Case 6:18-cv-00411-RWS Document 1 Filed 08/15/18 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`STARBUCKS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:18-cv-411
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Fall Line Patents, LLC (“Fall Line” or “Plaintiff”) files this original complaint
`
`against Starbucks Corporation (“Starbucks” or “Defendant”), alleging, based on its own
`
`knowledge as to itself and its own actions and based on information and belief as to all other
`
`matters, as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Fall Line is a limited liability company formed under the laws of the State of
`
`Oklahoma, with its principal place of business at 2121 South Yorktown, #1103, Tulsa,
`
`Oklahoma, 74114.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Starbucks Corporation is a corporation organized under the laws of the
`
`State of Washington. It can be served with process by serving its registered agent: Corporation
`
`Service Company dba CSC – Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite
`
`620, Austin, Texas 78701.
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00411-RWS Document 1 Filed 08/15/18 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 2
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This is an action for infringement of a United States patent arising under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, and 284–85, among others. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of the
`
`action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1338(a).
`
`4.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b). Upon
`
`information and belief, Defendant has transacted business in this district and has committed, by
`
`itself or in concert with others, acts of patent infringement in this district. For example, Starbucks
`
`makes, has made, uses, imports, provides, supplies, distributes, sells, or offers to sell the
`
`Starbucks Mobile App, as set forth below.
`
`5.
`
`In addition, Starbucks maintains a regular and established place of business in this
`
`district through numerous stores located in this district such as, for example, at 1817 E. Southeast
`
`Loop 323, Tyler, Texas 75701 and at 6205 Coit Road, Suite 352, Plano, Texas 75024. Further,
`
`and for example, Starbucks uses the Starbucks Mobile App to direct customers to, and receive
`
`orders from customers for, stores located in this district that are owned and/or operated by
`
`Starbucks:
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00411-RWS Document 1 Filed 08/15/18 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 3
`
`
`
`Source: Screenshot of Starbucks Mobile Android App operating on Samsung Galaxy S5
`smartphone
`
`
`6.
`
`Defendant is subject to this Court’s specific and general personal jurisdiction
`
`pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute, due at least to Defendant’s
`
`substantial business in this forum, including: (i) at least a portion of the infringements alleged
`
`herein; and/or (ii) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses of
`
`conduct, and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to individuals in
`
`Texas and in this district.
`
`THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`7.
`
`The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 (“the ‘748 Patent”), titled “System
`
`and Method for Data Management,” teaches methods for managing and collecting data from a
`
`remote computing device. Specifically, the invention addresses the need to collect location-
`
`specific information on a variety of hardware and software platforms without the need to create
`
`separate and individualized software for each of the numerous manufacturers of remote
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00411-RWS Document 1 Filed 08/15/18 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 4
`
`computing devices. The inventor of the ‘748 Patent, as well as its parent applications and patents,
`
`developed systems and methods to enable developers to create a single application that could
`
`function on numerous models of remote computing devices, without the need to create separate
`
`software for each model, as was often required in the prior art.
`
`COUNT I
`
`DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,454,748
`
`8.
`
`On September 27, 2016, the ‘748 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office for an invention entitled “System and Method for Data
`
`Management.”
`
`9.
`
`Fall Line is the owner of the ‘748 Patent, with all substantive rights in and to that
`
`patent, including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the ‘748 Patent
`
`against infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times.
`
`10.
`
`Defendant made, had made, used, imported, provided, supplied, distributed, sold,
`
`and/or offered for sale apps that include the infringing features (“accused products”). The
`
`accused products include apps that can be used on a variety of remote computing devices and
`
`gather and transmit location-specific information. Defendant’s accused products include, for
`
`example, its Starbucks mobile app:
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00411-RWS Document 1 Filed 08/15/18 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 5
`
`(Source: https://www.starbucks.com/coffeehouse/mobile-apps)
`
`11.
`
`By doing so, Defendant has directly infringed (literally and/or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents) at least Claim 1 of the ‘748 Patent. Defendant’s infringement in this regard is
`
`
`
`ongoing.
`
`12.
`
`Starbucks has infringed the ‘748 Patent by making, having made, using,
`
`importing, providing, supplying, distributing, selling, or offering for sale systems utilizing a
`
`method for managing data.
`
`13.
`
`The accused products include creating a questionnaire comprising a series of
`
`questions customized for a location.
`
`14.
`
`The accused products include a questionnaire including at least one question
`
`requesting GPS coordinates.
`
`15.
`
`The accused products include tokenizing said questionnaire, thereby producing a
`
`plurality of device indifferent tokens representing said questionnaire.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00411-RWS Document 1 Filed 08/15/18 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 6
`
`16.
`
`The accused products include transmitting said plurality of tokens to a remote
`
`computing device.
`
`17.
`
`The accused products include, when said remote computing device is at said
`
`location, executing at least a portion of said plurality of tokens representing said questionnaire
`
`within said remote computing device to collect a response from a user.
`
`18.
`
`The accused products include automatically entering the GPS coordinates into
`
`said questionnaire.
`
`19.
`
`The accused products include transmitting at least a portion of said response from
`
`the user to a server in real time via a network.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`The accused products include storing said response at said server.
`
`Fall Line has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Defendant
`
`alleged above. Thus, Defendant is liable to Fall Line in an amount that adequately compensates it
`
`for such infringements, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`22.
`
`Fall Line and/or its predecessors-in-interest have satisfied all statutory obligations
`
`required to collect pre-filing damages for the full period allowed by law for infringement of the
`
`‘748 Patent.
`
`ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING DIRECT INFRINGEMENT
`
`23.
`
`Defendant has also directly infringed the ‘748 Patent by exercising direction or
`
`control over the use of the accused products by its customers. When Defendant’s customers
`
`download and use the accused products, Defendant is putting the accused products into service
`
`and conditions the benefit received by each customer from using the accused products (which
`
`utilize the methods taught by the ‘748 Patent), such benefit including improved data management
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00411-RWS Document 1 Filed 08/15/18 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 7
`
`across a variety of devices, only if the accused products are used in the manner prescribed by
`
`Defendant. Use of the accused products in such manner infringes the ‘748 Patent.
`
`ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT
`
`24.
`
`Defendant has also indirectly infringed the ‘748 Patent by inducing others to
`
`directly infringe the ‘748 Patent. Defendant has induced the end-users, Defendant’s customers, to
`
`directly infringe (literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents) the ‘748 Patent by using the
`
`accused products. Defendant took active steps, directly and/or through contractual relationships
`
`with others, with the specific intent to cause them to use the accused products in a manner that
`
`infringes one or more claims of the patents-in-suit, including, for example, Claim 1 of the ‘748
`
`Patent. Such steps by Defendant included, among other things, advising or directing customers
`
`and end-users to use the accused products in an infringing manner; advertising and promoting the
`
`use of the accused products in an infringing manner; and/or distributing instructions that guide
`
`users to use the accused products in an infringing manner. Defendant is performing these steps,
`
`which constitute induced infringement with the knowledge of the ‘748 Patent and with the
`
`knowledge that the induced acts constitute infringement. Defendant is aware that the normal and
`
`customary use of the accused products by Defendant’s customers would infringe the ‘748 Patent.
`
`Defendant’s inducement is ongoing.
`
`25.
`
`Defendant has also indirectly infringed by contributing to the infringement of the
`
`‘748 Patent. Defendant has contributed to the direct infringement of the ‘748 Patent by the end-
`
`user of the accused products. The accused products have special features that are specially
`
`designed to be used in an infringing way and that have no substantial uses other than ones that
`
`infringe the ‘748 Patent, including, for example, Claim 1 of the ‘748 Patent. The special features
`
`include improved data management across a variety of devices in a manner that infringes the
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00411-RWS Document 1 Filed 08/15/18 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 8
`
`‘748 Patent. The special features constitute a material part of the invention of one or more of the
`
`claims of the ‘748 Patent and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-
`
`infringing use. Defendant’s contributory infringement is ongoing.
`
`26.
`
`Defendant has knowledge of the ‘748 Patent at least as of the date when it was
`
`notified of the filing of this action.
`
`27.
`
`Furthermore, on information and belief, Defendant has a policy or practice of not
`
`reviewing the patents of others (including instructing its employees to not review the patents of
`
`others), and thus has been willfully blind of Fall Line’s patent rights.
`
`28.
`
`Defendant’s actions are at least objectively reckless as to the risk of infringing a
`
`valid patent and this objective risk was either known or should have been known by Defendant.
`
`29.
`
`Defendant’s direct and indirect infringement of the ‘748 Patent is, has been, and
`
`continues to be willful, intentional, deliberate, and/or in conscious disregard of Fall Line’s rights
`
`under the patent.
`
`30.
`
`Fall Line has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by defendant
`
`alleged above. Thus, Defendant is liable to Fall Line in an amount that adequately compensates it
`
`for such infringements, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING PATENTABILITY
`
`31.
`
`The 748 Patent is directed to improving data management on remote handheld
`
`computers that are “loosely networked” to servers for the purpose of collecting information in
`
`the field. 748 Patent at 1:19-24; 1:33-40.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00411-RWS Document 1 Filed 08/15/18 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 9
`
`32.
`
`In 2002, when the parent provisional application for the 748 Patent was filed, the
`
`then-existing remote handheld computers suffered from many technical problems. These
`
`included:
`
`• operating systems for the remote handheld computers “mimic[ed] those of desktop and
`laptop systems, despite the fact that handheld devices are typically used in a different
`manner and have radically different resources,” see, e.g., 748 Patent at 1:45-48;
`
`• compatibility issues prevented applications developed for one remote computing device
`from being used on a different remote computing device, id. at 1:49-2:2;
`
`• compatibility issues prevented data from being shared across different devices, id. at 2:3-
`12;
`
`• prior-art approaches to overcoming compatibility issues, including using i-code and
`tokens and layer to execute them, lacked optimization, and required a high level of
`programming skill to create, id. at 2:13-31;
`
`• prior-art systems typically required “custom” programs “tailored for a specific customer”
`at high cost, id. at 2:41-64;
`
`• prior-art systems required custom development and compilation for each separate type of
`device, id. at 3:1-7;
`
`• prior-art systems required an entire program to be recompiled and reinstalled to
`implement a single change in the program, id. at 3:7-10;
`
` networks available to devices in the field were not always available, id. at 3:64-67;
`
` networks available to devices in the field have limited bandwidth, id. at 3:67-4:1; and
`
`• prior-art approaches to dealing with intermittent networks, including store-and-
`forward and real-time transmission, were not satisfactory, id. at 4:3-17.
`
`33.
`
`It is these technical problems with the prior-art remote handheld computers that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` •
`
` •
`
`the inventor of the 748 Patent sought to address.
`
`34.
`
`Regarding the compatibility issues, the then-existing practice was “for a business
`
`to commission the authoring of a custom program aimed at a particular need.” Id. at 2:57-59.
`
`What that means is that, prior to the inventions disclosed in the 748 Patent, when the program
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00411-RWS Document 1 Filed 08/15/18 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 10
`
`running on the remote handheld computer needed changing, developers must first make the
`
`change on a development system and then re-transfer the entire program to each target device.
`
`Id. at 3:7-10. If more than one type of device is used, that process must be completed for each
`
`type of device. Id.
`
`35.
`
`To address this problem, the inventor of the 748 Patent used device-independent
`
`(or device-indifferent) tokens and the creation of tokenized questionnaires. By tokenizing a
`
`questionnaire, it can be executed on a remote handheld computer without the need to recompile
`
`and reload a software package onto the handheld computer. Id. at 5:21-32. This means that
`
`changes, including incremental changes, can be made automatically and without the need to
`
`reload the entire program. Id. at 5:26-32. The use of device-independent tokens also allows the
`
`questionnaire to be used on different types of devices without the need to create a custom
`
`program for each device type. Id. at 4:66-5:2. The application of tokenizing in the context of the
`
`methods claimed by the 748 Patent is an advance over the prior art, and was not well-understood,
`
`routine, and conventional. This advance is reflected in the claims of the patents-in-suit. Id. at
`
`13:52 (claim 1); 15:16-21 (claim 9); 16:53-58 (claim 19); and 17:23-28 (claim 21).
`
`36.
`
`Additionally, to handle the loose nature of networks that are available to handheld
`
`devices, the 748 Patent explains that “if any communication connection is available between
`
`devices wishing to communicate, network transmissions occur normally, in real time.” Id. at 5:7-
`
`10. On the other hand, “[i]f a network connection is unavailable at that moment, the information
`
`is temporarily stored in the device and later transmitted when the connection is restored.” Id. at
`
`5:10-12. This approach, along with the use of device-independent tokens, enables a reduction to
`
`the “load on a communication channel of finite bandwidth.” Id. at 4:36-39. This connection
`
`scheme represented an advance over the prior art and was not well-understood, routine, and
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00411-RWS Document 1 Filed 08/15/18 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 11
`
`conventional. It is reflected in the claims of the patents-in-suit. Id. at 15:26-37 (claim 9); 16:66-
`
`17:9 (claim 19); and 18:1-20 (claim 21).
`
`37.
`
`In addition, the 748 Patent teaches using an integral GPS device for multiple
`
`purposes, including causing location information to be automatically collected by the executing
`
`questionnaire, creating questionnaires that are customized for particular locations, and executing
`
`questionnaires when the remote computing devices reach certain locations. Id. at 5:33-48; 8:56-
`
`61; 10:55-65. This use of an integral GPS device represented an advance over the prior art and
`
`was not well-understood, routine, and conventional. It is reflected in the claims of the patent-in-
`
`suit. Id. at 13:61-62 (claim 1); 14:52-62 (claim 7); 15:8-12 (claim 9); 16:51-52, 17:1-4 (claim
`
`19); and 17:21-22, 18:4-5, 18:17-18 (claim 21).
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Fall Line hereby requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable by right.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Fall Line requests that the Court find in its favor and against Defendant, and that the
`
`Court grant Fall Line the following relief:
`
`a.
`
`Judgment that one or more claims of the ‘748 Patent have been infringed, either
`
`literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by Defendant and/or all others acting in concert
`
`therewith;
`
`b.
`
`A permanent injunction enjoining Defendant and its officers, directors, agents,
`
`servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and all others acting in
`
`concert therewith from infringement of the ‘748 Patent; or, in the alternative, an award of a
`
`reasonable ongoing royalty for future infringement of the ‘748 Patent by such entities;
`
`c.
`
`Judgment that Defendant accounts for and pays to Fall Line all damages to and
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00411-RWS Document 1 Filed 08/15/18 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 12
`
`costs incurred by Fall Line because of Defendant’s infringing activities and other conduct
`
`complained of herein, including an award of all increased damages to which Fall Line is entitled
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`d.
`
`That Fall Line be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the
`
`damages caused by Defendant’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein;
`
`e.
`
`That this Court declare this an exceptional case and award Fall Line its reasonable
`
`attorney’s fees and costs in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
`
`f.
`
`That Fall Line be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just
`
`and proper under the circumstances.
`
`
`
`Dated: August 15, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Matthew J. Antonelli
`Matthew J. Antonelli
`Texas Bar No. 24068432
`matt@ahtlawfirm.com
`Zachariah S. Harrington
`Texas Bar No. 24057886
`zac@ahtlawfirm.com
`Larry D. Thompson, Jr.
`Texas Bar No. 24051428
`larry@ahtlawfirm.com
`Michael D. Ellis
`Texas Bar No. 24081586
`michael@ahtlawfirm.com
`
`ANTONELLI, HARRINGTON
`& THOMPSON LLP
`4306 Yoakum Blvd., Ste. 450
`Houston, TX 77006
`(713) 581-3000
`
`Attorneys for Fall Line Patents, LLC
`
`12
`
`
`
`