intertrust patent suit against apple

7/29/2019 Intertrust Patent Suit Against Apple

1/44

O R I G I N A LF * I L EDI T A R 2 u 2 0 1 3

R i c H A P 0 1 4 4 W l e v A I Gt e 3 k , L I ,S . D I S T R I C T co u a rN O R 7 7 1 6 1 3 1 Y r a l C r i o F e4IFcmPi l l% 0 A Y 2 #

INTERTRUST TECHNOLOGIESCORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,Plaintiff,

vs.APPLE INC., a California corporation,

Defendant.

Robert P. Feldman (Bar No. 69602)[email protected] J. Brewer (Bar No. 217730)[email protected] EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5 t h FloorRedwood Shores, CA 94065Telephone: (650) 801-5000Facsimile: (650) 801-5100Frederick A. Lorig (Bar No. 57645)[email protected] EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90017Telephone: (213) 443-3000Facsimile: (213) 443-3100A TT O R N E Y S F O R P L A I NT I F F1 N T ER T R U S T T EC H NO L O G I E S C O R P O R A TI O N

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CASE.C132-1235COMPLAINT FOR PATENTINFRINGEMENTJURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COM PLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENTPlaintiff Intertrust Technologies Corporation ("Intertrust" or "P laintiff"), by and through its

undersigned counsel, complains and alleges as follows aga inst Apple Inc. ("Apple" or "Defendant")THE PARTIES

1 .ntertrust is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaw are, with itprincipal place of business at 920 Stewart Drive, Sunnyvale, California 94085 .0 23456789101 11213141516171819202122232425262728.C . OMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEM ENT


2/44

123456789

101 11213141516171819202122232425262728

2. On information and belief, Apple is a corporation organized under the laws of thState of California, with its principal place of business located at 1 Infinite Loop, CupertinoCalifornia 95 014.

NATURE OF THE ACTION3. This is a civil action for patent infringement.4. Apple has infringed and continues to infringe, contributed to and continues t

contribute to the infringement of, and/or actively induced and continues to induce others to infringIntertrust's U.S. Patent No. 5,892,900 ("the '900 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 5,915,019 ("the '01patent"), U.S. Patent No. 5,9 17,9 12 ("the '912 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 5 ,920,86 1 ("the '861 patent"U.S. Patent No. 5,949,876 ("the '876 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 5,982,891 ("the '891 patent"), U.SPatent No. 6,112,181 ("the '181 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 6,157,721 ("the '721 patent"), U.S. PatenNo. 6,185,683 ("the '683 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 6,253,193 ("the '193 patent"), U.S. PatenNo. 7,392,395 ("the '395 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 7,734,553 ("the '553 patent"), U.S. Patent No7,761,916 ("the '916 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 8,191,157 ("the '157 patent"), and U.S. Patent No8 ,191,15 8 ("the '15 8 p atent") (collectively, "the Asserted Patents"). Intertrust is the legal owner bassignmen t of the Asserted Patents, which were duly and legally issued by the U nited States Patenand Trademark Office. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT5. Pursuant to Civil L .R. 3-2(c), this case is appropriate for assignme nt on a district-

wide basis b ecause this is an Intellectual Property Action.6. The patents in this suit were asserted in earlier actions presided over by the H onorabl

Saundra Brown Armstrong of the Oakland Division, or are continuations with the same specificationas the patents that were at issue in Intertrust Technologies Corp. v . Micro soft Corp. , Nos. 01-c1640-SBA and 02-cv-0647-SBA (collectively, the "Microsoft actions"). In the Microsoft actionJudge A rmstrong issued a claim con struction order that construed claim terms from the patents in thissuit.

- 2 -COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT


3/44

123456789

101 11213141516171819202122232425262728

JURISDICTION AND VENUE7.his is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of th

United States, 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq.8 .his Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C 1331 and 1338 (a).9.pple is subject to this C ourt's personal jurisdiction.(i) Apple is incorporated and has its principal place of business in the NortheDistrict of California, has com menced litigation in this District, and has conducted and continues tconduct business in this District.

(ii) Apple has infringed Intertrust's patents in the Northern D istrict of C alifornia byamong other things, engaging in infringing conduct within and directed at this District. For exampleApple maintains its principal place of business and numerous retail stores in this District, and hapurposefully and voluntarily placed one or more of its infringing products, as described below Counts I through XV , into the stream of com merce w ith the expectation that these infringing productwill be used in this District. These infringing products have been and continue to be used in thiDistrict.

(iii) Apple has availed itself of the jurisdiction of this Court by filing complaints fopatent infringement in the Northern District of California, including, for example, Apple Inc. vSamsu ng Electronics Co., Ltd, No. 11 -cv-1846-LHK .

10 .enue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U .S.C. 139 1(b)-(c) and 1400(bbecause Apple does business in the Northern District of California, has committed acts oinfringement in this D istrict, has a regular and established place of busines s in this D istrict, and issubject to person al jurisdiction in this District.

FACTUAL BACKGROUNDIntertrust's History and Innovations

11.ntertrust was found ed in 19 90 b y Victor Shear and has pioneered a series of trustecomputing technologies (including, but not limited to, digital rights management ("DRM"- 3 -COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMEN T


4/44

12345678

101 11213141516171819202122232425262728

technologies that serve to protect copyrighted works from unlawful copying) that have set thbenchm ark for trusted interactions in digital ecosystem s.

12. Intertrust's innovations have contributed to a global standard for DRM aninteroperability, Marlin DRM. The Marlin standard can be used to provide a simple and consistendigital entertainment experience across a broad set of consum er electronics devices and services.

13. Intertrust has also developed a corresponding suite of software development kit("SDKs") and services for trusted media asset distribution, including Marlin Client and Server SDKSeacert Trust Services, and the Sockeye Cryptography SD K. Content publishers, service providerdevice makers, application developers, and system-on-a-chip vendors use Intertrust's Marlin anSockeye SDKs and Seacert Services to build innovative and personalized content distributioproducts and services for mobile devices, broadband, and Internet TV.

14. Today, Intertrust's culture of innovation continues . With its headqu arters in SilicoValley, regional offices in London an d Beijing, and representatives in Tok yo and Se oul, Intertrusfocuses on research and development of new technologies in the areas of electronic trusmanag eme nt, privacy protection, and Internet user behavior analysis.

Intertrust's Asserted Patents15. The trusted computing technologies embodied in Intertrust's patents underpin the

security and data management components of mobile devices, including smartphones, tablecomputers and other portable devices, web services, personal computers, Internet connected TV s, andsecure enterprise automation platforms, among other products, system s, and services.

16. Modern mobile devices and computers rely heavily on programs or application(frequently referred to as "apps"), copyrighted multimedia content, and the Internet. These types ocontent present complicated problems with respect to computer security (for example, protectionfrom viruses, Trojan horses, and m alware); secure transaction managem ent (for example, protecting auser's mobile dev ice account from being hijacked or m isused); and electronic rights protection (forexample, allowing a user to share protected content among the user's own mobile devices andcomp uters, but not with the mobile devices an d compu ters of others).

- 4 -COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMEN T


5/44

123456789

101 112131415161718192021222324

'25262728

17. Intertrust was, and continues to be, a pioneer in developing innovative ansophisticated solutions to address these and other security concerns. The Asserted Patents are product of Intertruses research and dev elopment in the field of computer and mob ile device securityThe A sserted Patents reflect groundbreaking innov ations in computer security and rights control thaare found in modem com puters and mobile devices.

18. Intertrust recognized early on that application-level security solutions could, in mancases, prove insufficient. Sophisticated hackers could seek to infiltrate a computer or mobile deviceat a more fundamental level, for example, by targeting physical or virtual memoly, or even byphysically tampering with a computer or mobile device's hardware. Se veral of the Asserted Patentclaim integrated security solutions that increase the tamper resistance of a com puter or mobile deviceThe innovations embodied in these patents create a secure computing environment that enablecompone nts requiring special security measures (for exam ple, applications, copyrighted content, andconfidential information) to be used with confidence.

19. Intertmst also pioneered the use of security barriers and permissions to isolateapplications and other executables within a computing system. As explained earlier in thiCom plaint, the ubiquity of applications presents unique and se rious security issues in computer anmobile devices, especially those that operate on open operating systems and transmit informationover open networks, such as the Internet. In an unsecure processing env ironment, a single maliciouapplication can wreak havoc throughout the entire computing system. Several of the AssertedPatents claim, amon g other things, secure processing env ironments that limit the ability of "rogue"programs or processes to spread to the rest of the device. By creating a barrier between differenapplications that may have different security levels, damage from a malicious or badly-writtenapplication to a computing system, including to other applications and to the operating system , can belimited.

20. Intertrust pioneered the use of integrated, distributed se curity controls for a heavilynetworked world. Security controls that focus on a single device or computing system may beinsufficient in today's environment where distributed computing is prevalent and where a single userfamily, or business may sh are electronic content between different comp uters and mobile devices



6/44

123456789

101 11213141516171819202122232425262728

For example, a single user may have a smartphone, a tablet computer, a laptop computer, and desktop com puter, and may w ish to transfer, store, andJor use the sam e protected digital content osome or all of these devices. At the same time, the user (or the content provider, distributor, oenterprise adm inistrator) may wish to retain control over this digital content so that it can be used o nall of a particular user's devices, but not be used on the devices of a different user. In the home obusiness context, a parent or employer may wish to remotely provide specific security or contencontrols to a device or computer in addition to content-based encryption or DRM. The AssertePatents claim richly customizable and transferable security and content rules and controls that allowfor content to be securely shared, transferred, sold, and/or used on a variety of networked co mputersand m obile devices.

21. Leading global electronics manufacturers, service providers, and enterprise softwarplatform companies have recognized Intertrust's innovations through licensing of the AssertePatents, including a numbe r of Apple's primary com petitors such as, but not limited to, MicrosofSamsung, N okia, Motorola, HT C, LG , Sony, Panasonic, Philips, Adobe, and Sharp.

22. Products licensed under the Asserted Patents have been sold and are sold in substantiaquantities throughout the United States and directly compete with Apple's products. UnlikIntertrust's licensees, however, Apple has not licensed the Asserted Patents, even though Apple's useof these innova tions is critical to the comm ercial success of its products. A pple's decision to free-ridoff Intertrust's innovations has caused, and co ntinues to cause, su bstantial harm to Intertrust.

23. Apple has m ade use of Intertrust's foundational innovations despite knowing, beforthe filing of this Complaint, that many of Intertrust's patents cover such innovations. Apple is aw arefor exam ple, that Intertrust brought suits against M icrosoft (the Microsoft actions) for infringement certain of the Asserted Patents, among others. In the Microsoft actions, the Honorable SaundrBrow n Arm strong construed a number of claim terms found in the Asserted Patents. See IntertruTechs. Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 275 F. Supp. 2d 1031 (N.D. Cal. 2003). After Judge Armstronissued claim construction rulings, Microsoft agreed to settle the Microsoft actions, licensing thAsserted Patents, among others, from Intertrust in 2004 for $440 million. Apple is aware of theexistence of the license between Intertmst and M icrosoft and the $440 million that Microsoft paid



7/44

123456789

101 11213141516171819202122232425262728

pursuant to that license. Moreove r, as m ore specifically alleged hereinafter, Apple w as put on noticof its infringement of m ost of the Asserted Patents. Ho wev er, Apple's knowledg e of certain of thAsserted Patents, the Microsoft actions, and the fact that a number of its other competitors havlicensed Intertrust's patents, did not deter Apple's willful infringement of Intertrust's intellectuaproperty, as alleged herein.

Apple's Infringing Technologies24. Apple use s Intertrust's patented technologies at virtually every level of its consume

electronics enterprise including its operating systems, devices, applications, application trusinfrastructure, and several of its profitable and strategically important services and capabilitieranging from its iTunes content services to capabilities supporting enterprise device a nd applicatiodeployment and management. Additionally, Apple's use of Intertrust technologies is central to ittrust managem ent infrastructure for applications that enforce its vertically integrated business mode

well known in the industry to provide significant comm ercial advantages. This trust manag eme ninfrastructure allows Apple to provide security for applications that run on its devices and it alsoallows Ap ple to control and extract value from an entire ecosystem of software suppliers. No otheentity uses Intertmst technologies so extensively at so many lev els of its enterprise.25. Apple's mobile devices, which include the iPhone, the iPod touch, and the iPaproduct lines, are built upon secu re compu ting technologies develope d and patented by Intertrustincluding hardw are-based security solutions and code-level security solutions that und erpin Apple'smobile device operating system, iOS . Apple's infringement of Intertrust's patents has ex panded w iteach new generation of iOS and each new generation of its mobile devices. For example, Apple'most recent m obile device offerings, the iPhone 5, iPod touch 5 , iPad 4, and iPad m ini, incorporattechnology from the Asserted Patents at every level of operation, including security technologieused in application development and execution.

26. As with Apple's mobile devices, Apple's desktop and laptop computing devices, whicinclude the MacBook Air, MacB ook Pro, Mac m ini, iMac, and M ac Pro product lines, are also builupon secure computing technologies that Intertrust developed and patented, including code-levesecurity solutions that underpin Apple's O S X operating system. Apple's infringement of Intertrust'



8/44

123456789

1 01 11 21 3141 5161 71819202122232425262728

patented technology has expanded with each new generation of OS X and each new generation of iMac desktop and laptop computers. For example, the security technologies that Intertmst developedand patented underpin application programming, development, and execution at a fundamental levein recent versions of Apple's OS X operating systems, including OS X 10.7 ("Lion") and OS X 10.8("Mountain Lion").

27 . In addition to licensing its patents, Intertrust sells and licenses its own D RM ansecurity systems and solutions. Intertrust has developed, deployed, and licensed secure computintechnologies that provide the tools to enable trusted computing environments such as those thApple has deployed in connection with its iOS and OS X operating systems, and its iTunes platformthat delivers protected digital content, including movies , to devices that run on different operatingsystems developed by Apple, as well as on Microsoft Windows-based personal computers.

28 . In designing its iOS and OS X operating systems and devices, and its iTunes platformApple could have licensed Intertrust's technology. Instead, with knowledge of the Asserted Patentas hereinafter alleged, and the publicity surrounding the license of the Asserted Patents to M icrosofthat resulted from the Microsoft actions, Apple chose to infringe the Asserted Patents despitIntertrust's repeated attempts to license its patents to Apple.

Apple's U se of Intertrust's Patented Inventions Ha rm s Intertrust and Its Licensees29 . Apple has not simply used Intertrust's patented technologies without a license; it ha

used these patented technologies, as embodied in the Asserted Patents, to create and maintain a safeand secure ecosystem protected by, and whose value is in part derived from, Intertrust's patentedtechnologies.

30. Apple has profited immensely through the use of Intertrust's patented technologies tdevelop a trusted and closed platform for the development, distribution, and use of applications,music, games, videos, movies and books that can be downloaded to its products. Apple's use oIntertrust's patented technologies has greatly enhanced A pple's competitive position in themarketplace and enabled it to reap enormous profits.

31. The security provided to Apple's ecosystem as a result of its infringement ofIntertrust patents has enabled Apple to achieve tremendous success in the sales of hardware and



9/44

123456789

101 11213141516171819202122232425262728

the distribution of applications, books, mov ies, video, games and m usic for that hardware.Intertrust's secure com puting technologies have made it poss ible for Apple to distributeapplications to customers without fear that these applications will corrupt their Apple devices o rabscond with their private information. This sense of security has led to Apple's recentannouncement on January 7, 2013 that "customers have downloaded over 40 billion apps[], withnearly 20 billion in 2012 alone. The App Store s "' has over 500 m illion active accounts and had record-breaking December with over two billion downloads during the month. Apple's incredibdeveloper community has created over 7 75 ,000 apps for iPhone , iPad and iPod touch usersworldwide, and developers have been paid over seven billion dollars by Apple." Intertrust isinformed and believes that App le retains approximately 30% of revenues from thes e applicationsand a similar high percentage for videos, mu sic, and books dow nloaded using its iTunes Storeand iBookstore. Apple's vibrant app ecosystem, which depends in large part on consumers'comfort to mak e impulse p urchases, is the direct result of Apple's unau thorized use of Intertrust'sinnovations.

32. Apple also infringes Intertrust's patents to ensure that DR M -constrained multimedcontent downloaded from the iTunes Store or iBookstore can only be accessed on Apple's deviceand com puters that run on Ap ple's proprietary iOS, O S X, and derivative operating system s.

C O UN T I(Apple's Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,892,900)

33. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs through 32 of this Com plaint as if fully set forth herein.

34. Intertrust is the current exclusive owner and assignee of all right, title, and interest iand to U.S. Patent No. 5,892,900 ("the '900 patent"), titled "Systems And Methods For SecurTransaction M anagem ent And E lectronic Rights Protection," duly and legally issued by the UniteStates Patent and Trademark Office on April 6, 1999, including the right to bring this suit foinjunctive relief and damages . A true and correct copy of the '900 patent is attached hereto as Ex hib1 .

35. The '9 00 patent is valid and enforceable.- 9 -COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMEN T


10/44

23456789

101 11213141516171819202122232425262728

36. Apple has infringed and is currently infringing the '900 patent by making, usingselling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, productmethods, equipmen t, and/or services that practice one or more claims of the '9 00 patent, including bunot limited to Apple's iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, Apple TV, M aeBoo k Air, MacB ook Pro, Ma c miiMac, and Mac Pro products (collectively, "the '900 Accused Products").

37. Apple has had actual knowledge of both Intertrust's rights in the '900 patent andetails of Apple's infringement of the '9 00 patent because Intertrust brought the '900 patent to A pple'attention before the filing date of this Complaint. In addition, Apple is also aware that Intertrulicensed the '900 patent, among others, to Microsoft in 2004 as part of a $440 million licensinagreement that resolved the Microsoft actions pending before Judge Armstrong.

38. Notwithstanding Apple's actual notice of infringement, Apple has continued tmanufacture, use, import, offer for sale, or sell the '900 Accused Products with knowledge of owillful blindness to the fact that its actions w ill induce A pple's custom ers and end us ers to infringthe '900 patent. Apple has induced and continues to induce others to infringe the '900 patent iviolation of 35 U.S.C. 271 by encouraging and facilitating others to perform actions that Applknow s to be acts of infringeme nt of the '900 patent with intent that those performing the acts infringthe '900 patent. Upon information and belief, Apple advertises regarding the '900 Accused Productpublishes specifications and promotional literature describing the operation of the '900 AccuseProducts, creates and/or distributes user manuals for the '900 A ccused Products, and offers supporand technical assistance to its customers. Consumers of these products then directly or jointlinfringe the '9 00 patent.

39. Apple know s that the '900 A ccused Products are especially made or especially adaptefor use in the infringeme nt of the '9 00 patent. The infringing components of these products are nostaple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, and thinfringing components of these products are a material part of the invention of the '900 patent.Accordingly, Apple is also contributing to the direct infringement ofthe '90 0 patent by the consumerof these products.

-10 -COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT


11/44

40. Apple is not licensed or otherwise authorized by Intertrust to practice, contributoripractice and/or induce third parties to practice the claims of the '900 patent.

41. By rea son of Ap ple's infringing activities, Intertrust has suffered, and w ill continue tsuffer, substantial damages in an amount to be proven at trial. But for Apple's infringement of th'900 patent, Intertrust would have either provided Apple with the patented Intertrust technology thaApple nee ded to implem ent the infringing products and services, or else licensed the '900 patent Apple so that Apple could implement these products and services. As a result of Apple'infringement, Intertrust has been damaged in an amount equal to the loss of profits that wouldotherwise hav e accrued to Intertrust from providing its patented technology to Apple, but in no evenless than a reasonable royalty based in part on the $440 million paid in 2004 by Microsoft for licensing agreemen t that includes the '900 patent.

42. Apple's continuing acts of infringement are irreparably harming and causing damagto Intertrust, for which Intertrust has no adequate remedy at law, and will continue to suffer sucirreparable injury unless Apple's continuing acts of infringement are enjoined by the Court. Thehardships that an injunction would impose a re less than those faced by Intertrust should an injunctionot issue. The public interest would be served by issuance of an injunction.

43. Apple's infringement of the '900 patent has been and continues to be willful andeliberate, justifying a trebling of damages u nder 35 U .S.C. 28 4.

44. Apple's infringement of the '900 patent is exceptional and entitles Intertrust attorneys' fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C . 285 .

COU NT II(App le's Infringement of U .S. Patent No. 5,915,019)

45. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1through 32 of this C omplaint as if fully set forth herein.

46. Intertrust is the current exclusive owner and assignee of all right, title, and interest iand to U.S. Patent No. 5,915,019 ("the '019 patent"), titled "Systems And Methods For SecurTransaction Management And Electronic Rights Protection," duly and legally issued by the UniteStates Patent and Trademark Office on June 22, 1999, including the right to bring this suit fo

123456789

101 11213141516171819202122232425262728

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT


12/44

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

injunctive relief and damages. A true and correct copy of the caption page and claims of the '019patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. The '019 patent is related to the '900 patent, a complete copyof which is attached hereto as Ex hibit 1. A complete copy of the '019 patent can be m ade av ailable tthe Court upon request. In addition, a complete copy of the '019 patent w ill be served on Apple alonwith this Complaint.

47. The '019 patent is valid and enforceable.48. Apple has infringed and is currently infringing the '019 patent by making, using

selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, productsmethods, equipmen t, and/or services that practice one or more claims of the '019 patent, including bunot limited to Apple's iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, Apple TV, M acBook A ir, M acBook Pro, M ac miniMac and Mac Pro products, as well as Apple's iTunes Store, iOS App Store and Mac App Storsoftware applications and/or services (collectively, "the '019 A ccused Produ cts").

49. Apple has had actual knowledge of both Intertrust's rights in the '019 patent andetails of Apple's infringement of the '019 patent because Intertrust brought the '019 patent to Apple'sattention before the filing date of this Complaint. In addition, Apple is also aware that Intertruslicensed the '019 patent, among others, to Microsoft in 2004 as part of a $440 million licensingagreeme nt that resolved the Microsoft actions pending before Judge Armstrong.

50. Notwithstanding Apple's actual notice of infringement, Apple has continued tomanufacture, use, import, offer for sale, or sell the '019 Accused Products with knowledge of orwillful blindness to the fact that its actions will induce A pple's custome rs and end use rs to infringthe '019 patent. Apple has induced and continues to induce others to infringe the '019 patent iviolation of 35 U.S.C. 271 by encouraging and facilitating others to perform actions that Appleknow s to be acts of infringement of the '019 patent with intent that those performing the acts infringthe '019 patent. Upon information and belief, Apple advertises regarding the '019 Accused Productspublishes specifications and promotional literature describing the operation of the '019 AccusedProducts, creates and/or distributes user manuals for the '019 A ccused Products, and offers supporand technical assistance to its customers. Consumers of these products then directly or jointlyinfringe the '019 patent.



13/44

23456789

10111213141516 171819202122232425262728

51. Apple know s that the '019 A ccused Products are especially made or especially adaptefor use in the infringeme nt of the '019 patent. The infringing com ponents of these products are nostaple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, and thinfringing components of these products are a material part of the invention of the '019 patent.Accordingly, Apple is also con tributing to the direct infringement of the '019 patent by the consum erof these products.

52. Apple is not licensed or otherwise authorized by Intertrust to practice, contributorilypractice and/or induce third parties to practice the claims of the '019 patent.

53. By rea son of Ap ple's infringing activities, Intertrust has suffered, and w ill continue tsuffer, substantial damages in an am ount to be proven at trial. But for Apple's infringement of the'019 patent, 1ntertrust would have either provided Apple with the patented Intertrust technology thaApple need ed to implem ent the infringing products and serv ices, or else licensed the '019 patent toApple so that Apple could implement these products and services. As a result of Apple'infringement, Intertrust has been damaged in an amount equal to the loss of profits that wouldotherwise hav e accrued to Intertrust from prov iding its patented technology to Apple, but in no evenless than a reasonable royalty based in part on the $440 million paid in 2004 by Microsoft for licensing agreement that includes the '019 patent.

54. Apple's continuing acts of infringement are irreparably harming and causing d amagto Intertrust, for which Intertrust has no adequate remedy at law, and will continue to suffer sucirreparable injury unless Apple's continuing acts of infringement are enjoined by the Court. Thehardships that an injunction would impos e are less than those faced by Intertrust should an injunctionot issue. The public interest would be served by issuance of an injunction.

55. Apple's infringement of the '019 patent has been and continues to be willful andeliberate, justifying a trebling of damages un der 35 U .S.C. 28 4.

56. Apple's infringement of the '019 patent is exceptional and entitles Intertrust toattorneys' fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C . 285 .



14/44

123456789

101 11213141516171819202122232425262728

COU NT III(Apple's Infringem ent of U .S. Patent No. 5,917,912)

57. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs through 32 of this C omp laint as if fully set forth herein.

58. Intertrust is the current exclusive owner and assignee of all right, title, and interest iand to U.S. Patent No. 5,917,912 ("the '912 patent"), titled "System And Methods For SecurTransaction M anagem ent And E lectronic Rights Protection," duly and legally issued by the UniteStates Patent and Trademark Office on June 29, 1999, including the right to bring this suit foinjunctive relief and damages. A true and correct copy of the caption page and claims of the '912patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. The '9 12 patent is related to the '900 patent, a complete copyof which is attached hereto as Ex hibit 1. A complete copy of the '912 patent can be m ade ava ilable tthe Court upon request. In addition, a complete copy of the '912 patent will be served on Apple alonwith this Complaint.

59. The '9 12 patent is valid and enforceable.60. Apple has infringed and is currently infiinging the '912 patent by making, using

selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, productsmethods, equipmen t, and/or services that practice one or more claims of the '9 12 patent, including bunot limited to Apple's iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch products (collectively, "the '912 AccusedProducts").

61. Apple has had actual knowledge of both Intertrust's rights in the '912 patent andetails of Apple's infringement of the '9 12 patent because Intertrust brought the '912 patent to A pple'sattention before the filing date of this Complaint. In addition, Apple is also aware that Intertruslicensed the '912 patent, among others, to Microsoft in 2004 as part of a $440 million licensingagreeme nt that resolved the Microsoft actions pending before Judge Armstrong.

62. Notwithstanding Apple's actual notice of infringement, Apple has continued tomanufacture, use, import, offer for sale, or sell the '912 Accused Products with knowledge of orwillful blindness to the fact that its actions w ill induce A pple's customers and end use rs to infringethe '912 patent. Apple has induced and continues to induce others to infringe the '912 patent in



15/44

violation of 35 U.S.C. 271 by encouraging and facilitating others to perform actions that Applknow s to be acts of infringeme nt of the '912 patent with intent that those performing the acts infringthe '912 patent. Upon information and belief, Apple advertises regarding the '912 A ccused Productpublishes specifications and promotional literature describing the operation of the '912 AccuseProducts, creates and/or distributes user manuals for the '912 A ccused Products, and offers suppoand technical assistance to its customers. Consumers of these products then directly or jointlinfringe the '9 12 patent.

63. Apple know s that the '912 A ccused Products are especially made or especially adaptefor use in the infringemen t of the '912 p atent. The infringing comp onents of these products are nstaple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, and theinfringing components of these products are a material part of the invention of the '912 patentAccordingly, Apple is also con tributing to the direct infringeme nt of the '912 patent by the consum erof these products.

64. Apple is not licensed or otherwise authorized by Intertrust to practice, contributorilpractice and/or induce third parties to practice the claims o f the '912 patent.

65. By rea son of A pple's infringing activities, Intertrust has suffered, and w ill continue tsuffer, substantial damages in an am ount to be proven at trial. But for Apple's infringement of th'912 patent, Intertrust would have either provided Apple with the patented Intertrust technology thaApple need ed to implem ent the infringing products and serv ices, or else licensed the '9 12 patent tApple so that Apple could implement these products and services. As a result of Appleinfringement, Intertrust has been damaged in an amount equal to the loss of profits that wouldotherwise hav e accrued to Intertrust from providing its patented technology to Apple, but in no evenless than a reasonable royalty based in part on the $440 million paid in 2004 by Microsoft for licensing agreement that includes the '912 patent.

66. Apple's continuing acts of infringement are irreparably harming and causing damagto Intertrust, for which Intertrust has no adequate remedy at law, and will continue to suffer suchirreparable injury unless Apple's continuing acts of infringement are enjoined by the Court. Th

123456789

101 11213141516171819202122232425262728

- 15 -COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEM ENT


16/44

hardships that an injunction would impose a re less than those faced by Intertrust should an injunctionot issue. The public interest would be served by issuance of an injunction.

67. Apple's infringement of the '912 patent has been and continues to be willful andeliberate, justifying a trebling of damages unde r 35 U .S.C. 28 4.

68. Apple's infringement of the '912 patent is exceptional and entitles Intertrust tattorneys' fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C . 285 .

COU NT IV(App le's Infringement of U .S. Patent No. 5,920,861)

69. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs through 32 of this C omplaint as if fully set forth herein.

70. Intertrust is the current exclusive owner and assignee of all right, title, and interest iand to U.S. Patent No. 5,920,861 ("the '861 patent"), titled "Techniques For Defining Using AndManipulating Rights, Management Data Structures," duly and legally issued by the United StatePatent and Tradem ark O ffice on July 6, 19 9 9 , including the right to bring this suit for injunctive relieand dam ages. A true and correct copy of the '8 61 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.

71. The '861 patent is valid and enforceable.72. Apple has infringed and is currently infringing the '861 patent by making, usingselling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, productsmethods, equipmen t, and/or services that practice one or more claims of the '8 61 patent, including bunot limited to Apple's iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, iPod, Apple TV , MacB ook Air, MacB ook Pro, M amini, iMac and M ac Pro products, as well as Apple's iTunes Store, iBookstore, iOS App Store, M aApp Store, and Xcode software applications and/or services (collectively, "the '861 AccusedProducts").

73. Apple has had actual knowledge of both Intertrust's rights in the '861 patent anddetails of Apple's infringemen t of the '86 1 patent because Intertrust brought the '86 1 patent to Apple'sattention before the filing date of this Complaint. In addition, Apple is also aware that Intertruslicensed the '861 patent, among others, to Microsoft in 2004 as part of a $440 million - licensinagreeme nt that resolved the Microsoft actions pending before Judge Armstrong.

23456789

101 112131415

16171819202122232425262728



17/44

74. Notwithstanding Apple's actual notice of infringement, Apple has continued tmanufacture, use, import, offer for sale, or sell the '861 Accused Products with knowledge of owillful blindness to the fact that its actions w ill induce Apple's customers and end users to infringthe '861 patent. Apple has induced and continues to induce others to infringe the '861 patent iviolation of 35 U.S.C. 271 by encouraging and facilitating others to perform actions that Applknow s to be acts of infringeme nt of the '86 1 patent with intent that those performing the acts infringthe '86 1 patent. Upon information and belief, Apple advertises regarding the '86 1 A ccused Productspublishes specifications and promotional literature describing the operation of the '861 AccuseProducts, creates and/or distributes user manuals for the '86 1 Accused Products, and offers supporand technical assistance to its customers. Consumers of these products then directly or jointlinfringe the '86 1 patent.

75. Apple knows that the '86 1 Accused P roducts are especially made or especially adaptefor use in the infringeme nt of the '86 1 patent. The infringing components of these products are n ostaple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, and theinfringing components of these products are a material part of the invention of the '861 patent.Accordingly, Apple is also contributing to the direct infringement ofthe '86 1 patent by the consumerof these products.

76. Apple is not licensed or otherwise authorized by Intertrust to practice, contributorilypractice and/or induce third parties to practice the claims of the '86 1 patent.

77. By reas on of App le's infringing activities, Intertrust has suffered, and w ill continue tsuffer, substantial damages in an am ount to be proven at trial. But for Apple's infringement of the'86 1 patent, Intertrust would have either provided Apple w ith the patented Intertrust technology thaApple need ed to implement the infringing products and services, or else licensed the '86 1 patent toApple so that Apple could implement these products and services. As a result of Apple'infringement, Intertrust has been damaged in an amount equal to the loss of profits that wouldotherwise hav e accrued to Intertrust from prov iding its patented technology to Apple, but in no evenless than a reasonable royalty based in part on the $440 million paid in 2004 by Microsoft for licensing agreement that includes the '861 patent.

123456789

101 11213141516171819202122232425262728



18/44

123456789

101 11213141516171819202122232425262728

78. Apples continuing acts of infringement are irreparably harming and causing dam agto 1ntertrust, for which Intertrust has no adequate remedy at law, and will continue to suffer sucirreparable injury unless Apple's continuing acts of infringement are enjoined by the Court. Thehardships that an injunction would impos e are less than those faced by Intertrust should an injunctionot issue. The public interest would be served by issuance of an injunction.



C O U N T V(App le s Infringem ent of U .S. Patent No. 5,949,876)

81. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs through 32 of this Com plaint as if fully set forth herein.

82. Intertrust is the current exclusive owner and assignee of all right, title, and interest iand to U.S. Patent No. 5,949,876 ("the '876 patent"), titled "Techniques For Defining Using AndManipulating Rights Management Data Structures," duly and legally issued by the United StatesPatent and Trademark Office on September 7, 1999, including the right to bring this suit foinjunctive relief and damages. A true and correct copy of the caption page and claims of the '876patent is attached hereto as Ex hibit 5 . The '87 6 p atent is related to the '9 00 patent, a complete copyof which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. A complete copy of the '876 patent can be made available tothe Court upon request. In addition, a complete copy of the '876 patent will be served on Apple alonwith this Complaint.

83. The '87 6 patent is valid and enforceable.84. Apple has infringed and is currently infringing the '876 patent by making, using

selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, productsmethods, equipmen t, and/or services that practice one or more claims of the '8 76 patent, including bunot limited Apple's iTunes Store software applications and/or services (collectively, "the '876Accused Products").



19/44

123456789

101 11213141516171819202122232425262728

85. Apple has had actual knowledge of both Intertrust's rights in the '876 patent anApple's infringement of the '876 patent since no later than the filing date of this Complaint. Inaddition, Apple is also aware that Intertrust licensed the '87 6 patent, am ong others, to M icrosoft 2004 as part of a $440 million licensing agreement that resolved the Microsoft actions pending befoJudge A rmstrong.

86. Notwithstanding Apple's actual notice of infringement, Apple has continued tmanufacture, use, import, offer for sale, or sell the '876 Accused Products with knowledge of owillful blindness to the fact that its actions will induce A pple's custome rs and end use rs to infringthe '876 patent. Apple has induced and continues to induce others to infringe the '876 patent iviolation of 35 U.S.C. 271 by encouraging and facilitating others to perform actions that Applknow s to be acts of infringeme nt of the '87 6 pa tent with intent that those performing the acts infringthe '87 6 patent. Upon information and belief, Apple advertises regarding the '87 6 Accused Productspublishes specifications and promotional literature describing the operation of the '876 AccusedProducts, creates and/or distributes user manuals for the '87 6 A ccused Products, and offers supporand technical assistance to its customers. Consumers of these products then directly or jointlinfringe the '876 patent.

87. Apple knows that the '876 Accused Products are especially made or especially adaptefor use in the infringeme nt of the '8 76 patent. The infringing components of these products are nostaple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, and theinfringing components of these products are a material part of the invention of the '876 patent.Accordingly, Apple is also contributing to the direct infringemen t of the '87 6 pa tent by the consumersof these products.

88. Apple is not licensed or otherwise authorized by Intertrust to practice, contributorilypractice and/or induce third parties to practice the claims of the '87 6 p atent.

89. By reas on of Ap ple's infringing activities, Intertrust has suffered, and w ill continue tsuffer, substantial damages in an am ount to be proven at trial. But for Apple's infringem ent of the'87 6 patent, Intertrust would ha ve either provided A pple with the patented Intertrust technology thaApple need ed to implement the infringing products and services, or else licensed the '87 6 p atent to



20/44

23456789

101 11213141516171819202122232425262728

Apple so that Apple could implement these products and services. As a result of Appleinfringement, Intertrust has been damaged in an amount equal to the loss of profits that woulotherwise hav e accrued to Intertrust from providing its patented technology to Apple, but in no evenless than a reasonable royalty based in part on the $440 million paid in 2004 by Microsoft for licensing agreement that includes the '87 6 p atent.

90. Apple's continuing acts of infringement are irreparably harming and causing damagto Intertrust, for which Intertrust has no adequate remedy at law, and will continue to suffer suchirreparable injury unless Apple's continuing acts of infringement are enjoined by the Court. Thehardships that an injunction would impos e are less than those faced by Intertrust should an injunctionot issue. The public interest would be served by issuance of an injunction.



C O U N T V I(Apple's Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,982,891)

93. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1through 32 of this C omp laint as if fully set forth herein.

94. Intertrust is the current exclusive owner and assignee of all right, title, and interest iand to U.S. Patent No. 5,982,891 ("the '891 patent"), titled "Systems And Methods For SecurTransaction M anagem ent And E lectronic Rights Protection," duly and legally issued by the UnitedStates Patent and Trademark Office on November 9, 1999, including the right to bring this suit foinjunctive relief and damages. A true and correct copy of the caption page and claims of the '891patent is attached hereto as Ex hibit 6. The '89 1 patent is related to the '900 patent, a complete copyof which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. A complete copy of the '891 patent can be made available tthe Court upon request. In addition, a complete copy of the '89 1 patent will be served on A pple alonwith this Complaint.

95. The '891 patent is valid and enforceable.- 20 -COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMEN T


21/44

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

96. Apple has infringed and is currently infringing the '891 patent by making, usingselling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, productmethods , equipment, and/or services that practice one or more claims ofthe '89 1 patent, including bunot limited to Apple's iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, MacB ook Air, M acBook P ro, Mac mini, iMac, anMac Pro products (collectively, "the '891 Accused Products").

97. Apple has had actual knowledge of both Intertrust's rights in the '891 patent andetails of Apple's infringeme nt of the '89 1 patent because Intertrust brought the '89 1 patent to Apple'attention before the filing date of this Complaint. In addition, Apple is also aware that Intertruslicensed the '891 patent, among others, to Microsoft in 2004 as part of a $440 million licensinagreement that resolved the Microsoft actions pending before Judge Armstrong.

98. Notwithstanding Apple's actual notice of infringement, Apple has continued manufacture, use, import, offer for sale, or sell the '891 Accused Products with knowledge of owillful blindness to the fact that its actions w ill induce A pple's custome rs and end us ers to infringthe '891 patent. Apple has induced and continues to induce others to infringe the '891 patent iviolation of 35 U.S.C. 271 by encouraging and facilitating others to perform actions that Applknow s to be acts of infringeme nt of the '89 1 patent with intent that those performing the acts infringthe '89 1 patent. Upon information and belief, Apple adv ertises regarding the '89 1 Accused Productpublishes specifications and promotional literature describing the operation of the '891 AccusedProducts, creates and/or distributes user manuals for the '89 1 Accused Products, and offers supporand technical assistance to its customers. Consumers of these products then directly or jointlinfringe the '89 1 patent.

99. Apple know s that the '89 1 Accused P roducts are especially made or especially adaptefor use in the infringeme nt of the '8 9 1 patent. The infringing com ponents of these products are nostaple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, and thinfringing components of these products are a material part of the invention of the '891 patent.Accordingly, Apple is also contributing to the direct infringement of the '8 9 1 patent by the consumersof these products.



22/44

123456789

101 11213141516171819202122232425262728

100. Apple is not licensed or otherwise authorized by Intertrust to practice, contributoripractice and/or induce third parties to practice the claims o f the '89 1 patent.

101. By rea son of Ap ple's infringing activities, Intertrust has suffered, and w ill continue tsuffer, substantial damages in an amount to be proven at trial. But for Apple's infringement of th'89 1 patent, Intertrust would hav e either provided Apple w ith the patented Intertrust technology thaApple need ed to implement the infringing products and serv ices, or else licensed the '89 1 patent tApple so that Apple could implement these products and services. As a result of Apple'infringement, Intertrust has been damaged in an amount equal to the loss of profits that wouldotherwise hav e accrued to Intertrust from providing its patented technology to Apple, but in no evenless than a reasonable royalty based in part on the $440 million paid in 2004 by Microsoft for licensing agreement that includes the '891 patent.

102. Apple's continuing acts of infringement are irreparably harming and causing damagto Intertrust, for which Intertmst has no adequate remedy at law, and will continue to suffer sucirreparable injury unless Apple's continuing acts of infringement are enjoined by the Court. Thhardships that an injunction would impos e are less than those faced by Intertaust should an injunctionot issue. The public interest would be served by issuance of an injunction.

103. Apple's infringement of the '891 patent has been and continues to be willful andeliberate, justifying a trebling of damages u nder 35 U.S.C . 284.

104. Apple's infringement of the '891 patent is exceptional and entitles Intertrust tattorneys' fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C . 285 .

COUNT VII(Apple's Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,112,181)

105. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1through 32 of this C omplaint as if fully set forth herein.

106. Intertrust is the current exclusive owner and assignee of all right, title, and interest iand to U.S. Patent No. 6,112,181 ("the '181 patent"), titled "Systems And Methods For MatchingSelecting, Narrowcasting, And/Or Classifying Based On Rights Management And/Or OtheInformation," duly and legally issued by the U nited States Patent and Trademark O ffice on Augu



23/44

123456789

101 11213141516171819202122232425262728

29 , 2000, including the right to bring this suit for injunctive relief and dam ages. A true and correccopy of the 1 18 1 patent is attached hereto as Exh ibit 7.


selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, productsmethods, equipmen t, and/or services that practice one or more claims of the '18 1 patent, including bunot limited to Apple's iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, Apple TV , MacB ook Air, M acBook Pro, M ac miniiMac, and M ac Pro products, as well as Apple's iTunes Store software applications and/or service(collectively, "the '181 A ccused Products").

109. Apple has had actual knowledge of both Intertrust's rights in the '181 patent andetails of Apple's infringement of the '18 1 patent because Intertrust brought the '181 patent to A pple'sattention before the filing date of this Complaint. In addition, Apple is also aware that Intertruslicensed the '181 patent, among others, to Microsoft in 2004 as part of a $440 million licensingagreeme nt that resolved the Microsoft actions pending before Judge Armstrong.

110. Notwithstanding Apple's actual notice of infringement, Apple has continued tmanufacture, use, import, offer for sale, or sell the '181 Accused Products with knowledge of orwillful blindness to the fact that its actions will induce A pple's custome rs and end use rs to infringthe '181 patent. Apple has induced and continues to induce others to infringe the '181 patent inviolation of 35 U.S.C. 271 by encouraging and facilitating others to perform actions that Appleknow s to be acts of infringeme nt of the '181 patent with intent that those performing the acts infringthe '181 patent. Upon information and belief, Apple advertises regarding the '181 A ccused Productspublishes specifications and promotional literature describing the operation of the 1 181 AccuseProducts, creates and/or distributes user manuals for the '181 A ccused Products, and offers supporand technical assistance to its customers. Consumers of these products then directly or jointlyinfringe the '181 patent.

111. Apple know s that the '181 A ccused Products are especially made or especially adaptefor use in the infringeme nt of the '18 1 patent. The infringing com ponents of these products are nostaple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, and th



24/44

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

infringing components of these products are a material part of the invention of the '181 patentAccordingly, Apple is also con tributing to the direct infringement of the '181 patent by the consum erof these products.

112. Apple is not licensed or otherwise authorized by Intertrust to practice, contributorilpractice and/or induce third parties to practice the claims o f the '181 patent.

113. By rea son of A pple's infringing activities, Intertrust has suffered, and w ill continue tsuffer, substantial damages in an am ount to be proven at trial. But for Apple's infringement of th'181 pa tent, Intertrust would have either provided Apple with the patented Intertrust technology thaApple need ed to implem ent the infringing products and serv ices, or else licensed the '18 1 patent tApple so that Apple could implement these products and services. As a result of Appleinfringement, Intertrust has been damaged in an amount equal to the loss of profits that wouldotherwise hav e accrued to Intertrust from providing its patented technology to Apple, but in no evenless than a reasonable royalty based in part on the $440 million paid in 2004 by Microsoft for licensing agreement that includes the '181 patent.

114. Apple's continuing acts of infringement are irreparably harming and causing d amagto Intertrust, for which Intertrust has no adequate remedy at law, and will continue to suffer suchirreparable injury unless Apple's continuing acts of infringement are enjoined by the Court. Thhardships that an injunction would impos e are less than those faced by Intertrust should an injunctionot issue. The public interest would be served by issuance of an injunction.

115. Apple's infringement of the '181 patent has been and continues to be willful andeliberate, justifying a trebling of damages u nder 35 U.S.C . 284.


COU NT VIII(App le's Infringem ent of U .S. Patent No. 6,157,7 21)

117. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1through 32 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.



25/44

123456789

101 11213141516171819202122232425262728

118. Intertrust is the current exclusive owner and assignee of all right, title, and interest iand to U.S. Patent No. 6,157,721 ("the '721 patent"), titled "Systems And Methods UsinCryptography To Protect Secure Computing Environments," duly and legally issued by the UniteStates Patent and Trademark O ffice on Decem ber 5, 2000, including the right to bring this suit foinjunctive relief and damages. A true and correct copy of the '721 patent is attached hereto aExhibit 8.


selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, productsmethods, equipmen t, and/or services that practice one or more claims of the '7 21 patent, including bunot limited to Apple's iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, M acBook A ir, M acBook P ro, Mac mini, iMac, anM ac Pro products (collectively, "the '72 1 Accuse d Products").

121. Apple has had actual knowledge of both Intertrust's rights in the '721 patent andetails of Apple's infringement of the '721 patent because Intertrust brought the '721 patent to Apple'attention before the filing date of this Complaint. In addition, Apple is also aware that Intertruslicensed the '721 patent, among others, to Microsoft in 2004 as part of a $440 million licensinagreeme nt that resolved the Microsoft actions pending before Judge Armstrong.

122. Notwithstanding Apple's actual notice of infringement, Apple has continued tmanufacture, use, import, offer for sale, or sell the '721 Accused Products with knowledge of owillful blindness to the fact that its actions w ill induce A pple's customers and end use rs to infringethe '721 patent. Apple has induced and continues to induce others to infringe the '721 patent iviolation of 35 U.S.C. 271 by encouraging and facilitating others to perform actions that Applknow s to be acts of infringement of the '721 patent with intent that those performing the acts infringthe '721 patent. Upon information and belief, Apple advertises regarding the '721 Accused Productpublishes specifications and promotional literature describing the operation of the '721 AccusedProducts, creates and/or distributes user manuals for the '721 A ccused Products, and offers supporand technical assistance to its customers. Consumers of these products then directly or jointlinfringe the '721 patent.



26/44

123456789

101 11213

1516171819202122232425262728

123. Apple know s that the '721 Accused Products are especially made or especially adaptefor use in the infringemen t of the '721 patent. The infringing compo nents of these products are nostaple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, and theinfringing components of these products are a material part of the invention of the '721 patent.Accordingly, Apple is also con tributing to the direct infringement of the '721 patent by the consume rof these products.


125. By reas on of App le's infringing activities, Intertrust has suffered, and w ill continue tsuffer, substantial damages in an am ount to be proven at trial. But for Apple's infringement of the921 patent, Intertrust would have either provided Apple with the patented Intertrust technology thaApple nee ded to implem ent the infringing products and services, or else licensed the 921 patent tApple so that Apple could implement these products and services. As a result of Apple'infringement, Intertrust has been damaged in an amount equal to the loss of profits that wouldotherwise hav e accrued to Intertrust from prov iding its patented technology to Apple, but in no evenless than a reasonable royalty based in part on the $440 million paid in 2004 by Microsoft for licensing agreemen t that includes the '721 patent.

126. Apple's continuing acts of infringement are irreparably harming and causing d amagto Intertrust, for which Intertrust has no adequate remedy at law, and will continue to suffer suchirreparable injury unless Apple's continuing acts of infringement are enjoined by the Court. Thehardships that an injunction would impos e are less than those faced by Intertrust should an injunctionot issue. The public interest would be served by issuance of an injunction.

127. Apple's infringement of the '721 patent has been and continues to be willful andeliberate, justifying a trebling of damages un der 35 U .S.C. 28 4.




27/44

123456789

101 11213141516171819202122232425262728

COUNT IX(Apple's Infringem ent of U .S. Patent No. 6,185,683)


130. Intertrust is the current exclusive owner and assignee of all right, title, and interest iand to U.S. Patent N o. 6,185 ,68 3 ("the '68 3 patent"), titled "Trusted And Secure Techniques, SystemAnd M ethods For Item D elivery And Ex ecution," duly and legally issued by the United States Patenand T rademark Office on F ebruary 6 , 2001, including the right to bring this suit for injunctive relieand damag es. A true and correct copy of the caption page and claims of the '68 3 patent is attachehereto as Exhibit 9. The '683 patent is related to the '900 patent, a complete copy of which iattached hereto as E xhibit 1. A complete copy of the '68 3 patent can be made available to the Courupon request. In addition, a complete copy of the '68 3 patent will be served on A pple along with thiComplaint.


selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, productsmethods, equipmen t, and/or services that practice one or more claims of the '6 8 3 patent, including bunot limited to Apple's iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, Apple TV , MacB ook Air, MacB ook Pro, Mac m iniMac and M ac Pro products, as well as A pple's iTunes Store, iBookstore, iOS A pp Store and M aApp S tore software applications and/or services (collectively, "the '68 3 Accused P roducts").

133. Apple has had actual knowledge of both Intertrust's rights in the '683 patent andetails of Apple's infringeme nt of the '68 3 patent because Intertrust brought the '68 3 patent to Apple'attention before the filing date of this Complaint. In addition, Apple is also aware that Intertruslicensed the '683 patent, among . others, to Microsoft in 2004 as part of a $440 million licensinagreeme nt that resolved the Microsoft actions pending before Judge Armstrong.

134. Notwithstanding Apple's actual notice of infringement, Apple has continued tomanufacture, use, import, offer for sale, or sell the '683 Accused Products with knowledge of owillful blindness to the fact that its actions w ill induce A pple's customers an d end users to infringe



28/44

23456789

101 11213141516171819202122232425262728

the '683 patent. Apple has induced and continues to induce others to infringe the '683 patent iviolation of 35 U.S.C. 271 by encouraging and facilitating others to perform actions that Applknow s to be acts of infringeme nt of the '68 3 patent with intent that those performing the acts infringthe '68 3 patent. Upon information and belief, Apple adv ertises regarding the '68 3 Accused Productpublishes specifications and promotional literature describing the operation of the '683 AccuseProducts, creates and/or distributes user manuals for the '68 3 Accused Products, and offers supporand technical assistance to its customers. Consumers of these products then directly or jointlyinfringe the '68 3 patent.

135. Apple knows that the '68 3 Accused Products are especially made or especially adaptedfor use in the infringement of the '68 3 patent. The infringing components of these products are nostaple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, and theinfringing components of these products are a material part of the invention of the '683 patent.Accordingly, Apple is also contributing to the direct infringement of the '68 3 patent by the consumerof these products.

136. Apple is not licensed or otherwise authorized by Intertrust to practice, contributorilypractice and/or induce third parties to practice the claims of the '68 3 patent.137. By reas on of App le's infringing activities, Intertrust has suffered, and w ill continue tsuffer, substantial damages in an am ount to be proven at trial. But for Apple's infringement of the'68 3 patent, Intertrust would have either provided A pple with the patented Intertrust technology thaApple need ed to implement the infringing products and services, or else licensed the '68 3 patent toApple so that Apple could implement these products and services. As a result of Apple'infringement, Intertrust has been damaged in an amount equal to the loss of profits that wouldotherwise hav e accrued to Intertrust from providing its patented technology to Apple, but in no evenless than a reasonable royalty based in part on the $440 million paid in 2004 by Microsoft for licensing agreement that includes the '683 patent.

138. Apple's continuing acts of infringement are irreparably harming and causing damagto Intertrust, for which Intertrust has no ad equate rem edy at law, and Intertrust will continue to suffesuch irreparable injury unless Apple's continuing acts of infringeme nt are enjoined by the Court. Th



29/44

123456789

101 11213141516171819202122232425262728

hardships that an injunction would impos e are less than those faced by Intertrust should an injunctionot issue. The public interest would be served by issuance of an injunction.

139. Apple's infringement of the '683 patent has been and continues to be willful andeliberate, justifying a trebling of damages unde r 35 U .S.C. 28 4.


COUNT X(App le's Infringem ent of U.S. Pa tent No. 6,253,193)


142. Intertrust is the current exclusive owne r and ass ignee of all right, title, and interest inand to U.S. Patent No. 6,253,193 ("the '193 patent"), entitled "Systems And Methods For SecureTransaction M anagem ent And E lectronic Rights Protection," duly and legally issued by the UniteStates Patent and Trademark Office on June 26, 2001, including the right to bring this suit foinjunctive relief and damages. A true and correct copy of the caption page and claims of the '193patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 10. The '19 3 patent is related to the '900 patent, a complete copof which is attached hereto as Ex hibit 1. A complete copy of the '193 patent can be m ade ava ilable tthe Court upon request. In addition, a complete copy of the '193 patent will be served on Apple alonwith this Complaint.


selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, productsmethods, equipmen t, and/or services that practice one or more claims of the '19 3 patent, including bunot limited to Apple's iPhone, iPad, iPod, iPod touch, Apple TV, M acBook A ir, M acBook Pro, M amini, iMac and M ac Pro products, as well as Apple's iTunes Store, iBookstore, and lOS App S torsoftware applications and/or services (collectively, "the '193 A ccused Products").

145. Apple has had actual knowledge of both Intertrust's rights in the '193 patent andetails of Apple's infringement of the '19 3 patent because Intertrust brought the '193 patent to A pple'



30/44

123456789

101 11213141516171819202122232425262728

attention before the filing date of this Complaint. In addition, Apple is also aware that Intertruslicensed the 1 193 patent, among others, to Microsoft in 2004 as part of a $440 million licensinagreeme nt that resolved the Microsoft actions pending before Judge Armstrong.

146. Notwithstanding Apple's actual notice of infringement, Apple has continued tmanufacture, use, import, offer for sale, or sell the '193 Accused Products with knowledge of owillful blindness to the fact that its actions w ill induce Apple's customers and end users to infringthe '193 patent. Apple has induced and continues to induce others to infringe the '193 patent iviolation of 35 U.S.C. 271 by encouraging and facilitating others to perform actions that Applknow s to be acts of infringeme nt of the '193 patent with intent that those performing the acts infringthe '193 patent. Upon information and belief, Apple advertises regarding the '193 Accused Productpublishes specifications and promotional literature describing the operation of the '193 AccuseProducts, creates and/or distributes user manuals for the '193 A ccused Products, and offers supporand technical assistance to its customers. Consumers of these products then directly or jointlinfringe the '193 patent.

147. Apple knows that the '193 Accused Products are especially made or especially adaptedfor use in the infringeme nt of the '19 3 patent. The infringing com ponents of these products are nostaple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, and theinfringing components of these products are a material part of the invention of the '193 patent.Accordingly, Apple is also con tributing to the direct infringement of the '193 patent by the consum erof these products.


149. By rea son of A pple's infringing activities, Intertrust has suffered, and w ill continue tsuffer, substantial damages in an am ount to be proven at trial. But for Apple's infringement of the'193 patent, Intertrust would have either provided Apple with the patented Intertrust technology thaApple need ed to implem ent the infringing products and serv ices, or else licensed the '19 3 patent toApple so that Apple could implement these products and services. As a result of Apple'infringement, Intertrust has been damaged in an amount equal to the loss of profits that would



31/44

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

otherwise hav e accrued to Intertrust from providing its patented technology to Apple, but in no evenless than a reasonable royalty based in part on the $440 million paid in 2004 by Microsoft forlicensing agreement that includes the '193 patent.

150. Apple's continuing acts of infringement are irreparably harming and causing d amagto Intertrust, for which Intertrust has no adequate remedy at law, and will continue to suffer suchirreparable injury unless Apple's continuing acts of infringement are enjoined by the Court. Thhardships that an injunction would impose a re less than those faced by Intertrust should an injunctionot issue. The public interest would be served by issuance of an injunction.



C O U N T X I(App le's Infringement of U .S. Patent No. 7,392,395)

153. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs through 32 of this C omplaint as if fully set forth herein.

154. Intertrust is the current exclusive owner and assignee of all right, title, and interest iand to U.S. Patent No. 7,392,395 ("the '395 patent"), entitled "Trusted And Secure TechniquesSystems And Methods For Item Delivery And Execution," duly and legally issued by the UniteStates Patent and Trademark Office on June 24, 2008, including the right to bring this suit foinjunctive relief and damages. A true and correct copy of the caption page and claims of the '395patent is attached hereto as E xhibit 11. The '395 patent is related to the '900 patent, a complete copof which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. A complete copy of the '395 patent can be made available tthe Court upon request. In addition, a complete copy of the '395 patent will be served on A pple alonwith this Complaint.


selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, products- 31 -COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMEN T


32/44

methods, equipmen t, and/or services that practice one or more claims of the '39 5 patent, including bunot limited to Apple's iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, MacB ook Air, Ma cBook Pro, M ac mini, iM ac, anM ac Pro products, as well as A pple's iOS App Store and M ac App S tore software applications and/services (collectively, "the '395 Accused Products").

157. Apple has had actual knowledge of both Intertrust's rights in the '395 patent andetails of Apple's infringeme nt of the '395 patent because Intertrust brought the '395 patent to Apple'attention before the filing date of this Complaint. In addition, Apple is also aware that Intertruslicensed the '68 3 patent, a sister of the '39 5 p atent, among others, to Microsoft in 2004 as part of$440 million licensing agreement that resolved the Microsoft actions pending before JudgArmstrong.

158. Notwithstanding Apple's actual notice of infringement, Apple has continued tmanufacture, use, import, offer for sale, or sell the '395 Accused Products with knowledge of owillful blindness to the fact that its actions w ill induce A pple's custome rs and end us ers to infringthe '395 patent. Apple has induced and continues to induce others to infringe the '395 patent iviolation of 35 U.S.C. 271 by encouraging and facilitating others to perform actions that Applknow s to be acts of infringeme nt of the '395 patent with intent that those performing the acts infringthe '395 patent. Upon information and belief, Apple advertises regarding the '395 Accused Productpublishes specifications and promotional literature describing the operation of the '395 AccuseProducts, creates and/or distributes user manuals for the '395 Accused Products, and offers supporand technical assistance to its customers. Consumers of these products then directly or jointlinfringe the '395 patent.

159. Apple know s that the '395 Accused P roducts are especially made or especially adaptefor use in the infringeme nt of the '39 5 p atent. The infringing com ponents of these products are nostaple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infiinging use, and thinfringing components of these products are a material part of the invention of the '395 patent.Accordingly, Apple is also contributing to the direct infringement of the '39 5 patent by the consumerof these pioducts.

23456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728



33/44

123456789

101 11213141516171819202122232425262728

160. Apple is not licensed or otherwise authorized by Intertrust to practice, contributoripractice and/or induce third parties to practice the claims o f the '395 patent.

161. By rea son of Ap ple's infringing activities, Intertrust has suffered, and w ill continue tsuffer, substantial damages in an am ount to be proven at trial. But for Apple's infringem ent of th'395 patent, Intertrust would have either provided Apple with the patented Intertrust technology thaApple need ed to implement the infringing products and serv ices, or else licensed the '395 patent tApple so that Apple could implement these products and services. As a result of Appleinfringement, Intertrust has been damaged in an amount equal to the loss of profits that wouldotherwise hav e accrued to Intertrust from prov iding its patented technology to Apple, but in no evenless than a reasonable royalty based in part on the $440 million paid in 2004 by Microsoft for licensing agreement that includes the '395 patent.

162. Apple's continuing acts of infringement are irreparably harming and causing damagto Intertrust, for which Intertrust has no adequate remedy at law, and will continue to suffer suchirreparable injury unless Apple's continuing acts of infringement are enjoined by the Court. Thhardships that an injunction would impos e are less than those faced by Intertrust should an injunctionot issue. The public interest would be served by issuance of an injunction.



COUNT XII(App le's Infringement of U .S. Patent No. 7,734,553)


166. Intertrust is the current exclusive owner and assignee of all right, title, and interest iand to U.S. Patent No. 7,734,553 ("the '553 patent"), entitled "Systems And Methods UsingCryptography To Protect Secure Computing Environments," duly and legally issued by the UniteStates Patent and Trademark Office on June 8, 2010, including the right to bring this suit fo



34/44

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728

injunctive relief and damages. A true and correct copy of the caption page and claims of the '553patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 12. The '5 53 patent is related to the '7 21 patent, a complete copof which is attached hereto as Exhibit 8. A complete copy of the '553 patent can be made available tthe Court upon request. In addition, a complete copy of the '55 3 patent will be served on A pple alonwith this Complaint.


selling, offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, productsmethods, equipmen t, and/or services that practice one or more claims of the '5 5 3 patent, including bunot limited to Apple's iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, Apple TV , MacB ook Air, MacB ook Pro, Mac m iniMac, and Mac Pro products (collectively, "the '553 Accused Products").

169. Apple has had actual knowledge of both Intertrust's rights in the '553 patent andetails of Apple's infringeme nt of the '55 3 patent because Intertrust brought the '55 3 patent to Apple'attention before the filing date of this Complaint. In addition, Apple is also aware that Intertruslicensed the '721 patent, the parent of the '55 3 patent, among others, to Microsoft in 2004 as part of $440 million licensing agreement that resolved the Microsoft actions pending before JudgArmstrong.

170. Notwithstanding Apple's actual notice of infringement, Apple has continued tmanufacture, use, import, offer for sale, or sell the '553 Accused Products with knowledge of owillful blindness to the fact that its actions will induce A pple's custome rs and end use rs to infringthe '553 patent. Apple has induced and continues to induce others to infringe the '553 patent iviolation of 35 U.S.C. 271 by encouraging and facilitating others to perform actions that Applknow s to be acts of infringeme nt of the '55 3 patent with intent that those performing the acts infringthe '55 3 patent. Upon information and belief, Apple adv ertises regarding the '55 3 Accused Productpublishes specifications and promotional literature describing the operation of the '553 AccusedProducts, creates and/or distributes user manuals for the '55 3 Accused P roducts, and offers supporand technical assistance to its customers. Consumers of these products then directly or jointlinfringe the '55 3 patent.



35/44

123456789

101 11213141516171819202122232425262728

171. Apple know s that the '55 3 Accused P roducts are especially made or especially adaptefor use in the infringeme nt of the '5 5 3 patent. The infringing com ponents of these products are nostaple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, and thinfringing components of these products are a material part of the invention of the '553 patent.Accordingly, Apple is also contributing to the direct infringement of the '5 5 3 patent by the consumerof these products.

172. Apple is not licensed or otherwise authorized by Intertrust to practice, contributorilypractice and/or induce third parties to practice the claims of the '55 3 patent.

173. By rea son of Ap ple's infringing activities, Intertrust has suffered, and w ill continue tsuffer, substantial damages in an am ount to be proven at trial. But for Apple's infringement of the1 55 3 patent, Intertrust would have either provided Apple w ith the patented Intertrust technology thaApple need ed to implement the infringing products and services, or else licensed the '55 3 patent toApple so that Apple could implement these products and services. As a result of Apple'infringement, Intertrust has been damaged in an amount equal to the loss of profits that wouldotherwise hav e accrued to Intertrust from prov iding its patented technology to Apple, but in no evenless than a reasonable royalty based in part on the $440 million paid in 2004 by Microsoft for licensing agreement that includes the '553 patent.

174. Apple's continuing acts of infringement are irreparably harming and causing damagto Intertrust, for which Intertrust has no adequate remedy at law, and will continue to suffer sucirreparable injury unless Apple's continuing acts of infringement are enjoined by the Court. Thehardships that an injunction would impose a re less than those faced by Intertrust should an injunctionot issue. The public interest would be served by issuance of an injunction.


176. Apple's infringement of the '553 patent is exceptional and entitles lntertrust tattorneys' fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C . 285 .



36/44

123456789

101 11213141516171819202122232425262728

COU NT XIII(App le's Infringement of U .S. Patent No. 7,761,916)


178. Intertrust is the current exclusive owner and assignee of all right, title, and interest iand to U.S. Patent No. 7,761,916 ("the '916 patent"), entitled "Systems And Methods UsinCryptography To Protect Secure Computing Environments," duly and legally issued by the UniteStates Patent and Trademark Office on July 20, 2010, including the right to bring this suit foinjunctive relief and damages. A true and correct copy of the caption page and claims of the '916patent is attached her

intertrust patent suit against apple

Documents