Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00651-RH-CAS: Global Communications, Inc. v. Directv Inc et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, the Hon. ROBERT L HINKLE presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7iX for more info.
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00651-RH-CAS: Global Communications, Inc. v. Directv Inc et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, the Hon. ROBERT L HINKLE presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7iX for more info.
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 4:12-cv-00651-RH-CAS: Global Communications, Inc. v. Directv Inc et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, the Hon. ROBERT L HINKLE presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l7iX for more info.
GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS , INC ., Pl a int iff. CASE NO . v . DIRECTV, Inc ., and THE DIRECT'! GROUP , I nc ., Defendants . ----------------------------/ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (JURY TRIAL REQUESTED) Plaintiff GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS , INC . ( "GLOBAL COM" ) s ues Defendants , DIRECTV, Inc . ( " DIRECTV" ) and the DIRECTV GROUP , Inc ., for br each of contrac t and infringement of certain patents held by GLOBAL COM, and alleges: THE PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. GLOBAL COM is a Florida corporation ha ving its principal pl ace of busines s in Tallahassee, Florida , and it is the holder of certain patents as described in thi s Compl ai nt . 2 . Defendant DIRECTV, Inc . 15 a corporation having its main place of business outside the State of Florida . under a prior agreement b etvleen the Parties , jurisdiction and venue for this claim is proper in thi s Court . 3 . Defendant DIRECTV GROUP , INC. is a corporation havi ng its main place of business outside of the State of Florida . HO\',1 ever, under a prior agreement betlo,een the Parties , jurisdict i on and venue fo r this claim is proper in this Co urt . 4 . Jurisdiction in this Court is proper for the following reasons , among others : (1 ) tI,e s ui t involves cit izens of different states and the amount in controversy excee ds $75 , 000 (28 U. S .C. 1332 ) and (2) the suit arises under the federal patent laws (28 U. S . C. 1338(a) Venue in this Court is p r o p ~ r because , among other reas ons , the events giving rise to this caus e of action occurred i n the Northern Distri ct of Flor ida. Furthermore , according to a prior agreement existi ng between the parties , both j ur isd iction and venue are proper in th is court . 5. All condit ions precedent to bringing this suit have been performed or have been waived . GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 6 . GLOBAL COM wa s formed i n the 1980 ' s to develop t e chnology and ha rdware relating to the home satellite television market. 7 . GLOBAL COM has consistently sought to develop , pa t ent , and market new technology . 8 . The home satellite televi sion market began as unautho rized intercepti on o f satellite b roadcasts i ntended for network a ffiliates . In the late 1980 's the signals w ~ r e scrambled, and a system Ivhere by s ubscriber s I"ould pa y for the 2 use o f set- top descramblers was created . However , the subscriber service was a "by product" of a technology that wa s not designed for home use . 9 . In t he ea rly 1990 ' s s e vera l companie s sough t to de velop a satel lite television s ys t em that was specifically designed for home use . The first operational system was launched by SkyPix in 1992 , to limi ted success . 10 . Around the same time period Hughes Communicat i ons , Inc . an established satellite c ommun i cations pr ovider decided to enter the home sa telli t e t el e vi s ion market . Hughes called its system " DirecTV." By 1994, Hughes had l.aunched t,./o high-pov,ered Ku - band satellites designed specifically for its DirecTV system. 