1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

DECURTIS LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CARNIVAL CORPORATION,

Defendant.

CARNIVAL CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

DECURTIS CORPORATION and 

DECURTIS LLC,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 20-22945-Civ-Scola

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

DeCurtis LLC files this complaint for damages and injunctive relief against Carnival 

Corporation and states as follows:

1. This is an action for declaratory judgments of unenforceability and noninfringement under the patent laws of the United States, for violation of Section 2 of the Sherman 

Act, tortious interference with contract, and unfair competition.

2. DeCurtis LLC seeks declaratory judgments of unenforceability and noninfringement because Carnival Corporation (“Carnival”) has raised a real and immediate dispute 

concerning Carnival U.S. Patent Nos. 10,037,642 (“the ’642 Patent”); 10,045,184 (“the ’184 

Patent”); 10,049,516 (“the ’516 Patent”); 10,157,514 (“the ’514 Patent”); 10,171,978 (“the ’978 

Patent”); 10,304,271 (“the ’271 Patent”); and 10,499,228 (“the ’228 Patent”). Specifically, 

DeCurtis LLC seeks a declaration of unenforceability as to all seven of these Carnival Patents,

upon which Carnival sued for patent infringement or has otherwise used to threaten DeCurtis 

LLC and its customers. DeCurtis LLC further seeks a declaration of non-infringement as to 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 1 of 60
2

whether the DeCurtis Experience Platform and associated technology that DeCurtis LLC has 

implemented for its customers Virgin Cruise Intermediate Limited, Inc. (“Virgin”) and 

Norwegian Cruise Line (“NCL”) (the “DXP System”) infringes or causes infringement of one or 

more claims of the ’184 Patent, the ’514 Patent, the ’271 Patent, the ’642 Patent, and the ’228

Patent.

3. Additionally, Carnival has monopolized and restrained trade in the market for 

guest engagement systems that provide seamless engagement with cruise ship facilities through 

the use of wireless sensing technologies. Carnival is also attempting to monopolize the market 

for cruise travel with such systems. As detailed below, Carnival effected this unlawful 

monopolization by, among other things: (a) fraudulently obtaining patents from the U.S. Patent 

and Trademark Office (“USPTO”); (b) threatening objectively baseless litigation based on 

patents known to be unenforceable with the intent to adversely affect DeCurtis LLC’s business; 

and (c) threatening and interfering with DeCurtis LLC’s customers and potential customers. This 

conduct threatens to cause significant and irreparable damage to DeCurtis LLC.

The Parties

4. Plaintiff DeCurtis LLC is a Delaware limited liability corporation headquartered 

in Orlando, Florida. DeCurtis LLC designs, develops, engineers, manufactures, markets, and 

sells systems and methods for providing guests a seamless engagement with cruise ship facilities 

through the use of wireless sensing technologies.

5. Defendant Carnival Corporation (“Carnival”) is a Panamanian corporation with its 

principal place of business in Miami, Florida. Among other businesses, Carnival operates cruise 

lines for use by the public. Carnival is listed as the assignee of the ’642, ’184, ’516, ’514, ’978, 

’271, and ’228 patents

6. Carnival has indicated its intent to sell to other cruise lines systems and methods 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 2 of 60
3

for providing guests a seamless engagement with cruise ship facilities through the use of wireless 

sensing technologies. In other words, Carnival intends to compete with DeCurtis LLC.

Jurisdiction And Venue

7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 

2201(a), and 1337(a). This action arises under the antitrust laws of the United States, specifically 

Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 15, 26) for violations of Section 2 of the 

Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 2). This action also arises under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 

28 U.S.C. § 2201, and under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 100, et seq. This 

Court has jurisdiction over DeCurtis LLC’s state-law claims against Carnival under 28 U.S.C. § 

1367(a).

8. Venue is proper under 15 U.S.C. §§ 15 and 22, and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and 

(2), (c)(2), and (d), and 1400(b). The injury to DeCurtis LLC arising from Carnival’s unlawful 

monopolization substantially occurred in this district. Moreover, Carnival accuses DeCurtis of 

committing acts of infringement in this district. Further, Carnival maintains a sales manager and 

other personnel and facilities in this district. Carnival cruise ships also depart from ports in this 

district, including Port Canaveral, Jacksonville, and Tampa.

9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Carnival pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 22 

because Carnival transacts business and maintains substantial contacts in this district. Further, 

Carnival’s conduct had the intended effect of causing injury to DeCurtis LLC, which is located 

in this district.

10. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Carnival pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 22 

because Carnival is a foreign company that transacts business in this district and throughout the 

United States.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 3 of 60
4

General Allegations

11. Competitors in the cruise industry are eager to identify new ways to enhance the 

on-board experience of their guests. Cruise lines with the ability to provide guests with a “VIP” 

experience through a higher level of service have a competitive advantage.

12. One way for a cruise line to provide a “VIP” experience to its guests is through a 

guest engagement system that allows a seamless engagement with the facility through the use of 

wireless sensing technologies. Such a system consists of small, wearable or readily portable 

guest devices that provide near field (“touch”) communications to certain sensors as well as 

broadcast signals to other sensors located throughout the ship. The sensors can be connected to a 

system or systems that manage information regarding the guest, including the guest’s preferences 

for food, drink, entertainment, and experiences.

13. These systems allow a guest to board the ship without the need to go through 

check in. Additionally, among many other benefits, when the guest enters restaurants, bars, spas, 

and casinos, the systems recognize the guest and alert cruise personnel to the guest’s stated 

preferences for food, drink, and experiences without requiring the guest to identify those 

preferences. The systems also obviate the need for the guest to carry credit cards or cash.

14. David DeCurtis has been a pioneer in developing such guest engagement systems 

for cruise ships and has been involved in their design and engineering since at least 2008. The 

company that he founded—DeCurtis LLC—has designed and engineered innovative guest 

engagement systems.

15. From approximately 2008 to the present, DeCurtis LLC has worked as an 

independent contractor developing guest engagement systems for Disney Cruise Lines.

16. DeCurtis LLC’s first project for Disney Cruise Lines was to design a guest 

embarkation system. At the time, Disney Cruise Lines had two new ships—the Disney Dream 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 4 of 60
5

and the Disney Fantasy—that nearly doubled the passenger capacity of other ships in the Disney

line. Disney had been planning to invest in new port facilities to accommodate the much larger 

passenger volume. However, DeCurtis LLC designed and built a guest embarkation system 

called “Worldwide Quick” that hastened the onboarding process. The success of that system, 

which used near field wireless communication (“NFC”), allowed Disney to forego the expense of 

building new port facilities.

17. Next, DeCurtis LLC designed for Disney Cruise Lines a system used to muster 

passengers to lifeboat stations in the event of an emergency. This system, known as the “Mobile 

Assembly Suite” or “MAS,” initially used guest devices that emitted NFC communications along 

with readers placed in locations throughout the ship. Ultimately, DeCurtis LLC improved upon 

the MAS system to include Bluetooth low-energy wireless communications (“BLE”).

18. Executives at Disney Cruise Lines concluded that the MAS system was such an 

important safety improvement for the industry at large that it allowed DeCurtis LLC to market 

the system to other cruise lines. As such, the MAS system is currently in use by a number of 

cruise lines, including Carnival.

19. While DeCurtis LLC was working on these successful projects for Disney Cruise 

Lines, John Padgett had become the Senior Vice President for Guest Experiences at Disney’s 

theme parks group.

20. Padgett had not been involved with DeCurtis LLC’s work on either the 

Worldwide Quick guest embarkation system or the MAS system.

21. Padgett was the head of a secret project at Disney known internally as the “X 

Band” project, later known as the “MagicBand” project, a guest engagement system.

22. Padgett wanted to persuade Disney management to authorize a billion dollar 

budget for this project. Accordingly, Padgett planned a presentation to top executives, including 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 5 of 60
6

Disney’s chairman (Bob Iger) and the head of theme parks and cruise lines businesses (Tom 

Staggs). For use in the presentation, Padgett obtained an approximately 50,000 square-foot 

movie studio in the Hollywood Studios theme park to build replicas of various theme park 

attractions.

23. Padgett gave DeCurtis three months to put together a presentation of the 

“MagicBand” cruise ship experience for Iger and Staggs. DeCurtis did so and his presentation 

was a great success.

24. Padgett obtained his requested budget to develop the “MagicBand” prototype.

25. Meanwhile, Disney had previously engaged a major global consulting company to 

design and implement a guest engagement system for “Be Our Guest,” a Disney theme park 

restaurant. After approximately two years without sufficient progress, Padgett lost confidence in 

that company’s work. Padgett asked DeCurtis to start from scratch and design a new system 

within a time frame of only eight months. DeCurtis agreed to do so on the condition that he 

would have control over the project.

26. In that short time frame, DeCurtis LLC designed and built a guest engagement 

system for Disney’s “Be Our Guest” restaurant. The system made use of guest devices having 

guest identifiers, wireless communication capability, a network of sensors, a communication

network connecting the sensors, a central server, and vending terminals configured to authorize a 

payment based on a guest device using encrypted bi-directional communications to selectively 

authorize payment based on the identity of the guest device. “Be Our Guest” went on to win the 

“Technology of the Year” award from the American Restaurant Association in 2012.

27. In or around 2013, Padgett left Disney and became an executive at Carnival 

Corporation.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 6 of 60
7

28. At the time, Carnival Cruise Lines was already a client of DeCurtis LLC, which 

was working on a project to rebuild Carnival’s gangway boarding process.

29. After his arrival, Padgett tasked DeCurtis LLC with designing the systems and 

methods for a guest engagement system for Carnival that came to be called the 

“OceanMedallion” project, and with building the prototypes to demonstrate how the system 

would work once it was built and implemented.

30. DeCurtis LLC designed a successful “proof of concept” presentation for 

Carnival’s executives.

31. In the meantime, Padgett had hired Michael Jungen to join him at Carnival as a 

vice president of information technology. Padgett and Jungen had worked closely together at 

Disney. Padgett and Jungen are co-inventors on multiple patents and patent applications.

32. At some point in 2015, Carnival decided to reject DeCurtis’s concept for a 

platform to execute the guest management system.

33. Jungen decided to replace DeCurtis LLC with another company—TE2—in the 

role of chief development architect of the “OceanMedallion” guest engagement system.

34. Thereafter, DeCurtis LLC personnel were excluded from conferences, meetings, 

and emails, and DeCurtis LLC’s proposed projects were rejected.

35. These circumstances made it impossible for DeCurtis LLC to continue working 

on the guest engagement project for Carnival.

36. Thereafter, independent of its relationship with Carnival, DeCurtis LLC 

developed other systems and methods for providing seamless engagement with cruise ship 

facilities through the use of wireless sensing technologies without using any Carnival patented

technology or any confidential information belonging to Carnival.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 7 of 60
8

37. DeCurtis LLC’s software solution, as made available for customers Virgin and 

NCL, is known as the “DeCurtis Experience Platform” (the “DXP System”). The DXP System is 

an end-to-end, enterprise grade software solution for cruise lines that enables location and 

proximity-based services to assist in operational efficiency, experience enhancement and 

customer engagement. The DXP System covers, among other things, activity and voyage 

reservations, free-flow embarkation and disembarkation modules, e-mustering, food and 

beverage reservations and ordering, table management, way finding, cabin/housekeeping 

notifications, and safety solutions.

38. The DXP System makes use of trackable devices that communicate with sensors.

DeCurtis LLC knew of and made use of these features before working with Carnival on its 

guest engagement platform. In fact, for example, they were part of the guest engagement 

system that DeCurtis LLC created for the Disney “Be Our Guest” restaurant.

39. DeCurtis LLC has marketed the DXP System to cruise lines that are competitors 

of Carnival.

40. So far, NCL and Virgin have engaged DeCurtis LLC to develop guest 

engagement systems for their respective cruise lines. NCL announced its partnership with 

DeCurtis on May 4, 2018.

