UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC and COMCAST CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, v. BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC, Defendant.

Case No. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NONINFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiffs Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and Comcast Corporation hereby allege for their Complaint against Defendant British Telecommunications plc, on personal knowledge as to their activities and on information and belief as to the activities of others, as follows: I. 1. THE PARTIES

Plaintiff Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (“Comcast Cable”) is a limited

liability company organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with a principal place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2. Plaintiff Comcast Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under the

laws 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 a

public liability company organized and existing under the laws of the United Kingdom, with a principal place of business at BT Centre, 81 Newgate Street, London EC1A 7AJ, England. On information and belief, BT, directly and through subsidiaries or affiliates including BT Americas Inc., has operations throughout the United States, including in this judicial district. II. 4. NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination that Comcast

Corporation and Comcast Cable (collectively “Comcast”) do not infringe any claim of United

578798.01

1

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 ’247 patent”), 6,205,216 (“the ’216 patent”), and 6,473,742 (“the ’742 patent”) (collectively “the Disputed Patents”) under 35 U.S.C. § 271, and that the disputed patents are invalid under at least 35 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 and correct 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 Allocating Bandwidth to Different Types of Traffic” and which issued on July 11, 1996. A true and correct copy 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 correct copy 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 which issued on December 16, 2003. A true and correct copy of the ’264 patent is attached as Exhibit D 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 August 4, 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 copy of 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 issued on March 20, 2001. A true and correct copy of the ’216 patent is attached as Exhibit G to this

578798.01

2

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. 13. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over all of Comcast’s claims asserted

herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because those claims arise under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., and under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. As alleged more fully below, there is substantial controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality between Comcast and BT regarding the non-infringement and 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, BT

purposefully directed its patent-infringement threats and accusations relating to the Disputed Patents towards Comcast and within the state of Delaware and the District of Delaware, and has taken 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 to enforce the same Disputed Patents against other parties in the District of Delaware. This declaratory-judgment action arises out of those threats, accusations, and attempts by BT to enforce the Disputed Patents against Comcast in this judicial district. Given those facts and all of 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. 16. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Shortly before filing this Complaint, Comcast learned that BT had contended in

court filings in a separate lawsuit that Comcast Cable’s products and services infringe one or more claims of the Disputed Patents. Specifically, BT is the plaintiff in a separate lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against three companies

578798.01

3

with no relation to or affiliation with Comcast. Neither Comcast Corporation nor Comcast Cable is a party to that separate lawsuit. 17. Comcast is informed and believes that, more than a year after commencing that

separate Delaware lawsuit, BT has moved the Delaware District Court for leave to amend its pleadings to add Comcast Corporation as a new defendant whom BT claims infringes the Disputed Patents. Upon information and belief, BT has not received leave to file such an amended complaint naming Comcast Corporation as an additional defendant in that separate lawsuit, and BT’s motion for leave to file its proposed amended complaint is still pending. 18. In its proposed amended complaint, BT alleges that Comcast Corporation

infringes the Disputed Patents by offering, selling, and providing cable internet and telephone services to customers in the United States. 19. Specifically, BT alleges that Comcast Corporation has infringed, actively induced

the infringement of, and/or contributorily infringed the ’532 patent by allegedly making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing specialized products and services relating to allocating cable system network resources that purportedly employ specialized allocation of data transmission resources in a cable system so as to provide and coordinate traffic on broadband networks. 20. BT further alleges in its proposed amended complaint that Comcast Corporation

has been and is still infringing, actively inducing the infringement of, and/or contributorily infringing the ’350 patent by allegedly making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing specialized products and services relating to cable system networks that purportedly employ specialized data-over-cable systems that switch and multiplex multiple types of traffic. 21. BT further alleges in its proposed amended complaint that Comcast Corporation

has been and is still infringing, actively inducing the infringement of, and/or contributorily infringing the ’989 patent by allegedly making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing specialized products and services relating to data-over-cable system networks that purportedly employ specialized systems for admitting flow packets in a controlled manner, directing packets from multiple buffers, and generating packet flows from multiple classes of service.

578798.01

4

22.

