`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01756-NC Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 1 of 9
`
`
`Nicholas A. Brown (SBN 198210)
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 3000
`San Francisco, CA 94111-5983
`Telephone: 415.655.1271
`Facsimile: 415.520.5609
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 3:20-cv-1756
`
`COMPLAINT
`FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`WORDLOGIC CORPORATION, and
`602531 BRITISH COLUMBIA LTD.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`1
`2
`2
`3
`3
`4
`4
`5
`5
`6
`6
`7
`7
`8
`8
`9
`9
`10
`10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`15
`15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`20
`20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`28
`28
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
` CASE NO. 3:20-cv-1756
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`1
`2
`2
`3
`3
`4
`4
`5
`5
`6
`6
`7
`7
`8
`8
`9
`9
`10
`10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`15
`15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`20
`20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`28
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01756-NC Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 2 of 9
`
`Plaintiff Wikimedia Foundation Inc. (“Wikimedia”) brings this complaint for declaratory
`judgment against Defendants WordLogic Corporation and 602531 British Columbia Ltd.,
`(collectively, “the WordLogic Entities”) and alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`1. This is an action for a declaratory judgment of arising 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. Wikimedia requests a judicial declaration that U.S. Patent Nos. 7,293,231 (“’231
`patent”), 7,681,124 (“’124 patent”), 7,716,579 (“’579 patent”) and 8,552,984 (“’984 patent”)
`(collectively, the “Asserted Patents”) are invalid and not infringed by Wikimedia.
`2. True and correct copies of the Asserted Patents are attached as exhibits 1-4.
`
`PARTIES
`3. Plaintiff Wikimedia is a 501(c)(3) corporation with its principal place of business in
`San Francisco, California.
`4. On information and belief, WordLogic Corporation (“WordLogic”) is a Nevada
`corporation having its principal place of business at 1130 West Pender Street, Suite 230,
`Vancouver, British Columbia, V6E 4A4, Canada.
`5. On information and belief, 602531 British Columbia Ltd. is a Canadian limited
`liability company with a principal place of business at 1130 West Pender Street, Suite 230,
`Vancouver, British Columbia V6E 4A4, Canada.
`6. On information and belief, 602531 British Columbia Ltd. is a wholly owned
`subsidiary of WordLogic.
`7. On information and belief, 602531 British Columbia Ltd. is the assignee of the ’124
`and ’984 patents.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`8. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.,
`including 35 U.S.C. § 271. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to
`28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, 1331, 1338(a), and 1367.
`9. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between Wikimedia and the WordLogic
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`1
`
` CASE NO. 3:20-cv-1756
`
`

`

`1
`1
`2
`2
`3
`3
`4
`4
`5
`5
`6
`6
`7
`7
`8
`8
`9
`9
`10
`10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`15
`15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`20
`20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`28
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01756-NC Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 3 of 9
`
`Entities as to the noninfringement and invalidity of the Asserted Patents.
`10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the WordLogic Entities because they have
`purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities within this State by
`maintaining suit against Fleksy Inc. in this District, and in particular by asserting the ’124 and ’984
`patents in WordLogic Corp. v. Fleksy, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-07169-JSW (N.D. Cal.). By
`maintaining suit against Fleksy Inc. in this district, the WordLogic Entities have purposefully
`availed themselves of the benefits and protections of California’s laws such that they should
`reasonably anticipate being haled into court here.
`11. The WordLogic Entities have also purposefully directed enforcement activities
`related to one or more of the Asserted Patents into the Northern District of California. As described
`in more detail below, the WordLogic Entities purposefully directed enforcement activities at
`Wikimedia, which is a resident of this forum. Additionally, the WordLogic Entities have
`threatened suits for infringement of the Asserted Patents against other entities having principal
`places of business in this District. See, e.g. Charles Schwab & Co. et al. v. Wordlogic Corp., Case
`No. 3:19-cv-00527 (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 3, 5, 13-19 (accused infringer’s principal place of
`business was located in San Francisco).
`12. On January 7, 2020, Mr. Ohanian of Ohanian IP wrote a letter to addressed to “Mr.
`James Buatti” of “Wikimedia Foundation (Wikipedia)” in San Francisco, stating that he
`represented the WordLogic Entities “in the licensing and enforcement” of the four Asserted
`Patents. The letter states that it was intended to “advise you WIKIPEDIA’s infringement.” The
`letter alleges that the “WIKIPEDIA Website infringes at least claim 19 of the ’124 patent, and
`likely other claims in the WordLogic patents.” The letter goes on to assert that “We are confident
`that we can prove that WIKIPEDIA directly infringes claims of at least the ’124 patent,” and then
`includes a “representative claim chart” purporting to show how the “predictive text search box” in
`the “WIKIPEDIA Website” infringes claim 19 of the ’124 patent. The letter further states that
`“we are confident in the validity and infringement of the WordLogic patents.”
`13. The January 7, 2020 letter identifies “WordLogic Licensing agent Pete Sirianni” as
`a person to be contacted about the allegations of infringement. The letter then concludes by stating
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`2
`
` CASE NO. 3:20-cv-1756
`
`