41. DeCurtis LLC has designed, built, and installed certain aspects of a guest 

engagement system for Virgin, which were tested by Virgin in February 2020 on a cruise of its 

ship Scarlet Lady across the Atlantic Ocean with passengers consisting of Virgin employees, 

family, and friends. The Scarlet Lady is currently scheduled to launch commercially with the 

DXP System in July 2020.

42. Carnival’s reaction to the competitive threat from DeCurtis LLC in this market 

has been to engage in anticompetitive acts that have the effect of preserving or increasing 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 8 of 60
9

Carnival’s monopoly power. These acts include the enforcement of fraudulently-obtained 

patents.

43. Beginning in March 2017, Carnival filed applications for a number of patents 

covering systems and methods for providing guests a seamless engagement with cruise ship 

facilities through the use of wireless sensing technologies. The family of patents, which were 

issued in 2018 and 2019, includes:

(a) U.S Patent No. 10,037,642 (“the ’642 Patent); the ’642 Patent was filed on July 20, 2017 

and issued on July 31, 2018. It purports to be a divisional of U.S. application Ser. No. 

15/460,972 filed Mar. 16, 2017, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 

15/459,906 filed Mar. 15, 2017, which in turn claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional 

Applications No. 62/420,998, filed on Nov. 11, 2016, and No. 62/440,938, filed on 

Dec. 30, 2016. A copy of the ’642 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

(b) U.S. Patent No. 10,045,184 (“the ’184 Patent”); the ’184 Patent was filed on May 15, 

2017 and issued on August 7, 2018. It purports to claim priority to U.S. Provisional 

Applications No. 62/420,998, filed on Nov. 11, 2016, and No. 62/440,938, filed on 

Dec. 30, 2016. A copy of the ’184 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

(c) U.S. Patent No. 10,049,516 (“the ’516 Patent”); the ’516 Patent was filed on March 16, 

2017 and issued on August 14, 2018. It purports to be a continuation of U.S. 

application Ser. No. 15/459,906 filed Mar. 15, 2017, which in turn claims the

benefit of U.S. Provisional Applications No. 62/420,998, filed on November 11,

2016, and No. 62/440,938, filed on December 30, 2016. A copy of the ’516 Patent 

is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

(d) U.S. Patent No. 10,157,514 (“the ’514 Patent”); the ’514 Patent was filed on March 16, 

2017 and issued on December 18, 2018 as a continuation of the application giving rise 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 9 of 60
10

to the ’184 Patent. The ’514 Patent purports to be a continuation of application Ser. No. 

15/459,906 filed March 15, 2017, which in turn claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional 

Applications No. 62/420,998, filed on November 11, 2016, and No. 62/440,938, filed 

on December 30, 2016. The ’514 Patent issued on December 18, 2018. A copy of the 

’514 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

(e) U.S. Patent No. 10,171,978 (“the ’978 Patent”); the ’978 Patent was filed on July 20, 

2017 and issued on January 1, 2019. It purports to be a divisional of U.S. application 

Ser. No. 15/460,997 filed March 16, 2017, which is a continuation of U.S. application 

Ser. No. 14/459,906 filed March 15, 2017, which in turn claims the benefit of U.S. 

Provisional Applications No. 62/420,998, filed on November 11, 2016, and No. 

62/440,938, filed on December 30, 2016. A copy of the ’978 Patent is attached hereto 

as Exhibit E.

(f) U.S. Patent No. 10,304,271 (“the ’271 Patent”); the ’271 Patent was filed on March 16, 

2017 and issued on May 28, 2019. It purports to be a continuation of U.S. 

application Ser. No. 15/459,906 filed March 15, 2017, which in turn claims the 

benefit of U.S. Provisional Applications No. 62/420,998, filed on November 11, 

2016, and No. 62/440,938, filed on December 30, 2016. A copy of the ’271 Patent is 

attached hereto as Exhibit F; and

(g) U.S. Patent 10,499,228 (“the ’228 Patent”); the ’228 Patent was filed on January 18, 2019 

and issued on December 3, 2019. It purports to be a continuation-in-part of and claims 

the benefit of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/460,972, which was filed on March 

16, 2017, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/459,906, which

was filed on March 15, 2017, now U.S. patent Ser. No. 10/045,184 issued Aug. 7, 

2018, and claimed the benefit of U.S. Provisional Applications No. 62/420,998, filed 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 10 of 60
11

on November 11, 2016, and No. 62/440,938, filed on December 30, 2016. A copy of 

the ’228 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit G.

(collectively, the “Carnival Patents”).

44. As Carnival knows, the Carnival Patents are unenforceable because the applicants 

intentionally concealed relevant prior art and failed to identify correctly the inventorship of

several of the Carnival Patents.

Fraudulent Failure To Identify Inventor

45. To the extent that the Carnival Patents are based on patentable inventions, they 

are unenforceable for fraudulently failing to name David DeCurtis as an inventor.

46. At all relevant times, federal law has required that an application for a patent filed 

with the USPTO “shall include, or be amended to include, the name of the inventor for any 

invention claimed in the application.” 35 U.S.C. § 115(a).

47. Where an application does not name the correct inventor(s), and the applicant has 

not filed a request to correct inventorship, USPTO personnel are directed to reject the claims

under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 35 U.S.C. § 115. Additionally, at all relevant times, the patent 

regulations have provided that “[e]ach individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a 

patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the [USPTO], which 

includes a duty to disclose to the [USPTO] all information known to that individual to be 

material to patentability,” as defined under the regulations. 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(a).

48. Under the patent regulations, the duty of candor and good faith applies to 

“individuals associated with the filing or prosecution of a patent application,” including not only 

the inventors and attorneys, but “[e]very other person who is substantively involved in the 

preparation or prosecution of the application and who is associated with the inventor, the 

applicant, an assignee, or anyone to whom there is an obligation to assign the application.” 37

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 11 of 60
12

C.F.R. § 1.56(c). This duty includes the correct identification of all inventors.

49. On the applications for the ’184 Patent, the ’514 Patent, the ’228 Patent, the ’516 

Patent, the ’271 Patent, the ’642 Patent, and the ’978 Patent, Padgett and Jungen, both of them 

Carnival employees at the time, are named as inventors. But these patents omit David DeCurtis 

as an inventor despite his material contributions to the conception of at least one aspect in one or 

more claims in each of these patents. David DeCurtis contributed to the ideas in these patents 

during his work on the Experience Innovation Center (“EIC”) project at Carnival between 2014 

and 2015.

50. Before filing the applications for the ’184 Patent, the ’514 Patent, the ’228 Patent 

the ’516 Patent, the ‘978 Patent, the ’271 Patent, and the ’642 Patent, Carnival and its agents 

recognized David DeCurtis as the inventor on a number of the patent ideas included in these 

applications. Upon information and belief, corroborating evidence exists at Carnival 

demonstrating DeCurtis’s role as an inventor.

51. For example, DeCurtis did, in fact, conceive of the idea for guest device 

wearables that could be mounted in a variety of accessory form factors. DeCurtis conceived of 

this idea as an improvement to the Disney “MagicBand” concept, which was restricted to a 

single wearable band.

52. DeCurtis’s idea was that guests on extended cruise voyages would wear the guest 

devices in a variety of different social situations and that it would be desirable to have the guest 

device easily interface with a number of different wearable accessories (e.g., wristband, 

necklace, lapel pin, etc.).

53. DeCurtis first conveyed this idea to Padgett in approximately July 2014 during a 

meeting in Padgett’s office at Carnival. Padgett had wanted to use a version of the MagicBand 

guest device but DeCurtis explained that a plastic wrist device would not work for cruise ship 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 12 of 60
13

passengers, especially those dressed for dinner in formal wear. DeCurtis proposed using a gold 

coin (like a pirate coin) and explained that the device should fit into a pocket, on a belt, or as part 

of a necklace. Padgett accepted DeCurtis’s idea, which became embodied in the “Ocean Coin” 

concept (later renamed “OceanMedallion”). DeCurtis then worked with Adam Leonards and

Glenn Curtis to develop DeCurtis’s idea, which existed before Leonards began work on the idea 

or Curtis joined the “OceanMedallion” project.

54. DeCurtis’s ideas related to wearable guest devices are now reflected in claim 

elements of at least the ’271 Patent, the ’642 Patent, and at least claim 20 of the ’514 Patent, 

specifically elements relating to the shape, size, and design of portable guest devices and the 

ability of these portable guest devices to interact with accessories.

55. Additionally, Carnival and Padgett knew that DeCurtis was among a group of 

inventors for techniques related to unlocking doors using low power BLE technologies.

56. David DeCurtis in fact, contributed to the conception of the overall door 

unlocking concept during his work on the Carnival EIC program. This work built upon the BLEdoor lock concepts that Padgett and his team experimented with at Disney.

57. For example, in approximately the summer of 2014, DeCurtis told Padgett that 

guest wearable devices must have both BLE and NFC capabilities to ensure the ability to unlock 

doors even when a BLE battery was exhausted. This idea is now reflected in at least claim 10 of 

the ’514 Patent.

58. Moreover, in January and February of 2015, DeCurtis helped to conceive of 

techniques for communicatively coupling door access panels via power efficient networks to a 

centralized reservation and logging system. These ideas are reflected in at least the claims of the 

’184 Patent and the ’228 Patent.

59. Also in January and February 2015, DeCurtis helped to conceive of techniques for 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 13 of 60
14

efficiently leveraging BLE communications in both a low-power beacon state, as well as a more 

power-intensive bi-directional state. These ideas are reflected in at least the claim 11 of the ’184 

Patent and claim 1 of the ’978 Patent.

60. Finally, in early 2015 DeCurtis conceived and communicated to others on the EIC 

project the idea for using capacitive touch door handles that would only trigger the latch upon a 

user touching the door handle to improve safety. Carnival and its agents recognized DeCurtis’s 

sole conception of this idea. This idea is now reflected in at least the claims of the ’516 Patent.

61. Based on standard practices and procedures at the USPTO, Padgett and Jungen 

would have had to disclose the inventors on each of the inventions for which they sought patents. 

The Carnival Patents do not identify David DeCurtis as an inventor.

62. To this date, none of the ’184 Patent, the ’514 Patent, the ’228 Patent, the ’516 

Patent, the ’271 Patent, the ’642 Patent, or the ’978 Patent have been amended to include David 

DeCurtis as an inventor.

63. More than half of the persons named as inventors on the Carnival Patents, 

including Padgett and Jungen, were familiar with the filing requirements of the USPTO from 

filing other, unrelated patents. Several of the named inventors on the Carnival Patents have 

applied for more than 10 patents. Among the most frequent fliers were Padgett, Jungen, and 

Leonards.

64. Despite a duty to disclose it, Padgett and Jungen each knowingly and intentionally 

concealed from the USPTO that David DeCurtis was an inventor on many of the patent ideas 

presented as purported inventions claimed in the applications for the Carnival Patents.

65. The failure to identify DeCurtis as an inventor was not inadvertent; it was 

repeated over the course of multiple patent applications filed at different times over a period of 

three years.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 14 of 60
15

66. As Carnival, Padgett, and Jungen knew, had David DeCurtis been named as an 

inventor on the Carnival Patents, DeCurtis would have been under an obligation to explain to the 

USPTO examiner that certain other aspects of the inventions that Carnival was trying to patent, 

including aspects of the invention that is the subject of the ’184 Patent, were taught and/or 

suggested by prior art Disney systems discussed below. For example, although the applications 

for the Carnival Patents disclosed some of the patents and patent applications for Disney’s 

existing “Be Our Guest” guest engagement system, the applications do not disclose the full 

extent of the “Be Our Guest” system that was already in use and otherwise available to the public 

and extensively described in multiple published articles.

67. Padgett knew that the patent applications for Disney’s existing “Be Our Guest” 

guest engagement system did not disclose the full extent of the system that was already in use. 

