Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 10
`
`JOSH A. KREVITT (SBN 208552)
`jkrevitt@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, New York 10166
`Tel: (212) 351-4000
`Fax: (212) 351-4035
`
`Y. ERNEST HSIN (SBN 201668)
`ehsin@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`555 Mission Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
`Tel: (415) 393-8224
`Fax: (415) 374-8436
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Fitbit, Inc.
`
`WAYNE BARSKY (SBN 116731)
`wbarsky@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`2029 Century Park East, Suite 4000
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-3026
`Tel: (310) 557-8183
`Fax: (310) 552-7010
`
`STUART ROSENBERG (SBN 239926)
`srosenberg@gibsondunn.com
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1881 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1211
`Tel: (650) 849-5389
`Fax: (650) 849-5089
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FITBIT, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`Case No.
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`
`Crutcher LLP
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 10
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`Plaintiff Fitbit, Inc. (“Fitbit”) for its complaint against Koninklijke Philips N.V. (“Defendant”
`
`or “Philips” and a.k.a. “Royal Philips”) alleges and states as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Fitbit is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at 405
`
`Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94015.
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Koninklijke Philips N.V. is a corporation duly organized
`
`and existing under the laws of the Netherlands with its principal place of business at High Tech
`
`Campus 5, 5656 AE Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This action for declaratory judgment arises under federal law, and this Court has
`
`jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 2201, and 2202.
`
`4.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Koninklijke Philips N.V. pursuant
`
`to, inter alia, California Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10 and/or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`4(k)(2), including because Philips engages in regular business in the United States and State of
`
`California, including business concerning the Patents-in-Suit and this dispute as defined below.
`
`5.
`
`Venue is proper in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c).
`
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`6.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,845,228 (the “’228 Patent”), entitled “Activity Monitoring,” was
`
`issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on December 7, 2010. Philips has alleged that the
`
`’228 patent is assigned to Koninklijke Philips N.V. A copy of the ’228 patent is attached as Exhibit
`
`A.
`
`7.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,820,698 (the “’698 Patent”), entitled “Actigraphy Methods and
`
`Apparatuses” was issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on November 21, 2017. Philips
`
`has alleged that the ’698 patent is assigned to Koninklijke Philips N.V. A copy of the ’698 patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit 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
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`Case No.
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`
`Crutcher LLP
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 3 of 10
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,717,464 (the “’464 Patent”), entitled “Continuous Transdermal
`
`Monitoring System and Method” was issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on August 1,
`
`2017. Philips has alleged that the ’464 patent is assigned to Koninklijke Philips N.V. A copy of the
`
`’464 patent is attached as Exhibit C.
`
`9.
`
`The ’228 patent, ’698 patent, and ’464 patent are collectively referred to herein as the
`
`“Patents-in-Suit.”
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff Fitbit is globally recognized technology company headquartered in San
`
`Francisco and focused on delivering health solutions that impact health outcomes. Fitbit’s mission is
`
`to empower and inspire users to live healthier, more active lives. Fitbit designs and sells products
`
`that fit seamlessly into users’ lives so that consumers can achieve their health and fitness goals.
`
`11.
`
`Fitbit’s line of wearable smartwatches and trackers includes the Fitbit Charge 3™,
`
`Fitbit Inspire™, Fitbit Inspire HR™, and Fitbit Ace 2™ activity trackers, in addition to the
`
`Fitbit Ionic™, Fitbit Versa 2™ and Fitbit Versa Lite Edition™ smartwatches. Fitbit’s advanced
`
`family of smartwatches and trackers are the result of Fitbit’s investment of hundreds of millions of
`
`dollars per year in research and development (including in this judicial district), resulting in
`
`numerous technological advances and hundreds of patents worldwide. Based on Fitbit’s research and
`
`design, its smartwatches and trackers are widely recognized as among the best and most advanced
`
`products of their type. See, e.g., https://www.fitbit.com/us/buzz.
`
`12.
`
`Fitbit smartwatches and trackers enable users to view data about their daily activity,
`
`exercise, and sleep. Fitbit’s software and services, which include an online dashboard and mobile
`
`app, provide its users with data analytics, motivational and social tools, and virtual coaching through
`
`customized fitness plans and interactive workouts. These devices track users’ daily steps, calories
`
`burned, distance traveled, and active minutes, and display real-time feedback to encourage users to
`
`become more active in their daily lives. Together, Fitbit’s devices, services, and software have
`
`helped millions of users on their health and fitness journeys be more active, sleep better, eat smarter,
`
`and manage their weight.
`
`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
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`Case No.
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`
`Crutcher LLP
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 4 of 10
`
`
`
`
`13.
`
`Fitbit’s smartwatches and trackers thus enable a wide range of people to get fit their
`
`own way, whatever their interests and goals. Fitbit’s users range from people interested in improving
`
`their health and fitness through everyday activities, to endurance athletes seeking to maximize their
`
`performance. To address this wide range of needs, through its research and development, Fitbit
`
`designs its devices to create powerful yet easy to use products that fit seamlessly into peoples’ daily
`
`lives and activities. As a result of Fitbit’s efforts and research, its smartwatches and trackers have
`
`aided millions of people in meeting their fitness and health goals, including in California and this
`
`judicial district.
`
`14.
`
`On December 10, 2019, Defendant Philips, in conjunction with its subsidiary Philips
`
`North America, LLC, filed a Complaint with the United States International Trade Commission, and
`
`directed it to be served on Fitbit at its headquarters in San Francisco. Philips’s ITC Complaint seeks
`
`to bar importation or sale of Fitbit’s entire current line of smartwatches and trackers as allegedly
`
`infringing Philips’s Patents-in-Suit. See Exhibit D (Philips ITC Complaint). Philips’s Complaint
`
`also seeks a permanent cease-and-desist order barring Fitbit from “marketing, advertising,
`
`demonstrating, … offering for sale, selling, distributing, or using” its entire current line of
`
`smartwatches and trackers, including in California and in this judicial district. See id. ¶¶ 4–5.
`
`According to Philips, its own products practice the Patents-in-Suit (which it variously developed,
`
`markets, sells, and offers for sale in the United States, including in California and in this judicial
`
`district). See id. at Complaint ¶¶ 6–20, 232–245. Philips asserts that its “Lifeline,” “Motion
`
`Biosensor,” “Connected Sensing,” and “Sleep Diagnostics” products sold throughout the United
`
`States variously practice the Patents-in-Suit, and that the alleged “unauthorized use of [its] patented
`
`inventions by Fitbit” is an “unlawful and unfair” act that threatens Philips’s own U.S. domestic
`
`industry commercializing these patents. See id.1
`
`
`1 Cf. https://www.lifeline.philips.com/; http://www.actigraphy.com/solutions/actigraphy.html;
`https://www.usa.philips.com/healthcare/innovation/research-and-exploration/connected-sensing
`https://www.usa.philips.com/healthcare/solutions/sleep/sleep-diagnostics.
`
`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
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`Case No.
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`
`Crutcher LLP
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 5 of 10
`
`
`
`
`15.
`
`Although Fitbit vigorously denies Philips’s allegations of infringement, see Exhibit E
`
`(Fitbit Response), Philips nevertheless continues to seek to disrupt Fitbit’s business and keep Fitbit’s
`
`health-promoting products from the public based on patents that Fitbit’s products do not infringe.
`
`16.
`
`Given the above, there is a substantial and present controversy between Fitbit and
`
`Philips. Fitbit and Philips have adverse legal interests with respect to the question of infringement of
`
`the Patents-in-Suit. Given the above, this dispute between Fitbit and Philips is immediate and real.
`
`COUNT I
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’228 PATENT
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`Fitbit incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Fitbit’s smartwatches and trackers have not infringed and do not infringe any claim of
`
`the ’228 patent.
`
`19.
`
`None of Fitbit’s smartwatches and trackers meet all of the claim elements recited in
`
`any claim of the ’228 patent. For example, contrary to allegations made by Philips, none of Fitbit’s
`
`smartwatches and trackers comprise the “activity monitor” claimed in claim 1 of the ’228 patent,
`
`including “a processor operable to receive the sensor signals from the measurement unit and to
`
`process the sensor signals in accordance with a predetermined method, characterized in that the
`
`activity monitor is operable to monitor and process the sensor signals discontinuously in time and the
`
`processor is operable to monitor the sensor signals in turn.” Neither do any of Fitbit’s smartwatches
`
`and trackers comprise the activity monitor of claim 1 “wherein the measurement unit is operable to
`
`output the sensor signals discontinuously in time” as recited in claim 2 of the ’228 patent.
`
`20.
