Google Inc. v. Rockstar Consortium US LP et al

Filing 134

MOTION for Issuance of Letters Rogatory to the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, Canada for Nortel Networks Corporation, Jean-Pierre Fortin, Angela de Wilton, Jaspreet Harit, Yee-Ning Chan, Brian Finlay Beaton, Bruce Dale Stalkie, Mitch A. Brisebois, Laura A. Mahan, Paul Michael Brennan, Brian Cruickshank, and John Eric Lumsden filed by Google Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Google's Notice of Unopposed Motion and Motion for Issuance of Letter Rogatory, # 2 Declaration of Kristin J. Madigan In Support of Google's Unopposed Motion for Issuance of Letter Rogatory, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit 12, # 15 Exhibit 13, # 16 Exhibit 14, # 17 Exhibit 15, # 18 Exhibit 16, # 19 Exhibit 17, # 20 Exhibit 18, # 21 Exhibit 19, # 22 Exhibit 20, # 23 Exhibit 21, # 24 Proposed Order)(Curran, Patrick) (Filed on 9/29/2014) Modified on 9/30/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF).

EXHIBIT 1

Case5:13-cv-05933-PSG Document1 Filed12/23/13 Page1 of 13

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Sean Pak (Cal. Bar No. 219032)
[e-mail]
2
Amy H. Candido (Cal. Bar No. 237829)
[e-mail]
3
Matthew S. Warren (Cal. Bar No. 230565)
[e-mail]
4
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
5 San Francisco, California 94111
[phone]
6 [phone] (facsimile)
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff GOOGLE INC.
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11 GOOGLE INC.,
Plaintiff,

12
13

CASE NO. 3:13-cv-5933
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
OF U.S. PATENT NOS. 5,838,551;
6,037,937; 6,128,298; 6,333,973; 6,463,131;
6,765,591; AND 6,937,572

v.

14 ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP and
MOBILESTAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
15
Defendants.
16

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

17
18

Plaintiff Google Inc. (“Google”) seeks a declaration that Google does not directly or

19 indirectly infringe United States Patent Nos. 5,838,551, 6,037,937, 6,128,298, 6,333,973,
20 6,463,131, 6,765,591, and 6,937,572, as follows:
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
01980.00011/5659994.7

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

Case5:13-cv-05933-PSG Document1 Filed12/23/13 Page2 of 13

1
2

NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.

This is an action for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement arising under the

3 patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. Google requests this relief
4 because Defendants Rockstar Consortium US LP and MobileStar Technologies LLC (collectively,
5 “Rockstar”) have filed seven lawsuits claiming that Google’s customers infringe some or all of
6 United States Patent Nos. 5,838,551, 6,037,937, 6,128,298, 6,333,973, 6,463,131, 6,765,591, and
7 6,937,572 (the “patents in suit”) by making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, exporting,
8 supplying, or distributing “certain mobile communication devices having a version (or an adaption
9 thereof) of [the] Android operating system” developed by Google. Rockstar’s litigation campaign
10 has placed a cloud on Google’s Android platform; threatened Google’s business and relationships
11 with its customers and partners, as well as its sales of Nexus-branded Android devices; and created
12 a justiciable controversy between Google and Rockstar.
THE PARTIES

13
14

2.

Plaintiff Google Inc. (“Google”) is a corporation organized and existing under the

15 laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway,
16 Mountain View, California, 94043. Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and
17 make it universally accessible and useful. As part of that mission, Google produces Android, an
18 open-source mobile platform that has been adopted by original equipment manufacturers
19 (“OEMs”) worldwide.
20

3.

Defendant Rockstar Consortium US LP (“Rockstar Consortium”) is a limited

21 partnership organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware. Rockstar Consortium
22 claims that its principal place of business is at Legacy Town Center 1, 7160 North Dallas
23 Parkway, Suite No. 250, Plano, Texas, 75024, but the substantial majority of its employees,
24 including senior management, are based in Ontario, Canada. Rockstar Consortium is admittedly a
25 “patent licensing business” that produces no products, and instead exists solely to assert its
26 patents. (http://www.ip-rockstar.com/about.)
27

4.

Defendant MobileStar Technologies LLC (“MobileStar”) is a limited liability

28 corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, and also claims that its
01980.00011/5659994.7

-2COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

Case5:13-cv-05933-PSG Document1 Filed12/23/13 Page3 of 13

1 principal place of business is at Legacy Town Center 1, 7160 North Dallas Parkway,
2 Suite No. 250, Plano, Texas, 75024. MobileStar claims to be a subsidiary of Rockstar.
3 MobileStar was formed for litigation one day before Rockstar filed its lawsuits against Google’s
4 customers.
5
6

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
5.

