Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 37-12 Filed 11/14/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 823
`Case 2:17-cv—00513-JRG Document 37-12 Filed 11/14/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 823
`
`E X H IB IT 30
`EXHIBIT 30
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 37-12 Filed 11/14/17 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 824
`
`
`JAIDEEP VENKATESAN, Bar No. 211386
`jvenkatesan@be-law.com
`SARA PETERSEN GRAVES, Bar No. 226766
`spetersengraves@be-law.com
`BERGESON, LLP
`2033 Gateway Place, Suite 300
`San Jose, CA 95110-3715
`Telephone: (408) 291-6200
`Facsimile: (408) 297-6000
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`LIFE360, INC.
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`LIFE360, INC.,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ADVANCED GROUND INFORMATION
`SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
` Case No. 4:15-cv-00151
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
`FALSE MARKING, TORTIOUS
`INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT,
`INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH
`ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, AND UNFAIR
`COMPETITION
`
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FALSE MARKING, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT,
`INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
`Case No.: 4:15-cv-00151
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 37-12 Filed 11/14/17 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 825
`
`
`NOW COMES Plaintiff Life360, Inc. (“Life360”), by and through its counsel, bringing
`
`this action against Defendant Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. (“AGIS”), alleging as
`
`follows:
`1.
`
`This is a civil action seeking remedies for false patent marking under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 292, tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with prospective economic
`
`advantage and relations, and unfair competition.
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Life360 is a business existing and organized under the laws of the State of
`
`Delaware with a principal place of business of 539 Bryant Street, Suite 402, San Francisco,
`
`California, 94107.
`3.
`
`AGIS is a business existing and organized under the laws of the State of Florida
`
`with a principal place of business at 92 Lighthouse Dr., Jupiter, Florida, 33469.
`4.
`
`On information and belief, AGIS conducts business in this District. Life360 is a
`
`resident of this District and has been harmed in this District.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`6.
`
`The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), and 1367.
`
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant, and venue in this District is
`
`proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). On information and belief, AGIS conducts business in this
`
`District. Furthermore, AGIS engaged in tortious conduct directed to harm residents of this
`
`District, and has purposefully directed its activities to the State of California and/or purposefully
`
`availed itself of this jurisdiction. Venue is proper in this District because, inter alia, a substantial
`
`part of the events and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred here, and because AGIS is
`
`subject to personal jurisdiction in this District.
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`
`7.
`
`Assignment to this division is proper pursuant to Local Rule 3-2(c) and (e) because
`
`this action arises in the County of San Francisco as a substantial part of the events or omissions
`
`which give rise to the claims occurred in the County of San Francisco.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FALSE MARKING, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT,
`INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
`Case No.: 4:15-cv-00151
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 37-12 Filed 11/14/17 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 826
`
`
`STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
`
`8.
`
`Life360 is a company that makes mobile software applications for connecting
`
`families. Life360 makes a “mobile app” entitled Life360 Family Locator for Android, iPhone, and
`
`Windows mobile platforms, and makes this software and related services freely available to the
`
`public. Using the Life360 Family Locator software, family members can view each other’s
`
`locations on a map.
`9.
`
`AGIS is a company that owns several patents and is in the business of providing
`
`software for military, first responder, and law enforcement purposes. See http://www.agisinc.com
`
`(last visited December 21, 2014). AGIS sells a software product called LifeRing for platforms
`
`including, but not limited to, the Android operating system (“the LifeRing products”). See id.
`10.
`
`On May 13, 2014, AGIS, through its attorneys Kenyon & Kenyon, LLP, sent a
`
`cease and desist letter to Life360 accusing it of infringing at least four (4) patents and demanding a
`
`response within three (3) days (“the Demand Letter”). A copy of this letter is attached as
`
`Exhibit 1.
`11.
`
`In the Demand Letter, AGIS accused Life360 of infringing U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,031,728 (“the ‘728 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,672,681 (“the ‘681 Patent”), U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,764,954 (“the ‘954 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 8,126,441 (“the ‘441 Patent”)
`
`(collectively, “the Asserted Patents”). A copy of the ‘681 Patent is attached as Exhibit 3, and a
`
`copy of the ‘441 Patent is attached as Exhibit 4.
