL, Google and ()n2 either amended a
`
`number of their pending patent applications to incorporate various claims of the '33‘? Patent or
`
`filed for new patents which incorporated various claims of the ’339 Patent, without disclosing to
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office the ’339 Patent or its underlying application as
`
`prior art or Ms. Nash or Mr. Krichevsky as prior inventors. Nonetheless, Defendants’
`
`incorporation of claims of the ’339 Patent into their patent applications and patents constitute
`
`tacit admissions of Defendants’ infringement of the ’339 Patent.
`
`CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`(Infringement of the ’339 Patent)
`
`60.
`
`61.
`
`VSL incorporates paragraphs 1 through 59 as though fully set forth herein.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants have been and now are directly
`
`infringing one or more claims of the ’339 Patent by making, importing, using (including use for
`
`testing purposes), offering for sale, and/or selling the patented inventions, including but not
`
`limited to the Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`62.
`
`In addition andfor in the alternative, Defendants have been and/or now are
`
`indirectly infringing one or more claims of the Asserted Patent by inducing customers,
`
`10
`
`‘IO
`
`

`
`Case 1:99—mc-09999 Document 779 Filed 08l09I14 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 55110
`
`consumers, and end users to use the Accused Instrumentalities to directly infringe one or more
`
`claims of the Asserted Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 2?1(b).
`
`63.
`
`Google was informed in 2010 of the pending application that became the '33‘)
`
`Patent and had actual knowledge of the applicability of the inventions claimed therein to video
`
`codecs such as those used in the Accused lnstrumentalities.
`
`64.
`
`Furthermore, Google has been provided actual notice of the existence of the ’339
`
`Patent.
`
`65.
`
`The Post-It notes are unequivocal evidence of Google‘s knowledge of the ’339
`
`Patent and infringement by Defendants.
`
`66.
`
`In spite of having received such notice, Google and its Defendant subsidiaries
`
`have intended, and continue to intend, to induce patent infringement by customers and end users,
`
`and have had knowledge that the inducing acts would cause infringement or, alternatively, have
`
`been willfully blind to the possibility that its inducing acts would cause infringement.
`
`67.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities comprise the systems claimed in one or more
`
`claims of the ’339 Patent, and, when used as described in Defendants’ technical publications,
`
`perform the method(s) described and claimed in the Asserted Patent.
`
`68.
`
`Defendants have engaged in indirect infringement by providing their customers
`
`and end users with the infringing Accused Instrumentalities, and./or by providing the Accused
`
`lnstrumentalities and providing instructions to enable those customers and end users to use the
`
`Accused lnstrurnentalities, each of which constitute the system claimed in one or more claims of
`
`the ’339 Patent, andfor to utilize the Accused Instrumentalities so as to practice the method
`
`claimed in one or more claims of the ’339 Patent.
`
`11
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 1:99—mc-09999 Document 779 Filed 08l09I14 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 55111
`
`69.
`
`By way of example, and not as a limitation, Defendants induce such infringement
`
`by at least making its Internet websites available to customers and end users and providing links
`
`and!or other directions on its websites andfor the Internet to instruct and teach users to use the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner.
`
`70.
`
`Defendants engaged — and continue to engage — in such activities knowingly,
`
`and, as early as 2010, have done so with the knowledge that such activities induce customers and
`
`end users to directly infringe the Asserted Patent.
`
`71.
`
`In addition, or, in the alternative, Defendants engaged — and continue to engage —
`
`in such activities knowingly, and, as early as 2010, have sold or distributed the Accused
`
`lnstrumentalities knowing that such Accused Instrumentalities are especially made or adapted for
`
`use by their customers and end users in an infringing use of one or more claims of the Accused
`
`Instrurnentalities.
`
`72.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants’ customers and end users configure the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities to encode andfor decode digital video as described and claimed in the
`
`Asserted Patent. Thus, Defendants’ customers and end users, by using the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities, directly infringe the claimed method(s) of the Asserted Patent.
`
`73.
