`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MULTIMEDIA CONTENT
`MANAGEMENT LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`
`
`v.
`
`DISH NETWORK
`CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
` Civil Action No.: 6:18-cv-207
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PATENT CASE
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Multimedia Content Management LLC (“MCM” or “Plaintiff”), files
`
`this Complaint against DISH Network Corporation seeking damages and other
`
`relief for patent infringement, and alleges with knowledge to its own acts, and on
`
`information and belief as to other matters, as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff is a limited liability company organized and existing under the
`
`laws of the State of Texas, having its principal place of business at 5068 West Plano
`
`Parkway, Suite 300, Plano, Texas 75093.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant DISH Network Corporation (“DISH” or “Defendant”) is a
`
`Nevada corporation with regular and established physical places of business within
`
`this judicial district, and its principal place of business at 9601 South Meridian
`
`Boulevard, Englewood, Colorado. DISH is registered for the right to transact
`
`business in Texas and has a Texas taxpayer number (18803369976).
`
`DISH, Exh.1012, p.0001
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-RP-JCM Document 1 Filed 07/25/18 Page 2 of 24
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C.
`
`§101, et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and
`
`1338(a).
`
`4.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §1400(b). DISH
`
`maintains regular and established physical places of business within this judicial
`
`district, including but not limited to: (i) a Customer call center, warehouse, service,
`
`and remanufacturing center located at 1285 Joe Battle Blvd., Suite A, El Paso, Texas;
`
`(ii) a micro digital broadcast operations center near Mustang Ridge, Texas; and (iii)
`
`a regional digital broadcast operations center near New Braunfels, Texas. (DISH
`
`Annual Report
`
`for year ending 12/31/2017 at p. 58, available at
`
`http://www.annualreports.com/Company/dish-network-corp). On information and
`
`belief, from and within this District, DISH has committed acts of infringement at
`
`issue in this case.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant is subject to this Court’s specific and general personal
`
`jurisdiction pursuant to due process or the Texas Long Arm Statute, due at least to
`
`Defendant’s substantial business in this forum, including: (i) business related to
`
`infringing acts as alleged herein; or (ii) regularly doing or soliciting business,
`
`engaging in other persistent courses of conduct, or deriving substantial revenue from
`
`goods and services provided to individuals in Texas and in this district. Within this
`
`state, Defendant has committed, and continues to commit, acts of patent
`
`infringement as alleged herein. In addition, Defendant has derived revenues from
`
`
`
`2
`
`DISH, Exh.1012, p.0002
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-RP-JCM Document 1 Filed 07/25/18 Page 3 of 24
`
`its infringing acts occurring within the Western District of Texas. Further,
`
`Defendant is subject to the Court’s general jurisdiction, including from regularly
`
`doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses of conduct, and
`
`deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to persons or entities
`
`within Texas and within the Western District of Texas. Further, Defendant is subject
`
`to the Court’s personal jurisdiction at least due to its sale of products or services
`
`within Texas and within the Western District of Texas. Defendant has committed
`
`such purposeful acts or transactions in Texas such that it reasonably should know
`
`and expect that it could be haled into this Court because of such activity.
`
`THE PATENTS IN SUIT
`
`6.
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) duly and
`
`legally issued United States Patent No. 8,799,468 (“the ’468 Patent”) entitled “System
`
`for Regulating Access to and Distributing Content in a Network” to Robert M. Burke
`
`II and David Z. Carman on August 5, 2014. The ’468 Patent claims priority from
`
`United States Patent Application No. 10/989,023, now United States Patent No.
`
`8,122,128, and claims priority to United States Provisional Application No.
`
`60/523,057 filed on November 18, 2003. A true and correct copy of the ’468 Patent is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`7.
`
`The USPTO, and technology leaders including Apple Computer, Inc.,
`
`Time Warner Cable, and Sony Computer Entertainment, have cited the ’468 Patent
`
`over
`
`130
`
`times.
`
`
`
`See
`
`https://patents.google.com/patent/US8799468B2/-
`
`en?oq=8%2c799%2c468+#citedBy (last accessed July 2, 2018).
`
`
`
`3
`
`DISH, Exh.1012, p.0003
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-RP-JCM Document 1 Filed 07/25/18 Page 4 of 24
`
`8.
