Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/131012200/HBAC-MatchMaker-Media-v-AOL
Timestamp: 2017-05-25 11:21:55
Document Index: 288296186

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285', '§ 285']

HBAC MatchMaker Media v. AOL | Patent Infringement | Patent
ScribdExploreEXPLORE BY INTERESTSCareer & MoneyBusiness Biography & HistoryEntrepreneurshipLeadership & MentoringMoney ManagementTime ManagementPersonal GrowthHappinessPsychologyRelationships & ParentingReligion & SpiritualitySelf-ImprovementPolitics & Current AffairsPoliticsSocietyScience & TechScienceTechHealth & FitnessFitnessNutritionSportsWellnessLifestyleArts & LanguagesFashion & BeautyFood & WineHome & GardenTravelEntertainmentCelebrity Biography & MemoirPop CultureBiographies & HistoryBiography & MemoirHistoryFictionChildren’s & YAClassic LiteratureContemporary FictionHistorical FictionLGBTQ FictionMystery, Thriller & CrimeRomanceScience Fiction & FantasyBROWSE BY CONTENT TYPEBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicUploadSign inJoinOptionsJoinSign InUploadHBAC MatchMaker Media v. AOLUploaded by PriorSmartPatent InfringementPatentAdvertisingAolLawsuit0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00427-UNA: HBAC MatchMaker Media Inc. v. AOL Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assi...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-00427-UNA: HBAC MatchMaker Media Inc. v. AOL Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7Qf for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWAREHBAC MATCHMAKER MEDIA, INC. Plaintiff, v. AOL INC., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant. C.A. No. ___________
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff HBAC MatchMaker Media, Inc. (“HBAC”) files this complaint for patent infringement against AOL Inc. (“AOL” or “Defendant”), and alleges as follows: THE PARTIES 1. HBAC is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 3 Center
Knolls, Bronxville, New York 10708. 2. On information and belief, AOL is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 770 Broadway, New York, New York 10003. AOL may be served in Delaware through its registered agent for service of process, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware 19808. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the
reasons: (1) Defendant is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware; (2) Defendant has committed acts of patent infringement and induced acts of patent infringement by others in this District and in Delaware; (3) Defendant engages in other persistent courses of conduct and derives substantial revenue from products and/or services provided to individuals in this District and in Delaware; and (4) Defendant has purposefully established systematic and continuous contacts with this District and should reasonably expect to be haled into Court here. 5. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c), and 1400(b)
6,002,393 (the “’393 Patent”), entitled “System and Method for Delivering Targeted Advertisements to Consumers Using Direct Commands,” to Messrs. Hite, Ciciora, Alison, and Beauregard. A true and correct copy of the ’393 Patent is attached as Exhibit B. HBAC is the owner by assignment of the ’393 Patent, and holds all rights and interest in the ’393 Patent. 8. Patents.” -2Collectively, the ’170 Patent and the ’393 Patent are referred to as the “Asserted
– recognized the potential for advanced advertising with the proliferation of digital devices, and developed the core technology and techniques for addressable advertising. Each inventor brought significant relevant experience to the endeavor. Ken Hite, HBAC’s Chief Executive Officer, is a twenty-five year advertising veteran. Tom Alison, a Harvard MBA and HBAC’s President and Chief Operating Officer, has over three decades of experience in marketing and new media, with extensive experience in direct marketing. Robert Beauregard, HBAC’s Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Secretary, has over forty years of experience in advertising, marketing, and publishing. Walt Ciciora, Ph.D., HBAC’s Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer, literally co-wrote the book on cable television. The first edition of Modern Cable Television Technology: Video, Voice, and Data Communications received a book award from The Cable Center in 2000. With decades of experience in the cable technology field, Dr. Ciciora has been elected to the Cable Technology Hall of Fame, has twice been named “Man of the Year” by CED magazine, and has been inducted into the Academy of Digital Television Pioneers. He has been issued sixteen U.S. patents, and his work has been widely published. 10. These four individuals developed the fundamental inventions behind addressable
advertising in digital media – the capability to target, deliver, and display specific ads to specific households. For their work, they received two pioneering patents – the ’170 and ’393 Patents. The significance of their work is evidenced in part by the overwhelming recognition these patents have received in the field. The ’170 Patent has been cited nearly 400 times in other patents, and the ’393 Patent has been cited nearly 200 times. Patents issued to entities such as Google, Microsoft, IBM, Sony, Intel, Hughes, The Nielson Company, Sprint, and General -3-
Motors, among many more, cite the groundbreaking HBAC patents. COUNT I (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,774,170) 11. forth herein. 12. Upon information and belief, AOL has infringed directly and continues to infringe HBAC repeats and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1-10 as if fully set
directly, within the United States, one or more claims of the ’170 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. AOL performs a claimed method by targeting advertisements to consumers who visit websites owned or controlled by AOL. AOL itself states in its “Privacy Policy Highlights”: “Some of our ads are displayed based on the page visited, but many of our ads are targeted to you based on your interests and other information we have about you.” See
http://privacy.aol.com. For example, upon information and belief, AOL maintains a central storage system storing video advertisements, and delivers targeted advertisements for display to a user’s computer, tablet, or other web-enabled device. For instance, AOL may deliver the advertisement from a server corresponding to the web domain http://pvideos.5min.com/ads//. AOL also has infringed directly and continues to infringe directly, within the United States, one or more claims of the ’170 Patent by, among other things, making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling systems that provide targeted advertisements to consumers visiting AOL websites, in a manner claimed in the ’170 Patent. 13. AOL has infringed indirectly and continues to infringe indirectly the ’170 Patent
by active inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). AOL has induced and continues to induce users of websites owned or controlled AOL to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’170 Patent. Upon information and belief, AOL has had knowledge of the ’170 Patent since at least as early as 2004, when Mr. Hite met with Michael Barrett, who, on information and belief, was then the -4-
Executive Vice President, Sales and Partner Marketing, for AOL. Upon information and belief, Messrs. Hite and Barrett discussed, among other things, the Asserted Patents. Since the time Defendant obtained knowledge of the ’170 Patent, it has specifically intended to induce infringement of the ’170 Patent by advertising, promoting, and providing instructions and assistance to customers to use AOL websites in a manner claimed in the ’170 Patent. By continuing the representative aforementioned activities with knowledge of the ’170 Patent, AOL knew, or should have known, that it was inducing infringement of the ’170 Patent. 14. Despite having notice of the ’170 Patent, Defendant has continued to willfully, Accordingly, HBAC seeks enhanced
damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 and a finding that this is an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285, entitling HBAC to its attorneys’ fees and expenses. 15. AOL’s acts of infringement have caused damage to HBAC, and HBAC is entitled
to recover from AOL the damages sustained by HBAC as a result of AOL’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. COUNT II (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,002,393) 16. HBAC incorporates and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1-15 as if fully
set forth above. 17. Upon information and belief, AOL has infringed directly and continues to infringe
directly, within the United States, one or more claims of the ’393 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. AOL performs a claimed method by targeting advertisements to consumers who visit websites owned or controlled by AOL. AOL itself states in its “Privacy Policy Highlights”: “Some of our ads are displayed based on the page visited, but many of our ads are targeted to you based on your interests and other information we have about you.” -5See
http://privacy.aol.com. For example, upon information and belief, AOL maintains a central storage system storing video advertisements, and delivers targeted advertisements for display to a user’s computer, tablet, or other web-enabled device. For instance, AOL may deliver the advertisement from a server corresponding to the web domain http://pvideos.5min.com/ads//. AOL also supplies program materials, such as news videos and other content, into which advertisements are inserted. See, e.g., http://adspecs.aol.com/spec-category/video (describing video advertising formats available to those who wish to advertise on AOL owned or operated websites). AOL also has infringed directly and continues to infringe directly, within the United States, one or more claims of the ’393 Patent by, among other things, making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling systems that provide targeted advertisements to consumers visiting AOL websites, in a manner claimed in the ’393 Patent. 18. AOL has infringed indirectly and continues to infringe indirectly the ’393 Patent
by active inducement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). AOL has induced and continues to induce users of websites owned or controlled AOL to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’393 Patent. Upon information and belief, AOL has had knowledge of the ’393 Patent since at least as early as 2004, when Mr. Hite met with Michael Barrett, who, on information and belief, was then the Executive Vice President, Sales and Partner Marketing, for AOL. Upon information and belief, Messrs. Hite and Barrett discussed, among other things, the Asserted Patents. Since the time Defendant obtained knowledge of the ’393 Patent, it has specifically intended to induce infringement of the ’393 Patent by advertising, promoting, and providing instructions and assistance to customers to use AOL websites in a manner claimed in the ’393 Patent. By continuing the representative aforementioned activities with knowledge of the ’393 Patent, AOL knew, or should have known, that it was inducing infringement of the ’393 Patent. 19. Despite having notice of the ’393 Patent, Defendant has continued to willfully, -6-
damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 and a finding that this is an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285, entitling HBAC to its attorneys’ fees and expenses. 20. AOL’s acts of infringement have caused damage to HBAC, and HBAC is entitled
to recover from AOL the damages sustained by HBAC as a result of AOL’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, HBAC respectfully requests a trial by jury of all issues properly triable by jury. PRAYER FOR RELIEF For the above reasons, HBAC respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief in favor of HBAC: (a) A judgment in favor of HBAC that AOL has infringed, directly and indirectly,
one or more claims of each of the Asserted Patents; (b) A judgment and order requiring AOL to pay HBAC its damages, costs, expenses,
and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest for AOL’s infringement of each of the Asserted Patents; (c) willful; (d) A judgment against AOL declaring that HBAC is entitled to enhanced damages as A judgment declaring that AOL’s infringement of the Asserted Patents was
a result of the knowing, deliberate, and willful nature of AOL’s infringement; (e) A judgment against AOL declaring that this is an exceptional case within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 as against AOL and awarding HBAC its reasonable attorneys’ fees against AOL; and -7-
Documents Similar To HBAC MatchMaker Media v. AOLSkip carouselSpinal Generations v. Atlas SpineMcRo Inc.Aevoe v. FellowesInternet Media Corporation v. Chicago Tribune Corporation Patent Lawsuit v. Knapp Logistics & Automatione.Digital v. OCZ Technology GroupApplied Medical Resources v. Tyco Healthcare GroupVehicle Service Group, LLC et. al.Wisconsin Technology Venture Group v. MyCouponsBrandywine Communications Technologies LLCParallel Networks v. Barracuda NetworksSsda Patent 312715-03-06 Microsoft Complaint Against Kyocera (WAWD15cv346)Yamauchi v. Albany InternationalNorco v MitoMacroSolve v. Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group et. al.ArrivalStar et. al. v. MagayaQuxuz v. Element FusionBright Response v. SAS InstituteQuxuz v. Soholaunch.comApple HTC patent lawsuitEclipse IP v. FoodlerEclipse IP v. GoWaiter Business HoldingsSkyline Software Systems, Inc. v. Keyhole, Inc et al - Document No. 4Select Notifications Media v. Verizon Communications.pdfKirker Enterprises v. GenoscoInnovative Wireless Solutions LLCApplied Food Sciences v. Hangover Joe&#039;s ProductsClouding IP v. Hewlett-Packard CompanyNoticeDocuments About Patent InfringementSkip carouselNike v. SkechersNokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, Wisconsin3D Systems v. Formlabs et. al.Koninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.Bose vs Beats (ITC complaint)Bose v. Beats Civil ComplaintTreehouse Avatar Technologies v. TurbinePosner OrderPersonalWeb Technologies et. al. v. Rackspace et. al.Greenwich Ballistics v. Jamison InternationalFacebook's Counterclaims to Yahoo's Patent LawsuitAmended Galaxy ComplaintBU v AppleLodsys Complaint Against Adidas BestBuy Et AlNYT Complaint Against LodsysSemantic Compaction Systems et. al. v. Speak For Yourself et. al.Rockstar v Samsung.pdfHuawei v. SamsungBose vs BeatsComponex v. Electronics For ImagingRecognicorp v. CCP hf et. al.Symantec v. Veeam SoftwareTechnology Licensing v. Blackmagic Design PtyNovartis Pharmaceuticals v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals et. al.BrightEdge Technologies v. Searchmetrics et. al.Videojet Technologies et. al. v. Markem-ImajeTechnology Properties v. Dane Elec et. al.Canatelo v. HikvisionVascular Solutions v. Boston ScientificCallidus Software v. XactlyMore 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