Memory Integrity LLC v. Apple Inc.

Filing 1

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT filed with Jury Demand against Apple Inc. - Magistrate Consent Notice to Pltf. ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0311-1398884.) - filed by Memory Integrity LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(cla, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No.
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
APPLE, INC.,
Defendant.

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff Memory Integrity, LLC (“MI”), by way of this Complaint for Patent
Infringement (“Complaint”) against the above-named Defendant Apple, Inc. (“Apple” or
“Defendant”), alleges as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.

This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the

United States, Title 35 of the United States Code.
THE PARTIES
2.

Plaintiff MI is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of

Delaware with a place of business at 1220 N. Market Street, Suite 806, Wilmington, Delaware
19801.
3.

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

the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business at 1 Infinite Loop,
Cupertino, California 95014.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.

1

5.

On information and belief, Defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court by

reason of their acts of patent infringement which have been committed in this Judicial District,
and by virtue of its regularly conducted and systematic business contacts in this State. As such,
Defendant has purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business within this
Judicial District; has established sufficient minimum contacts with this Judicial District such that
it should reasonably and fairly anticipate being haled into court in this Judicial District; and at
least a portion of the patent infringement claims alleged herein arise out of or are related to one
or more of the foregoing activities.
6.

Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(b).
THE PATENT-IN-SUIT

7.

On November 13, 2007, United States Patent No. 7,296,121 (the “’121 Patent”),

entitled “Reducing Probe Traffic in Multiprocessor Systems,” was duly and legally issued by the
United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the ’121 Patent is
attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint.
8.

MI is the assignee and owner of the right, title and interest in and to the ’121

Patent, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patent and the right to
any remedies for infringement of it.
COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,296,121
9.

The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 8 are hereby

realleged and incorporated herein by reference.
10.

In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), Apple has directly infringed and continues to

directly infringe, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’121 Patent by making,
using, offering for sale, selling, and importing products (the “Accused Instrumentalities”) and by
performing methods that practice the subject matter claimed in one or more claims of the ’121
2

Patent, including but not limited to claim 1, in the United States, including within this Judicial
District, without the authority of MI. For example, Apple has directly infringed the ’121 Patent
by selling products that contain a multicore processor that utilizes a probe filtering unit to reduce
probe traffic in a computer system. The Accused Instrumentalities include, but are not limited to
the Apple iPad 2, Apple iPad 3, and Apple iPad Mini.
11.

Apple has had actual knowledge of the ’121 Patent and its infringement of that

patent since at least the date of service of this Complaint.
12.

Apple is also inducing infringement of the ’121 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b),

since at least the date of service of this Complaint, by actively aiding and abetting others
(including its direct and indirect customers) whose sale, offer for sale, importation, and use of the
Accused Instrumentalities constitutes direct infringement. Apple has engaged in these actions
with either the specific intent to cause infringement or with willful blindness to the infringement
that it is causing. For example, Apple’s actions that actively induce its customers to directly
infringe at least claim 25 of the ’121 Patent include selling the Accused Instrumentalities,
providing user manuals regarding use of the Accused Instrumentalities, and providing technical
support regarding the use of the Accused Instrumentalities, where the use of the Accused
Instrumentalities during normal operation by Apple’s customers infringe at least claim 25 of the
’121 Patent. The use of the Accused Instrumentalities identified above during normal operation
directly infringes claim 25 of the ’121 Patent in at least the following manner:
(a)

The Accused Instrumentalities comprise a plurality of processing nodes

because they contain multicore processors. The cores are connected in a point-to-point
architecture and each core has an associated L1 cache memory;

3

(b)

One of the processor cores requests access to a memory line by

transmitting a probe to the Snoop Control Unit (the probe filtering unit);
(c)

The Snoop Control Unit evaluates the probe using a copy of the L1 data

cache tag RAMs which is representative of the states associated with selected L1 caches
to determine whether a valid copy of the memory line is in any of the L1 caches;
(d)

The Snoop Control Unit transmits the probe only to selected ones of the

cores identified in the evaluating step;
(e)

The Snoop Control Unit accumulates responses from the selected cores;

(f)

The Snoop Control Unit responds to the original request from the first

and

core.
13.

Apple is also committing contributory infringement of the ’121 Patent under 35

U.S.C. § 271(c) since at least the date of service of this Complaint by importing and selling the
Accused Instrumentalities to others, including but not limited to its customers, knowing and/or
being willfully blind to the fact that these products constitute a material part of the invention,
were especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the ’121 Patent, and
have no substantial non-infringing uses.

For example, the Accused Instrumentalities constitute

a material part of the claimed invention at least because they contain all of the components that
perform the method of reducing probe traffic in a computer system as claimed in claim 25 of the
’121 Patent. The Accused Instrumentalities were made or especially adapted for use in an
infringement of the ’121 Patent and have no substantial non-infringing uses at least because they
contain components whose only purpose is to reduce probe traffic in a computer system as
claimed in claim 25 of the ’121 Patent. The use of the Accused Instrumentalities identified

4

above by Apple’s customers during normal operation directly infringes claim 25 of the ’121
Patent in at least the following manner:
(a)

The Accused Instrumentalities comprise a plurality of processing nodes

because they contain multicore processors. The cores are connected in a point-to-point
architecture and each core has an associated L1 cache memory;
(b)

One of the processor cores requests access to a memory line by

transmitting a probe to the Snoop Control Unit (the probe filtering unit);
(c)

The Snoop Control Unit evaluates the probe using a copy of the L1 data

cache tag RAMs which is representative of the states associated with selected L1 caches
to determine whether a valid copy of the memory line is in any of the L1 caches;
(d)

The Snoop Control Unit transmits the probe only to selected ones of the

cores identified in the evaluating step;
(e)

The Snoop Control Unit accumulates responses from the selected cores;

(f)

The Snoop Control Unit responds to the original request from the first

and

core.
14.

MI has been harmed by Apple’s infringing activities.
JURY DEMAND

MI demands a jury trial on all issues and claims so triable.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, MI prays for judgment as follows:
a.

An adjudication that Apple has infringed the ’121 patent;

b.

An award of damages to be paid by Apple adequate to compensate MI for

past infringement of the ’121 Patent, and any continuing or future infringement through the date
5

such judgment is entered, including prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs, expenses and
an accounting of all infringing acts including but not limited to those acts not presented at trial;
c.

An order that Apple pay an ongoing royalty in an amount to be determined

for any continued infringement after the date judgment is entered; and
d.

Such further relief at law and in equity as the Court may deem just and

proper.

Dated: November 1, 2013

STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC
/s/ Richard C. Weinblatt
Stamatios Stamoulis #4606
[e-mail]
Richard C. Weinblatt #5080
[e-mail]
Two Fox Point Centre
6 Denny Road, Suite 307
Wilmington, DE 19809
Telephone: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Memory Integrity, LLC

6