`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`2:17cv547
`Case No. ____________________
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`SRC LABS, LLC & SAINT REGIS
`MOHAWK TRIBE,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`AMAZON.COM, INC., &
`VADATA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 1
`
`XILINX 1019
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 2 of 33
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`NATURE OF THE ACTION ................................................................................... 4
`
`JURISDICTION ....................................................................................................... 5
`
`VENUE ..................................................................................................................... 5
`
`THE PARTIES .......................................................................................................... 9
`
`A. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe ..................................................................................... 9
`
`B. SRC Labs, LLC ....................................................................................................11
`
`C. Defendants’ Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2). ...........................................................12
`
`DEFENDANTS RECEIVED ACTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE ..........16
`
`A. Constructive Notice to Defendants. .......................................................................16
`
`B. Actual Notice to Defendants. ................................................................................19
`
`THE PATENTs ........................................................................................................22
`
`A. All Asserted Patents are owned by the Tribe and Licensed by SRC. .......................22
`
`B. Description of the Asserted Patents........................................................................23
`
`1. U.S. Patent 6,434,687 (the “’687 patent”). ...................................................23
`
`2. U.S. Patent 7,149,867 (the “’867 patent”). ...................................................23
`
`3. U.S. Patent 7,225,324 (the “’324 patent”). ...................................................23
`
`4. U.S. Patent 7,620,800 (the “’800 patent”). ...................................................24
`
`5. U.S. Patent 9,153,311 (the “’311 patent”). ...................................................24
`
`VII. COUNT ONE: Direct INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’687 patent ...............................24
`
`VIII. COUNT TWO: INDIRECT INFRINGMENT OF ’687 PATENT ...........................25
`
`IX.
`
`X.
`
`XI.
`
`COUNT THREE: WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’687 PATENT .............25
`
`COUNT FOUR: DIRECT INFRINGMENT OF THE ’867 PATENT .....................26
`
`COUNT FIVE: WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’867 PATENT .................27
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 2
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 3 of 33
`
`XII. COUNT SIX: DIRECT INFRINGMENT OF THE ’324 PATENT .........................28
`
`XIII. COUNT SEVEN: INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’324 PATENT ............28
`
`XIV. COUNT EIGHT: WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’324 PATENT ..............29
`
`XV. COUNT NINE: DIRECT INFRINGMENT OF THE ’800 PATENT ......................30
`
`XVI. COUNT TEN: INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’800 PATENT .................30
`
`XVII. COUNT ELEVEN: WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’800 PATENT ...........31
`
`XVIII. COUNT TWELVE: DIRECT INFRINGMENT OF THE ’311 PATENT................32
`
`XIX.
`
`XX.
`
`JURY DEMAND .....................................................................................................32
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF ...........................................................................................32
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 3
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 4 of 33
`
`Plaintiffs SRC Labs, LLC and Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe file this Original Complaint
`
`for Patent Infringement (“Complaint”) against Defendants Amazon Web Services, Inc.,
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. and VADATA, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiffs allege as
`
`follows:
`
`I. NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1. This is an action for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,434,687, 7,149,867, 7,225,324,
`
`7,620,800 and 9,153,311.
`
`2. SRC Labs, LLC is a Texas limited liability company and its parent is the successor to
`
`SRC Computers.
`
`3. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (the “Tribe”) is a federally recognized, sovereign American
`
`Indian Tribe located in upstate New York.
`
`4. Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business at 410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, Washington 98109. Amazon may be served
`
`through its registered agent for service of process at Corporation Service Company, 271
`
`Centerville Rd., Suite 300, Wilmington, Delaware 19808.
`
`5. Amazon Web Services, Inc. (“AWS”) is a Delaware corporation headquartered at 410
`
`Terry Avenue North, Seattle Washington 98109. AWS is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
`
`Amazon. AWS has been registered to do business in Virginia since January 25, 2013 (SCC ID
`
`F1918947). AWS’s Registered Agent/Registered Office is Corporation Service Company,
`
`Bank of America Center 16th Floor, 1111 East Main Street, Richmond Virginia, 23219.
`
`6. VADATA, Inc. (“VADATA”) is a Delaware corporation with offices and employees in
`
`the Commonwealth of Virginia. VADATA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amazon.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 4
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 5 of 33
`
`VADATA’s Registered Agent/Registered Office is Corporation Service Company, Bank of
`
`America Center 16th Floor, 1111 East Main Street, Richmond Virginia, 23219.
`
`II. JURISDICTION
`
`7. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.,
`
`including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 283, 284, and 285. This is a patent infringement lawsuit, over
`
`which this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`8. This Court has general and specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they
`
`are present in and transact and conduct business in and with residents of this District and the
`
`Commonwealth of Virginia.
`
`9. Plaintiffs’ causes of action arise, at least in part, from Defendants’ contacts with and
`
`activities in the Commonwealth of Virginia and this District.
`
`10. In addition, upon information and belief, Defendants have committed acts of
`
`infringement within this District and this State by, inter alia, making, selling, offering for sale,
`
`importing, and/or using products that infringe one or more claims of the patents-in-suit.
`
`11. Defendants, directly and through intermediaries, use, sell, ship, distributes offer for sale,
`
`and/or advertise or otherwise promote products in the Commonwealth of Virginia and this
`
`District. Defendants regularly conduct and solicit business in, engage in other persistent
`
`courses of conduct in, and/or derive substantial revenue from goods and services provided to
`
`residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia and this judicial District.
`
`III.VENUE
`
`12. Venue is proper in this District because Defendants meet all three general requirements
`
`relevant to the inquiry: (1) Defendants have multiple physical places in the District (2) they are
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 5
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 6 of 33
`
`regular and established places of business and (3) the physical places belong to Defendants. See
`
`In re Cray Inc., No. 2017-129, 2017 WL 4201535, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 2017).
`
`13. First, Defendants have an office within the Alexandria Division at 12900 Worldgate
`
`Drive, Herndon, Virginia. That office is home to over 500 employees that perform various
`
`functions, including engineering, customer support, security, software development, and
`
`systems engineering.
`
`14. In addition, AWS is a provider of cloud computing services, including compute power,
`
`database storage, content delivery, and other functionality to help businesses scale and grow.
`
`15. To provide these and other AWS services, AWS relies on a vast network of servers
`
`managed by VADATA.
`
`16. VADATA has substantial operations and facilities within the Commonwealth of
`
`Virginia.
`
`17. AWS and VADATA operate multiple data centers in Northern Virginia, within the
`
`Alexandria Division.
`
`18. AWS operates one data center at 21263 Smith Switch Road, Ashburn, Virginia 20147.
`
`19. AWS’s first data centers were in Northern Virginia because it is a central region for
`
`internet backbone.
`
`20. On April 19, 2017, AWS made the EC2 F1 instances with FPGAs “generally available
`
`in the US East (Northern Virginia) Region, with plans to bring them to other regions before too
`
`long.”1
`
`21. On July 22, 2016, AWS filed suit against Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. in
`
`the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District of Virginia.2
`
`1 https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/ec2-f1-instances-with-fpgas-now-generally-available/.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 6
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 7 of 33
`
`22. In its complaint, AWS made the following representations:
`
`2. Plaintiff AWS is a corporation organized and existing under
`the laws of the state of Delaware, with offices and employees
`throughout several of the United States, including the
`Commonwealth of Virginia. AWS is a wholly-owned
`subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”).
`
`9. Plaintiffs have numerous large scale offices and data centers
`supporting AWS in the Commonwealth of Virginia with
`significant continued investment underway. These offices and
`data centers employ a large number of people in the
`Commonwealth. Among these employees are witnesses who
`may have knowledge relevant to the issues in this case, such as
`Kevin Miller who is a Director in EC2 Software Development.
`
`23. Amazon, AWS, and VADATA also made the following representations to the Court in
`
`their Memorandum in Support of Motion to Enjoin Global Equity Management (SA) Pty.
`
`Ltd. from Litigating more than 30 Collateral and Identical Customer Suits in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas that was filed on November 18, 2016:3
`
`Amazon sued GEMSA in this district because of Amazon’s
`strong connection to the commonwealth of Virginia and
`because the accused AWS technology is maintained and
`operated in numerous VADATA data centers in this district.
`
`24. AWS’s suit against Global Equity Management (SA) Pty. Ltd. the Eastern District of
`
`Virginia is currently ongoing.
`
`25. The following people are employed by Defendants and likely have knowledge relevant
`
`to the issues in this case:
`
`Name
`Kevin Miller
`
`Chris Gorski
`Mike Grella
`
`Title at AWS
`Director of EC2 Software Development at Amazon Web
`Services
`Solutions Architect – Big Data/Open Data
`Director of Economic Development and Global
`
`Location
`N. Virginia
`
`N. Virginia
`N. Virginia
`
`2 Case No. 3:16-cv-00619.
`3 Amazon Web Services, Inc. & VADATA, Inc. v. Global Equity Management, S.A., No. 3:16-cv-619-
`MHL, Dkt. 26 at 5 (E.D. Va. Nov. 11, 2016).
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 7
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 8 of 33
`
`Mark Ryland
`
`Scott Solomon
`Andrew Doane
`David Levine
`Jennifer Nelson
`David Cruley
`Joe Soricelli
`Steven Baber
`Doug Knowles
`Tarun Verma
`
`Robert Johnson
`
`David Borland
`
`Mark Davis
`
`expansion
`Director of Solutions Architecture/Chief Solutions
`Architect
`Data Center Engineer at Amazon Web Services
`Director, Security Services at Amazon Web Services
`Data Center Technician at Amazon Web Services
`Senior Sales Manager at Amazon Web Services
`Senior Solution Architect at Amazon Web Services
`Global Solutions Architect at Amazon Web Services
`Solutions Architect at Amazon Web Services
`Partner Sales Manager at Amazon Web Service
`Global Solutions Product Manager at Amazon Web
`Services
`Architecture and Software, Silicon optimization at
`Amazon Web Services
`Director of Silicon Optimizations at Amazon Web
`Services
`Principal Engineer, Silicon Optimization at Amazon
`Web Services
`Danny Marquette Manager of Hardware Engineering, Silicon
`Optimizations at Amazon Web Services
`Hardware Development Engineer, Silicon
`Optimization at Amazon Web Services
`Vice President of Worldwide Corporate Development
`Sr. Principal Engineer, EC2 at Amazon Web Services
`Corporate Development at Amazon
`Principal, Venture Capital Business Development at
`AWS
`Senior Principal Engineer at AWS
`Vice President/Distinguished Engineer at AWS
`
`Trey Bachmayer
`
`Dan Grossman
`Matt Wilson
`Atul Deo
`Cliff Platt
`
`Andrew Caldwell
`Nafea Bshara
`
`N. Virginia
`
`N. Virginia
`N. Virginia
`N. Virginia
`N. Virginia
`N. Virginia
`N. Virginia
`N. Virginia
`N. Virginia
`N. Virginia
`
`Austin, TX
`
`Austin, TX
`
`Austin, TX
`
`Austin, TX
`
`Austin, TX
`
`Seattle, WA
`Seattle, WA
`Seattle, WA
`Seattle, WA
`
`Palo Alto, CA
`Palo Alto, CA
`
`26. In addition, these third-party witnesses likely have relevant knowledge:
`
`Name
`Nicholas Wilt
`
`Location
`Title
`Software Architect at Jump Trading LLC New York, NY
`
`27. Defendants also operate three fulfillment centers in the Commonwealth located in
`
`Chester, Petersburg, and Sterling, the latter of which is located within the Alexandria Division.
`
`28. These fulfillment centers employ more than 3,500 full-time people in the
`
`Commonwealth.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 8
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 9 of 33
`
`29. In summary, Defendants have multiple physical locations that are regular and
`
`established places of business within this District and within the Alexandria Division so venue
`
`is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
`
`A. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
`
`IV. THE PARTIES
`
`30. The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe is a federally-recognized, sovereign American Indian
`
`tribe with reservation lands in northern New York.
`
`31. By filing this lawsuit, the Tribe has not expressly or impliedly waived its sovereign
`
`immunity to any inter partes review proceeding involving the patents asserted in this case or any
`
`other patent assigned to the Tribe.
`
`32. The Tribe’s reservation was established by a federal treaty approved and ratified by the
`
`United States.
`
`33. The Tribe’s current reservation constitutes 14,000 acres spanning Franklin and St.
`
`Lawrence counties.
`
`34. The Tribe has over 15,600 enrolled tribal members, with approximately 8,000 tribal
`
`members living on the reservation.
`
`35. The Tribe provides essential government functions such as education, policing,
`
`infrastructure, housing services, social services, and healthcare. See https://www.srmt-
`
`nsn.gov/about-the-tribe.
`
`36. But unlike other sovereign governments, the Tribe’s ability to raise revenues through
`
`taxation is extremely limited.
`
`37. This is a problem faced by all American Indian Tribes as described by the National
`
`Congress of American Indians (“NCAI”):
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 9
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 10 of 33
`
`In general, tribal governments lack parity with states, local
`governments, and the federal government in exercising taxing
`authority. For example, tribes are unable to levy property taxes
`because of the trust status of their land, and they generally do
`not levy income taxes on tribal members. Most Indian
`reservations are plagued with disproportionately high levels of
`unemployment and poverty, not to mention a severe lack of
`employment opportunities. As a result, tribes are unable to
`establish a strong tax base structured around the property taxes
`and income taxes typically found at the local state government
`level. To the degree that they are able, tribes use sales and
`excise taxes, but these do not generate enough revenue to
`support tribal government functions.
`
`38. Because of these disparities, a significant portion of the revenue the Tribe uses to
`
`provide basic governmental services must come from economic development and investment
`
`rather than taxes or financing.
`
`39. To overcome these economic disadvantages, the Tribe took steps to diversify its
`
`economy with investments in innovative businesses and various enterprises to foster jobs and
`
`entrepreneurship.
`
`40. Looking to the business model already utilized by state universities and their
`
`technology transfer offices, the Tribe adopted a Tribal Resolution endorsing the creation of a
`
`technology and innovation center for the commercialization of existing and emerging
`
`technologies.
`
`41. This new Tribal enterprise is called the Office of Technology, Research and Patents (the
`
`“Office”) and is part of the Tribe’s Economic Development Department. See
`
`https://www.srmt-nsn.gov/economic-development.
`
`42. The Office’s purpose is to strengthen the Tribal economy by encouraging the
`
`development of emerging science and technology initiatives and projects, and promoting the
`
`modernization of Tribal and other businesses.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 10
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 11 of 33
`
`43. The objective of the Office is to create revenue, jobs, and new economic development
`
`opportunities for the Tribe and its members.
`
`44. The Office will also promote the education of Mohawks in the fields of science,
`
`technology, engineering, and math.
`
`B. SRC Labs
`
`45. SRC Computers, LLC was co-founded by Seymour R. Cray (hence “SRC”), Jim
`
`Guzy, and Jon Huppenthal in 1996 to produce unique high-performance computer systems
`
`using Intel’s Merced microprocessor.
`
`46. SRC Labs, LLC’s parent company is the successor to SRC Computers.
`
`47. Jim Guzy is a co-founder of Intel Corporation and served on Intel’s board for 38 years.
`
`48. Mr. Guzy was named to Forbes Midas List, which surveys the top tech deal makers in
`
`the world, in 2006 and 2007.
`
`49. Seymour Cray was an American electrical engineer and supercomputer architect who
`
`designed a series of computers that were the fastest in the world for decades.
`
`50. Mr. Cray has been credited with creating the supercomputing industry.
`
`51. Unfortunately, Mr. Cray died shortly after founding of SRC Computers.
`
`52. But his legacy was carried on by Jon Huppenthal and a talented team of engineers that
`
`worked with Mr. Cray and Mr. Huppenthal for decades.
`
`53. SRC Computers’ focus was creating easy-to-program, general-purpose reconfigurable
`
`computing systems.
