Case 5:16-cv-06925-LHK Document 1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 1 of 48
`
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`Wayne O. Stacy (pro hac vice to be filed)
`wayne.stacy@bakerbotts.com
`2001 Ross Avenue
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: 214.953.6678
`Facsimile: 214.661.4678
`
`Sarah J. Guske (SBN 232467)
`sarah.guske@bakerbotts.com
`101 California St., Suite 3070
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: 415.291.6200
`Facsimile: 415.291.6300
`
`J.B. Schiller (SBN 298747)
`jay.schiller@bakerbotts.com
`1001 Page Mill Road,
`Building One, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: 650.739.7500
`Facsimile: 650.739.7600
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`TWILIO INC.
`
`
`TWILIO INC.,
`
`vs.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`Case No. ___________
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`TELESIGN CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-06925-LHK Document 1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 2 of 48
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Twilio Inc. (“Twilio” or “Plaintiff”), files this Complaint against
`
`Defendant TeleSign Corporation (“TeleSign” or “Defendant”), and allege as follows:
`
`Introduction to Twilio
`
`2.
`
`Twilio is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 375 Beale
`
`Street, 3rd Floor, San Francisco, California 94105.
`3.
`
`Twilio is a cloud communications company that enables developers to build and
`
`manage applications without the complexity of creating and maintaining the underlying structure.
`4.
`5.
`
`Twilio’s approach consists of at least a Programmable Communications Cloud
`
`Over 1,000,000 developer accounts have registered with Twilio’s platform.
`
`which enables developers to embed voice, messaging, video, and authentication capabilities into
`
`developers applications via Twilio’s Application Programming Interfaces (“API”).
`6.
`
`Twilio offers at least 18 different messaging, voice, and communication products
`
`to its customers.
`7.
`8.
`9.
`
`Twilio invests substantial resources in its research and development.
`
`Twilio employs over 624 employees.
`
`The vast majority of Twilio’s employees are located in the San Francisco Bay
`
`area.
`
`10.
`
`Twilio’s research and development organization consists of at least 326
`
`employees, the vast majority of which are located in the San Francisco Bay area.
`11.
`
`Twilio has been issued over 47 United States patents, has 45 pending patent
`
`applications, and 10 pending provisional applications.
`12.
`
`In additional to its U.S. patents, Twilio also have five issued patents and nine
`
`pending applications in foreign jurisdictions.
`13.
`
`Twilio’s technical development of its products and research are primarily based
`
`in the San Francisco Bay area.
`14.
`
`The inventors of Twilio’s patents are primarily located in the San Francisco Bay
`
`
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
`area.
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`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
`
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-06925-LHK Document 1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 3 of 48
`
`Introduction to Defendant
`
`15.
`
`Defendant is a California corporation with its principal place of business in
`
`Marina Del Rey, California.
`16.
`17.
`
`Defendant has a primary office in Sunnyvale, California.
`
`Defendant opened its San Francisco Bay area office to sell to its customers and
`
`clients based in the area.
`18.
`19.
`20.
`21.
`22.
`23.
`24.
`
`Defendant has many customers in the San Francisco Bay area.
`
`Defendant attempts to sell its infringing products from its Sunnyvale office.
`
`Defendant was a customer of Twilio.
`
`As a customer of Twilio, Defendant used services of Twilio.
`
`Defendant gained access to the details of Twilio’s products and their operation.
`
`Defendant gained access to Twilio’s information, such as Twilio’s APIs.
`
`Stacy Stubblefield, the Co-Founder and Vice President of Product Strategy for
`
`Defendant had a private Twilio account.
`25.
`26.
`
`Stacy Stubblefield gained knowledge of Twilio’s products.
`
`Defendant’s engineers learned of Twilio’s technology when Defendant was a
`
`customer of Twilio.
`27.
`
`Defendant used the information it learned about Twilio products to develop its
`
`own products to compete with Twilio.
`28.
`
`Defendant knew that Twilio filed patent applications and had obtained patents.
`
`The evidence tending to support this allegation will likely have evidentiary support after a
`
`reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.
`29.
`30.
`31.
`32.
`33.
`
`Defendant views Twilio as a competitor.
`
`Defendant used the information it learned about Twilio to enhance its sales.
`
`Using its infringing products, Defendant attempts to take sales from Twilio.
`
`Defendant has inflicted harm on Twilio.
`
`Defendant offers eight different products: Score, Phone ID, Voice Verify, SMS
`
`Smart Verify,
`
`and
`
`Behavior
`
`ID.
`
`
`
`
`
`Push Verify, Auto Verify,
`Verify,
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
` 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
`
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-06925-LHK Document 1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 4 of 48
`
`(https://telesign.com/products/).
`34.
`
`Seven of these eight products infringe Twilio’s patents.
`
`Overview of Infringement
`
`35.
`
`Of Twilio’s 47 issued patents, Twilio is currently asserting seven patents against
`
`Defendant: United States Patent No. 8,306,021 (“the ’021 Patent”) (attached as Exhibit A),
`
`United States Patent No. 8,837,465 (“the ’465 Patent”) (attached as Exhibit B), United States
`
`Patent No. 8,755,376 (“the ’376 Patent”) (attached as Exhibit C), United States Patent No.
`
`8,738,051 (“the ’051 Patent”) (attached as Exhibit D), United States Patent No. 8,737,962
`
`(“the ’962 Patent”) (attached as Exhibit E), United States Patent No. 9,270,833 (“the ’833
`
`Patent”) (attached as Exhibit F), United States Patent No. 9,226,217 (“the ’217 Patent”)
`
`(attached as Exhibit G) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`36.
`
`The Asserted Patents fall within four patent families:
` The Platform Family (the ’021 Patent, ’465 Patent, and ’376 Patent)
`o The Platform Family is generally, but not exclusively, directed
`towards the concept of initiating and controlling a voice, push, or
`
`SMS message based on a REST API request.
` The Score Family (the ’692 Patent and the ’833 Patent)
`o The Score Family is generally, but not exclusively, directed towards
`detecting fraudulent account activity.
` The Path Selection Family (the ’217 Patent)
`o The Path Selection Family is generally, but not exclusively, directed
`towards the selection of a communication provider for transmitting
`
`messages.
` The Delivery Receipts Family (the ’051 Patent)
`o The Delivery Receipts Family is generally, but not exclusively,
`directed towards the selection of the best routing carrier for
`
`transmitting messages.
`
`
`
`
`
`37.
`Defendant advertises eight different products: Score, Phone ID, Voice Verify,
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
` 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
`
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-06925-LHK Document 1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 5 of 48
`
`SMS Verify, Push Verify, Auto Verify, Smart Verify,
`
`and Behavior
`
`ID.
`
`(https://telesign.com/products/).
`38.
`
`Seven of Defendant’s eight products infringe the Asserted Patents and are built
`
`on Twilio’s technology.
`39.
`40.
`
`Each of Defendant’s seven infringing products infringe multiple Twilio patents.
`
`Defendant’s Smart Verify product infringes the ’051 Patent, the ’021 Patent, and
`
`the ’217 Patent.
`41.
`42.
`
`Defendant’s Auto Verify product infringes the ’051 Patent and the ’021 Patent.
`
`Defendant’s SMS Verify product infringes the ’051 Patent, the ’021 Patent,
`
`the ’376 Patent, and the ’217 Patent.
`43.
`
`Defendant’s Voice Verify product infringes the ’051 Patent, the ’465 Patent,
`
`the ’376 Patent, and the ’217 Patent.
`44.
`45.
`
`Defendant’s Push Verify product infringes the ’051 Patent and the ’021 Patent.
`
`Defendant’s Score and Phone ID products infringe the ’833 Patent and the ’962
`
`Patent.
`
`46.
`
`Defendant sells and offers to sell these infringing products to companies located
`
`in the San Francisco Bay area and throughout the United States.
`47.
