SlideShare una empresa de Scribd logo
1 de 10
Descargar para leer sin conexión
Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP
AND NETSTAR TECHNOLOGIES
LLC,
Civil Action No.

Plaintiff,
v.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
1.

Plaintiffs

ROCKSTAR

CONSORTIUM

US

LP

and

NETSTAR

TECHNOLOGIES LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) for its Complaint against Defendant
GOOGLE, INC. (“Google”), alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,098,065;
7,236,969; 7,469,245; 7,672,970; 7,895,178; 7,895,183; and 7,933,883 (the “patents-in-suit”):
THE PARTIES AND BACKGROUND
2.

Plaintiff Rockstar Consortium US LP (“Rockstar”) is a Delaware limited

partnership with its principal place of business at Legacy Town Center I, 7160 N. Dallas
Parkway, Suite 250, Plano, Texas 75024.
3.

Plaintiff NetStar Technologies LLC (“NetStar”) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of

Rockstar Consortium US LP and is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at
Legacy Town Center I, 7160 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 250, Plano, Texas 75024. NetStar is the
exclusive licensee of the patents-in-suit.
Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 2

4.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendant

Google is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre
Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043.
5.

Nortel Networks, a previous assignee of the patents-in-suit, conducted an auction

for Nortel’s patent portfolio in July 2011. The auction included the patents-in-suit.
6.

At that auction, Google and other companies bid for Nortel’s portfolio.

7.

Google was aware of the patents-in-suit at the time of the auction.

8.

Google placed an initial bid of $900,000,000 for the patents-in-suit and the rest of

the Nortel portfolio. Google subsequently increased its bid multiple times, ultimately bidding as
high as $4.4 billion. That price was insufficient to win the auction, as a group led by the current
shareholders of Rockstar purchased the portfolio for $4.5 billion.
9.

Despite losing in its attempt to acquire the patents-in-suit at auction, Google has

infringed and continues to infringe the patents-in-suit.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
10.

The court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and

1338(a) because this action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et
seq. Venue is proper in this federal district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c) and 1400(b).
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,098,065
11.

On August 1, 2000, United States Patent No. 6,098,065 (the “‘065 patent”) was

duly and legally issued for an invention entitled “Associative Search Engine.” Rockstar is the
assignee of the ‘065 patent and has granted an exclusive license to NetStar, who holds all rights
and interest in the ‘065 patent. A true and correct copy of the ‘065 patent is attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
12.

Google has infringed and continues to infringe the ‘065 patent by its manufacture,

use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of systems, methods, products, and processes for
matching search terms with relevant advertising and/or information based on those search terms
and other user data, including but not limited to Google’s process of receiving search requests
Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 3

from a user, using its search engine to generate search results based at least in part on the search
request, selecting—through Google’s AdWords and/or any other products, methods, systems, or
services Google uses to store and choose relevant advertising—a relevant advertisement based
on the search request and/or user data, and providing the search results together with the
particular advertisement to the user; and additionally Google’s systems, methods, products, and
processes of using other user data aside from the search request to help select the search result
and/or advertisement; and additionally and alternatively its contributing to and inducement of
others to manufacture, use, sell, import, and/or offer for sale infringing systems, methods,
products, and processes in the manners described above. Google is liable for its infringement of
the ‘065 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
13.

Google’s acts of infringement have caused damage to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs are

entitled to recover from Google the damages sustained by Rockstar, NetStar, and Rockstar’s
predecessor assignees as a result of Google’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial.
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,236,969
14.

On June 26, 2007, United States Patent No. 7,236,969 (the “‘969 patent”) was

duly and legally issued for an invention entitled “Associative Search Engine.” Rockstar is the
assignee of the ‘969 patent and has granted an exclusive license to NetStar, who holds all rights
and interest in the ‘969 patent. A true and correct copy of the ‘969 patent is attached hereto as
Exhibit B.
15.

Google has infringed and continues to infringe the ‘969 patent by its manufacture,

use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of systems, methods, products, and processes for
matching search terms with relevant advertising and/or information based on those search terms
and other user data, including but not limited to Google’s process of receiving search requests
from a user, using its search engine to generate search results based at least in part on the search
request, selecting—through Google’s AdWords and/or any other products, methods, systems, or
services Google uses to store and choose relevant advertising—a relevant advertisement based
on the search request and/or user data, and providing the search results together with the
Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 4

particular advertisement to the user; and additionally Google’s systems, methods, products, and
processes of using other user data aside from the search request to help select the search result
and/or advertisement; and additionally and alternatively its contributing to and inducement of
others to manufacture, use, sell, import, and/or offer for sale infringing systems, methods,
products, and processes in the manners described above. Google is liable for its infringement of
the ‘969 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
16.

Google’s acts of infringement have caused damage to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs are

entitled to recover from Google the damages sustained by Rockstar, NetStar, and Rockstar’s
predecessor assignees as a result of Google’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial.
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,469,245
17.

On December 23, 2008, United States Patent No. 7,469,245 (the “‘245 patent”)

was duly and legally issued for an invention entitled “Associative Search Engine.” Rockstar is
the assignee of the ‘245 patent and has granted an exclusive license to NetStar, who holds all
rights and interest in the ‘245 patent. A true and correct copy of the ‘245 patent is attached
hereto as Exhibit C.
18.

Google has infringed and continues to infringe the ‘245 patent by its manufacture,

use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of systems, methods, products, and processes for
matching search terms with relevant advertising and/or information based on those search terms
and other user data, including but not limited to Google’s process of receiving search requests
from a user, using its search engine to generate search results based at least in part on the search
request, selecting—through Google’s AdWords and/or any other products, methods, systems, or
services Google uses to store and choose relevant advertising—a relevant advertisement based
on the search request and/or user data, and providing the search results together with the
particular advertisement to the user; and additionally Google’s systems, methods, products, and
processes of using other user data aside from the search request to help select the search result
and/or advertisement; and additionally and alternatively its contributing to and inducement of
others to manufacture, use, sell, import, and/or offer for sale infringing systems, methods,
Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 5

products, and processes in the manners described above. Google is liable for its infringement of
the ‘245 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
19.