This action arises under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and

7 under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1-390.
8

6.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,

9 1338(a), and 2201(a).
10

7.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Rockstar. Among other things, Rockstar

11 has continuous and systematic business contacts with California. As Rockstar executives have
12 explained to the media, once Rockstar identifies commercially successful products, it approaches
13 the companies behind those products in person and through other means to seek licenses to
14 Rockstar’s patents. Rockstar conducts this business extensively throughout California, including
15 through personnel located in the San Francisco Bay Area. Rockstar’s CEO has publicly stated that
16 Facebook (based in Menlo Park) and LinkedIn (based in Mountain View) infringe Rockstar’s
17 patents. (http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/11/veschi/.) In fact, Rockstar’s CEO has
18 stated that it would be difficult to imagine that any tech companies—legions of which call
19 California home—do not infringe Rockstar’s patents. On information and belief, Rockstar’s
20 licensing and enforcement efforts in California have generated substantial revenues.
21

8.

On information and belief, Rockstar’s shareholders direct and participate in

22 Rockstar’s licensing and enforcement efforts against companies in California. For example, Apple
23 Inc. (“Apple”) is a large shareholder in closely-held Rockstar, and maintains a seat on Rockstar’s
24 board of directors. Rockstar’s CEO has publicly stated that Rockstar maintains regular contact
25 with its shareholders. Apple’s headquarters are in Cupertino, California.
26

9.

In addition, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Rockstar for another reason:

27 Rockstar has purposefully directed into California its enforcement activities regarding the patents
28 in suit. As part of this enforcement campaign, Rockstar contacted and met with a series of
01980.00011/5659994.7

-3COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

Case5:13-cv-05933-PSG Document1 Filed12/23/13 Page4 of 13

1 California-based companies, accusing their devices that use Google’s Android platform. On
2 information and belief, Rockstar contacted and met with these California-based companies in
3 order to discourage them from continuing to use Google’s Android platform in their devices, and
4 to interfere with Google’s business relationships.
5

10.

Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c), because a

6 substantial part of the events giving rise to Google’s claim occurred in this district, and because
7 Rockstar Consortium and MobileStar are subject to personal jurisdiction here.
8

11.

An immediate, real, and justiciable controversy exists between Google and

9 Rockstar as to whether Google is infringing or has infringed United States Patent Nos. 5,838,551
10 (the “’551 patent”), 6,037,937 (the “’937 patent”), 6,128,298 (the “’298 patent”), 6,333,973 (the
11 “’973 patent”), 6,463,131 (the “’131 patent”), 6,765,591 (the “’591 patent”), and 6,937,572 (the
12 “’572 patent”).
13
14

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
12.

For purposes of intradistrict assignment under Civil Local Rules 3-2(c) and 3-5(b),

15 this Intellectual Property Action will be assigned on a district-wide basis.
16
17

ROCKSTAR’S HISTORY AND BUSINESS
13.

In June 2011, five of the world’s largest technology companies—including Google

18 competitors Apple, Research In Motion, and Microsoft—joined forces to obtain a portfolio of
19 patents auctioned during the bankruptcy of Nortel Networks. Bankrolled by these companies, a
20 manufactured entity called “Rockstar Bidco” placed the winning bid of $4.5 billion. According to
21 Apple’s June 2011 Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Apple
22 contributed “approximately $2.6 billion” of that sum.
23

14.

Following its acquisition of Nortel’s portfolio, Rockstar Bidco transferred

24 ownership of thousands of patents to its owners, whom it calls the “founding licensees.” Rockstar
25 Bidco transferred ownership of over 1,000 patents to Apple alone. On information and belief,
26 Rockstar Bidco was then reorganized into Rockstar Consortium.
27

15.

Rockstar produces no products and practices no patents. Instead, Rockstar employs

28 a staff of engineers in Ontario, Canada, who examine other companies’ successful products to find
01980.00011/5659994.7

-4COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

Case5:13-cv-05933-PSG Document1 Filed12/23/13 Page5 of 13

1 anything that Rockstar might use to demand and extract licenses to its patents under threat of
2 litigation.
3

16.

Public reports confirm that in the first two months following its purchase of

4 Nortel’s portfolio, Rockstar sought licenses from as many as 100 companies. On information and
5 belief, Rockstar has since sought licenses from many additional companies.
6
7

ROCKSTAR’S CAMPAIGN AGAINST ANDROID
17.

Among the myriad companies ensnared in Rockstar’s patent dragnet are customers

8 and partners of Google who use the Android platform in their devices, including ASUS, HTC,
9 Huawei, LG, Pantech, Samsung, and ZTE.
10

18.

On October 31, 2013, Rockstar brought patent infringement actions against ASUS,

11 HTC, Huawei, LG, Pantech, Samsung, and ZTE in the Marshall Division of the United States
12 District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Rockstar Consortium US LP v. ASUSTek
13 Computer, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-894; Rockstar Consortium US LP v. HTC Corp., No. 2:13-cv-895;
14 Rockstar Consortium US LP v. Huawei Investment & Holding Co., No. 2:13-cv-896; Rockstar
15 Consortium US LP v. LG Electronics Inc., No. 2:13-cv-898; Rockstar Consortium US LP v.
16 Pantech Co., No. 2:13-cv-899; Rockstar Consortium US LP v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
17 No. 2:13-cv-900; and Rockstar Consortium US LP v. ZTE Corp., No. 2:13-cv-901 (collectively,
18 the “Android OEM Actions” against the “Android OEM Defendants”).
19

19.

In the Android OEM Actions, Rockstar alleges that each Android OEM Defendant

20 infringes some or all of the ’551, ’937, ’298, ’973, ’131, ’591, and ’572 patents by making, using,
21 selling, offering for sale, importing, exporting, supplying, or distributing “certain mobile
22 communication devices having a version (or an adaption thereof) of [the] Android operating
23 system” developed by Google.
24

20.

In the Android OEM Actions, Rockstar accuses Android features including

25 “Mobile Hotspot functionality” which is “designed to route data packets between wireless devices
26 tethered to the Mobile Hotspot to nodes on a public network such as the Internet,” allegedly
27 infringing the ’298 patent; “VPN management functionality,” allegedly infringing the ’591 patent;
28 “Messaging and Notification functionality,” allegedly infringing the ’131 patent; a “navigable
01980.00011/5659994.7

-5COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

Case5:13-cv-05933-PSG Document1 Filed12/23/13 Page6 of 13

1 graphical user interface (‘navigable GUI’) that permits a user to manipulate and control the
2 contents of the display to maximize the use of display real estate,” allegedly infringing the ’937
3 patent; “integrated notification message center,” allegedly infringing the ’973 patent; and
4 “Location Services functionality,” allegedly infringing the ’572 patent.
5

21.

Rockstar further accuses devices incorporating Android of infringing the ’551

6 patent by “includ[ing] at least one electronic package comprising a component that is located
7 between an EMI shield and a ground member for performing shielding operations” where “[t]he
8 EMI shield is incorporated into the electronic package, which is then mounted to a circuit board”
9 in the accused devices.
10

22.

As Rockstar’s complaints admit, in the Android OEM Actions Rockstar has

11 asserted its patents only against “certain mobile communication devices having a version (or an
12 adaption thereof) of [the] Android operating system” developed by Google—although each of the
13 Android OEM Defendants also makes other products that do not use Google’s Android platform.
14 Rockstar has further asserted patent infringement by the Nexus 7, a device offered for sale by
15 Google and built by ASUS, one of the Android OEM Defendants.
16

23.

On information and belief, Rockstar intends the Android OEM Actions to harm

17 Google’s Android platform and disrupt Google’s relationships with the Android OEM Defendants.
18 This is an open secret: industry media immediately observed that in filing the Android OEM
19 Actions, Rockstar “launch[ed] an all-out patent attack on Google and Android.”
20 (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/10/patent-war-goes-nuclear-microsoft-apple-owned21 rockstar-sues-google/.)
22

24.

For all these reasons, an actual controversy exists between Google and Rockstar

23 regarding the alleged infringement of any claim of the ’551, ’937, ’298, ’973, ’131, ’591, and
24 ’572 patents.
25
26

GOOGLE DOES NOT INFRINGE THE PATENTS IN SUIT
25.

Neither any version of Google’s Android platform nor any of the Nexus 5,

27 Nexus 7, or Nexus 10 devices sold by Google directly or indirectly infringe any claim of the ’551,
28 ’937, ’298, ’973, ’131, ’591, and ’572 patents.
01980.00011/5659994.7

-6COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

Case5:13-cv-05933-PSG Document1 Filed12/23/13 Page7 of 13

1

26.

