`
`
`
`MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`425 Market Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
`Telephone: (415) 268-7000
`Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
`mjacobs@mofo.com
`
`BENJAMIN J. FOX (CA SBN 193374)
`SOO J. PARK (CA SBN 300988)
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 6000
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
`Telephone: (213) 892-5200
`Facsimile: (213) 892-5454
`bfox@mofo.com; spark@mofo.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`QUIBI HOLDINGS, LLC.
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02250 Document 1 Filed 03/09/20 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.
`COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT OF
`(1) NON-INFRINGEMENT
`OF U.S. PATENT
`NO. 10,460,765; AND (2) NO
`MISAPPROPRIATION OF
`TRADE SECRETS
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY
`TRIAL
`
`QUIBI HOLDINGS, LLC.
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`INTERLUDE US, INC. d/b/a EKO,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02250 Document 1 Filed 03/09/20 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:2
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`1.
`Plaintiff Quibi Holdings, LLC (“Quibi”) has developed a new digital
`platform for delivering premium entertainment content to consumers — using
`innovative technology that for the first time makes video beautiful on your phone.
`Quibi’s streaming service features top talent and extraordinary storytelling,
`designed for the small screen and delivered in episodes of 10 minutes or less.
`2.
`Set to launch on April 6, 2020, Quibi’s mobile app is the product of
`many months of tireless work by Quibi’s talented team of engineers, who designed,
`engineered, tested, and refined the app. Quibi demonstrated key features of its app,
`including its new Turnstyle technology, in a keynote address at the Consumer
`Electronics Show (“CES”) on January 8, 2020. Unfortunately, with the advertised
`launch of a high-profile new service, Quibi has already been targeted by a company
`looking to make a name for itself and to capitalize on Quibi’s early acclaim by
`making demonstrably false claims of intellectual property infringement.
`3.
`Defendant Interlude US, Inc., d/b/a Eko (“Eko”) is a company that
`promotes interactive video. After seeing Quibi’s keynote address at CES, Eko
`embarked on a campaign of threats and harassment to coerce money or a licensing
`deal from Quibi. Eko’s activities include wrongfully (1) accusing Quibi of
`infringing an Eko patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,460,765 (“the ’765 patent”), and of
`misappropriating trade secrets; (2) submitting a Notice of Complaint to the Apple
`App Store in an attempt to derail the scheduled launch of Quibi’s app; and
`(3) pitching to the Wall Street Journal and at least one other news outlet the false
`narrative that Quibi infringes the ’765 patent and has misappropriated Eko’s trade
`secrets.
`4.
`As a result, an actual case and controversy exists between Quibi and
`Eko, requiring Quibi to seek a declaratory judgment addressing the parties’ rights
`and obligations, and to enjoin Eko from taking any further steps to improperly
`tarnish Quibi’s brand or to interfere with Quibi’s highly anticipated launch.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02250 Document 1 Filed 03/09/20 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`5.
`This is an action for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of all
`claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,460,765 under the Declaratory Judgment Act,
`28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C.
`§ 1, et seq., and for a declaratory judgment of no misappropriation of trade secrets
`under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1839, and the
`California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“CUTSA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1.
`PARTIES
`6.
`Plaintiff Quibi is a limited liability company organized and existing
`under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business at 6555 Barton
`Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90038. Quibi is the creator and owner of its
`Turnstyle technology, which is incorporated in its app, available for pre-order at the
`Apple App Store and Google Play store.
`7.
`Defendant Eko is a corporation formed under the laws of Delaware.
`Eko promotes itself as selling interactive video content, where users select the plot
`and endings of videos, and an associated platform for the delivery and viewing of
`such content. Eko’s principal place of business in the United States is 235 Park
`Avenue South, New York, New York 10003. Eko or its affiliate maintains its
`corporate headquarters at HaBarzel St 21, Tel Aviv, Yafo, Israel.
`8.
`Eko claims to be the assignee and owner of the ’765 patent.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`9.
`The Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
`1338(a), 2201 and 2202 because the claims in this Complaint here are based on
`Quibi’s non-infringement of the ’765 patent and lack of trade secret
`misappropriation under the DTSA.
`10. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Eko by virtue of its contacts
`with this District, which include at least (a) conducting business meetings in the
`District, including an informational meeting with Quibi, (b) sending an
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02250 Document 1 Filed 03/09/20 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`infringement demand letter to Quibi, a resident of this District, (c) causing a Notice
`of Complaint alleging patent infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets to
`be sent to Quibi through the Apple App Store, and (d) promoting, selling, and
`offering to sell content available on its digital platform to residents in this District.
`11. Venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and
`1391(c). Eko is subject to suit in this District by virtue of its commercial activities
`in this District, and based on its specific contacts with Quibi that give rise to the
`claims alleged in this complaint. Venue in this District also is proper because a
`substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims in this action occurred in this
`District. Quibi has its principal place of business in this District, its development
`activities took place here, and Quibi sells and offers for sale the service targeted by
`Eko from Quibi’s corporate headquarters and place of business in Los Angeles.
`THE PATENT-IN-SUIT
`12. The ’765 patent, entitled “Systems and Methods for Adaptive and
`Responsive Video,” states on its face that it issued on October 29, 2019. A true and
`correct copy of the ’765 patent is attached as Exhibit A.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`BACKGROUND RE: QUIBI’S DEVELOPMENT
`A.
`13. Founded in 2018 by Jeffrey Katzenberg, Quibi was created to deliver
`exclusive short-form premium video content to subscribers on a single-purpose
`mobile platform. Quibi has engaged with top talent and directors to develop
`content to be launched through the Quibi app.
`14. Early in Quibi’s development, Quibi’s team of product designers and
`engineers knew that it was important to enhance and optimize the customer-viewing
`experience regardless of whether the phone was being held in “portrait” or
`“landscape” mode, and that an opportunity existed to create new technology that
`delivered a more elegant means of streaming video content that seamlessly adapted
`to those changes in orientation.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02250 Document 1 Filed 03/09/20 Page 5 of 15 Page ID #:5
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`15. With that task in mind, beginning in September 2018, Quibi undertook
`development of an app feature known as Turnstyle for determining the orientation
`of a user’s phone and seamlessly switching content and displaying it based on
`orientation. This is one of the features Quibi displayed at CES, and the feature that
`Eko’s letters and false statements to the press now target. As explained in the
`following sections, Eko’s allegations are entirely without merit.
`B.
`QUIBI AND ITS FOUNDER’S LIMITED CONTACTS WITH EKO
`16.
`In late March 2017, Quibi’s founder, Mr. Katzenberg, held an
`informational meeting with Eko’s CEO, Yoni Bloch. The purpose of the meeting
`was for Eko to pitch Mr. Katzenberg for an investment in Eko, which by then had a
`publicly available digital platform and content that was being actively marketed by
`Eko.1 The meeting was not conducted under a non-disclosure agreement or any
`other expectation of confidentiality. No confidential information was requested or
`provided to Mr. Katzenberg.
`17. While Mr. Katzenberg barely remembers the meeting, an email sent on
`March 23, 2017, by Mr. Bloch to Mr. Katzenberg reflects that Eko’s focus was in
`pitching its choice-driven, interactive entertainment model, as discussed in an article
`published in The New Yorker that Mr. Bloch forwarded via a link in his email.
`Mr. Katzenberg ultimately thanked Mr. Bloch for his visit and decided not to invest.
`18.
`In July 2018, Mr. Katzenberg formed Quibi based on an idea he had
`generated several years earlier for a “quick bites” entertainment service. Quibi
`developed its service and technology during 2018 and 2019 entirely independently
`— without any input, reference to, or materials or information from Eko.
`19.
