Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/106198847/PersonalWeb-Technologies-et-al-v-Microsoft
Timestamp: 2017-04-27 11:43:11
Document Index: 789562457

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 284', '§ 285']

PersonalWeb Technologies et. al. v. Microsoft | Patent | Patent Infringement
ScribdBrowseInterestsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthPolitics & Current AffairsScience & TechHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryFictionBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinPersonalWeb Technologies et. al. v. MicrosoftUploaded by PriorSmartPatentPatent InfringementDefendantTitle 35 Of The United States CodeDamages0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-00663: PersonalWeb Technologies LLC et. al. v. Microsoft Corporation. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-00663: PersonalWeb Technologies LLC et. al. v. Microsoft Corporation. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l6JR for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION § PERSONALWEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC. § AND LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, § § Plaintiff, § § Civil Action No. vs. § § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MICROSOFT CORPORATION, § § Defendant. § §
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “PersonalWeb”) files this Complaint for patent infringement against Defendant Microsoft Corporation (“Defendant” or “Microsoft”). Plaintiff PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC alleges: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. PersonalWeb and Level 3 Communications, LLC (“Level 3”) are parties to an
agreement between Kinetech, Inc. and Digital Island, Inc. dated September 1, 2000 (the “Agreement”). Pursuant to the Agreement, PersonalWeb and Level 3 each own a fifty percent (50%) undivided interest in and to the patents at issue in this action: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,978,791, 6,415,280, 7,802,310, 8,001,096, 7,945,539, and 7,945,544 (“Patents-in-Suit”). Level 3 has joined in this Complaint pursuant to its contractual obligations under the Agreement, at the request of PersonalWeb. 2. Pursuant to the Agreement, Level 3 has, among other rights, certain defined rights
Defendant Microsoft Corporation is, upon information and belief, a Washington
corporation with its principal place of business at One Microsoft Way, Redmond Washington 98052. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. The court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
was duly and legally issued for an invention entitled “Data Processing System Using Substantially Unique Identifiers to Identify Data Items, Whereby Identical Data Items Have the -3-
Same Identifiers.” PersonalWeb has an ownership interest in the ’791 patent by assignment, including the exclusive right to enforce the ’791 patent within the PersonalWeb Patent Field, and continues to hold that ownership interest in the ’791 patent. A true and correct copy of the ’791 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 15. Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe the ’791 patent by its
manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services utilizing Defendant’s Remote Differential Compression technology; Defendant’s search engine Bing and/or Defendant’s digital rights management system within the PersonalWeb Patent Field and its contributing to and inducement of others to manufacture, use, sell, import, and/or offer for sale infringing products or services. Defendant is liable for its infringement of the ’791 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. 16. Defendant’s acts of infringement have caused damage to PersonalWeb, and
manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services utilizing Defendant’s Remote Differential Compression technology; Defendant’s search engine Bing -4-
and/or Defendant’s digital rights management system within the PersonalWeb Patent Field and its contributing to and inducement of others to manufacture, use, sell, import, and/or offer for sale infringing products or services. Defendant is liable for its infringement of the ’280 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. 19. Defendant’s acts of infringement have caused damage to PersonalWeb, and
manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services utilizing Defendant’s Remote Differential Compression technology; Defendant’s search engine Bing and/or Defendant’s digital rights management system within the PersonalWeb Patent Field and its contributing to and inducement of others to manufacture, use, sell, import, and/or offer for sale infringing products or services. Defendant is liable for its infringement of the ’310 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. 22. Defendant’s acts of infringement have caused damage to PersonalWeb, and
PersonalWeb is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained by PersonalWeb as a result of Defendant’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. -5Defendant’s
infringement of PersonalWeb’s rights under the ’310 patent will continue to damage PersonalWeb, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by this Court. INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,001,096 23. On August 16, 2011, United States Patent No. 8,001,096 (the “’096 patent”) was
