sssccow JUDGE CIVIL COVER SHEET GARDEPHE a meta umneenecanensg Oe Eh 7-Odt “CVE: ae FST Free Software Foundation, Inc. ‘seo Systems, re. PE 11 2008 "ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NOMBER) ‘Software Freedom Law Centr {S05 Broadway, 17% Floor, Now York, NY 10029 212:560-0800 ATTORNEYS OF RNOWNY ‘GAUSE OF RGTION Ge THE US GW STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE) {00 NOTETTE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNLESS DIVERSITY) 417 U.S.C. § 501 (Infringement of copyright in Plaintitt's computer software) Has this or@ similar case been previously fled in SDNY at any ime? No?| ‘Yes? C1 Judge Previously Assigned, Wtyes, was tis case Voll] Invol. CI) Dismissed. NoC] Yes C1 iryes. give date. 8 Case No. (LACE 1p) NONE 60x ON) NATURE OF SUIT vom sero anaes comer roeouineat peony FererauY eer crn eae Tie seowes rom moun ie cama (ie nmin cenit, Bi HSE BRR Ge AE ne UO EER HS SANE, NE Te Stearn HS Ei BEER moom aac he a eaten pe Se ci Bete one US Ra a es Sear RTE (SESS we SRE ne Reece Bae ii Comet tro Ee hoe Se aeaee er ion seas" eer ST nee Beans oer Sea spn ERE ug ae, ravomremer (EB EME tee cree Scan ty HSER (18 ERE emer (2 Se, Ne ser ss BEES US airmen ee onan (hee See, ha tla ue err Hbine (is ienpme (IE eae? ie Sh" gs Soe Beers SR, | meen socusecum {ib Seed cise RESETS” | GREET ae RRM aoe gece ie FEES un tia nace eee aaa ; HE WER one Bee ie Besoe ew eum NG teeny SRE = oer [IEE Seam me ve Be tom See NE RR ries omer tire Capers Eee roemaraeine OE sameness See ii sual 17 RAGHAY LABOR ICT {70 TAXES (US. Prt er (1889 ERVRGRBEHTAL Be ewe rmonmocmnon {1 Baetoga 1° eat ites ee in gene om 8 HH eT Eee Betas BA aay vocmorare | ee eee a Bowoe my Mieeimee | wenron vim» weer 18 Baron {Ia Ree {1a Rest re, Ue Beason {tenon | Sulit en her wasn eae seuss US emer 8 Ss err a. Fe ET, ae Rea Son ie Ree ee (vee Se vig eblne (i MEE es (her SE non Tes eet Bierce aE i ear es marian coi TISHECKIRTISIEACLASS ACTION _OYOUGLAI CAEIORELATEDTOAGMILCASENOW PENONG SDN? eesttiaes Pees DEMAND $. OTHER CGhack YES onty it demanded in complaint JURY DEMAND: LI Yes © NO JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER NOTE: Please submit athe time offing an explanation of why cases are deemed related.7 JUDG? GARDEPHE SOFTWARE FREEDOM LAW CENTER, INC. Daniel B. Ravicher (DR1498) “Ae Aaron K. Williamson (AW1337) 1995 Broadway, 17th Floor Now York, NY 10023-5882 ‘Tel: 212-580-0800 Fax: 212-580-0898 Attorneys for Plaintiff Froo Software Foundation, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION, INC. 2 Massachusetts nonprofit corporation, Civil Action No, CV —_ Pls tiffs, -against- CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. California corporation, COMPLAINT Defendant. ‘This is an action by The Free Software Foundation, Inc., a nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Massachusetts (“Plaintiff”) by and through its attorneys, the Soft- ware Freedom Law Center, Inc., to recover damages arising from infringement of its copyrights by Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Defendant”) and to enjoin Defendant's future infringement. Specifically, De- fondant distributed and continues to distribute Plaintiff’s copyrighted software without Plaintifl’s permission and despite the fact that Plaintiff notified Defendant of its unlawful activity. Since De- fondant has inftinged Plaintifl’s copyrights, and since that infringement is ongoing, Plaintiff seeks 1damages and injunctive relief THE PARTIES 1. The Free Software Foundation (“Plaintiff”) is a Massachusetts not-for-profit 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity with its headquarters at 51 Franklin Street, 5th Floor, Boston, MA 02110, Plaintif’s nonprofit mission is to “promote computer user freedom and to defend the rights of all free software users.” In furtherance of this mission, plaintiff develops, markets, distributes ‘and licenses computer software. 2, Upon information and belief, Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Defendant”) is a California eorpo- ration with its principle place of business at 170 West Tasman Drive, San Jose, CA 95134. Upon information and belief, Defendant is engaged in the business of manufacturing, advertising, rmar- keting and distributing computer hardware and software, Upon information and belief, Defendant. ‘maintains offices and regularly transacts substantial business in this district, and also contracts with third party distributors to supply goods and services within this district. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims for copyright infringe- ment pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 501 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 4, This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant pursuant to Rule 4(K)(1)(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and §§ 301 and 302 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules because, upon information and beliof, Defendant has conducted and continues to conduct substan- tial business in the State of Now York. Upon information and belief, defendant also contracts to supply goods and services and maintains offices within this district. 5. Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400 because a substantial