To the best of Google’s knowledge, no third party infringes any claim of the ’551,

2 ’937, ’298, ’973, ’131, ’591, or ’572 patents by using Nexus devices or Google’s Android
3 platform in other devices. Google has not caused, directed, requested, or facilitated any such
4 infringement, much less with specific intent to do so. Neither the Nexus devices nor Google’s
5 Android platform are designed for use in any combination which infringes any claim of the ’551,
6 ’937, ’298, ’973, ’131, ’591, or ’572 patents. To the contrary, each is a product with substantial
7 uses that do not infringe any claim of these patents.
8

FIRST COUNT

9

(Declaration of Non-Infringement of the ’551 Patent)

10

27.

Google restates and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1

11 through 26 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
12

28.

Rockstar Consortium claims to own all rights, title, and interest in United States

13 Patent No. 5,838,551 (the “’551 patent”). MobileStar claims to be the exclusive licensee of the
14 ’551 patent. A true and correct copy of the ’551 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
15

29.

In the Android OEM Actions, Rockstar accuses Android OEM defendants ASUS,

16 HTC, Huawei, LG, Pantech, and Samsung of infringing the ’551 patent in that each “makes, uses,
17 sells, offers for sale, imports, exports, supplies and/or distributes within the United States” devices
18 incorporating Google’s Android platform, which devices allegedly include “at least one electronic
19 package comprising a component that is located between an EMI shield and a ground member for
20 performing shielding operations” where “[t]he EMI shield is incorporated into the electronic
21 package, which is then mounted to a circuit board” in the accused devices. In its complaint
22 against ASUS, which manufactures the Nexus 7, Rockstar specifically accuses the Nexus 7, a
23 device offered for sale by Google.
24

30.

A substantial, immediate, and real controversy therefore exists between Google and

25 Rockstar regarding whether the Android platform or any of these Nexus devices infringe or have
26 infringed the ’551 patent. A judicial declaration is necessary to determine the parties’ respective
27 rights regarding the ’551 patent.
28
01980.00011/5659994.7

-7COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

Case5:13-cv-05933-PSG Document1 Filed12/23/13 Page8 of 13

1

31.

Google seeks a judgment declaring that Google’s Android platform and the

2 Nexus 5, Nexus 7, and Nexus 10 devices do not directly or indirectly infringe any claim of the
3 ’551 patent.
4

SECOND COUNT

5

(Declaration of Non-Infringement of the ’937 Patent)

6

32.

Google restates and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1

7 through 31 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
8

33.

MobileStar claims to own all rights, title, and interest in United States Patent

9 No. 6,037,937 (the “’937 patent”). Rockstar Consortium claims no interest in the ’937 patent, yet
10 seeks a judgment of infringement against the Android OEM Defendants in the Android OEM
11 Actions. A true and correct copy of the ’937 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
12

34.

In the Android OEM Actions, Rockstar accuses Android OEM Defendants ASUS,

13 HTC, Huawei, LG, Pantech, Samsung, and ZTE of infringing the ’937 patent in that each “makes,
14 uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, exports, supplies and/or distributes within the United States”
15 devices incorporating a version of Google’s Android platform that supports a “navigable graphical
16 user interface (‘navigable GUI’) that permits a user to manipulate and control the contents of the
17 display to maximize the use of display real estate.” In its complaint against ASUS, which
18 manufactures the Nexus 7, Rockstar specifically accuses the Nexus 7, a device offered for sale by
19 Google.
20

35.

The Nexus 5, Nexus 7, and Nexus 10 devices use Google’s Android platform.

21

36.

A substantial, immediate, and real controversy therefore exists between Google and

22 Rockstar regarding whether the Android platform or any of these Nexus devices infringe or have
23 infringed the ’937 patent. A judicial declaration is necessary to determine the parties’ respective
24 rights regarding the ’937 patent.
25

37.

Google seeks a judgment declaring that Google’s Android platform and the

26 Nexus 5, Nexus 7, and Nexus 10 devices do not directly or indirectly infringe any claim of the
27 ’937 patent.
28
01980.00011/5659994.7

-8COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

Case5:13-cv-05933-PSG Document1 Filed12/23/13 Page9 of 13

1

THIRD COUNT

2

(Declaration of Non-Infringement of the ’298 Patent)

3

38.

Google restates and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1

4 through 37 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
5

39.

Rockstar Consortium claims to own all rights, title, and interest in United States

6 Patent No. 6,128,298 (the “’298 patent”). MobileStar claims to be the exclusive licensee of ’298
7 patent. A true and correct copy of the ’298 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
8

40.

