Voice Domain Technologies, LLC v. Apple Inc.

Filing 1

COMPLAINT with jury demand against Apple Inc. Filing fee: $ 400, receipt number 0101-4745620 (Fee Status: Filing Fee paid), filed by Voice Domain Technologies, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Category Form, # 3 Exhibit A)(Barker, Bruce) (Attachment 1 replaced on 11/26/2013) (Burgos, Sandra). (Attachment 2 replaced on 11/26/2013) (Burgos, Sandra).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
(Worcester Division)
__________________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

VOICE DOMAIN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
APPLE INC.,
Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-40138

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

__________________________________________
COMPLAINT
Voice Domain Technologies, LLC (“Voice Domain”), by its undersigned attorneys, files
this complaint for patent infringement against Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and alleges as follows:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Voice Domain Technologies, LLC is a Connecticut limited liability company
founded by inventor Bruce Barker in 1999. Mr. Barker is the inventor of several patents
relating to portable data entry, voice dictation, and digital recording devices, and Voice
Domain is the assignee of his inventions. Voice Domain’s principal place of business is
176 East Main Street, Suite 6, Westborough, Massachusetts 01581.
2. Voice Domain is the owner of United States patent number 6,281,883 (“the ’883
Patent”), entitled “Data Entry Device.” The ’883 Patent was duly issued by the United
States Patent and Trademark Office on August 28, 2001 to Mr. Barker and assigned to
Voice Domain. A true and correct copy of the ’883 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit
A.

1

3. Voice Domain has secured several licenses to various patents in its portfolio, including
the ’883 Patent. Voice Domain has licensed the ’883 Patent to major corporations whose
products incorporate Mr. Barker’s inventions.
4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Apple Inc. is a California corporation having its
principal place of business at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California 95014. Apple is
registered to do business in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Apple sells products
within and derives revenue from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. For instance,
Apple operates Apple Retail Stores in Boston, Braintree, Burlington, Cambridge,
Chestnut Hill, Dedham, Hingham, Holyoke, Natick, and Peabody.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States
Code.
6. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331 and 1338.
7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Apple in this action because Apple regularly
transacts business within this district, derives revenue from this district, and/or has
committed acts of patent infringement within this district giving rise to this action. Apple
is registered to do business in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and identifies CT
Corporation System, 155 Federal Street, Suite 700, Boston, Massachusetts 02110 as its
Registered Agent.
8. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b) because Apple
is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district, has regularly conducted business in this

2

district, derives revenue from this district, and has committed acts of patent infringement
within this district.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
9. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 9 are incorporated by reference.
10. Upon information and belief, Defendant Apple has infringed, and continues to infringe, at
least claim 1 of the ’883 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 by manufacturing, using,
selling, offering for sale and/or importing products that embody the patented invention
described and claimed in the ’883 Patent through the inclusion of the Siri functionality in
devices, including, but not limited to iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPhone 5C, iPhone 5S, iPad
(3rd generation), iPad (4th generation), iPad Air, iPad Mini (1st generation), iPad Mini (2nd
generation), and iPod Touch (5th generation) (“the infringing products”) throughout the
United States, including in this district.
11. Upon information and belief, each of the infringing products embodies a data entry
system comprising a handheld peripheral and a processing system wherein the handheld
peripheral comprises a microphone for providing a microphone signal representative of a
user’s voice, as described and claimed in the ’883 Patent.
12. Upon information and belief, each of the infringing products embodies a data entry
system comprising a handheld peripheral and a processing system wherein the handheld
peripheral comprises a voice command button for providing a command notification
signal indicating whether the voice command button is asserted, as described and claimed
in the ’883 Patent.
13. Upon information and belief, each of the infringing products embodies a data entry
system comprising a handheld peripheral and a processing system wherein the handheld

3

peripheral comprises a voice data button for providing a data notification signal
indicating whether the voice data button is asserted, as described and claimed in the ’883
Patent.
14. Upon information and belief, each of the infringing products embodies a data entry
system comprising a handheld peripheral and a processing system wherein the handheld
peripheral comprises a cursor position transducer for providing a cursor signal
representative of a desired cursor position on a display screen of a processing system, as
described and claimed in the ’883 Patent.
15. Upon information and belief, each of the infringing products embodies a data entry
system comprising a handheld peripheral and a processing system wherein the handheld
peripheral comprises a coupling mechanism for providing a microphone signal, a
command notification signal, a data notification signal, and a cursor signal to a
processing system, as described and claimed in the ’883 Patent.
16. Upon information and belief, each of the infringing products embodies a data entry
system comprising a handheld peripheral and a processing system wherein the processing
system comprises a display screen, as described and claimed in the ’883 Patent.
17. Upon information and belief, each of the infringing products embodies a data entry
system comprising a handheld peripheral and a processing system wherein the processing
system comprises a microphone interpretation mechanism which, in response to
command and data notification signals, determines when the microphone signal
represents command and when it represents data, as described and claimed in the ’883
Patent.

4

18. Voice Domain has been, and continues to be, damaged by Apple’s infringement of the
’883 Patent.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
19. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 18 are incorporated by reference.
20. Apple obtained actual notice of its infringement of the ’883 Patent on or about January
11, 2013.
21. Apple’s conduct constitutes willful infringement, as Apple has acted despite an
objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the ’883 Patent,
and Apple knew or should have known that its actions held an unjustifiably high risk of
infringement of the ’883 Patent.
22. Apple’s conduct warrants an award of enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284
and establishes that this is an exceptional case justifying an award of attorney fees
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Voice Domain demands judgment against Apple, including its affiliates,
officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with
Apple, as follows:
A. A judgment that Apple has infringed the ’883 Patent;
B. An award to Voice Domain of monetary damages for the infringement of the
’883 Patent, together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
C. A permanent injunction prohibiting Apple from further acts of infringement of
the ’883 Patent;

5

D. An award to Voice Domain of the costs of this action and its reasonable
attorneys’ fees;
E. An award of enhanced damages and attorney fees to Voice Domain for
Apple’s willful infringement of the ’883 Patent; and
F. Any other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Voice Domain demands a
trial by jury.

6

Respectfully submitted,
Date: November 25, 2013

/s/ Bruce J. Barker
Alan M. Fisch
(pro hac vice admission pending)
Jason F. Hoffman
(pro hac vice admission pending)
R. William Sigler
(pro hac vice admission pending)
Thomas C. Chen
(pro hac vice admission pending)
FISCH HOFFMAN SIGLER LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Eighth Floor
Washington, DC 20015
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Silvia Jordan
(pro hac vice admission pending)
FISCH HOFFMAN SIGLER LLP
432 Park Avenue South
Fourth Floor
New York, NY 10016
[phone]
[e-mail]
Bruce J. Barker (BBO No. 551102)
CHAO HADIDI STARK & BARKER LLP
176 East Main Street
Suite 6
Westborough, MA 01581
[phone]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for
Voice Domain Technologies, LLC

7