Case 1:18-cv-00366-VAC-CJB Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 1 of 41 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, MATCH
`GROUP, INC., TINDER, INC., and VIMEO,
`INC.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`C.A. No. 18- __________
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff, British Telecommunications plc (“BT”) brings this action against Defendants:
`
`(i) IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, (ii) Match Group, Inc. (“Match Group”), (iii) Tinder, Inc., and
`
`(iv) Vimeo, Inc. (collectively referred to herein as “IAC”), and alleges as follows:
`
`Introduction
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement. BT is a global communications
`
`company with a long history of cutting-edge advancements in the fields of data communications
`
`and information services. BT has been and continues to be a pioneer in developing
`
`communication systems for transmitting data, including systems using wired, wireless,
`
`telephone, and internet communication technologies and related information services. The BT
`
`patents involved in this case are directed to implementing and managing efficient and effective
`
`data communications over networks and improving the utility of information services,
`
`particularly in situations where the data communications and information services involve
`
`variations in persons, locations, things, and transmission quality.
`
`2.
`
`Defendants are closely related companies that operate as a single business entity
`
`selling information services, including numerous social media products/services. The accused
`
`VIMEO/IAC EXHIBIT 1002
`VIMEO ET AL., v. BT, IPR2019-00833
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00366-VAC-CJB Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 2 of 41 PageID #: 2
`
`social media products/services are marketed and provided under the brands Match.com,
`
`OkCupid, Tinder, and Vimeo as detailed further herein. Defendants, or their predecessor
`
`companies, direct and control these products that utilize and depend upon unauthorized use of
`
`BT’s patented technology. Defendants have misappropriated BT’s patented technology without
`
`BT’s permission and without compensating BT for the use of BT’s technology. This lawsuit
`
`seeks to hold the Defendants accountable for their unauthorized use and misappropriation of
`
`BT’s technology – and to prevent them from continuing to use and misappropriate BT’s
`
`technology – without BT’s permission and without compensating BT.
`
`3.
`
`The BT patents asserted herein cover fundamental aspects of IAC’s social media
`
`products/services, including Match.com, OkCupid, Tinder, and Vimeo.
`
`4.
`
`With respect to Tinder, for example, one of the asserted BT patents covers
`
`Tinder’s geographical proximity-based identification of potential matches, which is a primary
`
`attraction for most Tinder users and a primary selling point for IAC in marketing the Tinder
`
`product/service. Indeed, IAC’s tagline for marketing Tinder is allowing users to “Meet new and
`
`interesting people nearby.” https://tinder.com/app/login. See Fig. 1 (Tinder Mobile
`
`Application).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00366-VAC-CJB Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 3 of 41 PageID #: 3
`
`Fig. 1. Tinder Mobile Application
`
`5.
`
`IAC’s success with Tinder has caused IAC to implement this same patented
`
`functionality in both the Mixer feature of Match.com and the Quickmatch/Locals feature of
`
`OkCupid . “You can discover nearby singles by tapping on the ellipsis in the top left-hand
`
`corner and tapping on ‘Discover.’ By visiting Match.com’s ‘Discover’ section, you will have two
`
`options: ‘Stream’ and ‘Mixer.’ The ‘Stream’ feature lets you scroll through as many profiles
`
`based on the members’ location. The ‘Mixer’ feature will let you browse through single profiles
`
`just like in the Tinder dating app. You can swipe left to pass or swipe right to find a potential
`
`date and start connecting.” https://heavy.com/tech/2014/07/how-to-use-match-dating-app-to-
`
`meet-new-singles/ (emphasis added). OkCupid users describing their experiences with the
`
`OkCupid Locals feature explained, “I just spent a few minutes playing the ‘locals’ section of the
`
`iPhone app (the part of the app that’s basically a Tinder clone)…. The entire point is that it
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00366-VAC-CJB Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 4 of 41 PageID #: 4
`
`allows messaging based on mutual attraction, like Tinder. It’s based on geographic location of
`
`your mobile device, not your zip code, like match search. So when you are swiping people, you
`
`are swiping people that are some radius from your physical location, not your plugged in zip
`
`code.” https://www.reddit.com/r/OkCupid/comments/1xsgin/whats_with_the_locals_section/
`
`(emphasis added). Similarly, OkCupid explains that “Quickmatch on the app is based on a
`
`phone’s physical location rather than the location listed in the profile, so it will show people
`
`who are (or recently were) near you, or near where you were, rather than people who necessarily
`
`live near you.” https://www.okcupid.com/help (emphasis added).
