Case 6:20-cv-00764-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 1 of 38
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`GREATGIGZ SOLUTIONS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-00764
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
` v.
`
`DOORDASH, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`GreatGigz Solutions, LLC (“Plaintiff”) hereby files this Original Complaint for Patent
`
`Infringement against DoorDash, Inc. (“DoorDash” or “Defendant”), and alleges, upon information and
`
`belief, as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`GreatGigz Solutions, LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws
`
`of the State of Florida with its principal place of business at 600 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 605,
`
`West Palm Beach, Florida 33401.
`
`2.
`
`Upon information and belief, DoorDash, Inc. is a domestic corporation organized and existing
`
`under the laws of Delaware, with a principal place of business located in San Francisco,
`
`California. DoorDash, Inc. may be served through its registered agent in the State of Texas at
`
`Registered Agent Solutions, 1701 Directors Blvd., Suite 300, Austin, Texas 78744. On
`
`information and belief, DoorDash sells and offers to sell products and services throughout the
`
`State of Texas, including in this judicial District, and introduces services via its infringing
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00764-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 2 of 38
`
`systems into the stream of commerce knowing and intending that they would be extensively used
`
`in the State of Texas and in this judicial District. On information and belief, DoorDash
`
`specifically targets customers in the State of Texas and in this judicial District.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Defendant has continuous and systematic
`
`business contacts with the State of Texas. Defendant directly conducts business extensively
`
`throughout the State of Texas, by distributing, making, using, offering for sale, selling, and
`
`advertising (including the provision of interactive web pages and mobile applications) its
`
`services in the State of Texas and in this District. Defendant has purposefully and voluntarily
`
`made its infringing systems available to residents of this District and into the stream of
`
`commerce with the intention and expectation that they will be purchased and used by consumers
`
`in
`
`this District. DoorDash
`
`Inc. is
`
`an American
`
`on-demand
`
`prepared food
`
`delivery service founded in 2013. On information and belief, DoorDash uses logistics services to
`
`offer food delivery from restaurants on-demand throughout this District and the State of Texas.
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant maintains an ongoing and continuous business presence in
`
`the State of Texas and specifically within this District, which is illustrated by the fact that
`
`DoorDash has “dasher” orientation centers in the State of Texas in Austin, San Antonio, Dallas
`
`
`
`
`and Houston and an office in Austin, Texas.
`
`See https://craft.co/doordash/locations
`
`See https://help.doordash.com/dashers/s/article/San-Antonio?language=en_US
`
`See https://help.doordash.com/dashers/s/article/Austin-Central-Texas?language=en_US
`
`
`See https://help.doordash.com/dashers/s/article/Dallas?language=en_US
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00764-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 3 of 38
`
`See https://help.doordash.com/dashers/s/article/Houston-Texas?language=en_US
`
`DoorDash is also seeking to fill manager level positions in Texas, and specifically within this
`
`6.
`
`District.
`
`See:
`https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/search/?currentJobId=1961947882&f_C=3205573&geoId=9200
`0000&keywords=austin
`
`Venue is proper in the Western District of Texas as to Defendant pursuant to at least 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1391(c)(2) and 1400(b). As noted above, Defendant maintains a regular and established
`
`
`7.
`
`
`
`business presence in this District.
`
`
`
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00764-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 4 of 38
`
`8.
`
`GreatGigz Solutions, LLC is the owner, by assignment, of U.S. Patent Nos. 6.662,194 (“the ’194
`
`Patent”); 7,490,086 (“the ’086 Patent”); 9,760,864 (“the ’864 Patent”); and 10,096,000 (“the
`
`’000 Patent”) (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the GGS Patents”).
`
`9.
`
`The GGS Patents are valid, enforceable, and were duly issued in full compliance with Title 35 of
`
`the United States Code.
`
`10.
`
`The inventions described and claimed in the GGS Patents were invented by Raymond Anthony
`
`Joao.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`The GGS Patents each include numerous claims defining distinct inventions.
`
`The priority date of each of the GGS Patents is at least as early as July 31, 1999. As of the
`
`priority date, the inventions as claimed were novel, non-obvious, unconventional, and non-
`
`routine.
`
`13.
`
`For example, and as evidence of the stated non-routine aspects of the inventions, during
`
`prosecution of the ’864 Patent, the patent examiner considered whether the claims of the ’864
`
`Patent were eligible under 35 USC §101 in view of the United States Supreme Court’s decision
`
`in Alice. The patent examiner affirmatively and expressly found that the claims are in fact patent
`
`eligible under 35 USC §101 because all pending claims are directed to patent-eligible subject
`
`matter, because none of the pending claims are directed to an abstract idea, and because there
`
`would be no preemption of the abstract idea or the field of the abstract idea.
`
`14.
`
`GreatGigz Solutions, LLC alleges infringement on the part of Defendant of the ’194 Patent, the
`
`’086 Patent, the ’864 Patent, and the ’000 Patent (collectively as the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`15.
`
`The ’194 Patent relates generally to an apparatus and method for providing recruitment
`
`information, including a memory device for Storing information regarding at least one of a job
`
`opening, a position, an assignment, a contract, and a project, and information regarding a job
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00764-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 5 of 38
`
`Search request, a processing device for processing information regarding the job Search request
`
`upon a detection of an occurrence of a Searching event, wherein the processing device utilizes
`
`information regarding the at least one of a job opening, a position, an assignment, a contract, and
`
`a project, Stored in the memory device, and further wherein the processing device generates a
`
`message containing information regarding at least one of a job opening, a position, an
`
`assignment, a contract, and a project, wherein the message is responsive to the job Search
`
`request, and a transmitter for transmitting the message to a communication device associated
`
`with an individual in real-time. See Abstract, ’194 Patent.
`
`16.
`
`The ’086 Patent relates generally to an apparatus, including a memory device which stores
`
`information regarding a job opening, position, assignment, contract, or project, and information
`
`regarding a job search request or inquiry, a processing device which processing the information
`
`regarding a job search request or inquiry upon an automatic detection of an occurrence of a
`
`searching event which is an occurrence of a job posting, a posting of new or revised data or
`
`information, a news release of a business event, an employment-related event, an economic
`
`report, industry-specific news, an event which creates an to fill a position, or an event which
`
`creates an interest to seek a position, and generates a message, containing the information
`
`regarding a job opening, position, assignment, contract, or project, responsive to the job search
`
`request or inquiry, and a transmitter which transmits the message to a communication device
`
`associated with an individual. See Abstract, ’086 Patent.
`
`17.
`
`The ’864 Patent relates generally to an apparatus, including a memory device for storing work
`
`schedule information or scheduling information for an individual, a transmitter for transmitting a
`
`job search request to a computer, wherein the computer is specially programmed for processing
`
`the job search request, for generating a message containing information regarding a job opening,
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00764-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 6 of 38
`
`a position, an assignment, a contract, or a project, and for transmitting the message to the
`
`apparatus in response to the job search request; a receiver for receiving the message; and a
`
`display for displaying at least some of the information contained in the message. See Abstract,
`
`’864 Patent.
`
`18.
`
`The ’000 Patent relates generally to an apparatus, including a memory which stores work
`
`schedule information or scheduling information for an employer, hiring entity, individual,
`
`independent contractor, temporary worker, or freelancer; a receiver which receives a first request
`
`to obtain work schedule information or scheduling information for the employer, hiring entity,
`
`individual, independent contractor, temporary worker, or freelancer, and the first request is
`
`received from a first communication device; a processing device, specially programmed for
`
`processing information contained in the first request, generates a first message containing the
`
`work schedule or scheduling information for the employer, hiring entity, individual, independent
`
`contractor, temporary worker, or freelancer; and a transmitter for transmitting the first message
`
`to the first communication device or to a second communication device. The apparatus
`
`processes information in a second request. Information contained in the second request is based
`
`on the work schedule information or the scheduling information contained in the first message.
`
`See Abstract, ’000 Patent.
`
`19.
`
`As noted, the claims of the Asserted Patents claim priority to at least July 31, 1999. At that time,
`
`the idea of launching DoorDash.com was still several years away.
`
`20.
`
`The claims of the Asserted Patents are not drawn to laws of nature, natural phenomena, or
`
`abstract ideas. Although the systems and methods claimed in the Asserted Patents are ubiquitous
`
`now (and, as a result, are widely infringed), the specific combinations of elements, as recited in
`
`the claims, was not conventional or routine at the time of the invention.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00764-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 7 of 38
`
`21.
`
`Further, the claims of the Asserted Patents contain inventive concepts which transform the
`
`underlying non-abstract aspects of the claims into patent-eligible subject matter.
`
`22.
`
`Consequently, the claims of the Asserted Patents recite systems and methods resulting in
`
`improved functionality of the claimed systems and represent technological improvements to the
`
`operation of computers.
`
`23.
`
`The claims of the Asserted Patents overcome deficiencies existing in the art as of the date of
`
`invention, and comprise non-conventional approaches that transform the inventions as claimed
`
`into substantially more than mere abstract ideas. For example, as of the date of invention, “[j]ob
`
`searching activities and recruitment activities typically require efforts in introducing parties to
`
`one another, pre-screening the parties prior to, and/or subsequent to, an introduction, acting as an
`
`information gathering entity for a party, exchanging information in order to determine if a
`
`relationship is appropriate and/or desirable, negotiating a deal, and/or consummating a deal
`
`between the respective parties. While individuals and/or employers and/or hiring entities can act
`
`on their own behalf during most of the process, one of the parties may typically enlist the efforts
`
`of an employment agency or agencies, a recruiter(s), a so-called ‘headhunter(s)’, an employment
`
`and/or career consultant(s), a temporary employment agency or agencies, a personal agent(s), a
`
`personal manager(s), and/or another intermediary or intermediaries, sometimes at great
`
`expense.” ’194 Patent at 1:59-2:6. The inventions as claimed overcome these deficiencies in the
`
`state of the art, and provide substantial cost savings to all parties. As explained, as of the date of
`
`invention, “[t]he enlistment of employment agencies, recruiters, so-called ‘headhunters’,
`
`employment and/or career consultants, temporary employment agencies, personal agents,
`
`personal managers, and/or other intermediaries, can be costly and can lead to job search efforts
`
`and/or recruitment efforts which may be limited in breadth and/or scope by the personal and/or
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00764-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 8 of 38
`
`individual contacts, limitations and/or constraints associated with the employment agency,
`
`recruiter, so-called ‘headhunter’, employment and/or career consultant, temporary employment
`
`agency, personal agent, personal manager, and/or other intermediary.” Id. at 2:7-17. As such,
`
`the inventions as claimed provide non-conventional solutions to the conventional problems of the
`
`day because the need for a costly middle-man in the process is overcome. Id. at 2:18-24; 6:45-
`
`55.
`
`24.
`
`The inventions as claimed further overcome the deficiencies existing in the art as of the date of
`
`invention by removing barriers confronting many at the time. As explained, as of the date of
`
`invention, “[j]ob searching efforts and recruitment efforts may be limited by and/or be
`
`constrained by limited personal contacts, geographical constraints, monetary constraints, and/or
`
`time constraints. Oftentimes, individuals, employers and/or hiring entities, do not have the
`
`resources to conduct their own respective job searching efforts or recruitment efforts. The
`
`enlistment of employment agencies, recruiters, so-called ‘headhunters’, employment and/or
`
`career consultants, temporary employment agencies, personal agents, personal managers, and/or
`
`other intermediaries, may not be sufficient to overcome these limitations and/or constraints,
`
`particularly,
`
`if
`
`the respective employment agency or agencies, recruiter(s), so-called
`
`‘headhunter(s)’, employment and/or career consultant(s), temporary employment agency or
`
`agencies, personal agent(s), personal manager(s) and/or other intermediary or intermediaries, are
`
`working with similar limitations and/or constraints.” Id. at 2:26-42. As such, the inventions as
`
`claimed provide non-conventional solutions to the conventional problems of the day because the
`
`need for extensive personal contacts and geographical proximity are overcome.
`
`25.
`
`The inventions as claimed further overcome the deficiencies existing in the art as of the date of
`
`invention by removing barriers confronting many at the time. As explained, as of the date of
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00764-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 9 of 38
`
`invention, “[t]he job search process and/or the recruitment process can typically be rendered
`
`more difficult in instances when additional information may be requested by one or by both of
`
`the parties concerning a counterpart. This typically results in time delays and/or additional
`
`expense to the party having to comply with such a request.” Id. at 2:43-48. As such, the
`
`inventions as claimed provide non-conventional solutions to the conventional problems of the
`
`day because the need for time-consuming delays is overcome.
`
`26.
`
`The inventions as claimed further overcome the deficiencies existing in the art as of the date of
`
`invention by removing barriers confronting many at the time. As explained, as of the date of
`
`invention, “[j]ob searching efforts and/or recruitment efforts may further be rendered more
`
`difficult when the parties are not properly pre-screened, thereby resulting in wasted time and
`
`effort, and/or when the parties are not properly informed as to the needs and/or demands of a
`
`counterpart. The needs and/or demands can include job description, job needs, project
`
`description, assignment description, salary, compensation, and/or other related information. The
`
`failure to pre-screen the parties and/or to conduct a dialog and/or initiate interviews and/or
`
`discussions when the parties may be so far apart regarding their respective needs, requests and/or
`
`expectations, for example, those involving job duties and/or salary, can result in wasted time and
`
`effort.” Id. at 2:49-61. As such, the inventions as claimed provide non-conventional solutions to
`
`the conventional problems of the day because the associated time and effort are reduced,
`
`resulting in more efficient processes and cost savings for all involved.
`
`27.
`
`The inventions as claimed further overcome the deficiencies existing in the art as of the date of
`
`invention by removing barriers confronting many at the time. As explained, as of the date of
`
`invention, “[c]onfidentiality is typically another concern in job searching activities and/or in
`
`recruitment activities. Individuals, employees, and/or hiring entities may have an interest in,
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00764-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 10 of 38
`
`and/or a desire for, maintaining confidentiality during at least some initial stages of any job
`
`search and/or recruitment effort. In some instances, once an initial interest is expressed, any
`
`confidentiality which may have existed may be lost for the remainder of the process.
`
`Sometimes, it may be desirable for an individual, an employer and/or hiring entity, to retain at
`
`least some level of confidentiality and/or anonymity further into the job search and/or
`
`recruitment process. In this manner, at least some confidentiality and/or anonymity can be
`
`preserved, especially if a deal between the parties is not ultimately reached.” Id. at 2:62-3:8. As
`
`such, the inventions as claimed provide non-conventional solutions to the conventional problems
`
`of the day because the need for confidentiality in the process is enhanced. See id. at 6:59-65.
`
`28.
`
`As noted above, during prosecution of the ’864 Patent, the patent examiner considered whether
`
`the claims of the ’864 Patent were eligible under 35 USC §101 in view of the United States
`
`Supreme Court’s decision in Alice. The patent examiner expressly found that the claims are in
`
`fact patent eligible under 35 USC §101 because all pending claims are directed to patent-eligible
`
`subject matter, none of the pending claims are directed to an abstract idea, and there would be no
`
`preemption of the abstract idea or the field of the abstract idea. For these same reasons, all of the
`
`claims of the Asserted Patents are patent-eligible.
`
`29.
`
`The ’194 Patent was examined by Primary United States Patent Examiner Franz Colby. During
`
`the examination of the ’194 Patent, the United States Patent Examiner searched for prior art in
`
`the following US Classifications: 705/1, 10, 11, 705/26, 707/104.1, 10, 3, and 103R.
`
`30.
`
`After conducting a search for prior art during the examination of the ’194 Patent, the United
`
`States Patent Examiner identified and cited the following as the most relevant prior art references
`
`found during the search: (i) 5,164,897, 11/1992, Clark et al.; (ii) 5,832,497, 11/1998, Taylor;
`
`(iii) 5,884.270, 3/1999, Walker et al.; (iv) 5,884.272, 3/1999, Walker et al.; (v) 5,978,768,
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00764-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 11 of 38
`
`11/1999, McGovern et al.; (vi) 6,324,538, 11/2001, Wesinger, Jr. et al.; (vii) 6,332,125, 12/2001,
`
`Callen et al.; (viii) 6,363,376, 3/2002, Wiens et al.; (ix) 6,370,510, 4/2002, McGovern et al.; (x)
`
`6,381,592, 4/2002, Reuning; and (xi) 6,385,620, 5/2002, Kurzius et al.
`
`31.
`
`After giving full proper credit to the prior art and having conducted a thorough search for all
`
`relevant art and having fully considered the most relevant art known at the time, the United
`
`States Patent Examiner allowed all of the claims of the ’194 Patent to issue. In so doing, it is
`
`presumed that Examiner Colby used his or her knowledge of the art when examining the claims.
`
`K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2014). It is further
`
`presumed that Examiner Colby has experience in the field of the invention, and that the
`
`Examiner properly acted in accordance with a person of ordinary skill. In re Sang Su Lee, 277
`
`F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`32.
`
`The ’194 Patent is a pioneering patent, and has been cited as relevant prior art in over 250
`
`subsequent United States Patent Applications, including Applications Assigned to such
`
`technology leaders as Ricoh, Robert Half International, IBM, Yahoo!, Oracle, Amazon, Monster,
`
`and CareerBuilder.
`
`33.
`
`The ’086 Patent was examined by Primary United States Patent Examiner Jean M. Corrielus.
`
`During the examination of the ’086 Patent, the United States Patent Examiner searched for prior
`
`art in the following US Classifications: 707/104.1, 707/3, 10, 103R, 1, 2, 4, 5, 705/1, 10, 11, and
`
`705/26.
`
`34.
`
`After conducting a search for prior art during the examination of the ’086 Patent, the United
`
`States Patent Examiner identified and cited the following as the most relevant prior art references
`
`found during the search: (i) 4,625,081, 11/1986, Lotito et al.; (ii) 5,164,897, 11/1992, Clark et
`
`al.; (iii) 5,978,768, 11/1999, McGovern et al.; (iv) 6,370,510, 4/2002, McGovern et al.; (v)
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00764-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 12 of 38
`
`6,381,592, 4/2002, Reuning; (vi) 6,385,620, 5/2002, Kurzius et al.; (vii) 6,567,784, 5/2003,
`
`Bukow; (viii) 6,662,194, 12/2003, Joao; (ix) 6,873,964, 3/2005, Williams et al.; (x) 7,148,991,
`
`12/2006, Suzuki et al.; and (xi) 2003/020531, 6/2003, Parker.
`
`35.
`
`After giving full proper credit to the prior art and having conducted a thorough search for all
`
`relevant art and having fully considered the most relevant art known at the time, the United
`
`States Patent Examiner allowed all of the claims of the ’086 Patent to issue. In so doing, it is
`
`presumed that Examiner Corrielus used his or her knowledge of the art when examining the
`
`claims. K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2014). It is
`
`further presumed that Examiner Corrielus has experience in the field of the invention, and that
`
`the Examiner properly acted in accordance with a person of ordinary skill. In re Sang Su Lee,
`
`277 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`36.
`
`The ’086 Patent is a pioneering patent, and has been cited as relevant prior art in over 250
`
`subsequent United States Patent Applications, including Applications Assigned to such
`
`technology leaders as Xerox, Yahoo!, EDS, Microsoft, CareerBuilder, Monster, LinkedIn, and
`
`IBM.
`
`37.
`
`The ’864 Patent was examined by Primary United States Patent Examiner Jean M. Corrielus.
`
`During the examination of the ’864 Patent, the United States Patent Examiner searched for prior
`
`art in the following US Classifications: 707/758.
`
`38.
`
`After conducting a search for prior art during the examination of the ’864 Patent, the United
`
`States Patent Examiner identified and cited the following as the most relevant prior art references
`
`found during the search: (i) 5,164,897, 11/1992, Clark; (ii) 5,758,324, 5/1998, Hartman; (iii)
`
`5,832,497, 11/1998, Taylor; (iv) 5,862,223, 1/1999, Walker; (v) 5,884,270, 3/1999, Walker; (vi)
`
`5,884,272, 3/1999, Walker; (vii) 5,978,768, 11/1999, McGovern; (viii) 6,157,808, 12/2000,
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00764-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 13 of 38
`
`Hollingsworth; (ix) 6,266,659, 7/2001, Nadkarni; (x) 6,370,510, 4/2002, McGovern; (xi)
`
`6.381,592, 4/2002, Reuning; (xii) 6,398,556, 6/2002, Ho; (xiii) 6,408,337, 6/2002, Dietz; (xiv)
`
`6,409,514, 6/2002, Bull; (xv) 6,466,91, 10/2002, Mitsuoka; (xvi) 6,718,340, 4/2004, Hartman;
`
`(xvii) 6,873,964, 3/2005, Williams; (xviii) 7,054,821, 5/2006, Rosenthal; (xix) 7,305,347,
`
`12/2007, Joao; (xx) 7,523,045, 4/2009, Walker; (xxi) 2001/0042000 Al, 11/2001, Defoor, Jr.;
`
`(xxii) 2002/0002476 A1, 1/2002, Mitsuoka; (xxiii) 2002/0152316 A1, 10/2002, Dietz; and (xxiv)
`
`2005/0010467 A1, 1/2005, Dietz.
`
`39.
`
`After giving full proper credit to the prior art and having conducted a thorough search for all
`
`relevant art and having fully considered the most relevant art known at the time, the United
`
`States Patent Examiner allowed all of the claims of the ’864 Patent to issue. In so doing, it is
`
`presumed that Examiner Corrielus used his or her knowledge of the art when examining the
`
`claims. K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2014). It is
`
`further presumed that Examiner Corrielus has experience in the field of the invention, and that
`
`the Examiner properly acted in accordance with a person of ordinary skill. In re Sang Su Lee,
`
`277 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`40.
`
`The ’864 Patent is a pioneering patent, and has been cited as relevant prior art in over 250
`
`subsequent United States Patent Applications, including Applications Assigned to such
`
`technology leaders as Ricoh, Robert Half International, IBM, Yahoo!, Xerox, Amazon, Monster,
`
`HP, CareerBuilder, Microsoft, LinkedIn, and General Electric.
`
`41.
`
`The ’000 Patent was examined by Primary United States Patent Examiner Jean M. Corrielus.
`
`During the examination of the ’000 Patent, the United States Patent Examiner searched for prior
`
`art across multiple classifications.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00764-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 14 of 38
`
`42.
`
`After conducting a search for prior art during the examination of the ’000 Patent, the United
`
`States Patent Examiner identified and cited the following as the most relevant prior art references
`
`found during the search: (i) 5,884,272, 3/1999, Walker; (ii) 6,266,659, 7/2001, Nadkarni; (iii)
`
`6,370,510, 4/2002, McGovern; (iv) 6,457,005, 9/2002, Torrey, (v) 7,305,347, 12/2007, Joao; and
`
`(vi) 2002/0120532 A1, 8/2002, McGovern.
`
`43.
`
`After giving full proper credit to the prior art and having conducted a thorough search for all
`
`relevant art and having fully considered the most relevant art known at the time, the United
`
`States Patent Examiner allowed all of the claims of the ’000 Patent to issue. In so doing, it is
`
`presumed that Examiner Corrielus used his or her knowledge of the art when examining the
`
`claims. K/S Himpp v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2014). It is
`
`further presumed that Examiner Corrielus has experience in the field of the invention, and that
`
`the Examiner properly acted in accordance with a person of ordinary skill. In re Sang Su Lee,
`
`277 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`44.
`
`The ’000 Patent is a pioneering patent, and has been cited as relevant prior art in over 250
`
`subsequent United States Patent Applications, including Applications Assigned to such
`
`technology leaders as Ricoh, Robert Half International, General Electric, IBM, AT&T, HP,
`
`Yahoo!, Xerox, Monster, Amazon, CareerBuilder, Microsoft, Oracle, and LinkedIn.
`
`45.
`
`The claims of the Asserted Patents were all properly issued, and are valid and enforceable for the
`
`respective terms of their statutory life through expiration, and are enforceable for purposes of
`
`seeking damages for past infringement even post-expiration. See, e.g., Genetics Institute, LLC v.
`
`Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc., 655 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[A]n expired
`
`patent is not viewed as having ‘never existed.’ Much to the contrary, a patent does have value
`
`beyond its expiration date. For example, an expired patent may form the basis of an action for
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00764-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 15 of 38
`
`past damages subject to the six-year limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 286”) (internal citations
`
`omitted).
`
`THE ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITIES
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant makes, sells, advertises, offers for sale, uses, or
`
`46.
`
`otherwise provides the DoorDash website and its ancillary sites, including its various Mobile
`
`Applications, in the United States. The DoorDash apparatus comprises servers, hardware,
`
`software, and a collection of related and/or linked web pages and mobile applications for
`
`providing job search and/or recruitment services to individuals (including job seekers,
`
`contractors, and employers) in the United States. The DoorDash system comprises an apparatus
`
`with multiple interconnected infrastructures that infringe the Asserted Patents. The public-facing
`
`aspect of
`
`the DoorDash apparatus
`
`is
`
`the DoorDash website, which
`
`is available at
`
`www.DoorDash.com,
`
`together with
`
`the associated DoorDash Mobile Applications for
`
`Consumers and Drivers, respectively. Collectively, all of the foregoing comprises the “Accused
`
`Instrumentalities.”
`
`COUNT I
`Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,662,194
`
`Plaintiff incorporates the above paragraphs by reference.
`
`Defendant has been on actual notice of the ’194 Patent at least as early as the date it received
`
`service of this Original Complaint.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant owns and controls the operation of the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities and generates substantial financial revenues therefrom.
`
`50.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe
`
`at least Claim 25 of the ’194 Patent by making, using, importing, selling, and/or, offering for sale
`
`the Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00764-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 16 of 38
`
`51.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities comprise an apparatus for providing recruitment information.
`
`The infringing apparatus comprises servers, hardware, software, and a collection of related
`
`and/or linked web pages and mobile applications for providing recruitment information and
`
`services to individuals (including individuals, independent contractors, temporary workers,
`
`and/or freelancers)
`
`in
`
`the United States.
`
` On
`
`information and belief,
`
`the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities comprise an apparatus with multiple interconnected infrastructures, including
`
`but not limited to multiple data centers, including Amazon Web Services (“AWS”) data centers
`
`located across the United States.
`
`See https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/doordash-case-study/
`
`
`See https://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/postgresql-features/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00764-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 17 of 38
`
`See https://aws.amazon.com/elasticache/
`
`See https://aws.amazon.com/cloudwatch/
`
`See https://aws.amazon.com/kinesis/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See https://aws.amazon.com/redshift/?whats-new-cards.sort-
`by=item.additionalFields.postDateTime&whats-new-cards.sort-order=desc
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00764-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 18 of 38
`
`52.
`
`On information and belief, the DoorDash Accused Instrumentalities comprise data centers
`
`housing memory devices, processing devices, receivers, and transmitters.
`
`See https://aws.amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/doordash-case-study/
`
`See https://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/postgresql-features/
`
`See https://aws.amazon.com/elasticache/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00764-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/21/20 Page 19 of 38
`
`See https://aws.amazon.com/cloudwatch/
`
`See https://aws.amazon.com/kinesis/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See https://aws.amazon.com/redshift/?whats-new-cards.sort-
`by=item.additionalFields.postDateTime&whats-new-cards.sort-order=desc
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`53.
`
`The DoorDash Accused Instrumentalities comprise a memory device, which stores information
`
`regarding at least work schedule information and/or scheduling information for individual
`
`drivers (which DoorDash c