Riverbed Technology v. Silver Peak Systems

Shared by: patentbl

Tags

Stats

views:: 109
posted:: 6/2/2011
language:: English
pages:: 6

Public Domain

Document Sample

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY, INC., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) C.A. No.
)
SILVER PEAK SYSTEMS, INC., ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
)
Defendant. )

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff Riverbed Technology, Inc. (“Riverbed”) alleges for its complaint against

Defendant Silver Peak Systems, Inc. (“Silver Peak”) as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action for patent infringement.

PARTIES

2. Riverbed is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of

Delaware, having its principal place of business at 199 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA

94105.

3. On information and belief, Silver Peak is a corporation organized and

existing under the laws of Delaware, having its principal place of business at 4500 Great

America Parkway, Suite 100, Santa Clara, CA 95054.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of

the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.

5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

and 1338(a).
6. This Court has specific and general personal jurisdiction because, on

information and belief, Silver Peak is organized and exists under the laws of Delaware; has

transacted business in this judicial district; has derived substantial revenue from goods and

services provided to individuals in this judicial district; and has committed, contributed to and/or

induced acts of patent infringement in this judicial district.

7. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1391(c)

and 1400(b).

THE PATENTS

8. Riverbed owns all right, title and interest in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,428,573

entitled “TRANSACTION ACCELERATOR FOR CLIENT-SERVER COMMUNICATION

SYSTEMS” (the “’573 patent”); 7,849,134 entitled “TRANSACTION ACCELERATOR FOR

CLIENT-SERVER COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS” (the “’134 patent”); 7,853,699 entitled

“RULES-BASED TRANSACTION PREFETCHING USING CONNECTION END-POINT

PROXIES” (the “’699 patent”); and 7,953,869 entitled “COOPERATIVE PROXY AUTO-

DISCOVERY AND CONNECTION INTERCEPTION” (the “’869 patent”). True and complete

copies of these patents are attached hereto as Exhibits 1-4.

COUNT I

INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘573 PATENT

9. Paragraphs 1-8 are incorporated herein by reference.

10. Silver Peak has been and is now directly and/or indirectly infringing, by

way of inducing the infringement of and/or contributing to the infringement of, the ‘573 patent in

this judicial district and elsewhere within the United States by, among other things, making,

using, licensing, selling, offering for sale, importing, and/or inducing its customers to use
2
products, including Silver Peak’s NX, VX and VRX appliances, and related services covered by

the ‘573 patent, all to the injury of Riverbed.

11. Silver Peak has actual or constructive knowledge of the ‘573 patent and of

its infringement and is willfully infringing the ‘573 patent.

12. Riverbed has been damaged by Silver Peak’s infringement of the ‘573

patent, has been irreparably harmed by that infringement, and will suffer additional damages and

irreparable harm unless this Court enjoins Silver Peak from further infringement.

COUNT II

INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘134 PATENT

13. Paragraphs 1-12 are incorporated herein by reference.

14. Silver Peak has been and is now directly and/or indirectly infringing, by

way of inducing the infringement of and/or contributing to the infringement of, the ‘134 patent in

this judicial district and elsewhere within the United States by, among other things, making,

using, licensing, selling, offering for sale, importing, and/or inducing its customers to use

products, including Silver Peak’s NX, VX and VRX appliances, and related services covered by

the ‘134 patent, all to the injury of Riverbed.

15. Silver Peak has actual or constructive knowledge of the ‘134 patent and of

its infringement and is willfully infringing the ‘134 patent.

16. Riverbed has been damaged by Silver Peak’s infringement of the ‘134

patent, has been irreparably harmed by that infringement, and will suffer additional damages and

irreparable harm unless this Court enjoins Silver Peak from further infringement.

3
COUNT III

INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘699 PATENT

17. Paragraphs 1-16 are incorporated herein by reference.

18. Silver Peak has been and is now directly and/or indirectly infringing, by

way of inducing the infringement of and/or contributing to the infringement of, the ‘699 patent in

this judicial district and elsewhere within the United States by, among other things, making,

using, licensing, selling, offering for sale, importing, and/or inducing its customers to use

products, including Silver Peak’s NX, VX and VRX appliances, and related services covered by

the ‘699 patent, all to the injury of Riverbed.

19. Silver Peak has actual or constructive knowledge of the ‘699 patent and of

its infringement and is willfully infringing the ‘699 patent.

20. Riverbed has been damaged by Silver Peak’s infringement of the ‘699

patent, has been irreparably harmed by that infringement, and will suffer additional damages and

irreparable harm unless this Court enjoins Silver Peak from further infringement.

COUNT IV

INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘869 PATENT

21. Paragraphs 1-20 are incorporated herein by reference.

22. Silver Peak has been and is now directly and/or indirectly infringing, by

way of inducing the infringement of and/or contributing to the infringement of, the ‘869 patent in

this judicial district and elsewhere within the United States by, among other things, making,

using, licensing, selling, offering for sale, importing, and/or inducing its customers to use

products, including Silver Peak’s NX, VX and VRX appliances, and related services covered by

the ‘869 patent, all to the injury of Riverbed.
4
23. Silver Peak has actual or constructive knowledge of the ‘869 patent and of

its infringement and is willfully infringing the ‘869 patent.

24. Riverbed has been damaged by Silver Peak’s infringement of the ‘869

patent, has been irreparably harmed by that infringement, and will suffer additional damages and

irreparable harm unless this Court enjoins Silver Peak from further infringement.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Riverbed prays that judgment be entered in its favor, that:

(a) Silver Peak has infringed and is infringing the ’573, ’134, ’699 and ’869

patents;

(b) Silver Peak’s infringement of the ’573, ’134, ’699 and ’869 patents has

been and is willful;

officers, directors, agents, employees, attorneys, parents, subsidiaries, and all others acting by or

through Silver Peak, controlled by Silver Peak, or acting in concert or participating with Silver

Peak, from further infringing the ’573, ’134, ’699 and ’869 patents;

(d) Silver Peak account to Riverbed for damages adequate to compensate for

Silver Peak’s infringement of the ’573, ’134, ’699 and ’869 patents and that such damages be

awarded to Riverbed, including prejudgment and postjudgment interest;

(e) Riverbed’s damages be trebled as a result of Silver Peak’s willful

infringement of the ’573, ’134, ’699 and ’869 patents;

(f) This case be adjudged an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and that

the Court award Riverbed its costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing and

prosecuting this action; and
5
(g) Riverbed be awarded such further and additional relief as the Court deems

just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Riverbed hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
/s/ Thomas C. Grimm
______________________________________
Thomas C. Grimm (#1098)
1201 N. Market Street
OF COUNSEL: P.O. Box 1347
Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
Matthew B. Lehr (#2370) (302) 658-9200
Anthony I. Fenwick tgrimm@mnat.com
Chung G. Suh Attorneys for Plaintiff
Jeremy Brodsky
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
1600 El Camino Real
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(650) 752-2000

June 1, 2011
4290889