Case5:14-cv HRL Document1 Filed01/15/14 Page1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

Similar documents
Case 1:10-cv LFG-RLP Document 1 Filed 05/05/10 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 3:16-cv K Document 36 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 of 29 PageID 233

Case 2:16-cv MRH Document 18 Filed 02/14/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 5:18-cv Document 1 Filed 05/24/18 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Case 1:18-cv RMB-KMW Document 1 Filed 06/06/18 Page 1 of 44 PageID: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Case 2:19-cv wks Document 1 Filed 01/11/19 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT

Case 2:17-cv DDP-AGR Document 82 Filed 04/09/18 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:1742

Attorney for Plaintiff Visual Effect Innovations, LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Case 3:14-cv Document 1 Filed 03/17/14 Page 1 of 23 Page ID#: 1

Case 1:15-cv LJA Document 1 Filed 09/30/15 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Case 2:17-cv Document 1 Filed 11/30/17 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case: 1:12-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 07/03/12 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA

thejasminebrand.com thejasminebrand.com

Deadline.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AMERICAN FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 3:18-cv K Document 1 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 33 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Complaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Case No. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 5:16-cv LS Document 40 Filed 07/07/17 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Sacred Mysteries Distribution PO Box Boulder, CO or

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C.A. No. COMPLAINT

Case 1:08-cv DC Document Filed 01/07/15 Page 1 of 27 EXHIBIT A

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Case 4:15-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 04/20/15 Page 1 of 27 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Case 3:15-cv EMC Document 35 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 30

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 09/12/17 Page 1 of 21

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Petitioner. ROVI GUIDES, INC. Patent Owner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Ford v. Panasonic Corp

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 2:18-cv DDP-AGR Document 43 Filed 04/10/18 Page 1 of 40 Page ID #:123. Deadline

Identity/Gender Expression and Sexual Orientation under the California Fair

S Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

AMENDED MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE BRINGING OF A CLASS ACTION AND TO ASCRIBE THE STATUS OF REPRESENTATIVE (Art C.C.P.

Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,253,452 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE OFFER FROM. TRIBUNE TELEVISION COMPANY (COMPANY) WXIN/WTTV (STATION) Indianapolis, IN (DESIGNATED MARKET AREA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 04/12/16 Page 1 of 30. v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ADVANCED TELEVISION SYSTEMS COMMITTEE, INC. CERTIFICATION MARK POLICY

Aventine Press Print-on-Demand Publishing Services 55 E Emerson Street, Chula Vista, CA 91911

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA. Case No. 1:16-cv KMM ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Case 2:16-cv Document 1 Filed 10/07/16 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 1

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER FOR UNITED STATES PATENT NUMBER 5,283,819

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. 16 CFR Part 410. Deceptive Advertising as to Sizes of. Viewable Pictures Shown by Television Receiving Sets

Netflix (Stock exchange: NFLX)

Warriors Magazine, LLC

WEBSITE LOOK DRESS DRESSING TRADE EEL : RESSING? T I M O T H Y S. D E J O N G N A D I A H. D A H A B

Plaintiff, Speedee Distribution, LLC ( Plaintiff or Speedee ), by its attorneys, brings this

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE. Recitals

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Patent Reissue. Devan Padmanabhan. Partner Dorsey & Whitney, LLP

ACA Tunney Act Comments on United States v. Walt Disney Proposed Final Judgment

STEVAL-SPBT2ATV2. USB Dongle for the Bluetooth class 2 SPBT2532C2.AT module. Features. Description

Data Sheet of SAW Components

MPB Kids Club Writers Contest Submission for 2016 Complete and Official Rules

The Jon Vickers Film Scoring Award 2017/2019 Entry Form and Agreement

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; Petitioner

Paper 21 Tel: Entered: July 14, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 08/25/ :35 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 63 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/25/2017

The Experience Economy, Updated Edition By B. Joseph Pine II;James H. Gilmore

NATIVE AMERICAN MUSIC AWARDS

CLEAR CHANNEL BROADCASTING, INC. (COMPANY) WHP/WLYH (STATION) HARRISBURG, PA (MARKET)

Monty s Rewards Gift Card Terms and Conditions. activate means that initial loading of value onto a Monty s Rewards Gift Card.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION. Counterclaim Defendant.

) In re: ) Chapter 11 ) ION MEDIA NETWORKS, INC., et al., ) Case No (JMP) ) Debtors. ) Jointly Administered ) ) ION MEDIA NETWORKS, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

Trademark Infringement: No Royalties for K-Tel's False Kingsmen

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Fox 21, Inc. Deadline SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Marc Richter Vice President Regulatory Services. June 3, 2015 CONTAINS CRITICAL ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION. By Electronic Delivery

LUVERNE PUBLIC ACCESS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

IPPV ENTERPRISES, LLC, and MAAST, Inc, Plaintiffs. v. ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORP.; NagraVision, S.A.; and NagraStar, L.L.C, Defendants.

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division. SPORTVISION, INC, Plaintiff. v. SPORTSMEDIA TECHNOLOGY CORP, Defendant.

Regulation No. 6 Peer Review

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C

Federal Communications Commission

SESAC LOCAL TELEVISION DIGITAL MULTIPLEX CHANNEL LICENSE AGREEMENT

SUMMARY JUDGMENT PRACTICE. LYNNE LIBERATO Haynes and Boone, LLP Houston, Texas

UTILITIES (220 ILCS 5/) Public Utilities Act.

2018 Student Film Festival Submission Rules and Guidelines

February 22, To whom it may concern:

Transcription:

Case5:14-cv-04528-HRL Document1 Filed01/15/14 Page1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION RED PINE POINT LLC, v. Plaintiff, AMAZON.COM, INC. AND MAGNOLIA PICTURES LLC, Defendants. Case No. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff Red Pine Point LLC ( Red Pine, by its undersigned attorneys, for its Complaint against Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. ( Amazon or Defendant and Magnolia Pictures LLC ( Magnolia or Defendant, states as follows: I. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is a patent infringement action by Red Pine against Amazon, an online retailer and manufacturer, and Magnolia, a movie distributor. As detailed below, Red Pine has been harmed by Amazon s and Magnolia s unlawful use of Red Pine s patents for commercial purposes. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. 101 et seq. This court therefore has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a. 3. This Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Amazon and Magnolia pursuant to the Illinois long-arm statute, 735 ILCS 5/2-209. Amazon and Magnolia conduct continuous and systematic business in Illinois and this District. For example, Amazon sells the

Case5:14-cv-04528-HRL Document1 Filed01/15/14 Page2 of 7 Kindle Fire, a tablet computer, in this District. The Kindle Fire allows users to download and view feature length films like Best Man Down before the films are publicly available to view in movie theaters or on DVD. As will be described below, these patent-infringement claims arise directly from Amazon s and Magnolia s continuous and systematic activity in this District. This Court s exercise of jurisdiction over Amazon and Magnolia would thus be consistent with 735 ILCS 5/2-209, and traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 4. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b(3 and 1400(b. Plaintiff III. PARTIES 5. Red Pine is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Nevada. Red Pine s principal place of business is located in Wadsworth, Ohio. Defendants 6. Amazon is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware. Amazon s headquarters are located in Seattle, Washington. Among other things, Amazon operates a retail website providing customers access to consumer products for delivery directly to the consumer s home. In addition, Amazon produces electronic reading devices and tablet computers. 7. Magnolia is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Texas. Magnolia s headquarters are located in New York, New York. Among other things, Magnolia distributes movies throughout the United States by allowing consumers to purchase and view movies before the movies are released in theaters. IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 8. Red Pine owns United States Patent 8,424,048 (the 048 patent and United States Patent 8,521,601 (the 601 patent. -2-

Case5:14-cv-04528-HRL Document1 Filed01/15/14 Page3 of 7 9. The field of the invention of the 048 patent and the 601 patent is movie distribution. Movies have historically been distributed by leveraging the period of time when the public may only view the movie in a theatre. Thus, the movie distributor risked substantial capital to promote the movie, maximize box office sales, and prolong the exclusive period during which the movie was only available for viewing in the theater. 10. This historic method of movie distribution posed a number of challenges and missed opportunities. For example, promoting a movie in order to drive box office sales is expensive and time-consuming. In addition, and obviously, not all movies have the same potential at the box office. The target audience of Best Man Down is not the same as the target audience of Avatar or Titanic. 11. The 048 and 601 inventions provide a solution. By segmenting the movie distribution market and determining which movies potential at the box office does not warrant the same promotional effort, companies may distribute movies like Best Man Down to hand-held devices like Kindle Fire for viewing before Best Man Down is publicly available for viewing in theaters or on DVD. V. CLAIMS ALLEGED Count I Patent Infringement Against Amazon 12. Red Pine repeats the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 11 of this Complaint as though fully alleged herein. 13. Red Pine is the exclusive owner of the 048 patent, which is attached as Exhibit 1. 14. The 048 patent is valid and enforceable. -3-

Case5:14-cv-04528-HRL Document1 Filed01/15/14 Page4 of 7 15. Amazon directly infringes claims of the 048 patent. Amazon makes, uses, sells, and offers for sale products, methods, equipment, and services that practice claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 20 of the 048 patent. 16. For example, and without limiting the 048 patent claims that will be asserted in this action or the Amazon devices and services accused of infringing the 048 patent claims, the distribution of Best Man Down through Amazon s Kindle Fire infringed claim 1 of the 048 patent. 17. Claim 1 is [a] handheld portable electronic device (HPED [that] purchases and downloads... the feature length movie before a public release date of the feature length movie.... Amazon makes, uses, and sells the Kindle Fire, which purchases and downloads feature length movies like Best Man Down before the movie s public release date. 18. The invention as claimed in claim 1 plays the feature length movie on the display before the feature length movie is publicly available for viewing by a general public in movie theaters.... Once a movie like Best Man Down has been downloaded, the Kindle Fire plays the movie before the general public may view the movie in the theaters. 19. Claim 1 is a device wherein a private release group of the general public purchases the movie for viewing before the movie is released in theaters. Before an individual may purchase Best Man Down from Amazon and view the movie before the release date, this individual must become a member of Amazon, and thereby become part of a private release group. 20. According to claim 1, members of the private release group designate specific times when the feature length movie plays on the HPEDs before the feature length movie is publicly available for viewing by the general public in movie theaters. Individuals who -4-

Case5:14-cv-04528-HRL Document1 Filed01/15/14 Page5 of 7 purchased Best Man Down from Amazon designated where, when, and how they would play the movie, and many of these individuals played Best Man Down before it was out in theaters. Count II Patent Infringement Against Amazon and Magnolia 21. Red Pine is the exclusive owner of the 601 patent, which is attached as Exhibit 2. 22. The 601 patent is valid and enforceable. 23. Amazon and Magnolia directly infringe claims of the 601 patent. Amazon, Magnolia, or both make, use, sell, and offer for sale products, methods, equipment, and services that practice claims 1 and 4 of the 601 patent. 24. For example, and without limiting the 601 patent claims that will be asserted in this action or the Amazon and Magnolia devices and services accused of infringing the 601 patent claims, the distribution of Best Man Down through Amazon s Kindle Fire infringed and infringes claim 1 of the 601 patent. 25. Claim 1 is a method of displaying an advertisement to purchase a feature length film (FLM before the FLM is publicly available to view in movie theaters and before the FLM is publicly available to buy on digital video disks (DVDs.... Amazon and Magnolia advertised Best Man Down for purchase before the movie was publicly available to view in movie theaters and before the movie was publicly available to buy on DVD. 26. The method of claim 1 involves displaying a movie trailer for the FLM. Amazon and Magnolia displayed a movie trailer for Best Man Down. 27. When practicing claim 1, you sell the FLM for purchase with handheld portable electronic devices (HPEDs before the FLM is publicly available to view in the movie theaters and before the FLM is publicly available to buy on the DVDs. Amazon and Magnolia sold Best -5-

Case5:14-cv-04528-HRL Document1 Filed01/15/14 Page6 of 7 Man Down for purchase with a Kindle Fire before Best Man Down was in the theaters and before Best Man Down was publicly available on DVD. 28. The claim 1 method involves wirelessly transmitting and downloading of the FLM. Amazon and Magnolia did this with respect to sales and rentals of Best Man Down. These sales and rentals were also downloaded to the HPEDs such that the FLM plays on the HPEDs at times decided by the individuals viewing the FLM with the times being before the FLM is publicly available to view in the movie theaters and before the FLM is publicly available to buy on the DVDs.... 29. Amazon and Magnolia practiced the remaining steps of claim 1 because Best Man Down was distributed to movie theaters and is greater than sixty minutes long. VI. JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b, Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all claims in this Complaint so triable. VII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Red Pine prays for the following relief against Amazon and Magnolia: (A Judgment that Amazon has directly infringed claims of the 048 and 601 patent claims; (B (C (D Judgment that Magnolia has directly infringed claims of the 601 patent; For a reasonable royalty; For pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law; and (E For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. -6-

Case5:14-cv-04528-HRL Document1 Filed01/15/14 Page7 of 7 Date: January 15, 2014 Respectfully submitted, RED PINE POINT LLC By: One of Plaintiff s Attorneys Joseph J. Siprut jsiprut@siprut.com Melanie K. Nelson mnelson@siprut.com SIPRUT PC 17 North State Street Suite 1600 Chicago, Illinois 60602 312.236.0000 Fax: 312.267.1906 Matthew M. Wawrzyn matt@wawrzynlaw.com Stephen C. Jarvis stephen@wawrzynlaw.com WAWRZYN LLC 233 S. Wacker Dr. 84th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60606 312. 283.8330 4852-6026-4728, v. 1-7-