`Case 5:20-cv-08009 Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 1 of 40
`
`
`
`
`
`Michael S. Kwun (SBN 198945)
`mkwun@kblfirm.com
`Asim M. Bhansali (SBN 194925)
`abhansali@kblfirm.com
`KWUN BHANSALI LAZARUS LLP
`555 Montgomery St., Suite 750
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 630-2350
`Fax: (415) 367-1539
`
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs
`SONY CORPORATION,
`SONY ELECTRONICS INC., and
`SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`
`SONY CORPORATION, SONY
`ELECTRONICS INC., and SONY
`INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC,
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`ROVI GUIDES, INC., ROVI
`TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and
`TIVO SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`Case No.: 5:20-cv-08009
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT OF PATENT
`NONINFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NONINFRINGEMENT
`(No. 5:20-cv-08009)
`
`
`
`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 5:20-cv-08009 Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 2 of 40
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Sony Corporation, Sony Electronics Inc., and Sony Interactive Entertainment
`LLC (collectively, “SONY”) bring this action for declaratory judgment of patent
`noninfringement against Defendants Rovi Guides, Inc. (“Rovi Guides”), Rovi Technologies
`Corporation (“Rovi Tech. Corp.”), and TiVo Solutions, Inc. (“TiVo”) (collectively,
`“Defendants”) and allege as follows:
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`This is an action arising under the Declaratory Judgement Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
`1.
`and 2202, and the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. SONY brings this
`action for a declaration that it does not infringe any claim of U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`
`
`
`
` (collectively “the Asserted Patents”).
`PARTIES
`Sony Corporation is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of
`2.
`Japan, with a principal place of business located at 1-7-1 Konan, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-0075,
`Japan.
`Sony Electronics Inc. (“SEL”) is a corporation duly organized and existing under
`3.
`the laws of Delaware, with a principal place of business located at 16535 Via Esprillo, San
`Diego CA 92127. SEL provides a wide range of audio-visual products, including televisions
`and mobile entertainment products. SEL is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Sony
`Corporation.
`Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC (“SIE”) is a limited liability company duly
`4.
`organized and existing under the laws of California, with a principal place of business located at
`2207 Bridgepointe Parkway, San Mateo, California 94404. SIE is headquartered in San Mateo,
`California and is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Sony Corporation. SIE is a leader in
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NONINFRINGEMENT
`(No. 5:20-cv-08009)
` - 1 -
`
`
`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 5:20-cv-08009 Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 3 of 40
`
`
`
`
`interactive and digital entertainment responsible for the PlayStation™ brand and family of
`products and services, including PlayStation™ 4 and PlayStation™ Video.
`On information and belief, Rovi Technologies Corporation (“Rovi Tech. Corp.”)
`5.
`is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware with a principal place of
`business at 2830 De La Cruz Boulevard, Santa Clara, California 95050.
`On information and belief, Rovi Guides, Inc. (“Rovi Guides”) is a corporation
`6.
`organized and existing under the laws of Delaware with a principal place of business at 2160
`Gold Street, San Jose, California 95002. On information and belief, Rovi Guides is a wholly
`owned subsidiary of Rovi Tech. Corp., and in turn a wholly owned subsidiary of TiVo
`Solutions, Inc.
`On information and belief, TiVo Solutions, Inc. (“TiVo”) is a corporation
`7.
`organized and existing under the laws of Delaware with a principal place of business located at
`2160 Gold Street, San Jose, California 95002.
`JURISDICTION
`This is an action for declaratory relief under the Patent Laws of the United
`8.
`States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction because, on information and belief,
`9.
`Defendants have, and have had, continuous and systemic contacts within the State of California,
`including this District. On information and belief, the headquarters or principal place of
`business of the Defendants is San Jose or Santa Clara, California, both of which are located in
`this District. Further, on information and belief, Defendants have purposefully directed
`business activities at this District and residents of this District have used services and products
`offered for sale or sold by Defendants.
`For example, Rovi Guides has sought to enforce its patent rights in this district
`10.
`previously in Rovi Corp., et al. v. Roku, Inc., Case No. 12-2185, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D. Cal. May 1,
`2012).
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NONINFRINGEMENT
`(No. 5:20-cv-08009)
` - 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 5:20-cv-08009 Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 4 of 40
`
`
`
`
`In addition, Rovi Guides and Rovi Tech. Corp. admitted this Court had personal
`11.
`jurisdiction over each of them in a prior litigation. See Netflix, Inc. v. Rovi Corp. et al., No. 11-
`cv-06591, Dkt. No. 16 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2012) (“Rovi [defined to include Rovi Guides and
`Rovi Tech. Corp.] admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Rovi.”).
`TiVo (under its former name, TiVo Inc.) previously submitted to this Court’s
`12.
`jurisdiction as well when it filed a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and
`invalidity in the Northern District. See TiVo Inc. v. Digital CBT LLC, et al., No. 12-cv-03866,
`Dkt. No. 1 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 24, 2012).
`This Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.§§ 2331 and 1338(a)
`13.
`because this is a civil action arising under the Patent Act. This Court has subject matter
`jurisdiction over SONY’s declaratory judgment claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202
`because an immediate and substantial controversy exists between SONY and Defendants with
`respect to whether the Asserted Patents cover SONY’s activities.
`SONY and the Defendants have a history of patent license negotiations. On
`14.
`December 28, 2015, Sony Corporation (together with all of its Subsidiaries, including SEL and
`SIE) and parent company Rovi Corporation (together with all its Subsidiaries, including Rovi
`Guides and Rovi. Tech. Corp.) executed a Worldwide Patent License Agreement (“2015
`License Agreement”),
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`, the
`In 2017,
`15.
`parties began discussions regarding a renewed license. Ultimately, these discussions resulted in
`the September 29, 2017 execution of an amendment to the 2015 License Agreement entitled
`“SONY Amendment One to Worldwide Patent License Agreement” (“2017 License
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NONINFRINGEMENT
`(No. 5:20-cv-08009)
` - 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 5:20-cv-08009 Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 5 of 40
`
`
`
`
`Agreement”). The 2017 License Agreement added TiVo Solutions Inc. as a party to the
`agreement
`
`16.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` purportedly remain enforceable as of July 1, 2020. By contrast, the 2015
`License Agreement and the 2017 License Agreement also covered numerous other patents that
`expired on or before July 1, 2020.
`17.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18.
`19.
`
`
`
`PlayStation Vue is no longer offered by SONY.
`20.
`Sony Corporation and TiVo subsequently entered into a Non-Disclosure
`21.
`Agreement (“NDA”). Many details relating to the Parties’ more recent licensing discussions are
`covered by the NDA, and therefore are not included in this Complaint.
`The licensing discussions have been unsuccessful. SONY is not licensed under
`22.
`the Asserted Patents for particular products and services sold after expiration of the 2017
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NONINFRINGEMENT
`(No. 5:20-cv-08009)
` - 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 5:20-cv-08009 Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 6 of 40
`
`
`
`
`License Agreement and does not believe there is any reason to take such a license because the
`Asserted Patents do not cover any of SONY’s products and services. Accordingly, SONY
`reasonably believes the Parties to be at an impasse with respect to their respective rights under
`the Asserted Patents.
`Defendants have a long history of asserting their patents in this Court and many
`23.
`other courts, including the following cases: Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Corp. et al., 2:19-cv-
`0309 (C.D. Cal.); Rovi Guides, Inc. v. Comcast Corp., 2:19-cv-00275 (C.D. Cal.); Rovi Guides,
`Inc. v. Comcast Corp., 2:18-cv-00253 (C.D. Cal.); Rovi Guides, Inc., et al. v. Comcast Corp. et
`al., 1:16-cv-09278 (S.D.N.Y.); Rovi Guides, Inc., et al. v. Comcast Corp. et al., 2:16-cv-00321
`(E.D. Tex.); Rovi Technologies Corp. et al. v. Hulu LLC, 2:12-cv-04756 (C.D. Cal.); Rovi Corp.
`et al. v. LG Electronics Inc., et al., 1:12-cv-00545 (D. Del.); Rovi Corp. et al. v. VIZIO
`Inc.¸1:12-cv-00546 (D. Del); Rovi Corp. et al. v. Mitsubishi Electric Corp. et al., 1:12-cv-02185
`(D. Del.); Rovi Corp. et al. v. Roku, Inc., 5:12-cv-02185 (N.D. Cal.); Rovi Corp. et al. v. VIZIO,
`Inc., 1:11-cv-01129 (D. Del.); Rovi Corp. et al. v. Haier Group Corp. et al., 1:11-cv-01140
`(D. Del.); Rovi Corp. et al. v. Sharp Corp. et al., 3:11-cv-00533 (E.D. Va.); Rovi Corp. et al. v.
`Hulu LLC, 1:11-cv-00665 (D. Del.); United Video Properties Inc., et al. v. Amazon.Com Inc., et
`al., 1:11-cv-00003 (D. Del.); Rovi Corp. et al. v. Toshiba Corp. et al., 1:10-cv-00931 (D. Del.);
`TiVo, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., 2:15-cv-01503 (E.D. Tex.); TiVo, Inc. v.
`Digital CBT LLC, et al.,2:13-cv-00206 (C.D. Cal.); TiVo, Inc. v. Digital CBT LLC, et al., 3:12-
`cv-02766 (N.D. Cal.). Indeed, Hulu filed a declaratory judgment action in this Court alleging
`that TiVo improperly attempted to threaten Hulu with patents that Hulu did not practice. Hulu,
`LLC v. Rovi Corporation et al., 3:17-cv-02942 (N.D. Cal.).
`Because Defendants assert rights under the Asserted Patents based on identified
`24.
`ongoing activities of SONY, and SONY contends that it has the right to engage in the accused
`activities without a license from Defendants, there is a substantial, justiciable controversy
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NONINFRINGEMENT
`(No. 5:20-cv-08009)
` - 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 5:20-cv-08009 Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 7 of 40
`
`
`
`
`between SONY and Defendants sufficient to warrant a declaratory judgment of their respective
`rights and duties.1
`In view of the Defendants’ correspondence and communication with SONY as
`25.
`detailed above, and in view of the Defendants’ pattern of filing lawsuits against other
`companies, a threat of actual and imminent injury exists as to SONY that can be redressed by
`judicial relief. The injury to SONY includes uncertainty as to whether the development, use,
`and sale of SONY products, services, and applications will be free from infringement claims
`based on each of the Asserted Patents. Consequently, the injury is sufficiently immediate and
`irreparable to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.
`VENUE
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because
`26.
`Defendants reside in this District. In addition, a substantial part of the events giving rise to the
`claims at issue occurred in this District and Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction
`within this District.
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 3-5(b) and 3-2(c), intellectual property actions are
`27.
`assigned on a district-wide basis.
`
`PATENTS
`U.S. Patent No.
` is titled
`
`
`
`28.
`
`The
`
`
` states that it was issued to
` A true and
`
`correct copy of the
`
` is attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`
`
`1 Further, in view of the unsuccessful licensing negotiations between SONY and
`Defendants, the details of which are not revealed here due to the NDA, an actual controversy
`exists between SONY and Defendants with respect to additional patents owned by Defendants
`(or other entities affiliated with Defendants) not included as Asserted Patents in this complaint.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NONINFRINGEMENT
`(No. 5:20-cv-08009)
` - 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 5:20-cv-08009 Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 8 of 40
`Case 5:20-cv-08009 Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 8 of 40
`
`29.
`
`The assignee of the_ identified on the patent’s face is—
`
`On information and belief, Rovi Tech. C011). claims to be the current owner by assignment of all
`
`right, title, and interest in the_
`
`US. Patent No.-
`
`The_ is t.fl.d_.»
`
`The_ states that it was issued to— A fine and
`
`correct copy of the_ is attached as Exhibit 2.
`
`31.
`
`The Oiiginal assignee ofthe_ identified on the patent’s face is
`
`— On information and belief, Rovi Tech. C01p claims to be the Clnrent
`
`owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in the_
`
`US. Patent No.-
`
`The_ is titled—
`
`that m. issuedto— A
`
`hue and c01rect copy of the_ is attached as Exhibit 3.
`
`33.
`
`The Oiiginal assignee ofthe_ identified on the patent’s face is-
`
`— On information and belief, Rovi Guides claims to be the crurent owner
`
`by assignment of all right, title, and interest in the_
`
`US. Patent No.-
`
`The_ is titled—
`
`- The_ states that it was issuedto—
`
`— A hue and correct copy of the-
`
`- is attached as Exhibit 4.
`
`35.
