Did you know? You can earn activity points by filling your profile with information about yourself (what city you live in, your favorite team, blogs etc.)

Loading...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SIRIUS XM RADIO INC.
Plaintiff,
vs.
TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LTD., PATRIOT
SCIENTIFIC CORP., AND ALLIACENSE LTD.
Defendant.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Sirius XM Radio Inc. (“Sirius XM”), by its attorneys Kramer
Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, for its complaint against Technology Properties Ltd.
(“TPL”), Patriot Scientific Corp. (“PSC”), and Alliacense Ltd. (“Alliacense”), alleges as
follows:
1. This is a civil action arising under the Patent Laws of the United
States, 35 U.S.C. §§101, et seq., seeking a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
2201 and 2202, that Plaintiff does not infringe any valid and/or enforceable claim of
United States Patent Nos. 5,030,853 (the “’853 patent”), 5,440,749 (the “’749 patent”);
5,784,584 (the “’584 patent”); 5, 530,890 (“’890 patent”); 5,809,336 (the “’336 patent”);
6,598,148 (“’148 patent”) and 5,247,212 (the “’212 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted
Patents”). Copies of the Asserted Patents are attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F
and G, respectively.

THE PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Sirius XM is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal place of business at 1221 Avenue of
the Americas, New York, New York 10020. Sirius XM provides satellite radio services
that broadcast over one hundred and thirty channels of entertainment in the continental
United States (the “Sirius XM Services”).
3. Upon information and belief, TPL is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of California, having its principal place of business at
10080 North Wolfe Road, Suite SW3190, Cupertino, California 95014. TPL is, on
information and belief, a co-owner and/or licensee of the Asserted Patents.
4. Upon information and belief, PSC is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal place of business at
6183 Paseo Del Norte, Suite 180, Carlsbad, California 92011. PSC is, on information and
belief, a co-owner and/or licensee of the Asserted Patents.
5. Upon information and belief, Alliacense is a corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal place of business
at 20400 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 500, Cupertino, CA 95014. Alliacense is, on
information and belief, an enterprise of TPL.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. This Court has jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338,
and the existence of an actual controversy between the parties under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201
and 2202.
7. Venue is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).


EXISTENCE OF AN ACTUAL CONTROVERSY

8. Starting in 2008 and continuing into April 2009, Defendants,
through defendant Alliacense, have demanded that Sirius XM enter into a royalty-bearing
license for the Asserted Patents. The ‘749 patent, ‘584 patent, ‘336 patent, ‘890 patent
and ‘148 patent comprise part of Defendants’ MMP Patent Portfolio (hereinafter, referred
to collectively as the “Asserted Patents from the MMP Patent Portfolio”), and the ‘853
patent and ‘212 patent comprise part of Defendants’ Fast Logic Patent Portfolio
(hereinafter, referred to collectively as the “Asserted Patents from the fast Logic Patent
Portfolio”). Alliacense has claimed that products used in connection with the Sirius XM
Services infringe one or more claims of the MMP Patent Portfolio and the Fast Logic
Patent Portfolio. Alliacense has further informed Sirius XM that if it does not take a
license, it may be subject to substantial liabilities. A. The MMP Patent Portfolio
9. By letter dated February 13, 2008, Alliacense informed Sirius XM that “most all Sirius products that include a microprocessor may need a license to the MMP Portfolio.” Accompanying this letter was a claim chart purporting to describe how many of Sirius XM’s products are allegedly covered by one or more claims of the ‘749patent, ‘584 patent, and ‘336 patent.
10. Since February 2008, the parties have corresponded regarding the
MMP Patent Portfolio. In a letter dated February 12, 2009, Alliacense expressly accused
Sirius XM of infringing the ‘749 patent, ‘584 patent, and ‘336 patent and told Sirius XM
of substantial liabilities that it may face: Over the last year Alliacense has provided voluminous
documentation outlining Sirius XM Radio’s infringement and made monthly requests to meet to resolve this dispute. . . .As you can imagine it is difficult for us to understand why Sirius XM Radio would continue a path of inaction, especially when considering the substantial liability it is facing . . . .
11. Shortly thereafter, Sirius XM met with Defendants’ representative
from Alliacense on March 26, 2009 at the offices of Sirius XM’s counsel to discuss
Defendants’ infringement claims. During that meeting, Defendants’ representative
confirmed their claims of infringement of the ‘749 patent, ‘584 patent, and ‘336 patent.
Defendants’ representative further informed Sirius XM that many of Sirius XM’s products
are also allegedly covered by one or more claims of two other patents in the MMP Patent
Portfolio – namely, the ‘890 patent and ‘148 patent – and that Sirius XM faced substantial
liability unless it took a license. Defendants’ representative further described the
litigations brought by Defendants against potential infringers of the MMP Patent Portfolio
and their purported success in those matters.
12. Most recently, Sirius XM received on April 1, 2009 from
Alliacense more claim charts that purportedly show how additional Sirius XM devices
infringed one or more claims of the Asserted Patents from the MMP Portfolio, including
the ‘890 patent.
13. Sirius XM does not infringe a valid or enforceable claim of the
Asserted Patents from the MMP Patent Portfolio (namely, the ‘749 patent, ‘584 patent,
‘336 patent, ‘890 patent, and ‘148 patent).
14. Under all of these circumstances, there is an actual, justiciable and
substantial controversy between Sirius XM and the defendants having adverse legal
interests of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of declaratory
judgments with respect to each of the Asserted Patents from the MMP Patent Portfolio
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
B. The Fast Logic Patent Portfolio
15. Defendants, through defendant Alliacense, informed Sirius XM via
letter dated May 29, 2008 that “most all Sirius products that include a semiconductor may
need a license to the Fast Logic Portfolio.” The Fast Logic Patent Portfolio included the
‘212 patent. Accompanying this letter was a claim chart purporting to describe how many
of the same Sirius XM’ products (which, as described above, were allegedly covered by
the Asserted Patents from the MMP Patent Portfolio) are allegedly covered by one or
more claims of the ‘212 patent based on Defendants’ analyses of the flash memory chip
supplied by Spansion Inc. (“Spansion”) alleged to be used in Sirius XM satellite radio
receivers.
16. In a letter dated February 19, 2009, Alliacense expressly accused
Sirius XM of infringing the ‘212 patent and told Sirius XM of substantial liabilities that it
may face:
We have sent the following correspondence to you since
April 2008. Unfortunately, we have not received any
communication from you or other Sirius Satellite Radio
representatives. . . . We are concerned that Sirius Satellite
Radio is recklessly disregarding our patent rights.
17. Sirius XM met with Defendants’ representative from Alliacense
and discussed the Fast Logic Patent Portfolio during the March 26, 2009 meeting. During
this meeting, Defendants’ representative confirmed Defendants’ infringement claims
against Sirius XM based on the ‘212 patent. Defendants’ representative further provided
an updated claim chart purporting to describe that additional Sirius XM products are also
covered by one or more claims of the ‘212 patent. Defendants’ representative also warned
Sirius XM that many of the same Sirius XM products may infringe one or more of at least
fourteen additional patents in the Fast Logic Patent Portfolio. When Sirius XM told
Alliacense that Spansion is the appropriate entity to pursue as the supplier of the chip that
is purportedly covered by the ‘212 patent, Alliacense replied that it had chosen to pursue
Sirius XM and others, not Spansion.
18. Subsequent to this meeting, Alliacense sent Sirius XM additional
claim charts purportedly showing how Sirius XM products are covered by the ‘212 patent
and another patent from the Fast Logic Portfolio – the ‘853 patent.
19. Sirius XM does not infringe a valid or enforceable claim of the
‘212 patent or the ‘853 patent.
20. Under all of these circumstances, there is an actual, justiciable and
substantial controversy between Sirius XM and the defendants having adverse legal
interests of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of declaratory
judgments with respect to the ‘212 patent and ‘853 patent from the Fast Logic Patent
Portfolio under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
FIRST CLAIM
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE ‘749 PATENT
21. Plaintiff hereby restates and realleges the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 14 and incorporates them by reference.
22. No valid or enforceable claim of the ‘749 patent is infringed by
Plaintiff.
SECOND CLAIM
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE ‘584 PATENT
23. Plaintiff hereby restates and realleges the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 14 and incorporate them by reference.
24. No valid or enforceable claim of the ‘584 patent is infringed by
Plaintiff.
THIRD CLAIM
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE ‘890 PATENT
25. Plaintiff hereby restates and realleges the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 14 and incorporate them by reference.
26. No valid and enforceable claim of the ‘890 patent is infringed by
Plaintiff.
FOURTH CLAIM
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE ‘336 PATENT
27. Plaintiff hereby restates and realleges the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 14 and incorporate them by reference.
28. No valid and enforceable claim of the ‘336 patent is infringed by
Plaintiff.
FIFTH CLAIM
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE ‘148 PATENT
29. Plaintiff hereby restates and realleges the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 14 and incorporate them by reference.
30. No valid and enforceable claim of the ‘148 patent is infringed by
Plaintiff.

SIXTH CLAIM
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE ‘212 PATENT
31. Plaintiff hereby restates and realleges the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1-8 and 15 through 20 and incorporate them by reference.
32. No valid and enforceable claim of the ‘212 patent is infringed by
Plaintiff.
SEVENTH CLAIM
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE ‘853 PATENT
33. Plaintiff hereby restates and realleges the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1-8 and 15 through 20 and incorporate them by reference.
34. No valid and enforceable claim of the ‘853 patent is infringed by
Plaintiff.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:

I. Declaring that no valid or enforceable claim ofthe Asserted
Patents is infringed by Plaintiff;
2. Declaring that Defendants and each of their officers, employees,
agents, alter egos, attorneys, and any persons in active concert of participation with them
be restrained and enjoined from further prosecuting or instituting any action against the
Plaintiff claiming that the Asserted Patents are valid, enforceable, or infringed, or from
representing that the products of services ofthe Plaintiff infringe the Asserted Patents;
3. A judgment declaring this case exceptional under 35 U.S.c. § 285
and awarding the Plaintiff its attorneys' fees and costs in connection with this case; and
4. Awarding Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court deems
just and proper.
Dated: April 24, 2009

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
By: Jonathan S. Ca
William J. Spatz
Aaron Haleva
Mark A. Baghdassarian
1177 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Sirius XMRadio Inc.

It was discussed at the time.

Be well