David DeCurtis had raised this fact with Padgett at the time the Disney application was filed. 

Padgett responded that he did not care and that DeCurtis should not worry about it.

68. Carnival, Padgett, and Jungen knew that these prior art systems and publications 

relating to those systems would materially affect the prosecution of certain aspects of the 

Carnival Patents. They therefore intentionally concealed DeCurtis’s involvement in other aspects 

by misrepresenting the inventorship of the Carnival Patents.

69. Upon information and belief, other employees and representatives of Carnival 

who were associated with the filing or prosecution of the patent family were also (1) then aware 

that David DeCurtis was an inventor of many of the patent ideas asserted as claims in the family 

of Carnival Patents, (2) had a duty to disclose David DeCurtis’s involvement with these ideas, 

and (3) intentionally concealed this fact from the USPTO.

70. The USPTO would not have issued the ’184 Patent, the ’514 Patent, the ’228 

Patent, the ’516 Patent, the ’271 Patent, the ’642 Patent, or the ’978 Patent if it had known that 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 15 of 60
16

the applicants had misrepresented inventorship by failing to disclose the true origin of these 

purported inventions.

71. Each of the Carnival Patents share substantially similar, and in many cases 

identical, specifications. The inventions disclosed in the Carnival Patents are all directed to 

guest engagement systems, and they all stem from related developmental work on the EIC 

system. Carnival and its agents omitted David DeCurtis from each of the Carnival Patents 

with the similar motive of avoiding the possibility that DeCurtis would identify certain 

material prior art that would impact the prosecution of the entire Carnival Patent family.

As such, the fraudulent omission of David DeCurtis on any one of the Carnival Patents 

infects each of the other patents, rendering each omission an independent basis for finding 

all of the patents unenforceable.

Fraudulent Concealment Of Prior Art

72. The Carnival Patents were fraudulently obtained, and Carnival therefore knows 

that they are unenforceable, because the purported inventors, patent attorneys, and others 

associated with their filing and prosecution knowingly failed to disclose to the USPTO material 

prior art that would have otherwise prevented the Carnival Patents from issuing.

73. As inventors of the Carnival Patents, which were filed before the USPTO, at least 

Padgett and Jungen would have been familiar with the duty of disclosure. At least Padgett and 

Jungen breached this duty of disclosure by intentionally failing to disclose material priorart.

74. For example, the Disney “Be Our Guest” system was in public use in the United 

States as early as 2012—more than one-year before the earliest purported priority date of any of 

the Carnival Patents. Any person skilled in the art of designing guest engagement systems would 

understand the technology, systems, and methods involved in the “Be Our Guest” guest 

engagement system. As known to Carnival and its agents, the “Be Our Guest” systems was 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 16 of 60
17

therefore in “public use” and “available to the public,” qualifying it as prior art under AIA 35 

U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).

75. Additionally, publicly available information from this time makes clear that 

relevant implementation details of the technology powering Disney’s systems, including the “Be 

Our Guest” system were known to the public and, thus, were prior art. For example, a May 31, 

2013 article in the MIT Technology Review describes the Disney MagicBand as “an electronic 

wristband” that “uses Bluetooth and contactless NFC technology.” The article describes how the 

MagicBand “replaces a person’s ticket and can be used to tag into rides and other attractions at

the park. It can also be used to open a guest’s hotel door, and to pay in stores at the resort. In the 

future, the Bluetooth link will make it possible for you to wander up to an attraction or Disney 

character and greeted using your first name.”

76. With respect to the Carnival Patents identified above, the duty of disclosure 

required the disclosure of information sufficient to inform the USPTO regarding the full extent 

of the “Be Our Guest” system as well as other similar systems that were available, including the 

Child Detection Agency (“CDA”) system available on Disney Cruise Lines. Although certain 

patents and patent applications related to these systems were disclosed to the USPTO in 

connection with the prosecution of the Carnival Patents, these patents and patent applications 

failed to disclose the full extent of the prior art systems and the available publications relating to 

those systems, and therefore failed to satisfy the duty of disclosure.

77. Carnival employees and agents involved in the prosecution of the Carnival Patents 

understood that the implementation details of the prior art Disney systems were material to the 

prosecution of the Carnival Patents. For example, in a Travel Weekly interview published on 

November 23, 2014, Padgett made the following comments regarding the significance of 

relevant features of the Disney MagicBand system that he had previously worked on:

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 17 of 60
18

Obviously the MagicBand would be the most central, unifying element that 

holistically reinvented the Disney World experience. It was all created with 

the mindset of what was good for the guest. What you see with the 

MagicBand [is] access to the room, access to the park, access to Fast Pass, 

access to payments. But it’s not just that you do those things, but it’s that you 

do them in a way that’s more personalized, more customized, more seamless 

and more hassle-free than has ever been created before. That’s the best 

example in the industry by far.

78. Despite appreciating the significance of these features within the prior art Disney 

systems, neither Padgett nor others involved in the prosecution of the Carnival Patents disclosed 

information sufficient to allow the patent examiner to appreciate them to the fullest extent.

79. Had the USPTO examiner been made aware of the full extent of the Disney “Be 

Our Guest” or “CDA” guest engagement system prior art, the USPTO examiner would not have 

issued several of the Carnival Patents, including at least the ’184 Patent.

80. For example, the USPTO examiner originally rejected independent claim 1 of the 

’184 Patent because of prior art, most notably the “Lang patent.” The Carnival applicants 

(Padgett, et al.) asserted that Lang taught a device emitting a beacon signal with the device being 

mounted on a doorjamb. The applicants amended claim 1 to refer to guests devices that were 

portable and were to be carried by the users of the guest engagement system. The applicants 

argued that the prior art did not teach “the claimed system in which ‘sensors each mounted at a 

different know [sic] location’ are ‘operative to detect the periodic beacon signals [...] emitted 

[...] by guests devices’ where the guest devices are portable and carried by users.” However, the 

amended claim that the applicants asserted as valid against the prior art cited by the USPTO 

examiner is precisely the invention embodied in the Disney “Be Our Guest” restaurant. “Be Our 

Guest” opened to the public in 2012. A person having ordinary skills in the art would have been 

able to identify this aspect of the invention simply by experiencing the restaurant.

81. Upon information and belief (that information including the patent prosecution 

history), Padgett, Jungen, and other Carnival employees and representatives knew that the 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 18 of 60
19

USPTO examiner would not have issued several of the Carnival Patents, including the ’184 

Patent, if the USPTO examiner had been made aware of the full extent of the Disney “Be Our 

Guest” and/or “CDA” guest engagement system prior art.

82. Padgett and Jungen had a specific intent to deceive the USPTO by withholding 

disclosure of the full extent of the Disney “Be Our Guest” and “CDA” guest engagement system 

prior art.

83. Upon information and belief, other Carnival employees and representatives who 

were associated with the filing or prosecution of the Carnival guest engagement system patents, 

including the ’184 Patent, had a specific intent to deceive the USPTO by withholding disclosure 

of the full extent of the Disney “Be Our Guest” and “CDA” guest engagement system prior art.

84. Another example of Carnival’s failure to disclose to the USPTO material prior art 

that would have otherwise prevented the Carnival Patents from issuing is Assa Abloy’s “Allure” 

electronic lock system, including Assa Abloy’s networking and Access Management Systems for 

allowing the “Allure” electronic door lock system to interact with a back-end reservation server. 

The “Allure” electronic lock system was in public use in the United States as early as 2013. Any 

person skilled in the art of designing electronic locks would understand the technology, systems, 

and methods involved in Assa Abloy’s “Allure” electronic lock systems. As known to Carnival 

and its agents, Assa Abloy’s “Allure” electronic locks were therefore in “public use” and

“available to the public,” qualifying it as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).

85. Publicly available information from this time makes clear that relevant 

implementation details of the technology powering Assa Abloy’s “Allure” electronic lock

system were known to the public and, thus, were prior art. For example, an article in 

Locksmith Ledger International from June 24, 2013 describing the launch of the “Allure” 

electronic lock system stated that it included “[a]n attractive exterior panel, easily installed on 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 19 of 60
20

the wall next to the door” that “eliminate[s]” the need for any “external hardware on the door” 

and “adds a host of additional benefits and functionality to the locking system.”_

86. With respect to the Carnival Patents, the duty of disclosure required the 

disclosure of information sufficient to inform the USPTO regarding the full extent of the Assa 

Abloy “Allure” electronic lock system as well as other similar electronic lock systems that 

were available from Assa Abloy. Notably, Carnival disclosed a number of other publications 

pertaining to publicly available electronic door lock systems, but did not disclose information 

allowing the examiner to appreciate the full extent of the publicly available Assa Abloy 

“Allure” system. Carnival therefore failed to satisfy the duty of disclosure.

87. Carnival employees and agents involved in the prosecution of the Carnival Patents 

understood that the implementation details of the prior art Assa Abloy “Allure” electronic lock 

system were material to the prosecution of the Carnival Patents. Documents produced by 

Carnival in this litigation show that Carnival had prior knowledge of Assa Abloy “Allure” 

electronic lock system. See CARNIVAL00000730-741.

88. Despite appreciating the significance of Assa Abloy “Allure” electronic lock

system, neither Padgett nor others involved in the prosecution of the Carnival Patents disclosed 

information sufficient to allow the patent examiner to appreciate this system to its fullest extent.

89. Had the USPTO examiner been made aware of the full extent of the Assa Abloy 

“Allure” prior art, the USPTO examiner would not have issued several of the Carnival Patents, 

including at least the ’184, ’514, ’516, and ’978 Patents.

90. For example, during prosecution, the USPTO examiner issued a final rejection of 

multiple claims of the ’184 patent, including independent claim 1. In response, The Carnival 

applicants (Padgett, et al.) amended independent claim 1 to incorporate limitations requiring that 

the “plurality of sensors of the sensor network comprises a plurality of access panels,” wherein 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 20 of 60
21

“each access panel comprises: a radio configured for wireless communication with a door lock 

communication module electrically connected to an electronically controlled locking mechanism 

of the associated electronically controlled door lock . . . .” Based on these amendments, and the 

representation of the Carnival applicants that these limitations distinguished the claims from the 

prior art of record, the examiner allowed claim 1 and similar claims. Later, Carnival included 

similar limitations in its other patent filings, including the ’516 patent (e.g., claim 13, requiring 

an “access panel separate from and fixedly mounted proximate to the door lock communication 

module”) and the ’978 patent (e.g., claim 1, requiring “[a]n access panel . . . comprising: a radio 

configured for wireless communication with a door lock communication module . . . .”). 

91. However, this purported point of novelty of the Carnival patents (separately 

mounted access panels with a “radio” for wireless communication with a door lock 

communication module) is exactly the key feature of the undisclosed Assa Abloy Allure system 

that Carnival was sourcing for its OceanMedallion system as early as March 2016. Carnival’s 

Patent Rule contentions in this case take the position that its OceanMedallion system practices at 

least claim 1 of the ’184 patent and claim 13 of the ’516 patent. 

92. Upon information and belief, Carnival was also aware of, and specifically 

intended to withhold from the examiner, features of the Assa Abloy system that read directly on 

other material elements of claim 11 of the ’514 patent (requiring, e.g., the establishment of 

“secure communication links . . . using BLE communications” with the use of a “private 

identifier” that is transmitted “only across secure communication links”), and claim 13 of the 

’516 patent (requiring, e.g., “wherein the access panel separate from and fixedly mounted 

proximate to the door lock communication module is configured to receive door access 

information from the reservation server via the second transceiver . . . .”).

93. Upon information and belief (that information including the patent prosecution 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 21 of 60
22

history), Padgett, Jungen, and other Carnival employees and representatives knew that the 

USPTO examiner would not have issued several of the Carnival Patents, including the ’184, 

‘516, and ‘978 Patents, if the USPTO examiner had been made aware of the full extent of the 

Assa Abloy “Allure” electronic lock system prior art.

