Case 3:15-cv-02281-WHA Document 1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
` Robert F. Feldman (Bar No. 69602)
` bobfeldman@quinnemanuel.com
` Robert W. Stone (Bar No. 163513)
` robertstone@quinnemanuel.com
` Brian Cannon (Bar No. 193071)
` briancannon@quinnemanuel.com
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
`Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139
`Telephone: (650) 801-5000
`Facsimile:
`(650) 801-5100
`
`Attorneys for Total Recall Technologies
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
` CASE NO. 15-cv-02281
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Total Recall Technologies,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Palmer Luckey and Oculus VR, Inc.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff Total Recall Technologies ("TRT" or "Partnership") alleges as
`
`follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`TRT brings this action for Defendants’ breach of contract and wrongful
`
`exploitation and conversion of TRT intellectual and personal property in connection
`
`with TRT’s development of affordable, immersive, virtual reality technology.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff TRT is a partnership by and between individuals Ron Igra
`
`("Igra") and Thomas Seidl ("Seidl"), which conducts business in Hawaii.
`
`PARTIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
` Robert F. Feldman (Bar No. 69602)
` bobfeldman@quinnemanuel.com
` Robert W. Stone (Bar No. 163513)
` robertstone@quinnemanuel.com
` Brian Cannon (Bar No. 193071)
` briancannon@quinnemanuel.com
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
`Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139
`Telephone: (650) 801-5000
`Facsimile:
`(650) 801-5100
`
`Attorneys for Total Recall Technologies
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
` CASE NO. 15-cv-02281
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Total Recall Technologies,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Palmer Luckey and Oculus VR, Inc.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiff Total Recall Technologies ("TRT" or "Partnership") alleges as
`
`follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`TRT brings this action for Defendants’ breach of contract and wrongful
`
`exploitation and conversion of TRT intellectual and personal property in connection
`
`with TRT’s development of affordable, immersive, virtual reality technology.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff TRT is a partnership by and between individuals Ron Igra
`
`("Igra") and Thomas Seidl ("Seidl"), which conducts business in Hawaii.
`
`PARTIES
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`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 3:15-cv-02281-WHA Document 1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 2 of 8
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Igra and Seidl were resident in the State of Hawaii at the formation of
`
`the Partnership and have been for relevant times thereafter.
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Oculus VR, Inc. ("Oculus") is a
`
`Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Menlo Park, California.
`
`On information and belief, Oculus is the corporate successor to Oculus LLC, a
`
`California limited liability company.
`5.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Palmer Luckey, a founder of
`
`Oculus, is an individual who resides (or recently resided) in Long Beach, California,
`
`and who may be served with process at his place of employment, Oculus.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`The Court has jurisdiction in this Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`because there is diversity of citizenship amongst the parties to this action, and the
`
`13
`
`amount in controversy, without interest and costs, exceeds the sum or value
`
`14
`
`15
`
`specified by 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in this District because a substantial part of the events
`
`16
`
`giving rise to the claims occurred in this District, Oculus VR, Inc.’s principal place
`
`17
`
`of business is within the District, and the Defendants are otherwise subject to
`
`18
`
`personal jurisdiction in the District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c).
`
`19
`
`20
`
`8.
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`
`Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-5(b) and Civil L.R. 3-2(c)-(d), there is a basis
`
`21
`
`for assigning this civil action to the San Francisco Division or Oakland Division, as
`
`22
`
`a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in San Mateo
`
`23
`
`County, and Oculus VR, Inc.’s principal place of business is located in San Mateo
`
`24
`
`County.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`Case 3:15-cv-02281-WHA Document 1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 3 of 8
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`9.
`
`In 2010, Igra and Seidl began their partnership with the aim of
`
`developing immersive 3D technology, including cameras and head mounted
`
`displays.
`10.
`
`In December 2010, Seidl met Luckey in connection with developing
`
`head mounted displays and began an exchange of information about TRT's project.
`
`Seidl informed Luckey that he wanted to keep their communications confidential.
`11. On May 27, 2011, Igra and Seidl filed a patent application, entitled
`
`"System and method for creating a navigable, three-dimensional virtual reality
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`environment having ultra-wide field of view." That application later issued as
`
`11
`
`12
`
`United States Patent No. 9,007,430.
`12.
`
`In 2011, Seidl and Luckey continued their discussions with Seidl
`
`13
`
`requesting that Luckey build a prototype to Seidl’s specifications with parts paid for
`
`14
`
`by the Partnership. Seidl explained to Luckey that with the Partnership’s initial
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`payment to Luckey, he expected exclusive rights to the design. Luckey agreed.
`13. At all relevant times, the information provided to Luckey by TRT was
`
`confidential, and TRT expected the information to remain confidential.
`14. On August 1, 2011, Luckey executed a written "Nondisclosure,
`
`19
`
`exclusivity and payments agreement" contract with Seidl on behalf of the
`
`20
`
`Partnership. Two witnesses also executed the agreement on behalf of Luckey at
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Luckey’s direction: Tom Allan and Jeff Bacon.
`15. Pursuant to the terms of the parties’ contract, Luckey agreed, among
`
`23
`
`other things, to maintain information received from Seidl in the strictest confidence
`
`24
`
`25
`
`and not to use confidential information received from Seidl for his own benefit.
`16. On August 23, 2011, Luckey shipped a prototype head mounted display
`
`26
`
`to Seidl.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`3
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`Case 3:15-cv-02281-WHA Document 1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 4 of 8
`
`
`
`17. Throughout the latter half of 2011 and into 2012, Seidl provided
`
`confidential feedback and information to Luckey in order to improve the design of
`
`the head mounted display.
`18. Without informing the Partnership, on information and belief, Luckey
`
`took the information he learned from the Partnership, as well as the prototype that
`
`he built for the TRT using design features and other confidential information and
`
`materials supplied by the Partnership, and passed it off to others as his own.
`19. For instance, without informing the Partnership, in 2012 during the
`
`term of the parties’ agreement, Luckey pursued a Kickstarter campaign to promote a
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`highly immersive, wide field of view, stereoscopic headmounted display at an
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`affordable price – a device that Luckey named the Oculus Rift.
`20. On June 12, 2012, Luckey formed Oculus LLC.
`
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Breach of Contract)
`
`(As Against Luckey)
`21. TRT realleges and reincorporates by reference the allegations set forth
`
`in paragraphs 1 through 20.
`22. TRT entered into a contractual relationship with Luckey.
`23. Luckey was obligated not to share any information, including
`
`21
`
`confidential information, provided to him by TRT or its partners with others or to
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`rely upon that information for his benefit.
`24. Luckey was obligated not to use the property that was the subject
`
`matter of the contract for his benefit.
`25. Luckey was obligated not to work with others using Partnership
`
`information during at least the first year of the contract.
`26. TRT performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required to be
`
`28
`
`performed on its part.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`Case 3:15-cv-02281-WHA Document 1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 5 of 8
`
`
`
`27. Luckey breached the contract by, among other things, sharing
`
`confidential information provided by TRT, using the property of the Partnership,
`
`working with others instead of the Partnership, exploiting Partnership information
`
`for his own gain, raising money for his own use based upon Partnership work and
`
`material, and other acts of breach.
`28. As a result of Luckey’s contractual breach, TRT has been injured in an
`
`amount to be determined.
`
`29. TRT will suffer irreparable injury by reason of the acts, practices, and
`
`conduct of Luckey alleged above until and unless the Court enjoins such acts,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`practices, and conduct.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)
`
`(As Against Luckey)
`30. TRT realleges and reincorporates by reference the allegations set forth
`
`in paragraphs 1 through 29.
`31.
`
`In addition to the breach of contract set forth above, Luckey has
`
`17
`
`breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing inherent in every contract through
`
`18
`
`his actions, including frustrating the purpose of the contract by using the
`
`19
`
`Partnership's prototype for his own purposes, misleading the Partnership, using
`
`20
`
`Partnership confidential information for his own purposes, and sharing such
`
`21
`
`22
`
`information with third parties.
`32. As a result of Luckey’s breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
`
`23
`
`dealing, TRT has been injured in an amount to be determined.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Conversion)
`
`(As Against All Defendants)
`33. TRT realleges and reincorporates by reference the allegations set forth
`
`28
`
`in paragraphs 1 through 32.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`Case 3:15-cv-02281-WHA Document 1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 6 of 8
`
`
`
`34. At various times throughout 2012 and after, the Defendants knowingly
`
`converted to the Defendants’ own use property owned by TRT. The property
`
`converted consists, at a minimum, of a prototype virtual reality headset and
`
`associated technology built for and in conjunction with TRT.
`35. Following conversion of TRT’s property, Defendants have represented
`
`the property to be theirs without credit or compensation being provided to TRT.
`36. Defendants have monetized the converted assets without TRT’s
`
`consent resulting in damages to TRT in an amount to be determined.
`37. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the wrongful conduct set
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`forth herein because they aided and abetted each other and/or conspired to commit
`
`11
`
`12
`
`such wrongful conduct.
`38. The conduct by Defendants was fraudulent, oppressive, and malicious,
`
`13
`
`and as such constitutes the basis for the award of punitive damages pursuant to
`
`14
`
`California Civil Code 3294.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`(Constructive Fraud)
`
`(As Against All Defendants)
`39. TRT realleges and reincorporates by reference the allegations set forth
`
`in paragraphs 1 through 38.
`40. Because of their contractual, personal, and confidential relationship,
`
`TRT put its trust in Luckey.
`41. Luckey, assisted by those acting in concert with Luckey including
`
`23
`
`Oculus, breached his duties to TRT, intentionally misled TRT and its partners, and
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`gained an advantage over TRT.
`42. Had Luckey disclosed his intention to breach TRT’s agreement and
`
`confidential relationship, TRT would have acted differently.
`43. As a result of Defendants’ intentional actions, TRT was damaged, and
`
`28
`
`Luckey was unjustly enriched with the proceeds of his wrongdoing.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`Case 3:15-cv-02281-WHA Document 1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 7 of 8
`
`
`
`44. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the wrongful conduct set
`
`forth herein because they aided and abetted each other and/or conspired to commit
`
`such wrongful conduct.
`45. The conduct by Defendants was fraudulent, oppressive, and malicious,
`
`and as such constitutes the basis for the award of punitive damages pursuant to
`
`California Civil Code 3294.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of
`
`them, as follows:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`G.
`
`For compensatory damages;
`
`For disgorgement of any proceeds obtained by wrongful act;
`
`For constructive trust;
`
`For an accounting;
`
`For interest to the extent permitted by law;
`
`For an award of exemplary and punitive damages;
`
`For injunctive relief; and
`
`For such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`
`
`19
`
`Dated: May 20, 2015
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN,
`LLP
`
`By: /s/ Robert Stone
`
`Robert Stone
`Robert Feldman
`Brian Cannon
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff TRT
`
`
`7
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`Case 3:15-cv-02281-WHA Document 1 Filed 05/20/15 Page 8 of 8
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Total Recall Technologies hereby demands a jury trial as provided by Rule
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`
`
`Dated: May 20, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN LLP
`
`By: /s/ Robert Stone
`
`Robert Stone
`Robert Feldman
`Brian Cannon
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`8
`
`Complaint
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