`
`Fitbit’s smartwatches and trackers similarly do not comprise the activity monitor of
`
`claim 1 “wherein the processor is operable to monitor the sensor signals discontinuously in time” as
`
`recited in claim 3 of the ’228 patent. Further, none of Fitbit’s smartwatches and trackers are used to
`
`perform the “method of monitoring activity” claimed in claim 8 of the ’228 patent, including
`
`“receiving the sensor signals and processing the sensor signals in accordance with a predetermined
`
`method, characterized in that the sensor signals are monitored and processed discontinuously in time
`
`and the sensor signals are monitored in tum.”
`
`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
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`Case No.
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`
`Crutcher LLP
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 6 of 10
`
`
`
`
`21.
`
`Fitbit is thus entitled to a declaration pursuant 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 that
`
`Fitbit’s smartwatches and trackers do not infringe any claim of the ’228 patent.
`
`COUNT II
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’698 PATENT
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`Fitbit incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Fitbit’s smartwatches and trackers have not infringed and do not infringe any claim of
`
`the ’698 patent.
`
`24.
`
`None of Fitbit’s smartwatches and trackers meet all of the claim elements recited in
`
`any claim of the ’698 patent. For example, contrary to allegations made by Philips, none of Fitbit’s
`
`smartwatches and trackers comprise the “physiological monitoring device” claimed in claim 1 of the
`
`’698 patent, including “an electronic digital signal processing (DSP) device configured to perform
`
`operations including: computing a body motion artifact (BMA) signal as a function of time from the
`
`non-body motion physiological parameter signal, and computing an actigraphy signal as a function of
`
`time from the BMA signal.” Neither do any of Fitbit’s smartwatches and trackers comprise the
`
`physiological monitoring device of claim 1 “wherein computing a BMA signal as a function of time
`
`from the non-body motion physiological parameter signal comprises computing a local signal
`
`variance signal from the non-body motion physiological parameter signal” as recited in claim 6 of the
`
`’698 patent.
`
`25.
`
`Further, none of Fitbit’s smartwatches and trackers comprise the “non-transitory
`
`storage medium storing instructions readable and executable by an electronic data processing device
`
`to perform a physiological monitoring method” claimed in claim 14 of the ’698 patent, including
`
`“computing a body motion artifact (BMA) signal comprising one of a local signal power signal, a
`
`local signal variance signal, a Short-Time Fourier Transform (STFT) signal, and a wavelet transform
`
`signal as a function of time from a non-body motion physiological parameter signal as a function of
`
`time for a physiological parameter other than displacement, acceleration, and velocity wherein a
`
`BMA signal sample is computed for each time window of a succession of time windows; and
`
`computing an actigraphy signal as a function of time from the BMA signal.”
`
`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
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`Case No.
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`
`Crutcher LLP
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 7 of 10
`
`
`
`
`26.
`
`Further, none of Fitbit’s smartwatches and trackers comprise the “physiological
`
`monitoring device” claimed in claim 18 of the ’698 patent, including “at least one processor
`
`programmed to: compute a body motion artifact (BMA) signal as a function of time from the non-
`
`body motion physiological parameter signal; applying a linear transform to the BMA signal; compute
`
`an actigraphy signal as a function of time from the applied linear transform BMA signal.”
`
`27.
`
`Fitbit is thus entitled to a declaration pursuant 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 that
`
`Fitbit’s smartwatches and trackers do not infringe any claim of the ’698 patent.
`
`COUNT III
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’464 PATENT
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`Fitbit incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Fitbit’s smartwatches and trackers have not infringed and do not infringe any claim of
`
`the ’464 patent.
`
`30.
`
`None of Fitbit’s smartwatches and trackers meet all of the claim elements recited in
`
`any claim of the ’464 patent. For example, contrary to allegations made by Philips, none of Fitbit’s
`
`smartwatches and trackers are used to perform the “method for minimizing the effects of motion
`
`artifact on sensor readings taken during continuous transdermal monitoring of a body part in motion”
`
`claimed in independent claim 1 of the ’464 patent, including “monitoring, with a processor, an output
`
`signal from an accelerometer, wherein the output signal indicates acceleration and deceleration of the
`
`body part of a user as the body part is in motion; determining, with the processor, that the output
`
`signal is within a predetermined range that includes indication of acceleration and deceleration,
`
`wherein indication of acceleration and deceleration corresponds with a motion direction change of the
`
`body part in motion; based on the determination that the output signal is within the predetermined
`
`range, monitoring, with the processor, a plurality of readings from a sensor, wherein monitoring the
`
`plurality of readings from the sensor occurs over a time window that coincides with the output signal
`
`remaining within the predetermined range; and recording in a memory device the monitored plurality
`
`of readings from the sensor.” Similarly, none of Fitbit’s smartwatches and trackers are used to
`
`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
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`Case No.