94. Padgett and Jungen had a specific intent to deceive the USPTO by withholding 

disclosure of the full extent of the Assa Abloy “Allure” electronic lock system prior art.

95. Upon information and belief, other Carnival employees and representatives who 

were associated with the filing or prosecution of the Carnival guest engagement system patents, 

including the ’184, ’514, ’516, and ’978 Patents, had a specific intent to deceive the USPTO by 

withholding disclosure of the full extent of the Assa Abloy “Allure” electronic lock system prior

art.

96. Padgett, Jungen, and, upon information and belief, other Carnival employees and 

representatives, fraudulently procured the Carnival Patents knowing that DeCurtis LLC and its 

customers would be forced to engage in the expensive and time-consuming process of designing 

alternatives to the fraudulently-obtained and otherwise unenforceable patents to avoid the 

expense and risk of patent infringement litigation.

Objectively Baseless Allegations of Infringement

97. The implementation of DeCurtis’s DXP system on Virgin and NCL cruise ships is 

also not infringing as a matter of law, rendering Carnival’s allegations of infringement and 

litigation tactics objectively baseless. The U.S. patent law expressly excepts from liability 

inventions that only temporarily come within U.S. borders while aboard a foreign vessel, such as 

a cruise ship. 35 U.S.C. § 272. Carnival is well aware of this and in other litigation has invoked 

the statute to defend itself against claims of patent infringement brought against its ships. See, 

e.g., Advanced Media Networks v. Harris Caprock Communications, Case No. 8:15-cv-00408-

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 22 of 60
23

MSS-AAS, ECF No. 57, Defendants’ Answer to Third Amended Complaint, p. 12 (“Twelfth 

Defense: Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 272, any alleged use in any vessel of the Maritime Defendants 

does not constitute infringement of the patents-in-suit.”). 

98. Specifically, 35 U.S.C. § 272 states: 

The use of any invention in any vessel, aircraft or vehicle of any country 

which affords similar privileges to vessels, aircraft or vehicles of the United 

States, entering the United States temporarily or accidentally, shall not 

constitute infringement of any patent, if the invention is used exclusively for 

the needs of the vessel, aircraft or vehicle and is not offered for sale or sold in 

or used for the manufacture of anything to be sold in or exported from the 

United States.

99. The Virgin and NCL ships on which DXP systems are installed enter the United 

States for a period of time of finite duration for the sole purpose of engaging in international 

commerce. On information and belief, the Virgin Voyages and NCL ships on which the DXP 

system has been implemented are registered in the Bahamas, and each one docks in the U.S. 

temporarily for the purpose of picking up or dropping off customers participating in international 

cruises. In fact, the Jones Act prohibits ships of non-U.S registry from embarking and 

disembarking guests at two different U.S ports, and thus as a matter of U.S. law the cruises ships 

on which the DXP system has been implemented enter the United States only pursuant to 

transporting passengers in international commerce.

100. The DXP system is also used exclusively for the needs of the Virgin Voyages and 

NCL ships on which it is installed. As an enterprise software solution, the DXP systems 

implemented on the Virgin and NCL ships are integral to the operation and efficacy of the 

embarkation and disembarkation process, e-mustering, way finding, various hospitality systems, 

and the safety procedures and protocols that protect the ship’s crew and passengers. 

101. The DXP systems that Carnival has accused of infringement are not offered for 

sale or sold in or use for the manufacture of anything to be sold in or exported from the United 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 23 of 60
24

States. They have been sold only to be used on Virgin Voyages and NCL ships that registered in 

the Bahamas. 

102. Upon information and belief, Carnival and its agents are aware of 35 U.S.C. § 272

and its exception for liability for systems such as the DXP System. Despite this knowledge, 

Carnival and its agents leveled unfounded threats of patent infringement to DeCurtis and its 

customers, and have initiated an objectively baseless lawsuit on the basis of activity that cannot, 

as a matter of law, infringe. 

Interference With Customers

103. In or around 2017, DeCurtis LLC entered into a contractual and business 

relationship with NCL, which operates Norwegian Cruise Lines, to license the DXP to NCL.

104. In or around 2017, DeCurtis LLC entered into a contractual and business

relationship with Virgin to license the DXP to Virgin.

105. Carnival learned of DeCurtis LLC’s contractual and business relationships with 

NCL and Virgin to design, engineer, and sell guest engagement systems.

106. Perceiving DeCurtis LLC as a competitive threat, Carnival engaged in a campaign 

to interfere with DeCurtis LLC’s contractual and business relationships.

107. On or around January 29, 2020, Carnival caused its lawyer to send a letter to 

NCL’s general counsel. In that letter, Carnival’s counsel referenced NCL’s intent to develop a 

technology platform with DeCurtis LLC and suggested that platform might infringe what counsel 

called Carnival’s “robust and growing patent portfolio,” and referenced, among other things, the 

’271 Patent, the ’978 Patent, the ’516 Patent, the ’514 Patent, the ’642 Patent, the ’184 Patent,

and the ’228 Patent. Carnival’s lawyer closed the letter by requesting that NCL notify Carnival 

of “potential infringement of any Carnival patent and/or unauthorized use of other Carnival 

intellectual property related to wearable devices.”

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 24 of 60
25

108. Carnival’s counsel referenced the Carnival Patents even though Carnival 

employees (including Padgett and Jungen) knew at the time that the Carnival Patents did not 

identify the correct inventors, were procured by fraud, and were unenforceable.

109. Then, in February 2020, Carnival’s chief executive officer, Arnold Donald, 

contacted NCL’s chief executive officer and asked his counterpart questions about DeCurtis’s 

platform, the DXP System, and discussed the supposed infringement of Carnival’s patents.

110. Donald referenced the Carnival Patents even though Carnival employees 

(including Padgett and Jungen) knew at the time that the Carnival Patents did not identify the 

correct inventors, were procured by fraud, and were unenforceable.

111. Following the call, NCL put on hold any work by DeCurtis LLC on Guest 

Engagement Systems and told DeCurtis LLC it would not pay amounts owed under the contract.

112. On or around February 4, 2020, Carnival caused its lawyer to send a letter to 

Virgin’s Vice President Legal. In the letter, Carnival’s lawyer again referenced Carnival’s 

“robust and growing” patent portfolio and identified among other things, the ’271 Patent, the 

’978 Patent, the ’516 Patent, the ’514 Patent, the ’642 Patent, the ’184 Patent, and the ’228 

Patent.

113. Carnival also caused its lawyer to send DeCurtis a January 29, 2020 letter 

claiming that the public descriptions of the technology platform that NCL was developing in 

conjunction with DeCurtis “closely track” Carnival’s technology. Carnival identified the 

Carnival Patents and advised of its intent “to vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights.”

114. On February 20, 2020, Carnival sent a second letter to DeCurtis, reiterating the 

statements from the first letter and also claiming that “recent events ha[d] heightened the reasons 

for Carnival’s concern” that DeCurtis was infringing on its patents. Specifically, Carnival noted 

that Virgin had announced the launch of the “Band,” and claimed that this technology, too, was 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 25 of 60
26

similar to its OceanMedallion (which it had, in fact, hired DeCurtis LLC to develop in 2014). 

Carnival said it had “serious concerns” that DeCurtis LLC was not “respect[ing] its intellectual 

property rights.” Carnival promised it would “exercise its rights to prevent and remedy any 

infringement” and warned that the consequences of “willful infringement” are “severe.” 

Carnival’s lawyer further demanded inspection of DeCurtis LLC’s books and records pursuant to 

the services agreement under which DeCurtis helped to develop the OceanMedallion.

115. On February 24, 2020, Carnival sent a letter to Virgin’s outside counsel asking 

Virgin to confirm certain information about the “Band” in order to “evaluate whether Virgin’s 

planned launch of ‘the Band’ and related technology may raise issues under Carnival’s patents.”

116. Virgin has subsequently informed DeCurtis LLC of Carnival’s communications, 

which has threatened DeCurtis’s relationship with Virgin and otherwise caused DeCurtis 

substantial financial harm.

Sham Threats of Litigation

117. The communications described above from Carnival to NCL and Virgin 

amounted to sham threats of litigation.

118. The threats were objectively baseless in that no reasonable litigant making such 

threats could realistically expect success on the merits.

119. At all relevant times, Carnival employees (including Padgett) knew that the 

patents referenced in these threats were unenforceable under federal law and USPTO regulations

because of their failure to disclose material prior art and the failure to identify David DeCurtis as 

one of the inventors.

120. Moreover, Carnival knew that the use of DeCurtis’s DXP system on Virgin and 

NCL cruise ships could never constitute an act of patent infringement because it falls within the 

scope of 35 U.S.C. § 272. Carnival’s purpose in making these threats was not to seek 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 26 of 60
27

government redress or otherwise protect legitimate patent rights. Rather, Carnival intended to 

inhibit competition and adversely affect the business of DeCurtis LLC.

121. In addition to making these threats, Carnival has also brought actual sham 

litigation against DeCurtis LLC in the form of a lawsuit filed April 10, 2020 claiming 

infringement of the ’184 Patent, the ’514 Patent, and the ’516 Patent, even though Carnival 

knows that these patents cannot be infringed by the accused use, and were fraudulently obtained.

The Relevant Markets

122. A relevant product market is the market for systems and methods for providing 

guests with seamless engagement with the facilities of cruise ships through the use of wireless 

sensing technologies (“Guest Engagement Systems”).

123. Because of the characteristics of Guest Engagement Systems, it is unlikely that 

cruise lines as the buyers of such products would switch to purchasing another type of system in 

response to a small, but significant price increase.

124. Guest Engagement Systems are uniquely tailored to cruise ships. For example, a 

critical element of a guest engagement system for a cruise ship is an indoor location tracking 

system. Such a system must be designed to handle the location of over 4,000 passengers 

simultaneously engaged in thousands of activities throughout a ship. This would include 

essentially pinpoint locations in an emergency to locate missing passengers when all of the 

passengers must muster at lifeboat stations. Guest engagement systems for theme parks or hotels 

would not need the full capabilities of such systems. Furthermore, unlike a hotel, all of a cruise 

ships’ guests disembark essentially at once and a new group of guests embark equally quickly. A 

hotel or theme park does not routinely have such issues. Cruise ships cross time zones and 

geopolitical boundaries that must be taken into account by the system. In addition, the location 

and proximity features of a cruise ship guest engagement system must be integrated with unique

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 27 of 60
28

applications on a cruise ship such as the property management systems, the crew management 

systems, and the safety systems.

125. Consequently, a cruise line could not simply substitute systems implemented for 

other types of facilities, such as theme parks or hotels. To do so would require expensive and 

time-consuming modifications and additional original programming in order to make a system 

designed for other facilities applicable to cruise ships.

126. The relevant geographic market for Guest Engagement Systems is worldwide.

127. A second but related relevant product market is the market for cruise ship travel 

with Guest Engagement Systems.

128. Given the importance of Guest Engagement Systems on cruise ships, cruise line 

travel without such systems is not competitive with cruise line travel with such systems. On 

information and belief based on statements in Carnival’s website, Carnival, as the largest cruise 

line holding company with 104 ships and more than forty-seven percent of the cruise passengers 

worldwide in 2018, is putting such systems on all of its ships currently in its fleet or as new ships 

are built. NCL, as the third largest cruise line holding company with twenty-four ships and nine 

percent of the passengers, had a contract with DeCurtis to place such systems on all of its ships

before Carnival interfered. Based on statements in its annual report, MSC Cruise Line, which 

accounts for seven percent of the passengers carried in 2018, appears to be intending to place 

such systems on all new and existing ships.

129. It is unlikely that sufficient numbers of consumers would switch to a cruise line 

without Guest Engagement Systems in response to a small, but significant increase in price to 

counteract any attempt at supra-competitive pricing.

130. The relevant geographic market for cruise ship travel with Guest Engagement 

Systems is worldwide.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 28 of 60
29

Anticompetitive Effect

131. As a result of Carnival’s conduct, prices for Guest Engagement Systems are 

higher, and output is lower, than otherwise would be the case.

132. Furthermore, as a result of Carnival’s conduct, cruise lines with Guest 

Engagement Systems would be able to charge consumers undertaking cruise ship travel higher 

prices than would otherwise be the case.

133. As a result of Carnival’s conduct, the public engaging in cruise line travel that 

wanted a cruise experience with a Guest Engagement System would have fewer choices.

134. In addition, as a result of Carnival’s anticompetitive acts, DeCurtis LLC has been 

injured in its business.

Carnival’s Monopoly Power

In The Guest Engagement Systems Market

135. Carnival has monopoly power in the relevant market for Guest Engagement 

Systems.

136. On information and belief (based on an Internet search), currently only three 

entities offer such Guest Engagement Systems: Carnival, DeCurtis LLC, and a collaboration 

between Aruba and Favendo.

137. If DeCurtis LLC were eliminated as a competitor through fraudulent patent 

infringement litigation or threats of such litigation, Carnival would have over 87 percent of the 

market based on the number of cruise ships that are (a) either outfitted with Guest Engagement 

Systems or (b) likely to be so outfitted in fleets that have some ships already offering such 

systems. (Because existing cruise ships are out of service only 12 – 14 days every three years, an

entire cruise line fleet cannot be retrofitted with a Guest Engagement System immediately but 

only over a period of time).

138. Barriers to entry exist for the creation, design, engineering, manufacture, and sale 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 29 of 60
30

of Guest Engagement Systems. These barriers include the necessity of high capital outlays, and

significant investment in research and development to design alternatives to Carnival’s patents, 

as well as distribution and marketing expenses to overcome the preferences of cruise line 

customers for a dominant incumbent.

139. Furthermore, entrants into this market must enter with both the hardware and 

software capabilities of Guest Engagement Systems for cruise lines to effectively compete. 

Those firms with hardware capabilities in other industries or for other facilities that are most 

likely new entrants, particularly in sensing technology, do not have the appropriate software 

capabilities to design and implement systems for cruise ships with that sensing technology. It 

would take at least five years for such firms to develop such capabilities.

140. Carnival has created additional barriers to entry by threatening other cruise lines 

that it will file infringement actions against cruise ship companies seeking to use DeCurtis LLC’s 

systems and methods. In the face of such litigation threats, a potential new entrant or its cruise 

line customers may decide that the cost of protracted litigation is too great to risk entry.

Carnival Has A Dangerous Probability of Monopolizing

The Market for Cruise Ship Travel With Guest Engagement Systems

141. Carnival has a dangerous probability of obtaining monopoly power in the relevant 

market for cruise ship travel with Guest Engagement Systems.

142. The number of major independent cruise lines is very concentrated, with just three 

cruise line holding companies making up the vast bulk of cruise lines measured by the number of 

ships in service, passengers carried, and revenue. These are Carnival, NCL, and Royal Caribbean

Cruise Lines. Together, these three cruise line holding companies account for more than fiftyfour percent of the cruise ships worldwide, seventy-nine percent of the passengers carried, and 

seventy-two percent of the revenues.

143. Carnival, with its nine cruise line brands, accounts for more than thirty-three 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 30 of 60
31

percent of all cruise line ships in service.

144. Were Carnival to be successful in blocking, for example, NCL from obtaining 

access to Guest Engagement Systems, Carnival would have in excess of eighty-four percent of 

the cruise ships currently outfitted with Guest Engagement Systems or cruise ships likely to be so 

outfitted in fleets that already offer such systems.

145. It is highly likely that Carnival has also threatened Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines 

with patent infringement litigation or that Royal Caribbean is aware of Carnival’s threats to NCL 

and Virgin. In either case, Royal Caribbean may decide that it would be too risky to use DeCurtis 

LLC’s Guest Engagement System.

146. This enhances the risk that Carnival’s cruise ships would be dominant in cruise 

ship travel with Guest Engagement Systems.

Interstate Commerce

147. Carnival’s conduct in restraint of trade was in interstate commerce. Upon 

information and belief, Carnival used the U.S. Mail and the Internet to intentionally defraud the 

USPTO.

148. Moreover, as a result of Carnival’s conduct, the price of Guest Engagement 

Systems sold in interstate commerce is likely to be higher than it would have been but for 

Carnival’s conduct.

Declaratory Judgment

149. Since Carnival has begun issuing threats of litigation and claiming that the DXP 

System and services infringe on Carnival’s patents, NCL has suspended work and payments to 

DeCurtis. Additionally, DeCurtis has had to indemnify Virgin against claims of infringement. 

Carnival’s unfounded accusations of infringement are causing concrete and immediate injury to 

DeCurtis’s business by casting a cloud of suspicion over the technology and services that are 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 31 of 60
32

core to its business. DeCurtis seeks a declaratory judgment that its DXP System does not infringe 

certain Carnival patents in order to protect its business from Carnival’s unwarranted interference. 

Furthermore, DeCurtis seeks a declaratory judgment that the Carnival Patents areunenforceable.

Causation And Damages

150. As a direct and proximate result of Carnival’s conduct, DeCurtis LLC has been 

injured.

151. But for Carnival’s conduct, DeCurtis LLC would have been able to compete more 

effectively.

152. DeCurtis LLC has or will suffer damages because of Carnival’s conduct.

COUNT I

Declaratory Judgment –Unenforceability

153. DeCurtis LLC restates and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 

1 through 121, and paragraph 149, as if fully set forth herein.

154. Carnival and its agents withheld material prior art from the USPTO during the 

filing and prosecution of the Carnival Patents.

155. Had Carnival and its agents not withheld material prior art from the USPTO, the 

Carnival Patents would not have issued.

156. Accordingly, the Carnival Patents are unenforceable.

157. Alternatively, the Carnival Patents are unenforceable because David DeCurtis is 

not named as an inventor.

158. A substantial, immediate, and real controversy exists between DeCurtis and 

Carnival regarding whether the Carnival Patents are unenforceable. A judicial declaration is 

necessary to determine the parties’ respective rights regarding the unenforceability of the 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 32 of 60
33

Carnival Patents.

159. DeCurtis seeks a judgment declaring that the Carnival Patents areunenforceable.

COUNT II

Monopolization

In Violation Of Section 2 Of The Sherman Act

160. DeCurtis LLC restates and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 152 as 

though fully set forth herein.

161. Carnival has a monopoly and monopoly power in the market for Guest 

Engagement Systems.

162. Carnival has engaged in anticompetitive acts in furtherance of its specific intent to 

acquire and maintain that monopoly power. These acts include communications from Carnival to 

customers of DeCurtis LLC (who are also Carnival’s competitors) insinuating that DeCurtis LLC 

has infringed or is infringing Carnival’s patents. Carnival intended such communications to be 

understood as thinly veiled threats that Carnival will bring patent infringement litigation against 

DeCurtis’s customers, and in fact those communications were so understood by their recipients. 

In addition to these threats, Carnival has also sued DeCurtis LLC for patent infringement. 

Carnival undertook these acts even though it knows that its patents are unenforceable and not 

infringed as a matter of law.

163. Carnival undertook these acts even though it knows that its patents are

unenforceable.

164. Carnival has undertaken these acts with the intent to interfere with DeCurtis 

LLC’s business and to threaten other competitors and customers with litigation.

165. By reason of Carnival’s conduct, DeCurtis LLC has been injured in its business.

166. Unless the injunctive relief requested below is granted, irreparable injury will 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 33 of 60
34

occur, and will continue to occur, to DeCurtis LLC.

COUNT III

Attempted Monopolization

In Violation Of Section 2 Of The Sherman Act

167. DeCurtis LLC restates and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 152 as 

though fully set forth herein.

168. Carnival has a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power in the markets 

for Guest Engagement Systems and cruise travel with Guest Engagement Systems.

169. Carnival has a specific intent to achieve monopoly power in the markets for Guest 

Engagement Systems and cruise travel for Guest Engagement Systems.

170. Carnival has engaged in anticompetitive acts in furtherance of its specific intent to 

acquire monopoly power. These acts include communications from Carnival to customers of 

DeCurtis LLC (who are also Carnival’s competitors) insinuating that DeCurtis LLC has 

infringed or is infringing Carnival’s patents. Carnival intended such communications to be 

understood by these customers as thinly veiled threats that Carnival will bring patent 

infringement litigation against DeCurtis LLC and DeCurtis LLC’s customers, and in fact those 

communications were so understood by their recipients. In addition to these threats, Carnival has 

also sued DeCurtis LLC for patent infringement. Carnival undertook these acts even though it 

knows that its patents are unenforceable and not infringed as a matter of law.

171. Carnival has undertaken these acts with the intent to interfere with DeCurtis 

LLC’s business and to threaten other competitors and customers with litigation.

172. By reason of Carnival’s conduct, DeCurtis LLC has been injured in its business.

173. Unless the injunctive relief requested below is granted, irreparable injury will 

occur, and will continue to occur, to DeCurtis LLC.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 34 of 60
35

COUNT IV

Tortious Interference With Contract And Business Relationships

174. DeCurtis LLC restates and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 121 as 

though fully set forth herein.

175. In or around 2017, DeCurtis LLC entered into a business and contractual 

relationship with NCL to license the DXP to NCL.

176. In or around 2017, DeCurtis LLC entered into a business and contractual 

relationship with Virgin to license the DXP to Virgin.

177. Carnival had knowledge of these business and contractual relationships.

178. As described above, Carnival intentionally and unjustifiably interfered in these 

business and contractual relationships by making thinly veiled threats that it would bring patent 

infringement litigation against DeCurtis LLC and DeCurtis LLC’s customers even though 

Carnival knows that its patents are unenforceable and not infringed as a matter of law.

179. Carnival’s actions were not taken in good faith and its allegations of infringement 

are objectively baseless.

180. As a consequence of Carnival’s actions, NCL has stopped working with DeCurtis 

LLC in violation of its contractual obligations.

181. Carnival’s actions have also threatened DeCurtis LLC’s relationship with Virgin 

and otherwise caused DeCurtis LLC substantial financial harm.

182. DeCurtis LLC has been (and if not stopped, will be further) damaged by 

Carnival’s intentional and unjustified interference in DeCurtis LLC’s business and contractual 

relationships.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 35 of 60
36

COUNT V

Unfair Competition (Florida Common Law)

183. DeCurtis LLC restates and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 121 as 

though fully set forth herein.

184. DeCurtis LLC and Carnival are competitors and compete over a common pool of 

customers in the market for Guest Engagement Systems.

185. As described above, Carnival intentionally engaged in deceptive and fraudulent 

conduct by making false representations to NCL and Virgin that it had enforceable patents that it 

claimed DeCurtis LLC was infringing when it knew at all relevant times that its patents are 

unenforceable and not infringed as a matter of law.

186. As described above, Carnival’s actions resulted in consumer confusion. NCL has 

stopped working with DeCurtis LLC due to the confusion caused by Carnival’s conduct. 

Carnival’s deceptive and fraudulent representations created in NCL the misapprehension that 

DeCurtis LLC had infringed on Carnival’s patents.

187. Further, as described above, Carnival’s actions resulted in consumer confusion 

because Carnival’s deceptive and fraudulent representations also created in Virgin the 

misapprehension that DeCurtis LLC was infringing on Carnival’s patents, which has threatened 

DeCurtis LLC’s relationship with Virgin and otherwise caused DeCurtis LLC substantial 

financial harm.

188. In addition, upon information and belief, Carnival has engaged in fraudulent and 

deceptive conduct resulting in consumer confusion by communicating, advertising, and/or 

marketing to other customers in the market for Guest Engagement Services that the Carnival 

Patents are enforceable, when it has known at all relevant times that its patents are 

unenforceable. DeCurtis LLC has been damaged as a result of Carnival’s unfaircompetition.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 36 of 60
37

COUNT VI

Declaratory Judgment – Non-Infringement One Or More Claims Of The ’184 Patent

189. DeCurtis restates and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 

through 121, and paragraph 149, as if fully set forth herein.