11. The DirecTV s at e llite signal is received by a r el ati -Jely small dish mount ed on o r ne ar the exterior of a subscr ibe r ' s home . The d ish includes a focusing reflector that concentrates the satellite' s signal to a feed horn . A lo,,-noise blcck converter ("LNB") then selects a subset of the avail il ble satellite signals a s directed by a television " set top box " and feeds them i nto a coaxial cabl e . The c oaxial c able transmi t s the signals t o the con tro lling set top box (al t ~ r n a t i tJeljl referred to as an \' STB", or a "receiver " ) . The STB actually decodes the signals and creates the video images displayed on the user's television . 12 . The frequencies used for satellite communications (typically in the 10 - 20 gigahertz range) are not suitable for transmission over a coaxial cable between the di sh and the receiver . They must be converted to much lo"er frequencie s typically 950-1450 megahertz in a process that is commonly referred to as " down converting ." Circuitry ass oc iated with the LNB often performs the down converting . For this r eason, an LNB is sometimes referred to as a low-noise block down converter. 13 . Early in the development of home satellite technology , GLOBAL COM realized a significant shortcoming in the systems being developed . The sel ection of the subset of signals dOl-Jn converted by an LNB is actually controlled by t h ~ set t o p box. When a user selects a particular channel , the LNB has t o select t he appropriate subset of data available on the feed horn fur tha t channel . 14 . This arrangement created a one dish/one television paradigm. Each dish had to be linked to a single rece i ver that controlled it . Unlike the e xist ing cable systems , a user h,'ling two or more televisions feeding from t he same dish ha d no ability to independently select the channels f o r ea c h 4 television . While a single dish could feed multiple televisions , all televisions would recei ve the same program. 15 . The problem was even worse for multi-dwe lling units ("MDU ' s") such as apa rtment complexes and condominiums . t1 DU owners had reached arrangements with cable providers to provide independent service to each residential unit. In order to prov ide such a service using a satellite system, a separate dish had to be provided for each individual residential unit and each dish had to have a clear line of sight to the satellite . 16 . GLOBAL COr-l foresaloJ the problems that dish satellite television systems would encounter in seeking to displace cabl e installations for homes loJith mUltiple television sets and for Multi Dwelling Units . Even before the creation cf dedicated home satellite systems , GLOBAL COM Has ., orking on a s olution to this multi-receiver probl em. 17 . GLOBAL COM developed hardloJare specifically designed for digital downlink satellite signals (as opposed to the analog signals that had existed in the satellite communication Ho rld prior to the early 1990 ' s) . As an example , GLOBAL COi-l ',':as the first company to successful ly field a spectrum analyzer for fi.eld technicians to use in installing and correctly o ri enting digital dishes (its GS - l000 hardloJare) , 5 18. By lat e 1994 t he home sat e ll ite t el evi sion market had taken o ff . persisted . However , the single dish/singl e television problem The problem stemmed from the inability to feed multiple signal s f rom the LNB to the set top box on a single c oaxi a l cabl e . 19. GLOBAL COM developed technology t o solve this problem. On feb . 22 , 1995 , GLOBAL COM filed a patent application entitled " Satellit e Broadcast Receiving and Distribution System" (U . S . Patent Application No . 08/838 , 67 7) . This application discl osed GLOBAL COM's " frequency stacking" technology I-Ihich allo\: s mul tiple satellite signals to be sent over a single coaxial cable . 20 . In the terminology used in U. S . patent prosecution, the Feb . 1995 filing became a "parent" application for numerous "child" applications which disclosed additional improveme rlts and developments made by GLOBAL COM . The patents resulting from these filings have become known as the "Single \hre l'atents " in I-Iritten agreements between the Parties . They are referred to as the Single Wire Patents because they pertain to various hardl-lare and methods f or controlling and transmitt ing mUltiple sa tellite signals over a single coaxial cable or optical fiber " I-lire . " The technology embodied in the Single Wire Patents solved the one dish/one televi s ion problem, among other problems . 