Case 4:22-cv-01490-JST Document 39 Filed 05/12/22 Page 1 of 11
`
`
`
`Susan S.Q. Kalra, CA SBN167940
` Email: susan@m-iplaw.com
`MAHAMEDI IP LAW LLP
`910 Campisi Way, Suite 1E
`Campbell, CA 95008
`Telephone: (408) 236-6640
`Fax: (408) 236-6641
`
`William P. Ramey, III (pro hac vice anticipated)
`Email: wramey@rameyfirm.com
` RAMEY LLP
`5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 800
`Houston, TX 77006
`Telephone: (713) 426-3923
`Fax: (832) 689-9175
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`LAURI VALJAKKA
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`LAURI VALJAKKA,
`
`
` v.
`
`NETFLIX, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 4:22-cv-01490-JST
`
`PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff Lauri Valjakka (“Lauri” or “Plaintiff”), files this Complaint for Patent
`
`Infringement against Netflix, Inc. (“Netflix” or “Defendant”), and would respectfully show the
`
`Court as follows:
`
`
`
`1
`
`PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 4:22-CV-01490-JST
`
`
`
`
`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 4:22-cv-01490-JST Document 39 Filed 05/12/22 Page 2 of 11
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`
`1. Plaintiff is a citizen of Finland having an address located at Valtakatu 51, Vapaudenaukio
`
`Technopolis 2, 53100 Lappeenranta, Finland.
`
`2. On information and belief, Defendant is a Delaware corporation with a principal address
`
`of 100 Winchester Cir., Los Gatos, CA 95032.
`
`3. On information and belief, Defendant directly and/or indirectly develops, designs,
`
`manufactures, distributes, markets, offers to sell and/or sells infringing products and services in
`
`the United States, including in the Northern District of California, and otherwise directs infringing
`
`activities to this District in connection with its products and services.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`4. This civil action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.,
`
`including without limitation 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 283, 284, and 285 based on Defendant's
`
`unauthorized commercial manufacture, use, importation, offer for sale, and sale of the Accused
`
`Products in the United States. This is a patent infringement lawsuit over which this Court has
`
`subject matter jurisdiction under, inter alia, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 1338(a).
`
`5. This United States District Court for the Northern District of California has general and
`
`specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant because, directly or through intermediaries,
`
`Defendant has committed acts within the District giving rise to this action and are present in and
`
`transact and conduct business in and with residents of this District and the State of California.
`
`6. Plaintiff’s causes of action arise, at least in part, from Defendant’s contacts with and
`
`activities in this District and the State of California.
`
`7. Defendant has committed acts of infringing the patents-in-suit within this District and the
`
`State of California by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing in or into this
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 4:22-CV-01490-JST
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01490-JST Document 39 Filed 05/12/22 Page 3 of 11
`
`
`
`District and elsewhere in the State of California, products claimed by the patents-in-suit, including
`
`without limitation products made by practicing the claimed methods of the patents-in-suit.
`
`Defendant, directly and through intermediaries, makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, ships,
`
`distributes, advertises, promotes, and/or otherwise commercializes such infringing products into
`
`this District and the State of California. Defendant regularly conducts and solicits business in,
`
`engages in other persistent courses of conduct in, and/or derives substantial revenue from goods
`
`and services provided to residents of this District and the State of California.
`
`8.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Personal jurisdiction exists
`
`over Defendant because Defendant has minimum contacts with this forum as a result of business
`
`regularly conducted within the State of California and within this district, and, on information and
`
`belief, specifically as a result of, at least, committing the tort of patent infringement within
`
`California and this District. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, in part, because
`
`Defendant does continuous and systematic business in this District, including by providing
`
`infringing products and services to the residents of the Northern District of California that
`
`Defendant knew would be used within this District, and by soliciting business from the residents
`
`of the Northern District of California. Also, Defendant has hired and is hiring within this District
`
`for positions that, on information and belief, relate to infringement of the patents-in-suit.
`
`Accordingly, this Court’s jurisdiction over the Defendant comports with the constitutional
`
`standards of fair play and substantial justice and arises directly from the Defendant’s purposeful
`
`minimum contacts with the State of California.
`
`9.
`
`This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, because in addition to
`
`Defendant’s own online website and advertising with this District, Defendant has also made its
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 4:22-CV-01490-JST
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01490-JST Document 39 Filed 05/12/22 Page 4 of 11
`
`
`
`products available within this judicial district and advertised to residents within the District to
`
`hire employees to be located in this District.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interests and costs.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) based on information set
`
`forth herein, which is hereby repeated and incorporated by reference. Further, upon information
`
`and belief, Defendant has committed or induced acts of infringement, and/or advertise, market,
`
`sell, and/or offer to sell products, including infringing products, in this District. In addition, and
`
`without limitation, Defendant has regular and established places of business throughout this
`
`District.
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`12.