190. On information and belief, Carnival claims to own all rights, title, and interest in 

the ’184 Patent.

191. The ’184 Patent has four independent claims, claims 1, 7, 11, and 19.

192. Claim 1 of the ’184 Patent recites:

A guest engagement system comprising:

a plurality of portable guest devices provided to users of the guest 

engagement system to be carried by the users, each guest device including a 

wireless communication antenna and operative to emit a periodic beacon 

signal broadcasting a unique identifier of the guest device using Bluetooth 

low energy (BLE) communications;

a sensor network comprising a plurality of sensors each mounted at a 

different known location and operative to detect the periodic beacon signals 

including the unique identifiers emitted using BLE communications by 

portable guest devices of the plurality of portable guest devices that are 

proximate to the sensor;

a communication network connecting each of the plurality of sensors of the 

sensor network; and

a central server communicatively connected to each of the plurality of 

sensors of the sensor network via the communication network, and storing a 

log associating each unique identifier of a portable guest device detected 

using BLE communications by a sensor of the sensor network with the 

known location of the sensor and a timestamp,

wherein the plurality of sensors of the sensor network comprises a plurality 

of access panels each configured to control an associated electronically 

controlled door lock,

each access panel is operative to detect the periodic beacon signals including 

the unique identifiers emitted using BLE communications by guest devices 

that are proximate thereto, and to selectively unlock the associated 

electronically controlled door lock based on the unique identifier of the 

detected periodic beacons, and

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 37 of 60
38

each access panel comprises:

a radio configured for wireless communication with a door lock 

communication module electrically connected to an electronically 

controlled locking mechanism of the associated electronically 

controlled door lock;

a first transceiver configured for wireless BLE communication with 

the guest devices to identify users seeking to activate the 

electronically controlled locking mechanism; and

a second transceiver configured for communication with the central 

server storing identifiers of users authorized to activate the 

electronically controlled locking mechanism.

193. Claim 7 of the ’184 Patent recites:

A guest engagement system comprising:

a plurality of portable guest devices provided to users of the guest 

engagement system to be carried by the users, each guest device including a 

wireless communication antenna and operative to emit a periodic beacon 

signal broadcasting a unique identifier of the guest device using Bluetooth 

low energy (BLE) communications;

a sensor network comprising a plurality of sensors each mounted at a 

different known location and operative to detect the periodic beacon signals 

including the unique identifiers emitted using BLE communications by 

portable guest devices of the plurality of portable guest devices that are 

proximate to the sensor;

a communication network connecting each of the plurality of sensors of the 

sensor network; a central server communicatively connected to each of the 

plurality of sensors of the sensor network via the communication network, 

and storing a log associating each unique identifier of a portable guest device 

detected using BLE communications by a sensor of the sensor network with 

the known location of the sensor and a timestamp; and

a plurality of interface devices providing personalized services to users of the 

guest engagement system,

wherein the plurality of sensors of the sensor network comprises a plurality 

of access panels each configured to control an associated electronically 

controlled door lock,

each access panel is operative to detect the periodic beacon signals including 

the unique identifiers emitted using BLE communications by guest devices 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 38 of 60
39

that are proximate thereto, and to selectively unlock the associated 

electronically controlled door lock based on the unique identifier of the 

detected periodic beacons, and

each interface device comprises an associated sensor of the plurality of 

sensors of the sensor network, and provides the personalized services to a 

user proximate thereto based on an identity of the user determined based on 

the unique identifier emitted using BLE communications by a guest device of 

the user.

194. Claim 11 of the ’184 Patent recites A guest engagement system comprising:

a plurality of portable guest devices provided to users of the guest 

engagement system to be carried by the users, each guest device having a 

unique identifier and including first and second wireless communication 

antennas respectively configured for Bluetooth low energy (BLE) and near 

field communication (NFC) communications;

a sensor network comprising a plurality of sensors each mounted at a 

different location, wherein at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors is 

operative to detect portable guest devices that are proximate thereto and 

receive unique identifiers therefrom based on BLE communication with the 

portable guest devices and at least another sensor of the plurality of sensors is 

operative to detect portable guest devices that are proximate thereto and 

receive unique identifiers therefrom based on NFC communication with the 

portable guest devices;

a communication network connecting each of the plurality of sensors of the 

sensor network; and

a central server communicatively connected to each of the plurality of 

sensors of the sensor network via the communication network, and storing a 

log associating each unique identifier of a portable guest device received 

using BLE or NFC communications by a sensor of the sensor network,

wherein each guest device is configured to selectively operate according to 

first and second operating modes, each guest device engaging in bidirectional communication using the first wireless communication antenna 

configured for BLE communications in the first operating mode and 

engaging in a beacon mode periodically broadcasting a beacon signal using 

the first wireless communication antenna configured for BLE 

communications in the second operating mode, and

each sensor of the sensor network is operative to transmit a command to a 

guest device in its communication range to cause the guest device to change 

operating mode between the first and second operating modes.

195. Claim 19 of the ’184 Patent recites:

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 39 of 60
40

A guest engagement system comprising:

a plurality of portable guest devices provided to users of the guest 

engagement system to be carried by the users, each guest device having a 

unique identifier and including first and second wireless communication 

antennas respectively configured for Bluetooth low energy (BLE) and near 

field communication (NFC) communications;

a sensor network comprising a plurality of sensors each mounted at a 

different location, wherein at least one sensor of the plurality of sensors is 

operative to detect portable guest devices that are proximate thereto and 

receive unique identifiers therefrom based on BLE communication with the 

portable guest devices and at least another sensor of the plurality of sensors is 

operative to detect portable guest devices that are proximate thereto and 

receive unique identifiers therefrom based on NFC communication with the 

portable guest devices;

a communication network connecting each of the plurality of sensors of the 

sensor network; and

a central server communicatively connected to each of the plurality of 

sensors of the sensor network via the communication network, and storing a 

log associating each unique identifier of a portable guest device received 

using BLE or NFC communications by a sensor of the sensor network,

wherein the plurality of sensors of the sensor network comprises a plurality 

of vending terminals each configured authorize a payment based on a guest 

device, and

each vending terminal is operative to engage in encrypted bi-directional 

communication with a guest device using NFC communications to 

authenticate the guest device and selectively authorize the payment based on 

the identity of the authenticated guest device.

196. DeCurtis does not directly or indirectly infringe claims 1 and 7 of the ’184 Patent 

by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale the DXP System, either literally or under the 

doctrine of equivalents, at least because the DXP System does not employ, include, or otherwise 

make use of access panels “operative to detect the periodic beacon signals including the unique 

identifiers emitted using BLE communications by guest devices that are proximate thereto, and 

to selectively unlock the associated electronically controlled door lock based on the unique 

identifier of the detected periodic beacons.” The DXP System does not operate within a system 

having access panels that detect BLE communications for selectively unlocking electronically 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 40 of 60
41

controlled door locks, but rather operates in a system using different communication protocols 

for unlocking doors.

197. In addition, DeCurtis does not directly or indirectly infringe claims 1 or 7 of the 

’184 Patent by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale the DXP System, either literally or 

under the doctrine of equivalents, at least because its DXP System does not “stor[e] a log 

associating each unique identifier of a portable guest device detected using BLE communications 

by a sensor of the sensor network with the known location of the sensor and a timestamp.” The 

DXP system does not store the identifier detected by a sensor of the sensor network in a log that 

associates the identifier with the location of the sensor. Instead, the DXP System translates the 

unique identifier detected by a sensor of the sensor network into a different identifier, and uses a 

location engine to triangulate the position of a user.

198. In addition, DeCurtis does not directly or indirectly infringe claim 11 of the ’184 

Patent by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale the DXP System, either literally or 

under the doctrine of equivalents, at least because its DXP System does not employ, include, or

otherwise make use of “guest device[s] engaging in bi-directional communication using the first 

wireless communication antenna configured for BLE communications in the first operating 

mode” as required by claim 11 of the ’184 Patent. The DXP System does not comprise guest 

devices configured for use in a system having sensors enabling bi-directional BLE 

communications, and the guest devices would require additional configuration to operate in a 

system having such sensors.

199. In addition, DeCurtis does not directly or indirectly infringe claim 11 of the ’184 

Patent by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale the DXP System, either literally or 

under the doctrine of equivalents, at least because its DXP System does not employ, include, or 

otherwise make use of guest devices “configured to selectively operate according to first and 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 41 of 60
42

second operating modes, each guest device engaging in bi-directional communication using the 

first wireless communication antenna configured for BLE communications in the first operating 

mode and engaging in a beacon mode periodically broadcasting a beacon signal using the first 

wireless communication antenna configured for BLE communications in the second operating 

mode.” The DXP System does not comprise guest devices that are configured for use in a system 

requiring selective operation according to two distinct modes. The DXP System does not 

comprise sensors enabling selective operation according to two distinct modes, and the guest 

devices would require additional configuration to operate in a system having such sensors.

200. In addition, DeCurtis does not directly or indirectly infringe claims 11 or 19 of the 

’184 Patent by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale the DXP System, either literally or 

under the doctrine of equivalents, at least because its DXP System does not employ, include, or 

otherwise make use of a plurality of guest devices, “each guest device having a unique identifier 

and including first and second wireless communication antennas respectively configured for

Bluetooth low energy (BLE) and near field communication (NFC) communications.” The DXP 

System does not comprise guest devices having unique identifiers, rather guest devices can have 

multiple identifiers.

201. In addition, DeCurtis does not directly or indirectly infringe claims 11 or 19 of the 

’184 Patent by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale the DXP System, either literally or 

under the doctrine of equivalents, at least because its DXP System does not comprise (i) “a 

sensor network comprising a plurality of sensors . . . wherein at least one sensor of the plurality 

of sensors is operative to detect portable guest devices that are proximate thereto and receive 

unique identifiers therefrom based on BLE communication . . . and at least another sensor of the 

plurality of sensors is operative to detect portable guest devices that are proximate thereto and 

receive unique identifiers therefore based on NFC communications . . .” ; do not comprise (ii) “a 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 42 of 60
43

communication network connecting each of the plurality of sensors of the sensor network”; (iii) 

do not comprise “a central server communicatively connected to each of the plurality of sensors 

of the sensor network via the communications network” and (iv) do not “stor[e] a log associating 

each unique identifier of a portable guest device received using BLE or NFC communications by 

a sensor of the sensor network.” The DXP System is not configured to receive BLE and NFC 

communications over a single sensor network communicatively coupled to a central server. The 

DXP System is not configured to receive communications from a sensor network comprising 

NFC sensors communicatively coupled to a central server and capable of storing a log with each 

of the NFC identifiers received from a NFC sensor.

202. In addition, DeCurtis does not directly or indirectly infringe claim 19 of the ’184 

Patent by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale the DXP System, either literally or 

under the doctrine of equivalents, at least because its DXP System does not employ, include, or

otherwise make use of vending terminals “operative to engage in encrypted bi-directional 

communication with a guest device using NFC communications to authenticate the guest device 

and selectively authorize the payment based on the identity of the authenticated guest device” as 

required by claim 19 of the ’184 Patent. The DXP System does not comprise vending terminals, 

nor does it comprise guest devices that would allow any vending terminal to operate using 

encrypted bi-directional communication using NFC communications, and the DXP System as 

configured to be implemented by Virgin likewise will not operate in such a fashion.

