-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-22945-CIV-SCOLA

CARNIVAL CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

DECURTIS CORPORATION and 

DECURTIS LLC, 

Defendants.

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 

FOR (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT, 

(2) VIOLATIONS OF THE DEFEND 

TRADE SECRETS ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 

1832 et seq.; (3) VIOLATIONS OF 

THE FLORIDA UNIFORM TRADE 

SECRETS ACT, Fla. Stat. §§ 688.001 et 

seq.; AND (4) PATENT 

INFRINGEMENT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Carnival Corporation (“Carnival”) hereby brings this Second Amended Complaint 

against Defendants DeCurtis Corporation and DeCurtis LLC (collectively “DeCurtis”) and alleges 

on personal knowledge as to all matters relating to Carnival and on information and belief as to all 

other matters, as follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Carnival is the world’s largest and leading cruise vacation company. It also is the 

creator and owner of a ground-breaking technology platform known as the One Cruise Experience 

Access Network®, also referred to as the O.C.E.A.N.TM or OCEAN® Platform, which combines 

a first-of-its-kind wearable device (OceanMedallionTM or Medallion®) with a network of servers, 

sensors, readers, and software to deliver unparalleled guest engagement and personal service to 

guests on Carnival’s MedallionClassTM ships. The OCEAN® Platform is the result of Carnival’s 

years of hard work and substantial investment, including efforts by hundreds of Carnival 

employees and scores of third-party contractors. The OCEAN® Platform is transforming the 

cruise industry, and competitors are scrambling to catch up. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 1 of 64
-2-

2. Defendant DeCurtis Corporation is a Carnival contractor that assisted with rapid 

prototyping work related to the OCEAN® Platform. At the outset of that work, DeCurtis signed 

an agreement, referred to as the Master Services Agreement (“MSA”), that acknowledged 

Carnival’s ownership of the technology under development and agreed to maintain in confidence 

the extensive confidential information and trade secrets to which DeCurtis was given access. The 

MSA further prohibited DeCurtis from disclosing or using any written material, work product, or 

discoveries resulting from work under the MSA in connection with any presentations or work for 

other customers or prospective customers. 

3. Carnival recently discovered that DeCurtis has been making presentations to and 

working with Carnival competitors to develop technology platforms that copy the OCEAN®

Platform and otherwise misappropriate and infringe Carnival intellectual property. In response, 

Carnival exercised its contractual right to audit DeCurtis’ compliance with the MSA and its 

obligations thereunder. In breach of the MSA, DeCurtis refused to comply with its audit 

obligations, and it further admitted in writing that an audit of its records of work performed under 

the MSA would necessarily also disclose confidential information of third-party competitors of 

Carnival. This admission by DeCurtis that work product prepared under the MSA had been used 

for and comingled with third-party work product not only confirmed DeCurtis’ breach of contract 

but also provides additional evidence of DeCurtis’ misappropriation of Carnival trade secrets and 

infringement of Carnival patents.

4. Particularly in light of the challenging circumstances currently confronting the 

cruise industry, Carnival hoped to persuade DeCurtis voluntarily to comply with the MSA and to 

remedy its misappropriation and infringement of Carnival intellectual property. But DeCurtis 

charted a different course. On April 8, 2020, DeCurtis without warning filed a civil action in the 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 2 of 64
-3-

United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida challenging the enforceability of 

Carnival’s patents and raising other meritless claims. DeCurtis filed that action notwithstanding 

that the MSA expressly requires disputes between the parties to be resolved in this Court. Carnival 

accordingly was left no choice but to initiate this action to seek justice by putting an end to 

DeCurtis’ contractual breaches and other unlawful conduct. On July 15, 2020, the District Court 

for the Middle District of Florida granted Carnival’s motion to transfer DeCurtis’ action to the 

Southern District of Florida, and that case was ultimately consolidated with the present one. 

5. This Second Amended Complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, trade secret 

misappropriation in violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1832, et seq. (the 

“DTSA”) and the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 688.001 et seq.; and patent 

infringement. Carnival hereby seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, monetary 

damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, an accounting, and such other relief as the Court may deem 

necessary and proper to redress the injuries caused by DeCurtis’ unlawful conduct.

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff Carnival is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the 

Panama, with its U.S. principal place of business in Miami, Florida.

7. Carnival is a world leader in leisure travel, with nine leading brands that offer a 

wide range of vacation experiences tailored to deliver outstanding value to guests with diverse 

backgrounds and travel preferences. Carnival is best known for being the world’s leading cruise 

line company. Founded in 1972 with just a single ship, Carnival’s portfolio of global cruise line 

brands now includes Carnival Cruise Line, Holland America Line, Princess Cruises and Seabourn 

in North America. Together, Carnival’s cruise line brands comprise the world’s largest cruise 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 3 of 64
-4-

company with a fleet of 105 ships visiting more than 700 ports around the world. Carnival 

Corporation employs over 120,000 people worldwide and serves 11.5 million guests annually.

8. Defendant DeCurtis Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under the 

laws of the State of Florida, with its principal place of business in Orlando, Florida. DeCurtis’ 

website bills the corporation as a “leader in transformational experience technology focused on 

cruise.” Defendant 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’ engagement with cruise ship facilities through the use 

of wireless sensing technologies. 

9. Formed in April 2019, DeCurtis LLC is a continuation or reincarnation of the 

DeCurtis Corporation under a different name. Alternatively, DeCurtis LLC is a mere 

instrumentality or alter ego of the DeCurtis Corporation, and DeCurtis LLC is dominated and 

controlled by DeCurtis Corporation to such an extent that the DeCurtis LLC has no separate 

existence. DeCurtis LLC describes its business in the same exact manner as DeCurtis 

Corporation, has the same physical address as DeCurtis Corporation, is comprised of the same 

employees as DeCurtis Corporation, has the same website and advertising as DeCurtis 

Corporation, and claims ownership of the same property as DeCurtis Corporation. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10. The Court has federal-question subject matter jurisdiction over Carnival’s trade 

secret misappropriation claim arising under the DTSA pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal 

question). The Court has federal-question subject matter jurisdiction over Carnival’s patent 

infringement claims arising under the patent laws of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1331 (federal question) and 1338 (patents). 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 4 of 64
-5-

11. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Carnival’s breach of contract and 

other state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because those claims form part of the same case or 

controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution and are based on the same 

underlying nucleus of fact.

12. This Court has both general and specific personal jurisdiction over DeCurtis 

because its principal place of business lies within the State of Florida, because it has conducted 

and does conduct business within the State of Florida and this judicial district, and because it 

carried out a substantial portion of the wrongful conduct at issue, and caused injury, within the 

State of Florida and this judicial district.

13. Venue in this district is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c), and (d) and 

1400. Defendant resides in the State of Florida and this judicial district, because a substantial part 

of the events giving rise to the dispute occurred within this district, and because DeCurtis has 

committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business in this district. 

For example, in a 2019 press release DeCurtis stated that it had an “office and presence” in Miami, 

Florida. 

14. The parties’ written MSA further provides that the exclusive jurisdiction for 

litigation of any dispute, controversy or claim arising out of or in connection with the MSA or the 

breach thereof shall be litigated by the parties and/or their successors in the Federal or State court 

with competent jurisdiction located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The causes of action asserted 

in this Second Amended Complaint arise out of and are in connection with the MSA and 

DeCurtis’s breach thereof. Accordingly, this Court is the appropriate forum for litigating this 

dispute as well as all other disputes between the parties arising out of work done under the MSA. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 5 of 64
-6-

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Carnival’s Breakthrough Technology in Guest Experience: the OCEAN® Platform

15. Carnival’s unparalleled success in the cruise and leisure travel industry is due in 

significant part to innovation. This began years ago with Carnival’s first cruise ship, a converted 

ocean liner which featured a number of innovative elements along with a festive onboard ambiance 

unlike any other cruise ship sailing at the time. Since then, Carnival has remained the leader in 

the field, consistently rethinking the cruise experience and delivering new, exciting technologies 

and other features for its guests.

16. Carnival was the first in the cruise industry to have a vision for how new technology 

centered around wearable devices could revolutionize leisure travel by delivering personalized 

experiences. And Carnival was the first to design, development, and implement that vision.

17. In June 2014, Carnival began a development project, which was given the internal 

name “Project Trident,” with a goal to create technology that would enable an entirely new level 

of service and personalized attention in leisure travel through a proprietary guest interaction and 

connection ecosystem. This proprietary guest interaction system comprises a connected 

“experience platform” that combines a guest wearable device with a cross-platform Guest and 

Crew digital interaction tool to enable guest identification, commerce, payments, communications 

and navigation capabilities. Carnival understood that such a proprietary guest interaction system 

would give Carnival a considerable competitive advantage. 

18. Project Trident was an enormous undertaking. Carnival employees from a host of 

disciplines, including business strategy, operations, information technology, finance, guest 

services, marketing & sales, and ship design & engineering, were engaged in the innovation 

process at every stage of Project Trident. The core Project Trident team was comprised of a crossCase 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 6 of 64
-7-

functional blend of experts in experience design, show quality, brand development, creative 

design, digital interactivity, engineering, ecosystems, platform creation, and experience activation 

and integration. This core team included highly specialized, individually selected Carnival 

employees with deep experience in the holistic experience innovation space. Many of these 

employees were hired by Carnival specifically to work on Project Trident. 

19. In addition to devoting extensive human capital to Project Trident, Carnival also 

invested substantial financial resources in the Project. Carnival built out a dedicated 12,000 square

foot facility, dubbed the Carnival Experience Innovation Center (“XIC”), to enable multidisciplinary collaboration in an organic environment dedicated to Project Trident. To maintain 

secrecy and security, Carnival housed its XIC in a highly secure location. The XIC was, and 

remains, protected by robust physical and electronic security. Access to the facility was, and 

remains, tightly restricted. 

20. Carnival has invested hundreds of million dollars in Project Trident development 

efforts. That figure does not include the substantial additional sums required to outfit Carnival’s 

ships with hardware components required to implement the resulting OCEAN® Platform on each 

MedallionClassTM ship, which include thousands of sensors connected by approximately 72 miles 

of cable throughout the ships’ many decks, as well as approximately 4,000 interactive digital 

portals supported by multiple cloud-based datacenters. 

21. In investing heavily in Project Trident, Carnival was not following an obvious or 

predictable path. Project Trident reflected Carnival’s commitment to remaining the leader in cruise 

vacation innovation by taking calculated risks in developing pioneering new technologies. The 

OCEAN® Platform was the first of its kind in the industry and Carnival’s efforts were met with 

skepticism from some in the industry and related fields. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 7 of 64
-8-

22. Carnival’s willingness to invest heavily in its vision and to undertake risks to 

remain a technology leader has paid off. As alleged further below, Carnival has successfully 

implemented the OCEAN® Platform, garnering widespread acclaim, delighting millions of 

customers, and providing Carnival with a competitive advantage. 

DeCurtis Becomes a Contractor Subject to the Parties’ MSA 

23. In addition to Carnival’s own employees and resources, Project Trident required 

Carnival to engage outside contractors to perform defined tasks to assist in implementing 

Carnival’s vision. DeCurtis was one such contractor. Carnival engaged DeCurtis to assist in the 

critical rapid prototyping phase of Project Trident. 

24. On July 1, 2014, Carnival and DeCurtis executed a non-disclosure agreement

(“NDA”) to allow the parties to discuss entering into a business relationship. Carnival and 

DeCurtis subsequently entered into a Master Services Agreement (“MSA”) on July 24, 2014. The 

MSA superseded the NDA and remains in force today. 

