IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`BLUE SPIKE LLC;
`BLUE SPIKE INTERNATIONAL LTD.;
`WISTARIA TRADING LTD.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-00160-LPS-CJB
`
`v.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DISH NETWORK CORPORATION,
`DISH NETWORK L.L.C., AND DISH
`NETWORK SERVICE L.L.C.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Blue Spike LLC (“Blue Spike LLC”), Plaintiff Blue Spike International Ltd.
`
`(“Blue Spike Int.”), and Plaintiff Wistaria Trading Ltd. (“Wistaria”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”),
`
`for their First Amended Complaint against Defendants Dish Network Corporation, Dish Network
`
`L.L.C., and Dish Network Service L.L.C, (referred to collectively herein as “Dish” or
`
`“Defendant”), allege the following:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the
`
`United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Blue Spike LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws
`
`of the State of Texas with a place of business at 1820 Shiloh Road, Suite 1201-C, Tyler, Texas
`
`75703.
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 32
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1018, Page 0001
`
`

`

`3. Plaintiff Blue Spike Int. is a limited liability company established in Ireland with
`
`a place of business at Unit 6, Bond House, Bridge Street, Dublin 8, Ireland. Blue Spike Int. was
`
`recently acquired by Blue Spike Inc., a Florida corporation. Blue Spike Inc. has no right, title, or
`
`interest in the patents in suit, nor any licensing rights to the patents in suit, nor any enforcement
`
`rights in the patents in suit.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff Wistaria Trading Ltd. is a Bermuda corporation with a place of business
`
`at Clarendon House, 2 Church St., Hamilton HM 11, Bermuda.
`
`5.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Dish Network Corporation is a
`
`corporation established under the laws of the State of Nevada, with a principal place of business
`
`at 9601 S. Meridian Boulevard, Englewood, Colorado 80112. Defendant can be served through
`
`its registered agent, CSC Services of Nevada, Inc., located at 2215-B Renaissance Drive, Las
`
`Vegas, Nevada 89119.
`
`6.
`
`Upon information and belief Defendant Dish Network L.L.C. is established under
`
`the laws of the State of Colorado, with a principal place of business at 9601 S. Meridian
`
`Boulevard, Englewood, Colorado 80112. Defendant can be served through its registered agent,
`
`Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC – Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, located at
`
`211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701.
`
`7.
`
`Upon information and belief Defendant Dish Network Service L.L.C. established
`
`under the laws of the State of Colorado, with a principal place of business at 9601 S. Meridian
`
`Boulevard, Englewood, Colorado 80112. Defendant can be served through its registered agent,
`
`Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC – Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, located at
`
`211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701.
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 32
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1018, Page 0002
`
`

`

`8.
`
`Upon information and belief, Dish sells, offers to sell, and/or uses products and
`
`services throughout the United States, including in this judicial district, and introduces infringing
`
`products and services into the stream of commerce knowing that they would be sold and/or used
`
`in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`9.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the
`
`United States, Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Defendants
`
`previously agreed to accept the propriety of venue in this district.
`
`12.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Dish under the laws of the State of
`
`Delaware, due at least to their substantial business in Delaware and in this judicial district,
`
`directly or through intermediaries, 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
`
`the State of Delaware.
`
`The Inventions
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`13.
`
`Scott A. Moskowitz and Michael Berry are the inventors of U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`7,475,246 (“the ‘246 patent”). A true and correct copy of the ‘246 patent is attached as Exhibit
`
`A.
`
`14.
`
`Scott A. Moskowitz and Michael Berry are the inventors of U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`8,739,295 (“the ‘295 patent”). A true and correct copy of the ‘295 patent is attached as Exhibit
`
`B.
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 32
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1018, Page 0003
`
`

`

`15.
`
`Scott A. Moskowitz and Michael Berry are the inventors of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,934,408 (the ‘408 patent”). A true and correct copy of the ‘408 patent is attached to Exhibit C.
`
`16.
`
`Scott A. Moskowitz and Marc Cooperman are the inventors of U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,021,602 (“the ‘602 patent”). A true and correct copy of the ‘602 patent is attached as Exhibit
`
`F.
`
`17.
`
`Scott A. Moskowitz is the inventor of U.S. Patent No. 9,104,842 (“the ‘842
`
`patent”). A true and correct copy of the ‘842 patent is attached as Exhibit G.
`
`18.
`
`The ‘246 patent, the ‘295 patent, the ‘408 patent, the ‘602 patent, and the ‘842
`
`patent (collectively, “the patents in suit”) all cover pioneering technologies for rights
`
`management and content security.
`
`19.
`
`The patents in suit are all assigned to and owned by Wistaria. Blue Spike LLC is
`
`the exclusive licensee of the patents in suit. Blue Spike LLC’s exclusive license to the patents in
`
`suit includes the right to assert infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271 and grant sub-licenses to the
`
`patents in suit.
`
`20.
`
`Blue Spike Int. is a prior exclusive licensee of the patents in suit, which license
`
`was revoked upon the grant of the exclusive license to Blue Spike LLC; however, Blue Spike Int.
`
`retains the right to receive all revenues from Blue Spike LLC’s licensing of the patents in suit.
`
`21.
`
`Blue Spike LLC, Blue Spike Int., and Wistaria are each exclusively and entirely
`
`owned and controlled by Scott Moskowitz.
`
`22.
`
`The ‘246, ‘295, and ‘408 patents (collectively, “the Secure Server patents”) all
`
`resulted from the pioneering efforts of the named inventors in the area of secure distribution of
`
`digitized value-added information, or media content, while preserving the ability of publishers to
`
`make available unsecured versions of the same value-added information, or media content,
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 32
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1018, Page 0004
`
`

`

`without adverse effect to the systems security. These efforts resulted in the secure personal
`
`content server memorialized in mid-2000. At the time of these pioneering efforts, the most
`
`widely implemented technology used to address unauthorized copying and distribution of digital
`
`content was focused solely on cryptography. Content could be encrypted, but there was no
`
`association between the encryption and the actual content. This meant that there could be no
`
`efficient and openly accessible market for tradable information. The Inventors conceived of the
`
`inventions claimed in the Secure Server patents as a way to separate transactions from
`
`authentication in the sale of digitized data.
`
`23.
`
`For example, the Inventors developed methods and systems which enable secure,
`
`paid exchange of value-added information, while separating transaction protocols. The methods
`
`and systems improve on existing means for distribution control by relying on authentication,
`
`verification and authorization that may be flexibly determined by both buyers and sellers. These
`
`determinations may not need to be predetermined, although pricing matrix and variable access to
`
`the information opens additional advantages over the prior art. The present invention offers
`
`methods and protocols for ensuring value-added information distribution can be used to facilitate
`
`trust in a large or relatively anonymous marketplace (such as the Internet's World Wide Web).
`
`24.
`
`The ‘602 patent and the ‘842 patent (collectively, the “Watermarking patents”)
`
`resulted from the pioneering efforts of the Inventor and Marc Cooperman (“Cooperman”) in the
`
`area of protection of digital information. These efforts resulted in the development of systems,
`
`methods, and devices for data protection memorialized in the mid-2000s. At the time of these
`
`pioneering efforts, the most widely implemented technology used to address the difficulty of
`
`protecting intellectual property was copy protection. However, in that type of system the cost of
`
`developing such protection was not justified considering the level of piracy that occurred despite
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 32
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1018, Page 0005
`
`

`

`the copy protection. The Inventor and Cooperman conceived of the inventions claimed in the
`
`Watermarking patents as a way to combine transfer functions with predetermined key creation.
`
`25.
`
`For example, the Inventor and Cooperman developed systems and methods that
`
`protect digital information by identifying and encoding a portion of the format information.
`
`Encoded digital information, including the digital sample and the encoded format information, is
`
`generated to protect the original digital information.
`
`Advantage Over the Prior Art
`
`26.
`
`The patented inventions disclosed in the Secure Server patents provide many
`
`advantages over the prior art, and in particular improved the operations of secure personal
`
`content servers. E.g., Exhibit A, ‘246 patent at 2:24–64; Exhibit B, ‘295 patent at 2:39–65;
`
`Exhibit C, ‘408 patent at 2:55–3:15. One advantage of the patented invention is the handling of
`
`authentication, verification, and authorization with a combination of cryptographic and
`
`steganographic protocols to achieve efficient, trusted, secure exchange of digital information.
`
`E.g., Exhibit A, ‘246 patent at 1:53–56; Exhibit B, ‘295 patent at 1:27–30; Exhibit C, ‘408 patent
`
`at 1:42–45.
`
`27.
`
`Another advantage of the patented invention is leveraging the benefits of digital
`
`information (such as media content) to consumers and publishers, while ensuring the
`
`development and persistence of trust between all parties. E.g., Exhibit A, ‘246 patent at 3:16–30;
`
`Exhibit B, ‘295 patent at 3:32–47; Exhibit C, ‘408 patent at 3:49–64.
`
`28.
`
`Another advantage of the patented invention is the separation and independent
`
`quantification of interests and requirements of different parties to a transaction by market
`
`participants in shorter periods of time. E.g., Exhibit A, ‘246 patent at 3:32–51; Exhibit B, ‘295
`
`patent at 3:47–67; Exhibit C, ‘408 patent at 3:65–4:18.
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 32
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1018, Page 0006
`
`

`

`29.
`
`Because of these significant advantages that can be achieved through the use of
`
`the patented invention, Plaintiffs believe the Secure Server patents present significant
`
`commercial value for companies like Dish. Indeed, the technology described and claimed in the
`
`Secure Server patents read on the core functionality of Dish’s Hopper and satellite TV products
`
`and services.
`
`30.
`
`The patented inventions disclosed in the Watermarking patents provide many
`
`advantages over the prior art, and in particular improved the operations of digital content
`
`generation and/or display devices. E.g., Exhibit F, ‘602 patent at 7:22–40; Exhibit G, ‘842
`
`patent at 7:20–38. One advantage of the patented invention is the provision of a level of security
`
`for executable code on similar grounds as that which can be provided for digitized samples. E.g.,
`
`Exhibit F, ‘602 patent at 7:22–29; Exhibit G, ‘842 patent at 7:20–27.
`
`31.
`
`Another advantage of the patented invention is that it does not attempt to stop
`
`copying, but rather, determines responsibility for a copy by ensuring that licensing information
`
`must be preserved in descendant copies from an original. Without the correct license
`
`information, the copy cannot function. E.g., Exhibit F, ‘602 patent at 7:22–29; Exhibit G, ‘842
`
`patent at 7:20–27.
`
`32.
`
`Because of these significant advantages that can be achieved through the use of
`
`the patented invention, Blue Spike believes the Watermarking patents present significant
`
`commercial value for companies like Dish. Indeed, the technology described and claimed in the
`
`Watermarking patents reads on the core security functionality of Dish’s digital security in its
`
`Hopper and satellite TV products and services.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 32
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1018, Page 0007
`
`

`

`Technological Innovation
`
`33.
`
`The patented invention disclosed in the Secure Server patents resolve technical
`
`problems related to the secure distribution of digitized value-added information, or media
`
`content, while preserving the ability of publishers to make available unsecured versions of the
`
`same value-added information, or media content, without adverse effect to the systems security.
`
`As the Secure Server patents explain, one of the limitations of the prior art as regards the secure
`
`distribution of digitized value-add information or media content was that content could be
`
`encrypted, but there was no association between the encryption and the actual content. This
`
`meant that there could be no efficient and openly accessible market for tradable information that
`
`was securely distributable. (See Exhibit A, ‘246 patent at 1:48–56; Exhibit B, ‘295 patent at
`
`1:22–26; ‘408 patent at 1:24-31.)
`
`34.
`
`The claims of the Secure Server patents do not merely recite the performance of
`
`some well-known business practice from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to
`
`perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claims of the Secure Server patents recite inventive
`
`concepts that are deeply rooted in engineering technology, and overcome problems specifically
`
`arising out of how to secure distribution of digitized value-added information, or media content,
`
`while preserving the ability of publishers to make available unsecured versions of the same
`
`value-added information, or media content, without adverse effect to the systems security.
`
`35.
`
`In addition, the claims of the Secure Server patents recite inventive concepts that
`
`improve the functioning of secure personal content servers, particularly varying quality levels in
`
`a manner designed to improve security.
`
`36. Moreover, the claims of the Secure Server patents recite inventive concepts that
`
`are not merely routine or conventional use of computer components. Instead, the patented
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 32
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1018, Page 0008
`
`

`

`invention disclosed in the Secure Server patents provide a new and novel solution to specific
`
`problems related to improving secure distribution of digitized value-added information, or media
`
`content, while preserving the ability of publishers to make available unsecured versions of the
`
`same value-added information, or media content, without adverse effect to the systems security.
`
`37.
`
`And finally, the patented invention disclosed in the Secure Server patents does not
`
`preempt all the ways that secure distribution of digitized value-added information, or media
`
`content, while preserving the ability of publishers to make available unsecured versions of the
`
`same value-added information, or media content, without adverse effect to the systems security
`
`may be used to improve the personal content servers, nor do the Secure Server patents preempt
`
`any other well-known or prior art technology.
`
`38.
`
`Accordingly, the claims in the Secure Server patents recite a combination of
`
`elements sufficient to ensure that the claim in substance and in practice amounts to significantly
`
`more than a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
`
`39.
`
`The patented invention disclosed in the Watermarking patents resolves technical
`
`problems related to protection of digital information particularly problems related to a method
`
`and device for data protection. As the Watermarking patents explain, one of the limitations of
`
`the prior art as regards the protection of digital information was that existing methods of copy
`
`protection were too expensive and/or required outside determination and verification of the
`
`license. (See Exhibit F, ‘602 patent at 2:47–4:48; Exhibit G, ‘842 patent at 1:29–60.)
`
`40.
`
`The claims of the Watermarking patents do not merely recite the performance of
`
`some well-known business practice from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to
`
`perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claims of the Watermarking patents recite inventive
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 32
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1018, Page 0009
`
`

`

`concepts that are deeply rooted in engineering technology, and overcome problems specifically
`
`arising out of protecting digital information in a highly distributed computing environment.
`
`41.
`
`In addition, the claims of the Watermarking patents recite inventive concepts that
`
`improve the functioning of devices for protecting digital information, particularly by combining
`
`transfer functions with predetermined key creation.
`
`42. Moreover, the claims of the Watermarking patents recite inventive concepts that
`
`are not merely routine or conventional use of computer components. Instead, the patented
`
`invention disclosed in the Watermarking patents provides a new and novel solution to specific
`
`problems related to protecting digital information.
`
`43.
`
`And finally, the patented inventions disclosed in the Watermarking patents do not
`
`preempt all the ways that protecting digital information may be used to improve devices for data
`
`protection, nor do the Watermarking patents preempt any other well-known or prior art
`
`technology.
`
`44.
`
`Accordingly, the claims in the Watermarking patents recite a combination of
`
`elements sufficient to ensure that the claim in substance and in practice amounts to significantly
`
`more than a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
`
`COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,475,246
`
`45.
`
`The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated into this
`
`First Claim for Relief.
`
`46.
`
`On January 6, 2009, the ‘246 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office under the title “Secure Personal Content Server.”
`
`47.
`
`Upon information and belief, Dish has and continues to directly infringe one or
`
`more claims of the ‘246 Patent by selling, offering to sell, using, and/or providing and causing to
`
`be used products, specifically one or more Hopper, Hopper Duo, Hopper with Sling, Hopper 3,
`Page 10 of 32
`
`
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1018, Page 0010
`
`

