1
2
3
4
5
67
8
910
11
12
13
14
15
161718
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2627
28
4.
Facebook has infringed and continues to infringe, contribute to the in fringementof, and/or actively induce others to infringe Yahoo!'s U.S. Patent No. 6,907,566 ("566 patent"),U.S. Patent No. 7,100,111 ("
1
111 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 7,373,599 ("599 patent"), U.S. PatentNo. 7,668,861 ("
1
861 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 7,269,590 ("'590 patent"), U.S. Patent No.7,599,935 ("
1
935 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 7,454,509 ("509 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 5,983,227("227 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 7,747,648 ("
1
648 patent"), and U.S. Patent No. 7,406,501 ("
1
501
patent") (collectively "the patents-in-suit").
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5.
This lawsuit is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws ofthe United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1
et seq.
This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.
6.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over Facebook for at least the followingreasons: (i) Facebook maintains its principal place of business in this District; (ii) Facebook hasdesignated an agent for service of process in the State of California; (iii) Facebook has committedacts of patent infringement and/or contributed to or induced acts of patent infringement by othersin this District and elsewhere in California and the United States; (iv) Facebook regularly doesbusiness, solicits business, engages in other persistent courses of conduct, and/or derivessubstantial revenue from products and/or services provided to individuals in this District and inthis State; and (v) Facebook has initiated litigation in this judicial District.
7.
Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c)and 1400(b) because Facebook does business in the State of California, has committed acts ofinfringement in this State and in this District, has a regular and established place of business inthis District, and is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District.
INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
8.
Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-2(c), this case is appropriate for assignment on a district-wide basis because this is an Intellectual Property Action.
-2-
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT