Case 1:14-cv-00598-LPS Document 9 Filed 06/13/14 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 158
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 14-598-LPS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`))))))))))))
`
`CHINOOK LICENSING DE, LLC,
`a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`ROZMED LLC, a Virginia limited liability
`company, IRON DOME LLC, a Virginia
`limited liability company, JOHN J. YIM &
`ASSOCIATES LLC, a Virginia limited
`liability company, STEVEN S. YU, AND
`JOHN J. YIM,
`
`Defendants
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`This is an action to curtail and remedy the improper, fraudulent and unlawful conduct by
`
`RozMed LLC, Iron Dome LLC, John J. Yim & Associates LLC, Steven S. Yu, and John J. Yim
`
`(collectively, “Defendants”).
`
`Plaintiff Chinook Licensing DE, LLC (“Chinook”), by its
`
`attorneys, brings this action for relief against Defendants for tortious interference with Chinook’s
`
`business relations.
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Chinook Licensing DE, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
`
`with a place of business at 320 Wilmette Avenue, Glenview, Illinois 60025.
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant RozMed LLC is a limited liability company
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of Virginia with its principal place of business
`
`at 9810 Cresence Way, Fairfax, Virginia 22032. RozMed’s members include at least Steven S.
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00598-LPS Document 9 Filed 06/13/14 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 159
`
`Yu, a citizen of the state of Maryland. RozMed LLC can be served via its registered agent,
`
`Hungju Yu, at 9810 Cresence Way, Fairfax, Virginia 22032.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Iron Dome LLC is a limited liability
`
`company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Virginia, a citizen of the state of
`
`Virginia with its principal place of business at 501 Watkins Pond Blvd, Rockville, Maryland
`
`20850.
`
`Iron Dome LLC’s members include at least Steven S. Yu, a citizen of the state of
`
`Maryland. Iron Dome LLC is a wholly –owned subsidiary of RozMed LLC. Iron Dome can be
`
`served via its registered agent, RozMed LLC, at 9810 Cresence Way, Fairfax, Virginia 22032.
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant John J. Yim & Associates LLC is a limited
`
`liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Virginia with its principal
`
`place of business at 7600 Leesburg Pike, East Building, Suite 470, Falls Church, Virginia 22043.
`
`John J. Yim & Associates LLC’s members include at least John J. Yim, a citizen of the state of
`
`Virginia. John J. Yim & Associates can be served via its registered agent, John J. Yim, at7600
`
`Leesburg Pike, East Building, Suite 470, Falls Church, Virginia 22043.
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Steven S. Yu is an individual residing in
`
`Rockville, Maryland and a citizen of the State of Maryland. Steven Yu is a managing member of
`
`RozMed LLC and principal of Iron Dome LLC.
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant John J. Yim is an individual residing in
`
`Falls Church, Virginia. John Yim is the managing partner of John J. Yim & Associates LLC.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`This Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Complete
`
`diversity exists between Plaintiff – a citizen of Delaware - and Defendants – citizens of either
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00598-LPS Document 9 Filed 06/13/14 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 160
`
`Virginia or Maryland - and the amount in controversy is in excess of $75,000. Further, this Court
`
`has jurisdiction over Chinook’s RICO claims under the RICO Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, et seq.
`
`8.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over all Defendants pursuant to the Delaware
`
`Long-Arm Statute, 10 DEL. CODE. ANN. Tit. 3, § 3104, by virtue of Defendants’ actions bringing
`
`about this cause of action, as alleged herein, and causing injury to Chinook.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because, among other
`
`reasons, Defendants are subject
`
`to personal
`
`jurisdiction in this District and because of
`
`Defendants’ actions within this District giving rise to this cause of action.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`10.
`
`Chinook is in the business of licensing patents that it owns and defending its
`
`patent rights against wrongful infringers of those rights.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`Chinook owns United States Patent No. 7,047,482 (the “’482 patent”).
`
`Chinook has asserted the ’482 patent against several companies for patent
`
`infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. These matters are
`
`pending before Judge Stark.
`
`13.
`
`Several of the companies against whom Chinook has asserted the ’482 patent
`
`have settled their respective patent disputes by obtaining a license from Chinook to continue
`
`their use of the ’482 patent.
`
`14.
`
`Litigation is ongoing with several remaining defendants in pending patent
`
`infringement actions; however, Chinook continues to work towards resolving its disputes with
`
`those remaining companies.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00598-LPS Document 9 Filed 06/13/14 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 161
`
`15.
`
`Stephen B. Brauerman, Esquire is Chinook’s Delaware counsel handling the
`
`litigation of the ’482 patent in Delaware. His office address is 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900,
`
`Wilmington, DE 19801.
`
`Defendants Scheme to Extort Chinook
`
`16.
`
`On March 26, 2014 Defendant John J. Yim sent a letter to Mr. Brauerman in
`
`Delaware threatening to file, on behalf of his client, a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”)
`
`seeking to invalidate Chinook’s ’482 patent unless Chinook immediately granted three (3)
`
`retroactive and transferable licenses to the ’482 patent. A true and accurate copy of the March
`
`26, 2014 letter from Mr. Yim to Mr. Brauerman is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`17.
`
`The March 26, 2014 letter was typed on the letterhead of Defendant John J. Yim
`
`& Associates and signed by Defendant John J. Yim. (Id.)
`
`18.
`
`The March 26, 2014 letter states: “[w]e are attorneys for Iron Dome LLC
`
`(www.irondome.com).” (Id.)
`
`19.
`
`Enclosed with the March 26, 2014 letter was a draft patent license agreement
`
`regarding the ’482 patent and a draft petition for IPR against the ’482 patent. True and accurate
`
`copies of the draft patent license agreement and draft IPR petition are attached hereto as Exhibit
`
`B and Exhibit C, respectively.
`
`20.
`
`An IPR is a trial proceeding conducted before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`whereby a third party may seek a review the patentability of one or more claims in a patent. In
`
`effect, an IPR is a vehicle by which a third party can seek to invalidate an issued patent.
`
`21.
`
`The draft license agreement enclosed with the March 26, 2014 letter is the
`
`mechanism by which Defendant Iron Dome LLC proposed to obtain three (3) transferable
`
`licenses to the ’482 patent. (See Exhibit B.)
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00598-LPS Document 9 Filed 06/13/14 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 162
`
`22.
`
`The enclosed draft patent license agreement indicates that Defendant Steven Yu is
`
`the Managing Member of Iron Dome LLC. (Id. at 5.)
`
`23.
`
`The draft license agreement states that “the Parties wish to resolve their patent
`
`dispute and avoid the attendant risks, fees, costs, and expenses that are associated with litigation
`
`and other patent related proceedings.” (Id. at 1.)
`
`24.
`
`Prior to Chinook’s local counsel’s receipt of this letter and enclosures, neither
`
`Chinook nor any of its representatives or affiliates had contact with any of the Defendants.
`
`25.
`
`Defendants knew of and specifically referenced the litigation that Chinook has
`
`pending against other parties.
`
`26.
`
`In their letter, Defendants state: “we request a rapid resolution of this dispute.”
`
`The referenced “dispute” is Defendants’ threatened draft petition for IPR enclosed with the
`
`March 26, 2014.
`
`27.
`
`The draft license agreement does not propose to purchase licensing rights or
`
`include any provision wherein Defendant Iron Dome would remit monetary compensation to
`
`Chinook in exchange for the requested licenses.
`
`28.
`
`Paragraph 3(a) of the draft license states that Defendant Iron Dome LLC may
`
`transfer the transferable licenses to the parties in Chinook’s pending patent infringement actions.
`
`(Id. at 2.)
`
`29.
`
`Paragraph 5 of the draft license states:
`
`5. Admission of Patent Validity: Iron Dome admits that the
`Asserted Patent is valid and enforceable, and as such, will not
`challenge or participate in any challenge to the validity and
`enforceability of
`the Asserted Patent
`in any kind of
`legal
`proceeding.
`
`(Id. at 3.)
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00598-LPS Document 9 Filed 06/13/14 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 163
`
`30.
`
`The draft petition for IPR included with the March 26, 2014 letter takes the
`
`position that the claims of the ’482 patent are obvious and therefore invalid and not enforceable.
`
`(See Exhibit C at v.)
`
`31.
`
`The assertion in Paragraph 5 of the draft license agreement and the basis for
`
`Defendants’ petition for IPR are diametrically opposed.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`Chinook refused Defendants’ coercive offer to license the ’482 patent.
`
`On April 22, 2014, a petition seeking IPR of the ’482 patent was filed with the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office by Defendant John J. Yim on Defendant Iron Dome
`
`LLC’s behalf. Defendant Steven S. Yu is designated as back-up counsel for the petition.
`
`34.
`
`On information and belief, in light of the foregoing facts, Defendants’ filing of the
`
`petition for IPR of the ’482 patent was not in good faith and not for a proper purpose.
`
`35.
`
`Specifically, for example, Defendant Iron Dome’s press release regarding its
`
`petition for IPR, included the following quote from Defendant Steven Yu: “No one should have
`
`to surrender to these lawsuits exploiting defective patents.” A true and correct copy of the press
`
`release is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
`
`36.
`
`The press release, however, failed to mention that Defendants previously sought
`
`to enter into a license agreement for the same ’482 patent. Despite Iron Dome’s declaration that
`
`the “defective” patents were being exploited, Defendants are apparently willing explicitly to
`
`assert that the patent was valid and enforceable if only they could obtain rights to license
`
`unidentified third parties to the patent in question, presumably for their own financial benefit.
`
`37.
`
`On information and belief, it is likely that the remaining defendants in the
`
`ongoing Delaware patent infringement actions will find out about the pending petition for IPR,
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00598-LPS Document 9 Filed 06/13/14 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 164
`
`which will greatly reduce the chances that Chinook will be able to amicably resolve the
`
`infringement actions without further litigation.
`
`38.
`
`The malicious actions of Defendants in attempting to coerce a license from
`
`Chinook and then filing an unfounded legal IPR proceeding will cost Chinook both time and
`
`money and interfere with Chinook’s ability to license its patent.
`
`39.
`
`Defendants sent their injurious communication from their office in Virginia, using
`
`letterhead from their counsel with a Virginia address, where the majority of Defendants are
`
`located.
`
`40.
`
`Defendants knew that they were communicating with a Delaware LLC (Chinook)
`
`and contacted Chinook’s Delaware counsel in Wilmington, Delaware.
`
`41.
`
`Defendants’ actions will cause Chinook to incur damages exceeding $75,000.
`
`Defendants’ Pattern and Practice of Extorting Money from Its Targets
`
`42.
`
`Using Iron Dome LLC, Defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of
`
`submitting frivolous petitions for IPR on its targets’ valid and enforceable patents.
`
`43.
`
`Defendants’ attempted to extort eWatch, Inc. using the same or similar scheme
`
`described above. On January 17, 2014 Defendant John J. Yim sent a letter to Christopher
`
`Goodpastor threatening to file, on behalf of his client, petitions for IPR seeking to invalidate
`
`eWatch’s patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,365,871 and 7,643,168 unless e-Watch immediately granted
`
`eight (8) retroactive, royalty-free, non-exclusive and transferable licenses to each patent. A true
`
`and accurate copy of the January 17, 2014 letter from Mr. Yim to Mr. Goodpastor is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit E.
`
`44.
`
`Enclosed with the January 17, 2014 letter was a draft patent license agreement
`
`regarding the ’871 and ’168 patents and draft petitions for IPR against each patent. True and
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00598-LPS Document 9 Filed 06/13/14 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 165
`
`accurate copies of the draft patent license agreement and draft IPR petition for the ‘871 patent
`
`are attached hereto as Exhibits F, G, and H, respectively.
`
`45.
`
`The draft license agreement does not propose to purchase licensing rights or
`
`include any provision wherein Defendant Iron Dome would remit monetary compensation to
`
`e-Watch in exchange for the requested licenses, only a statement that the “Parties wish to resolve
`
`their patent dispute and avoid the attendant risks, fees, costs, and expenses that are associated
`
`with litigation and other patent related proceedings.” (Ex. F at 1.)
`
`46.
`
`As with the draft license provided to Chinook, Paragraph 5 of the draft license
`
`agreement to e-Watch states:
`
`5. Admission of Patent Validity: Iron Dome admits that the Asserted
`Patent
`is valid and enforceable, and as such, will not challenge or
`participate in any challenge to the validity and enforceability of the
`Asserted Patents in any kind of legal proceeding.
`
`(Ex. F at 3.)
`
`47.
`
`The draft petitions for IPR included with the January 17, 2014 letter for the ‘871
`
`patent takes the position that the claims of the ’871 and ’168 patent are obvious and therefore
`
`invalid and not enforceable.
`
`(See Exhibits Gand H at v.). Upon information and belief, a
`
`reasonable opportunity for further discovery is likely to show that the draft petition for IPR
`
`included with the January 17, 2014 letter for the ‘168 patent takes the position that the claims of
`
`the ‘168 patent are obvious and therefore invalid and not enforceable.
`
`48.
`
`As was the case with Chinook, e-Watch refused Defendants’ coercive offer to
`
`license the ’871 and ’168 patents, and on February 18, 2014, 2014, Defendant John J. Yim on
`
`Defendant Iron Dome LLC’s behalf filed the petition for the ‘871 patent with the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office seeking inter partes review of the ’871 patent. Defendant Steven S.
`
`Yu is designated as back-up counsel for the petition.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00598-LPS Document 9 Filed 06/13/14 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 166
`
`49.
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office records show that, despite
`
`Defendant Iron Dome’s threats, no petition IPR for the ‘168 patent was filed.
`
`50.
`
`For each targeted company, Defendants were aware that the valid patents were
`
`asserted in litigation against several defendants.
`
`51.
`
`All of Iron Dome’s Conduct in filing the petitions for inter partes review is
`
`directed by and/or done in concert with Defendants or with Defendants’ consent and knowledge.
`
`All Defendants are aware of (and authorize) the content of the demand letters, petitions, and
`
`strategy used by Iron Dome to extort “licenses.” Defendant RozMed either controlled the
`
`actions of its wholly owned subsidiary Iron Dome or it benefitted from the actions of Iron Dome
`
`in attempting to extort licenses from others. Yu and Yim are the individuals directing the
`
`activities of each of the entities.
`
`52.
`
`All Defendants have cooperated in filing the Petition for the ‘871 patent for the
`
`sole purpose of indirectly interjecting themselves into the related litigation of the ‘871 and ‘168
`
`patents in an attempt to extract money from the either the patent infringement defendants in that
`
`litigation or from the owner of the ‘871 and ‘168 patents. Defendants began their ill-conceived
`
`money-making scheme by having Mr. Yim request transferable licenses to the asserted patents on
`
`behalf of Iron Dome, presumably to sell them to the parties against whom the ‘871 patent was
`
`asserted. However, Defendants subsequently shifted their scheme to attempt to extract money
`
`directly from the owner of the ‘871 patent. On April 29, 2014, an initial payment from the ‘871
`
`patent owner of $428,000 and potential subsequent payments of between $875,000 and $971,000
`
`related to the first five putative settlements in the related patent infringement litigation in
`
`exchange for its withdrawal of the Petition. A copy of the e-mail communication in which this
`
`request for payment is made is provided herewith as Exhibit H.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00598-LPS Document 9 Filed 06/13/14 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 167
`
`53.
`
`On June 3, 2014, e-Watch filed a patent owner preliminary response with the
`
`United States Patent Office in connection with Defendants’ petition for IPR of the ‘871 patent, a
`
`copy of which is attached as Exhibit I. In that filing, e-Watch argues that Defendant Iron Dome’s
`
`abuse of the IPR process warrants a sanction in the form of dismissal of Iron Dome’s petition as
`
`provided for by 37 C.F.R. Sect. 42.12(b)(8) and an award of attorney fees under 37 C.F.R. Sect.
`
`42.12(b)(6).
`
`54.
`
`On information and belief, Chinook alleges that, in each instance, Defendants
`
`follow the same format.
`
`COUNT I
`TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH
`BUSINESS RELATIONS (VIRGINIA COMMON LAW)
`
`55.
`
`Chinook repeats, re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of each
`
`and every foregoing paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
`
`56.
`
`57.
`
`Chinook has existing business relationships with licensees of the ’482 patent.
`
`Chinook has a reasonable expectation of potential business relationships with
`
`alleged patent infringers who have not yet resolved their disputes with Chinook and have not yet
`
`obtained a license to the ’482 patent.
`
`58.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant had knowledge of Chinook’s existing
`
`business relationships as well as other potential relationships with others regarding Chinook’s
`
`licensing of the ’482 patent. (E.g., Exhibit A.)
`
`59.
`
`Defendants knowingly, intentionally, wrongfully, and maliciously interfered with
`
`and continue to interfere with Chinook’s existing and potential business relationships.
`
`60.
`
`The IPR proceeding is unfounded litigation. The only purpose for the litigation is
`
`to coerce Chinook into capitulating and tendering a license to Defendant Iron Dome, LLC.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00598-LPS Document 9 Filed 06/13/14 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 168
`
`61.
`
`Defendants’ actions have harmed Chinook’s business relationships with current
`
`licensees and potential licensees. Chinook’s loss of these advantageous business relations
`
`resulted directly from Defendants’ improper and unlawful actions.
`
`62.
`
`Chinook will suffer substantial damages, in an amount to be determined at trial, as
`
`a result of Defendants’ improper and unlawful actions.
`
`COUNT II
`RACKETEERING INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT (RICO)
`18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.
`
`63.
`
`Chinook repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference the allegations of each
`
`and every foregoing paragraph of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
`
`64.
`
`At all relevant times, Chinook is a person within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§
`
`1961(3) and 1962(c).
`
`65.
`
`At all relevant times, Steven S. Yu, and John J. Yim are persons within the
`
`meaning of U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) and 1962(c), each of whom, on information and belief, direct the
`
`affairs of RozMed LLC and Iron Dome LLC and John J. Yim & Associates LLC, respectively,
`
`through a pattern of improper tortious acts and illegal conduct described in this Complaint,
`
`which cause financial harm to Chinook and others.
`
`66.
`
`RozMed LLC and Iron Dome LLC and John J. Yim & Associates LLC, in any
`
`combination in fact, are an “Enterprise,” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4), controlled and
`
`directed by Steven S. Yu and John J. Yim, associated together in fact for the common purpose of
`
`making frivolous patent invalidity claims and extorting “licenses” and/or settlement agreements
`
`from individuals and entities having valid and enforceable patents. Defendants have a
`
`continuing and ongoing relationship wherein, on at least two occasions, they have threatened
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00598-LPS Document 9 Filed 06/13/14 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 169
`
`frivolous petitions for IPR of patents “licenses” and/or “settlements” to extort unlawful
`
`“settlements” and “licenses” to which they are not entitled.
`
`67.
`
`Each of the Defendants participated in the operation or management of the
`
`Enterprise. Among other things, Yu and Yim direct the affairs of the enterprise. Iron Dome LLC
`
`and John J. Yim & Associates are the “front” of the enterprise that, acting on direction of Yu and
`
`Yim, file the IPR petitions and carry out the threats and fraudulent conduct further described
`
`herein.
`
`68.
`
`At all relevant times, the Enterprise was engaged in, and its activities affected
`
`interstate commerce within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
`
`69.
`
`The Defendants conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct,
`
`management, or operation of the Enterprise’s affairs through a “pattern of racketeering activity”
`
`within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5) and in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
`
`70.
`
`Defendants’ pattern of racketeering is demonstrated by, at least, the two petitions
`
`for IPR filed against various targets’ patents, it knew, or would have reasonably known had it
`
`conducted a pre-petition investigation, were not were invalid.
`
`In each and every case,
`
`Defendants attempted to extort “licenses” from the targets, committed mail fraud, and violated
`
`the Travel Act. Defendants used the same or similar techniques in each case, all of which were
`
`acts that constitute predicate acts the RICO statute was intended to deter. Defendants’ acts
`
`shared similar purposes, results, participants, and methods of commission.
`
`71.
`
`Defendants acts of past criminal conduct suggests that
`
`there is a high risk
`
`Defendants will continue to engage in such conduct either against new victims or against those
`
`whose patents it has previously filed petitions forIPR .
`
`Indeed, Iron Dome admits that its
`
`business purpose is to file petitions for IPR against valid patents. Defendants’ pattern and
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00598-LPS Document 9 Filed 06/13/14 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 170
`
`practice demonstrates that it will continue to do so regardless of the validity of the targets’
`
`patents. In each and every petition for IPR Iron Dome has filed thus far, it has committed acts of
`
`attempted extortion, mail and/or wire fraud, and violations of the Travel Act.
`
`Extortion in Violation Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 and
`Delaware State Penal Law §§ X, X, X,
`
`72.
`
`At all times material to this Complaint, Chinook was engaged in interstate
`
`commerce and in an industry that affects interstate commerce.
`
`73.
`
`Defendants, individually, or collectively, conducted the affairs of the enterprise
`
`through numerous acts of attempted extortion and conspiracy to commit extortion in furtherance
`
`of their overall scheme to defraud and enhance their wealth through improper means.
`
`74.
`
`As described herein, Defendants have threatened frivolous petitions for inter
`
`partes review unless Chinook provided transferable, non-exclusive, royalty-free licenses. The
`
`Defendant did so with the intent and effect of causing reasonable fear of economic loss on the
`
`part of Chinook, to disrupt Chinook’s business operations, and to disrupt and encourage Chinook
`
`to abandon its defense of the frivolous petitions for IPR initiated by Defendants.
`
`75.
`
`Defendants also used the petition for IPR without any interest in the outcome of
`
`the review, but with the intent to harm Chinook’s business and persuade Chinook to provide
`
`“licenses” even though Defendants knew (or reasonably should have known) of the validity of
`
`Chinook’s ’482 patent.
`
`76.
`
`Defendants conduct did in fact
`
`instill fear in Chinook, causing additional
`
`interruptions to Chinook’s business, causing the harm Defendants intended, including additional
`
`legal fees, disruption of Chinook’s business, increased operational costs, decreased productivity,
`
`injury to Chinook’s reputation, and disruption of Chinook’s defense to Iron Dome’s petition for
`
`inter partes review.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00598-LPS Document 9 Filed 06/13/14 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 171
`
`Mail Fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1341 and Wire Fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343
`
`77.
`
`As described herein, the Defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud and extort
`
`“licenses” from Chinook.
`
`78.
`
`In furtherance of
`
`their scheme, and as described herein,
`
`the Defendants
`
`transmitted, or caused to be transmitted, by means of wire communication in interstate or foreign
`
`commerce, writings, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds for the purpose of executing such
`
`scheme.
`
`79.
`
`Specifically, Defendants delivered their threats, false representations regarding the
`
`nature of the ’482 patent, their “settlement demands,” their proposed “license agreement,” and
`
`their false declaration via wire, email, and/or telephone. Defendants used the U.S. Postal Service
`
`and/or private mail carriers to deliver its letter and complaint to Chinook and other victims, both
`
`of which were used to deliver threats and intimidate Chinook.
`
`80.
`
`The Defendants participated in the scheme to defraud and extort Chinook by
`
`knowingly, willfully, and threating Chinook with the specific intent to deceive and/or defraud
`
`Chinook into providing Defendants illegal “licenses” and settlements.
`
`81.
`
`The Defendants’ false and misleading statements were relied on by Chinook and
`
`have caused Chinook substantial damages, as described herein.
`
`Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952
`
`82.
`
`As described herein, the Defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud and extort
`
`substantial sums of money and property from Chinook.
`
`83.
`
`Defendants used the mail system, telephone and internet with intent to “promote,
`
`manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying
`
`on” their racketeering activity,
`
`including their unlawful scheme of extorting money from
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00598-LPS Document 9 Filed 06/13/14 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 172
`
`Chinook and other targets and delivering false threats and misrepresentations to Chinook and
`
`others.
`
`84.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants have also traveled in interstate commerce
`
`with the intent and for the purpose of carrying out racketeering activity, including their unlawful
`
`scheme of extorting money from Chinook and other targets.
`
`85.
`
`Defendants attempted to commit various acts of extortion, mail fraud, and wire
`
`fraud in violation of state and Federal law, as described more in detail herein.
`
`86.
`
`Each of the Defendants has engaged in multiple predicate acts, as described
`
`herein, not only against Chinook but other victims as well. The conduct of each of the
`
`Defendants constitutes a pattern of racketeering activity within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.
`
`§1961(5).
`
`87.
`
`Chinook was injured in its business and property by reasons of the Defendants’
`
`pattern of racketeering activity violating 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). The injuries to Chinook caused by
`
`reason of the violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) include, but are not limited to, damage to
`
`Chinook’s reputation and goodwill, disruption to Chinook’s business, travel expenses, legal fees
`
`and costs in defending itself from Defendants objectively baseless, improperly motivated, sham
`
`petition for IPR. Among other things, Chinook’s executive has devoted over 100 hours of his
`
`time investigating Defendants’ frivolous claims of patent invalidity,
`
`taking steps to repair
`
`Chinook’s reputation and goodwill
`
`that was damaged as a result of Defendants’ conduct,
`
`defending and responding to demands Defendants made in connection with its claims, and
`
`quieting concerns regarding Defendants’ claims.
`
`These efforts have diverted significant
`
`resources from the operation of Chinook’s business, which was Defendants’ purpose and intent.
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00598-LPS Document 9 Filed 06/13/14 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 173
`
`In total, this diversion of resources has cost, and will further cost, Chinook in tens of thousands
`
`of dollars.
`
`88.
`
`Further,
`
`these injuries to Chinook were a direct, proximate, and reasonably
`
`foreseeable result of the violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962.
`
`Indeed, these are the very type of
`
`damages Defendants threatened to inflict upon Chinook if Chinook did not comply with
`
`Defendant’s extortion demands. Chinook has been and will continue to be injured in its business
`
`and property in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`89.
`
`Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), Chinook is entitled to recover treble damages
`
`plus costs and attorneys’ fees from the RICO Defendants.
`
`90.
`
`Chinook seeks a permanent injunction to enjoin Defendants from pursuing any
`
`more frivolous inter partes reviews.
`
`COUNT III
`CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE RICO (18 U.S.C. 1962(d)
`
`91.
`
`Chinook repeats, re-alleges, and incorporates by reference each and every
`
`foregoing paragraph as though fully set forth herein.
`
`92.
`
`Defendants Yu, Yim, RozMed, and John J. Yim & Associates, individually and
`
`collectively conspired with Iron Dome to commit wire fraud, extortion, and violate the RICO
`
`statute as described herein.
`
`93.
`
`Chinook was injured in its business and property by reason of the Defendants’
`
`pattern of racketeering activity violating 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). The injuries to Chinook caused by
`
`reason of the violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) include, but are not limited to, damage to
`
`Chinook’s reputation and goodwill, disruption to Chinook’s business, travel expenses, legal fees
`
`and costs in defending itself from Defendants’ objectively baseless, improperly motivated, sham
`
`petitions for IPR. Among other things, Chinook’s executive has devoted over 100 hours of his
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00598-LPS Document 9 Filed 06/13/14 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 174
`
`time investigating Defendants’ frivolous claims of patent invalidity,
`
`taking steps to repair
`
`Chinook’s reputation and goodwill
`
`that was damaged as a result of Defendants’ conduct,
`
`defending and responding to demands Defendants made in connection with its claims, and
`
`quieting concerns regarding Defendants’ claims.
`
`These efforts have diverted significant
`
`resources from the operation of Chinook’s business, which was Defendants’ purpose and intent.
`
`In total, this diversion of resources has cost, and will further cost, Chinook in tens of thousands
`
`of dollars.
`
`94.
`
`Further,
`
`these injuries to Chinook were a direct, proximate, and reasonably
`
`foreseeable result of the violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962.
`
`Indeed, these are the very type of
`
`damages Defendants threatened to inflict upon Chinook if it did not comply with its extortion
`
`demands. Chinook has been and will continue to be injured in its business and property in an
`
`amount to be proven at trial.
`
`95.
`
`Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), Chinook is entitled to recover treble damages
`
`plus costs and attorneys’ fees from the RICO Defendants.
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00598-LPS Document 9 Filed 06/13/14 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 175
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Chinook respectfully prays for the following relief against Defendants,
`
`as follows:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Judgment in favor of Chinook on all claims;
`
`Awarding Chinook monetary damages;
`
`Awarding Chinook treble damages according to statute, 18 U.S.C. §1964(c);
`
`Awarding Chinook prejudgment interest according to statute;
`
`Awarding Chinook reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs according to statute, 18
`
`U.S.C. § 1964(c);
`
`F.
`
`Ordering Defendants to withdraw it petition for Inter Partes Review of the ’482
`
`patent;
`
`G.
`
`Enjoining Defendants from taking any further action or threatening to take further
`
`action against the validity of the ’482 patent;
`
`H.
`
`Enjoining Defendants from soliciting, entering into, or enforcing any agreements
`
`with potential licensees with regard to the ’482 patent or otherwise impair Chinook’s ability to
`
`license the ’482 patent; and
`
`I.
`
`Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Chinook demands a trial by jury of any and all causes of action.
`
`Dated: June 13, 2014
`
`Bayard, P.A.
`
`/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`
`Case 1:14-cv-00598-LPS Document 9 Filed 06/13/14 Page 19 of 19 PageID #: 176
`
`Richard D. Kirk (rk0922)
`Stephen B. Brauerman (sb4952)
`Vanessa R. Tiradentes (vt5398)
`Sara E. Bussiere (sb5725)
`222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 655-5000
`rkirk@bayardlaw.com
`sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
`vtiradentes@bayardlaw.com
`sbussiere@bayardlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Chinook Licensing DE,
`LLC
`
`- 19 -