Ward v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against Cisco Systems, Inc., Rick Frenkel ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 4000128.), filed by John Ward, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(cap)

W a r d v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al

Doc. 1

wEsTtB',v'dFlru
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COI]RT WE S T E R N DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS T E XAR I LA, N ADIVISION
B1/

IrdARJ ZOOA I
c H H l s J0t,llljofi, R. Lr,.id

J O H N WARI},JR. Plaintiff

v.
CISCO SYSTEMS,INC. flnd RICK FRENKEL Defendants. PLAINTIFM TO THE HONORABLECOURT:

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

,rru'ffin*

n ) 4{q '"r

u o . O8-4ol f,*
J U R Y TRIAL DEMANI]FD

Inc. and Rick Frenkel, J o h n Ward, Jr., Plaintiff complainsof Cisco Systcms, Defenda n ts , for causcs actionherebyshows: and of T H E PARTIES 1. Plaintiff is an individual who hus residedit Gtegg County,Texasat all

timesrelevant the causes actionalleged this pleading, to of in 2. Defendant Cisco Systcms, Inc. ("Cisco") is a corporation organized and

in cxistingunderthe laws of the Stateof Califomia,with its principalplaceof business SanJose, Califomia. lt may bc scrved with process delivering oopyof the oomplaint by a to its registercd agcnt, Prentice Hall Corporation System,300 SpringBuilding,Suite900, L i t t l eRock,AR 72201. 3. Def'endantRiok Frenkel ("Frenkel") is an individual who. upon

information andbelief,resides the State California. He may be served in of with ptocess to CiscoSystems, by deliveringa copy of the complaint him at his placeof employment, I o c a t e d 170WestTasman I\4/S at Dr., SJC-I0/2/1, Jose, 95134-1700, San CA

Dockets.Justia.com

JURISDICTION 4. j ovcr this dispute oonf'errerJ this Court is upon Subjeot rnatter urisdiction

b y 28 lJ.tt.c. 1332. $ 5. Ciscobecause Ciscois subject This Courthas.jurisdiction defendant over

j over jurisdictionin the State Arkaflsas.Ihis Courthaspersorralurisdiction ol" 1ogeneral have with the State Def'endarrts minimumcontacts defenda n tFtenkelandCiscobecause s jurisdictionovcr defendants of of Arkansas suoh thtt this Court'sexcrcise personal justice. notionsof fair playandsubstantial F renkelandCiscowill not ofl'end traditional

VENUE 6. to Venuein this districtis properin this judicial districtpursuant 2E

u , s . c$ 1391. .
F A CT U AL BACKGROU]{D '1. Plaintiff has residedin and practicedlaw in the Stateof 'I'cxas, almost

temarks in Districtof Texas,since1997. Priorto the defamatory exolusi v e l y the Eastcrn leputation reputation.The PlaintitTls the by the Def'errdanl. Plaintiff enjoyedan excellent judgmenthad eamedhim an AV rating by his peets. for integrity and soundbusiness for career, Plairrtiffhascnjoyeda sterlingreputatlon cthical Through o uhis profcssional t or of andresponsible repre$efltation clients. Neithetthe Statctsarof Texasnor any sLflte federal oourt has evet taken any disciplinaryaction againstPlaintiff. In additional or Plaintif f s licenseto praoticelaw has ncver beensusperrded revokcdfor any reason' practiceconcentratd has a PlairrtifT devcloped successful As a resultof this reputation, propctrydisputes the EastemDistrict of Texas. Approximately in largelyin irrtellectual comesfrom refeuing lawyers,lbrmer clients,or ninety percefltof Plaintiffs business

former opponents Mr. Ward. In furtherance his practiccon October 16, 2007, of of suit Ciscoon behalfof ESN,LLC ("ESN'). Plafutiffliled a patenlinfringement against
L Defendant Frenkel is afi attornev licensed to Dracticelaw in the State of

Californi a . IIe is employed Delbndant by Cisco as its Director of lntcllectualPropefty Litigatio n . With the knowledge consent, and express implied,of his directsupervisor ot at CISCO, Frenkel publishes an intemet "blog" @. F'rcnkel'sblog comments regardingpaterrtlitigation, including patent litigation in the Rcpublicof Eastern Districtof Texas, whatDefendant or Frenkeltef'ets &r the"Ba-nana 10 EastTcxas." 9. Frenkelpostedfalse, In Octoberof 2007,while publishinganonymously,

and allegations aboutPlaintiff on his internetblog. On or about scandalo u s , defamatory lrrenkelpublished written statenreflt a allegingthat Plaintiff October18.2007Dcfcndant to subjeotmatter had "conspired"with othersto "alter documents try to manufaotuis jurisdicti o nwhcrenone existed"during the filing of a civil complaintPlaintiff filed on behalfof his client,ESN, in FetleralCourt in the EastemDistrict of I'exas. Defendant in allegedthat Plaintilf engaged felonious activity in order to createsubjeotmatter jurisdict i o nagainst DistrictofTexas. Cisco,subjecting Ciscoto suit in the L,astern 10. of Defendant Frenkel'soomments weremadewithin the courscand scope

his employment Cisco, IlefendantFrenkelis a liccnscdattorneywho, at the time he at was ard is employedas DefendantCisco's Director of rnado the false statefiefl1s, Properf, Frenkelhad Intellec tu aProperty.In his tole asCisco'sDitectorof Intellcctual l beenchargcd Ciscowith responsibility management the ESN v, Ciscolitigation by for of -the casethat was the subjectmatterof Frenkel'sI'alse,scandalous, defamatory and

that he engaged this in F statements. I)efendant rcnkelhas publicly admitted anonymous of Cisco Systems, and conserrt his cmployerDefendant aotivity with thc full knowledge that Defendant Cisoois vicatiouslyanddireotlyliable Inc. Accordingly,Plaintiff alleges Ftenkel. tortsof Def'endant for lhe intcntional I l. Plaintiff of oommittinga cdme Frcnkcl'sanonymous comme ts accuscd

in that could rcsultin disciplinary (for example18 U,S,C,$ l00I) and engaging oonduct proceedings before the State Bar of Texas.Upon information and belief, Frentel's wete purposefullycalculatedby Frenkel and Cisco to damagePlairrtiffs statements plaintiff to financialinjuy, and to impeaoh Plaintill's to and reputatio n business. expose and exposing Plaintiff to public hatred,shame, honesty ,intcgriff, virtue, or reputation, ridioule. 12. Ftenkel intentionallyconcealed identity on his web blog, his Defendant

in but in and idcntifiedhimselfas "[i]ust a lawyer,intcrested patentcases, not interested publicity." DefendantFrenkel was well aware of the fact that Plaintiff represcnted partiesinvolved in patcnt infringementlawsuits in the EastemDisnict of numerous to Plaintiff was adverse Cisco in the ESN v, Cisco litigation' Texas,in part bccause his wete awarcthat the public, many litigantsand attomeysaocessed web Defendants f)isttict of l'exas' infotmation relatingto the Eastem blog seokirrg 13. maximizedthe dissemirration Frenkeland Ciscopurposefully Dellendants

I'renkel'sblog statements. l)el'endant and of the Frenkcl'sfalse,scandalous, defamatory is devotedto intcllcctualpropertylitigation"including patentlitigation venuedin the of with an District of Texasand is dircctedto a nationwideaudiencc persons Eastern interes tin the subiectmatter of Plaintifl's law practice.On information and bclief'

