Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/216024041/OpenTV-v-Netflix
Timestamp: 2017-04-27 02:35:50
Document Index: 188260151

Matched Legal Cases: ['art0', '§ 101', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 284', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 271']

ScribdBrowseInterestsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthPolitics & Current AffairsScience & TechHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryFictionBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinOpenTV v. NetflixUploaded by PriorSmart0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01525-RS: OpenTV Inc. v. Netflix Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the Hon. Richard S...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01525-RS: OpenTV Inc. v. Netflix Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the Hon. Richard Seeborg presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-labB 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 OPENTV, INC., Plaintiff, v. NETFLIX, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 1. This patent infringement action is being filed by OpenTV, Inc. (“OpenTV”), a
Group and launched the now legendary “Nagra” line of portable recording devices for cinema, TV and radio recording. Stefan Kudelski’s recording devices, and the inventions in them, were considered revolutionary throughout the movie industry. The Nagra devices allowed precise synchronization of audio tape with film, providing filmmakers with studio sound quality during on-location filming. 3. Throughout his career, Stefan Kudelski received numerous awards and honors for
early years allowed the company to grow and expand. In 1989, The Kudelski Group expanded the field of its technological innovation by launching its first conditional access systems for pay TV. Over the next decade (1990-1999), The Kudelski Group continued to expand its technology development in the digital television domain, providing global, universally compatible solutions to manage, organize, enhance, market, and secure digital content, regardless of whether it was transmitted over managed or unmanaged networks, broadcast linearly or on-demand. 5. Today, digital television is The Kudelski Group’s core business. The Kudelski
Group has become a world leader in digital security and convergent media solutions for the delivery of digital and interactive content. The Kudelski Group’s main focus is on innovating security and access control solutions that provide optimal levels of protection throughout the content distribution chain, from creation to consumption. The Kudelski Group’s innovations are continuously contributing to the evolution of the digital television ecosystem, enabling operators to extend their multimedia offerings across the entire digital ecosystem to numerous client devices through traditional managed networks as well as Internet delivery. 6. At the same time, The Kudelski Group has forged itself as a leader in the digital
space, including acquiring such notable companies as Lysis, Livewire, MediaGuard, SmarDTV, and Plaintiff, OpenTV, Inc. (“OpenTV”). The Kudelski Group also has other subsidiary
technology, services, and end-to-end solutions enabling intuitive and personalized viewing experiences for consumers. OpenTV’s software solutions enable a variety of advanced and interactive services for television, including advanced user interfaces, video-on-demand (“VOD”), personal video recording (“PVR”), high-definition (“HD”), interactive and addressable advertising, and a variety of enhanced television applications. 8. OpenTV’s success as a member of The Kudelski Group is due in large part to its
worldwide emphasis on intellectual property. OpenTV benefits from one of the earliest and broadest patent portfolios in the industry. OpenTV’s patented technology has been vital in allowing OpenTV’s customers to accelerate technological progress, enhance market opportunities, and improve profitability. 9. Several statistics vividly illustrate the quality and commercial success of
OpenTV’s intellectual property as well as the significant investments that The Kudelski Group has made historically in research and development efforts. For example, there are more than:    200 million digital set-top boxes and televisions that have been shipped to consumers with OpenTV software; 80 worldwide customers who run OpenTV solutions, including 40 OEMs who have ported OpenTV software to more than 250 digital set-top box models; and 815 patents owned by the OpenTV subsidiary of The Kudelski Group worldwide to date.
