`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
`
`
`
`GLOBAL INTERACTIVE MEDIA, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Civil Action No. 20-cv-3125
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`AT&T SERVICES, INC.
`and AT&T COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Global Interactive Media, Inc. (“GIM”) brings this patent-infringement action
`
`against Defendants AT&T Services, Inc. and AT&T Communications, LLC (collectively “AT&T”
`
`or “Defendants”), and alleges as follows:
`
`Parties
`
`1.
`
`GIM is a Belizian corporation having its principal place of business at 84 Albert
`
`Street, Belize City, Belize.
`
`2.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant AT&T Services, Inc. is a Delaware
`
`corporation with a place of business at 175 E. Houston Street, San Antonio, Texas 78205 and with
`
`a registered agent for service of process at The Corporation Trust, Inc. 2405 York Road, Suite 201
`
`Lutherville Timonium, Maryland 21093-22646.
`
`3.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant AT&T Communications, LLC is a
`
`Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business at 208 South Akard Street,
`
`Dallas, Texas 75202 and with a registered agent for service of process at The Corporation Trust
`
`Company, 1209 Orange St., Wilmington, Delaware 19801.
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-03125-PWG Document 1 Filed 10/27/20 Page 2 of 9
`
`4.
`
`At all times relevant to the instant lawsuit, Defendants owned and/or operated an
`
`online television programming guide branded as the AT&T U-verse Channel Guide (”U-verse
`
`Guide”) accessible at http://U-verse.com/guide. Defendants directed the U-verse Guide at multiple
`
`cities in the United States, including in this judicial district.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`seq.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`1331 and 1338(a).
`
`7.
`
`This Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant
`
`conducts continuous and systematic business in Maryland. For example, Defendant sells services
`
`to Defendant’s customers in this District. Defendant maintains a regular and established place of
`
`business in this District. These patent infringement claims arise directly from Defendants’
`
`continuous and systematic activity in this District. Thus, this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over
`
`Defendants would be consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`
`8.
`
`Defendants are subject to this Court’s general and specific personal jurisdiction
`
`because they have sufficient minimum contacts within the State of Maryland and this District,
`
`pursuant to due process and/or the Maryland Long Arm Statute, because Defendants purposefully
`
`availed themselves of the privileges of conducting business in the State of Maryland and in this
`
`District, because they regularly conduct and solicit business within the State of Maryland and
`
`within this District, and because GIM’s causes of action arise directly from Defendants’ business
`
`contacts and other activities in the State of Maryland and this District.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-03125-PWG Document 1 Filed 10/27/20 Page 3 of 9
`
`
`
`The Asserted Patents
`
`10.
`
`GIM asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 7,574,721 (the “’721 Patent”), 8,032,907 (the “’907
`
`Patent”), and 6,314,577 (the “’577 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”) in this action.
`
`The Asserted Patents each claim methods and/or systems of tracking broadcasts and providing
`
`program information on demand to customers who may wish to make purchasing decisions based
`
`on the program information. The inventions claimed in the Asserted Patents represent uses of
`
`technology that were neither well-understood nor routine or conventional as of the time of the
`
`inventions. Prior to the inventions claimed in the Asserted Patents, for example, consumers
`
`listening to a radio broadcast may have heard a song they liked and wished to purchase, but unless
`
`the station identified the song, the listeners had no ready way to obtain information about the song
`
`such as the title or artist. With the inventions claimed by the Asserted Patents, listeners not only
`
`are able to obtain that information, they are also able to purchase songs directly, an option that was
`
`not available to them until after the inventions of the Asserted Patents. The technology claimed in
`
`the Asserted Patents has become widespread to the point of ubiquity.
`
`11.
`
`Defendants directly and/or indirectly make, use, distribute, market, sell and/or offer
`
`to sell throughout the United States, including in this judicial district, products and/or services that
`
`infringe one or more claims of the Asserted Patents as described below. Defendants have infringed,
`
`literally or through the doctrine of equivalents, directly, jointly, or indirectly, contributorily and/or
`
`through the inducement of others, one or more claims of each of the Asserted Patents, by the above
`
`referenced acts.
`
`Count 1 – Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,574,721
`
`12.
`
`GIM owns the ’721 Patent (attached as Exhibit A).
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-03125-PWG Document 1 Filed 10/27/20 Page 4 of 9
`
`13.
`
`Defendants infringed at least claim 1 of the ’721 patent by identifying television
`
`broadcast providers based in response to a user’s submission of a geographic identifier such as a
`
`zip code as follows:
`
`a.
`
`Claim 1 recites “A method for identifying at least one broadcast provider
`
`through a combination of a geographic identification code and a broadcast identifier.” (Ex. A at
`
`col. 17, ll. 44-46). During the relevant time period, Defendants’ U-verse Guide identified local
`
`broadcast providers by zip code (a “geographic identification code”) and station call letters (a
`
`“broadcast identifier”).
`
`b.
`
`Claim 1 recites “digitally storing, in a database, one or more geographic
`
`identification codes that are each associated with at least one area or location in which a broadcast
`
`is receivable from at least one broadcast provider . . . .” (Ex. A at col. 17, ll. 47-50). During the
`
`relevant time period, Defendants U-verse Guide stored multiple zip codes that were each
`
`associated with the cities serviced by the website.
`
`c.
`
`Claim 1 further recites “digitally storing, in the database, one or more
`
`broadcast identifiers that are each associated with at least one broadcast provider ....” (Ex. A at col.
`
`17, ll. 51-53). During the relevant time period, Defendants’ U-verse Guide stored multiple station
`
`call letters that were each associated with a broadcast provider.
`
`d.
`
`Claim 1 further recites “receiving at least one user related geographic
`
`identification code ....” (Ex. A at col. 17, ll. 54-55). During the relevant time period, Defendants’
`
`U-verse Guide received zip codes inputted by users.
`
`e.
`
`Claim 1 further recites “receiving at least one user related broadcast
`
`identifier, wherein the received at least one user related broadcast identifier is not required to by
`
`itself identify a broadcast provider ....” (Ex. A at col. 17, ll. 56-59). During the relevant time period,
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-03125-PWG Document 1 Filed 10/27/20 Page 5 of 9
`
`Defendants’ U-verse Guide received a user related broadcast identifier when the user selects a
`
`category or “genre” of a television program for which she wished to identify a broadcast provider,
`
`such as “Kids,” “Movies,” “News,” or “Sports.”
`
`f.
`
`Claim 1 involves “determining, by a processor, a subset of data from the
`
`database using the received at least one user related geographic identification code, the subset of
`
`data comprising at least one of the stored one or more broadcast identifiers that are associated with
`
`at least one of the stored one or more geographic identification codes that corresponds to the
`
`received at least one user related geographic identification code[.]” (Ex. A at col. 17, ll. 60-67).
`
`Defendants’ U-verse Guide determined by processor, using the user’s ZIP code, a subset of data
`
`comprising stored broadcast identifiers (e.g., Fox) associated with broadcast television programs
`
`broadcast by the broadcasters within the user’s service area.
`
`Count 2 – Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,032,907
`
`14.
`
`GIM owns United States Patent 8,032,907 (the “’907 patent”) (attached as Exhibit
`
`A).
`
`15.
`
`Defendants infringed at least one of the 90 methods and systems claimed in the
`
`’907 patent by providing the U-verse Guide.
`
`16.
`
`For example, and for illustration of one of the 90 claims of the ’907 patent that GIM
`
`alleges that the U-verse Guide infringed, the guide infringed claim 18 of the ’907 patent as follows:
`
`a.
`
`Claim 18 claims a “method for providing recipients of a broadcast with
`
`automated information about program material, the method comprising: broadcasting program
`
`material in at least one broadcast[.]” (Ex. B at col. 19, ll. 13-16). At all times relevant to the instant
`
`lawsuit, the U-verse Guide provided information about program material that is broadcast by
`
`Defendants in Maryland, http://U-verse.com/guide.
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-03125-PWG Document 1 Filed 10/27/20 Page 6 of 9
`
`b.
`
`Claim 18 includes the step of “receiving one or more user inquiries from
`
`one or more recipients of said at least one broadcast, said one or more inquiries including broadcast
`
`identifier information . . . .” (Ex. B at col. 19, ll. 17-19). At all times relevant to the instant lawsuit,
`
`a user of the U-verse Guide could inquire regarding the programs being broadcast by Defendants.
`
`For example, a user may access the U-verse Guide and inquire about sports program material, for
`
`example, the show “Real Sports With Brian Gumbel,” Episode “09” broadcast on HBO HD.
`
`c.
`
`The method of claim 18 involves “creating a program description file
`
`comprising program information related to program material to be broadcast in the future[.]” (Ex.
`
`B at col. 19, ll. 20-22). Defendants’ U-verse Guide, prior to the broadcast of programs, created
`
`files describing the programs to be broadcast. For example, the user inquiring about the Real Sports
`
`With Brian Gumbel” would learn: “The new director of the NFL Players Association discusses
`
`upcoming contract talks . . . .”
`
`d.
`
`Next, claim 18 involves “communicating the program information into a
`
`programmed data processor[.]” (Ex. B at col. 19, ll. 23-24). A user of the U-verse Guide was able
`
`to learn the name and description of a program being broadcast, e.g., Episode “09” of Real Sports
`
`with Brian Gumbel, because Defendants had a programmed data processor into which the program
`
`description file was loaded.
`
`e.
`
`Claim 18 involves “synchronizing said communicated program information
`
`with said program material of said at least one broadcast[.]” (Ex. B at col. 19, ll. 25-26).
`
`Defendants’ synchronized the program information with the broadcast of Episode “09” of “Real
`
`Sports with Brian Gumbel.”
`
`f.
`
`Claim 18 involves “using said data programmed data processor to
`
`communicate, to the one or more recipients, program information that corresponds to the broadcast
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-03125-PWG Document 1 Filed 10/27/20 Page 7 of 9
`
`identifier information included in said one or more inquiries, wherein at least one of the program
`
`description file, the program information, and the synchronized program information is associated
`
`with the broadcast identifier information.” (Ex. B at col. 19, ll. 28-35). Defendants’ U-verse Guide
`
`communicated the “Real Sports with Brian Gumbel” Episode “09” program information to the
`
`consumer.
`
`Count 3 – Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,314,577
`
`17.
`
`GIM owns United States Patent 6,314,577 (the “’577 patent”) (attached as Exhibit
`
`B).
`
`18.
`
`Defendants infringed at least one of the 130 methods and systems claimed in the
`
`’577 patent by providing the U-verse Guide.
`
`19.
`
`For example, and for illustration of one of the 130 claims of the ’577 patent that
`
`GIM alleges the U-verse Guide infringed, the guide infringed claim 94 of the ’577 patent as
`
`follows:
`
`a.
`
`Claim 94 is a “method for providing listeners or viewers of a radio or
`
`television broadcast with automated information about program material, comprising the steps of:
`
`broadcasting at least one radio or television broadcast[.]” (Ex. C at col. 23, ll. 15-18). At all times
`
`relevant to the instant lawsuit, Defendants’ U-verse Guide provided viewers of television programs
`
`with automated information about program broadcasted by Defendants
`
`b.
`
`Claim 94 involves “receiving user inquiries from a listener or viewer of said
`
`radio or television broadcast[.]” (Ex. C at col. 23, ll. 19-20). A user of Defendants’ U-verse Guide
`
`could inquire regarding the programs being broadcast on, for example, the HBO-HD channel 800
`
`at 12:30 pm.
`
`c.
`
`Claim 94 involves “creating a program description file[.]” (Ex. C at col. 23,
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-03125-PWG Document 1 Filed 10/27/20 Page 8 of 9
`
`l. 21). Defendants, prior to the broadcast of programs, created files describing the programs to be
`
`broadcast. For example, the user inquiring about the program broadcast by Defendants on HBO-
`
`HD channel 800 at 12:30 pm would learn that the program is Episode “09” of Real Sports With
`
`Brian Gumbel, in which: “The new director of the NFL Players Association discusses upcoming
`
`contract talks . . . .”
`
`d.
`
`The method of claim 94 involves “communicating program list information
`
`into a programmed data processor[.]” (Ex. C at col. 23, ll. 22-23). A user of the U-verse Guide was
`
`able to learn the name and description of a program being broadcast because Defendants had a
`
`programmed data processor into which the program description file was loaded.
`
`e.
`
`Claim 94 involves “correlating said program descriptions of program
`
`material with said program list information and generating information in a database responsive to
`
`only a broadcast identifier[.]” (Ex. C at col. 23, ll. 24-27). Defendants correlated the description
`
`of Episode “09” to the list of scheduled programs so that the description is correlated and
`
`responsive to the 12:30 pm identifier of Real Sports With Brian Gumbel “Episode 09” on HBO
`
`HD channel 800.
`
`f.
`
`Claim 94 involves “using said programmed data processor to communicate
`
`said program description file responsive to said user inquiry.” (Ex. C at col. 23, ll. 28-30).
`
`Defendants’ U-verse Guide uses the data processor to communicate the description of Episode
`
`“09” of “Real Sports With Brian Gumbel” to the user when the user accesses the service during
`
`the 12:30 pm broadcast to inquire about the program.
`
`Demand for Jury Trial
`
`GIM demands a trial by jury on all matters and issues triable by jury.
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-03125-PWG Document 1 Filed 10/27/20 Page 9 of 9
`
`Prayer for Relief
`
`WHEREFORE, GIM prays for the following relief against Defendant:
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`Judgment that Defendants have directly infringed claims of the Asserted Patents;
`
`For a reasonable royalty;
`
`For pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed
`
`by law; and
`
`(d)
`
`For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`
`Dated: October 27, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`Thomas G. Southard_/s/___________
`Thomas G. Southard (#16861)
`Brian S. Seal (pro hac vice pending)
`BUTZEL LONG, PC
`1909 K. St., N.W., Suite 500
`Washington, D.C. 20006
`Tel: (202) 454-2800
`Fax: (202) 454-2805
`Email: southard@butzel.com
`
`Attorneys for Global Interactive Media, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`