In the Android OEM Actions, Rockstar accuses Android OEM Defendants ASUS,

9 HTC, Huawei, LG, Pantech, Samsung, and ZTE of infringing the ’298 patent in that each “makes,
10 uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, exports, supplies and/or distributes within the United States”
11 devices incorporating a version of Google’s Android platform that supports “Mobile Hotspot
12 functionality [which] is designed to route data packets between wireless devices tethered to the
13 Mobile Hotspot to nodes on a public network such as the Internet.” In its complaint against
14 ASUS, which manufactures the Nexus 7, Rockstar specifically accuses the Nexus 7, a device
15 offered for sale by Google.
16

41.

The Nexus 5, Nexus 7, and Nexus 10 devices use Google’s Android platform.

17

42.

A substantial, immediate, and real controversy therefore exists between Google and

18 Rockstar regarding whether the Android platform or any of these Nexus devices infringe or have
19 infringed the ’298 patent. A judicial declaration is necessary to determine the parties’ respective
20 rights regarding the ’298 patent.
21

43.

Google seeks a judgment declaring that Google’s Android platform and the

22 Nexus 5, Nexus 7, and Nexus 10 devices do not directly or indirectly infringe any claim of the
23 ’298 patent.
24

FOURTH COUNT

25

(Declaration of Non-Infringement of the ’973 Patent)

26

44.

Google restates and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1

27 through 43 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
28
01980.00011/5659994.7

-9COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

Case5:13-cv-05933-PSG Document1 Filed12/23/13 Page10 of 13

1

45.

MobileStar claims to own all rights, title, and interest in United States Patent

2 No. 6,333,973 (the “’973 patent”). Rockstar Consortium claims no interest in the ’973 patent, yet
3 seeks a judgment of infringement against the Android OEM Defendants in the Android OEM
4 Actions. A true and correct copy of the ’973 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
5

46.

In the Android OEM Actions, Rockstar accuses Android OEM Defendants ASUS,

6 HTC, Huawei, LG, Pantech, Samsung, and ZTE of infringing the ’973 patent in that each “makes,
7 uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, exports, supplies and/or distributes within the United States”
8 devices incorporating a version of Google’s Android platform that supports an “integrated
9 notification message center.” In its complaint against ASUS, which manufactures the Nexus 7,
10 Rockstar specifically accuses the Nexus 7, a device offered for sale by Google.
11

47.

The Nexus 5, Nexus 7, and Nexus 10 devices use Google’s Android platform.

12

48.

A substantial, immediate, and real controversy therefore exists between Google and

13 Rockstar regarding whether the Android platform or any of these Nexus devices infringe or have
14 infringed the ’973 patent. A judicial declaration is necessary to determine the parties’ respective
15 rights regarding the ’973 patent.
16

49.

Google seeks a judgment declaring that Google’s Android platform and the

17 Nexus 5, Nexus 7, and Nexus 10 devices do not directly or indirectly infringe any claim of the
18 ’973 patent.
19

FIFTH COUNT

20

(Declaration of Non-Infringement of the ’131 Patent)

21

50.

Google restates and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1

22 through 49 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
23

51.

MobileStar claims to own all rights, title, and interest in United States Patent

24 No. 6,463,131 (the “’131 patent”). Rockstar Consortium claims no interest in the ’131 patent, yet
25 seeks a judgment of infringement against the Android OEM Defendants in the Android OEM
26 Actions. A true and correct copy of the ’131 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
27

52.

In the Android OEM Actions, Rockstar accuses Android OEM Defendants ASUS,

28 HTC, Huawei, LG, Pantech, Samsung, and ZTE of infringing the ’131 patent in that each “makes,
01980.00011/5659994.7

- 10 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

Case5:13-cv-05933-PSG Document1 Filed12/23/13 Page11 of 13

1 uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, exports, supplies and/or distributes within the United States”
2 devices incorporating a version of Google’s Android platform that supports “Messaging and
3 Notification functionality.” In its complaint against ASUS, which manufactures the Nexus 7,
4 Rockstar specifically accuses the Nexus 7, a device offered for sale by Google.
5

53.

The Nexus 5, Nexus 7, and Nexus 10 devices use Google’s Android platform.

6

54.

A substantial, immediate, and real controversy therefore exists between Google and

7 Rockstar regarding whether the Android platform or any of these Nexus devices infringe or have
8 infringed the ’131 patent. A judicial declaration is necessary to determine the parties’ respective
9 rights regarding the ’131 patent.
10

55.

