Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/22/20 Page 1 of 17
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`USC IP PARTNERSHIP, L.P.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-555
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff USC IP Partnership, L.P. (“USC IP” or “Plaintiff”) files this original complaint
`
`against Facebook, Inc. (“FB” or “Defendant”) alleging, based on its own knowledge as to itself
`
`and its own actions, and based on information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`USC IP is a limited partnership formed under the laws of the State of Texas, with
`
`its principal place of business at 250 Decker Drive, Suite 100, Irving, Texas 75062.
`
`2.
`
`USC IP is an affiliate of Usability Sciences Corporation (“USC”), the revolutionary
`
`usability and user experience research firm founded three decades ago by IBM alumnus Jeff
`
`Schueler and still based in Irving, Texas. A Texas corporation founded in 1988, USC regularly
`
`provides professional services, consulting, and user experience expertise to industry-leading
`
`companies across diverse industries, including Fortune 500 corporations and other leading
`
`companies in the computer, internet, security, banking, finance, insurance, healthcare, life
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/22/20 Page 2 of 17
`
`sciences, pharmaceutical, apparel, logistics, professional services, travel, retail, media, and
`
`automotive industries.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Facebook, Inc., is a publicly traded company organized and existing
`
`under the laws of Delaware with a place of business in this district and may be served at its
`
`registered agent for service of process, Corporation Service Company dba CSC – Lawyers Inco,
`
`211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This is an action for infringement of a United States patent arising under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 271, 281, and 284–85, among others. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of the action
`
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1338(a).
`
`5.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1400(b) and 1391(c).
`
`Defendant has a place of business in this district, including at 300 West 6th Street, Austin, Texas
`
`78701 and/or 607 West 3rd Street, Austin, Texas 78701, and has committed acts of infringement
`
`in this district.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant is subject to this Court’s specific and general personal jurisdiction
`
`pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute, due at least to Defendant’s substantial
`
`business in this forum, including (i) at least a portion of the infringements alleged herein; and/or
`
`(ii) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses of conduct, and/or
`
`deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to individuals in Texas and in this
`
`district.
`
`7.
`
`Specifically, Defendant intends to do and does business in Texas, directly or
`
`through intermediaries and offers its products and/or services, including those accused herein of
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/22/20 Page 3 of 17
`
`infringement, to customers and potential customers located in the forum state, including in this
`
`district.
`
`THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`8.
`
`The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 8,645,300 (the “’300 Patent” or the “Asserted
`
`Patent”), teaches systems and methods for processing information from visitors to one or more
`
`websites. Specifically, determining a visitor’s intent and using a visitor’s intent to predict and
`
`suggest webpages for the visitor.
`
`9.
`
`The genesis of the ’300 Patent is rooted in USC’s revolutionary work in the fields
`
`of usability and user experience. As early as 1992, USC recognized that although Windows
`
`software companies provided online help and physical written documentation manuals, those
`
`resources were unappealing to their intended audiences. As a result, those resources were
`
`underutilized and users found it difficult to learn new software, resulting in a poor user experience
`
`with the software.
`
`10.
`
`USC addressed the issue by first creating a series of short, task-specific instruction
`
`video segments that were an instant hit with users. After further research and development, USC
`
`recognized that it could use functionality built into the Windows operating system to control the
`
`mouse cursor on the screen, showing the user how to perform certain functions on their computer,
`
`without having to reference a separate video. USC registered the QuickTutors® trademark in 1992
`
`and began selling these Windows add-on tutorials.
`
`11.
`
`Through continued research and development, USC realized that it could further
`
`improve the usability and user experience of computer users with a concise list of step-by-step
`
`instructions for performing a software task. From this realization, USC developed QuickCards®,
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/22/20 Page 4 of 17
`
`an unobtrusive yellow list of step-by-step instructions for accomplishing a computing task that
`
`would remain on top of the windows on a user’s computer:
`
`12.
`
`QuickCards® were superior to traditional user manuals and tutorials available at
`
`the time, which increased the usability and user experience for the associated software. Microsoft
`
`Press recognized the merit of QuickCards®, licensed them from USC, and released QuickCards®
`
`through its distribution channels. Subsequently, a similar feature was included in the new help
`
`system introduced in Microsoft Windows 95:
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/22/20 Page 5 of 17
`
`13.
`
`In the late 1990s, electronic-commerce websites were becoming more and more
`
`prevalent with various industries selling direct to consumer on the world wide web. USC was
`
`again at the forefront, improving the usability and user experience of websites for customers such
`
`as Procter & Gamble, Disney, Dell, Cisco, and Microsoft. At the time, website owners had little
`
`to no information regarding how customers used their websites, including which areas customers
`
`accessed and whether the customer’s visit was positive and successful. USC developed and
`
`deployed several tools that provided such information, thereby allowing website owners to
`
`improve the usability and user experience of their websites.
`
`14.
`
`By developing those tools and understanding the information they provided, USC
`
`recognized early on that, although websites are valuable resources to companies seeking to engage
`
`both current and potential customers, the value of a website will not be fully realized if its visitors
`
`are unable to locate the information they seek. USC applied its knowledge in the field to address
`
`this shortcoming by developing systems and methods for inferring the intent of a website visitor.
`
`That intent is subsequently used to predict and suggest webpages for the visitor, increasing the
`
`usability and user experience of the website, as claimed in the ’300 Patent.
`
`COUNT I
`
`DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,645,300
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-14 as if fully set forth
`
`in their entirety.
`
`16.
`
`On February 4, 2014, U.S. Patent No. 8,645,300 (“the ’300 Patent”) was duly and
`
`legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office for an invention entitled “System
`
`and Methods for Intent Data Processing.” A copy of the ’300 Patent is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/22/20 Page 6 of 17
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner of the ’300 Patent, with all substantive rights in and to that
`
`patent, including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the ’300 Patent
`
`against infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times.
`
`18.
`
`The ’300 Patent describes novel and non-obvious systems and methods for
`
`predicting the intent of a visitor to a webpage.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`The claims of the ’300 Patent are not directed to an abstract idea.
`
`For example, claim 1 is a technical improvement over prior-art methods of
`
`identifying webpages for display to a user.
`
`21.
`
`Claim 1 recites an “intent engine” that receives at least one input parameter from a
`
`web browser displaying a webpage.
`
`22.
`
`The intent engine is an improvement to computing technology that allows the
`
`system to predict the intent of a visitor to a website.
`
`23.
`
`Prior-art systems and methods did not include an intent engine and were incapable
`
`of predicting the intent of a visitor to a website, therefore they were not capable of identifying
`
`relevant webpages for display to a user.
`
`24.
`
`The method in claim 1 uses the intent engine to predict the intent of a visitor by
`
`receiving at least one input parameter from a web browser displaying a webpage.
`
`25.
`
`The intent engine processes the at least one input parameter to determine at least
`
`one inferred intent. The inferred intent is displayed on a webpage so that the visitor can confirm
`
`his or her intent. The intent engine receives that confirmed intent and processes it to determine at
`
`least one recommended webpage from a plurality of webpages in a defined namespace, a link to
`
`the recommended website being subsequently displayed to the visitor. The visitor is then prompted
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/22/20 Page 7 of 17
`
`to recommend the webpage for inferred intent, and a datapoint comprising the identity of the
`
`webpage, inferred intent, and received rank are subsequently stored.
`
`26.
`
`Thus, claim 1 recites a particular solution to predicting the intent of a visitor to a
`
`webpage, rather than merely claiming the outcome.
`
`27.
`
`Regardless of whether claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, claim 1 recites
`
`patentable subject matter because it recites an inventive concept.
`
`28.
`
`For example, the intent engine is not well-understood, routine, or conventional;
`
`rather it is an improvement to computing technology that allows for dramatically improved
`
`identification of websites for display to a user based on predicting the intent of the user through an
`
`intent engine, a capability that did not exist in the prior art.
`
`29.
`
`Moreover, the use of the components recited in claim 1 is unconventional;
`
`therefore, claim 1 recites an inventive concept.
`
`30.
`
`The written description of the ’300 Patent describes in technical detail each of the
`
`limitations of the claims, allowing a skilled artisan to understand the scope of the claims and how
`
`the non-conventional and non-generic combination of claim limitations is patentably distinct from
`
`and improved upon what may have been considered conventional or generic in the art at the time
`
`of the invention.
`
`31.
`
`Defendant made, had made, used, imported, provided, supplied, distributed, sold,
`
`or offered to sell products and/or systems, including its computing infrastructure to provide the
`
`Facebook News Feed (“Accused Instrumentalities”):
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/22/20 Page 8 of 17
`
`32.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant provides Facebook News Feed to users
`
`through its websites, including facebook.com.
`
`33.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant also provides Facebook News Feed for
`
`delivery to mobile applications for Apple iOS devices and Android devices.
`
`34.
`
`By doing so, Defendant has infringed the ’300 patent by making, having made,
`
`using, importing, providing, supplying, distributing, selling, or offering to sell the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities.
`
`35.
`
`Defendant has directly infringed (literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents)
`
`at least Claim 1 of the ’300 Patent. Defendant’s infringement in this regard is ongoing.
`
`36.
`
`By making and using the Accused Instrumentalities, Defendant receives input
`
`parameters from a web browser displaying a webpage. The input parameters include, but are not
`
`limited to, the requested Uniform Resource Locator (URL), cookies, the browser user agent, and
`
`other parameters about the visitor, such as user information maintained by Defendant.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/22/20 Page 9 of 17
`
`37.
`
`By making and using the Accused Instrumentalities, Defendant processes
`
`“signals,” including input parameters, related to the visitor to the Accused Instrumentalities to infer
`
`intent.
`
`38.
`
`By making and using the Accused Instrumentalities, Defendant inferred the intent
`
`of visitors from so-called “reactions” from each visitor and other visitors.
`
`39.
`
`By making and using the Accused Instrumentalities, Defendant maintained an
`
`inventory of “stories,” which include webpages.
`
`40.
`
`By making and using the Accused Instrumentalities, Defendant assigns a relevancy
`
`score for each story, based on at least the signals, which is a representation of how closely the story
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/22/20 Page 10 of 17
`
`matches the visitor’s inferred intent. Stories are ranked by the relevancy score for display to the
`
`visitor.
`
`41.
`
`By making and using the Accused Instrumentalities, Defendant prompted the
`
`visitor to confirm the visitor’s intent by, for example, reacting to the stories displayed to the visitor,
`
`or providing feedback for the stories.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/22/20 Page 11 of 17
`
`42.
`
`By making and using the Accused Instrumentalities, Defendant recommended and
`
`displayed a link to at least one webpage, such as an advertisement, that matches the visitor’s
`
`confirmed intent.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/22/20 Page 12 of 17
`
`43.
`
`By making and using the Accused Instrumentalities, Defendant prompted the
`
`visitor to rank the webpage for inferred intent by, for example, reacting to the webpage or
`
`providing feedback.
`
`44.
`
`By making and using the Accused Instrumentalities, Defendant received the
`
`ranking from the visitor’s web browser and subsequently stored it in a datapoint along with the
`
`identity of the webpage and the inferred intent.
`
`45.
`
`On
`
`information and belief, Defendant generates revenue by displaying
`
`advertisements to visitors to the Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/22/20 Page 13 of 17
`
`46.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant’s making and using of the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities in an infringing manner generates more revenue for displaying advertisements
`
`than if Defendant had not made or used the Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner.
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Defendant
`
`alleged above. Thus, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff in an amount that adequately compensates it
`
`for such infringements, which by law cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiff and/or its predecessors-in-interest have satisfied all statutory obligations
`
`required to collect pre-filing damages for the full period allowed by law for infringement of the
`
`’300 Patent.
`
`ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-48 as though fully
`
`set forth in their entirety.
`
`50.
`
`Defendant has also indirectly infringed the Asserted Patent by inducing others to
`
`directly infringe the Asserted Patent. Defendant has induced others, including its affiliates, third-
`
`party manufacturers, shippers, distributors, retailers, or other persons acting on Defendant’s or its
`
`affiliates’ behalf, to directly infringe (literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents) the
`
`Asserted Patent by making, having made, using, importing, providing, supplying, distributing,
`
`selling, or offering to sell the Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner. Defendant took
`
`active steps, directly and/or through contractual relationships with others, with the specific intent
`
`to cause them to, for example, use the Accused Instrumentalities in a manner that infringes one or
`
`more claims of the Asserted Patent, including, for example, Claim 1 of the ’300 Patent. Such steps
`
`by Defendant included, among other things, advising or directing others to use the Accused
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/22/20 Page 14 of 17
`
`Instrumentalities in an infringing manner; advertising and promoting the use of the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities in an infringing manner; and/or distributing instructions that guide others to use,
`
`operate, make, or have made the Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner. Defendant is
`
`performing these steps, which constitute induced infringement with the knowledge of the Asserted
`
`Patent and with the knowledge that the induced acts constitute infringement. Defendant’s
`
`inducement is ongoing.
`
`51.
`
`Defendant has also induced its affiliates, or third-party manufacturers, shippers,
`
`distributors, retailers, or other persons acting on its or its affiliates’ behalf, to directly infringe
`
`(literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents) the Asserted Patent by importing, selling, or
`
`offering to sell the Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner. Defendant took active steps,
`
`directly and/or through contractual relationships with others, with the specific intent to cause such
`
`persons to import, sell, or offer to sell the accused services in a manner that infringes one or more
`
`claims of the patent-in-suit, including, for example, Claim 1 of the ’300 Patent. Such steps by
`
`Defendant included, among other things, making, having made, using, importing, providing,
`
`supplying, distributing, selling, or offering to sell the Accused Instrumentalities, or components
`
`thereof, in a manner that induces Defendant’s affiliates, or third-party manufacturers, shippers,
`
`distributors, retailers, or other persons acting on its or their behalf, to make or use the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities outside of the United States in an infringing manner. Defendant performed these
`
`steps, which constitute induced infringement, with the knowledge of the Asserted Patent and with
`
`the knowledge that the induced acts would constitute infringement. Defendant performed such
`
`steps in order to profit from the eventual sale of the accused services in the United States.
`
`Defendant’s inducement is ongoing.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/22/20 Page 15 of 17
`
`52.
`
`Defendant has also indirectly infringed by contributing to the infringement of the
`
`Asserted Patent. Defendant has contributed to the direct infringement of the Asserted Patent by
`
`its affiliates, or third-party manufacturers, shippers, distributors, retailers, or other persons acting
`
`on its or its affiliates’ behalf. The Accused Instrumentalities have special features that are specially
`
`designed to be used in an infringing way and that have no substantial uses other than ones that
`
`infringe the Asserted Patent, including, for example, Claim 1 of the ’300 Patent. The special
`
`features include, for example, an intent engine that is used in a manner that infringes the Asserted
`
`Patent. The special features constitute a material part of the invention of one or more of the claims
`
`of the Asserted Patent and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-
`
`infringing use. Defendant’s contributory infringement is ongoing.
`
`53.
`
`Defendant has knowledge of the Asserted Patent at least as of the date when it was
`
`notified of the filing of this action.
`
`54.
`
`Furthermore, on information and belief, Defendant has a policy or practice of not
`
`reviewing the patents of others (including instructing its employees to not review the patents of
`
`others), and thus has been willfully blind of USC IP’s patent rights.
`
`55.
`
`Defendant’s actions are at least objectively reckless as to the risk of infringing a
`
`valid patent and this objective risk was either known or should have been known by Defendant.
`
`56.
`
`Defendant’s direct and indirect infringement of the Asserted Patent is, has been,
`
`and continues to be willful, intentional, deliberate, and/or in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s
`
`rights under the patent.
`
`57.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Defendant
`
`alleged above. Thus, Defendant is liable to USC IP in an amount that adequately compensates it
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/22/20 Page 16 of 17
`
`for such infringements, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable by right.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`USC IP requests that the Court find in its favor and against Defendant, and that the Court
`
`grant USC IP the following relief:
`
`a.
`
`Judgment that one or more claims of the Asserted Patent have been infringed, either
`
`literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by Defendant and/or all others acting in concert
`
`therewith;
`
`b.
`
`A permanent injunction enjoining Defendant and its officers, directors, agents,
`
`servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and all others acting in
`
`concert therewith from infringement of the Asserted Patent; or, in the alternative, an award of a
`
`reasonable ongoing royalty for future infringement of the Asserted Patent by such entities;
`
`c.
`
`Judgment that Defendant accounts for and pays to USC IP all damages to and costs
`
`incurred by USC IP because of Defendant’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of
`
`herein;
`
`d.
`
`Judgment that Defendant’s infringements be found willful, and that the Court award
`
`treble damages for the period of such willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`e.
`
`That USC IP be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages
`
`caused by Defendant’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein;
`
`f.
`
`That this Court declare this an exceptional case and award USC IP its reasonable
`
`attorney’s fees and costs in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00555-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/22/20 Page 17 of 17
`
`g.
`
`That USC IP be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just
`
`and proper under the circumstances.
`
`Dated: June 22, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Fred I. Williams
`Fred I. Williams
`Texas State Bar No. 00794855
`Michael Simons
`Texas State Bar No. 24008042
`Todd E. Landis
`Texas State Bar No. 24030226
`Jonathan L. Hardt
`Texas State Bar No. 24039906
`Chad P. Ennis
`WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC
`327 Congress Ave., Suite 490
`Austin, TX 78701
`Tel: 512-543-1354
`fwilliams@wsltrial.com
`msimons@wsltrial.com
`jhardt@wsltrial.com
`cennis@wsltrial.com
`
`Todd E. Landis (pro hac vice pending)
`State Bar No. 24030226
`WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC
`2633 McKinney Ave., Suite 130 #366
`Dallas, TX 75204
`Tel: 512-543-1357
`tlandis@wsltrial.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff USC IP Partnership, L.P.
`
`17
`
`