`
`On August 11, 2017, Unified Patents Inc. filed a 105-page Petition (with
`
`14 exhibits) before the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§311–319 seeking to institute an inter partes review of Claims
`
`1‒5, 9, 11‒13, 19, 23‒27, and 32‒34 of the ’468 Patent. Unified Patents argued that
`
`the claims were obvious and therefore invalid under 35 USC §103. Applying the
`
`standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which requires that Petitioner demonstrate
`
`a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one challenged
`
`claim, the Board denied the Petition. See Exhibit E attached (Decision Denying
`
`Institution of Inter Partes Review in IPR2017-01934, March 5, 2018). “We also
`
`conclude Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. . . .”
`
`Id. at 15.
`
`9.
`
`The USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No. 9,465,925
`
`(“the ’925 Patent”) entitled “System for Regulating Access to and Distributing
`
`Content in a Network” to Robert M. Burke II and David Z. Carman on October 11,
`
`2016. The ’925 Patent claims priority to U.S. Patent App. No. 13/369,174 (now the
`
`ʼ468 Patent), and claims priority to United States Provisional Application No.
`
`60/523,057 filed on November 18, 2003. A true and correct copy of the ’925 Patent is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`10. The USPTO, and technology leaders including Time Warner Cable and
`
`Sony Computer Entertainment, have cited the ’925 Patent over 130 times. See
`
`https://patents.google.com/patent/US9465925#citedBy (last accessed March 3, 2018).
`
`
`
`4
`
`DISH, Exh.1012, p.0004
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-RP-JCM Document 1 Filed 07/25/18 Page 5 of 24
`
`11. MCM is the assignee of all right, title, and interest to both the ’468
`
`Patent and the ’925 Patent (“the Patents-in-suit”). Accordingly, MCM has standing
`
`to bring the instant suit to enforce its rights under the patent laws of the United
`
`States, including the right to collect damages for past infringement.
`
`12. MCM has not practiced any claimed invention of the Patents-in-suit.
`
`13. The Patents-in-suit describe and claim systems and methods for
`
`regulating access to a service provider network.
`
`14. The Patents-in-suit describe systems and methods to rapidly and
`
`efficiently deliver content, such as music, video, games, broadband data, real-time
`
`audio or voice applications, and software, to subscribers while respecting the rights
`
`of the owners of the intellectual property that protect such content. ’468 Patent, at
`
`1:24–51; ʼ925 Patent, at 1:30–59.
`
`15. The specifications of the Patents-in-suit recount the reluctance of the
`
`owners of proprietary content, including those in the motion picture industry, to
`
`provide their content over the internet “having seen the negative impact that piracy
`
`has already had on the Music Recording Industry.” ʼ468 Patent, 1:60–62; ʼ925 Patent,
`
`2:1–3.
`
`16. To avoid a similar fate, service providers—like cable TV providers and
`
`content providers—like the motion picture industry—needed some assurance that
`
`their “intellectual property (music, video, games, software, etc.) will be secure from
`
`illegal downloading and transmission over the [otherwise insecure] Internet.” ʼ468
`
`Patent, 1:60–63; ʼ925 Patent, 2:1–3.
`
`
`
`5
`
`DISH, Exh.1012, p.0005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-RP-JCM Document 1 Filed 07/25/18 Page 6 of 24
`
`17. Regulating access to proprietary content to customers connected via a
`
`network in the manner claimed in the ʼ468 and ’925 Patents solved technical
`
`problems previously existing in the field of digital content distribution. For example,
`
`the Patents-in-suit describe systems and methods for providing “a gateway unit
`
`associated with a user [that] receives controller instructions from the network” such
`
`that when “a gateway unit receives a network access request from a user” the
`
`“gateway unit selectively transmits the network access request[] over the network”
`
`only in “accordance with . . . controller instructions.” ʼ468 Patent, 8:54–61; ʼ925
`
`Patent, 8:12–21. Thus, the customer only receives authorized content, which allows
`
`content providers to make more content available through their networks.
`
`18. Prior to the inventions of the ʼ925 and ’468 Patents, “[s]ervice providers
`
`and content providers need[ed] the assurance that the[ir] intellectual property
`
`(music, video, games, software, etc.)” would be “secure from illegal downloading and
`
`transmission over the Internet,” which had become “a major source of lost revenues
`
`and the basis for hundreds of lawsuits.” ʼ468 Patent, 1:52–56; ʼ925 Patent, 1:60–64.
