Case 2:12-cv-00008-RGD-DEM Document 1 Filed 01/04/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`
`FILED
`
`INNOVATIVE COMMUNICATIONS
`
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC..
`
`)
`
`)
`
`Plaintiff;
`
`)
`
`Case No.
`
`2012 JAN -4 P 3: 58
`
`CLERK1JS n!ST|1|CT C0URT
`
`ALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA
`
`OOVOO, LLC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)
`)
`
`)
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Innovative Communications Technologies, Inc. ("ICTI") for its Complaint
`
`against Defendant ooVoo. LLC ("ooVoo" or "Defendant") alleges as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff ICTI is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business at
`
`1655 Fort Mycr Drive. #700, Arlington. VA 22209.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant ooVoo is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at
`
`44 East 30th Street. Floor 12. New York. NY 10016-7605.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief. Defendant ooVoo designs, develops, manufactures,
`
`and/or sells voice over internet protocol ("VoIP") products and/or services in the United States
`
`including ooVoo.
`
`For example. Defendant ooVoo sells ooVoo through its website,
`
`www.oovoo.com.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement that arises under the patent laws of the
`
`United States. Title 35 U.S.C. §1 el scq. and seeks damages and injimctive relief as provided in
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`
`FILED
`
`INNOVATIVE COMMUNICATIONS
`
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC..
`
`)
`
`)
`
`Plaintiff;
`
`)
`
`Case No.
`
`2012 JAN -4 P 3: 58
`
`CLERK1JS n!ST|1|CT C0URT
`
`ALEXANDRIA. VIRGINIA
`
`OOVOO, LLC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)
`)
`
`)
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Innovative Communications Technologies, Inc. ("ICTI") for its Complaint
`
`against Defendant ooVoo. LLC ("ooVoo" or "Defendant") alleges as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff ICTI is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business at
`
`1655 Fort Mycr Drive. #700, Arlington. VA 22209.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant ooVoo is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at
`
`44 East 30th Street. Floor 12. New York. NY 10016-7605.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief. Defendant ooVoo designs, develops, manufactures,
`
`and/or sells voice over internet protocol ("VoIP") products and/or services in the United States
`
`including ooVoo.
`
`For example. Defendant ooVoo sells ooVoo through its website,
`
`www.oovoo.com.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement that arises under the patent laws of the
`
`United States. Title 35 U.S.C. §1 el scq. and seeks damages and injimctive relief as provided in
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-00008-RGD-DEM Document 1 Filed 01/04/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 2
`
`35 U.S.C. § 281, §§ 283-285. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331
`
`and§ 1338(a).
`
`5.
`
`Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(b).
`
`6.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant has done
`
`and is doing substantial business in this District, both generally and with respect to the
`
`allegations in this Complaint, and Defendant has committed one or more acts of infringement in
`
`this District.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`7.
`
`IC IT is the assignee of United States Patent Nos. 6,513,066; 6,701,365; and
`
`6,009,469 (collectively, the "Asserted Patents").
`
`8.
`
`The Asserted Patents were previously litigated in Ne(2Phone, Inc. v. eBay, Inc., et
`
`a!.. Civil Action No. 06-2469 (D.N..I.) (-'Prior Litigation").
`
`9.
`
`In 2009, Skype, Inc. ("Skype"), one of the defendants in the Prior Litigation,
`
`requested that certain claims of the Asserted Patents be reexamined by the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office.
`
`10.
`
`During reexamination. the Examiner considered over one thousand cited
`
`references.
`
`11.
`
`During reexamination, the Examiner also considered Skype's submissions,
`
`including its brief in support of its request for ex parte reexamination. a supporting declaration,
`
`claim charts, its comments on Net2Phone"s validity expert's opinions, and the parties' claim
`
`construction briefing from the prior litigation.
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-00008-RGD-DEM Document 1 Filed 01/04/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID# 3
`
`12.
`
`The Examiner confirmed the validity of numerous claims of the Asserted Patents,
`
`many without any amendments, over all of the cited references and over all of Skype's
`
`submissions.
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,513,066
`
`COUNT I
`
`13.
`
`ICTI incorporates paragraphs 1 through 12 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`14.
`
`On January 28. 2003, United States Patent No. 6,513,066 ("the '066 Patent"),
`
`entitled "ESTABLISHING A POINT-TO-POINT INTERNET COMMUNICATION" (Exhibit
`
`A), duly and legally issued. ICTI owns all rights, title, and interest in and to the '066 Patent,
`
`including the right to sue for past infringement.
