Ln-1’:-L»-l|.‘\-J
`%'--.'IG'\
`
`1?
`
`18
`
`20
`
`22
`
`[NJJ‘:-
`
`Case3:14-cv-04412-JCS Documentl Filed10!01!14 Pagel of 24
`
`MICHAEL A. KELLY (State Bar #71460)
`mkelly@walkuplawoffice.com
`MATTHEW D. DAVIS (State Bar #141936)
`mdaviS@wa1kuplawotT'1ce.com
`KHALDOUN A. BAGI IDADI (State Bar #1901 I 1)
`kbaghd adi@walkuplawoffice.com
`Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger
`650 California Street, 26"‘ F1. San Francisco. Ca 94108
`Tel: (415) 931-7210
`
`JAY W. EISENHOFER (pro hac vice to be submitted)
`jeisenhofer@ge1aw.com
`GEOFFREY C. JARVIS (pro hac vice to be submitted)
`gjarvis@gclaw.corn
`DEBORAH ELMAN
`de1man@gelaw.com
`ADAM J. LEVITT (pro hac vice to be submitted)
`alevitt@ge1aw.corn,
`,
`CATHERINE O SUILLEABHATN (pro hac vice to be submitted)
`cosuilleabhain@gelaw.com
`GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
`
`(pro hac vice to be submitted)
`
`30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1200, Chicago, Illinois 60602
`Tel: (312) 214-0000
`
`CI IRISTOPHER M. JOE (pro hac vice to be submitted)
`Chris.Joe@BJCIPlaw.corn
`ERIC W. BUETHER (pro hac vice to be submitted)
`Eric.Buether@BJ C1P1aw.com
`BRIAN A. CARPENTER (State Bar #262349)
`Brian.Carpenter@BJCIPlaw.com
`MARK A. PERANTIE (pro hac vice to be submitted)
`Mark.Perantie@BJCIP1aw.com
`BUETHER JOE & CARPENTER, LLC
`1700 Pacific, Suite 4750, Dallas, Texas 75201
`Tel: (214) 466-1272
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF MAX SOUND CORPORATION
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`MAX SOUND CORPORATION and
`VEDANTI SYSTEMS LIMITED,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`Case No.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`GOOGLE, INC., YOUTUBE, LLC, and
`ON2 TECHNOLOGIES, TNC.,
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - CASE NO.
`
`1
`
`IPR of US Pat. No. 'I*',9'}’4,339
`
`Google Inc.
`GOOG 1011
`
`

`
`Case3:14—cv-04412-JCS Documentl Fi|ed10l01l14 Page2 of 24
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Max Sound Corporation (“Max Sound”) and Co-Plaintiff pursuant to Rule 19 of
`
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Vedanti Systems Limited (“VSL”) 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.
`
`7,9?4,3 39 and Defendants’ incorporation of this patented technology into products made, used,
`
`sold, offered for sale, and/or imported, including, but not limited to, VP3, 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.
`
`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 that is the exact opposite of its claimed piety.
`
`3.
`
`Indeed, time and time again, Google has willfully 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 in which Google
`
`has unlawfully taken, rather than developed fo1' itself andfor paid for, valuable and proprietary
`
`technology that is core to the functioning of its many businesses and products.
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Max Sound is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of
`
`business at 2902A Colorado Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90404.
`
`2.
`
`Co-Plaintiff VSL, as the owner of the Asserted Patent, is named as a plaintiff
`
`pursuant to Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. VSL is a British company having its
`
`principal place of business at 43 Overstone Road, London, United Kingdom W6 OAD.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Goo gle 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,
`
`2
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - CASE NO.
`
`2
`
`KDOOMJON
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`LAW OHICIS OF
`Wnxw, Maroon. KELLY
`8.: Sl'.HlJENEEIlGE.R
`A PRDFEESKDN Al CORPORATION
`did! CAI.lF%Nli\ SIREFI
`2dTH H.002
`SAN FRANCECG. Ch 9»|l08
`lllilflll-J‘2|Cl
`
`

`
`Case3:14—cv-04412-JCS Documentl Fi|ed10l01I14 Page3 of24
`
`California 94043 and/or is conducting business through an affiliate located at this address and may
`
`be served at this address.
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant 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, 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.
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant 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 2711
`
`Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware 19808.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`This civil action for patent infringement arises under the Patent Laws of the United
`
`States, 35 USC. §§ 1, er seq. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims presented herein
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and l338(a).
`
`7.
`
`Defendants make, import, use, sell, andlor offer for sale the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities (as defined below) within the United States, including this District, that infringe
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`I5
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`one or more claims of United States Patent No. 7,974,339 entitled “Optimized Data Transmission
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`LAW OFFICES OF
`Wumsr, Mztobm, KE.l.'[.\'
`8: SCHOENBERGER
`A PECEESQDNAL CORPDRADON
`65D CALIIORNI-I SIREET
`NIH HOOP
`SAN FRANCISCO. CA 9-1 IDB
`[H5] 981-.i"2IO
`
`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, 2011. A true and correct copy of the ‘339
`
`Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
`
`3
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - CASE NO.
`3
`
`

`
`Case3:14—cv-04412-JCS Documentl Fi|ed10l01I14 Page4 of 24
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`The ’339 Patent is referred to herein as the “Asserted Patent.”
`
`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.
`
`10.
`
`Max Sound and VSL have agreed that Max Sound shall have the right to enforce
`
`VSL‘s patent rights on VSL’s behalf.
`
`1 1.
`
`A “codec” is a device or computer program capable of encoding or decoding a
`
`digital data stream or signal.
`
`12.
`
`Defendants are engaged in the business of developing, using, and selling a variety
`
`of video computer programs, including those commonly referred to as the VP8, VP9, H.264, and
`
`WebM video codecs (collectively the “Accused Codec Instrurnentalities”).
`
`13.
`
`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
`
`Instrumentalities”).
`
`14.
`
`Defendants use these Accused Codec Instrumentalitics 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+, Google’s Simplify, Google Maps and Google Earth
`
`(collectively the “Accused Website and Product Instrumentalities").
`
`15.
`
`Defendants distribute software such as the Chrome web browser that implements
`
`the Accused Codec Instrumentalities (collectively the “Accused Software Instiumentalities”).
`
`16.
`
`Collectively, the Accused Codec Instrurnentalities, the Accused Android
`
`Instrumentalities, the Accused Website and Product Instrumentalities, and the Accused Software
`
`Instrumentalities comprise the “Accused Instrumentalities.”
`
`17.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants directly and/or indirectly import,
`
`manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sell the Accused lnstrumentalities within the United States,
`
`including this District, that infringe one or more claims of the Asserted Patent.
`
`18.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
`
`4
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - CASE NO.
`4
`
`
`
`‘-.IlO\—Ihb-JINJ
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`I4
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`I9
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`[AW OFFICES Of
`wmmr, Mswnu, KELLY
`8: Scnosmzsncsn
`APROFE§S|C)NA.l CORPU4fA|'ION
`850 CA LIIOEFIA SIR FET
`25TH HOOP
`SIN fl‘M3lC-ECO. CA 911$
`[I1S|'i8l-}'2l
`
`

`
`Case3:14—cv-04412-JCS Documentl Fi|ed10l01I14 Page5 of 24
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`VSL and the ’339 Patent
`
`19.
`
`In 2001, Constance Nash, one of the two named inventors of the ’339 Patent, had
`
`the goal of offering to the public an Internet subscription service to deliver digitized video of
`
`musical concerts via the lntemet.
`
`20.
`
`After reviewing and testing numerous video compression and decompression
`
`technologies for use with such a subscription service, Ms. Nash concluded that none of the then-
`
`existing video compression technologies could provide the level of video quality necessary to
`
`launch the project.
`
`21.
`
`The then-existing video standards resulted in jittery, low-quality video and sound
`
`for large-sized video files.
`
`22.
`
`The available technologies relied solely on compression, i.e., the encoding of
`
`digital information by reducing the number of bits in the representation, by identifying and
`
`deleting unnecessary bits (“lossy” compression).
`
`23.
`
`Ms. Nash hired Alex Krichevsky to work for VSL. Together, Ms. Nash and
`
`Mr. Krichevsky conceived of the technology that ultimately became a video codec (the “VSL
`
`Codec”), and the inventions described in the ’339 Patent. The VSL Codec was created by VSL
`
`employees and}or independent contractors working under the direction of Ms. Nash.
`
`24.
`
`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
`
`video content to significantly reduce the volume of digital video files, while minimizing any
`
`resulting loss of video quality.
`
`25.
`
`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 Codec.
`
`26.
`
`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 ’339 patent.
`
`Google, H.264, and VP8
`
`27.
`
`During the mid- to late-20005, video compression and streaming technology had
`
`5
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - CASE NO.
`5
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`l
`
`28
`LAW OFFICES Of
`WALKU P, MBIDDIA, KI.“-.LL\'
`B: SCIIOISN BERGER
`a PEt‘_‘IFE§§|ONa\L COFPURNIOII
`65-D CALIFORNLH STREET
`ESIH FIXER
`Salli’ FRANCISCO. CA H1116
`|¢l5}9fl|-?9l0
`
`

`
`Case3:14—cv-04412-JCS Documentl Fi|ed10l01l14 Page6 of 24
`
`1
`
`become integral to Google products, including but not limited to the YouTube.com website, the
`
`2 Chrome web browser, and the Android mobile device operating system.
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`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.
`
`30.
`
`Since that time, H.264 has developed into a widely used codec with substantial
`
`penetration in the optical disc, broadcast, and streaming video markets.
`
`31.
`
`MPEG LA, LLC (“MPEG LA” , a Colorado-based firm, licenses patent pools that
`
`10
`
`cover essential patents necessary for use in various video codec standards. MPEG LA is not
`
`1 1
`
`related to the Moving Pictures Experts Group.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`I6
`
`1?
`
`18
`
`19
`
`32.
`
`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
`
`those patents under a single entity for purposes of granting pooled licenses to those patents and to
`
`generate patent royalties.
`
`33.
`
`Since that time, MPEG LA has asserted that multiple video standards, including
`
`I-1.264, 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.
`
`34.
`
`For many years Google refused to obtain a license from MPEG LA to cover its
`
`20
`
`implementations of the H.264 standard, despite multiple notices from MPEG LA that Google
`
`21
`
`required a license.
`
`22
`
`35.
`
`Rather than obtaining a license from MPEG LA for Google’s implementations of
`
`23 H.264, Google decided instead to seek alternatives to [-1.264 that would not require paying
`
`24
`
`royalties to MPEG LA.
`
`25
`
`36.
`
`VP8 is a video compression standard released by Defendant On2 in September
`
`26
`
`2008.
`
`27
`
`37.
`
`As of September 2008, MPEG LA had not established a patent pool that covered
`
`the VP8 codec.
`
`28
`I.-KW emces or
`WALXUP, M.zr.om.-t, Kx=.LI.v
`8: Strliosussnosn
`950 CALFORNIA STREEI
`2!-IH FIDDR
`A FRUFESSIONM. CORPOR-KIION
`SAN FR:«II:cJI:9g£]Z!.?%:.:94IDB
`'
`
`6
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - CASE NO.
`6
`
`

`
`Case3:14—cv-04412-JCS Documentl Fi|ed10l01I14 Page? of 24
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`38.
`
`In August 2009, Google targeted VP8 as a potential alternative to H.264 and
`
`initiated negotiations to acquire On2.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`In February 2010, Google completed the acquisition of On2.
`
`Through its acquisition of On2, Google obtained ownership of the VP8 codec and
`
`5 On2’s patents and pending patent applications covering the VP8 codec, and possessed a potential
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`alternative to avoid paying licensing royalties to MPEG LA.
`
`41.
`
`In May 2010, Google announced that its new WebM video file format would
`
`incorporate the VP8 codec.
`
`42.
`
`YouTube now uses WebMNP8 video and has committed to encode its entire
`
`10
`
`portfolio of videos to WebM.
`
`1 l
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`WebM was enabled in the Google Android operating system in late 2010.
`
`After the release of WebMf\/P8 by Google, however, numerous reviews by the
`
`public concluded that the video quality of WebM,/VP8 was significantly weaker than the quality
`
`produced using H.264.
`
`Go0gIe’s Discussions with VSL
`
`45.
`
`In March 2010, with the understanding that WebMNP8 was in desperate need of
`
`improvement, Alpesh Patel, VSL’s CEO at that time, communicated with Google’s Nikesh Arora
`
`to discuss licensing VSL’s video technology andfor the possible acquisition of VSL and the '339
`
`19
`
`Patent by Google.
`
`20
`
`46.
`
`In April 2010, Mr. Patel and Megan Smith, Google’s Vice President of New
`
`21 Business Development, executed a non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) for the purpose of
`
`22
`
`23
`
`engaging in negotiations regarding VSL’s technology.
`
`47.
`
`During those negotiations, Laura Majerus, one of Google’s in-house counsel,
`
`24
`
`advised that if VSL’s patent portfolio read on the H.264 video codec, then Google would seek to
`
`25
`
`26
`
`buy the technology or to acquire VSL.
`
`48.
`
`During the course of the negotiations and pursuant to the NDA, VSL provided a
`
`27 working VSL codec to Google for testing and analysis, and further provided copies of VSL’s
`
`28
`LAW owners or
`Wamxup, NIELODIA, KELLY
`8: Scuosunzuam
`fl CMIFORNIA 5] R EEl'
`AFRCiFEiL'O0IAl CDEPIJIHIIOH
`ZETH FLOOR
`
`SAN m{.:.*14gismc:.;J}g1.% ?-I103
`_
`
`patents, patent applications (including the patent application that led to the ’339 Patent), and claim
`
`7
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT lNFRiNGEMF;NT - CASE NO.
`7
`
`

`
`Case3:14—cv-04412-JCS Documentl Fi|ed10l01I14 Page8 of 24
`
`charts comparing the inventions claimed in the ’3 39 Patent to the H.264 standard.
`
`49.
`
`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
`
`regarding the implementation of VSL’s technology, the VSL Codec, and the inventions claimed in
`
`the ’339 Patent.
`
`50.
`
`By December 2010, negotiations between the parties had stalled, and the parties
`
`terminated discussions.
`
`51.
`
`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
`
`’339 Patent to the H.264 standard.
`
`52.
`
`On information and belief, Google began to incorporate VSL’s patented technology
`
`into WebMNP8 soon after it initiated negotiations with VSL and received from VSL confidential
`
`information regarding VSL‘s patent portfolio.
`
`53.
`
`Indeed, subsequent to meeting with VSL, Google and On2 either amended a
`
`number of their pending patent applications to incorporate various claims of the ’339 Patent or
`
`filed for new patents which incorporated various claims of the ’3 39 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)
`
`54.
`
`55.
`
`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
`
`8
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - CASE NO.
`
`8
`
`C§\.DOO‘--JION
`
`1
`
`1 1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`[AW OF! ICES Oi‘
`Wuxur, MELDDM, KELLY
`at Scflosnnzna EH.
`A Pworrssmu cctzraownou
`.550 ca-iwonmn mm
`2611»! FLOOIT
`SAN FRANGSCD. CA 9-U03
`|l15|?81-?‘?|D
`
`

