|
Tech Law Journal |
 |
| News, records, and analysis of legislation, litigation, and regulation affecting the computer, internet, communications and information technology sectors | |
|
|
|
| |||||
|
Editor's Notes: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff Intel Corporation ("Intel"), alleges against defendant Broadcom Corporation ("Broadcom"): INTRODUCTION 1. Intel seeks relief from this Court to stop Broadcom’s infringement of Intel’s patents. Nearly every aspect of Broadcom’s business -- cable products, high-speed networking products, even semiconductor package configurations -- violates one or more Intel patents, as described below. Intel’s efforts to persuade Broadcom to respect Intel’s intellectual property have been fruitless, leaving Intel little choice but to take direct legal action in court.2. In fact, the violations of Intel’s technology rights described below appear to be part of a carefully crafted plan to build Broadcom’s business using Intel technology. 3. As part of this effort, Broadcom focused on acquiring Intel technology by inducing Intel employees to disclose Intel trade secrets to Broadcom. As a result of Broadcom's strategy, Intel was forced to commence legal action against Broadcom in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, on March 8. 4. On March 10, the Superior Court entered a Temporary Restraining Order against Broadcom prohibiting Broadcom from "disclosing, using or acquiring [Intel's] trade secrets." Following a nine-day evidentiary hearing, the Superior Court issued a Preliminary Injunction against Broadcom. 5. In its May 25, 2000 Order, the Superior Court said there was probable cause to believe that, only days after its entry of the Temporary Restraining Order, Broadcom’s highest management had misappropriated Intel trade secrets under the pretense of "employment interviews." In the words of the Court, "Broadcom's approach … to protecting Intel's trade secrets was extremely cavalier." [Intel Corp. et al. v. Broadcom Corp., Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, CV 788310, May 25, 2000 Order at 5] Moreover, the Court found the excuses offered by Broadcom's CEO, Dr. Henry Nicholas III in his sworn testimony were "unpersuasive and not credible." [Id. at 5.] 6. When Intel discovered the misappropriation and confronted Broadcom demanding the return of its information, Broadcom attempted to conceal a set of notes detailing the misappropriated Intel trade secrets. Despite Intel's repeated demands, Broadcom refused to return the information until ordered to do so. As the Superior Court admonished, "Broadcom's retention of the [] notes was most unfortunate under the circumstances." [Id. at 5.] 7. As a result of the Superior Court's findings and Order, Broadcom is now subject to a court-appointed, independent monitor to ensure that Broadcom complies with the Superior Court's Order that it not misappropriate Intel's trade secrets. Broadcom was also ordered to provide Intel with various documents relating to Broadcom's misappropriation of Intel trade secrets. 8. Unfortunately, Broadcom's refusal to respect Intel's intellectual property continues. Apparently intent on using Intel technology to build its business, Broadcom is infringing several Intel patents. 9. In this matter, the Intel patents that are infringed by Broadcom cover a diverse range of technologies, including smart networking products, motion picture decoding used in Broadcom cable products, and even the packages which Broadcom uses to sell its chips. Intel seeks money damages to compensate for Broadcom’s past infringement and requests the Court to use its injunctive powers to stop Broadcom from selling future infringing products. THE PARTIES 10. Intel is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business at 2200 Mission College Boulevard, Santa Clara, California, 95052-8119.11. Broadcom is a California corporation having its principal place of business at 16215 Alton Parkway, Irvine, California, 92618-3616. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.13. Broadcom is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District because it has caused tortious injury in this District by acts both within and outside the District, and regularly solicits business in this District or derives substantial revenue from sales of goods including infringing goods in the District, or otherwise has engaged in a persistent course of conduct in this District. 14. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b). CLAIM ONE: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,975,830 15. Intel re-alleges paragraphs 1-14 inclusive. 16. On December 4, 1990, U.S. Patent No. 4,975,830 ("the ‘830 patent"), entitled "Computer Communication System Having Supplemental Formats" was duly and legally issued to George E. Gerpheide, et al. All rights, title and interest in the ‘830 patent were assigned to Intel, which remains the sole owner. A copy of the ‘830 patent is attached as Exhibit 1. 17. Broadcom has infringed and continues to infringe, has induced and continues to induce others to infringe, and/or has committed and continues to commit acts of contributory infringement of, one or more claims of the ‘830 patent. 18. Intel alleges on information and belief that the foregoing acts of infringement were and continue to be willful. 19. As a result of Broadcom’s infringement, Intel has suffered monetary damages in an amount not yet determined, and will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Broadcom’s infringing activities are enjoined by this Court. 20. Unless a preliminary and permanent injunction are issued enjoining Broadcom and its agents, servants, employees, attorneys, representatives, and all others acting on their behalf from infringing the ’830 patent, Intel will be greatly and irreparably harmed. CLAIM TWO: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,894,410 21. Intel re-alleges paragraphs 1-20 inclusive. 22. On April 13, 1999, U.S. Patent No. 5,894,410 ("the ‘410 patent"), entitled "Perimeter Matrix Ball Grid Array Circuit Package With A Populated Center" was duly and legally issued to Michael Barrow, as the sole patentee. All rights, title and interest in the ‘410 patent were assigned to Intel, which remains the sole owner. A copy of the ‘410 patent is attached as Exhibit 2. 