`
`19. The ’925 and ’468 Patents describe “[t]echniques that reduce the strain
`
`on a content provider’s resources” and “improve the speed and efficiency of accessing
`
`content in a network.” ʼ468 Patent, 1:66–2:2; ʼ925 Patent, 2:7–11.
`
`20. The computer techniques described in the ’925 and ’468 Patents also
`
`“reduce the . . . volume[] of network data traffic” by efficiently managing the
`
`distribution of proprietary content. ʼ468 Patent, 1:66–2:2; ʼ925 Patent, 2:7–11.
`
`
`
`6
`
`DISH, Exh.1012, p.0006
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-RP-JCM Document 1 Filed 07/25/18 Page 7 of 24
`
`21. The specifications of the Patents-in-suit explain, for example that the
`
`claimed systems and methods may deny “subscribers the capability to send or to
`
`receive data from or to ‘pirate’ URLs or IP addresses that are known to contain
`
`unlicensed copyrighted material.” ʼ468 Patent, 7:65–8:6; ʼ925 Patent, 8:24–32. The
`
`claimed techniques enable the network to direct that only authorized sources can
`
`access the requested content.
`
`22. The ʼ925 and ʼ468 Patent describe systems and methods that include
`
`“communication gateways, installed at a subscriber site, internet control points,
`
`installed remotely, and various network elements installed throughout the network.”
`
`ʼ468 Patent, at Abstract; ʼ925 Patent, at Abstract. “The communication gateways
`
`and network elements operate in conjunction with the internet control points to
`
`restrict or allow access to specified Internet sites and to manage efficient distribution
`
`of content.” Id.
`
`23. The Patents-in-suit describe methods that use “a controller node coupled
`
`to the network” and the “controller node [includes] a . . . processor for generating
`
`controller instructions.” ʼ468 Patent, at 2:24–28; ’925 Patent, at 2:33–38. The
`
`controller node also includes a “network interface for transmitting the controller
`
`instructions over the network.” ʼ468 Patent, at 2:27–28; ʼ925 Patent; 2:37–38.
`
`24. The systems and methods can also use one or more gateway units, which
`
`are components that include “a user interface [that can] receiv[e] user-entered
`
`network access requests.” ʼ468 Patent, at 2:28–38; ʼ925 Patent, at 2: 38–48.
`
`
`
`7
`
`DISH, Exh.1012, p.0007
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-RP-JCM Document 1 Filed 07/25/18 Page 8 of 24
`
`25. There can also be “a second network interface coupled to the network
`
`[to] receiv[e] controller instructions from the network and a second processor, [where]
`
`the second processor selectively transmit[s] at least some of the network access
`
`requests over the network in accordance with the controller instructions.” 468
`
`Patent, at 2:28–38; ʼ925 Patent, at 2:38–48.
`
`26. Claims of the Patents-in-suit also recite systems and methods for
`
`“regulating access to a service provider network.” ʼ468 Patent, at 20:59–60 (Claim
`
`23); ʼ925 Patent, at 21:36–37 (Claim 29).
`
`27. The ʼ925 and ʼ468 Patents describe systems and methods that include
`
`“a controller node [that is] coupled to the network” where the “controller node
`
`[includes at least one] processor [that] generates controller instructions.” ʼ468
`
`Patent, at 2:53–59; ʼ925 Patent, at 2:63–3:2.
`
`28. The ʼ468 and ʼ925 Patents also describe one or more “network units”
`
`that can include “a second network interface coupled to the network,” where “the
`
`second network interface in at least . . . one of the network units receiv[es] controller
`
`instructions from the network.” ʼ468 Patent, at 2:39–52; ʼ925 Patent, at 2:49–62.
`
`29. The second network interface component can also “receiv[e] a portion of
`
`a content data file from at least a second one of the network units and a second
`
`processor.” ʼ468 Patent, at 2:39–52; ʼ925 Patent, at 2:49–62.
`
`30.
`
` The “second processor in the at least first one of the network units” is a
`
`component that can “selectively forward [a] portion of the content data file received
`
`from . . . one of the network units to at least a third . . . network unit,” all “in
`
`
`
`8
`
`DISH, Exh.1012, p.0008
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-RP-JCM Document 1 Filed 07/25/18 Page 9 of 24
`
`accordance with the controller instructions.” ʼ468 Patent, at 2:39–52; ʼ925 Patent, at
`
`2:49–3:13.
`
`31. Fig. 1 of the ’925 Patent illustrates an architecture that is a “collection
`
`of hardware components and software routines executed by the components.” ’925
`
`Patent, col. 3, ll. 46-49.
