Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
2012-08-15 Nonend v Spotify - Complaint

2012-08-15 Nonend v Spotify - Complaint

Ratings: (0)|Views: 46,454|Likes:
Published by TechCrunch

More info:

Published by: TechCrunch on Aug 15, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less





-1-UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARENONEND INVENTIONS N.V.Plaintiff,vs.SPOTIFY USA INC., a DelawareCorporation; SPOTIFY LIMITED, a UnitedKingdom Corporation; SPOTIFYTECHNOLOGY SARL, a LuxembourgCorporation; and SPOTIFY AB, a SwedishCorporationDefendants.Case No. _______________JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
This is an action for patent infringement in which Nonend Inventions N.V.(“Nonend”) complains against Defendants Spotify USA Inc., Spotify Limited, SpotifyTechnology SARL, and Spotify AB (together “Spotify”) as follows:
Nonend is a Dutch based company that, at the beginning of this millennium,pioneered multiple inventions related to efficient and reliable streaming of media content,including improved streaming of media content over a distributed peer-to-peer network. For itsearly work in streaming media content between peers, Nonend has been issued a number of U.S.and foreign patents. These patents include, but are not limited to, U.S. Patent No.
 (“Multiple Source Receiver-Driven Streaming of Content Between Peers”), U.S. Patent No.
(“Playing Media Content on a Media Player while Streaming the Retrieved Parts of the Media Content to Other Devices”), U.S. Patent No.
(“Streaming Content BetweenMedia Players Configured to Locate Each Other”), U.S. Patent No.
(“Initiating an
-2-Alternative Communication Channel for Receiving Streaming Content”), and U.S. Patent No.
(“Streaming Content from One or More Production Nodes or Media PlayerSystems”)(collectively, the “Nonend Patents”). The Nonend Patents have been recognized asstate-of-the-art, cited as prior art in at least twelve (12) U.S. patents issued to the likes of IBM,Samsung, and Sony.2.
Spotify is a digital music streaming service. Spotify’s service is different thanother well-known digital music streaming services (such as Pandora) in that Spotify’s subscribersreceive streaming music not only from Spotify’s servers, but also from other subscribers. Thisfeature makes the Spotify service faster, more efficient, and less costly to operate, and uses thetechnology at the heart of the Nonend Patents. Indeed, Spotify touts this important feature as akey distinguishing technology over its competitors, who only offer “pure client-serverapplications,” whereas Spotify exploits a peer-to-peer “overlay” to substantially reduce costs andimprove the robustness of the service. Spotify’s internal analysis shows that less than 10% of itsstreaming content is delivered from Spotify’s servers, while as much as 35% is delivered fromSpotify’s peer-to-peer subscribers.3.
Spotify was originally launched in Europe in 2008, and was introduced to the U.S.market approximately one-year ago, on July 14, 2011. In one year, Spotify claims to have signedup over three million U.S. subscribers. In celebration of its one-year anniversary in the U.S.,Spotify announced that its U.S. subscribers had shared over 27 million songs, and listened toover 13 billion songs.
Plaintiff Nonend is a limited liability company formed under the laws of theDutch Antilles, having its principal place of business at Bilthoven, The Netherlands.5.
On information and belief, Spotify AB is a Swedish corporation, having itsprincipal place of business at BirgerJarlsgatan 6, 114 34 Stockholm, Sweden. On informationand belief, Spotify AB developed the streaming music services at issue in this complaint.
On information and belief, Defendant Spotify Technology SARL is a businessentity incorporated in Luxembourg, having its principal place of business at Avenue Marie-Therese 22, 2132 Luxembourg, Luxembourg.7.
On information and belief, Defendant Spotify Limited is a Private LimitedCompany organized under the laws of the United Kingdom, having its principal place of business at Golden House, 30 Great Pulteney Street, London W1F 9NN, United Kingdom. Oninformation and belief, Spotify Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Spotify TechnologySARL.8.
On information and belief, Defendant Spotify USA Inc. is a DelawareCorporation having its principal place of business at 76 9th Avenue, Suite 1110, 11th Floor, NewYork, NY 10011, USA. On information and belief, Spotify USA Inc. is a wholly ownedsubsidiary of Spotify Limited.
This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of theUnited States Code. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuantto 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.10.
Venue is proper in the district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b). Oninformation and belief, Spotify USA Inc. is a Delaware corporation and all four Defendants havetransacted business in this district and have committed and induced acts of patent infringement inthis district either directly, or through intermediaries.11.
On information and belief, Defendants are subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction due, at least, to Spotify USA Inc.’s incorporation in the state and Spotify Limited’s,Spotify Technology SARL’s, and Spotify AB’s substantial business in the district, directly, orthrough intermediaries, including Spotify USA Inc., their wholly owned subsidiary.
Paragraphs 1-11 are incorporated by reference as if stated fully herein.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->