BT further alleges in its proposed amended complaint that Comcast Corporation

has been and is still infringing, actively inducing the infringement of, and/or contributorily infringing the ’264 patent by allegedly making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing specialized products and services relating to managing cable system network resources that purportedly employ specialized bandwidth-type connection admission control functions and acceptance and traffic management based on effective bandwidth utilization of different network connection types. 23. BT further alleges in its proposed amended complaint that Comcast Corporation

has been and is still infringing, actively inducing the infringement of, and/or contributorily infringing the ’643 patent by allegedly making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing specialized products and services relating to telecommunications networks that purportedly employ the claimed factors, methods, and systems claimed by the ’643 patent. 24. BT further alleges in its proposed amended complaint that Comcast Corporation

has been and is still infringing, actively inducing the infringement of, and/or contributorily infringing the ’247 patent by allegedly making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing specialized products and services relating to a telecommunication system that purportedly monitors the telecommunications system for occurrences of conditions causing unavailability of the system to the user. 25. BT further alleges in its proposed amended complaint that Comcast Corporation

has been and is still infringing, actively inducing the infringement of, and/or contributorily infringing the ’216 patent by allegedly making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing specialized products and services relating to inter-network communications that purportedly transmit calls generated by a first communications network over a second communications network of a protocol different than the first communication network to a third communications network. 26. BT further alleges in its proposed amended complaint that Comcast Corporation

has been and is still infringing, actively inducing the infringement of, and/or contributorily infringing the ’742 patent by allegedly making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing

578798.01

5

specialized products and services relating to receiving broadcast transmissions through devices with a fixed part and a removable part using identifiers to disable or enable reception. 27. BT further alleges in its proposed amended complaint that Comcast Corporations’

purported infringement of the Disputed Patents has been deliberate, willful, and in reckless disregard of BT’s alleged patent rights. 28. Comcast disputes the allegations of infringement and validity contained in BT’s

proposed amended complaint and described herein. Indeed, Comcast Corporation—which is the indirect parent company of Comcast Cable—does not operate, market, sell, and/or provide any cable system products or services to customers in the United States. And none of the accused cable system products and services operated, marketed, and/or sold by Comcast Cable infringe any valid claim of the Disputed Patents, as alleged in BT’s proposed amended complaint. 29. Comcast Cable has operated, marketing, and/or sold one or more of the accused

cable system products and services, and will continue to operate, market, and/or sell one or more of the accused cable system products and services in the United States. Given this substantial and immediate controversy, Comcast seeks declaratory relief from this Court concerning the issues of non-infringement and invalidity surrounding the Disputed Patents. V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of United States Patent No. 5,142,532) 30. Comcast incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 29, inclusive, as though

fully set forth in this Paragraph. 31. Comcast has never infringed and is not currently infringing—whether directly or

indirectly, contributorily or by inducement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents—any valid claim of the ’532 patent. 32. Comcast is informed and believes, based upon BT’s prior threats of patent

infringement targeting Comcast Cable’s cable system products and services, its pending motion for leave to add Comcast Corporation as a new defendant in the separate Delaware lawsuit, and its allegations in its proposed amended complaint in the Delaware lawsuit, that BT contends that

578798.01

6

Comcast’s alleged making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing of cable system products and services infringe one or more claims of the ’532 patent. 33. Accordingly, an actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between

Comcast and BT relating to the non-infringement of the ’532 patent. Comcast seeks a judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time to enable the parties to ascertain their respective rights and duties. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of United States Patent No. 5,142,532) 34. Comcast incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 29, inclusive, as though

fully set forth in this Paragraph. 35. Comcast is informed and believes that the claims of the ’532 patent are invalid.

In view of the prior art and BT’s assertions of what is claimed in the ’532 patent, and in view of basic deficiencies in the ’532 patent, Comcast Cable believes and thereon alleges that the ’532 patent and its claims fail to satisfy one or more of the conditions and requirements for patentability set forth in Title 35, Part II, of the United States Code, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112, and the rules, regulations, and law pertaining thereto. 36. Comcast is informed and believes, based upon BT’s prior threats of patent

infringement targeting Comcast Cable’s cable system products and services, its pending motion for leave to add Comcast Corporation as a new defendant in the separate Delaware lawsuit, and its allegations in its proposed amended complaint in the Delaware lawsuit, that BT contends that the claims of the ’532 patent are valid and enforceable. 37. Accordingly, an actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between

Comcast and BT relating to the validity of the ’532 patent. Comcast seeks a judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time to enable the parties to ascertain their respective rights and duties.