`
`Case3:14—cv-04412-JCS Documentl Fi|ed10l01I14 Page9 of 24
`
`Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`56.
`
`In addition andfor in the alternative, Defendants have been andfor now are
`
`indirectly infringing one or more claims of the Asserted Patent by inducing customers, 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. § 27l(b).
`
`57.
`
`Google was informed in 2010 of the pending application that became the ’3 39
`
`Patent and had actual knowledge of the applicability of the inventions claimed therein to video
`
`codecs such as those used in the Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`58.
`
`Furthermore, Google has been provided actual notice of the existence of the ’3 39
`
`10
`
`Patent.
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`59.
`
`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.
`
`60.
`
`The Accused Instrumentaliti es 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.
`
`61.
`
`Defendants have engaged in indirect infringement by providing their customers and
`
`end users with the infringing Accused Instrumentalities, and/'or by providing the Accused
`
`Instmmentalities and providing instructions to enable those customers and end users to use the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities, 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
`
`23
`
`claimed in one or more claims of the ’339 Patent.
`
`62.
`
`By way of example, and not as a limitation, Defendants induce such infringement
`
`by at least making its lntemet websites available to customers and end users and providing links
`
`and/or other directions on its websites and/or the Internet to instruct and teach users to use the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner.
`
`63.
`
`Defendants engaged — and continue to engage - in such activities knowingly, and,
`
`9
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - CASE NO.
`9
`
`
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`LAW (J-FFIG E5 DI
`W.u..uup, Mcmom, K.|:L.u-
`.11 SCIIDENEERGER
`A PROFESSIONAL COWCIEIIOII
`-QSOCALIFDRNIASTREEI
`ZHH FLOOR
`saw FFl'ANC5CO.CR -‘mun
`:us| 951-7210
`
`

`
`Case3:14—cv—04412-JCS Documentl Fi|ed10l01;‘14 Pagelo of 24
`
`as early as 2010, have done so with the knowledge that such activities induce customers and end
`
`2 i users to directly infringe the Asserted Patent.
`
`3 |
`
`4
`
`64.
`
`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
`
`i
`'
`
`I
`i
`V
`i
`|
`
`i
`I
`i
`
`5 i
`Instrumentalities knowing that such Accused Instrumentalities are especially made or adapted for
`6‘ useby their customers and end usersinaninfringing use ofone ormore claims oftheAccused
`7
`Instrumentalities.
`8 J
`65.
`On information and belief, Defendants’ customers and end users configure the
`9 J Accused Instrumentalities to encode andfor decode digital video as described and claimed in the
`I 1
`Instrumentalities, directly infringe the claimed method(s) ofthe Asserted Patent.
`12
`66.
`VSL and Max Sound have been damaged by Defendants’ infringing activities and
`14
`enjoined by this Court.
`15
`67.
`Google and its Defendant subsidiaries either had actual knowledge of the ’339
`
`10 Asserted Patent. Thus, Defendants’ customers and end users, by using the Accused
`
`13 will be irreparably harmed unless those infringing activities are preliminarily and permanently
`
`
`
`16
`
`Patent or recklessly disregarded the existence of the ’339 Patent, so VSL and Max Sound are
`
`17 ’ entitled to damages against Google for indirect infringement for the period prior to the filing of
`18
`this Complaint through the date oftrial.
`19 i
`68.
`Defendants’ infringement ofthe ’339 Patent is and has been willful.
`20 N
`69.
`Defendants’ past and continued infringement ofthe ’339 Patent has caused VSL
`
`
`21
`
`and Max Sound damage and will continue to cause irreparable damage to VSL and Max Sound
`
`22
`
`unless Google is enjoined by this Court.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`70.
`
`VSL and Max Sound do 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, and/or have indirectly infringed by way of inducement, one or more claims of the
`
`28 Asserted Patent and that such infringement has been willfiil;
`Law OFFICE: of
`\|t'r":u.K1JP. Mawou, Kzunr
`8: SCHDENEEIIGER
`
`nP’:O:Eé:2«!E:|::g:IE:J):’b;n’:Io:E’f’|oN
`smrs.-wC1.sc0.cA 9-ma
`
`|-lI5]93I-J"2|O
`
`_ 10
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - CASE NO.
`
`

`
`Case3:14—cv—04-412-JCS Documentl Fi|ed10l01;‘14 Pagell of 24
`
`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.
`
`A judgment 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-j udgment 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;
`
`f.
`
`A judgment declaring this to be an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285
`
`and awarding VSL and Max Sound their attorneys’ fees;
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`just.
`
`Pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by Iaw; and
`
`Any and all such further necessary or proper relief as this Court may deem
`
`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.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`LAW OF HCES D?
`W.-u_xu1a Mswnu, KELLY
`8: SCI-IOENDE IIGER
`K FROPESSIOMII coorvolmnort
`65} C-KLIFDRNI-K STREET
`NIH HOOK
`SAN §R.I\NI‘_‘ISCO,CA 9-tlflfl
`{-1 15] ?El-7210
`
`1 1
`COMPLAINT FDR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - CASE NO.
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case3:14—cv—04412—JCS Documentl Fi|ed10I01I14 Page12 of 24
`
`1 Dated: October 1, 2014
`
`WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCI-IOENBERGER
`
`.../_ ‘
`
`MICHAEL A. KELLY
`
`MATTHEW D. DAVIS
`
`I
`
`KHALDOUN A. BAGHDADI
`JAY W. EISENHOFER
`GEOFFREY c. JARVIS
`
`DEBORAH ELMAN
`I
`ADAM J. LEV!TT_
`CATHERINE O SUILLEABHAIN
`CHRISTOPHER M. JOE
`
`
`
`ERIC W. BUETHER
`BRIAN A. CARPENTER
`MARK A. PERANTIE
`
`Attomeys for Plaintiff Max Sound Corporation
`
`2
`
`4
`
`5
`
`5
`
`7
`
`3
`
`9
`
`10
`
`H
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`IS
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`23
`LNNOFHCESOE
`\Wu1m=, Mawnu, KELLY
`SLSCHOENBERGER
`
`"E‘é?L‘.’{?.‘3‘»i7fZ?§££1“'
`5-an m’..‘é*.‘s.’:‘8’.%*
`ma
`l41.5I98|—3‘2
`
`12
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - CASE NO.
`
`

`
`Case3:14—cv—044l2—JCS Documentl Fi|ed10i01/14 Page-13 of24
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`

