Case 6:17-cv-00495-RWS-KNM Document 1 Filed 08/31/17 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:17-cv-00495
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`PARITY NETWORKS LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff Parity Networks LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Parity Networks”), by and through its
`
`attorneys, for its Original Complaint against Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Juniper”),
`
`and demanding trial by jury, hereby alleges as follows:
`
`I. NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United
`
`States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq., to enjoin and obtain damages resulting from Defendant’s
`
`unauthorized use, sale, and offer to sell in the United States of products, methods, processes,
`
`services and/or systems that infringe Parity Networks’ United States patents, as described herein.
`
`
`
`Juniper manufactures, provides, uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, and/or
`
`distributes infringing products and services; and encourages others to use its products and services
`
`in an infringing manner, including their customers, as set forth herein.
`
`
`
`Parity Networks seeks past and future damages and prejudgment and post judgment
`
`interest for Juniper’s past infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, as defined below.
`
`Juniper Exhibit 1010
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00495-RWS-KNM Document 1 Filed 08/31/17 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 2
`
`II. PARTIES
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Parity Networks is a limited liability company organized and existing
`
`under the laws of the State of Texas. Parity Networks’ registered agent for service of process in
`
`Texas is InCorp Services, Inc., 815 Brazos Street, Suite 500, Austin, Texas 78701.
`
`
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Juniper is a corporation organized under the
`
`laws of Delaware, having an established place of business in this District at 5830 Granite Parkway,
`
`Suite 850, Plano, Texas 75024. Juniper’s registered agent for service of process in Texas is CT
`
`Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201.
`
`III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`
`
`This is an action for patent infringement which arises under the Patent Laws of the
`
`United States, in particular, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 283, 284 and 285.
`
`
`
`This Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`
`
`On information and belief, venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1391(b), 1391(c), and 1400(b) because Defendant has a regular and established place of
`
`business in this district, transacted business in this District, and has committed and/or induced acts
`
`of patent infringement in this district.
`
`
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Juniper is subject to this Court’s specific and
`
`general personal jurisdiction pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute, due at
`
`least to its substantial business in this forum, including: (i) at least a portion of the infringements
`
`alleged herein; and (ii) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses
`
`of conduct, and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to individuals
`
`in Texas and in this Judicial District.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00495-RWS-KNM Document 1 Filed 08/31/17 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 3
`
`IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`
`
`Parity Networks is the owner of all right, title and interest in and to U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,252,848 (the “’848 Patent”), entitled “System Performance in a Data Network Through Queue
`
`Management Based on Ingress Rate Monitoring,” issued on June 26, 2001.
`
`
`
`Parity Networks is the owner of all right, title and interest in and to U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,553,005 (the “’005 patent”), entitled “Method and Apparatus for Load Apportionment among
`
`Physical Interfaces in Data Routers,” issued on April 22, 2003.
`
`
`
`Parity Networks is the owner of all right, title and interest in and to U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,738,378 (the “’378 Patent”), entitled “Method and Apparatus for Intelligent Sorting and Process
`
`Determination of Data Packets Destined to a Central Processing Unit of a Router or Server on a
`
`Data Packet Network,” issued on May 18, 2004.
`
`
`
`Parity Networks is the owner of all right, title and interest in and to U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,763,394 (the “’394 Patent”), entitled “Virtual Egress Packet Classification at Ingress,” issued on
`
`July 13, 2004.
`
`
`
`Parity Networks is the owner of all right, title and interest in and to U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,831,891 (the “’891 Patent”), entitled “System for Fabric Patent Control,” issued on December
`
`14, 2004.
`
`
`
`Parity Networks is the owner of all right, title and interest in and to U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,002,958 (the “’958 Patent”), entitled “Method for Load-Balancing With FIFO Guarantees in
`
`Multipath Networks,” issued on February 21, 2006.
`
`
`
`Parity Networks is the owner of all right, title and interest in and to U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,103,046 (the “’046 patent”), entitled “Method and Apparatus for Intelligent Sorting and Process
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00495-RWS-KNM Document 1 Filed 08/31/17 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 4
`
`Determination of Data Packets Destined to a Central Processing Unit of a Router or Server on a
`
`Data Packet Network,” issued on September 5, 2006.
`
`
`
`Parity Networks is the owner of all right, title and interest in and to U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,107,352 (the “’352 Patent”), entitled “Virtual Egress Packet Classification at Ingress,” issued on
`
`September 12, 2006.