`

`1
`1
`2
`2
`3
`3
`4
`4
`5
`5
`6
`6
`7
`7
`8
`8
`9
`9
`10
`10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`15
`15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`20
`20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`28
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01756-NC Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 4 of 9
`
`that “If I do not hear from you by that date I will assume you are not interested in discussing a
`quick resolution, and we will proceed with the litigation.”
`14. On January 23, 2020 Mr. Sirianni emailed Mr. Buatti of Wikimedia in regard to the
`January 7 letter described above, stating that “WordLogic is in the process of adding cases to the
`already existing litigation.”
`15. The WordLogic Entities have previously asserted at least the ’124 patent in multiple
`patent litigations, including in five lawsuits that the WordLogic Entities filed in 2019.
`16. Based on the above-described actions, Wikimedia is under a reasonable
`apprehension that it will be sued by WordLogic for infringement of the Asserted Patents.
`Accordingly, as further described herein, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between
`Wikimedia and the WordLogic Entities as to the noninfringement and invalidity of the Asserted
`Patents.
`
`17. Venue is proper in the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391
`and §1400(b). Plaintiff Wikimedia resides in this district.
`18. The WordLogic Entities admitted that this district is a proper venue for litigating the
`’124 and ’984 patents in WordLogic Corporation et al v. Fleksy, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-07169-
`JSW.
`
`INVALIDITY AND NONINFRINGEMENT OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`19. The claims of the Asserted Patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or 103(a).
`For example, the Patent Office determined to institute IPR2017-01856. In reaching that decision,
`the Patent Office considered prior art references to the Asserted Patents, including U.S. Patent No.
`5,724,457 (“Fukishima”), U.S. Patent No. 5,367,453 (“Capps”), U.S. Patent No. 6,307,548
`(“Flinchem”), U.S. Patent No. 5,797,098 (“Schroeder”), and John J. Darragh & Ian H. Witten,
`Cambridge Series On Human- Computer Interaction, The Reactive Keyboard 3 (J. Long ed. 1992)
`(“Witten”). The Patent Office determined that it would review the claims of the ‘124 patent
`because it found that these prior art references established a reasonable likelihood that the claims
`of the ‘124 patent were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). These same prior art references
`also establish that the claims of the other Asserted Patents are invalid.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`3
`
` CASE NO. 3:20-cv-1756
`
`

