Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/135197554/CA-v-AppDynamics-Complaint
Timestamp: 2017-03-29 20:40:12
Document Index: 673949669

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 283', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 283', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 283', '§ 284', '§ 1961', '§ 285', '§ 284']

BrowseInterestsStay InformedCareerPersonal GrowthFiction & BiographiesHealth & FitnessLifestyleCultureBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ § CA, INC., D/B/A CA TECHNOLOGIES, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § § APPDYNAMICS, INC., § § Defendant. § __________________________________________§ COMPLAINT Plaintiff CA, Inc. d/b/a CA Technologies (“CA”), through its attorneys, for its complaint against Defendant AppDynamics, Inc. (“AppDynamics”) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,225,361 B2 (“the ‘361 patent”), 7,512,935 B1 (“the ‘935 patent”), and 7,797,580 B2 (“the ‘580 patent”) (collectively “the Patents-In-Suit”), alleges as follows: PARTIES 1. CA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located at One CA Plaza,
Civil Case No. _______________
Islandia, New York 11749. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant AppDynamics, Inc. is a corporation
organized under the laws of Delaware, and maintains its principal place of business at 303 Second Street, Suite 450, North Tower, San Francisco, CA 94107. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This is a civil action for patent infringement, injunctive relief, and damages
issued the ‘361 patent, titled “Detecting a Stalled Routine,” to Jeffrey R. Cobb and Lewis K. Cirne. A true and correct copy of the ‘361 patent is attached as Exhibit 1. 9. Wily Technology, Inc. was the owner by assignment of the ‘361 patent until the
company was acquired by CA in 2006. Wily Technology, Inc. assigned the ‘361 patent to Computer Associates Think, Inc., which subsequently assigned the ‘361 patent to CA. CA is the sole owner and assignee of all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘361 patent and possesses all rights of recovery under the ‘361 patent, including the right to recover damages for past infringements. -2-
The ‘361 patent is valid and enforceable. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,512,935 B1
legally issued the ‘935 patent, titled “Adding Functionality to Existing Code at Exits,” to Jeffrey R. Cobb. A true and correct copy of the ‘935 patent is attached as Exhibit 2. 12. Computer Associates Think, Inc. was the owner by assignment of the ‘935 patent,
and subsequently assigned the ‘935 patent to CA. CA is the sole owner and assignee of all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘935 patent and possesses all rights of recovery under the ‘935 patent, including the right to recover damages for past infringements. 13. The ‘935 patent is valid and enforceable. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,797,580 B2 14. On September 14, 2010, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
legally issued the ‘580 patent, titled “Determining that a Routine has Stalled,” to Jeffrey R. Cobb and Lewis K. Cirne. A true and correct copy of the ‘580 patent is attached as Exhibit 3. 15. Computer Associates Think, Inc. was the owner by assignment of the ‘935 patent,
and subsequently assigned the ‘935 patent to CA. CA is the sole owner and assignee of all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘580 patent and possesses all rights of recovery under the ‘580 patent, including the right to recover damages for past infringements. 16. The ‘580 patent is valid and enforceable. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 17. Upon information and belief, Defendant makes, uses, sells, and offers to sell
within the United States, and/or imports into the United States one or more products, including but not limited to its AppDynamics Pro and AppDynamics Lite application performance monitoring (APM) software that practices each of the elements of one or more claims of the -3-
Patents-In-Suit, without license from CA, in the Eastern District of New York and throughout the United States. 18. Defendant’s continuing acts of infringement are irreparably harming and causing
damage to CA. CA has no adequate remedy at law to redress Defendant’s continuing acts of infringement. The hardships that would be imposed upon Defendant by an injunction are less than those faced by CA should an injunction not issue. Furthermore, the public interest would be served by issuance of an injunction. 19. Upon information and belief, Defendant has actual knowledge of the Patents-In-
Suit and has not ceased its infringing activities in light of such knowledge. According to Defendant’s web site, Defendant’s founder and CEO, Jyoti Bansal, “led the design and architecture for several products at Wily Technology,” where Mr. Bansal was a Senior Software Engineer. Wily was the original assignee of the ‘361 patent, which was later acquired by CA. Furthermore, the ‘935 and ‘580 patents are directly related to Mr. Bansal’s product design and development activities while he was a Senior Software Engineer at Wily Technology. Defendant infringes CA’s Patents-in-Suit by continuing to employ the claimed techniques without license. COUNT ONE – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,225,361 B2 20. herein. 21. Upon information and belief, Defendant makes, uses, sells, and offers to sell This count incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 19 as if fully set forth
within the United States, and/or imports into the United States one or more products, including but not limited to those identified in Paragraph 17 that practice each of the elements of one or more claims of the ‘361 patent, without license from CA, in the Eastern District of New York and throughout the United States.
importing into the United States its products, Defendant has directly infringed, and will continue to directly infringe, one or more claims of the ‘361 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a), literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents. 23. Defendant has had actual knowledge of the ‘361 patent, yet continues to infringe
the ‘361 patent. 24. Defendant knew that certain software it sells, offers to sell within the United
States, and/or imports into the United States, including but not limited to those identified in Paragraph 17, was especially made or especially adapted for infringing one or more claims of the ‘361 patent. 25. Defendant knew that certain software it sells within the United States, offers to
sell within the United States and/or imports into the United States, including but not limited to those identified in Paragraph 17, was not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 26. Defendant’s customers, as a result of Defendant selling within the United States,
offering to sell within the United States, and/or importing into the United States, certain software, including but not limited to those identified in Paragraph 17, acquire and use such software in a manner that directly infringes the ‘361 patent. 27. Despite having knowledge that consumer use of certain software it sells within the
United States, offers to sell within the United States, and/or imports into the United States, including but not limited to those identified in Paragraph 17, infringes one or more claims of the ‘361 patent, Defendant specifically intended for consumers to acquire and use such software in a manner that infringes one or more claims of the ‘361 patent, and Defendant knew or should have known that its actions were inducing infringement. -5-
Due to Defendant’s knowledge and actions described in Paragraphs 23-26 above,
Defendant has contributorily infringed, and will continue to contributorily infringe, one or more claims of the ‘361 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (c), literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents. 29. Due to Defendant’s knowledge and actions described in Paragraphs 23 and 26-27,
Defendant has actively induced infringement of, and will continue to actively induce infringement of, one or more claims of the ‘361 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (b), literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents. 30. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts and practices of Defendant, CA
Defendant has also caused, is causing and, unless such acts and practices are enjoined by the Court, will continue to cause irreparable harm to CA for which there is no adequate remedy at law, and for which CA is entitled to injunctive relief under 35 U.S.C. § 283. 32. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s infringement of the ‘361 patent has
within the United States, and/or imports into the United States one or more products, including but not limited to those identified in Paragraph 17, that practice each of the elements of one or -6-
more claims of the ‘935 patent, without license from CA, in the Eastern District of New York and throughout the United States. 35. By making, using, selling, and offering to sell within the United States, and/or
importing into the United States its products, Defendant has directly infringed, and will continue to directly infringe, one or more claims of the ‘935 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a), literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents. 36. Defendant has had actual knowledge of the ‘935 patent, yet continues to infringe
the ‘935 patent. 37. Defendant knew that certain software it sells within the United States, offers to
sell within the United States, and/or imports into the United States, including but not limited to those identified in Paragraph 17, was especially made or especially adapted for infringing one or more claims of the ‘935 patent. 38. Defendant knew that certain software it sells within the United States, offers to
sell within the United States, and/or imports into the United States, including but not limited to those identified in Paragraph 17, was not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 39. Defendant’s customers, as a result of Defendant selling within the United States,
offering to sell within the United States, and/or importing into the United States, certain software, including but not limited to those identified in Paragraph 17, acquire and use such software in a manner that directly infringes the ‘935 patent. 40. Despite having knowledge that consumer use of certain software it sells within the