578798.01

7

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of United States Patent No. 5,526,350) 38. Comcast incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 29, inclusive, as though

fully set forth in this Paragraph. 39. Comcast has never infringed and is not currently infringing—whether directly or

indirectly, contributorily or by inducement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents—any valid claim of the ’350 patent. 40. Comcast is informed and believes, based upon BT’s prior threats of patent

infringement targeting Comcast Cable’s cable system products and services, its pending motion for leave to add Comcast Corporation as a new defendant in the separate Delaware lawsuit, and its allegations in its proposed amended complaint in the Delaware lawsuit, that BT contends that Comcast’s alleged making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing of cable system products and services infringe one or more claims of the ’350 patent. 41. Accordingly, an actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between

Comcast and BT relating to the non-infringement of the ’350 patent. Comcast seeks a judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time to enable the parties to ascertain their respective rights and duties. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of United States Patent No. 5,526,350) 42. Comcast incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 29, inclusive, as though

fully set forth in this Paragraph. 43. Comcast is informed and believes that the claims of the ’350 patent are invalid.

In view of the prior art and BT’s assertions of what is claimed in the ’350 patent, and in view of basic deficiencies in the ’350 patent, Comcast believes and thereon alleges that the ’350 patent and its claims fail to satisfy one or more of the conditions and requirements for patentability set forth in Title 35, Part II, of the United States Code, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112, and the rules, regulations, and law pertaining thereto.

578798.01

8

44.

Comcast is informed and believes, based upon BT’s prior threats of patent

infringement targeting Comcast Cable’s cable system products and services, its pending motion for leave to add Comcast Corporation as a new defendant in the separate Delaware lawsuit, and its allegations in its proposed amended complaint in the Delaware lawsuit, that BT contends that the claims of the ’350 patent are valid and enforceable. 45. Accordingly, an actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between

Comcast and BT relating to the validity of the ’350 patent. Comcast seeks a judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time to enable the parties to ascertain their respective rights and duties. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of United States Patent No. 6,538,989) 46. Comcast incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 29, inclusive, as though

fully set forth in this Paragraph. 47. Comcast has never infringed and is not currently infringing—whether directly or

indirectly, contributorily or by inducement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents—any valid claim of the ’989 patent. 48. Comcast is informed and believes, based upon BT’s prior threats of patent

infringement targeting Comcast Cable’s cable system products and services, its pending motion for leave to add Comcast Corporation as a new defendant in the separate Delaware lawsuit, and its allegations in its proposed amended complaint in the Delaware lawsuit, that BT contends that Comcast’s alleged making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing of cable system products and services infringe one or more claims of the ’989 patent. 49. Accordingly, an actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between

Comcast and BT relating to the non-infringement of the ’989 patent. Comcast seeks a judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time to enable the parties to ascertain their respective rights and duties.

578798.01

9

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of United States Patent No. 6,538,989) 50. Comcast incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 29, inclusive, as though

fully set forth in this Paragraph. 51. Comcast is informed and believes that the claims of the ’989 patent are invalid.

In view of the prior art and BT’s assertions of what is claimed in the ’989 patent, and in view of basic deficiencies in the ’989 patent, Comcast believes and thereon alleges that the ’989 patent and its claims fail to satisfy one or more of the conditions and requirements for patentability set forth in Title 35, Part II, of the United States Code, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112, and the rules, regulations, and law pertaining thereto. 52. Comcast is informed and believes, based upon BT’s prior threats of patent

infringement targeting Comcast Cable’s cable system products and services, its pending motion for leave to add Comcast Corporation as a new defendant in the separate Delaware lawsuit, and its allegations in its proposed amended complaint in the Delaware lawsuit, that BT contends that the claims of the ’989 patent are valid and enforceable. 53. Accordingly, an actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between

