Case 2:22-cv-00303-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`Trend Micro, Inc.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`Declaratory judgment Plaintiff Trend Micro, Inc. (“Trend Micro”) hereby respectfully files
`
`v.
`
`Taasera Licensing LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`NO. 3:22-cv-518
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`this Complaint against Defendant Taasera Licensing LLC (“Taasera”), seeking declaratory
`
`judgment of non-infringement as to the following nine United States patents: U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,842,796, U.S. Patent No. 7,673,137, U.S. Patent No. 8,327,441, U.S. Patent No. 8,955,038, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,608,997, U.S. Patent No. 9,923,918, U.S. Patent No. 8,990,948, U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,092,616, and U.S. Patent No. 8,850,517 (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”).
`
`Trend Micro hereby alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action arising under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1
`
`et. seq. and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, seeking a declaratory
`
`judgment of: (i) non-infringement of the Patents-in-Suit; (ii) and for such other relief as the Court
`
`deems just and proper. Additionally, Trend Micro further reserves the right to assert invalidity as
`
`an affirmative defense if Taasera asserts infringement.
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00303-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 2
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Trend Micro, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of California,
`
`with its principal place of business at 225 East John Carpenter Freeway, Irving, Texas 75062.
`
`3.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Taasera Licensing LLC is a limited
`
`liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas, with its principal
`
`place of business located at 100 West Houston Street, Marshall, Texas 75670.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.,
`
`and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. Subject matter jurisdiction over
`
`this action is based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`5.
`
`An actual and justifiable controversy exists between Trend Micro and Taasera
`
`regarding whether various Trend Micro’s products infringe the Patents-in-Suit. On November 30,
`
`2021, Taasera filed a complaint against Trend Micro Incorporated, a Japanese corporation, (“Trend
`
`Micro Japan”) in the Eastern District of Texas. See Ex. A (Taasera’s Complaint in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas). In that complaint, Taasera alleged that Trend Micro Japan infringed and
`
`continues to infringe one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit by making, selling, offering for
`
`sale, importing and distributing and by actively inducing others to make, use, sell, offer to sell,
`
`and/or import products that implement Taasera’s network security inventions. Id., ¶ 29. Taasera
`
`also alleged that Trend Micro Japan’s subsidiaries directly infringed the Patents-in-suit, either
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or
`
`importing into the United States products that include infringing technology. See, e.g., id., ¶¶ 38,
`
`49, 60, 75, 88, 104, 119, 133, 145.
`
`6.
`
`Trend Micro is a wholly owned subsidiary of Trend Micro America, Inc., and Trend
`
`Micro America, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Trend Micro Japan. Trend Micro directs and
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00303-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 3
`
`controls the sale of Trend Micro’s products in the United States. Because a controversy exists
`
`over whether Trend Micro’s products and services infringe the Patents-in-Suit, including those
`
`sold by Trend Micro in the United States, the Court may grant declaratory relief pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
`
`7.
`
`This Court has general and specific jurisdiction over Taasera at least because
`
`Taasera is at home in the State of Texas, where it is incorporated.
`
`8.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1400 because
`
`this is the district in which a substantial part of the events and allegations giving rise to the claims
`
`occurred, or a substantial part of property that is subject to this action is situated. Additionally,
`
`Taasera’s principal place of business is located within the State of Texas, where it is incorporated.
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`9.
`
`On its face, U.S. Patent No. 6,842,796 (the “’796 Patent”) is entitled, “Information
`
`Extraction from Documents with Regular Expression Matching,” and indicates an issue date of
`
`January 11, 2005 to named inventors Geoffrey G. Zweig and Mukund Padmanabhan. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ’796 Patent is attached as Ex. B.
`
`10.
`
`On its face, U.S. Patent No. 7,673,137 (the “’137 Patent”) is entitled, “System and
`
`Method for the Managed Security Control of Processes on a Computer System,” and indicates an
`
`issue date of March 2, 2010 to named inventors Thomas James Satterlee and William Frank
`
`Hackenberger. A true and correct copy of the ’137 Patent is attached as Ex. C.
`
`11.
`
`On its face, U.S. Patent No. 8,327,441 (the “’441 Patent”) is entitled, “System and
`
`Method for Application Attestation,” and indicates an issue date of December 4, 2012 to named
`
`inventors Srinivas Kumar and Gurudatt Shashikumar. A true and correct copy of the ’441 Patent
`
`is attached as Ex. D.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00303-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 4
`
`12.
`
`On its face, U.S. Patent No. 8,955,038 (the “’038 Patent”) is entitled, “Methods and
`
`Systems for Controlling Access to Computing Resources Based on Known Security
`
`Vulnerabilities,” and indicates an issue date of February 10, 2015 to named inventors Blair
`
`Nicodemus and Billy Edison Stephens. A true and correct copy of the ’038 Patent is attached as
`
`Ex. E.
`
`13.
`
`On its face, U.S. Patent No. 9,608,997 (the “’997 Patent”) is entitled, “Methods and
`
`Systems for Controlling Access to Computing Resources Based on Known Security
`
`Vulnerabilities,” and indicates an issue date of March 28, 2017 to named inventors Blair
`
`Nicodemus and Billy Edison Stephens. A true and correct copy of the ’997 Patent is attached as
`
`Ex. F.
`
`14.
`
`On its face, U.S. Patent No. 9,923,918 (the “’918 Patent”) is entitled, “Methods and
`
`Systems for Controlling Access to Computing Resources Based on Known Security
`
`Vulnerabilities,” and indicates an issue date of March 20, 2018 to named inventors Blair Gaver
`
`Nicodemus and Billy Edison Stephens. A true and correct copy of the ’918 Patent is attached as
`
`Ex. G.
`
`15.
`
`On its face, U.S. Patent No. 8,990,948 (the “’948 Patent”) is entitled, “Systems and
`
`Methods for Orchestrating Runtime Operational Integrity,” and indicates an issue date of March
`
`24, 2015 to named inventors Srinivas Kumar and Dennis Pollutro. A true and correct copy of the
`
`’948 Patent is attached as Ex. H.
`
`16.
`
`On its face, U.S. Patent No. 9,092,616 (the “’616 Patent”) is entitled, “Systems and
`
`Methods for Threat Identification and Remediation,” and indicates an issue date of July 28, 2015
`
`to named inventors Srinivas Kumar and Dennis Pollutro. A true and correct copy of the ’616
`
`Patent is attached as Ex. I.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00303-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 5
`
`17.
`
`On its face, U.S. Patent No. 8,850,517 (the “’517 Patent”) is entitled, “Runtime
`
`Risk Detection Based on User, Application, and System Action Sequence Correlation,” and
`
`indicates an issue date of September 30, 2014 to named inventor Srinivas Kumar. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ’517 Patent is attached as Ex. J.
`
`18.
`
`On information and belief, Taasera is the owner by assignment of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit. Taasera claims to have the authority to enforce rights under the Patents-in-Suit and to bring
`
`litigation to enforce those rights. Ex. A, ¶ 16.
`
`THE PARTIES’ DISPUTE CONCERNING THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`19.
`
`On November 30, 2021, Taasera filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas against
`
`Trend Micro Japan, Taasera Licensing LLC v. Trend Micro Incorporated, No. 2:21-cv-00441-
`
`JRG, accusing Trend Micro Japan of infringing one or more of the Patents-in-Suit by making,
`
`using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing, and by actively inducing others to make, use, sell,
`
`offer to sell, and/or import products that implement the network security inventions claimed in the
`
`Patents-in Suit. A true and correct copy of Taasera’s complaint in the Eastern District of Texas is
`
`attached as Ex. A (Taasera’s Complaint in the Eastern District of Texas). Taasara has not served
`
`Trend Micro Japan. While Taasara did not name Trend Micro as a defendant in the Complaint,
`
`Taasara’s allegations of infringement as to Trend Micro’s products, which are sold in the United
`
`States by Trend Micro, establish a justiciable case or controversy between Taasara and Trend
`
`Micro of sufficient immediacy and reality. For example, Taasera alleged that Trend Micro Japan
`
`subsidiaries, such as Trend Micro, directly infringed the Patents-in-suit, either literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing into the
`
`United States products that include infringing technology. See, e.g., id., ¶¶ 38, 49, 60, 75, 88, 104,
`
`119, 133, 145.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00303-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 6
`
`20.
`
`Taasera alleges that products incorporating the integrated Data Loss Prevention
`
`feature (e.g., Trend Micro OfficeScan, Cloud App Security, ScanMail for Microsoft Exchange,
`
`ScanMail for Lotus Domino, InterScan Messaging Security, InterScan Web Security, IM Security
`
`for Microsoft Lync, Portal Protect for Microsoft SharePoint, and Smart Protection for Endpoints
`
`& Complete) infringe one or more claims of the ’796 Patent. Id., ¶ 34.
`
`21.
`
`Taasera alleges that products incorporating the Application Control feature (e.g.,
`
`Trend Micro Apex One and Trend Micro Vision One) infringe one or more claims of the ’137
`
`Patent. Id., ¶ 45.
`
`22.
`
`Taasera alleges that products incorporating the Predictive Machine Learning
`
`feature (e.g., Trend Micro Apex One and Trend Micro Vision One) infringe one or more claims of
`
`the ’441 Patent. Id., ¶ 56.
`
`23.
`
`Taasera alleges that products incorporating the Vulnerability Protection feature
`
`(e.g., Trend Micro Apex One and Trend Micro Vision One) infringe one or more claims of the
`
`’038 Patent, one or more claims of the ’997 Patent and one or more claims of the ’918 Patent. Id.,
`
`¶¶ 67, 111, 126.
`
`24.
`
`Taasera alleges that products incorporating the Extended Detection and Response
`
`feature (e.g., Trend Micro Apex One and Trend Micro Vision One) infringe one or more claims of
`
`the ’948 Patent and one or more claims of the ’616 Patent. Id., ¶¶ 82, 95.
`
`25.
`
`Taasera alleges that products incorporating the Correlated Rule and/or Targeted
`
`Attack Campaign features (e.g., Trend Micro Deep Discovery Inspector, Trend Micro Apex
`
`Central, Trend Micro Apex One, and Trend Micro Vision One) infringe one or more claims of the
`
`’517 Patent. Id., ¶ 140.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00303-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 7
`
`26.
`
`Taasera alleges that Trend Micro Japan has and continues to indirectly infringe one
`
`or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit by knowingly and intentionally inducing others, including
`
`Trend Micro Japan subsidiaries, customers, and end-users, to directly infringe, either literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing into
`
`the United States products that include infringing technology. See, e.g., id., ¶ 38.
`
`27.
`
`Taasera alleges that Trend Micro Japan, with the knowledge that these products, or
`
`the use thereof, infringed the Patents-in-Suit, knowingly and intentionally induced, and continues
`
`to knowingly and intentionally induce, direct infringement of the Patents-in-Suit by providing
`
`these products to end-users for use in an infringing manner. See, e.g., id., ¶ 39.
`
`28.
`
`Taasera alleges that Trend Micro Japan induced infringement by others, including
`
`end-users, with the intent to cause infringing acts by others or, in the alternative, with the belief
`
`that there was a high probability that others, including end-users, infringe the Patents-in-Suit, but
`
`while remaining willfully blind to the infringement. See, e.g., id., ¶ 40.
`
`29.
`
`Taasera claims it has suffered damages as a result of Trend Micro Japan’s direct
`
`and indirect infringement of the Patents-in-Suit and it will continue to suffer, irreparable harm as
`
`a result of Trend Micro Japan’s infringement of the Patents-in-Suit. See, e.g., id., ¶¶ 41, 42.
`
`30.
`
`Accordingly, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between Trend Micro and
`
`Taasera concerning whether Trend Micro infringes one or more claims of any of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit. Trend Micro now seeks a declaratory judgment that Trend Micro does not infringe the claims
`
`of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`COUNT ONE
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’796 Patent)
`
`31.
`
`This is a claim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the ’796 Patent.
`
`The allegations of the foregoing paragraphs above are repeated as though fully set forth herein.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00303-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 8
`
`32.
`
`As a result of the acts described in the preceding paragraphs, there exists a
`
`controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality between Trend Micro and Taasera to warrant the
`
`issuance of a declaratory judgment.
`
`33.
`
`Trend Micro’s products, including at least the Accused Products, have not
`
`infringed, and do not infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`willfully or otherwise, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’796 Patent. On information and
`
`belief, at least Trend Micro OfficeScan, Cloud App Security, ScanMail for Microsoft Exchange,
`
`ScanMail for Lotus Domino, InterScan Messaging Security, InterScan Web Security, IM Security
`
`for Microsoft Lync, Portal Protect for Microsoft SharePoint, and Smart Protection for Endpoints
`
`& Complete, have not infringed, and do not infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, willfully or otherwise, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’796 Patent.
`
`34.
`
`Trend Micro is entitled to a judgment from this Court that Trend Micro has not
`
`infringed, and does not infringe, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’796 Patent.
`
`COUNT TWO
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. ’137 Patent)
`
`35.
`
`This is a claim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the ’137 Patent.
`
`The allegations of the foregoing paragraphs above are repeated as though fully set forth herein.
`
`36.
`
`As a result of the acts described in the preceding paragraphs, there exists a
`
`controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality between Trend Micro and Taasera to warrant the
`
`issuance of a declaratory judgment.
`
`37.
`
`Trend Micro’s products, including at least the Accused Products, have not
`
`infringed, and do not infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`willfully or otherwise, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’137 Patent. On information and
`
`belief, at least Trend Micro Apex One and Trend Micro Vision One, have not infringed, and do
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00303-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 9
`
`not infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, willfully or
`
`otherwise, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’137 Patent.
`
`38.
`
`Trend Micro is entitled to a judgment from this Court that Trend Micro has not
`
`infringed, and does not infringe, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’137 Patent.
`
`COUNT THREE
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. ’441 Patent)
`
`39.
`
`This is a claim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the ’441 Patent.
`
`The allegations of the foregoing paragraphs above are repeated as though fully set forth herein.
`
`40.
`
`As a result of the acts described in the preceding paragraphs, there exists a
`
`controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality between Trend Micro and Taasera to warrant the
`
`issuance of a declaratory judgment.
`
`41.
`
`Trend Micro’s products, including at least the Accused Products, have not
`
`infringed, and do not infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`willfully or otherwise, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’441 Patent. On information and
`
`belief, at least Trend Micro Apex One and Trend Micro Vision One, have not infringed, and do
`
`not infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, willfully or
`
`otherwise, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’441 Patent.
`
`42.
`
`Trend Micro is entitled to a judgment from this Court that Trend Micro has not
`
`infringed, and does not infringe, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’441 Patent.
`
`COUNT FOUR
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. ’038 Patent)
`
`43.
`
`This is a claim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the ’038 Patent.
`
`The allegations of the foregoing paragraphs above are repeated as though fully set forth herein.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00303-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 10
`
`44.
`
`As a result of the acts described in the preceding paragraphs, there exists a
`
`controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality between Trend Micro and Taasera to warrant the
`
`issuance of a declaratory judgment.
`
`45.
`
`Trend Micro’s products, including at least the Accused Products, have not
`
`infringed, and do not infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`willfully or otherwise, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’038 Patent. On information and
`
`belief, at least Trend Micro Apex One and Trend Micro Vision One, have not infringed, and do
`
`not infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, willfully or
`
`otherwise, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’038 Patent.
`
`46.
`
`Trend Micro is entitled to a judgment from this Court that Trend Micro has not
`
`infringed, and does not infringe, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’038 Patent.
`
`COUNT FIVE
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. ’997 Patent)
`
`47.
`
`This is a claim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the ’997 Patent.
`
`The allegations of the foregoing paragraphs above are repeated as though fully set forth herein.
`
`48.
`
`As a result of the acts described in the preceding paragraphs, there exists a
`
`controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality between Trend Micro and Taasera to warrant the
`
`issuance of a declaratory judgment.
`
`49.
`
`Trend Micro’s products, including at least the Accused Products, have not
`
`infringed, and do not infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`willfully or otherwise, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’997 Patent. On information and
`
`belief, at least Trend Micro Apex One and Trend Micro Vision One, have not infringed, and do
`
`not infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, willfully or
`
`otherwise, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’997 Patent.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00303-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 11
`
`50.
`
`Trend Micro is entitled to a judgment from this Court that Trend Micro has not
`
`infringed, and does not infringe, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’997 Patent.
`
`COUNT SIX
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. ’918 Patent)
`
`51.
`
`This is a claim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the ’918 Patent.
`
`The allegations of the foregoing paragraphs above are repeated as though fully set forth herein.
`
`52.
`
`As a result of the acts described in the preceding paragraphs, there exists a
`
`controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality between Trend Micro and Taasera to warrant the
`
`issuance of a declaratory judgment.
`
`53.
`
`Trend Micro’s products, including at least the Accused Products, have not
`
`infringed, and do not infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`willfully or otherwise, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’918 Patent. On information and
`
`belief, at least Trend Micro Apex One and Trend Micro Vision One, have not infringed, and do
`
`not infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, willfully or
`
`otherwise, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’918 Patent.
`
`54.
`
`Trend Micro is entitled to a judgment from this Court that Trend Micro has not
`
`infringed, and does not infringe, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’918 Patent.
`
`COUNT SEVEN
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. ’948 Patent)
`
`55.
`
`This is a claim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the ’948 Patent.
`
`The allegations of the foregoing paragraphs above are repeated as though fully set forth herein.
`
`56.
`
`As a result of the acts described in the preceding paragraphs, there exists a
`
`controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality between Trend Micro and Taasera to warrant the
`
`issuance of a declaratory judgment.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00303-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 12
`
`57.
`
`Trend Micro’s products, including at least the Accused Products, have not
`
`infringed, and do not infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`willfully or otherwise, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’948 Patent. On information and
`
`belief, at least Trend Micro Apex One and Trend Micro Vision One, have not infringed, and do
`
`not infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, willfully or
`
`otherwise, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’948 Patent.
`
`58.
`
`Trend Micro is entitled to a judgment from this Court that Trend Micro has not
`
`infringed, and does not infringe, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’948 Patent.
`
`COUNT EIGHT
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. ’616 Patent)
`
`59.
`
`This is a claim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the ’616 Patent.
`
`The allegations of the foregoing paragraphs above are repeated as though fully set forth herein.
`
`60.
`
`As a result of the acts described in the preceding paragraphs, there exists a
`
`controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality between Trend Micro and Taasera to warrant the
`
`issuance of a declaratory judgment.
`
`61.
`
`Trend Micro’s products, including at least the Accused Products, have not
`
`infringed, and do not infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`willfully or otherwise, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’616 Patent. On information and
`
`belief, at least Trend Micro Apex One and Trend Micro Vision One, have not infringed, and do
`
`not infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, willfully or
`
`otherwise, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’616 Patent.
`
`62.
`
`Trend Micro is entitled to a judgment from this Court that Trend Micro has not
`
`infringed, and does not infringe, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’616 Patent.
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00303-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 13
`
`COUNT NINE
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. ’517 Patent)
`
`63.
`
`This is a claim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the ’517 Patent.
`
`The allegations of the foregoing paragraphs above are repeated as though fully set forth herein.
`
`64.
`
`As a result of the acts described in the preceding paragraphs, there exists a
`
`controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality between Trend Micro and Taasera to warrant the
`
`issuance of a declaratory judgment.
`
`65.
`
`Trend Micro’s products, including at least the Accused Products, have not
`
`infringed, and do not infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`willfully or otherwise, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’517 Patent. On information and
`
`belief, at least Trend Micro Deep Discovery Inspector, Trend Micro Apex Central, Trend Micro
`
`Apex One, and Trend Micro Vision One, have not infringed, and do not infringe, directly or
`
`indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, willfully or otherwise, any valid and
`
`enforceable claim of the ’517 Patent.
`
`66.
`
`Trend Micro is entitled to a judgment from this Court that Trend Micro has not
`
`infringed, and does not infringe, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’517 Patent.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Trend Micro prays for the following judgment and relief:
`
`(a)
`
`The Court enter a declaratory judgment that Trend Micro is not infringing
`
`and has not infringed, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents, willfully or otherwise, any claims of the Patents-in-Suit;
`
`(b)
`
`Preliminarily and permanently enjoining Taasera, its officers, agents,
`
`servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or
`
`participation with it who receive actual notice by personal service or
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00303-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 14
`
`otherwise, from asserting or threatening to assert against Trend Micro, its
`
`related entities, or its customers, potential customers, or users of any Trend
`
`Micro products, any charge of infringement of any claims of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit;
`
`(c)
`
`The Court declare this case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, awarding
`
`Trend Micro its costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 285 and all other applicable statutes, rules and common law,
`
`including this Court’s inherent authority; and
`
`(d)
`
`Any other equitable rights and/or legal relief that this Court may deem just
`
`and proper.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`In accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 38(b), Trend Micro demands a trial
`
`by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00303-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/04/22 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 15
`
`Dated: March 4, 2022
`
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Yar R. Chaikovsky
`Yar R. Chaikovsky (admitted)
`Philip Ou (pro hac vice)
`Bruce S. Yen (pro hac vice)
`Alexander H. Lee (pro hac vice)
`Paul Hastings LLP
`1117 S. California Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1106
`Telephone: 650.320.1800
`Facsimile: 650.320.1900
`Email: yarchaikovsky@paulhastings.com
`Email: philipou@paulhastings.com
`Email: bruceyen@paulhastings.com
`Email: alexanderlee@paulhastings.com
`
`E. Leon Carter, Bar No. 03914300
`Scott W. Breedlove, Bar No. 00790361
`Nathan Cox, Bar No. 24105751
`Carter Arnett PLLC
`Campbell Centre II
`8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 500
`Dallas, TX 75206
`Telephone: 214.550.8188
`Facsimile: 214.550.8185
`Email: lcarter@carterarnett.com
`Email: sbreedlove@carterarnett.com
`Email: ncox@carterarnett.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`Trend Micro, Inc.
`
`- 15 -
`
`