`In February 2019, well after development of Quibi’s app was
`underway, two Quibi employees held a breakfast meeting with Eko at a Beverly
`
`
`1 As noted below, by that point, the U.S. Patent and Trademark office had
`published the application for the Eko patent at issue in this lawsuit, mooting any
`claim of confidentiality in that application’s material as a matter of law.
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02250 Document 1 Filed 03/09/20 Page 6 of 15 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`Hills restaurant. The purpose of the meeting was to get reacquainted and for Eko to
`pitch unscripted video content to Quibi. The meeting was not conducted under a
`NDA or other expectation of confidentiality, and no proprietary information or trade
`secrets were exchanged. The participants indicated that they would keep in touch.
`20. On March 28, 2019, two Quibi employees visited Eko’s offices in New
`York and demonstrated features of Quibi’s platform. Again, no nondisclosure
`agreement was in place, and no proprietary information or trade secrets were
`exchanged. Following the New York meeting, on April 1, 2019, an Eko employee
`emailed Quibi, “Loved your demo, and excited to see where you guys are headed.”
`21.
`Eko’s recent demand letter to Quibi alleges that certain employees of
`Quibi who previously worked at Snap obtained unspecified “trade secrets” and
`“source code” for Eko’s service while working at Snap. (Ex. B.) These allegations
`are untrue and implausible on their face: The employees referenced by Eko are not
`engineers or computer programmers, do not read source code, and would have had
`no reason to request or obtain Eko code. In any event, no Quibi employee brought
`or used any Eko trade secrets, computer code, or proprietary information to Quibi.
`C.
`QUIBI’S PUBLIC UNVEILING OF TURNSTYLE
`22. As stated above, Quibi’s team of engineers designed, developed,
`tested, and refined Quibi’s app over many months starting in September 2018. On
`March 8, 2019, Quibi applied for a patent for various aspects of its technology,
`which has issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,554,926 (“Quibi’s ’926 patent”).
`23. Mr. Katzenberg and his team demonstrated key features of Quibi’s app
`to the world during the keynote address at CES on January 8, 2020. As the
`presentation showed, Quibi’s app presents an elegant delivery of content that is
`responsive to changes in the orientation of a user’s phone. The images excerpted
`below from the CES keynote address show streaming content that changes based on
`a change in the orientation of a user’s phone:
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02250 Document 1 Filed 03/09/20 Page 7 of 15 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EKO’S MERITLESS ACCUSATIONS OF INFRINGEMENT
`D.
`24. Two weeks after CES, on January 28, 2020, Eko’s attorneys sent a
`demand letter to Quibi, asserting that Quibi’s Turnstyle feature employs the
`technology claimed and disclosed in the ’765 patent. The letter demanded that
`“Quibi immediately stop the use of its Turnstyle technology . . . .” A copy of Eko’s
`January 28 letter is attached as Exhibit B.
`25. On February 10, 2020, Quibi responded to the January 28 letter,
`explaining that Quibi’s Turnstyle feature does not use any invention claimed in the
`’765 patent, and that Quibi’s technology was developed independently and not
`using any Eko trade secret. A copy of Quibi’s February 10 letter is attached as
`Exhibit C.
`26. Also in early February 2020, Eko contacted a technology reporter for
`Recode.net and reiterated the false allegations that Quibi’s Turnstyle feature
`infringes Eko’s ’765 patent and was created using misappropriated trade secrets.
`27. On or about March 2, 2020, Eko sent a notice to Apple Inc. alleging
`that Quibi’s app infringes Eko’s ’765 patent and was created using misappropriated
`trade secrets. A copy of the Notice of Complaint transmitted to Quibi by the Apple
`App Store is attached as Exhibit D.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02250 Document 1 Filed 03/09/20 Page 8 of 15 Page ID #:8
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`28. The following day, Quibi responded to the Apple App Store
`complaint, explaining that Quibi’s app does not infringe the ’765 patent and that the
`app was not developed using any Eko trade secrets. A copy of Quibi’s response to
`the App Store complaint is attached as Exhibit E.
