Priceplay.com Inc. v. Facebook Inc.
Filing
1
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - filed with Jury Demand against Facebook Inc. Magistrate Consent Notice to Pltf. ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0311-1503008.) filed by Priceplay.com Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet)(mdb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
PRICEPLAY.COM, INC.
Plaintiff,
C.A. No. ______________
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
FACEBOOK INC.,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff Priceplay.com, Inc. (“Priceplay”) files this Complaint for patent infringement
against Facebook Inc. (“Facebook” or “Defendant”), and alleges as follows:
THE PARTIES
1.
Priceplay is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 42
Corporate Park #250 Irvine, California 92606.
2.
On information and belief, Facebook is a corporation organized under the laws of
the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 1601 Willow Road Menlo Park,
CA 94025. On information and belief, Facebook’s registered agent for service of process is
Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington DE, 19808.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3.
This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the
United States Code. This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over this case for patent
infringement under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
4.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant for at least the following
reasons: (1) Defendant is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware; (2) Defendant
has committed acts of patent infringement and induced acts of patent infringement by others in
this District and in Delaware; (3) Defendant engages in other persistent courses of conduct and
derives substantial revenue from products and/or services provided to individuals in this District
and in Delaware; and (4) Defendant has purposefully established systematic and continuous
contacts with this District and should reasonably expect to be brought into Court here.
5.
Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c), and 1400(b)
because Defendant is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, Defendant does
business in Delaware, and Defendant has committed acts of infringement in Delaware and in this
District.
THE ASSERTED PATENTS
6.
On November 1, 2011, the United States Patent and Trade Office (“USPTO”)
duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 8,050,982 (“the ‘982 patent”), entitled “Systems and
Methods for Transacting Business over a Global Communications Network such as the Internet,”
to Wayne W. Lin. A true and correct copy of the ‘982 patent is attached as Exhibit A. Priceplay
is the owner by assignment of the ‘982 patent and holds all rights and interest in that patent.
7.
On July 23, 2013, the USPTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 8,494,917
(“the ‘917 patent”), entitled “Systems and Methods for Transacting Business over a Global
Communications Network such as the Internet,” to Wayne W. Lin. A true and correct copy of
the ‘917 patent is attached as Exhibit B. Priceplay is the owner by assignment of the ‘917 patent
and holds all rights and interest in that patent.
8.
The ‘982 and ‘917 are collectively referred to herein as the “Asserted Patents.”
2
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
9.
In the mid-1990’s commerce over the Internet, or “e-commerce,” was in its early
stages. Many merchants had begun expanding into e-commerce hoping to attract some of the
seemingly endless source of potential buyers. In fact, many new businesses offered their
products and services solely via e-commerce. Some e-commerce merchants provided traditional
transaction methods: the seller would offer a specified product at a specified price, and the buyer
would “buy” the product by performing a required set of tasks acknowledging the formation of a
binding buy-sell contract. This occurred, for instance, at Amazon.com which began as an on-line
book seller, but later expanded into other fields such as music and videos.
10.
Various e-commerce business models afforded certain advantages and
disadvantages, but they all had the common goal of attracting as many customers as possible,
ultimately to lead to more transactions and hence more profit for the companies employing the
models. As such, they all focused in one way or another on factors typically considered
important by potential buyers—namely price and convenience.
11.
Ultimately, Wayne Lin, the inventor of the Asserted Patents, discovered that e-
commerce merchants could engage in controlled interaction with potential buyers via an Internet
website; specifically, such potential buyers could be attracted if they were allowed to engage in
an interactive competitive/entertaining collateral price-determining activity (“competitive
activity”) which determines the price of the product or service to be secured, depending on the
buyer's performance in the competitive activity.
12.
Wayne Lin also discovered that potential buyers could also be attracted if they
were allowed to engage in an interactive bidding auction in combination with the interactive
competitive activity.
3
13.
Wayne Lin’s inventions were disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 6,978,253 (“the ‘253
patent”), which has been cited by the USPTO in eight later patents (applicants include
International Business Machines Corporation, Siemens Power Transmission & Distribution, Inc.,
and Onforce, Inc.) and one currently pending application.
14.
Various embodiments of Wayne Lin’s inventions have been adopted by numerous
e-commerce leaders since their disclosure in the ‘253 patent.
15.