25. Carnival engaged DeCurtis in reliance on DeCurtis’ promise to maintain the 

secrecy of both confidential information provided by Carnival and work product created by 

DeCurtis for Carnival (collectively referred to in the MSA as “Carnival Information”). To that 

end, the MSA imposed on DeCurtis strict confidentiality obligations with respect to all Project 

Trident information provided by Carnival to DeCurtis. 

26. Among other restrictions, the MSA provides that (i) DeCurtis shall not use any 

Carnival Information for its own use or for any purpose other than the specific purpose of 

completing the services under the MSA; (ii) DeCurtis shall not disclose any Carnival Information

to any other person or entity; (iii) DeCurtis will hold the Carnival Information in strict confidence 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 8 of 64
-9-

and protect the confidential information from disclosure; and (iv) DeCurtis shall only reveal 

Carnival Information to DeCurtis employees on a need to know basis.

27. In addition, the MSA expressly states that Carnival owns all work performed by 

DeCurtis under the MSA. The MSA provides that all material prepared for Carnival under the 

MSA and related Statements of Work (“SOWs”), including trade secrets, inventions, business 

methods, programs, processes, discoveries, improvements, developments, designs, software 

programs, systems, specifications, documents or abstracts, or summaries thereof or any other 

material, and any derivative works thereof, shall remain the sole property of Carnival. The MSA 

specifically prohibits DeCurtis’ use of Carnival Information in connection with presentations to or 

work for other clients or prospective clients and permits use only of DeCurtis’ “general knowledge 

and know how” in connection with any non-Carnival matter.

28. The foregoing obligations remain in full force under the terms of the MSA, which 

is self-renewing and has never been terminated by either party. Moreover, by its terms, the 

foregoing obligations survive even termination of the MSA. 

29. The MSA expressly acknowledges that breach of DeCurtis’ confidentiality 

obligations may cause Carnival irreparable harm for which money is inadequate compensation, 

and that Carnival will be entitled to temporary and permanent injunctive relief to enforce its 

confidentiality rights, in addition to damages and other available remedies.

30. The MSA also includes an audit provision that requires DeCurtis to keep accurate 

and complete records of all matters relevant to or as required by the MSA. Carnival has continuing 

access to inspect those records at any reasonable time upon prior notice to ensure DeCurtis’ 

compliance with the terms and conditions of the MSA. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 9 of 64
-10-

31. As provided for in the MSA, Carnival and DeCurtis entered into a series of SOWs 

defining in detail the services DeCurtis would provide for Carnival at various stages of the process 

and the work product and deliverables DeCurtis would create for Carnival. The work product and 

deliverables included, among other things, prototypes; software; source code; architecture 

documents; technical specifications (e.g., data interface designs); databases; enterprise-ready web 

services; presentations; and documentation with respect to operations procedures, creative 

strategy, experience content, application support, deployment plans, and testing. The documents 

and other information to which DeCurtis created for Carnival were Carnival’s confidential and 

trade secret information. Carnival had invested heavily in creating this information, as described 

above, and derived substantial economic value from this information, including by virtue of its 

secrecy. 

32. Carnival’s work on rapid prototyping was intense and included working closely 

with DeCurtis for well over a year. During this time period, as contemplated by the MSA, DeCurtis 

had access to substantially all of Carnival’s extant confidential information, trade secrets, and other 

Carnival Information. 

33. DeCurtis personnel worked at Carnival’s XIC and gained access to documents 

describing Carnival’s vision, strategy, plans (e.g., strategy presentations), experience platform 

models, technical design documents, and list of strategic vendors. Those materials included 

Carnival’s proprietary plans for combining a wearable device containing Bluetooth Low Energy 

and Near Field Communications, mobile applications, and a digital engagement system, all 

functioning as a unified system on a multi-layer microservices platform technical architecture. The 

materials Carnival provided to DeCurtis also included development schedules and team plans, 

early concepts for Carnival’s wearable device, and Carnival’s experience vision. Carnival had 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 10 of 64
-11-

invested heavily in creating this information, as described above, and derived substantial economic 

value from this information, as described below. 

34. From the effective date of the MSA through at least the end of 2015, Carnival 

continued to provide confidential information and trade secrets to DeCurtis concerning Carnival’s 

required hardware requirements; enterprise architecture; corporate abstraction layer of strategic 

services; interface layer designs, data models, database structures, and data interface designs and 

adapters; API dependencies; non-functional requirements; Carnival’s particularized agile 

development methodology (timing and ordering of development sprints for different components); 

web service needs; show plans; user interface plans; design work; integration of technical 

components; testing plans; site surveys; functional plans; and studio shows. Carnival had invested 

heavily in creating this information, as described above, and derived substantial economic value 

from this information, as described below. 

35. In 2016 and 2017, Carnival’s focus on Project Trident gradually shifted from 

prototyping to implementing the solution on board cruise ships. Ultimately, it took Carnival over 

40 months to ready the Project Trident system for live testing, which commenced in November 

2017. 

Carnival’s Successful Introduction of the OCEAN® Platform

36. In January 2017, Carnival’s CEO, Arnold Donald, made history as the first travel 

industry executive to deliver the opening keynote at CES, the world’s largest consumer technology 

event. He used his speech to announce the OCEAN® Platform – the world’s first interactive guest 

experience platform capable of transforming vacation travel with a highly personalized and 

elevated level of customized service on a large scale. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 11 of 64
-12-

37. At the heart of Carnival’s OCEAN® Platform is the OceanMedallionTM wearable, 

which is approximately the size of a quarter and weighs less than 2 ounces. Each 

OceanMedallionTM is connected to a specific guest and interacts with thousands of sensors using 

Bluetooth Low Energy and Near Field Communication. 

38. The OCEAN® Platform was the result of Carnival’s extensive work, investment, 

and ingenuity in Project Trident. Carnival’s OCEAN® Platform, enabled by the 

OceanMedallionTM wearable, facilitates payment, shipboard wayfinding, shipmate location 

services, personalized itineraries, expedited embarkation, and a wide range on-demand services. 

For example, guests can place a food or drink order from anywhere on the ship, and the 

OceanMedallionTM directs crew members to their location. The OceanMedallionTM also enables 

point-to-point wayfinding across the ship—like step-by-step directions to a restaurant or lounge—

thanks to an intelligent navigation assistant. The OceanMedallionTM also provides guests with 

touchless access to their state rooms—no key cards required.

39. One of the key innovations of Carnival’s OCEAN® Platform is its use of the 

aforementioned sensor network, Bluetooth Low Energy beacons, and mobile applications in order 

to create an end-to-end, holistically integrated guest engagement system. Specifically, the 

OceanMedallionTM wearables themselves act as Bluetooth Low Energy beacons that uniquely 

identify the devices and their associated guests. This feature is critical to enabling the 

functionalities described above. 

40. The OCEAN® Platform system debuted on a single cruise ship in November 2017. 

At present, six cruise ships have been outfitted with OCEAN® Platform technology; these are 

known as MedallionClassTM ships. Carnival plans to implement the OCEAN® Platform 

technology on at least six more cruise ships through the end of 2021.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 12 of 64
-13-

41. Accolades for the OCEAN® Platform have poured in. IoT Breakthrough awarded 

Carnival the 2019 IoT Wearables Innovation of the Year for the OceanMedallionTM, and one early 

reviewer described use of the OceanMedallionTM as “a magical experience that foretells the way 

that the internet of things ought to work.” FastCompany magazine named Carnival as one of the 

world’s most innovative companies, citing the introduction of OceanMedallionTM. Press reports 

have described the OCEAN® Platform as a “game changer for the cruise industry.” Articles 

gushed that Carnival had “revolutionized” the guest experience with “super-smart tech.” 

42. Furthermore, the OCEAN® Platform technology has been a source of additional 

revenue and profit for Carnival. 

Carnival’s Patent Protection for Innovations from Project Trident

43. Carnival recognized that its Project Trident and OCEAN® Platform innovations 

included patentable inventions, and accordingly, Carnival applied for and obtained patent 

protection for this valuable intellectual property.

44. Carnival filed provisional patent applications in the United States on November 11, 

2016 and December 30, 2016. Carnival filed a first United States utility application on March 15, 

2017 claiming priority to these two provisional applications, and Carnival has since filed several 

other United States utility applications claiming priority to this utility application. These utility 

applications have resulted in issued United States patents. Carnival also filed an application under 

the international Patent Cooperation Treat (PCT) on May 17, 2017 claiming priority to the 

provisional applications and the first United States utility application. Carnival has filed national 

stage patent applications in several countries and jurisdictions throughout the world based on the 

PCT application and has been issued patents already in some of these countries.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 13 of 64
-14-

45. In total, Carnival has nine granted patents (seven in the United States) and twentythree pending patent applications in this patent family. The granted patents in this family include 

the three patents asserted in this lawsuit: United States Patent Numbers 10,045,184 (the “’184 

Patent”); 10,049,516 (the “’516 Patent”); and 10,157,514 (the “’514 Patent”).

46. Carnival filed provisional patent applications on November 11, 2016 and December 

30, 2016. Carnival filed its application for the ’184 Patent on March 15, 2017 and filed its 

applications for the ’514 Patent and the ’516 Patent on March 16, 2017, each of which claims 

priority to the two provisional applications. These applications remained confidential and were 

not published by the patent office until May 17, 2018. The ’184 Patent issued on August 7, 2018. 

The ’514 Patent and ’516 Patent issued on December 18, 2018 and August 14, 2018, respectively. 

47. Carnival’s patents describe and claim “a novel guest engagement system that relies 

on recent improvements in low power wireless communication technologies and distributed sensor 

networks to provide novel services to those guests without requiring guests to proactively identify 

and/or authenticate themselves. The guest engagement system thereby enables hosts to seamlessly 

engage with the guests throughout their facilities and provide recommendations to the guests based 

on the guests[’] previous experiences.” ’184 Patent, Col. 1:44-52.

48. The patents describe systems that allow guests to have “individual guest devices”

that are used to automatically identify and authenticate the guests throughout the facility to 

seamlessly provide services. The guest devices (or Medallions) periodically broadcast beacon 

signals that uniquely identify the devices and their associated guests and obviate any need for a 

guest to provide additional identification or take other affirmative action to access resources. 

49. The periodic beacon signals are detected by sensors provided throughout the facility 

and used by the guest engagement system to provide personalized services. More specifically, in 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 14 of 64
-15-

one aspect, “a guest engagement system includes 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. The guest engagement system further 

includes 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.” ’184 Patent, Col. 2:2-25.

50. The different patents and claims in Carnival’s patent family claim different aspects 

of Carnival’s inventions. These include the construction and operation of the portable guest 

devices, the guest engagement system architecture, the interactions between portable guest devices 

and sensors, and functionalities made possible by the system such as automatic unlocking of doors, 

wayfinding, and payment services.

51. The ’184 Patent teaches and claims a guest engagement system where portable 

devices serving as beacons communicate with a networked, sensor-rich environment to enhance 

the guest experience. The ’184 Patent confronts technical problems facing the inventors that 

resulted in “interactions between hosts and guests [being] impersonal and disjointed.” ’184 Patent, 

Col. 1:42-43. By overcoming those constraints through the creation of a novel and unconventional 

system, using both individual components that themselves were not routine, well-understood, or 

conventional as well as arranging those components in a way that was not routine, wellunderstood, or conventional, the inventors enabled various technical improvements over prior art 

systems including (1) a new and superior user interface, (2) relocation of demanding computerintensive resources, (3) an improved beacon-centric model of communication to the environment, 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 15 of 64
-16-

(4) improved battery life and power consumption, (5) enhanced security through novel door lock 

mechanism designs, and (6) an improved location determination system particularly suited for 

environments such as a cruise ship. In short, the ’184 Patent reveals a paradigm-shifting approach 

to guest engagement system design.