`
`VSL has been damaged by Defendants‘ infringing activities and will be
`
`irreparably harmed unless those infringing activities are preliminarily and permanently enjoined
`
`by this Court.
`
`74.
`
`Google and its Defendant subsidiaries either had actual knowledge of the ’339
`
`Patent or recklessly disregarded the existence ofthe ‘339 Patent, so VSL is entitled to damages
`
`against Google for indirect infringement for the period prior to the filing of this Complaint
`
`through the date of trial.
`
`12
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 1:99—mc-09999 Document 779 Filed 08l09I14 Page 13 of 15 Page|D #: 55112
`
`75.
`
`76.
`
`Defendants’ infringement of the ’339 Patent is and has been willful.
`
`Defendants’ past and continued infringement of the ’3 39 Patent has caused VSL
`
`damage and will continue to cause irreparable damage to VSL unless Google is enjoined by this
`
`Court.
`
`77.
`
`VSL does not have an adequate remedy at law.
`
`REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs VSL and Max Sound request the following relief:
`
`(a)
`
`A judgment in favor of VSL and Max Sound that Defendants have directly
`
`infringed, andfor have indirectly infringed by way of inducement, one or more claims of the
`
`Asserted Patent and that such infringement has been willful;
`
`(b)
`
`A judgment that VSL and Max Sound have been irreparably harmed by the
`
`Defendants‘ infringing activities and are likely to continue to be irreparably harmed by Google’s
`
`continued infringement;
`
`(C)
`
`Imposition of preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting Defendants and
`
`their officers, agents, servants, employees, and those persons in active concert or participation
`
`with any of them, as well as all successors or assignees of the interests or assets related to the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities, from further infringement, direct and indirect, of the Asserted Patent;
`
`(d)
`
`Ajudgment and order requiring Defendants to pay VSL and Max Sound
`
`damages adequate to compensate for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284, which damages may
`
`include lost profits but in no event shall be less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the
`
`inventions of the Asserted Patent, including pre- and post-judgment interest and costs, including
`
`expenses and disbursements;
`
`(e)
`
`A judgment awarding treble damages to VSL and Max Sound pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 284, in View of the willful and deliberate nature of the infringement, with interest;
`
`13
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 1:99—mc-09999 Document 779 Filed 08/OQI14 Page 14 of 15 PagelD #: 55113
`
`(f)
`
`Ajudgment declaring this to be an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and
`
`awarding VSL and Max Sound their attorneys’ fees;
`
`(g)
`
`Pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by law; and
`
`(h)
`
`Any and all such further necessary or proper relief as this Court may deem just.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, VSL and Max Sound
`
`hereby demand a trial by jury of all issues so triable.
`
`14
`
`‘I4
`
`

`
`Case 1:99—mc-09999 Document 779 Filed 08l09t14 Page 15 of 15 PagelD #: 55114
`
`Dated: August 9, 2014
`
`GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
`
`By:
`
`fsi Geoffrey C. Jarvis
`Geoffrey C. Jarvis
`
`Christopher M. Joe
`(pro hac vice to be submitted)
`Brian A. Carpenter
`(pro hac vice to be submitted)
`Eric W. Buether
`(pro hac vice to be submitted)