`
`54. In early 1997, Mr. Huppenthal and his team realized that the microprocessors of the
`
`day had many shortcomings relative to the custom processing engines that they were used to.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 11
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 12 of 33
`
`55. As a result, they decided to incorporate dedicated processing elements built from Field
`
`Programmable Gate Arrays (“FPGAs”) and that idea quickly evolved into a novel system
`
`combining reconfigurable processors and CPUs.
`
`56. SRC Computers’ heterogenous system had 100x performance, 1/50th of the operating
`
`expense, 1/100th of the power usage, and required 1/500th of the space of more traditional
`
`computer systems.
`
`57. SRC Computers’ proven systems are used for some of the most demanding military
`
`and intelligence applications, including the simultaneous real-time processing and analysis of
`
`radar, flight and mission data collected from a variety of aerial vehicles in over 1,000 successful
`
`counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency missions for the U.S. Department of Defense.
`
`58. SRC Computers offered its first commercial product in 2015 called the Saturn 1 server.
`
`59. The Saturn 1 was 100 times faster than a server with standard Intel microprocessors
`
`while using 1 percent of the power.
`
`60. The Saturn 1 was designed to be used in HP’s Moonshot server chassis for data centers.
`
`61. SRC Computers has had over 30 U.S. patents issued for its innovative technology.
`
`62. SRC Computers’ patent portfolio covers numerous aspects of reconfigurable computing
`
`and has more than 1,800 forward citations.
`
`C. Defendants’ Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2).
`
`63. Defendants offer a service named Elastic Compute Cloud or EC2.
`
`64. EC2 was designed and developed by AWS.
`
`65. EC2 is a web service designed to make web-scale cloud computing easier for
`
`developers.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 12
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 13 of 33
`
`66. EC2 allows users to rent virtual computers to run their own computer applications
`
`providing them with flexibility to use the computing resources they need without incurring
`
`sunk costs in expensive hardware.
`
`67. On November 30, 2016, AWS announced it was launching a new EC2 instance type
`
`called the F1.
`
`68. The EC2 F1 instances incorporate Field Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs).
`
`69. The EC2 F1 was originally only available in the AWS’s US East region and was
`
`recently also made available in the US West (Oregon) and EU (Ireland) regions.
`
`70. AWS’s US East region servers are in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
`
`71. In contrast to a purpose-built chip which is designed with a single function in mind and
`
`then hard-wired to implement it, an FPGA is more flexible.
`
`72. An FPGA can be programmed in the field, after it has been plugged into a socket on a
`
`PC board.
`
`73. Each FPGA includes a fixed, finite number of simple logic gates.
`
`74. Programming an FPGA is “simply” a matter of connecting them up to create the
`
`desired logical functions (AND, OR, XOR, and so forth) or storage elements (flip-flops and
`
`shift registers).
`
`75. Unlike a CPU which is essentially serial (with a few parallel elements) and has fixed-
`
`size instructions and data paths (typically 32 or 64 bit), the FPGA can be programmed to
`
`perform many operations in parallel, and the operations themselves can be of almost any
`
`width, large or small.
`
`76. The highly parallelized model in FPGAs is ideal for building custom accelerators to
`
`process compute-intensive problems.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 13
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 14 of 33
`
`77. Properly programmed, an FPGA has the potential to provide a 30x speedup to many
`
`types of genomics, seismic analysis, financial risk analysis, big data search, and encryption
`
`algorithms and applications.
`
`78. Defendants offer two instances sizes of EC2 F1 that include up to eight FPGAs per
`
`instance.
`
`79. F1 instances include 16nm Xilinx UltraScale Plus FPGA.
`
`80. F1 instances include Intel Broadwell E5 2686 v4 processors.
`
`81. F1 instances include 64 GiB of ECC-protected memory on a 288-bit wide bus (4 DDR4
`
`channels).
`
`82. F1 instances include a dedicated PCIe x16 interface to the CPU.
`
`83. Each FPGA used in the Amazon EC2 F1 instance contains approximately 2.5 million
`
`logic elements and approximately 6,800 Digital Signal Processing (DSP) engines.
`
`84. Each FPGA used in the Amazon EC2 F1 instance includes local 64 GiB DDR ECC
`
`protected memory, with a dedicated PCle x16 connection.
`
`85. Customers pay for EC2 F1 compute capacity by the hour with no long-term
`
`commitments or upfront payments.
`
`86. Customers can program the FPGA on their F1 instance as many times as they like with
`
`no additional fees.
`
`87. FPGAs are connected to customer’s F1 instances through a dedicated PCI Express
`
`(PCIe) fabric that lets FPGAs share the same memory space and communicate with each other
`
`at up to 12 GBps.
`
`88. The PCI Express fabric is isolated from other networks and FPGAs are not shared
`
`across instances, users, or accounts.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 14
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 15 of 33
`
`89. Defendants’ customers can use FPGAs to accelerate their applications more than 30x
`
`when compared with servers that use CPUs alone.
`
`90. The speed increase is a result of the FPGAs handling compute-intensive, deeply
`
`pipelined, hardware-accelerated operations, which also allows for highly parallelized
`
`computing.
`
`91. AWS provides the FPGA Developer Amazon Machine Image (“AMI”).
`
`92. An AMI is an encrypted machine image stored in Amazon Elastic Block
`
`Store or Amazon Simple Storage Service.
`
`93. AMIs are like a template of a computer's root drive.
`
`94. AMIs contain the operating system and can also include software and layers of your
`
`application, such as database servers, middleware, web servers, and so on.
`
`95. Defendants’ FPGA Developer AMI is pre-built with FPGA development tools and run
`
`time tools required to develop and use custom FPGAs for hardware acceleration.
`
`96. The FPGA developer AMI includes a prepackaged tool development environment,
`
`with scripts and tools for simulating your FPGA design, compiling code, building and
`
`registering your AFI (Amazon FPGA Image).
`
`97. Developers can deploy the FPGA developer AMI on an Amazon EC2 instance and
`
`quickly provision the resources they need to write and debug FPGA designs in the cloud.
`
`98. The FPGA developer AMI is designed to provide a stable, secure, and high-
`
`performance development environment.
`
`99. The FPGA developer AMI allows customers to write FPGA code using VHDL or
`
`Verilog and then compile, simulate, and verify it using tools from the Xilinx Vivado Design
`
`Suite.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 15
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 16 of 33
`
`100. AWS also allows its customers to use High Level Synthesis tools, including OpenCL,
`
`to program FPGAs.
`
`101. In addition to building applications and services for their own use, customers can also
`
`package their applications and services up for sale and reuse in the AWS Marketplace.
`
`102. Amazon EC2 F1 Instance Partners include Aldec, Inc., Aon Benfield, Atomic Rules,
`
`CME Group, Edico Genome, Falcon Computing Solutions, Mipsology, National Instruments,
`
`NGCodec, Reconfigure.io, Ryft, Teradeep, Maxeler Technologies, Missing Link Electronics,
`
`Titan IC Systems, and Plunify.
`
`V. DEFENDANTS RECEIVED ACTUAL AND CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE
`
`103. SRC complied with 35 U.S.C. § 287 by (i) placing the required notice on all, or
`
`substantially all, of its products made, offered for sale, sold, or imported into the United States,
`
`or (ii) providing actual notice to Defendants.
`
`A. Constructive Notice to Defendants.