`
`Defendant could not effectively compete against Twilio without the technology
`
`covered by the Asserted Patents.
`
`Nature of the Action
`
`48.
`
`This is a civil action for the infringement of the Asserted Patents under the patent
`
`laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
`49.
`
`This action involves Defendant’s manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, and
`
`importation into the United States of infringing products, methods, processes, services and
`
`systems that are primarily used or primarily adapted for, but not exclusively, the transmission of
`
`messages.
`50.
`
`For example, but without limitation, such products include Defendant’s Smart
`
`
`
`
`
`Verify, Auto Verify, SMS Verify, Voice Verify, Push Verify, Score, and Phone ID
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
` 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
`
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-06925-LHK Document 1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 6 of 48
`
`(https://telesign.com/products/).
`51.
`
`Defendant has made extensive use of Twilio’s patented technologies, including
`
`each of the Asserted Patents.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`52.
`
` This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Complaint
`
`under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because this action arises under the patent laws of the
`
`United States, including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq.
`53.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant has
`
`committed acts of patent infringement and contributed to or induced acts of patent infringement
`
`by others in the State of California and in this District.
`54.
`
`Defendant is a California corporation and maintains an office in the San
`
`Francisco Bay area.
`55.
`
`Defendant has established sufficient minimum contacts with this District such
`
`that it should reasonably and fairly anticipate being called into court in this District and has
`
`purposefully directed activities at residents of the state and this District.
`56.
`
`Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1400(b) and 1391(b) and (c),
`
`because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district and has committed acts of
`
`infringement in this district.
`
`Willful Infringement
`
`57.
`58.
`
`Defendant’s infringement of the Asserted Patents is willful.
`
`Defendant became aware of the Asserted Patents as part of its analysis of
`
`Twilio’s products, for example, during its diligence in filing suit against Twilio. The evidence
`
`tending to support this allegation will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable
`
`opportunity for further investigation or discovery.
`59.
`
`Defendant knew of Twilio’s patents and products. The evidence tending to
`
`support this allegation will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for
`
`
`
`
`
`further investigation or discovery.
`60.
`Defendant’s engineers had access to Twilio when Defendant was a customer of
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
` 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
`
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-06925-LHK Document 1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 7 of 48
`
`Twilio.
`61.
`
`Defendant’s engineers were able to study Twilio’s source code and design of
`
`Twilio’s products.
`62.
`63.
`64.
`
`Defendant’s Stacy Stubblefield had a Twilio account.
`
`Stacy Stubblefield’s private account was created in September of 2009.
`
`Stacy Stubblefield is the co-founder and vice president of product strategy at
`
`TeleSign.
`65.
`66.
`
`Stacy Stubblefield gained access to Twilio’s products.
`
`Stacy Stubblefield used the information she learned from her Twilio account to
`
`develop products to compete with Twilio. The evidence tending to support this allegation will
`
`likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or
`
`discovery.
`67.
`
`Defendant designed competing products after learning of Twilio’s products. The
`
`evidence tending to support this allegation will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable
`
`opportunity for further investigation or discovery.
`68.
`69.
`
`Defendant’s products closely match at least some of Twilio’s products.
`
`For example, Defendant’s Score product closely matches the ’833 Patent and
`
`the ’962 Patent.
`70.
`
`For example, Defendant’s two-factor authentication service closely matches
`
`Twilio’s two-factor authentication technology.
`71.
`
`Defendant’s infringement of the Asserted Patents has been deliberate, flagrant,
`
`wanton, and constitutes willful infringement. The evidence tending to support this allegation
`
`will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or
`
`discovery.
`
`Count I (Infringement of U.S. Patent 8,737,962)
`
`72.
`
`Twilio incorporates by reference and realleges all the foregoing paragraphs of
`
`
`
`
`
`this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`73.
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) duly and legally
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
` 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
`
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-06925-LHK Document 1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 8 of 48
`
`issued the ’962 Patent on May 27, 2014.
`74.
`
`Twilio owns the right, title and interest in the ’962 Patent, with full rights to
`
`pursue recovery of royalties or damages for infringement.
`75.
`
`Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ’962
`
`Patent, including at least Claim 1 by advertising, distributing, making, using, selling and
`
`offering for sale within the United States and importing into the United States related software
`
`and related services, including but not limited to Defendant’s Score and Phone ID products.
`76.
`
`Defendant’s Score and Phone ID products relate generally to fraud detection. See
`
`https://www.telesign.com/products/.
`77.
`
`The Score product at least receives a phone number, analyzes the phone number,
`
`The Phone ID product may be used with the Score product.
`
`and assigns a fraud score to the phone number. See https://www.telesign.com/products/.
`78.
`79.
`80.
`
`The Score and Phone ID products are offered together and come bundled together.
`
`Defendant’s developer API documentation makes reference to the “Phone ID
`
`Score web service.” See https://developer.telesign.com/docs/rest_api-phoneid-score.
`81.
`
`Defendant’s operation of its Score and Phone ID products infringe one or more
`
`claims of the ’962 Patent. As an example of one theory of infringement and with reference to
`
`TeleSign’s Score and PhoneID Product
`See below for elements.
`
`By Defendant’s operation of the Score and PhoneID products,
`Defendant performs this step.
`
`With reference to TeleSign’s Score and Phone ID products, TeleSign
`enrolls a plurality of accounts. Further, each account that enrolls
`includes account configuration. For example, an account may include
`a telephone number. See https://www.telesign.com/products/score/
`and https://www.telesign.com/products/phone-id/.
`
`
`By Defendant’s operation of the Score and PhoneID products,
`Defendant performs this step.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’962:
`Claim 1
`[1] A method
`comprising:
`
`[1a]enrolling a plurality
`of accounts on a
`telecommunications
`platform, wherein an
`account includes
`account configuration;
`
`
`[1b] at a fraud detection
`system of the
`telecommunications
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-06925-LHK Document 1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 9 of 48
`
`TeleSign’s Score and PhoneID Product
`With reference to TeleSign’s Score and Phone ID products, TeleSign
`receives account usage data related to the account, wherein the data
`includes at communication and billing data. For example, TeleSign
`its Global Clearinghouse. See
`checks an account
`through
`https://www.telesign.com/products/score. As another example, checks
`account usage data through historical data on phone number usage.
`See https://www.telesign.com/products/score. As another example,
`TeleSign continually extracts historical data from phone numbers. See
`https://developer.telesign.com/docs/rest_api-phoneid-score. As yet
`another example, TeleSign at least has data relating to the phone
`See
`number,
`phone
`type,
`and
`carrier.
`https://developer.telesign.com/docs/rest_api-phoneid-score.
`
`
`
`By Defendant’s operation of the Score and PhoneID products,
`Defendant performs this step.
`
`With reference to TeleSign’s Score and Phone ID products, TeleSign
`calculates a fraud score from the obtained data that includes a least
`two accounts. For example, TeleSign assigns a score value from 0 to
`1000. See https://www.telesign.com/products/score/. See also
`
`Claim 1
`platform, receiving
`account usage data,
`wherein the account
`usage data includes at
`least communication
`configuration data and
`billing configuration
`data of account
`configuration and
`further includes
`communication history
`of the plurality of
`accounts;
`
`
`[1c] calculating fraud
`scores of a set of fraud
`rules from the usage
`data, wherein at least a
`sub-set of the fraud
`rules include conditions
`of usage data patterns
`between at least two
`accounts;
`
`
`
`
` https://developer.telesign.com/docs/rest_api-phoneid-score. As yet
`another example, TeleSign tries to reduce fake accounts with its
`product and keeps a blacklist to make sure repeat users cannot open
`multiple accounts. See https://www.telesign.com/use-cases/reduce-
`fake-accounts/ and https://www.telesign.com/products/score/.
`
`
`By Defendant’s operation of the Score and PhoneID products,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`
`[1d] detecting when the
`fraud scores of an
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-06925-LHK Document 1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 10 of 48
`
`Claim 1
`account satisfy a fraud
`threshold;
`
`TeleSign’s Score and PhoneID Product
`Defendant performs this step.
`
`With reference to TeleSign’s Score and Phone ID products, TeleSign
`detects when the fraud score of an account hits a threshold amount.
`For example, TeleSign uses a numbering system between 0 and 1000
`and will detect when an account score reaches a certain threshold. See
`https://developer.telesign.com/docs/implement-your-score-policy and
`https://www.telesign.com/products/score.
`
`
`By Defendant’s operation of the Score and PhoneID products,
`Defendant performs this step.
`
`With reference to TeleSign’s Score and Phone ID products, TeleSign
`initiates an action response when an account reaches a certain
`threshold. For example, TeleSign uses a numbering system between 0
`and 1000 and upon an account reaching a certain threshold initiates an
`action. For example, TeleSign may indicate whether an account
`See
`should
`be
`blocked
`or
`not
`blocked.
`https://developer.telesign.com/docs/rest_api-phoneid-score
`and
`https://www.telesign.com/products/score/.
`
`Defendant’s infringement has caused, and is continuing to cause, damage and
`
`[1e] initiating an action
`response when a fraud
`score satisfies the fraud
`threshold.
`
`82.
`
`irreparable injury to Twilio, and Twilio will continue to suffer damage and irreparable injury
`
`unless and until that infringement is enjoined by this Court.
`83.
`
`Twilio is entitled to injunctive relief and damages in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 271, 281, 283, and 284.
`84.
`
`Based on Defendant’s behavior and analysis of Twilio’s products, Defendant
`
`became aware of the ’962 Patent, for example, at least during its diligence in filing suit against
`
`Twilio. See, for example, ¶¶52 – 71. The evidence tending to support this allegation will likely
`
`have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.
`85.
`
`Defendant’s infringement of the ’962 Patent has been and continues to be willful,
`
`flagrant, wanton, and deliberate, justifying a trebling of damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. See, for
`
`example, ¶¶52 – 71. The evidence tending to support this allegation will likely have evidentiary
`
`support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.
`86.
`
`Based on at least Defendant’s analysis of Twilio’s products, Defendant either
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-06925-LHK Document 1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 11 of 48
`
`knows or should have known about its risk of infringement regarding the ’962 Patent.
`87.
`
`Defendant’s conduct despite this knowledge is made with a reckless disregard for
`
`the infringing nature of their activities.
`
`Count II (Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,270,833)
`
`88.
`
`Twilio incorporates by reference and realleges all the foregoing paragraphs of
`
`this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`89.
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) duly and legally
`
`issued the ’833 Patent on February 23, 2016.
`90.
`
`Twilio owns the right, title and interest in the ’833 Patent, with full rights to
`
`pursue recovery of royalties or damages for infringement.
`91.
`
`Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ’833
`
`Patent, including at least Claim 5 by advertising, distributing, making, using, selling and
`
`offering for sale within the United States and importing into the United States related software
`
`and related services, including but not limited to Defendant’s Score and Phone ID product.
`92.
`
`Defendant’s Score and Phone ID products relate generally to fraud detection. See
`
`https://www.telesign.com/products/.
`93.
`
`The Score product at least receives a phone number, reviews the phone number
`
`for fraud, and assigns a score to the phone number. See https://www.telesign.com/products/.
`94.
`95.
`
`Defendant’s developer API documentation makes reference to the “Phone ID
`
`The Phone ID product may be used with the Score product.
`
`Score web service.” See https://developer.telesign.com/docs/rest_api-phoneid-score.
`96.
`
`Defendant’s operation of its Score and Phone ID products infringe one or more
`
`claims of the ’833 Patent. As an example of one theory of infringement and with reference to
`
`Claim 5 of the ’833:
`Claim 5
`[5] A method
`comprising: at a
`telecommunication
`platform:
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`TeleSign’s Score and PhoneID Product
`
`By Defendant’s operation of the Score and PhoneID products,
`Defendant performs this step.
