Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/65496/FinalComplaint013107
Timestamp: 2017-03-24 10:13:00
Document Index: 610379781

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 16720', '§ 17200', '§ 15', '§ 16750', '§ 17203', '§ 1331', '§ 1332', '§\n410', '§ 1391', 'art.\n20', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 15', '§ 16750', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 16720', '§ 16720', '§ 16750', '§ 16750', '§ 17200', '§\n17203', 'art04']

FinalComplaint013107 | Prior Art
BrowseInterestsStay InformedCareerPersonal GrowthFiction & BiographiesHealth & FitnessLifestyleCultureBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinAlan HimmelIarb (Cal. Bar No.90480)
LAW OFFICES OF ALAN HIMMELFARB 2757 Leonis Blvd
Los Angeles. CA 90058
Telephone: (323) 585-8696
Fax: (323) 585-8198
consumerlaw1(earthlink.net
KAMBER & ASSOCIATES. LLC
11 Broadway. 22d Floor
New York. NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 920-3072
Fax: (212) 202-6364
skamber(kolaw.com
epreston(kolaw.com
100 Washington Ave South. Suite 2200
Minneapolis. MN 55401
rlockridge(locklaw.com
rkshelquist(locklaw.com
yIlaherty(locklaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiff. Dennis Dilbeck
SAN 1OSE DIVISION
DENNIS DILBECK. an individual. on his own
behalI and on behalI oI all similarly situated.
PlaintiII
NETFLIX. INC. a Delaware corporation
Class Action Complaint 1
Dennis Dilbeck ('Dilbeck¨ or 'PlaintiII¨). Ior his complaint. alleges as Iollows upon
inIormation and belieI. based upon. inter alia. investigation conducted by and through their
attorneys. except as to those allegations pertaining to PlaintiII and his counsel personally. which
are alleged upon knowledge:
1. This is a national antitrust class action brought on behalI oI a class oI all persons and
entities who subscribed to NetIlix. Inc. ('NetIlix¨ or 'DeIendant¨). The class action
concerns two patents obtained by NetIlix: U.S. Patent No. 6.584.450 (the ''450 Patent¨)
and U.S. Patent No. 7.024.381 (the ''381 Patent¨). The '450 Patent was issued on June 23.
2003 and the '381 Patent was issued on April 4. 2006. 2. As Iurther alleged below. these Patents were obtained by Iraud on the Patent OIIice and
the Iraudulent concealment oI prior art. Because prior art anticipates some or all oI the
claims in the '450 and '381 Patents. and NetIlix knew oI this prior art. but Iailed to disclose
it to the Patent OIIice. the '450 and '381 Patents are invalid and unenIorceable. But Ior
NetIlix's Iraud and Iraudulent concealment. the Patent OIIice would have never issued
either the '450 Patent or the '381 Patent.
3. Through its control oI the '450 and '381 Patents. NetIlix monopolized the online DVD
rental market by deterring other competitors Irom entering that market. But Ior the threat
oI liability Ior inIringing on the '450 and '381 Patents. there would be more competition
(and. hence better services and lower prices) in the online DVD rental market. The '450
and '381 Patents have deterred and continue to deter competitors and delay the
introduction oI competition in the market Ior online DVD rentals and related subscription
services. As a consequence oI NetIlix's exclusion oI competitors and constraint oI
competition. Dilbeck and the other class members have paid supracompetitive online
DVD rental subscription rates to NetIlix.
4. To maintain its monopoly. NetIlix has sued Blockbuster. Inc. ('Blockbuster¨) Ior allegedly
inIringing on the '450 and '381 Patents by operating its Blockbuster Online rental service
('Blockbuster Online¨). in case titled Netflix. Inc. v. Blockbuster. Inc.. No. 06-2361 (N.D.
Class Action Complaint 2
Cal. Apr. 4. 2006) (the 'Netflix action¨) beIore the Honorable William Alsup in the San
Francisco Division. That proceeding both impaired Blockbuster Online's competitive
impact on the market and has deterred other competitors Irom entering the online DVD
rental market. 5. The Netflix Court denied NetIlix's motion to dismiss Blockbuster's Walker Process
counterclaim against NetIlix under the Sherman Act. Netflix. Inc. v. Blockbuster. Inc.. No.
06-2361. 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63154 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22. 2006). The Court denied
PlaintiII's motion to intervene in the Netflix action on December 7. 2006.
6. NetIlix's acts in obtaining and enIorcing the '450 and '381 Patents to exclude and restrain
competition constitute an unlawIul trust prohibited under CaliIornia's Cartwright Act.
NetIlix's use oI the '450 and '381 Patents to delay. deter. and destroy competition in the
online DVD rental market also established and maintained a monopoly prohibited under
the Sherman Act. 7. NetIlix's actions violate the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 2). CaliIornia's Cartwright Act (Cal.
Bus. & ProI. Code §§ 16720. 16726). and CaliIornia's unIair competition law (Cal. Bus. &
ProI. Code § 17200). This lawsuit seeks remedies Ior consumers against NetIlix's
anticompetitive acts. including damages (and treble damages under the Sherman Act and
the Cartwright Act). restitution. and other iniunctive relieI restraining NetIlix Irom similar
anticompetitive acts in the Iuture under the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 15. 26). the
Cartwright Act (Cal. Bus. & ProI. Code § 16750). and the unIair competition law (Cal.
Bus. & ProI. Code § 17203).
8. Dennis Dilbeck is a resident oI Los Angeles. CaliIornia. Dilbeck has been a NetIlix
subscriber since October 2002.
9. DeIendant NetIlix. Inc. is a Delaware corporation which maintains its headquarters at 100
Winchester Circle. Los Gatos. CA 95032. Founded in 1999. NetIlix claims to be the
world's largest online DVD movie rental service. NetIlix now claims to have 5.2 million
Class Action Complaint 3
10. Dilbeck asserts a claim under the Sherman Antitrust Act and seeks damages and iniunctive
remedies under the Clayton Act on behalI oI himselI and all others similarly situated. This
Court has Iederal subiect matter iurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
11. DeIendant is a Delaware corporation headquartered in CaliIornia and is only a citizen in
CaliIornia and Delaware. PlaintiII asserts claims oI behalI oI a proposed class whose
members are scattered throughout the IiIty states (including the 48 states besides
CaliIornia and Delaware) and the U.S. territories: there is minimal diversity oI citizenship
between proposed class members and the DeIendant. The aggregate oI these claims
exceed the sum or value oI $5.000.000. This Court also has subiect matter iurisdiction
over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).
12. This Court has personal iurisdiction over the DeIendant under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §
410.10 because NetIlix maintains its corporate headquarters in. and the maiority oI acts
alleged herein were committed in. CaliIornia and. speciIically. the Northern District oI
CaliIornia.
13. Venue is also proper beIore this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) .(2). (c).
14. A substantial part oI the events which give rise to the claim occurred at the DeIendant's
Los Gatos headquarters in Santa Clara County. CaliIornia. Under Local Rule 3-2(e). this
civil action should be assigned to the San Jose division oI the Northern District oI
CaliIornia. This case may be related to the Netflix action under Local Rule 3-11 or may
otherwise be eligible Ior transIer to the San Francisco division under Local Rule 3-2(I).
Netflix's Patents
15. The '450 Patent Application: At issue in this case are two patents U.S. Patent No.
6.584.450 (the ''450 Patent¨) and U.S. Patent No. 7.024.381 (the ''381 Patent¨). NetIlix
Iiled its application Ior the '450 patent with the Patent OIIice on April 28. 2000 (''450
Class Action Complaint 4
Patent Application¨). The '450 Patent Application was designated Serial No. 09/561.041
and listed W. Reed Hastings. (NetIlix's ChieI Executive OIIicer and President). Marc B.
Randolph. and Neil Duncan Hunt as the inventors ('NetIlix Inventors¨).
16. Claim 1 oI the '450 Patent Application covered:
A method Ior renting items to customers. the method comprising the
computer-implemented steps oI:
receiving one or more item selection criteria that indicates one or more
items that a customer desires to rent;
providing to the customer up to a speciIied number oI the one or more
items indicated by the one or more item selection criteria; and
in response to receiving any oI the items provided to the customer.
providing to the customer one or more other items indicated by the
one or more item selection criteria. wherein a total current number
oI items provided to the customer does not exceed the speciIied
Claims 14. 29. 49. 65. 79. 94. and 96 oI the `450 Patent Application all describe iterations
oI the claimed method adiusted to the rental oI movies.
17. The '381 Patent Application: On or about. April 7. 2003 the Patent OIIice gave NetIlix
notice that the '450 Patent would be allowed and would issue shortly (and the '450 Patent
indeed issued on June 24. 2004). Five weeks later. on May 14. 2003. NetIlix applied Ior
the '381 Patent (the ''381 Patent Application¨). The '381 Patent Application was
designated Serial No. 10/438.727 and. again. listed the NetIlix Inventors as the inventors. 18. Claim 1 oI the '381 Patent Application covered:
A computer-implemented method Ior renting movies to customers. the
providing electronic digital inIormation that causes one or more attributes
oI movies to be displayed;
establishing. in electronic digital Iorm. Irom electronic digital inIormation
received over the Internet. a movie rental queue associated with a
customer comprising an ordered list indicating two or more movies
Ior renting to the customer;
causing to be delivered to the customer up to a speciIied number oI movies
based upon the order oI the list;
in response to one or more delivery criteria being satisIied. selecting
another movie based upon the order oI the list and causing the
selected movie to be delivered to the customer; and
in response to other electronic digital inIormation received Irom the
customer over the Internet. electronically updating the movie rental
19. Despite the startling breadth oI its claims. the '450 Patent Application made no reIerence
Class Action Complaint 5
to any prior art.
20. Conversely. the '381 Patent Application listed over 100 reIerences to prior art. the volume
oI which Dilbeck alleges on inIormation and belieI was suIIicient to 'swamp¨ the Patent
OIIice's examiners by burying any reIerences which would limited the '381 patent
application's claims in a plurality oI innocuous. plausibly relevant reIerences. Further. as
alleged below. the '381 patent application completely omitted other prior art known to the
NetIlix patent applicants.
Netflix Patent Applicant's Duty of Candor and Good Faith to the Patent Office
21. Prior Art: To qualiIy Ior protection under the patent laws. an invention must be both
novel and nonobvious. II prior art. or knowledge already publicly available. anticipates an
invention. the invention is not novel and cannot be patented. Where the diIIerence
between the invention and prior art is such that the invention as a whole would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made. the invention is obvious and cannot be
22. The Netflix Patent Applicants: Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 and Iederal common law. each
individual 'associated¨ with the Iiling and prosecution oI a patent application has a duty
oI candor and good Iaith to the Patent OIIice. Per Patent OIIice regulation. individuals
'associated¨ with the Iiling and prosecution oI a patent application include each inventor
named in the application. each attorney or agent who prepares or prosecutes the
|e|very other person who is substantively involved in the preparation or
prosecution oI the application and who is associated with the inventor. with
the assignee or with anyone to whom there is an obligation to assign the
application. Each oI the Iollowing were associated with the '450 and '381 patent applications: W. Reed
Hastings. Marc B. Randolph. and Neil Duncan Hunt (the listed inventors). Edward A.
Becker and Hickman Palermo Truong & Becker LLP (the prosecuting attorneys). NetIlix
(the assignor). and any oI NetIlix's other employees. directors. oIIicers. or agents
Class Action Complaint 6
substantively involved in the '450 and '381 patent applications (collectively. the 'NetIlix
Patent Applicants¨).
23. Patent Applicants' Duty of Candor and Good Faith: The NetIlix Patent Applicants'
duty oI candor and good Iaith to the Patent OIIice has public implications:
A patent by its very nature is aIIected with a public interest. The public
interest is best served . . . when. at the time an application is being
examined. the OIIice is aware oI and evaluates the teachings oI all
inIormation material to patentability.
37 C.F.R. § 1.56(a). The NetIlix Patent Applicants' duty oI candor and good Iaith to the
Patent OIIice speciIically included 'a duty to disclose to the OIIice all inIormation known
. . . to be material¨ to the '450 and '381 patent applications' subiect matter. 24. Thus. the NetIlix Patent Applicants had a duty to disclose all known material prior art to
the Patent OIIice. 25. 37 C.F.R. § 1.51(b) requires all patent applicants submit an oath or declaration with their
application. The declaration includes an acknowledgment oI the duty to disclose to the
OIIice 'all inIormation known to the person to be material to patentability¨ deIined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.56.
26. The NetIlix Inventors submitted a declaration in which they acknowledged the duty to
disclose material inIormation to the Patent OIIice. The declaration indicates that W. Reed
Hasting signed on September 28. 2000. by Neil Duncan Hunt signed on September 29.
2000. and Marc B. Randolph signed on October 3. 2000.
Material Prior Art to the '450 and '381 Patents 27. The inIormation alleged below (the 'Prior Art¨) to constitutes prior art to the '450 and '381
Patents. and anticipates at least some. iI not all. oI the claims contained in the '450 and
'381 Patents.
28. The NCR Patents: A number oI patents assigned to the NCR Corporation ('NCR
Patents¨) predate. anticipate. and are prior art to the '450 and/or '381 Patents:
(a) U.S. Patent No. 5.699.526 (the ''526 Patent¨). entitled 'Ordering and
Downloading Resources Irom Computerized Repositories.¨ issued on
December 16. 1997. whose subiect matter concerns. inter alia. Class Action Complaint 7
a system Ior managing resources. comprised oI multiple servers
and one or more PCs coupled to the servers. The servers are
grouped into local servers and regional servers. wherein each oI the
local servers stores resources. and each oI the regional servers
stores proIiles oI the resources. The proIiles contain descriptive
inIormation about the resources stored on the local servers. The
local and regional servers are linked together so that proIiles and
resources can electronically transIerred therebetween. A PC
coupled to server can view proIiles stored in the regional servers.
and then electronically order delivery oI any resource described in
a proIile viewed by the PC);
(b) U.S. Patent No. 5.951.643. entitled 'Mechanism Ior Dependably
Organizing and Managing InIormation Ior Web Synchronization and
Tracking Among Multiple Browsers.¨ issued September 14. 1999;
(c) U.S. Patent No. 5.991.791. entitled 'Security Aspects oI Computer
Resource Repositories.¨ issued November 23. 1999; and
(d) U.S. Patent No. 6.026.403. entitled 'Computer System Ior Management oI
Resources.¨ issued on February 15. 2000; (e) U.S. Patent No. 6.169.997. entitled 'Method and Apparatus Ior Forming
Subiect (Context) Map and Presenting Internet Data According to the
Subiect Map.¨ issued January 2. 2001;
(I) U.S. Patent No. 6.253.203. entitled 'Privacy-Enhanced Database.¨ issued
June 26. 2001;
(g) U.S. Patent No. 6.502.096. entitled 'Managing a Resource on a Network
Where Each Resource Has an Associated ProIile with an Image.¨ issued
December 31. 2002; and
(h) U.S. Patent No. 6.714.931. entitled 'Method and Apparatus Ior Forming
User Sessions and Presenting Internet Data According to the User
Sessions.¨ issued March 30. 2004.
29. The '526 Patent is. in particular. plainly prior art to the '450 and '381 Patents: the '450 and
'381 Patents claim methods Ior selecting preIerred items (in particular DVDs) to be
delivered to a computer user. Likewise. the '526 Patent claims a system oI selecting
preIerred resources that would then be delivered to a computer user.
30. Other Prior Art: In addition. a good deal oI other inIormation predates. anticipates. and is
prior art to the '450 and '381 Patents (the 'Other Prior Art¨). This prior art includes:
(a) more than 100 reIerences included the '381 Patent Application which
predate the '450 Patent Application and could have been included in the
'450 Patent Application (the 'Omitted '381 Patent Application
ReIerences¨); as well as (b) subscription systems. including libraries Ior the blind and other
subscription libraries. cable and satellite television services. pay television
services. as well as TiVo and other video and Iilm subscription services; the
wide-spread use oI waiting lists and/or reservation lists Ior out-oI-stock
videos in the video rental industry; and prior art in the electronic
description. selection and ordering oI items via the Internet
('Miscellaneous Prior Art¨).
Netflix Patent Applicants Fraudulently Concealed Prior Art From the Patent Office
31. The NetIlix Patent Applicants learned oI at least some oI the Prior Art beIore the '450
Patent issued. Further. the NetIlix Patent Applicants knew that some oI this Prior Art
anticipated and was material to the pending '450 and '381 Patents Applications. and knew
that they had a duty to disclose such material prior art to the Patent OIIice under 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.56.
32. Despite their acknowledged duty to disclose all material prior art to the Patent OIIice. the
NetIlix Patent Applicants Iraudulently concealed at least some oI the Prior Art alleged
above. 33. The NCR Patents: The most telling evidence oI the NetIlix Patent Applicants' Iraudulent
concealment oI Prior Art Irom the Patent OIIice involves the NCR Patents. NetIlix has
Iiled documents beIore this very Court which demonstrate that NetIlix knew about the
NCR patents well beIore either the '450 or the '381 patent issued. NetIlix Iiled a
declaratory iudgment action against NCR on March 10. 2006.
34. In that case (titled Netflix. Inc. v. NCR Corp.. No. C 06 1892 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10. 2006)).
NetIlix alleged in its complaint Ior declaratory action:
On January 7. 2003. Bruce A. Langos. Vice President oI Business Operations and
Intellectual Property Management at NCR. wrote to Reed Hastings. the ChieI
Executive OIIicer oI NetIlix claiming notice 'that various NetIlix.com oIIerings
inIringe at least the Iollowing patents owned by NCR Corporation.¨ The letter
identiIied ten separate patents that NCR claimed were inIringed. and enclosed
several exemplary claim charts. each oI which accused NetIlix oI inIringing the
claims described therein. . . . On August 1.2005. Mr. Langos once again wrote to Mr. Hastings oI NetIlix
concerning 'your company's inIringements oI NCR patents.¨ The letter enclosed
updated claim charts that again accused NetIlix oI inIringing the claims described
therein. and threatened that should NetIlix reIuse to license the technology NCR
was 'prepared to pursue other options.¨ . . . In late 2005. counsel Ior NCR contacted counsel Ior NetIlix in San Francisco.
Class Action Complaint 9
CaliIornia. seeking to schedule a Iace-to-Iace meeting in San Francisco to discuss
NCR's allegations oI inIringement. . . . |D|uring |a November 28. 2005| meeting
NCR's counsel once again asserted that NetIlix inIringed the NCR patents . . . |O|n
January 11. 2006. counsel Ior NCR sent via email . . . revised charts purporting to
show that NetIlix was currently inIringing the claims described therein.
Thus. NetIlix's own pleadings in Netflix. Inc. v. NCR Corp. allege and establish that the
NetIlix Patent Applicants had notice oI the NCR patents no later than January 7. 2003. 35. NetIlix Iurther alleged that it has a reasonable apprehension that NCR would sue NetIlix
Ior inIringing on the NCR Patents and. thereIore. an actual and iusticiable controversy
existed between NetIlix and NCR concerning whether NetIlix inIringes any valid claim oI
the NCR patents.
36. Despite acknowledging that it knew oI the NCR Patents. that it had an apprehension that
NCR would actually sue NetIlix Ior inIringing the NCR Patents. NetIlix Iailed to disclose
the NCR Patents to the Patent OIIice. 37. Further. none of the other Netflix Patent Applicants ever disclosed the NCR Patents to the
Patent Office. either in respect to the '450 Patent Application (which was pending until
June 24. 2003) or in respect to the '381 Patent Application (which was pending until April
24. 2006).
38. The NetIlix Patent Applicants' duty oI candor and good Iaith obliged them to notiIy the
Patent OIIice oI any material prior art under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(a). The NetIlix Patent
Applicants should have notiIied the Patent OIIice oI the NCR Patents because the NCR
Patents were material to the '450 and '381 Patent Applications: (a) neither the '450 nor the '381 Patent Applications contained reIerences to the
NCR Patents. so the NCR Patents could not be cumulative to any
inIormation contained in the '450 nor the '381 Patent Applications; (b) the NCR Patents were inconsistent with the NetIlix Patent Applicants'
position that the '450 and '381 Patent Applications' subiect matter was
novel and nonobvious (and thereIore patentable); and (c) the NCR Patents established a prima facie case that the subiect matter oI
the '450 and '381 patent applications was not novel (and thereIore not
patentable).
