Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/208469177/J2-Global-et-al-v-RPost-Holdings-et-al
Timestamp: 2016-02-09 14:44:54
Document Index: 432452502

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 271', '§ 2201', '§ 1331', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 1400', 'art. 12', 'art. 12', 'art. 16', 'art. 20', '§ 271', '§ 271']

UploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicScribd Selects BooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsScribd Selects AudiobooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsScribd Selects ComicsHand-picked favorites from our editorsScribd Selects Sheet MusicHand-picked favorites from our editorsTop BooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop AudiobooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop ComicsWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop Sheet MusicWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodCrafts & HobbiesFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesAdaptationsChildren’sCrime & MysteryFictionHumorMangaNonfictionRomanceSciFi, Fantasy & HorrorSuperheroesYoung AdultPublishersArcanaArchie ComicsBOOM! StudiosDynamiteIDW PublishingKingstone ComicsMarvel ComicsSpace Goat ProductionsTop Cow ComicsTop Shelf ProductionsValiant Comics ZenescopeDifficultyBeginnerIntermediateAdvancedMixedInstrumentBrassDrums & PercussionGuitar, Bass, and FrettedPianoStringsVocalWoodwindsGenreClassicalCountryFolkJazz & BluesMovies & MusicalsPop & RockReligious & HolidayStandardsP. 1J2 Global et. al. v. RPost Holdings et. al.J2 Global et. al. v. RPost Holdings et. al.|Views: 29|Likes: 0Published by PriorSmartOfficial Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-01283: J2 Global Inc et. al. v. RPost Holdings, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9Wt for more info.Official Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-01283: J2 Global Inc et. al. v. RPost Holdings, Inc. et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9Wt for more info.More info:Categories:Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsPublished by: PriorSmart on Feb 22, 2014Copyright:Public DomainAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/208469177/J2-Global-et-al-v-RPost-Holdings-et-al02/22/2014pdftextoriginal1 Frank L. Bernstein (SBN 189504) fbernstein@kenyon.com 2 Michelle N. McLeod (SBN 260844) mmcleod@kenyon.com 3 KENYON & KENYON LLP 1801 Page Mill Road, Suite 210 4 Palo Alto, California 94304-1216 Tel.: (650) 384-4700 5 Fax: (650) 384-4701 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff j2 Global, Inc. and Advanced Messaging Technologies, Inc. 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:14-cv-01283 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY, AND FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs j2 Global, Inc. (“j2”) and Advanced Messaging
2 Technologies, Inc. (“AMT”), for their Complaint against Defendants RPost 3 Holdings, Inc., RPost Communications, Ltd., and RMail Ltd. (collectively “RPost” 4 or “Defendants”), hereby allege upon personal knowledge as to themselves and 5 their conduct and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows: 6 7 1. NATURE OF THE CASE This is an action for declaratory judgment of patent non-
13 (hereinafter “RPost’s Patents”): 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 c. b. a. U.S. Patent No. 8,209,389 (“the ’389 Patent”), assigned to RPost Communications, Ltd. and entitled “System and
Method for Verifying Delivery and Integrity of Electronic Messages,” a copy of which is attached to this complaint
as Exhibit A; U.S. Patent No. 8,161,104 (“the ’104 Patent”), assigned to RPost Communications, Ltd. and entitled “System and
as Exhibit B; U.S. Patent No. 8,468,198 (“the ’198 Patent”), assigned to RPost Communications, Ltd. and entitled “System and
U.S. Patent No. 8,468,199 (“the ’199 Patent”), assigned to RPost Communications, Ltd. and entitled “System and
as Exhibit D; e. U.S. Patent No. 8,224,913 (“the ’913 Patent”), assigned to RPost Communications, Ltd. and entitled “System and
as Exhibit E; f. U.S. Patent No. 7,966,372 (“the ’372 Patent”), assigned to RPost Communications, Ltd. and entitled “System and
as Exhibit F; g. U.S. Patent No. 8,275,845 (“the ’845 Patent”), assigned to RPost Communications, Ltd. and entitled “System and
Method for Verified Contract Acceptance,” a copy of
which is attached to this complaint as Exhibit G; h. U.S. Patent No. 6,182,219 (“the ’219 Patent”), assigned to RMail Ltd. and entitled “Apparatus and Method for
Authenticating the Dispatch and Contents of Documents,”
a copy of which is attached to this complaint as Exhibit H; and i. U.S. Patent No. 8,484,706 (“the ’706 Patent”), assigned to RPost Communications, Ltd. and entitled “System for,
Content of a Reply to an Electronic Message,” a copy of
6 (“the ’148 Patent”). 7 7. j2 alleges that RPost infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,421,514 (“the
8 ’514 Patent”). 9 10 8. JURISDICTION AND VENUE The declaratory judgment portion of this action arises under the
11 patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code, and, in 12 particular 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 283-285, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 13 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action 14 under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a), 1367, and 2201-02, because j2’s request for 15 a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity and non-infringement arises under the 16 patent laws of the United States and the Declaratory Judgment Act. 17 9. The patent infringement portion of this action arises under the
18 patent laws of the United States, including Title 35 of the United States Code. 19 Accordingly, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 20 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 21 10. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and
22 (c), and § 1400(b). Defendants’ allegations giving rise to a controversy were made 23 in this District, Defendants are doing business in this District, and Defendants’ acts 24 of infringement have occurred in this District. 25 26 11. PARTIES Plaintiff j2 is a corporation organized under the laws of the
BACKGROUND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT With respect to RPost’s Patents, an actual controversy exists
4 between j2 and Defendant by virtue of Defendant’s assertion of rights under each 5 of the identified RPost Patents based on certain ongoing activity by j2. 6 19. On January 2, 2014, RPost sent a cease and desist letter to j2
7 through j2’s outside legal counsel. RPost alleged in that letter that j2’s 8 Campaigner™ product and service infringes and continues to infringe RPost’s 9 Patents. 10 20. In the January 2 letter, RPost alleged as follows, which
11 allegations j2 denies: “[j2] offers products and services that infringe certain patents 12 owned by RPost” and “[j2’s] continued use of RPost technology without 13 permission from RPost is willful, and is causing RPost irreparable harm.” 14 21. j2 contends that it has a right to engage in making, using,
20 Complaints for Patent Infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern 21 District of Texas against a number of different companies. In at least 12 of those 22 complaints, RPost has alleged infringement of one or more of the ’389, ’104, ’199, 23 ’913, ’372, ’706, ’845, and ’219 Patents. 24 24. As a result of RPost’s allegations against j2 and RPost’s general
25 course of conduct, j2 has a reasonable apprehension that RPost will file suit against 26 j2. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between j2 and RPost as to 27 whether j2 infringes or induces infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of 28 RPost’s Patents by manufacturing and/or selling email marketing products. -5KENYON & KENYON LLP
3 (“the ’148 Patent”), entitled “Systems and Method for Storing, Delivering, and 4 Managing Messages”, which was issued to Charles Bobo II on April 26, 2011, by 5 the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). A true and correct copy 6 of the ’148 Patent is attached to this complaint as Exhibit J. 7 8 26. 27. The claims of the ’148 Patent are valid and enforceable. j2 is the owner, by assignment, of U.S. Patent No. 7,421,514
9 (“the ’514 Patent”), entitled “Messaging Protocol for Processing Messages with 10 Attachments by Inserting into a Field of the Message a Unique Property of the 11 Attaching Entity”, which was issued to Jacob J. Lee on September 2, 2008, by the 12 United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). A true and correct copy of 13 the ’514 Patent is attached to this complaint as Exhibit K. 14 15 28. 29. The claims of the ’514 Patent are valid and enforceable. RPost offers its customers a messaging service, called RPost
16 Registered Email® service, that provides tracking, proof of content and delivery, 17 time-stamping and receipt records for email messages sent using the RPost service. 18 http://www.rpost.com/registered-email/feature-summary 19 30. As part of its Registered Email services, RPost offers a Digital
20 Seal® that “add[s] the sender’s hand scripted signature on the bottom of the 21 outbound email and attached PDF documents.” 22 http://www.rpost.com/downloads/Datasheets/rpost_2012_service_registered_email 23 _proof.pdf 24 31. As part of its Registered Email services, RPost offers its
25 customers a messaging service, called RPost LargeMail™ service, that delivers 26 large attachments with RPost’s Registered Email® service. 27 32. According to RPost’s own description, the “Large Media File
1 or play the media files from the RPost servers – automatically streaming content so 2 the content is viewable on devices that might not have storage requirements to 3 download the files.” http://www.rpost.com/largemail 4 33. RPost markets to potential customers in this judicial district.
5 According to RPost’s own description: “The Los Angeles County Bar Association 6 has endorsed RPost's Registered Email® services and conducts educational and 7 promotional campaigns to 70,000 attorney members and affiliates.” 8 http://www.rpost.com/industries/legal 9 34. The systems and methods employed by RPost in providing its
10 LargeMail Service infringe one or more claims of the ’148 Patent, including claim 11 1. 12 35. Unless enjoined by this Court, RPost will continue to infringe
13 the ’148 Patent. 14 36. The systems and methods employed by RPost in providing its
15 Registered Email® Service infringe one or more claims of the ’514 Patent, 16 including claim 1. 17 37. Unless enjoined by this Court, RPost will continue to infringe
18 the ’514 Patent. 19 20 21 22 23 38. COUNT I CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT (’389 PATENT) j2 incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
26 States of any of j2’s products or services does not directly infringe any valid claim 27 of the ’389 Patent. 28 -7KENYON & KENYON LLP
2 infringe, any valid claim of the ’389 Patent. 3 41. An actual controversy exists between j2 and Defendant RPost
4 Communications, Ltd. as to whether the accused products or services infringe the 5 ’389 Patent. 6 42. Accordingly, j2 seeks and is entitled to a judgment against
7 Defendant RPost Communications, Ltd. that j2 does not infringe and has not 8 infringed, directly or indirectly, contributorily or by inducement, the ’389 Patent. 9 10 11 12 13 43. COUNT II CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY (’389 PATENT) j2 incorporates by reference its allegations contained in
14 paragraphs 1 through 42 above as though fully set forth herein. 15 44. The ’389 Patent is invalid for failure to meet at least one of the
16 conditions of patentability specified in Title 35 of the United States Code. No 17 claim of the ’389 Patent can be validly construed to cover any products imported, 18 made, used, sold or offered for sale by j2 and the alleged invention of the ’389 19 Patent is taught by, and/or obvious in view of, the prior art. A Petition for Covered 20 Business Method Patent Review dated October 16, 2013 was filed against the ’389 21 Patent. 22 45. An actual controversy thus exists between j2 and Defendant
23 RPost Communications, Ltd. as to whether the ’389 Patent is valid. 24 46. Accordingly, j2 seeks and is entitled to a judgment against
25 Defendant RPost Communications, Ltd. that the ’389 Patent is invalid. 26 27 28 -8KENYON & KENYON LLP
COUNT III CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT (’104 PATENT) j2 incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
7 States of any of j2’s products or services does not directly infringe any valid claim 8 of the ’104 Patent. 9 49. j2 does not contribute to the infringement of, or induce others to
10 infringe, the ’104 Patent. 11 50. An actual controversy exists between j2 and Defendant RPost
12 Communications, Ltd. as to whether the accused products or services infringe the 13 ’104 Patent. 14 51. Accordingly, j2 seeks and is entitled to a judgment against
15 Defendant RPost Communications, Ltd. that j2 does not infringe and has not 16 infringed, directly or indirectly, contributorily or by inducement, the ’104 Patent. 17 18 19 20 21 52. COUNT IV CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY (’104 PATENT) j2 incorporates by reference its allegations contained in
22 paragraphs 1 through 51 above as though fully set forth herein. 23 53. j2 alleges that the ’104 Patent is invalid for failure to meet at
24 least one of the conditions of patentability specified in Title 35 of the United States 25 Code. No claim of the ’104 Patent can be validly construed to cover any products 26 imported, made, used, sold or offered for sale by j2 and the alleged invention of the 27 ’104 Patent is taught by, and/or obvious in view of, the prior art. A Petition for 28 -9KENYON & KENYON LLP
1 Covered Business Method Patent Review dated January 29, 2014 was filed against 2 the ’104 Patent. 3 54. An actual controversy thus exists between j2 and Defendant
4 RPost Communications, Ltd. as to whether the ’104 Patent is valid. 5 55. Accordingly, j2 seeks and is entitled to a judgment against
6 Defendant RPost Communications, Ltd. that the ’104 Patent is invalid. 7 8 9 10 11 56. COUNT V CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT (’198 PATENT) j2 incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
14 States of any of j2’s products or services does not directly infringe any valid claim 15 of the ’198 Patent. 16 58. j2 does not contribute to the infringement of, or induce others to