A

Frenkeland Ciscofurtheremploycdscarch cnginetechniques intemallinking withit and the blog to direct personssccking information about Ward through popular seatch statemcnts. Defendants Frenkeland Cisoo eugines suohas "Google" to the defamatory Frenkel knew that many pcoplc were readingthe defamatorystate ents. Del'endant printedthe following boaston his blog siterrnJanuary 30,2008: I havebeencounting visitorsnow lbr a little over 6 months.I'his morning,around Argentina[.] 5a mEastern, visitor#100,000 oame theblog, lrom Mendoza, to 14. A truc and correct copy of the defamatory wdting distrihuted by

incorporated reference. by to DefendanFrenkelis attached this petitionasExhihitA a-nd t C OL I N T1: DEFAMATION 15. 7-14 Plaintiff incorporates eachof the statements lbrlh in paragraphs set

as above if fully setforth hetein. 16. Defendants Frenkeland Cisooknowingly,recklessly, and/ornegligently

publishe dialse slateftentsof fact accusingPlaintiff of criminal oonduot,uuethical of unhefitting anofficcr of the Court. oonduc tandconduct , I7 . that the statements were false or with Def'ertlants actedwith knowledge

prior to publication, in the negligen c e failing to dctermine truth of the statements 18. 19. published that Defendants statements weredefamatory. and statements, As a resultof Defendalts'false,scandalous, defamatory

damages, damages his busincss, to harm to his reputation, monetary Plaintilf sustained and with others havebeondetrimentally effected. emotion adistress Plaintiff s relations l 20. Def'endants'publication of the false, scandalousand defamatory

oause Plaintiffs damages, of stateme n tis a proximate s

P R AYER X' O R RELIEF

21.

A s a dircct and proxirnateresult of Defendants'false and defamatory

embanassment, humiliation'and financialloss,shamc, statements. Plaintiff has endured mentalpain and anguish.Additionally,Plaintiff hss and will in the future be seriously and goodnarne, standing the community. will be and in reputation, injuredin his husiness and ridicule of the public in gcneralas well as ol his exposcd the hatred,cofltempt, to associates, clients,lliends,ald relatives. business 22, Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damagesfiom Defendant Frenkel

damages. becaus e aotedwith the malice requiredto supportan awardof exemplary he F Def'enda n t rcnkel acted with a specific intent to cause ifljury to Plaintiff and/or indiffcrence the rights,safety,or welfareof PlaintilTwith actual,subjeotive to conscious involvedan extrme degeeof risk of harmto the Plaintiff avraxen ethathis conduct ss 2]. Cisoo' At the I'romDefendant Plaintiff is entitledto excmplarydamages

statements was (and rcmains)the he Frenkelpublished defamatory his time Def'ondant Directo r of Intellectual Property at l)el'endantCisco Systems,Inc, His acts were with a capacity. In fact, they wete made in oonnection commit te din his managerial in lawsuit naminghis employeras a defendart. In performingthe acts dcscribed this Altemativelyor and scopeof his cmployment. petition ,he was actingwithin the course as damages it ratifiedand approved additionally Defendant Ciscois liable for exemplary Ftenkclwith full knowledge he wasactingwith malice. that of the conduct Def'endant 24. Plaintiff requests that Defendantsbe cited to appearald answer,and that

on final trial the Plaintiff havethc following:

damages excess in of for against Def'endaflts compel$story Judgment $75.000:
for to J u d g me n tagainstDefendants damages coflpensatePlaintiff fot distress harmto Plaintiffs relations and h a tmto his reputation, emotional with others that havc beendetrimentally cffected by l)ef'endants'tortious conduct; Dcfcndants a sumdetermined in damages against J u d g me nfor exemplary t by the trier of fact and in an amountthat will deter the f)efendantsfrom in conduct thc futurel s i mi l a routrageous interest ptovidedby lawi as P rc j u d g me n t postjudgment and A II costsof suit; and statemcnts A public retraotionof the false, soandalous defamatory Plaintiff; ma d eagainst r Any otherrelief the Courtfindsjust andpropet.

Rcspectfully Submittcd,

N i c hol asH, Patton S t a t e No. 63035 Bar LLP Patton, Tidwell & Schroeder, 4605TexasBoulevard T c x ar k anaTexas75503 " ' l ' e l : [phone] F a x : [phone] Email: [e-mail]] AT T O R N EY FOR PLAINT]FI]