Case 2:19-cv-00037-JRG Document 14 Filed 03/19/19 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: 250
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`IMPLICIT, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-37-JRG-RSP
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`COMES NOW Plaintiff Implicit, LLC (“Implicit”) and files this First Amended Complaint
`
`for Patent Infringement against Defendant Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper”), alleging as follows:
`
`I. NATURE OF THE SUIT
`
`1.
`
`This is a claim for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United
`
`States, Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`II. THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Implicit, LLC is a Washington limited liability company that maintains
`
`its principal place of business in Tyler, Texas.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Juniper Networks, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that does business in
`
`Texas, directly or through intermediaries, maintains a principal place of business in Sunnyvale,
`
`California, and maintains a regular and established place of business in Plano, Texas.
`
`First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`Page 1
`
`Juniper Ex. 1041-p. 1
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00037-JRG Document 14 Filed 03/19/19 Page 2 of 25 PageID #: 251
`
`III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United
`
`States Code. Thus, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a).
`
`5.
`
`This Court has general personal jurisdiction over Juniper because Juniper maintains
`
`a regular and established place of business in Plano, Texas.
`
`6.
`
`Further, this Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Juniper in this action
`
`pursuant to due process and the Texas Long Arm Statute because the claims asserted herein arise
`
`out of or are related to Juniper’s voluntary contacts with this forum, such voluntary contacts
`
`including but not limited to: (i) at least a portion of the actions complained of herein;
`
`(ii) purposefully and voluntarily placing one or more Accused Products into the stream of
`
`commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in this forum; or
`
`(iii) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses of conduct, or
`
`deriving substantial revenue from Accused Products provided to individuals in Texas and in this
`
`District.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(3) and 1400(b) for at
`
`least the reasons set forth above and because Juniper maintains a regular and established place of
`
`business in Plano, Texas, which is in this District.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The Asserted Patents
`
`8.
`
`This cause of action asserts infringement of United States Patent Nos. 8,056,075
`
`(the “’075 Patent”); 8,856,779 (the “’779 Patent”); 9,325,740 (the “’740 Patent”); 8,694,683 (the
`
`“’683 Patent”); 9,270,790 (the “’790 Patent”); 9,591,104 (the “’104 Patent”); 10,027,780 (the
`
`
`First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`Juniper Ex. 1041-p. 2
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00037-JRG Document 14 Filed 03/19/19 Page 3 of 25 PageID #: 252
`
`“’780 Patent”); 10,033,839 (the “’839 Patent”); and 10,225,378 (the “’378 Patent”) (collectively,
`
`the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`9.
`
`A true and correct copy of the ’075 Patent, entitled “Server Request Management,”
`
`and with Edward Balassanian as the named inventor, is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`The ’075 Patent duly and legally issued on November 8, 2011.
`
`Implicit is the current owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interest in and
`
`under the ’075 Patent. Implicit has standing to sue for infringement of the ’075 Patent.
`
`12.
`
`A true and correct copy of the ’779 Patent, entitled “Application Server for
`
`Delivering Applets to Client Computing Devices in a Distributed Environment,” and with Edward
`
`Balassanian as the named inventor, is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`The ’779 Patent duly and legally issued on October 7, 2014.
`
`Implicit is the current owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interest in and
`
`under the ’779 Patent. Implicit has standing to sue for infringement of the ’779 Patent.
`
`15.
`
`A true and correct copy of the ’740 Patent, entitled “Application Server for
`
`Delivering Applets to Client Computing Devices in a Distributed Environment,” and with Edward
`
`Balassanian as the named inventor, is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`The ’740 Patent duly and legally issued on April 26, 2016.
`
`Implicit is the current owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interest in and
`
`under the ’740 Patent. Implicit has standing to sue for infringement of the ’740 Patent.
`
`18.
`
`A true and correct copy of the ’683 Patent, entitled “Method and System for Data
`
`Demultiplexing,” and with Edward Balassanian as the named inventor, is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit 4.
`
`19.
`
`The ’683 Patent duly and legally issued on April 8, 2014.
`
`
`First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`Juniper Ex. 1041-p. 3
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00037-JRG Document 14 Filed 03/19/19 Page 4 of 25 PageID #: 253
`
`20.
`
`Implicit is the current owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interest in and
`
`under the ’683 Patent. Implicit has standing to sue for infringement of the ’683 Patent.
`
`21.
`
`A true and correct copy of the ’790 Patent, entitled “Method and System for Data
`
`Demultiplexing,” and with Edward Balassanian as the named inventor, is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit 5.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`The ’790 Patent duly and legally issued on February 23, 2016.
`
`Implicit is the current owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interest in and
`
`under the ’790 Patent. Implicit has standing to sue for infringement of the ’790 Patent.
`
`24.
`
`A true and correct copy of the ’104 Patent, entitled “Method and System for Data
`
`Demultiplexing,” and with Edward Balassanian as the named inventor, is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit 6.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`The ’104 Patent duly and legally issued on March 7, 2017.
`
`Implicit is the current owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interest in and
`
`under the ’104 Patent. Implicit has standing to sue for infringement of the ’104 Patent.
`
`27.
`
`A true and correct copy of the ’780 Patent, entitled “Method and System for Data
`
`Demultiplexing,” and with Edward Balassanian as the named inventor, is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit 7.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`The ’780 Patent duly and legally issued on July 17, 2018.
`
`Implicit is the current owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interest in and
`
`under the ’780 Patent. Implicit has standing to sue for infringement of the ’780 Patent.
`
`30.
`
`A true and correct copy of the ’839 Patent, entitled “Method and System for Data
`
`Demultiplexing,” and with Edward Balassanian as the named inventor, is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit 8.
`
`
`First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`Juniper Ex. 1041-p. 4
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00037-JRG Document 14 Filed 03/19/19 Page 5 of 25 PageID #: 254
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`The ’839 Patent duly and legally issued on July 24, 2018.
`
`Implicit is the current owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interest in and
`
`under the ’839 Patent. Implicit has standing to sue for infringement of the ’839 Patent.
`
`33.
`
`A true and correct copy of the ’378 Patent, entitled “Method and System for Data
`
`Demultiplexing,” and with Edward Balassanian as the named inventor, is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit 9.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`The ’378 Patent duly and legally issued on March 5, 2019.
`
`Implicit is the current owner by assignment of all rights, title, and interest in and
`
`under the ’378 Patent. Implicit has standing to sue for infringement of the ’378 Patent.
`
`B.
`
`Juniper
`
`36.
`
`Juniper, directly or through intermediaries, makes, uses, sells, or offers to sell
`
`within the United States, or imports into the United States, certain products (the “Accused
`
`Products”), including but not limited to Juniper SRX Series Services Gateways.
`
`37.
`
`By selling or offering to sell the Accused Products, Juniper, directly or through
`
`intermediaries, purposefully and voluntarily places the Accused Products into the stream of
`
`commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased or used by consumers in this District.
`
`V. NOTICE
`
`38.
`
`The allegations of each foregoing paragraph are incorporated by reference as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`39.
`
`At least by filing and serving the Original Complaint in this action, Implicit has
`
`given Juniper written notice of the ’075 Patent, the ’779 Patent, the ’740 Patent, the ’683 Patent,
`
`the ’790 Patent, the ’104 Patent, the ’780 Patent, and the ’839 Patent and of Juniper’s infringement
`
`thereof.
`
`
`First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`Juniper Ex. 1041-p. 5
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00037-JRG Document 14 Filed 03/19/19 Page 6 of 25 PageID #: 255
`
`40.
`
`At least by filing and serving this First Amended Complaint, Implicit has given
`
`Juniper written notice of the ’378 Patent and of Juniper’s infringement thereof.
`
`A.
`
`Infringement of the ’075 Patent
`
`VI. CLAIMS
`
`41.
`
`The allegations of each foregoing paragraph are incorporated by reference as if
`
`fully set forth herein and form the basis for the following cause of action against Juniper.
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`The Accused Products are covered by at least claim 1 of the ’075 Patent.
`
`Juniper has directly infringed and continues to infringe at least claim 1 of the ’075
`
`Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by, directly or through intermediaries and without
`
`Implicit’s authority, making, using, selling, or offering to sell the Accused Products in the United
`
`States, or importing the Accused Products into the United States.
`
`44.
`
`Further and in the alternative, at least since the filing and service of the Original
`
`Complaint in this action, Juniper has been and now is actively inducing infringement of at least
`
`claim 1 of the ’075 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Users of the Accused Products
`
`directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’075 Patent when they use the Accused Products in the
`
`ordinary, customary, and intended way. Juniper’s inducements include, without limitation and
`
`with specific intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing consumers to use the
`
`Accused Products within the United States in the ordinary, customary, and intended way by,
`
`directly or through intermediaries, supplying the Accused Products to consumers within the United
`
`States and instructing such consumers (for example in instructional manuals or videos that Juniper
`
`provides online or with the Accused Products) how to use the Accused Products in the ordinary,
`
`customary, and intended way, which Juniper knows or should know infringes at least claim 1 of
`
`the ’075 Patent. Juniper’s inducements may further include, without limitation and with specific
`
`
`First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`Juniper Ex. 1041-p. 6
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00037-JRG Document 14 Filed 03/19/19 Page 7 of 25 PageID #: 256
`
`intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing manufacturers to make the Accused
`
`Products within the United States, or knowingly inducing distributors or resellers to sell or offer
`
`to sell the Accused Products within the United States, by, directly or through intermediaries,
`
`instructing such manufacturers, distributors, or resellers to make, sell, or offer to sell the Accused
`
`Products in the United States, which Juniper knows or should know infringes at least claim 1 of
`
`the ’075 Patent.
`
`45.
`
`Further and in the alternative, at least since the filing and service of the Original
`
`Complaint in this action, Juniper has been and now is actively contributing to infringement of at
`
`least claim 1 of the ’075 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Juniper installs, configures,
`
`and sells the Accused Products with one or more distinct components, including components that
`
`implement reverse-web proxy functionality (collectively, the “Server Accused Components”),
`
`each of which is especially made or especially adapted to practice the invention claimed in at least
`
`claim 1 of the ’075 Patent. Each Server Accused Component within the Accused Products
`
`constitutes a material part of the claimed invention recited in at least claim 1 of the ’075 Patent
`
`and not a staple article or commodity of commerce because it is specifically configured according
`
`to at least claim 1 of the ’075 Patent. Juniper’s contributions include, without limitation, making,
`
`offering to sell, and/or selling within the United States, and/or importing into the United States,
`
`the Accused Products, which include one or more Server Accused Components, knowing each
`
`Server Accused Component to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement
`
`of at least claim 1 of the ’075 Patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable
`
`for substantial noninfringing use.
`
`46.
`
`As of the filing and service of the Original Complaint in this action, Juniper’s
`
`infringement of the ’075 Patent has been and continues to be willful and deliberate.
`
`
`First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`Juniper Ex. 1041-p. 7
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00037-JRG Document 14 Filed 03/19/19 Page 8 of 25 PageID #: 257
`
`B.
`
`Infringement of the ’779 Patent
`
`47.
`
`The allegations of each foregoing paragraph are incorporated by reference as if
`
`fully set forth herein and form the basis for the following cause of action against Juniper.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`The Accused Products are covered by at least claim 1 of the ’779 Patent.
`
`Juniper has directly infringed and continues to infringe at least claim 1 of the ’779
`
`Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by, directly or through intermediaries and without
`
`Implicit’s authority, making, using, selling, or offering to sell the Accused Products in the United
`
`States, or importing the Accused Products into the United States.
`
`50.
`
`Further and in the alternative, at least since the filing and service of the Original
`
`Complaint in this action, Juniper has been and now is actively inducing infringement of at least
`
`claim 1 of the ’779 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Users of the Accused Products
`
`directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’779 Patent when they use the Accused Products in the
`
`ordinary, customary, and intended way. Juniper’s inducements include, without limitation and
`
`with specific intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing consumers to use the
`
`Accused Products within the United States in the ordinary, customary, and intended way by,
`
`directly or through intermediaries, supplying the Accused Products to consumers within the United
`
`States and instructing such consumers (for example in instructional manuals or videos that Juniper
`
`provides online or with the Accused Products) how to use the Accused Products in the ordinary,
`
`customary, and intended way, which Juniper knows or should know infringes at least claim 1 of
`
`the ’779 Patent. Juniper’s inducements may further include, without limitation and with specific
`
`intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing manufacturers to make the Accused
`
`Products within the United States, or knowingly inducing distributors or resellers to sell or offer
`
`to sell the Accused Products within the United States, by, directly or through intermediaries,
`
`
`First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`Juniper Ex. 1041-p. 8
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00037-JRG Document 14 Filed 03/19/19 Page 9 of 25 PageID #: 258
`
`instructing such manufacturers, distributors, or resellers to make, sell, or offer to sell the Accused
`
`Products in the United States, which Juniper knows or should know infringes at least claim 1 of
`
`the ’779 Patent.