infringement complaint against Netflix, Inc. (“Netflix”) after repeated, unsuccessful attempts to prevent the unlicensed use of OpenTV’s patented technology. 12. OpenTV asserts that Netflix willfully infringes the following seven U.S. Patents
(the “Asserted Patents”):  6,018,768 entitled “Enhanced Video Programming System and Method for Incorporating and Displaying Retrieved Integrated Internet Information Segments” (“the ’768 Patent”) (Exhibit A hereto); 6,233,736 entitled “Media Online Service Access System and Method” (“the ’736 Patent”) (Exhibit B hereto); 7,055,169 entitled “Supporting Common Interactive Television Functionality Through Presentation Engine Syntax” (“the ’169 Patent”) (Exhibit C hereto); 7,409,437 entitled “Enhanced Video Programming System and Method for Incorporating and Displaying Retrieved Integrated Internet Information Segments” (“the ’437 Patent”) (Exhibit D hereto); 7,490,346 entitled “Digital Television Application Protocol for Interactive Television” (“the ’346 Patent”) (Exhibit E hereto); 7,949,722 entitled “Enhanced Video Programming System and Method Utilizing User-Profile Information” (“the ’722 Patent”) (Exhibit F hereto); and 8,107,786 entitled “Systems and Methods to Modify Playout or Playback” (“the ’786 Patent”) (Exhibit G hereto). OpenTV seeks damages in an amount adequate to compensate OpenTV for
   13.
Netflix’s infringement, increased damages for willful infringement, a permanent injunction
barring Netflix from continuing to infringe OpenTV’s patents, and OpenTV’s attorneys’ fees and costs associated with this action. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY 14. The technology at issue in this case pertains generally to the fields of access,
selection, control, securitization, and delivery of content, and specifically here, in the field of Over-the-Top (“OTT”) delivery of content (such as movies, television, and other media) over the Internet. 15. OTT delivery is done through an ordinary Internet connection that is not tied to
eighteen and twenty-four, 82% watch OTT video. Consumers are also increasingly turning to smartphones and other mobile devices to view OTT video. 19. In particular, according to Netflix’s CEO, Reed Hastings, in a letter to Netflix
shareholders provided on or about October 23, 2012, in Q3 2012, Netflix’s global streaming membership grew by nearly 2 million new subscribers. At that time, the 29 million subscribers of its streaming service enjoyed over 3 billion hours of television shows and movies from Netflix. 20. OTT is in the midst of substantial growth. According to ABI Research, OTT
with OTT, such as the difficulty of storing and navigating through and serving millions of video programs, managing the required digital rights management (“DRM”) licensing, authenticating OTT users, allowing for user-friendly playback interfaces, and targeting specified content to OTT users, among others. innovation in the field. 22. Over the past 20 years, OpenTV and other sister companies within The Kudelski These challenges have created a strong need for research and
agreement was reached to convert Thomson Sun Interactive, LLC into a newly formed corporation—OpenTV, Inc., with the transaction completed in 1998. 26. From its inception, OpenTV has been dedicated to developing and
launching the software used to power one of the world’s first interactive TV banking and financial services technology. 28. By 1999, OpenTV’s middleware solutions for set-top boxes were incorporated in
over 4.5 million devices worldwide. 29. OpenTV’s commercial and technological success quickly grew. In 2000, less
than four years from its creation, OpenTV became the first interactive television middleware provider to integrate its middleware technology in more than 10 million set-top boxes worldwide—more than all industry competitors combined. OpenTV also partnered with
EchoStar’s DISH Network, which was the first satellite company to provide interactive -7-
television services in the United States. OpenTV’s set-top box middleware technologies were key to the successful growth of DISH Network. 30. OpenTV’s success in the set-top box middleware market continued throughout the
early 2000’s to today. OpenTV has partnerships with companies worldwide, and OpenTV’s middleware has now been incorporated into over 200 million set-top boxes. 31. Companies worldwide have acknowledged the commercial importance of
OpenTV’s patent portfolio, taking licenses to OpenTV patents relevant to their businesses. Exemplary licensees to OpenTV patents include a major satellite pay TV operator and leading OTT companies. 32. In addition to its industry-leading set-top box middleware solutions, OpenTV has
technology related, for example, to personal video recording (“PVR”), video-on-demand (“VOD”), television home networking, and tools for recommending content to viewers. The industry has long recognized OpenTV’s technology contributions, with OpenTV’s PVR named as one of the best in its field by Seagate Technology in 2009. 36. OpenTV became a part of The Kudelski Group in 2007 through The Kudelski In 2010, The Kudelski Group
Group’s acquisition of a controlling stake in the company.