(d) the NCR Patents (notwithstanding whether they do in Iact cover NetIlix's
rental service. or whether they indeed valid). their applications. and the
reIerences cited in those applications. contain inIormation that a reasonable
examiner would be substantially likely to consider important in deciding
Class Action Complaint 10
whether to allow an application to issue as a patent.
39. The Other Prior Art: To the extent that the NetIlix Patent Applicants knew or learned oI
the Other Prior Art during the pendency oI either the '450 or the '381 Patent Applications.
they had a duty to disclose the Other Prior Art under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(a).
40. The NetIlix Patent Applicants' duty oI candor and good Iaith obliged them to notiIy the
Applicants should have notiIied the Patent OIIice oI the Other Prior Art because the Other
Prior Art was material to the '450 and '381 Patent Applications: (a) neither the '450 nor the '381 Patent Applications contained reIerences to the
Miscellaneous Prior Art. so the Miscellaneous Prior Art could not be
cumulative to any inIormation contained in the '450 nor the '381 Patent
Applications; (b) likewise. the '450 Patent Application did not contain any reIerence to the
Omitted '381 Patent Application ReIerences. and so the Omitted '381
Patent Application ReIerences could not be cumulative to any inIormation
contained in the '450 Patent Application; (c) the Other Prior Art was material to the '450 and '381 Patent Applications
because the Other Prior Art is inconsistent with the NetIlix Patent
Applicants' position that the '450 and '381 Patent Applications' subiect
matter was novel and nonobvious (and thereIore patentable); and (d) the Other Prior Art was material to the '450 and '381 Patent Applications
because they established a prima facie case that the subiect matter oI the
'450 and '381 patent applications was not novel (and thereIore not
patentable);
(e) the Other Prior Art contains inIormation that a reasonable examiner would
be substantially likely to consider important in deciding whether to allow
an application to issue as a patent.
41. Dilbeck alleges on inIormation and belieI that the NetIlix Patent Applicants knew or
learned oI the Other Prior Art during the pendency oI the '450 and '381 Patent
Applications. but did not disclose the Other Prior Art to the Patent OIIice. 42. But Ior the NetIlix Patent Applicants' concealment oI the Prior Art (including the NCR
Patents. the Omitted '381 Patent Application ReIerences. and Miscellaneous Prior Art). the
Patent OIIice would not have issued either the '450 or the '381 Patent. 43. Fraudulent Intent: The '450 and the '381 Patents are invalid and unenIorceable because
oI the Prior Art alleged above establishes that the '450 and the '381 Patents' subiect matter
Class Action Complaint 11
was not novel. Further. the '450 and the '381 Patents are invalid and unenIorceable
because the NetIlix Patent Applicants breached their duty oI candor and good Iaith to the
Patent OIIice. 44. Dilbeck alleges on inIormation and belieI that the NetIlix Patent Applicants intended that
the Patent OIIice rely on their concealment oI the Prior Art alleged above. and concealed
the Prior Art as part oI an intentional and deliberate scheme to deceive and induce the
Patent OIIice into issuing the '450 or the '381 Patents. In the alternative. the NetIlix Patent
Applicants breached their duty to disclose material prior art to the Patent OIIice in a
manner so reckless that it is suIIicient to allege Iraud.
45. Blockbuster's counterclaim alleges obiective evidence that the NetIlix Patent Applicants
knew the '450 or the '381 Patents were invalid and unenIorceable: In January 2005. NetIlix CEO and Named Inventor Reed Hastings met
with Blockbuster's then-Executive Vice President and General Counsel.
Edward Stead. Hastings praised Blockbuster's competitive position in the
online rental business and asked Stead when he had Iigured out that
NetIlix's '450 patent was a "ioke."
(Blockbuster Countercl. ¹ 40. attached as Exhibit A.) Dilbeck alleges on inIormation and
belieI that NetIlix's CEO indeed did ask Blockbuster's general counsel when he 'Iigured
out¨ the '450 Patent was a 'ioke.¨
46. The Sham Litigation: On April 4. 2006. the '381 Patent issued. On the same day.
NetIlix sued Blockbuster Ior allegedly inIringing on the '450 and '381 Patents by operating
47. The Netflix action has had both the eIIect oI impairing Blockbuster Online's competitive
impact and oI deterring other competitors Irom entering the relevant market. alleged
below. 48. Obiectively. NetIlix's litigation against Blockbuster is a sham. NetIlix should have known
that the '450 and '381 Patents are invalid and unenIorceable because they are anticipated
by Prior Art or because the NetIlix Patent Applicants breached their duty oI candor and
good Iaith to the Patent OIIice by concealing the Prior Art Irom the Patent OIIice.
49. Subiectively. NetIlix's litigation against Blockbuster is a sham. NetIlix indeed knew that
Class Action Complaint 12
the '450 and '381 Patents were invalid and unenIorceable when it sued Blockbuster. and its
CEO even Iurther went so Iar as to call the '450 Patent a 'ioke.¨
50. As deIined by Blockbuster's counterclaim against NetIlix. the relevant product market is
'the market Ior online DVD rentals and related subscription services¨ and the relevant
geographic market is 'the United States and its territories as a whole.¨ (Ex. A ¹ 89.) In the
alternative. Dilbeck alleges that the relevant product market is the market Ior monthly
DVD rental subscription services which rent a set number oI DVDs to consumers by mail
(collectively. the 'Relevant Market¨).
51. The Relevant Market represents several signiIicant inelastic demands which create both
signiIicant barriers to entry and clear borders between the Relevant Market and any
putative substitute markets. 52. First. consumers in the Relevant Market demand a vast inventory oI DVDs Irom which
consumers can select their rentals. (For instance. NetIlix claims to have more than 55.000
titles and more than 25 million DVDs.) Because brick-and-motor stores have a centralized
inventory and a centralized customer base. they do not have a suIIicient inventory and
cannot substitute Ior the Relevant Market. (Moreover. brick-and-motor stores oIIer
immediate gratiIication. while the Relevant Market's IulIillment oI customer orders is
necessarily delayed by the mail. In order to compete with brick-and-motor stores. the
Relevant Market must compensate with a signiIicantly better selection and variety oI
DVD titles.)
53. Second. consumers in the Relevant Market demand that the delay between rental order
and subsequent IulIillment be reasonably short. Because consumers in the Relevant
Market are dispersed throughout the nation. this requires a service in the Relevant Market
to store its DVD inventory in a geographically distributed network oI shipping centers.
