COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

OHSUSA:750920267.2 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION 

COSTAR REALTY INFORMATION, INC.’S DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 

COMPLAINT FOR NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY 

AGAINST CIVIX-DDI, LLC and JURY DEMAND

COSTAR REALTY INFORMATION, INC., 

 PLAINTIFF, 

 V. 

CIVIX-DDI, LLC. 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

 DEFENDANT. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04968 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/21/12 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:1
1 OHSUSA:750920267.2 

Plaintiff CoSTAR REALTY INFORMATION, INC., (“CoStar” or “Plaintiff”), for their 

Complaint against Defendant CIVIX-DDI, LLC, (“CIVIX” or “Defendant”) , alleges as follows: 

NATURE OF THE ACTION 

1. This is an action by CoStar against CIVIX pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment 

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of United 

States Patent Nos. 6,385,622 (“the ’622 Patent”) (attached as Exhibit A) and 6,415,291 (“the 

’291 Patent”) (attached as Exhibit B) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”) under the Patent 

Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq. 

THE PARTIES 

2. CoStar Realty Information, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the 

laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business and corporate offices located at 

1331 L Street N.W., Washington DC 20005. 

3. On information and belief, CIVIX-DDI, LLC is a Colorado limited liability 

company having its principal place of business at 1220 Prince Street, Alexandria, Virginia 

22314. At least as late as August 24, 2006, on information and belief, CIVIX’s principal place of 

business was in this district, located at 125 South Wacker Drive, Suite 326, Chicago, Illinois, 

60606. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04968 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/21/12 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:2
2 OHSUSA:750920267.2 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. CoStar brings this action under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 

and 2202 for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the Asserted Patents 

under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. Since this action arises under 

the Patent Laws of the United States, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 

5. On information and belief, this Court has personal jurisdiction over CIVIX 

because CIVIX has constitutionally sufficient contacts with the Northern District of Illinois to 

make personal jurisdiction proper in this Court. In particular, on information and belief, CIVIX 

has repeatedly availed itself of the jurisdiction of this Court through the filing of lawsuits in this

district. Indeed, one of the actions filed in this Court, is ongoing. CIVIX-DDI, LLC v. 

Hotels.com, L.P., et al., N.D. Ill. Case No. 05-cv-06869. CIVIX has recently alleged that its 

principal place of business is located in Alexandria Virginia, but at least as late as August 24, 

2006, on information and belief, CIVIX’s principal place of business was in this district, located 

at 125 South Wacker Drive, Suite 326, Chicago, Illinois, 60606. 

6. On June 22, 1999, CIVIX filed suit against Navigation Technologies Corporation 

in this district. See CIVIX-DDI, LLC v. Navigation Technologies Corporation, N.D. Ill. Case 

No. 99-cv-04140. 

7. On June 3, 2003, CIVIX filed suit against Motorola, Inc., Verizon Wireless, 

Expedia, Inc., and Travelscape, Inc. in this district. See CIVIX-DDI, LLC v. Motorola, Inc., et 

al., N.D. Ill. Case No. 03-cv-03792. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04968 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/21/12 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:3
3 OHSUSA:750920267.2 

8. On December 13, 2003, CIVIX filed suit against Expedia, Inc. and Verizon 

Information Services in this district. See CIVIX-DDI, LLC v. Expedia, Inc., et al., N.D. Ill. Case 

No. 04-cv-08031. 

9. On December 6, 2005, CIVIX filed suit against the National Association of 

Realtors, Homestore Inc., Hotels.com, L.P., Hotels.com, GP LLC, Yahoo! Inc., Orbitz LLC, 

Travelocity.com Inc., and YellowPages.com LLC in this district. See CIVIX-DDI, LLC v. 

Hotels.com, L.P., et al., N.D. Ill. Case No. 05-cv-06869. This case is currently pending in this 

Court. 

10. On February 13, 2006, CIVIX filed suit against Orbitz LLC, Travelocity.com Inc., 

and YellowPages.com LLC in this district. See CIVIX-DDI, LLC v. Ortbitz, LLC, et al., N.D. Ill. 

Case No. 06-cv-00796. 

11. On August 4, 2010, CIVIX filed suit against Midwest Real Estate Data, LLC in 

this district. See CIVIX-DDI, LLC v. Midwest Real Estate Data, LLC, et al., N.D. Ill. Case No. 