`
`51.
`
`Further and in the alternative, at least since the filing and service of the Original
`
`Complaint in this action, Juniper has been and now is actively contributing to infringement of at
`
`least claim 1 of the ’779 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Juniper installs, configures,
`
`and sells the Accused Products with the Server Accused Components, each of which is especially
`
`made or especially adapted to practice the invention claimed in at least claim 1 of the ’779 Patent.
`
`Each Server Accused Component within the Accused Products constitutes a material part of the
`
`claimed invention recited in at least claim 1 of the ’779 Patent and not a staple article or commodity
`
`of commerce because it is specifically configured according to at least claim 1 of the ’779 Patent.
`
`Juniper’s contributions include, without limitation, making, offering to sell, and/or selling within
`
`the United States, and/or importing into the United States, the Accused Products, which include
`
`one or more Server Accused Components, knowing each Server Accused Component to be
`
`especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of at least claim 1 of the ’779
`
`Patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing
`
`use.
`
`52.
`
`As of the filing and service of the Original Complaint in this action, Juniper’s
`
`infringement of the ’779 Patent has been and continues to be willful and deliberate.
`
`C.
`
`Infringement of the ’740 Patent
`
`53.
`
`The allegations of each foregoing paragraph are incorporated by reference as if
`
`fully set forth herein and form the basis for the following cause of action against Juniper.
`
`54.
`
`The Accused Products are covered by at least claim 1 of the ’740 Patent.
`
`
`First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`Juniper Ex. 1041-p. 9
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00037-JRG Document 14 Filed 03/19/19 Page 10 of 25 PageID #: 259
`
`55.
`
`Juniper has directly infringed and continues to infringe at least claim 1 of the ’740
`
`Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by, directly or through intermediaries and without
`
`Implicit’s authority, making, using, selling, or offering to sell the Accused Products in the United
`
`States, or importing the Accused Products into the United States.
`
`56.
`
`Further and in the alternative, at least since the filing and service of the Original
`
`Complaint in this action, Juniper has been and now is actively inducing infringement of at least
`
`claim 1 of the ’740 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Users of the Accused Products
`
`directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’740 Patent when they use the Accused Products in the
`
`ordinary, customary, and intended way. Juniper’s inducements include, without limitation and
`
`with specific intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing consumers to use the
`
`Accused Products within the United States in the ordinary, customary, and intended way by,
`
`directly or through intermediaries, supplying the Accused Products to consumers within the United
`
`States and instructing such consumers (for example in instructional manuals or videos that Juniper
`
`provides online or with the Accused Products) how to use the Accused Products in the ordinary,
`
`customary, and intended way, which Juniper knows or should know infringes at least claim 1 of
`
`the ’740 Patent. Juniper’s inducements may further include, without limitation and with specific
`
`intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing manufacturers to make the Accused
`
`Products within the United States, or knowingly inducing distributors or resellers to sell or offer
`
`to sell the Accused Products within the United States, by, directly or through intermediaries,
`
`instructing such manufacturers, distributors, or resellers to make, sell, or offer to sell the Accused
`
`Products in the United States, which Juniper knows or should know infringes at least claim 1 of
`
`the ’740 Patent.
`
`
`First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`Juniper Ex. 1041-p. 10
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00037-JRG Document 14 Filed 03/19/19 Page 11 of 25 PageID #: 260
`
`57.
`
`Further and in the alternative, at least since the filing and service of the Original
`
`Complaint in this action, Juniper has been and now is actively contributing to infringement of at
`
`least claim 1 of the ’740 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Juniper installs, configures,
`
`and sells the Accused Products with the Server Accused Components, each of which is especially
`
`made or especially adapted to practice the invention claimed in at least claim 1 of the ’740 Patent.
`
`Each Server Accused Component within the Accused Products constitutes a material part of the
`
`claimed invention recited in at least claim 1 of the ’740 Patent and not a staple article or commodity
`
`of commerce because it is specifically configured according to at least claim 1 of the ’740 Patent.
`
`Juniper’s contributions include, without limitation, making, offering to sell, and/or selling within
`
`the United States, and/or importing into the United States, the Accused Products, which include
`
`one or more Server Accused Components, knowing each Server Accused Component to be
`
`especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of at least claim 1 of the ’740
`
`Patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing
`
`use.
`
`58.
`
`As of the filing and service of the Original Complaint in this action, Juniper’s
`
`infringement of the ’740 Patent has been and continues to be willful and deliberate.
`
`D.
`
`Infringement of the ’683 Patent
`
`59.
`
`The allegations of each foregoing paragraph are incorporated by reference as if
`
`fully set forth herein and form the basis for the following cause of action against Juniper.
`
`60.
`
`61.
`
`The Accused Products are covered by at least claim 1 of the ’683 Patent.
`
`Juniper has directly infringed and continues to infringe at least claim 1 of the ’683
`
`Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by, directly or through intermediaries and without
`
`
`First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`Juniper Ex. 1041-p. 11
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00037-JRG Document 14 Filed 03/19/19 Page 12 of 25 PageID #: 261
`
`Implicit’s authority, making, using, selling, or offering to sell the Accused Products in the United
`
`States, or importing the Accused Products into the United States.
`
`62.
`
`Further and in the alternative, at least since the filing and service of the Original
`
`Complaint in this action, Juniper has been and now is actively inducing infringement of at least
`
`claim 1 of the ’683 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Users of the Accused Products
`
`directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’683 Patent when they use the Accused Products in the
`
`ordinary, customary, and intended way. Juniper’s inducements include, without limitation and
`
`with specific intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing consumers to use the
`
`Accused Products within the United States in the ordinary, customary, and intended way by,
`
`directly or through intermediaries, supplying the Accused Products to consumers within the United
`
`States and instructing such consumers (for example in instructional manuals or videos that Juniper
`
`provides online or with the Accused Products) how to use the Accused Products in the ordinary,
`
`customary, and intended way, which Juniper knows or should know infringes at least claim 1 of
`
`the ’683 Patent. Juniper’s inducements may further include, without limitation and with specific
`
`intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing manufacturers to make the Accused
`
`Products within the United States, or knowingly inducing distributors or resellers to sell or offer
`
`to sell the Accused Products within the United States, by, directly or through intermediaries,
`
`instructing such manufacturers, distributors, or resellers to make, sell, or offer to sell the Accused
`
`Products in the United States, which Juniper knows or should know infringes at least claim 1 of
`
`the ’683 Patent.
`
`63.
`
`Further and in the alternative, at least since the filing and service of the Original
`
`Complaint in this action, Juniper has been and now is actively contributing to infringement of at
`
`least claim 1 of the ’683 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Juniper installs, configures,
`
`
`First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`Juniper Ex. 1041-p. 12
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00037-JRG Document 14 Filed 03/19/19 Page 13 of 25 PageID #: 262
`
`and sells the Accused Products with one or more distinct components, including components that
`
`implement flow-based processing and the ability to inspect application data on TCP traffic
`
`(collectively, the “Demux Accused Components”), each of which is especially made or especially
`
`adapted to practice the invention claimed in at least claim 1 of the ’683 Patent. Each Demux
`
`Accused Component within the Accused Products constitutes a material part of the claimed
`
`invention recited in at least claim 1 of the ’683 Patent and not a staple article or commodity of
`
`commerce because it is specifically configured according to at least claim 1 of the ’683 Patent.
`
`Juniper’s contributions include, without limitation, making, offering to sell, and/or selling within
`
`the United States, and/or importing into the United States, the Accused Products, which include
`
`one or more Demux Accused Components, knowing each Demux Accused Component to be
`
`especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of at least claim 1 of the ’683
`
`Patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing
`
`use.
`
`64.
`
`As of the filing and service of the Original Complaint in this action, Juniper’s
`
`infringement of the ’683 Patent has been and continues to be willful and deliberate.
`
`E.
`
`Infringement of the ’790 Patent
`
`65.
`
`The allegations of each foregoing paragraph are incorporated by reference as if
`
`fully set forth herein and form the basis for the following cause of action against Juniper.
`
`66.
`
`67.
`
`The Accused Products are covered by at least claim 1 of the ’790 Patent.
`
`Juniper has directly infringed and continues to infringe at least claim 1 of the ’790
`
`Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by, directly or through intermediaries and without
`
`Implicit’s authority, making, using, selling, or offering to sell the Accused Products in the United
`
`States, or importing the Accused Products into the United States.
`
`
`First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`Juniper Ex. 1041-p. 13
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00037-JRG Document 14 Filed 03/19/19 Page 14 of 25 PageID #: 263
`
`68.
`
`Further and in the alternative, at least since the filing and service of the Original
`
`Complaint in this action, Juniper has been and now is actively inducing infringement of at least
`
`claim 1 of the ’790 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Users of the Accused Products
`
`directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’790 Patent when they use the Accused Products in the
`
`ordinary, customary, and intended way. Juniper’s inducements include, without limitation and
`
`with specific intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing consumers to use the
`
`Accused Products within the United States in the ordinary, customary, and intended way by,
`
`directly or through intermediaries, supplying the Accused Products to consumers within the United
`
`States and instructing such consumers (for example in instructional manuals or videos that Juniper
`
`provides online or with the Accused Products) how to use the Accused Products in the ordinary,
`
`customary, and intended way, which Juniper knows or should know infringes at least claim 1 of
`
`the ’790 Patent. Juniper’s inducements may further include, without limitation and with specific
`
`intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing manufacturers to make the Accused
`
`Products within the United States, or knowingly inducing distributors or resellers to sell or offer
`
`to sell the Accused Products within the United States, by, directly or through intermediaries,
`
`instructing such manufacturers, distributors, or resellers to make, sell, or offer to sell the Accused
`
`Products in the United States, which Juniper knows or should know infringes at least claim 1 of
`
`the ’790 Patent.
`
`69.
`
`Further and in the alternative, at least since the filing and service of the Original
`
`Complaint in this action, Juniper has been and now is actively contributing to infringement of at
`
`least claim 1 of the ’790 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Juniper installs, configures,
`
`and sells the Accused Products with the Demux Accused Components, each of which is especially
`
`made or especially adapted to practice the invention claimed in at least claim 1 of the ’790 Patent.
`
`
`First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`Juniper Ex. 1041-p. 14
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00037-JRG Document 14 Filed 03/19/19 Page 15 of 25 PageID #: 264
`
`Each Demux Accused Component within the Accused Products constitutes a material part of the
`
`claimed invention recited in at least claim 1 of the ’790 Patent and not a staple article or commodity
`
`of commerce because it is specifically configured according to at least claim 1 of the ’790 Patent.
`
`Juniper’s contributions include, without limitation, making, offering to sell, and/or selling within
`
`the United States, and/or importing into the United States, the Accused Products, which include
`
`one or more Demux Accused Components, knowing each Demux Accused Component to be
`
`especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of at least claim 1 of the ’790
`
`Patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing
`
`use.
`
`70.
`
`As of the filing and service of the Original Complaint in this action, Juniper’s
`
`infringement of the ’790 Patent has been and continues to be willful and deliberate.
`
`F.
`
`Infringement of the ’104 Patent
`
`71.
`
`The allegations of each foregoing paragraph are incorporated by reference as if
`
`fully set forth herein and form the basis for the following cause of action against Juniper.
`
`72.
`
`73.
`
`The Accused Products are covered by at least claim 1 of the ’104 Patent.
`
`Juniper has directly infringed and continues to infringe at least claim 1 of the ’104
`
`Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by, directly or through intermediaries and without
`
`Implicit’s authority, making, using, selling, or offering to sell the Accused Products in the United
`
`States, or importing the Accused Products into the United States.
`
`74.
`
`Further and in the alternative, at least since the filing and service of the Original
`
`Complaint in this action, Juniper has been and now is actively inducing infringement of at least
`
`claim 1 of the ’104 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Users of the Accused Products
`
`directly infringe at least claim 1 of the ’104 Patent when they use the Accused Products in the
`
`
`First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`Juniper Ex. 1041-p. 15
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00037-JRG Document 14 Filed 03/19/19 Page 16 of 25 PageID #: 265
`
`ordinary, customary, and intended way. Juniper’s inducements include, without limitation and
`
`with specific intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing consumers to use the
`
`Accused Products within the United States in the ordinary, customary, and intended way by,
`
`directly or through intermediaries, supplying the Accused Products to consumers within the United
`
`States and instructing such consumers (for example in instructional manuals or videos that Juniper
`
`provides online or with the Accused Products) how to use the Accused Products in the ordinary,
`
`customary, and intended way, which Juniper knows or should know infringes at least claim 1 of
`
`the ’104 Patent. Juniper’s inducements may further include, without limitation and with specific
`
`intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing manufacturers to make the Accused
`
`Products within the United States, or knowingly inducing distributors or resellers to sell or offer
`
`to sell the Accused Products within the United States, by, directly or through intermediaries,
`
`instr