This way. a subscriber will be relatively close to at least one shipping center and the rental
DVDs' time in transit will not be overly long. (For instance. Blockbuster Online has 30
Class Action Complaint 13
specialized distribution centers. and also processes rental IulIillments through
approximately 1.000 oI its brick-and-motor stores.)
54. Both the vast DVD inventory and the geographically distributed network oI shipping
centers demanded by the Relevant Market represent serious capital expenditures and
constitute signiIicant barriers to entry into the Relevant Market.
Netflix's Monopoly Power
55. NetIlix has competed in the Relevant Market since 1999. Dilbeck alleges on inIormation
and belieI that NetIlix has used the implicit or express threat oI liability Ior inIringing on
the '450 and '381 Patents to exclude competitors Irom the market. 56. Dilbeck alleges on inIormation and belieI that the NetIlix Patent Applicants' scheme to
deceive and induce the Patent OIIice into issuing the '450 or the '381 Patents was
speciIically intended to buttress NetIlix's eIIorts to deter. delay. and destroy competition
and competitors Irom its market and to monopolize its market.
57. NetIlix has maintained monopoly power throughout the course oI the events alleged in this
Complaint. NetIlix's market power can be measured by the diIIerential between
subscription rates beIore and aIter Blockbuster's entry into the Relevant Market. and the
proportion oI its subscribers to the total number oI consumers on the market.
58. Blockbuster: Blockbuster Online entered the Relevant Market in August 2004. Dilbeck
alleges on inIormation and belieI that Blockbuster Online delayed its entry into the
Relevant Market. The only reasonable inIerence drawn Irom Blockbuster's allegation that
NetIlix's CEO asked Blockbuster's general counsel when he 'Iigured out¨ the '450 Patent
was a 'ioke¨ is that Blockbuster delayed its entry into the relevant market because oI the
'450 Patent. at least Ior as long as it took Blockbuster to 'Iigure|| out¨ that the '450 Patent
was 'a ioke.¨ Counsel inquired with Blockbuster's counsel in the Netflix action regarding
this delay. Blockbuster's counsel declined to provide any additional inIormation.
59. On this inIormation and belieI. Dilbeck alleges that 1) Blockbuster was ready. willing. and
able to enter into the Relevant Market beIore August 2004 but 2) delayed entering into the
Class Action Complaint 14
Relevant Market aIter learning oI the '450 Patent until August 2004.
60. Wal-Mart: Wal-Mart Stores. Inc. also competed in the Relevant Market Irom June 2004
to June 2005. When Wal-Mart discontined oIIering services in the Relevant Market. it
reIerred its customers to NetIlix and marketed (and continues to market) NetIlix's services.
Counsel received this inIormation Irom news articles and public documents. Counsel
inquired with Wal-Mart's legal department regarding Wal-Mart's exit Irom the Relevant
Market. Michael Li. an attorney in Wal-Mart's legal department. indicated that Wal-Mart's
policy is to never discuss non-public inIormation regarding Wal-Mart's business dealings.
61. Wal-Mart is not the shrinking violet oI our national economy it is very unlikely that Wal-
Mart voluntarily quit the Iield and ceded its share oI the Relevant Market to NetIlix. On
this inIormation and belieI. Dilbeck alleges that 1) Wal-Mart entered into the Relevant
Market without knowing about NetIlix's '450 Patent and 2) withdrew Irom the Relevant
Market aIter NetIlix alerted Wal-Mart to the '450 Patent 3) in order to induce Wal-Mart to
withdraw Irom the Relevant Market.
62. Amazon.com: Amazon.com. Inc. ('Amazon¨) is well-equipped to compete with NetIlix.
In Iact. when Hasting announced that Amazon planned to enter the Relevant Market in
October 2004. the announcement led to the loss oI 41 percent oI NetIlix's stock valuation.
Despite these plans. Amazon has reIused to enter the Relevant Market in the United
States. In August 2006. Amazon introduced a DVD rental service in the United Kingdom
and in Germany. This service is essentially the same as NetIlix's: subscribers order via the
Internet and Amazon mails to subscribers up to three (3) DVDs at one time Ior
approximately US$ 19 per month. Counsel received this inIormation Irom news articles
and public documents. Counsel inquired with Amazon's legal department regarding
Amazon's Iailure to enter the Relevant Market in the United States. Kathleen Sheehan. an
attorney in Amazon's legal department. indicated that Amazon would almost certainly not
provide any non-public inIormation to counsel in response to counsel's inquiry. and
declined to respond to Iurther communications by counsel. 63. On this inIormation and belieI. Dilbeck alleges that 1) Amazon learned oI NetIlix's '450
Class Action Complaint 15
Patent. either by its own eIIorts or by NetIlix's eIIort. and 2) made the decision to enter the
Relevant Market outside the United States. but 3) discarded its plans to enter the Relevant
Market in the United States in August 2004 because oI the '450 Patent.
64. Netflix's Pricing Power in the Relevant Market: The market power NetIlix derived
Irom the '450 and the '381 Patents is. in part. evident in the Iluctuation oI the monthly
price oI a standard three (3) DVD subscription package over the course oI events alleged
in this Complaint.
65. From October 2000 to June 2004. NetIlix oIIered a standard three (3) DVD subscription
package Ior $20 per month. In June 2004. NetIlix raised the subscription rate on its
standard subscription package to $22 per month. When Blockbuster Online entered the
Relevant Market in August 2004. it introduced a similar three (3) DVD subscription
package Ior $17.50 per month.
66. Since November 2004. NetIlix priced its standard subscription package at $18 per month.
The competitive price Ior a standard subscription package cannot exceed (but is by no
means as high as) $18 per month. This allegation is based. in part. on comments made in
NetIlix's 2004 Iorm 10-K Iiled with the SEC:
|C|ompetition has intensified significantlv since Blockbuster officiallv
launched its online service in August 2004. In particular. Blockbuster has
been aggressive in pricing its standard three-out service at a monthly
charge oI approximately twenty percent lower than ours. . . . |E|IIective
November 2004. in response to the changing competitive landscape. we
lowered the price of our standard service to $17.99.
67. II NetIlix succeeds in inducing Blockbuster to exit the Relevant Market. there will be no
signiIicant competitor to restrain NetIlix Irom raising its subscription prices again and
consumers in the Relevant Market will again be exposed to supracompetitive subscription
68. Netflix's Market Share: NetIlix's subscriber base has grown dramatically oI the course oI
the events alleged in this Complaint: Quarter Ending: Netflix's Subscribers (Thousands)
Class Action Complaint 16
March 31. 2002 603
June 30. 2002 670
September 30. 2002 742
December 31. 2002 857
March 31. 2003 1.052
June 30. 2003 1.147
September 30. 2003 1.291
December 31. 2003 1.487
March 31. 2004 1.932
June 30. 2004 2.093
September 30. 2004 2.229
December 31. 2004 2.610
March 31. 2005 3.018
June 30. 2005 3.196
September 30. 2005 3.592
December 31. 2005 4.179
69. Blockbuster Online had approximately 1.2 million subscribers at the end oI 2005. Wal-
Mart also competed in the Relevant Market until June 2005 (as a distant third to
Blockbuster and NetIlix). and had between 100.000 and 200.000 subscribers. 70. At present. NetIlix has an estimated 80° share oI the Relevant Market and. on
inIormation and belieI. has maintained at least a 65° share throughout the course oI
events alleged in this Complaint.