17 infringe, the ’198 Patent. 18 59. An actual controversy exists between j2 and Defendant RPost
19 Communications, Ltd. as to whether the accused products or services infringe the 20 ’198 Patent. 21 60. Accordingly, j2 seeks and is entitled to a judgment against
22 Defendant RPost Communications, Ltd. that j2 does not infringe and has not 23 infringed, directly or indirectly, contributorily or by inducement, the ’198 Patent. 24 25 26 27 28 - 10 KENYON & KENYON LLP
COUNT VI CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY (’198 PATENT) j2 incorporates by reference its allegations contained in
5 paragraphs 1 through 60 above as though fully set forth herein. 6 62. j2 alleges that the ’198 Patent is invalid. The ’198 Patent is
7 invalid for failure to meet at least one of the conditions of patentability specified in 8 Title 35 of the United States Code. No claim of the ’198 Patent can be validly 9 construed to cover any products imported, made, used, sold or offered for sale by 10 j2 and the alleged invention of the ’198 Patent is taught by, and/or obvious in view 11 of, the prior art. 12 63. An actual controversy thus exists between j2 and Defendant
13 RPost Communications, Ltd. as to whether the ’198 Patent is valid. 14 64. Accordingly, j2 seeks and is entitled to a judgment against
15 Defendant RPost Communications, Ltd. that the ’198 Patent is invalid. 16 17 18 19 20 65. COUNT VII CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT (’199 PATENT) j2 incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
23 States of any of j2’s products or services does not directly infringe any valid claim 24 of the ’199 Patent. 25 67. j2 does not contribute to the infringement of, or induce others to
26 infringe, the ’199 Patent. 27 28 - 11 KENYON & KENYON LLP
2 Communications, Ltd. as to whether the accused products or services infringe the 3 ’199 Patent. 4 69. Accordingly, j2 seeks and is entitled to a judgment against
5 Defendant RPost Communications, Ltd. that j2 does not infringe and has not 6 infringed, directly or indirectly, contributorily or by inducement, the ’199 Patent. 7 8 9 10 11 70. COUNT VIII CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY (’199 PATENT) j2 incorporates by reference its allegations contained in
12 paragraphs 1 through 69 above as though fully set forth herein. 13 71. j2 alleges that the ’199 Patent is invalid. The ’199 Patent is
14 invalid for failure to meet at least one of the conditions of patentability specified in 15 Title 35 of the United States Code. No claim of the ’199 Patent can be validly 16 construed to cover any products imported, made, used, sold or offered for sale by 17 j2 and the alleged invention of the ’199 Patent is taught by, and/or obvious in view 18 of, the prior art. A Petition for Inter Partes Review dated January 15, 2014 was 19 filed against the ’199 Patent. 20 72. An actual controversy thus exists between j2 and Defendant
21 RPost Communications, Ltd. as to whether the ’199 Patent is valid. 22 73. Accordingly, j2 seeks and is entitled to a judgment against
23 Defendant RPost Communications, Ltd. that the ’199 Patent is invalid. 24 25 26 27 28 - 12 KENYON & KENYON LLP
COUNT IX CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT (’913 PATENT) j2 incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
7 States of any of j2’s products or services does not directly infringe any valid claim 8 of the ’913 Patent. 9 76. j2 does not contribute to the infringement of, or induce others to
10 infringe, the ’913 Patent. 11 77. An actual controversy exists between j2 and Defendant RPost
12 Communications, Ltd. as to whether the accused products infringe the ’913 Patent. 13 78. Accordingly, j2 seeks and is entitled to a judgment against
14 Defendant RPost Communications, Ltd. that j2 does not infringe and has not 15 infringed, directly or indirectly, contributorily or by inducement, the ’913 Patent. 16 17 18 19 20 79. COUNT X CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY (’913 PATENT) j2 incorporates by reference its allegations contained in
21 paragraphs 1 through 78 above as though fully set forth herein. 22 80. j2 alleges that the ’913 Patent is invalid. The ’913 Patent is
23 invalid for failure to meet at least one of the conditions of patentability specified in 24 Title 35 of the United States Code. No claim of the ’913 Patent can be validly 25 construed to cover any products imported, made, used, sold or offered for sale by 26 j2 and the alleged invention of the ’913 Patent is taught by, and/or obvious in view 27 of, the prior art. A Petition for Covered Business Method Patent Review dated 28 October 11, 2013 was filed against the ’913 Patent. - 13 KENYON & KENYON LLP
2 RPost Communications, Ltd. as to whether the ’913 Patent is valid. 3 82. Accordingly, j2 seeks and is entitled to a judgment against
4 Defendant RPost Communications, Ltd. that the ’913 Patent is invalid. 5 6 7 8 9 83. COUNT X CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT (’372 PATENT) j2 incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
12 States of any of j2’s products or services does not directly infringe any valid claim 13 of the ’372 Patent. 14 85. j2 does not contribute to the infringement of, or induce others to
15 infringe, the ’372 Patent. 16 86. An actual controversy exists between j2 and Defendant RPost
17 Communications, Ltd. as to whether the accused products infringe the ’372 Patent. 18 87. Accordingly, j2 seeks and is entitled to a judgment against
19 Defendant RPost Communications, Ltd. that j2 does not infringe and has not 20 infringed, directly or indirectly, contributorily or by inducement, the ’372 Patent. 21 22 23 24 25 88. COUNT XI CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY (’372 PATENT) j2 incorporates by reference its allegations contained in
26 paragraphs 1 through 87 above as though fully set forth herein. 27 89. j2 alleges that the ’372 Patent is invalid. The ’372 Patent is
1 Title 35 of the United States Code. No claim of the ’372 Patent can be validly 2 construed to cover any products imported, made, used, sold or offered for sale by 3 j2 and the alleged invention of the ’372 Patent is taught by, and/or obvious in view 4 of, the prior art. A Petition for Inter Partes Review dated January 15, 2014 was 5 filed against the ’372 Patent. 6 90. An actual controversy thus exists between j2 and Defendant
7 RPost Communications, Ltd. as to whether the ’372 Patent is valid. 8 91. Accordingly, j2 seeks and is entitled to a judgment against
9 Defendant RPost Communications, Ltd. that the ’372 Patent is invalid. 10 11 12 13 14 92. COUNT XII CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT (’845 PATENT) j2 incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
17 States of any of j2’s products or services does not directly infringe any valid claim 18 of the ’845 Patent. 19 94. j2 does not contribute to the infringement of, or induce others to
20 infringe, the ’845 Patent. 21 95. An actual controversy exists between j2 and Defendant RPost
22 Communications, Ltd. as to whether the accused products infringe the ’845 Patent. 23 96. Accordingly, j2 seeks and is entitled to a judgment against
24 Defendant RPost Communications, Ltd. that j2 does not infringe and has not 25 infringed, directly or indirectly, contributorily or by inducement, the ’845 Patent. 26 27 28 - 15 KENYON & KENYON LLP
COUNT XIII CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY (’845 PATENT) j2 incorporates by reference its allegations contained in
5 paragraphs 1 through 96 above as though fully set forth herein. 6 98. j2 alleges that the ’845 Patent is invalid. The ’845 Patent is
7 invalid for failure to meet at least one of the conditions of patentability specified in 8 Title 35 of the United States Code. No claim of the ’845 Patent can be validly 9 construed to cover any products imported, made, used, sold or offered for sale by 10 j2 and the alleged invention of the ’845 Patent is taught by, and/or obvious in view 11 of, the prior art. 12 99. An actual controversy thus exists between j2 and Defendant
13 RPost Communications, Ltd. as to whether the ’845 Patent is valid. 14 100. Accordingly, j2 seeks and is entitled to a judgment against
15 Defendant RPost Comunications, Ltd. that the ’845 Patent is invalid. 16 17 18 19 20 COUNT XIV CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT (’219 PATENT) 101. j2 incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
23 States of any of j2’s products or services does not directly infringe any valid claim 24 of the ’219 Patent. 25 103. j2 does not contribute to the infringement of, or induce others to
26 infringe, the ’219 Patent. 27 104. An actual controversy exists between j2 and Defendant RMail
28 Ltd. as to whether the accused products infringe the ’219 Patent. - 16 KENYON & KENYON LLP
2 Defendant RMail Ltd. that j2 does not infringe and has not infringed, directly or 3 indirectly, contributorily or by inducement, the ’219 Patent. 4 5 6 7 8 COUNT XV CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY (’219 PATENT) 106. j2 incorporates by reference its allegations contained in
9 paragraphs 1 through 105 above as though fully set forth herein. 10 107. j2 alleges that the ’219 Patent is invalid. The ’219 Patent is
11 invalid for failure to meet at least one of the conditions of patentability specified in 12 Title 35 of the United States Code. No claim of the ’219 Patent can be validly 13 construed to cover any products imported, made, used, sold or offered for sale by 14 j2 and the alleged invention of the ’219 Patent is taught by, and/or obvious in view 15 of, the prior art. 16 108. An actual controversy thus exists between j2 and Defendant
17 RMail Ltd. as to whether the ’219 Patent is valid. 18 109. Accordingly, j2 seeks and is entitled to a judgment against
19 Defendant RMail Ltd. that the ’219 Patent is invalid. 20 21 22 23 24 COUNT XVI CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT (’706 PATENT) 110. j2 incorporates by reference the allegations contained in
27 States of any of j2’s products or services does not directly infringe any valid claim 28 of the ’706 Patent. - 17 KENYON & KENYON LLP
2 infringe, the ’706 Patent. 3 113. An actual controversy exists between j2 and Defendant RPost
4 Communications, Ltd. as to whether the accused products infringe the ’706 Patent. 5 114. Accordingly, j2 seeks and is entitled to a judgment against
6 Defendant RPost Communications, Ltd. that j2 does not infringe and has not 7 infringed, directly or indirectly, contributorily or by inducement, the ’706 Patent. 8 9 10 11 12 COUNT XVII CLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY (’706 PATENT) 115. j2 incorporates by reference its allegations contained in
13 paragraphs 1 through 114 above as though fully set forth herein. 14 116. j2 alleges that the ’706 Patent is invalid. The ’706 Patent is
15 invalid for failure to meet at least one of the conditions of patentability specified in 16 Title 35 of the United States Code. No claim of the ’706 Patent can be validly 17 construed to cover any products imported, made, used, sold or offered for sale by 18 j2 and the alleged invention of the ’706 Patent is taught by, and/or obvious in view 19 of, the prior art. 20 117. An actual controversy thus exists between j2 and Defendant
21 RPost Communications, Ltd. as to whether the ’706 Patent is valid. 22 118. Accordingly, j2 seeks and is entitled to a judgment against
23 Defendant RPost Communications, Ltd. that the ’706 Patent is invalid. 24 25 26 27 28 - 18 KENYON & KENYON LLP
COUNT XVIII CLAIM FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 271(’148 PATENT) 119. AMT incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1
7 and continues to offer to sell and provide and to sell and provide, in the United 8 States and in this District, products and services that infringe one or more claims of 9 the ’148 Patent, including, but not limited to, Claim 1. 10 121. Unless enjoined by this Court, RPost will continue to infringe
11 the claims of the ’148 Patent. 12 122. By reason of the foregoing, RPost has caused AMT damages in
13 the amount of at least a reasonable royalty for RPost’s continued infringement of 14 the ’148 Patent, to which AMT is entitled. 15 16 17 18 19 COUNT XIX CLAIM FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 271(’514 PATENT) 123. j2 incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1
22 and continues to offer to sell and provide and to sell and provide, in the United 23 States and in this District, products and services that infringe one or more claims of 24 the ’514 Patent, including, but not limited to, Claim 1. 25 125. Unless enjoined by this Court, RPost will continue to infringe
26 the claims of the ’514 Patent. 27 28 - 19 KENYON & KENYON LLP
2 amount of at least a reasonable royalty for RPost’s continued infringement of the 3 ’514 Patent, to which j2 is entitled. 4 5 6 7 follows: 8 9 10 A. B. C. A declaration that j2 does not infringe any RPost patent; A declaration that the RPost Patents are invalid; A permanent injunction against RPost’s continued infringement PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, j2 and AMT demand judgment on their Complaint as
11 of the ’148 Patent; 12 D. A permanent injunction against RPost’s continued infringement
13 of the ’514 Patent; 14 E. An award of damages in an amount of not less than a
15 reasonable royalty for RPost’s infringement of the ’148 Patent; 16 F. An award of damages in an amount of not less than a
17 reasonable royalty for RPost’s infringement of the ’514 Patent. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Frank L. Bernstein (SBN 189504) Michelle N. McLeod (SBN 260844) KENYON & KENYON LLP 1801 Page Mill Road, Suite 210 Palo Alto, California 94304-1216 (650) 384-4700 (650) 384-4701 facsimile Attorneys for Plaintiffs j2 Global, Inc. and Advanced Messaging Technologies, Inc. - 20 KENYON & KENYON LLP