`
`The assignee of the_ identified on the patent’s face is—
`
`_ On information and belief, Rovi Guides claims to be the current owner by
`
`assignment of all right, title, and interest in the_
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NONINFRINGEMENT
`
`(No. 5:20-cv-08009)
`_ 7 _
`
`\IO\
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`l3
`
`l4
`
`l6
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-08009 Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 9 of 40
`Case 5:20-cv-08009 Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 9 of 40
`
`US. PatentNo-
`
`me— .. titled—
`
`states that it was issued to_ A true and correct copy ofthe- is attached
`
`as Exhibit 5.
`
`37.
`
`The original assignee ofthe_ identified on the patent’s face is TiVo
`
`Inc. On information and belief, TiVo Inc. was renamed TiVo Solutions, Inc. On information
`
`and belief, TiVo claims to be the current owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in
`
`the_.
`
`US. Patent No.-
`
`me— .. titled—
`
`states that it was issued to_ A true and correct copy ofthe- is attached
`
`as Exhibit 6.
`
`39.
`
`The original assignee ofthe_ identified on the patent’s face is TiVo
`
`Inc. On information and belief, TiVo Inc. was renamed TiVo Solutions, Inc. On information
`
`and belief, TiVo claims to be the current owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in
`
`the—
`
`US. Patent No-
`
`me— .. titled—em
`
`states that it was issued to—
`
`A true and correct copy ofthe_ is attached as Exhibit 7.
`
`41.
`
`The assignee of the_ identified on the patent’s face is—
`
`. On information and belief, Rovi Guides claims to be the current owner by assignment of
`
`all right. title, and interest in the_
`
`US. PatentNo-
`
`me— .. titled—
`
`—states that it was issued to— A true and correct
`
`copy of the- is attached as Exhibit 8.
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NONINFRINGEMENT
`
`(No. 5:20-cv-08009)
`_ 8 _
`
`\IO\
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`l3
`
`l4
`
`l6
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`Case 5:20-cv-08009 Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 10 of 40
`
`
`
`
` identified on the patent’s face is Rovi Guides,
`The assignee of the
`43.
`Inc. On information and belief, Rovi Guides claims to be the current owner by assignment of
`all right, title, and interest in the
`.
`U.S. Patent No.
` is titled
`. A true and correct copy of the
`
`The
`44.
`it was issued to
`Exhibit 9.
` identified on the patent’s face is TiVo
`The original assignee of the
`45.
`Inc. On information and belief, TiVo Inc. was renamed TiVo Solutions, Inc. On information
`and belief, TiVo claims to be the current owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in
`the
`.
`
` states that
` is attached as
`
`
`
`46.
`
`U.S. Patent No.
` is titled,
`The
` states that it was issued to
`
`
`
`
`
`. A true and correct copy of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` is attached as Exhibit 10.
` identified on the patent’s face is
`The assignee of the
`47.
` On information and belief, Rovi Guides claims to be the current owner by
`assignment of all right, title, and interest in the
`.
`U.S. Patent No.
` is titled,
` A true and correct copy of the
`
`
`
`The
`48.
`it was issued to
`Exhibit 11.
` identified on the patent’s face is TiVo
`The original assignee of the
`49.
`Inc. On information and belief, TiVo Inc. was renamed TiVo Solutions, Inc. On information
`and belief, TiVo claims to be the current owner by assignment of all right, title, and interest in
`the
`.
`
` states that
` is attached as
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NONINFRINGEMENT
`(No. 5:20-cv-08009)
` - 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 5:20-cv-08009 Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 11 of 40
`Case 5:20-cv-08009 Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 11 of 40
`
`ACCUSED PRODUCTS
`
`50.
`
`SIE sells or has sold PlayStationTM Video (“PS Video”), an on-demand service
`
`that enables viewers to rent or buy movies or television programs. It can be installed and used
`
`in conjunction with the PlayStationTM Store on certain PlayStationTM consoles. In addition,
`
`corresponding PS Video applications can be used on certain iPhones, iPads, and Android
`
`devices (including Xperia smartphones and certain Sony televisions). The user browses titles
`
`available and determines which content to rent or buy.
`
`51.
`
`SIE sells or has sold PlayStationTM 4 (“PS4”), a home video console for gaming
`
`and entertainment experiences.
`
`52.
`
`SIE’s PlayStationTM 5 (“PSS”) is a home video console for gaming and
`
`entertainment experiences. The PSS features lightning-fast loading with an ultra-high speed
`
`SSD, deeper immersion with support for haptic feedback, adaptive triggers and 3D Audio.