6 21 . Stated very simplistically, the Single Wire technology " stacks" mUltiple signals on a single coaxial cable by using a front - end "stacker ." The stacker is located on the input end of the coa x ia l cable . The stacker assigns non - i n te r fer i r,y frequency b l ocks to ea ch s i gnal that is to be fed onto tile cable . It then c onve r ts each r a w s igna l to the desi r ed frequen c y block before feeding it onto the cable . Mul tiple signals are then fed down the same cable . They do not interfere because they reside in different frequency bands . A particular STB typically only removes and decodes a signal that has been requested by a user. 22 . In early 1995 , GLOBAL COM made contact '.vith DIRECT\'. GLOBAL COM repres ented that it had de ve loped a s olution t o the one dish/one receiver p r oblem and o f fered to work Ivith DIRECTV to integ rat e the solution into the existing system. Over t he next several mo nths , GLOBAL COt-l provided te,:;hnical information regarding its products to DIRECTV . 23 . In September of 1996 , GLOBAL COM began advertising its Single Wire technology in Private Cable & ",'ire12ss C3b12 magazine . GLOBAL COM received numerous responses and began discussing the licensing of its technology . 24 . Around the same time pe riod, GLOBAL :0[[, Heifner Communications ( " HCI " ), and Foxcom began alpha testing GLOBAL 7 COM's "Digital Wave " hardware with Foxcom' s SDTV fiber-optic deli ve ry system. The combine d system all owe d MDU subscribers to choose bet ween a traditional cab le system, a s atellite system, or both (al l wi thin a single MDU e nvironment and using a single c oaxial cable to each subscriber ) 2 5 . In February of 1997 , GLOBAL C O ~ I , HCI , and Foxcom again collaborated to demonstrate the Single Wire technology in an integrat ed system. The system was demonstrated to Ec ho st a r , PrimeSta r , and DI RECTV . The same system \'Ias also d emonstrate:! at the Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association ( " SBCA" ) show in Las Vegas (March of 1997) 2C. In September of 1997 DIRECTV undert.oo k a deta i lerl evaluation of the system developed by GLOBAL COM, HCI , and Foxc om (the " combined Digital Wave system" ) . DIRECTV gained access to and e\'aluated a f u lly operating system, including al l the hard.,are . The persons involved in t.his test.ing \-Jere Dipak Sha\'1 of DIRECTV, Ivan Moore of HCI , Mar Allon of Foxcom, and Austin Coker of GLOBAL CDt1 . 27 . In Oct.ober of 1997 , Private Cable & Wireless Cable magazine ran a cover story explaining the features of the combined Digit.al Wave system. The magazirle ran additional stories covering other facets of the Single Wire technology in additiona l i ssues. 8 28 . Around the same time period, it ',las becoming apparent that phone serv i ce provi ders having fiber optic neth'or ks would soon be able to provide television progr amming as well . The Single Wire technology offered advantages in this f i ~ l d as well . Acc o r d ingl y, the combined Digital Wave system l'las submitt ed to phone service prov iders such as So uth\-lestern Bell for e valuation . 29. Throughout this time period GLOBAL COM c on tinued to devel op t he Si ngle Wire technology . Additional patent applications were filed regarding these developments . 30 . In the latter part of 1997 and earljl 1996 GLOBAL COH personnel worked ',Iith DIRECTV engineers to complete an operational system u s ing t h e Si ngle Wire technology . 31 . HCI and F'o xcom hod access to GLOBAL COW s technology via its prior association \-lith GLOBAL COM . In 1998 , F'oxcom entered into a contract \-lith California Amplifier, Inc . to produc e the " stacked" LNB and dO\-ln con'.' erter harj\,are for the Single Wire sys tem. Although this \-l a s done without GLOBAL COt1M's knowledge or consent , the result \-las that the "stacked " LNB technology became well kno\-ln in the industry . 32 . Ar ound this same time p er iod , PrimeSta r , F'o xcom and "SNet (successor to HCI) installed a functioning s ystem - using GLOBAL COM's patented technology in a 300-unit MDU in the 9 Chicago area. A second l a rge MDU using the same technology was installed in the San Francisco area. 33 . In the f all o f 1998, Hughes Network Sys tems (an affiliate of DIRECTV) tested an integrated MDU solution including GLOBAL COM' s Digital Wave system. As a result of the success of these tests , Hughes showcased the system by feeding live signals to multiple demo receivers showing DirecTV and DirecPC services at the 1998 SBCA show in Nashv ille, Tennessee . 34 . In August of 1999, GLOBAL COM's Digital : ~ a v e product "as selected as a Private Cable & Wireless Cable magazine's top 20 reader ' s choice award winner . 35 . By this time the original DirecTV brand 'dac oh'ned by DirecT\" Inc . ("DIRECTV" ) , a subsidiary of Hughes Electronics Corp . DIRECTV increased its market share by purchasing other companies . PrimeStar . One of the biggest purchases was its acquisition of 36 . All satellite service providers seek to provide more channels to the customers . Adding more chan nels generall y requires adding more satellites . As a result of its acquisitions and internal development , DIRECTV had at least three satellites providing service . 37 . Each s atellite must be parked in its aI:n orbit , and each must be offset somewhat from its neighbors . In order to 10 use a single dish to receive signals from multiple satel lites, multiple feed horns are provided on a single dish . The feed horns are angularly offset on the dish so that each is p o inted (using a reflecti on of f the dish surface it s elf) towa rd a different satel li te . This arrangement exacerbated the exist ing problem of transferring the received data from the dish to t he receiver. 38 . GLOBAL COM's single Hire technology al so provided a solution to the problem of feeding signals from more than one sat e llite through a single wire from a single dish . 39 . In 1998 and 1999 DIRECTV used GLOBAL COM' s Single Wire technology . DIRECTV described GLOBAL COM's Digital Wave system a s a very useful and reliable product . 40 . DIRECTV and its competitors offer sa t ellite broadcast services t o subs cribing cus t omers. Ea ch o f thos e requires the installation of equipment that contains parts and technology covered by GLOBAL COM's Patents at the subscriber ' s location ("the infringing equipment") . 41. Since at least the early 2000 's, DI RECTV has not actually manufactured any of the hardl,are used to r ecei ve anci decode its satellite signals . Instead, DIRECTV relies upon third-party manufacturers to make the hardHare. DIRECTV 11 promulgates specifications for the hardware and the third-party manufacturers make the hardware according to the speci f ications . 42 . Since at least as earl y as 2006 , the hardware provided to DIRECTV customers has been provided under the brand " DIRECTV" ra t her than the brand of the third-party manufacturer that act ual l y made i t . In fact , the same model of e qu i pment is commonly made by sever al different manufact ur e rs (pu rs u;o,nt t o the same specification) The identit y of the manufacturer is not typically displayed on the hardware . simply sa ys " DIRECTV . " Instead, the hardViar e 43 . Each DIRECTV customer must possess and use hardwar e to rece ive the DIRECTV satellite signals . FIRST LAWSUIT AND 200 4 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 44 . In October of 1989 , GLOBAL COM fil e d a paten t applicat ion covering a switching system intended f or use in multi-d\.;elling units such as apa rtmen t buildings . perta i ned to a re fr igerator-sized piece of equipme nt that could be used to selectively provide older C- band satellite s ignal s and other types of signals to apartment tenants . The application h'a s granted as U. S . Patent No . 5 ,073 , 930 ("the ' 93() Pat ent " \ in December of 1991 . 12 45 . In or around 2003 , GLOBAL COM became aware that DIRECTV \,as ins t alling hardware that fell under its ' 930 Patsnt in certain multi-dwel li ng uni t s . 46 . GLOBAL COM raised its concerns ,,ith DIRECTV but no resolution was reached . 47 . In Ma rch of 2004, GLOBAL COM filed a complaint f o r patent infringement against DIRECTV. This complaint was filed in t he Northern District of Florida. It alleged infringement of the '9 30 Patent only. No contenti on of infringement was made as to the Single Wire Patents since - to GLOBAL COM's knO\,ledge - there had been no infringement of any of the Single Wire Patents as of that time . 43 . GLOBAL COM's contention that the '9 30 Patent had heen infringed was ultimately settled by a written agreement bet",een DIRECTV and GLOBAL COM (the "2004 Settlement Agreement") . 49 . The 2004 Settlement Agreement is a confidential doc ument . It will be filed separately under seal . 50 . Although the 2004 lawsuit between GLOBAL COM and DIRECTV only concerned the ' 930 Patent , the subject o f the Single Wire Patents was discussed between the parties during the formation of the 2004 Settlement Agreement . 51 . In the final vers ion of the 2004 Settlement Agr eement , DIRECTV is g iven an unequivocal license i n perpe tu ity to "he 13 ' 930 Patent . In addition, a full and complete r elease is provided to DIRECTV regarding the ' 930 Patent . 52. The 2004 Settlement Agreement also gave DIRECTV certain other rights regarding the Single Wire Patents . 53 . At the time the 2004 Settlement Agreement >las f ormed, both GLOBAL COM and DIRECTV were aware that DIRECTV manufactured none of the receiving hardvlare used by its subscribers , a fact that continues to be true at the time of filing this Complaint . Instead, DIRECTV re l ied on , and continues to rely on , thi r d- party manufacturers to manufacturer the necessary hardware . These third-pa r ty manufacturers are defined as "DI RIXTV SUPPORT ING PARTIES u in the 2004 Settlement Agreement . 54. Under the 2004 Settlement Agreement, a mechanism is establi shed to create a license of the Single Wire Patents to a DIRECTV SUPPORTING PARTY de si ring to use the Single Wire technology in the manufacture of hard"la re fer cile DIRECT" SY8tem. Specifically, GLOBAL COM is obligated to offer a license under the Single Wire Patents to any DIRECTV SUPPORTING PARTY , under commercially reasonable terms, limited by a defined r0yalty cap . 55. At tile time the 2004 Settlement Agreement \vas formed , GLOBAL COM was not aware of any DIRECTV SUPPORTING PARTY actually using any technology covered by the Single Wire 14 Patents . Thus , the prov isions concerning the Single Wire Patents concerned the governance of possible future activit y rather than a resolution of any existing or past acti v ity. 56 . In spite of the limitations and r es t rictions impo s ed by the 2004 Settlement Agreement , DIRECTV has engaged and continues tc engage unlicensed third parti e s t c ma nufact u re single wire equipment . A declaration of DIRECT'." s 'l ice President of Supply Chain Management , attests to these fa ct s ( s ee Declaration of Thoma s H. McGeorge , attached a s Exh i bit A.) 57 . Under the 2004 Settlement Agreement, DIRECTV has n0 righ t to use a DIRECTV SUPPORTING Pl\RTY (a third-part y manufacturer) to manufacture Single Wire Pa tent ha r J"a re fo r its u se and benefit . Instead, the 20 04 Settlement Agreement c rea te s a mechanism "'lhereby DIRECTV (or a DIRECTV SUPPORTING PARTY) is able to negotiate within a defined framework in o rder t o obt a in s uch a right. 58 . As will be set forth in subsequent paragraphs , DIRECTV itself has acknowledged and ratified these pre v i si ons of the 2 00 4 Settl e ment Agreement . CREATION OF 2007 LICENSE AGREEMENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 2004 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 59. In or around 2006 , GLOBAL COM bec ame a \.; ar e that o ne u f the DIRECTV SUPPORTING PARTIES was manufacturing equipmp.nt it believed fell under the Si ngle Wire Patents . Specificall y , 15 GLOBAL C01'1 became aware that National Ant enna Syst e ms ("NAS " ) wa s manufacturing an " MFH-l Ad vanced Satelli t e Distributicn Syst em. " An image of this hardware is attached hereto 03 Ex hibit B. 60 . Li ke all the equipment s ol d f o r use in the DIRECT'l s:: stem during recent years, the MFH- l Advanced Satellite Dist r ibution System was sold under the label "DIRECTV . " However , t he equipment \vas actually manufactu red by a DIRECTV SUPPORTING PARTY (NAS) . A small label on the rear of some of the MFH- l units identi fied the manufacturer as NAS . this labe l is a t t a che d he reto as Exhibit C. An image of 61 . GLOBAL COM and DIRECTV negotiated and executed a license a g reement cove ring the Single Wire Patents under the mechanisms de f ined in t he 200 4 Se ttleme nt Agreement . That license agr e e men t ( " 2007 License Agreement " ) i s confidential . I t will be filed separately under seal . 62 . The 2004 Settleme nt l\greemen t un::juestionably extinguished any prior claims existing at the time it was signed (as it included a full mutual release) . Under the terms of t he 2007 Lice nse Agreement, DI RECTV >!a s g ranted a license to make , ha ve made , use , sell , offer to sell, lease , o ffer to lease , impor t or otherwise engage i n a c tivity f a l ling under the ri g hts 16 covered by the Single ".)i re Patents from the time of the 2001 Settlement Agreemen t up through December 31, 2007. 63. The 2007 License Agreement explicit ly conveyed "have made u right to DIRECTV (the right to have 3 third- party manufacture products on its behalf). Thus, the License Agreement cover ed DIRECTV SUPPORTING PARTIES (such as NAS) in addit i on to DIRECTV it self. HO\-Jever , by its teems, th", license cnly persisted through December 31, 2007 . 64 . The 2007 License Agreement \-Jas not renewed and no further agreements have been reached between the parti ",s . THE SINGLE WIRE PATENTS 65 . Several patent applications were filed covering the Single Wire technology (he reina fter "Single Patents U ) . iJost o f these applications have nov! been issued as U. S . Patents (one remains pending). The following table presents the relevant information as to the ten issued Single Wire Patents : Patent No . Filing Issue Appl . Reference Date Date No. Name 5, 805 , 975 4/9/1997 9/8/1998 838 , 677 ' 975 Patent 6 , 122 , 482 12131/1997 9/19/2000 ' 482 Patent 6, 334 , 045 7/21/2000 12/25/2001 09/621 , 464 '04 5 Patent 6 , 397 , 038 9/18/2000 5/28/2002 09/664 ,4 43 ' 038 Patent 6, 917 , 783 12/17/2001 7/1212005 10 /01G , 119 '783 Patent 6, 947 , 702 1/23/2002 9/20 /2005; 10/052 , 344 ; , 702 Patent Reissue Reissue 17 5/3/2011 95/000 , 293 7 , 542 , 7l7 3/24/2005 6/2/2009 11/089 , 131 ' 717 Patent 7 , 826 , 791 12/10/2008 11/2/2010 12/314,439 ' 791 Patent 8,095 , 064 9/2/2010 1/10/ 2012 12/874 , 31d ' 064 Patent 8 , 165 , 520 5/13/2009 4/24/2010 12/464 , 969 ' 520 Patent 66 . GLOBAL COM is the owner by assignment of all the Single Wire Patents. 67 . GLOBAL COM has previously sought to license its Single Wire Pat ents to DIRECTV under the provis ions of the 20 04 Settlement Agreement . No new license has be en granted . Following the e xpiration of the 2007 License Agreement bet'.,een GLOBAL COM and DIRECTV , DIRECTV' s continued promotion , sale and use of satellite systems incorporating the Single ,'lire Patents has been wi t hou t the consent of GLOBAL COM . 68 . All conditions precedent have been performed, satisfied or waived. THE ACCUSED EQUIPMENT 69 . Installed systems receiving DIRECTV programming nO\1 routinely include a single wire multisvl itch , commonly referred to as a \' SWiM" or \\ SWM. " 70 . Some installations include an outdoor dish unit (" ODU" ) feeding a signal to one or more stand-alone single \,ire mul t is",i tches . In other installations , the single \,lre 18 multiswitch in incorporated into the LNB assembly on the ODU. In the latter case , the equipment is commonly referred to a s a " SW[Vl - LNB . " 7l . Both a stand-alone SlvM and a SI-IM-LNB are cApable of frequency-stacking mult i pl e signals on a si ngle coaxial cab le . 72 . In mos t applications , a SWM-compat ible set-top box ("STB") is needed t o take a dvan tage o f the cap1bilities of fered by a SW1-l . Thus , most DIRECTV installations now include some type of SWM and one or more SWM-compatible receive rs. 73 . The SWM-compatible accused equi pmen t infringes the cla ims of the Single Wire Patents , including infringing the following specific claims: Patent Number Claim 6 , 947 , 702 32, 38 7 , 54 2, 7l7 15 , 16, 17 , 24 , 2 8 , 32 7 , 826 , 791 1 , 8 , 20 , 25 , 34 , 40 8 , 095 , 064 1 8 , 1 65 , 520 1 , 8 , 2O , 25 , 32 74 . GLOBAL COM has offered licenses to manufact urers for Single Wire equipment but manufacturers have refused to acquire such li ceflse . 19 the the DIRECTV DIRECT'! 