`
`104. For example, SRC has placed the following notice on all, or substantially all, of its
`
`products since at least September 30, 2010:4
`
`4 h
`
`ttps://web.archive.org/web/20100930014237/http://www.srccomp.com/techpubs/patente
`dtech.asp.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 16
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 17 of 33
`
`105. The website listed in the notice, WWW.SRCCOMP.COM/
`
`TECHPUBS/PATENTEDTECH.ASP, stated the following:
`
`106. The website also listed at least the following patents since September 30, 2010. The
`
`patents asserted in this case are highlighted:
`
`Patent # Patent Title
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 17
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 18 of 33
`
`6,026,459
`
`6,076,152
`
`6,247,110
`
`6,295,598
`
`6,339,819
`
`6,434,687
`
`System and method for dynamic priority conflict resolution in a multi-processor
`computer system having shared memory resources
`Multiprocessor computer architecture incorporating a plurality of memory
`algorithm processors in the memory subsystem
`Multiprocessor computer architecture incorporating a plurality of memory
`algorithm processors in the memory subsystem
`Split directory-based cache coherency technique for a multi-processor computer
`system
`Multiprocessor with each processor element accessing operands in loaded input
`buffer and forwarding results to FIFO output buffer
`
`System and method for accelerating web site access and processing utilizing a
`computer system incorporating reconfigurable processors operating under a single
`operating system image
`
`6,356,983
`
`6,594,736
`
`6,627,985
`
`6,781,226
`
`System and method providing cache coherency and atomic memory operations in
`a multiprocessor computer architecture
`System and method for semaphore and atomic operation management in a
`multiprocessor
`Reconfigurable processor module comprising hybrid stacked integrated circuit die
`elements
`Reconfigurable processor module comprising hybrid stacked integrated circuit die
`elements
`6,836,823 Bandwidth enhancement for uncached devices
`6,941,539 Efficiency of reconfigurable hardware
`Multiprocessor computer architecture incorporating a plurality of memory
`algorithm processors in the memory subsystem
`6,964,029 System and method for partitioning control-dataflow graph representations
`Process for converting programs in high-level programming languages to a
`unified executable for hybrid computing platforms
`System and method for providing an arbitrated memory bus in a hybrid
`computing system
`Computer system architecture and memory controller for close-coupling within a
`hybrid processing system utilizing an adaptive processor interface port
`System and method for explicit communication of messages between processes
`running on different nodes in a clustered multiprocessor system
`Reconfigurable processor module comprising hybrid stacked integrated circuit die
`elements
`7,134,120 Map compiler pipelined loop structure
`
`6,961,841
`
`6,983,456
`
`6,996,656
`
`7,003,593
`
`7,124,211
`
`7,126,214
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 18
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 19 of 33
`
`7,149,867
`
`7,155,602
`
`7,155,708
`
`7,167,976
`
`7,197,575
`
`7,225,324
`
`7,237,091
`
`7,282,951
`
`7,299,458
`
`7,373,440
`
`7,406,573
`
`7,421,524
`
`7,424,552
`
`7,565,461
`
`7,620,800
`
`System and method of enhancing efficiency and utilization of memory bandwidth
`in reconfigurable hardware
`Interface for integrating reconfigurable processors into a general purpose
`computing system
`Debugging and performance profiling using control-dataflow graph
`representations with reconfigurable hardware emulation
`Interface for integrating reconfigurable processors into a general purpose
`computing system
`Switch/network adapter port coupling a reconfigurable processing element to one
`or more microprocessors for use with interleaved memory controllers
`Multi-adaptive processing systems and techniques for enhancing parallelism and
`performance of computational functions
`Multiprocessor computer architecture incorporating a plurality of memory
`algorithm processors in the memory subsystem
`Reconfigurable processor module comprising hybrid stacked integrated circuit die
`elements
`System and method for converting control flow graph representations to control-
`dataflow graph representations
`Switch/network adapter port for clustered computers employing a chain of multi-
`adaptive processors in a dual in-line memory module format
`Reconfigurable processor element utilizing both coarse and fine grained
`reconfigurable elements
`Switch/network adapter port for clustered computers employing a chain of multi-
`adaptive processors in a dual in-line memory module format
`Switch/network adapter port incorporating shared memory resources selectively
`accessible by a direct execution logic element and one or more dense logic devices
`Switch/network adapter port coupling a reconfigurable processing element to one
`or more microprocessors for use with interleaved memory controllers
`Multi-adaptive processing systems and techniques for enhancing parallelism and
`performance of computational functions
`
`B. Actual Notice to Defendants.
`
`107. In 2015, SRC and Defendants met four times to discuss SRC’s patent portfolio and
`
`technology.
`
`108. The first meeting was on May 12, 2015 in Seattle and was attended by the following
`
`individuals from Defendants:
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 19
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 2:18-cv-00317-JLR Document 1 Filed 10/18/17 Page 20 of 33
`
`(a) Dan Grossman, the VP of Worldwide Corporate Development at Amazon;
`
`and
`
`(b) Cliff Platt, a senior manager of Corporate Development at AWS.
`
`109. The second meeting was on June 5,