duly and legally issued for an invention entitled “Computer File System Using ContentDependent File Identifiers.” PersonalWeb has an ownership interest in the ’096 patent by assignment, including the exclusive right to enforce the ’096 patent within the PersonalWeb Patent Field, and continues to hold that ownership interest in the ’096 patent. A true and correct copy of the ’096 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 24. Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe the ’096 patent by its
manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services utilizing Defendant’s Remote Differential Compression technology; Defendant’s search engine Bing and/or Defendant’s digital rights management system within the PersonalWeb Patent Field and its contributing to and inducement of others to manufacture, use, sell, import, and/or offer for sale infringing products or services. Defendant is liable for its infringement of the ’096 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. 25. Defendant’s acts of infringement have caused damage to PersonalWeb, and
infringement of PersonalWeb’s rights under the ’096 patent will continue to damage PersonalWeb, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by this Court. INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,945,539 26. On May 17, 2011, United States Patent No. 7,945,539 (the “’539 patent”) was
duly and legally issued for an invention entitled “Distributing and Accessing Data in a Data Processing System.” PersonalWeb has an ownership interest in the ’539 patent by assignment, -6-
including the exclusive right to enforce the ’539 patent within the PersonalWeb Patent Field, and continues to hold that ownership interest in the ’539 patent. A true and correct copy of the ’539 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 27. Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe the ’539 patent by its
manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services utilizing Defendant’s Remote Differential Compression technology; Defendant’s search engine Bing and/or Defendant’s digital rights management system within the PersonalWeb Patent Field and its contributing to and inducement of others to manufacture, use, sell, import, and/or offer for sale infringing products or services. Defendant is liable for its infringement of the ’539 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. 28. Defendant’s acts of infringement have caused damage to PersonalWeb, and
infringement of PersonalWeb’s rights under the ’539 patent will continue to damage PersonalWeb, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by this Court. INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,945,544 29. On May 17, 2011, United States Patent No. 7,945,544 (the “’544 patent”) was
duly and legally issued for an invention entitled “Similarity-Based Access Control of Data in a Data Procesing System.” PersonalWeb has an ownership interest in the ’544 patent by
assignment, including the exclusive right to enforce the ’544 patent within the PersonalWeb Patent Field, and continues to hold that ownership interest in the ’544 patent. A true and correct copy of the ’544 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit F. 30. Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe the ’544 patent by its
manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of its products and services utilizing Defendant’s Remote Differential Compression technology; Defendant’s search engine Bing and/or Defendant’s digital rights management system within the PersonalWeb Patent Field and -7-
its contributing to and inducement of others to manufacture, use, sell, import, and/or offer for sale infringing products or services. Defendant is liable for its infringement of the ’544 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. 31. Defendant’s acts of infringement have caused damage to PersonalWeb, and
infringement of PersonalWeb’s rights under the ’544 patent will continue to damage PersonalWeb, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless enjoined by this Court. WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT 32. Upon information and belief, the Defendant’s described infringement of any or all
of the above-named patents is willful and deliberate, entitling PersonalWeb to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Defendant had prior knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit and the patented
technology because among other reasons, the patents were cited in dozens of Defendant’s own patent applications, dating back to patents issued in 2002. 33. For example, the following Microsoft patents cite to PersonalWeb’s ’280 patent:
8,112,452 (issued on 2/7/12); 7,886,364 (issued on 2/8/11); 7,770,023 (issued on 8/3/10); 7,685,415 (issued on 3/23/10); 7,617,256 (issued on 11/10/09); 7,571,327 (issued on 8/4/09); 7,571,186 (issued on 8/4/09); 7,555,781 (issued on 6/30/09); 7,555,656 (issued on 6/30/09); 7,539,867 (issued on 5/26/09); 7,571,327 (issued on 8/4/09); 7,571,186 (issued on 8/4/09); 7,555,781 (issued on 6/30/09); 7,555,656 (issued on 6/30/09); 7,539,867 (issued on 5/26/09); 7,519,623 (issued on 4/14/09); 7,509,423 (issued on 3/24/09); 7,505,970 (issued on 3/17/09); 7,487,245 (issued on 2/3/09); 7,475,258 (issued on 1/6/09); 7,454,612 (issued on 11/ 18/08); 7,444,387 (issued on 11/28/08); 7,415,608 (issued on 8/19/08); 7,401,220 (issued on 7/15/08); 7,359,937 (issued on 4/15/08); 7,346,774 (issued on 3/18/08); 7,058,978 (issued on 6/ 6/06).
The following Microsoft patents cite to PersonalWeb’s ’791 patent: 7,707,180
(issued on 4/27/10); 7,617,256 (issued on 11/10/09); 7,328,251 (issued on 2/5/08); 7,284,243 (issued on 10/16/07); 7,117,535 (issued on 10/3/06); 6,626,956 (issued on 9/30/03); 6,370,549 (issued on 4/9/02). JURY DEMAND 35. PersonalWeb demands a trial by jury on all issues. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff PersonalWeb requests entry of judgment in its favor and against Defendant as follows: a) Declaration that Defendant has infringed directly, and/or indirectly, U.S. Patent
Nos. 5,978,791, 6,415,280, 7,802,310, 8,001,096, 7,945,539, and 7,945,544 as described in this action; b) Permanently enjoining Defendant and its respective officers, agents, employees,
and those acting in privity with them, from further infringement, contributory infringement and/or inducing infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,978,791, 6,415,280, 7,802,310, 8,001,096, 7,945,539, and 7,945,544; c) Awarding the damages arising out of Defendant’s infringement of U.S. Patent
Nos. 5,978,791, 6,415,280, 7,802,310, 8,001,096, 7,945,539, and 7,945,544, including enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest, in an amount according to proof; d) by law; and e) For such other costs and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. An award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 or as otherwise permitted
Documents Similar To PersonalWeb Technologies et. al. v. MicrosoftSkip carouselPersonalWeb Technologies et. al. v. Nexsan TechnologiesCommercial Recovery v. Allen, Maxwell & SilverData Carriers v. Fujitsu AmericaDataTech IP v. Pioneer ElectronicsAcceleron v. Bull HN Information SystemsPar Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Breckenridge PharmaceuticalAcceleron v. AMAX Information TechnologiesKrull v. Anytime Fitness et. al.Energy Sciences v. PCT Engineered SystemsEclipse IP v. PatagoniaWisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. WH NutritionalsRobert Bosch v. Alberee Products et. al.Smart Search Concepts v. NordstromSmart Search Concepts v. J C Penney CompanyCordelia Lighting v. Zhejiang Yankon Group Co., Ltd. d/b/a Energetic Lighting et. al.Joao Control & Monitoring Systems v. ChryslerSafegate Airport Systems Et. Al. v. RLG Docking Systems Et. Al.Spatium Innovations v. BlackboardLamina Packaging Innovations v. John Jameson Import CompanyFlashpoint Technology v. Pantech et. al.RecruitMe v. ZooskMilos Misha Subotincic et. al. v. McKee Foods et. al.Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Fujitsu Ten Corp. of AmericaCharge Lion v. SemtechVerso Paper v. Go2PaperLife Technologies et. al. v. EbioscienceAutomated Facilities Management v. Computer Power Software GroupTherOx et. al. v. Blissfield Manufacturing Company et. al.Lamina Packaging Innovations v. Camus Wines and Spirits GroupOrthofix et. al. v. orthopediatricsDocuments About PatentSkip carousel16-12-20 Apple Complaint v. Acacia Et Al.Gillette Company v. ADKM, Inc. d/b/a Harry's Razor Company et. al.AppleVsSamsung_11.07.05Samsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtConsulting AgreementPRICELINE COM INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20NokiaVsApple_11.03.31.100Wizards of the Coast v. Cryptozoic Entertainment et. al.Nike v. SkechersApple vs Android 10.12.02Nokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinDavid Einhorn's presentation on Green Mountain RoastersBose vs Beats (ITC complaint)Beyond PhilanthropyBose v. Beats Civil ComplaintKoninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.Against Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella Apple vs Samsung 11.04.22Provisional Patent ApplicationGoogle Dec Action vs RockstarGENENTECH INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20AppleVsHTCandS3_11.07.29MicrosoftVsMotorola_11.12.11Translation of Mannheim 2O240 Ruling Motorola v MicrosoftNovartis patent JudgementBU v Apple14-01-21 Apple v. Samsung Summary Judgment OrderEPO Examiners Can No Longer Ensure Appropriate Quality StandardsGreenwich Ballistics v. Jamison International12-04-30 Apple-Samsung Teksler-Kim Letter Re FRANDMore From PriorSmartSkip carouselLike kind card game (US patent 6193235)Like kind money board table game (US patent 6186505)Intelligent user interface including a touch sensor device (US patent 8288952)User interface with proximity sensing (US patent 8035623)Wine cellar alarm system (US patent 8710985)Cell regulatory genes, encoded products, and uses related thereto (US patent 7030227)Multicasting method and apparatus (US patent 6434622)Method and apparatus for retrieving data from a network using linked location identifiers (US patent 6226655)Casino bonus game using player strategy (US patent 6645071)High-speed serial linking device with de-emphasis function and the method thereof (US patent 7313187)Casing spacer (US patent 6736166)Advance Products & Systems v. CCI Piping SystemsModern Telecom Systems LLCTracBeam v. AppleRichmond v. Creative IndustriesSenju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Metrics et. al.VIA Technologies et. al. v. ASUS Computer International et. al.Perrie v. PerrieEckart v. Silberline ManufacturingSenju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Metrics et. al.Kenzinc v. imblowingup et. al.Sun Zapper v. Devroy et. al.Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Fresenius KabiTracBeam v. T-Mobile et. al.ATEN International v. Uniclass Technology et. al.Mcs Industries v. Hds TradingDok Solution v. FKA Distributung et. al.GRQ Investment Management v. Financial Engines et. al.Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Fresenius KabiMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Konami Digital Entertainment