Google seeks a judgment declaring that Google’s Android platform and the

11 Nexus 5, Nexus 7, and Nexus 10 devices do not directly or indirectly infringe any claim of the
12 ’131 patent.
13

SIXTH COUNT

14

(Declaration of Non-Infringement of the ’591 Patent)

15

56.

Google restates and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1

16 through 55 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
17

57.

MobileStar claims to own all rights, title, and interest in United States Patent

18 No. 6,765,591 (the “’591 patent”). Rockstar Consortium claims no interest in the ’591 patent, yet
19 seeks a judgment of infringement against the Android OEM Defendants in the Android OEM
20 Actions. A true and correct copy of the ’591 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
21

58.

In the Android OEM Actions, Rockstar accuses Android OEM Defendants ASUS,

22 HTC, Huawei, LG, Pantech, Samsung, and ZTE of infringing the ’591 patent in that each “makes,
23 uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, exports, supplies and/or distributes within the United States”
24 devices incorporating a version of Google’s Android platform that supports “VPN management
25 functionality.” In its complaint against ASUS, which manufactures the Nexus 7, Rockstar
26 specifically accuses the Nexus 7, a device offered for sale by Google.
27

59.

The Nexus 5, Nexus 7, and Nexus 10 devices use Google’s Android platform.

28
01980.00011/5659994.7

- 11 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

Case5:13-cv-05933-PSG Document1 Filed12/23/13 Page12 of 13

1

60.

A substantial, immediate, and real controversy therefore exists between Google and

2 Rockstar regarding whether the Android platform or any of these Nexus devices infringe or have
3 infringed the ’591 patent. A judicial declaration is necessary to determine the parties’ respective
4 rights regarding the ’591 patent.
5

61.

Google seeks a judgment declaring that Google’s Android platform and the

6 Nexus 5, Nexus 7, and Nexus 10 devices do not directly or indirectly infringe any claim of the
7 ’591 patent.
8

SEVENTH COUNT

9

(Declaration of Non-Infringement of the ’572 Patent)

10

62.

Google restates and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1

11 through 61 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
12

63.

Rockstar Consortium claims to own all rights, title, and interest in United States

13 Patent No. 6,937,572 (the “’572 patent”). MobileStar claims no interest in the ’572 patent, yet
14 seeks a judgment of infringement against the Android OEM Defendants in the Android OEM
15 Actions. A true and correct copy of the ’572 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
16

64.

In the Android OEM Actions, Rockstar accuses Android OEM Defendants ASUS,

17 HTC, Huawei, LG, Pantech, Samsung, and ZTE of infringing the ’572 patent in that each “makes,
18 uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, exports, supplies and/or distributes within the United States”
19 devices incorporating a version of Google’s Android platform that supports “Location Services
20 functionality.” In its complaint against ASUS, which manufactures the Nexus 7, Rockstar
21 specifically accuses the Nexus 7, a device offered for sale by Google.
22

65.

The Nexus 5, Nexus 7, and Nexus 10 devices use Google’s Android platform.

23

66.

A substantial, immediate, and real controversy therefore exists between Google and

24 Rockstar regarding whether the Android platform or any of these Nexus devices infringe or have
25 infringed the ’572 patent. A judicial declaration is necessary to determine the parties’ respective
26 rights regarding the ’572 patent.
27
28
01980.00011/5659994.7

- 12 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT

Case5:13-cv-05933-PSG Document1 Filed12/23/13 Page13 of 13

1

67.

Google seeks a judgment declaring that Google’s Android platform and the

2 Nexus 5, Nexus 7, and Nexus 10 devices do not directly or indirectly infringe any claim of the
3 ’572 patent.
4

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

5 WHEREFORE, Google prays for judgment and relief as follows:
6

A.

Declaring that Google’s Android platform and the Nexus 5, Nexus 7, and Nexus 10

7 do not infringe any of the ’551, ’937, ’298, ’973, ’131, ’591, or ’572 patents;
8

B.

Declaring that judgment be entered in favor of Google and against Rockstar

9 Consortium and MobileStar on each of Google’s claims;
10

C.

Finding that this an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285;

11

D.

Awarding Google its costs and attorneys’ fees in connection with this action; and

12

E.

Such further and additional relief as the Court deems just and proper.

13
14

JURY DEMAND
Google demands a jury trial on all issues and claims so triable.

15 DATED: December 23, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

16

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

17

By /s Matthew S. Warren
Matthew S. Warren
Attorneys for Google Inc.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
01980.00011/5659994.7

- 13 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT