Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/220067642/Selene-Communication-Technologies-v-Hewlett-Packard-Company
Timestamp: 2017-05-23 05:24:04
Document Index: 612330500

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1391', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 284']

Selene Communication Technologies v. Hewlett-Packard Company | Hewlett Packard | 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 InUploadSelene Communication Technologies v. Hewlett-Packard CompanyUploaded by PriorSmartHewlett PackardPatentPatent InfringementWeb Search EngineLawsuit0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00535-UNA: Selene Communication Technologies LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of ...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00535-UNA: Selene Communication Technologies LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-lakD 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 DELAWARE SELENE COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff, v.HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Defendant. C.A. No. __________ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT This is an action for patent infringement in which Plaintiff, Selene Communication Technologies, LLC (“Selene”), makes the following allegations against Defendant HewlettPackard Company (“HP”): PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Selene is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of
business at 2961 Fontenay Road, Shaker Heights, Ohio 44120. 2. On information and belief, defendant HP is a corporation organized under the
laws of the State of Delaware, with its corporate headquarters and principal place of business at 3000 Hanover Street, Palo Alto, CA 94304. HP may be served via its registered agent for service of process, The Corporation Trust Company, at Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, DE 19801. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et
This Court has personal jurisdiction over HP. In addition to being a Delaware
corporation, HP has conducted extensive commercial activities and continues to conduct extensive commercial activities within the State of Delaware. HP, directly and/or through intermediaries or affiliates (including HP entities, subsidiaries, distributors, sales agents, and others), offers for sale, sells, and/or advertises its products and services (including, but not limited to, the products and services that are accused of infringement in this lawsuit) in the United States, the State of Delaware, and this Judicial District. HP, directly and/or through intermediaries or affiliates (including other HP entities, subsidiaries, distributors, sales agents, and others), has purposefully and voluntarily placed one or more of its products (including, but not limited to, the products that are accused of infringement in this lawsuit), as described below in Counts I and II, into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by customers in the District of Delaware. Accordingly, HP has committed the tort of patent infringement within the State of Delaware, as alleged in more detail below. 5. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c) and 1400(b)
because, among other reasons, HP is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District, and has committed and continues to commit acts of patent infringement in this District. On information and belief, for example, HP has used, sold, offered for sale, and imported infringing products/services in this District. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 6. This lawsuit asserts causes of action for infringement of United States Patent Nos.
6,363,377 and 7,143,444 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). The inventions disclosed in the Asserted Patents were conceived and created by inventors working for a 501(c)(3) nonprofit research institute known as SRI International (“SRI”).
Based on a purchase agreement and assignment from SRI, Plaintiff Selene owns
the Asserted Patents, and has the exclusive right to sue for infringement and recover damages for all past, present, and future infringement. THE HISTORY OF SRI 8. All of the inventions disclosed and claimed in the Asserted Patents were
originally invented and patented by technology researchers at SRI, a premier institution with a long history of leading technological innovation. 9. SRI, which began as an initiative among
researchers at Stanford University, was founded in 1946 as the Stanford Research Institute. 10. Since its inception, SRI was a pioneer in
advancing technology in ways that had a profound global impact. For instance, in 1963, engineers at SRI created the first optical video disk recording system, paving the way for modern optical storage technologies such as CD-ROMs, DVDs, and Blu-Ray discs. In the early 1960s, SRI engineers invented the world’s first computer mouse (pictured above right). In the late 1960s, SRI collaborated with the U.S. Department of Defense to create
“ARPANET”—the progenitor of what would become the global Internet (scan of ARPANET map, circa 1969, pictured right). 11. SRI was spun out from Stanford University in 1970. In the early 1970s, SRI was
In 1977, SRI created what is considered to be the first true Internet connection, by connecting three dissimilar networks. 12. In 1988, SRI acquired the Sarnoff Corporation
(“Sarnoff”). Sarnoff, formed in 1941, traces its origins to David Sarnoff, a principal technology researcher at RCA Laboratories. It was created to be a research and development company specializing in vision, video, and semiconductor technology, and it later expanded its research areas to include various facets of information technology. Sarnoff is known for several important technological advances. For instance, in 1953, David Sarnoff and RCA Laboratories created the world’s first color television system (pictured at right, with RCA President Franklin Folsom (left) and RCA Chairman David Sarnoff (right)). From 1963 to 1968, a team of engineers at the David Sarnoff Research Center developed a revolutionary method for the electronic control of light reflected from liquid crystals—leading to their invention of the liquid crystal display (LCD). Sarnoff is also credited with the development of the electron microscope and early optoelectronic components such as lasers and LEDs. 13. In 2007, SRI spun off its creation of Siri, a virtual personal assistant with a natural
language interface, as Siri, Inc. Siri was acquired by Apple Inc. in 2011. 14. SRI today is a nonprofit, independent research and innovation center serving
Each of the Asserted Patents issued as a result of the inventiveness of SRI
personnel and its significant research investment. SELENE COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 16. Selene was created in 2011 in order to advance technological innovation by active
participation in all areas of the patent market, including licensing. By creating a secondary market for SRI patents, Selene believes it is promoting innovation and providing capital to SRI that can be reinvested by SRI in further research. 17. Selene completed a transaction to, among other things, acquire the Asserted
Patents from SRI in July 2013. The transaction included a non-exclusive license to the U.S. government for the patents. UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,363,377 18. On March 26, 2002, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTO”)
duly and legally issued United States Patent No. 6,363,377 (the “’377 Patent”), entitled “Search Data Processor,” listing as inventors Dina Kravets, Liviu Chiriac, Jeffrey Esakov, and Suz Hsi Wan, after a full and fair examination. A true and correct copy of the ’377 Patent is attached as Exhibit A. 19. Selene is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the ’377 Patent
by assignment, and has the exclusive right to sue for infringement and recover damages for all past, present, and future infringement, including against HP. 20. The ’377 Patent discloses and claims, among other things, novel methods and
submitted their first provisional application for what would become the ’377 Patent. At the time, each of the inventors were employed by SRI’s subsidiary at its New Jersey laboratories. 22. In 1998, Internet search engine technology was in its infancy. The leading search
Image obtained from Search Engine Land, A Eulogy for AltaVista, The Google of Its Time, available at http://searchengineland.com/altavista-eulogy-165366 (last visited Apr. 9, 2014). 6
Whereas web “cataloguing” websites, such as Yahoo, manually compiled lists of webpages, AltaVista permitted users to search the full text of millions of automatically indexed webpages through a single portal. Other search engines such as Excite, HotBot, or Lycos provided similar functionality, but not on the scale provided by AltaVista. By 1998, AltaVista received 13 million queries per day, which it processed on 20 machines that collectively had 130 gigabytes of RAM and 500 gigabytes of hard disk space. 24. The inventors of the ’377 Patent recognized, however, that all of these search
engines had inherent limitations. Users were limited not only by the incompleteness of the search engines’ indexes, but also by the accuracy of the user’s search queries. A user with a specific target in mind, for example, was faced with the needle-in-a-haystack search exercise of manually reformulating search queries indefinitely until finding a responsive item among the thousands of “hits” returned by the search engine. Worse still, the search engines’ inability to effectively discern the user’s need could have led the user to mistakenly conclude that responsive
materials did not exist, when in fact they did. The user, in other words, would not know what he or she was missing. 25. The inventors of the ’377 Patent sought to overcome these search limitations. The
reformulated search queries are then submitted to the search engine in parallel with the user’s initial search query, yielding additional—and more accurate—results. 26. The ’377 Patent was a breakthrough innovation. An illustration of the
fundamental nature of the methods and systems taught and claimed in the ’377 Patent is the fact that it has been cited during the prosecution of at least 267 later-filed patents. The ’377 Patent has more forward citations than 92.9% of all comparable United States patents and has been cited in patent applications filed by a variety of industry leaders including Google, IBM, Intel, Oracle, Yahoo!, Facebook, and Microsoft. UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,143,444 27. On November 28, 2006, the PTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
7,143,444 (the “’444 Patent”), entitled “Application-Layer Anomaly and Misuse Detection,” listing as inventors Phillip Andrew Porras, Magnus Almgren, Ulf E. Lindqvist, and Steven Mark Dawson, after a full and fair examination. A true and correct copy of the ’444 Patent is attached as Exhibit B.
Selene is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the ’444 Patent
by assignment, and has the exclusive right to sue for infringement and recover damages for all past, present and future infringement, including against HP. 29. The ’444 Patent discloses and claims, among other things, novel methods and
systems for hosting an intrusion detection process in a server, where the intrusion detection process is integrated with a server process. The ’444 Patent teaches inventions that are
fundamental to modern methods and systems for intrusion detection components and processes. By way of example only, Claim 1 recites one of the inventions disclosed in the ’444 Patent:
Lindqvist, and Steven Mark Dawson filed their application for what would become the ’444 Patent. Each of the inventors were employed by SRI at its facilities in Menlo Park, California. 31. SRI pioneered the field of network intrusion detection. In 1997, SRI researchers
Disturbances (“EMERALD”),2 which became a foundational and patented industry standard for intrusion detection. 32. SRI continues to license its patents related to its EMERALD technology to
industry leaders in the field of cyber-security to date, including, most recently, Symantec and IBM.3 SRI’s EMERALD research team is led by Principal Investigator Phillip Porras, the Program Director of SRI’s Internet Security Group and an inventor of the ’444 Patent.4 33. The ’444 Patent, while covering technology distinct from EMERALD, advanced
the state of the art of intrusion detection by generally teaching methods and systems for effectively hosting an intrusion detection process in a server and integrating the intrusion detection processes into server processes. 34. The inventions of the ’444 Patent are fundamental to modern methods and
systems for intrusion detection.The ’444 Patent has been cited during the prosecution of at least 13 later-filed patents and has more forward citations than 72.6% of all comparable U.S. patents. The ’444 Patent has been cited in the patent applications of a variety of industry leaders in intrusion detection including Symantec, Microsoft, and, significantly, HP.
See Porras et al., EMERALD: Event Monitoring Enabling Responses to Anomalous Live Disturbances, 1997 National Information Systems Security Conference (Oct. 1997), available at http://www.csl.sri.com/papers/emerald-niss97/ (last visited Apr. 9, 2014). 3 See, e.g., Press Release, SRI International Licenses EMERALD Network Intrusion Detection Patents to IBM (Mar. 14, 2013), available at http://www.sri.com/newsroom/press-releases/sriinternational-licenses-emerald-network-intrusion-detection-patents-ibm (last visited Apr. 9, 2014). 4 See SRI International, EMERALD, available at http://www.csl.sri.com/projects/emerald/ (last visited Apr. 9, 2014). Dr. Ulf Lindqvist, another inventor of the ’444 Patent, is also a staff member of the EMERALD team. 10
The ’444 Patent was cited in at least seven later-filed patent applications that
issued as U.S. patents owned by HP. For instance, the application for U.S. Patent No. 8,056,130, which issued on November 8, 2011, cited the ‘444 Patent. HP’S INFRINGEMENT OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS 36. HP is a publicly-traded, multinational information technology company that
provides hardware, software, and services to consumers and businesses. Its product offerings include personal computing devices, enterprise and industry standard servers, related storage devices, networking products, software, and imaging products. HP is currently the world’s leading personal computer manufacturer. In early 2014, HP’s market capitalization stood at slightly more than $55 billion. 37. As part of its software offerings, HP markets or has marketed products operating
on the Autonomy Intelligent Data Operating Layer (IDOL) platform, including the HP Universal Search for IT and HP Autonomy Express Desktop Search products. The HP Universal Search for IT and HP Autonomy Express Desktop Search provide “conceptual and contextual search” rather than “simple keyword queries.”5 Among other features, each of these products offers the same query reformulation and improvement features claimed by the ’377 Patent, thus infringing the ’377 Patent. 38. As part of its software offerings, HP also markets or has marketed products,
solutions, and/or services including HP Universal Search for Legal, HP eDiscovery, and HP Explore, HP WorkSite, HP WorkSite Mobility, HP WorkSite Records Manager, HP Data
See “HP Universal Search,” available at http://www.autonomy.com/products/universal-search (last visited Apr. 9, 2014); “Express Desktop Search,” available at http://www.autonomy.com/content/Products/express-search/index.en.html (last visited Sep. 18, 2013). 11
Protector, HP Autonomy Document Generation, HP Autonomy Enterprise Search, HP Consolidated Archive 8.0, HP Healthcare Analytics, HP Rich Media Management, HP Digital Safe, HP Records Manager, HP ControlPoint, HP Surveillance, HP Broadcast Monitoring, and HP Supervisor; all of which are also built upon the HP Autonomy IDOL platform. On
information and belief, these products, solutions, and/or services, among other features, offer the same query reformulation and improvement features claimed by the ’377 Patent, thus infringing the ’377 Patent. 39. HP provides its customers and users of the HP Universal Search for IT, HP
Autonomy Express Desktop Search, HP Universal Search for Legal, HP eDiscovery, HP Explore, HP WorkSite, HP WorkSite Mobility, HP WorkSite Records Manager, HP Data Protector, HP Autonomy Document Generation, HP Autonomy Enterprise Search, HP Consolidated Archive 8.0, HP Healthcare Analytics, HP Rich Media Management, HP Digital Safe, HP Records Manager, HP ControlPoint, HP Surveillance, HP Broadcast Monitoring, and HP Supervisor with instructions for how to practice the methods of the ‘377 Patent. By way of example only, as a result of HP’s instructions, customers use these products, solutions, and/or services so that they receive an initial search query, convert it to general Boolean language, identify a level in a respective hierarchy tree for each search query item, formulating additional related search queries by substituting items from the respective hierarchy tree, and forwarding the initial query and the additional queries in parallel to the search engine. 40. These instructions are made and have been made available by HP to its customers
on HP’s own websites.6 On information and belief, in making these instructions available, HP
See “HP Universal Search,” available at http://www.autonomy.com/products/universal-search (last visited Apr. 9, 2014); “Express Desktop Search,” available at 12
specifically intended to encourage its customers to follow these instructions in a manner that infringes the ‘377 Patent. 41. HP also markets or has marketed a product called HP-UX Host Intrusion
Detection System for HP-UX 11i v3 (“HP-UX Host Intrusion Detection System”), which includes a system manager component, a host-based agent, data-gathering components, and a correlation engine.7 The HP-UX Host Intrusion Detection System implements the same methods
http://www.autonomy.com/content/Products/express-search/index.en.html (last visited Sep. 18, 2013); “HP Universal Search for Legal,” available at http://www.autonomy.com/products/universal-search-legal (last visited Apr. 9, 2014); “HP eDiscovery,” available at http://www.autonomy.com/products/ediscovery (last visited Apr. 9, 2014); “HP Explore,” available at http://www.autonomy.com/products/explore (last visited Apr. 9, 2014); “HP Worksite,” available at http://www.autonomy.com/products/worksite (last visited Apr. 17, 2014); “WorkSite mobility for Apple iPad and iPhone,” available at http://www.autonomy.com/pdoc/assets/global/pdf/Products/Participate/WorkSite/20130122_RL_ PB_HP_WorkSite_iOS_web.pdf (last visited Apr. 17, 2014); “HP WorkSite Records Manager,” available at http://www.autonomy.com/products/worksite-records-manager (last visited Apr. 17, 2014); “HP Data Protector software,” available at http://h20195.www2.hp.com/V2/GetPDF.aspx%2F4AA2-3654ENW.pdf (last visited Apr. 17, 2014); “Autonomy Document Generation,” available at http://www.autonomy.com/assets/global/pdf/Products/Participate/Scrittura/20130328_CI_BR_H P_AUT_DocGenerator_web.pdf (last visited Apr. 17, 2014); “Enterprise Search,” available at http://www.autonomy.com/offerings/unified-information-access/enterprise-search (Apr. 17, 2014); “HP Consolidated Archive,” available at http://www.autonomy.com/products/consolidated-archive (Apr. 17, 2014); “HP Healthcare Analytics,” available at http://www.autonomy.com/products/healthcare (Apr. 17, 2014); “HP Rich Media Management,” available at http://www.autonomy.com/assets/global/pdf/Offerings/marketingoptimization/20131212_CI_BR_HP_Manage_Rich_Media_web.pdf (last visited Apr. 17, 2014); “HP Digital Safe,” available at http://www.autonomy.com/products/digital-safe (last visited Apr. 17, 2014); “HP Records Manager,” available at http://www.autonomy.com/products/hp-recordsmanager (last visited Apr. 17, 2014); “HP ControlPoint,” available at http://www.autonomy.com/products/control-point (last visited Apr. 17, 2014); “HP Surveillance,” available at http://www.autonomy.com/products/surveillance (last visited Apr. 17, 2014); “HP Broadcast Monitoring,” available at http://www.autonomy.com/products/broadcastmonitoring (last visited Apr. 17, 2014); “HP Supervisor,” available at http://www.autonomy.com/products/supervisor (last visited Apr. 17, 2014). 7 See “HP-UX Host Intrusion Detection System Administrator’s Guide Version 4.2 Administrator’s Guide: HP-UX 11i v2 and HP-UX 11i v3” available at 13
claimed by the ’444 Patent for hosting an intrusion detection process in a server, and integrating the intrusion detection process with a server process. 42. HP also markets or has marketed HP ArcSight CloudSystem Enterprise, HP
Enterprise Security Manager, HP ArcSight Express, HP TippingPoint Next Generation Firewall, HP Managed Security Services, HP WebInspect Enterprise, and HP Fortify Runtime. On
information and belief, these products and/or services, among other things, implement the same methods claimed by the ’444 Patent for hosting an intrusion detection process in a server, and integrating the intrusion detection process with a server process. 43. HP provides its customers and users of the HP-UX Host Intrusion Detection
System, HP ArcSight CloudSystem Enterprise, HP ArcSight Express, HP TippingPoint Next Generation Firewall, HP Managed Security Services, HP WebInspect Enterprise, and HP Fortify Runtime with instructions for how to practice the methods of the ‘444 Patent. By way of example only, as a result of HP’s instructions, customers and users of these products and/or services host, in a server, an intrusion detection process that provides intrusion detection services, integrate the intrusion detection process with a server process, and pass requests for data received by the server process to the intrusion detection process which, in turn, comprises packing a subset of information from the request into an analysis format and delivering the subset in a funneling process, via a socket, to an analysis process.
http://h20566.www2.hp.com/portal/site/hpsc/template.BINARYPORTLET/public/kb/docDisplay /resource.process/?spf_p.tpst=kbDocDisplay_ws_BI&spf_p.rid_kbDocDisplay=docDisplayResU RL&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=com.vignette.cachetoken&spf_p.rst_kbDocDisplay=wsrpresourceState%3DdocId%253Demr_na-c020493241%257CdocLocale%253Den_US&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=com.vignette.cachetoken (last visited Apr. 9, 2014). 14
These instructions are made available by HP to its customers on HP’s own
websites.8 On information and belief, in making these instructions available, HP specifically intended to encourage its customers to follow these instructions in a manner that infringes the ‘444 Patent. COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,363,377 45. 44. 46. 271(a). 47. HP has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe, either literally or HP is liable for direct infringement of the ’377 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § Selene refers to and incorporates herein the allegations of paragraphs 1 through
under the doctrine of equivalents, at least Claim 1 of the ’377 Patent by making, using, selling, and/or offering to sell in the United States, or importing into the United States, certain methods and/or systems disclosed and claimed in the ’377 Patent, specifically including, but not limited
See id.; “HP CloudSystem Enterprise,” available at http://www8.hp.com/us/en/softwaresolutions/software.html?compURI=1340712#.UpUNv8RDt1U; http://h20195.www2.hp.com/v2/GetPDF.aspx%2F4AA4-5836ENW.pdf (last visited Apr. 1, 2014); “ArcSight ESM,” available at http://www8.hp.com/us/en/softwaresolutions/software.html?compURI=1340477#.U0YTR61dUcV (last visited Apr. 9, 2014); “HP ArcSight Express,” available at http://h20195.www2.hp.com/V2/GetDocument.aspx?docname=4AA4-1163ENW&cc=us&lc=en (last visited Apr. 17, 2014); “TippingPoint Next-Generation Firewall,” available at http://www8.hp.com/us/en/softwaresolutions/software.html?compURI=1469012#.U0YTxa1dUcU (last visited Apr. 9, 2014); “Managed Security Systems,” available at http://www8.hp.com/us/en/business-services/itservices.html?compURI=1286407#tab=TAB1 (last visited Apr. 9, 2014); “WebInspect,” available at http://www8.hp.com/us/en/softwaresolutions/software.html?compURI=1341991#tab=TAB2 (Apr. 9, 2014); “HP Fortify Runtime,” available at http://www8.hp.com/us/en/softwaresolutions/software.html?compURI=1337235&jumpid=reg_r1002_usen_c-001_title_r0001 (last visited Apr. 17, 2014). 15
to, its HP Universal Search for IT, HP Autonomy Express Desktop Search, HP Universal Search for Legal, HP eDiscovery, HP Explore, HP WorkSite, HP WorkSite Mobility, HP WorkSite Records Manager, HP Data Protector, HP Autonomy Document Generation, HP Autonomy Enterprise Search, HP Consolidated Archive 8.0, HP Healthcare Analytics, HP Rich Media Management, HP Digital Safe, HP Records Manager, HP ControlPoint, HP Surveillance, HP Broadcast Monitoring, and HP Supervisor products, solutions, and/or services. 48. HP has induced its customers to infringe the ‘377 Patent literally and/or under the HP has had knowledge of the ‘377 Patent and evidence of its
infringement of the ‘377 Patent since at least the date HP was served with this Complaint. HP has induced its customers and users of its HP Universal Search for IT, HP Autonomy Express Desktop Search, HP Universal Search for Legal, HP eDiscovery, HP Explore, HP WorkSite, HP WorkSite Mobility, HP WorkSite Records Manager, HP Data Protector, HP Autonomy Document Generation, HP Autonomy Enterprise Search, HP Consolidated Archive 8.0, HP Healthcare Analytics, HP Rich Media Management, HP Digital Safe, HP Records Manager, HP ControlPoint, HP Surveillance, HP Broadcast Monitoring, and HP Supervisor products, solutions, and/or services to infringe the ‘377 Patent by providing instructions to practice the methods of the ‘377 Patent. 49. On information and belief, HP acted with the specific intent to induce its
customers to use the methods claimed by the ‘377 Patent by continuing the above-mentioned activities with knowledge of the ‘377 Patent. 50. Selene has suffered and continues to suffer damages as a result of HP’s
damages from HP for its infringing acts in an amount subject to proof at trial, but no less than a reasonable royalty from HP for its infringing acts. 51. HP’s infringement of Selene’s ’377 Patent has damaged and will continue to
damage Selene, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless HP is enjoined by this Court. COUNT II INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,143,444 52. 51. 53. 271(a). 54. HP has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe, either literally or HP is liable for direct infringement of the ’444 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § Selene refers to and incorporates herein the allegations of paragraphs 1 through
under the doctrine of equivalents, at least Claim 1 of the ’444 Patent by making, using, selling, and/or offering to sell in the United States, or importing into the United States, certain methods and/or systems disclosed and claimed in the ’444 Patent, specifically including its HP-UX Host Intrusion Detection System, HP ArcSight for CloudSystem Enterprise, HP ArcSight Express, HP TippingPoint Next Generation Firewall, HP Managed Security Services, HP WebInspect Enterprise, and HP Fortify Runtime products and/or services. 55. HP has induced its customers to infringe the ‘444 Patent literally and/or under the HP has had knowledge of the ‘444 Patent and evidence of its
infringement of the ‘444 Patent since prior to November of 2011, when U.S. Patent No. 8,056,130, owned by HP, issued with citation to the ’377 Patent as prior art. HP has induced its customers and users of its HP-UX Host Intrusion Detection System, HP ArcSight for CloudSystem Enterprise, HP ArcSight Express, HP TippingPoint Next Generation Firewall, HP
Managed Security Services, HP WebInspect Enterprise, and HP Fortify Runtime products and/or services to infringe the ‘444 Patent by providing instructions to practice the methods of the ‘444 Patent. 56. On information and belief, HP acted with the specific intent to induce its
customers to use the methods claimed by the ‘444 Patent by continuing the above-mentioned activities with knowledge of the ‘444 Patent.
HP has had actual and constructive knowledge of the invention claimed in the
’444 Patent prior to November of 2011, when U.S. Patent No. 8,056,130, owned by HP, issued with citation to the ’444 Patent as prior art. Therefore, HP has infringed and is infringing the ’444 Patent with knowledge of Selene’s patent rights and its acts of infringement have been and continue to be willful, deliberate, and in reckless disregard of Selene’s rights. 58. Selene has suffered and continues to suffer damages as a result of HP’s
infringement of Selene’s ’444 Patent. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, Selene is entitled to recover damages from HP for its infringing acts in an amount subject to proof at trial, but no less than a reasonable royalty. Selene is further entitled to enhanced damages for HP’s acts of willful patent infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. 59. HP’s infringement of Selene’s ’444 Patent has damaged and will continue to
damage Selene, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless HP is enjoined by this Court. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Selene, respectfully requests the Court to enter judgment in its favor and against HP, granting the following relief:
Judgment in Plaintiff’s favor that HP has infringed and continues to
infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, directly and/or indirectly, the ’377 Patent; B. Judgment in Plaintiff’s favor that HP has infringed and continues to
infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, directly and/or indirectly, the ’444 Patent; C. A permanent injunction enjoining HP and its officers, directors, agents,
servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and all others acting in active concert therewith from infringement of the ‘377 Patent, or such other equitable relief the Court determines is warranted; D. A permanent injunction enjoining HP and its officers, directors, agents,
servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and all others acting in active concert therewith from infringement of the ‘444 Patent, or such other equitable relief the Court determines is warranted; E. An award to Plaintiff of damages adequate to compensate it for HP’s acts
of patent infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest, costs, and expenses as fixed by the court pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; F. An award to Plaintiff of enhanced damages, up to and including treble
damages, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, for Defendant’s acts of willful patent infringement of the ’444 Patent; G. A judgment and order requiring HP to provide an accounting and to pay
supplemental damages to Selene, including without limitation, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
Any further relief to which Selene may be entitled. JURY DEMAND
Selene, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury of any issues so triable by right.
Dated: April 23, 2014 OF COUNSEL: Donald Puckett Alexander E. Gasser Sadaf R. Abdullah SKIERMONT PUCKETT LLP 2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 4800W Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 978-6600 donald.puckett@skiermontpuckett.com alex.gasser@skiermontpuckett.com sadaf.abdullah@skiermontpuckett.com
Documents Similar To Selene Communication Technologies v. Hewlett-Packard CompanySkip carouselZagg Intellectual Property Holding v. Superior CommunicationsUntitledMedia Digital v. Asus Computer International et. al.Ant Leap Search v. Palantir TechnologiesJSDQ Mesh Technologies v. Cablevision Systems13-04-09 Order Denying Case Management Conference and Extending Markman DeadlinesJSDQ Mesh Technologies v. Time Warner CableIdeative Product Ventures v. Hewlett Packard CompanyPalo Alto Networks v. Juniper NetworksOasis Research v. Emc et. al.Introduction DawlanceQuest Nettech v. D.L. BlairIntellectual PropertyPatenting of Games.pdfAvanir Pharmaceuticals et. al. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals et. al.Bose v. Able PlanetParallel Networks v. Blizzard EntertainmentNxp v. Nintendo et. al.Techshell v. Jwin ElectronicsEnvcomm Brochure 07Compressor Products International LLC, A Texas Limited Liability Company v. GracoWard v. Master Cutlery - ComplaintNovelPoint Security v. Verbatim AmericasSupreme Court rules Apple need not be awarded Samsung's entire profit for infringing on iPhone design patent.Toll Free Numbers in Indiac 01683077Contour ComplaintAttorney Intellectual Property Law in New York City Resume Scott AppelbaumSales or Sales Representative or Sales Executive or Sales ConsulSonic Industry v. Sally Beauty HoldingsDocuments About Hewlett PackardSkip carouselSV150 doubletruck 042416Network Administrator Resume SampleNyag v Intel Complaint FinalScribd Announces Print Platform Press ReleaseSV150 top 10 042416SV150-04-24-2016Hewlett-Packard v. Inc.0909 issue of the Daily JournalHewlett Packard Company v. ServiceNowForbes Investor Jan2014 Master Buy List.pdf0906 issue of the Daily JournalOpen Letter to the Board of Hp FinalRelay IP v. Hewlett Packard CompanyForbes.wolfe.emerging.tech.Jan2014 806-16-2011 editionHP LetterExpress Card Systems v. Hewlett-Packard CompanyYyz v. Hewlett Packard CompanyClouding IP v. Hewlett-Packard CompanyAgranat IP Licensing v. Hewlett-Packard CompanyOrback v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 97 F.3d 429, 10th Cir. (1996)Carl Barton v. Hewlett Packard Co, 3rd Cir. (2015)Dennis W. Koontz, Master Service Corp., and Jean M. Koontz v. Richard Jaffarian and Richard Jaffarian Associates, Inc., and G. Labbie Ltd., Glen Labbie, and G.L. Systems, Ltd., 787 F.2d 906, 4th Cir. (1986)Hp Settlement AgreementSummarySummaryJeremy Hunt letterMulti-Format et. al. v. Motorola Mobility et. al.ValuEngine Weekly Newsletter August 26, 2011Profectus Technology v. Hewlett-Packard Company et. al.More 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