`
`
`
`Parity Networks is the owner of all right, title and interest in and to U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,719,963 (the “’963 Patent”), entitled “System for Fabric Patent Control,” issued on May 18,
`
`2010.
`
`
`
`Together, the foregoing patents are referred to herein as the “Patents-in-Suit.”
`
`Parity Networks is the assignee of the Patents-in-Suit, and has all rights to sue for infringement
`
`and collect past and future damages for the infringement thereof.
`
`DEFENDANT’S ACTS
`
`
`
`Juniper provides software and services directed to detection, analysis and
`
`monitoring of data flow in a data network environment, including products incorporating the Junos
`
`Operating System (“Junos OS”).
`
`
`
`Junos OS is the single operating system that powers Juniper’s broad portfolio of
`
`physical and virtual networking and security products.
`
`
`
`As an example, Juniper provides Junos OS class of service (CoS) to divide traffic
`
`into classes and set various levels of throughput and packet loss when congestion occurs.
`
`Junos OS CoS works by examining traffic entering the edge of your network. The switch
`classifies traffic into defined service groups to provide the special treatment of traffic
`across the network. For example, you can send voice traffic across certain links and data
`traffic across other links. In addition, the data traffic streams can be serviced differently
`along the network path to ensure that higher-paying customers receive better service. As
`the traffic leaves the network at the far edge, you can reclassify the traffic to meet the
`policies of the targeted peer by rewriting the DSCP or IEEE 802.1 code-point bits.
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00495-RWS-KNM Document 1 Filed 08/31/17 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 5
`
`Juniper Traffic Management Feature Guide (July 11, 2017) at 5.
`
`
`
`Juniper also implements traffic policing, whereby limits are applied to traffic flow
`
`and consequences established for packets that exceed these limits—usually applying a higher loss
`
`priority—so that if packets encounter downstream congestion, they can be discarded first. A high
`
`level depiction is set forth below.
`
`
`
`Juniper Traffic Management Feature Guide (July 11, 2017) at 32.
`
`
`
`The Juniper routers running Junos OS implement Quality of Service (“QoS”)
`
`mechanisms. In that regard, the ingress ports receive packets from a plurality of flows or services.
`
`Differentiated Services code points (DCSPs) are added to the headers. Packets are directed to
`
`output queues upon application of one or more policies.
`
`
`
`Juniper, through Juniper OS, groups packets into service classes that are marked by
`
`source/destination IP address, source/destination port, protocol, application, ingress/egress
`
`interface, and ingress/egress interface group. See Juniper Networks J-Series Services Routers
`
`Quality of Service (QoS) at 4.
`
`
`
`Juniper instructs its customers regarding the implementation and operation of the
`
`accused instrumentalities, including at http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/release-
`
`independent/junos/information-products/pathway-pages/junos/product/.
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00495-RWS-KNM Document 1 Filed 08/31/17 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 6
`
`
`
`On information of belief, Defendant Juniper also implements contractual
`
`protections in the form of license and use restrictions with its customers to preclude the
`
`unauthorized reproduction, distribution and modification of its software.
`
` Moreover, on information and belief, Defendant Juniper implements technical
`
`precautions to attempt to thwart customers who would circumvent the intended operation of
`
`Juniper’s products.
`
`PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`
`
`By letters dated October 5, 2016 and November 18, 2016, Juniper was provided
`
`and actually received notice of the Patents-in-Suit, and consequently has actual or constructive
`
`knowledge of each of them.
`
`
`
`In addition, during the course of its own prosecution activities, Juniper and its
`
`affiliates have been apprised and gained prior knowledge of at least some of the Patents-in-Suit,
`
`including by way of family members.
`
`
`
`Juniper was made aware of the ’848 Patent by the Examiner of the U.S. Patent &
`
`Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and/or raised it as relevant prior art in connection with its own
`
`applications giving rise to: (1) U.S. Patent Nos. 7,055,028; 7,231,446; 7,283,470; 7,369,500;
`
`7,746,776; 7,990,868; 8,335,158; 8,441,925; 8,654,645; 8,948,011; 9,106,577; and (2) U.S. Patent
`
`Publication No. 20100220590.
`
`
`
`Juniper was made aware of the ’005 Patent by the USPTO and/or raised it as
`
`relevant prior art in connection with its own applications giving rise to: (1) U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`7,277,386; 7,633,871; 8,004,990; 8,218,553; and 8,259,585; and (2) U.S. Patent Publication No.