203. In addition, DeCurtis does not infringe any claims of the ’184 Patent by making, 

using, selling, and/or offering for sale the DXP System, either literally or under the doctrine of 

equivalents, at least because its DXP System is used only on vessels registered in foreign

countries that temporarily enter the United States, is used exclusively for the needs of the vessel, 

and is not offered for sale or sold in or used for the manufacture of anything to be sold in or 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 43 of 60
44

exported from the United States

204. A substantial, immediate, and real controversy exists between DeCurtis and 

Carnival regarding whether DeCurtis’s infringes the ’184 Patent by making, using, selling, 

and/or offering for sale DXP and related technologies and systems. A judicial declaration is 

necessary to determine the parties’ respective rights regarding the ’184 Patent.

205. DeCurtis seeks a judgment declaring that DeCurtis does not infringe, either literally or 

under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ’184 Patent by making, using, 

selling, and/or offering for sale the DXP System, either directly under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), or 

indirectly under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and (c).

COUNT VII

Declaratory Judgment – Non-Infringement One Or More Claims Of The ’514 Patent

206. DeCurtis restates and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 

through 121, and paragraph 149, as if fully set forth herein.

207. An immediate, real, and justiciable controversy exists between DeCurtis and 

Carnival regarding the use of the ’514 Patent.

208. On information and belief, Carnival claims to own all rights, title, and interest in 

the ’514 Patent.

209. The ’514 Patent has four independent claims, claims 1, 11, 12, and 20.

210. Claim 1 of the ’514 Patent recites:

A portable wireless device comprising:

a body having a fully enclosed cavity, the body having all dimensions equal 

to or smaller than 2.5 inches, and the body having a thickness equal to or 

smaller than

5⁄8 inch;

a processor, a memory, a battery, and first and second wireless 

communication antennas disposed in the cavity,

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 44 of 60
45

wherein the first and second wireless communication antennas are 

respectively configured for Bluetooth low energy (BLE) and near field 

communication (NFC) communications, the first communication antenna 

configured for BLE communications has a J-shape that is elevated above a 

printed circuit board (PCB), the processor disposed in the cavity is 

configured to engage in bi- directional BLE and NFC communications using 

the first and second wireless communication antennas disposed in the cavity, 

and the processor selectively operates according to first and second operating 

modes having different respective intervals between periodic listen time 

periods during which the processor periodically listens for communications 

through the first or second wireless communication antennas.

211. Claim 11 of the ’514 Patent recites:

A portable wireless device comprising:

a body having a fully enclosed cavity, the body having all dimensions equal 

to or smaller than 2.5 inches, and the body having a thickness equal to or 

smaller than

5⁄8 inch;

a processor, a memory, a battery, and first and second wireless 

communication antennas disposed in the cavity,

wherein the first and second wireless communication antennas are 

respectively configured for Bluetooth low energy (BLE) and near field 

communication (NFC) communications,

the processor is configured to establish secure communication links with 

remote communication devices using the first wireless communication 

antenna configured for BLE communications,

the memory stores both public and private identifiers unique to the portable 

wireless device,

the processor controls the first wireless communication antenna to emit a 

periodic beacon signal broadcasting the unique public identifier of the 

portable wireless device using BLE communications, and

the processor controls the first wireless communication antenna to transmit 

the private identifier only across secure communication links established with 

remote communication devices using BLE communications.

212. Claim 12 of the ’514 Patent recites:

A portable wireless device comprising:

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 45 of 60
46

a body having a peripheral member having front and rear openings 

respectively covered by front and rear caps, the peripheral member extending 

around a periphery of an enclosed cavity disposed within a space formed by 

the front and rear caps and the peripheral member, and

a processor, a memory, a battery, and first and second wireless 

communication antennas disposed in the cavity, and

a printed circuit board (PCB) disposed in the cavity and having the processor 

and the memory mounted thereon,

wherein the first and second wireless communication antennas are 

respectively configured for Bluetooth low energy (BLE) and near field 

communication (NFC) communications, and

wherein the first communication antenna configured for BLE 

communications has a J-shape that is elevated above the PCB.

213. Claim 20 of the ’514 Patent recites:

A portable wireless device comprising:

a body having a fully enclosed cavity, and

a printed circuit board (PCB), a processor, a memory, a battery, and first and 

second wireless communication antennas disposed in the cavity,

wherein the body has a frustum shape, including a front surface that is 

circular, a rear surface that is circular and has a diameter greater than that of 

the front surface, and a side surface that extends between the front and rear 

surfaces and is formed of a metal housing, having at least one gap extending 

through the metal housing from the front surface to the rear surface, and a 

non-conducting material disposed in the at least one gap of the metal housing,

wherein the front and rear surfaces have diameters of 0.75 to 2.5 inches, the 

body has a thickness of 1⁄8 to 5⁄8 inch, and an angle between the front surface 

and the side surface of the frustum-shaped body is in a range of 86 to 88

degrees,

wherein the first and second wireless communication antennas are 

respectively configured for Bluetooth low energy (BLE) and near field 

communication (NFC) communications and the processor disposed in the 

cavity is configured to engage in bi-directional BLE and NFC 

communications using the first and second wireless communication antennas 

disposed in the cavity and

the first communication antenna configured for BLE communications has a JCase 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 46 of 60
47

shape that is elevated above a surface of the PCB on which the processor and 

memory are mounted.

214. DeCurtis does not directly or indirectly infringe claims 1, 12, and 20 of the ’514 

Patent by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale the DXP System, either literally or 

under the doctrine of equivalents, at least because the DXP System does not employ, include, or 

otherwise make use of a portable wireless device comprising a first communication antenna 

wherein the “first communication antenna configured for BLE communications has a J-shape 

that is elevated above a printed circuit board (PCB).” The DXP System does not comprise 

portable wireless devices that have a J-shaped antenna, elevated above a printed circuit board, 

and configured for BLE communications. Rather, the DXP system uses portable wireless devices 

having a meandered trace antenna that is in the shape of a square sine wave.

’514 Elevated J-Shaped Antenna DXP System Antenna

215. DeCurtis does not directly or indirectly infringe claim 11 of the ’514 Patent by 

making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale the DXP System, either literally or under the 

doctrine of equivalents, at least because the DXP System does not employ, include, or otherwise 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 47 of 60
48

make use of a portable wireless device comprising a processor, wherein “the processor is 

configured to establish secure communication links with remote communication devices using 

the first wireless communication antenna configured for BLE communications.” The DXP 

System is not configured such that the portable electronic devices establish secure 

communication links using a BLE antenna. Rather, the DXP System is configured such that the 

portable electronic devices operate only in unidirectional mode using a BLE antenna.

216. DeCurtis does not directly or indirectly infringe claim 11 of the ’514 Patent by 

making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale the DXP System, either literally or under the 

doctrine of equivalents, at least because the DXP System does not employ, include, or otherwise 

make use of a portable wireless device comprising a processor, wherein “the processor controls

the first wireless communication antenna to emit a periodic beacon signal broadcasting the 

unique public identifier of the portable wireless device using BLE communications, and the 

processor controls the first wireless communication antenna to transmit the private identifier only 

across secure communication links established with remote communication devices using BLE 

communications.” The DXP System does not comprise portable wireless devices that are 

configured to limit the transmission of a private identifier over a secure communication link.

217. DeCurtis does not directly or indirectly infringe claim 20 of the ’514 Patent by 

making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale the DXP System, either literally or under the 

doctrine of equivalents, at least because the DXP System does not employ, include, or otherwise 

make use of a portable wireless device, “wherein the body has a frustum shape, including a front 

surface that is circular, a rear surface that is circular and has a diameter greater than that of the 

front surface” or that has “a side surface that extends between the front and rear surfaces and is 

formed of a metal housing.” The DXP System does not comprise portable wireless devices that 

have a frustum shape, a circular front surface, a circular rear surface with diameter greater than 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 48 of 60
49

that of the front surface, or a metal housing for any surface.

Carnival Patents: 

Portable Wireless 

Device and Accessory

DXP System: 

Virgin Portable Wireless

Device and Accessory

DXP System: 

NCL PortableWireless 

Device and Accessory

218. In addition, DeCurtis does not infringe any claims of the ’514 Patent by making, 

using, selling, and/or offering for sale the DXP System, either literally or under the doctrine of 

equivalents, at least because its DXP System is used only on vessels registered in foreign

countries that temporarily enter the United States, is used exclusively for the needs of the vessel, 

and is not offered for sale or sold in or used for the manufacture of anything to be sold in or 

exported from the United States

219. A substantial, immediate, and real controversy exists between DeCurtis and 

Carnival regarding whether DeCurtis infringes the ’514 Patent by making, using, selling, and/or 

offering for sale DXP and related technologies and systems. A judicial declaration is necessary to 

determine the parties’ respective rights regarding the ’514 Patent.

220. DeCurtis seeks a judgment declaring that DeCurtis does not infringe, either 

literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ’514 Patent by making, 

using, selling, and/or offering for sale the DXP System, either directly under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 49 of 60
50

or indirectly under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and (c).

COUNT VIII

Declaratory Judgment – Non-Infringement One Or More Claims Of The ’228 Patent

221. DeCurtis restates and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 

through 121, and paragraph 149, as if fully set forth herein.

222. On information and belief, Carnival claims to own all rights, title, and interest in 

the ’228 Patent.

223. The ’228 Patent has two independent claims, claims 1 and 13.

224. Claim 1 of the ’228 Patent recites:

A guest engagement system comprising:

a plurality of guest devices provided to users of the guest engagement 

system, each guest device including a wireless communication 

antenna and operative to emit a periodic beacon signal broadcasting a 

unique identifier of the guest device using Bluetooth low energy 

(BLE) communications;

a sensor network comprising a plurality of sensors each mounted at a 

different known location and operative to detect the periodic beacon 

signals including the unique identifiers emitted using BLE 

communications by guest devices of the plurality of guest devices that 

are proximate to the sensor;

a communication network connecting each of the plurality of sensors 

of the sensor network;

a relational database in operable communication with the 

communication network, the relational database associating each user 

with their respective unique identifier and a gameplay status 

identifier;

one or more interactive displays, each in operable communication 

with the sensor network via the communication network and 

configured to present one or more interactive gaming options to the 

users of the guest engagement system based on the detected periodic 

beacon signal and the gameplay status identifier; and

a central server communicatively connected to each of the plurality of 

sensors of the sensor network via the communication network, and 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 50 of 60
51

storing a log associating each unique identifier of a guest device 

detected using BLE communications by a sensor of the sensor 

network with the known location of the sensor and a timestamp in the 

relational database.

225. Claim 13 of the ’228 Patent recites:

A guest engagement system comprising:

a plurality of guest devices provided to users of the guest engagement 

system, each guest device having a unique identifier and including 

first and second wireless communication antennas respectively 

configured for Bluetooth low energy (BLE) and near field 

communication (NFC) communications;

a sensor network comprising a plurality of sensors each mounted at a 

different location, wherein at least one sensor of the plurality of 

sensors is operative to detect guest devices that are proximate thereto 

and receive unique identifiers therefrom based on BLE 

communication with the guest devices and at least another sensor of 

the plurality of sensors is operative to detect guest devices that are 

proximate thereto and receive unique identifiers therefrom based on 

NFC communication with the guest devices;

a communication network connecting each of the plurality of sensors 

of the sensor network;

a relational database in operable communication with the 

communication network, the relational database associating each user 

with their respective unique identifier and a gameplay status 

identifier;

one or more interactive displays, each in operable communication 

with the sensor network via the communication network and 

configured to present one or more interactive gaming options to the 

users of the guest engagement system based on a detected periodic 

beacon signal and the gameplay status identifier; and

a central server communicatively connected to each of the plurality of 

sensors of the sensor network via the communication network, and 

storing a log associating each unique identifier of a guest device 

received using BLE or NFC communications by a sensor of the 

sensor network in the relational database.

226. DeCurtis does not directly or indirectly infringe claim 1 of the ’228 Patent by 

making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale the DXP System, either literally or under the 

doctrine of equivalents, at least because the DXP System does not “stor[e] a log associating each 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 51 of 60
52

unique identifier of a portable guest device detected using BLE communications by a sensor of 

the sensor network with the known location of the sensor and a timestamp.” The DXP system 

does not store the identifier detected by a sensor of the sensor network in a log that associates the 

identifier with the location of the sensor. Instead, the DXP System translates the unique identifier

detected by a sensor of the sensor network into a different identifier, and uses a location engine 

to triangulate the position of a user.