Priceplay practices the inventions claimed in the ‘982 and ‘917 patents. Four
Priceplay researchers continuously test and refine the systems and methods claimed in those
patents to improve e-commerce, both for merchants and customers.
16.
Priceplay itself practices specific embodiments of the claimed invention.
Priceplay develops software systems allowing any e-commerce company to provide an
interactive pricing system, specifically, systems in which the price of a product or a service can
be lowered based on a buyer's action in a particular activity. An example of such system can be
seen on www.priceplay.com.
17.
Facebook infringes the inventions claimed in the ‘982 and ‘917 patents, at least
through its “Cost-Per-Click” (“CPC”) bidding and “Performance History” competition, found at
http://www.facebook.com/help/150612021676307, by selling ad space to e-commerce merchants
via a system and a method which combine an interactive bidding and an interactive competitive
activity, at least as described in Exhibit C.
COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘982 PATENT
18.
Paragraphs 1 through 17 are incorporated herein by reference.
19.
The ‘982 patent is valid and enforceable.
4
20.
Facebook has infringed and continues to infringe at least claims 1 and 7 of the
‘982 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), either literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents, by
operating an interactive e-commerce system or performing an interactive e-commerce process
within the United States that is covered by the claims of the of the ‘982 patent.
21.
On information and belief, Facebook has had knowledge and notice of the ‘982
patent, as well as of its own infringement of the ‘982 patent.
22.
Facebook has had knowledge and notice of the ‘982 patent, as well as of its own
infringement of the ‘982 patent, since at least April 22, 2014 by virtue of the present Complaint.
23.
Priceplay has been and continues to be damaged by Facebook’s infringement of
the ‘982 patent. On information and belief, a reasonable royalty for infringement of the ‘982
patent would be at least 10% of Facebook’s ad revenue resulting from its infringing activities.
24.
Facebook’s infringement of the ‘982 patent has been and continues to be willful.
25.
Facebook’s infringement of the ‘982 patent renders this case exceptional within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285.
COUNT II – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘917 PATENT
26.
Paragraphs 1 through 25 are incorporated herein by reference.
27.
The ‘917 patent is valid and enforceable.
28.
Facebook has infringed and continues to infringe at least claims 1, 7 and 13 of the
‘917 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), either literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents, by
operating an interactive e-commerce system or performing an interactive e-commerce method
within the United States that is covered by the claims of the of the ‘917 patent.
29.
On information and belief, Facebook has had knowledge and notice of the ‘917
patent, as well as of its own infringement of the ‘917 patent.
5
30.
Facebook has had knowledge and notice of the ‘917 patent, as well as of its own
infringement of the ‘917 patent, since at least April 22, 2014 by virtue of the present Complaint.
31.
Priceplay has been and continues to be damaged by Facebook’s infringement of
the ‘917 patent. On information and belief, a reasonable royalty for infringement of the ‘917
patent would be at least 10% of Facebook’s ad revenue resulting from to its infringing activities.
32.
Facebook’s infringement of the ‘917 patent has been and continues to be willful.
33.
Facebook’s infringement of the ‘917 patent renders this case exceptional within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Priceplay.com, Inc. prays for judgment as follows:
A.
That Facebook has infringed each of the Asserted Patents;
B.
That Priceplay be awarded all damages adequate to compensate it for Facebook’s
infringement of the Asserted Patents, such damages to be determined by a jury and an
accounting, if necessary, to compensate adequately Priceplay for the infringement;
C.
That the damages awarded to Priceplay be trebled, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest;
D.
That this case be declared an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
285 and that Priceplay be awarded its attorney fees, costs and expenses incurred in connection
with this case; and
E.
That Priceplay be awarded such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
6
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Plaintiff Priceplay.com, Inc. hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Date: April 22, 2014
BAYARD, P.A.
OF COUNSEL:
/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
Richard D. Kirk (rk0922)
Stephen B. Brauerman (sb4952)
Vanessa R. Tiradentes (vt5398)
Sara E. Bussiere (sb5725)
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900
Wilmington, DE 19899
(302) 655-5000
rkirk@bayardlaw.com
sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
vtiradentes@bayardlaw.com
sbussiere@bayardlaw.com
Scott M. Daniels
Darrin A. Auito
WESTERMAN HATTORI DANIELS & ADRIAN
1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW.
Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 822-1100
sdaniels@whda.com
dauito@whda.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Priceplay.com, Inc.
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?