Source: https://es.scribd.com/document/392210280/2018-11-01-30-Match-First-Amended-Counterclaims-Against-Bumble
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:30:22+00:00

Document:
Cadence Pharmaceuticals et. al. v. Paddock Laboratories et. al.
Joao Bock Transaction Systems v. Capital One Financial Et. Al.
AGAINST BUMBLE HOLDING, LTD AND BUMBLE TRADING, INC.
place of business in Dallas, Texas at 8750 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1400.
Kingdom with a principal place of business in London, United Kingdom.
Holding, Ltd.1 because those entities filed this lawsuit in Dallas County.
Trading, Inc. and Bumble Holding, Ltd., unless referring to the Bumble app itself.
County and the removal statute therefore provides for venue in this Court. See 28 U.S.C.
marketing efforts for the Tinder app.
She assisted in promoting the app and encouraging users to sign up in the app’s early days.
dating services. From its earliest days, the premise of Tinder has been fundamentally the same.
swiping on Tinder became a cultural sensation.
12. Tinder is now one of the most popular apps in the world.
innovations embodied in versions of the Tinder app. The ’811 Patent is attached as Exhibit A.
innovations embodied in versions of the Tinder app. The ’023 Patent is attached as Exhibit B.
Mobile Device,” issued September 26, 2017. The ’314 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
interference because they were frivolous and made in bad faith.
by making and using a system that practices the claims of Tinder’s patent.
indication regarding the first user.
negative preference indication regarding the first user.
infringing the ’811 Patent by making and/or using the Bumble system.
Trading’s servers practice all of the limitations of these claims, as set forth in the example below.
course of serving infringement contentions, at the latest.
and the second Bumble app user each expressed a positive preference for each other.
second user has expressed the positive preference indication regarding the first user.
first and third Bumble app users to communicate through the app.
Bumble app user has made a positive preference indication in the form of a first swiping gesture.
38. At least some servers perform this method in the United States.
to cause infringing acts by others.
earnings call, Match Group, Inc. CEO Mandy Ginsberg discussed the ’811 Patent.
Bumble for a comment about the ’811 Patent.
prosecuting a patent related to swipe functionality.
at Tinder when the application maturing into the ’811 Patent was filed in October 2013.
for making allegations concerning the patent.
actively inducing infringement by others.
took deliberate steps to avoid confirming the same.
connection with an online matchmaking app.
ELIGIBILITY OF THE ’811 PATENT.
allegedly failing to recite subject matter eligible for patenting.
petition alleging that the ’811 Patent is invalid.
52. The inventions claimed in the ’811 Patent are not directed to an abstract idea.
as well as in online social networking.
or lack thereof regarding potential matches, was unknown and unconventional.
efficiencies to user interaction revolutionized the world of online dating.
at the time of the inventions claimed in the ’811 Patent.
scrolling on devices with small screens.
matches is one of the most significant aspects of making preference decisions.
choice decisions and increased user engagement with the application.
interface claimed in the ’811 Patent.
concerning users than it might otherwise.
fostering user engagement and more potential matches to be made.
genius of Tinder’s concept and design.” See Ex. D.
difference between Tinder and other mobile apps is how you navigate through potential matches.
feasible in a list format or on a small screen with lots of navigation options.” See Ex. E.
‘Yes’ or ‘No’ from the user.” See Ex. F.
directed to an improved interface for that method.
swiping left or right on cards containing photographs.
claimed. The broken lines are for illustrative purposes only.
app to sell services related to the app.
into believing that Bumble’s design is the same as Match’s patented design.
realize their actions were unreasonably risky with respect to infringement of the ’314 Patent.
ornamental design in the Bumble app.
Bumble Holding and Bumble Trading sued Match for allegations made in that complaint.
petition alleging that the ’314 Patent is invalid.
83. The ’314 Patent is not invalid for reciting functional subject matter.
Patent at least by making and using a system that practices the claims of Tinder’s patent.
information in response to detecting the gesture.
to end users in the United States.
91. User devices compatible with the Bumble app include processors.
swiping direction associated with the positive preference indication gesture.
positive preference before transmitting that data to Bumble’s servers.
representation of the first item of information in response to detecting the gesture.
customers to install and use the Bumble app in the United States.
98. Bumble took the above actions intending to cause infringing acts by others.
especially made or adapted for use in Bumble’s infringing system.
infringing use but has taken and is taking deliberate steps to avoid confirming the same.
PATENT IS SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBLE.
103. The inventions claimed in the ’023 Patent are not directed to an abstract idea.
conventional, concrete improvement in graphical interfaces for online dating.
first data profile is automatically removed.
at the time of the inventions claimed in the ’023 Patent.
decisions and increased user engagement with the application.
interface claimed in the ’023 Patent.
genius of Tinder’s concept and design.” See Exhibit D.
feasible in a list format or on a small screen with lots of navigation options.” See Exhibit E.
‘Yes’ or ‘No’ from the user.” See Exhibit F.
the lawsuit is both objectively baseless and brought in subjective bad faith.
objectively baseless or brought in subjective bad faith.
that are protected by enforceable intellectual property rights.
132. This is precisely the situation the Declaratory Judgment Act is designed for.
Match intends to conclusively disprove them.
and prove that the lawsuit is both objectively baseless and brought in subjective bad faith.
claim in Match’s lawsuit is objectively baseless or brought in subjective bad faith.
forced to compete against its own ideas that protected by enforceable intellectual property rights.
140. Match denies that it has published false or disparaging information about Bumble.
Bumble or to interfere with Bumble’s economic interests.
reckless disregard for its truth.
144. This is precisely the situation the Declaratory Judgment Act is designed for.
allegations now, and Match intends to conclusively disprove them.
PROPER FORUM FOR CERTAIN DISPUTES.
discussions related to a potential acquisition of Bumble by Match.
requesting additional information related to the proposed transaction.
it may re-file them in a jurisdiction other than England and Wales.
Trading Inc., meanwhile, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bumble Holding, Ltd.
connection with this agreement or its subject matter or formation.” (Emphasis added).
153. Bumble’s “Texas Uniform Trade Secrets” claim also arises out of the contract.
agreement between Match Group, Inc. and Worldwide Vision Ltd.
Group was confidential and/or proprietary and/or a trade secret.
information and defined the permitted uses of the information.
all of Bumble Trading Inc.
164. Therefore, the forum selection provision applies.
confidential information that Bumble asserted in its original state court petition.
parties ultimately could not come to an agreement on an acquisition price.
Match as “highly confidential” under the express terms of the agreement.
sensitive trade secret information highlights that Bumble’s allegations here are meritless.
because it derived no economic value from being a secret.
171. Match denies that it used Bumble information in any improper way.
common law of unfair competition.
5. A declaratory judgment that Bumble infringes the ’314 Patent.
6. A declaratory judgment that the ’314 Patent is non-functional.
acquisition of Bumble did not give rise to liability for business and commercial disparagement.
liability for misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud, unfair competition, or promissory estoppel.
less than a reasonable royalty.
Defendant demands a trial by jury on all issues triable of right by a jury.
upon all counsel of record through the Court’s CM/ECF system.
Hitachi Koki v. Rexon Industrial et. al.
Mt. Derm v. Permanent Makeup International et. al.
Chicago Dryer Company et. al. v. Jensen et. al.
Sinclair-Allison v. Fifth Avenue Physician Services et. al.
Powerline Innovations v. Qualcomm et. al.
Dual Lever Suspension v. Santa Cruz Bicycles et. al.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.