227. DeCurtis does not directly or indirectly infringe claim 13 of the ’228 Patent by 

making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale the DXP System, either literally or under the 

doctrine of equivalents, at least because the DXP System does not “stor[e] a log associating each 

unique identifier of a guest device received using BLE or NFC communications by a sensor of 

the sensor network in the relational database.” The DXP System is not configured to receive 

BLE and NFC communications over a single sensor network communicatively coupled to a 

central server. The DXP System is not configured to receive communications from a sensor 

network comprising NFC sensors communicatively coupled to a central server and capable of 

storing a log with each of the NFC identifiers received from a NFC sensor.

228. In addition, DeCurtis does not infringe any claims of the ’228 Patent by making, 

using, selling, and/or offering for sale the DXP System, either literally or under the doctrine of 

equivalents, at least because its DXP System is used only on vessels registered in foreign

countries that temporarily enter the United States, is used exclusively for the needs of the vessel, 

and is not offered for sale or sold in or used for the manufacture of anything to be sold in or 

exported from the United States

229. A substantial, immediate, and real controversy exists between DeCurtis and 

Carnival regarding whether DeCurtis infringes the ’228 Patent by making, using, selling, and/or 

offering for sale DXP and related technologies and systems. A judicial declaration is necessary to 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 52 of 60
53

determine the parties’ respective rights regarding the ’228 Patent.

230. DeCurtis seeks a judgment declaring that DeCurtis does not infringe, either 

literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ’228 Patent by making, 

using, selling, and/or offering for sale the DXP System, either directly under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), 

or indirectly under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and (c).

COUNT IX

Declaratory Judgment – Non-Infringement One Or More Claims Of The ’271 Patent

231. DeCurtis restates and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 

through 121, and paragraph 149, as if fully set forth herein.

232. On information and belief, Carnival claims to own all rights, title, and interest in 

the ’271 Patent.

233. The ’271 Patent has two independent claims, claims 1 and 10.

234. Claim 1 of the ’271 Patentrecites: An assembly comprising:

a wireless device having a device body with a tapered shape including 

a front surface, a rear surface having a same shape as the front surface 

and a greater dimension than the front surface, and a cavity in which a 

processor and at least one wireless communication antenna are 

disposed; and

an accessory configured to be worn on a user body, the accessory 

having an accessory body having opposing outer and inner surfaces 

configured to respectively face away from and face toward the user 

body when the accessory is worn on the user body,

wherein the accessory body has a tapered cavity extending between 

the inner and outer surfaces and configured to releasably receive the 

wireless device, and the tapered cavity includes a front opening, in the 

outer surface of the accessory body, having a smaller dimension than 

a rear opening, in the inner surface of the accessory body, and the 

front opening having the same shape as and a smaller dimension than 

the front and rear surfaces of the device body to prevent the wireless 

device from passing through the front opening.

235. Claim 10 of the ’271 Patentrecites: A wireless device comprising:

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 53 of 60
54

a body having a tapered shape including a front surface, a rear surface 

having a same shape as the front surface and a dimension greater than 

the front surface, and a peripheral side surface connecting the front 

and rear surfaces; and

four magnets embedded within the body and disposed on the 

peripheral side surface along an outer periphery of the body,

wherein the body includes a cavity in which a processor and at least 

one wireless communication antenna are disposed, and

wherein at least two adjacent magnets among the four magnets 

disposed on the peripheral side surface of the body each have a pole 

of a same polarity facing the outer periphery of the body.

236. DeCurtis does not directly or indirectly infringe claims 1 and 10 of the ’271 

Patent by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale the DXP System, either literally or 

under the doctrine of equivalents, at least because the DXP System does not employ, include, or 

otherwise make use of a wireless device comprising a “device body with a tapered shape 

including a front surface, [and] a rear surface having a same shape as the front surface and a 

greater dimension than the front surface” (claim 1); or a “body having a tapered shape including 

a front surface, a rear surface having a same shape as the front surface and a dimension greater 

than the front surface” (claim 10). The DXP System does not comprise wireless devices with 

front and rear surfaces having the same shape with the rear surface having a greater dimension.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 54 of 60
55

Carnival Patents: 

Portable Wireless 

Device and Accessory

DXP System: 

Virgin Portable Wireless

Device and Accessory

DXP System: 

NCL PortableWireless 

Device and Accessory

237. DeCurtis does not directly or indirectly infringe claim 10 of the ’271 Patent by 

making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale the DXP System, either literally or under the 

doctrine of equivalents, at least because the DXP System does not employ, include, or otherwise

make use of a wireless device comprising “four magnets embedded within the body and disposed 

on the peripheral side surface along an outer periphery of the body.” The DXP System does not 

comprise wireless devices with magnets.

238. In addition, DeCurtis does not directly or indirectly infringe any claims of the 

’271 Patent by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale the DXP System, either literally or 

under the doctrine of equivalents, at least because its DXP System is used only on vessels 

registered in foreign countries that temporarily enter the United States, is used exclusively for the 

needs of the vessel, and is not offered for sale or sold in or used for the manufacture of anything 

to be sold in or exported from the United States

239. A substantial, immediate, and real controversy exists between DeCurtis and 

Carnival regarding whether DeCurtis infringes the ’271 Patent by making, using, selling, and/or 

offering for sale DXP and related technologies and systems. A judicial declaration is necessary to 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 55 of 60
56

determine the parties’ respective rights regarding the ’271 Patent.

240. DeCurtis seeks a judgment declaring that DeCurtis does not infringe, either 

literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ’271 Patent by making, 

using, selling, and/or offering for sale the DXP System, either directly under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), 

or indirectly under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and (c).

COUNT X

Declaratory Judgment – Non-Infringement One Or More Claims Of The ’642 Patent

241. DeCurtis restates and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 

through 121, and paragraph 149, as if fully set forth herein.

242. On information and belief, Carnival claims to own all rights, title, and interest in 

the ’642 Patent.

243. The ’642 Patent has one independent claim, claim 1.

244. Claim 1 of the ’642 Patent recites:

An accessory configured to be worn by a user, the accessory comprising:

a metal body having opposing front and rear outer surfaces 

respectively configured to face away from and towards the user when 

the accessory is worn,

wherein the metal body has a tapered cavity extending between a 

front opening in the front outer surface of the metal body and a rear 

opening in the rear outer surface of the metal body, the rear opening 

has a same shape as the front opening, and the rear opening has a 

dimension that is greater than that of the front opening, and

wherein the metal body has at least one gap extending there through

from the front outer surface to the rear outer surface, and from the 

tapered cavity to an outer peripheral surface of the metal body 

extending between the front and rear outer surfaces, and having a 

non-conducting material therein.

245. DeCurtis does not directly or indirectly infringe claim 1 of the ’642 Patent by 

making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale the DXP System, either literally or under the 

doctrine of equivalents, at least because the DXP System does not employ, include, or otherwise 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 56 of 60
57

make use of an accessory configured to be worn by a user that comprises “a tapered cavity

extending between a front opening in the front outer surface of the metal body and a rear opening 

in the rear outer surface of the metal body.” The DXP System does not comprise an accessory 

configured to be worn by a user with the claimed shapes and further, the accessories configured 

to be worn by the users do not include metal bodies.

246. DeCurtis does not directly or indirectly infringe claim 1 of the ’642 Patent by 

making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale the DXP System, either literally or under the 

doctrine of equivalents, at least because the DXP System does not employ, include, or otherwise 

make use of an accessory configured to be worn by a user that comprises a rear opening wherein 

“the rear opening has a same shape as the front opening” and wherein “the rear opening has a 

dimension that is greater than the front opening.” The DXP System does not comprise an 

accessory configured to be worn by a user with the claimed shapes.

247. In addition, DeCurtis does not directly or indirectly infringe any claims of the 

’642 Patent by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale the DXP System, either literally or 

under the doctrine of equivalents, at least because its DXP System is used only on vessels 

registered in foreign countries that temporarily enter the United States, is used exclusively for the 

needs of the vessel, and is not offered for sale or sold in or used for the manufacture of anything 

to be sold in or exported from the United States

248. A substantial, immediate, and real controversy exists between DeCurtis and 

Carnival regarding whether DeCurtis infringes the ’642 Patent by making, using, selling, and/or

offering for sale DXP and related technologies and systems. A judicial declaration is necessary to 

determine the parties’ respective rights regarding the ’642 Patent.

249. DeCurtis seeks a judgment declaring that DeCurtis does not infringe, either 

literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ’642 Patent by making, 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 57 of 60
58

using, selling, and/or offering for sale the DXP System, either directly under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), 

or indirectly under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and (c).

Prayer For Relief

Wherefore, DeCurtis LLC prays that the Court enter judgment in its favor as follows:

(a) declaring the Carnival Patents unenforceable;

(b) declaring that DeCurtis LLC’s conduct, including the DeCurtis Experience 

Platform, does not infringe, either directly or indirectly, any claim of the ‘184 

Patent, the ‘514 Patent, the ‘228 Patent, the ‘271 Patent, or the ‘642 Patent, 

either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, selling, 

and/or offering for sale the DXP System, and that it is therefore not liable for 

damages or injunctive relief as a result of these activities;

(c) declaring that the conduct of Carnival alleged above is adjudged and decreed to be 

in restraint of trade, unlawful monopolization, and attempted monopolization in 

violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act;

(d) awarding DeCurtis LLC threefold the damages that have been or will be 

sustained;

(e) preliminarily and permanently enjoining Carnival from continuing its unlawful 

restraint of trade and monopolization and from tortiously interfering with the 

business and contracts of DeCurtis LLC;

(f) declaring that judgment be entered in favor of DeCurtis LLC and against Carnival

on each of DeCurtis LLC’s claims;

(g) finding that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285;

(h) awarding DeCurtis LLC its cost of suit, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, as 

provided by law; and

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 58 of 60
59

(i) granting DeCurtis LLC such other, further, and different relief as the nature of the 

case may require or as the Court may deem just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

DeCurtis LLC, by its attorneys, hereby demand pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure, trial by jury of all issues triable by right.

Dated: October 21, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

DECURTIS LLC

/s/ Jason P. Stearns

By: /s/ Jason P. Stearns

One of its attorneys

David C. Gustman (Pro Hac Vice)

Jeffery M. Cross (Pro Hac Vice)

Jill C. Anderson (Pro Hac Vice)

Jennifer L. Fitzgerald (Pro Hac Vice)

FREEBORN & PETERS LLP

311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000

Chicago, IL 60606

Tel. (312) 360-6000

Email: dgustman@freeborn.com

 jcross@freeborn.com

 janderson@freeborn.com

 jfitzgerald@freeborn.com

Scott L. Watson (Pro Hac Vice)

Justin C. Griffin (Pro Hac Vice) 

Patrick T. Schmidt (Pro Hac Vice)

Zachary A. Schenkkan (Pro Hac Vice)

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP

865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Tel. (213) 443-3000

Email: swatson@quinnemanuel.com

 justingriffin@quinnemanuel.com

 patrickschmidt@quinnemanuel.com

 zackschenkkan@quinnemanuel.com

Jason P. Stearns

Florida Bar No. 059550

FREEBORN & PETERS LLP

201 N. Franklin Street, Suite 3550

Tampa, FL 33602

Tel. (813) 488-2920 

Email: jstearns@freeborn.com

 ckitchell@freeborn.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff DeCurtis LLC and 

DeCurtis Corporation

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 59 of 60
60

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 21, 2020, the foregoing was filed and served by 

using the CM/ECF system which will send notice of electronic filing to all counsel of record. 

/s/ Jason P. Stearns

Attorney

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 87 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 60 of 60