Google’s acts of infringement have caused damage to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs are

entitled to recover from Google the damages sustained by Rockstar, NetStar, and Rockstar’s
predecessor assignees as a result of Google’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial.
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,672,970
20.

On March 2, 2010, United States Patent No. 7,672,970 (the “‘970 patent”) was

duly and legally issued for an invention entitled “Associative Search Engine.” Rockstar is the
assignee of the ‘970 patent and has granted an exclusive license to NetStar, who holds all rights
and interest in the ‘970 patent. A true and correct copy of the ‘970 patent is attached hereto as
Exhibit D.
21.

Google has infringed and continues to infringe the ‘970 patent by its manufacture,

use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of systems, methods, products, and processes for
matching search terms with relevant advertising and/or information based on those search terms
and other user data, including but not limited to Google’s process of receiving search requests
from a user, using its search engine to generate search results based at least in part on the search
request, selecting—through Google’s AdWords and/or any other products, methods, systems, or
services Google uses to store and choose relevant advertising—a relevant advertisement based
on the search request and/or user data, and providing the search results together with the
particular advertisement to the user; and additionally Google’s systems, methods, products, and
processes of using other user data aside from the search request to help select the search result
and/or advertisement; and additionally and alternatively its contributing to and inducement of
others to manufacture, use, sell, import, and/or offer for sale infringing systems, methods,
products, and processes in the manners described above. Google is liable for its infringement of
the ‘970 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 6

22.

Google’s acts of infringement have caused damage to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs are

entitled to recover from Google the damages sustained by Rockstar, NetStar, and Rockstar’s
predecessor assignees as a result of Google’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial.
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,895,178
23.

On February 22, 2011, United States Patent No. 7,895,178 (the “‘178 patent”)

was duly and legally issued for an invention entitled “Associative Search Engine.” Rockstar is
the assignee of the ‘178 patent and has granted an exclusive license to NetStar, who holds all
rights and interest in the ‘178 patent. A true and correct copy of the ‘178 patent is attached
hereto as Exhibit E.
24.

Google has infringed and continues to infringe the ‘178 patent by its manufacture,

use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of systems, methods, products, and processes for
matching search terms with relevant advertising and/or information based on those search terms
and other user data, including but not limited to Google’s process of receiving search requests
from a user, using its search engine to generate search results based at least in part on the search
request, selecting—through Google’s AdWords and/or any other products, methods, systems, or
services Google uses to store and choose relevant advertising—a relevant advertisement based
on the search request and/or user data, and providing the search results together with the
particular advertisement to the user; and additionally Google’s systems, methods, products, and
processes of using other user data aside from the search request to help select the search result
and/or advertisement; and additionally and alternatively its contributing to and inducement of
others to manufacture, use, sell, import, and/or offer for sale infringing systems, methods,
products, and processes in the manners described above. Google is liable for its infringement of
the ‘178 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
25.

Google’s acts of infringement have caused damage to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs are

entitled to recover from Google the damages sustained by Rockstar, NetStar, and Rockstar’s
predecessor assignees as a result of Google’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial.
Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 7

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,895,183
26.

On February 22, 2011, United States Patent No. 7,895,183 (the “‘183 patent”)

was duly and legally issued for an invention entitled “Associative Search Engine.” Rockstar is
the assignee of the ‘183 patent and has granted an exclusive license to NetStar, who holds all
rights and interest in the ‘183 patent. A true and correct copy of the ‘183 patent is attached
hereto as Exhibit F.
27.

Google has infringed and continues to infringe the ‘183 patent by its manufacture,

use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of systems, methods, products, and processes for
matching search terms with relevant advertising and/or information based on those search terms
and other user data, including but not limited to Google’s process of receiving search requests
from a user, using its search engine to generate search results based at least in part on the search
request, selecting—through Google’s AdWords and/or any other products, methods, systems, or
services Google uses to store and choose relevant advertising—a relevant advertisement based
on the search request and/or user data, and providing the search results together with the
particular advertisement to the user; and additionally Google’s systems, methods, products, and
processes of using other user data aside from the search request to help select the search result
and/or advertisement; and additionally and alternatively its contributing to and inducement of
others to manufacture, use, sell, import, and/or offer for sale infringing systems, methods,
products, and processes in the manners described above. Google is liable for its infringement of
the ‘183 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
28.

Google’s acts of infringement have caused damage to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs are

entitled to recover from Google the damages sustained by Rockstar, NetStar, and Rockstar’s
predecessor assignees as a result of Google’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial.
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,933,883
29.

On April 26, 2011, United States Patent No. 7,933,883 (the “‘883 patent”) was

duly and legally issued for an invention entitled “Associative Search Engine.” Rockstar is the
assignee of the ‘883 patent and has granted an exclusive license to NetStar, who holds all rights
Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 8

and interest in the ‘883 patent. A true and correct copy of the ‘883 patent is attached hereto as
Exhibit G.
30.

Google has infringed and continues to infringe the ‘883 patent by its manufacture,

use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of systems, methods, products, and processes for
matching search terms with relevant advertising and/or information based on those search terms
and other user data, including but not limited to Google’s process of receiving search requests
from a user, using its search engine to generate search results based at least in part on the search
request, selecting—through Google’s AdWords and/or any other products, methods, systems, or
services Google uses to store and choose relevant advertising—a relevant advertisement based
on the search request and/or user data, and providing the search results together with the
particular advertisement to the user; and additionally Google’s systems, methods, products, and
processes of using other user data aside from the search request to help select the search result
and/or advertisement; and additionally and alternatively its contributing to and inducement of
others to manufacture, use, sell, import, and/or offer for sale infringing systems, methods,
products, and processes in the manners described above. Google is liable for its infringement of
the ‘883 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
31.

Google’s acts of infringement have caused damage to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs are

entitled to recover from Google the damages sustained by Rockstar, NetStar, and Rockstar’s
predecessor assignees as a result of Google’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial.
WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
32.

Google’s infringement of any or all of the above-named patents is willful and

deliberate, entitling Plaintiffs to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorneys’ fees
and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
33.

