Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/05/14 Page 1 of 23 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-61
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`-against-
`
`
`
`Google, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. (“ContentGuard”), by and through its undersigned
`
`attorneys, based upon personal knowledge with respect to its own actions and on information and
`
`belief as to other matters, for its complaint avers as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`ContentGuard
`
`ContentGuard is a leading innovator, developer, and licensor of digital rights
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`management (“DRM”) and related digital content distribution products and technologies.
`
`ContentGuard is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Texas with its principal
`
`place of business at 6900 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 850, Plano, Texas, 75024.
`
`2.
`
`ContentGuard’s long history of innovation in the DRM space began in the 1990s
`
`at Xerox Corporation’s legendary Palo Alto Research Center (“Xerox PARC”). Years before
`
`Google’s popular search engine was designed, Xerox PARC’s brilliant scientists envisioned a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/05/14 Page 2 of 23 PageID #: 2
`
`future in which people would rely on the Internet to supply the broadest array of digital content
`
`the world had ever seen. At that time, however, no one had yet invented an effective means to
`
`prevent piracy of digital content, which could be readily copied and distributed by personal
`
`computers. Many believed that the problem was essentially unsolvable—and that, as a
`
`consequence, the distribution of movies, videos, music, books, “apps,” and other digital content
`
`over the Internet would be blocked by copyright owners and others with a vested interest in
`
`protecting such content.
`
`3.
`
`A well-known commentator—John Perry Barlow—summarized the “digitized
`
`property” challenge as follows: “If our property can be infinitely reproduced and instantaneously
`
`distributed all over the planet without cost, without our knowledge, without its even leaving our
`
`possession, how can we protect it? How are we going to get paid for the work we do with our
`
`minds? And, if we can’t get paid, what will assure the continued creation and distribution of
`
`such work? Since we don’t have a solution to what is a profoundly new kind of challenge, and
`
`are apparently unable to delay the galloping digitization of everything not obstinately physical,
`
`we are sailing into the future on a sinking ship.”
`
`4.
`
`While they fully understood the “profoundly new kind of challenge” posed by the
`
`arrival of the Internet, Xerox PARC’s scientists had a different vision of the future, firmly
`
`believing that a solution to what Barlow called the “immense, unsolved conundrum . . . of
`
`digitized property” could in fact be found. Xerox PARC’s scientists thus began to explore DRM
`
`solutions that would not only prevent piracy, but would also enable musicians, authors,
`
`photographers, publishers, and producers to share, track, and control their content. Through a
`
`series of revolutionary inventions in the 1990s, Xerox PARC’s scientists laid the technological
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/05/14 Page 3 of 23 PageID #: 3
`
`foundation for what would ultimately become the prevailing paradigm for distributing digital
`
`content over the Internet.
`
`5.
`
`In 2000, Xerox Corporation partnered with Microsoft Corporation to form a new
`
`company, ContentGuard, to pursue the DRM business. Xerox contributed key personnel, as well
`
`as all of its then-existing and future DRM-related inventions and technologies to ContentGuard.
`
`In the press release announcing the formation of ContentGuard, Steve Ballmer, Microsoft’s then-
`
`President and Chief Executive Officer, hailed ContentGuard’s innovations in the DRM space,
`
`noting that “the secure and safe delivery of digital media is of primary importance to not only
`
`everyone in the business of content distribution, but consumers of this information as well.” The
`
`joint Xerox and Microsoft press release announcing the formation of ContentGuard, and an
`
`advertisement produced at the time, are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B.
`
`6.
`
`Staffed by a team of scientists and technology veterans from Xerox and
`
`Microsoft, ContentGuard continued its path of innovation, developing both hardware and
`
`software solutions to solve the vexing problem of digital piracy. ContentGuard has invested
`
`more than $100 million to develop these DRM solutions and bring them to market.
`
`7.
`
`ContentGuard expanded
`
`its commitment
`
`to research and
`
`innovation by
`
`developing end-to-end DRM systems and products embodying ContentGuard’s inventions, an
`
`effort that continues today. ContentGuard also provided DRM research expertise to various
`
`industry players that wished to have the freedom to custom-build and operate their own DRM
`
`systems. In addition to its extensive collaboration with Microsoft, ContentGuard also partnered
`
`with companies such as Hewlett-Packard, Adobe, TimeWarner, and Accenture to assist them in
`
`developing DRM solutions.
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/05/14 Page 4 of 23 PageID #: 4
`
`8.
`
`To further accelerate the evolution of the marketplace for digital content,
`
`ContentGuard also led the way in enabling industry groups to better understand DRM system
`
`requirements and to develop appropriate DRM specifications and industry standards that would
`
`allow for DRM interoperability between content providers, including distributors, and device
`
`manufacturers. Among other things, recognizing the need for standardized mechanisms to
`
`facilitate trusted interoperability between DRM systems, ContentGuard engineers developed a
`
`standards-based rights description language called eXtensible Rights Markup Language
`
`(“XrML”). XrML, which is deployed in Microsoft DRM products, advanced the state of the art
`
`of rights expression languages by introducing features such as improved identification
`
`capabilities of the digital resource, user, and issuer.
`
`9.
`
`ContentGuard’s important contributions to the DRM field have been widely
`
`recognized. The New York Times hailed ContentGuard as a “pioneer in th[e] field of digital-
`
`rights management.” The Los Angeles Times similarly noted that ContentGuard held “the
`
`technological building blocks necessary to make the digital delivery of music, movies and other
`
`files secure.” Another market commentator remarked that ContentGuard “has almost single-
`
`handedly driven DRM interoperability.”
`
`10.
`
`To this day, ContentGuard continues to innovate and invest in researching new
`
`and innovative DRM technologies and products that enable the distribution of rich multimedia
`
`content on smartphones, tablets, e-readers, laptop computers, smart televisions, set top boxes,
`
`and other electronic devices manufactured and sold worldwide. Among other things,
`
`ContentGuard recently released an “app” under its own name that allows users to share
`
`documents, PDFs, and photos securely and privately. To determine the areas of research and
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/05/14 Page 5 of 23 PageID #: 5
`
`development investment, ContentGuard leverages the expertise of its engineers and product
`
`development team.
`
`11.
`
`ContentGuard’s DRM innovations remain immensely relevant—and immensely
`
`valuable—today. The availability of rich multimedia content is a key driver of the enormous
`
`success experienced by manufacturers of devices such as smartphones, tablets, e-readers, smart
`
`televisions, or set top boxes, whose commercial value is largely driven by the capability of such
`
`devices to download, play, and display digital content. Without effective DRM protection, many
`
`owners of digital content would not allow their content to be available on those devices. As the
`
`president of the World Wide Web Consortium remarked in pointed language “Reject DRM and
`
`you risk walling off parts of the web.”
`
`12.
`
`Virtually every smartphone, tablet, and e-reader produced and sold around the
`
`world relies on ContentGuard’s DRM technology. ContentGuard’s new content-sharing “app”
`
`and related products that are currently under development similarly rely on ContentGuard’s
`
`foundational DRM technology. Without that technology, many companies that invest billions of
`
`dollars to produce movies, videos, books, music, and “apps” would be unwilling to distribute
`
`such digital content over the Internet.
`
`B.
`
`13.
`
`The Defendant
`
`Defendant Google, Inc. (“Google”) is a corporation organized under the laws of
`
`the State of Delaware and registered to do business in the State of Texas, with a principal place
`
`of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California, CA 94043. Google is
`
`doing business and infringing ContentGuard’s DRM patents in the Eastern District of Texas and
`
`elsewhere in the United States.
`
`14.
`
`Google develops and distributes an open-source operating system known as
`
`Android (“Android OS”). Various companies, among them Amazon.com, Inc., HTC
`
`-5-
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/05/14 Page 6 of 23 PageID #: 6
`
`Corporation, Huawei Technologies Co., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Google’s own
`
`wholly-owned subsidiary Motorola Mobility LLC (“Motorola”) make modifications to Google’s
`
`open-source Android OS and thereafter incorporate it in devices that are sold throughout the
`
`United States.
`
`15.
`
`In addition to developing and distributing the open-source Android OS, Google
`
`maintains GooglePlay, a digital platform for the distribution of movies, videos, music, books,
`
`“apps,” and other digital content for the Android ecosystem.
`
`16.
`
`Finally, Google makes, uses, offers to sell, and/or sells devices, including server
`
`and client devices, incorporating the Android OS and Google Play. Google-made Android
`
`devices include those marketed under the trademark “Nexus.”
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`17.
`
`This is a civil action arising in part under laws of the United States relating to
`
`patents (35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 283, 284, and 285). This court has federal jurisdiction of such
`
`federal question claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`18.
`
`Personal jurisdiction is proper in the State of Texas and in this judicial district.
`
`Among other things, Google conducts business, sells infringing products, and is engaged in
`
`activities that lead to infringement of ContentGuard’s DRM patents in the State of Texas and in
`
`this judicial district. Google’s wholly-owned subsidiary Motorola has a significant business
`
`presence in the State of Texas.
`
`19.
`
`Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1400(b).
`
`THE PATENTS IN SUIT
`
`20.
`
`On November 8, 2005, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent
`
`No. 6,963,859 (“the ’859 Patent”) entitled “Content rendering repository.” ContentGuard holds
`
`-6-
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/05/14 Page 7 of 23 PageID #: 7
`
`all right, title and interest to the ’859 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ’859 Patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit C.
`
`21.
`
`On April 21, 2009, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`7,523,072 (“the ’072 Patent”) entitled “System for controlling the distribution and use of digital
`
`works.” ContentGuard holds all right, title and interest to the ’072 Patent. A true and correct
`
`copy of the ’072 Patent is attached as Exhibit D.
`
`22.
`
`On August 10, 2010, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`7,774,280 (“the ’280 Patent”) entitled “System and method for managing transfer of rights using
`
`shared state variables.” ContentGuard holds all right, title and interest to the ’280 Patent. A true
`
`and correct copy of the ’280 Patent is attached as Exhibit E.
`
`23.
`
`On August 16, 2011, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`8,001,053 (“the ’053 Patent”) entitled “System and method for rights offering and granting using
`
`shared state variables.” ContentGuard holds all right, title and interest to the ’053 Patent. A true
`
`and correct copy of the ’053 Patent is attached as Exhibit F.
`
`24.
`
`On September 11, 2007, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent
`
`No. 7,269,576 (“the ’576 Patent”) entitled “Content rendering apparatus.” ContentGuard holds
`
`all right, title and interest to the ’576 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ’576 Patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit G.
`
`25.
`
`On February 5, 2013, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`8,370,956 (“the ’956 Patent”) entitled “System and method for rendering digital content in
`
`accordance with usage rights information.” ContentGuard holds all right, title and interest to the
`
`’956 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ’956 Patent is attached as Exhibit H.
`
`-7-
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/05/14 Page 8 of 23 PageID #: 8
`
`26.
`
`On March 5, 2013, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`8,393,007 (“the ’007 Patent”) entitled “System and method for distributing digital content to be
`
`rendered in accordance with usage rights information.” ContentGuard holds all right, title and
`
`interest to the ’007 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ’007 Patent is attached as Exhibit I.
`
`27.
`
`On May 29, 2007, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`7,225,160 (“the ’160 Patent”) entitled “Digital works having usage rights and method for
`
`creating the same.” ContentGuard holds all right, title and interest to the ’160 Patent. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ’160 Patent is attached as Exhibit J.
`
`28.
`
`On November 12, 2013, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent
`
`No. 8,583,556 (“the ’556 Patent”) entitled “Method of providing a digital asset for distribution.”
`
`ContentGuard holds all right, title and interest to the ’556 Patent. A true and correct copy of the
`
`’556 Patent is attached as Exhibit K.
`
`29.
`
`The ’859, ’072, ’280, ’053, ’576, ’956, ’007, ’160, and ’556 patents are referred to
`
`herein as the “DRM Patents.”
`
`CONTENTGUARD’S EFFORTS TO LICENSE GOOGLE’S USE OF ITS DRM
`TECHNOLOGIES
`
`30.
`
`Throughout its history, ContentGuard has prided itself in being an innovator and
`
`leader in the DRM field. ContentGuard’s revolutionary DRM technologies are embodied in its
`
`extensive portfolio of DRM patents and patent applications, which was developed during the past
`
`two decades and now comprises over 300 issued patents and 160 pending applications.
`
`31.
`
`Following its early partnerships with companies such as Hewlett-Packard, Adobe,
`
`Microsoft, Technicolor, and TimeWarner, ContentGuard successfully licensed its DRM
`
`technologies for use in smartphones and tablets to companies around the world, including Casio,
`
`Fujitsu, Hitachi, LG Electronics, NEC, Nokia, Panasonic, Pantech, Sanyo, Sharp, Sony, Toshiba,
`
`-8-
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/05/14 Page 9 of 23 PageID #: 9
`
`and others. These companies embraced ContentGuard’s DRM technologies and agreed to
`
`license use of those technologies for substantial royalties.
`
`32.
`
`ContentGuard’s numerous patent license agreements were executed without
`
`ContentGuard having to take legal action, or even threaten litigation, to protect its intellectual
`
`property rights.
`
`33.
`
`ContentGuard has made numerous attempts to negotiate a license agreement with
`
`Google’s wholly-owned subsidiary Motorola and, more recently, with Google itself. Despite
`
`ContentGuard’s good-faith efforts, Google has refused to pay for its use of ContentGuard’s
`
`DRM technologies.
`
`GOOGLE’S ATTEMPT TO AVOID THIS COURT’S JURISDICTION
`
`34.
`
`On December 18, 2013, ContentGuard filed a complaint for patent infringement
`
`in this Court (the “December 2013 Complaint”) asserting infringement of the DRM Patents by,
`
`among other things, Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”), Google’s wholly-owned subsidiary
`
`Motorola, and Huawei Device USA, Inc. (“Huawei”). Amazon, Motorola, and Huawei each
`
`manufacture devices that run customized versions of Google’s Android OS. The December 2013
`
`Complaint also named Apple Inc. and BlackBerry Corporation, which manufacture and sell
`
`devices that run operating systems that compete with the Android OS.
`
`35.
`
`On January 17, 2014, ContentGuard filed an amended complaint in this Court (the
`
`“January 2014 Amended Complaint”). In addition to reasserting its claims against Amazon.com,
`
`Inc., Motorola, and Huawei, ContentGuard also asserted that HTC Corporation (“HTC”) and
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Samsung”), among other defendants, infringe the DRM
`
`Patents. HTC and Samsung each manufacture devices that run customized versions of Google’s
`
`Android OS.
`
`-9-
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/05/14 Page 10 of 23 PageID #: 10
`
`36.
`
`On January 31, 2014, instead of seeking to intervene in the multi-defendant action
`
`that was already pending in this Court, Google filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
`
`Northern District of California (the “N.D. Cal. Action”). In its Complaint (the “Google
`
`Complaint”), Google admits that it was seeking relief pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act
`
`“because . . . ContentGuard . . . [had] recently filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas . . .
`
`claiming that several mobile device manufacturers, some of which are Google’s customers,
`
`infringe some or all of [the DRM Patents].” Google Compl. ¶ 1. Google further admitted that
`
`the N.D. Cal. Action was anticipatory in nature, purportedly because “it is only a matter of time
`
`before Google . . . will be accused in a ContentGuard suit involving the [DRM Patents].” Id. ¶
`
`19.
`
`37.
`
`In the N.D. Cal. Action, Google seeks a declaration that “no version of Google
`
`Play Books, Google Play Music, and/or Google Play Movies provided by Google directly or
`
`indirectly infringes the [DRM Patents].” Google Compl. ¶ 22.
`
`COUNT 1: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’859 PATENT
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 37 are incorporated by reference as if fully stated herein.
`
`Google has been and is now directly infringing and/or indirectly infringing the
`
`’859 Patent by way of inducement and/or contributory infringement, literally and/or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, in this District, and elsewhere, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, including
`
`by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale in the United States or importing into the
`
`United States products covered by at least one claim of the ’859 Patent. Google has notice of the
`
`’859 Patent. Google actively induces content providers, device makers, and/or end users of
`
`devices made by Google and/or others to infringe the ’859 Patent by, among other things, (a)
`
`providing access to content and “apps” that use the ContentGuard DRM solutions claimed in the
`
`-10-
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/05/14 Page 11 of 23 PageID #: 11
`
`’859 Patent, (b) providing instructions for using such content and “apps”; (c) providing
`
`advertisings for using such content and “apps”; and (d) providing hardware and software
`
`components required by the claims of the ’859 Patent.1 Google engages in the foregoing
`
`activities because it specifically intends end users and device makers to use content and “apps”
`
`that deploy, and content providers to distribute content and “apps” that are protected by, the
`
`ContentGuard DRM solutions claimed in the ’859 Patent. Google thereby specifically intends
`
`end users, device makers, and content providers to infringe the ’859 Patent. Google derives
`
`revenue from both its own and the third-party infringers’ infringing activities. Google also
`
`contributorily infringes the ’859 Patent because there is no substantial non-infringing use of
`
`content and “apps” on devices that render them, including Google’s own Nexus devices.
`
`COUNT 2: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’072 PATENT
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 37 are incorporated by reference as if fully stated herein.
`
`Google has been and is now directly infringing and/or indirectly infringing the
`
`’072 Patent by way of inducement and/or contributory infringement, literally and/or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, in this District, and elsewhere, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, including
`
`by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale in the United States or importing into the
`
`United States products covered by at least one claim of the ’072 Patent. Google has notice of the
`
`’072 Patent. Google actively induces content providers, device makers, and/or end users of
`
`
`1 See, e.g., https://play.google.com/store/movies?hl=en;
`https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.videos;
`https://play.google.com/about/music/unlock/;
`https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.books;
`http://www.google.com/nexus/5/.;
`http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en/us/help/hc/pdfs/mobile/Android
`UsersGuide-40-en.pdf;
`https://play.google.com/store/books/details/Google_Inc_Nexus_7_Guidebook?id=gKmQD47Ov
`CYC&hl=en.
`
`-11-
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/05/14 Page 12 of 23 PageID #: 12
`
`devices made by Google and/or others to infringe the ’072 Patent by, among other things, (a)
`
`providing access to content and “apps” that use the ContentGuard DRM solutions claimed in the
`
`’072 Patent, (b) providing instructions for using such content and “apps”; (c) providing
`
`advertisings for using such content and “apps”; and (d) providing hardware and software
`
`components required by the claims of the ’072 Patent.2 Google engages in the foregoing
`
`activities because it specifically intends end users and device makers to use content and “apps”
`
`that deploy, and content providers to distribute content and “apps” that are protected by, the
`
`ContentGuard DRM solutions claimed in the ’072 Patent. Google thereby specifically intends
`
`end users, device makers, and content providers to infringe the ’072 Patent. Google derives
`
`revenue from both its own and the third-party infringers’ infringing activities. Google also
`
`contributorily infringes the ’072 Patent because there is no substantial non-infringing use of
`
`content and “apps” on devices that render them, including Google’s own Nexus devices.
`
`COUNT 3: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’280 PATENT
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 37 are incorporated by reference as if fully stated herein.
`
`Google has been and is now directly infringing and/or indirectly infringing the
`
`’280 Patent by way of inducement and/or contributory infringement, literally and/or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, in this District, and elsewhere, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, including
`
`by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale in the United States or importing into the
`
`
`2 See, e.g., https://play.google.com/store/movies?hl=en;
`https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.videos;
`https://play.google.com/about/music/unlock/;
`https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.books;
`http://www.google.com/nexus/5/.;
`http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en/us/help/hc/pdfs/mobile/Android
`UsersGuide-40-en.pdf;
`https://play.google.com/store/books/details/Google_Inc_Nexus_7_Guidebook?id=gKmQD47Ov
`CYC&hl=en.
`
`-12-
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/05/14 Page 13 of 23 PageID #: 13
`
`United States products covered by at least one claim of the ’280 Patent. Google has notice of the
`
`’280 Patent. Google actively induces content providers, device makers, and/or end users of
`
`devices made by Google and/or others to infringe the ’280 Patent by, among other things, (a)
`
`providing access to content and “apps” that use the ContentGuard DRM solutions claimed in the
`
`’280 Patent, (b) providing instructions for using such content and “apps”; (c) providing
`
`advertisings for using such content and “apps”; and (d) providing hardware and software
`
`components required by the claims of the ’280 Patent.3 Google engages in the foregoing
`
`activities because it specifically intends end users and device makers to use content and “apps”
`
`that deploy, and content providers to distribute content and “apps” that are protected by, the
`
`ContentGuard DRM solutions claimed in the ’280 Patent. Google thereby specifically intends
`
`end users, device makers, and content providers to infringe the ’280 Patent. Google derives
`
`revenue from both its own and the third-party infringers’ infringing activities. Google also
`
`contributorily infringes the ’280 Patent because there is no substantial non-infringing use of
`
`content and “apps” on devices that render them, including Google’s own Nexus devices.
`
`COUNT 4: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’053 PATENT
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 37 are incorporated by reference as if fully stated herein.
`
`Google has been and is now directly infringing and/or indirectly infringing the
`
`’053 Patent by way of inducement and/or contributory infringement, literally and/or under the
`
`
`3 See, e.g., https://play.google.com/store/movies?hl=en;
`https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.videos;
`https://play.google.com/about/music/unlock/;
`https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.books;
`http://www.google.com/nexus/5/.;
`http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en/us/help/hc/pdfs/mobile/Android
`UsersGuide-40-en.pdf;
`https://play.google.com/store/books/details/Google_Inc_Nexus_7_Guidebook?id=gKmQD47Ov
`CYC&hl=en.
`
`-13-
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/05/14 Page 14 of 23 PageID #: 14
`
`doctrine of equivalents, in this District, and elsewhere, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, including
`
`by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale in the United States or importing into the
`
`United States products covered by at least one claim of the ’053 Patent. Google has notice of the
`
`’053 Patent. Google actively induces content providers, device makers, and/or end users of
`
`devices made by Google and/or others to infringe the ’053 Patent by, among other things, (a)
`
`providing access to content and “apps” that use the ContentGuard DRM solutions claimed in the
`
`’053 Patent, (b) providing instructions for using such content and “apps”; (c) providing
`
`advertisings for using such content and “apps”; and (d) providing hardware and software
`
`components required by the claims of the ’053 Patent.4 Google engages in the foregoing
`
`activities because it specifically intends end users and device makers to use content and “apps”
`
`that deploy, and content providers to distribute content and “apps” that are protected by, the
`
`ContentGuard DRM solutions claimed in the ’053 Patent. Google thereby specifically intends
`
`end users, device makers, and content providers to infringe the ’053 Patent. Google derives
`
`revenue from both its own and the third-party infringers’ infringing activities. Google also
`
`contributorily infringes the ’053 Patent because there is no substantial non-infringing use of
`
`content and “apps” on devices that render them, including Google’s own Nexus devices.
`
`
`4 See, e.g., https://play.google.com/store/movies?hl=en;
`https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.videos;
`https://play.google.com/about/music/unlock/;
`https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.books;
`http://www.google.com/nexus/5/.;
`http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en/us/help/hc/pdfs/mobile/Android
`UsersGuide-40-en.pdf;
`https://play.google.com/store/books/details/Google_Inc_Nexus_7_Guidebook?id=gKmQD47Ov
`CYC&hl=en.
`
`-14-
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/05/14 Page 15 of 23 PageID #: 15
`
`COUNT 5: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’576 PATENT
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 37 are incorporated by reference as if fully stated herein.
`
`Google has been and is now directly infringing and/or indirectly infringing the
`
`’576 Patent by way of inducement and/or contributory infringement, literally and/or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, in this District, and elsewhere, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, including
`
`by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale in the United States or importing into the
`
`United States products covered by at least one claim of the ’576 Patent. Google has notice of the
`
`’576 Patent. Google actively induces content providers, device makers, and/or end users of
`
`devices made by Google and/or others to infringe the ’576 Patent by, among other things, (a)
`
`providing access to content and “apps” that use the ContentGuard DRM solutions claimed in the
`
`’576 Patent, (b) providing instructions for using such content and “apps”; (c) providing
`
`advertisings for using such content and “apps”; and (d) providing hardware and software
`
`components required by the claims of the ’576 Patent.5 Google engages in the foregoing
`
`activities because it specifically intends end users and device makers to use content and “apps”
`
`that deploy, and content providers to distribute content and “apps” that are protected by, the
`
`ContentGuard DRM solutions claimed in the ’576 Patent. Google thereby specifically intends
`
`end users, device makers, and content providers to infringe the ’576 Patent. Google derives
`
`revenue from both its own and the third-party infringers’ infringing activities. Google also
`
`
`5 See, e.g., https://play.google.com/store/movies?hl=en;
`https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.videos;
`https://play.google.com/about/music/unlock/;
`https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.books;
`http://www.google.com/nexus/5/.;
`http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en/us/help/hc/pdfs/mobile/Android
`UsersGuide-40-en.pdf;
`https://play.google.com/store/books/details/Google_Inc_Nexus_7_Guidebook?id=gKmQD47Ov
`CYC&hl=en.
`
`-15-
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 02/05/14 Page 16 of 23 PageID #: 16
`
`contributorily infringes the ’576 Patent because there is no substantial non-infringing use of
`
`content and “apps” on devices that render them, including Google’s own Nexus devices.
`
`COUNT 6: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’956 PATENT
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 37 are incorporated by reference as if fully stated herein.
`
`Google has been and is now directly infringing and/or indirectly infringing the
`
`’956 Patent by way of inducement and/or contributory infringement, literally and/or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, in this District, and elsewhere, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, including
`
`by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale in the United States or importing into the
`
`United States products covered by at least one claim of the ’956 Patent. Google has notice of the
`
`’956 Patent. Google actively induces content providers, device makers, and/or end users of
`
`devices made by Google and/or others to infringe the ’956 Patent by, among other things, (a)
`
`providing access to content and “apps” that use the ContentGuard DRM solutions claimed in the
`
`’956 Patent, (b) providing instructions for using such content and “apps”; (c) providing
`
`advertisings for using such content and “apps”; and (d) providing hardware and software
`
`components required by the claims of the ’956 Patent.6 Google engages in the foregoing
`
`activities because it specifically intends end users and device makers to use content and “apps”
`
`that deploy, and content providers to distribute content and “apps” that are protected by, the
`
`ContentGuard DRM solutions claimed in the ’956 Patent. Google thereby specifically intends
`
`
`6 See, e.g., https://play.google.com/store/movies?hl=en;
`https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.videos;
`https://play.google.com/about/music/unlock/;
`https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.books;
`http://www.google.com/nexus/5/.;
`http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en/u