Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Comcast Cable Communications et. al. v. British Telecommunications

Comcast Cable Communications et. al. v. British Telecommunications

Ratings: (0)|Views: 222|Likes:
Published by PriorSmart
Official Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-00843-UNA: Comcast Cable Communications LLC et. al. v. British Telecommunications plc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l4sK for more info.
Official Complaint for Declaratory Judgement in Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-00843-UNA: Comcast Cable Communications LLC et. al. v. British Telecommunications plc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l4sK for more info.

More info:

Published by: PriorSmart on Sep 20, 2011
Copyright:Public Domain

Availability:

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

09/23/2013

pdf

text

original

 
1
578798.01
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARECOMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS,LLC and COMCAST CORPORATION,Plaintiffs,v.BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC,Defendant.Case No.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORYJUDGMENT OF PATENT NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITYJURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiffs Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and Comcast Corporation hereby allegefor their Complaint against Defendant British Telecommunications plc, on personal knowledgeas to their activities and on information and belief as to the activities of others, as follows:
I.
 
THE PARTIES
1.
 
Plaintiff Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast Cable”) is a limitedliability company organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with a principalplace of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.2.
 
Plaintiff Comcast Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under thelaws of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a principal place of business in Philadelphia,Pennsylvania.3.
 
On information and belief, Defendant British Telecommunications plc (“BT”) is apublic liability company organized and existing under the laws of the United Kingdom, with aprincipal place of business at BT Centre, 81 Newgate Street, London EC1A 7AJ, England. Oninformation and belief, BT, directly and through subsidiaries or affiliates including BT AmericasInc., has operations throughout the United States, including in this judicial district.
II.
 
NATURE OF THE ACTION
4.
 
This is a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that ComcastCorporation and Comcast Cable (collectively “Comcast”) do not infringe any claim of United
 
2
578798.01
States Patent Nos. 5,142,532 (“the ’532 patent”), 5,526,350 (“the ’350 patent”), 6,538,989 (“the’989 patent”), 6,665,264 (“the ’264 patent”), 5,790,643 (“the ’643 patent”), 5,923,247 (“the ’247patent”), 6,205,216 (“the ’216 patent”), and 6,473,742 (“the ’742 patent”) (collectively “theDisputed Patents”) under 35 U.S.C. § 271, and that the disputed patents are invalid under at least35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.5.
 
On information and belief, BT is the owner by assignment of the ’532 patent,which is entitled “Communication System” and which issued on August 25, 1992. A true andcorrect copy of the ’532 patent is attached as
Exhibit A
to this Complaint.6.
 
On information and belief, BT is the owner by assignment of the ’350 patent,which is entitled “Communication Network With Bandwidth Managers for AllocatingBandwidth to Different Types of Traffic” and which issued on July 11, 1996. A true and correctcopy of the ’350 patent is attached as
Exhibit B
to this Complaint.7.
 
On information and belief, BT is the owner by assignment of the ’989 patent,which is entitled “Packet Network” and which issued on March 25, 2003. A true and correctcopy of the ’989 patent is attached as
Exhibit C
to this Complaint.8.
 
On information and belief, BT is the owner by assignment of the ’264 patent,which is entitled “Connection Admission Control for Connection Oriented Networks” and whichissued on December 16, 2003. A true and correct copy of the ’264 patent is attached as
ExhibitD
to this Complaint.9.
 
On information and belief, BT is the owner by assignment of the ’643 patent,which is entitled “Pricing Method for Telecommunication System” and which issued on August4, 1998. A true and correct copy of the ’643 patent is attached as
Exhibit E
to this Complaint.10.
 
On information and belief, BT is the owner by assignment of the ’247 patent,which is entitled “Fault Monitoring” and which issued on July 3, 1999. A true and correct copyof the ’247 patent is attached as
Exhibit F
to this Complaint.11.
 
On information and belief, BT is the owner by assignment of the ’216 patent,which is entitled “Apparatus and Method for Inter-Network Communication” and which issuedon March 20, 2001. A true and correct copy of the ’216 patent is attached as
Exhibit G
to this
 
3
578798.01
Complaint.12.
 
On information and belief, BT is the owner by assignment of the ’742 patent,which is entitled “Reception Apparatus for Authenticated Access to Coded Broadcast Signals”and which issued on October 29, 2002. A true and correct copy of the ’742 patent is attached as
Exhibit H
to this Complaint.
III.
 
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
13.
 
This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over all of Comcast’s claims assertedherein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because those claims arise under the patentlaws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1,
et seq
., and under the Federal Declaratory JudgmentAct, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. As alleged more fully below, there is substantial controversyof sufficient immediacy and reality between Comcast and BT regarding the non-infringementand invalidity of the Disputed Patents to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.14.
 
This Court has personal jurisdiction over BT. As alleged more fully below, BTpurposefully directed its patent-infringement threats and accusations relating to the DisputedPatents towards Comcast and within the state of Delaware and the District of Delaware, and hastaken affirmative steps to enforce the Disputed Patents against Comcast and within the state of Delaware and the District of Delaware. Moreover, BT initiated a separate lawsuit seeking toenforce the same Disputed Patents against other parties in the District of Delaware. Thisdeclaratory-judgment action arises out of those threats, accusations, and attempts by BT toenforce the Disputed Patents against Comcast in this judicial district. Given those facts and allof the facts alleged below, the exercise of personal jurisdiction over BT in the District of Delaware is both reasonable and fair.15.
 
Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and/or (c).
IV.
 
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
16.
 
Shortly before filing this Complaint, Comcast learned that BT had contended incourt filings in a separate lawsuit that Comcast Cable’s products and services infringe one ormore claims of the Disputed Patents. Specifically, BT is the plaintiff in a separate lawsuitpending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against three companies

You're Reading a Free Preview

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