Comcast and BT relating to the validity of the ’989 patent. Comcast seeks a judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time to enable the parties to ascertain their respective rights and duties. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of United States Patent No. 6,665,264) 54. Comcast incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 29, inclusive, as though

fully set forth in this Paragraph. 55. Comcast has never infringed and is not currently infringing—whether directly or

indirectly, contributorily or by inducement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents—any valid claim of the ’264 patent. 56. Comcast is informed and believes, based upon BT’s prior threats of patent

578798.01

10

infringement targeting Comcast Cable’s cable system products and services, its pending motion for leave to add Comcast Corporation as a new defendant in the separate Delaware lawsuit, and its allegations in its proposed amended complaint in the Delaware lawsuit, that BT contends that Comcast’s alleged making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing of cable system products and services infringe one or more claims of the ’264 patent. 57. Accordingly, an actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between

Comcast and BT relating to the non-infringement of the ’264 patent. Comcast seeks a judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time to enable the parties to ascertain their respective rights and duties. EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of United States Patent No. 6,665,264) 58. Comcast incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 29, inclusive, as though

fully set forth in this Paragraph. 59. Comcast is informed and believes that the claims of the ’264 patent are invalid.

In view of the prior art and BT’s assertions of what is claimed in the ’264 patent, and in view of basic deficiencies in the ’264 patent, Comcast believes and thereon alleges that the ’264 patent and its claims fail to satisfy one or more of the conditions and requirements for patentability set forth in Title 35, Part II, of the United States Code, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112, and the rules, regulations, and law pertaining thereto. 60. Comcast is informed and believes, based upon BT’s prior threats of patent

infringement targeting Comcast Cable’s cable system products and services, its pending motion for leave to add Comcast Corporation as a new defendant in the separate Delaware lawsuit, and its allegations in its proposed amended complaint in the Delaware lawsuit, that BT contends that the claims of the ’264 patent are valid and enforceable. 61. Accordingly, an actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between

Comcast and BT relating to the validity of the ’264 patent. Comcast seeks a judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein. Such a

578798.01

11

determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time to enable the parties to ascertain their respective rights and duties. NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of United States Patent No. 5,790,643) 62. Comcast incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 29, inclusive, as though

fully set forth in this Paragraph. 63. Comcast has never infringed and is not currently infringing—whether directly or

indirectly, contributorily or by inducement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents—any valid claim of the ’643 patent. 64. Comcast is informed and believes, based upon BT’s prior threats of patent

infringement targeting Comcast Cable’s cable system products and services, its pending motion for leave to add Comcast Corporation as a new defendant in the separate Delaware lawsuit, and its allegations in its proposed amended complaint in the Delaware lawsuit, that BT contends that Comcast’s alleged making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing of cable system products and services infringe one or more claims of the ’643 patent. 65. Accordingly, an actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between

Comcast and BT relating to the non-infringement of the ’643 patent. Comcast seeks a judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time to enable the parties to ascertain their respective rights and duties. TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of United States Patent No. 5,790,643) 66. Comcast incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 29, inclusive, as though

fully set forth in this Paragraph. 67. Comcast is informed and believes that the claims of the ’643 patent are invalid.

In view of the prior art and BT’s assertions of what is claimed in the ’643 patent, and in view of basic deficiencies in the ’643 patent, Comcast believes and thereon alleges that the ’643 patent and its claims fail to satisfy one or more of the conditions and requirements for patentability set

578798.01

12

forth in Title 35, Part II, of the United States Code, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112, and the rules, regulations, and law pertaining thereto. 68. Comcast is informed and believes, based upon BT’s prior threats of patent

infringement targeting Comcast Cable’s cable system products and services, its pending motion for leave to add Comcast Corporation as a new defendant in the separate Delaware lawsuit, and its allegations in its proposed amended complaint in the Delaware lawsuit, that BT contends that the claims of the ’643 patent are valid and enforceable. 69. Accordingly, an actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between

