Pro Hac Vice To Be Filed
`Pro Hac Vice To Be Filed
`Pro Hac Vice To Be Filed
`
`Pro Hac Vice To Be Filed
`Pro Hac Vice To Be Filed
`Pro Hac Vice To Be Filed
`
`Juniper Exhibit 1097
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`Page 00001
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-04741-WHO Document1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 2 of 18
`
`vAF&FWwN
`oOOoNSNNHN
`
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC (“Packet Intelligence” and “Plaintiff’ herein) by and
`
`through its undersigned attorneys hereby demandsa jury trial and alleges the following in support
`
`of its Complaint for patent
`
`infringement against Defendant JUNIPER NETWORKS,
`
`INC.
`
`(“Juniper” and “Defendant”herein).
`
`I. THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC is a limited liability company existing under the laws of
`
`Texas since June 2012. Plaintiff maintains its principal place of business at 705B Mulberry Ave,
`
`Celebration, FL 34747.
`
`2.
`
`Upon information andbelief, Juniper Networks, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation, with
`
`a principal place of business at 1133 Innovation Way, Sunnyvale, CA 94089. Defendant may be
`
`served with process through its Registered Agent, CT Corporation System located at 818 Seventh
`
`Street, Suite 930, Los Angeles, CA 90017.
`
`II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This is an action for infringement of several United States Patents. Federal question
`
`jurisdiction is conferred to this Court over such action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`4,
`
`Defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the Northern District of California
`
`such that this venue is fair and reasonable. Defendant has committed such purposeful acts and/or
`
`transactions in this District that it reasonably should know and expect that it could be hailed into
`
`this Court as a consequenceof such activities. Defendant has transacted and,at the time ofthefiling
`
`of this Complaint, continues to transact business within the Northern District of California.
`
`5.
`
`Further, Defendant makes or sells products that are and have been used, offered for
`
`sale, sold, and/or purchasedin the Northern District of California. Defendant directly and/or through
`
`its distribution network,places infringing products or systems within the stream of commerce, which
`
`stream is directed at this District, with the knowledge and/or understanding that those productswill
`
`be sold and/or used in the Northern District of California.
`
`6.
`
`For these reasons, personal jurisdiction exists and venueis proper in this Court under
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), respectively.
`
`
`2697.001/1426122.1
`2
`Case No.
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 00002
`
`Page 00002
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-04741-WHO Document1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 3 of 18
`
`waF&FWwNO
`oOOoNSNNHN
`
`Ill. THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`7.
`
`The patents-in-suit are early pioneer patents in the field of networktraffic processing
`
`and monitoring. Each of the asserted patents claim priority to provisional U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 60/141,903 entitled “Method and Apparatus for Monitoring Traffic in a Network,” filed in the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office on June 30, 1999.
`
`8.
`
`Mr. Russell S. Dietz, the first listed inventor on four of the five patents-in-suit, is a
`
`recognized thought leader who publishes and lectures regularly on network data management, cloud
`
`computing andvirtualization security solutions. Mr. Dietz has more than 30 years of experience in
`
`the technology and security space. He has a proven record of success as Chief Technology Officer
`
`of multiple hardware, software and systems security companies, and is a recognized pioneer and
`
`innovator in cloud computing andvirtualization security solutions. He has more than 20 years of
`
`leadership and expertise
`
`anticipating trends,
`
`and evaluating new technologies
`
`in data
`
`communications, data management and Enterprise security. He is an active memberofthe Internet
`
`and Engineering Task Force (IETF), Optical Internetworking Forum (OIF) and the Cloud
`
`Computing Interoperability Forum (CCIF).
`
`9.
`
`On November 18, 2003, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
`
`duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 6,651,099 (“the ’099 Patent”) entitled “Method and
`
`Apparatus for Monitoring Traffic in a Network.” Packet Intelligence ownsall substantial rights to
`
`the ’099 Patent, including the right to sue and recover damages for all infringement thereof.
`
`Documents assigning the 099 Patent to Packet Intelligence were recorded at the USPTO on
`
`February 1, 2013 at Reel/Frame 29737-613. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy
`
`of the ’099 Patent. The ’099 patent has been cited as pertinent prior art by either an applicant, or a
`
`USPTO examiner, during the prosecution of more than 275 issued patents and published patent
`
`applications.
`
`10.
`
`On December 16, 2003,
`
`the USPTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,665,725 (“the °725 Patent”) entitled “Processing Protocol Specific Information in Packets
`
`Specified by a Protocol Description Language.” Packet Intelligence ownsall substantial rights to
`
`the °725 Patent, including the right to sue and recover damages for all infringement thereof.
`
`
`2697.001/1426122.1
`3
`Case No.
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 00003
`
`Page 00003
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-04741-WHO Document1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 4 of 18
`
`waF&FWwNO
`oOOoNSNNHN
`
`Documents assigning the °725 Patent to Packet Intelligence were recorded at the USPTO on
`
`February 1, 2013 at Reel/Frame 29737-613. A true and correct copy of the ’725 Patent is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`11.
`
`The ’725 patent has been cited as pertinent prior art by either an applicant, or a
`
`USPTOexaminer, during the prosecution of more than 260 issued patents and published patent
`
`applications.
`
`12.
`
`On August 3, 2004, the USPTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646
`
`(“the ’646 Patent”) entitled “Associative Cache Structure for Lookups and Updates ofFlow Records
`
`in a Network Monitor.” Packet Intelligence ownsall substantial rights to the ’646 Patent, including
`
`the right to sue and recover damagesfor all infringement thereof. Documents assigning the 646
`
`Patent to Packet Intelligence were recorded at the USPTOon February 1, 2013 at Reel/Frame 29737-
`
`613. A true and correct copy of the ’646 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`13.
`
`The 646 patent has been cited as pertinent prior art by either an applicant, or a
`
`USPTO examiner, during the prosecution of more than 170 issued patents and published patent
`
`applications.
`
`14,
`
`On January 4, 2005, the USPTO duly andlegally issued U.S. Patent No. 6,839,751
`
`(“the °751 Patent”) entitled “Re-Using Information from Data Transactions for Maintaining
`
`Statistics in Network Monitoring.” Packet Intelligence ownsall substantial rights to the °751 Patent,
`
`including the right to sue and recover damagesforall infringement thereof. Documents assigning
`
`the °751 Patent to Packet Intelligence were recorded at the USPTO on February 1, 2013 at
`
`Reel/Frame 29737-613. A true and correct copy of the ’751 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
`
`15.
`
`The ’751 patent has been cited as pertinent prior art by either an applicant, or a
`
`USPTO examiner, during the prosecution of more than 100 issued patents and published patent
`
`applications.
`
`16.
`
`On October 11, 2005, the USPTO duly andlegally issued U.S. Patent No. 6,954,789
`
`(“the ’789 Patent”) entitled “Method and Apparatus for Monitoring Traffic in a Network.” Packet
`
`Intelligence ownsall substantial rights to the ’789 Patent, including the right to sue and recover
`
`damagesforall infringement thereof. Documents assigning the ’789 Patent to Packet Intelligence
`
`
`2697.001/1426122.1
`4
`Case No.
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 00004
`
`Page 00004
`
`

`

`Networks, Inc. v. Packet Intelligence LLC
`
`See Palo Alto
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. Huawei Devices USA Inc.
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc. et al
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. Sandvine Corporation and Sandvine Incorporated ULC
`
`Page 00005
`
`

`

`inter partes
`
`in Limine
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. Nokia of America Corporation,
`
`Packet Intelligence LLC v. Ericsson Inc.,
`
`inter partes
`
`Page 00006
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-04741-WHO Document1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 7 of 18
`
`22.
`
`Traffic classification involves detecting the underlying protocols used within a data
`
`packet, as well as the applications or user activity responsible for generating networktraffic. It also
`
`involves identifying the underlying protocols/applications of a flow along with recordingtraffic
`
`statistics.
`
`Such classification and monitoring provide network administrators with detailed
`
`information about their networks, which can be used to diagnose network problems, control
`
`bandwidth allocation, and ensure an appropriate quality of service for users.
`
`waF&FWwNO
`oOOoNSNNHN
`
`23.|Conventional network monitors categorized network transmissions into “connection
`
`flows.” A connection flow refers to the packets involved in a single connection and relate to a
`
`negotiated transmission between specific addresses on two devices. A connection flow correlates
`
`to the source and destination IP address/port pairs used on both ends of the connection without
`
`inspecting the packet’s payload deeper than the headers of the transport layer’ containing port
`
`information. The problem with only tracking connection flows is that certain applications and
`
`protocols may generate multiple connections.
`
`In other words, a single application may spawn
`
`multiple connections for a single activity. For example, if user A wants to have a Skype call with
`
`user B, the Skype application may create multiple connections between computer A and B to
`
`conduct the call. There might be one connection which supplies setup information, a second
`
`connection for transmitting video information, and a third connection for transmitting audio
`
`information. Conventional network monitors would consider these three separate connections even
`
`thoughthey originated from a single Skypecall.
`
`24.
`
`The Asserted Patents improved upon these conventional network monitoring systems
`
`and methods by categorizing network transmissions into “conversational flows” rather than merely
`
`in “connection flows.” Unlike connection flow, conversational flow is the sequence of packets that
`
`are exchanged in any direction as a result of a particular activity—for instance, the running of an
`
`application on a server as requested by a client—which may include multiple connections,
`
`transmissions, or exchanges in either direction between the participants in the conversation. This
`
`! The functionality underlying network communications is often viewed in terms of conceptual
`See
`See OSI Model,
`layers,
`such
`as
`those
`defined
`in
`the
`7 Layer OSI Model.
`https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI model(visited July 27, 2018). Several different protocol options
`may beavailable at each layer to accomplish specific tasks needed by the layer aboveit.
`
`2697.001/1426 122.1
`7
`Case No.
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 00007
`
`Page 00007
`
`

`

`waF&FWwNO
`oOOoNSNNHN
`
`
`
`accomplished, in part, by populating a parsing/extraction operations memory andastate
`
`Case 3:19-cv-04741-WHO Document1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 8 of 18
`
`addressed the problem of disjointed flows in network communications through “virtually
`
`concatenating,” or linking, all related conversational exchanges.
`
`25.
`
`“Conversational flows” are identified through parsing and analyzing data packets at
`
`deeper layers to extract information used to classify each data packet, determining whether it
`
`belongs to an existing conversational flow or is part of a new conversational flow. This is
`
`patterns/operations and database with machine operations that implement programmable rules and
`
`instructions for inspecting packets to identify patterns forming conversational flows.
`
`26.
`
`Networktraffic is inspected for pattern recognition to determine protocol types and
`
`headers for each protocol
`
`layer. Extracted packet
`
`information is compared to stored data
`
`corresponding to prior network transmissions to determine whether a current transmission belongs
`
`to a known flow comprising previously inspected transmissions. Extracted data may also be used
`
`to determine the different states, state transitions, and/or state operations to be performed
`
`corresponding to a conversational
`
`flow to aid in predicting and/or identifying subsequent
`
`transmissions within a conversational flow and/or to determine the termination of a conversational
`
`flow. One of the many advantages of the invention is properly analyzing the packets exchanged
`
`between a client and a server and maintaining information relevant to the current state of each of
`
`these conversational flows.
`
`27.
`
`Classifying transmissions in the context of conversational flows provides several
`
`benefits over conventional network monitoring systems and methods, including accommodation
`
`of: more flexible and effective stateful firewall operations to permit network operators greater
`
`flexibility in configuring network security policies; more robust understanding of the quality of
`
`service (“QoS”) and bandwidth usage of a multiple connection flow application whereby certain
`
`networktraffic could be excluded from data usage limits, bandwidth throttling may be applied to
`
`specific applications or services, and access to certain web browser applications may berestricted
`
`at specified times; and, eavesdropping or lawful interception, by cloningall of the traffic of a
`
`conversational flow, which allows another user on the network, or elsewhere, to read the content
`
`exchanged over the network without the knowledge ofthe original recipient.
`
`
`2697.001/1426122.1
`8
`Case No.
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 00008
`
`Page 00008
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-04741-WHO Document1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 9 of 18
`
`waF&FWwNO
`oOOoNSNNHN
`
`V. THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS
`
`28.
`
`The “Accused Products” include Defendant’s products, such as gateway andfirewall
`
`products that include the Application Identification feature, and/or the Juniper Application Aware
`
`feature or other similar functionality. These products include, but are not limited to: SRX Series
`
`Gateway and/or Firewall products both physical and virtual/containerized platforms (including but
`
`not limited to SRX100, SRX110, SRX210, SRX220, SRX240, SRX300, SRX320, SRX340,
`
`SRX550, SRX650, SRX1500, SRX4100, SRX4200, SRX4600, SRX5400, SRX5600, SRX5800,
`
`vSRX, and cSRX), the Juniper MX Series routers including both physical and virtual platforms
`
`(including but not limited to virtual MX (VMX), MX5. MX10, MX40, MX80, MX104, MX150,
`
`MX204, MX240, MX480, MX960, MX2008, MX2010, MX2020, MxX10003, MX 10008, and
`
`MX10016), and the NFX Series Network Services Platform products both physical and virtual
`
`platforms (including but not limited to NFX150 and NFX250) and any predecessor or successor
`
`models.
`
`29.
`
`The Application Identification and Application Aware features of the Accused
`
`Products allow inspection of packets at layers 3-7 of the OSI model to allow identification of a
`
`protocol associated with the packet and to determine the particular application associated with the
`
`packet. Defendant’s documentation describes this capability as shown below:
`
`
`2697.001/1426122.1
`9
`Case No.
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 00009
`
`Page 00009
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-04741-WHO Document1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 10 of 18
`
`Junos OS Next-Generation Application Identification
`
`Next-generation application identification builds on the legacy application identification
`functionality and provides more effective detection capabilities for evasive applications
`such as Skype, BitTorrent, and Tor.
`
`Junos OS application identification recognizes Web-based and other applications and
`protocols at different network layers using characteristics other than port number.
`Applications are identified by using a protocol bundle containing application signatures
`and parsing information. The identification is based on protocol parsing and decoding
`and session management.
`
`The detection mechanism has its own data feed and constructs to identify applications.
`
`The following features are supported in application identification:
`
`¢« Support for protocols and applications, including video streaming, peer-to-peer
`communication, social networking, and messaging
`
`«
`
`Identification of services within applications
`
`« Ability to distinguish actions launched within an application (such as login, browse,
`chat, and file transfer)
`
`¢ Supportfor all versions of protocols and application decoders and dynamic updates
`of decoders
`
`« Support for encrypted and compressedtraffic and most complex tunneling protocols
`
`« Ability to identify all protocols from Layer 3 to Layer 7 and above Layer 7
`
`See “Junos OS — Application Security Feature Guide for Security Devices,”at p. 28.
`
`30.
`
`A flow chart of the process by which the Accused Products identify the application
`
`that correspondsto a packet is shown below in the excerpt from Defendant’s documentation:
`
`waF&FWwNO
`oOOoNSNNHN
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`2697.001/1426122.1
`10
`Case No.
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 00010
`
`Page 00010
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-04741-WHO Document1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 11 of 18
`
`Application Identification Match Sequence
`
`Figure 1 on page 29 showsthe sequence in which mapping techniques are applied and
`how the application is determined.
`
`Figure 1: Mapping Sequence
`
`waF&FWwNO
`oOOoNSNNHN
`
`
`
`|FirstPacket
`
`Check application
`> system cache
`
` No
`
`Process packet
`
`
`
`Match
`
`Application
`
`Application
`
`Classified?
`
`
`Application
`
`Application ID
`| Done
`
`
`
`Yes
`
`
`
`
`
`More
`
`packets?
`
`
`See “Junos OS — Application Security Feature Guide for Security Devices,” at p. 29.
`
`No
`
`Unknown
`
`31.
`
`The flow chart showsseveral decision points during the processing of a packetin the
`
`Application Identification feature. The Accused Products can be used to implement one or more of
`
`the AppSecure models, such as AppTrack, AppFW, AppQoS, AppDoS, and IPS. For instance,
`
`AppQoScan be used to implement Quality of Service (“QOS”) policies that are applied to packets
`
`based on the application that is identified. A network operator using the Accused Products can set
`
`QOSpolicies that can limit the bandwidth for certain applications during peak hours orprioritize
`
`packets associated with applications requiring more bandwidth, e.g., streaming video.
`
`VI. PATENT INFRINGEMENT(U.S.Patent No. 6,651,099)
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`Packet Intelligence realleges paragraphs 1 through 31 as thoughfully set forth herein.
`
`Defendant has infringed directly and continuesto infringe directly, either literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claim 1 of the ’099 Patent by its manufacture, sale, offer
`
`
`2697.001/1426122.1
`11
`Case No.
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 00011
`
`Page 00011
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-04741-WHO Document1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 12 of 18
`
`waF&FWwNO
`oOOoNSNNHN
`
`for sale, and use of any one or more of the Accused Products. Defendant is therefore liable for
`
`infringement of the ’099 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`34.
`
`As of the time Defendantfirst had notice of Plaintiff's allegations of infringement of
`
`one or more claims of the ’099 Patent by Defendant, which is no later than the date of the notice
`
`letter sent by Packet Intelligence on January 18, 2019, Defendant indirectly infringed and continues
`
`to indirectly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’099 Patent by active inducement under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271(b). Defendant has induced, caused, urged, encouraged, aided and abetted its direct and
`
`indirect customers to make, use, sell, offer for sale and/or import one or more of the Accused
`
`Products, and thus indirectly infringes at least claim 1 of the ’099 Patent. Defendant has done so by
`
`acts including but not limited to (1) selling such products including features that—when used or
`
`resold—infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’099 Patent; (2) marketing
`
`the infringing capabilities of such products; and (3) providing instructions, technical support, and
`
`other support and encouragement for the use of such products, including at least the documents
`
`referenced above. Such conduct by Defendant was intended to and actually did result in direct
`
`infringement by Defendant’s direct and indirect customers, including the making, using, selling,
`
`offering for sale and/or importation of the Accused Products in the United States.
`
`35.
`
`Defendant’s infringement of the 099 Patent has damaged Packet Intelligence, and
`
`Defendant is liable to Packet Intelligence in an amount to be determinedat trial that compensates
`
`Packet Intelligence for the infringement, which by law can be noless than a reasonable royalty.
`
`36.
`
`As of the time Defendant first had notice of the ’099 Patent, at least as early as
`
`January 18, 2019, Defendant has continued with its infringement despite the objectively high
`
`likelihood that its actions constitute infringement and Defendant’s subjective knowledge ofthis
`
`obvious risk. As Defendant has no good faith belief that it does not infringe the ’099 Patent, at least
`
`Defendant’s continued infringement of the °099 Patent is willful and deliberate, entitling Packet
`
`Intelligence to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 andto attorneys’ fees and costs incurred
`
`in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`
`2697.001/1426122.1
`12
`Case No.
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 00012
`
`Page 00012
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-04741-WHO Document1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 13 of 18
`
`waF&FWwNO
`oOOoNSNNHN
`
`VIL. PATENT INFRINGEMENT(U.S. Patent No. 6,665,725)
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`Packet Intelligence realleges paragraphs 1 through 31 as though fully set forth herein.
`
`Defendant has infringed directly and continuesto infringe directly, either literally or
`
`underthe doctrine of equivalents, at least claim 17 of the ’725 Patent by its manufacture,sale, offer
`
`for sale, and use of any one or more of the Accused Products. Defendant is therefore liable for
`
`infringement of the ’725 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`39.
`
`As of the time Defendantfirst had notice of Plaintiffs allegations of infringement of
`
`one or more claims ofthe 725 Patent by Defendant,at least as early as January 18, 2019, Defendant
`
`indirectly infringed and continuesto indirectly infringe at least claim 17 ofthe ’725 Patent by active
`
`inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Defendant has induced, caused, urged, encouraged, aided
`
`and abetted its direct and indirect customers to make,use, sell, offer for sale and/or import one or
`
`more of the Accused Products, and thus indirectly infringes at least claim 17 of the °725 Patent.
`
`Defendant has done so by acts including but not limited to (1) selling such products including
`
`features that—when used or resold—infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`the ’725 Patent; (2) marketing the infringing capabilities of such products; and (3) providing
`
`instructions, technical support, and other support and encouragement for the use of such products,
`
`includingat least the documents referenced above. Such conduct by Defendant was intended to and
`
`actually did result in direct infringement by Defendant’s direct and indirect customers, including the
`
`making, using, selling, offering for sale and/or importation of the Accused Products in the United
`
`States.
`
`40.
`
`Defendant’s infringement of the °725 Patent has damaged PacketIntelligence, and
`
`Defendantis liable to Packet Intelligence in an amount to be determinedat trial that compensates
`
`PacketIntelligence for the infringement, which by law can be noless than a reasonable royalty.
`
`41.
`
`As of the time Defendant first had notice of the °725 Patent, at least as early as
`
`January 18, 2019, Defendant has continued with its infringement despite the objectively high
`
`likelihood that its actions constitute infringement Defendant’s subjective knowledge of this obvious
`
`risk. As Defendant has no good faith belief that it does not infringe the ’725 Patent, at least
`
`Defendant’s continued infringement of the °725 Patent is willful and deliberate, entitling Packet
`
`
`2697.001/1426122.1
`13
`Case No.
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 00013
`
`Page 00013
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-04741-WHO Document1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 14 of 18
`
`waF&FWwNO
`oOOoNSNNHN
`
`Intelligence to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 andto attorneys’ fees and costs incurred
`
`in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`VII. PATENT INFRINGEMENT(U.S. Patent No. 6,771,646)
`
`42.
`
`Packet Intelligence realleges paragraphs 1 through 31 as thoughfully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`43.
`
`Defendant has infringed directly and continuesto infringe directly, either literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claim 7 of the ’646 Patent by its manufacture, sale, offer
`
`for sale, and use of any one or more of the Accused Products. Defendant is therefore liable for
`
`infringement of the ’646 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`44.
`
`As of the time Defendant first had notice of Plaintiffs allegations of infringement of
`
`one or more claims of the ’646 Patent by Defendant, which is no later than the January 18, 2019,
`
`Defendantindirectly infringed and continuesto indirectly infringe at least claim 7 of the °646 Patent
`
`by active inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Defendant has induced, caused, urged, encouraged,
`
`aided and abetted its direct and indirect customers to make,use, sell, offer for sale and/or import
`
`one or more ofthe Accused Products, and thusindirectly infringes at least claim 7 ofthe 646 Patent.
`
`Defendant has done so by acts including but not limited to (1) selling such products including
`
`features that—when used or resold—infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`the 646 Patent; (2) marketing the infringing capabilities of such products; and (3) providing
`
`instructions, technical support, and other support and encouragement for the use of such products,
`
`includingat least the documents referenced above. Such conduct by Defendant was intended to and
`
`actually did result in direct infringement by Defendant’s direct and indirect customers, including the
`
`making, using, selling, offering for sale and/or importation of the Accused Products in the United
`
`States.
`
`45.
`
`Defendant’s infringement of the 646 Patent has damaged PacketIntelligence, and
`
`Defendant is liable to Packet Intelligence in an amount to be determinedat trial that compensates
`
`PacketIntelligence for the infringement, which by law can be noless than a reasonable royalty.
`
`46.
`
`As of the time Defendant first had notice of the °646 Patent, at least as early as
`
`January 18, 2019 2017, Defendant has continued with its infringement despite the objectively high
`
`
`2697.001/1426122.1
`14
`Case No.
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 00014
`
`Page 00014
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-04741-WHO Document1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 15 of 18
`
`waF&FWwNO
`oOOoNSNNHN
`
`likelihood that its actions constitute infringement and Defendant’s subjective knowledge ofthis
`
`obvious risk. As Defendant has no goodfaith belief that it does not infringe the ’646 Patent, at least
`
`Defendant’s continued infringement of the °646 Patent is willful and deliberate, entitling Packet
`
`Intelligence to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 andto attorneys’ fees and costs incurred
`
`in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`IX. PATENT INFRINGEMENT(US. Patent No. 6,839,751)
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`Packet Intelligence realleges paragraphs 1 through 31 as thoughfully set forth herein.
`
`Defendant has infringed directly and continuesto infringe directly, either literally or
`
`underthe doctrine of equivalents, at least claim 17 of the ’751 Patent by its manufacture,sale, offer
`
`for sale, and use of any one or more of the Accused Products. Defendant is therefore liable for
`
`infringement of the ’751 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`49.
`
`As of the time Defendant first had notice of Plaintiffs allegations of infringement of
`
`one or more claims of the ’751 Patent by Defendant, which is no later than the January 18, 2109,
`
`Defendant indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe at least claim 17 of the ’751
`
`Patent by active inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Defendant has induced, caused, urged,
`
`encouraged, aided and abetted its direct and indirect customers to make, use, sell, offer for sale
`
`and/or import one or more of the Accused Products, and thus indirectly infringes at least claim 17
`
`of the ’751 Patent. Defendant has done so by acts including but not limited to (1) selling such
`
`products including features that—when used or resold—infringe, either literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, the °751 Patent; (2) marketing the infringing capabilities of such products;
`
`and (3) providing instructions, technical support, and other support and encouragementfor the use
`
`of such products, including at least the documents referenced above. Such conduct by Defendant
`
`was intended to and actually did result in direct infringement by Defendant’s direct and indirect
`
`customers, including the making,using,selling, offering for sale and/or importation of the Accused
`
`Products in the United States.
`
`50.
`
`Defendant’s infringement of the ’751 Patent has damaged Packet Intelligence, and
`
`Defendantis liable to Packet Intelligence in an amount to be determinedat trial that compensates
`
`PacketIntelligence for the infringement, which by law can be noless than a reasonable royalty.
`
`
`2697.001/1426122.1
`15
`Case No.
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 00015
`
`Page 00015
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-04741-WHO Document1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 16 of 18
`
`waF&FWwNO
`oOOoNSNNHN
`
`51.
`
`As of the time Defendant first had notice of the ’751 Patent, at least as early as
`
`January 18, 2019, Defendant has continued with its infringement despite the objectively high
`
`likelihood that its actions constitute infringement and Defendant’s subjective knowledge ofthis
`
`obvious risk. As Defendant has no goodfaith belief that it does not infringe the ’751 Patent, at least
`
`Defendant’s continued infringement of the °751 Patent is willful and deliberate, entitling Packet
`
`Intelligence to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 andto attorneys’ fees and costs incurred
`
`in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`X. PATENT INFRINGEMENT(US.Patent No. 6,954,789)
`
`52.
`
`PacketIntelligence realleges paragraphs 1 through 31 as though fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`53.
`
`Defendant has infringed directly and continuesto infringe directly, either literally or
`
`underthe doctrine of equivalents, at least claim 19 of the ’789 Patent by its manufacture,sale, offer
`
`for sale, and use of any one or more of the Accused Products. Defendant is therefore liable for
`
`infringement of the ’789 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`54.
`
`As of the time Defendantfirst had notice of Plaintiffs allegations of infringement of
`
`one or more claims of the °789 Patent by Defendant, which is no later than the filing date of this
`
`complaint, Defendant, indirectly infringed and continuesto indirectly infringe at least claim 19 of
`
`the ’789 Patent by active inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Defendant has induced, caused,
`
`urged, encouraged, aided and abetted its direct and indirect customers to make, use, sell, offer for
`
`sale and/or import one or more of the Accused Products, and thus indirectly infringes at least claim
`
`19 of the ’789 Patent. Defendant has done so by acts including but not limited to (1) selling such
`
`products including features that—when used or resold—infringe, either literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, the °789 Patent; (2) marketing the infringing capabilities of such products;
`
`and (3) providing instructions, technical support, and other support and encouragementfor the use
`
`of such products, including at least the documents referenced above. Such conduct by Defendant
`
`was intended to and actually did result in direct infringement by Defendant’s direct and indirect
`
`customers, including the making,using,selling, offering for sale and/or importation of the Accused
`
`Products in the United States.
`
`
`2697.001/1426122.1
`16
`Case No.
`PACKET INTELLIGENCE LLC’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 00016
`
`Page 00016
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-04741-WHO Document1 Filed 08/13/19 Page 17 of 18
`
`waF&FWwNO
`oOOoNSNNHN
`
`55.
`
` Defendant’s infringement of the ’789 Patent has damaged Packet Intelligence, and
`
`Defendantis liable to Packet Intelligence in an amount to be determinedat trial that compensates
`
`PacketIntelligence for t