Despite losing in its attempt to acquire the patents-in-suit at auction, Google has

infringed and continues to infringe the patents-in-suit despite its knowledge of the patents-in-suit
and the objectively high likelihood that its actions constitute patent infringement.
Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 9

JURY DEMAND
34.

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP and NETSTAR
TECHNOLOGIES LLC request entry of judgment in their favor and against Defendant Google,
Inc. as follows:
a)

Declaration that Google has infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,098,065; 7,236,969;

7,469,245; 7,672,970; 7,895,178; 7,895,183; and 7,933,883;
b)

Declaration that Google’s infringement has been willful and enhanced damages

and fees as a result of that willfulness under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
c)

Awarding the past and future damages arising out of Google’s infringement of

U.S. Patent Nos. 6,098,065; 7,236,969; 7,469,245; 7,672,970; 7,895,178; 7,895,183; and
7,933,883 to Plaintiffs together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest, in an amount
according to proof;
d)

Awarding attorneys’ fees, costs, or other damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 or

285 or as otherwise permitted by law; and
e)

For such other costs and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 10

DATED: October 31, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Max L. Tribble, Jr.
Max L. Tribble, Jr. – Lead Counsel
State Bar No. 20213950
Alexander L. Kaplan
State Bar No. 24046185
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
Houston, Texas 77002
Telephone: (713) 651-9366
Facsimile: (713) 654-6666
mtribble@susmangodfrey.com
akaplan@susmangodfrey.com
Justin A. Nelson, State Bar No. 24034766
Parker C. Folse, III, WA State Bar No. 24895
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
Seattle, Washington 98101
Telephone: (206) 516-3880
Facsimile: (206) 516-3883
jnelson@susmangodfrey.com
pfolse@susmangodfrey.com
Attorneys for Rockstar Consortium US LP and NetStar
Technologies LLC

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

Full 2012 FTC report into suspected antitrust by Google (via WSJ)
Full 2012 FTC report into suspected antitrust by Google (via WSJ)Full 2012 FTC report into suspected antitrust by Google (via WSJ)
Full 2012 FTC report into suspected antitrust by Google (via WSJ)
Tric Park
 
Google antitrust-matter-expert-report-of-profs-franklyn-and-hyman-2013 12-09-...
Google antitrust-matter-expert-report-of-profs-franklyn-and-hyman-2013 12-09-...Google antitrust-matter-expert-report-of-profs-franklyn-and-hyman-2013 12-09-...
Google antitrust-matter-expert-report-of-profs-franklyn-and-hyman-2013 12-09-...
Greg Sterling
 
Joffe v-google-9th-cir-opin
Joffe v-google-9th-cir-opinJoffe v-google-9th-cir-opin
Joffe v-google-9th-cir-opin
Greg Sterling
 
Protecting Your Brand in Cyberspace
Protecting Your Brand in CyberspaceProtecting Your Brand in Cyberspace
Protecting Your Brand in Cyberspace
Internet Law Center
 
Trademark/Copyright Law Update 2008
Trademark/Copyright Law Update 2008Trademark/Copyright Law Update 2008
Trademark/Copyright Law Update 2008
Jim Francis
 
Six months later – a report card on google’s demotion of pirate sites
Six months later – a report card on google’s demotion of pirate sitesSix months later – a report card on google’s demotion of pirate sites
Six months later – a report card on google’s demotion of pirate sites
Yury Chemerkin
 
PSI Staff Report Final 5.18.2016 Update (1)
PSI Staff Report Final 5.18.2016 Update (1)PSI Staff Report Final 5.18.2016 Update (1)
PSI Staff Report Final 5.18.2016 Update (1)
Andy Polesovsky
 

La actualidad más candente (20)

Full 2012 FTC report into suspected antitrust by Google (via WSJ)
Full 2012 FTC report into suspected antitrust by Google (via WSJ)Full 2012 FTC report into suspected antitrust by Google (via WSJ)
Full 2012 FTC report into suspected antitrust by Google (via WSJ)
 
FTC Complaint v InMobi
FTC Complaint v InMobiFTC Complaint v InMobi
FTC Complaint v InMobi
 
Google antitrust-matter-expert-report-of-profs-franklyn-and-hyman-2013 12-09-...
Google antitrust-matter-expert-report-of-profs-franklyn-and-hyman-2013 12-09-...Google antitrust-matter-expert-report-of-profs-franklyn-and-hyman-2013 12-09-...
Google antitrust-matter-expert-report-of-profs-franklyn-and-hyman-2013 12-09-...
 
Joffe v-google-9th-cir-opin
Joffe v-google-9th-cir-opinJoffe v-google-9th-cir-opin
Joffe v-google-9th-cir-opin
 
Protecting Your Brand in Cyberspace
Protecting Your Brand in CyberspaceProtecting Your Brand in Cyberspace
Protecting Your Brand in Cyberspace
 
Complaint
ComplaintComplaint
Complaint
 
Bericht icomp vol4
Bericht icomp vol4Bericht icomp vol4
Bericht icomp vol4
 
Volokh first amendment paper
Volokh first amendment paperVolokh first amendment paper
Volokh first amendment paper
 
Google viacom-kids-cookie-tracking
Google viacom-kids-cookie-trackingGoogle viacom-kids-cookie-tracking
Google viacom-kids-cookie-tracking
 
Weiss vs google
Weiss vs googleWeiss vs google
Weiss vs google
 
Jil ammori antitrust argument
Jil ammori antitrust argumentJil ammori antitrust argument
Jil ammori antitrust argument
 
Trademark/Copyright Law Update 2008
Trademark/Copyright Law Update 2008Trademark/Copyright Law Update 2008
Trademark/Copyright Law Update 2008
 
CCPA: What You Need to Know
CCPA: What You Need to KnowCCPA: What You Need to Know
CCPA: What You Need to Know
 
7. is there a market for organic search engine results and can their manipul...
7.  is there a market for organic search engine results and can their manipul...7.  is there a market for organic search engine results and can their manipul...
7. is there a market for organic search engine results and can their manipul...
 