`
`On July 23, 2013, United States Patent No. 8,495,167 (“the ‘167 Patent”), entitled
`
`“Data Communications Networks, Systems, Methods and Apparatus” was duly and legally issued
`
`by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The ‘167 Patent claims patent-
`
`eligible subject matter and is valid and enforceable. Lauri is the exclusive owner by assignment
`
`of all rights, title, and interest in the ‘167 Patent, including the right to bring this suit for damages,
`
`and including the right to sue and recover all past, present, and future damages for infringement
`
`of the ‘167 Patent. Defendant is not licensed to the ‘167 Patent, either expressly or implicitly, nor
`
`do they enjoy or benefit from any rights in or to the ‘167 patent whatsoever. A true and correct
`
`copy of the ‘167 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`13.
`
`On July 28, 2020, United States Patent No. 10,726,102 (“the ‘102 Patent”), entitled
`
`“Method Of and System For Providing Access to Access Restricted Content to a User” was duly
`
`and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The ‘102 Patent
`
`claims patent-eligible subject matter and is valid and enforceable. Lauri is the exclusive owner
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 4:22-CV-01490-JST
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01490-JST Document 39 Filed 05/12/22 Page 5 of 11
`
`
`
`by assignment of all rights, title, and interest in the ‘102 Patent, including the right to bring this
`
`suit for damages, and including the right to sue and recover all past, present, and future damages
`
`for infringement of the ‘102 Patent. Defendant is not licensed to the ‘102 Patent, either expressly
`
`or implicitly, nor do they enjoy or benefit from any rights in or to the ‘102 patent whatsoever. A
`
`true and correct copy of the ‘102 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`The ‘167 Patent and the ‘102 Patent are referred to herein as the “patents-in-suit.”
`
`Plaintiff Lauri is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the
`
`patents-in-suit. The patents-in-suit are presumed valid under 35 U.S.C. § 282.
`
`ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITIES
`
`16.
`
`The term “Accused Instrumentalities” or “Accused Products” refers to, by way of
`
`example and without limitation, Netflix’s Open Connect program and Netflix websites (e.g.
`
`https://www.netflix.com).
`
`COUNT I
`
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘167 PATENT
`
`
`Plaintiff restates and realleges the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if
`
`17.
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`18.
`
`Defendant has, under 35 U.S.C. §271(a), directly infringed, and continues to
`
`directly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims, including
`
`without limitation at least claim 1 of the ‘167 Patent, by making, using, testing, selling, offering
`
`for sale and/or importing into the United States Defendant’s Accused Products.
`
`19.
`
`Defendant has knowledge that its activities concerning the Accused Products
`
`infringe one or more claims of the ‘167 Patent. Further, Defendant provides information and
`
`technical support to its customers, including product manuals, brochures, videos, demonstrations,
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 4:22-CV-01490-JST
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01490-JST Document 39 Filed 05/12/22 Page 6 of 11
`
`
`
`and website materials encouraging its customers to purchase and instructing them to use
`
`Defendant’s Accused Products (which are acts of direct infringement of the ‘167 Patent).
`
`Alternatively, Defendant knows and/or will know that there is a high probability that the
`
`importation, sale, offer for sale, and use of the Accused Products constitutes direct infringement
`
`of the ‘167 Patent but took deliberate actions to avoid learning of these facts.
`
`20.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant’s infringement of the ‘167 Patent has been
`
`willful and merits increased damages. As outlined below, Defendant knew of the ’167 Patent since
`
`at least October 2014. After learning of the ’167 Patent in October 2014, Defendant infringed the
`
`patent through its use of and improvements made to products including, but not limited to, Netflix
`
`Open Connect. Finally, in doing so Defendant knew that this conduct amounted to infringement
`
`because Defendant was aware of the patent and its strategic advantage to Defendant’s patent
`
`portfolio from the information provided in a October 2014 letter to Defendant’s headquarters in
`
`Los Gatos, California.
`
`21.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has known that its activities concerning the
`
`Accused Products could infringe one or more claims of the ‘167 Patent since at least October
`
`2014 when Lauri Valjakka as CEO of SC Intelligent Holding OY sent a letter via United States
`
`Postal Service Certified Mail to Gregory K. Peters, Chief Streaming and Partnerships Officer of
`
`Netflix, informing him of the ’167 Patent. A copy of the letter and receipt of delivery from October
`
`2014 is attached herein as Exhibit D.
`
`22.
`
`Alternatively, if Defendant claims to not have knowledge of the ’167 Patent by
`
`receiving the October 2014 letter delivered to Netflix’s headquarters, Defendant was willfully
`
`blind by taking deliberate action to avoid learning of the notice letter delivered to Defendant’s
`
`headquarters and addressed to one of Defendant’s Chief Officers.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 4:22-CV-01490-JST
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`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 4:22-cv-01490-JST Document 39 Filed 05/12/22 Page 7 of 11
`
`
`
`23.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has made no attempt to design around the
`
`claims of the ‘167 Patent.
`
`24.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant did not have a reasonable basis for believing
`
`that the claims of the ‘167 Patent were invalid.
`
`25.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant’s Accused Products are available to
`
`businesses and individuals throughout the United States and in the State of California, including
`
`in this District.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`Lauri has been damaged as the result of Defendant’s willful infringement.