Comcast and BT relating to the validity of the ’643 patent. Comcast Cable seeks a judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time to enable the parties to ascertain their respective rights and duties. ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of United States Patent No. 5,923,247) 70. Comcast incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 29, inclusive, as though

fully set forth in this Paragraph. 71. Comcast has never infringed and is not currently infringing—whether directly or

indirectly, contributorily or by inducement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents—any valid claim of the ’247 patent. 72. Comcast is informed and believes, based upon BT’s prior threats of patent

infringement targeting Comcast Cable’s cable system products and services, its pending motion for leave to add Comcast Corporation as a new defendant in the separate Delaware lawsuit, and its allegations in its proposed amended complaint in the Delaware lawsuit, that BT contends that Comcast’s alleged making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing of cable system products and services infringe one or more claims of the ’247 patent. 73. Accordingly, an actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between

Comcast and BT relating to the non-infringement of the ’247 patent. Comcast seeks a judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein. Such a

578798.01

13

determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time to enable the parties to ascertain their respective rights and duties. TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of United States Patent No. 5,923,247) 74. Comcast incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 29, inclusive, as though

fully set forth in this Paragraph. 75. Comcast is informed and believes that the claims of the ’247 patent are invalid.

In view of the prior art and BT’s assertions of what is claimed in the ’247 patent, and in view of basic deficiencies in the ’247 patent, Comcast believes and thereon alleges that the ’247 patent and its claims fail to satisfy one or more of the conditions and requirements for patentability set forth in Title 35, Part II, of the United States Code, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112, and the rules, regulations, and law pertaining thereto. 76. Comcast is informed and believes, based upon BT’s prior threats of patent

infringement targeting Comcast Cable’s cable system products and services, its pending motion for leave to add Comcast Corporation as a new defendant in the separate Delaware lawsuit, and its allegations in its proposed amended complaint in the Delaware lawsuit, that BT contends that the claims of the ’247 patent are valid and enforceable. 77. Accordingly, an actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between

Comcast and BT relating to the validity of the ’247 patent. Comcast seeks a judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time to enable the parties to ascertain their respective rights and duties. THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of United States Patent No. 6,205,216) 78. Comcast incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 29, inclusive, as though

fully set forth in this Paragraph. 79. Comcast has never infringed and is not currently infringing—whether directly or

indirectly, contributorily or by inducement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents—any

578798.01

14

valid claim of the ’216 patent. 80. Comcast is informed and believes, based upon BT’s prior threats of patent

infringement targeting Comcast Cable’s cable system products and services, its pending motion for leave to add Comcast Corporation as a new defendant in the separate Delaware lawsuit, and its allegations in its proposed amended complaint in the Delaware lawsuit, that BT contends that Comcast’s alleged making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing of cable system products and services infringe one or more claims of the ’216 patent. 81. Accordingly, an actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between

Comcast and BT relating to the non-infringement of the ’216 patent. Comcast seeks a judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time to enable the parties to ascertain their respective rights and duties. FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of United States Patent No. 6,205,216) 82. Comcast incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 29, inclusive, as though

fully set forth in this Paragraph. 83. Comcast is informed and believes that the claims of the ’216 patent are invalid.

In view of the prior art and BT’s assertions of what is claimed in the ’216 patent, and in view of basic deficiencies in the ’216 patent, Comcast believes and thereon alleges that the ’216 patent and its claims fail to satisfy one or more of the conditions and requirements for patentability set forth in Title 35, Part II, of the United States Code, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112, and the rules, regulations, and law pertaining thereto. 84. Comcast is informed and believes, based upon BT’s prior threats of patent

infringement targeting Comcast Cable’s cable system products and services, its pending motion for leave to add Comcast Corporation as a new defendant in the separate Delaware lawsuit, and its allegations in its proposed amended complaint in the Delaware lawsuit, that BT contends that the claims of the ’216 patent are valid and enforceable. 85. Accordingly, an actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between

578798.01

15

Comcast and BT relating to the validity of the ’216 patent. Comcast seeks a judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time to enable the parties to ascertain their respective rights and duties. FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of United States Patent No. 6,473,742) 86. Comcast incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 29, inclusive, as though

fully set forth in this Paragraph. 87. Comcast has never infringed and is not currently infringing—whether directly or

indirectly, contributorily or by inducement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents—any valid claim of the ’742 patent. 88. Comcast is informed and believes, based upon BT’s prior threats of patent

infringement targeting Comcast Cable’s cable system products and services, its pending motion for leave to add Comcast Corporation as a new defendant in the separate Delaware lawsuit, and its allegations in its proposed amended complaint in the Delaware lawsuit, that BT contends that Comcast’s alleged making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing of cable system products and services infringe one or more claims of the ’742 patent. 89. Accordingly, an actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between

Comcast and BT relating to the non-infringement of the ’742 patent. Comcast seeks a judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time to enable the parties to ascertain their respective rights and duties. SIXTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of United States Patent No. 6,473,742) 90. Comcast incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 29, inclusive, as though

fully set forth in this Paragraph. 91. Comcast is informed and believes that the claims of the ’742 patent are invalid.

