Case 6:21-cv-00228-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 1 of 38
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`GREATGIGZ SOLUTIONS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-228
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
` v.
`
`SAFELITE GROUP, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`GreatGigz Solutions, LLC (“Plaintiff”) hereby files this Original Complaint for Patent
`
`Infringement against Safelite Group, Inc. (“Defendant”), and alleges, upon information and belief, as
`
`follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`GreatGigz Solutions, LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws
`
`of the State of Florida with its principal place of business at 600 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 605,
`
`West Palm Beach, Florida 33401.
`
`2.
`
`Upon information and belief, Safelite Group, Inc. (“Safelite”) is a domestic corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, with a principal place of business located
`
`7400 Safelite Way, Columbus, Ohio 43235. Safelite may be served through its registered agent
`
`in the State of Texas at Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC – Lawyers Incorporating
`
`Service Company, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701-3218.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00228-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 2 of 38
`
`3.
`
`Upon information and belief, Safelite sells and offers to sell products and services throughout the
`
`State of Texas, including in this judicial District, and introduces services via its infringing
`
`systems into the stream of commerce knowing and intending that they would be extensively used
`
`in the State of Texas and in this judicial District. Upon information and belief, Safelite
`
`specifically targets customers in the State of Texas and in this judicial District.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Defendant has continuous and systematic
`
`business contacts with the State of Texas. Defendant directly conducts business extensively
`
`throughout the State of Texas, by distributing, making, using, offering for sale, selling, and
`
`advertising (including the provision of interactive web pages and apps) its services in the State of
`
`Texas and in this District. Defendant has purposefully and voluntarily made its infringing
`
`systems available to residents of this District and into the stream of commerce with the intention
`
`and expectation that they will be purchased and used by consumers in this District.
`
`6.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant maintains regular and established places of business in
`
`the State of Texas and specifically within this District (See Figures 1 and 2 below).
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00228-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 3 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 11
`
`
`Figure 22
`
`
`
`
`1 Source, as visited on March 8, 2021: https://www.safelite.com/store-locator
`2 Source, as visited on March 8, 2021: https://www.safelite.com/store-locator
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00228-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 4 of 38
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in the Western District of Texas as to Defendant pursuant to at least 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1391(c)(2) and 1400(b). As noted above, Defendant maintains a regular and established place
`
`of business in this District.
`
`PATENTS
`
`8.
`
`GreatGigz Solutions, LLC is the owner, by assignment, of U.S. Patent Nos. 6.662,194 (“the ’194
`
`Patent”); 7,490,086 (“the ’086 Patent”); 9,152,943 (“the ’943 Patent”); 9,760,864 (“the ’864
`
`Patent”); and 10,096,000 (“the ’000 Patent”) (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the GGS
`
`Patents”).
`
`9.
`
`The GGS Patents are valid, enforceable, and were duly issued in full compliance with Title 35 of
`
`the United States Code.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`Raymond Anthony Joao invented the inventions described and claimed in the GGS Patents.
`
`The priority date of each of the GGS Patents is at least as early as July 31, 1999.
`
`The GGS Patents each include numerous claims defining distinct inventions.
`
`During prosecution of the ’864 Patent, the patent examiner considered whether the claims of the
`
`’864 Patent were eligible under 35 USC §101 in view of the United States Supreme Court’s
`
`decision in Alice. The patent examiner found that the claims are in fact patent eligible under 35
`
`USC §101 because all pending claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter, none of the
`
`pending claims are directed to an abstract idea and there would be no preemption of the abstract
`
`idea or the field of the abstract idea.
`
`14.
`
`During prosecution of the ’943 Patent, the patent examiner considered whether the claims of the
`
`’943 Patent were eligible under 35 USC §101 in view of the United States Supreme Court’s
`
`decision in Alice. The patent examiner found that the claims are in fact patent eligible under 35
`
`USC §101 because all pending claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter, none of the
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00228-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 5 of 38
`
`pending claims are directed to an abstract idea and there would be no preemption of the abstract
`
`idea or the field of the abstract idea.
`
`15.
`
`GreatGigz Solutions, LLC alleges infringement on the part of Defendant of the ’194 Patent, the
`
`’086 Patent, the ’943 Patent, and the ’000 Patent (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`16.
`
`The ’194 Patent relates generally to an apparatus and method for providing recruitment
`
`information, including a memory device for Storing information regarding at least one of a job
`
`opening, a position, an assignment, a contract, and a project, and information regarding a job
`
`Search request, a processing device for processing information regarding the job Search request
`
`upon a detection of an occurrence of a Searching event, wherein the processing device utilizes
`
`information regarding the at least one of a job opening, a position, an assignment, a contract, and
`
`a project, Stored in the memory device, and further wherein the processing device generates a
`
`message containing information regarding at least one of a job opening, a position, an
`
`assignment, a contract, and a project, wherein the message is responsive to the job Search
`
`request, and a transmitter for transmitting the message to a communication device associated
`
`with an individual in real-time. See Abstract, ’194 Patent.
`
`17.
`
`The ’086 Patent relates generally to an apparatus, including a memory device which stores
`
`information regarding a job opening, position, assignment, contract, or project, and information
`
`regarding a job search request or inquiry, a processing device which processing the information
`
`regarding a job search request or inquiry upon an automatic detection of an occurrence of a
`
`searching event which is an occurrence of a job posting, a posting of new or revised data or
`
`information, a news release of a business event, an employment-related event, an economic
`
`report, industry-specific news, an event which creates an to fill a position, or an event which
`
`creates an interest to seek a position, and generates a message, containing the information
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00228-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 6 of 38
`
`regarding a job opening, position, assignment, contract, or project, responsive to the job search
`
`request or inquiry, and a transmitter which transmits the message to a communication device
`
`associated with an individual. See Abstract, ’086 Patent.
`
`18.
`
`The ’864 Patent relates generally to an apparatus, including a memory device for storing work
`
`schedule information or scheduling information for an individual, a transmitter for transmitting a
`
`job search request to a computer, wherein the computer is specially programmed for processing
`
`the job search request, for generating a message containing information regarding a job opening,
`
`a position, an assignment, a contract, or a project, and for transmitting the message to the
`
`apparatus in response to the job search request; a receiver for receiving the message; and a
`
`display for displaying at least some of the information contained in the message. See Abstract,
`
`’864 Patent.
`
`19.
`
`The ’943 Patent relates generally to an apparatus, including a memory device which stores
`
`information regarding a job opening, position, assignment, contract, or project, and information
`
`regarding a job search request or inquiry, a processing device which processes the information
`
`regarding a job search request or inquiry upon a detection of a job posting by at least one
`
`employer or at least one hiring entity or a posting of new or revised data or information from at
`
`least one individual or a group of individuals, automatically detects the occurrence of the
`
`searching event, and generates a message containing the information regarding a job opening,
`
`position, assignment, contract, or project, in response to the job search request or inquiry, and a
`
`transmitter which transmits the message to a communication device associated with an
`
`individual. See Abstract, ’943 Patent.
`
`20.
`
`As noted, the claims of the Asserted Patents claim priority to at least July 31, 1999. At that time,
`
`the idea of launching Safelite.com was still several years away.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00228-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 7 of 38
`
`21.
`
`The claims of the Asserted Patents are not drawn to laws of nature, natural phenomena, or
`
`abstract ideas. Although the systems and methods claimed in the Asserted Patents are ubiquitous
`
`now (and, as a result, are widely infringed), the specific combinations of elements, as recited in
`
`the claims, was not conventional or routine at the time of the invention.
`
`22.
`
`Further, the claims of the Asserted Patents contain inventive concepts which transform the
`
`underlying non-abstract aspects of the claims into patent-eligible subject matter.
`
`23.
`
`Consequently, the claims of the Asserted Patents recite systems and methods resulting in
`
`improved functionality of the claimed systems and represent technological improvements to the
`
`operation of computers.
`
`24.
`
`The ’194 Patent was examined by Primary United States Patent Examiner Franz Colby. During
`
`the examination of the ’194 Patent, the United States Patent Examiner searched for prior art in
`
`the following US Classifications: 705/1, 10, 11, 705/26, 707/104.1, 10, 3, and 103R.
`
`25.
`
`After conducting a search for prior art during the examination of the ’194 Patent, the United
`
`States Patent Examiner identified and cited the following as the most relevant prior art references
`
`found during the search: (i) 5,164,897, 11/1992, Clark et al.; (ii) 5,832,497, 11/1998, Taylor;
`
`(iii) 5,884.270, 3/1999, Walker et al.; (iv) 5,884.272, 3/1999, Walker et al.; (v) 5,978,768,
`
`11/1999, McGovern et al.; (vi) 6,324,538, 11/2001, Wesinger, Jr. et al.; (vii) 6,332,125, 12/2001,
`
`Callen et al.; (viii) 6,363,376, 3/2002, Wiens et al.; (ix) 6,370,510, 4/2002, McGovern et al.; (x)
`
`6,381,592, 4/2002, Reuning; and (xi) 6,385,620, 5/2002, Kurzius et al.
`
`26.
`
`After giving full proper credit to the prior art and having conducted a thorough search for all
`
`relevant art and having fully considered the most relevant art known at the time, the United
`
`States Patent Examiner allowed all of the claims of the ’194 Patent to issue. In so doing, it is
`
`presumed that Examiner Colby used his or her knowledge of the art when examining the claims.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00228-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 8 of 38
`
`K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2014). It is further
`
`presumed that Examiner Colby has experience in the field of the invention, and that the
`
`Examiner properly acted in accordance with a person of ordinary skill. In re Sang Su Lee, 277
`
`F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`27.
`
`The ’086 Patent was examined by Primary United States Patent Examiner Jean M. Corrielus.
`
`During the examination of the ’086 Patent, the United States Patent Examiner searched for prior
`
`art in the following US Classifications: 707/104.1, 707/3, 10, 103R, 1, 2, 4, 5, 705/1, 10, 11, and
`
`705/26.
`
`28.
`
`After conducting a search for prior art during the examination of the ’086 Patent, the United
`
`States Patent Examiner identified and cited the following as the most relevant prior art references
`
`found during the search: (i) 4,625,081, 11/1986, Lotito et al.; (ii) 5,164,897, 11/1992, Clark et
`
`al.; (iii) 5,978,768, 11/1999, McGovern et al.; (iv) 6,370,510, 4/2002, McGovern et al.; (v)
`
`6,381,592, 4/2002, Reuning; (vi) 6,385,620, 5/2002, Kurzius et al.; (vii) 6,567,784, 5/2003,
`
`Bukow; (viii) 6,662,194, 12/2003, Joao; (ix) 6,873,964, 3/2005, Williams et al.; (x) 7,148,991,
`
`12/2006, Suzuki et al.; and (xi) 2003/020531, 6/2003, Parker.
`
`29.
`
`After giving full proper credit to the prior art and having conducted a thorough search for all
`
`relevant art and having fully considered the most relevant art known at the time, the United
`
`States Patent Examiner allowed all of the claims of the ’086 Patent to issue. In so doing, it is
`
`presumed that Examiner Corrielus used his or her knowledge of the art when examining the
`
`claims. K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2014). It is
`
`further presumed that Examiner Corrielus has experience in the field of the invention, and that
`
`the Examiner properly acted in accordance with a person of ordinary skill. In re Sang Su Lee,
`
`277 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00228-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 9 of 38
`
`30.
`
`The ’864 Patent was examined by Primary United States Patent Examiner Jean M. Corrielus.
`
`During the examination of the ’864 Patent, the United States Patent Examiner searched for prior
`
`art in the following US Classifications: 707/758.
`
`31.
`
`After conducting a search for prior art during the examination of the ’864 Patent, the United
`
`States Patent Examiner identified and cited the following as the most relevant prior art references
`
`found during the search: (i) 5,164,897, 11/1992, Clark; (ii) 5,758,324, 5/1998, Hartman; (iii)
`
`5,832,497, 11/1998, Taylor; (iv) 5,862,223, 1/1999, Walker; (v) 5,884,270, 3/1999, Walker; (vi)
`
`5,884,272, 3/1999, Walker; (vii) 5,978,768, 11/1999, McGovern; (viii) 6,157,808, 12/2000,
`
`Hollingsworth; (ix) 6,266,659, 7/2001, Nadkarni; (x) 6,370,510, 4/2002, McGovern; (xi)
`
`6.381,592, 4/2002, Reuning; (xii) 6,398,556, 6/2002, Ho; (xiii) 6,408,337, 6/2002, Dietz; (xiv)
`
`6,409,514, 6/2002, Bull; (xv) 6,466,91, 10/2002, Mitsuoka; (xvi) 6,718,340, 4/2004, Hartman;
`
`(xvii) 6,873,964, 3/2005, Williams; (xviii) 7,054,821, 5/2006, Rosenthal; (xix) 7,305,347,
`
`12/2007, Joao; (xx) 7,523,045, 4/2009, Walker; (xxi) 2001/0042000 Al, 11/2001, Defoor, Jr.;
`
`(xxii) 2002/0002476 A1, 1/2002, Mitsuoka; (xxiii) 2002/0152316 A1, 10/2002, Dietz; and (xxiv)
`
`2005/0010467 A1, 1/2005, Dietz.
`
`32.
`
`After giving full proper credit to the prior art and having conducted a thorough search for all
`
`relevant art and having fully considered the most relevant art known at the time, the United
`
`States Patent Examiner allowed all of the claims of the ’864 Patent to issue. In so doing, it is
`
`presumed that Examiner Corrielus used his or her knowledge of the art when examining the
`
`claims. K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2014). It is
`
`further presumed that Examiner Corrielus has experience in the field of the invention, and that
`
`the Examiner properly acted in accordance with a person of ordinary skill. In re Sang Su Lee,
`
`277 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00228-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 10 of 38
`
`33.
`
`The ’864 Patent is a pioneering patent, and has been cited as relevant prior art in over 250
`
`subsequent United States Patent Applications, including Applications Assigned to such
`
`technology leaders as Ricoh, Robert Half International, IBM, Yahoo!, Xerox, Amazon, Monster,
`
`HP, CareerBuilder, Microsoft, LinkedIn, and General Electric.
`
`34.
`
`The ’943 Patent was examined by Primary United States Patent Examiner Jean M. Corrielus.
`
`During the examination of the ’943 Patent, the United States Patent Examiner searched for prior
`
`art in the following US Classifications: 707/758/
`
`35.
`
`After conducting a search for prior art during the examination of the ’943 Patent, the United
`
`States Patent Examiner identified and cited the following as the most relevant prior art references
`
`found during the search: (i) 5,164,897, Clark; (ii) 5,758,324, Hartman; (iii) 5,832,497, Taylor;
`
`(iv) 5,862,223, Walker; (v) 5,884,270, Walker; (vi) 5,884,272, Walker; (vii) 5,978,768,
`
`McGovern; (viii) 6,157,808, Hollingsworth; (ix) 6,266,659, Nadkarni; (x) 6,370,510, McGovern;
`
`(xi) 6,381,592, Reuning; (xii) 6,398,556, Ho; and (xiii) 6,408,337, Dietz.
`
`36.
`
`After giving full proper credit to the prior art and having conducted a thorough search for all
`
`relevant art and having fully considered the most relevant art known at the time, the United
`
`States Patent Examiner allowed all of the claims of the ’943 Patent to issue. In so doing, it is
`
`presumed that Examiner Corrielus used his or her knowledge of the art when examining the
`
`claims. K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2014). It is
`
`further presumed that Examiner Corrielus has experience in the field of the invention, and that
`
`the Examiner properly acted in accordance with a person of ordinary skill. In re Sang Su Lee,
`
`277 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`37.
`
`The ’943 Patent is a pioneering patent, and has been cited as relevant prior art in over 250
`
`subsequent United States Patent Applications, including Applications Assigned to such
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00228-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 11 of 38
`
`technology leaders as British Telecom, Ricoh, AT&T, Hewlett-Packard, Yahoo!, Amazon,
`
`Monster.com, CareerBuilder, IBM, Ricoh, Microsoft, Robert half, and General Electric.
`
`38.
`
`The claims of the Asserted Patents are properly issued, valid, and enforceable.
`
`THE ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITIES
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant provides a web platform hosted on a server
`
`39.
`
`(www.safelite.com) comprising memory, processors, transmitters and/or receivers (“Accused
`
`Instrumentalities”) through which Defendant provides auto glass repair & replacement services
`
`(including but not limited to windshield repair, windshield replacement, power window repair,
`
`side window replacement, and/or back glass replacement) through MobileGlassShops (wherein
`
`mobile auto glass technicians visit a customer’s location and complete windshield repair and
`
`auto glass replacement services) and repair facilities in multiple locations. Defendant allows its
`
`customers to schedule an appointment for a repair and replacement service using its web portal,
`
`which provides recruitment information.
`
`COUNT I
`Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,662,194
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs by reference.
`
`Defendant has been on actual notice of the ’194 Patent at least as early as the date it received
`
`service of this Original Complaint.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant owns and controls the operation of the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities and generates substantial financial revenues therefrom.
`
`43.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe
`
`at least Claim 25 of the ’194 Patent by making, using, importing, selling, and/or, offering for sale
`
`the Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00228-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 12 of 38
`
`44.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Accused Instrumentalities comprise an apparatus for providing
`
`recruitment information. For example, Defendant provides a web platform hosted on a server
`
`(www.safelite.com) comprising memory, processors, transmitters and/or receivers through which
`
`Defendant provides auto glass repair & replacement services (including but not limited to
`
`windshield repair, windshield replacement, power window repair, side window replacement,
`
`and/or back glass replacement) through MobileGlassShops (wherein mobile auto glass
`
`technicians visit a customer’s location and complete windshield repair and auto glass
`
`replacement services) and repair facilities in multiple locations. Defendant allows its customers
`
`to schedule an appointment for a repair and replacement service using its web portal, which
`
`provides recruitment information. See Figures 3-10 below.
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 33
`
`
`
`
`3 Source, as visited on March 8, 2021: https://www.safelite.com/
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00228-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 13 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 44
`
`
`Figure 55
`
`
`Figure 66
`
`
`
`4 Source, as visited on January 15, 2021: https://fixmyglass.safelite.com/FixMyGlass/ServiceDetails.aspx?&start_type=fmg
`5 Source, as visited on March 8, 2021: https://www.safelite.com/auto-glass-services
`6 Source, as visited on March 8, 2021: https://www.safelite.com/
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00228-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 14 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 77
`
`
`Figure 88
`
`
`Figure 99
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7 Source, as visited on March 8, 2021: https://www.safelite.com/auto-glass-services
`8 Source, as visited on March 8, 2021: https://www.safelite.com/auto-glass-services
`9 Source, as visited on March 8, 2021: https://www.safelite.com/mobile-auto-glass-repair
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00228-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 15 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1010
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant’s Accused Instrumentalities include a memory device
`
`45.
`
`for storing at least one of work schedule information and scheduling information for at least one
`
`of an individual, an independent contractor, a temporary worker, and a freelancer. For example,
`
`Defendant’s servers store and provide work schedule information for individual employees (“at
`
`least one of an individual, an independent contractor, a temporary worker, and a freelancer”) of
`
`the Defendant such that the individual employees can be notified about customer orders,
`
`locations and scheduled appointments. See Figures 3 and 4 above. See also Figures 11-16 below.
`
`
`10 Source, as visited on March 8, 2021: https://www.safelite.com/mobile-auto-glass-repair
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00228-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 16 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1111
`
`
`Figure 1212
`
`
`
`11 Source, as visited on January 15, 2021: https://fixmyglass.safelite.com/FixMyGlass/VehicleDamage.aspx
`12 Source, as visited on January 15, 2021: https://fixmyglass.safelite.com/FixMyGlass/DamageSelection.aspx
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00228-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 17 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1313
`
`
`Figure 1414
`
`
`
`13 Source, as visited on January 15, 2021: https://fixmyglass.safelite.com/FixMyGlass/QuoteDetails.aspx
`
`14 Source, as visited on January 15, 2021: https://fixmyglass.safelite.com/FixMyGlass/ScheduleDetails.aspx
`
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00228-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 18 of 38
`
`
`
`Figure 1515
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1616
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant’s Accused Instrumentalities include a receiver for
`
`46.
`
`receiving a first request, wherein the first request contains information regarding a request to
`
`obtain at least one of work schedule information and scheduling information for the at least one
`
`of an individual, an independent contractor, a temporary worker, and a freelancer, wherein the
`
`first request is received from a first communication device associated with an employer or hiring
`
`entity. For example, Defendant’s servers receive a first request containing information regarding
`
`scheduling information of individual employees of the Defendant when a customer (“employer
`
`or a hiring entity “) schedules an appointment using a mobile device, laptop or PC (“a first
`
`communication device associated with an employer or hiring entity”). The scheduling
`
`information is used to notify individual employees about customer orders, locations and
`
`scheduled appointments. See Figures 4 and 11-15 above.
`
`47.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant’s Accused Instrumentalities include a processing device
`
`for processing information contained in the first request, wherein the processing device generates
`
`15 Source, as visited on January 15, 2021: https://fixmyglass.safelite.com/FixMyGlass/ScheduleDetails.aspx
`
`16 Source, as visited on March 8, 2021: https://www.safelite.com/mobile-auto-glass-repair
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00228-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 19 of 38
`
`a first message containing the at least one of work schedule information and scheduling
`
`information for the at least one of an individual, an independent contractor, a temporary worker,
`
`and a freelancer. For example, Defendant’s servers, in response to the customer’s request for
`
`scheduling an appointment, generate a timetable (“first message”) which contains the work
`
`schedule information or the scheduling information of individual employees of the Defendant.
`
`This timetable is displayed to the customer which allows the customer to then select an
`
`appropriate time when the order shall be serviced by the individual employee. See Figures 4 and
`
`11-15 above.
`
`48.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant’s Accused Instrumentalities further include a transmitter
`
`for transmitting the first message to the first communication device. For example, Defendant’s
`
`servers transmit the first message to the first communication device (used by the customer) via
`
`Internet, causing display of the timetable to the customer and allowing the customer to select the
`
`date and time of the appointment and finish the scheduling process (by clicking on the Submit
`
`button). See Figures 14 and 15 above.