`
`53.
`
`54.
`
`SONY sells or has sold various smart televisions (“SONY TVs”).
`
`SONY sells or has sold various Xperia smartphones for personal and
`
`professional use (“SONY Mobile Devices”).
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`SONY sells or has sold various Blu-ray disc players (“SONY Blu—rays”).
`
`SIE’s PlayStationTM Network (“PSN”) is a network that permits registered users
`
`to connect with other PlayStationTM users to play, connect and share online. Users are permitted
`
`to post certain updates and view and comment on certain of their friends’ activities. PSN
`
`permits users to exchange messages and in certain instances hand over control of a game to
`
`particular members.
`
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`COUNT I
`
`Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of US. Patent No.-
`
`57.
`
`Paragraphs 1-56 are incorporated herein by reference.
`
`‘OWNO‘
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`/ / /
`
`27
`
`/ / /
`
`28
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 0F PATENT NONIN'FRINGEMENT
`
`(No. 5:20—cv—08009)
`_ 10 _
`
`

`

`
`Case 5:20-cv-08009 Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 12 of 40
`
`
`
`
`SONY has not infringed and does not infringe any claim of the
`58.
`directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`SONY’s PS Video, PS4, SONY TVs, SONY Mobile Devices, SONY Blu-rays,
`59.
`and PSN, do not infringe the
`. For example, PSN does not practice the limitation of
`
`
`
` either
`
`appearing in independent claim 1 of the
`from claim 1) because
`
` (and by extension in all claims that depend
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`60.
`
`PSN also does not practice the limitation of
`
`appearing in independent claim 7 of the
`from claim 7) because
`
`
` (and by extension in all claims that depend
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`61.
`
`PSN also does not practice the limitations of
`
`
`
`
` and
` appearing in independent claim 14 (and
`by extension in all claims that depend from claim 14) of the
` because
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NONINFRINGEMENT
`(No. 5:20-cv-08009)
` - 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
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 5:20-cv-08009 Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 13 of 40
`
`
`
`
`62.
`
`PSN also does not practice the limitations of
`
`in independent claim 22 of the
`
` because
`
`
` and
` appearing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For similar reasons, SONY’s PS Video, PS4, SONY TVs, SONY Mobile
`63.
`Devices, and SONY Blu-rays also do not infringe independent claims 1, 7, 14, and 22 of the
`, nor do they infringe any claims depending from claims 1, 7 or 14.
`As set forth above, an actual controversy exists between SONY and Defendants
`64.
`with respect to the
` and this controversy is likely to continue. Accordingly, SONY
`desires a judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties
`with respect to the
`.
`
`COUNT II
`Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No.
`Paragraphs 1-64 are incorporated herein by reference.
`65.
`66.
`SONY has not infringed and does not infringe any claim of the
`directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`SONY’s PS Video, PS4, SONY TVs, SONY Mobile Devices, SONY Blu-rays,
`67.
`and PSN, do not infringe the
`. For example, SONY TVs do not practice the
`limitation of
`
`
`
` either
`
`
`
`appearing in independent claim 1 of the
`from claim 1) because
`
`
` (and by extension in all claims that depend
`
`
`.
`SONY TVs also do not practice the limitation of
`
`68.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NONINFRINGEMENT
`(No. 5:20-cv-08009)
` - 12 -
`
`
`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 5:20-cv-08009 Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 14 of 40
`
`
`
`
` appearing in claim 12 of the
`by extension in all claims that depend from claim 12) because they
`
`69.
`
`SONY TVs also do not practice the limitation of
`
`.
`
` (and
`
`
`
`
`
` appearing in independent claim 19 of the
` (and by extension in all claims that depend from claim 19) because
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`For similar reasons, SONY’s PS Video, PS4, SONY Mobile Devices, SONY
`70.
`Blu-rays, and PSN also do not infringe any of claims 1, 12, or 19 of the
`, nor do they
`infringe any claims depending from claims 1, 12, or 19.
`As set forth above, an actual controversy exists between SONY and Defendants
`71.
`with respect to the
` and this controversy is likely to continue. Accordingly, SONY
`desires a judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties
`with respect to the
`.
`
`COUNT III
`Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No.
`Paragraphs 1-71 are incorporated herein by reference.
`72.
`73.