`
`Case3:14—cv—04-412-JCS Documentl
`Fi|ed101_‘011‘14 Page14 of 24
`llllll||||||||Ill||||l||l||lllll||l|||||||||||||ll|||1||||||||1|||||||1||||
`
`US007974339B2
`
`O
`(12) United States Patent
`Krichevsky et al.
`
`(54) OPTIMIZED DATA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
`AND METHOD
`Inventors: Alex Krlchevsky, Laguna Beach, CA
`{US):Cnns1am:e Nash. Laguna Beach.
`CA (Us)
`
`(76)
`
`.
`-
`( 1- 3. Notice.
`
`-
`-
`'
`-
`Subject to any d1scIa1uier.1he term of ‘(his
`Pmn‘ *5 ‘="‘°“‘1“‘1 0‘ ‘*dJ“**"=‘1 ““d°' 35
`U-5-C‘ 154(9) by 140! 93%
`
`{I0} Patent No.:
`(45) Date of Patent:
`
`US 7,974,339 B2
`Jul. 5, 2011
`
`W998 MacLe9d at :11.
`5.778.092 A
`SUD ....................... -.
`.
`.
`3457000
`i * 1iiigg§ ii;
`332E236
`5,873,169 A “
`3 I999 M"
`.
`343,699
`6314.131 A 4.
`15000 Su'?'w:[‘°
`3457000
`6.078.307 A *
`612000 Daly ..
`3457698
`0.190.407 01*
`372001 Chiang .
`3457595
`5,325,931 B1 7
`1272001 Mari et al.
`3-l5i63
`I
`6.473.062 Bl “
`l0r'2l]02 Deb"
`t
`“H598
`6‘6fl8‘632 B2 ‘
`EQBG3 Dabtiiilln
`3027239
`7.050.639 01*
`572005 names at 0].
`7.551.189 B2 '«
`072009 Hunter ........................ .. 3457590
`
`
`
`.
`
`(21) App]_ No_; 1|};392,59o
`
`(22)
`
`Filed:
`
`Jul. 16, 2004
`
`EP
`EP
`EP
`
`FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS
`0 7|? [138 A2
`SH996
`I 006 715 A2
`672000
`IDGETI7 A2
`(#2000
`
`[65]
`
`Prior Publication Data
`
`OTHER PUBLICATIONS
`
`Us zoomtozsgl 50 A1
`
`Dec’ 23" 2004
`
`(63)
`
`(€}0I:ltiL1llaIiOn gfzillppzlication No. PCTJUSOQIOOSGS,
`e on Jan. 1
`,
`.
`
`(51)
`
`Int CL
`(2006.01)
`HMN 7/12
`(52) 0.5. CI.
`.................................................. 375040.01
`
`(58) Field 0fCIassificati0n Search
`375724001,
`3'7'5.’240.l 5, 240.23; 380.354; 3821239, 236;
`3481599
`See application file for complete search history.
`
`(56)
`
`References Cited
`
`U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`4,Tn"6.|]l3 A ‘
`l{Ia'i988 Knfri eta].
`4.705.349 A 7 1l.']98E Keith ctal.
`
`38054
`............ __ 375724023
`
`Supplementary European Search Report. dated Sep. 23. 2005.
`‘.27.:
`‘ cited by examiner
`
`Primary Examiner — Tung Vo
`,, ,
`_
`.
`_
`_ABS_ 'R““_"
`(573
`A system for trdnsnnlllns data 15 P“_W1d‘3d- The system
`includes a frame analysis system receiving frsuue data, such
`as a frame of video data, and generating region data, such as
`:1 uniJ'orm matrix size that is used to divide the frame into a
`predetermined set of matrices. A pixel selection system
`receives the region data and generates one set ofpixel data for
`each region, such as by selecting one of the pixels contained
`within each of the original matrices that comprise the frame.
`
`13 Claims,4 Drawing Sheets
`
`DATA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM E
` PIXEL
`FRAME
`ANALYSIS
`SELECTION
`SYSTEM
`SYSTEM
`1%
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PIXEL DATA
`svsrem
`D2
`
`
`
`°'SP"AY
`GENERATION
`SYSTEM
` E
`
`
`DATA RECEIVING SYSTEM 1105
`
`
`
`1001?
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`
`Case3:14—cv—044l2-JCS Documentl Fi|ed10i01I14 Page-15 of 24
`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Jul. 5, 2011
`
`Sheet 1 of4
`
`US 7,974,339 B2
`
`DATA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM fl
`
`
`
`
`FRAME
`
`ANALYSIS
`SYSTEM
`.1352
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PIXEL
`
`SELECTION
`SYSTEM
`EE
`
`
`PIXEL DATA
`DISPLAY
`
`SYSTEM
`GENERATION
`
`SYSTEM
`1-'9
`m
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATA RECEIVING SYSTEM jgg
`
`
`
`FIGURE 1
`
`100?
`
`PIXEL
`
`VARIATION
`
`SYSTEM
`
`2.03
`
`MATRIX SIZE
`
`SYSTEM
`
`A31
`
`MATRIX
`IDENTIFICATION
`
`SYSTEM
`
`FRAME ANALYSIS SYSTEM E
`
`