`
`
`From the top of Fig. 1, an internet service provider 62 works in conjunction with
`
`communication gateways 58. Components 56 and 57 have proprietary digital content
`
`delivered by using, in part, an otherwise insecure network such as the internet (item
`
`52 in Fig. 1). Subscriber terminals, 601 through 60n, can include various devices
`
`including television monitors and computers. Communication gateways “operate in
`
`conjunction” with the internet service provider “under the control of ‘controller
`
`nodes,’” which in Fig. 1 is labeled as “internet control point” 50. ’925 Patent col. 3, ll.
`
`9
`
`DISH, Exh.1012, p.0009
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-RP-JCM Document 1 Filed 07/25/18 Page 10 of 24
`
`55-58. “The software routines located in” the communications gateways and the
`
`controller nodes “provide a suite of features for the system.” Id. at ll. 60-65. The
`
`controller nodes “control subscriber access to web sites and . . . deliver data to
`
`subscribers.” Id. at 66-67.
`
`32. The Patents-in-suit describe systems and methods for “the delivery of
`
`electronic data or content such as music, video, games, broadband data, real-time
`
`audio and voice applications, and software to subscribers . . . while also protecting the
`
`rights of the owners of content, that is, the owners of intellectual property.” ʼ468
`
`Patent, at 1:24–28; 42–51; ’925 Patent, at 1:30–34, 49–56.
`
`33. Content can be downloaded to a subscriber’s set-top box (“STB”) yet
`
`remain under the control of the access regulation system. For example, a subscriber
`
`may download a movie at one time and later resume watching the movie after taking
`
`a break. That feature reduces network and internet traffic and speeds up the flow of
`
`traffic on the network.
`
`34. The Patents-in-suit solve technical problems that arose in the context of
`
`providing internet services: “The . . . Internet, [and] any similar private or managed
`
`network, provides a convenient medium for the delivery of electronic data or content
`
`such as music, video, games, broadband data, real-time audio and voice applications,
`
`and software to subscribers,” but that convenient medium for the delivery of
`
`electronic data produced some serious problems. ʼ468 Patent, at 1:24–28; ʼ925
`
`Patent; at 1:30–34. “Recent music industry lawsuits over the distribution of pirated
`
`music . . . evidence[d] the difficulties” that could not be solved by digital rights
`
`
`
`10
`
`DISH, Exh.1012, p.0010
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-RP-JCM Document 1 Filed 07/25/18 Page 11 of 24
`
`management laws and policies alone. ʼ468 Patent, at 1:49–52; ʼ925 Patent, at 1:56–
`
`59.
`
`35. Before, “content providers” would make digital copies of their materials
`
`available for electronic distribution they “need[ed] assurance that the intellectual
`
`property (music, video, games, software, etc.) [would] be secure from illegal
`
`downloading and transmission over the Internet,” which the music industry had
`
`shown was “a major source of lost revenues and the basis for hundreds of lawsuits.”
`
`ʼ468 Patent, at 1:52–55; ʼ925 Patent, at 1:60–64.
`
`36. The techniques described in the ’925 and ’468 Patents “reduce the strain
`
`on . . . content provider’s resources” and also reduce the “volume[] of network data
`
`traffic” which “improve the speed and efficiency of accessing content in a network.”
`
`ʼ468 Patent, at 1:66–2:2; ʼ925 Patent, at 2:8–11.
`
`37.
`
` Claim 23 of the ʼ468 Patent recites “selectively transmitting, by the
`
`plurality of gateway units, the content requests to the service provider network in
`
`accordance with the controller instructions.” ʼ468 Patent, at 21:3–5; see also ʼ925
`
`Patent, at 21:45–48 (Claim 29 reciting “selectively transmitting, by the plurality of
`
`network elements, the content requests to the service provider network in accordance
`
`with the controller instructions.”).
`
`38.
`
`Selectively transmitting content requests in accordance with controller
`
`instructions reduces the volume of network data traffic and improves the speed and
`
`efficiency of accessing content in a network.
`
`
`
`11
`
`DISH, Exh.1012, p.0011
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-RP-JCM Document 1 Filed 07/25/18 Page 12 of 24
`
`39. The ʼ468 and ʼ925 Patents describe an approach to solving a technical
`
`problem: “to provide new access regulation and data traffic control techniques that
`
`can be made available to telephone line carriers, ISPs, enterprises, [and] cable
`
`television companies, for their Internet access networks.” ʼ468 Patent, at 2:11–14;
`
`ʼ925 Patent, at 2:21–24.