`
`49.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant provides the receiver wherein the receiver receives a
`
`second request, wherein the second request contains information for at least one of reserving,
`
`engaging, and requesting, the services of the at least one of an individual, an independent
`
`contractor, a temporary worker, and a freelancer, wherein at least one of the processing device
`
`processes the information contained in the second request and at least one of reserves, engages,
`
`and requests, the services of the at least one of an individual, an independent contractor, a
`
`temporary worker, and a freelancer, the processing device generates a second message
`
`containing information regarding the second request, and the transmitter transmits a second
`
`message containing information regarding the second request to a second communication device
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00228-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 20 of 38
`
`associated with the at least one of an individual, an independent contractor, a temporary worker,
`
`and a freelancer. For example, after the customer selects the date and time of the appointment
`
`and finishes the scheduling process (by clicking on the Submit button), a second request
`
`containing information for reserving, engaging, or requesting, the services of the individual is
`
`sent to the Defendant’s servers. Further, Defendant’s servers transmit the second message to the
`
`Mobile Resource Management software (MRM3) loaded onto a technician’s (“individual”)
`
`smartphone (“second communication device”). See Figures 17-24 below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1717
`
`
`
`Figure 1818
`
`
`
`17 Source, as visited on January 15, 2021: https://fixmyglass.safelite.com/FixMyGlass/OrderConfirmation.aspx
`18 Source, as visited on January 15, 2021: https://fixmyglass.safelite.com/FixMyGlass/OrderConfirmation.aspx
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00228-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 21 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 1919
`
`
`Figure 2020
`
`
`
`Figure 2121
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19 Source, as visited on March 8, 2021: https://www.safelite.com/about-safelite/press-releases/safelite-autoglass-recognized-
`by-top-software-company-for-custom-technology-that-improves-both-the-technician-and-customer-experience
`20 Source, as visited on March 8, 2021: https://www.safelite.com/about-safelite/press-releases/safelite-wins-pace-cxe-award-
`for-innovation-for-mrm-technology
`21 Source, as visited on March 8, 2021: https://www.pega.com/customers/safelite-pega-field-service
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00228-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 22 of 38
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2222
`
`
`Figure 2323
`
`
`
`22 Source, as visited on March 8, 2021: https://www.safelite.com/mobile-auto-glass-repair
`23 Source, as visited on March 8, 2021: https://www.safelite.com/mobile-auto-glass-repair
`
`
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`22
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00228-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 23 of 38
`
`
`
`Figure 2424
`
`
`The foregoing infringement on the part of Defendant has caused injury to Plaintiff. The amount
`
`50.
`
`of damages adequate to compensate for the infringement shall be determined at trial but is in no
`
`event less than a reasonable royalty from the date of first infringement to the expiration of the
`
`’194 Patent.
`
`51.
`
`To the extent Defendant continues, and has continued, its infringing activities noted above in an
`
`infringing manner post-notice of the ’194 Patent, such infringement is necessarily willful and
`
`deliberate. Plaintiff believes and contends that Defendant’s continuance of its clear and
`
`inexcusable infringement of the ’194 Patent post-notice is willful, wanton, malicious, bad-faith,
`
`deliberate, and/or consciously wrongful.
`
`52.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has a policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of
`
`others. Further on information and belief, Defendant instructs its employees to not review the
`
`patents of others for clearance or to assess infringement thereof. As such, Defendant has been
`
`willfully blind to the patent rights of Plaintiff.
`
`53.
`
`Including because of the foregoing, Plaintiff contends such activities by Defendant qualify this as
`
`an egregious case of misconduct beyond typical infringement, entitling Plaintiff to enhanced
`
`damages. Including based on the foregoing, Plaintiff requests an award enhanced damages,
`
`including treble damages, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`54.
`
`Each of Defendant’s aforesaid activities have been without authority and/or license from
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`COUNT II
`Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,490,086
`
`55.
`Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs by reference.
`
`24 Source, as visited on March 8, 2021: https://www.safelite.com/mobile-auto-glass-repair
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`23
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00228-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/09/21 Page 24 of 38
`
`56.
`
`Defendant has been on actual notice of the ’086 Patent at least as early as the date it received
`
`service of this Original Complaint.
`
`57.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant owns and controls the operation of the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities and generates substantial financial revenues therefrom.
`