`
`With reference to TeleSign’s Score and Phone ID products, TeleSign
`
`
`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
`
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`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 5:16-cv-06925-LHK Document 1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 12 of 48
`
`Claim 5
`
`[5a] enrolling a
`plurality of parent
`accounts in the
`telecommunication
`platform;
`
`[5b] within a first
`enrolled account,
`enrolling at least one
`sub-account that is
`managed by the first
`account;
`
`
`[5c] at a fraud detection
`system of the
`telecommunications
`platform, receiving sub-
`account usage data of a
`plurality of sub-
`accounts of the
`telecommunication
`platform, wherein the
`sub-account usage data
`of each of the plurality
`of sub-accounts
`includes at least
`configuration data of
`the sub-account and
`communication history
`data;
`
`
`[5d] calculating fraud
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`TeleSign’s Score and PhoneID Product
`maintains a telecommunication platform, for example its Phone ID
`Score web service. See
`https://developer.telesign.com/docs/rest_api-phoneid-score.
`
`
`By Defendant’s operation of the Score and PhoneID products,
`Defendant performs this step.
`
`With reference to TeleSign’s Score and Phone ID products, TeleSign
`advertises its products to help customers protect end-user accounts
`from fraud. See https://www.telesign.com/contact/. Further, TeleSign
`its platform. See
`enrolls a plurality of parent accounts on
`https://www.telesign.com/products/score/
`and
`https://www.telesign.com/products/phone-id/.
`
`
`By Defendant’s operation of the Score and PhoneID products,
`Defendant performs this step.
`
`With reference to TeleSign’s Score and Phone ID products, TeleSign
`enrolls a plurality of sub-accounts that may be managed by the first
`account. For example, the sub-accounts that enroll are the accounts of
`users that are managed by the developer of the application. See
`https://www.telesign.com/products/score/
`and
`https://www.telesign.com/products/phone-id/.
`
`By Defendant’s operation of the Score and PhoneID products,
`Defendant performs this step.
`
`With reference to TeleSign’s Score and Phone ID products, TeleSign
`receives sub-account usage data related to the account, wherein the
`sub-account usage data
`includes both configuration data and
`communication history data. For example, TeleSign checks an
`See
`account
`through
`its
`Global
`Clearinghouse.
`https://www.telesign.com/products/score. As
`another
`example,
`TeleSign checks sub-account usage data through historical data on
`phone number usage. See https://www.telesign.com/products/score.
`As another example, TeleSign continually extracts historical data
`from phone numbers. See
`https://developer.telesign.com/docs/rest_api-phoneid-score. As yet
`another example, TeleSign at least has data relating to the phone
`See
`number,
`phone
`type,
`and
`carrier.
`https://developer.telesign.com/docs/rest_api-phoneid-score.
`
`
`By Defendant’s operation of the Score and PhoneID products,
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-06925-LHK Document 1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 13 of 48
`
`Claim 5
`scores of a set of fraud
`scores from the sub-
`account usage data;
`
`
`
`TeleSign’s Score and PhoneID Product
`Defendant performs this step.
`
`With reference to TeleSign’s Score and Phone ID products, TeleSign
`calculates a fraud score based on the obtained data from the sub-
`account. For example, TeleSign assigns a score value from 0 to 1000.
`See https://www.telesign.com/products/score/. See also
`
`
` https://developer.telesign.com/docs/rest_api-phoneid-score. As yet
`another example, TeleSign looks at the velocity and traffic patterns of
`See
`an
`account
`in
`calculating
`a
`fraud
`score.
`https://www.telesign.com/products/score/. As yet another example,
`TeleSign’s PhoneID Score may return a Risk, Risk Level,
`Recommendation, or Score associated with a sub-account. See
`https://developer.telesign.com/docs/rest_api-phoneid-score.
`
`By Defendant’s operation of the Score and PhoneID products,
`Defendant performs this step.
