SPENCER HOSIE (CA Bar No. 101777)
`shosie@hosielaw.com
`BRUCE WECKER (CA Bar No. 078530)
`bwecker@hosielaw.com
`GEORGE F. BISHOP (CA Bar No. 89205)
`gbishop@hosielaw.com
`DIANE S. RICE (CA Bar No. 118303)
`drice@hosielaw.com
`HOSIE RICE LLP
`188 The Embarcadero, Suite 750
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`(415) 247-6000 Tel.
`(415) 247-6001 Fax
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`IMPLICIT NETWORKS, INC.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`IMPLICIT NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. C 10-4234 EDL
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`Case No. C 10-4234 EDL
`
`Juniper Ex. 1042-p. 1
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Plaintiff Implicit Networks, Inc. (“Implicit” or “Plaintiff”) hereby files its complaint
`
`against defendant Juniper Networks, Inc. (“Juniper” or “Defendant”), for patent
`
`infringement. For its complaint, Plaintiff alleges, on personal knowledge as to its own acts
`
`and on information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Implicit is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
`
`Washington, with its principal place of business in Seattle, Washington.
`
`2.
`
`Juniper is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware,
`
`with its principal place of business in Sunnyvale, California.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This complaint asserts a cause of action for patent infringement under the
`
`Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 271. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter by
`
`virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). Venue is proper in this Court by virtue of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)
`
`and (c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), in that Juniper may be found in this district, have committed
`
`acts of infringement in this district, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
`
`rise to the claim occurred and a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is
`
`situated in this district.
`
`4.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Juniper because Defendant has a
`
`place of business in, and provides infringing products and services in, the Northern District
`
`of California.
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`
`5.
`
`Pursuant to Civil LR 3-2(c), this case should be subject to district-wide
`
`assignment because it is an Intellectual Property Action.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`1
`
`Case No. C 10-4234 EDL
`
`Juniper Ex. 1042-p. 2
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`COUNT I
`
`PATENT INTRINGEMENT
`
`6.
`
`On September 30, 2003, United States Patent No. 6,629,163 (“the ‘163
`
`patent”) entitled “Method and System for Demultiplexing a First Sequence of Packet
`
`Components to Identify Specific Components Wherein Subsequent Components are
`
`Processed Without Re-Identifying Components” was duly and legally issued. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ‘163 patent is attached as Exhibit A. On June 22, 2010, an Ex Parte
`
`Reexamination Certificate was duly and legally issued. A true and correct copy of the
`
`Reexamination Certificate is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`7.
`
` On May 4, 2010, a continuation patent was issued, United States Patent No.
`
`7,711,857 (“the ’857 patent”) entitled “Method and System for Data Demultiplexing” was
`
`duly and legally issued. A true and correct copy of the ’857 patent is attached as Exhibit C.
`
`8.
`
`Edward Balassanian is the sole inventor of the ‘163 and ‘857 patents
`
`(collectively “Patents-in-Suit”). The Patents-in-Suit have been assigned to Plaintiff. Plaintiff
`
`Implicit is the sole legal and rightful owner of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`9.
`
`Juniper makes, uses, and sells many products including its infringing Junos
`
`operating system (“Junos OS”). Juniper makes, uses, and sells products that infringe the
`
`Patents-in-Suit, such products including without limitation, the following Juniper Networks’
`
`products: EX Series Ethernet Switches, J Series Services Routers, JCS1200 Control System,
`
`LN1000 Mobile Secure Router, M Series Multiservice Edge Routers, MX Series 3D
`
`Universal Edge Routers, SRX Series Services Gateways, and T Series Core Routers. In
`
`addition, Juniper has infringed and is still infringing the Patents-in-Suit patents in this
`
`country, through, inter alia, its active inducement of others to make, use, and/or sell the
`
`systems, products and methods claimed in one or more claims of the patents. In addition,
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. C 10-4234 EDL
`
`Juniper Ex. 1042-p. 3
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Juniper has infringed and is still infringing these patents in this country through, inter alia,
`
`providing and selling goods and services including products designed for use in practicing
`
`one or more claims of the patents, where the goods and services constitute a material part of
`
`the invention and are not staple articles of commerce, and which have no use other than
`
`infringing one or more claims of the patents. Juniper has committed these acts with
`
`knowledge that the goods and services it provides are specially made for use in a manner that
`
`directly infringes these patents.
`
`10.
`
`As a result of the infringement by Juniper, Plaintiff has been damaged, and
`
`will continue to be damaged, until this Defendant is enjoined from further acts of
`
`infringement.
`
`11.
`
`Juniper will continue to infringe unless enjoined by this Court. Plaintiff faces
`
`real, substantial and irreparable damage and injury of a continuing nature from infringement
`
`for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for entry of judgment:
`
`that the Patents-in-Suit patent is valid and enforceable;
`
`that Defendant has infringed one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`patent;
`
`
`
`C.
`
`that Defendant account for and pay to Plaintiff all damages caused by the
`
`infringement of the Patents-in-Suit patents, which by statute can be no less than a
`
`reasonable royalty;
`
`
`
`D.
`
`that Plaintiff be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the
`
`damages caused to them by reason of Defendant’s infringement of the Patents-in-Suit
`
`patent;
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. C 10-4234 EDL
`
`Juniper Ex. 1042-p. 4
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`E.
`
`that this Court issue a preliminary and final injunction enjoining Juniper,
`
`its officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and any other person in active
`
`concert or participation with them, from continuing the acts herein complained of, and
`
`more particularly, that Juniper and such other persons be permanently enjoined and
`
`restrained from further infringing the Patents-in-Suit;
`
`F.
`
`that this Court require Defendant to file with this Court, within thirty (30)
`
`days after entry of final judgment, a written statement under oath setting forth in detail
`
`the manner in which Defendant has complied with the injunction;
`
`G.
`
`that this be adjudged an exceptional case and the Plaintiff be awarded its
`
`attorney’s fees in this action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285;
`
`
`
`H.
`
`that this Court award Plaintiff its costs and disbursements in this civil
`
`action, including reasonable attorney’s fees; and
`
`
`
`I.
`
`that Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as the Court may
`
`deem just and proper under the current circumstances.
`
`
`Dated: September 20, 2010
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`_ ______________ _________________
`SPENCER HOSIE (CA Bar No. 101777)
`shosie@hosielaw.com
`BRUCE WECKER (CA Bar No. 078530)
`bwecker@hosielaw.com
`GEORGE F. BISHOP (CA Bar No. 89205)
`gbishop@hosielaw.com
`DIANE S. RICE (CA Bar No. 118303)
`drice@hosielaw.com
`HOSIE RICE LLP
`188 The Embarcadero, Suite 750
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`(415) 247-6000 Tel.
`(415) 247-6001 Fax
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. C 10-4234 EDL
`
`Juniper Ex. 1042-p. 5
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`IMPLICIT NETWORKS, INC.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. C 10-4234 EDL
`
`Juniper Ex. 1042-p. 6
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`

`

`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff, by its undersigned attorneys, demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 20, 2010
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`__ ______________ ______________
`SPENCER HOSIE (CA Bar No. 101777)
`shosie@hosielaw.com
`BRUCE WECKER (CA Bar No. 078530)
`bwecker@hosielaw.com
`GEORGE F. BISHOP (CA Bar No. 89205)
`gbishop@hosielaw.com
`DIANE S. RICE (CA Bar No. 118303)
`drice@hosielaw.com
`HOSIE RICE LLP
`188 The Embarcadero, Suite 750
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`(415) 247-6000 Tel.
`(415) 247-6001 Fax
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`IMPLICIT NETWORKS, INC.
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. C 10-4234 EDL
`
`Juniper Ex. 1042-p. 7
`Juniper v Implicit
`
`