Dynamic Advances, LLC v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against Apple, Inc. (Filing fee $350 receipt number 2347831) filed by Dynamic Advances, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Patent No. US 7,177,798 B2), # 2 Exhibit B (Siri FAQ), # 3 Exhibit C (US Patent Application Publication), # 4 Civil Cover Sheet) (dpk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ALBANY DIVISION
DYNAMIC ADVANCES, LLC,
Plaintiff,

1:12-CV-1579(GLS/CFH)
Civil Action No. __________

v.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

APPLE INC.,
Defendant.

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
This is an action for patent infringement in which Plaintiff, Dynamic Advances, LLC,
makes the following allegations against Defendant, Apple Inc.
PARTIES
1.

Plaintiff Dynamic Advances, LLC is a Texas limited liability company with its

principal place of business at 719 W. Front Street, Suite 242, Tyler, Texas 75702. Dynamic
Advances is the exclusive licensee of certain patents granted to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
(“Rensselaer”), located in the City of Troy, Rensselaer County, New York. Dynamic Advances
facilitates Rensselaer’s goal of commercializing its patented inventions to the benefit of the
general public and to further Rensselaer’s mission to apply science to the common purposes of
life.
2.

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

having its principal place of business at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California 95014. Apple
may be served via its registered agent for service of process, C T Corporation System, 111
Eighth Avenue, New York, New York 10011.

1

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 subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
and 1338(a).
4.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Apple. Apple has conducted and does

conduct business within the State of New York and within the Northern District of New York,
including in Rensselaer County, as alleged in more detail below. Apple, directly and/or through
intermediaries (including distributors, sales agents, and others), ships, distributes, offers for sale,
sells, advertises, and/or uses its products (including, but not limited to, the products that are
accused of patent infringement in this lawsuit) in the United States, the State of New York, and
the Northern District of New York. Apple has committed patent infringement within the State of
New York, and, more particularly, within the Northern District of New York as alleged in more
detail below.
5.

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

6.

United States Patent No. 7,177,798 (“the ’798 Patent”), entitled “Natural

Language Interface Using Constrained Intermediate Dictionary of Results” was duly and legally
issued by the United States Patent & Trademark Office to inventors Cheng Hsu and Veera
Boonjing on February 13, 2007 after a full and fair examination. The inventors assigned the
’798 Patent to Rensselaer. A true and correct copy of the ’798 Patent is attached to this
Complaint as Exhibit A.
7.

Rensselaer was founded in 1824. It is the oldest technological university in the

United States. Driven by its talented faculty, Rensselaer has dramatically expanded its research
enterprise by focusing on five signature research areas: biotechnology; computation and
2

information technology; experimental media and the arts; energy and the environment; and
nanotechnology. Rensselaer is especially well-known for its success in the transfer of
technology from the laboratory to the marketplace so that new discoveries and inventions benefit
human life, protect the environment, and strengthen economic development. For the last decade,
the “Rensselaer Plan” has provided a blueprint for transformation and impact. It has guided
development of an exceptional environment for advancing research with the potential to address
science and society’s most challenging problems. Based on this strong foundation, Rensselaer’s
research has led to dramatic innovations in a host of technology areas. As one illustration of the
success of Rensselaer’s research and innovation, the United States Patent & Trademark Office
has issued 296 patents to Rensselaer.
8.

Dynamic Advances is the exclusive licensee to the ’798 Patent. As such,

Rensselaer has transferred all substantial rights to the ’798 Patent to Dynamic Advances,
including the exclusive right to sue for infringement and recover damages for all past, present,
and future infringement.
9.

Dr. Cheng Hsu and Dr. Veera Boonjing invented the technology claimed in the

’798 Patent. At the time they invented the claimed technology, Dr. Hsu was a Professor of
Decision Sciences and Engineering Systems at Rensselaer and Dr. Boonjing was a doctoral
candidate at Rensselaer. Dr. Hsu currently is a professor of Industrial and Systems Engineering
at Rensselaer. Dr. Boonjing is currently a professor of Mathematics and Computer Science at
King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang in Thailand. In addition to being awarded
the ’798 Patent for their joint invention, Dr. Hsu and Dr. Boonjing have co-authored a number of
articles on natural language processing technology.

3

10.

The ’798 Patent discloses and claims novel methods for processing a natural-

language input. One advantage of this technology is that it provides computer/smartphone users
the ability to input search queries or commands in language they would use in conversation with
another person. The ’798 Patent’s process can interpret a query articulated in plain natural
language, such as would be used in common speech, by, for example, creating permutations of
the concepts of the query, and interpreting the query accordingly.
11.

The ’798 Patent has been repeatedly cited in subsequent patent applications filed

by leading technology companies. A leading patent analytics service found that the ’798 Patent
has been cited more than 93.5% of issued United States patents. The ’798 Patent, or its
published application, has been cited in patent applications filed by Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft,
IBM, Sony, Google, and Apple. In fact, Apple has cited the ’798 Patent during the prosecution
of no fewer than three patent applications:
•

Published Application No. 2009/0225041, filed March 4, 2008 (issued as U.S.
Patent 8,289,283);

•
•
12.

Published Application No. 2012/0016678, filed January 10, 2011; and
Published Application No. 2012/0265533, filed April 18, 2011.
By way of example only, claim 9 of the ’798 Patent recites:

A computer-implemented method for processing a natural language input comprising:
receiving a natural language input;
providing from said natural language input a plurality of language-based database
objects;
identifying a finite number of permutations of the plurality of database objects, the
database objects being stored in a metadata database comprising at least one of a group of
information comprising case information, keywords, information models, and database
values; and

4

interpreting at least one of the permutations to provide determination of a result of the
natural language input.
COUNT I
Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,798
13.

Dynamic Advances refers to and incorporates herein the allegations of paragraphs

1 through 12 above.
14.

On information and belief, Apple has infringed and continues to infringe, either

literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ’798 Patent by processing
natural-language inputs in the United States. For example, on information and belief, Apple’s
Siri personal assistant, available for select iPhones, iPads, and iPods, includes technology
claimed in the ’798 Patent. Apple is thus liable for infringement of the ’798 Patent pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 271.
15.

As described by Apple, “Siri isn’t like traditional voice recognition software that

requires you to remember keywords and speak specific commands. Siri understands your natural
speech, and it asks you questions if it needs more information to complete a task.”
http://www.apple.com/ios/siri/siri-faq/ (a true and correct copy of this webpage is attached as
Exhibit B to this Complaint). Based on the natural language query to Siri, it will “find a business
and get directions, schedule reminders and meetings, search the web, and more.” Id.
16.

In patent litigation against Samsung, Apple touted that Siri has driven consumer

demand for the iPhone—and Apple submitted sworn declarations attesting to this fact. Apple
Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., et al., No. 12-cv-630, slip op. at 81 (N.D. Cal. June 29, 2012)
(“Apple asserts that…Siri, a computerized personal assistant, has driven consumer demand for
the iPhone 4S.”). Apple also persuaded the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit that Siri drives consumer demand for the iPhone 4S. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., et

5

al., No. 2012-1507, slip op. at 8 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 11, 2012) (“Advertised by Apple as an
‘intelligent personal assistant,’ Siri enables iPhone 4S users to speak their commands to the
phone in a natural and conversational tone. There is no dispute that this highly popular feature is
a significant source of consumer demand for the iPhone 4S”).
17.

On information and belief, Apple describes Siri’s operation in its published patent

application number 2012/0016678, entitled “Intelligent Automated Assistant.” A true and
correct copy of the publication is attached as Exhibit C to this Complaint. Figure 28 of the
publication number 2012/0016678, reproduced below, describes how Apple’s Intelligent
Automated Assistant processes natural language inputs. The Assistant receives the input,
provides a plurality of words/phrases based on that input, identifies a finite number of
combinations of the words or phrases as candidate syntactic parses, and interprets at least one of
the candidates as the representation of user intent. In processing the input, the Assistant refers to
and uses database objects such as keywords in its vocabulary database, objects in its personal
memory databases, or information in its domain or task databases.

6

18.

Dynamic Advances has suffered and continues to suffer damages as a result of

Apple’s infringement of the ’798 Patent. Pursuant to § 284, Dynamic Advances is entitled to
recover damages in an amount that is no less than a reasonable royalty from Apple for its
infringing acts.
19.

Apple’s infringement of the ’798 Patent will continue to damage Dynamic

Advances, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless Apple
is enjoined by this Court.

7

JURY DEMAND
20.

Dynamic Advances hereby requests a trial by jury in Albany, New York, pursuant

to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
21.

Plaintiff Dynamic Advances, LLC respectfully requests this Court to enter

judgment in its favor and against Defendant Apple Inc., granting the following relief:
A.

Judgment in Dynamic Advances’s favor that Apple has infringed and
continues to infringe the ’798 Patent;

B.

An award to Dynamic Advances of damages adequate to compensate it for
Apple’s acts of patent infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable
royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 284;

C.

A grant of permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283 against
Apple, enjoining Apple from further acts of patent infringement;

D.

An award to Dynamic Advances of its costs of suit and reasonable
attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 due to the exceptional nature
of this case; and

E.

Any further relief that this Court deems just and proper.

8

Date: October 19, 2012

Respectfully Submitted:

/s/
James R. Muldoon
James R. Muldoon (506772)
HARRIS BEACH PLLC
333 W. Washington Street
Suite 200
Syracuse, New York 1302
[phone] (telephone)
315) 422-9331 (telefax)
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Dynamic Advances, LLC

Of Counsel:
Paul J. Skiermont (pro hac vice to be filed)
Amy E. LaValle (pro hac vice to be filed)
Donald E. Tiller (pro hac vice to be filed)
SKIERMONT PUCKETT LLP
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 4301W
Dallas, Texas 75201
[phone] (telephone)
[phone] (facsimile)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Counsel for Plaintiff
Dynamic Advances, LLC

9