`
`6.
`
`Indeed, the geographical proximity-based identification of potential matches has
`
`been so popular with users that IAC chose to implement these aspects of this patented feature
`
`directly via the home screens of the Match.com and OkCupid mobile phone applications. See
`
`Figs. 2 and 3 below.
`
`Fig. 2. Match.com Mobile
`Application Home Screen
`
`Fig. 3. OkCupid Mobile
`Application Home Screen
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00366-VAC-CJB Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 5 of 41 PageID #: 5
`
`7.
`
`Another BT patent asserted in this litigation covers methods Tinder uses with its
`
`Smart Photos feature that alternates which of a user’s photos Tinder first shows to prospective
`
`matches, tracks which of the user’s photos have a better response (swipe right / yes vs. swipe left
`
`/ no) from prospective matches, and then reorders the user’s photos to present the “best” photo
`
`first. Tinder claims that users of its Smart Photos feature, “saw up to a 12% increase in
`
`matches.” See Fig. 4 (http://blog.gotinder.com/introducing-smart-photos-for-the-most-
`
`swipeworthy-you/.)
`
`Fig. 4. http://blog.gotinder.com/introducing-smart-photos-for-the-most-swipeworthy-you/
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00366-VAC-CJB Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 6 of 41 PageID #: 6
`
`8.
`
`And another BT patent asserted in this litigation covers the methods used by
`
`OkCupid and Match.com to update their user profiles to improve the user’s experience and to use
`
`the user’s personal information to increase their success in finding suitable matches, which are
`
`essential selling features for OkCupid and Match.com. See, e.g., www.match.com/cpx/en-
`
`us/match/IndexPage/ (“#1 in dates, relationships and marriages”) (emphasis in original);
`
`www.okcupid.com/ (“Get noticed for who you are, not what you look like.”).
`
`9.
`
`With respect to Vimeo, one of the asserted BT patents covers methods used by
`
`IAC to authenticate and provide Vimeo media content creators with data visualizations that
`
`illustrate network access and usage statistics relating to how users access and consume a
`
`particular content creator’s Vimeo content. See, e.g., Fig. 5 (https://vimeo.com/stats)
`
`Fig. 5. https://vimeo.com/stats
`
`10.
`
`Another of the asserted BT patents covers methods used by IAC for providing
`
`Vimeo users with content that originates from multiple subscription services and delivering that
`
`content to a Vimeo user via a single portal where the user can access content for which the user
`
`has access rights.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00366-VAC-CJB Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 7 of 41 PageID #: 7
`
`11.
`
`And yet another asserted BT patent covers methods used by IAC to maximize the
`
`quality of video presented to users who view Vimeo and Vimeo Live videos, which IAC uses as
`
`a major selling point for Vimeo. See, e.g., Fig. 6 (www.vimeo.com) (“Host videos in the highest
`
`quality possible.”)
`
`Fig. 6. www.vimeo.com
`
`12.
`
`Because of the fundamental nature of BT’s patents to IAC’s social media
`
`products/services, and IAC’s success in building users, advertisers, and revenue based on IAC’s
`
`misappropriation and unauthorized use of these patented features, BT’s damages are substantial.
`
`For example, the minimum damages which BT is entitled to receive for IAC’s infringement is no
`
`less than a reasonable royalty based on the multiple billions of dollars in revenue IAC has
`
`generated from its past and ongoing infringing activities.
`
`Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff British Telecommunications plc is a corporation organized and existing
`
`under the laws of the United Kingdom.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00366-VAC-CJB Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 8 of 41 PageID #: 8
`
`14.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant IAC/INTERACTIVECORP is a
`
`corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with corporate
`
`headquarters in New York City. IAC/INTERACTIVECORP represents to the public that all of
`
`the social media products/services at issue – Match.com, OkCupid, Tinder, and Vimeo – are
`
`“Our Brands.” http://iac.com/brands.
`
`15.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Match Group, Inc. (“Match Group”) is a
`
`corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. Although Match
`
`Group is incorporated separately from IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, Match Group is controlled
`
`by and operates as a brand of IAC/INTERACTIVECORP.
`
`16.
`
`On information and belief, IAC/INTERACTIVECORP owns 82.5% of Match
`
`Group’s stock value, and controls 97.9% of Match Group’s voting rights.
`
`IAC/INTERACTIVECORP publicly represents and states that Match Group is a subsidiary of
`
`IAC/INTERACTIVECORP. Match Group publicly states and represents that it is controlled and
`
`directed by IAC/INTERACTIVECORP.
`
`17.
`
`On information and belief, Match.com is the brand for a social media dating
`
`product/service controlled and directed by Match Group, which is in turn controlled and directed
`
`by IAC/INTERACTIVECORP. Match.com’s revenue is consolidated and reported as part of the
`
`operations of Match Group.
`
`18.
`
`On information and belief, OkCupid is the brand for a social media dating
`
`product/service controlled and directed by Match Group, which is in turn controlled and directed
`
`by IAC/INTERACTIVECORP. IAC/INTERACTIVECORP and Match Group control and
`
`direct OkCupid through a wholly-owned subsidiary, Humor Rainbow, Inc. OkCupid’s revenue
`
`is consolidated and reported as part of the operations of Match Group.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00366-VAC-CJB Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 9 of 41 PageID #: 9
`
`IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, Match Group, and Humor Rainbow comprise a joint enterprise with
`
`respect to the OkCupid social media product/service.
`
`19.
`
` On information and belief, Tinder is the brand for a social media dating
`
`product/service operated by Tinder, Inc., together with Match Group and
`
`IAC/INTERACTIVECORP. On information and belief, Defendant Tinder, Inc. is organized
`
`and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. Although Tinder, Inc. is incorporated
`
`separately from both Match Group and IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, Tinder, Inc. is controlled
`
`and directed by Match Group, which is in turn controlled and directed by
`
`IAC/INTERACTIVECORP. Tinder, Inc.’s revenue is consolidated and reported as part of the
`
`operations of Match Group. IAC/INTERACTIVECORP publicly represents and states that
`
`Tinder, like Match.com and OkCupid, is a brand of IAC/INTERACTIVECORP.
`
`IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, Match Group, and Tinder, Inc. comprise a joint enterprise with
`
`respect to the Tinder social media product/service.
`
`20.
`
`On information and belief, Vimeo is the brand for a social media video
`
`product/service operated by Vimeo, Inc., together with IAC/INTERACTIVECORP. On
`
`information and belief, Defendant Vimeo, Inc. is organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`State of Delaware. Although Vimeo, Inc. is incorporated separately from
`
`IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, Vimeo, Inc. is controlled, directed, and operates as a brand and
`
`subsidiary of IAC/INTERACTIVECORP. Vimeo, Inc.’s revenue is consolidated and reported as
`
`part of the operations of IAC/INTERACTIVECORP. IAC/INTERACTIVECORP and Vimeo
`
`Inc. comprise a joint enterprise with respect to the Vimeo social media video product/service.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00366-VAC-CJB Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 10 of 41 PageID #: 10
`
`21.
`
` As noted above, IAC/INTERACTIVECORP holds out to the public that all of
`
`the products/services at issue – Match.com, OkCupid, Tinder and Vimeo – comprise its own
`
`property. http://iac.com/brands.
`
`22.
`
`The Match Group, similarly, holds out to the public that the three social media
`
`dating products/services at issue – Match.com, OkCupid and Tinder – comprise its own property.
`
`As the Match Group reports, “We operate a portfolio of over 45 brands, including Match,
`
`OkCupid, Tinder, Meetic, Twoo, OurTime, BlackPeopleMeet and FriendScout24.”
`
`http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/elie-seidman-joins-match-group-as-chief-executive-
`
`officer-of-OkCupid-300278811.html. Match Group reports that its officers directly “oversee
`
`Match, Match Affinity Brands, PlentyOfFish, OkCupid,” and others.
`
`https://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/Match+Group+%28MTCH%29+Names+Elie+S
`
`eidman+as+Tinders+new+CEO/13513868.html.
`
`23.
