1st Technology, LLC v. Facebook

Filing 1

COMPLAINT filed by 1st Technology, LLC; Jury Demand. Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 0752-7749387.(La Porte, Michael)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1ST TECHNOLOGY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, Defendant. COMPLAINT Case No. ___________ JURY DEMANDED Plaintiff 1st Technology, LLC complains of defendant Facebook as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) confers jurisdiction in this case because defendant has infringed plaintiff’s patents. Federal law, namely the Patent Act of 1952, as amended, 35 U.S.C. § 271, makes patent infringement illegal and actionable through a private cause of action. 2. Defendant has transacted business in this judicial district by making, using, selling, or offering to sell and distributing software products that violate 1st Technology’s patents either in this judicial district or in the United States. 3. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1391(d), the general federal venue statute and Title 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), the specific venue statute related to patent cases, make venue proper in this case in this district. PARTIES 4. 1st Technology is a Nevada limited liability company with offices in Las Vegas, Nevada. 1st Technology is the assignee and owns all right, title and interest in and has standing to sue for infringement of United States Patent Nos.: 5,564,001 (the ‘001 Patent), which is entitled “Method and System for Interactively Transmitting Multimedia Information Over a Network Which Requires A Reduced Bandwidth;” 5,745,379 (the ‘379 Patent), which is entitled “Method for the Production and Transmission of Enhanced Multimedia Information;” and 5,845,088 (the ‘088 Patent), which is entitled “Method for the Production and Transmission of Enhanced Interactive Multimedia Information.” 5. Defendant Facebook is a Delaware corporation with its principle place of business at 1601 S. California Ave., Palo Alto, California 94304. Facebook has previously and is presently making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States software products (among other products, web-based games available through Facebook) that infringe one or more claims of the ‘001, ‘379, and ‘088 Patents. Facebook has infringed the ‘001, ‘379, and ‘088 Patents either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Facebook by virtue of its residence in this judicial district, its tortious acts of patent infringement that have been committed in this judicial district, and its transaction of business in this district. BACKGROUND 6. Dr. Scott Lewis is an individual residing in Los Gatos, California. Dr. Lewis is the controlling manager of 1st Technology LLC. Dr. Lewis is the inventor of the ‘001 Patent. 7. Dr. Lewis received B.S. and M.S. degrees with honors in mechanical and electrical engineering from M.I.T. Dr. Lewis has a Ph.D. from Oxford University in adaptive digital signal processing as a Marshall Scholar and an M.B.A. from Harvard Business School. Dr. Lewis led the development of single-chip video and audio compression solutions, as well as the first automotive video cellular telephone. Dr. Lewis is the inventor of a number of patents in multimedia communication technology. 8. Defendant Facebook is an online “social media” platform that provides, among a myriad of other things, games for its users to play. PATENT INFRINGEMENT BY FACEBOOK 9. Facebook has infringed and continues to infringe the ‘001, ‘379, and ‘088 Patents either directly or indirectly through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 through at least its web-based games available through Facebook.com. 2 10. Facebook’s infringement, contributory infringement and/or inducement to infringe has injured 1st Technology and it, therefore, is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate it for such infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. 11. Facebook’s infringement, contributory infringement and/or inducement to infringe has been willful and deliberate because it has been given notice of or knew of the ‘001, ‘379, and ‘088 Patents and has nonetheless injured and will continue to injure 1st Technology, unless and until this Court enters an injunction, which prohibits further infringement and specifically enjoins further manufacture, use, sale and/or offer for sale of products or services that come within the scope of the ‘001, ‘379, and ‘088 Patents. 3 JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 1st Technology requests a trial by jury on all issues presented that can properly be tried to a jury. DEMAND FOR RELIEF THEREFORE, 1st Technology asks this Court to enter judgment against defendant Facebook and against its respective joint venture partners, subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, servants, employees and all persons in active concert or participation with it, granting the following relief: A. An award of damages adequate to compensate 1st Technology for the infringement that has occurred, together with prejudgment interest from the date infringement began; B. All other damages permitted by 35 U.S.C. § 284; C. A finding that Facebook has willfully infringed the ‘001 Patent. D. A finding that this case is exceptional and an award to 1st Technology of its attorneys’ fees and costs as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285; E. An injunction prohibiting further infringement, inducement and contributory infringement of the ‘001, ‘379, and ‘088 Patents; and F. Such other and further relief as this Court or a jury may deem proper and just. Dated: November 13, 2012 Respectfully submitted, /s/ William Flachsbart William Flachsbart wwf@fg-law.com Michael R. La Porte mrl@fg-law.com Flachsbart & Greenspoon LLC 333 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60601-3901 Phone: (312) 551-9500 Fax: (312) 551-9501 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, 1ST TECHNOLOGY, LLC 4

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?