Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/104218430/Blue-Spike-v-Google
Timestamp: 2016-10-26 17:47:17
Document Index: 413468464

Matched Legal Cases: ['§101', '§1331', '§271', '§ 271', '§271', '§271', '§284', '§285', '§271', '§271', '§ 271', '§271', '§271', '§271', '§271', '§271', '§271', '§271', '§ 271', '§271', '§285']

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicCase 6:12-cv-00558-LED Document 1Filed 08/22/12 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION BLUE SPIKE, LLC, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant. § § § § § § § § § §
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Blue Spike, LLC files this complaint against Defendant Google Inc. and alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,346,472 (the ’472 Patent), 7,660,700 (the ’700 Patent), 7,949,494 (the ’494 Patent), and 8,214,175 (the ’175 Patent, and together with the ’472, ’700, and ’494 Patents, the Patents-in-Suit) as follows: NATURE OF THE SUIT 1. This is a claim for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States,
and principal place of business at 1820 Shiloh Road, Suite 1201-C, Tyler, Texas 75703. Blue Spike, LLC is the assignee of the Patents-in-Suit from Blue Spike, Inc. (a Florida corporation), which was the assignee of the Patents-in-Suit from Scott Moskowitz and Michael Berry. Blue Spike, LLC and Blue Spike, Inc. are collectively referred to as “Blue Spike.” Blue Spike CEO Scott Moskowitz is an inventor on more than 66 U.S. Patents related to managing, monitoring, and monetizing digital content and informational assets. Blue Spike has practiced and has 1
Case 6:12-cv-00558-LED Document 1
Filed 08/22/12 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 2
continued business plans to practice Moskowitz’s patented inventions. Many of Blue Spike’s patents are foundational to today’s robust markets for content, which grew into their present form only after using Blue Spike’s technology to catalogue, manage, monitor, and monetize that content. 3. On information and belief, Google Inc. (“Google” or “Defendant”) is a Delaware
United States, 35 U.S.C. §101 et seq. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1332, 1338(a), and 1367. 5. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant for at least five reasons:
Filed 08/22/12 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 3
Filed 08/22/12 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 4
Filed 08/22/12 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 5
Filed 08/22/12 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 6
Filed 08/22/12 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 7
Filed 08/22/12 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 8
Filed 08/22/12 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 9
technology so users can find, store, share, manage, and monetize content. Defendant makes, uses, offers for sale and/or imports into the U.S. products, systems and/or services including, but not limited to, its YouTube, Content ID, Video Identification (“Video ID”), Google Play, and Google Music software, applications, websites, systems, and technology (“Accused Products”), which infringe one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit. Defendant is extremely successful,
Filed 08/22/12 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 10
with predictions that it could generate more than $3.6 billion in 2012 from the Accused Products alone. 28. Defendant has not sought or obtained a license for any of Blue Spike’s patented
technologies. 29. Suit. 30. Ironically, although Defendant does not have permission to use Blue Spike’s Patents-inYet Defendant is using methods, devices, and systems taught by Blue Spike’s Patents-in-
Suit, it is using those very same technologies to prevent and track piracy committed by others. Furthermore, without the use of Blue Spike’s patented technology, Defendant faces lawsuits seeking billions of dollars from content owners claiming copyright infringement alleging that Defendant has done too little to prevent the uploading of copyrighted content. COUNT 1: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,214,175 31. Blue Spike incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 30 of this
to infringe on one or more claims of the ’175 Patent—directly, contributorily, or by inducement—by importing, making, using, offering for sale, or selling products and devices that
Filed 08/22/12 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 11
embody the patented invention, including, without limitation, one or more of the Accused Products, in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271. 35. Defendant has been and now is indirectly infringing by way of inducing infringement by
others and/or contributing to the infringement by others of the ’175 Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States, by, among other things, making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling, without license or authority, products for use in systems that fall within the scope of one or more claims of the ’175 Patent. Such products include, without limitation, one or more of the Accused Products. Such products have no substantial non-infringing uses and are for use in systems that infringe the ’175 Patent. By making, using, importing offering for sale, and/or selling such products, Defendant injured Blue Spike and is thus liable to Blue Spike for infringement of the ’175 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. Those whom Defendant induces to infringe and/or to whose infringement Defendant contributes are the end users of the Accused Products. Defendant had knowledge of the ’175 Patent at least as early as the service of this complaint and is thus liable for infringement of one or more claims of the ’175 Patent by actively inducing infringement and/or is liable as contributory infringer of one or more claims of the ’175 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §271. 36. Defendant’s acts of infringement of the ’175 Patent have caused damage to Blue Spike,
and Blue Spike is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained as a result of Defendant’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271. Defendant’s infringement of Blue Spike’s exclusive rights under the ’175 Patent will continue to damage Blue Spike, causing it irreparable harm, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, warranting an injunction from the Court.
Filed 08/22/12 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 12
On information and belief, Defendant has continued to infringe the ’175 Patent since
receiving notice of their infringement, at least by way of their receiving notice of this lawsuit. On information and belief, such continued infringement has been objectively reckless including because Defendant has (1) acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent and (2) knew or should have known of that objectively high risk. Accordingly, Blue Spike seeks a willfulness finding against Defendant relative to its infringement of the ’175 Patent entitling Blue Spike to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. §284 as well as attorneys’ fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. §285. 38. On information and belief, Defendant has at least had constructive notice of the ’175
to infringe on one or more claims of the ’494 Patent—directly, contributorily, or by inducement—by importing, making, using, offering for sale, or selling products and devices that
Filed 08/22/12 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 13
embody the patented invention, including, without limitation, one or more of the Accused Products, in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271. 43. Defendant has been and now is indirectly infringing by way of inducing infringement by
others and/or contributing to the infringement by others of the ’494 Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States, by, among other things, making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling, without license or authority, products for use in systems that fall within the scope of one or more claims of the ’494 Patent. Such products include, without limitation, one or more of the Accused Products. Such products have no substantial non-infringing uses and are for use in systems that infringe the ’494 Patent. By making, using, importing offering for sale, and/or selling such products, Defendant injured Blue Spike and is thus liable to Blue Spike for infringement of the ’494 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §271. Those whom Defendant induces to infringe and/or to whose infringement Defendant contributes are the end users of the Accused Products. Defendant had knowledge of the ’494 Patent at least as early as the service of this complaint and is thus liable for infringement of one or more claims of the ’494 Patent by actively inducing infringement and/or is liable as contributory infringer of one or more claims of the ’494 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. 44. Defendant’s acts of infringement of the ’494 Patent have caused damage to Blue Spike,
and Blue Spike is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained as a result of Defendant’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271. Defendant’s infringement of Blue Spike’s exclusive rights under the ’494 Patent will continue to damage Blue Spike, causing it irreparable harm, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, warranting an injunction from the Court.
Filed 08/22/12 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 14
On information and belief, Defendant has continued to infringe the ’494 Patent since
to infringe on one or more claims of the ’700 Patent—directly, contributorily, or by inducement—by importing, making, using, offering for sale, or selling products and devices that
Filed 08/22/12 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 15
embody the patented invention, including, without limitation, one or more of the Accused Products, in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271. 51. Defendant has been and now is indirectly infringing by way of inducing infringement by
others and/or contributing to the infringement by others of the ’700 Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States, by, among other things, making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling, without license or authority, products for use in systems that fall within the scope of one or more claims of the ’700 Patent. Such products include, without limitation, one or more of the Accused Products. Such products have no substantial non-infringing uses and are for use in systems that infringe the ’700 Patent. By making, using, importing offering for sale, and/or selling such products, Defendant injured Blue Spike and is thus liable to Blue Spike for infringement of the ’700 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §271. Those whom Defendant induces to infringe and/or to whose infringement Defendant contributes are the end users of the Accused Products. Defendant had knowledge of the ’700 Patent at least as early as the service of this complaint and is thus liable for infringement of one or more claims of the ’700 Patent by actively inducing infringement and/or is liable as contributory infringer of one or more claims of the ’700 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §271. 52. Defendant’s acts of infringement of the ’700 Patent have caused damage to Blue Spike,
and Blue Spike is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained as a result of Defendant’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271. Defendant’s infringement of Blue Spike’s exclusive rights under the ’700 Patent will continue to damage Blue Spike, causing it irreparable harm, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, warranting an injunction from the Court.
Filed 08/22/12 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 16
On information and belief, Defendant has continued to infringe the ’700 Patent since
to infringe on one or more claims of the ’472 Patent—directly, contributorily, or by inducement—by importing, making, using, offering for sale, or selling products and devices that
Filed 08/22/12 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 17
embody the patented invention, including, without limitation, one or more of the Accused Products, in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271. 59. Defendant has been and now is indirectly infringing by way of inducing infringement by
others and/or contributing to the infringement by others of the ’472 Patent in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States, by, among other things, making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling, without license or authority, products for use in systems that fall within the scope of one or more claims of the ’472 Patent. Such products include, without limitation, one or more of the Accused Products. Such products have no substantial non-infringing uses and are for use in systems that infringe the ’472 Patent. By making, using, importing offering for sale, and/or selling such products, Defendant injured Blue Spike and is thus liable to Blue Spike for infringement of the ’472 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §271. Those whom Defendant induces to infringe and/or whose infringement to which Defendant contributes are the end users of the Accused Products. Defendant had knowledge of the ’472 Patent at least as early as the service of this complaint and is thus liable for infringement of one or more claims of the ’472 Patent by actively inducing infringement and/or is liable as contributory infringer of one or more claims of the ’472 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. 60. Defendant’s acts of infringement of the ’472 Patent have caused damage to Blue Spike,
and Blue Spike is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained as a result of Defendant’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271. Defendant’s infringement of Blue Spike’s exclusive rights under the ’472 Patent will continue to damage Blue Spike, causing it irreparable harm, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, warranting an injunction from the Court.
Filed 08/22/12 Page 18 of 20 PageID #: 18
On information and belief, Defendant has continued to infringe the ’472 Patent since
Filed 08/22/12 Page 19 of 20 PageID #: 19
disbursements, and attorneys’ fees as provided by 35 U.S.C. §285, together with prejudgment interest; and (d) award Blue Spike all other relief that the Court may deem just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Blue Spike demands a jury trial on all issues that may be determined by a jury. Respectfully submitted, ___________________________ Eric M. Albritton Texas State Bar No. 00790215 ema@emafirm.com Stephen E. Edwards Texas State Bar No. 00784008 see@emafirm.com Michael A. Benefield Texas State Bar No. 24073408 mab@emafirm.com ALBRITTON LAW FIRM P.O. Box 2649 Longview, Texas 75606 Telephone: (903) 757-8449 Facsimile: (903) 758-7397 Randall T. Garteiser Texas Bar No. 24038912 randall.garteiser@sftrialattorneys.com Christopher A. Honea Texas Bar No. 24059967 chris.honea@sftrialattorneys.com Christopher S. Johns Texas Bar No. 24044849 chris.johns@sftrialattorneys.com
Filed 08/22/12 Page 20 of 20 PageID #: 20
Blue Spike v GoogleUploaded by jeff_roberts881PatentPatent InfringementTitle 35 Of The United States CodeDefendantUnited States Code14K viewsDownloadEmbedSee MoreCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content
Documents similar to Blue Spike v GoogleBlue Spike v. AOptix TechnologiesBlue Spike v. ImageWare SystemsBlue Spike v. AnimetricsBlue Spike v. LumidigmBlue Spike v. 3M CogentBlue Spike v. SpeechPro et. al.Blue Spike v. YahooBlue Spike v. Miranda Technologies et. al.Blue Spike v. CBS InteractiveBlue Spike v. Adobe SystemsBlue Spike v. Rovi et. al.Blue Spike v. SoundmouseBlue Spike v. Zeitera et. al.Blue Spike v. Biometrika et. al.Blue Spike v. Irdeto et. al.Blue Spike v. BMAT Licensing, S.L.Blue Spike v. AxxonSoft et. al.Blue Spike v. GoogleBlue Spike v. Technicolor et. al.Blue Spike v. iPharro Media et. al.Blue Spike v. FacebookBlue Spike v. Gracenote et. al.Blue Spike v. Innovatrics s.r.o. et. al.Blue Spike v. Iris ID SystemsBlue Spike v. AwareBlue Spike v. DigitalPersonaBlue Spike v. L-1 Identity Solutions et. al.Blue Spike v. Cognitec Systems et. al.Blue Spike v. 3M CogentBlue Spike v. Audible Magic et. al.Books similar to Blue Spike v GooglePatent TrollsPatent Laws of the Republic of Hawaii
and Rules of Practice in the Patent OfficePatent FailureThe Inventor's Guide to Writing Provisional Patent ApplicationsHandbook of Sensors and ActuatorsThe Law and Strategy of Biotechnology PatentsOutput Measurement in Science and TechnologyPetition for Extraordinary Writ Denied Without Opinion– Patent Case 94-1257The Fortune TellersESPN The CompanyThe Wright StuffTorchwood DeclassifiedIt's Your MoveThe History of American IdolBehind the TweetsBooks about DefendantThe Texas Jury RulesThe Lawsuit Against GodThe FormulaJury DoodyThe VerdictOscar Pistorius The VerdictLaw, Life and LaughterMurder in MarpleDocuments about DefendantAmended Complaint Filed 9/30/2016 Jane Doe Declaration as FiledDoe v. Trump et al refiled complaint 9/30/162016-04-18 Cheri Jacobus Lawsuit Against Trump and LewandowskiBundy wants govt to ID informants179125570172Pennie v. Soros et al Amended ComplaintMejia v. Freeman - FIT AND THICK trademark complaint.pdf09-20-2016 ECF 1305 USA v SHAWNA COX - Notice That the U.S. Attorneys' Office Has Been Caught Coaching WitnessesUS v. Deric LostutterLil Wayne v. Cash Money - complaint.pdf20160718 - Wwe Cte LawsuitCavanaugh v BarteltAndrea Tantaros suitTake-Two and Rockstar Games v Leslie BenziesLawsuit against Hillary ClintonAmended Levaquin complaint Solid Oak Sketches v Take-TwoZenimax v Oculus - Amended ComplaintPalantir LawsuitPokemon Go lawsuitHobos Proffer Goguen/Baptiste San Mateo CourtBenzies v RockstarRoss Ulbricht Sentencing Mumford Emergency MotionClass Action Lawsuit Filed Against EOS Lip BalmGov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0HaloSongs Inc v SheeranCarlsbad Police Brutality ComplaintDocuments about PatentBusiness Development Executive Resume SampleGlobal Competitiveness Report 2005/2006 Executive SummaryStandard Form of Agreement for Design ServicesPalantir LawsuitThe Conservative Nanny StateLinx Bracelet v. Origami OwlProClin® 150, 200 & 300 Preservatives General Safety and HandlingSamsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtDOW CHEMICAL CO /DE/ 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Against Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella Consulting AgreementTierneyConsulting ContractMossberg Firearms 2012 CatalogBose vs Beats (ITC complaint)Broadcom Corp v. Innovium - complaint.pdfOpportunity KnocksPershing Square Sohn PresentationApple Inc (AAPL) Form 10-K (Annual Report) Filed 2008-11-05Apple vs Android 10.12.02Novartis patent JudgementWizards of the Coast v. Cryptozoic Entertainment et. al.DANAHER CORP /DE/ 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-25AppleVsSamsung_11.07.05GENENTECH INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20NokiaVsApple_11.03.31.100Kodak C.F.O.'s declarationGame of War v. Empire Z - Machine Zone v. Ember Entertainment complaint.pdfAVON PRODUCTS INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Under Armour, Inc. 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Books about patentThe Necessity of AtheismLicensing and Managing Electronic Resources恨海The Unforseen Return顔氏家訓 — Volume 07Aunt Deborah孝經Whiffet SquirrelForever文子Aamun miehiä
1892Apotheose CamoneanaTennessee's PartnerDisguising at Hertford穆天子传官場現形記官場現形記The Seas of QuiviraThe Trouble with DaleksIndipendent Inventors and Pro Corporate Federal CourtsPetition for Certiorari Denied Without OpinionPetition for Certiorari Denied Without OpinionPetition for CertiorariPetition for Certiorari Denied Without OpinionDocuments about patentLil Wayne v. Cash Money - complaint.pdfSample Producer Contract (Royalty-Bearing Work for Hire)As 3600-2009 Concrete StructuresSolid Oak Sketches v Take-TwoGov-Uscourts-Nysd-460787-1-0HaloSongs Inc v SheeranStarsLSE MPP Policy Brief 9 Copyright and CreationBrief of Amici Curiae 212 Songwriters, Composers, Musicians, And Produce...Linx Bracelet v. Origami OwlJournal of Music, Technology and EducationPhoto Permission Agreement_FINALStudies in Musical TheatreCloud Computing for LibrariesThe SoundtrackProClin® 150, 200 & 300 Preservatives General Safety and HandlingSharing Creative Works (Creative Commons)Naruto v. SlaterStudies in Documentary FilmPrince v. Chodera - ComplaintGuide to copyright (1 MB)Yesh Music v. S Carter Enterprises - class action complaint royalties TIDAL.pdfThe Radio JournalJournal of Writing in Creative PracticeJournal of Visual Arts PracticeDocuments about United States CodeSaudi Lawsuit10-06-16 Correct the Record+Clinton finalPennie v. Soros et al Amended ComplaintMejia v. Freeman - FIT AND THICK trademark complaint.pdfState OIG FOIA RequestUS v. Deric Lostutter20160718 - Wwe Cte LawsuitCavanaugh v BarteltSEC v. CoopermanLawsuit against Hillary ClintonAmended Levaquin complaint Zenimax v Oculus - Amended ComplaintPokemon Go lawsuitRoss Ulbricht Sentencing Mumford Emergency MotionRead omnibus spending bill textHaloSongs Inc v SheeranU.S.C. Title 10, Title 22, And Title 50Carlsbad Police Brutality ComplaintStarsPodliska v Select Committee and Trey GowdyLinx Bracelet v. Origami OwlStatutory Construction and InterpretationSilk Road Appeal BriefTrek Bikes' lawsuit vs. cyclist Greg LemondDocuments about Patent InfringementBrief of Amici Curiae 212 Songwriters, Composers, Musicians, And Produce...Linx Bracelet v. Origami OwlSamsung vs Apple - Samsung's Appeal to the Supreme CourtBose vs Beats (ITC complaint)Apple vs Android 10.12.02Wizards of the Coast v. Cryptozoic Entertainment et. al.AppleVsSamsung_11.07.05NokiaVsApple_11.03.31.100Redigi CapitolExclusivity AgreementRichmond Ring & Pinion InstallationNokia vs Apple 11.01.06Oracle Google Damages - June 6 Precis Unredacted12-07-25 Apple v Samsung Adverse Inference Jury Instruction OrderBRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB CO 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-20Apple Samsung VerdictAmended Galaxy ComplaintUse of the ITC to Block Foreign Pirate WebsitesOracle Opposition to Google Daubert MotionBombardier Recreational Products et. al. v. Arctic Cat et. al.Translation of Mannheim 2O240 Ruling Motorola v MicrosoftPersonalWeb Technologies et. al. v. Rackspace et. al.3D Systems v. Formlabs et. al.Koninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.Gov.uscourts.cand.250725.4.0Posner OrderVerdict FormTreehouse Avatar Technologies v. TurbineBU v AppleDocuments about Title 35 Of The United States CodeAgainst Intellectual Property, by Stephan Kinsella Wizards of the Coast v. Cryptozoic Entertainment et. al.Amended Galaxy ComplaintOracle Opposition to Google Daubert MotionBombardier Recreational Products et. al. v. Arctic Cat et. al.PersonalWeb Technologies et. al. v. Rackspace et. al.3D Systems v. Formlabs et. al.Treehouse Avatar Technologies v. TurbineBU v Apple14-01-21 Apple v. Samsung Summary Judgment OrderNokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinProvisional Patent ApplicationGillette Company v. ADKM, Inc. d/b/a Harry's Razor Company et. al.Google Dec Action vs RockstarBose v. Beats Civil ComplaintOracle Google ComplaintLodsys Complaint Against Adidas BestBuy Et AlNYT Complaint Against Lodsys11-07-21 Lodsys Amended ComplaintGreenwich Ballistics v. Jamison InternationalFacebook's Counterclaims to Yahoo's Patent LawsuitPinch to Zoom Patent InvalidatedRockstar v Samsung.pdfImmersion Haptics LawsuitSamsung opening brief in Apple case at US Supreme CourtHuawei v. SamsungGoogle Cert Petition CioffiCeats v. Ticket Software et. al.Naruto v. Slater Appeal, Opening Brief