23. Broadcom has infringed and continues to infringe, has induced and continues to induce others to infringe, and/or has committed and continues to commit acts of contributory infringement of, one or more claims of the ‘410 patent. 24. Intel alleges on information and belief that the foregoing acts of infringement were and continue to be willful. 25. As a result of Broadcom’s infringement, Intel has suffered monetary damages in an amount not yet determined, and will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Broadcom’s infringing activities are enjoined by this Court. 26. Unless a preliminary and permanent injunction are issued enjoining Broadcom and its agents, servants, employees, attorneys, representatives, and all others acting on their behalf from infringing the ’410 patent, Intel will be greatly and irreparably harmed. CLAIM THREE: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,134,478 27. Intel re-alleges paragraphs 1-26, inclusive. 28. On July 28, 1992, U.S. Patent No. 5,134,478 ("the ‘478 patent"), entitled "Method and Apparatus for Compressing and Decompressing a Digital Video Signal Using Predicted and Error Images" was duly and legally issued to Stuart J. Golin, as the sole patentee. All rights, title and interest in the ‘478 patent were assigned to Intel, which remains the sole owner. A copy of the ‘478 patent is attached as Exhibit 3. 29. Broadcom has infringed and continues to infringe, has induced and continues to induce others to infringe, and/or has committed and continues to commit acts of contributory infringement of, one or more claims of the ‘478 patent. 30. Intel alleges on information and belief that the foregoing acts of infringement were and continue to be willful. 31. As a result of Broadcom’s infringement, Intel has suffered monetary damages in an amount not yet determined, and will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Broadcom’s infringing activities are enjoined by this Court. 32. Unless a preliminary and permanent injunction are issued enjoining Broadcom and its agents, servants, employees, attorneys, representatives, and all others acting on their behalf from infringing the ’478 patent, Intel will be greatly and irreparably harmed. CLAIM FOUR: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,079,630 33. Intel re-alleges paragraphs 1-32, inclusive. 34. On January 7, 1992, U.S. Patent No. 5,079,630 ("the ‘630 patent"), entitled "Adaptive Video Compression System" was duly and legally issued to Stuart J. Golin, et al. All rights, title and interest in the ‘630 patent were assigned to Intel, which remains the sole owner. A copy of the ‘630 patent is attached as Exhibit 4. 35. Broadcom has infringed and continues to infringe, has induced and continues to induce others to infringe, and/or has committed and continues to commit acts of contributory infringement of, one or more claims of the ‘630 patent. 36. Intel alleges on information and belief that the foregoing acts of infringement were and continue to be willful. 37. As a result of Broadcom’s infringement, Intel has suffered monetary damages in an amount not yet determined, and will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Broadcom’s infringing activities are enjoined by this Court. 38. Unless a preliminary and permanent injunction are issued enjoining Broadcom and its agents, servants, employees, attorneys, representatives, and all others acting on their behalf from infringing the ’630 patent, Intel will be greatly and irreparably harmed. CLAIM FIVE: Infringement of U.S. Patent 4,823,201 39. Intel re-alleges paragraphs 1-38, inclusive. 40. On April 18, 1989, U.S. Patent No. 4,823,201 ("the ‘201 patent"), entitled "Processor for Expanding a Compressed Video Signal" was duly and legally issued to Allen H. Simon, et al. All rights, title and interest in the ‘201 patent were assigned to Intel, which remains the sole owner. A copy of the ‘201 patent is attached as Exhibit 5. 41. Broadcom has infringed and continues to infringe, has induced and continues to induce others to infringe, and/or has committed and continues to commit acts of contributory infringement of, one or more claims of the ‘20l patent. 42. Intel alleges on information and belief that the foregoing acts of infringement were and continue to be willful. 43. As a result of Broadcom’s infringement, Intel has suffered monetary damages in an amount not yet determined, and will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Broadcom’s infringing activities are enjoined by this Court. 44. Unless a preliminary and permanent injunction are issued enjoining Broadcom and its agents, servants, employees, attorneys, representatives, and all others acting on their behalf from infringing the ’201 patent, Intel will be greatly and irreparably harmed. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Intel prays for judgment against Broadcom as follows: A. That Broadcom has infringed, induced others to infringe, and/or committed acts of contributory infringement with respect to the claims of the 4,975,830; 5,894,410; 5,134,478; 5,079,630; and 4,823,201 patents; B. That Broadcom’s infringement of the 4,975,830; 5,894,410; 5,134,478; 5,079,630; and 4,823,201 patents has been, and continues to be, willful and deliberate; C. That Broadcom, its subsidiaries, officers, agents, servants, employees, licensees, and all other persons acting or attempting to act in active concert or participation with them or acting on their behalf, be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from further infringement, inducement of infringement, or contributory infringement of the 4,975,830; 5,894,410; 5,134,478; 5,079,630; and 4,823,201 patents; D. That Broadcom be ordered to account for and pay to Intel all damages caused to Intel by reason of Broadcom’s infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, including enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284; E. That Broadcom be ordered to pay Intel’s costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285; F. That Intel be awarded pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages caused to it by Broadcom’s infringement; andG. That the Court grant such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances. Dated: August __, 2000 Copyright Tech Law Journal.
OF COUNSEL: Peter Detkin (CA # 134799)
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to all issues in this lawsuit. Dated: August __, 2000
OF COUNSEL: Peter Detkin (CA # 134799) |
|
