UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`Austin Division
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:21-cv-00027
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`MEDIA CHAIN, LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, Media Chain, LLC (“Media Chain” or “Plaintiff”), sues Roku, Inc. (“Roku” or
`
`“Defendant”), for patent infringement, and alleges:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Media Chain owns United States Patent Nos. 9,715,581 B1 (the ’581 Patent”),
`
`9,898,590 B2 (the “’590 Patent”), 10,489,560 B2 (the “’560 Patent”), 10,515,191 B2 (the “’191
`
`Patent”), 10,860,691 B2 (the “’691 Patent”), and 10,885,154 B2 (the “’154 Patent”) (the ’581
`
`Patent, ’590 Patent, ’560 Patent, ’191 Patent, ’691 Patent, and ’154 Patent, together the
`
`“Patents”) by assignment. See Composite Exhibit A.
`
`2.
`
`The Abstract of the Patents state:
`
`Systems and methods for monetizing the reproduction of digital media
`content for the rights-holders of the digital media content. Embodiments
`of the present disclosure relate to determining whether a user of a media
`content item has a license to reproduce the media content item. In one
`embodiment, the media content item may be reproduced when the user is
`licensed. The user is prompted to select to acquire a license to reproduce
`the media content item or to decline the license to reproduce the media
`content item when the user is not licensed. Further embodiments
`determine whether a user may receive a license when the user wishes to
`acquire a license. In an embodiment, the user is declined a license when
`not approved for the license.
`
`1
`
`EX1064
`Roku V. Media Chain
`U.S. Patent No. 10,860,691
`
`

`

`
`Media Chain was formed in 2018 by Christopher A. Estes to own and
`
`3.
`
`commercialize the Patents, issued on his inventions.
`
`4.
`
`Through this Complaint, Media Chain alleges direct patent infringement, in
`
`violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, against Roku, as set forth below in Counts I-VI.
`
`PARTIES
`
`5.
`
`Media Chain is a Delaware limited liability company, and maintains its principal
`
`place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.
`
`6.
`
`Roku is a Delaware corporation, and maintains a corporate headquarters at 1155
`
`Coleman Ave., San Jose, California 95110.
`
`7.
`
`Roku also maintains and operates out of several other offices located across the
`
`United States, including an office located at 9606 N. Mopac Expressway, Suite 400, Austin,
`
`Texas 78759 (Roku’s “Austin Office”).
`
`8.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Austin Office is a physical place of business in
`
`this district that is owned or leased by Roku, and over 100 Roku employees work out of the
`
`Austin Office.
`
`9.
`
`Roku has been registered as a foreign for-profit corporation with the Texas
`
`Secretary of State since 2014.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`10.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1338(a), this Court has original jurisdiction over the
`
`subject matter of this action because this is an action arising under the patent laws of the United
`
`States, including 35 U.S.C. § 1 et. seq.
`
`2
`
`

`

`11.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Roku because Roku is engaged in
`
`substantial and not isolated activities within Texas, and it has continuous and systematic contacts
`
`with Texas.
`
`12.
`
`Roku committed at least one of the acts of infringement alleged herein in Texas,
`
`and this judicial district.
`
`13.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1400(b), venue is proper in the Western District of Texas,
`
`Austin Division, because it is where Roku has committed acts of infringement and has a regular
`
`and established place of business.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`14.
`
`The inventions claimed by the Patents represent a significant advance over the
`
`prior art.
`
`15.
`
`By reviewing publically available information including, but not limited to, the
`
`articles, websites, and other materials or relevant portions thereof attached hereto as Composite
`
`Exhibit B, Media Chain learned that Roku infringed at least: claim 1 of the ’581 Patent; claim 1
`
`of the ’590 Patent; claim 1 of the ’560 Patent; claim 1 of the ’191 Patent; claim 1 of the ’691
`
`Patent; and claim 1 of the ’154 Patent through its products and services.
`
`16. Media Chain has prepared preliminary claim charts (“Preliminary Claim Charts”),
`
`which are attached hereto as Composite Exhibit C, and are incorporated by reference herein.
`
`17.
`
`The Preliminary Claim Charts allege and explain how Roku performs each and
`
`every step of one or more claims of the Patents.
`
`18.
`
`To the extent that Media Chain is considered not to perform any of the claimed
`
`method steps itself, Roku directs or controls another to perform such steps.
`
`3
`
`

`

`19.
`
`To the extent that any of the claimed method steps are considered to be performed
`
`by another entity, upon information and belief, Roku has contracted with such entity to perform
`
`such steps pursuant to an agreement, and Roku conditions payment to such entity upon such
`
`entity’s performance of such steps.
`
`20.
`
`All conditions precedent to bringing this action have occurred or been waived.
`
`21. Media Chain has retained counsel to represent it in this matter and is obligated to
`
`pay its counsel a reasonable fee for its services.
`
`COUNT I: DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’581 PATENT
`
`22.
`
`The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 – 21 above are hereby re-alleged as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`23.
`
`As set forth in Exhibit C, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, and in connection with
`
`its products and services in the United Sates, Roku infringed the ’581 Patent either literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents by performing each and every step set forth in at least claim 1
`
`of the ’581 Patent.
`
`24. Media Chain has been damaged by Roku’s infringement.
`
`WHEREFORE, Media Chain respectfully requests the Court enter a judgment:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Finding that Defendant infringed the ’581 Patent;
`
`Awarding Media Chain the greater of (a) damages adequate to compensate for the
`
`patent infringement that has occurred plus any enhancement of these damages the Court deems
`
`just under 35 U.S.C. § 284, or (b) a reasonable royalty;
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Awarding Media Chain pre-judgment interest and costs;
`
`Enjoining Roku and its agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all other
`
`persons acting in concert or in participation with Roku from infringing the ’581 Patent; and
`
`4
`
`

`

`E.
`
`Awarding Media Chain all such other and further relief as the Court deems just
`
`and proper.
`
`COUNT II: DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’590 PATENT
`
`25.
`
`The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 – 21 above are hereby re-alleged as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`26.
`
`As set forth on Exhibit C, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, and in connection with
`
`its Roku products and services in the United Sates, Roku infringed the ’590 Patent either literally
`
`or under the doctrine of equivalents by performing each and every step set forth in at least claim
`
`1 of the ’590 Patent.
`
`27. Media Chain has been damaged by Roku’s infringement.
`
`WHEREFORE, Media Chain respectfully requests the Court enter a judgment:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Finding that Roku infringed the ’590 Patent;
`
`Awarding Media Chain the greater of (a) damages adequate to compensate for the
`
`patent infringement that has occurred plus any enhancement of these damages the Court deems
`
`just under 35 U.S.C. § 284, or (b) a reasonable royalty;
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Awarding Media Chain pre-judgment interest and costs;
`
`Enjoining Roku and its agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all other
`
`persons acting in concert or in participation with Roku from infringing the ’590 Patent; and
`
`E.
`
`Awarding Media Chain all such other and further relief as the Court deems just
`
`and proper.
`
`COUNT III: DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’560 PATENT
`
`28.
`
`The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 – 21 above are hereby re-alleged as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`5
`
`

`

`29.
`
`As set forth on Exhibit C, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, and in connection with
`
`its Roku products and services in the United Sates in the United Sates, Roku infringed the ’560
`
`Patent either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents by performing each and every step set
`
`forth in at least claims 1 of the ’560 Patent.
`
`30. Media Chain has been damaged by Roku’s infringement.
`
`WHEREFORE, Media Chain respectfully requests the Court enter a judgment:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Finding that Roku infringed the ’560 Patent;
`
`Awarding Media Chain the greater of (a) damages adequate to compensate for the
`
`patent infringement that has occurred plus any enhancement of these damages the Court deems
`
`just under 35 U.S.C. § 284, or (b) a reasonable royalty;
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Awarding Media Chain pre-judgment interest and costs;
`
`Enjoining Roku and its agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all other
`
`persons acting in concert or in participation with Roku from infringing the ’560 Patent; and
`
`E.
`
`Awarding Media Chain all such other and further relief as the Court deems just
`
`and proper.
`
`COUNT IV: DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’191 PATENT
`
`31.
`
`The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 – 21 above are hereby re-alleged as if
`
`fully set forth herein.