Case 1:20-cv-00693-RGA Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 4
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`GUADA TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`3M COMPANY,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
` CIVIL ACTION NO. ______________
`
`
` PATENT CASE
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Guada Technologies LLC files this Original Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`against 3M Company and would respectfully show the Court as follows:
`
`
`
`I. THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Guada Technologies LLC (“Guada” or “Plaintiff”) is a Texas limited
`
`liability company with an address of 3000 Custer Rd, Ste 270 - 7058, Plano, TX 75075.
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant 3M Company (“Defendant”) is a Delaware
`
`corporation with its place of business at 3M Center, St. Paul, MN 55144. Defendant has a
`
`registered agent at Corporation Service Company, 251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, DE
`
`19808.
`
`II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the
`
`United States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of such action under 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`1331 and 1338(a).
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant is subject to this Court’s specific and
`
`general personal jurisdiction, pursuant to due process and the Delaware Long-Arm Statute, due
`
`at least to its business and existence in this forum, including at least a portion of the
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00693-RGA Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 5
`
`
`infringements alleged herein. Furthermore, Defendant is subject to this Court’s specific and
`
`general personal jurisdiction because Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
`
`5.
`
`Without limitation, on information and belief, within this state, Defendant has
`
`used the patented inventions thereby committing, and continuing to commit, acts of patent
`
`infringement alleged herein. In addition, on information and belief, Defendant has derived
`
`revenue from its infringing acts occurring within Delaware. Further, on information and belief,
`
`Defendant is subject to the Court’s general jurisdiction, including from regularly doing or
`
`soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses of conduct, and deriving revenue from
`
`goods and services provided to persons or entities in Delaware. Further, on information and
`
`belief, Defendant is subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction at least due to its sale of products
`
`and/or services through the Accused Instrumentality within Delaware. Defendant has committed
`
`such purposeful acts and/or transactions in Delaware such that it reasonably should know and
`
`expect that it could be haled into this Court as a consequence of such activity.
`
`6.
`
`Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). On information and
`
`belief, Defendant is incorporated in Delaware. On information and belief, from and within this
`
`District Defendant has committed at least a portion of the infringements at issue in this case.
`
`7.
`
` For these reasons, personal jurisdiction exists and venue is proper in this Court.
`
`III. COUNT I
`(PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,231,379)
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs herein by reference.
`
`On June 12, 2007, United States Patent No. 7,231,379 (“the ‘379 Patent”) was
`
`duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The ‘379 Patent is
`
`titled “Navigation in a Hierarchical Structured Transaction Processing System.” The application
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00693-RGA Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 6
`
`
`leading to the ‘379 Patent was filed on November 19, 2002. A true and correct copy of the ‘379
`
`Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff is the assignee of all right, title and interest in the ‘379 patent, including
`
`all rights to enforce and prosecute actions for infringement and to collect damages for all
`
`relevant times against infringers of the ‘379 patent. Accordingly, Plaintiff possesses the
`
`exclusive right and standing to prosecute the present action for infringement of the ‘379 Patent
`
`by Defendant.
`
`11.
`
`The ‘379 patent is directed to addresses a problem of navigating network vertices
`
`in a programmed computer that has a hierarchically configured decisional network that must be
`
`navigated as part of the processing, and that is constructed to accept inputs or data. (Ex. A at col.
`
`2:25-30). Although Defendant argues that such a network exists outside of computers, that
`
`argument is inconsistent with the specification. The specification states that the “invention is
`
`implemented in a programmed computer that has a hierarchically configured decisional network
`
`that must be navigated as part of the processing.” (Id. at col. 2:25-30). The network “is
`
`constructed to accept inputs or data and process them in a manner that facilitates navigation of
`
`the network vertices more efficiently.” (Id.). A hierarchically arranged decisional network is an
`
`arrangement of nodes (numbered boxes below) connected by edges (lines connecting the boxes)
`
`that are used to traverse from one node to another node through decisions at a particular node:
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00693-RGA Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 7
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id. at Fig. 1). The object of navigating the system is to get from the start to the desired node
`
`quickly and efficiently. (Id. at col. 2:9-12). This system is different from a “circuit” or “cycle”
`
`in which edges can loop back on themselves to create a closed path. (Id. at col. 2:67 – col. 3:3).
`
`12.
`
`To navigate a hierarchically arranged decisional network, a user provides
`
`responses to prompts, or inputs data, to navigate up or down through adjacent nodes in the
`
`hierarchy to reach a certain node to obtain information, perform a transaction, or accomplish a
`
`similar goal. (Id. at col. 2:22-25; col. 3:5-28). For example, an interactive television program
`
`guide can be arranged as a hierarchically arranged decisional network. A user starts at the first
`
`node with a selection between films and shows. (Id. at Fig. 4). Upon the selection of films, the
`
`user is presented with another set of nodes to select, such as genres of films (e.g., comedies,
`
`horror, drama). The user could then continue navigating down through additional nodes levels
`
`until reaching a goal node.
`
`13.
`
`This method of navigating through specific pathways between nodes is
`
`inefficient. For example, if the user navigates down the wrong hierarchy of nodes, the user must
`
`either backtrack up the nodes or start over, thereby frustrating the user. (Ex. A at col. 2:9-12).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00693-RGA Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 8
`
`
`As networks become larger with more node levels, the ability to achieve the goal node becomes
`
`more difficult because it requires navigating an excessive number of nodes. (Id. at col. 2:15-18).
`
`14.
`
`The invention solves the prior art problems by not locking the user into movement
`
`to adjacent nodes or having to start over at the top node. Instead, the invention allows the system
`
`to “jump” laterally from one branch to another. (Id. at col. 3:35-37). The problem is solved by
`
`supplementing the allowed movement between adjacent nodes with navigation to nonadjacent
`
`nodes by associating the nodes with keywords and matching words in a user’s request/response
`
`to the keywords so that the system can jump to those nodes. (Id. at col. 3:35-43). In other
`
`words, the user is not bound by the rigid hierarchical arrangement because an input or response
`
`can cause a direct jump to a different node, thereby bypassing intervening nodes that would
`
`otherwise need to be traversed according to approaches of the prior art.
`
`15.
`
`The ‘379 patent has been cited as prior art during the prosecution history of
`
`United States patents assigned to IBM, Fujitsu Limited, and Harris Corporation.
`
`16.
`
`Direct Infringement. Upon information and belief, Defendant has been and now
`
`is directly infringing at least claim 1 of the ‘379 patent in the State of Delaware, in this District,
`
`and elsewhere in the United States, by actions comprising making, using, and/or performing a
`
`method for navigating multiple navigable nodes interconnected in a hierarchical arrangement
`
`using the website at https://www.3m.com/ and associated subsites, web pages and functionality
`
`within that website (the “Accused Instrumentality”). For example, the Accused Instrumentality
`
`utilizes a method performed in a system having multiple navigable nodes (the Accused
`
`Instrumentality has different product categories (nodes) for selection by a user (e.g., Products for
`
`Business, Products for Consumers, etc.)) interconnected in a hierarchical arrangement (e.g., from
`
`the home page node, users can go to nodes such as “Products for Business” and then within the
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00693-RGA Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 9
`
`
`“Products for Business” node are particular categories, such as “Electronics,” “Automotive,”
`
`etc., which in turn contain nodes of particular categories, such as “Consumer Electronics,”
`
`“Semiconductor,” which in turn contain nodes of particular categories, such as “Electronic
`
`Assembly Tapes,” which contain product nodes, such as “3M Adhesive Transfer Tape
`
`9471LE”). The Accused Instrumentality performs the step, at a first node, of receiving an input
`
`from a user of the system (e.g., Defendant uses a search box on the home page node for
`
`accepting an input from a user), the input from the user contains at least one word identifiable
`
`with at least one keyword from among multiple keywords (the input from the user contains one
`
`or more words identifiable with at least one keyword, which is used by Defendant to identify
`
`particular products). The Accused Instrumentality also performs the step of identifying at least
`
`one node, other than the first node, that is not directly connected to the first node but is
`
`associated with the at least one keyword and jumps to the at least one node. For example, the
`
`Accused Instrumentality identifies a particular product relating to the keyword input by the user
`
`(e.g., “Adhesive Transfer Tape”) and allows jumping to those items/nodes without traversing
`
`preceding generic category nodes (e.g., “Products for Business,” “Electronics,” “Consumer
`
`Electronics,” etc.) in the hierarchy.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of Defendant’s infringing conduct.
`
`Defendant is thus liable to Plaintiff for damages in an amount that adequately compensates
`
`Plaintiff for such Defendant’s infringement of the ‘379 patent, i.e., in an amount that by law
`
`cannot be less than would constitute a reasonable royalty for the use of the patented technology,
`
`together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`18.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant will continue its infringement of one or
`
`more claims of the ‘379 patent unless enjoined by the Court. Furthermore, the Defendant’s
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00693-RGA Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 10
`
`
`infringing conduct thus causes Plaintiff irreparable harm and will continue to cause such harm
`
`without the issuance of an injunction.
`
`
`
`IV. JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury of
`
`any issues so triable by right.
`
`V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court find in its favor and against
`
`Defendant, and that the Court grant Plaintiff the following relief:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`
`e.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Judgment that one or more claims of United States Patent No. 7,231,379 have
`been infringed, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by
`Defendant;
`
`Judgment that Defendant account for and pay to Plaintiff all damages to and costs
`incurred by Plaintiff because of Defendant’s infringing activities and other
`conduct complained of herein, and an accounting of all infringements and
`damages not presented at trial;
`
`That Plaintiff be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages
`caused by Defendant’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of
`herein;
`
`That Defendant be permanently enjoined from any further activity or conduct that
`infringes one or more claims of United States Patent No. 7,231,379; and
`
`That Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just
`and proper under the circumstances.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00693-RGA Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 11
`
`
`May 25, 2020
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`David R. Bennett
`Direction IP Law
`P.O. Box 14184
`Chicago, IL 60614-0184
`(312) 291-1667
`dbennett@directionip.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CHONG LAW FIRM P.A.
`
` /s/ Jimmy Chong
`Jimmy Chong
`2961 Centerville Road, Suite 350
`Wilmington, DE 19808
`Telephone: (302) 999-9480
`Facsimile: (877) 796-4627
`Email: chong@chonglawfirm.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Guada Technologies LLC
`
`
`
`8
`
`