United States, offers to sell within the United States, and/or imports into the United States, including but not limited to those identified in Paragraph 17, infringes one or more claims of the ‘935 patent, Defendant specifically intended for consumers to acquire and use such software in a -7-
manner that infringes one or more claims of the ‘935 patent, and Defendant knew or should have known that its actions were inducing infringement. 41. Due to Defendant’s knowledge and actions described in Paragraphs 36-39 above,
Defendant has contributorily infringed, and will continue to contributorily infringe, one or more claims of the ‘935 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (c), literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents. 42. Due to Defendant’s knowledge and actions described in Paragraphs 36 and 39-40,
Defendant has actively induced infringement of, and will continue to actively induce infringement of, one or more claims of the ‘935 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (b), literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents. 43. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts and practices of Defendant, CA
Defendant has also caused, is causing and, unless such acts and practices are enjoined by the Court, will continue to cause irreparable harm to CA for which there is no adequate remedy at law, and for which CA is entitled to injunctive relief under 35 U.S.C. § 283. 45. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s infringement of the ‘935 patent has
been and continues to be willful and deliberate. COUNT THREE – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,797,580 B2 46. herein. This count incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 45 as if fully set forth
Upon information and belief, Defendant makes, uses, sells, and offers to sell
within the United States, and/or imports into the United States one or more products, including but not limited to those identified in Paragraph 17, that practice each of the elements of one or more claims of the ‘580 patent, without license from CA, in the Eastern District of New York and throughout the United States. 48. By making, using, selling, and offering to sell within the United States, and/or
importing into the United States its products, Defendant has directly infringed, and will continue to directly infringe, one or more claims of the ‘580 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (a), literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents. 49. Defendant has had actual knowledge of the ‘580 patent, yet continues to infringe
the ‘580 patent. 50. Defendant knew that certain software it sells within the United States, offers to
sell within the United States, and/or imports into the United States including but not limited to those identified in Paragraph 17, was especially made or especially adapted for infringing one or more claims of the ‘580 patent. 51. Defendant knew that certain software it sells within the United States, offers to
sell within the United States, and/or imports into the United States, including but not limited to those identified in Paragraph 17, was not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 52. Defendant’s customers, as a result of Defendant selling within the United States,
offering to sell within the United States, and/or importing into the United States, certain software, including but not limited to those identified in Paragraph 17, acquire and use such software in a manner that directly infringes the ‘580 patent.
Despite having knowledge that consumer use of certain software it sells within the
United States, offers to sell within the United States, and/or imports into the United States, including but not limited to those identified in Paragraph 17, infringes one or more claims of the ‘580 patent, Defendant specifically intended for consumers to acquire and use such software in a manner that infringes one or more claims of the ‘580 patent, and Defendant knew or should have known that its actions were inducing infringement. 54. Due to Defendant’s knowledge and actions described in Paragraphs 49-52 above,
Defendant has contributorily infringed, and will continue to contributorily infringe, one or more claims of the ‘580 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (c), literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents. 55. Due to Defendant’s knowledge and actions described in Paragraphs 49 and 52-53,
Defendant has actively induced infringement of, and will continue to actively induce infringement of, one or more claims of the ‘580 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (b), literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents. 56. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts and practices of Defendant, CA