`
`15.
`
`On November 23, 2010, an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate (Exhibit B) duly
`
`and legally issued for the "066 Patent.
`
`16.
`
`The claims of the '066 Patent are valid and enforceable.
`
`17.
`
`Defendant ooVoo has infringed and is infringing the '066 Patent, by at least
`
`selling, offering to sell, and using VoIP products and/or services, such as ooVoo, that infringe
`
`one or more claims of the '066 Patent. Defendant ooVoo has done so without authority and
`
`therefore has infringed the "066 Patent as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,701,365
`
`COUNT II
`
`18.
`
`ICTI incorporates paragraphs 1 through 12 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`19.
`
`On March 2. 2004. United States Patent No. 6.701.365 ("the "365 Patent"),
`
`entitled "POINT-TO-POINT INTERNET PROTOCOL" (Exhibit C). duly and legally issued.
`
`ICTI owns all rights, title, and interest in and to the "365 Patent, including the right to sue for
`
`past infringement.
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-00008-RGD-DEM Document 1 Filed 01/04/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID# 4
`
`20.
`
`On August 3. 2010. an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate (Exhibit D) duly and
`
`legally issued for the "365 Patent.
`
`21.
`
`The claims of the "365 Patent are valid and enforceable.
`
`22.
`
`Defendant ooVoo has infringed and is infringing the '365 Patent, by at least
`
`selling, offering to sell, and using VoIP products and/or services, such as ooVoo. that infringe
`
`one or more claims of the *365 Patent. Defendant ooVoo has done so without authority and
`
`therefore has infringed the "365 Patent as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,009,469
`
`COUNT III
`
`23.
`
`ICTI incorporates paragraphs 1 through 12 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`24.
`
`On December 28, 1999, United States Patent No. 6,009,469 ("the "469 Patent"),
`
`entitled "GRAPHIC USER INTERFACE FOR INTERNET TELEPHONY APPLICATION"
`
`(Exhibit E), duly and legally issued. ICTI owns all rights, title, and interest in and to the '469
`
`Patent, including the right to sue for past infringement.
`
`25.
`
`On May 10, 2011, an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate (Exhibit F) duly and
`
`legally issued for the "469 Patent.
`
`26.
`
`The claims of the "469 Patent are valid and enforceable.
`
`27.
`
`Defendant ooVoo has infringed and is infringing the "469 Patent, by at least
`
`selling, offering to sell, and using VoIP products and/or services, such as ooVoo. that infringe
`
`one or more claims of the "469 Patent. Defendant ooVoo has done so without authority and
`
`therefore has infringed the '469 Patent as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-00008-RGD-DEM Document 1 Filed 01/04/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID# 5
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court:
`
`(A)
`
`Enter a judgment in favor of ICTI that Defendant ooVoo has infringed the '066
`
`Patent, the '365 Patent, and the '469 Patent;
`
`(B)
`
`Enter an injunction prohibiting ooVoo from making, using, selling, or offering for
`
`sale infringing products and/or services in the United States;
`
`(C)
`
`Award ICTI damages in an amount sufficient to compensate ICTI for ooVoo's
`
`infringement of the Asserted Patents, but no less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest
`
`(both pre-and post-judgment), costs, and disbursements as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§284;
`
`(D)
`
`Declare this case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and award ICTI its
`
`reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and costs incurred in this action; and
`
`(E)
`
`Grant ICTI such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-00008-RGD-DEM Document 1 Filed 01/04/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID# 6
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38. ICTI respectfully demands a trial by jury on all issues
`
`properly triable by a jury in this action.
`
`Dated: January 4, 2012
`
`Re
`
`D. Scan Trainor (43260)
`
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`
`655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
`
`Washington. D.C. 20005-5793
`
`(202) 879-5000
`
`(202) 879-5200
`
`dtrainor@kirkland.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Innovative
`Communications Technologies, Inc.
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`David K. Callahan, P.C.
`
`Jessica C. Kaiser
`
`Archit P. Shah
`
`Kirkland & Ellis LLP
`
`300 North LaSalle
`
`Chicago, IL 60654
`
`Phone: (312)862-2000
`Facsimile: (312)862-2200
`
`david.callahan@kirkland.com
`jessica.kaiser@kirkland.com
`archit.shah@kirkland.com
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