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`
`Crutcher LLP
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 8 of 10
`
`
`
`
`perform “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein the accelerometer is a 3-axis accelerometer” as recited in
`
`claim 6 of the ’464 patent.
`
`31.
`
`Further, none of Fitbit’s smartwatches and trackers comprise the “system for
`
`minimizing the effects of motion artifact on sensor readings taken during continuous transdermal
`
`monitoring of a body part in motion” claimed in claim 8 of the ’464 patent, including “a sensor
`
`package comprising a processor, an accelerometer, a sensor and a memory device, the sensor package
`
`configured to: monitor an output signal from the accelerometer, wherein the output signal indicates
`
`acceleration and deceleration of the body part of a user as the body part is in motion; determine that
`
`the output signal is within a predetermined range that includes indication of acceleration and
`
`deceleration, wherein indication of acceleration and deceleration corresponds with a motion direction
`
`change of the body part in motion; based on the determination that the output signal is within the
`
`predetermined range, monitor a plurality of readings from the sensor, wherein the monitored plurality
`
`of readings from the sensor occurs over a time window that coincides with the output signal
`
`remaining within the predetermined range; and record the monitored plurality of readings from the
`
`pulse oximeter in the memory device.”
`
`32.
`
`Further, none of Fitbit’s smartwatches and trackers comprise the “computer program
`
`product comprising a non-transitory computer usable medium having a computer readable program
`
`code embodied therein, said computer readable program code adapted to be executed by a processor
`
`and cause the processor to implement a method for minimizing the effects of motion artifact on
`
`sensor readings taken during continuous transdermal monitoring of a body part in motion” claimed in
`
`claim 15 of the ’464 patent, including “monitoring an output signal from an accelerometer, wherein
`
`the output signal indicates acceleration and deceleration of the body part of a user as the body part is
`
`in motion; determining that the output signal is within a predetermined range that includes indication
`
`of acceleration and deceleration, wherein indication of acceleration and deceleration corresponds
`
`with a motion direction change of the body part in motion; based on the determination that the output
`
`signal is within the predetermined range, monitoring a plurality of readings from a sensor, wherein
`
`monitoring the plurality of readings from the sensor occurs over a time window that coincides with
`
`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
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`Case No.
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`
`Crutcher LLP
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 9 of 10
`
`
`
`
`the output signal remaining within the predetermined range; and recording the monitored plurality of
`
`readings from the sensor.”
`
`33.
`
`Fitbit is thus entitled to a declaration pursuant 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 that
`
`Fitbit’s smartwatches and trackers do not infringe any claim of the ’464 patent.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Fitbit respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in its favor as
`
`follows:
`
`a)
`
`Declaring that Fitbit’s smartwatches and trackers have not infringed and do not
`
`infringe any claim of Philips’s Patents-in-Suit; and
`
`b)
`
`Declaring this to be an exceptional case and awarding Fitbit its costs, expenses,
`
`and disbursements in this action, including reasonable attorney fees, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 285.
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`Case No.
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`
`Crutcher LLP
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1 Filed 04/02/20 Page 10 of 10
`
`
`___/s/ Stuart Rosenberg________________
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`
`JOSH A. KREVITT (SBN 208552)
`jkrevitt@gibsondunn.com
`200 Park Avenue, 47th Floor
`New York, NY 10166
`Tel: (212) 351-4000
`Fax: (212) 351-4035
`
`WAYNE BARSKY (SBN 116731)
`wbarsky@gibsondunn.com
`2029 Century Park East, Suite 4000
`Los Angeles, CA 90067-3026
`Tel: (310) 557-8183
`Fax: (310) 552-7010
`
`Y. ERNEST HSIN (SBN 201668)
`EHsin@gibsondunn.com
`555 Mission Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
`Tel: (415) 393-8224
`Fax: (415) 374-8436
`
`STUART ROSENBERG (SBN 239926)
`SRosenberg@gibsondunn.com
`1881 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1211
`Tel: (650) 849-5389
`Fax: (650) 849-5089
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Fitbit, Inc.
`
`Dated: April 2, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`Case No.
`
`Gibson, Dunn &
`
`Crutcher LLP
`
`10
`
`