Class Certification Allegations
71. PlaintiII seeks certiIication oI an Iniunction Class and a Damages Subclass. The Iniunction
Class seeks only iniunctive relieI under Iederal and state antitrust laws against Iuture
conduct by NetIlix Ior existing NetIlix subscribers. The Damages Subclass seeks money
damages (including treble damages under the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 15. 26) and the
Cartwright Act (Cal. Bus. & ProI. Code § 16750)) Ior persons who would have paid
competitive subscription rates to NetIlix but Ior the NetIlix Patents. PlaintiII seeks
certiIication under both Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3).
72. Adequate Representation: PlaintiII will Iairly and adequately represent and protect the
interests oI the other Class and Subclass members. and has retained counsel competent
and experienced in complex class actions. PlaintiII has no interest antagonistic to those oI
the Class or to the Subclass. and DeIendant has no deIenses unique to PlaintiII.
Class Action Complaint 17
73. Predominance and Superiority: This class action is appropriate Ior certiIication because
class proceedings are superior to all other available methods Ior the Iair and eIIicient
adiudication oI this controversy. since ioinder oI all members is impracticable. The
damages suIIered by each individual Class or Subclass member will likely be relatively
small. especially given the burden and expense oI individual prosecution oI the complex
litigation necessitated by the actions oI DeIendant. It would be virtually impossible Ior the
Class or Subclass members individually to obtain eIIective relieI Irom the misconduct oI
DeIendant. Even iI members oI the Class or Subclass themselves could sustain such
individual litigation. it would still not be preIerable to a class action. because individual
litigation would increase the delay and expense to all parties due to the complex legal and
Iactual controversies presented in this Complaint. By contrast. a class action presents Iar
Iewer management diIIiculties and provides the beneIits oI single adiudication. economy
oI scale. and comprehensive supervision by a single Court. Economies oI time. eIIort. and
expense will be Iostered and uniIormity oI decisions will be ensured.
74. Policies Generally Applicable to the Class: This class action is also appropriate Ior
certiIication because DeIendant has acted or reIused to act on grounds generally
applicable to the class. thereby making appropriate Iinal iniunctive relieI or corresponding
declaratory relieI with respect to the Class as a whole. The policies oI the DeIendant
challenged herein apply and aIIect the Class uniIormly. and PlaintiII's challenge oI these
policies hinges on DeIendant's conduct. not on Iacts or law applicable only to PlaintiII. Allegations to Certification of Injunction Class
75. Definition of the Class: Pursuant to Federal Rule oI Civil Procedure 23. PlaintiII brings
this Complaint against NetIlix on behalI oI himselI and all persons who have subscribed to
NetIlix's DVD rental service (the 'Class¨). Excluded Irom the Class are 1) any Judge or
Magistrate presiding over this action and members oI their Iamilies; 2) DeIendant.
DeIendant's subsidiaries. parents. successors. predecessors. and any entity in which the
DeIendant or its parent has a controlling interest and their current or Iormer employees.
Class Action Complaint 18
oIIicers and directors; and 3) persons who properly execute and Iile a timely request Ior
exclusion Irom the class and 4) the legal representatives. successors or assigns oI any such
76. Class Numerosity: The exact number oI Class members is unknown and is not available
to PlaintiII. but it is clear that individual ioinder oI all Class members is impracticable.
NetIlix claims to have over 5 million subscribers.
77. Class Commonality: Common questions oI Iact and law exist as to all Class members
and predominate over the questions aIIecting only individual Class members. These
(a) Whether NetIlix Patent Applicants knew oI the Prior Art alleged above
while the '450 and '381 Patent Applications were pending;
(b) Whether the Prior Art alleged above predates and anticipates the claims
made in the '450 and '381 Patents. or was otherwise material to the '450
and '381 Patent Applications; (c) Whether the NetIlix Patent Applicants Iormed a combination oI capital.
skill and/or acts Ior the purpose oI creating restrictions and preventing
competition in the Relevant Market;
(d) Whether the NetIlix Patent Applicants intentionally concealed the Prior Art
Irom the Patent OIIice while the '450 and '381 Patent Applications were
(e) Whether NetIlix acquired and used the '450 and '381 Patents to delay.
deter. and destroy competition in the Relevant Market;
(I) Whether NetIlix's acquisition. maintenance. and use oI the '450 and '381
Patents violates Section 2 oI the Sherman Act;
(g) Whether NetIlix's acquisition and maintenance oI the '450 and '381 Patents
violates the Cartwright Act;
(h) Whether NetIlix's acquisition and maintenance oI the '450 and '381 Patents
is unlawIul and otherwise unIair. and thereby constitutes a violation oI
CaliIornia's unIair competition law; and
(i) Whether plaintiII and the Class are entitled to relieI. and the nature oI such
relieI.
78. Class Typicality: PlaintiII`s claims are typical oI the claims oI other Class members. as
the wrongIul conduct oI DeIendant threatens the PlaintiII and other Class members with
the same iniury and/or damages arising out oI and based upon the same transactions. made
Class Action Complaint 19
uniIormly to the PlaintiII and the public.
Allegations to Certification of Damages Subclass
79. Definition of the Direct Purchaser Subclass: Pursuant to Federal Rule oI Civil
Procedure 23. PlaintiII brings this Complaint against NetIlix on behalI oI himselI and all
persons who paid supracompetitive subscription Iees Ior NetIlix's DVD rental service. and
speciIically were subscribed to NetIlix's DVD rental service aIter the Iirst date at which a
potential competitor was ready. willing. and able to enter the Relevant Market but Ior the
NetIlix Patents (the 'Subclass¨). Excluded Irom the Subclass are 1) any Judge or
80. Subclass Numerosity: The exact number oI Subclass members is unknown and is not
available to PlaintiII. but it is clear that individual ioinder oI all Subclass members is
impracticable. NetIlix's subscriber base grew Irom more than 850.000 subscribers by the
end oI 2002 to more than 4 million subscribers by the end oI 2005. and NetIlix now claims
to have over 5 million subscribers.
81. Subclass Commonality: Common questions oI Iact and law exist as to all Subclass
members and predominate over the questions aIIecting only individual Subclass members.
