Case 2:19-cv-04980 Document 1 Filed 06/07/19 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:1
`
`Douglas G. Muehlhauser (SBN 179495)
`doug.muehlhauser@knobbe.com
`Payson LeMeilleur (SBN 205690)
`payson.lemeilleur@knobbe.com
`Mark Lezama (SBN 253479)
`mark.lezama@knobbe.com
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, Fourteenth Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Telephone: 949-760-0404
`Facsimile: 949-760-9502
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`NOMADIX, INC.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`NOMADIX, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`GUEST-TEK INTERACTIVE
`ENTERTAINMENT LTD.,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No.
`2:19-cv-04980
`NOMADIX’S COMPLAINT
`FOR BREACH OF
`CONTRACT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NOMADIX 2011
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-01191
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04980 Document 1 Filed 06/07/19 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:2
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Nomadix hereby complains of Defendant Guest-Tek Interactive
`Entertainment Ltd. (“Guest-Tek”) and alleges as follows:
`JURISDICTION, PARTIES, AND VENUE
`1.
`into a
`Plaintiff Nomadix and Defendant Guest-Tek entered
`Confidential License Agreement, a written license agreement with effective date
`December 30, 2010 (the “License Agreement”). This Complaint states a cause of
`action for breach of contract—specifically, for breach of the License Agreement.
`This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
`2.
`Plaintiff Nomadix is a Delaware corporation having its principal place
`of business at 30851 Agoura Road, Suite 102, Agoura Hills, California 91301.
`3.
`Defendant Guest-Tek is an Alberta corporation having its principal
`place of business at Suite 600, 777 8 Ave SW, Calgary, Alberta T2P 3R5, Canada.
`4.
`The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and
`
`costs.
`
`5.
`The License Agreement specifies that disputes arising under the
`contract shall be brought in the United States District Court for the Central District
`of California. Under the License Agreement, with respect to Nomadix’s claim for
`breach of contract, Guest-Tek has consented to the Court’s exercise of personal
`jurisdiction over Guest-Tek. Guest-Tek has also waived any objections to venue in
`the present judicial district and to the Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over
`Guest-Tek.
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF:
`BREACH OF CONTRACT
`6.
`In 2009, Nomadix sued Guest-Tek in this judicial district for
`infringement of six Nomadix patents in a case captioned Nomadix, Inc. v. Hewlett-
`Packard Co. et al., No. CV09-08441 (the “2009 Litigation”). Nomadix eventually
`added a claim against Guest-Tek for infringement of a seventh Nomadix patent.
`
`- 1 -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NOMADIX 2011
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-01191
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04980 Document 1 Filed 06/07/19 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`Guest-Tek filed counterclaims for declaratory judgment of noninfringement and
`invalidity of those seven Nomadix patents.
`7.
`In late December 2010, Nomadix and Guest-Tek settled their claims
`against one another in the 2009 Litigation. As part of the settlement, Nomadix and
`Guest-Tek entered into the License Agreement. Exhibit 1 to this Amended
`Complaint is a true and correct copy of the License Agreement as originally
`executed, excluding the original Schedule B.
`8.
`In October 2016, Nomadix sued Guest-Tek for breach of Guest-Tek’s
`royalty obligations under the License Agreement, seeking millions of dollars in
`unpaid royalties. That case is currently pending as Case No. CV16-08033, before
`the Honorable André Birotte Jr. in the United States District Court for the Central
`District of California (the “Royalty Litigation”).
`9.
`The License Agreement is a valid and enforceable written contract
`binding on Nomadix and Guest-Tek.
`10. Clause 8.10 of the License Agreement states:
`8.10 Forum Selection. Subject to clauses 7.1 and 7.2, all
`disputes arising out of or
`in connection with
`this
`Agreement shall be brought in the United States District
`Court for the Central District of California (“District Court”)
`and the Parties each consent to the personal jurisdiction
`of that court. The Parties each waive all objections to
`venue and all forum non conveniens objections with
`respect to such District Court and the Parties shall not
`contest the personal jurisdiction of such District Court or
`that venue is proper in such District Court. To the extent
`that any dispute arising out of this Agreement may not be
`brought in the District Court, such dispute shall be
`brought in a California Superior Court in Los Angeles
`- 2 -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NOMADIX 2011
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-01191
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04980 Document 1 Filed 06/07/19 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:4
`
`
`
`County or Orange County (“Superior Court”) and the
`Parties each consent to the personal jurisdiction of such
`Superior Court. The Parties each waive all objections to
`venue and all forum non conveniens objections with
`respect to such Superior Court and the Parties shall not
`contest the jurisdiction of such Superior Court or that
`venue is proper in such Superior Court, except that any
`Party may make any objection favoring litigation in the
`District Court. The Parties agree that the prevailing Party
`in such District Court or Superior Court action will be
`entitled to reimbursement by the losing Party for any and
`all legal fees and costs incurred by the prevailing Party in
`preparing for and conducting such action.
`11. Over a year after the Royalty Litigation began, Guest-Tek initiated
`cases before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States
`Patent and Trademark Office, including cases IPR2018-01660, IPR2018-01668,
`IPR2019-00211, and IPR2019-00253. In each of these cases, Guest-Tek petitioned
`for inter partes review of a patent, challenging the validity of claims of that patent.
`In each of these cases, the patent Guest-Tek challenged was U.S. Patent No.
`8,266,266, U.S. Patent No. 8,725,899, U.S. Patent No. 7,953,857, or U.S. Patent
`No. 8,626,922. In each case, Guest-Tek sought or is seeking cancellation of claims
`of the challenged patent. In each case, Guest-Tek named Nomadix as the patent
`owner.
`12. U.S. Patent Nos. 8,266,266 and 8,725,899 are both Licensed Patents
`under the License Agreement. U.S. Patent No. 7,953,857 and U.S. Patent
`No. 8,626,922 are both Bandwidth Management Patents under the License
`Agreement.
`
`- 3 -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NOMADIX 2011
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-01191
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04980 Document 1 Filed 06/07/19 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:5
`
`
`
`13. Guest-Tek contends that the cancellation of claims Guest-Tek sought
`or seeks in cases IPR2018-01660, IPR2018-01668, IPR2019-00211, and IPR2019-
`00253 would give Guest-Tek a defense to Nomadix’s claim against Guest-Tek in
`the Royalty Litigation for breach of Guest-Tek’s royalty obligations under the
`License Agreement.
`14. The PTAB has denied institution in cases IPR2018-01660 and
`IPR2018-01668, but Guest-Tek has requested rehearing in each of those cases. On
`May 28, 2019, the PTAB instituted inter partes review of U.S. Patent No.
`8,626,922 in case IPR2019-00253. On May 30, 2019, the PTAB instituted inter
`partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,953,857 in case IPR2019-00211. Institution of
`inter partes review in cases IPR2019-00211 and IPR2019-00253 will require
`Nomadix to defend the validity of its patents at least through two year-long trials
`before the PTAB.
`15. Guest-Tek has breached the License Agreement by initiating disputes
`at the PTAB regarding the validity of Nomadix’s patents, including by initiating
`cases IPR2018-01660, IPR2018-01668, IPR2019-00211, and IPR2019-00253.
`16. Guest-Tek has stated to this Court in the Royalty Litigation that
`Guest-Tek intends to initiate additional disputes before the PTAB challenging
`patents licensed under the License Agreement.
`17. One of the benefits Nomadix bargained for in the License Agreement
`was that all disputes arising out of or in connection with the License Agreement
`would be brought in the United States District Court for the Central District of
`California or in a California Superior Court in Los Angeles County or Orange
`County. To the extent a monetary value could be assigned to this bargained-for
`benefit, it cannot be easily calculated. By bringing disputes over patent validity
`before the PTAB, Guest-Tek has deprived Nomadix of that bargained-for benefit
`and has thus harmed Nomadix in a manner that cannot be easily translated to a
`monetary amount. Guest-Tek’s legal challenges to Nomadix’s patents threaten
`- 4 -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NOMADIX 2011
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-01191
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04980 Document 1 Filed 06/07/19 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`further irreparable harm. For example, the aim of the cases Guest-Tek has initiated
`in the PTAB has been to irreparably harm Nomadix through the loss of unique,
`intangible assets; if the PTAB granted Guest-Tek the relief it has sought, Nomadix
`would be irreparably deprived of the benefit of the forum-selection clause it
`bargained for in clause 8.10 of the License Agreement.
`18. Legal remedies would be inadequate to afford relief for Guest-Tek’s
`violation of its obligation not to challenge Nomadix’s patents. Pecuniary
`compensation cannot afford adequate relief for the harm; at the very least, it would
`be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount of money that would afford adequate
`relief for the harms to Nomadix and its intangible assets.
`19. Under the License Agreement, Guest-Tek owes Nomadix its legal fees
`and costs to prepare for and conduct this action to enforce the License Agreement.
`20. Nomadix has already incurred legal fees and costs in opposing Guest-
`Tek’s challenges before the PTAB that Nomadix would not have incurred but for
`Guest-Tek’s failure to comply with the License Agreement’s forum-selection
`clause. Nomadix will continue to incur such legal fees and costs until Guest-Tek’s
`improper challenges to Nomadix’s patents are terminated.
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`Nomadix respectfully prays for the following relief:
`A.
`an order adjudging Guest-Tek to have breached the License
`Agreement, including by having breached its obligations under clause 8.10;
`B.
`a declaration of Guest-Tek’s obligations under clause 8.10 of the
`License Agreement;
`C.
`an order of specific performance of Guest-Tek’s obligations under
`clause 8.10 of the License Agreement, including preliminary and permanent
`injunctions enjoining Guest-Tek from breaching its obligations, requiring Guest-
`Tek to seek withdrawal and dismissal at the PTAB of any and all pending
`challenges to licensed Nomadix patents before the PTAB in which Guest-Tek is
`- 5 -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NOMADIX 2011
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-01191
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04980 Document 1 Filed 06/07/19 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`the real party in interest, and enjoining Guest-Tek as the real party in interest from
`filing any additional challenges to licensed Nomadix patents before the PTAB in
`violation of clause 8.10 of the License Agreement;
`D.
`an award of all legal fees and costs, including attorneys’ fees, that
`Nomadix incurs to prepare for and conduct this action against Guest-Tek and to
`oppose Guest-Tek’s challenges before the PTAB, whether as a contractual or
`statutory right, as compensation incidental to specific performance, as delay
`damages, or as any other form of appropriate relief;
`E.
`in the alternative to specific performance of Guest-Tek’s obligations
`under clause 8.10, an award of general, compensatory, consequential, and special
`damages arising from Guest-Tek’s breach of clause 8.10;
`F.
`an award of prejudgment and postjudgment interest; and
`G.
`such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`Dated: June 7, 2019
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`
` /s/ Douglas G. Muehlhauser
`Douglas G. Muehlhauser
`Payson LeMeilleur
`Mark Lezama
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`NOMADIX, INC.
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NOMADIX 2011
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-01191
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04980 Document 1 Filed 06/07/19 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #:8
`
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff
`Nomadix hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`
` /s/ Douglas G. Muehlhauser
`Douglas G. Muehlhauser
`Payson LeMeilleur
`Mark Lezama
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`NOMADIX, INC.
`
`
`
`Dated: June 7, 2019
`
`
`
`
`30622481
`
`- 7 -
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NOMADIX 2011
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-01191
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-04980 Document 1-1 Filed 06/07/19 Page 1 of 1 Page ID #:9
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`Proposed sealed document
`
`NOMADIX 2011
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-01191
`
`

`

`   ÿÿ

 ÿÿ 
`ÿ !"#$%&'ÿ()*ÿ*ÿ+,-./0-1ÿ()/-2#/%-ÿ3)/-2/#%)"-)/ÿ4/$*
`56789:ÿ<8=89<ÿ:7<8>7?8ÿ?@5>8
`?968>=Aÿ:7<8>7?8ÿ@Bÿ?=A7B@>67=
`C ÿ DÿE ÿFÿÿ
`HIJÿKLMMLNOPQÿRSTPUTVROLPÿNTUÿJPRJSJWÿXYÿZ[JIMIT[UJS\ÿ]L[QMTUÿLPÿ^_`_abcdÿTRÿcea`ÿfZÿf]HÿTPWÿKOMJWÿLP
`^_`_abcdÿÿ
`?ghiÿ6gjik
`lLmTWOn\ÿoPVpÿqpÿr[JURsHJtÿoPRJSTVROqJÿuPRJSRTOPmJPRÿvRWp
`?ghiÿ6wjxiykaecdsVqsbzd{b
`B|}iyk
`lLmTWOn\ÿoPVp
`:~wji€ÿ6wjxiykc
`:~‚iÿ8iƒkÿÿ
`

„…†‡Cˆÿ‰ ÿC Šÿ‹ŒŽŽ‘‘’“ÿÿFŠÿ”’‹‹•ÿDÿ–—ÿ…DDÿC ˜•ÿ™™
`š‡  Šÿ›ÿšœÿE˜ –ÿœÿÿ… ÿ ÿš‡ —ÿ  ÿžÿ„   ÿÿ
` —ÿC ˜•ÿ™š —Š š„   •ÿ  
`Ÿk ¡¢£¢¤¥¡¦¤ÿ6~|iÿ§ghÿxii€ÿi}iy~€|g}}¨ÿjg|}i©ÿ~kÿ
`]L[QMTUÿrÿZ[JIMIT[UJSÿÿÿÿÿMOROQTROLPªtPLXXJpVLm\ÿaWQmªtPLXXJpVLmÿÿ
`Ÿk ¡¢£¢¤¥¡¦¤ÿ6~|iÿ§ghÿxii€ÿ©i}|£iyi©ÿx¨ÿB|yhÿ?}ghhÿ5«ÿ<«ÿ¬g|}ÿ~yÿx¨ÿ~§iyÿjig€hÿ­®ÿ8¯9ÿB7A9>ÿ~ÿkÿ
`HIJÿKLMMLNOPQÿWLV[mJPR°U±ÿTSJÿTUULVOTRJWÿNORIÿRIOUÿRSTPUTVROLPe
`:~wji€ÿ©ihy|²|~€kZTOPÿ]LV[mJPRÿÿ
`@y|³|€g}ÿ´|}i€gjikµe¶KTtJ·TRI¶µLm·MTOPRp·WKÿ
`9}iy~€|ÿ©~wji€ÿ<gj²kÿ
`¸¹HºZfÿVTVW¹RTm·»o]¼cbabadbdczÿ¸]TRJ¼^_`_abcd½ÿ¸¾OMJl[mXJS¼a`{aa^d¿sb½ÿ
`¸zKaaXXVzc^bÀWdJ^^Xczcc{cÀÀWÀX¿JcJbJWzcb`J{bd^c`KTzKbWaXTÀzJK`zÀc^{XTÿ
`z^^^JKab^zÀdc¿KXcVa`K`¿aVaaÀXXWaKczdVb^¿TbbX`¿bKcbXaacd^ÀK¿{½½ÿ
`:~wji€ÿ©ihy|²|~€kunIOXORÿcÿsÿfSL·LUJWÿUJTMJWÿ
`@y|³|€g}ÿ´|}i€gjikµe¶KTtJ·TRI¶unpÿcÿUMO·UIJJRp·WKÿ
`9}iy~€|ÿ©~wji€ÿ<gj²kÿ
`¸¹HºZfÿVTVW¹RTm·»o]¼cbabadbdczÿ¸]TRJ¼^_`_abcd½ÿ¸¾OMJl[mXJS¼a`{aa^d¿sc½ÿ
`¸X`c¿{ddKJVK¿À{zXXXcbK¿z`aJdadÀXJWXVÀc^``^acV`{¿TÀc¿JcXXaXT¿TÀT^aK^XKÿ
`^`WJadWzKT¿``bX¿zz`JVcKXXWzJaKz¿zVbVdddÀW^`{¿cbKd^zXT¿a{JÀJ`½½ÿ
`
`NOMADIX 2011
`Guest Tek v. Nomadix
`IPR2019-01191
`
`