`
`The Match Group further holds out to the public that the CEO of OkCupid
`
`(Humor Rainbow, Inc.) and other such subsidiaries, including Tinder, Inc., are part of “our
`
`[leadership] Team.” http://mtch.com/leadership//. The Match Group also directly hires and fires
`
`officers of its subsidiaries, including Humor Rainbow, Inc. and Tinder Inc. In June 2016, for
`
`example, the Match Group announced that the “Match Group … has hired Elie Seidman as Chief
`
`Executive Officer of OkCupid.” https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/elie-seidman-joins-
`
`match-group-as-chief-executive-officer-of-OkCupid-300278811.html. The Match Group also
`
`shares officers and directors and shuffles officers throughout its subsidiaries. For example, at
`
`least until recently, the Chairman and CEO of the Match Group was also the CEO of Tinder, Inc.
`
`http://mtch.com/leadership//. The Match Group also recently moved Elie Seidman from his CEO
`
`position at OkCupid (Humor Rainbow, Inc.) to Tinder Inc.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00366-VAC-CJB Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 11 of 41 PageID #: 11
`
`https://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/Match+Group+%28MTCH%29+
`
`Names+Elie+Seidman+as+Tinders+new+CEO/13513868.html. The persons responsible for
`
`overseeing OkCupid and Tinder Inc. also report directly into the Match Group’s CEO, rather
`
`than reporting to their own companies’ boards of directors. Id.
`
`24.
`
`As explained above, IAC/INTERACTIVECORP controls, directs, and operates
`
`all of the accused products/services as its own properties without regard to corporate formalities,
`
`such that the entities providing the accused products/services are alter egos and/or in a
`
`principal/agency relationship with IAC/INTERACTIVECORP.
`
`25.
`
`Finally, none of the operations of OkCupid, Tinder, and/or Vimeo provide any
`
`independent reporting of their revenue or profits and losses. Instead, the revenue and profits and
`
`losses associated with OkCupid, Tinder, and Vimeo are consolidated and reported as part of the
`
`operations of the Match Group and/or IAC/INTERACTIVECORP.
`
`26.
`
`Accordingly, all of the accused infringing activities and products/services (i.e.,
`
`Match.com, OkCupid, Tinder, and Vimeo) comprising infringing activities are directed and
`
`controlled by IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, and operated as a joint enterprise directed and
`
`controlled by IAC/INTERACTIVECORP such that the dispute set forth in this Complaint should
`
`be entirely resolved in this case by this Court.
`
`27.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.,
`
`and the Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`28.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants because each is
`
`incorporated in the State of Delaware, offers infringing products in Delaware, and/or is an agent
`
`and/or alter ego of IAC/INTERACTIVE and/or the Match Group, which reside in the state of
`
`Delaware.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00366-VAC-CJB Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 12 of 41 PageID #: 12
`
`29.
`
`Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because each of the
`
`Defendants is incorporated in -- and therefore resides in -- the State of Delaware and/or is an
`
`agent and/or alter ego of IAC/INTERACTIVE and/or the Match Group, which reside in the state
`
`of Delaware.
`
`30.
`
`The claims asserted herein against the IAC Defendants arise out of the same
`
`transactions, occurrences, or series of transactions, or occurrences relating to the making, using,
`
`selling, and offering for sale the same accused products/services or processes of the patented
`
`inventions without BT’s license or permission. Further, this action will raise questions of fact
`
`common to all defendants. As such, joinder of these Defendants is appropriate under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 299(a)(1)-(2).
`
`Background
`
`31.
`
`BT is the oldest communications company in the world, tracing its origins back to
`
`the Electric Telegraph Company, which was incorporated in England in 1846. Today, more than
`
`170 years after its founding, BT provides communications services in about 180 countries and
`
`employs more than 100,000 people worldwide.
`
`32.
`
`In addition to providing global communications and information services, BT’s
`
`business also includes investing in research and development and creating new technologies that
`
`facilitate and improve the nature and delivery of communications and information services and
`
`the operation of communications networks and information services.
`
`33.
`
`From its earliest beginnings, BT has been at the forefront of research and
`
`innovation in communications technology, starting with BT’s nineteenth century adoption of
`
`then-leading-edge telegraphy, including the world’s first commercial telegraph service.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00366-VAC-CJB Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 13 of 41 PageID #: 13
`
`34.
`
`In 1975, BT opened its renowned research facility at Adastral Park, near Ipswich
`
`in the county of Suffolk, England. Adastral Park has housed some of world’s leading technology
`
`researchers and engineers whose inventive efforts led to the issuance of more than 10,000 patents
`
`by the turn of the 20th century. The innovations created at Adastral Park include the world’s first
`
`instantaneous translation of speech by computer, advanced video-on-demand services,
`
`commercial optical fiber transmission, the world’s fastest regenerator, and the world’s first fully
`
`automated “spam buster” system to track down and block professional spammers.
`
`35.
`
`One of the areas in which BT has heavily invested over the last twenty years is
`
`managing the efficient and effective operation of communications networks and related
`
`computing infrastructure to support diverse information services, particularly in situations where
`
`different types of data for different types of information services are sent in a manner to
`
`accommodate the varying technical requirements of the different information services to users
`
`who access these different information services from varying locations via different network
`
`infrastructure under varying network operational conditions.
`
`36.
`
`BT’s extensive work in this field has led to numerous BT patents, including the
`
`patents asserted in this litigation, which relate to inventions that can be used for the more
`
`efficient and effective delivery of information services, including technologies that enable
`
`information service providers to better manage and deliver information services to diverse
`
`subscriber bases. BT is the owner of the patents asserted in this litigation.
`
`The Patents-In-Suit
`
`37.
`
`On May 29, 2001, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued United States Letters Patent No. 6,240,450 (“the Sharples ‘450 patent”), entitled
`
`“Network Data Visualization System and Method for Downloading Visualization Software to a
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00366-VAC-CJB Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 14 of 41 PageID #: 14
`
`User Station After User Authentication.” BT is the assignee of the entire right, title, and interest
`
`in and to the Sharples ‘450 patent. A true and correct copy of the Sharples ‘450 patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit A to this complaint.
`
`38.
`
`On May 28, 2002, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued United States Letters Patent No. 6,397,040 (“the Titmuss ‘040 patent”), entitled
`
`“Telecommunications Apparatus and Method.” BT is the assignee of the entire right, title, and
`
`interest in and to the Titmuss ‘040 patent. A true and correct copy of the Titmuss ‘040 patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit B to this complaint.
`
`39.
`
`On June 10, 2003, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued United States Letters Patent No. 6,578,079 (“the Gittins ‘079 patent”), entitled
`
`“Communications Node For Providing Network Based Information Service.” BT is the assignee
`
`of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the Gittins ‘079 patent. A true and correct copy of
`
`the Gittins ‘079 patent is attached as Exhibit C to this complaint.
`
`40.
`
`On July 10, 2007, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued United States Letters Patent No. 7,243,105 (“the Thint ‘105 patent”), entitled “Method
`
`and Apparatus for Automatic Updating of User Profiles.” BT is the assignee of the entire right,
`
`title, and interest in and to the Thint ‘105 patent. A true and correct copy of the Thint ‘105
`
`patent is attached as Exhibit D to this complaint.
`
`41.
`
`On July 5, 2011, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued United States Letters Patent No. 7,974,200 (“the Walker ‘200 patent”), entitled
`
`“Transmitting and Receiving Real-Time Data.” BT is the assignee of the entire right, title, and
`
`interest in and to the Walker ‘200 patent. A true and correct copy of the Walker ‘200 patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit E to this complaint.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00366-VAC-CJB Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 15 of 41 PageID #: 15
`
`42.
`
`On November 3, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued United States Letters Patent No. 9,177,297 (“the Thompson ‘297 patent”), entitled
`
`“Distributing Data Messages To Successive Different Subsets of Group Members Based on
`
`Distribution Rules Automatically Selected Using Feedback From a Prior Selected Subset.” BT is
`
`the assignee of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the Thompson ‘297 patent. A true and
`
`correct copy of the Thompson ‘297 patent is attached as Exhibit F to this complaint.
`
`43.
`
` The Sharples ‘450, Titmuss ‘040, Gittins ‘079, Thint ‘105, Walker ‘200, and
`
`Thompson ‘297 patents are unrelated to each other, except insofar as they all relate to
`
`improvements in communications and information technology and are all part of BT’s global
`
`patent portfolio. These patents are collectively herein referenced as the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`44.
`
`The accused social media products/services offered, provided, sold, and used by
`
`IAC, its joint enterprises (e.g., Match.com, OkCupid, Tinder, Vimeo, and others), and their
`
`customers infringe the BT Patents-in Suit. IAC has on information and belief (i) directly
`
`infringed the Patents-in-Suit when providing the accused products/services to customers and
`
`testing those products/services; (ii) directly controlled and directed others (including their co-
`
`defendants) to infringe the Patents-in-Suit when providing the accused products/services to
`
`customers and testing those products/services, and (iii) provided to customers apps, applications,
`
`and/or applets that are directed and controlled by IAC, that have specific features that have no
`
`substantially noninfringing uses, and that are especially adapted to infringe, with instructions for
`
`uses in manners which infringe the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`45.
`
`BT has put IAC on notice of IAC’s infringement of the BT Patents-in-Suit insofar
`
`as required by law. IAC nevertheless has disregarded BT’s notice, refused BT’s efforts to
`
`reasonably resolve this dispute, and has continued infringing the BT Patents-in-Suit. IAC and its
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00366-VAC-CJB Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 16 of 41 PageID #: 16
`
`subsidiaries were aware of at least the Sharples ‘450 patent, the Titmuss ‘040 patent and the
`
`Thint ‘105 patent since at least September 7, 2015, when BT put IAC on notice of each of these
`
`patents in a letter from Peter Ratcliffe, Chief Counsel Intellectual Property Rights at BT to Mr.
`
`Joey Levin, Chief Executive Officer of IAC. BT had subsequent communications with
`
`defendants’ counsel, including a November 2015 meeting with counsel, a December 18, 2015,
`
`letter, a November 10, 2016, meeting among counsel and a December 15, 2016, letter. Such
`
`communications included providing detailed presentations setting out exemplary infringement
`
`contentions.
`
`46.
`
`In addition, defendants were also aware of the Gittins ‘079 patent and the Walker
`
`‘200 patent at least as early as December 15, 2016, when BT’s counsel informed them that these
`
`patents were also of current interest and were infringed by IAC’s Vimeo products/services.
`
`Furthermore, on information and belief, defendants were aware of the Thompson ‘297 patent and
`
`its application to Tinder’s Smart Photos features as well as of at least that time, December 15,
`
`2016, and certainly no later than the date of filing of this lawsuit.
`
`COUNT I
`Infringement of The Sharples ‘450 Patent
`
`BT re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-46 above.
`
`The Sharples ‘450 patent is directed to an improved method of providing data
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`visualization to a remote user.
`
`49.
`
`The claimed invention of Sharples ‘450 is rooted in computer technology to
`
`overcome problems specifically arising in the realm of networked computer systems and
`
`provides improvements over prior art visualization systems. For example, to improve upon prior
`
`art visualization systems, Sharples ‘450 provides “a way to give remote access to data, together
`
`with visualization capability, to non-technical users.” Sharples ‘450, 1:47-49. In prior art
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00366-VAC-CJB Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 17 of 41 PageID #: 17
`
`visualization systems, “data is generally stored locally to the computer on which the visualization
`
`is to be performed and each set of data is approached with the user writing software to produce a
`
`different visualization.” Sharples ‘450, 1:40-43. But the invention in Sharples ‘450 “enable[s] a
`
`non-technical user, at a remote location with respect to a database, to access a complex data set
`
`and to control the manner of presentation so that the data is presented in a graphic and
`
`understandable way,” Sharples ‘450, 2:15-18, by “storing [a] data visualisation software tool in a
`
`computer system” and “authenticating [a] request [for the tool] and outputting or copying the
`
`tool to the user” in response to “receiving a request to the computer system from a remote user
`
`for the tool,” Sharples, ‘450, 9:60-67. Accordingly, the invention of Sharples ‘450 is directed to
`
`a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts, and it improves the
`
`function and operation of the visualization system itself rather than performing some well-known
`
`function with a computer used in its ordinary capacity.
`
`50. Additionally, the particular arrangement of elements in the invention of Sharples
`
`‘450 results in technical improvements over prior art systems. Unlike prior art systems where
`
`“data is generally stored locally to the computer on which the visualization is to be performed
`
`and each set of data is approached with the user writing software to produce a different
`
`visualization,” Sharples ‘450, 1:40-43, the invention of Sharples ‘450 “enable[s] a non-technical
`
`user, at a remote location with respect to a database, to access a complex data set and to control
`
`the manner of presentation so that the data is presented in a graphic and understandable way,”
`
`Sharples ‘450, 2:15-18, by “storing [a] data visualisation software tool in a computer system”
`
`and “authenticating [a] request [for the tool] and outputting or copying the tool to the user” in
`
`response to “receiving a request to the computer system from a remote user for the tool,”
`
`Sharples, ‘450, 9:60-67. In operation, the invention of Sharples ‘450 provides technical benefits
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00366-VAC-CJB Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 18 of 41 PageID #: 18
`
`by “bring[ing] data visualisation techniques to a far greater range of users” and, “where large
`
`quantities of data are routinely collected on computerised monitoring systems,” by (i)
`
`“[a]llowing a wider range of people within an organisation, with widely differing technical
`
`capabilities, to examine this data [and]…provide a valuable insight into the effectiveness of a
`
`particular operation” and/or (ii) “provid[ing] better information to…customers.” Sharples ‘450,
`
`2:14-30. Further, the invention of Sharples ‘450 includes both (i) inventive programming and
`
`(ii) an inventive distribution of functionality within a computing network. For example, in some
`
`embodiments, the “data visualization software tool” comprises an applet “written in the Java
`
`programming language.” Sharples ‘450, 4:30-31. And the claims of Sharples ‘450 cover an
`
`inventive distribution of functionality with a client-server computing network, including “storing
`
`the data visualisation software tool in a computer system” remote from the user and
`
`“authenticating [a] request [for the tool] and outputting or copying the tool to the user” in
`
`response to “receiving a request to the computer system from [the] remote user for the tool.”
`
`Sharples ‘450, 9:50-67.
`
`51. Without license or authorization, IAC has been and is directly infringing,
`
`contributing to, and/or inducing infringement of the Sharples ‘450 patent by offering, selling,
`
`providing, and/or using Vimeo to provide charts, graphs, and statistics to Vimeo customers. IAC
`
`operates and controls Vimeo throughout the United States and in Delaware in a manner that
`
`illegally uses the BT invention claimed in the Sharples ‘450 patent. For example, IAC has either
`
`itself directly infringed the Sharples ‘450 patent in this manner, or directed and controlled its co-
`
`defendants and/or third parties to infringe the Sharples ‘450 patent in this manner. Further, IAC
`
`has continued to contribute to and/or actively induce the infringement of the Sharples ‘450 patent
`
`after receiving notice of its infringement by providing software to co-defendants and/or third
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00366-VAC-CJB Document 1 Filed 03/08/18 Page 19 of 41 PageID #: 19
`
`parties that has no substantial non-infringing use knowing the same to be especially adapted to
`
`infringe and to instruct such co-defendants and/or third parties to provide Vimeo
`
`products/services in a manner that infringes the Sharples ‘450 patent.
`
`52. More particularly and by way of example but not limitation, IAC has directly
`
`infringed, actively induced the infringement of, and/or contributorily infringed the Sharples ‘450
`
`patent by providing the Advanced Stats features of Vimeo to Vimeo customers.
`
`53.
`
`IAC’s activities infringe BT’s Sharples ‘450 patent rights under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271
`
`(a), (b), and (c). On information and belief, IAC has continued to infringe and to actively induce
`
`and/or contribute to the infringement of the Sharples ‘450 patent after receiving notice of its
`
`infringement.
`
`54.
`
`IAC’s conduct not only usurps BT’s technology but also undermines BT’s
`
`reputation and goodwill, such that BT has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`55.
`
`IAC’s infringing activities have damaged BT and caused damage to BT’s rights.
`
`The extent of damage suffered by BT and caused by IAC is not yet known, but the damage is
`
`substantial and will be determined in the course of litigation.
`
`56.
`
`IAC’s infringement of the Sharples ‘450 patent has been knowing, deliberate,
`
`willful, and in reckless disregard of BT’s rights.
`
`57