In addition to the common questions raised by the Class. these common questions include:
(a) When was the Iirst date at which a potential competitor was ready. willing.
and able to enter the Relevant Market but Ior the NetIlix Patents; and
(b) Whether and to what extent the subscription rates charged to the Class
members constitute monopoly proIits and antitrust damages.
82. Subclass Typicality: PlaintiII`s claims are typical oI the claims oI other Subclass
members. as the PlaintiII and other Subclass members sustained damages arising out oI
Class Action Complaint 20
the wrongIul conduct oI DeIendant. based upon the same transactions which were made
uniIormly with the PlaintiII and the public.
83. Fraud on the Patent Office: As alleged above. the NetIlix Patent Applicants intentionally
and Iraudulently concealed Prior Art Irom the Patent OIIice which was material to the
pending '450 and '381 Patent Applications. In the alternative. the NetIlix Patent Applicants
breached their duty to disclose material prior art to the Patent OIIice in a manner so
reckless that it is suIIicient to allege Iraud.
84. Knowledge of Fraud: As alleged above. NetIlix and the other NetIlix Patent Applicants
knew that they had concealed material Prior Art Irom the Patent OIIice at the time they
Iiled the Netflix patent inIringement action against Blockbuster.
85. Deceptive Intent: As alleged above. the NetIlix Patent Applicants knew the '450 and the
'381 Patents were invalid and unenIorceable because the Prior Art established that the '450
and the '381 Patents' subiect matter was not novel. The NetIlix Patent Applicants intended
that the Patent OIIice rely on their concealment oI the Prior Art. and concealed the Prior
Art as part oI an intentional and deliberate scheme to deceive and induce the Patent OIIice
into issuing the '450 or the '381 Patents. As Iurther obiective evidence that the NetIlix
Patent Applicants intended to deceive and did deceive the Patent OIIice. NetIlix's CEO
and President Reed Hasting indicated that the '450 Patent was a 'ioke.¨
86. Reliance by the Patent Office: As alleged above. the concealed Prior Art was material to
the pending '450 and '381 Patent Applications. Had the Patent OIIice learned oI the
concealed Prior Art. the Patent OIIice would not have issued the '450 and '381 Patents.
either because the Prior Art rendered the subiect matter oI the '450 and '381 Patent
Applications non-novel (and unpatentable). or because the NetIlix Patent Applicants
breached their duty oI candor and good Iaith to the Patent OIIice by concealing
inIormation known to be relevant to the '450 and '381 Patent Applications.
87. Monopoly Power: As alleged above. NetIlix had and has continually maintained
Class Action Complaint 21
monopoly power in the Relevant Market by dint oI its dominant market share and the '450
and '381 Patents. 88. Willful Acquisition of Monopoly Power: NetIlix willIully obtained monopoly power in
the Relevant Market by obtaining the '450 and '381 Patents by Iraudulent concealment oI
Prior Art Irom the Patent OIIice. and the Netflix litigation based on the alleged
inIringement oI the invalid and unenIorceable '450 and '381 Patents.
89. Causal Antitrust Injury: Dilbeck and the other Class Members have sustained antitrust
iniuries Irom NetIlix's acquisition and exercise oI monopoly power in the Iorm oI
supracompetitive subscription prices. the diIIerential between NetIlix's prices and the
competitive rate representing monopoly proIits and recoverable antitrust damages. Further.
NetIlix's conduct in this case threatens additional antitrust iniury iI Blockbuster Online is
excluded Irom the Relevant Market.
90. Unlawful Trust: The NetIlix Patent Applicants (including Edward A. Becker and
Hickman Palermo Truong & Becker LLP) Iormed a combination oI capital. skill and/or
acts Ior the purpose oI creating restrictions and preventing competition in the Relevant
Market: to wit. by Iraudulently concealing material Prior Art Irom the Patent OIIice as part
oI a scheme to have the Patent OIIice issue the '450 and '381 Patents.
Count I: Violation of the Sherman Act. 15 U.S.C. § 2
91. PlaintiII incorporates the above allegations by reIerence. 92. NetIlix and the other NetIlix Patent Applicants intentionally and Iraudulently concealed
Prior Art Irom the Patent OIIice that was material to the '450 and '381 Patent Applications.
93. Had the Patent OIIice learned oI the Prior Art. it would not have issued the '450 and '381
Patent Applications. NetIlix and the other NetIlix Patent Applicants Iraudulently concealed
the Prior Art in order to have the Patent OIIice issue the '450 and '381 Patents. 94. Any act by NetIlix to alert potential or actual competitors in the Relevant Market to the
'450 or '381 Patents (including NetIlix's patent lawsuit against Blockbuster) was intended
to deter and destroy competition in the Relevant Market. Class Action Complaint 22
95. NetIlix willIully obtained monopoly power in the Relevant Market by obtaining the '450
and '381 Patents by Iraudulent concealment oI Prior Art Irom the Patent OIIice.
96. NetIlix's anticompetitive acts violate the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 2).
97. Dilbeck and the other Class Members have sustained antitrust iniuries Irom NetIlix's
violations oI the Sherman Act and will suIIer additional antitrust iniury iI Blockbuster
Online is excluded Irom the Relevant Market.
98. Dilbeck. on his own behalI and behalI oI the other Iniunctive Class members. seeks
iniunctive relieI enioining NetIlix's anticompetitive acts alleged herein. and the cost oI this
suit. including a reasonable attorneys' Iee. under the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 26). In
addition. PlaintiII. on his own behalI and behalI oI the other Damages Subclass members.
seeks treble damages (with interest). and the cost oI this suit. including a reasonable
attorneys' Iee. under the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 26).
Count II: Violation of California's Cartwright Act.
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16720. 16726
99. PlaintiII incorporates the above allegations by reIerence. 100. The NetIlix Patent Applicants include both NetIlix. its employees. and its patent counsel.
Edward A. Becker and Hickman Palermo Truong & Becker LLP.
101. The NetIlix Patent Applicants Iormed a combination oI capital. skill and/or acts by two or
more persons Ior the purpose oI creating restrictions and preventing competition in the
Relevant Market. Without the skill and acts oI NetIlix's patent counsel. NetIlix could not
have obtained or prosecuted either oI the '450 or the '381 Patents. Without NetIlix's capital
and cooperation. NetIlix's patent counsel would not have obtained or prosecuted either oI
the '450 or the '381 Patents. 102. As a combination oI capital. skill and/or acts Ior the purpose oI creating restrictions and
preventing competition in the Relevant Market. the NetIlix Patent Applicants Iormed a
trust prohibited by CaliIornia's Cartwright Act (Cal. Bus. & ProI. Code § 16720. 16726). 103. Dilbeck and the other Class Members have sustained iniuries Irom NetIlix's violations oI
the Cartwright Act and will suIIer additional antitrust iniury iI Blockbuster Online is
Class Action Complaint 23
104. Dilbeck. on his own behalI and behalI oI the other Iniunctive Class members. seeks
suit. including a reasonable attorneys' Iee. under the Cartwright Act (Cal. Bus. & ProI.