`

`1
`1
`2
`2
`3
`3
`4
`4
`5
`5
`6
`6
`7
`7
`8
`8
`9
`9
`10
`10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`15
`15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`20
`20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`28
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01756-NC Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 5 of 9
`
`20. The claims of the Asserted Patents are also invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For
`example, Fleksy Inc. filed a motion to dismiss on February 3, 2017 in WordLogic Corporation et
`al v. Fleksy, Inc., Case No. 4:17-cv-07169-JSW, in which it set forth reasons why the claims of
`the ‘124 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`21. The allegations of infringement made by the WordLogic Entities fail to show that
`Wikimedia infringes any claim of any Asserted Patent. For example, for claim 19 of the ’124
`patent, the Wikipedia search box that WordLogic identifies as infringing does not perform the
`required step of “obtaining and displaying in the search list a further modified plurality of
`completion candidates from among the group of completion candidates, if a completion candidate
`is accepted via the search list from the modified plurality of completion candidates.”
`
`COUNT ONE
`
`Declaratory Judgment Of Invalidity Of The ’231 Patent
`22. Wikimedia restates and realleges each of the assertions set forth in the paragraphs
`
`above.
`
`23. The ’231 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. §103 for at
`least the reasons specifically set forth in the paragraphs above.
`24. There is an actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and § 2202,
`between Wikimedia and the WordLogic Entities concerning the validity of the ’231 patent.
`25. Wikimedia is therefore entitled to a declaratory judgment that the ’231 patent is
`
`invalid.
`
`above.
`
`COUNT TWO
`
`Declaratory Judgment Of Non-Infringement Of The ’231 Patent
`26. Wikimedia restates and realleges each of the assertions set forth in the paragraphs
`
`27. Wikimedia has not infringed and does not infringe any valid claim of the ’231 patent
`directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, for at least the reasons
`specifically set forth in the paragraphs above.
`28. There is an actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and § 2202,
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`4
`
` CASE NO. 3:20-cv-1756
`
`

`

`1
`1
`2
`2
`3
`3
`4
`4
`5
`5
`6
`6
`7
`7
`8
`8
`9
`9
`10
`10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`15
`15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`20
`20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`28
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01756-NC Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 6 of 9
`
`between Wikimedia and the WordLogic Entities concerning the non-infringement of the ’231
`patent.
`
`29. Wikimedia is therefore entitled to a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed the
`’ 231 patent, directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`COUNT THREE
`
`Declaratory Judgment Of Invalidity Of The ’124 Patent
`30. Wikimedia restates and realleges each of the assertions set forth in the paragraphs
`
`above.
`
`31. The ’124 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. §103 for at
`least the reasons specifically set forth in the paragraphs above.
`32. There is an actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and § 2202,
`between Wikimedia and the WordLogic Entities concerning the validity of the ’124 patent.
`33. Wikimedia is therefore entitled to a declaratory judgment that the ’124 patent is
`
`invalid.
`
`above.
`
`COUNT FOUR
`
`Declaratory Judgment Of Non-Infringement Of The ’124 Patent
`34. Wikimedia restates and realleges each of the assertions set forth in the paragraphs
`
`35. Wikimedia has not infringed and does not infringe any valid claim of the ’124 patent
`directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, for at least the reasons
`specifically set forth in the paragraphs above.
`36. There is an actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and § 2202,
`between Wikimedia and the WordLogic Entities concerning the non-infringement of the ’124
`patent.
`
`37. Wikimedia is therefore entitled to a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed the
`’124 patent, directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`5
`
` CASE NO. 3:20-cv-1756
`
`

`

`1
`1
`2
`2
`3
`3
`4
`4
`5
`5
`6
`6
`7
`7
`8
`8
`9
`9
`10
`10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`15
`15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`20
`20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`28
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01756-NC Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 7 of 9
`
`COUNT FIVE
`
`Declaratory Judgment Of Invalidity Of The ’579 Patent
`38. Wikimedia restates and realleges each of the assertions set forth in the paragraphs
`
`above.
`
`39. The ’579 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. §103 for at
`least the reasons specifically set forth in the paragraphs above.
`40. There is an actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and § 2202,
`between Wikimedia and the WordLogic Entities concerning the validity of the ’579 patent.
`41. Wikimedia is therefore entitled to a declaratory judgment that the ’579 patent is
`
`invalid.
`
`above.
`
`COUNT SIX
`
`Declaratory Judgment Of Non-Infringement Of The ’579 Patent
`42. Wikimedia restates and realleges each of the assertions set forth in the paragraphs
`
`43. Wikimedia has not infringed and does not infringe any valid claim of the ’579 patent
`directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, for at least the reasons
`specifically set forth in the paragraphs above.
`44. There is an actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and § 2202,
`between Wikimedia and the WordLogic Entities concerning the non-infringement of the ’579
`patent.
`
`45. Wikimedia is therefore entitled to a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed the
`’579 patent, directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`COUNT SEVEN
`
`Declaratory Judgment Of Invalidity Of The ’984 Patent
`46. Wikimedia restates and realleges each of the assertions set forth in the paragraphs
`
`above.
`
`47. The ’984 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. §103 for at
`least the reasons specifically set forth in the paragraphs above.
`48. There is an actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and § 2202,
`6
`
` CASE NO. 3:20-cv-1756
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`

`

`1
`1
`2
`2
`3
`3
`4
`4
`5
`5
`6
`6
`7
`7
`8
`8
`9
`9
`10
`10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`15
`15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`20
`20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`28
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01756-NC Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 8 of 9
`
`between Wikimedia and the WordLogic Entities concerning the validity of the ’984 patent.
`49. Wikimedia is therefore entitled to a declaratory judgment that the ’984 patent is
`
`invalid.
`
`above.
`
`COUNT EIGHT
`
`Declaratory Judgment Of Non-Infringement Of The ’984 Patent
`50. Wikimedia restates and realleges each of the assertions set forth in the paragraphs
`
`51. Wikimedia has not infringed and does not infringe any valid claim of the ’984 patent
`directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, for at least the reasons
`specifically set forth in the paragraphs above.
`52. There is an actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and § 2202,
`between Wikimedia and the WordLogic Entities concerning the non-infringement of the ’984
`patent.
`
`53. Wikimedia is therefore entitled to a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed the
`’984 patent, directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`WHEREFORE, Wikimedia respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in its
`favor against the WordLogic Entities, granting the following relief:
`a) A declaration that the ’231 patent is invalid.
`b) A declaration that the ’124 patent is invalid.
`c) A declaration that the ’579 patent is invalid.
`d) A declaration that the ’984 patent is invalid.
`e) A declaration that Wikimedia does not infringe the ’231 patent, directly or indirectly,
`either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`f) A declaration that Wikimedia does not infringe the ’124 patent, directly or indirectly,
`either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents
`g) A declaration that Wikimedia does not infringe the ’579 patent, directly or indirectly,
`either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`7
`
` CASE NO. 3:20-cv-1756
`
`

`

`1
`1
`2
`2
`3
`3
`4
`4
`5
`5
`6
`6
`7
`7
`8
`8
`9
`9
`10
`10
`11
`11
`12
`12
`13
`13
`14
`14
`15
`15
`16
`16
`17
`17
`18
`18
`19
`19
`20
`20
`21
`21
`22
`22
`23
`23
`24
`24
`25
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`28
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-01756-NC Document 1 Filed 03/11/20 Page 9 of 9
`
`h) A declaration that Wikimedia does not infringe the ’984 patent, directly or indirectly,
`either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents
`i) A judgment that this is an exceptional case and an award to Wikimedia of its costs
`and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in this action as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285;
`and
`j) An award of costs, and expenses as allowed by law;
`k) Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper under the
`circumstances.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Wikimedia demands jury
`
`trial on all issues and claims so triable.
`
`
`
`DATED: March 11, 2020
`
`
`
`
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`
`
`/s/ Nicholas A. Brown
`By:
`
`Nicholas A. Brown (SBN 198210)
`brownn@gtlaw.com
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 3000
`San Francisco, CA 94111-5983
`Telephone: 415.655.1271
`Facsimile: 415.520.5609
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`8
`
` CASE NO. 3:20-cv-1756
`
`