`
`20100214913.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00495-RWS-KNM Document 1 Filed 08/31/17 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 7
`
`V. COUNTS OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`COUNT ONE
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,252,848
`
`
`
`Parity Networks incorporates by reference its allegations in Paragraphs 1-32 as if
`
`fully restated in this paragraph.
`
`
`
`Parity Networks is the assignee and owner of all right, title and interest to the ’848
`
`Patent. Parity Networks has the legal right to enforce the patent, sue for infringement, and seek
`
`equitable relief and damages.
`
`
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Juniper, without authorization or license
`
`from Parity Networks, has been and is presently directly infringing at least claim 15 of the ’848
`
`Patent, as infringement is defined by 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), including through making, using
`
`(including for testing purposes), selling and offering for sale methods and articles infringing one
`
`or more claims of the ’848 Patent. Defendant Juniper is thus liable for direct infringement of the
`
`’848 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Exemplary infringing products include the EX Series
`
`Switches, including the EX4600, which includes multiple ingress ports with output queues and
`
`wherein the ingress ports are configured to receive packets from multiple ingress flows and
`
`monitor their characteristics. Each packet is marked with a marking based on criteria including
`
`the ingress flow rate and the flow profile.
`
`
`
`On information and belief, at least since the filing of the Original Complaint,
`
`Defendant Juniper, without authorization or license from Parity Networks, has been and is
`
`presently indirectly infringing at least claim 1 of the ’848 Patent, including actively inducing
`
`infringement of the ’848 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Such inducements include without
`
`limitation, with specific intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing consumers to
`
`use infringing articles and methods that Juniper knows or should know infringe one or more claims
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00495-RWS-KNM Document 1 Filed 08/31/17 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 8
`
`of the ’848 Patent. Juniper instructs its customers to make and use the patented inventions of the
`
`’848 Patent by operating Juniper’s products in accordance with Juniper’s specifications. Juniper
`
`specifically intends its customers to infringe by implementing its Junos OS to configure class-of-
`
`service (CoS) components to classify, police, shape and mark traffic in an infringing manner.
`
`
`
`As a result of Juniper’s infringement of the ’848 Patent, Parity Networks has
`
`suffered monetary damages, and is entitled to an award of damages adequate to compensate it for
`
`such infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284, but in no event, less than a reasonable royalty.
`
`COUNT TWO
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,553,005
`
`
`
`Parity Networks incorporates by reference its allegations in Paragraphs 1-37 as if
`
`fully restated in this paragraph.
`
`
`
`Parity Networks is the assignee and owner of all right, title and interest to the ’005
`
`Patent. Parity Networks has the legal right to enforce the patent, sue for infringement, and seek
`
`equitable relief and damages.
`
`
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Juniper, without authorization or license
`
`from Parity Networks, has been and is presently directly infringing at least claim 1 of the ’005
`
`Patent, as infringement is defined by 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), including through making, using
`
`(including for testing purposes), selling and offering for sale methods and articles infringing one
`
`or more claims of the ’005 Patent. Defendant Juniper is thus liable for direct infringement of the
`
`’005 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Exemplary infringing products include the MX Series
`
`3D Universal Edge Routers, which includes multiple ports with output queues and wherein the
`
`ingress ports are configured to receive packets from multiple ingress flows. The MX Series 3D
`
`Universal Edge Routes packets having a plurality of candidate egress ports, including identifying
`
`a set of egress ports based on a source IP address.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00495-RWS-KNM Document 1 Filed 08/31/17 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 9
`
`
`
`On information and belief, at least since the filing of the Original Complaint,
`
`Defendant Juniper, without authorization or license from Parity Networks, has been and is
`
`presently indirectly infringing at least claim 1 of the ’005 Patent, including actively inducing
`
`infringement of the ’005 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Such inducements include without
`
`limitation, with specific intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing consumers to
`
`use infringing articles and methods that Juniper knows or should know infringe one or more claims
`
`of the ’005 Patent. Juniper instructs its customers to make and use the patented inventions of the
`
`’005 patent by operating Juniper’s products in accordance with Juniper’s specifications. Juniper
`
`specifically intends its customers to infringe by implementing its routers to implement link
`
`aggregation group (LAG), hashing and to choose a set of egress ports in an infringing manner, as
`
`set forth above.
`
`
`
`As a result of Juniper’s infringement of the ’005 Patent, Parity Networks has
`
`suffered monetary damages, and is entitled to an award of damages adequate to compensate it for
`
`such infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284, but in no event, less than a reasonable royalty.
