Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC v. Millennial Media, Inc.

Filing 1

COMPLAINT for Patment Infringement against Millennial Media, Inc ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0540-3833815.), filed by Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A '536 Patent, # 3 Exhibit B '682 Patent)(Ainsworth, Charles)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:12-cv-790

MILLENNIAL MEDIA, INC.,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendant.

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC states its Complaint against Defendant
Facebook, Inc. and alleges as follows:
THE PARTIES
1.

Plaintiff Evolutionary Intelligence, LLC is a limited liability company organized

and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business in San
Francisco, California.
2.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Millennial Media, Inc. is a corporation

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of
business at 2400 Boston Street, Suite 201, Baltimore, MD 21224.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the above paragraphs of this

Complaint, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

4.

This action is for patent infringement pursuant to the patent laws of the United

States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
5.

Personal jurisdiction exists generally over Defendant because Defendant has

sufficient minimum contacts with the forum as a result of business conducted within the State of
Texas and within the Eastern District of Texas. Personal jurisdiction also exists specifically over
Defendant because it, directly or through subsidiaries or intermediaries, makes, uses, offers for
sale, sells, imports, advertises, makes available and/or markets one or more products and/or
services within the State of Texas, and more particularly, within the Eastern District of Texas,
that infringe the patent-in-suit, as described more particularly below.
6.

Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and

1400(b), because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the Eastern District of Texas
and has transacted business in the Eastern District of Texas.
COUNT ONE
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,010,536
7.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the above paragraphs of this

Complaint, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
8.

Plaintiff is the owner of all right, title, and interest in United States Patent No.

7,010,536, entitled “System and Method for Creating and Manipulating Information Containers
with Dynamic Registers,” duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark
Office on March 7, 2006 (the “’536 patent”). A true and correct copy of the ’536 patent is
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
9.

Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe, literally and/or under the

doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ’536 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making,

2

using, offering to sell, and/or selling the patented invention within the United States. Specifically,
Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe the ‘536 patent by making, using, offering to
sell, and/or selling its mMedia and MYDAS mobile advertising products and services, which are
accessible at least through millennialmedia.com and mmedia.com.
10.

As a result of Defendant’s infringing activities with respect to the ‘536 patent,

Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount not yet ascertained. Plaintiff is entitled to recover
damages adequate to compensate it for Defendant’s infringing activities in an amount to be
determined at trial, but in no event less than reasonable royalties, together with interest and costs.
Defendant’s infringement of Plaintiff’s exclusive rights under the ’536 patent will continue to
damage Plaintiff, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless
enjoined by this Court.
11.

Plaintiff reserves the right to allege, after discovery, that Defendant’s infringement

of the ‘536 patent is willful and deliberate, entitling Plaintiff to increased damages under 35
U.S.C. § 284, and to attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
COUNT TWO
INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,702,682
12.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the above paragraphs of this

Complaint, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
13.

Plaintiff is the owner of all right, title, and interest in United States Patent No.

7,702,682, entitled “System and Method for Creating and Manipulating Information Containers
with Dynamic Registers,” duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark
Office on April 20, 2010 (the “’682 patent”). A true and correct copy of the ’682 patent is
attached hereto as Exhibit B.

3

14.

Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe, literally and/or under the

doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ’682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making,
using, offering to sell, and/or selling the patented invention within the United States. Specifically,
Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe the ‘682 patent by making, using, offering to
sell, and/or selling its mMedia and MYDAS mobile advertising products and services, which are
accessible at least through millennialmedia.com and mmedia.com.
15.

As a result of Defendant’s infringing activities with respect to the ’682 patent,

Plaintiff has suffered damages in an amount not yet ascertained. Plaintiff is entitled to recover
damages adequate to compensate it for Defendant’s infringing activities in an amount to be
determined at trial, but in no event less than reasonable royalties, together with interest and costs.
Defendant’s infringement of Plaintiff’s exclusive rights under the ’682 patent will continue to
damage Plaintiff, causing irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless
enjoined by this Court.
16.

Plaintiff reserves the right to allege, after discovery, that Defendant’s infringement

of the ’682 patent is willful and deliberate, entitling Plaintiff to increased damages under 35
U.S.C. § 284, and to attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff requests entry of judgment in its favor against Defendant as follows:
a)

For a declaration that Defendant has infringed one or more claims of the ’536

patent and ’682 patent;
b)

For an award of damages adequate to compensate Plaintiff for Defendant’s

infringement of the ’536 patent and ’682 patent, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty,

4

together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest and costs, in an amount according to
proof;
c)

For an entry of a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, and its respective

officers, agents, employees, and those acting in privity with them, from further infringement of
the ’536 patent and ‘682 patent, or in the alternative, awarding a royalty for post-judgment
infringement; and
d)

For an award to Plaintiff of such other costs and further relief as the Court may

deem just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff respectfully
requests a trial by jury.
Dated: October 17, 2012

Respectfully submitted,
/s/Charles Ainsworth_________________
Charles Ainsworth
State Bar No. 00783521
Robert Christopher Bunt
State Bar No. 00787165
PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C.
100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114
Tyler, TX 75702
903/531-3535
903/533-9687
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Adam J. Gutride, Esq.
Seth A. Safier, Esq.
Todd Kennedy, Esq.
Anthony J. Patek, Esq.
835 Douglass Street
San Francisco, California 94114
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

5

[e-mail]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
EVOLUTIONARY INTELLIGENCE,
LLC

6