In view of the prior art and BT’s assertions of what is claimed in the ’742 patent, and in view of

578798.01

16

basic deficiencies in the ’742 patent, Comcast believes and thereon alleges that the ’742 patent and its claims fail to satisfy one or more of the conditions and requirements for patentability set forth in Title 35, Part II, of the United States Code, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112, and the rules, regulations, and law pertaining thereto. 92. Comcast is informed and believes, based upon BT’s prior threats of patent

infringement targeting Comcast Cable’s cable system products and services, its pending motion for leave to add Comcast Corporation as a new defendant in the separate Delaware lawsuit, and its allegations in its proposed amended complaint in the Delaware lawsuit, that BT contends that the claims of the ’742 patent are valid and enforceable. 93. Accordingly, an actual and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between

Comcast and BT relating to the validity of the ’742 patent. Comcast seeks a judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties herein. Such a determination and declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time to enable the parties to ascertain their respective rights and duties. VI. 94. JURY DEMAND

Comcast requests a jury trial for all issues so triable. VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Comcast requests entry of judgment in its favor and against Defendant BT as follows: 1. A declaration that Comcast Corporation and Comcast Cable have not infringed,

willfully infringed, induced others to infringe, or contributed to the infringement of any valid claim of the ’532 patent; 2. 3. A declaration that all claims of the ’532 patent are invalid; A declaration that Comcast Corporation and Comcast Cable have not infringed,

willfully infringed, induced others to infringe, or contributed to the infringement of any valid claim of the ’350 patent; 4. 5. A declaration that all claims of the ’350 patent are invalid; A declaration that Comcast Corporation and Comcast Cable have not infringed,

578798.01

17

willfully infringed, induced others to infringe, or contributed to the infringement of any valid claim of the ’989 patent; 6. 7. A declaration that all claims of the ’989 patent are invalid; A declaration that Comcast Corporation and Comcast Cable have not infringed,

willfully infringed, induced others to infringe, or contributed to the infringement of any valid claim of the ’264 patent; 8. 9. A declaration that all claims of the ’264 patent are invalid; A declaration that Comcast Corporation and Comcast Cable have not infringed,

willfully infringed, induced others to infringe, or contributed to the infringement of any valid claim of the ’643 patent; 10. 11. A declaration that all claims of the ’643 patent are invalid; A declaration that Comcast Corporation and Comcast Cable have not infringed,

willfully infringed, induced others to infringe, or contributed to the infringement of any valid claim of the ’247 patent; 12. 13. A declaration that all claims of the ’247 patent are invalid; A declaration that Comcast Corporation and Comcast Cable have not infringed,

willfully infringed, induced others to infringe, or contributed to the infringement of any valid claim of the ’216 patent; 14. 15. A declaration that all claims of the ’216 patent are invalid; A declaration that Comcast Corporation and Comcast Cable have not infringed,

willfully infringed, induced others to infringe, or contributed to the infringement of any valid claim of the ’742 patent; 16. 17. A declaration that all claims of the ’742 patent are invalid; A declaration that this is an “exceptional case” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and an

award granting Comcast its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees as permitted under that statute; and 18. Any other and further relief that this Court may deem just and proper.

578798.01

18

Dated: September 19, 2011

/s/ Beth Moskow-Schnoll Beth Moskow-Schnoll (No. 2900) BALLARD SPAHR LLP 919 North Market Street, 11th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 252-4447 Fax: (302) 355-0221 Email: moskowb@ballardspahr.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and Comcast Corporation

OF COUNSEL: Brian L. Ferrall Leo L. Lam KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188

578798.01

19

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful