INTERACTIVE GRAPHIC SOLUTIONS
`LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-462
`
`Patent Case
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00462-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 1 of 28
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Interactive Graphic Solutions LLC files this Original Complaint for patent
`
`infringement against Microsoft Corporation alleging as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE SUIT
`
`1.
`
`This is a claim for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United
`
`States, Title 35 of the United States Code. More specifically, this cause of action asserts
`
`infringement of United States Patent Nos. 7,916,147 (“the ’147 Patent”), 8,081,192 (“the ’192
`
`Patent”), 8,203,568 (“the ’568 Patent”), 8,466,922 (“the ’922 Patent”), 9,113,146 (“the ’146
`
`Patent”), 9,117,285 (“the ’285 Patent”), 9,424,621 (“the ’621 Patent”), and 9,852,490 (“the ’490
`
`Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”).
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Interactive Graphic Solutions LLC (“Plaintiff” or “IGS”) is a Texas
`
`corporation with its principal place of business at 11 Tattersall, Laguna Niguel, California 92677.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) is a Washington corporation
`
`with a principal place of business located at 10900 Stonelake Boulevard, Suite 225, Austin, Texas
`
`78759.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`Page 1 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00462-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 2 of 28
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 101, et
`
`seq. This Court’s jurisdiction over this action is proper under the above statutes, including 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271, et seq., 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction), and § 1338 (jurisdiction
`
`over patent actions).
`
`5.
`
`Microsoft is subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court. In particular, this Court
`
`has personal jurisdiction over Microsoft because Microsoft has engaged in continuous, systematic,
`
`and substantial activities within this State, including substantial marketing and sales of products
`
`within this State and this District. Furthermore, upon information and belief, this Court has
`
`personal jurisdiction over Microsoft because Microsoft has committed acts giving rise to IGS’s
`
`claims for patent infringement within and directed to this District.
`
`6.
`
`Upon information and belief, Microsoft has committed acts of infringement in this
`
`District and has one or more regular and established places of business within this District under
`
`the language of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Thus, venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1400(b).
`
`7.
`
`Microsoft maintains permanent physical presences within the Western District of
`
`Texas, conducting business from at least its locations at (1) 10900 Stonelake Boulevard, Suite 225,
`
`Austin, Texas 78759 (Corporate Sales Office); (2) Concord Park II, 401 East Sonterra Boulevard,
`
`Suite 300, San Antonio, Texas 78258 (Corporate Sales Office); (3) 7400 San Pedro Avenue, San
`
`Antonio, Texas 78216 (Retail Store); and (4) 5150 Rogers Road, San Antonio, Texas and others
`
`in the San Antonio area (Data Center).
`
`8.
`
`Upon information and belief, Microsoft has conducted and does conduct substantial
`
`business in this forum, directly and/or through subsidiaries, agents, representatives, or
`
`intermediaries, such substantial business including but not limited to: (i) at least a portion of the
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`Page 2 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00462-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 3 of 28
`
`infringements alleged herein; (ii) purposefully and voluntarily placing one or more infringing
`
`products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by
`
`consumers in this forum; or (iii) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent
`
`courses of conduct, or deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to
`
`individuals in Texas and in this judicial district.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in the Western District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 and
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`10.
`
`T5 Labs Ltd. (“T5 Labs”), the owner of the Patents-in-Suit, is the developer of
`
`software and other technologies related to interactive graphic processing.
`
`11.
`
`The origin of T5 Labs began when one day Mr. Graham Clemie, the founder of T5
`
`Labs and a named inventor on the Patents-in-Suit, attempted to download a video game only to
`
`discover that his computer was not powerful enough to run the video game.
`
`12. Mr. Clemie’s background is in telecommunications and cable TV, having
`
`previously worked at companies such as Ericsson and NEC. As a potential solution to his problem,
`
`Mr. Clemie began looking into whether remote computer processing power could be utilized to
`
`run a video game, as opposed to relying solely on the processing power of, for example, a user’s
`
`home computer.
`
`13.
`
`In other words, Mr. Clemie began researching whether the processing power of
`
`centralized servers (e.g., what is now called the “cloud”) could be utilized to expand the availability
`
`of video games and other software to remote users with limited computing power.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`Page 3 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00462-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 4 of 28
`
`14.
`
`T5 Labs was originally funded by Mr. Clemie and later by grants that T5 Labs
`
`received from the Department of Trade and Industry in the United Kingdom as part of competitive
`
`awards that were granted to high-tech companies with strong and promising concepts.
`
`15.
`
`T5 Labs became an official partner of IBM and worked together to bid on major
`
`projects in the United States, Japan, France, and other locations around the world.
`
`16.
`
`As T5 Labs grew, it sought to raise additional capital from private individuals and
`
`venture capital firms, including Benchmark Capital (a/k/a Balderton Capital) (“Balderton”).
`
`17.
`
`On April 7, 2005, Mr. Clemie had a meeting at the London offices of Balderton
`
`with one of the firm’s partners, George Coelho. The purpose of the meeting was to explore raising
`
`funding for T5 Labs.
`
`18.
`
`During the meeting, Mr. Coelho indicated that he did not fully understand T5 Labs’
`
`technology, but that he thought someone at Balderton’s offices that day may be able to assist in
`
`helping Mr. Coelho understand the technical aspects of T5 Labs’ pitch. Mr. Coelho then asked
`
`Mr. Clemie to meet with Mr. Neal Margulis.
`
`19. Mr. Clemie proceeded to explain to Mr. Margulis in detail the nature of T5 Labs’
`
`technology, inventions, etc. Mr. Clemie also informed Mr. Coelho and Mr. Margulis that T5 Labs
`
`had patents pending on its technology.
`
`20.
`
`The two exchanged contact information and, on July 12, 2005, Mr. Clemie e-mailed
`
`Mr. Margulis to inquire whether Mr. Margulis would be interested in joining T5 Labs.
`
`21. Mr. Margulis responded on August 9, 2005, indicating that he had too much on his
`
`plate. Mr. Clemie later learned that Mr. Margulis was in the process of forming Calista
`
`Technologies, Inc. (“Calista”) which became a competitor to T5 Labs and ultimately formed the
`
`basis for the Accused Instrumentalities (defined herein) at issue in this case.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`Page 4 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00462-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 5 of 28
`
`22. Mr. Clemie would later learn that on November 1, 2005, Mr. Margulis filed U.S.
`
`Patent Application No. 11/264,269, titled “Multi-User Terminal Services Accelerator” (“the ʼ269
`
`Application”).
`
`23.
`
`The ʼ269 Application, and Mr. Margulis’, Calista’s, and ultimately Microsoft’s
`
`subsequent patent filings, relate to the key technical concepts that Mr. Clemie presented to Mr.
`
`Coelho and Mr. Margulis on April 7, 2005 and that are claimed in one or more the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`On February 22, 2006, Mr. Margulis formed Calista.
`
`On February 27, 2006, the ʼ269 Application was assigned to Calista.
`
`In January 2008, Calista was acquired by Microsoft for a reputed $125 million. As
`
`part of the acquisition, Mr. Margulis, who was intimately familiar with T5 Labs’ technology and
`
`inventions, became a high level employee of Microsoft.
`
`27.
`
`On March 6, 2009, the ʼ269 Application was assigned to Microsoft as a result of
`
`Calista’s acquisition by, and merger with, Microsoft.
`
`28.
`
`In February 2011, Microsoft announced a new technology called RemoteFX that
`
`formed part of an update to Windows Server 2008. This new technology was based on the
`
`technology it acquired from Calista, including the technology disclosed in the ʼ269 Application.
`
`29.
`
`On March 1, 2011, the ʼ269 Application issued to Microsoft as U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,899,864 (the ’864 Patent”). The technology disclosed in the ʼ864 Patent relates to the key
`
`technical concepts that Mr. Clemie presented to Mr. Coelho and Mr. Margulis on April 7, 2005
`
`and that are claimed in the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`30.
`
`The ʼ147 Patent, which is asserted in this case, stems from PCT Application No.
`
`PCT/GB03/00933 filed on March 3, 2003, which subsequently published as WO03/075116 (“the
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`Page 5 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00462-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 6 of 28
`
`ʼ116 Publication”) on September 12, 2003 (i.e., more than a year before Mr. Clemie’s meeting
`
`with Mr. Margulis).
`
`31.
`
`The U.S. Patent Application that ultimately issued as the ʼ147 Patent (i.e., U.S.
`
`Application No. 10/506,151) published as US Publication No. 2005/0104889 (“the ʼ889
`
`Publication”) on May 19, 2005 (i.e., months before Mr. Margulis filed the application for the ʼ269
`
`Application).
`
`32.
`
`During prosecution of the ʼ269 Application, Microsoft was, or should have been
`
`aware, of T5 Labs’ ʼ116 Publication and ʼ889 Publication. Despite being aware of these
`
`publications, Microsoft did not disclose them to the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(“PTO”) during prosecution of the ʼ269 Application.
`
`33.
`
`In addition, on December 4, 2009, Microsoft filed U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`12/631,662 (“the ʼ662 Application”), which listed Mr. Margulis as a named inventor, among
`
`others.
`
`34.
`
`The ʼ662 Application, which subsequently published on May 5, 2011 as U.S.
`
`Publication No. 2011/0102443, also relates to the key technical concepts that Mr. Clemie presented
`
`to Mr. Margulis on April 7, 2005 and that are claimed in one or more of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`35.
`
`During prosecution of the ʼ662 Application, Microsoft did not disclose the ʼ116
`
`Publication, the ʼ889 Publication, or any of the Patents-in-Suit before Microsoft abandoned the
`
`ʼ662 Application on June 12, 2017.
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`36.
`
`As part of their efforts at T5 Labs, Mr. Clemie, and his co-inventor, Mr. Dedrick
`
`Duckett, invented the technologies and solutions claimed in the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`Page 6 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00462-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 7 of 28
`
`The ʼ147 Patent
`
`37.
`
`The ’147 Patent, entitled “Centralised Interactive Graphical Application Server,”
`
`duly and legally issued on March 29, 2011 from U.S. Patent Application No. 10/506,151, filed on
`
`March 3, 2003, naming Graham Clemie and Dedrick Duckett as the inventors. A true and correct
`
`copy of the ’147 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and is incorporated by reference.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`The ’147 Patent claims patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`An assignment of the ’147 Patent from inventors Clemie and Duckett to T5 Labs is
`
`recorded at the PTO at Reel/Frame 025821/0042.
`
`40.
`
`IGS is the exclusive licensee of the ʼ147 Patent with all substantial rights to the
`
`ʼ147 Patent, including the exclusive right to enforce, sue, and recover damages for past and future
`
`infringement.
`
`41.
`
`IGS has standing to sue for infringement of the ’147 Patent.
`
`The ʼ192 Patent
`
`42.
`
`The ’192 Patent, entitled “Centralised Interactive Graphical Application Server,”
`
`duly and legally issued on December 20, 2011 from U.S. Patent Application No. 13/132,401, filed
`
`on February 22, 2011, naming Graham Clemie and Dedrick Duckett as the inventors. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ’192 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and is incorporated by reference.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`The ’192 Patent claims patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`An assignment of the ’192 Patent from inventors Clemie and Duckett to T5 Labs is
`
`recorded at the PTO at 027260/0585.
`
`45.
`
`IGS is the exclusive licensee of the ʼ192 Patent with all substantial rights to the
`
`ʼ192 Patent, including the exclusive right to enforce, sue, and recover damages for past and future
`
`infringement.
`
`46.
`
`IGS has standing to sue for infringement of the ’192 Patent.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`Page 7 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00462-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 8 of 28
`
`The ʼ568 Patent
`
`47.
`
`The ’568 Patent, entitled “Sharing a graphical processing unit between a plurality
`
`of programs” duly and legally issued on June 19, 2012 from U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`13/298,266, filed on November 16, 2011, naming Graham Clemie and Dedrick Duckett as the
`
`inventors. A true and correct copy of the ’568 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 3 and is
`
`incorporated by reference.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`The ’568 Patent claims patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`An assignment of the ’568 Patent from inventors Clemie and Duckett to T5 Labs is
`
`recorded at the PTO at Reel/Frame 027280/0109.
`
`50.
`
`IGS is the exclusive licensee of the ʼ568 Patent with all substantial rights to the
`
`ʼ568 Patent, including the exclusive right to enforce, sue, and recover damages for past and future
`
`infringement.
`
`51.
`
`IGS has standing to sue for infringement of the ’568 Patent.
`
`The ʼ922 Patent
`
`52.
`
`The ’922 Patent, entitled “Centalised interactive graphical application server” duly
`
`and legally issued on June 18, 2013 from U.S. Patent Application No. 13/369,280, filed on
`
`February 8, 2012, naming Graham Clemie and Dedrick Duckett as the inventors. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ’922 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 4 and is incorporated by reference.
`
`53.
`
`54.
`
`The ’922 Patent claims patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`An assignment of the ’922 Patent from inventors Clemie and Duckett to T5 Labs is
`
`recorded at the PTO at Reel/Frame 027754/0530.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`Page 8 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00462-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 9 of 28
`
`55.
`
`IGS is the exclusive licensee of the ʼ922 Patent with all substantial rights to the
`
`ʼ922 Patent, including the exclusive right to enforce, sue, and recover damages for past and future
`
`infringement.
`
`56.
`
`IGS has standing to sue for infringement of the ’922 Patent.
`
`The ʼ146 Patent
`
`57.
`
`The ’146 Patent, entitled “Centralised Interactive Graphical Application Server”
`
`duly and legally issued on August 18, 2015 from U.S. Patent Application No. 13/887,522, filed on
`
`May 6, 2013, naming Graham Clemie and Dedrick Duckett as the inventors. A true and correct
`
`copy of the ’146 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 5 and is incorporated by reference.
`
`58.
`
`59.
`
`The ’146 Patent claims patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`An assignment of the ’146 Patent from inventors Clemie and Duckett to T5 Labs is
`
`recorded at the PTO at Reel/Frame 030972/0690.
`
`60.
`
`IGS is the exclusive licensee of the ʼ146 Patent with all substantial rights to the
`
`ʼ146 Patent, including the exclusive right to enforce, sue, and recover damages for past and future
`
`infringement.
`
`61.
`
`IGS has standing to sue for infringement of the ’146 Patent.
`
`The ʼ285 Patent
`
`62.
`
`The ’285 Patent, entitled “Centralised Interactive Graphical Application Server”
`
`duly and legally issued on August 25, 2015 from U.S. Patent Application No. 14/138,055, filed on
`
`December 21, 2013, naming Graham Clemie and Dedrick Duckett as the inventors. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ’285 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 6 and is incorporated by reference.
`
`63.
`
`The ’285 Patent claims patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`Page 9 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00462-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 10 of 28
`
`64.
`
`An assignment of the ’286 Patent from inventors Clemie and Duckett to T5 Labs is
`
`recorded at the PTO at Reel/Frame 056074/0549.
`
`65.
`
`IGS is the exclusive licensee of the ʼ286 Patent with all substantial rights to the
`
`ʼ286 Patent, including the exclusive right to enforce, sue, and recover damages for past and future
`
`infringement.
`
`66.
`
`IGS has standing to sue for infringement of the ’286 Patent.
`
`The ʼ621 Patent
`
`67.
`
`The ’621 Patent, entitled “Centralised Interactive Graphical Application Server”
`
`duly and legally issued on August 23, 2016 from U.S. Patent Application No. 13/887,538, filed on
`
`May 6, 2013, naming Graham Clemie and Dedrick Duckett as the inventors. A true and correct
`
`copy of the ’621 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 7 and is incorporated by reference.
`
`68.
`
`69.
`
`The ’621 Patent claims patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`An assignment of the ’621 Patent from inventors Clemie and Duckett to T5 Labs is
`
`recorded at the PTO at Reel/Frame 030972/0690.
`
`70.
`
`IGS is the exclusive licensee of the ʼ621 Patent with all substantial rights to the
`
`ʼ621 Patent, including the exclusive right to enforce, sue, and recover damages for past and future
`
`infringement.
`
`71.
`
`IGS has standing to sue for infringement of the ’621 Patent.
`
`The ʼ490 Patent
`
`72.
`
`The ’490 Patent, entitled “Centralised Interactive Graphical Application Server”
`
`duly and legally issued on December 16, 2017 from U.S. Patent Application No. 15/212,349, filed
`
`on July 18, 2016 naming Graham Clemie and Dedrick Duckett as the inventors. A true and correct
`
`copy of the ’490 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 8 and is incorporated by reference.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`Page 10 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00462-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 11 of 28
`
`73.
`
`74.
`
`The ’490 Patent claims patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`An assignment of the ’490 Patent from inventors Clemie and Duckett to T5 Labs is
`
`recorded at the PTO at Reel/Frame 039264/0388.
`
`75.
`
`IGS is the exclusive licensee of the ʼ490 Patent with all substantial rights to the
`
`ʼ490 Patent, including the exclusive right to enforce, sue, and recover damages for past and future
`
`infringement.
`
`76.
`
`77.
`
`IGS has standing to sue for infringement of the ’490 Patent.
`
`On information and belief, with respect to each Patent-in-Suit, IGS has complied
`
`with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`
`78. Microsoft has not obtained a license to any of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`79. Microsoft does not have IGS’s permission to practice the Patents-in-Suit or to
`
`make, use, sell, offer to sell, or import products that are covered by one or more claims of any of
`
`the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`80. Microsoft needs to obtain a license to the Patents-in-Suit and cease its ongoing
`
`infringement of IGS’s patent rights.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`81. Microsoft makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, and/or imports into the United States
`
`products, and/or engages in practices, as claimed in each of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`82. Microsoft makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, and/or imports into the United States
`
`products and/or systems that infringe at least one claim of one or more of the Patents-in-Suit,
`
`including but not limited to its Operating Systems with RemoteFX (e.g., Windows Server,
`
`Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 10, etc.) in conjunction with the features and capabilities
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`Page 11 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00462-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 12 of 28
`
`disclosed in the claim charts attached hereto as Exhibits 9 – 16 (hereinafter, collectively, the
`
`“Accused Instrumentalities”).
`
`83. Microsoft has infringed and continues to infringe (literally and/or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents), directly, indirectly, and/or through subsidiaries, agents, representatives, or
`
`intermediaries, one or more claims of each of the Patents-in-Suit by making, using, importing,
`
`testing, supplying, causing to be supplied, selling, and/or offering for sale in the United States the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities. For example, on information and belief, Microsoft has and continues
`
`to directly infringe one or more claims of each of the Patents-in-Suit via its use of the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities in conjunction with its Azure cloud services platform, including Azure’s virtual
`
`desktop infrastructure (VDI) and virtual apps services.
`
`84. Microsoft’s customers and end users of the Accused Instrumentalities have directly
`
`infringed and continue to directly infringe the Patents-in-Suit by using the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities. Through its product manuals, sales and marketing activities, support, etc.,
`
`Microsoft solicits, instructs, encourages, and aids and abets its customers to purchase and use the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities in infringing ways. See, e.g., Exhibits 9 – 16 and materials cited
`
`therein.
`
`85.
`
`On information and belief, Microsoft has had, or should have had, knowledge of
`
`the Patents-in-Suit since their respective issue dates.
`
`86.
`
`In the alternative, Microsoft has had, or should have had, knowledge of the ʼ147
`
`Patent since at least March 18, 2014, when it was cited during Microsoft’s prosecution of its U.S.
`
`Application No. 12/022,297.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`Page 12 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00462-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 13 of 28
`
`87.
`
`In the alternative, Microsoft has had, or should have had, knowledge of the ʼ568
`
`Patent since at least January 7, 2016, when it was disclosed by Microsoft to the PTO on an
`
`Information Disclosure Statement during prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 9,569,812.
`
`88.
`
`In the alternative, Microsoft has had, or should have had, knowledge of the ʼ568
`
`Patent since at least April 7, 2016, when it was disclosed by Microsoft to the PTO on an
`
`Information Disclosure Statement during prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 9,756,375.
`
`89.
`
`In the alternative, Microsoft has had, or should have had, knowledge of the ʼ568
`
`Patent since at least April 6, 2016, when it was disclosed by Microsoft to the PTO on an
`
`Information Disclosure Statement during prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 10,237,566.
`
`90. Microsoft’s ongoing actions are with specific intent to cause infringement of one
`
`or more claims of each of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`91.
`
`At a minimum, Microsoft exercised willful blindness to the existence of the Patents-
`
`in-Suit and took deliberately wrongful steps to ignore infringement of the Patents-in-Suit when
`
`usurping the technology claimed in the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`92.
`
`Further discovery may reveal earlier knowledge and/or additional evidence of
`
`knowledge of one or more of the Patents-in-Suit, which would provide additional evidence of
`
`Microsoft’s specific intent and/or willful blindness with respect to infringement.
`
`93.
`
`IGS has been and continues to be damaged as a result of Microsoft’s infringing
`
`conduct. Microsoft is therefore liable to IGS in an amount that adequately compensates IGS for
`
`Microsoft’s infringement, 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.
`
`94. Microsoft markets and sells other products and services that are not covered by the
`
`claims of the Patents-in-Suit but that are sold with or in conjunction with the Accused
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`Page 13 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00462-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 14 of 28
`
`Instrumentalities. Accordingly, IGS is entitled to collect damages from Microsoft for convoyed
`
`sales of certain non-patented items and services.
`
`95. Microsoft failed to obtain permission from IGS to make, use, sell, offer to sell, or
`
`import products, or engage in practices, that use the inventions claimed in the Patents-in-Suit
`
`including, but not limited to, the Accused Instrumentalities, including the infringing practices
`
`engaged in by Microsoft and other users of the Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`96.
`
`Attached hereto are Exhibits 9 – 16, and incorporated herein by reference, are
`
`representative claim charts detailing how the Accused Instrumentalities, including Microsoft
`
`practices with respect to the Accused Instrumentalities, have, and continue to, infringe the Patents-
`
`in-Suit.
`
`97.
`
`For each count of infringement listed below, IGS incorporates and re-states the
`
`allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs above, including these General Allegations, as
`
`if fully set forth in each count of infringement.
`
`COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’147 PATENT
`
`98.
`
`IGS incorporates herein the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 97.
`
`99. Microsoft has and continues to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’147
`
`Patent, including, for example, claim 1, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making, using,
`
`selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States infringing products including, but
`
`not limited to, the Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`100. For example, on information and belief, Microsoft has and continues to directly
`
`infringe one or more claims of the ʼ147 Patent, including, for example, claim 1, via its use of the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities in conjunction with its Azure cloud services platform, including Azure’s
`
`virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) and virtual apps services.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`Page 14 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00462-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 15 of 28
`
`101. An exemplary claim chart demonstrating Microsoft’s and others’ infringement of
`
`the ’147 Patent via the Accused Instrumentalities is attached as Exhibit 9 and incorporated herein
`
`by reference.
`
`102. Additionally, Microsoft is indirectly infringing the ’147 Patent in violation of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(b) at least by inducing customers to purchase the Accused Instrumentalities and/or
`
`by instructing others how to use the Accused Instrumentalities in a way that directly infringes at
`
`least claim 1 of the ’147 Patent.
`
`103. Microsoft has had, or should have had, knowledge of the ’147 Patent since it issued
`
`on March 29, 2011. In the alternative, Microsoft has had, or should have had, knowledge of the
`
`ʼ147 patent since March 18, 2014, when it was cited during Microsoft’s prosecution of its U.S.
`
`Application No. 12/022,297. In the alternative, Microsoft has had knowledge of the ʼ147 patent
`
`since at least service of this lawsuit.
`
`104. On information and belief, Microsoft’s ongoing actions represent a specific intent
`
`to induce infringement of at least claim 1 of the ’147 Patent. For example, Microsoft offers its
`
`customers and users of the Accused Instrumentalities extensive customer support and instruction
`
`that instruct and encourage users of the Accused Instrumentalities to infringe the ʼ147 Patent via
`
`at least their use of the Accused Instrumentalities. See, e.g., https://docs.microsoft.com/en-
`
`us/virtualization/community/team-blog/2010/20100317-explaining-microsoft-remotefx;
`
`https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/virtualization/hyper-v/deploy/deploy-graphics-
`
`devices-using-remotefx-vgpu; see also Exhibit 9 and materials cited therein.
`
`105. As a result of Microsoft’s infringement of the ’147 Patent, IGS has suffered and is
`
`owed monetary damages adequate to compensate it for the infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284,
`
`but in no event less than a reasonable royalty.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`Page 15 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00462-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 16 of 28
`
`COUNT II – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’192 PATENT
`
`106.
`
`IGS incorporates herein the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 97.
`
`107. Microsoft has and continues to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’192
`
`Patent, including, for example, claim 1, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making, using,
`
`selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States infringing products including, but
`
`not limited to, the Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`108. For example, on information and belief, Microsoft has and continues to directly
`
`infringe one or more claims of the ʼ192 Patent, including, for example, claim 1, via its use of the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities in conjunction with its Azure cloud services platform, including Azure’s
`
`virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) and virtual apps services.
`
`109. An exemplary claim chart demonstrating Microsoft’s and others’ infringement of
`
`the ’192 Patent via the Accused Instrumentalities is attached as Exhibit 10 and incorporated herein
`
`by reference.
`
`110. Additionally, Microsoft is indirectly infringing the ’192 Patent in violation of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(b) at least by inducing customers to purchase the Accused Instrumentalities and/or
`
`by instructing others how to use the Accused Instrumentalities in a way that directly infringes at
`
`least claim 1 of the ’192 Patent.
`
`111. Microsoft has had, or should have had, knowledge of the ’192 Patent since it issued
`
`on December 20, 2011. In the alternative, Microsoft has had knowledge of the ʼ192 patent since
`
`at least service of this lawsuit.
`
`112. On information and belief, Microsoft’s ongoing actions represent a specific intent
`
`to induce infringement of at least claim 1 of the ’192 Patent. For example, Microsoft offers its
`
`customers and users of the Accused Instrumentalities extensive customer support and instruction
`
`that instruct and encourage users of the Accused Instrumentalities to infringe the ʼ192 Patent via
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`Page 16 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00462-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 17 of 28
`
`at least their use of the Accused Instrumentalities. See, e.g., https://docs.microsoft.com/en-
`
`us/virtualization/community/team-blog/2010/20100317-explaining-microsoft-remotefx;
`
`https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/virtualization/hyper-v/deploy/deploy-graphics-
`
`devices-using-remotefx-vgpu; see also Exhibit 10 and materials cited therein.
`
`113. As a result of Microsoft’s infringement of the ’192 Patent, IGS has suffered and is
`
`owed monetary damages adequate to compensate it for the infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284,
`
`but in no event less than a reasonable royalty.
`
`COUNT III – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’568 PATENT
`
`114.
`
`IGS incorporates herein the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 97.
`
`115. Microsoft has and continues to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’568
`
`Patent, including, for example, claim 1, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making, using,
`
`selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States infringing products including, but
`
`not limited to, the Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`116. For example, on information and belief, Microsoft has and continues to directly
`
`infringe one or more claims of the ʼ568 Patent, including, for example, claim 1, via its use of the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities in conjunction with its Azure cloud services platform, including Azure’s
`
`virtual desktop infrastructure (VDI) and virtual apps services.
`
`117. An exemplary claim chart demonstrating Microsoft’s and others’ infringement of
`
`the ’568 Patent via the Accused Instrumentalities is attached as Exhibit 11 and incorporated herein
`
`by reference.
`
`118. Additionally, Microsoft is indirectly infringing the ’568 Patent in violation of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(b) at least by inducing customers to purchase the Accused Instrumentalities and/or
`
`by instructing others how to use the Accused Instrumentalities in a way that directly infringes at
`
`least claim 1 of the ’568 Patent.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`Page 17 of 28
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00462-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 18 of 28
`
`119. Microsoft has had, or should have had, knowledge of the ’568 Patent since it issued
`
`on June 19, 2012.
`
`120.
`
`In the alternative, Microsoft has had, or should have had, knowledge of the ʼ568
`
`Patent since at least January 7, 2016, April 6, 2016, and/or April 7, 2016 when it was disclosed by
`
`Microsoft to the PTO on an Information Disclosure Statement during prosecution of U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 9,569,812, 10,237,566, and 9,756,375 respectively.
`
`121.
`
`In the alternative, Microsoft has had knowledge of the ʼ568 patent since at least
`
`service of this lawsuit.
`
`122. On information and belief, Mic