`29. Recently, Eko has repeated its allegations of infringement and
`misappropriation by Quibi to a reporter and editor of the Wall Street Journal.
`Eko’s statements reiterated its frivolous allegations that Quibi infringes the
`’765 patent and had misappropriated Eko’s trade secrets.
`30. By virtue of these acts, an actual and justiciable controversy exists
`between the parties concerning Quibi’s liability for alleged infringement of the
`’765 patent and misappropriation of trade secrets. Eko has also created a
`reasonable apprehension of suit against Quibi for alleged infringement of the
`’765 patent and misappropriation of trade secrets that could wrongfully impact
`Quibi’s ability to make, use, sell, or offer to sell Quibi’s products. Quibi seeks a
`declaratory judgment that its Turnstyle feature does not infringe the ’765 patent and
`that Quibi has not misappropriated any Eko trade secrets.
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’765 Patent)
`31. Quibi incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 30 above as
`if set forth fully herein.
`32. The scope of a patent is determined by its claims. For a product to
`infringe a patent, every limitation of a patent’s claim must be met. The claims of
`the ’765 patent and the patent’s path through the U.S. Patent Office make clear that
`Eko has obtained a narrow patent that Quibi does not infringe. Among many
`reasons, the ’765 patent’s claims require transitioning between video presentations
`in response to determining whether a window of a media player has been resized
`and whether the resized window is within particular height and width ranges —
`which Quibi does not do.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02250 Document 1 Filed 03/09/20 Page 9 of 15 Page ID #:9
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`33. Claim 1 of the ’765 patent recites in part:
`receiving video from a first video presentation;
`receiving, simultaneously with the video from the first video presentation,
`video from a second, different video presentation;
`. . .
`providing a mapping of video presentations to media player window height
`ranges and media player window width ranges; and
`during playback of the video from the first video presentation:
`determining that a media player window in which the video is playing has
`been resized to change from first dimensions comprising a first height and a
`first width to second, different dimensions comprising a second height and a
`second width;
`determining that the second height is included in a particular one of the
`media player window height ranges;
`determining that the second width is included in a particular one of the media
`player window width ranges;
`evaluating the mapping to determine that the second video presentation is
`mapped to both the particular media player window height range and the
`particular media player window width range; and
`in response to the evaluating, seamlessly transitioning from the video from
`the first video presentation to the video from the second video presentation
`based on the change.
`34. The patent application that became the ’765 patent initially began
`without these limitations. Eko sought broad claims that would cover transitioning
`videos in response to changing the orientation of a smartphone, such as shown in
`FIG. 2 of the ’765 patent (illustrating a mobile device that is rotated).
`35. But Eko’s broad claims were repeatedly rejected by the U.S. Patent
`Office. Eko then changed course and focused on transitioning video presentations
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02250 Document 1 Filed 03/09/20 Page 10 of 15 Page ID #:10
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`in response to resizable media player windows. This is a different embodiment
`from FIG. 2 of the’765 patent, as the patent makes clear: “[R]ather than physically
`rotating or repositioning the user device, the user changes the window size or state
`(e.g., minimized, maximized, thumbnailed) of the media player 300 using an input
`device (e.g., mouse, keyboard, touchscreen, etc.).” (Col. 5, lines 50-54.)
`36.
`It is clear from the ’765 patent and its path through the U.S. Patent
`Office that the ’765 patent’s claims are inapplicable to Quibi’s app and its Turnstyle
`functionality. For example, Quibi’s app does not determine whether a media player
`window has been resized from first dimensions to second, different dimensions,
`dimensions; evaluate a mapping to determine whether the second, different
`dimensions are included within particular height and width ranges; and transition
`between two different video presentations in response to evaluating the mapping, as
`required by the claims of the ’765 patent.