acquired the remaining shares from minority shareholders and OpenTV became a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Kudelski Group. 37. OpenTV’s integration into The Kudelski Group has allowed for commercial and
technological synergies between other Kudelski Group companies and continued innovation in the delivery of digital content and OTT technologies. 38. Through its dedication to developing innovative technologies, OpenTV’s
delivery systems, content recommendation engines and targeted content delivery, subscriber management systems and tools, DRM and other content access control techniques, billing and payment systems, user interfaces, digital video recorder (“DVR”) content storage and scheduling, end-to-end digital content security, including securing digital content within the home network, VOD content selection, advanced advertising techniques, and many others. 42. To ensure that they will continue their tradition of innovation into the future,
long after the patents-at-issue in this case were filed. 46. Streaming online content using OTT is a substantial part of Netflix’s business.
Netflix predicts that it will generate over $2.4 billion in revenue alone in 2012 through its content streaming business. 47. 48. 49. Future growth of its content streaming business is a core Netflix business strategy. Netflix relies heavily on technology to stream content. The performance of software and computer systems plays a key role in Netflix’s
Content recommendation features also are critical to Netflix’s business. If Netflix
is unable to predict and recommend titles that its subscribers will enjoy, Netflix’s ability to attract and retain subscribers may be adversely affected and its subscribers may default to choosing content that costs Netflix more to provide, causing Netflix’s profit margin to suffer. 51. 52. Netflix is aware that OpenTV has patents relevant to Netflix’s operations. Netflix is aware that many companies are devoting significant resources to
developing patents that could potentially affect many aspects of Netflix’s business. 53. Netflix has not searched patents relative to its operations. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 54. This lawsuit is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws
of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, and 1338(a). 55. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Netflix because Netflix is a Delaware
corporation and has committed, contributed to, and induced acts of patent infringement and has regularly and systematically conducted and solicited business in this district by and through its OTT content streaming service. 56. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1400(b) because
Netflix is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district and therefore resides in this district. THE PATENTS INFRINGED BY NETFLIX A. U.S. Patent No. 7,490,346 57. Patent. 58. The ’346 Patent generally relates, among other things, to communication OpenTV is the owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interest in the ’346
protocols for interactive programming environments using a content delivery network (“CDN”). - 11 -
Netflix infringes the ’346 Patent through at least the CDN messaging used in its
on-demand video streaming service. B. U.S. Patent No. 7,055,169 60. Patent. 61. The ’169 Patent generally relates, among other things, to the presentation of OpenTV is the owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interest in the ’169
interactive programming content using directives such as HTML, scripting languages, or other languages. 62. Netflix infringes the ’169 Patent through at least the use of directives in
connection with providing its on-demand video streaming service. C. U.S. Patent No. 7,949,722 63. Patent. 64. The ’722 Patent generally relates, among other things, to the utilization of userOpenTV is the owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interest in the ’722
profile information to provide recommendations for content to a viewer of video programming. 65. Netflix infringes the ’722 Patent through at least its recommendation system for
its on-demand video streaming service. D. U.S. Patent No. 6,018,768 66. Patent. 67. The ’768 Patent generally relates, among other things, to a system for integrating OpenTV is the owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interest in the ’768
video programming and Internet information. 68. Netflix infringes the ’768 Patent through at least the operation of its fast forward
U.S. Patent No. 7,409,437 69. OpenTV is the owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interest in the ’437
Patent. 70. The ’437 Patent generally relates, among other things, to presenting information
retrieved from an online source in conjunction with displaying a video/audio program. 71. Netflix infringes the ’437 Patent through at least the operation of its fast forward
and fast rewind Trick Play functionality. F. U.S. Patent No. 8,107,786 72. Patent. 73. The ’786 Patent generally relates, among other things, to modifying playback of OpenTV is the owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interest in the ’786
content based on a response to a fast forward or fast rewind request. 74. Netflix infringes the ’786 Patent through at least the operation of its fast forward
and fast rewind Trick Play functionality. G. U.S. Patent No. 6,233,736 75. Patent. 76. The ’736 Patent generally relates, among other things, to displaying the OpenTV is the owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interest in the ’736
availability of online information during a video program and allowing a user viewing the video program to initiate retrieval of the online information. 77. Netflix infringes the ’736 Patent through at least its “Next Episode” and “More
Episode” navigation functionality as part of its user interface.
NETFLIX’S WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT 78. On December 15, 2011, OpenTV wrote to Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, and
notified him of the existence of the OpenTV patent portfolio generally, as well as several of the Asserted Patents specifically. OpenTV explained that its technology may be relevant to several aspects of Netflix’s services, and invited Mr. Hastings to contact OpenTV to discuss the matter further. 79. 80. Mr. Hastings did not contact OpenTV to discuss the matter further. No one at Netflix responded, via telephone or in writing, to OpenTV’s December
another letter to Mr. Hastings. 82. OpenTV’s January 13, 2012 letter to Mr. Hastings discussed the OpenTV patents
in light of Netflix’s interactive video interface. 83. During the following months, OpenTV personnel attempted to contact the CEO
contacted Netflix’s Associate General Counsel, Technology and Transactions, requesting a meeting to discuss licensing OpenTV’s patents, and other patents held by The Kudelski Group companies, as requested in the December and January letters. 85. After several additional attempts, Netflix’s Associate General Counsel,
of The Kudelski Group companies’ patent portfolio to Netflix, including OpenTV’s patents, and - 14 -
Netflix’s headquarters in Los Gatos, California on September 28, 2012. The Associate General Counsel, Technology and Transactions, and one other Netflix attorney were present at the meeting. The Kudelski Group was represented at the meeting by Joe Chernesky and William Goldman, Vice President, Intellectual Property. Messrs. Chernesky and Goldman presented an overview of The Kudelski Group’s history of innovation, identified a number of patents relevant to Netflix’s OTT service, including a mapping of the Asserted Patents to a representative OTT platform, such as that implemented by Netflix, and discussed the potential framework for a patent license. 88. On October 19, 2012, Netflix’s Associate General Counsel, Technology and
Transactions, replied by e-mail that Netflix may be interested in “going through a set of” The Kudelski Group companies’ patents. Following a brief phone call, on November 7, 2012, The Kudelski Group provided a draft non-disclosure agreement to Netflix to govern subsequent discussions between the companies. 89. Netflix never responded to the November 7 e-mail or subsequent e-mails from
Netflix’s failure to compensate OpenTV for Netflix’s ongoing patent
infringement is part of a deliberate effort by Netflix to ignore the intellectual property rights of its competitors, even when made aware of specific patents infringed by Netflix. COUNT I - INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,490,346 93. 94. 95. OpenTV incorporates by reference into this Count I paragraphs 1 through 92. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, the ’346 Patent is presumed valid. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271, Netflix has infringed and continues to directly
infringe, actively induce and/or contribute to infringement of the ’346 Patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell and/or importing software to be installed and executed on one or more connected devices of its subscribers in order to deliver on-demand Internet streaming media to its subscribers with knowledge that use of that software by Netflix subscribers in conjunction with Netflix’s own computer processes and content delivery infrastructure platform and/or those of its CDN partners would infringe the ’346 patent, which software has been especially made for use in an infringement of the ’346 Patent and is not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 96. Netflix knew of the ’346 Patent prior to the filing of this action at least as a result
of The Kudelski Group’s identification of the ’346 Patent to Netflix at the September 28, 2012 meeting between Netflix and The Kudelski Group, and at the very least by virtue of filing this Complaint. 97. 98. Netflix’s infringement has been and continues to be willful. OpenTV has suffered and continues to suffer damages and irreparable harm as a
result of Netflix’s past and ongoing infringement. 99. Unless Netflix’s infringement is enjoined, OpenTV will continue to be damaged
OpenTV incorporates by reference into this Count II paragraphs 1 through 92. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, the ’169 Patent is presumed valid. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271, Netflix has infringed and continues to directly
infringe, actively induce and/or contribute to infringement of the ’169 Patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell and/or importing software to be installed and executed on one or more connected devices of its subscribers in order to deliver on-demand Internet streaming media to its subscribers with knowledge that use of that software by Netflix subscribers in conjunction with Netflix’s own computer processes and content delivery infrastructure platform would infringe the ’169 patent, which software has been especially made for use in an infringement of the ’169 Patent and is not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 104. Netflix knew of the ’169 Patent prior to the filing of this action at least as a result
of The Kudelski Group’s identification of the ’169 Patent to Netflix at the September 28, 2012 meeting between Netflix and The Kudelski Group, and at the very least by virtue of filing this Complaint. 105. 106. Netflix’s infringement has been and continues to be willful. OpenTV has suffered and continues to suffer damages and irreparable harm as a
result of Netflix’s past and ongoing infringement. 107. Unless Netflix’s infringement is enjoined, OpenTV will continue to be damaged
COUNT III - INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,949,722 109. 110. 111. OpenTV incorporates by reference into this Count III paragraphs 1 through 92. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, the ’722 Patent is presumed valid. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271, Netflix has infringed and continues to directly
infringe, actively induce and/or contribute to infringement of the ’722 Patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell and/or importing software to be installed and executed on one or more connected devices of its subscribers in order to recommend and deliver targeted on-demand Internet streaming media to its subscribers with knowledge that use of that software by Netflix subscribers in conjunction with Netflix’s own computer processes and content delivery infrastructure platform would infringe the ’722 patent, which software has been especially made for use in an infringement of the ’722 Patent and is not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 112. Netflix knew of the ’722 Patent prior to the filing of this action at least as a result
of The Kudelski Group’s identification of the ’722 Patent to Netflix at the September 28, 2012 meeting between Netflix and The Kudelski Group, and at the very least by virtue of filing this Complaint. 113. 114. Netflix’s infringement has been and continues to be willful. OpenTV has suffered and continues to suffer damages and irreparable harm as a
result of Netflix’s past and ongoing infringement. 115. Unless Netflix’s infringement is enjoined, OpenTV will continue to be damaged
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, the ’768 Patent is presumed valid. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271, Netflix has infringed and continues to directly
infringe, actively induce and/or contribute to infringement of the ’768 Patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell and/or importing software to be installed and executed on one or more connected devices of its subscribers in order to enable Trick Play functionality in conjunction with the delivery of on-demand Internet streaming media to its subscribers with knowledge that use of that software by Netflix subscribers in conjunction with Netflix’s own computer processes and content delivery infrastructure platform would infringe the ’768 patent, which software has been especially made for use in an infringement of the ’768 Patent and is not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 120. Netflix knew of the ’768 Patent prior to the filing of this action at least as a result
of receiving OpenTV’s December 15, 2011, and January 13, 2012 notice letters to Netflix specifically identifying the ’768 Patent, as well as a result of The Kudelski Group’s identification of the ’768 Patent to Netflix at the September 28, 2012 meeting between Netflix and The Kudelski Group, and at the very least by virtue of filing this Complaint. 121. 122. Netflix’s infringement has been and continues to be willful. OpenTV has suffered and continues to suffer damages and irreparable harm as a
result of Netflix’s past and ongoing infringement. 123. Unless Netflix’s infringement is enjoined, OpenTV will continue to be damaged
and irreparably harmed. 124. OpenTV meets the criteria for, and is entitled to, a permanent injunction. COUNT V - INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,409,437 125. 126. OpenTV incorporates by reference into this Count V paragraphs 1 through 92. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, the ’437 Patent is presumed valid. - 19 -
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271, Netflix has infringed and continues to directly
infringe, actively induce and/or contribute to infringement of the ’437 Patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell and/or importing software to be installed and executed on one or more connected devices of its subscribers in order to enable Trick Play functionality in conjunction with the delivery of on-demand Internet streaming media to its subscribers with knowledge that use of that software by Netflix subscribers in conjunction with Netflix’s own computer processes and content delivery infrastructure platform would infringe the ’437 patent, which software has been especially made for use in an infringement of the ’437 Patent and is not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 128. Netflix knew of the ’437 Patent prior to the filing of this action at least as a result
of The Kudelski Group’s identification of the ’437 Patent to Netflix at the September 28, 2012 meeting between Netflix and The Kudelski Group, and at the very least by virtue of filing this Complaint. 129. 130. Netflix’s infringement has been and continues to be willful. OpenTV has suffered and continues to suffer damages and irreparable harm as a
result of Netflix’s past and ongoing infringement. 131. Unless Netflix’s infringement is enjoined, OpenTV will continue to be damaged
and irreparably harmed. 132. OpenTV meets the criteria for, and is entitled to, a permanent injunction. COUNT VI - INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,107,786 133. 134. 135. OpenTV incorporates by reference into this Count VI paragraphs 1 through 92. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, the ’786 Patent is presumed valid. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271, Netflix has infringed and continues to directly
infringe, actively induce and/or contribute to infringement of the ’786 Patent by making, using, - 20 -
selling, offering to sell and/or importing software to be installed and executed on one or more connected devices of its subscribers in order to enable Trick Play functionality in conjunction with the delivery of on-demand Internet streaming media to its subscribers with knowledge that use of that software by Netflix subscribers in conjunction with Netflix’s own computer processes and content delivery infrastructure platform would infringe the ’786 patent, which software has been especially made for use in an infringement of the ’786 Patent and is not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 136. Netflix knew of the ’786 Patent prior to the filing of this action at least as a result
of The Kudelski Group’s identification of the ’786 Patent to Netflix at the September 28, 2012 meeting between Netflix and The Kudelski Group, and at the very least by virtue of filing this Complaint. 137. 138. Netflix’s infringement has been and continues to be willful. OpenTV has suffered and continues to suffer damages and irreparable harm as a
result of Netflix’s past and ongoing infringement. 139. Unless Netflix’s infringement is enjoined, OpenTV will continue to be damaged
and irreparably harmed. 140. OpenTV meets the criteria for, and is entitled to, a permanent injunction. COUNT VII - INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,233,736 141. 142. 143. OpenTV incorporates by reference into this Count VII paragraphs 1 through 92. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, the ’736 Patent is presumed valid. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271, Netflix has infringed and continues to directly
infringe, actively induce and/or contribute to infringement of the ’736 Patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell and/or importing software to be installed and executed on one or more connected devices of its subscribers in order to enable user interface navigation functionality - 21 -
with the delivery of on-demand Internet streaming media to its subscribers with knowledge that use of that software by Netflix subscribers in conjunction with Netflix’s own computer processes and content delivery infrastructure platform would infringe the ’736 patent, which software has been especially made for use in an infringement of the ’736 Patent and is not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 144. Netflix knew of the ’736 Patent prior to the filing of this action at least as a result
of receiving OpenTV’s December 15, 2011, and January 13, 2012 notice letters to Netflix specifically identifying the ’736 Patent, as well as a result of The Kudelski Group’s identification of the ’736 Patent to Netflix at the September 28, 2012 meeting between Netflix and The Kudelski Group, and at the very least by virtue of filing this Complaint. 145. 146. Netflix’s infringement has been and continues to be willful. OpenTV has suffered and continues to suffer damages and irreparable harm as a
result of Netflix’s past and ongoing infringement. 147. Unless Netflix’s infringement is enjoined, OpenTV will continue to be damaged
and irreparably harmed. 148. OpenTV meets the criteria for, and is entitled to, a permanent injunction. PRAYER FOR RELIEF OpenTV respectfully asks that the Court enter judgment: a) b) finding that Netflix has infringed each of the Asserted Patents; awarding OpenTV damages adequate to compensate OpenTV for Netflix’s infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty; c) finding that Netflix’s infringement of each of the Asserted Patents has been willful;
awarding OpenTV increased damages based on Netflix’s willful infringement; finding that this case is exceptional; awarding OpenTV its attorneys’ fees and costs, together with pre-judgment and postjudgment interest;
Documents Similar To OpenTV v. NetflixSkip carouselOpenTV v. Netflix1Q10 Earnings Release 042010 FinalUntitledPwc Consumer Intelligence Series.video ContentBudzisz v. Illinois Steel Co., 170 U.S. 41 (1898)Giulio Natta, Piero Pino, Giorgia Mazzanti and Montecatini Societa Generale Per L'IndustrIa Mineraria E Chimica (Now Montecatini Edison, s.p.a.) v. John Paul Hogan, Robert L. Banks and Phillips Petroleum Company, John Paul Hogan, Robert L. Banks and Phillips Petroleum Company v. Giulio Natta, Piero Pino, Giorgia Mazzanti and Montecatini Societa Generale Per L'IndustrIa Mineraria E Chimica (Now Montecatini Edison, s.p.a.), 392 F.2d 686, 10th Cir. (1968)Motion for Injunction 1OTT Solutions GuideArchtech Electronics v. Lynn Electronics et. al.Ml Design Group v. Young Manufacturing Company et. al.ML Design Group v. Young Manufacturing Company et. al.Houdini's Magic Shop v. Nowstalgic ToysFreeny et. al. v. TP-Link Technologies et. al.PJC Logistics v. ATX GroupEDekka v. Foot Locker Et. Al.eDekka v. Estee LaudereDekka v. Bluestem BrandseDekka v. Northern Tool & Equipment CompanyeDekka v. Mason CompanieseDekka v. 1-800-Flowers.comeDekka v. OpticsPlaneteDekka v. FanaticseDekka v. BPS DirecteDekka v. Recreational EquipmenteDekka v. Disney Interactive Studios, Inc. f/k/a Disney InteractiveeDekka v. Lamps PluseDekka v. ZoneseDekka v. Gerler & SonEvolutionary Intelligence v. TwittereDekka v. ideeliDocuments About NetflixSkip carouselNetflix FCC CommentsGreenlight Q2 15NETFLIX INC 10-K (Annual Reports) 2009-02-25toolson 2012Convergence Consulting GroupNetflix X ComplaintCannes 2015 Day OneAccenture OutlookNetflix Investor Letter Q4 2011Holiday Gift Guide 2010Netflix Q410 Letter to ShareholdersThe Weekender 07-20-2011July Investor Letter Netflix218272540 OpenTV Et Al v NetflixTIFFQ3 LetterUT Dallas Syllabus for entp6390.501.11s taught by Joseph Picken (jcp016300)Netflix Faces Increased Competition, Share Price in Jeopardy?ViaCLIX v. NetflixInvestor_Letter_Q2_2012_07.24.122011-09-26NFLX Q3 Letter11-20-12Accenture Outlook | The Eyes Have ItStar WarsValuEngine WeeklyNetflix Class Action DismissedValuEngine Weekly:Netflix,Nike,Business Services Stocks, and SuttmeierThe Ledger 03/28/14More From PatentBlastSkip carouselMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Samsung Electronics Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Nintendo of America Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Cantor Fitzgerald Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. ZTE Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Toshiba AmericaMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Pantech Et. AlMultiplayer Network Innovations v. NVIDIAActifio v. DelphixRTC Industries v. Flextronics InternationalTactical Medical Solutions v. Karl Et. AlPrometheus Laboratories v. Par Pharmaceutical Companies Et. AlAndrea Electronics v. Lenovo Group Et. Al.Andrea Electronics v. Toshiba Et. Al.Property Disclosure Technologies v. TruliaGlobal Tel*Link v. Securus Technologies et. al.Century Board v. National Registered AgentsIatric Systems v. FairWarningHologram Et. Al. v. Arena3D Industrial Illusion Et. Al.Tech-ni-Fold v. F.P. Rosback CompanyRTC Industries v. ZiveloMotobatt v. Deltran OperationsImpax Laboratories Et. Al. v. Lannett Holdings Et. Al.Alkermes Pharma Ireland v. Sun Pharma Global FZE Et. Al.Unimed Pharmaceuticals Et. Al. v. Perrigo Company Et. Al.Sensus v. Certified MeasurementCapella Photonics v. TellabsCapella Photonics v. Fujitsu Network CommunicationsCapella Photonics v. CienaILife Technologies v. AliphComAeritas v. GameStop