`
`COUNT THREE
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,738,378
`
`
`
`Parity Networks incorporates by reference its allegations in Paragraphs 1-42 as if
`
`fully restated in this paragraph.
`
`
`
`Parity Networks is the assignee and owner of all right, title and interest to the ’378
`
`Patent. Parity Networks has the legal right to enforce the patent, sue for infringement, and seek
`
`equitable relief and damages.
`
`
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Juniper, without authorization or license
`
`from Parity Networks, has been and is presently directly infringing at least claim 1 of the ’378
`
`Patent, as infringement is defined by 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), including through making, using
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00495-RWS-KNM Document 1 Filed 08/31/17 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 10
`
`(including for testing purposes), selling and offering for sale methods and articles infringing one
`
`or more claims of the ’378 Patent. Defendant Juniper is thus liable for direct infringement of the
`
`’378 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Exemplary infringing products include the SRX Series
`
`devices, including as implemented in the SRX5000, which includes multiple processors for
`
`parallel packet processing and hardware queues of a network access controller (NAC) for queuing
`
`the packets according to category
`
`
`
`On information and belief, at least since the filing of the Original Complaint,
`
`Defendant Juniper, without authorization or license from Parity Networks, has been and is
`
`presently indirectly infringing at least claim 1 of the ’378 Patent, including actively inducing
`
`infringement of the ’378 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Such inducements include without
`
`limitation, with specific intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing consumers to
`
`use infringing articles and methods that Juniper knows or should know infringe one or more claims
`
`of the ’378 Patent. Juniper instructs its customers to make and use the patented inventions of the
`
`’378 Patent by operating Juniper’s products in accordance with Juniper’s specifications. Juniper
`
`specifically intends its customers to infringe by implementing its Junos OS to sort and process data
`
`packets into two or more categories of different priority for processing and a queue for queuing
`
`sorted packets destined for the CPU.
`
`
`
`As a result of Juniper’s infringement of the ’378 Patent, Parity Networks has
`
`suffered monetary damages, and is entitled to an award of damages adequate to compensate it for
`
`such infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284, but in no event, less than a reasonable royalty.
`
`COUNT FOUR
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,763,394
`
`
`
`Parity Networks incorporates by reference its allegations in Paragraphs 1-47 as if
`
`fully restated in this paragraph.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00495-RWS-KNM Document 1 Filed 08/31/17 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 11
`
`
`
`Parity Networks is the assignee and owner of all right, title and interest to the ’394
`
`Patent. Parity Networks has the legal right to enforce the patent, sue for infringement, and seek
`
`equitable relief and damages.
`
`
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Juniper, without authorization or license
`
`from Parity Networks, has been and is presently directly infringing at least claim 13 of the ’394
`
`Patent, as infringement is defined by 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), including through making, using
`
`(including for testing purposes), selling and offering for sale methods and articles infringing one
`
`or more claims of the ’394 Patent. Defendant Juniper is thus liable for direct infringement of the
`
`’394 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Exemplary infringing products include the EX Series
`
`Switches, including the EX9200 Switch, which includes ACLs for filtering and dropping of
`
`packets implemented at the ingress port for egress pass/drop determination.
`
`
`
`On information and belief, at least since the filing of the Original Complaint,
`
`Defendant Juniper, without authorization or license from Parity Networks, has been and is
`
`presently indirectly infringing at least claim 13 of the ’394 Patent, including actively inducing
`
`infringement of the ’394 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Such inducements include without
`
`limitation, with specific intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing consumers to
`
`use infringing articles and methods that Juniper knows or should know infringe one or more claims
`
`of the ’394 Patent. Juniper instructs its customers to make and use the patented inventions of the
`
`’394 Patent by operating Juniper’s products in accordance with Juniper’s specifications. Juniper
`
`specifically intends its customers to infringe by implementing its routers perform traffic policing
`
`using ACL rules to create multiple LUTs, as set forth above.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00495-RWS-KNM Document 1 Filed 08/31/17 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 12
`
`
`
`As a result of Juniper’s infringement of the ’394 Patent, Parity Networks has
`
`suffered monetary damages, and is entitled to an award of damages adequate to compensate it for
`
`such infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284, but in no event, less than a reasonable royalty.
`
`COUNT FIVE
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,831,891
`
`
`
`Parity Networks incorporates by reference its allegations in Paragraphs 1-52 as if
`
`fully restated in this paragraph.
`
`
`
`Parity Networks is the assignee and owner of all right, title and interest to the ’891
`
`Patent. Parity Networks has the legal right to enforce the patent, sue for infringement, and seek
`
`equitable relief and damages.
`
`
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Juniper, without authorization or license
`
`from Parity Networks, has been and is presently directly infringing at least claim 1 of the ’891
`
`Patent, as infringement is defined by 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), including through making, using
`
`(including for testing purposes), selling and offering for sale methods and articles infringing one
`
`or more claims of the ’891 Patent. Defendant Juniper is thus liable for direct infringement of the
`
`’891 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Exemplary infringing products include the PTX Series
`
`Routers, which have an internal fabric network and a VOQ selection process for random early
`
`detection.
`
`
`
`On information and belief, at least since the filing of the Original Complaint,
`
`Defendant Juniper, without authorization or license from Parity Networks, has been and is
`
`presently indirectly infringing at least claim 1 of the ’891 Patent, including actively inducing
`
`infringement of the ’891 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Such inducements include without
`
`limitation, with specific intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing consumers to
`
`use infringing articles and methods that Juniper knows or should know infringe one or more claims
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00495-RWS-KNM Document 1 Filed 08/31/17 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 13
`
`of the ’891 Patent. Juniper instructs its customers to make and use the patented inventions of the
`
`’891 Patent by operating Juniper’s products in accordance with Juniper’s specifications. Juniper
`
`specifically intends its customers to infringe by implementing its VOQ so that each virtual output
`
`queue at each individual input port is dedicated to an individual output port and stores only packets
`
`destined for the associated output port for managing incoming data traffic.
`
`
`
`As a result of Juniper’s infringement of the ’891 Patent, Parity Networks has
`
`suffered monetary damages, and is entitled to an award of damages adequate to compensate it for
`
`such infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284, but in no event, less than a reasonable royalty.
`
`COUNT SIX
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,002,958
`
`
`
`Parity Networks incorporates by reference its allegations in Paragraphs 1-57 as if
`
`fully restated in this paragraph.
`
`
`
`Parity Networks is the assignee and owner of all right, title and interest to the ’958
`
`Patent. Parity Networks has the legal right to enforce the patent, sue for infringement, and seek
`
`equitable relief and damages.
`
`
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Juniper, without authorization or license
`
`from Parity Networks, has been and is presently directly infringing at least claim 1 of the ’958
`
`Patent, as infringement is defined by 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), including through making, using
`
`(including for testing purposes), selling and offering for sale methods and articles infringing one
`
`or more claims of the ’958 Patent. Defendant Juniper is thus liable for direct infringement of the
`
`’958 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Exemplary infringing products include the MX Series
`
`Routers, which support Multipath Label Switching (MPLS), allocates labels to packets and
`
`accesses routing bias tables to establish a label switched path (LSP).
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00495-RWS-KNM Document 1 Filed 08/31/17 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 14
`
`
`
`On information and belief, at least since the filing of the Original Complaint,
`
`Defendant Juniper, without authorization or license from Parity Networks, has been and is
`
`presently indirectly infringing at least claim 1 of the ’958 Patent, including actively inducing
`
`infringement of the ’958 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Such inducements include without
`
`limitation, with specific intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing consumers to
`
`use infringing articles and methods that Juniper knows or should know infringe one or more claims
`
`of the ’958 Patent. Juniper instructs its customers to make and use the patented inventions of the
`
`’958 Patent by operating Juniper’s products in accordance with Juniper’s specifications. Juniper
`
`specifically intends its customers to infringe by implementing its routers to perform MPLS in an
`
`infringing manner, as set forth above.
`
`
`
`As a result of Juniper’s infringement of the ’958 Patent, Parity Networks has
`
`suffered monetary damages, and is entitled to an award of damages adequate to compensate it for
`
`such infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284, but in no event, less than a reasonable royalty.
`
`COUNT SEVEN
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,103,046
`
`
`
`Parity Networks incorporates by reference its allegations in Paragraphs 1-62 as if
`
`fully restated in this paragraph.
`
`
`
`Parity Networks is the assignee and owner of all right, title and interest to the ’046
`
`Patent. Parity Networks has the legal right to enforce the patent, sue for infringement, and seek
`
`equitable relief and damages.
`
`
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Juniper, without authorization or license
`
`from Parity Networks, has been and is presently directly infringing at least claim 1 of the ’046
`
`Patent, as infringement is defined by 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), including through making, using
`
`(including for testing purposes), selling and offering for sale methods and articles infringing one
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00495-RWS-KNM Document 1 Filed 08/31/17 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 15
`
`or more claims of the ’046 Patent. Defendant Juniper is thus liable for direct infringement of the
`
`’046 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Exemplary infringing products include the SRX Series
`
`devices, including as implemented in the SRX5000, which includes multiple processors for
`
`parallel packet processing and hardware queues of a network access controller (NAC) for queuing
`
`the packets according to category
`
`
`
`On information and belief, at least since the filing of the Original Complaint,
`
`Defendant Juniper, without authorization or license from Parity Networks, has been and is
`
`presently indirectly infringing at least claim 15 of the ’046 Patent, including actively inducing
`
`infringement of the ’046 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Such inducements include without
`
`limitation, with specific intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing consumers to
`
`use infringing articles and methods that Juniper knows or should know infringe one or more claims
`
`of the ’046 Patent. Juniper instructs its customers to make and use the patented inventions of the
`
`’046 Patent by operating Juniper’s products in accordance with Juniper’s specifications. Juniper
`
`specifically intends its customers to infringe by implementing its Junos OS to sort and process data
`
`packets into two or more categories of different priority for processing and a queue for queuing
`
`sorted packets destined for the CPU.
`
`
`
`As a result of Juniper’s infringement of the ’046 Patent, Parity Networks has
`
`suffered monetary damages, and is entitled to an award of damages adequate to compensate it for
`
`such infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284, but in no event, less than a reasonable royalty.
`
`COUNT EIGHT
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,107,352
`
`
`
`Parity Networks incorporates by reference its allegations in Paragraphs 1-67 as if
`
`fully restated in this paragraph.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`-15-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00495-RWS-KNM Document 1 Filed 08/31/17 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 16
`
`
`
`Parity Networks is the assignee and owner of all right, title and interest to the ’352
`
`Patent. Parity Networks has the legal right to enforce the patent, sue for infringement, and seek
`
`equitable relief and damages.
`
`
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Juniper, without authorization or license
`
`from Parity Networks, has been and is presently directly infringing at least claim 1 of the ’352
`
`Patent, as infringement is defined by 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), including through making, using
`
`(including for testing purposes), selling and offering for sale methods and articles infringing one
`
`or more claims of the ’352 Patent. Defendant Juniper is thus liable for direct infringement of the
`
`’352 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Exemplary infringing products include the EX Series
`
`Switches, including the EX9200 Switch, which includes ACLs for filtering and dropping of
`
`packets implemented at the ingress port for egress pass/drop determination.
`
`
`
`On information and belief, at least since the filing of the Original Complaint,
`
`Defendant Juniper, without authorization or license from Parity Networks, has been and is
`
`presently indirectly infringing at least claim 1 of the ’352 Patent, including actively inducing
`
`infringement of the ’352 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Such inducements include without
`
`limitation, with specific intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing consumers to
`
`use infringing articles and methods that Juniper knows or should know infringe one or more claims
`
`of the ’352 Patent. Juniper instructs its customers to make and use the patented inventions of the
`
`’352 Patent by operating Juniper’s products in accordance with Juniper’s specifications. Juniper
`
`specifically intends its customers to infringe by implementing its routers perform traffic policing
`
`using ACL rules to create multiple LUTs, as set forth above.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`-16-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00495-RWS-KNM Document 1 Filed 08/31/17 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 17
`
`
`
`As a result of Juniper’s infringement of the ’352 Patent, Parity Networks has
`
`suffered monetary damages, and is entitled to an award of damages adequate to compensate it for
`
`such infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284, but in no event, less than a reasonable royalty.
`
`COUNT NINE
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,719,963
`
`
`
`Parity Networks incorporates by reference its allegations in Paragraphs 1-72 as if
`
`fully restated in this paragraph.
`
`
`
`Parity Networks is the assignee and owner of all right, title and interest to the ’963
`
`Patent. Parity Networks has the legal right to enforce the patent, sue for infringement, and seek
`
`equitable relief and damages.
`
`
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Juniper, without authorization or license
`
`from Parity Networks, has been and is presently directly infringing at least claim 3 of the ’963
`
`Patent, as infringement is defined by 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), including through making, using
`
`(including for testing purposes), selling and offering for sale methods and articles infringing one
`
`or more claims of the ’963 Patent. Defendant Juniper is thus liable for direct infringement of the
`
`’963 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Exemplary infringing products include the PTX Series
`
`Routers, which have an internal fabric network and a VOQ selection process for random early
`
`detection.
`
`
`
`On information and belief, at least since the filing of the Original Complaint,
`
`Defendant Junip