`12.
`
`In the Demand Letter, AGIS broadly contended that the Asserted Patents cover
`
`basic concepts such as showing the locations of users and “facilitating rapid communication
`
`among them,” “enabling a user to change his profile across a network of users,” “allowing maps to
`
`be downloaded from a network server,” and “establishing a polling network among groups of
`
`users.” See Exhibit 1.
`13.
`
`On May 16, 2014, AGIS sued Life360 for alleged patent infringement in the
`
`U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, accusing Life360 of infringing the
`
`Asserted Patents (“the AGIS Complaint”). A copy of the AGIS Complaint (without exhibits) is
`
`attached as Exhibit 2.
`
`- 2 -
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FALSE MARKING, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT,
`INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
`Case No.: 4:15-cv-00151
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 37-12 Filed 11/14/17 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 827
`
`
`14.
`
`In the AGIS Complaint, AGIS sought a permanent injunction against Life360 with
`
`respect to all four (4) Asserted Patents. See Exhibit 2. AGIS continues to seek injunctive relief
`
`against Life360.
`15.
`
`Also on May 13, 2014, before the demand letter was sent, Life360 announced that
`
`The ADT Corporation (“ADT”) invested $25,000,000 into Life360 as part of Life360’s
`
`$50,000,000 Series C funding round (“the ADT investment”). A copy of this press release is
`
`attached as Exhibit 5.
`16.
`
`As part of the ADT investment, a contractual relationship arose between ADT and
`
`Life360 that included, among other conditions, ADT becoming a partial owner of Life360 and the
`
`prospective development of a new mobile app for ADT by Life360.
`17.
`
`AGIS released a newsletter in January 2014 Life360 (“AGIS January 2014
`
`Newsletter”), claiming to have “two versions of LifeRing,” one that “is specifically designed for
`
`Military use while the other is tailored for Commercial use,” thus indicating that is expanding into
`
`the civil market and compete against Life360. A copy of the AGIS January 2014 Newsletter is
`
`attached as Exhibit 9.
`18.
`
`Life360 is informed and believes that AGIS intends to extend the LifeRing
`
`products for the civilian market for both social networking and emergency purposes.
`19.
`
`Because the apparent “inventions” claimed in the asserted patents were
`
`conventional and well-known in the prior art as of the filing dates, the claims of the Asserted
`
`Patents include narrow and often arbitrary limitations that AGIS ignores in marking the LifeRing
`
`products with the Asserted Patents and in accusing Life360 of infringing the same.
`20.
`
`On and information and belief, Life360 does not infringe any claim of the Asserted
`
`Patents and all claims of the Asserted Patents are invalid under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and
`
`112.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`FALSE MARKING
`
`21.
`
`Life360 re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation
`
`contained in paragraphs 1 through 20 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`- 3 -
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FALSE MARKING, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT,
`INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
`Case No.: 4:15-cv-00151
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 37-12 Filed 11/14/17 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 828
`
`
`22.
`
`AGIS’s “LifeRing Operator’s Manual,” dated December 2010, is attached as
`
`Exhibit 6 (“2010 LifeRing Manual”). The 2010 LifeRing Manual was made available to the
`
`public through AGIS’s website. See archived copy of the 2010 LifeRing Manual at
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20111121064831/http://www.agisinc.com/AGIS_Operators_manual.p
`
`df (last visited January 12, 2014). The 2010 LifeRing Manual is marked with the following
`
`patents: U.S. Patents No. 7,031,728, 7,630,724, 7,689,232, 7,672,681, 7,764,954, and 7,805,146.
`
`See Exhibit 6.
`23.
`
`AGIS’s “Android LifeRing Pocket Guide”, currently made available on AGIS’s
`
`website, is attached as Exhibit 7. See
`
`http://www.agisinc.com/Downloads/Manuals/AndroidPocketGuideMilitarySymbolsRev5.pdf
`
` (last visited January 12, 2014). The Android LifeRing Pocket Guide is marked with the following
`
`patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,031,728, 7,630,724, 7,689,232, 7,672,681, 7,764,954, 7,805,146,
`
`7,853,273, 8,126,441, 8,131,298, 8,213,970, 8,364,129 and 8,538,393. See Exhibit 7.
`24.
`
`AGIS’s “LifeRing PC Pocket Guide,” currently made available on AGIS’s website,
`
`is attached as Exhibit 8.
`
`See http://www.agisinc.com/Downloads/Manuals/PC_LifeRing_Training_Guide.pdf
`
`(last visited January 12, 2014). The LifeRing PC Pocket Guide is marked with the
`
`following patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,031,728, 7,630,724, 7,689,232, 7,672,681, 7,764,954,
`
`7,805,146, 7,853,273, 8,126,441, 8,131,298, 8,213,970, and 8,538,393. See Exhibit 8.
`25.
`
`On information and belief, software and other documentation related to AGIS’s
`
`LifeRing products, in addition to the 2010 LifeRing Manual, the Android LifeRing Pocket Guide,
`
`and the LifeRing PC Pocket Guide (collectively, “the LifeRing Marked Materials”), are marked
`
`with numerous patents, including at least the ‘681 Patent and the ‘441 Patent.
`26.
`
`On information and belief, at least one of AGIS’s patents included on one or more
`
`of the LifeRing Marked Materials do not cover any version of the LifeRing Product.
`27.
`
`The ‘681 Patent is directed to a “[m]ethod of renaming soft switch controls in all
`
`participant's cell phones by an administrator” and includes three (3) independent claims. See
`
`Exhibit 3. All independent claims of the ‘681 Patent require the use of “software to create new or
`- 4 -
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FALSE MARKING, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT,
`INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
`Case No.: 4:15-cv-00151
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 37-12 Filed 11/14/17 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 829
`
`
`modify old symbols and associate the symbol to a new unused soft switch or a renamed existing
`
`soft switch and then downloading the new or renamed soft switch and the associated symbol to the
`
`cell phone and remote cell phone(s) so that the new or renamed soft switch and associated symbol
`
`can be used on the cell phone,” or a similar limitation. See Exhibit 3.
`28.
`
`On information and belief, the LifeRing products do not practice any claim of the
`
`‘681 Patent for at least the reason that the LifeRing products do not allow users to create new or
`
`modify old symbols and associate the new or modified symbols with an unused or renamed
`
`existing soft switch.
`29.
`
`The ‘441 Patent is directed to a “[m]ethod of establishing a cell phone network of
`
`participants with a common interest” and includes two (2) independent claims. See Exhibit 4.
`
`The independent claims of the ‘441 Patent include arbitrary and incoherent limitations that would
`
`make it difficult for anyone to practice the claims. See Exhibit 4. For example, independent
`
`claims 1 and 4 of the ‘441 Patent require a server that transmits “without any selection criteria or
`
`manual input of relationship data.” See Exhibit 4.
`30.
`
`On information and belief, the LifeRing products do not practice any claim of the
`
`‘441 Patent for at least the reason that the LifeRing products do not practice the negative limitation
`
`of “transmitting . . . without any selection criteria or manual input of relationship data.”
`31.
`
`On information and belief, AGIS falsely marked the LifeRing Marked Materials
`
`with several patents, including but not limited to the ‘681 Patent and ‘441 Patent, that do not teach
`
`any claim that covers the LifeRing product(s) identified by the respective Marked Materials.
`32.
`
`On information and belief, at the time that the LifeRing Marked Materials were
`
`published and distributed, AGIS knew that it did not practice any claim of at least one of the
`
`patents marked thereon.
`33.
`
`On information and belief, AGIS has never had a reasonable belief that the
`
`products identified by the LifeRing Marked Materials were covered by at least one claim of each
`
`and every patent that is marked upon the same.
`
`- 5 -
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FALSE MARKING, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT,
`INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
`Case No.: 4:15-cv-00151
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 37-12 Filed 11/14/17 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 830
`
`
`34.
`
`On information and belief, AGIS marks all of its products and related materials
`
`with its patents without regard for whether each and every marked patent includes a claim that
`
`covers those product(s).
`35.
`
`On information and belief, AGIS falsely marked the LifeRing Marked Materials
`
`with the intent to deceive the public that its products were covered by the numerous patents
`
`marked thereon including, but not limited to, the ‘681 Patent and the ‘441 Patent.
`36.
`
`On information and belief, AGIS falsely marked the LifeRing Marked Materials
`
`with the intent to stifle competition so that it could prospectively enter the commercial market and
`
`compete with Life360 and others.
`37.
`
`AGIS’s false marking has created the misconception that AGIS’s LifeRing
`
`products practice its patents, and that AGIS is therefore entitled to injunctive relief for the
`
`infringement of the same and to prevent competitors from offering products that compete with the
`
`LifeRing products. As a result of this misconception, Life360 has suffered economic losses due to
`
`its existing investors being dissuaded from investing additional funds in Life360’s Series C
`
`funding round at the asking price. In particular, and on information and belief, AGIS’s false
`
`marking has caused a devaluation, or at least a perceived devaluation, of Life360.
`38.
`
`AGIS’s false patent marking has created the misconception that AGIS practices all
`
`of its patents and is therefore entitled to injunctive relief for the infringement of the same. As a
`
`result of this misconception, Life360 has been competitively injured by having to undergo
`
`considerable expense to defend itself from AGIS’s lawsuit. The time and expense incurred by
`
`Life360 as a result of AGIS’s lawsuit has injured Life360 by hindering its efforts to compete in the
`
`market, allowing Life360’s current competitors to obtain additional market share, and impeding
`
`commercial progress and development of Life360’s joint initiatives and products with ADT, such
`
`as Canopy.
`39.
`
`AGIS’s false patent marking has created the misconception that AGIS practices all
`
`of its patents and is entitled to injunctive relief for the infringement of the same and to prevent
`
`competitors from offering products that compete with the LifeRing products. This misconception
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FALSE MARKING, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT,
`INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
`Case No.: 4:15-cv-00151
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 37-12 Filed 11/14/17 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 831
`
`
`has created a false uncertainty for Life360’s business and ability to compete in the market that has
`
`strained and disrupted Life360’s relationship with ADT.
`40.
`
`AGIS’s false marking has created the misconception that AGIS’s LifeRing
`
`products practice its patents and that AGIS is therefore entitled to injunctive relief for the
`
`infringement of the same and to prevent competitors from offering products that compete with the
`
`LifeRing products. Partially as a result of this misconception, and on information and belief, at
`
`least one potential investor of Life360 has chosen not to invest in Life360, thereby causing an
`
`economic loss for Life360.
`41.
`
`AGIS’s false marking is likely to discourage others from commercializing
`
`competing products and to deter consumers from using competing products including Life360’s
`
`products, thereby providing a market advantage to AGIS for prospective entry into the market.
`42.
`
`On information and belief, AGIS is asserting that the LifeRing products are
`
`covered by the Asserted Patents and is seeking injunctive relief against Life360 so that it can
`
`prevent Life360 from competing in its current market, allowing AGIS to introduce a mobile app
`
`for the general public and attempt to take at least a portion of Life360’s market share. On
`
`information and belief, AGIS’s false marking is likely to allow AGIS, upon entering the market to
`
`compete with Life360, to gain a portion of Life360’s market share or cause Life360 to lose a
`
`portion of its market share to existing competitors.
`43.
`
`As the direct result of AGIS’s actions as herein alleged, Life360 was irreparably,
`
`materially and substantially harmed and damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
`
`44.
`
`Life360 re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation
`
`contained in paragraphs 1 through 43 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`45.
`
`Life360 and ADT formed a contractual relationship as part of the ADT investment
`
`that was announced on May 13, 2014. The contractual relationship involved ADT becoming a
`
`partial owner of Life360 and the prospective development of a new mobile app for ADT by
`
`Life360.
`
`- 7 -
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FALSE MARKING, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT,
`INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
`Case No.: 4:15-cv-00151
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 37-12 Filed 11/14/17 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 832
`
`
`46.
`
`AGIS had knowledge of the contractual relationship formed between Life360 and
`
`ADT at least as early as May 13, 2014 and, on information and belief, had knowledge of Life360’s
`
`contractual relationships or prospective contractual relationships in the home security market
`
`earlier than that date.
`47.
`
`After suing Life360 for alleged infringement of the Asserted Patents, AGIS
`
`communicated with ADT and, on information and belief, threatened ADT with a lawsuit for patent
`
`infringement arising out of ADT’s partnership with Life360 and ADT’s own mobile app, Canopy.
`48.
`
`On information and belief, AGIS acted intentionally to induce a breach or
`
`disruption of the contractual relationship between Life360 and ADT, and to thereby pressure
`
`Life360 into settling a meritless lawsuit.
`49.
`
`AGIS’s interactions with ADT pressured Life360 into having to choose between
`
`settling the AGIS lawsuit and suffering adverse consequences from having to explain its reasons
`
`for not doing so to ADT.
`50.
`
`AGIS’s interactions with ADT disrupted the relationship between Life360 and
`
`ADT by pressuring Life360 into settling the AGIS lawsuit so as to not disrupt its contractual
`
`relationship with ADT.
`51.
`
`If not for AGIS’s intentional interference, the contractual relationship between
`
`Life360 and ADT, including their joint development of products, would not have been disrupted.
`52.
`
`The aforementioned acts of AGIS constitute a tortious interference with contractual
`
`relations.
`53.
`
`As the direct result of AGIS’s actions as alleged herein, Life360 has been
`
`irreparably, materially, and substantially harmed and damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH
`PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC RELATIONS
`
`
`54.
`
`Life360 re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation
`
`contained in paragraphs 1 through 53 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`- 8 -
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FALSE MARKING, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT,
`INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
`Case No.: 4:15-cv-00151
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 37-12 Filed 11/14/17 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 833
`
`
`55.
`
`Life360 and ADT formed a contractual relationship as part of the ADT investment
`
`that was announced on May 13, 2014. The contractual relationship involved ADT becoming a
`
`partial owner of Life360 and the prospective development of a new mobile app for ADT by
`
`Life360.
`56.
`
`AGIS had knowledge at least as early as May 13, 2014 of the contractual
`
`relationship formed between Life360 and ADT and the resulting prospective economic relations
`
`arising out of such contractual relationship. On information and belief, AGIS had knowledge of
`
`Life360’s contractual relationships or prospective contractual relationships in the home security
`
`market earlier than that date.
`57.
`
`After suing Life360 for alleged infringement of the Asserted Patents, AGIS
`
`communicated with ADT and, on information and belief, threatened ADT with a lawsuit for patent
`
`infringement arising out of ADT’s partnership with Life360 and ADT’s own mobile app, Canopy.
`58.
`
`On information and belief, AGIS’s communications with ADT misrepresented the
`
`scope of AGIS’s patents, Life360’s potential liability, ADT’s potential liability, and whether the
`
`AGIS’s patents were being practiced by AGIS.
`59.
`
`On information and belief, AGIS acted intentionally to interfere with the
`
`prospective economic relations between Life360 and ADT, and to thereby pressure Life360 into
`
`settling a meritless lawsuit.
`60.
`
`AGIS’s interactions with ADT pressured Life360 into having to choose between
`
`settling the AGIS lawsuit and suffering adverse consequences from having to explain its reasons
`
`for not doing so to ADT.
`61.
`
`AGIS’s interactions with ADT disrupted the relationship between Life360 and
`
`ADT by pressuring Life360 into settling the AGIS lawsuit so as to not disrupt its contractual
`
`relationship with ADT.
`62.
`
`AGIS’s interactions with ADT disrupted the relationship between Life360 and
`
`ADT by impeding commercial progress and development of Life360’s joint initiatives and
`
`products with ADT, such as Canopy.
`
`- 9 -
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FALSE MARKING, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT,
`INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
`Case No.: 4:15-cv-00151
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 37-12 Filed 11/14/17 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 834
`
`
`63.
`
`On information and belief, AGIS’s intentional interference was a substantial factor
`
`in causing harm to Life360’s prospective economic relations with ADT, including their joint
`
`development of products such as Canopy.
`64.
`
`The aforementioned acts of AGIS constitute a tortious interference with prospective
`
`economic advantage and relations.
`65.
`
`As the direct result of AGIS’s actions as alleged herein, Life360 has been
`
`irreparably, materially, and substantially harmed and damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200, et seq.
`
`Life360 re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation
`
`66.
`
`contained in paragraphs 1 through 65 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`67.
`
`AGIS’s conduct, as described above and incorporated by reference herein,
`
`constitutes unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business practices in violation of California
`
`Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq, including by falsely marking the LifeRing
`
`products with the Asserted Patents in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 292 so as to falsely represent that
`
`the LifeRing products practice one or more of the Asserted Patents; by falsely representing that its
`
`products practice one or more of the Asserted Patents to Life360’s investors; and seeking to
`
`disrupt Life360’s contractual relationships. AGIS’s conduct ultimately threatens or harms
`
`consumers and competitors and competition in the market for mobile software security
`
`applications.
`68.
`
`By reason of, and as a direct and proximate result of AGIS’s unfair, fraudulent, and
`
`unlawful conduct, as described herein, Life360 has suffered and will continue to suffer financial
`
`injury in an amount to be determined at trial.
`69.
`
`A permanent and mandatory injunction against AGIS is necessary to stop these
`
`ongoing unlawful, fraudulent, and unfair business practices.
`70.
`
`Life360 is entitled to disgorgement and/or restoration of any and all revenues,
`
`earnings, profits, compensation, and benefits AGIS has obtained in violation of California
`
`Business and Professions Code §§17200 et seq.
`- 10 -
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FALSE MARKING, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT,
`INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
`Case No.: 4:15-cv-00151
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 37-12 Filed 11/14/17 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 835
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Life360 demands judgment be entered against AGIS and in favor of
`
`Life360, and for damages as follows:
`(a)
`
`that AGIS be found to have committed false patent marking in
`
`violation of 35 U.S.C. § 292;
`
`(b)
`
`that AGIS be found to have intentionally interfered with Life360’s
`
`contractual relations;
`
`(c)
`
`that AGIS be found to have intentionally interfered with Life360’s
`
`(d)
`(e)
`
`(f)
`(g)
`
`prospective economic advantage and relations;
`
`that AGIS be found to have engaged in acts of unfair competition;
`
`that AGIS be preliminarily and permanently enjoined and restrained
`
`from continuing its acts of false patent marking, its interference with
`
`Life360’s contractual relations, its interference with Life360’s
`
`prospective economic advantage and relations, and acts of unfair
`
`competition;
`
`that AGIS be ordered to pay Life360 actual damages for its acts;
`
`that AGIS be ordered to pay Life360’s costs and reasonable
`
`attorneys’ fees as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285 and 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1920; and
`
`(h)
`
`that Life360 be awarded such further relief as the Court may deem
`
`just and proper.
`
`
`
`Date: January 26, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BERGESON, LLP
`
` /s/
` Jaideep Venkatesan
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`LIFE360, INC.
`
`- 11 -
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FALSE MARKING, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT,
`INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
`Case No.: 4:15-cv-00151
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 37-12 Filed 11/14/17 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 836
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 3-6(a) of the
`
`Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Plaintiff
`
`Life360, Inc. demands a trial by jury of this action.
`
`Date: January 26, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BERGESON, LLP
`
` /s/
` Jaideep Venkatesan
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`LIFE360, INC.
`
`- 12 -
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR FALSE MARKING, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT,
`INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE, AND UNFAIR COMPETITION
`Case No.: 4:15-cv-00151
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`