Case 4:20-cv-00434-SDJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`SHERMAN DIVISON
`
`POST MEDIA SYSTEMS LLC
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Civil Action No.: 4:20-cv-434
`
`v.
`
`ASPIRO AB
`
`Defendant.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Post Media Systems LLC (“Post Media” or “Plaintiff”), for its Complaint
`
`against Defendant Aspiro AB (“Aspiro” or “Defendant”), alleges the following:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the United
`
`States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2. Plaintiff is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Texas with a place
`
`of business at 556 County Road 557, Farmersville, TX 75442.
`
`3. Upon information and belief, Aspiro is a limited liability company organized and
`
`existing under the laws of Norway. Upon information and belief, Aspiro’s headquarters is
`
`located at Grabrodersgatan 2, Malmo, Kalmar, Sweden.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising 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).
`
`Page 1 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00434-SDJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 2
`
`6.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1400(b).
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant is subject to this Court’s general and
`
`specific personal jurisdiction because Defendant has sufficient minimum contacts within the
`
`State of Texas and this District, pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute, Tex.
`
`Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 17.042, because Defendant purposefully availed itself of the
`
`privileges of conducting business in the State of Texas and in this District, because Defendant
`
`regularly conducts and solicits business within the State of Texas and within this District, and
`
`because Plaintiff’s causes of action arise directly from Defendant’s business contacts and other
`
`activities in the State of Texas and this District. Upon information and belief, Aspiro distributes,
`
`makes available, sells and offers to sell products and services throughout the United States,
`
`including in this judicial district, and introduces products and services that into the stream of
`
`commerce and that incorporate infringing technology knowing that they would be used and sold
`
`in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`8.
`
`This lawsuit initially asserts infringement of four United States patents, Nos.
`
`7,069,310; 7,472,175; 8,725,832; and 8,959,181 (the “patents in suit”), which are part of a
`
`broader family of five issued patents. Alan Bartholomew is the sole inventor on each of the five
`
`issued patents.
`
`9.
`
`Raised in a family with a Quaker background, Alan Bartholomew studied music
`
`and performance with the cello, earning the BFA and MFA degrees from the California Institute
`
`of Arts. While studying music he taught himself programming and started a software
`
`development business that became a source of income to support his family. While developing
`
`office productivity software products for customers, he worked in his spare time to find creative
`Page 2 of 16
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00434-SDJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 3
`
`ways of combining his musical interests and software expertise. This led to his developing a way
`
`to broadcast audio files over shared networks, now often referred to as podcasting, such as used
`
`for entertainment, marketing and educational purposes (e.g. for distance learning). His work led
`
`to the patents in suit. His research also led to the development of audio and video recording
`
`software products that he has successfully sold through his company SoniClear, helping
`
`customers record government meetings and court proceedings, including cities, school districts,
`
`and courts around the country.
`
`10. Now nearing retirement, and concerned about maintaining his software business in
`
`the volatile economy, he has chosen to stay focused on the development of software products
`
`related to his SoniClear business rather than developing and patenting new technologies. Having
`
`spent much money and effort to develop his inventions and procure patents, Mr. Bartholomew
`
`hopes to recoup his costs without incurring financial risk to his family. Mr. Bartholomew turned
`
`to Post Media, whose purpose in part is to conduct the work necessary to reward and provide
`
`compensation to Mr. Bartholomew for the patents in suit.
`
`11. Plaintiff Post Media is the assignee and owner of all right, title and interest in and to
`
`each of the patents in suit. Post Media’s ownership interest includes but is not limited to the
`
`right to assert all causes of action and obtain any remedies for infringement of the patents in suit,
`
`including damages for infringement that predates their assignment to Post Media.
`
`COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,069,310
`
`12.
`
`The allegations set forth in the paragraphs 1 through 11 above are incorporated
`
`into this First Count for Relief.
`
`13.
`
`On June 27, 2006, U.S. Patent No. 7,069,310 (“the ’310 patent”), entitled “System
`
`and Method for Creating and Posting Media Lists for Purposes of Subsequent Playback,” was
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00434-SDJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 4
`
`duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and correct
`
`copy of the ’310 patent is attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`14.
`
`The inventive embodiments of the ’310 patent resolve technical problems related
`
`to a specific functionality of computers and networks (e.g. Internet or other networks) to post,
`
`share, and playback media, overcoming posting and interface issues specific to different
`
`computing systems and accounts on shared networks.
`
`15.
`
`The claims of the ’310 patent do not merely recite the performance of some
`
`business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with a requirement to perform it on
`
`the Internet. Instead, the claims of the ’310 patent recite one or more inventive concepts that are
`
`rooted in computerized electronic data communications networks, and an improved method to
`
`deliver content and provide interface among different accounts and computing systems.
`
`16.
`
`The claims of the ’310 patent recite an invention that is not merely the routine or
`
`conventional use of electronic devices for communications. Instead, among other things, the
`
`invention adds new features to deliver content, integrate application interfaces and other
`
`protocols together on shared networks. The ’310 patent claims thus include improvements for,
`
`for example, embedding media information and propagating changes in the media information to
`
`yield a desired result.
`
`17.
`
`The technology claimed in the ’310 patent does not preempt all ways of using
`
`computerized devices or transmitting information over networks, nor does it preempt any other
`
`well-known or prior art technology.
`
`18.
`
`Accordingly, each claim of the ’310 patent recites a combination of elements
`
`sufficient to ensure that the claim in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on an
`
`ineligible concept.
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00434-SDJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 5
`
`19.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has and continues to directly infringe at
`
`least claim 1 of the ’310 patent by making, using, selling, importing and/or providing and
`
`causing to be used without authority within the United States, a system directed to a specific
`
`functionality of computers and networks to share media for playback (the “’310 Accused
`
`Instrumentalities”). The ’310 Accused Instrumentalities include at least the TIDAL service, as
`
`well as equipment, software, and applications implementing that service.
`
`20.
`
`On information and belief, the ’310 Accused Instrumentalities infringe at least
`
`claim 1 of the ’310 patent. A comparison of the TIDAL service with the claim 1 of the ’310
`
`patent is attached as Exhibit 2.
`
`21.
`
`On information and belief, these ’310 Accused Instrumentalities are marketed to,
`
`provided to, and/or used by or for Defendant’s partners, clients, customers and end users across
`
`the country and in this District.
`
`22.
`
`Defendant was made aware of the ’310 patent and its infringement thereof at least
`
`as early as the filing of this Complaint.
`
`23.
`
`Upon information and belief, since at least the filing of this Complaint, Defendant
`
`has induced and continues to induce others to infringe at least one claim of the ’310 patent under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by, among other things, with specific intent or willful blindness, actively
`
`aiding and abetting others’ infringement—including but not limited to the infringement of
`
`Defendant’s partners, clients, customers, and end users whose use of the ’310 Accused
`
`Instrumentalities constitutes direct infringement of at least one claim of the ’310 patent.
`
`24.
`
`In particular, Defendant has aided and abetted others’ infringement of the ’310
`
`patent by at least advertising and distributing the ’310 Accused Instrumentalities and providing
`
`instruction materials, training, and services regarding the ’310 Accused Instrumentalities to
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00434-SDJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 6
`
`others. On information and belief, Defendant has engaged in such actions with specific intent to
`
`cause infringement or with willful blindness to the resulting infringement since Defendant has
`
`had actual knowledge of the ’310 patent and knowledge that its acts were inducing infringement
`
`of the ’310 patent since at least the date Defendant received notice that such activities infringed
`
`the ’310 patent.
`
`25.
`
`Upon information and belief, since at least the filing of this Complaint, Defendant
`
`is liable as a contributory infringer of the ’310 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by offering to
`
`sell, selling and importing into the United States media content delivery in shared networks to be
`
`especially made or adapted for use in an infringement of the ’310 patent. The ’310 Accused
`
`Instrumentalities are a material component for use in practicing the ’310 patent, are specifically
`
`made in a way to enable infringement of the ’310 patent, and are not a staple article of commerce
`
`suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff has been harmed by Defendant’s infringing activities.
`
`COUNT II – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,472,175
`
`27.
`
`The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 26 above are incorporated into
`
`this Second Count for Relief.
`
`28.
`
`On December 30, 2008, U.S. Patent No. 7,472,175 (“the ’175 patent”), entitled
`
`“System for Creating and Posting Media for Sharing on a Communication Network,” was duly
`
`and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of
`
`the ’175 patent is attached as Exhibit 3.
`
`29.
`
`The inventive embodiments of the ’175 patent resolve technical problems related
`
`to a specific functionality of computers and networks (e.g. Internet or other networks) to post,
`
`share, and playback media, overcoming posting and interface issues specific to different
`
`computing systems and accounts on shared networks.
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00434-SDJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 7
`
`30.
`
`The claims of the ’175 patent do not merely recite the performance of some
`
`business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with a requirement to perform it on
`
`the Internet. Instead, the claims of the ’175 patent recite one or more inventive concepts that are
`
`rooted in computerized electronic data communications networks, and an improved method to
`
`deliver content and provide interface among different accounts and computing systems.
`
`31.
`
`The claims of the ’175 patent recite an invention that is not merely the routine or
`
`conventional use of electronic devices for communications. Instead, among other things, the
`
`invention adds new features to deliver content, integrate application interfaces and other
`
`protocols together on shared networks. The ’175 patent claims thus include improvements for,
`
`for example, embedding media information and propagating changes in the media information to
`
`yield a desired result.
`
`32.
`
`The technology claimed in the ’175 patent does not preempt all ways of using
`
`computerized devices or transmitting information over networks, nor does it preempt any other
`
`well-known or prior art technology.
`
`33.
`
`Accordingly, each claim of the ’175 patent recites a combination of elements
`
`sufficient to ensure that the claim in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on an
`
`ineligible concept.
`
`34.
`
` Upon information and belief, Defendant has infringed and continues to directly
`
`infringe at least claim 1 of the ’175 patent by making, using, selling, importing and/or providing
`
`and causing to be used without authority within the United States, a system directed to a specific
`
`functionality of computers and networks to share media for playback (the “’175 Accused
`
`Instrumentalities”). The ’175 Accused Instrumentalities include at least the TIDAL service, as
`
`well as equipment, software, and applications implementing that service.
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00434-SDJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 8
`
`35.
`
`On information and belief, the ’175 Accused Instrumentalities infringe at least
`
`claim 1 of the ’175 patent. A comparison of the TIDAL service with claim 1 of the ’175 patent
`
`is attached as Exhibit 4.
`
`36.
`
`On information and belief, these ’175 Accused Instrumentalities are marketed to,
`
`provided to, and/or used by or for Defendant’s partners, clients, customers and end users across
`
`the country and in this District.
`
`37.
`
`Defendant was made aware of the ’175 patent and its infringement thereof at least
`
`as early as the filing of this Complaint.
`
`38.
`
`Upon information and belief, since at least the filing of this Complaint, Defendant
`
`has induced and continues to induce others to infringe at least one claim of the ’175 patent under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by, among other things, with specific intent or willful blindness, actively
`
`aiding and abetting others’ infringement—including but not limited to the infringement of
`
`Defendant’s partners, clients, customers, and end users whose use of the ’175 Accused
`
`Instrumentalities constitutes direct infringement of at least one claim of the ’175 patent.
`
`39.
`
`In particular, Defendant has aided and abetted others’ infringement of the ’175
`
`patent by at least advertising and distributing the ’175 Accused Instrumentalities and providing
`
`instruction materials, training, and services regarding the ’175 Accused Instrumentalities to
`
`others. On information and belief, Defendant has engaged in such actions with specific intent to
`
`cause infringement or with willful blindness to the resulting infringement since Defendant has
`
`had actual knowledge of the ’175 patent and knowledge that its acts were inducing infringement
`
`of the ’175 patent since at least the date Defendant received notice that such activities infringed
`
`the ’175 patent.
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00434-SDJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 9
`
`40.
`
`Upon information and belief, since at least the filing of this Complaint, Defendant
`
`is liable as a contributory infringer of the ’175 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by offering to
`
`sell, selling and importing into the United States media content delivery in shared networks to be
`
`especially made or adapted for use in an infringement of the ’175 patent. The ’175 Accused
`
`Instrumentalities are a material component for use in practicing the ’175 patent and are
`
`specifically made in a way to enable infringement of the ’175 patent, and are not a staple article
`
`of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiff has been harmed by Defendant’s infringing activities.
`
`COUNT III – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,725,832
`
`42.
`
`The allegations set forth in the paragraphs 1 through 41 above are incorporated
`
`into this Third Count for Relief.
`
`43.
`
`On May 13, 2014, U.S. Patent No. 8,725,832 (“the ’832 patent”), entitled “System
`
`and Method for Creating and Posting Media Lists for Purposes of Subsequent Playback,” was
`
`duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and correct
`
`copy of the ’832 patent is attached as Exhibit 5.
`
`44.
`
`The inventive embodiments of the ’832 patent resolve technical problems related
`
`to a specific functionality of computers and networks (e.g. Internet or other networks) to post,
`
`share, and playback media, overcoming posting and interface issues specific to different
`
`computing systems and accounts on shared networks.
`
`45.
`
`The claims of the ’832 patent do not merely recite the performance of some
`
`business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with a requirement to perform it on
`
`the Internet. Instead, the claims of the ’832 patent recite one or more inventive concepts that are
`
`rooted in computerized electronic data communications networks, and an improved method to
`
`deliver content and provide interface among different accounts and computing systems.
`Page 9 of 16
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00434-SDJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 10
`
`46.
`
`The claims of the ’832 patent recite an invention that is not merely the routine or
`
`conventional use of electronic devices for communications. Instead, among other things, the
`
`invention adds new features to deliver content, integrate application interfaces and other
`
`protocols together on shared networks. The ’832 patent claims thus include improvements for,
`
`for example, embedding media information and propagating changes in the media information to
`
`yield a desired result.
`
`47.
`
`The technology claimed in the ’832 patent does not preempt all ways of using
`
`computerized devices or transmitting information over networks, nor does it preempt any other
`
`well-known or prior art technology.
`
`48.
`
`Accordingly, each claim of the ’832 patent recites a combination of elements
`
`sufficient to ensure that the claim in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on an
`
`ineligible concept.
`
`49.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has infringed and continues to directly
`
`infringe at least claims 1 and 17 of the ’832 patent by making, using, selling, importing and/or
`
`providing and causing to be used without authority within the United States, a system directed to
`
`a specific functionality of computers and networks to share media for playback (the “’832
`
`Accused Instrumentalities”). The ’832 Accused Instrumentalities include at least the TIDAL
`
`service, as well as equipment, software, and applications implementing that service.
`
`50.
`
`On information and belief, the ’832 Accused Instrumentalities infringe at least
`
`claim 1 of the ’832 patent. A comparison of the TIDAL service with claim 1 of the ’832 patent
`
`is attached as Exhibit 6.
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00434-SDJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 11
`
`51.
`
`On information and belief, the ’832 Accused Instrumentalities infringe at least
`
`claim 17 of the ’832 patent. A comparison of the TIDAL service with claim 17 of the ’832
`
`patent is attached as Exhibit 7.
`
`52.
`
`On information and belief, the ’832 Accused Instrumentalities are marketed to,
`
`provided to, and/or used by or for Defendant’s partners, clients, customers and end users across
`
`the country and in this District.
`
`53.
`
`Defendant was made aware of the ’832 patent and its infringement thereof at least
`
`as early as the filing of this Complaint.
`
`54.
`
`Upon information and belief, since at least the filing of this Complaint, Defendant
`
`has induced and continues to induce others to infringe at least one claim of the ’832 patent under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by, among other things, with specific intent or willful blindness, actively
`
`aiding and abetting others’ infringement—including but not limited to the infringement of
`
`Defendant’s partners, clients, customers, and end users whose use of the ’832 Accused
`
`Instrumentalities constitutes direct infringement of at least one claim of the ’832 patent.
`
`55.
`
`In particular, Defendant has aided and abetted others’ infringement of the ’832
`
`patent by at least advertising and distributing the ’832 Accused Instrumentalities and providing
`
`instruction materials, training, and services regarding the ’832 Accused Instrumentalities to
`
`others. On information and belief, Defendant has engaged in such actions with specific intent to
`
`cause infringement or with willful blindness to the resulting infringement since Defendant has
`
`had actual knowledge of the ’832 patent and knowledge that its acts were inducing infringement
`
`of the ’832 patent since at least the date Defendant received notice that such activities infringed
`
`the ’832 patent.
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00434-SDJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 12
`
`56.
`
`Upon information and belief, since at least the filing of this Complaint, Defendant
`
`is liable as a contributory infringer of the ’832 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by offering to
`
`sell, selling and importing into the United States media content delivery in shared networks to be
`
`especially made or adapted for use in an infringement of the ’832 patent. The ’832 Accused
`
`Instrumentalities are a material component for use in practicing the ’832 patent and are
`
`specifically made in a way to enable infringement of the ’832 patent, and are not a staple article
`
`of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
`
`57.
`
`Plaintiff has been harmed by Defendant’s infringing activities.
`
`COUNT IV – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,959,181
`
`58. The allegations set forth in the paragraphs 1 through 57 above are incorporated
`
`into this Fourth Claim for Relief.
`
`59.
`
`On February 17, 2015, U.S. Patent No. 8,959,181 (“the ’181 patent”), entitled
`
`“System and Method for Creating and Posting Media Lists for Purposes of Subsequent
`
`Playback,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A
`
`true and correct copy of the ’181 patent is attached as Exhibit 8.
`
`60.
`
`The inventive embodiments of the ’181 patent resolve technical problems related
`
`to a specific functionality of computers and networks (e.g. Internet or other networks) to post,
`
`share, and playback media, overcoming posting and interface issues specific to different
`
`computing systems and accounts on shared networks.
`
`61.
`
`The claims of the ’181 patent do not merely recite the performance of some
`
`business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with a requirement to perform it on
`
`the Internet. Instead, the claims of the ’181 patent recite one or more inventive concepts that are
`
`rooted in computerized electronic data communications networks, and an improved method to
`
`deliver content and provide interface among different accounts and computing systems.
`Page 12 of 16
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00434-SDJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 13
`
`62.
`
`The claims of the ’181 patent recite an invention that is not merely the routine or
`
`conventional use of electronic devices for communications. Instead, among other things, the
`
`invention adds new features to deliver content, integrate application interfaces and other
`
`protocols together on shared networks. The ’181 patent claims thus include improvements for,
`
`for example, of embedding information and propagating changes in the information to yield a
`
`desired result.
`
`63.
`
`The technology claimed in the ’181 patent does not preempt all ways of using
`
`computerized devices or transmitting information over networks, nor does it preempt any other
`
`well-known or prior art technology.
`
`64.
`
`Accordingly, each claim of the ’181 patent recites a combination of elements
`
`sufficient to ensure that the claim in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent on an
`
`ineligible concept.
`
`65. Upon information and belief, Defendant has infringed and continues to directly
`
`infringe at least claim 19 of the ’181 patent by making, using, selling, importing and/or providing
`
`and causing to be used without authority within the United States, a system directed to a specific
`
`functionality of computers and networks to share media for playback (the “’181 Accused
`
`Instrumentalities”). The ’181 Accused Instrumentalities include at least the TIDAL service, as
`
`well as equipment, software, and applications implementing that service.
`
`66.
`
`On information and belief, the ’181 Accused Instrumentalities infringe at least
`
`claim 19 of the ’181 patent. A comparison of the TIDAL service with claim 19 of the ’181
`
`patent is attached as Exhibit 9.
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00434-SDJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 14
`
`67.
`
`On information and belief, these ’181 Accused Instrumentalities are marketed to,
`
`provided to, and/or used by or for Defendant’s partners, clients, customers and end users across
`
`the country and in this District.
`
`68.
`
`Defendant was made aware of the ’181 patent and its infringement thereof at least
`
`as early as the filing of this Complaint.
`
`69.
`
`Upon information and belief, since at least the filing of this Complaint, Defendant
`
`has induced and continues to induce others to infringe at least one claim of the ’181 patent under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by, among other things, with specific intent or willful blindness, actively
`
`aiding and abetting others’ infringement—including but not limited to the infringement of
`
`Defendant’s partners, clients, customers, and end users whose use of the ’181 Accused
`
`Instrumentalities constitutes direct infringement of at least one claim of the ’181 patent.
`
`70.
`
`In particular, Defendant has aided and abetted others’ infringement of the ’181
`
`patent by at least advertising and distributing the ’181 Accused Instrumentalities and providing
`
`instruction materials, training, and services regarding the ’181 Accused Instrumentalities to
`
`others. On information and belief, Defendant has engaged in such actions with specific intent to
`
`cause infringement or with willful blindness to the resulting infringement since Defendant has
`
`had actual knowledge of the ’181 patent and knowledge that its acts were inducing infringement
`
`of the ’181 patent since at least the date Defendant received notice that such activities infringed
`
`the ’181 patent.
`
`71.
`
`Upon information and belief, since at least the filing of this Complaint, Defendant
`
`is liable as a contributory infringer of the ’181 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by offering to
`
`sell, selling and importing into the United States computerized trading platforms to be especially
`
`made or adapted for use in an infringement of the ’181 patent. The ’181 Accused
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00434-SDJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 15
`
`Instrumentalities are a material component for use in practicing the ’181 patent and are
`
`specifically made in a way to enable infringement of the ’181 patent, and are not a staple article
`
`of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
`
`72.
`
`Plaintiff has been harmed by Defendant’s infringing activities.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands a trial by
`
`jury on all issues so triable.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment for itself and against Defendant as follows:
`
`A.
`
`An adjudication that Defendant has infringed the ’310, ’175, ’832, and ’181
`
`patents;
`
`B.
`
`An award of damages to be paid by Defendant adequate to compensate Plaintiff
`
`for Defendant’s past infringement of the ’310, ’175, ’832, and ’181 patents, but in no event less
`
`than a reasonable royalty, together with interest, costs, expenses and an accounting of all
`
`infringing acts including, but not limited to, those acts not presented at trial;
`
`C.
`
`A declaration that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and an award of
`
`Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees; and
`
`D.
`
`An award to Plaintiff of such further relief at law or in equity as the Court deems
`
`just and proper.
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 16
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00434-SDJ Document 1 Filed 05/26/20 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 16
`
`Dated: May 26, 2020
`
`
`
`
`DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
`
`/s/ Chad Henson________
`Clifford Chad Henson
`State Bar No. 24087711
`chenson@devlinlawfirm.com
`Timothy Devlin (pro hac vice to be filed)
`tdevlin@devlinlawfirm.com
`1526 Gilpin Ave
`Wilmington, Delaware 19806
`Telephone: (302) 449-9002
`Facsimile: (302) 353-4215
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Post Media Systems LLC
`
`Page 16 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`