Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. ___________________
`
`TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED
`
`))))))))))))
`
`CHANBOND, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ATLANTIC BROADBAND
`GROUP, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff ChanBond, LLC (“ChanBond”), as for its complaint of patent infringement in
`
`this matter, hereby alleges through its attorneys as follows:
`
`Nature of the Action
`
`This is an action for patent infringement of United States Patent Nos. 7,941,822 (the
`
`“’822 Patent”), 8,341,679 (the “’679 Patent”) and 8,984,565 (the “’565 Patent”) under the Patent
`
`Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., seeking damages and injunctive and other relief
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 281, et seq.
`
`The Parties
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff ChanBond is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal
`
`place of business at 2633 McKinney Ave., Dallas, Texas 75204.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Atlantic Broadband Group, LLC (“Atlantic Broadband”) is a Delaware
`
`limited liability company with its principal place of business at 2 Batterymarch Park, Suite 205,
`
`Quincy, Massachusetts 02169. Atlantic Broadband may be served with process via its registered
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 2
`
`agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19808.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`3.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the
`
`United States, Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`4.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1331 and 1338(a) because the action concerns the infringement of United States patents.
`
`5.
`
`This court has personal jurisdiction over defendant. Defendant is a limited
`
`liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and defendant
`
`maintains a registered agent for service of process in Delaware. In addition, upon information
`
`and belief, defendant transacts substantial business in the State of Delaware, directly or through
`
`intermediaries, including: (i) at least a portion of the infringements alleged herein, and (ii)
`
`regularly does or solicits business in Delaware, engages in other persistent courses of conduct,
`
`maintains continuous and systematic contacts in Delaware, purposefully avails itself of the
`
`privileges of doing business in Delaware, and/or derives substantial revenue from goods and
`
`services provided to individuals in Delaware.
`
`6.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b) because,
`
`among other reasons, defendant has transacted business in the State of Delaware and defendant
`
`has committed and continues to commit acts of patent infringement in Delaware.
`
`The Patents-In-Suit
`
`7.
`
`On May 10, 2011, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued the ’822 Patent, entitled “Intelligent Device System and Method for Distribution of Digital
`
`Signals on a Wideband Signal Distribution System,” to its inventors, Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 3
`
`Snyder and Robert Stine. The inventors assigned all rights in the ’822 Patent to CBV, Inc.
`
`(“CBV”), which was founded by the inventors, and CBV assigned the ’822 Patent to ChanBond,
`
`including all rights to enforce the ’822 Patent and to recover for infringement. ChanBond has all
`
`right, title and interest to the ’822 Patent. The ’822 Patent is valid and in force. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ’822 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`8.
`
`On December 25, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued the ’679 Patent, entitled “Intelligent Device System and Method for Distribution of
`
`Digital Signals on a Wideband Signal Distribution System,” to its inventors, Earl Hennenhoefer,
`
`Richard Snyder and Robert Stine. The inventors assigned all rights in the ’679 Patent to CBV,
`
`which was founded by the inventors, and CBV assigned the ’679 Patent to ChanBond, including
`
`all rights to enforce the ’679 Patent and to recover for infringement. ChanBond has all right, title
`
`and interest to the ’679 Patent. The ’679 Patent is valid and in force. A true and correct copy of
`
`the ’679 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`9.
`
`On March 17, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued the ’565 Patent, entitled “Intelligent Device System and Method for Distribution of
`
`Digital Signals on a Wideband Signal Distribution System,” to its inventors, Earl Hennenhoefer,
`
`Richard Snyder and Robert Stine. The inventors assigned all rights in the ’565 Patent to CBV,
`
`which was founded by the inventors, and CBV assigned the ’565 Patent to ChanBond, including
`
`all rights to enforce the ’565 Patent and to recover for infringement. ChanBond has all right, title
`
`and interest to the ’565 Patent. The ’565 Patent is valid and in force. A true and correct copy of
`
`the ’565 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`10.
`
`Generally, the patents-in-suit are directed in improving the data transmission of
`
`wideband distribution systems. Historically, data service flows (e.g. data, web traffic, voice and
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 4
`
`video transmitted via the Internet Protocol) have been transmitted over a single channel at a fixed
`
`bandwidth. But with the demand for transmission of more and more content at ever increasing
`
`speeds, the capabilities of a single channel transmission methodology became exhausted.
`
`11.
`
`The patents-in-suit address and overcome, among other things, the throughput
`
`problems regarding this single channel methodology. The inventors of the patents-in-suit
`
`invented intelligent devices that allow a single data service flow (e.g. large data transmissions) to
`
`be split and modulated onto multiple channels for transmission. This transmission is then
`
`demodulated and recombined back into a single service flow for distribution to addressable
`
`devices. Using the inventions, service providers are now capable of efficiently transmitting more
`
`content at higher speeds and better quality of service.
`
`COUNT I
`(INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’822 PATENT)
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 11 herein by reference as if set forth
`
`here in full.
`
`13.
`
`Upon information and belief, Atlantic Broadband has been and is currently
`
`directly infringing, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ’822
`
`Patent by making, using, testing, offering to sell, and/or selling within the United States, and/or
`
`importing into the United States, without authority, cable systems and cable services that are
`
`covered by at least one claim of the ’822 Patent. The accused cable systems include cable
`
`system components such as cable modem termination systems, RF transmission hardware,
`
`network monitoring equipment and customer premises equipment (e.g., cable modems,
`
`embedded multimedia terminal adapters, and set-top boxes), including but not limited to
`
`components that are compliant with the Data Over Cable System Interface Specification
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 5
`
`(“DOCSIS”) standard, version 3.0 or higher.1 More particularly, Atlantic Broadband, without
`
`authority from Plaintiff, provides, operates, implements, sells, markets, imports and/or offers for
`
`sale cable systems and/or cable services that perform, are capable of performing or are provided
`
`having channel bonding functionality, including but not limited to cable systems and components
`
`that have the capability to distribute a service flow over multiple, bonded channels and/or the
`
`capability to receive a service flow over multiple, bonded channels (the “Accused
`
`Functionality”). Atlantic Broadband’s cable systems and components that perform or are capable
`
`of performing the Accused Functionality, and/or the use of such cable systems and components,
`
`infringe one or more claims of the ’822 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`14.
`
`As a result of Atlantic Broadband’s unlawful infringement of the ’822 Patent,
`
`Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Atlantic Broadband the damages adequate to compensate for
`
`such infringement, which have yet to be determined.
`
`15.
`
`Atlantic Broadband will continue to infringe the ’822 Patent unless and until it is
`
`enjoined by this Court.
`
`COUNT II
`(INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’679 PATENT)
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 15 herein by reference as if set forth
`
`here in full.
`
`17.
`
`Upon information and belief, Atlantic Broadband has been and is currently
`
`directly infringing, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ’679
`
`Patent by making, using, testing, offering to sell, and/or selling within the United States, and/or
`
`1 See, e.g., http://atlanticbb.com/sites/default/files/tiny_mce/files/approved_modem_list.pdf;
`http://atlanticbb.com/sites/default/files/tiny_mce/files/atlantic_broadband_network_management
`_disclosure_11-1-2012a_01-15-13_post.pdf
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 6
`
`importing into the United States, without authority, cable systems and cable services that are
`
`covered by at least one claim of the ’679 Patent. The accused cable systems include cable
`
`system components such as cable modem termination systems, RF transmission hardware,
`
`network monitoring equipment and customer premises equipment (e.g., cable modems,
`
`embedded multimedia terminal adapters, and set-top boxes), including but not limited to
`
`components that are compliant with the DOCSIS standard, version 3.0 or higher. More
`
`particularly, Atlantic Broadband, without authority from Plaintiff, provides, operates,
`
`implements, sells, markets, imports and/or offers for sale cable systems and/or cable services that
`
`perform, are capable of performing or are provided having channel bonding functionality,
`
`including but not limited to cable systems and components that have the capability to distribute a
`
`service flow over multiple, bonded channels and/or the capability to receive a service flow over
`
`multiple, bonded channels (the “Accused Functionality”). Atlantic Broadband’s cable systems
`
`and components that perform or are capable of performing the Accused Functionality, and/or the
`
`use of such cable systems and components, infringe one or more claims of the ’679 Patent under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`18.
`
`As a result of Atlantic Broadband’s unlawful infringement of the ’679 Patent,
`
`Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Atlantic Broadband the damages adequate to compensate for
`
`such infringement, which have yet to be determined.
`
`19.
`
`Atlantic Broadband will continue to infringe the ’679 Patent unless and until it is
`
`enjoined by this Court.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 7
`
`COUNT III
`(INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’565 PATENT)
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 19 herein by reference as if set forth
`
`here in full.
`
`21.
`
`Upon information and belief, Atlantic Broadband has been and is currently
`
`directly infringing, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ’565
`
`Patent by making, using, testing, offering to sell, and/or selling within the United States, and/or
`
`importing into the United States, without authority, cable systems and cable services that are
`
`covered by at least one claim of the ’565 Patent. The accused cable systems include cable
`
`system components such as cable modem termination systems, RF transmission hardware,
`
`network monitoring equipment and customer premises equipment (e.g., cable modems,
`
`embedded multimedia terminal adapters, and set-top boxes), including but not limited to
`
`components that are compliant with the DOCSIS standard, version 3.0 or higher. More
`
`particularly, Atlantic Broadband, without authority from Plaintiff, provides, operates,
`
`implements, sells, markets, imports and/or offers for sale cable systems and/or cable services that
`
`perform, are capable of performing or are provided having channel bonding functionality,
`
`including but not limited to cable systems and components that have the capability to distribute a
`
`service flow over multiple, bonded channels and/or the capability to receive a service flow over
`
`multiple, bonded channels (the “Accused Functionality”). Atlantic Broadband’s cable systems
`
`and components that perform or are capable of performing the Accused Functionality, and/or the
`
`use of such cable systems and components, infringe one or more claims of the ’565 Patent under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`22.
`
`As a result of Atlantic Broadband’s unlawful infringement of the ’565 Patent,
`
`Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 8
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Atlantic Broadband the damages adequate to compensate for
`
`such infringement, which have yet to be determined.
`
`23.
`
`Atlantic Broadband will continue to infringe the ’565 Patent unless and until it is
`
`enjoined by this Court.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ChanBond, LLC respectfully requests that this Court enter
`
`judgment in its favor as follows:
`
`A.
`
`Declaring that defendant has infringed, literally and/or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, at least one claim of each of the ’822, ’679 and ’565 Patents;
`
`B.
`
`Awarding to Plaintiff the damages to which it is entitled under 35 U.S.C. § 284
`
`for defendant’s past infringement and any continuing or future infringement, including
`
`compensatory damages;
`
`C.
`
`Awarding Plaintiff costs (including all disbursements) and expenses incurred in
`
`this action;
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Awarding Plaintiff pre- and post-judgment interest on its damages; and
`
`Awarding Plaintiff such other and further relief in law or in equity as this Court
`
`deems just and proper.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 1 Filed 09/21/15 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 9
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury of
`
`any and all issues so triable by right.
`
`Dated: September 21, 2015
`
`BAYARD, P.A.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Mark Raskin
`Robert Whitman
`John F. Petrsoric
`MISHCON DE REYA NEW YORK LLP
`750 Seventh Ave., 26th Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`
`/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
`Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
`Vanessa R. Tiradentes (No. 5398)
`Sara E. Bussiere (No. 5725)
`222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900
`P.O. Box 25130
`Wilmington, Delaware 19899
`(302) 655-5000
`sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
`vtiradentes@bayardlaw.com
`sbussiere@bayardlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff ChanBond, LLC
`
`9
`
`