`
`The claim chart attached hereto as Exhibit C describes how the elements of an
`
`exemplary claim 1 from the ‘167 Patent are infringed by the Accused Products. This provides
`
`details regarding only one example of Defendant’s infringement, and only as to a single patent
`
`claim. Plaintiff reserves its right to amend and fully provide its infringement arguments and
`
`evidence thereof until its Preliminary and Final Infringement Contentions are later produced
`
`according to the court’s scheduling order in this case.
`
`COUNT II
`
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘102 PATENT
`
`
`Plaintiff restates and realleges the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if
`
`28.
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`29.
`
`Defendant has, under 35 U.S.C. §271(a), directly infringed, and continues to
`
`directly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims, including
`
`without limitation at least claim 10 of the ‘102 Patent, by making, using, testing, selling, offering
`
`for sale and/or importing into the United States Defendant’s Accused Products.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 4:22-CV-01490-JST
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`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 4:22-cv-01490-JST Document 39 Filed 05/12/22 Page 8 of 11
`
`
`
`30.
`
`Defendant has knowledge that its activities concerning the Accused Products
`
`infringe one or more claims of the ‘102 Patent. Further, Defendant provides information and
`
`technical support to its customers, including product manuals, brochures, videos, demonstrations,
`
`and website materials encouraging its customers to purchase and instructing them to use
`
`Defendant’s Accused Products (which are acts of direct infringement of the ‘102 Patent).
`
`Alternatively, Defendant knows and/or will know that there is a high probability that the
`
`importation, sale, offer for sale, and use of the Accused Products constitutes direct infringement
`
`of the ‘102 Patent but took deliberate actions to avoid learning of these facts.
`
`31.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has made no attempt to design around the
`
`claims of the ‘102 Patent.
`
`32.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant did not have a reasonable basis for believing
`
`that the claims of the ‘102 Patent were invalid.
`
`33.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant’s Accused Products are available to
`
`businesses and individuals throughout the United States and in the State of California, including
`
`in this District.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`Lauri has been damaged as the result of Defendant’s infringement.
`
`The claim chart attached hereto as Exhibit C describes how the elements of an
`
`exemplary claim 10 from the ‘102 Patent are infringed by the Accused Products. This provides
`
`details regarding only one example of Defendant’s infringement, and only as to a single patent
`
`claim. Plaintiff reserves its right to amend and fully provide its infringement arguments and
`
`evidence thereof until its Preliminary and Final Infringement Contentions are later produced
`
`according to the court’s scheduling order in this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 4:22-CV-01490-JST
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01490-JST Document 39 Filed 05/12/22 Page 9 of 11
`
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Lauri respectfully requests the following relief:
`
`A.
`
`A judgment that Defendant has directly infringed either literally and/or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents and continue to directly infringe the patents-in-suit;
`
`B.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Defendant to pay Plaintiff damages under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 284 including past damages based on, inter alia, any necessary compliance with 35
`
`U.S.C. §287, treble damages for willful infringement as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 284, and
`
`supplemental damages for any continuing post-verdict infringement through entry of the final
`
`judgment with an accounting as needed;
`
`C.
`
`A judgment that this is an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285
`
`and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees;
`
`D.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Defendant to pay Plaintiff pre-judgment and post-
`
`judgment interest on the damages awarded;
`
`A judgment and order awarding a compulsory ongoing royalty;
`
`A judgment and order awarding Plaintiff costs associated with bringing this action;
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`and
`
`G.
`
`Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
`
`Dated: May 12, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`MAHAMEDI IP LAW LLP
`
`
`/s/ Susan S.Q. Kalra
`Susan S.Q. Kalra, CA SBN 167940
`910 Campisi Way, Suite 1E
`Campbell, CA 95008
`Telephone: (408) 236-6640
`Fax: (408) 236-6641
`Email: susan@m-iplaw.com
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 4:22-CV-01490-JST
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01490-JST Document 39 Filed 05/12/22 Page 10 of 11
`
`
`
`
`RAMEY LLP
`
`
`/s/ William P. Ramey, III
`William P. Ramey, III (pro hac vice anticipated)
`5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 800
`Houston, TX 77006
`Telephone: (713) 426-3923
`Fax: (832) 689-9175
`Email: wramey@rameyfirm.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`LAURI VALJAKKA
`
`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
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 4:22-CV-01490-JST
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01490-JST Document 39 Filed 05/12/22 Page 11 of 11
`
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 38, Plaintiff Lauri Valjakka hereby demands a trial by jury on
`
`all issues so triable.
`
`Dated: May 12, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`MAHAMEDI IP LAW LLP
`
`
`/s/ Susan S.Q. Kalra
`Susan S.Q. Kalra, CA SBN 167940
`910 Campisi Way, Suite 1E
`Campbell, CA 95008
`Telephone: (408) 236-6640
`Fax: (408) 236-6641
`Email: susan@m-iplaw.com
`
`
`RAMEY LLP
`
`
`/s/ William P. Ramey, III
`William P. Ramey, III (pro hac vice anticipated)
`5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 800
`Houston, TX 77006
`Telephone: (713) 426-3923
`Fax: (832) 689-9175
`Email: wramey@rameyfirm.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`LAURI VALJAKKA
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 4:22-CV-01490-JST
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`