`

`Wally, and/or Joey Receivers (the “Accused Instrumentalities”). (See Exhibit. 1, Dish, The
`
`Hopper Family, Dish website, https://www.mydish.com/upgrades/products/ receivers/the-
`
`hoppers (last accessed October 10, 2018).)
`
`48.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities infringe at least claim
`
`1 of the ‘246 patent. The Accused Instrumentalities include a local content server system
`
`(“LCS”) for creating a secure environment for digital content. Said LCS is found within the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities. For example, Dish offers for sale multiple “Hopper” Receivers,
`
`which contain an LCS. (See Exhibit 1.) Dish also offers for sale the Dish TV service for use
`
`with the Hopper Receivers, which is a secure environment for digital content. (See Exhibit 2,
`
`Dish, Satellite TV Packages, https://www.dish.com/programming/packages/ (last accessed
`
`October 10, 2018).)
`
`49.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities include a
`
`communications port for connecting the system via a network to at least one Secure Electronic
`
`Content Distributor (“SECD”). Said SECD is found within the Accused Instrumentalities. For
`
`example, as part of its satellite TV service, Dish allows only authorized users to view encrypted
`
`digital content. On information and belief, Dish controls at least one server that regulates
`
`authorized access to this encrypted digital content and at least one SECD. (See Exhibit 3, Dish,
`
`Satellite TV Pirate Sentenced to 14 Months in Federal Prison After Pleading Guilty to Illegally
`
`Rebroadcasting DISH Network’s Programming, http://about.dish.com/news-
`
`releases?item=123167 (last accessed October 10, 2018).) The Accused Instrumentalities include
`
`a MoCa cable in port – a communications port – for connecting the system via a network to
`
`Dish’s authorization server. (See Exhibit 4 at 6, Dish, Hopper System Components,
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 32
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1018, Page 0011
`
`

`

`https://www.dish.com/cedia/downloads/ hopperjoeysystem_jobaid_v3.pdf (last accessed October
`
`10, 2018).)
`
`50.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities include a SECD
`
`which stores a plurality of data sets. Said SECD is found in the Accused Instrumentalities. For
`
`example, Dish controls at least one server that regulates authorized access to this encrypted
`
`digital content, which includes at least one SECD. On information and belief, the Dish server
`
`stores a plurality of digital video content (a plurality of data sets), including video on demand,
`
`for transmission to the Accused Instrumentalities. (See Exhibits 2 and 3.)
`
`51.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities include a SECD
`
`storing a plurality of data sets, which receives a request to transfer at least one content data set,
`
`and transmits at least one content data set in a secured transmission. Said SECD is found in the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities. For example, in order to view on-demand video, the Dish SECD
`
`must receive a request to transfer the video and transmit the video in a secured transmission.
`
`(See Exhibit 5 at 22, Dish, Hopper Whole-Home HD DVR System User Guide, Dish website,
`
`https://www.dish.com/downloads/user_guides_and_manuals/hopperuserguide_user.pdf (last
`
`accessed October 10, 2018).)
`
`52.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities include a rewritable
`
`storage medium whereby content received from outside the LCS is stored and received. Said
`
`rewritable storage medium is found in the Accused Instrumentalities. For example, the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities include a hard drive (a rewritable storage medium). On information and belief,
`
`in order to play video content received from Dish’s SECD, the various Hopper Receivers must
`
`receive the content from the SECD and store the content. (See Exhibit 1 at 1.)
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 32
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1018, Page 0012
`
`

`

`53.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities include a domain
`
`processor that imposes rules and procedures for content being transferred between the LCS and
`
`devices outside the LCS. Said domain processor is found within the Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`For example, the Accused Instrumentalities include a central processing unit (a domain
`
`processor). (See Exhibit 6 at 2, Dish, Introducing the Hopper 3: More Capabilities, Fewer
`
`Conflicts, Dish Insider’s Guide, https://www.dish.com/dig/technology/hopper-3-more-
`
`capabilities-fewer-conflicts/ (last accessed October 10, 2018).) On information and belief, the
`
`processor within the Hopper Receivers imposes rules and procedures for content being
`
`transferred between the Hopper Receivers and Dish servers. (See Exhibit 5 at 22.)
`
`54.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities include a
`
`programmable address module programmed with an identification code uniquely associated with
`
`the LCS. Said programmable address module is found within the Accused Instrumentalities. For
`
`example, the various Hopper Receivers include a MAC address (an identification code) that is
`
`unique to the Hopper Receiver. (See Exhibit 7, Dish, Hopper 3 Wifi Issue, Dish Communities
`
`Forum (March 14, 2017), https://communities.dish.com/t5/At-Home/Hopper-3-wifi-issue/td-
`
`p/8359 (last accessed October 10, 2018).)
`
`55.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities include a domain
`
`processor permitting the LCS to receive digital content from outside the LCS provided the LCS
`
`first determines that the digital content being delivered to the LCS is authorized for use by the
`
`LCS. Said domain processor is found within the Accused Instrumentalities. For example, the
`
`various Hopper Receivers allow a user to receive ultra-high definition (“UHD” or “4k”) video
`
`content (digital content) only if the user has subscribed to UHD service (authorized for use by
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 32
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1018, Page 0013
`
`

`

`the LCS). (See Exhibit 8 at 2, Dish, 4K Joey, Dish website,
`
`https://www.dish.com/equipment/joey-receivers/4k-joey/ (last accessed October 10, 2018).)
`
`56.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities include a domain
`
`processor wherein if the digital content is not authorized by the LCS, accepting the digital
`
`content at a predetermined quality level, said predetermined quality level having been set for
`
`legacy content. Said domain processor is found within the Accused Instrumentalities. For
`
`example, the various Hopper Receivers provide a user with standard definition (“SD”) or high
`
`definition (“HD”) video content (digital content at a predetermined quality level, said
`
`predetermined quality level having been set for legacy content) if the user has not subscribed to
`
`UHD service (not authorized for use by the LCS). (See Exhibit 8 at 2.)
`
`57.
`
`Since at least the time of receiving the Complaint filed on July 6, 2018 in 6:18-cv-
`
`333 (E.D. Tex.), Dish has induced and continues to induce others to infringe at least claim 1 of
`
`the ‘246 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by, among other things, and with specific intent or
`
`willful blindness, actively aiding and abetting others to infringe, including but not limited to
`
`Dish’s partners and customers, whose use of the Accused Instrumentalities constitutes direct
`
`infringement of at least claim 1 of the ‘246 Patent.
`
`58.
`
`In particular, Dish’s actions that aid and abet others such as their partners and
`
`customers to infringe include distributing the Accused Instrumentalities and providing materials
`
`and/or services related to the Accused Instrumentalities. On information and belief, Dish has
`
`engaged in such actions with specific intent to cause infringement or with willful blindness to the
`
`resulting infringement because Dish has had actual knowledge of the ‘246 Patent and that its acts
`
`were inducing infringement of the ‘246 Patent since at least the time of receiving the Complaint
`
`filed on July 6, 2018 in 6:18-cv-333 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 32
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1018, Page 0014
`
`

`

`59.
`
`On information and belief, Dish’s infringement has been and continues to be
`
`willful.
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiffs have been harmed by Dish’s infringing activities.
`
`COUNT II – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,739,295
`
`61.
`
`The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated into this
`
`Second Claim for Relief.
`
`62.
`
`On May 27, 2014, the ‘295 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office under the title “Secure Personal Content Server.”
`
`63.
`
`Upon information and belief, Dish has and continues to directly infringe one or
`
`more claims of the ‘295 Patent by selling, offering to sell, using, and/or providing and causing to
`
`be used products, specifically one or more Hopper, Hopper Duo, Hopper with Sling, Hopper 3,
`
`Wally, and/or Joey Receivers (the “Accused Instrumentalities”). (See Exhibit 1.)
`
`64.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities infringe at least claim
`
`1 of the ‘295 patent. The Accused Instrumentalities include a local content server system
`
`(“LCS”). Said LCS is found within the Accused Instrumentalities. For example, Dish offers for
`
`sale multiple “Hopper” Receivers (a LCS). (See Exhibit 1.) Dish offers for sale the Dish TV
`
`service for use with the Hopper Receivers. (See Exhibit 2.)
`
`65.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities include an LCS
`
`communications port. Said communications port is found within the Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`For example, as part of its satellite TV service, Dish allows only authorized users to view
`
`encrypted digital content. On information and belief, Dish controls at least one server that
`
`regulates authorized access to this encrypted digital content. (See Exhibit 3.) The Accused
`
`Instrumentalities include a MoCa cable in port – an LCS communications port – for connecting
`
`the system via a network to Dish’s authorization server. (See Exhibit 4 at 6.)
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 32
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1018, Page 0015
`
`

`

`66.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities include an LCS
`
`storage unit for storing digital data. Said LCS storage unit is found within the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities. For example, the various Hopper Receivers include a hard drive. On
`
`information and belief, in order to play video content received from Dish’s Secure Electronic
`
`Content Distributor (“SECD”) the various Hopper Receivers must receive the content from the
`
`SECD and store the content. (See Exhibit 1 at 1.)
`
`67.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities include an LCS
`
`domain processor that imposes a plurality of rules and procedures for content being transferred
`
`between said LCS and devices outside said LCS, thereby defining a first LCS domain. Said
`
`domain processor is found within the Accused Instrumentalities. For example, the various
`
`Hopper Receivers include a central processing unit (a domain processor). (See Exhibit 6 at 2.)
`
`On information and belief, the processor within the Hopper Receivers imposes rules and
`
`procedures for content being transferred between the Hopper Receivers and the Dish servers.
`
`(See Exhibit 5 at 22.)
`
`68.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities include a
`
`programmable address module which can be programmed with an LCS identification code
`
`uniquely associated with said LCS domain processor. Said programmable address module is
`
`found within the Accused Instrumentalities. For example, the various Hopper Receivers include
`
`a MAC address (an identification code) that is unique to the Hopper Receiver. (See Exhibit 7.)
`
`69.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities include an LCS where
`
`said LCS stores in said LCS storage unit a plurality of rules for processing a data set. Said LCS
`
`is found within the Accused Instrumentalities. For example, in order to play video content
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 32
`
`DISH-Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1018, Page 0016
`
`

`

`received from Dish, the various Receivers must store a plurality of rules for processing data.
`
`(See Exhibit 1 at 1.)
`
`70.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities include an LCS
`
`wherein said LCS is configured to receive via the LCS communications port, a first data set that
`
`includes data defining first content. Said LCS is found within the Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`For example, the various Hopper Receivers allow a user to receive, via the communications port,
`
`data associated with a channel available from Dish (a first data set). Further, the Hopper
`
`Receivers allow a user to receive a “channel lineup” listing the channels available (data defining
`
`first content). (See Exhibit 5 at 22.)
`
`71.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities include an LCS
`
`wherein said LCS is configured to determine whether said first content belongs to a different
`
`LCS domain than said first LCS domain. Said LCS is found within the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities. For example, the Hopper Receivers are configured to determine whether a
`
`given channel is part of the user’s subscription package, and thus whether the available channels
`
`are available to the user of the Hopper Receiver (determine whether said first content belongs to
`
`a different LCS domain than said first LCS domain). (See Exhibit 8 at 2.)
`
`72.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities include an LCS
`
`wherein said LCS is configured to exclude from the first LCS domain the first content the said
`
`LCS determines that the first content belongs to a different LCS domain. Said LCS is found
`
`within the Accused Instrumentalities. For example, the Hopper Receivers