`SONY has not infringed and does not infringe any claim of the
`directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`SONY’s PS Video, PS4, SONY TVs, SONY Mobile Devices, SONY Blu-rays,
`74.
`and PSN, do not infringe the
`. For example, the PS4 does not practice the limitation
`of
`
`
` either
`
`
`
` appearing in independent claim 1 of the
`that depend from claim 1) because
`
`
`
`
` (and by extension in all claims
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NONINFRINGEMENT
`(No. 5:20-cv-08009)
` - 13 -
`
`
`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 5:20-cv-08009 Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 15 of 40
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`75.
`
`The PS4 also does not practice the limitation of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`claim 11 of the
`
` appearing in independent
` (and by extension in all claims that depend from claim 11) because
`
`
`76.
`
`The PS4 also does not practice the limitation of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`appearing in independent claim 17 of the
`from claim 17) because
`
`
` (and by extension in all claims that depend
`
`
`
`The PS4 also does not practice the limitation of
`
`77.
`
` appearing in independent claim 22 of the
`by extension any claims that depend from claim 22) because
`
`78.
`
`The PS4 also does not practice the limitation of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`appearing in independent claim 26 of the
`from claim 26) because
`
`
` (and by extension any claims that depend
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NONINFRINGEMENT
`(No. 5:20-cv-08009)
` - 14 -
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 5:20-cv-08009 Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 16 of 40
`
`
`
`
`79.
`
`The PS4 also does not practice the limitation of
`
`.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`appearing in independent claim 36 of the
`from claim 36) because
`
`
` (and by extension any claims that depend
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`80.
`
`The PS4 also does not practice the limitation of
`
`independent claim 42 of the
`42) because
`
` appearing in
` (and by extension any claims that depend from claim
`
`
`
`The PS4 also does not practice the limitation of
`
`81.
`
`
` appearing in independent
` (and by extension any claims that depend from claim 47) because
`
`claim 47 of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For similar reasons, SONY’s PS Video, SONY TVs, SONY Mobile Devices,
`82.
`SONY Blu-rays, and PSN also do infringe any of claims 1, 11, 17, 22, 26, 36, 42, and 47 of the
`, nor do they infringe any claims depending from claims 1, 11, 17, 22, 26, 36, 42, or
`
`47.
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NONINFRINGEMENT
`(No. 5:20-cv-08009)
` - 15 -
`
`
`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 5:20-cv-08009 Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 17 of 40
`Case 5:20-cv-O8009 Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 17 of 40
`
`83.
`
`As set forth above, an actual controversy exists between SONY and Defendants
`
`with respect to the_ and this controversy is likely to continue. Accordingly, SONY
`
`desires a judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties
`
`with respect to the_.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of US. Patent No.-
`
`84.
`
`85.
`
`Paragraphs 1-83 are incorporated herein by reference.
`
`SONY has not infringed and does not infringe any claim of the_ either
`
`directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`86.
`
`SONY’s PS Video, PS4, PSS, SONY TVs, SONY Mobile Devices, SONY Blu-
`
`rays, and PSN do not infringe the_. For example, the PS4 does not practice the
`
`limitation ofan— appearing in independent claims 1, 12,
`
`23, and 24 of the_ (and by extension in all claims that depend from claims 1, 12, 23,
`
`and 24>secess—
`
`87.
`
`The PS4 also does not practice the limitation of a—
`
`— eupeeuus u uuueueuueu slums u and 23
`
`of the_ (and by extension in all claims that depend from claims 1 or 23) because the
`
`PS4 lacksan— (as explained in paragraph 86) and also
`
`because the—
`
`88.
`
`The PS4 also does not practice the limitation of a—
`
`— appearing in independent claims 1 and 23 of the_ (and by
`
`extension in all claims that depend from claims 1 or 23) because the PS4 does not-
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NONIN'FRINGEMENT
`
`(No. 5:20-cv-08009)
`_ l6 _
`
`\IO\
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`l3
`
`l4
`
`l6
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-08009 Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 18 of 40
`Case 5:20-cv-O8009 Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 18 of 40
`
`89.
`
`The PS4 also does not practice the limitationo—
`
`— n neeneneene em 12 en
`
`the_ (and by extension any claims that depend from claim 12) because the PS4 lacks
`
`an— (as explained in paragraph 86) and also because the
`
`Peysnnenn 4 doesne—
`
`90.