`37. The Quibi app receives in a single stream a first video asset in portrait
`mode and a second video asset in landscape mode, and selectively presents one of
`those two video assets based on the orientation of the user’s device. Quibi’s app
`does not provide a mapping of video presentations to media player window
`height/width ranges, such as required by the ’765 patent’s claims.
`38. These features of Turnstyle were displayed at CES and should have
`been plain to Eko. Quibi’s keynote presentation included a video demonstration in
`which a user was shown rotating a mobile device, and the Quibi app was shown
`transitioning from full-screen portrait-mode video to full-screen landscape-mode
`video in response to the rotating of the device — not in response to any resizing of
`a media player window.
`39.
`In addition to the video shown during the keynote address, a demo
`version of Quibi’s app was made available to CES attendees. Users of the demo
`version could personally rotate a mobile device running Quibi’s app and observe
`that the app transitions from full-screen portrait-mode video to full-screen
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02250 Document 1 Filed 03/09/20 Page 11 of 15 Page ID #:11
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`landscape-mode video in response to the rotating, not in response to any “resizing”
`of a media player window. Because Eko claims to have attended CES and seen
`Quibi’s presentation of features of Quibi’s app, there is no good-faith basis for Eko
`to allege that Quibi infringes the claims of the ’765 patent.
`40. Quibi’s app also does not infringe other limitations of the ’765 patent
`claims stemming from determining whether a media player window has been
`resized.
`41. For example, Quibi’s app does not perform “during playback of the
`video from the first video presentation”, “determining that the second height [or
`second width] is included in a particular one of the media player window height [or
`width] ranges”, or an equivalent thereto. The Quibi app features no such
`determination.
`42. Quibi’s app also does not perform “during playback of the video from
`the first video presentation”, “evaluating the mapping to determine that the second
`video presentation is mapped to both the particular media player window height
`range and the particular media player window width range”, or an equivalent
`thereto. No such evaluating occurs in Quibi’s. Instead, the Quibi app queries the
`orientation of a mobile device to determine which of two video assets to present.
`43. Quibi’s app also does not perform “during playback of the video from
`the first video presentation”, “in response to the evaluating, seamlessly transitioning
`from the video from the first video presentation to the video from the second video
`presentation based on the change”, or an equivalent thereto. In the Quibi app, a
`single stream is received; and, as was obvious from Quibi’s CES demonstration,
`transitioning from presenting a first video asset to presenting a second video asset
`occurs in response to a change in orientation of a mobile device. It does not occur
`in response to any “evaluating the mapping”. No such evaluating ever occurs.
`44. For at least the reasons above, Quibi has not infringed and does not
`infringe any claim of the ’765 patent.
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02250 Document 1 Filed 03/09/20 Page 12 of 15 Page ID #:12
`
`
`
`45. An actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between
`Quibi and Eko. A judicial determination and declaration that Quibi has not
`infringed and does not infringe any claim of the ’765 patent is necessary and
`appropriate at this time so that the parties may ascertain their respective rights and
`duties regarding the ’765 patent.
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NO MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS)
`46. Quibi incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 45 above, as
`if set forth fully herein.
`47. The DTSA defines a trade secret as “financial, business, scientific,
`technical, economic, or engineering information” that “(A) the owner thereof has
`taken reasonable measures to keep . . . secret; and (B) . . . derives independent
`economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not
`being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can
`obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information.” 18 U.S.C.
`§ 1839(3).
`48. Similarly, the CUTSA defines a trade secret as “information, including
`a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process
`that: (1) [d]erives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being
`generally known to the public or to other persons who can obtain economic value
`from its disclosure or use; and (2) [i]s the subject of efforts that are reasonable
`under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(d).
`49. Under both the DTSA and the CUTSA, “misappropriation” is (1) the
`“[a]cquisition of a trade secret by another person who knows or has reason to know
`that the trade secret was acquired by improper means;” or (2) the “[d]isclosure or
`use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent.” 18 U.S.C.
`§ 1839(5); Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1(b).
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02250 Document 1 Filed 03/09/20 Page 13 of 15 Page ID #:13
`
`
`
`50. Contrary to Eko’s allegations, Quibi has not used or misappropriated
`any Eko trade secret. Quibi’s app was developed independently by Quibi’s
`engineers without reference to or use of any trade secret of Eko. Quibi’s app is the
`product of many months of effort in designing, engineering, testing and refining the
`app. In contrast to the baseless allegations in Eko’s January 28 letter, the
`development of Quibi’s app was well underway at the time Quibi’s employees
`agreed to an informational meeting with Eko.
`51. Also contrary to the unsubstantiated allegations in the January 28
`letter, no former employee of Snap brought documents or confidential information
`about Eko to Quibi. And no Quibi employee or executive received trade secrets
`from Eko or other proprietary information that would support a claim for
`misappropriation of trade secrets under the DSTA or CUTSA.
`52. The DTSA and CUTSA require Eko to identify with specificity the
`alleged trade secrets that it claims Quibi has misappropriated. Eko has not done so.
`Instead, Eko has alleged generally that Quibi employees received unspecified
`“proprietary information” from Eko while at Quibi. Eko further alleges that, years
`before joining Quibi, two Quibi employees received unidentified “source code”
`from Eko, an allegation that is implausible on its face because, among other
`reasons, the identified employees are not engineers or computer programmers, do
`not have technical backgrounds, and do not read code.
`53. The ’765 patent was published on March 2, 2017, at which time the
`alleged invention claimed in the patent and its associated background disclosures
`became publicly known (to the extent they were not already publicly known) and
`therefore could not be a trade secret. The Eko media player and promotional
`materials about it also were publicly available, and not a trade secret. Nothing in
`Eko’s letter demands or statements to the media suggests that any of the
`information that Eko claims was “disclosed” to Quibi was a trade secret.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02250 Document 1 Filed 03/09/20 Page 14 of 15 Page ID #:14
`
`
`
`54. An actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between
`Quibi and Eko concerning Eko’s allegations of trade secret misappropriation.
`Accordingly, a judicial determination and declaration that Plaintiff has not
`misappropriated any Eko trade secret is necessary and appropriate at this time.
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`WHEREFORE, Quibi requests that the Court enter judgment in Quibi’s favor
`and against Eko as follows:
`A. Declaring that Quibi has not and does not infringe, directly or
`indirectly, literally or by equivalents, any claim of the ’765 patent;
`B. Declaring that Quibi’s Turnstyle feature does not infringe any claim of
`the ’765 patent;
`Enjoining Eko, its subsidiaries, affiliates, parent, successors, assigns,
`officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons acting
`in concert or participation with them, from asserting any claim of the
`’765 patent against Quibi;
`D. Declaring that Quibi has not misappropriated any trade secret from
`Eko;
`Enjoining Eko, its subsidiaries, affiliates, parent, successors, assigns,
`officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons acting
`in concert or participation with them, from asserting any claim for
`misappropriation of trade secrets under the DTSA, CUTSA, or other
`state law governing the disclosure or use of trade secrets;
`Ordering Eko to withdraw its Notice of Complaint of infringement to
`the Apple App Store dated March 2, 2020;
`G. Denying any request by Eko for injunctive relief;
`H. Awarding Quibi its attorney’s fees and costs incurred in responding to
`Eko’s bad faith allegations of trade secret misappropriation, pursuant
`14
`
`C.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:20-cv-02250 Document 1 Filed 03/09/20 Page 15 of 15 Page ID #:15
`
`
`
`to 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(3)(D) and Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.4.
`Finding this case to be exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and
`awarding Quibi its costs and reasonable attorney fees; and
`Awarding Quibi any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Quibi hereby
`demands trial by jury on all issues raised by the Complaint.
`
`
`Dated: March 9, 2020
`
`
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`
`By: /s/ Michael A. Jacobs
`Michael A. Jacobs
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`QUIBI HOLDINGS, LLC
`
`
`
`1427777
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`