Institute For Information Industry v. Google Inc.

Filing 1

COMPLAINT For Patent Infringement against Google Inc. ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0540-4133094.), filed by Institute For Information Industry. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A)(Huff, Winston)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
Institute For Information Industry,

Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-393

Plaintiff,
v.
Google Inc.,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff Institute for Information Industry (“III”) as and for its Complaint against Google
Inc. (“Google” or “Defendant”), demand a trial by jury and allege as follows:
PARTIES
1.

Institute For Information Industry is an information industry research institution

with a principal address of 11F, No. 106, Section 2, Heping East Road, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.
2.

On information and belief, Defendant Google Inc. is a corporation organized and

existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 1600
Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043. This defendant is registered to do business
in Texas and has appointed Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC Lawyers Incorporating
Service Company, 211 East 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701 as its agent for service of
process. Google, Inc. regularly conducts and transacts business in Texas, throughout the United
States, and within the Eastern District of Texas, itself and/or through one or more subsidiaries,
affiliates, business divisions, or business units.

1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3.

This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, namely, 35 U.S.C.

§§ 1 et seq. This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
4.

Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2) and (c) and/or

1400(b). On information and belief, Google has transacted business in this district, and has
committed acts of patent infringement in this district, by the making, using, offering for sell
and/or selling products that have a customizable thesaurus, can tolerate erroneous inputs, can
perform and process indefinite data, and can retrieve select software components.
5.

On information and belief, Google is subject to this Court’s general and specific

personal jurisdiction because: Google has minimum contacts within the State of Texas and the
Eastern District of Texas and, pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute,
Google has purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business in the State of
Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas; Google regularly conducts and solicits business
within the State of Texas and within the Eastern District of Texas; and III’s causes of action arise
directly from Google’s business contacts and other activities in the State of Texas and in the
Eastern District of Texas.
COUNT I
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,845,354
6.

III is the owner of all rights, title and interest to United States Patent No.

6,845,354 (“the ‘354 Patent”) entitled “Information Retrieval System With A Neuro-Fuzzy
Structure.” The ‘354 Patent was issued on January 18, 2005 after a full and fair examination by

2

the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The application leading to the ‘354 Patent was
filed on September 9, 1999. Attached as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the ‘354 Patent.
7.

The ‘354 Patent is generally directed to novel, unique and non-obvious intelligent

information system capable of having a customizable thesaurus, tolerating erroneous inputs,
performing and processing indefinite data, and retrieving software components.
8.

On information and belief, Google has been and now is infringing the ‘354 Patent

in the State of Texas, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the United States by making,
using, importing, selling or offering to sell information retrieval systems for finding
corresponding information components including Search Systems and/or Services according to
the ‘354 Patent. On information and belief, examples of Google products that infringe the ‘354
Patent include, but are not limited to, Google Search, Google+Local, and Google Places, which
allow for finding corresponding information components with information retrieval systems that
infringe claims of the ‘354 Patent. Google is thus liable for infringement of the ‘354 Patent
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
9.

As a result of Google’s infringement of the ‘354 Patent, III has suffered monetary

damages in an amount not yet determined, and will continue to suffer damages in the future
unless Google’s infringing activities are enjoined by this Court.
10.

Unless a permanent injunction is issued enjoining Google and its agent, servants,

employees, representatives, affiliates, and all others acting on or in active concert therewith from
infringing the ‘354 Patent, III will be greatly and irreparably harmed.

3

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, III respectfully requests that this Court enter:
A.

A judgment in favor of III that Google has infringed the ‘354 Patent and that such

infringement was willful;
B.

A permanent injunction enjoining Google and its officers, directors, agents,

servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and all others acting in
active concert therewith from infringing the ‘354 Patent;
C.

A judgment and order requiring Google to pay III its damages, costs, expenses,

and prejudgment and post-judgment interest for Google infringement of the ‘354 Patent as
provided under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
D.

An award to III for enhanced damages resulting from the knowing, deliberate, and

willful nature of Google’s prohibited conduct with notice being made at least as early as the date
of the filing of this Complaint, as provided under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
E.

A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the meaning

of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding to III its reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
F.

Any and all other relief to which III may show itself to be entitled.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

III, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury of any
issues so triable by right.

4

Dated: May 10, 2013

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Winston O. Huff
Winston O. Huff
State Bar No. 24068745
Deborah Jagai
State Bar No. 24048571
302 N. Market Street, Suite 450
Dallas, TX 75202
214.749.1220 (Firm)
469.206.2173 (Fax)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Attorneys for Plaintiff
Institute for Information Industry
CERTIFICATE OF FILING

I hereby certify that on May 10, 2013 I electronically filed the foregoing document
with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Winston O. Huff

5