10-cv-04887. 

12. On information and belief, CIVIX has long been represented in litigation by the 

law firm of Niro, Haller, & Niro, Ltd. (“Niro”), which is located in this district at 181 West 

Madison Street, Suite 4600, Chicago, Illinois 60602-4515. Niro has represented CIVIX in all of 

the cases in this district identified above. 

13. On July 18, 2011, CIVIX sent a letter to Jon Coleman, General Counsel of CoStar 

regarding the patents asserted in this action and products of CoStar. CoStar responded on 

September 9, 2011. 

14. On September 16, 2011, CIVIX responded to CoStar’s letter of September 9, 

2011, stating that the following CoStar products infringe the ’622 and ’291 patents: CoStar 

Case: 1:12-cv-04968 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/21/12 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:4
4 OHSUSA:750920267.2 

Property Professional, CoStar Property Professional Retain, CoStar Tenants, CoStar Comps 

Professional and Showcase. CIVIX’s letter of September 16, 2011 is attached to this complaint 

as Exhibit C. 

15. On January 3, 2012, CIVIX filed suit against LoopNet, Inc., in the Eastern District 

of Virginia. See CIVIX-DDI, LLC v. LoopNet, Inc., E.D. Va. Case No. 12-cv-00002. On May 

14, 2012, CIVIX filed a motion for leave to amend to file a first amended complaint adding 

CoStar Group, Inc. (“CoStar Group”) as a defendant in that action. The complaint that CIVIX 

sought leave to file asserted that CoStar Group had infringed claims of the Asserted Patents. 

CIVIX’s proposed first amended complaint is attached to this complaint as Exhibit D. 

16. On June 21, 2012, the Court issued its memorandum order denying CIVIX’s 

motion for leave to amend to add CoStar Group as a defendant. The Court’s order denying 

CIVIX’s motion to amend is attached to this complaint as Exhibit E. 

17. Therefore, at the present time an actual, active, dispute, case, and controversy 

exists between CoStar, on the one hand, and CIVIX, on the other, as to the validity of the 

Asserted Patents and the infringement of those patents by CoStar. This controversy is of such 

immediacy and reality to warrant declaratory relief so that the parties may ascertain their rights 

and duties with respect to the Asserted Patents. 

18. Accordingly, venue in the Northern District of Illinois is proper under 28 U.S.C. 

§§1391(b), 1400(b). 

COUNT ONE

Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement of the ’622 Patent

19. CoStar incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 

18 above, as though fully asserted herein. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04968 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/21/12 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:5
5 OHSUSA:750920267.2 

20. CIVIX represents that it owns the Asserted Patents, and has asserted that certain 

acts by CoStar infringe the Asserted Patents. 

21. CIVIX has alleged that CoStar’s product infringes the ’622 Patent. CoStar has not 

infringed and is not now infringing directly or indirectly, and has not induced or contributed to 

and is not now inducing or contributing to the infringement of, either literally or by application of 

the doctrine of equivalents, any claim of the ’622 Patent. 

22. CoStar seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court under Rule 57 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 declaring the ’622 Patent to be not infringed by 

CoStar and granting CoStar all other declaratory relief to which it may be entitled. 

COUNT TWO

Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’622 Patent

23. CoStar incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 

22 above, as though fully asserted herein. 

24. On information and belief, and based on CoStar’s ongoing investigation to date, 

the claims of the ’622 Patent are invalid because they fail to comply with one or more 

requirements of the Patent Laws of the United States, including, but not limited to, 35 U.S.C. §§ 

102, 103, and/or 112. 

25. CoStar seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court under Rule 57 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 declaring the ’622 Patent to be invalid and/or 

unenforceable for reasons including, but not limited to, failure to comply with one or more of 35 

U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112, and granting CoStar all other declaratory relief to which it may be 

entitled. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04968 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/21/12 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:6
6 OHSUSA:750920267.2 

COUNT THREE

Declaratory Judgment of Non-infringement of the ’291 Patent

26. CoStar incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 

25 above, as though fully asserted herein. 

27. CIVIX represents that it owns the Asserted Patents, and has asserted that certain 

acts by CoStar infringe the Asserted Patents. 

28. CIVIX has alleged that CoStar’s product infringes the ’291 Patent. CoStar has not 

infringed and is not now infringing directly or indirectly, and has not induced or contributed to 

and is not now inducing or contributing to the infringement of, either literally or by application of 

the doctrine of equivalents, any claim of the ’291Patent. 

29. CoStar seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court under Rule 57 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 declaring the ’291 Patent to be not infringed by 

CoStar and granting CoStar all other declaratory relief to which it may be entitled. 

COUNT FOUR

Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’291 Patent

30. CoStar incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 

29 above, as though fully asserted herein. 

31. On information and belief, and based on CoStar’s ongoing investigation to date, 

the claims of the ’291 Patent are invalid because they fail to comply with one or more 

requirements of the Patent Laws of the United States, including, but not limited to, 35 U.S.C. §§ 

102, 103, and/or 112. 

32. CoStar seeks a declaratory judgment from this Court under Rule 57 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 declaring the ’291 Patent to be invalid and/or 

unenforceable for reasons including, but not limited to, failure to comply with one or more of 35 

Case: 1:12-cv-04968 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/21/12 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:7
7 OHSUSA:750920267.2 

U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112, and granting CoStar all other declaratory relief to which it may 

be entitled. 

COUNT FIVE

Declaratory Judgment of Unenforceability Due to Inequitable Conduct

33. CoStar incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 

32 above, as though fully asserted herein. 

34. The Patents-in-Suit are unenforceable because, among other things, the named 

inventors and prosecuting attorneys, each of whom has a duty of candor and good faith when 

dealing with the USPTO, breached their duties in the prosecution of the applications that led to 

the issuance of the Patents-in-Suit and during reexamination of the Patents-in-Suit by failing to 

properly disclose to the USPTO material information and by making false and misleading 

statements, with the specific intent to deceive the USPTO. 

35. The prosecuting attorneys and named inventors associated with the filing and/or 

prosecution and re-examination of the Patents-in-Suit include, at least, the named inventors of 

the Patents-in-Suit, and prosecuting attorney Curtis Vock. 

36. The Patents-in-Suit purport to be continuations of United States Patent Nos. 

5,682,525 (the “’525 patent”) and 6,408,307 (the “’307 patent”). 

37. CIVIX filed various lawsuits asserting the ’525 patent in and around 1999. One 

action was filed in the Northern District of Illinois against Navigation Technologies Corporation 

(“NavTech”), while three other lawsuits were filed in the District of Colorado against Microsoft 

Corporation and twenty-four other defendants. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04968 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/21/12 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:8
8 OHSUSA:750920267.2 

38. Prior to the NavTech litigation, NavTech sought to provoke an interference at the 

USPTO between itself and CIVIX by filing U.S. Patent Application No. 09/179,299 (the 

“Interference Application”). NavTech sought to be declared the first and true inventor of certain 

mapping technologies described in both the Interference Application and the ’525 patent. 

39. The prosecution histories of the Patents-in-Suit contain no written evidence that 

CIVIX, including Mr. Vock, informed the PTO about the NavTech litigation or the Interference 

Application. 

40. Upon information and belief, CIVIX had the specific intent to deceive and/or 

mislead the USPTO by failing to disclose, or failing adequately to disclose, the NavTech 

litigation and the Interference Application to the USPTO during the prosecution of the Patentsin-Suit. 

41. In CIVIX v. Microsoft Corp., 84 F. Supp. 2d 1132 (D. Colo. 2000), the United 

States District Court for the District of Colorado granted defendants’ summary judgment motions 

on the issue of non-infringement of the ’525 patent. The district court also construed terms in the 

‘525 patent that are also present in the Patents-in-Suit. 

42. The prosecution histories of the Patents-in-Suit contain no written evidence that 

CIVIX disclosed to the USPTO information about the Microsoft litigation. For instance, there is 

no written evidence that CIVIX informed the USPTO that the District of Colorado had construed 

terms in the ’525 patent that are present in the Patents-in-Suit. In addition, CIVIX failed to 

disclosed the district court’s order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of the ’525 patent. The Information Disclosure Statements (“IDS”) provided by 

CIVIX in connection with the prosecution of the Patents-in-Suit fail to disclose the Microsoft 

litigation. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04968 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/21/12 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:9
9 OHSUSA:750920267.2 

43. CIVIX has asserted in other lawsuits that Mr. Vock had oral conversations with 

the patent examiner regarding the Microsoft litigation. The written interview summaries of those 

conversations, however, do not make any mention of the Microsoft litigation. 

44. CIVIX had an opportunity to enter a written record of the alleged discussions with 

the patent examiner into the prosecution history, but, upon information and belief, failed to do so. 

45. Upon information and belief, CIVIX, including Mr. Vock, had the specific intent 

to deceive and/or mislead the USPTO by failing to disclose, or failing adequately to disclose, the 

Microsoft litigation to the USPTO during the prosecution of the Patents-in-Suit. 

46. In or around June 1999, the defendants in the Microsoft litigation filed motions 

for summary judgment of patent invalidity regarding the ’525 patent. Microsoft filed one such 

motion itself on November 5, 1999. Upon information and belief, that motion identified three 

prior art references that Microsoft alleged invalidated various claim of the ’525 patent. CIVIX 

failed to identify any of the prior art on which Microsoft relied in its previous IDSs. 

47. By June 1999, CIVIX had filed three different IDSs in connection with the 

prosecution of the ’307 patent. The first IDS, submitted to the USPTO on November 10, 1997, 

disclosed one patent. The second IDS, submitted to the USPTO on March 9, 1998, disclosed 16 

patents. The third IDS, submitted to the USPTO on June 1, 1999, disclosed six patents and four 

other documents. 

48. Fifteen months after Microsoft filed its summary judgment motion of invalidity, 

CIVIX submitted its fourth IDS to the USPTO on February 8, 2001. Upon information and 

belief, CIVIX’s fourth IDS included the prior art on which Microsoft relied, but in “a mountain 

of material,” that included approximately 244 U.S. patents, 64 published patent applications, and 

290 non-patent references. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04968 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/21/12 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:10
10 OHSUSA:750920267.2 

49. On August 12, 2001, after receiving the above-described fourth IDS, the patent 

examiner reminded CIVIX that “[a]n applicant’s duty of disclosure of material and information is 

not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with ‘a mountain of largely irrelevant [material] 

from which he is presumed to have been able . . . to have found the critical [material]. It ignores 

the real world conditions under which examiners work.’” 

50. CIVIX’s response to the August 12, 2001 office action did not assist the patent 

examiner in determining which patents, published applications, and non-patent references in its 

fourth IDS were most relevant to the prosecution of the ’307 patent. In fact, CIVIX’s response 

did not even specify the three references on which Microsoft relied to prove invalidity. 

51. CIVIX has asserted in other lawsuits that Mr. Vock and Mr. Semple had oral 

conversations with the patent examiner regarding the prior art set forth in its fourth IDS. The 

written interview summaries of those conversations, however, do not make mention of the prior 

art set forth in the fourth IDS. 

52. CIVIX had an opportunity to enter a written record of the alleged discussions with 

the patent examiner into the prosecution history, but, upon information and belief, failed to do so. 

53. CIVIX submitted an IDS on January 17, 2002 in connection with the prosecution 

of the ’291 patent. The IDS, like the fourth IDS submitted in connection with the prosecution of 

the ’307 patent, contained approximately 600 references. 

54. CIVIX did not submit an IDS in connection with the prosecution of the ’622 

patent. 

55. Upon information and belief, CIVIX, including Mr. Vock, had the specific intent 

to deceive and/or mislead the USPTO during the prosecution of the Patents-in-Suit by (1) 

submitting an excessive number of largely irrelevant references to the patent examiner while 

Case: 1:12-cv-04968 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/21/12 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:11
11 OHSUSA:750920267.2 

failing to identify which pieces of material were most relevant, or (2) submitting no IDS to the 

USPTO at all. 

56. On September 20, 2006, a request for ex parte re-examination of the ’622 patent 

was filed with the USPTO. On January 23, 2007, a request for ex parte re-examination of the 

’291 patent was filed with the USPTO. Both requests were granted. Upon information and 

belief, CIVIX made affirmative misrepresentations of, and/or failed to disclose, material 

information to the USPTO during re-examination of the Patents-in-Suit. 

57. On January 21, 2009, CIVIX and its prosecution counsel submitted a declaration 

in connection with re-examination proceedings of the Patents-in-Suit to overcome a USPTO 

invalidity rejection (the “swear-behind declaration”). The swear-behind declaration purports to 

describe the circumstances surrounding the claimed invention so as to establish a priority date 

that antedates a dispositive prior art reference: U.S. Patent No. 4,482,535 (“Hershey”). The 

swear-behind declaration is signed by named inventors Mr. Semple and Mr. Bouve. 

58. By submitting the swear-behind declaration with Mr. Bouve’s signature, CIVIX 

represented to the USPTO that Mr. Bouve was competent to affirm and attest to the facts set 

forth in the declaration. The last two paragraphs of the declaration provide as follows: 

59. All statement [sic] made herein of our personal knowledge are true and all 

statements on information and belief are believed to be true. 

We make the above statements with the knowledge that under 18 

U.S.C. § 1001, willful false statements and the like, so made, are 

punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, and that such willful 

false statements may jeopardize the validity of any associated 

patent application or patent issued thereon. 

60. Upon information and belief, CIVIX knew that Mr. Bouve had suffered at least 

two strokes, one in 1995 and one in 2002. CIVIX also knew that by 2007, Mr. Bouve had 

Case: 1:12-cv-04968 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/21/12 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:12
12 OHSUSA:750920267.2 

suffered substantial memory loss and had difficulty speaking intelligibly. Further, CIVIX 

litigation counsel, in connection with another CIVIX lawsuit involving the Patents-in-Suit, 

informed the defendants’ counsel in that litigation that because of Mr. Bouve’s health problems, 

he was unfit for deposition. 

61. The swear-behind declaration fails to note or otherwise make mention of any 

competence or capacity issues affecting Mr. Bouve or his recollection of the events related to the 

invention. 

62. Upon information and belief, on March 16, 2009, counsel for Yahoo!, one of the 

defendants unable to depose Mr. Bouve, informed CIVIX’s re-examination counsel of Mr. 

Bouve’s health history and memory impairment. 

63. The prosecution history of the re-examinations of the Patents-in-Suit reveal no 

written evidence that CIVIX informed the USPTO of the unreliability of Mr. Bouve’s declaration 

or made any effort to withdraw the swear-behind declaration. 

64. Upon information and belief, CIVIX knew that the swear-behind declaration was 

material to the USPTO because the declaration was provided in response to the patent examiner’s 

rejection of the claims as invalid in view of prior art and following an interview with the patent 

examiner during which the appropriateness and relevance of such a declaration was allegedly 

discussed. Information concerning Mr. Bouve’s health history and memory impairment was 

material to the USPTO’s determination of patentability because a reasonable examiner would 

consider it important in deciding whether to allow the claims to survive re-examination, and 

because false declarations are inherently material.

65. CIVIX submitted a supplemental declaration, attesting to essentially the same 

facts as the swear-behind declaration, dated May 8, 2009, signed only by Mr. Semple. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04968 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/21/12 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:13
13 OHSUSA:750920267.2 

66. Upon information and belief, CIVIX had the specific intent to deceive and/or 

mislead the USPTO during the re-examination of the Patents-in-Suit when it failed to disclose 

Mr. Bouve’s health history, memory impairment, and diminished capacity to the USPTO and 

sought to disguise that wrongdoing by later submitting a nearly identical declaration without his 

signature. 

67. On January 21, 2009, and again in connection with the re-examination 

proceedings of the Patents-in-Suit, Mr. Semple submitted a declaration in his individual capacity, 

but on behalf of CIVIX, to set forth his “intent and understanding as an inventor and person of 

ordinary skill in the relevant art . . . concerning the meaning and use of the capitalized version of 

‘Internet’ versus the non-capitalized version, ‘internet’” at the alleged time of conception. 

68. According to Mr. Semple’s declaration, those two terms were used 

interchangeably at the time he claimed to have invented the subject-matter claimed in the patent. 

In the early 1990s, including 1994, as the Internet was becoming 

more well known, it was common to use the two different versions 

(capitalized/non-capitalized) of the “internet” interchangeably 

when making reference to the publicly accessible, global 

interconnection of computer networks which is today more 

consistently referred to as using the capitalized version, “the 

Internet.” This is not only my opinion as an inventor and person of 

ordinary skill in the art, but is also consistent with and supported in 

literature from that period[.] 

69. This position is directly at odds with the positions CIVIX advanced during claim 

construction in its litigations against such companies like Expedia, Inc. and Hotels.com. In the 

Expedia litigation, CIVIX argued during claim construction that a distinction existed between the 

two terms: 

The parties agree that the Court should construe “internet” as “a 

group of networks that have been connected by means of a 

common communications protocol.” The Court will adopt this 

Case: 1:12-cv-04968 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/21/12 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:14
14 OHSUSA:750920267.2 

construction. The parties disagree, however, on the construction of 

the term “Internet.” In its briefing, CIVIX argues that a distinction 

exists between “internet” and “Internet.” . . . Defendants, however, 

argue that both “internet” and “Internet” have the same 

construction. 

70. The court ultimately agreed with CIVIX, and construed the terms differently. 

Relying in part on a 1994 book that Mr. Semple also cited in his “Internet declaration,” the court 

construed “Internet” to mean “a system of linked computer networks, worldwide in scope, that 

typically is associated with using TCP/IP as a standard protocol,” and “internet” to mean “a 

group of networks that have been connected by means of a common communications protocol.” 

71. In the Hotels.com litigation, CIVIX again argued for a distinction between the 

terms “Internet” and “internet,” but the court ultimately disagreed with CIVIX. 

[Hotels.com] contend[s] that “Internet” and “internet” have the 

same meaning in the ’622 and ’291 patents. [citation omitted]. 

Civix does not take an explicit stance on the issue, but appears to 

implicitly opposed [Hotels.com]’s position. [citations omitted]. 

The Court agrees with [Hotels.com] and thus declines to adhere to 

its earlier determination that the two terms carry different 

meanings. 

72. Upon information and belief, in a letter dated March 16, 2009, counsel for 

defendant Yahoo! notified CIVIX’s re-examination counsel that the position CIVIX advanced to 

the USPTO regarding the construction of capitalized “Internet” and non-capitalized “internet” 

was the opposite of the construction CIVIX asserted in the Expedia and Hotels.com lawsuits. 

There is no evidence that CIVIX identified this inconsistency to the USPTO or made any effort 

to withdraw Mr. Semple’s Internet declaration. 

73. Upon information and belief, CIVIX knew that Mr. Semple’s Internet declaration 

was material to the USPTO because it was submitted after its claims had been rejected for 

invalidity in view of prior art that disclosed “Internet” references. Moreover, CIVIX’s litigation 

Case: 1:12-cv-04968 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/21/12 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:15
15 OHSUSA:750920267.2 

position was material to the USPTO’s determination of patentability because a reasonable patent 

examiner would consider it important in deciding whether to allow the claims to survive reexamination because of the obvious inconsistency. 

74. Upon information and belief, CIVIX had the specific intent to deceive and/or 

mislead the USPTO during the re-examination proceedings of the Patents-in-Suit when it took a 

position before the USPTO wholly contrary with its positions in lawsuits and failed to notify the 

USPTO of this inconsistency. 

75. By engaging in at least the foregoing acts of misrepresentations, omissions, and 

deceit, CIVIX breached its duty of disclosure and engaged in inequitable conduct. 

76. To resolve the legal and factual questions raised by CIVIX, and to afford relief 

from the uncertainty and controversy raised by CIVIX’s allegations in its Complaint, CoStar is 

entitled to a declaratory judgment that the Patents-in-Suit are unenforceable by reason of 

inequitable conduct. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

 CoStar requests that the Court find in its favor and against CIVIX and that the Court grant 

the following relief: 

1. The Court enter judgment declaring that CoStar has not willfully or otherwise 

infringed, contributed to the infringement of, nor induced infringement of any claim of the 

Asserted Patents; 

2. The Court enter judgment declaring that the claims contained in the Asserted 

Patents are invalid and/or unenforceable; 

3. The Court issue a declaration that this case is “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 

285; 

4. The Court award CoStar its costs and expenses for this action, including 

Case: 1:12-cv-04968 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/21/12 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:16
16 OHSUSA:750920267.2 

reasonable attorneys’ fees; 

5. The Court award to CoStar further necessary and proper relief under 28 U.S.C. § 

2202; and 

6. The Court grant to CoStar such other and further relief as the Court deems just 

and appropriate. 

 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

In the above-captioned action, CoStar hereby demands a trial by jury as to all issues in this 

action triable by jury.

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: June 21, 2012 /s/ David C. Van Dyke 

 David C. Van Dyke

David C. Van Dyke 

Howard & Howard LLP 

200 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1100 

Chicago, IL 60604 

Telephone: (312) 456-3641 

Facsimile: (312) 939-5617 

Email: dvd@h2law.com 

Attorney for CoStar Realty Information, Inc. 

Case: 1:12-cv-04968 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/21/12 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:17