`
`40. DISH operates a network to provide, among other services, TV and
`
`video-on-demand (VOD) services to its customers. The DISH network includes a data
`
`center and a distribution network. The data center has a collection of computing
`
`resources, such as servers and memory storage devices, to manage, store, and deliver
`
`content over the distribution network, including video on-demand movies, to
`
`customers.
`
`41. The DISH network also includes STBs, such as the “Hopper” family of
`
`receivers, including the Hopper 3, Hopper Duo, Hopper, and Wally, for lease to its
`
`subscribers.
`
`42.
`
`Set-Top Boxes are located in subscriber homes, connect to the DISH
`
`network, and allow subscribers to view television programs, record shows and movies,
`
`and purchase pay-per-view movies and other programming content (such as special
`
`events and other on-demand shows).
`
`43. While the STBs are located within subscriber homes, DISH maintains
`
`ownership and control of the STBs.
`
`44. Movies and other programming (special events, on-demand shows, and
`
`other on-demand programming content) purchased on demand are generally referred
`
`
`
`12
`
`DISH, Exh.1012, p.0012
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-RP-JCM Document 1 Filed 07/25/18 Page 13 of 24
`
`to as impulse pay per view (“IPPV”) (hereinafter “IPPV content”). With the DISH
`
`service, customers can order IPPV content using a remote control in conjunction with
`
`a STB. Ordering IPPV content is accomplished through the use of an interactive
`
`program guide (“IPG”) (e.g. displayed on a TV) that enables the user to select from
`
`options to confirm content purchases.
`
`45. Once IPPV content is purchased (or rented) by a subscriber, the
`
`subscriber typically has 24 hours to watch the IPPV content. IPPV content, such as
`
`a movie, can be watched as many times as practical within the 24-hour rental
`
`window. During this window, the subscriber can watch the IPPV content on multiple
`
`channels via the “All Day DISH Ticket.”
`
`46. A DISH data center transmits control instructions to the STBs. Control
`
`instructions include Digital Rights Management (DRM) messages used to control
`
`access to certain content. Control instructions also include updated firmware and
`
`software for the STBs, as well as updated instructions for implementing and updating
`
`the IPG.
`
`47. When the DISH data center updates the IPG of a STB, the DISH data
`
`center sends the DRM messages to the STB. The DRM messages indicate, among
`
`other things, whether content may be available for a limited time. According to
`
`DISH’s website, DRM “is a systematic approach to copyright protection, focusing on
`
`making it impossible to steal content in the first place. All pay TV providers, including
`
`DISH, are required to apply protection like limited recording or high-bandwidth
`
`
`
`13
`
`DISH, Exh.1012, p.0013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-RP-JCM Document 1 Filed 07/25/18 Page 14 of 24
`
`digital content protection (HDCP) to select content.” See, e.g., (last accessed July 2,
`
`2018):
`
`https://www.mydish.com/support/drm;
`
`https://rvseniormoments.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/h3_hopper3.pdf;
`
`http://about.dish.com/2016-01-05-DISH-Unveils-Hopper-3-with-Enhanced-4K-
`
`Experience-Most-Simultaneous-Recording-Processing-Power-of-Any-DVR-
`
`Announces-HopperGO-for-Offline-Viewing-of-Recorded-Content?asPDF=1;
`
`https://rvseniormoments.com/tech-docs/dish-tv-for-rvs/hopper-3-use-in-an-
`
`rv/hopper-3-the-winegard-travler/;
`
`http://dishnetwork.ws/dpf/Hopper+3+Packet.pdf;
`
`https://www.mydish.com/support/same-video-2-tvs;
`
`https://www.mydish.com/support/products/hopper/how-to/manage/live-tv; and
`
`https://www.mydish.com/filestream.ashx?ID=14292.
`
`COUNT I
`
`(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,799,468)
`
`48. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs by reference.
`
`49. The ’468 Patent is presumed valid.
`
`50. Plaintiff is the sole owner of the ’468 Patent.
`
`51. DISH uses, offers for sale, and sells in the United States TV and video-
`
`on-demand (“VOD”) products and services, including network-related services that
`
`involve a data center and media devices, such as, but not limited to, the Hopper 3
`
`
`
`14
`
`DISH, Exh.1012, p.0014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-RP-JCM Document 1 Filed 07/25/18 Page 15 of 24
`
`DVR with Joey receivers (“Accused DVR Device”) (collectively, the “Accused
`
`Product”).