Defendant has also caused, is causing and, unless such acts and practices are enjoined by the Court, will continue to cause irreparable harm to CA for which there is no adequate remedy at law, and for which CA is entitled to injunctive relief under 35 U.S.C. § 283. 58. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s infringement of the ‘580 patent has
been and continues to be willful and deliberate. -10-
REQUEST FOR A JURY TRIAL 59. CA requests a jury trial of all issues in this action so triable. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, CA prays for judgment against Defendant as follows and for the following relief: A. a judgment that each and every Patent-In-Suit was duly and legally issued, is
of prejudgment interest, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, from the date of each act of infringement of any claims of the Patents-in-Suit to the day a damages judgment is entered, and further award of post-judgment interest, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961, continuing until such judgment is paid, at the maximum rate allowed by law; -11-
a judgment and order finding this to be an exceptional case and requiring
Defendant to pay the costs of this action (including all disbursements) and attorneys’ fees as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285; I. J. reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; an award of increased damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 for Defendant’s
willful and deliberate patent infringement; and K. such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
Dated: New York, New York April 10, 2013
Respectfully submitted, /s/ David J. Ball David J. Ball BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020 Telephone: (212) 508-6100 Facsimile: (212) 508-6101 Email: david.ball@bgllp.com Of Counsel: Alan D. Albright Barry K. Shelton Matthew K. Gates BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLP 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 2300 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 472-7800 Facsimile: (512) 472-9123 Email: alan.albright@bgllp.com Email: barry.shelton@bgllp.com Email: matt.gates@bgllp.com
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulCA v AppDynamics - Complaint by Joab Jackson0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedCA v. AppDynamicsby PriorSmartUnited Pet Group v. Wise Puppy et. al.by PriorSmartTrustees of Boston University v. AOC International et. al.by PriorSmartSFA Systems v. Wal-Mart Stores et. al.by PriorSmartKFX Medical v. Arthrexby PriorSmartParallel Iron v. EMCby PriorSmartUnified Messaging Solutions v. Where Are You Nowby PriorSmartUnified Messaging Solutions v. Up and Doingby PriorSmartUnified Messaging Solutions v. Scottradeby PriorSmartUnified Messaging Solutions v. Symbios Solutionsby PriorSmartUnified Messaging Solutions v. Etsyby PriorSmartDiamond Coating Technologies v. Hyundai Motor America et. al.by PriorSmartGordium Innovations LLCby PriorSmartGordium Innovations v. Lantronixby PriorSmartGordium Innovations v. Cienaby PriorSmartGordium Innovations LLCby PriorSmartGordium Innovations v. Adtranby PriorSmartGordium Innovations LLCby PriorSmartGordium Innovations v. SMC Networksby PriorSmartGordium Innovations LLCby PriorSmartVantage Point Technology v. Appleby PriorSmartGordium Innovations LLCby PriorSmartGordium Innovations LLCby PriorSmartGordium Innovations LLCby PriorSmartLocata LBS v. Factual.pdfby PatentBlastGordium Innovations LLCby PriorSmartGordium Innovations v. Intelligent Network Solutionsby PriorSmartGordium Innovations LLCby PriorSmartSimilar To CA v AppDynamics - ComplaintSkip carouselCA v. AppDynamicsUnited Pet Group v. Wise Puppy et. al.Trustees of Boston University v. AOC International et. al.SFA Systems v. Wal-Mart Stores et. al.KFX Medical v. ArthrexParallel Iron v. EMCUnified Messaging Solutions v. Where Are You NowUnified Messaging Solutions v. Up and DoingUnified Messaging Solutions v. ScottradeUnified Messaging Solutions v. Symbios SolutionsUnified Messaging Solutions v. EtsyDiamond Coating Technologies v. Hyundai Motor America et. al.Gordium Innovations LLCGordium Innovations v. LantronixGordium Innovations v. CienaGordium Innovations LLCGordium Innovations v. AdtranGordium Innovations LLCGordium Innovations v. SMC NetworksGordium Innovations LLCVantage Point Technology v. AppleGordium Innovations LLCGordium Innovations LLCGordium Innovations LLCLocata LBS v. Factual.pdfGordium Innovations LLCGordium Innovations v. Intelligent Network SolutionsGordium Innovations LLCTrackout Industries v. Pro-Tec EquipmentWyncomm v. ArchosCA v AppDynamics - Complaint