52. Prior to the invention, almost every type of interaction in conventional systems of 

the type described in the ’184 Patent’s background required a different form of communication, 

identity recognition, or authentication process. See ’184 Patent, Col. 1:32-42 (noting that prior art 

systems provided service and engagement on the basis of users providing a name or identification, 

tapping or swiping an access card, or having information on bookings retrieved manually by a host 

through a computer terminal). To the extent devices were used to permit access, e.g., an access 

card for a locked door, guests using those devices were required to affirmatively present such 

credentials prior to gaining access. 

53. The ’184 Patent describes in great detail improvements to the capabilities and 

functionalities of both the network platform as a whole and the specific components within that 

network. The ’184 Patent teaches a new network environment that has specific asserted 

improvements in computer, sensor, beacon, peripheral, and automatic door lock capabilities. These 

improvements address unique technical challenges confronting Carnival’s inventors, as discussed 

in detail below. To summarize briefly, the ’184 Patent improved the functionality of the sensor 

network by enabling use of low cost, low energy BLE sensors in the place of comparatively 

complex stationary beacons; improved the capabilities and functionality of door locks by 

equipping them with wireless sensors capable of two-way communications that interoperate with 

a separate access panel peripheral; improved the capability and functionality of payment terminals 

by enabling them to interoperate with sensors, peripherals, and mobile beacons; and improved the 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 16 of 64
-17-

capability and functionality of portable beacon devices using integrated BLE (and also, in some 

cases, NFC) antennas, and further by designing those devices to operate in various different 

communication modes with the sensor network, improving security and power consumption. 

These improvements are specifically recited in the claims, including in how the claims recite the 

structure and operation of the portable devices and sensor network. 

54. Many of the problems solved by the ’184 Patent are problems rooted in computer 

technology and wireless networks. The ’184 Patent solves problems related to location 

determination, configuration needs, deployment speed, data access, and security, as described in 

examples below. The ’184 Patent’s technical improvements, in turn, enable accurate wayfinding 

and location determination in an environment such as a cruise ship, more efficient and secure room 

access, more efficient and secure payment, and improved and more efficient power consumption. 

The benefits enabled by the ’184 Patent were not possible in conventional systems because of 

technical limitations inherent in how conventional systems were constructed and operated. The 

inventions described and claimed in the ’184 Patent overcame those technical limitations. 

55. The inventions described and claimed in the ’184 Patent do not implement wireless 

communication in an otherwise conventional system. Indeed, the conventional guest engagement 

model could wirelessly communicate information from networked computing devices to central 

servers (e.g., “having information on bookings retrieved manually by a host through a computer 

terminal”). ’184 Patent, Col. 1:32-43. Rather, the patent describes and claims improvements in 

the functionality of guest engagement systems and the devices that make up such systems by 

implementing a completely new and unconventional system, which uses unconventional and nongeneric portable devices carried by users, unconventional and non-generic peripheral devices and 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 17 of 64
-18-

sensors of various kinds rather than the conventional computing devices and sensors, and an 

unconventional and non-generic sensor network. 

56. Moreover, at the time of the inventions, there had been efforts to leverage Bluetooth 

Low Energy to improve guest engagement systems, but these efforts all focused on utilizing BLE 

beacons as stationary objects that continually broadcast beacon signals to any devices containing 

sensors that might happen to come within communication range of the beacon. Carnival’s 

inventors recognized that this model would not be suited to address Carnival’s unique vision for 

an unprecedented immersive guest engagement system, which requires automated location 

services enabled by many thousands of points of reference aboard a moving cruise ship. 

57. The ’184 Patent’s claimed inventions are not directed to and have different 

inventive concepts than any such stationary BLE beacon systems (which themselves would not 

have been routine or conventional): they flip the entire frame of refence by making the sensors 

stationary and the beacons mobile. The overall arrangement of this system, which was not wellunderstood, routine, or conventional at the time Carnival conceived it, was an inventive concept 

driven by, and directed to address, technical issues particular to Carnival’s unique use case. In 

doing so, the ’184 Patent’s inventors devised several technical improvements to the hardware and 

software components themselves. These improvements facilitate the ’184 Patent’s unconventional 

and specific arrangement of its system components. This arrangement represented an important 

technical innovation in and of itself. 

58. This inventive, unconventional arrangement is captured in the claims. Every claim 

of the ’184 Patent requires at least (i) 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 which is configured for “Bluetooth low energy (BLE)” communications 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 18 of 64
-19-

and further which has a “unique identifier”; (ii) a “sensor network comprising a plurality of sensors 

each mounted” at a different [known] location and operative to detect/receive the “unique 

identifiers” emitted using or based on “BLE communications” by or with the portable guest 

devices that are “proximate” to the sensor, along with a “communication network connecting each 

of the plurality of sensors of the sensor network.” ’184 Patent, independent claims 1, 7, 11, 19. 

All claims other than claim 19 also specifically recite that the portable device is operative to 

broadcast periodic BLE beacon signals. The claims thus each capture, at the highest level, the 

unconventional arrangement of components and the unconventional portable devices and 

sensors/sensor networks themselves. None of these components, either individually or in 

combination, were generic or conventional. 

59. Furthermore, each of the claims encompasses additional unconventional aspects of 

the components and overall arrangement of the components. For example, claim 1 further 

specifies that the “sensors” include “access panels each configured to control an associated 

electronically controlled door lock,” and then recite further details of the structure and operation 

of the access panels. Claim 4 recites that the radio, first transceiver, and second transceiver of 

each access panel operate according to different communications standards. Claims 5 and 6 recite 

additional structural and functional features of the claimed sensor network. Claim 7 further 

specifies that the “sensors” include both “interface devices” and “access panels each configured to 

control an associated electronically controlled door lock,” and then recite further details of the 

structure and operation of the interface devices and access panels. Claims 11 and 19 recite that 

the portable device has two wireless communication antennas respectively configured for BLE and 

NFC communications. Claim 11 (as does claim 20) further recites that the guest devices are 

configured to selectively operate in a bi-directional communication mode using BLE and in a 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 19 of 64
-20-

beacon mode using BLE, and further, that sensors are operative to transmit commands to cause 

the guest device to change between the two operating modes. Claim 14 specifies that the sensors 

include access panels operative to engage in encrypted bi-directional communication with the 

guest devices. Claims 15-18 recite additional aspects of the structure and operation of the sensors 

and sensor network. Claim 19 also recites that the sensors include vending terminals operative to 

engage in encrypted bi-directional communication with a guest device using NFC to authenticate 

the guest device and selectively authorize payment based on the identity of the authenticated guest 

device. These components individually, as well as their ordered combination, were inventive and 

not routine, well-understood, and conventional. Further facts related to these points are discussed 

below.

60. DeCurtis has expressly acknowledged that the model for arranging beacon and 

sensor system components, as described and claimed in the ’184 Patent, was not a conventional 

solution, and that such a model departed significantly from any conventional systems. In 2018—

years after Carnival filed patent applications first describing its inventive concepts—DeCurtis 

began marketing its own solution by touting the same arrangement of components described and 

claimed in the ’184 Patent as “where the magic really happens.” DeCurtis claimed that “[b]eacons 

had, thus far, been the stationary object.” DeCurtis dismissed the idea of improving a system that 

used stationary BLE beacons as merely “enabling your environment to shout more accurately.” 

61. Instead, DeCurtis claimed that “we inverted the traditional model in a way that 

allows for rapid and intelligent consumption of location data and keeps privacy in mind.” DeCurtis 

thus touted a “new” model of “tethering people to beacons” so that “your environment can respond 

intelligently to those people that are present” in a way that existing systems could not. DeCurtis 

claimed (in 2018) to be “introducing the concept of a wearable” that “contains a small beacon.” 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 20 of 64
-21-

DeCurtis identified technical improvements that were made possible by this “inverted” model: 

“improve safety and security, drive operational efficiencies, and transform the guest experience.”

62. DeCurtis’ systems, as set forth in detail below, infringe the ’184 Patent. The 

components and arrangement of components touted by DeCurtis as inventive and not wellunderstood, routine, or conventional even years after Carnival’s inventions are captured by the 

’184 Patent’s claims. 

63. Further evidence that the inventions claimed in the ’184 Patent embody inventive 

concepts—and are neither merely applying wireless technology to conventional systems nor 

applying well-understood, routine, and conventional technology—is the outpouring of praise for 

Carnival’s OCEAN® platform discussed in Paragraphs 39-45 above, much of which has focused 

on inventive aspects of the claimed system (e.g., the structure and operation of the wearable device) 

as well as the technical improvements to guest engagement systems as a whole, which are also 

covered by the ’184 Patent’s claims. In addition, Carnival’s competitors, including NCL and 

Virgin, only announced their own guest engagement systems years after Carnival introduced the 

OCEAN® platform. These systems closely track the OCEAN® platform and, at least in the case 

of the Virgin system, directly infringe the ’184 Patent as set forth below. NCL and Virgin 

employees and executives have publicly acknowledged that they were playing “catch-up” to 

Carnival and “learned from” Carnival’s OCEAN® platform. These facts further show that the 

inventions claimed in the ’184 Patent cover inventive concepts that were not routine, conventional, 

and well-understood. 

64. One technical improvement of the ’184 Patent’s claimed systems is that they enable 

improved wayfinding functionality. The ’184 Patent identifies a specific problem in conventional 

systems. “For example, in the case of wayfinding on a cruise ship, traditional location 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 21 of 64
-22-

determination systems such as GPS cannot readily be used for multiple reasons. First, the cruise 

ship can move, and wayfinding within the ship must therefore be based on the moving reference 

frame of the ship rather than a fixed (e.g., land-based) reference frame. As a result, GPS-based 

location determination and other fixed-reference frame location determinations are of limited use 

since a user’s GPS-based location cannot be used to determine where the user is located relative 

to the moving ship. Second, the cruise ship includes substantial masses of metal and other surfaces 

which interfere with the propagation of GPS-based signals (such that GPS signals cannot be 

received inside the ship) and/or cause substantial signal noise as a result of electromagnetic signals 

bouncing off of metallic surfaces. As a result, traditional location determination systems are 

generally not effective for wayfinding on a ship.” Col. 33:43-60. 

65. The ’184 Patent then teaches that “[i]n order to address the shortcomings noted 

above, the guest engagement system 10 provides its own wayfinding functionality based on the 

network of sensors 13 of the guest engagement system 10.” Col. 33:61-64. The specification then 

describes in detail how the unconventional sensor network and associated technology, working 

with the unconventional guest devices, can provide this wayfinding functionality. Col. 33:65-36:5. 

The result is a concrete technical improvement to “traditional” location systems: “The wayfinding 

functionality provided by the guest engagement system 10 can be used for wayfinding within a 

moving reference frame as well as within a fixed reference frame.” Col. 33:40-43. This improved 

wayfinding functionality results from the unconventional portable devices and sensors claimed in 

the ’184 Patent and the ordered combination of those components.

66. Years later, DeCurtis recognized that improved wayfinding was a concrete 

technical benefit of the architecture and functionality of its own (infringing) systems over 

conventional location systems like GPS. DeCurtis has advertised that “[b]y leveraging a reader 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 22 of 64
-23-

model that truly allows high fidelity location in space (not geo-location, but close-range, meterlevel or better accuracy) systems can (and have) been built that can create amazing experiences.”

67. Another technical improvement facilitated by the ’184 Patent’s innovative 

components and the ordering and arrangement of its system components is a reduction in the 

complexity, energy usage, and costs of the network infrastructure itself. In a conventional system 

of the type described in the ’184 Patent’s background, information would be transmitted by, e.g., 

“computer terminals” which would be costly, take up scare space, would each have their own 

display, processor, memory, and so on, and which would consume substantial power. By contrast, 

the sensors of the ’184 Patent’s system can be configured to have “minimal (or no) on-board 

processing power and memory” and require “minimal configuration during initial system 

installation”, ’184 Patent, Col. 8:3-8. This technical improvement is an important differentiator 

for Carnival’s business (ships must be dry docked during installation of Carnival’s system). 

Whereas the conventional approach would have required installation and configuration of 

thousands of relatively complex, expensive, power-inefficient computer terminals in stationary 

locations throughout Carnival’s ships, the ’184 Patent’s system’s unconventional model replaced 

such terminals with simpler, lower cost, energy-efficient sensors connected to peripheral devices 

supplying power and performing processing functions. ’184 Patent, Col. 8:35-39. Once the 

inventors replaced complex computer terminals or the like with comparatively simple stationary 

sensors, the benefits of offloading power, storage, and processing functionality from stationary 

network nodes (terminals or sensors) to nearby peripherals could be realized. 

68. This system also resulted in a reduction in the complexity and costs of the network 

infrastructure, in addition to improved overall power consumption, as compared even to a 

stationary BLE beacon model. The implementation, maintenance, tracking, and cost of 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 23 of 64
-24-

implementing a system of stationary BLE beacons made such a system not effective. Moreover, 

the ’184 Patent’s systems permit operations that conserve power and resources overall. For 

example, the systems provide the ability to monitor a guest’s presence or absence in a cabin and 

turn off the power to save on electricity and wear on the HVAC system when the guest is not 

present. 

69. In addition, ’184 Patent’s unique ordering and arrangement of its system 

components enables an entirely new and unprecedented level of seamless guest engagement 

automation. See, e.g., ’184 Patent, Col. 1:44-52. In the conventional model, a guest can only 

utilize the system if they have a particular device (e.g., an access card) and are actively engaged

in locating and interacting with the other components of the system, whether that be a computer 

terminal, door lock, or even a stationary BLE beacon—a problem that DeCurtis itself has 

acknowledged in its statements to the market. In contrast, by developing non-generic portable 

devices, non-generic sensors and sensor networks, and reordering the conventional model, the ’184 

Patent enabled a transformational system where guests are not burdened with having to take any 

affirmative action. DeCurtis has acknowledged the transformational nature of such a guest 

engagement system, which allows for an immersive experience that requires no human interaction. 

70. For example, using the ’184 Patent’s claimed systems, as the guest approaches a 

spa on one of Carnival’s ships, the guest device is automatically broadcasting the guest’s unique 

data set, which the spa’s sensors automatically detect and send for processing, so that by the time 

the guest arrives in the spa lobby, the guest’s device has already switched into the appropriate 

operating mode and has already conveyed the guest’s historic treatment preferences and authorized 

payment for their treatment, all without any affirmative action by the guest or any other human. 

See, e.g., ’184 Patent, Col. 1:14-52, Col. 17:18-37, Col. 36:10-24, claims 11 and 20. The ’184 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 24 of 64
-25-

Patent’s elimination of the need for affirmative action by the guest represents an improvement over 

prior art systems that require guests to present identification, use login credentials, swipe access 

cards, or send commands from a mobile phone, for example. ’184 Patent, Col. 1:32-43. This 

improves the functionality of both the sensors and the system as a whole by increasing efficiency 

and reducing errors. 

71. DeCurtis has advertised that its own (infringing) systems using this “inverted 

model” are “more reliable and accurate than traditional models or Wi-Fi solutions.” The ’184 

Patent’s mobile-BLE-beacon-and-stationary-sensor model was not well understood prior to the 

’184 Patent’s invention, and it embodies a new manner of communicating that was not suggested 

in or practiced by any conventional systems.

72. As another example, the ’184 Patent teaches new, specific methods in which 

beacons function and communicate. These novel operation and communications methods enable 

technological improvements to the functionality and efficiency of the beacons themselves. For 

example, in some conventional systems, beacons continually broadcast a two-way 

communications signal in an effort to communicate with any sensor that comes within range—

either by sending a communication to or receiving a communication from a such a sensor. But 

such continual broadcasting wastes power, as the beacon is often transmitting a high-energy twoway communications signal when no device is close enough to communicate. See, e.g., ’184 

Patent, Col. 16:40-43. This power inefficiency problem is particularly acute in the context of low 

power beacons, such as BLE beacons, because sensors must be relatively close to the beacon to 

communicate with it. The ’184 Patent solves this power inefficiency problem by enabling new 

beacon devices with multiple operating modes that can potentially be triggered by contact with 

any one of the stationary sensors located throughout the system environment, depending on the 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 25 of 64
-26-

unique data transmission attributes of the sensor and/or beacon. See, e.g., ’184 Patent, Claims 11 

and 20. 

73. For example, the ’184 Patent’s portable devices can operate in “sleep mode,” which 

is a very low power mode that conserves energy. ’184 Patent, Col. 16:6-22. While a device is in 

sleep mode, it listens for a network advertisement on a periodic schedule—such as once every 30 

seconds, 1 minute, or 5 minutes. Id. Upon hearing a network advertisement, the beacon can 

determine whether the advertisement is from a recognized engagement system and switch modes 

accordingly. Id. Because the ’184 Patent enables use of so many distinct stationary network nodes 

(sensors), it is not necessary for the mobile beacon devices to broadcast or listen for 

communications as often as it otherwise would have to. The abundance of stationary sensors 

deployed throughout the system environment makes it less important if the beacon is “sleeping” 

when it passes any given sensor node—another node is always just a few steps and/or seconds 

away.

74. As another example, when “awake,” the portable device can broadcast in either a 

lower power “beacon” mode or a higher power “bi-directional” mode, as taught in the ’184 Patent’s 

specification. Col. 16:23-17:3. Sensors can transmit signals to cause the device to switch between 

the two modes of operation when the higher power mode is needed. Id. This functionality is 

expressly claimed in claims 11 and 20. One example of this functionality is described in the ’184 

Patent in which the sensors are in door access panels and the device switches to the bi-directional 

mode to allow for secure communications between the door sensor and the device. Col. 20:6-

22:31. The claimed functionality thus provides a solution to the technical problem of balancing 

the need for secure communication to open a door with the need to conserve power. Both the 

portable devices that operate in these two modes and are operable to switch modes based on signals 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 26 of 64
-27-

received from sensors, and the sensors themselves operable to generate and send such signals, are 

inventive concepts that were not generic, routine, or conventional.

75. The technical improvements to portable devices themselves described and claimed 

in the ’184 Patent, such as power consumption improvements, is illustrated by the following two 

use cases. Two individuals wearing portable guest devices approach a wine bar—one adult and 

one minor. A sensor at a wine bar detects that one device is being worn by a guest who is over 21 

and therefore sends a command to that device that causes the device to switch from sleep mode to 

bi-directional communication mode as the guest approaches the bar, the system recognizing that 

an of-age guest is approaching and may want to order another of their favorite vintage. See, e.g., 

’184 Patent, claims 11 and 20. Once the device switches to bi-directional mode, it is ready to 

engage in two-way encrypted communications with a vending terminal at the wine bar to securely 

effect a purchase transaction. Id.; ’184 Patent, claims 13 and 19. But the sensor would not cause 

the approaching minor’s device to switch to bi-directional mode, the system recognizing that there 

is no need for the minor’s device to waste power switching into bi-directional communication 

mode because the minor has no need to engage in encrypted bi-directional payment transaction 

communications at the wine bar. This level of efficiency was never realized in prior art systems. 

The ’184 Patent improved on prior art technology by teaching a system with a unique architecture 

and arrangement of components that enable enhancements to the technical functionality and 

efficiency of the portable guest devices themselves that could not have been realized in a 

conventional system. 

76. In addition, the ’184 Patent’s portable guest devices can operate in a beacon 

broadcast mode. In this mode, the beacon is configured to emit a one-way beacon signal via the 

BLE transceiver and antenna. ’184 Patent col 16:43-58. This mode has a lower power 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 27 of 64
-28-

consumption than the bi-directional communication mode, but higher consumption that the sleep 

mode of operation. Again, the guest’s beacon device can switch from beacon broadcast mode into 

sleep mode or bi-discretional communication mode in response to contact with various sensors 

and peripherals. This mode shifting can depend on the time, location of the beacon and/or sensors, 

and the beacon’s distinct, unique data package. 

77. Portable guest devices equipped with BLE, as described and claimed in the ’184 

Patent, were not generic or conventional. Indeed, such devices did not exist “off the shelf.” The 

’184 Patent’s inventors designed and built these devices specifically to operate in the new network 

environment described in the ’184 Patent. These devices enabled omnidirectional transmission of 

signals, multiple operational modes, and secure, bidirectional communications with sensors. The 

inventors of the ‘184 Patent tailored these portable guest devices to overcome specific problems 

related to physical size limitations, battery life, power consumption, security, transmission signal 

strength, and the need to efficiently interact and communicate with various sensors and peripherals 

aboard a moving cruise ship, as described throughout the 184 Patent and discussed further herein. 

78. As another example, the ’184 Patent teaches a new, specific way in which sensors 

interoperate and communicate with beacons and other network nodes. The novel operation and 

communications mode disclosed in the ’184 Patent enable technological improvements to the 

functionality of the sensors and beacons themselves, resulting in increased accuracy and efficiency 

of the sensor network, as well as efficiencies resulting from the ability of sensors and associated 

peripherals to engage in independent operation. First, because the sensors are relatively low cost 

and low power compared to conventional sensors, computer terminals, or the like, the ’184 Patent’s 

system allows for placement of more stationary network nodes (sensors) in a given space than 

conventional systems relying on traditional complex components. This increased number of 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 28 of 64
-29-

stationary sensor nodes relative to conventional systems allows for more accurate, finely tuned 

location services compared to prior art systems. 

79. In addition, the ’184 Patent teaches portable guest devices containing first and 

second wireless antennas respectively configured for BLE and NFC communications. ’184 Patent, 

Col 2:35-44. These antennas communicate with BLE and NFC sensors to provide efficient and 

redundant communications between the mobile beacons and the network in an unconventional 

manner. For example, operation of a BLE transceiver generally requires that the device’s battery 

provide sufficient power to the device for operation. See ’184 Patent, Col. 15:43-47. A BLE 

device would either require a constant source of wired power or would require a battery change or 

recharge once the beacon’s battery charge dropped below the threshold required to power the 

device. The ’184 Patent teaches a solution to this problem. When the charge level of the device’s 

battery falls below a threshold (or if the battery fails), the device can operate as a passive 

NFC/RFID device. ’184 Patent, Col. 15:47-64. When operating as a passive NFC device, the 

device does not require any power from the battery for operation. Instead, the device harvests 

power through the NFC antenna from radio frequency signals inducing current flow in the NFC 

antenna. Using this harvested power, the user’s device can switch between operating modes as 

needed. Id.; see also ’184 Patent, claims 11 and 19. This is a technical improvement over 

conventional devices that used NFC (for example, an RFID access card), which lacked BLE and 

the functionalities enabled by it. This technological improvement would not have been possible 

in systems using a stationary BLE beacon, for example, because a power-drained stationary beacon 

would be effectively useless unless and until a guest was close enough to the beacon for it to 

harvest power through an NFC antenna. In other words, a stationary beacon could not help a guest 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 29 of 64
-30-

find the beacon until the user finds the beacon on their own—which would defeat the fundamental 

purpose of such a system in the first place. 

80. In addition, the ’184 Patent describes and claims devices that use dual antennas to 

communicate with BLE and NFC sensors that are uniquely linked to each other and to beacons 

through the sensor network in a manner unseen in conventional systems. In particular, the use of 

a sensor network peripheral can enable the guest engagement system to function without using 

sensors that require storage of individual network identifiers (addresses) to identify themselves to 

the communication network or to identify the data transmitted by each sensor as having originated 

in the respective sensor. ’184 Patent, Col. 8:8-34. Instead, because of the ’184 Patent’s novel 

arrangement of components, the sensor network peripherals (such as a door lock access panel) can 

be configured to packetize data received from sensors for communication across the network, 

removing the need for sensors to be operative to communicate on the network. Id., see also Claim 

14 (discussing sensors connected to a door access panel peripheral); Col. 9:15-18 (access panel 

may be configured as a peripheral). Moreover, each sensor does not need processing power 

sufficient to identify and process packets communicate across the network. Thus, the use of sensor 

network peripherals disclosed in the ’184 Patent enables operation using improved low-cost 

sensors that do not need network communication circuitry, and permits the guest engagement 

system to be configured for and begin operation without having to assign individual network 

identifiers to each sensor, and/or without having to configure servers with information on each 

individual sensor in the system. ’184 Patent, Col. 8:3-50.

81. As another example, the ’184 Patent teaches new, specific improvements to door 

lock mechanisms by integrating sensors and peripherals (e.g., door lock access panels). These 

components can engage in two-way communications with mobile devices to control the door lock 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 30 of 64
-31-

mechanics. Because of its unique ordering and combination of components and communications 

protocols, the ‘184 Patent enables use, for example, of an access panel separate from an associated 

electronically controlled door lock and configured to control that door lock. The access panel can 

detect periodic BLE beacon signals including the unique identifiers from the guest devices and 

selectively unlock the associated door based on the same, communicating with the door lock 

mechanism, the portable devices, and the central server. This improvement to door lock structure 

and operation is claimed in claims 1 and 7, for example. The ’184 Patent addresses the foregoing 

and other related technical improvements to door lock and sensor hardware, as illustrated, for 

example, by Figures 7A-8D. As the specification explains in detail, this system improves on the 

construction and operation of conventional door access technology to provide improved efficiency: 

“The door lock 17 a provides guests the ability to gain access to their cruise ship stateroom, resort 

room, or other limited access facility (e.g., a VIP lounge, spa, fitness facility, elevator bank, or the 

like) simply by walking up to the door, reaching out to grasp the handle, and opening the door that 

is automatically unlocked based on wireless communications with the guests' medallions 11.” The 

system also improves security in improving the ability to detect and prevent unauthorized access. 

Col. 17:17-22:30. 

82. The’184 Patent enables improvements to technology by operating differently than 

conventional systems and utilizing technology improvements such as those discussed above and 

throughout the ’184 Patent. 

83. Because of its improvements to technology and methods, the inventions disclosed 

in the ’184 Patent assisted Carnival in overcoming numerous technical difficulties required to 

enable Carnival’s unique and novel vision for a comprehensive and seamless guest engagement 

system.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 31 of 64
-32-

84. DeCurtis has admitted that the ’184 Patent’s claims reflect inventive techniques for 

communicatively coupling door access panels via power efficient networks to a centralized 

reservation and logging system and inventive techniques for efficiently leveraging BLE 

communications in both a low-power beacon state, as well as a more power-intensive bidirectional state. DeCurtis further has admitted that these techniques were conceived of by the 

inventors of the ’184 Patent. DeCurtis has thus admitted that the ’184 Patent’s claimed inventions 

employ techniques that were not routine, conventional, or well-understood to improve upon 

existing technology, providing technical solutions to technical problems with tangible benefits 

(e.g. improved power efficiency).

85. These inventions—the result of Carnival’s development project beginning in 2014 

and described in Carnival’s patent applications beginning in 2016—were later copied by DeCurtis. 

DeCurtis’ Misappropriation of Carnival’s Technology

86. According to a joint press release by Carnival competitor Norwegian Cruise Lines 

(“NCL”) and DeCurtis, sometime prior to May 4, 2018, NCL hired DeCurtis to develop a system 

that closely tracks Carnival’s OCEAN® Platform. NCL calls its system “Cruise Freedom” and 

claims that DeCurtis is working with NCL to “leverage the latest in location-based technologies, 

including wearables, to meaningfully enhance the guest experience from the moment of booking 

and throughout their Norwegian cruise.” NCL has indicated that Cruise Freedom will “bring 

proximity and location [technology] to life” to facilitate inter alia embarkation and dining 

experiences. In an investor conference call discussing Cruise Freedom, an NCL executive 

acknowledged “we’re playing catch-up” to Carnival. Within months of hiring DeCurtis, NCL was 

ready to begin live testing Cruise Freedom features on the Norwegian Bliss Cruise in late 2018. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 32 of 64
-33-

87. By no later than June 2018, DeCurtis separately began marketing a “new” 

Bluetooth Low Energy reader project. In its marketing materials for this product, DeCurtis has 

passed off Carnival’s inventions as its own. For example, a page that first appeared on DeCurtis’ 

website on or about June 2018 differentiates DeCurtis’ product from existing stationary Bluetooth 

Low Energy beacons that push targeted advertisements to customers: “At DeCurtis, we rarely stop 

at the obvious. ... We learned through our ground-breaking work in the cruise space around 

location and proximity that we needed to invert the traditional model. Beacons had, thus far, been 

the stationary object.” 

88. DeCurtis “learned” to “invert the traditional model” from Carnival. DeCurtis knew 

that its statements that “thus far” beacons had been stationary objects, and that DeCurtis 

“introduce[ed] the concept of a wearable” that contains a small beacon, were false. Carnival 

conceived of these concepts long before and hired DeCurtis to help prototype them. DeCurtis also 

knew that Carnival developed this technology to provide the same types of “transformational 

experiences” and location-based services that DeCurtis is now advertising. 

89. DeCurtis has marketed Carnival Information and Carnival’s intellectual property 

as DeCurtis’ own “solution to the cruise industry,” and it has touted its ability to provide 

“Customized Experiences” that track closely with OCEAN® Platform functionality and with the 

descriptions in Carnival’s patents. 

90. In publications, interviews, and marketing materials made public around the same 

time, DeCurtis bragged about how quickly it had developed its BLE solution and acknowledged 

that the solution was based on its prior work, i.e., DeCurtis’ work for Carnival. DeCurtis executive 

Derek Fournier has publicly stated that “going from concept to reality was remarkably quick. 

Leveraging years of previous experience and R&D in BLE projects made that possible.” The 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 33 of 64
-34-

“experience” “leveraged” by DeCurtis was its work for Carnival including DeCurtis’ access to and 

misuse of Carnival’s confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information. Another article stated 

that DeCurtis’ development timeline for its BLE reader was “just six months.” DeCurtis’ 

“remarkably quick” development timeline would not have been possible without DeCurtis’ access 

to and misuse of Carnival’s confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information. 

91. DeCurtis contacted many other third-party vendors with which Carnival had 

contracted to assist in the development of Project Trident seeking to work with those vendors to 

develop DeCurtis’ competing solution. DeCurtis knew that these vendors worked on Project 

Trident only through DeCurtis’ access to Carnival’s confidential information. 

92. Carnival sent correspondence to DeCurtis and NCL in January 2020 notifying 

DeCurtis and NCL of Carnival’s patent portfolio covering aspects of the OCEAN® Platform 

technology. Carnival further reminded DeCurtis of its confidentiality obligations to Carnival. 

93. In early February 2020, Carnival sent a letter to a new entrant to the cruise industry, 

Virgin Voyages (“Virgin”), notifying Virgin of Carnival’s patent portfolio. Just days later, Virgin 

announced its intention to use a wearable device called “The Band” on its maiden cruise ship 

voyage. 

94. An industry article about the “The Band” noted that it “sounds incredibly similar” 

to Carnival’s OceanMedallionTM. Indeed, Virgin is marketing many of the same material features 

as Carnival’s OCEAN® Platform, such as granting cabin access, permitting ticketless boarding, 

making payments, pinpointing traveler location for beverage delivery, and facilitating onboard 

purchasing. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 34 of 64
-35-

95. Virgin began building its first cruise ship in or about early 2017, and at some point 

in 2017 or 2018, Virgin tasked DeCurtis with creating “The Band” and its associated systems on 

board the cruise ship. The Band and its associated systems use technology sourced from DeCurtis. 

96. The same DeCurtis employees who worked on Project Trident have also worked 

on NCL’s Cruise Freedom system and Virgin Voyages “The Band” system. At all times relevant, 

these DeCurtis employees had access to Carnival’s written materials in DeCurtis’ possession. 

DeCurtis’ Breaches of Audit Requirements of the MSA to Conceal its Misconduct

97. The announcement of “The Band” heightened Carnival’s concern DeCurtis may 

have disclosed or misused Carnival confidential information, proprietary information, and trade 

secrets to Virgin and/or NCL. Accordingly, Carnival sent DeCurtis a letter exercising its audit 

rights under the MSA. Carnival sought to audit DeCurtis’ documents, source code, and records 

related to DeCurtis’ work under the MSA, as well as records showing all measures DeCurtis has 

taken, if any, to ensure the confidentiality of Carnival’s confidential information. Carnival asked 

that DeCurtis respond by February 24, 2020 providing a date certain, by no later than March 2, 

2020, when Carnival could begin the audit along with necessary logistical information. 

98. By letter dated February 24, 2020, DeCurtis refused Carnival’s audit demand in 

breach of the MSA. DeCurtis’ February 24 letter stated that it was denying Carnival’s audit 

demand because, inter alia, “DeCurtis must maintain the confidentiality of information from third 

parties whose information you have requested.” Yet Carnival requested no third-party information 

in its audit demand. 

99. DeCurtis’ February 24 letter admits that an audit of DeCurtis’ Carnival work 

product and Carnival confidential information in DeCurtis’ possession would require disclosure 

of work that DeCurtis performed for third-parties. This admission confirmed Carnival’s fears that

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 35 of 64
-36-

DeCurtis used work product it had prepared for Carnival and Carnival’s confidential information 

to rapidly create competing technology, a breach of the MSA and a misappropriation of Carnival’s 

trade secrets.

100. Notwithstanding Carnival’s continued, repeated demands to conduct an audit of 

DeCurtis’ records relating to its work under the MSA, DeCurtis has refused to permit such an audit 

or otherwise to permit Carnival to ascertain the extent of DeCurtis failure of compliance with the 

terms and conditions of the MSA.

101. NCL’s and Virgin’s accelerated development time for their respective wearable 

devices and related systems is the result of DeCurtis’ breaches of the MSA, misappropriation, 

disclosure and use of Carnival information and trade secrets, and patent infringement.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Breach of Contract)

102. Carnival incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-42 and 86-101.

103. Carnival and DeCurtis are parties to a valid, existing contract: the MSA.

104. Carnival has performed its obligations under the MSA.

105. DeCurtis has breached its obligations under the MSA by making unauthorized 

disclosures and/or use of Carnival’s trade secrets and confidential information, by making 

unauthorized disclosures and/or use of work product and deliverables produced for Carnival under 

the MSA and which are Carnival’s property, and by refusing to comply with Carnival’s audit 

demands.

106. DeCurtis’ breaches have proximately caused Carnival foreseeable monetary harm 

in an amount to be proven at trial.

107. DeCurtis’ breaches have proximately caused Carnival irreparable injury that can 

only be remedied by an order of specific performance and injunctive relief.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 36 of 64
-37-

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violations of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1832 et seq.)

108. Carnival incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-42 and 86-101.

109. Project Trident information that Carnival provided to DeCurtis includes financial, 

business, scientific, technical, economic, and engineering information. 

110. At all times relevant, Carnival has taken reasonable measures to keep Project 

Trident information secret. Among other measures, Carnival maintains Project Trident 

information in password-secured repositories and maintains robust physical security to its 

facilities, including the XIC, to ensure that unauthorized persons cannot gain unauthorized access. 

Carnival only permits persons to access Project Trident on a need to know basis, and only to 

persons who have agreed to maintain the secrecy of such information. 

111. Carnival’s Project Trident information disclosed to DeCurtis included at least the 

following trade secrets: Project Trident prototypes; Project Trident software, including software 

embodying proprietary and secret methods of operation that are not apparent to end users; Project 

Trident hardware and software architecture, including specific microservices platform technical 

architecture; Project Trident technical specifications and data interface designs; Project Trident 

databases and database structures; Project Trident operations procedures; Project Trident creative 

strategies; Project Trident deployment plans; Project Trident testing plans and results; Project 

Trident development schedules; Project Tridents strategic vendor lists; Project Trident’s corporate 

abstraction layer of services; Project Trident interface layer designs, data models, database 

structures, and data interface designs and adapters; Project Trident API dependencies; Project 

Trident non-functional requirements; Project Trident’s particularized agile development 

methodology; Project Trident web services information; Project Trident show plans; Project 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 37 of 64
-38-

Trident design work; Project Trident technical integration information; Project Trident site 

surveys, Project Trident functional plans; and Project Trident studio shows. 

112. Much of this trade secret information was disclosed in documentary form 

(including, for example, PowerPoint presentations) provided to DeCurtis at Carnival’s XIC and 

other locations. Some of this trade secret information was also disclosed to DeCurtis, or embodied 

in, source code and software documentation. In addition, by virtue of its access to the foregoing 

materials, DeCurtis obtained negative knowledge about unsuccessful strategies, methods, and 

technologies that did not work or are not likely to work in light of Carnival’s experience on Project 

Trident. The documents, source code, and trade secret information provided to DeCurtis as alleged 

in this paragraph derive actual and potential independent economic value from not being generally 

known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, third parties.

113. Without Carnival’s consent, DeCurtis disclosed to NCL and/or Virgin, and/or 

used on their behalf, Carnival’s Project Trident trade secret information. DeCurtis was aware 

that Carnival’s Project Trident information comprised trade secrets, and that it was improper for 

DeCurtis to disclose and/or use Carnival’s trade secrets in the manner alleged.

114. DeCurtis’ conduct violates the Defend Trade Secrets Act.

115. DeCurtis’ unauthorized disclosure and/or use of Carnival’s trade secret information 

has proximately harmed Carnival and caused monetary loss in an amount to be determined at trial. 

116. DeCurtis’ unauthorized disclosure and/or use of Carnival’s trade secret information 

has proximately caused Carnival irreparable harm that can only be remedied by injunctive relief.

117. DeCurtis’ conduct was willful and carried out with conscious disregard for 

Carnival’s rights.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 38 of 64
-39-

118. Carnival is entitled to damages, attorneys fees, and injunctive relief on account of 

DeCurtis’ violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act. 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violations of the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 688.001 et seq.)

119. Carnival incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-42 and 86-101.

120. Project Trident information that Carnival provided to DeCurtis includes financial, 

business, scientific, technical, economic, and engineering information. 

121. At all times relevant, Carnival has taken reasonable measures to keep Project 

Trident information secret. Among other measures, Carnival maintains Project Trident 

information in password-secured repositories and maintains robust physical security to its 

facilities, including the XIC, to ensure that unauthorized persons cannot gain unauthorized access. 

Carnival only permits persons to access Project Trident on a need to know basis, and only to 

persons who have agreed to maintain the secrecy of such information. 

122. Carnival’s Project Trident information disclosed to DeCurtis included at least the 

following trade secrets: Project Trident prototypes; Project Trident software, including software 

embodying proprietary and secret methods of operation that are not apparent to end users; Project 

Trident hardware and software architecture, including specific microservices platform technical 

architecture; Project Trident technical specifications and data interface designs; Project Trident 

databases and database structures; Project Trident operations procedures; Project Trident creative 

strategies; Project Trident deployment plans; Project Trident testing plans and results; Project 

Trident development schedules; Project Tridents strategic vendor lists; Project Trident’s corporate 

abstraction layer of services; Project Trident interface layer designs, data models, database 

structures, and data interface designs and adapters; Project Trident API dependencies; Project 

Trident non-functional requirements; Project Trident’s particularized agile development 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 39 of 64
-40-

methodology; Project Trident web services information; Project Trident show plans; Project 

Trident design work; Project Trident technical integration information; Project Trident site 

surveys, Project Trident functional plans; and Project Trident studio shows. 

123. Much of this trade secret information was disclosed in documentary form 

(including, for example, PowerPoint presentations) provided to DeCurtis at Carnival’s XIC and 

other locations. Some of this trade secret information was also disclosed to DeCurtis, or embodied 

in, source code and software documentation. In addition, by virtue of its access to the foregoing 

materials, DeCurtis obtained negative knowledge about unsuccessful strategies, methods, and 

technologies that did not work or are not likely to work in light of Carnival’s experience on Project 

Trident. The documents, source code, and trade secret information provided to DeCurtis as alleged 

in this paragraph derive actual and potential independent economic value from not being generally 

known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, third parties.

124. Without Carnival’s consent, DeCurtis disclosed to NCL and/or Virgin, and/or used 

on their behalf, Carnival’s Project Trident trade secret information. DeCurtis was aware that 

Carnival’s Project Trident information comprised trade secrets, and that it was improper for 

DeCurtis to disclose and/or use Carnival’s trade secrets in the manner alleged.

125. DeCurtis’ conduct violates the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

126. DeCurtis’ unauthorized disclosure and/or use of Carnival’s trade secret information 

has proximately harmed Carnival and caused monetary loss in an amount to be determined at trial. 

127. DeCurtis’ unauthorized disclosure and/or use of Carnival’s trade secret information 

has proximately caused Carnival irreparable harm that can only be remedied by injunctive relief.

128. DeCurtis’ conduct was willful and carried out with conscious disregard for 

Carnival’s rights.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 40 of 64
-41-

129. Carnival is entitled to damages, attorneys fees, and injunctive relief on account of 

DeCurtis’ violation of the Florida Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Infringement of United State Patent No. 10,045,184)

130. Carnival incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-97.

131. On August 7, 2018, the ’184 Patent, titled “Wireless Guest Engagement System,” 

was duly issued to inventors John Padgett, Michael G. Jungen, Douglas Steele, Kyle Prestenback, 

Richard J. Criado, Vince Ball, Adam Leonards, Glenn Curtis, Manny Vellon, Patrick Mendiuk, 

Sander Lam and assignee plaintiff Carnival Corporation by the United States Patent and 

Trademark Office. A copy of the ’184 Patent is attached to this Second Amended Complaint as 

Exhibit A. 

132. At all times since the date of issue of the ’184 Patent, Carnival has been, and 

currently is, the exclusive owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to the ’184 Patent.

133. Carnival’s ownership of the ’184 Patent includes, without limitation, the exclusive 

right to enforce the ’184 Patent, the exclusive right to file actions based on infringement of the 

’184 Patent, the exclusive right to recover damages or other monetary amounts for infringement 

of the ’184 Patent and the exclusive right to be awarded injunctive relief pertaining to the ’184 

Patent.

134. The ’184 Patent claims systems which provide seamless engagement with guests 

of facilities through the use of wireless sensing technologies.

135. For example, 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 41 of 64
-42-

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 there-from 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 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, and 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 42 of 64
-43-

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.

136. DeCurtis and its customers, including Virgin and NCL, directly infringe the ’184 

Patent. The claims infringed by DeCurtis and/or its customers include at least independent claim 

1 and its dependent claims 2 and 3, independent claim 7 and its dependent claims 8, 9, and 10, and 

independent claim 11 and its dependent claims 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the ’184 Patent. Discovery 

may reveal further evidence that additional claims of the ’184 Patent are directly infringed by 

DeCurtis or its customers. 

137. An exemplary explanation of how DeCurtis’ customers infringe these claims is set 

forth below. The relevant and cited portions of the public domain documents referenced below 

describe the functionality of DeCurtis’ customers’ Accused Systems.

138. Virgin Voyages is using a guest engagement system that includes “the Band.” “The 

Band,” is a portable guest device provided by Virgin to users to be carried by the users. See 

https://www.virginvoyages.com/press/latest-releases/smart-cruise-wearable (“Introducing The 

Band – Virgin Voyages’ Smart Wearable Technology Made with Ocean Plastic”) 

139. Each Band device has a unique identifier. Each Band device has a unique Bluetooth 

Low Energy (“BLE”) identifier. See Figure 3 below. When the data obtained via packet capture 

shown in Figure 3 is decoded, a UUID (Universally Unique Identifier), Major, and Minor values 

are obtained, which are unique identifiers. In documentation describing its BLE system, DeCurtis 

has described the “Beacon” as “[a] combination of identifying (UUID, major, minor, mac address, 

etc.) and location metadata (geom field, point) representing a single Beacon. The design 

assumption is that the (UUID, major, minor, mac address) will be unique to a single device.” The 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 43 of 64
-44-

Band also has unique identifiers associated with NFC communications, including a UUID and a 

serial number. See Figure 4 below. These BLE and NFC identifiers are received by sensors 

onboard the Virgin cruise ship (discussed further below) which detect Band devices proximate to 

the sensors.

140. The Band includes a first and second wireless antenna as shown in Figure 1 below. 

The Band’s antennas are respectively configured for Bluetooth low energy (BLE) and near field 

communication (NFC).

Figure 1

 

141. Virgin’s cruise ship includes a sensor network with a plurality of sensors mounted 

at different locations. The Band is used by guests to “[a]ccess their cabins, serving as a room key,” 

“[p]inpoint location for delivery” of services (e.g., champagne delivery), “[m]ake onboard 

purchases,” “[g]ame at the casino,” and as a “VIP pass.” See 

https://www.virginvoyages.com/press/latest-releases/smart-cruise-wearable. Each of these 

functionalities uses sensors that are part of a sensor network; e.g., a sensor is used to detect and 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 44 of 64
-45-

communicate with the Band devices to unlock a guest’s room door, and sensors are used to detect 

and communicate with a Band device to pinpoint that device’s location. 

142. The Band communicates with at least one sensor operative to detect portable guest 

devices that are proximate thereto and receive unique identifiers therefrom based on BLE 

communication. Inter alia, the Band communicates two different types of BLE “advertisements” 

and NFC data, each of which provides location-based information and services. The BLE data 

communicated by the Band and received by the sensors includes a unique identifier, as does the 

NFC data communicated by the Band, as described above.

143. Figure 2 below a depicts BLE packet capture for advertisements communicated by 

the Band in mode with a Protocol Data Unit (“PDU”) type of “ADV_IND.” This is a mode in 

which the BLE device requests connection to a central device. 

Figure 2

144. Figure 3 below depicts a BLE packet capture for advertisements communicated by 

the Band in a mode with a PDU type of “ADV_NONCONN_INFO.” This is a mode in which the 

BLE device broadcasts a non-connectible beacon advertisement. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 45 of 64
-46-

Figure 3

145. The Band devices include hardware and/or software supplied by DeCurtis for at 

least BLE communications. The sensors on the Virgin ship include hardware and/or software 

supplied by DeCurtis operative to detect The Band devices proximate to the sensors and receive 

unique identifiers from The Band devices based on at least BLE communication. For example, 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 46 of 64
-47-

DeCurtis has advertised that its “Bluetooth Low Energy Module” “can read hundreds of beacons 

per second providing specific location, not just relative proximity information, which allows 

businesses to improve the customer experience in various ways.” See 

https://decurtis.com/2018/10/21/introducing-our-bluetooth-low-energy-module/. This sensor 

functionality is provided by DeCurtis as hardware modules that plug into wireless access points or 

as software that integrates with wireless access points or other wireless communication devices on 

the Virgin ship. 

146. Figure 4 below depicts an NFC packet capture for communications by the Band.

Figure 4 

147. Virgin Voyages ships include a communication network, such as a Wi-Fi network, 

connecting a plurality of sensors, as explained further above. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 47 of 64
-48-

148. The system relies on a central server to connect the sensor network, and this server 

logs information associating unique device identifiers received by the sensors with other data, such 

as device location, for example. See, e.g., https://www.seatrade-cruise.com/news/virgin-voyagesintroduces-its-wearable-technology-band (“Activated with a tap of the wrist, it also pinpoints 

location for delivery of Shake for Champagne, enables gaming in the casino and serves as a VIP 

pass for suite sailors to enter Richard’s Rooftop.”) DeCurtis has explained that the hardware and/or 

software it provides for the sensors processes information received from BLE beacons (here, the 

Band devices) and forwards that information to a central location services platform to track the 

location of the devices and provide navigation and wayfinding. See https://decurtis.com/decurtisexperience-platform/location-proximity/

149. The Band is configured to selectively operate according to first and second 

operating modes. Because the Band device has one BLE antenna, the Band device cannot transmit 

different types of BLE communications simultaneously. In one operating mode, the Band 

transmits periodic beacon advertisements on fixed intervals to any listening device. This is 

discussed above with respect to Figures 2 and 3. DeCurtis provided hardware and/or software in 

the Band devices that causes the devices to operate in beacon mode. See 

https://decurtis.com/decurtis-experience-platform/location-proximity/ (“We have flipped the 

traditional model of placing beacons in rooms, we give that power to the guests in the form of a 

wearable and put the BLE readers on the walls of an indoor space.”) As explained above, when 

broadcasting in the “ADV_IND” mode, the Band is requesting a connection from a central device. 

This mode is used to establish bi-directional communication between devices. When the Band 

receives a bi-directional communication from a sensor, the Band changes to a second operating 

mode. In this second operating mode, the Band stops its fixed interval beacon transmissions while 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 48 of 64
-49-

it engages in bi-directional communication with sensors. This occurs, for example, when the Band 

communicates with sensors to “act as a room key” and open a guest’s cabin. 

150. DeCurtis has contracted with its customers, including Virgin and NCL, to provide 

and maintain systems that infringe the ’184 Patent. DeCurtis has made, used, offered for sale, and 

sold systems in the United States that infringe the ’184 Patent.

151. DeCurtis’ customers directly infringe the ’184 Patent at least when they make and 

use the guest engagement systems that practice the claims of the ’184 Patent, for example as 

described above (hereafter, the “’184 Infringing Systems”). 

152. DeCurtis contributes to its customers’ direct infringement of the ’184 Patent, 

including by providing discrete, material components of the ’184 Infringing Systems to its 

customers for installation or replacement, which components are at least a substantial portion of 

the components of the inventions patented in the ’184 Patent. Components of the ’184 Infringing 

Systems provided by DeCurtis to its customers include hardware and/or software in the sensors 

described above, hardware and/or software comprising the central server describe above, and 

hardware and/or software comprising the portable guest devices described above. Said 

components have been especially made or especially adapted by DeCurtis for use in infringement 

of the ’184 Patent. Said components are not suitable for any substantial non-infringing use. 

153. DeCurtis has actively induced and is actively inducing its customers to make and 

use the ’184 Infringing Systems in a manner that directly infringes the ’184 Patent. DeCurtis has 

taken and is taking active steps, directly and/or through contractual relationships with its customers 

and others, with the specific intent to cause its customers to make and use the ’184 Infringing 

Systems in a manner that infringes one or more claims of the ’184 Patent. For example, DeCurtis 

has provided and provides documentation and other instructional and training materials, 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 49 of 64
-50-

instructing customers on how to make and use the ’184 Infringing Systems, including making and 

using infringing features and functionalities of the ’184 Infringing Systems. DeCurtis also has 

provided and provides marketing materials that include information on the ’184 Infringing 

Systems and infringing features of the ’184 Infringing Systems, in an effort to induce customers 

and potential customers into purchasing, making, and using the ’184 Infringing Systems in an 

infringing manner. DeCurtis provides ongoing technical and other customer support to its 

customers to ensure that its customers continue to make and use the ’184 Infringing Systems. 

DeCurtis intends for customers to use the ’184 Infringing Systems to commit acts of direct 

infringement. DeCurtis also has infringed by supplying or causing to be supplied in or from the 

United States the components of the ’184 Infringing Systems identified in Paragraph 157, which 

are uncombined in whole or in part, intending and actively inducing the combination of such 

components outside the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such 

combination occurred within the United States. 

154. DeCurtis has had knowledge of the ’184 Patent since no later than January 29, 2020, 

when counsel for Carnival specifically notified DeCurtis of the ’184 Patent. Even before that date, 

DeCurtis had actual knowledge of the ’184 Patent or at minimum willfully blinded itself to the 

existence of the ’184 Patent and DeCurtis’ infringement. DeCurtis had deep knowledge of 

Carnival’s development of the OCEAN® Platform through its work as Carnival’s contractor, and 

DeCurtis knew that Carnival owned the intellectual property in the OCEAN® Platform. DeCurtis 

could not have embarked upon and continued developing competing products using Carnival’s 

confidential information, as described above, without at minimum being willfully blind as to the 

existence of Carnival’s patent rights (including the ’184 Patent). DeCurtis’ behavior was and 

continues to be reckless, egregious, wanton, bad-faith, malicious, and characteristic of a pirate. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 50 of 64
-51-

DeCurtis has had knowledge that the products and components it has sold and is selling to its 

customers, as described above, are especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement 

of the ’184 Patent. DeCurtis knew that the activities of its customers that it induced, as described 

above, would amount to infringement of the ’184 Patent. DeCurtis’ infringement of the ’184 

Patent is and has been willful. 

155. Due to DeCurtis’ infringement, Carnival has suffered, is suffering, and will 

continue to suffer irreparable injury for which Carnival has no adequate remedy at law, including 

loss of market share and customer goodwill. Carnival is therefore entitled to a permanent 

injunction against DeCurtis’ further infringement. 

156. Carnival has been and is being damaged due to DeCurtis’ infringement. Carnival 

is therefore entitled to recover all damages from DeCurtis and the total profits lost, or, at minimum, 

a reasonable royalty, all in an amount to be proven at trial.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Infringement of United State Patent No. 10,049,516)

157. Carnival incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-97.

158. On August 14, 2018, the ’516 Patent, titled “Door Locks and Assemblies for Use 

in Wireless Guest Engagement Systems,” was duly issued to inventors John Padgett, Michael G. 

Jungen, Douglas Steele, Kyle Prestenback, Richard J. Criado, Vince Ball, Adam Leonards, Glenn 

Curtis, Manny Vellon, Patrick Mendiuk, Sander Lam and assignee plaintiff Carnival Corporation 

by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ’516 Patent is attached to this 

Second Amended Complaint as Exhibit B. 

159. At all times since the date of issue of the ’516 Patent, Carnival has been, and 

currently is, the exclusive owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to the ’516 Patent.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 51 of 64
-52-

160. Carnival’s ownership of the ’516 Patent includes, without limitation, the exclusive 

right to enforce the ’516 Patent, the exclusive right to file actions based on infringement of the 

’516 Patent, the exclusive right to recover damages or other monetary amounts for infringement 

of the ’516 Patent and the exclusive right to be awarded injunctive relief pertaining to the ’516 

Patent.

161. The ’516 Patent claims systems which provide seamless engagement with guests 

of facilities through the use of wireless sensing technologies.

162. For example, claim 13 of the ’516 Patent recites an electronic door lock assembly 

comprising:

a latch assembly including a latch and an electronically controlled locking mechanism

operative to selectively unlock a door;

a door lock communication module electrically connected to the electronically controlled 

locking mechanism of the latch assembly, and including a radio configured for wireless 

communication; and

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

communication module and latch assembly, and including a radio configured for wireless 

communication with the door lock communication module, a first transceiver configured 

for wireless communication with a portable user device, and a second transceiver for 

communication with a reservation server; 

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, determine whether the door should be 

unlocked based on the door access information received from the reservation server, and 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 52 of 64
-53-

transmit an instruction to unlock the door to the door lock communication module via the 

radio based on the determination.

163. DeCurtis’ customers directly infringe the ’516 Patent. The claims infringed by 

DeCurtis’ customers include at least claim 13 of the ’516 Patent and its dependent claims 15 and 

18, at least when they make and use the guest engagement systems that practice the claims of the 

’516 Patent. Discovery may reveal further evidence that additional claims of the ’516 Patent are 

directly infringed by DeCurtis’ customers.

164. The Virgin cruise ship designed to work with the Band and implement DeCurtis’s 

technology includes a latch assembly with an electronically controlled locking mechanism, a door 

lock communication module, including a radio configured for wireless communication, and an 

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

and latch assembly. These are shown below.

Figure 5

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 53 of 64
-54-

165. The access panel includes a first transceiver configured for wireless communication 

with a portable user device. As described above with respect to Figure 2, the Band devices 

broadcast BLE communications with a PDU type of “ADV _INFO,” an advertisement designed 

to establish a bidirectional communication, here with a BLE sensor in the access panel that uses 

hardware and/or software provided by DeCurtis. Information obtained from capture of Bluetooth 

packets from a Band device indicates that these advertisements are used to establish bi-directional 

communications with a sensor used in a door access panel for unlocking a cabin door.

166. The access panel includes a second transceiver for communication with a 

reservation server, is configured to receive door access information from the reservation server via 

the second transceiver, determine whether the door should be unlocked, and transmit an instruction 

to unlock the door to the door lock communication module. The Band and the BLE sensor in the 

access panel establish a secure bidirectional communications channel. After receiving identifying 

information from the Band, hardware and software within the access panel determine whether the 

door should be unlocked based on that information and door access information received from a 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 54 of 64
-55-

reservation server, and then when appropriate transmit an instruction to unlock the door to the door 

lock communication module.

167. DeCurtis contributes to its customers’ direct infringement of the ’516 Patent, 

including by providing discrete, material components of the ’516 Infringing Systems to its 

customers for installation or replacement. Components of the ’516 Infringing Systems provided 

by DeCurtis to its customers include hardware and/or software in the access panel and reservation 

server described above. Said components have been especially made or especially adapted by 

DeCurtis for use in infringement of the ’516 Patent. Said components are not suitable for any 

substantial non-infringing use. 

168. DeCurtis has actively induced and is actively inducing its customers to make and 

use the ’516 Infringing Systems in a manner that directly infringes the ’516 Patent. DeCurtis has 

taken and is taking active steps, directly and/or through contractual relationships with its customers 

and others, with the specific intent to cause its customers to make and use the ’516 Infringing 

Systems in a manner that infringes one or more claims of the ’516 Patent. For example, DeCurtis

has provided and provides documentation and other instructional and training materials, 

instructing customers on how to make and use the ’516 Infringing Systems, including making and 

using infringing features and functionalities of the ’516 Infringing Systems. DeCurtis also has 

provided and provides marketing materials that include information on the ’516 Infringing 

Systems and infringing features of the ’516 Infringing Systems, in an effort to induce customers 

and potential customers into purchasing, making, and using the ’516 Infringing Systems in an 

infringing manner. DeCurtis provides ongoing technical and other customer support to its 

customers to ensure that its customers continue to make and use the ’516 Infringing Systems. 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 55 of 64
-56-

DeCurtis intends for customers to use the ’516 Infringing Systems to commit acts of direct 

infringement. 