`
`Case3:14—cv—0-4412-JCS Documentl Fi|ed10i01I14 Page-16 of 24
`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Jul. 5, 2011
`
`Sheet 2 0:4
`
`US 7,974,339 B2
`
`PIXEL
`RANDOMIZER
`SYSTEM
`302
`
`PIXEL
`SEQUENCER
`SYSTEM
`
`PIXEL
`IDENTIFICATION
`SYSTEM
`
`PIXEL SELECTION SYSTEM 19g
`
`DEFINITION
`SYSTEM
`
`E
`
`PIXEL LOCATION
`SYSTEM
`
`FRAME COMPLETE?
`
`GO TO NEXT FRAME
`
`514
`
`FIGURE 5
`
`500?
`
`

`
`Case3:14—cv—0-4412-JCS Documentl Fi|ed10i01I14 Page17 of 24
`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Jul. 5, 2011
`
`Sheet 3 of4
`
`US 7,974,339 B2
`
`602
`
`DETERMINE PIXEL VARIATION
`
`VARIATION > TOL?
`
`
`
`FIGURE 6
`
`309%
`
`606
`
`GO TO NEXT PIXEL
`
`MODIFY TOL
`
`608
`
`610
`
`
`
`ASSIGN MATRIX SIZE
`
`RECEIVE MATRIX DATA
`
` SEQUENCE
`RANDOM OR SEQUENCE’?
`
`GENERATE RANDOM NUMBER
`
`OBTAIN SEQUENCE DATA
`
`
`
`
`706
`
`703
`
`
`
`SELECT PIXEL BASED ON
`RANDOM NUMBER
`
`7‘?
`neuae 7
`
`voofi
`
`RECEIVE MATRIX AND PIXEL DATA
`
` COMBINE MATRIX, PIXEL DATA INTO FRAME DATA
`
`
`
`
`
`YES
`
`FRAME COMPLETE?
`
`806
`
`GO TO NEXT FRAME
`
`FIGURE 3
`
`800?
`
`808
`
`

`
`Case3:14—cv—0-4412-JCS Documentl Fi|ed10i01;‘14 Page18 of 24
`
`U.S. Patent
`
`Jul. 5, 2011
`
`Sheet 4 of4
`
`US 7,974,339 B2
`
`
`
`

`
`Case3:14—cv—04412—JCS Documentl Fi|ed10I01I14 Page19 of 24
`
`1
`OPTIMIZEI) DATA TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
`AND METHOD
`
`2
`BRIEF Dl'3SCRIP'I'ION OF THE DRAWINGS
`
`US 7,974,339 B2
`
`FIELD OF THE INVENTION
`
`The present invention pertains to the field of data transmis-
`sion, and more particularly to a system and method for opti-
`mizing data transmission that decreases bandwidth require-
`ments for data transmission.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
`
`Data transmission systems are known in the art. Such data
`transmission systems often use compression to decrease
`bandwidth requirements. For example, compression tech-
`niques have been characterized as “losslcss“ when no reduc-
`tion in data occurs, or “lossy” when a loss ofdata occurs that
`does not adversely affect the intended use.
`One drawback with such data transmission systems is that
`the compressed data must be "deeontpressed" on the receiv-
`ing end. Thus. for lossless data compression systems, the
`exact configuration of the data must be achieved when the
`data is decornpressed. Likewise, even for lossy data compres-
`sion systems, the data is decompressed and the lost data is
`than approximated. The need for such decompression con-
`tributes to the overall difiiculty in implementing data trans-
`mission in conjunction with compression.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
`
`In accordance with the present invention, a system and
`method for transinitting data are provided that overcome
`known problems with data transmission systems and meth-
`ods.
`
`lnpa rticular, a system and method for data transmission are
`provided that use data optimization instead of compression,
`so as to provide a mixed lossless and lussy data transmission
`technique.
`In accordance with an exemplary embodiment of the
`present invention, a syste