`Mark D. Perantie
`(pro hac vice to be submitted)
`BUETHER JOE & CARPENTER, LLC
`1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4750
`
`Dallas, Texas 7520]
`Tel:
`(214) 466-1272
`Fax: (214) 635-1828
`Chris.Joe@BJC1P1aw.eom
`Eric.Buether@BJCIPlaw.com
`Brian.Carpenter@BJCIPlaw.com
`Mark.Perantie@BJCIPlaw.com
`
`Geoffrey C. Jarvis
`Justin K. Victor
`GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
`123 Justison Street
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`Tel:
`(302) 622-7000
`Fax:
`(302) 622-7100
`_gjarvis@gelaw.com
`jVictor@gelaw.com
`
`Jay W. Eisenhofer
`Deborah A. Elman
`(pro hac vice to be submitted)
`GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
`485 Lexington Avenue
`New York, New York 10017
`Tel:
`(646) 722-8500
`Fax:
`(646) 722-8501
`jeisenhofer@gelaw.com
`delman@gelaw.com
`
`Adam J. Levitt
`
`(pro hac vice to be Submitted)
`Catherine D Stiilleabhain
`
`(pro hac vice to be Submitted)
`GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
`
`30 North LaSalle Street
`
`Suite 1200
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60602
`Tel:
`(312) 214-0000
`
`(312) 214-0001
`Fax:
`alevitt@gelaw.com
`cosuilleabhain@gelaw.com
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Piaintiflfs
`Vedanti Systems Limited and
`Max Sound Corporation
`
`15
`
`

`
`M, (Rev. lmlcase 1:99—mc-09999 Docurfiefitfligdofiffl
`
`Page 1 of 2 Page|D #: 55115
`
`The .15 44 civil cover sheet and the infonnation contained herein neither replace nor_ supplement the tiling and service ofpleadings or other papersas required by law. except as
`provided by l‘o‘eal rules ollcourt. This fonn, approved by the Jttdicial Cotilerence ol the United States in September |9'r‘4, is required tor the use ot the Clerk ol Court Ior the
`purpose of initiating the civil clockct sheet.
`{SEE .t!ii'5TRUC1”t0N$ ON !v£'XT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
`
`1. (a) PLAINTIFFS
`
`DEFENDANTS
`
`VEDANTI SYSTEMS LIMITED and MAX SOUND COHPOATION,
`
`GOOGLE’ INC” YOU-I-UBE' LLC' and 0n2 Technologles’ Inc-
`
`Londons UK
`(b) County ofResidenee o|‘l-‘irst Listed Plaintiff
`I'(EXC.EPTIN U5. PLA.l.'VT."FF C4555)
`
`_
`
`Santa Clara Col-lntlf CA
`County oFResidence ol"First Listed Defendant
`PIA’ U5. PL.*Ui'VTl'FF CASES ONLY)
`IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASIZS. USF Ti|F. LOCATION OF
`THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
`
`NOTE:
`
`(C) Attorneys i’Fr'rm Nit.-rte, .-irt’:t|‘re.r:.'. u.-rd Tel'c=p.Fro:reNimiher‘)
`Geoffrey C. Jarvis, Grant & Eisenhoter P.A., 123 Justison Street,
`Wilmington, DE 19801, (302)622-7000.
`
`="\ll101'|3‘3)/5 1’-5rKt't0“’tt.l
`
`II.
`
`Cl
`
`I U.S. Govemnient
`PlaintiIl'
`
`U 3
`
`Federal Question
`rU..S’. G0\’£'J'lIfflCfl! Not a Pfl'J'.f_‘I-',l
`
`t"Plac'c an "X" in One -‘3r:,1't’):ri’yJ
`
`I’For Dil-'ci':rrr1-' Cases 0ml_1.'J
`PTF
`I‘!
`I
`
`Citizen of This State
`
`Cl 2 US. U0\-‘t:1‘l1I'l'lL‘IIl
`Defendant
`
`CI 4 Diversity
`i’1:idr'c'a!e Ci"ri"zeiI:.r.l:iI'p afPa:'t'r'.es in front III)
`
`Citizen oi°Anotlter State
`
`Cl
`
`2
`
`Citizen or Subject cilia
`Iiorclun Counttv
`
`I3 3
`
`DEF
`!'I
`
`l
`
`Cl
`
`Cl
`
`2
`
`3
`
`IV.
`
`i"P.l'ace an "X" tnone Box On.i[v,I
`
`in One B(J,r_li1r'P!uir:!r'{f
`rPi’ac'caI'r
`and One Ba.r}bt'Def1’ridrtrtt)
`PTF
`DEF
`TI
`I‘I 4
`
`4
`
`Incorporated or Principal 1-‘lace
`uH3nsi1tesS |n‘1"|iis State
`
`Incorporated and Principal Place
`of Business In Another State
`
`:1
`
`5
`
`Cl 5
`
`Foreign Nation
`
`:1
`
`6
`
`Cl
`
`(I
`
`El 422 Appeal 28 USC I58
`I‘I 423 Withdrawal
`28 USC IS?
`
`.i.
`.
`.
`.
`El Sol HIA [I3-95t"fi
`3 862 Black |.ting (923)
`‘I 863 D|WC.t'DI\VW (4tl5[gt]
`I'I 864 SSH) Title XVI
`I‘I 865 RSI t4lJS(g]J
`
`III 8'i't] Ta.J".t.“.5 tU.S. Plaintilt
`or Defendant}
`I‘I 8'i‘I lRS—'l‘hii'd Party
`26 USC T609
`
`3 3T5 False Claims Act
`I‘! 400 State Rcapportioninciit
`I'| 410 Antitrust
`3 430 Banks and Banking
`I‘! 450 Cniiiiiicrce
`3 -1:30 Deportation
`3 4'i'[I Racketeer lnlluoiiccd and
`Corrupt Organizations
`:5 480 Consumer Credit
`3 490 Cable-"Sat TV
`3 S50 Securities-ttjotiitnodities-"
`Excliangc
`‘I 890 Other Statutory Actions
`I'I 891 Agi'iciiItiiral Acts
`I‘! 803 F.ii\-iriinmi:ntal Matters
`3 895 Freedom oflnfonnatiun
`Act
`3 896 Arbitration
`3 899 Adniinislralive Pmcedurc
`Ai:ti’Rcvii:w or Appeal 0|‘
`Agency Decision
`950 Constitutionality of
`State Statutes
`
`
`
`V.
`El 1 Original
`Proceeding
`
`II
`
`3
`
`(.WaL'r.’aH "X" in 0172 Box Onb»)
`II 5 ”l'ransferred from
`El 4 Reinstated or
`Reinanded from
`El 2 Removed from
`El 6 Multidistrict
`.rpc't‘t'_')
`Anotjlgicr District
`Reopened
`Appellate Court
`State Court
`Litigation
`Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are tiling (Do not crrejurrsdrciianarsramres imtess itrversriyi:
`
`
`28 U.S.C.
`1331 and ‘£338 a
`Brief description of cause:
`Patent Infringement
`
`CI CHECK IF THIS is A CLASS ACTION
`DEMAND 5
`CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
`UNDER RULI:' 23. l’.R.Cv.l‘.
`may DEMAND: @ yes ©Ng
`
`VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`
`
`VII. REQUESTED IN
`COMPLA[NT:
`
`VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
`IF ANY
`
`_
`_
`‘
`my mmflmomi
`
`DATF.
`
`08r09r2o14
`FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
`
`JUDGE
`SIGNATURE OF ATTORNF.Y OF RECORD
`
`Isl Geoffrey C. Jarvis
`
`r)0r.‘KET NUMBER
`
`RECEIPT if
`
`AMOUNT
`
`APPLYIENIG IFP
`
`JUDGE
`
`MAG. JUDGE
`
`‘I6
`
`2|
`II
`
`3 I I0 Insurance
`‘I
`I20 Mariiii:
`‘I
`I30 Miller Act
`3 I40 Negotiable Instrument
`I‘! 150 Recovery of Ovcrpayiiiciit
`Sr En|'oi'ccmct1t of Judgtnetit
`I51 Medicare Act
`I52 Recovery ol'Dcl'au|tcd
`Student Loans
`(Excludes Veterans]
`I53 Recovery of0verpayment
`ot°Vetcran‘s Benefits
`let) Stockholders‘ Suits
`I90 Other Contract
`I95 Contract 1-‘rniliict Lialyility
`I96 Franchise
`
`1|
`
`‘I
`t'I
`t'I
`II
`
`II 210 Land Condciiiiiatioii
`II 220 Foreclosure
`‘I 230 Rent |.ca:¢c 8; Ejcctmciit
`II 240 Torts to Land
`1'1 245 Tort Product Liahitity
`II 290 All Other Real Property
`
`PERSONAL INJURY
`t'I 310 Airplane
`I‘! 315 Airplane Pmtliict
`Liability
`t‘! 320 Assaiilt. 1.ibi:l 8:
`Slander
`CI 330 Federal Employer-.s‘
`Liability
`Cl 340 Marine
`CI 345 Marine Product
`Liability
`I3 350 Motor Vehicle
`1'! 355 Motor Vehicle
`Pmtluct I.ial)i|ity
`t‘! 360 Other Personal
`lniury
`I‘! 362 Personal lnjt1ry-
`Medical Mal
`ractiec
`
`CI 440 Other Civil Rights
`3 MI Voting
`t‘I 442 Fmploymcnt
`3 443 Housing!
`Accoiiiiiioilations
`CI 445 Arner. wr'Disabi|iIies —
`Eittployiiient
`3 446 Amer. wilflisabilities —
`Other
`‘I 448 Education
`
`El 625 Drug Related Scizurc
`ol'Prnpi:rty 21 USC 381
`l'I 690 Other
`
`PERSONAL INJURY
`1'1 365 Personal injury -
`Prodiict l.iabilily
`3 36? Health Care!"
`Pliannacciitical
`Personal Injury
`Product Liability
`II 368 Asbestos Personal
`Injury Prodttct
`LialJilit_v
`PERSONAL PROPERTY El "H0 Fair Labor Standards
`3 3’.-‘U Uthcr Fraud
`Act
`‘I 37] Tnith in Lending
`|'| "I20 l.ahortManagemeiit
`t‘I 380 Other Pcrsoital
`Relations
`Pi'n|ici'ty Damage
`I'I ‘M0 Railway l_al1orAct
`II 335 Property Damage
`Cl T5] Family and Medical
`Product Liability
`E.i:avi: Act
`El T90 Other Labor |_itEgation
`El 791 EmiJ|0.v=c Retirement
`litcoitti: Security Act
`
`Hnbeiis Corpus:
`463 Alien Detainee
`S It} Motions to Vacate
`Sentence
`S30 Gciicral
`535 Death Penalty
`Other:
`540 Mandamus Jr Other
`550 Civil Rights
`555 Prison Condition
`560 Civil Dttlaiitet.‘ -
`Conditions of
`Confittetnent
`
`
`
`
`
`:I_lCI|_I|_I:I:I|_I
`
`II 462 Naturalizatioit Application
`3 465 Other Immigration
`Actions
`
`

`
`JS44 atmc ta.-.Qase 1:99—mc-09999 Document 779-1 Filed 08/09/14 Page 2 of 2 Page|D #: 55116
`
`INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
`
`Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
`
`The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service ofpleading or other papers as
`required by law. except as provided by local rules ofcourt. This form. approved by the J udieial Conference of the United States in September 1974. is
`required for the use ofthe Clerk ofCourt for the purpose ofinitiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
`Court for each civil cotnplaint ti led. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as foliows:
`
`I.{a)
`
`lfthe plaintilfor defendant is a govennnent agency, use
`Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first. middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant.
`only the full name or standard abbreviations.
`lfthe plaintiffor defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
`then the oflicial. giving both name and title.
`(I1) County of Residence. For each civil case filed. except U.S. plaintiffcascs. enter the name ofthe county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
`time of filing.
`in U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the lirst listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
`condemnation cases, the county of residence ofthe "defendant" is the location ofthe tract ofland involved.)
`(c) Attorneys. Enter the tirtn name, address, telephone number. and attorney of record.
`lfthere are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
`in this section "(see attachment)".
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`VII.
`
`Jurisdiction. The basis ofjurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that_iurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
`in one ofthe boxes.
`lfthere is more than one basis ofjurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
`United States plaintiff. (I) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and oliicers of the United States are included here.
`United States defendant.
`(2) When the piaititiffis suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
`Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, w