`
`With reference to TeleSign’s Score and Phone ID products, TeleSign
`detects when the fraud score of an account hits a threshold amount.
`For example, TeleSign uses a numbering system between 0 and 1000
`and will detect when an account score reaches a certain threshold. See
`https://developer.telesign.com/docs/implement-your-score-policy and
`https://www.telesign.com/products/score. Further, TeleSign notifies
`the parent account of the potentially fraudulent account. For example,
`TeleSign may ask the parent account whether a sub-account should be
`See
`blocked
`or
`not
`blocked.
`https://developer.telesign.com/docs/rest_api-phoneid-score
`and
`https://www.telesign.com/products/score/.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`[5e] in a case where the
`set of fraud scores of a
`sub-account satisfy a
`fraud threshold,
`programmatically
`notifying the
`corresponding parent
`account of illicit
`behavior of the sub-
`account, the
`notification being
`provided via the
`telecommunication
`platform;
`
`[5f] wherein illicit
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-06925-LHK Document 1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 14 of 48
`
`Claim 5
`behavior includes at
`least one of toll fraud,
`spamming, terms of
`service violations,
`denial of service
`attacks, credit card
`fraud, suspicious
`behavior, and phishing
`attacks,
`
`TeleSign’s Score and PhoneID Product
`By Defendant’s operation of the Score and PhoneID products,
`Defendant performs this step.
`
`With reference to TeleSign’s Score and Phone ID products,
`TeleSign’s software is implemented to prevent illicit behavior. For
`example, TeleSign tries to reduce fake accounts with its product and
`keeps a blacklist to make sure repeat users cannot open multiple
`See
`accounts.
`https://www.telesign.com/use-cases/reduce-fake-
`accounts/ and https://www.telesign.com/products/score/. As yet
`another example, TeleSign’s product may determine illicit behavior
`through credit card stop payments, identify theft, spam, hacking, or
`other
`types
`of
`online
`fraud.
`https://developer.telesign.com/docs/rest_api-phoneid-score.
`
`
`By Defendant’s operation of the Score and PhoneID products,
`Defendant performs this step.
`
`With reference to TeleSign’s Score and Phone ID products, the parent
`account is associated with an external service and each sub-account is
`an account that uses the external service. For example, TeleSign
`includes developer API documentation on its website that allows for
`parent accounts of an external service to integrate the Score and
`See
`Phone
`ID
`product.
`https://developer.telesign.com/docs/implement-your-score-policy and
`https://www.telesign.com/customers/tinder/. Further, the sub-accounts
`use the external service that is provided by the parent account. See
`https://developer.telesign.com/docs/implement-your-score-policy and
`https://www.telesign.com/customers/tinder/.
`
`Defendant’s infringement has caused, and is continuing to cause, damage and
`
`
`[5g] wherein the parent
`account is an account of
`an external service
`provider system, and
`wherein each sub-
`account is an account of
`a system that uses a
`service of the external
`service provider
`system.
`
`
`97.
`
`irreparable injury to Twilio, and Twilio will continue to suffer damage and irreparable injury
`
`unless and until that infringement is enjoined by this Court.
`98.
`
`Twilio is entitled to injunctive relief and damages in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 271, 281, 283, and 284.
`99.
`
`Based on Defendant’s behavior and analysis of Twilio’s products, Defendant
`
`became aware of the ’833 Patent, for example, at least during its diligence in filing suit against
`
`Twilio. See, for example, ¶¶52 – 71. The evidence tending to support this allegation will likely
`
`have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.
`100. Defendant’s infringement of the ’833 Patent has been and continues to be willful,
`
`13
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`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 5:16-cv-06925-LHK Document 1 Filed 12/01/16 Page 15 of 48
`
`flagrant, wanton, and deliberate, justifying a trebling of damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. See, for
`
`example, ¶¶52 – 71. The evidence tending to support this allegation will likely have evidentiary
`
`support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.
`101. Based on at least Defendant’s analysis of Twilio’s products, Defendant either
`
`knows or should have known about its ri