Memory Integrity LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC

Filing 1

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT filed with Jury Demand against Google Inc., Motorola Mobility LLC - Magistrate Consent Notice to Pltf. ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0311-1398911.) - 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

GOOGLE INC. AND MOTOROLA
MOBILITY, LLC,
Defendants.

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff Memory Integrity, LLC (“MI”), by way of this Complaint for Patent
Infringement (“Complaint”) against the above-named Defendants Google Inc. and Motorola
Mobility, LLC (collectively “Google” or “Defendants”), 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 Google is a corporation organized under the

laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheater Parkway,
Mountain View, California 94043.
4.

On information and believe, Defendants Motorola Mobility, LLC is a corporation

organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 600
1

North U.S. Highway 45, Libertyville, Illinois 60048. On information and belief, Motorola
Mobility, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Google, Inc.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5.

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

6.

On information and belief, Defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of this Court

by virtue of the fact that they are organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. On
information and belief, Defendants are 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
their regularly conducted and systematic business contacts in this State. As such, Defendants
have purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting business within this Judicial
District; have established sufficient minimum contacts with this Judicial District such that they
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.
7.

Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(b).
JOINDER

8.

Joinder is proper under 35 U.S.C. § 299. The allegations of infringement

contained herein are asserted against the Defendants jointly, severally, or in the alternative and
arise, at least in part, out of the same series of transactions or occurrences relating to Defendants’
manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, and importation of the same accused products. On
information and belief, the Defendants are part of the same corporate family of companies, and
the infringement allegations arise at least in part from the Defendants’ collective activities with
respect to the Defendants’ accused products. Questions of fact common to the Defendants will
arise in the action, including questions relating to the structure and operation of the accused
2

products, Defendants’ infringing acts and, on information and belief, the validity of the patent-insuit.
THE PATENT-IN-SUIT
9.

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.
10.

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
11.

The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 10 are hereby

realleged and incorporated herein by reference.
12.

In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), Google 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
Patent, including but not limited to claim 1, in the United States, including within this Judicial
District, without the authority of MI. For example, Google 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 Google Nexus 10 and Motorola Atrix 4G (MB860).
13.

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

patent since at least the date of service of this Complaint.
3

14.

Google is also inducing infringement of ’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. Google 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, Google’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 Google’s customers infringes 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;
(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;

4

(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.
15.

Google 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
above by Google’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);

5

(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.
16.

MI has been harmed by Google’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 Google has infringed the ’121 patent;

b.

An award of damages to be paid by Google adequate to compensate MI

for past infringement of the ’121 Patent, and any continuing or future infringement through the
date 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 Google 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.
6

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

7