170206 vizio 2017.02.06_complaint
170206 vizio 2017.02.06_complaint170206 vizio 2017.02.06_complaint
170206 vizio 2017.02.06_complaint
 
How to be a social media influencer...and the legal issues to watch out for
How to be a social media influencer...and the legal issues to watch out forHow to be a social media influencer...and the legal issues to watch out for
How to be a social media influencer...and the legal issues to watch out for
 
Data Privacy: A Snapshot of Recent Federal Trade Commission Rulings
Data Privacy: A Snapshot of Recent Federal Trade Commission Rulings Data Privacy: A Snapshot of Recent Federal Trade Commission Rulings
Data Privacy: A Snapshot of Recent Federal Trade Commission Rulings
 
PLI Can Spam
PLI Can SpamPLI Can Spam
PLI Can Spam
 
Six months later – a report card on google’s demotion of pirate sites
Six months later – a report card on google’s demotion of pirate sitesSix months later – a report card on google’s demotion of pirate sites
Six months later – a report card on google’s demotion of pirate sites
 
PSI Staff Report Final 5.18.2016 Update (1)
PSI Staff Report Final 5.18.2016 Update (1)PSI Staff Report Final 5.18.2016 Update (1)
PSI Staff Report Final 5.18.2016 Update (1)
 

Destacado (8)

The Quest for Awesome Mobile Landing Pages
The Quest for Awesome Mobile Landing PagesThe Quest for Awesome Mobile Landing Pages
The Quest for Awesome Mobile Landing Pages
 
Big Data Anyway
Big Data AnywayBig Data Anyway
Big Data Anyway
 
Ftc ocr-watermark
Ftc ocr-watermarkFtc ocr-watermark
Ftc ocr-watermark
 
Indian competition act2002
Indian competition act2002Indian competition act2002
Indian competition act2002
 
Ranking factors on the Nordics
Ranking factors on the NordicsRanking factors on the Nordics
Ranking factors on the Nordics
 
The Right to Be Forgotten in European Search Results
The Right to Be Forgotten in European Search ResultsThe Right to Be Forgotten in European Search Results
The Right to Be Forgotten in European Search Results
 
38 Blogging Tactics That’ll {KNOCK} The Words Right Out of Your Mouth
38 Blogging Tactics That’ll {KNOCK} The Words Right Out of Your Mouth38 Blogging Tactics That’ll {KNOCK} The Words Right Out of Your Mouth
38 Blogging Tactics That’ll {KNOCK} The Words Right Out of Your Mouth
 
Hadeed vs. yelp
Hadeed vs. yelpHadeed vs. yelp
Hadeed vs. yelp
 

Similar a Rockstar-v-google-pdf

FOR PUBLICATIONUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NIN.docx
FOR PUBLICATIONUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NIN.docxFOR PUBLICATIONUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NIN.docx
FOR PUBLICATIONUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NIN.docx
budbarber38650
 
Conjoint survey paper
Conjoint survey paperConjoint survey paper
Conjoint survey paper
JaeWon Lee
 
Fourth Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment Against Rosetta Stone in Closely Wat...
Fourth Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment Against Rosetta Stone in Closely Wat...Fourth Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment Against Rosetta Stone in Closely Wat...
Fourth Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment Against Rosetta Stone in Closely Wat...
Patton Boggs LLP
 
Protecting Your Business With Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights
Protecting Your Business With Patents, Trademarks, and CopyrightsProtecting Your Business With Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights
Protecting Your Business With Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights
dapdjh
 
IAM Yearbook 2016_Vringo
IAM Yearbook 2016_VringoIAM Yearbook 2016_Vringo
IAM Yearbook 2016_Vringo
David Cohen
 
Intellectual property rights
Intellectual property rightsIntellectual property rights
Intellectual property rights
Philline Janson
 
Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F. 3d 202 - Court of Appeals, 2.docx
Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F. 3d 202 - Court of Appeals, 2.docxAuthors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F. 3d 202 - Court of Appeals, 2.docx
Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F. 3d 202 - Court of Appeals, 2.docx
jasoninnes20
 

Similar a Rockstar-v-google-pdf (20)

Песочница Chrome нарушает три патента
Песочница Chrome нарушает три патентаПесочница Chrome нарушает три патента
Песочница Chrome нарушает три патента
 
FOR PUBLICATIONUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NIN.docx
FOR PUBLICATIONUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NIN.docxFOR PUBLICATIONUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NIN.docx
FOR PUBLICATIONUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE NIN.docx
 
Conjoint survey paper
Conjoint survey paperConjoint survey paper
Conjoint survey paper
 
Patent damages
Patent damagesPatent damages
Patent damages
 
Elliot v. google
Elliot v. googleElliot v. google
Elliot v. google
 
Fourth Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment Against Rosetta Stone in Closely Wat...
Fourth Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment Against Rosetta Stone in Closely Wat...Fourth Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment Against Rosetta Stone in Closely Wat...
Fourth Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment Against Rosetta Stone in Closely Wat...
 
Complaint Google v. Local Lighthouse
Complaint Google v. Local LighthouseComplaint Google v. Local Lighthouse
Complaint Google v. Local Lighthouse
 
Google Robocalls Lawsuit Against Local Lighthouse Corp
Google Robocalls Lawsuit Against Local Lighthouse CorpGoogle Robocalls Lawsuit Against Local Lighthouse Corp
Google Robocalls Lawsuit Against Local Lighthouse Corp
 
Bilski v Kappos
Bilski v KapposBilski v Kappos
Bilski v Kappos
 
Protecting Your Business With Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights
Protecting Your Business With Patents, Trademarks, and CopyrightsProtecting Your Business With Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights
Protecting Your Business With Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights
 
Google Policy Primer
Google Policy PrimerGoogle Policy Primer
Google Policy Primer
 
IAM Yearbook 2016_Vringo
IAM Yearbook 2016_VringoIAM Yearbook 2016_Vringo
IAM Yearbook 2016_Vringo
 
Intellectual property rights
Intellectual property rightsIntellectual property rights
Intellectual property rights
 
Digital Healthcare - U.S. IP strategy
Digital Healthcare - U.S. IP strategyDigital Healthcare - U.S. IP strategy
Digital Healthcare - U.S. IP strategy
 
European & us patent law module3 2013 updated
European & us patent law  module3 2013 updatedEuropean & us patent law  module3 2013 updated
European & us patent law module3 2013 updated
 
ITC Litigation
ITC Litigation ITC Litigation
ITC Litigation
 
IP-301 POST-GRANT REVIEW TRIALS 2022 - PGRT Basics
IP-301 POST-GRANT REVIEW TRIALS 2022 - PGRT Basics  IP-301 POST-GRANT REVIEW TRIALS 2022 - PGRT Basics
IP-301 POST-GRANT REVIEW TRIALS 2022 - PGRT Basics
 
How To Secure Funding & Protect Intellectual Property For Life Sciences
How To Secure Funding & Protect Intellectual Property For Life SciencesHow To Secure Funding & Protect Intellectual Property For Life Sciences
How To Secure Funding & Protect Intellectual Property For Life Sciences
 
ICTs Business Law Case - Google Monopoly
ICTs Business Law Case - Google MonopolyICTs Business Law Case - Google Monopoly
ICTs Business Law Case - Google Monopoly
 
Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F. 3d 202 - Court of Appeals, 2.docx
Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F. 3d 202 - Court of Appeals, 2.docxAuthors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F. 3d 202 - Court of Appeals, 2.docx
Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F. 3d 202 - Court of Appeals, 2.docx
 

Más de Greg Sterling

Más de Greg Sterling (20)

Ab 1760 -_amendments
Ab 1760 -_amendmentsAb 1760 -_amendments
Ab 1760 -_amendments
 
Joint ad trade letter to ag becerra re ccpa 1.31.2019
Joint ad trade letter to ag becerra re ccpa 1.31.2019Joint ad trade letter to ag becerra re ccpa 1.31.2019
Joint ad trade letter to ag becerra re ccpa 1.31.2019
 
Goldman v breitbart_-_opinion
Goldman v breitbart_-_opinionGoldman v breitbart_-_opinion
Goldman v breitbart_-_opinion
 
Google genericide-cert-petition
Google genericide-cert-petitionGoogle genericide-cert-petition
Google genericide-cert-petition
 
Elliott v. google
Elliott v. googleElliott v. google
Elliott v. google
 
Filed copy-first-amended-complaint-baldino-v-google-january-13-2017-1
Filed copy-first-amended-complaint-baldino-v-google-january-13-2017-1Filed copy-first-amended-complaint-baldino-v-google-january-13-2017-1
Filed copy-first-amended-complaint-baldino-v-google-january-13-2017-1
 
Amazon motion to quash echo-search
Amazon motion to quash echo-searchAmazon motion to quash echo-search
Amazon motion to quash echo-search
 
1 2016-593-en-f1-1-1
1 2016-593-en-f1-1-11 2016-593-en-f1-1-1
1 2016-593-en-f1-1-1
 
European Court of Justice Press Release GS Media vs. Sanoma
European Court of Justice Press Release GS Media vs. SanomaEuropean Court of Justice Press Release GS Media vs. Sanoma
European Court of Justice Press Release GS Media vs. Sanoma
 
How google fights piracy 2016
How google fights piracy 2016How google fights piracy 2016
How google fights piracy 2016
 
Google search bias letter 2016 01-26(1)-1
Google search bias letter 2016 01-26(1)-1Google search bias letter 2016 01-26(1)-1
Google search bias letter 2016 01-26(1)-1
 
Brave cease and desist final copy
Brave cease and desist final copy Brave cease and desist final copy
Brave cease and desist final copy
 
160315lordandtaylcmpt
160315lordandtaylcmpt160315lordandtaylcmpt
160315lordandtaylcmpt
 
Judge Pym order iphone
Judge Pym order iphoneJudge Pym order iphone
Judge Pym order iphone
 
Communication from the commission to the institutions december2015
Communication from the commission to the institutions december2015Communication from the commission to the institutions december2015
Communication from the commission to the institutions december2015
 
CJEU decision on Schrems
CJEU decision on SchremsCJEU decision on Schrems
CJEU decision on Schrems
 
Phantom alertcomplaint
Phantom alertcomplaintPhantom alertcomplaint
Phantom alertcomplaint
 
Carnegie mellon google_ad_study
Carnegie mellon google_ad_studyCarnegie mellon google_ad_study
Carnegie mellon google_ad_study
 
Yelp v-hadeed-virginia-supreme-court-opinion
Yelp v-hadeed-virginia-supreme-court-opinionYelp v-hadeed-virginia-supreme-court-opinion
Yelp v-hadeed-virginia-supreme-court-opinion
 
Facebooks revised policies_and_terms_v1.2
Facebooks revised policies_and_terms_v1.2Facebooks revised policies_and_terms_v1.2
Facebooks revised policies_and_terms_v1.2
 

Último

+971581248768>> SAFE AND ORIGINAL ABORTION PILLS FOR SALE IN DUBAI AND ABUDHA...
+971581248768>> SAFE AND ORIGINAL ABORTION PILLS FOR SALE IN DUBAI AND ABUDHA...+971581248768>> SAFE AND ORIGINAL ABORTION PILLS FOR SALE IN DUBAI AND ABUDHA...
+971581248768>> SAFE AND ORIGINAL ABORTION PILLS FOR SALE IN DUBAI AND ABUDHA...
?#DUbAI#??##{{(☎️+971_581248768%)**%*]'#abortion pills for sale in dubai@
 
Histor y of HAM Radio presentation slide
Histor y of HAM Radio presentation slideHistor y of HAM Radio presentation slide
Histor y of HAM Radio presentation slide
vu2urc
 
Artificial Intelligence: Facts and Myths
Artificial Intelligence: Facts and MythsArtificial Intelligence: Facts and Myths
Artificial Intelligence: Facts and Myths
Joaquim Jorge
 

Último (20)

What Are The Drone Anti-jamming Systems Technology?
What Are The Drone Anti-jamming Systems Technology?What Are The Drone Anti-jamming Systems Technology?
What Are The Drone Anti-jamming Systems Technology?
 