`
`The PS4 also does not practice the limitationo—
`
`— appearing in independent claim 24 (and by extension any claims that
`
`depend from claim 24) of the_ because the PS4 lacks an—
`
`_ (as explained in paragraph 86) and also because—
`
`91.
`
`For similar reasons, SONY’s PS Video, SONY TVs, SONY Mobile Devices,
`
`SONY Blu-rays, and PSN also do not infringe any of independent claims 1, 12, 23, or 24 of the
`
`-, nor do they infringe any claims that depend from claims 1, 12, 23, or 24.
`
`92.
`
`As set forth above, an actual controversy exists between SONY and Defendants
`
`with respect to the_ and this controversy is likely to continue. Accordingly, SONY
`
`desires a judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties
`
`with respect to the_.
`
`COUNT V
`
`Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of US. Patent No.-
`
`93.
`
`94.
`
`Paragraphs 1-92 are incorporated herein by reference.
`
`SONY has not infringed and does not infringe any claim of the_
`
`directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`95.
`
`SONY’s PS Video, PS4, SONY TV, SONY Mobile Devices, SONY Blu-rays.
`
`and PSN do not infringe the_ For example, PS Video does not practice the
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NONIN'FRINGEMENT
`
`(No. 5:20-cv-08009)
`_ 17 _
`
`\IO\
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`l3
`
`l4
`
`l6
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`Case 5:20-cv-08009 Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 19 of 40
`
`
`
`
`limitation of
` appearing in independent claims 1, 14, or 27 (and by extension any claims that
`depend from claims 1, 14, or 27) because PS Video does not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`96.
`
`PS Video also does not practice the limitation of
`
`
`
` appearing in independent claims 1, 14, and 27 (and by extension in all
`claims that depend from claims 1, 14, and 27) because with PS Video,
`
` .
`
`
`
`PS Video also does not practice the limitation of
`97.
` appearing in independent claims 1, 14, and 27 (and by extension in all claims that
`depend from claims 1, 14, and 27) because PS Video does not
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For similar reasons, PS4, SONY TVs, SONY Mobile Devices, SONY Blu-rays,
`98.
`and PSN also do not infringe any of independent claims 1, 14, or 27 of the
`, nor do
`they infringe any claims that depend from claims 1, 14, or 27.
`As set forth above, an actual controversy exists between SONY and Defendants
`99.
`with respect to the
` and this controversy is likely to continue. Accordingly, SONY
`desires a judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties
`with respect to the
`
`
`COUNT VI
`Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No.
`100. Paragraphs 1-99 are incorporated herein by reference.
`101. SONY has not infringed and does not infringe any claim of the
`directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`102. SONY’s PS Video, PS4, SONY TV, SONY Mobile Devices, SONY Blu-rays,
`and PSN do not perform the required method claimed in the
`. For example, PS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NONINFRINGEMENT
`(No. 5:20-cv-08009)
` - 18 -
`
`
`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 5:20-cv-08009 Document 1 Filed 11/13/20 Page 20 of 40
`
`
`
`
`Video does not practice the limitation of
`
`
`
`
`
` appearing in independent claims 1, 14, 19,
`32, 37, and 50 (and by extension in all claims that depend from claims 1, 14, 19, 32, 37, and 50)
`because PS Video does not
`
`
`
`
`103. PS Video also does not practice the limitations of
`
`
`
`
` appearing in independent claims 1, 14, 19, 32, 37, and 50 (and by extension in
`all claims that depend from claims 1, 14, 19, 32, 37, and 50) because, with PS Video,
`
`
`
`
` appearing in
`104. PS Video also does not practice the limitation of
`independent claims 1, 14, 19, 32, 37, and 50 (and by extension in all claims that depend from
`claims 1, 14, 19, 32, 37, and 50) because, PS Video does not
`
`
`105. For similar reasons, SONY’s PS4, SONY TV, SONY Mobile Devices, SONY
`Blu-rays, and PSN also do not infringe any of independent claims 1, 14, 19, 32, 37, or 50 of the
`, nor do they infringe any claims that depend from claims 1, 14, 19, 32, 37, or 50.
`106. As set forth above, an actual controversy exists between SONY and Defendants
`with respect to the
` and this controversy is likely to continue. Accordingly, SONY
`desires a judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties
`with respect to the
`.