`
`52. Through the use, offer for sale, and sale of the Accused Product, DISH
`
`directly infringed and continues to infringe at least Claim 23 of the ’468 Patent, which
`
`recites:
`
`23. A method for regulating access to a service provider network,
`
`the method comprising:
`
`generating, by a controller node coupled to the service provider
`
`network, controller instructions;
`
`transmitting the controller instructions, by the controller node,
`
`to a plurality of gateway units of the service provider network;
`
`receiving, by the gateway units, user-entered content requests
`
`for the service provider network;
`
`receiving, by the gateway units, from the controller node, the
`
`controller instructions;
`
`selectively transmitting, by the plurality of gateway units, the
`
`content requests to the service provider network in accordance with
`
`the controller instructions; and
`
`transferring, by the gateway units, received content data
`
`responsive to the transmitted content requests from the service
`
`provider network.
`
`’468 Patent, at 20:59–21:9.
`
`
`
`15
`
`DISH, Exh.1012, p.0015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-RP-JCM Document 1 Filed 07/25/18 Page 16 of 24
`
`53. Exhibit C, attached hereto, includes a claim chart that shows how each
`
`and every element of Claim 23 of the ’468 Patent is found in the Accused Product.
`
`54. Viewed in light of the specification of the ’468 Patent, the claims are not
`
`directed to basic tools of scientific and technological work, nor are they directed to a
`
`fundamental economic practice. For example, the ʼ468 Patent describes a system for
`
`“regulating access and managing distribution of content in a network, such as the
`
`Internet. The system includes communication gateways, installed at a subscriber
`
`site, internet control points, installed remotely, and various network elements
`
`installed throughout the network.” ʼ468 Patent, at Abstract.
`
`55. The ’468 Patent claims are not directed to the use of an abstract
`
`mathematical formula on any general-purpose computer, or a purely conventional
`
`computer implementation of a mathematical formula, or generalized steps to be
`
`performed on a computer using conventional activity. For example, the ʼ468 Patent
`
`describes the use of specific electronic devices, including controller nodes and gateway
`
`units. ʼ468 Patent, at 20:59–21:9. The specific electronic devices, including controller
`
`nodes and gateway units, regulate access and manage distribution of content in a
`
`network through the use of specific content requests and controller instructions. ʼ468
`
`Patent, at 20:59–21:9.
`
`56. The ’468 Patent claims are not directed to a method of organizing
`
`human activity or to a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system
`
`of commerce. The ʼ468 Patent describes an approach to solving a technical problem:
`
`“to provide new access regulation and data traffic control techniques that can be made
`
`
`
`16
`
`DISH, Exh.1012, p.0016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-RP-JCM Document 1 Filed 07/25/18 Page 17 of 24
`
`available to telephone line carriers, ISPs, enterprises, [and] cable television
`
`companies, for their Internet access networks.” ʼ468 Patent, at 2:11–14.
`
`57. The ’468 Patent does not take a well-known or established business
`
`method or process and apply it to a general-purpose computer. The ʼ468 Patent
`
`describes a system and method that uses specific components to solve the technical
`
`problem of providing access regulation and data traffic control techniques. For
`
`example, the ʼ468 Patent describes using “a gateway unit associated with a user” to
`
`receive “controller instructions from the network.” The gateway unit “receives a
`
`network access request from a user, via a subscriber terminal,” and “selectively
`
`transmits the network access requests over the network in accordance with the
`
`controller instructions.” The gateway unit also “receives content data responsive to
`
`the transmitted network access request from the network.” ʼ468 Patent, at 7:54–65.
`
`58. As noted by United States Patents, foreign patent documents, and other
`
`publications cited by the ’468 Patent, the ’468 Patent does not preempt the field of
`
`its invention or preclude use of other methods or systems of regulating access to a
`
`service provider network.
`
`59. The Accused DVR Device and the other information included in the
`
`attached claim charts, see Exhibit C, are non-limiting examples that were identified
`
`based on publicly available information, and Plaintiff reserves its right to identify
`
`additional infringing activities, products and services, including, for example, on the
`
`basis of information obtained during discovery.
`
`
`
`17
`
`DISH, Exh.1012, p.0017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-RP-JCM Document 1 Filed 07/25/18 Page 18 of 24
`
`60. DISH has infringed, and continues to infringe, at least one claim of the
`
`’468 Patent (e.g., claim 23) in the United States by making, using, offering for sale,
`
`selling, or importing the Accused Product in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). See, e.g.,
`
`Preliminary Claim Chart (Exhibit C).
`
`61. Plaintiff has been damaged by DISH’s infringement of the ’468 Patent.
`
`62. DISH has had actual knowledge of the ’468 Patent since at least the
`
`service of this Complaint.
`
`63. At least as early as service of this Complaint, DISH indirectly infringes
`
`the ’468 Patent within the United States by inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). By
`
`failing to cease making, using, selling, importing, and/or offering for sale the Accused
`
`Product at least as of the service of this Complaint, Defendants have knowingly and
`
`intentionally induced users of the Accused Products to directly infringe one or more
`
`claims of the ’468 Patent, inter alia, by: (1) providing instructions or information, for
`
`example on its publicly available website, to explain how to use the Accused Product
`
`in an infringing manner, including the use of the Accused Product in manners
`
`described above, which are expressly incorporated herein; and (2) touting these
`
`infringing uses of the Accused Product in advertisements, including but not limited
`
`to, those on its website.
`
`
`
`18
`
`DISH, Exh.1012, p.0018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-RP-JCM Document 1 Filed 07/25/18 Page 19 of 24
`
`COUNT II
`
`(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,465,925)
`
`64. Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs by reference.
`
`65. The ’925 Patent is presumed valid.
`
`66. Through the use, offer for sale, and sale of the Accused Product, DISH
`
`infringes and continues to infringe at least Claim 29 of the ’925 Patent, which recites:
`
`29. A method for regulating access to a service provider network,
`
`the method comprising:
`
`generating, by a controller node coupled to the service provider
`
`network, controller instructions;
`
`transmitting the controller instructions, by the controller node,
`
`to a plurality of network elements of the service provider network;
`
`receiving, by the network elements, content requests for the
`
`service provider network;
`
`selectively transmitting, by the plurality of network elements,
`
`the content requests to the service provider network in accordance
`
`with the controller instructions; and
`
`transferring, by the network elements, received content data
`
`responsive to the transmitted content requests from the service
`
`provider network.
`
`’925 Patent, at 21:36–51.
`
`
`
`19
`
`DISH, Exh.1012, p.0019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-RP-JCM Document 1 Filed 07/25/18 Page 20 of 24
`
`67. Exhibit D, attached hereto, includes a claim chart that shows how each
`
`and every element of Claim 29 of the ’925 Patent is found in the Accused Product.
`
`68. Viewed in light of the specification of the ’925 Patent, the claims are not
`
`directed to basic tools of scientific and technological work, nor are they directed to a
`
`fundamental economic practice. For example, the ʼ925 Patent describes a system for
`
`“regulating access and managing distribution of content in a network, such as the
`
`Internet. The system includes communication gateways, installed at a subscriber
`
`site, internet control points, installed remotely, and various network elements
`
`installed throughout the network.” ʼ925 Patent, at Abstract.
`
`69. The ’925 Patent claims are not directed to the use of an abstract
`
`mathematical formula on any general-purpose computer, or a purely conventional
`
`computer implementation of a mathematical formula, or generalized steps to be
`
`performed on a computer using conventional activity. For example, the ʼ925 Patent
`
`describes the use of specific electronic devices, including controller nodes and network
`
`elements. ʼ925 Patent, at 21:36–48. The specific electronic devices, including
`
`controller nodes and network elements, regulate access and manage distribution of
`
`content in a network through the use of specific content requests and controller
`
`instructions. ʼ925 Patent, at 21:36–48.
`
`70. The ’925 Patent claims are not directed to a method of organizing
`
`human activity or to a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system
`
`of commerce. The ʼ925 Patent describes an approach to solving a technical problem:
`
`“to provide new access regulation and data traffic control techniques that can be made
`
`
`
`20
`
`DISH, Exh.1012, p.0020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:18-cv-00207-RP-JCM Document 1 Filed 07/25/18 Page 21 of 24
`
`available to telephone line carriers, ISPs, enterprises, [and] cable television
`
`companies, for their Internet access networks.” Id. at 2:21–24.
`
`71. The ’925 Patent does not take a well-known or established business
`
`method or process and apply it to a general-purpose computer. The ʼ925 Patent