Code § 16750). In addition. PlaintiII. on his own behalI and behalI oI the other Damages
Subclass members. seeks treble damages (with interest). and the cost oI this suit. including
a reasonable attorneys' Iee. under the Cartwright Act (Cal. Bus. & ProI. Code § 16750).
Count III: Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200
105. PlaintiII incorporates the above allegations by reIerence. 106. NetIlix's business acts and practices alleged above are unIair. unlawIul and Iraudulent.
107. Dilbeck and the other Class Members have sustained iniuries Irom NetIlix's business acts
and practices and will suIIer additional iniury iI Blockbuster Online is excluded Irom the
108. Dilbeck. on his own behalI and behalI oI the other Class members. seeks iniunctive relieI.
including restitution. under CaliIornia's unIair competition law (Cal. Bus. & ProI. Code §
17203).
WHEREFORE. PlaintiII prays that the Court enter iudgment and orders in their Iavor and
against DeIendant as Iollows:
(a) CertiIying the action as a class action and designating PlaintiII and his
counsel as representatives oI the Class and Subclass;
(b) With respect to Counts I and II. treble damages in an amount to be
determined at trial against NetIlix and in Iavor oI the Damages Subclass;
(c) With respect to Counts I and II. an iniunction against Iurther
anticompetitive acts. and the costs oI the suit. including a reasonable
attorneys' Iee. against NetIlix and in Iavor oI the Iniunctive Class; (d) With respect to Count III. equitable relieI including an accounting. a
constructive trust and restitution. in an amount to be determined at trial.
and attorneys' Iees. against NetIlix and in Iavor oI the Iniunctive Class; (e) Awarding pre- and post-iudgment interest; and
Class Action Complaint 24
(I) Granting such other and Iurther relieI as the Court may deem iust and
1URY TRIAL DEMAND
The PlaintiII hereby demands a trial by iury oI all issues so triable.
Dated: January 30. 2007
By: Alan HimmelIarb (Cal. Bar No. 90480)
LAW OFFICES OF ALAN HIMMELFARB
100 Washington Avenue South. Suite 2200
Class Action Complaint 25
More From This UserSkip carouselITIF Comments on FCC Broadband NPRM
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulFinalComplaint013107 by anon-8724505.0 (3)EmbedDownloadDescriptionClass action lawsuit filed against Netflix for antitrust violations over hiding prior art on patentsClass action lawsuit filed against Netflix for antitrust violations over hiding prior art on patentsInterests: Types, Instruction manualsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedKyle Bass files IPR against Aegerionby Activist Shorts ResearchCase Analysis Dr. Narendrans Dilemmaby m111019From, Nilkanth S. Patil, Shree Sadguru CHSL,by nilkanthpatil20Mosmatic v. Steel Eagleby PriorSmartZ-Dimensional v. JVC Americasby PatentBlastDiamond Coating Technologies v. Hyundai Motor America et. al.by PriorSmartPatenting Softwareby espressoblueStarboard Value - TSTCby chuff6675Kickapoo Run v. Nextgen Healthcare Information Systemsby PriorSmartUS Federal Trade Commission: 0207salabasrvyby ftcPatents, Biomedical Research, and Treatments: Examining Concerns, Canvassing Solutions by The Hastings CenterAuthor is at Ion OCNL NL Enby Gopal PandeyKennedy v. Hazelton, 128 U.S. 667 (1888)by Scribd Government DocsNotice: Patent licenses; non-exclusive, exclusive, or partially exclusive: Vaisala, Inc. and Sonoma Technology Inc.by Justia.comNotice: Import investigations: Personal computers, server computers and components thereofby Justia.comCarbice Corp. of America v. American Patents Development Co., 283 U.S. 420 (1931)by Scribd Government DocsRubio v. Productos Familia - Complaintby slburstein22, 23 & 24by Lady BancudNovelPoint Tracking v. Budget Golf II Inc DBA Budget Golfby PatentBlastg.r. No. 4720 January 19, 1909 - Carlos Gsell v. Valeriano Veloso Yap-jue - 012 Phil 519 Home of Chanrobles Virtual Law Libraryby Dayday AbleMacDonald v. Winfield Corp., 191 F.2d 32, 3rd Cir. (1951)by Scribd Government DocsCedatech Holdings v. Dellby PriorSmart04. Quasi-Judicial Powerby Engel Ang TongAug. 26 Ruling in ParkerVision suitby Timothy GibbonsWoodbridge v. United States, 263 U.S. 50 (1923)by Scribd Government DocsMedtek Devices v. Tack Smart Filter Technologyby PriorSmartAmerican Technical MacHine Corp., Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee v. Sylvester Caparotta, D/B/A Kings Brush Co. And as Kings Brush & Mop Co., Defendant-Appellee-Appellant, 339 F.2d 557, 2d Cir. (1964)by Scribd Government DocsOctober 2013 Inby mdicdigitizationSimilar To FinalComplaint013107Skip carouselKyle Bass files IPR against AegerionCase Analysis Dr. Narendrans DilemmaFrom, Nilkanth S. Patil, Shree Sadguru CHSL,Mosmatic v. Steel EagleZ-Dimensional v. JVC AmericasDiamond Coating Technologies v. Hyundai Motor America et. al.Patenting SoftwareStarboard Value - TSTCKickapoo Run v. Nextgen Healthcare Information SystemsUS Federal Trade CommissionPatents, Biomedical Research, and TreatmentsAuthor is at Ion OCNL NL EnKennedy v. Hazelton, 128 U.S. 667 (1888)NoticeNoticeCarbice Corp. of America v. American Patents Development Co., 283 U.S. 420 (1931)Rubio v. Productos Familia - Complaint22, 23 & 24NovelPoint Tracking v. Budget Golf II Inc DBA Budget Golfg.r. No. 4720 January 19, 1909 - Carlos Gsell v. Valeriano Veloso Yap-jue - 012 Phil 519 Home of Chanrobles Virtual Law LibraryMacDonald v. Winfield Corp., 191 F.2d 32, 3rd Cir. (1951)Cedatech Holdings v. Dell04. Quasi-Judicial PowerAug. 26 Ruling in ParkerVision suitWoodbridge v. United States, 263 U.S. 50 (1923)Medtek Devices v. Tack Smart Filter TechnologyAmerican Technical MacHine Corp., Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee v. Sylvester Caparotta, D/B/A Kings Brush Co. And as Kings Brush & Mop Co., Defendant-Appellee-Appellant, 339 F.2d 557, 2d Cir. (1964)October 2013 InFormGenetic Veterinary Sciences v. Canine EIC GeneticsFinalComplaint013107