TrustArc Webinar - Unlock the Power of AI-Driven Data Discovery
TrustArc Webinar - Unlock the Power of AI-Driven Data DiscoveryTrustArc Webinar - Unlock the Power of AI-Driven Data Discovery
TrustArc Webinar - Unlock the Power of AI-Driven Data Discovery
 
Finology Group – Insurtech Innovation Award 2024
Finology Group – Insurtech Innovation Award 2024Finology Group – Insurtech Innovation Award 2024
Finology Group – Insurtech Innovation Award 2024
 
Strategize a Smooth Tenant-to-tenant Migration and Copilot Takeoff
Strategize a Smooth Tenant-to-tenant Migration and Copilot TakeoffStrategize a Smooth Tenant-to-tenant Migration and Copilot Takeoff
Strategize a Smooth Tenant-to-tenant Migration and Copilot Takeoff
 
Exploring the Future Potential of AI-Enabled Smartphone Processors
Exploring the Future Potential of AI-Enabled Smartphone ProcessorsExploring the Future Potential of AI-Enabled Smartphone Processors
Exploring the Future Potential of AI-Enabled Smartphone Processors
 
+971581248768>> SAFE AND ORIGINAL ABORTION PILLS FOR SALE IN DUBAI AND ABUDHA...
+971581248768>> SAFE AND ORIGINAL ABORTION PILLS FOR SALE IN DUBAI AND ABUDHA...+971581248768>> SAFE AND ORIGINAL ABORTION PILLS FOR SALE IN DUBAI AND ABUDHA...
+971581248768>> SAFE AND ORIGINAL ABORTION PILLS FOR SALE IN DUBAI AND ABUDHA...
 
GenAI Risks & Security Meetup 01052024.pdf
GenAI Risks & Security Meetup 01052024.pdfGenAI Risks & Security Meetup 01052024.pdf
GenAI Risks & Security Meetup 01052024.pdf
 
presentation ICT roal in 21st century education
presentation ICT roal in 21st century educationpresentation ICT roal in 21st century education
presentation ICT roal in 21st century education
 
Boost Fertility New Invention Ups Success Rates.pdf
Boost Fertility New Invention Ups Success Rates.pdfBoost Fertility New Invention Ups Success Rates.pdf
Boost Fertility New Invention Ups Success Rates.pdf
 
From Event to Action: Accelerate Your Decision Making with Real-Time Automation
From Event to Action: Accelerate Your Decision Making with Real-Time AutomationFrom Event to Action: Accelerate Your Decision Making with Real-Time Automation
From Event to Action: Accelerate Your Decision Making with Real-Time Automation
 
Apidays New York 2024 - Scaling API-first by Ian Reasor and Radu Cotescu, Adobe
Apidays New York 2024 - Scaling API-first by Ian Reasor and Radu Cotescu, AdobeApidays New York 2024 - Scaling API-first by Ian Reasor and Radu Cotescu, Adobe
Apidays New York 2024 - Scaling API-first by Ian Reasor and Radu Cotescu, Adobe
 
Mastering MySQL Database Architecture: Deep Dive into MySQL Shell and MySQL R...
Mastering MySQL Database Architecture: Deep Dive into MySQL Shell and MySQL R...Mastering MySQL Database Architecture: Deep Dive into MySQL Shell and MySQL R...
Mastering MySQL Database Architecture: Deep Dive into MySQL Shell and MySQL R...
 
04-2024-HHUG-Sales-and-Marketing-Alignment.pptx
04-2024-HHUG-Sales-and-Marketing-Alignment.pptx04-2024-HHUG-Sales-and-Marketing-Alignment.pptx
04-2024-HHUG-Sales-and-Marketing-Alignment.pptx
 
Driving Behavioral Change for Information Management through Data-Driven Gree...
Driving Behavioral Change for Information Management through Data-Driven Gree...Driving Behavioral Change for Information Management through Data-Driven Gree...
Driving Behavioral Change for Information Management through Data-Driven Gree...
 
ProductAnonymous-April2024-WinProductDiscovery-MelissaKlemke
ProductAnonymous-April2024-WinProductDiscovery-MelissaKlemkeProductAnonymous-April2024-WinProductDiscovery-MelissaKlemke
ProductAnonymous-April2024-WinProductDiscovery-MelissaKlemke
 
Workshop - Best of Both Worlds_ Combine KG and Vector search for enhanced R...
Workshop - Best of Both Worlds_ Combine  KG and Vector search for  enhanced R...Workshop - Best of Both Worlds_ Combine  KG and Vector search for  enhanced R...
Workshop - Best of Both Worlds_ Combine KG and Vector search for enhanced R...
 
Histor y of HAM Radio presentation slide
Histor y of HAM Radio presentation slideHistor y of HAM Radio presentation slide
Histor y of HAM Radio presentation slide
 
How to Troubleshoot Apps for the Modern Connected Worker
How to Troubleshoot Apps for the Modern Connected WorkerHow to Troubleshoot Apps for the Modern Connected Worker
How to Troubleshoot Apps for the Modern Connected Worker
 
Strategies for Landing an Oracle DBA Job as a Fresher
Strategies for Landing an Oracle DBA Job as a FresherStrategies for Landing an Oracle DBA Job as a Fresher
Strategies for Landing an Oracle DBA Job as a Fresher
 
Artificial Intelligence: Facts and Myths
Artificial Intelligence: Facts and MythsArtificial Intelligence: Facts and Myths
Artificial Intelligence: Facts and Myths
 

Rockstar-v-google-pdf

  • 1. Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP AND NETSTAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Civil Action No. Plaintiff, v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GOOGLE INC., Defendant. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 1. Plaintiffs ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP and NETSTAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) for its Complaint against Defendant GOOGLE, INC. (“Google”), alleges infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,098,065; 7,236,969; 7,469,245; 7,672,970; 7,895,178; 7,895,183; and 7,933,883 (the “patents-in-suit”): THE PARTIES AND BACKGROUND 2. Plaintiff Rockstar Consortium US LP (“Rockstar”) is a Delaware limited partnership with its principal place of business at Legacy Town Center I, 7160 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 250, Plano, Texas 75024. 3. Plaintiff NetStar Technologies LLC (“NetStar”) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rockstar Consortium US LP and is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at Legacy Town Center I, 7160 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 250, Plano, Texas 75024. NetStar is the exclusive licensee of the patents-in-suit.
  • 2. Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 2 4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendant Google is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043. 5. Nortel Networks, a previous assignee of the patents-in-suit, conducted an auction for Nortel’s patent portfolio in July 2011. The auction included the patents-in-suit. 6. At that auction, Google and other companies bid for Nortel’s portfolio. 7. Google was aware of the patents-in-suit at the time of the auction. 8. Google placed an initial bid of $900,000,000 for the patents-in-suit and the rest of the Nortel portfolio. Google subsequently increased its bid multiple times, ultimately bidding as high as $4.4 billion. That price was insufficient to win the auction, as a group led by the current shareholders of Rockstar purchased the portfolio for $4.5 billion. 9. Despite losing in its attempt to acquire the patents-in-suit at auction, Google has infringed and continues to infringe the patents-in-suit. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 10. The court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because this action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. Venue is proper in this federal district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c) and 1400(b). INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,098,065 11. On August 1, 2000, United States Patent No. 6,098,065 (the “‘065 patent”) was duly and legally issued for an invention entitled “Associative Search Engine.” Rockstar is the assignee of the ‘065 patent and has granted an exclusive license to NetStar, who holds all rights and interest in the ‘065 patent. A true and correct copy of the ‘065 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 12. Google has infringed and continues to infringe the ‘065 patent by its manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of systems, methods, products, and processes for matching search terms with relevant advertising and/or information based on those search terms and other user data, including but not limited to Google’s process of receiving search requests
  • 3. Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 3 from a user, using its search engine to generate search results based at least in part on the search request, selecting—through Google’s AdWords and/or any other products, methods, systems, or services Google uses to store and choose relevant advertising—a relevant advertisement based on the search request and/or user data, and providing the search results together with the particular advertisement to the user; and additionally Google’s systems, methods, products, and processes of using other user data aside from the search request to help select the search result and/or advertisement; and additionally and alternatively its contributing to and inducement of others to manufacture, use, sell, import, and/or offer for sale infringing systems, methods, products, and processes in the manners described above. Google is liable for its infringement of the ‘065 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. 13. Google’s acts of infringement have caused damage to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Google the damages sustained by Rockstar, NetStar, and Rockstar’s predecessor assignees as a result of Google’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,236,969 14. On June 26, 2007, United States Patent No. 7,236,969 (the “‘969 patent”) was duly and legally issued for an invention entitled “Associative Search Engine.” Rockstar is the assignee of the ‘969 patent and has granted an exclusive license to NetStar, who holds all rights and interest in the ‘969 patent. A true and correct copy of the ‘969 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 15. Google has infringed and continues to infringe the ‘969 patent by its manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of systems, methods, products, and processes for matching search terms with relevant advertising and/or information based on those search terms and other user data, including but not limited to Google’s process of receiving search requests from a user, using its search engine to generate search results based at least in part on the search request, selecting—through Google’s AdWords and/or any other products, methods, systems, or services Google uses to store and choose relevant advertising—a relevant advertisement based on the search request and/or user data, and providing the search results together with the
  • 4. Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 4 particular advertisement to the user; and additionally Google’s systems, methods, products, and processes of using other user data aside from the search request to help select the search result and/or advertisement; and additionally and alternatively its contributing to and inducement of others to manufacture, use, sell, import, and/or offer for sale infringing systems, methods, products, and processes in the manners described above. Google is liable for its infringement of the ‘969 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. 16. Google’s acts of infringement have caused damage to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Google the damages sustained by Rockstar, NetStar, and Rockstar’s predecessor assignees as a result of Google’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,469,245 17. On December 23, 2008, United States Patent No. 7,469,245 (the “‘245 patent”) was duly and legally issued for an invention entitled “Associative Search Engine.” Rockstar is the assignee of the ‘245 patent and has granted an exclusive license to NetStar, who holds all rights and interest in the ‘245 patent. A true and correct copy of the ‘245 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 18. Google has infringed and continues to infringe the ‘245 patent by its manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of systems, methods, products, and processes for matching search terms with relevant advertising and/or information based on those search terms and other user data, including but not limited to Google’s process of receiving search requests from a user, using its search engine to generate search results based at least in part on the search request, selecting—through Google’s AdWords and/or any other products, methods, systems, or services Google uses to store and choose relevant advertising—a relevant advertisement based on the search request and/or user data, and providing the search results together with the particular advertisement to the user; and additionally Google’s systems, methods, products, and processes of using other user data aside from the search request to help select the search result and/or advertisement; and additionally and alternatively its contributing to and inducement of others to manufacture, use, sell, import, and/or offer for sale infringing systems, methods,
  • 5. Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 5 products, and processes in the manners described above. Google is liable for its infringement of the ‘245 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. 19. Google’s acts of infringement have caused damage to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Google the damages sustained by Rockstar, NetStar, and Rockstar’s predecessor assignees as a result of Google’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,672,970 20. On March 2, 2010, United States Patent No. 7,672,970 (the “‘970 patent”) was duly and legally issued for an invention entitled “Associative Search Engine.” Rockstar is the assignee of the ‘970 patent and has granted an exclusive license to NetStar, who holds all rights and interest in the ‘970 patent. A true and correct copy of the ‘970 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 21. Google has infringed and continues to infringe the ‘970 patent by its manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of systems, methods, products, and processes for matching search terms with relevant advertising and/or information based on those search terms and other user data, including but not limited to Google’s process of receiving search requests from a user, using its search engine to generate search results based at least in part on the search request, selecting—through Google’s AdWords and/or any other products, methods, systems, or services Google uses to store and choose relevant advertising—a relevant advertisement based on the search request and/or user data, and providing the search results together with the particular advertisement to the user; and additionally Google’s systems, methods, products, and processes of using other user data aside from the search request to help select the search result and/or advertisement; and additionally and alternatively its contributing to and inducement of others to manufacture, use, sell, import, and/or offer for sale infringing systems, methods, products, and processes in the manners described above. Google is liable for its infringement of the ‘970 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
  • 6. Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 6 22. Google’s acts of infringement have caused damage to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Google the damages sustained by Rockstar, NetStar, and Rockstar’s predecessor assignees as a result of Google’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,895,178 23. On February 22, 2011, United States Patent No. 7,895,178 (the “‘178 patent”) was duly and legally issued for an invention entitled “Associative Search Engine.” Rockstar is the assignee of the ‘178 patent and has granted an exclusive license to NetStar, who holds all rights and interest in the ‘178 patent. A true and correct copy of the ‘178 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 24. Google has infringed and continues to infringe the ‘178 patent by its manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of systems, methods, products, and processes for matching search terms with relevant advertising and/or information based on those search terms and other user data, including but not limited to Google’s process of receiving search requests from a user, using its search engine to generate search results based at least in part on the search request, selecting—through Google’s AdWords and/or any other products, methods, systems, or services Google uses to store and choose relevant advertising—a relevant advertisement based on the search request and/or user data, and providing the search results together with the particular advertisement to the user; and additionally Google’s systems, methods, products, and processes of using other user data aside from the search request to help select the search result and/or advertisement; and additionally and alternatively its contributing to and inducement of others to manufacture, use, sell, import, and/or offer for sale infringing systems, methods, products, and processes in the manners described above. Google is liable for its infringement of the ‘178 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. 25. Google’s acts of infringement have caused damage to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Google the damages sustained by Rockstar, NetStar, and Rockstar’s predecessor assignees as a result of Google’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial.
  • 7. Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 7 INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,895,183 26. On February 22, 2011, United States Patent No. 7,895,183 (the “‘183 patent”) was duly and legally issued for an invention entitled “Associative Search Engine.” Rockstar is the assignee of the ‘183 patent and has granted an exclusive license to NetStar, who holds all rights and interest in the ‘183 patent. A true and correct copy of the ‘183 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit F. 27. Google has infringed and continues to infringe the ‘183 patent by its manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of systems, methods, products, and processes for matching search terms with relevant advertising and/or information based on those search terms and other user data, including but not limited to Google’s process of receiving search requests from a user, using its search engine to generate search results based at least in part on the search request, selecting—through Google’s AdWords and/or any other products, methods, systems, or services Google uses to store and choose relevant advertising—a relevant advertisement based on the search request and/or user data, and providing the search results together with the particular advertisement to the user; and additionally Google’s systems, methods, products, and processes of using other user data aside from the search request to help select the search result and/or advertisement; and additionally and alternatively its contributing to and inducement of others to manufacture, use, sell, import, and/or offer for sale infringing systems, methods, products, and processes in the manners described above. Google is liable for its infringement of the ‘183 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. 28. Google’s acts of infringement have caused damage to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Google the damages sustained by Rockstar, NetStar, and Rockstar’s predecessor assignees as a result of Google’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,933,883 29. On April 26, 2011, United States Patent No. 7,933,883 (the “‘883 patent”) was duly and legally issued for an invention entitled “Associative Search Engine.” Rockstar is the assignee of the ‘883 patent and has granted an exclusive license to NetStar, who holds all rights
  • 8. Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 8 and interest in the ‘883 patent. A true and correct copy of the ‘883 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit G. 30. Google has infringed and continues to infringe the ‘883 patent by its manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of systems, methods, products, and processes for matching search terms with relevant advertising and/or information based on those search terms and other user data, including but not limited to Google’s process of receiving search requests from a user, using its search engine to generate search results based at least in part on the search request, selecting—through Google’s AdWords and/or any other products, methods, systems, or services Google uses to store and choose relevant advertising—a relevant advertisement based on the search request and/or user data, and providing the search results together with the particular advertisement to the user; and additionally Google’s systems, methods, products, and processes of using other user data aside from the search request to help select the search result and/or advertisement; and additionally and alternatively its contributing to and inducement of others to manufacture, use, sell, import, and/or offer for sale infringing systems, methods, products, and processes in the manners described above. Google is liable for its infringement of the ‘883 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. 31. Google’s acts of infringement have caused damage to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Google the damages sustained by Rockstar, NetStar, and Rockstar’s predecessor assignees as a result of Google’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial. WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT 32. Google’s infringement of any or all of the above-named patents is willful and deliberate, entitling Plaintiffs to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285. 33. Despite losing in its attempt to acquire the patents-in-suit at auction, Google has infringed and continues to infringe the patents-in-suit despite its knowledge of the patents-in-suit and the objectively high likelihood that its actions constitute patent infringement.
  • 9. Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 9 JURY DEMAND 34. Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP and NETSTAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC request entry of judgment in their favor and against Defendant Google, Inc. as follows: a) Declaration that Google has infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,098,065; 7,236,969; 7,469,245; 7,672,970; 7,895,178; 7,895,183; and 7,933,883; b) Declaration that Google’s infringement has been willful and enhanced damages and fees as a result of that willfulness under 35 U.S.C. § 284; c) Awarding the past and future damages arising out of Google’s infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,098,065; 7,236,969; 7,469,245; 7,672,970; 7,895,178; 7,895,183; and 7,933,883 to Plaintiffs together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest, in an amount according to proof; d) Awarding attorneys’ fees, costs, or other damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 or 285 or as otherwise permitted by law; and e) For such other costs and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
  • 10. Case 2:13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/13 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 10 DATED: October 31, 2013 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Max L. Tribble, Jr. Max L. Tribble, Jr. – Lead Counsel State Bar No. 20213950 Alexander L. Kaplan State Bar No. 24046185 SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 651-9366 Facsimile: (713) 654-6666 mtribble@susmangodfrey.com akaplan@susmangodfrey.com Justin A. Nelson, State Bar No. 24034766 Parker C. Folse, III, WA State Bar No. 24895 SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, Washington 98101 Telephone: (206) 516-3880 Facsimile: (206) 516-3883 jnelson@susmangodfrey.com pfolse@susmangodfrey.com Attorneys for Rockstar Consortium US LP and NetStar Technologies LLC