Case 1:20-cv-00930-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1
`
`STINGRAY MUSIC USA, INC. and
`STINGRAY GROUP, INC.
`
` Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`POST MEDIA SYSTEMS LLC,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. __________
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`Pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, Plaintiffs Stingray
`
`
`
`Music USA, Inc. and Stingray Group, Inc. (“Stingray”) file this Original Complaint seeking a
`
`Declaratory Judgment that Stingray has not infringed any patents owned by Defendant Post Media
`
`Systems LLC (“Post Media”). Stingray’s Original Complaint for Declaratory Judgment is based
`
`on the following:
`
`I.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Stingray Music USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business at 2127 Ayrsley Town Blvd., Suite 202, Charlotte, North Carolina 28273.
`
`2.
`
`Stingray Group, Inc. is a Canadian company with its principal place of business at
`
`730 Wellington Street, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3C 1T4.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Post Media is a Texas corporation with its principal
`
`place of business at 556 County Road 557, Farmersville, Texas 75442.
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`Pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, Stingray
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00930-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 2
`
`seeks a declaratory judgment that Stingray has not infringed any patents owned by Post Media
`
`under the Patent Laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`5.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a)
`
`because Stingray’s claims for declaratory relief arise under 35 U.S.C. § 101, et seq.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Post Media because: (1) Post Media has
`
`availed itself of this jurisdiction by filing multiple lawsuits in this District, including lawsuits in
`
`which Post Media has asserted infringement of the very same patents-at-issue in this Complaint
`
`for Declaratory Judgment (see, e.g., Post Media Systems LLC v. Slacker, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-
`
`718-GMS); and (2) Post Media has regular and established contacts with this District, including
`
`for example, the hiring of a law firm based in Wilmington, Delaware, which is in this District, to
`
`represent Post Media in patent infringement cases involving the very same patents-at-issue in this
`
`Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (see, e.g., Post Media Systems LLC v. Slacker, Inc., Case No.
`
`1:17-cv-718-GMS).
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1400(b).
`
`III. BACKGROUND FACTS
`
`On or about June 22, 2020, Stingray’s representative, Mr. Lloyd Feldman, received
`
`a call and voicemail from Mr. William Nichols on behalf of Post Media. In this voicemail, Mr.
`
`Nichols informed Mr. Feldman that Post Media had filed a complaint for patent infringement
`
`against an entity called Stingray Group, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern
`
`District of Texas.
`
`9.
`
`On information and belief, the complaint referenced by Mr. Nichols was filed in
`
`Case No. 4:20-cv-431 pending in the Eastern District of Texas. See Post Media Systems LLC v.
`
`Stingray Group, Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-431 (E.D. Tex. May 26, 2020) at Dkt. 1 (“Post Media
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00930-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 3
`
`Complaint”).
`
`10.
`
`The Post Media Complaint names as the defendant “a company existing under the
`
`laws of England and Wales” called Stingray Group, Inc. and further identifies this entity as being
`
`headquartered in Berlin, Germany. See Post Media Complaint at ¶ 3.
`
`11.
`
`Stingray Music USA, Inc.’s parent company, Stingray Group, Inc., is not a
`
`company that exists under the laws of England and/or Wales and is not headquartered in Berlin,
`
`Germany. Similarly, Stingray Music USA, Inc. is not a company that exists under the laws of
`
`England and/or Wales and is not headquartered in Berlin, Germany.
`
`12.
`
`Instead, as stated above, Stingray Group, Inc. is a Canadian company with its
`
`principal place of business at 730 Wellington Street, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3C 1T4.
`
`Additionally, Stingray Music USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business at 2127 Ayrsley Town Blvd., Suite 202, Charlotte, North Carolina 28273.
`
`13.
`
`Nonetheless, the Post Media Complaint accuses the “Stingray music service” of
`
`infringing four patents allegedly assigned to Post Media and includes, as exhibits, claim charts that
`
`contain screenshots from Stingray’s mobile music application.
`
`14.
`
`As a result, there is a definite and concrete dispute, touching the legal relations of
`
`parties having adverse legal interests. In particular, the voicemail received from Post Media’s
`
`representative, Mr. Nichols, evidences a real and substantial controversy concerning whether
`
`Stingray’s music service infringes one or more patents owned by Post Media.
`
`15.
`
`Given that there is no legal or factual basis for Post Media to assert that Stingray
`
`infringes any patents owned by Post Media, Stingray respectfully files this Original Complaint
`
`seeking the following declaratory relief.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00930-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 4
`
`COUNT I: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,069,310
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`Stingray incorporates each of the allegations of paragraphs 1–15 above.
`
`On information and belief, Post Media claims to be the assignee and owner of all
`
`right, title, and interest in and to U.S. Patent No. 7,069,310 (“the ’310 Patent”), which is titled
`
`“System and Method for Creating and Posting Media Lists for Purposes of Subsequent Playback”
`
`and is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
`
`18.
`
`The ’310 Patent states that “[t]he present invention relates to the generation,
`
`transfer, and posting of media data in a computer network environment,” and “[m]ore particularly,
`
`the invention relates to a client computer based system for creating, processing, encoding, and
`
`transferring media files for server based storage, posting, distribution, and retrieval.” See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 1 at Field of the Invention.
`
`19.
`
`Stingray’s music service also does not satisfy each and every element of any of the
`
`claims of the ’310 Patent either as a stand-alone system or in combination with computer
`
`components or activities from any third-party. Moreover, Stingray has not induced, and does not
`
`now induce, infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of the ’310 Patent. As a result,
`
`Stingray’s music service does not directly or indirectly infringe any valid and enforceable claim
`
`of the ’310 Patent.
`
`20.
`
`There is an actual controversy within the jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 2201 and 2202. Based on the foregoing, a justiciable controversy exists between Stingray and
`
`Post Media as to whether Stingray’s music service infringes the ’310 Patent. Absent a declaration
`
`of non-infringement, Post Media will continue to wrongfully allege that Stingray’s music service
`
`infringes the ’310 Patent and thereby cause Stingray irreparable injury and damage. As a result,
`
`the controversy is of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00930-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 5
`
`judgment of non-infringement, and such a judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that
`
`Stingray may ascertain its rights regarding its music service and the ’310 Patent.
`
`21.
`
`For the above reasons, Stingray is entitled to a judicial determination and
`
`declaration that Stingray has not infringed and is not infringing, either directly, indirectly,
`
`contributorily, by inducement or otherwise, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’310 Patent.
`
`COUNT II: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,472,175
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`Stingray incorporates each of the allegations of paragraphs 1–21 above.
`
`On information and belief, Post Media claims to be the assignee and owner of all
`
`right, title, and interest in and to U.S. Patent No. 7,472,175 (“the ’175 Patent”), which is titled
`
`“System for Creating and Posting Media for Sharing on a Communication Network” and is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
`
`24.
`
`The ’175 Patent states that “[t]he present invention relates to the generation,
`
`transfer, and posting of media data in a computer network environment,” and “[m]ore particularly,
`
`the invention relates to a client computer based system for creating, processing, encoding, and
`
`transferring media files for server based storage, posting, distribution, and retrieval.” See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 2 at Field of the Invention.
`
`25.
`
`Stingray’s music service also does not satisfy each and every element of any of the
`
`claims of the ’175 Patent either as a stand-alone system or in combination with computer
`
`components or activities from any third-party. Moreover, Stingray has not induced, and does not
`
`now induce, infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of the ’175 Patent. As a result,
`
`Stingray’s music service does not directly or indirectly infringe any valid and enforceable claim
`
`of the ’175 Patent.
`
`26.
`
`There is an actual controversy within the jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00930-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 6
`
`§§ 2201 and 2202. Based on the foregoing, a justiciable controversy exists between Stingray and
`
`Post Media as to whether Stingray’s music service infringes the ’175 Patent. Absent a declaration
`
`of non-infringement, Post Media will continue to wrongfully allege that Stingray’s music service
`
`infringes the ’175 Patent and thereby cause Stingray irreparable injury and damage. As a result,
`
`the controversy is of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory
`
`judgment of non-infringement, and such a judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that
`
`Stingray may ascertain its rights regarding its music service and the ’175 Patent.
`
`27.
`
`For the above reasons, Stingray is entitled to a judicial determination and
`
`declaration that Stingray has not infringed and is not infringing, either directly, indirectly,
`
`contributorily, by inducement or otherwise, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’175 Patent.
`
`COUNT III: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,725,832
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`Stingray incorporates each of the allegations of paragraphs 1–27 above.
`
`On information and belief, Post Media claims to be the assignee and owner of all
`
`right, title, and interest in and to U.S. Patent No. 8,725,832 (“the ’832 Patent”), which is titled
`
`“System and Method for Creating and Posting Media Lists for Purposes of Subsequent Playback”
`
`and is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
`
`30.
`
`The ’832 Patent states that “[t]he present invention relates to the generation,
`
`transfer, and posting of media data in a computer network environment,” and “[m]ore particularly,
`
`the invention relates to a client computer based system for creating, processing, encoding, and
`
`transferring media files for server based storage, posting, distribution, and retrieval.” See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 3 at Field of the Invention.
`
`31.
`
`Stingray’s music service also does not satisfy each and every element of any of the
`
`claims of the ’832 Patent either as a stand-alone system or in combination with computer
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00930-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 7
`
`components or activities from any third-party. Moreover, Stingray has not induced, and does not
`
`now induce, infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of the ’832 Patent. As a result,
`
`Stingray’s music service does not directly or indirectly infringe any valid and enforceable claim
`
`of the ’832 Patent.
`
`32.
`
`There is an actual controversy within the jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 2201 and 2202. Based on the foregoing, a justiciable controversy exists between Stingray and
`
`Post Media as to whether Stingray’s music service infringes the ’832 Patent. Absent a declaration
`
`of non-infringement, Post Media will continue to wrongfully allege that Stingray’s music service
`
`infringes the ’832 Patent and thereby cause Stingray irreparable injury and damage. As a result,
`
`the controversy is of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory
`
`judgment of non-infringement, and such a judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that
`
`Stingray may ascertain its rights regarding its music service and the ’832 Patent.
`
`33.
`
`For the above reasons, Stingray is entitled to a judicial determination and
`
`declaration that Stingray has not infringed and is not infringing, either directly, indirectly,
`
`contributorily, by inducement or otherwise, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’832 Patent.
`
`COUNT IV: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,959,181
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`Stingray incorporates each of the allegations of paragraphs 1–33 above.
`
`On information and belief, Post Media claims to be the assignee and owner of all
`
`right, title, and interest in and to U.S. Patent No. 8,959,181 (“the ’181 Patent”), which is titled
`
`“System and Method for Creating and Posting Media Lists for Purposes of Subsequent Playback”
`
`and is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
`
`36.
`
`The ’181 Patent states that “[t]he present invention relates to the generation,
`
`transfer, and posting of media data in a computer network environment,” and “[m]ore particularly,
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00930-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 8
`
`the invention relates to a client computer based system for creating, processing, encoding, and
`
`transferring media files for server based storage, posting, distribution, and retrieval.” See, e.g.,
`
`Ex. 4 at Field of the Invention.
`
`37.
`
`Stingray’s music service also does not satisfy each and every element of any of the
`
`claims of the ’181 Patent either as a stand-alone system or in combination with computer
`
`components or activities from any third-party. Moreover, Stingray has not induced, and does not
`
`now induce, infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of the ’181 Patent. As a result,
`
`Stingray’s music service does not directly or indirectly infringe any valid and enforceable claim
`
`of the ’181 Patent.
`
`38.
`
`There is an actual controversy within the jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 2201 and 2202. Based on the foregoing, a justiciable controversy exists between Stingray and
`
`Post Media as to whether Stingray’s music service infringes the ’181 Patent. Absent a declaration
`
`of non-infringement, Post Media will continue to wrongfully allege that Stingray’s music service
`
`infringes the ’181 Patent and thereby cause Stingray irreparable injury and damage. As a result,
`
`the controversy is of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory
`
`judgment of non-infringement, and such a judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that
`
`Stingray may ascertain its rights regarding its music service and the ’181 Patent.
`
`39.
`
`For the above reasons, Stingray is entitled to a judicial determination and
`
`declaration that Stingray has not infringed and is not infringing, either directly, indirectly,
`
`contributorily, by inducement or otherwise, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’181 Patent.
`
`WHEREFORE, Stingray respectfully requests that the Court enter a judgment in its favor and
`
`against Post Media as follows:
`
`a) Entry of an Order of this Court declaring that Stingray’s music service does not infringe
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00930-UNA Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 9
`
`any of the Post Media patents above, and that Stingray, by its actions neither infringes,
`
`induces nor contributes to the infringement of the patents by others;
`
`b) Entry of an Order of this Court enjoining Post Media, its agents, servants, officers,
`
`directors, employees, attorneys, privies, representatives, successors, assigns, and parent
`
`or subsidiary entities, and any and all persons in act of concert or participation with any
`
`of them, from threatening to assert or asserting any of the Post Media patents above
`
`against Stingray, its parent, subsidiaries, agents, employees, licensees or customers.
`
`c) Entry of an Order of this Court assessing all costs associated with this action to Post
`
`Media;
`
`d) Entry of an Order of this Court declaring this case exceptional and awarding Stingray
`
`its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and
`
`e) All other relief, both interim and permanent, as is just and proper.
`
`Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs hereby demand a
`
`trial by jury of all issues triable of right by a jury.
`
`
`
`Dated: July 9, 2020
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Demetrios Anaipakos
`Michael McBride
`Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi &
`Mensing P.C.
`1221 McKinney, Suite 2500
`Houston, Texas 77010
`Telephone: (713) 655-1101
`Fax: (713) 655-0062
`danaipakos@azalaw.com
`mmcbride@azalaw.com
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`FARNAN LLP
`
`
`/s/ Brian E. Farnan_____
`Brian E. Farnan (Bar No. 4089)
`Michael J. Farnan (Bar No. 5165)
`919 N. Market St., 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone: (302) 777-0300
`Fax: (302) 777-0301
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`