169. DeCurtis has had knowledge of the ’516 Patent since no later than January 29, 2020, 

when counsel for Carnival specifically notified DeCurtis of the ’516 Patent. Even before that date, 

DeCurtis had actual knowledge of the ’516 Patent or at minimum willfully blinded itself to the 

existence of the ’516 Patent and DeCurtis’ infringement. DeCurtis had deep knowledge of 

Carnival’s development of the OCEAN® Platform through its work as Carnival’s contractor, and 

DeCurtis knew the Carnival owned the intellectual property in the OCEAN® Platform. DeCurtis 

could not have embarked upon and continued developing competing products using Carnival’s 

confidential information, as described above, without at minimum being willfully blind as to the 

existence of Carnival’s patent rights (including the ’516 Patent). DeCurtis’ behavior was and 

continues to be reckless, egregious, wanton, bad-faith, malicious, and characteristic of a pirate. 

DeCurtis has had knowledge that the products and components it has sold and is selling to its 

customers, as described above, are especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement 

of the ’516 Patent. DeCurtis knew that the activities of its customers that it induced, as described 

above, would amount to infringement of the ’516 Patent. DeCurtis’ infringement of the ’516 

Patent is and has been willful. Due to DeCurtis’ infringement, Carnival has suffered, is suffering, 

and will continue to suffer irreparable injury for which Carnival has no adequate remedy at law, 

including loss of market share and customer goodwill. Carnival is therefore entitled to a permanent 

injunction against DeCurtis’ further infringement. 

170. Carnival has been and is being damaged due to DeCurtis’ infringement. Carnival 

is therefore entitled to recover all damages from DeCurtis and the total profits lost, or, at minimum, 

a reasonable royalty, all in an amount to be proven at trial.

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 56 of 64
-57-

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Infringement of United State Patent No. 10,157,514)

171. Carnival incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-97.

172. On December 18, 2018, the ’514 Patent, titled “Portable Wireless Devices for Use 

in Wireless Guest Engagement Systems,” was duly issued to inventors John Padgett, Michael G. 

Jungen, Douglas Steele, Kyle Prestenback, Richard J. Criado, Vince Ball, Adam Leonards, Glenn 

Curtis, Manny Vellon, Patrick Mendiuk, Sander Lam and assignee plaintiff Carnival Corporation

by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A copy of the ’514 Patent is attached to this 

Second Amended Complaint as Exhibit C. 

173. At all times since the date of issue of the ’514 Patent, Carnival has been, and 

currently is, the exclusive owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to the ’514 Patent.

174. Carnival’s ownership of the ’514 Patent includes, without limitation, the exclusive 

right to enforce the ’514 Patent, the exclusive right to file actions based on infringement of the 

’514 Patent, the exclusive right to recover damages or other monetary amounts for infringement 

of the ’514 Patent and the exclusive right to be awarded injunctive relief pertaining to the ’514 

Patent.

175. The ’514 Patent claims systems which provide seamless engagement with guests 

of facilities through the use of wireless sensing technologies.

176. For example, 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,

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 57 of 64
-58-

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.

177. DeCurtis and its customers directly infringe at least claim 11 of the ’514 Patent. 

Discovery may reveal further evidence that additional claims of the ’514 Patent are directly 

infringed by DeCurtis’ customers.

178. For example, the Band is a portable wireless device with 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, as depicted in Figure 6 below. The thickness 

of the Band’s body is approximately 1⁄4 of an inch.

Figure 6

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 58 of 64
-59-

179. In addition, the Band includes 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 BLE and NFC communications, as 

depicted in Figure 1 above.

180. The processor in the Band is configured to establish secure communication links 

with remote communication devices using the first wireless communication antenna configured 

for BLE communications, the Band’s memory stores a private identifier unique to the portable 

wireless device, and the Band’s processor transmits the private identifier only across secure 

communication links established with remote communication devices using BLE communications. 

As explained above, the Band, for example, establishes a bi-directional communication link with 

a remote communication device located in the access panel for a guest’s cabin and transmits unique 

identifying information to the access panel. This transmission is done over a secure 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 59 of 64
-60-

communication link and uses a private identifier transmitted only over the secure communications 

link to ensure security and prevent unauthorized room entry.

181. The Band’s memory stores a public identifier unique to the portable wireless 

device, and the Band’s 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 communication. This is described above with respect to Figure 3.

182. DeCurtis has contracted with its customers to provide and maintain systems that 

infringe the ’514 Patent. DeCurtis has made, used, offered for sale, and sold systems in the United 

States, and imported systems into the United States, that infringe the ’514 Patent.

183. DeCurtis’ customers, including Virgin, directly infringe the ’514 Patent at least 

when they make, use, sell, and offer for sale devices that practice the claims of the ’514 Patent, for 

example as described above (hereafter, the “’514 Infringing Systems”). DeCurtis contributes to its 

customers’ direct infringement of the ’514 Patent, including by providing discrete, material 

components of the ’514 Infringing Systems to its customers for installation or replacement, which 

components are at least a substantial portion of the components of the inventions patented in the 

’514 Patent. Components of the ’514 Infringing Systems provided by DeCurtis to its customers 

include hardware and/or software comprising the portable guest devices described above. Said 

components have been especially made or especially adapted by DeCurtis for use in infringement 

of the ’514 Patent. Said components are not suitable for any substantial non-infringing use. 

184. DeCurtis has actively induced and is actively inducing its customers to make and 

use the ’514 Infringing Systems in a manner that directly infringes the ’514 Patent. DeCurtis has 

taken and is taking active steps, directly and/or through contractual relationships with its customers 

and others, with the specific intent to cause its customers to make and use the ’514 Infringing 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 60 of 64
-61-

Systems in a manner that infringes one or more claims of the ’514 Patent. For example, DeCurtis 

has provided and provides documentation and other instructional and training materials, 

instructing customers on how to make and use the ’514 Infringing Systems, including making and 

using infringing features and functionalities of the ’514 Infringing Systems. DeCurtis also has 

provided and provides marketing materials that include information on the ’514 Infringing 

Systems and infringing features of the ’514 Infringing Systems, in an effort to induce customers 

and potential customers into purchasing, making, and using the ’514 Infringing Systems in an 

infringing manner. DeCurtis provides ongoing technical and other customer support to its 

customers to ensure that its customers continue to make and use the ’514 Infringing Systems. 

DeCurtis intends for customers to use the ’514 Infringing Systems to commit acts of direct 

infringement.

185. DeCurtis also has infringed by supplying or causing to be supplied in or form the 

United States the components of the ’514 Infringing Systems identified in Paragraph 183, which 

are uncombined in whole or in part, intending and actively inducing the combination of such 

components outside the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such 

combination occurred within the United States 

186. DeCurtis has had knowledge of the ’514 Patent since no later than January 29, 2020, 

when counsel for Carnival specifically notified DeCurtis of the ’514 Patent. Even before that date, 

DeCurtis had actual knowledge of the ’514 Patent or at minimum willfully blinded itself to the 

existence of the ’514 Patent and DeCurtis’ infringement. DeCurtis had deep knowledge of 

Carnival’s development of the OCEAN® Platform through its work as Carnival’s contractor, and 

DeCurtis knew the Carnival owned the intellectual property in the OCEAN® Platform. DeCurtis 

could not have embarked upon and continued developing competing products using Carnival’s 

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 61 of 64
-62-

confidential information, as described above, without at minimum being willfully blind as to the 

existence of Carnival’s patent rights (including the ’514 Patent). DeCurtis’ behavior was and 

continues to be reckless, egregious, wanton, bad-faith, malicious, and characteristic of a pirate. 

DeCurtis has had knowledge that the products and components it has sold and is selling to its 

customers, as described above, are especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement 

of the ’514 Patent. DeCurtis knew that the activities of its customers that it induced, as described 

above, would amount to infringement of the ’514 Patent. DeCurtis’ infringement of the ’514 

Patent is and has been willful. 

187. Due to DeCurtis’ infringement, Carnival has suffered, is suffering, and will 

continue to suffer irreparable injury for which Carnival has no adequate remedy at law, including 

loss of market share and customer goodwill. Carnival is therefore entitled to a permanent 

injunction against DeCurtis’ further infringement. 

188. Carnival has been and is being damaged due to DeCurtis’ infringement. Carnival 

is therefore entitled to recover all damages from DeCurtis and the total profits lost, or, at minimum, 

a reasonable royalty, all in an amount to be proven at trial.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Carnival prays for judgment against DeCurtis as follows:

A. Entry of judgment in favor of Carnival against DeCurtis on all counts;

B. A judgment and order awarding Carnival damages caused by DeCurtis’ breach of 

contract; 

C. A judgment and order awarding Carnival damages caused by DeCurtis’ 

misappropriation of trade secrets and disgorgement of any ill-gotten profits;

D. A judgment and order requiring DeCurtis to pay Carnival all damages caused by

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 62 of 64
-63-

DeCurtis’ infringement of the ’184 Patent, the ’514 Patent, and the ’516 Patent (but in no event 

less than a reasonable royalty) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; 

E. A judgment and order requiring DeCurtis to pay Carnival pre-judgment and postjudgment interest on any damages or profits awarded;

F. A judgment and order requiring DeCurtis to pay Carnival increased damages up to 

three times the amount found or assessed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;

G. A judgment and order awarding Carnival its costs and attorneys’ fees;

H. An order for an accounting of all gains, profits, cost savings and advantagesrealized 

by DeCurtis from its breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets;

I. An order requiring DeCurtis to comply with the MSA, including the MSA’s audit 

provisions; 

J. An order preliminarily and permanently enjoining DeCurtis, its officers, agents, 

servants, employees, attorneys, affiliated companies, assigns and successors in interest, and all 

persons and entities acting in concert with them, from misappropriating Carnival’s trade secrets;

K. An order preliminarily and permanently enjoining DeCurtis, its officers, agents, 

servants, employees, attorneys, affiliated companies, assigns and successors in interest, and all 

persons and entities acting in concert with them, from breaching the parties agreement;

L. An order and judgment preliminarily and permanently enjoining DeCurtis its 

officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, affiliated companies, assigns and successors in

interest, and all persons and entities acting in concert with them, from infringing the ’184 Patent, 

the ’514 Patent, and the ’516 Patent;

M. A determination that this action is an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; 

and

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 63 of 64
-64-

N. All such further and additional relief, in law or equity, to which Carnival may be

entitled or which the Court deems just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Carnival hereby demands a jury trial on all issues so triable as of right.

Dated: October 21, 2020 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

GRAYROBINSON, P.A.

333 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 3200

Miami, FL 33131

Phone: (305) 416-6880

Facsimile: (305) 416-6887

By: /s/Jorge Espinosa/

 Jorge Espinosa

 Fla. Bar No. 779032

 jorge.espinosa@gray-robinson.com

 Robert R. Jimenez

 Fla. Bar. No. 72020

 robert.jimenez@gray-robinson.com

Diana Marie Fassbender

Florida Bar No. 0017095

dszego@orrick.com

Steven J. Routh (pro hac vice)

T. Vann Pearce, Jr. (pro hac vice)

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

Columbia Center, 1152 15th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005-1706

Tel: (202) 339-8500

 Robert L. Uriarte (pro hac vice)

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

 1000 Marsh Road

 Menlo Park, CA 94025 

 Tel: (650) 289-7105

Attorneys for CARNIVAL CORPORATION

Case 1:20-cv-22945-RNS Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/21/2020 Page 64 of 64