75 . GLOBAL COM has fulfilled all obligations precedent neces sa ry to the filing of this suit. COUNT I - BREACH OF CONTRACT 76 . Plai nti ff her eby incorporates by reference al l of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 75 a s s et forth pri or to Count I . 77 . Plaintiff and Defendants are citizens of different states and the a mount in controve rsy exceeds $ 75 , 0 00 , e:<clusive of interests and cost s. 78 . The 2004 Settlement Agreement prov ides that DIRECTV may negotiate for a license to have Single Wire e quipment man ufactured. The 2004 Settlement Agreement further sets forth parameters within wh ich that license can be purchased. 79 . Failing the acquisition of a license under the 2004 Settlement Agreement , DIRECTV does not have the authority to have Single Wire equi pment manufactured . SO . DIRECTV has not obtained a license as provided in the 2004 Settlement Agreement , and by having equipment manufactured without such license is in breach of the 2004 Settlement Agreement. Sl . The breach of this 2004 Settlement Agr eement h ~ 5 caused damages to the Plaintiff . 20 COUNT II - BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING 82 . Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 75 as set forth prior to Count I . 83 . The 2004 Settlement Agreement has a pr ovis i on specifically providing the application of Florida law. 84. Under Florida law, all contracts have an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing . 85 . DIRECTV's actions in f a iling to acquire a license , 'let authorizing thi rd parties to manuf acture Single ('l ire equipment in an attempt to ci rcumvent the 2004 Settlement Agreement and its e xplicit contractual provi sions, const itutes a vi o lation of the contract's implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing . 86 . By skirting the terms of the contract through its actions , DIRECTV has caused GLOBAL COM to suffer damages . COUNT III - INDUCEMENT TO INFRINGE AS TO DIRECTV 87. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 75 as set forth prior t o Count I . 88. DIRECTV has created hardware and soft\lar e s peci fications that determine the structure and operation of the accused equipment . DIRECTV requires th6t the DIRECTV SUPPORTING 21 PARTIES manufacturing the accused equipment adhere to these specifications . 89 . DIRECTV has long been aware of the Single Wir e Patents and the specific patents and claims recited in paragraph 7 3 , supra . 90 . DIRECTV knew, or reasonably should ha v e knOl;n, that the specifications it promulgated vlOuld induce i nf r ingeme nt by the DIRECTV SUPPORTING PARTIES that actually manufactured the equipment. 91. In promulgating its specificati ons, DIRECT'! had the specific intent to induce infringement by the DIRECTC SUPPORTING PARTIES . 92 . In making and selling the a ccus ed equipment , the DIRECTV SUPPORTING PARTIES have directly infringed the claims recited i n paragraph 72, sup ra. 93. GLOBAL COM has been damaged by the acti ,) ns uf DIRECTV 3nd the DIRECTV SUPPORTING PARTIES . 94 . DIRECTV' s actions violate the provisions o f 35 U. S . C. 271 (b) . 95 . DI RECTV is alva re and ha s been allare of the existence of the Single Wire Patents . DIRECTV's inducement of infringement o f the Single Wire Patents has been and continues to he willful a nd deliberate . 22 96 . DIRECTV' s inducement of infringement of the Single Wire Patents has caused and is causing irreparable harm to GLOBAL COM . GLOBAL COM is entitled to damages In an amount to be de t ermined at trial as a result of DIRECTV's inducement of infringement, to entry of an injunction against furt.her induc ement of infringement by DIRECTV, damages . and to trebling of COUNT IV - DIRECT INFRINGEMENT AS TO DIRECTV 97 . Plaintiff hereby incorporates b y reference all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 7 5 as set Iorth prior 'to Count I . 9B . Although DIRECTV does not manllfacture the accused equ ipment, it uses the accused equipment without authori ty. Specifically, under the terms of the 2004 Settlement Agreement, DIRECTV had no r ight to ha ve the accused equipment manufactured by a DIRECTV SU PPORTING PARTY. The equipment manufactured outside the authority prov ided in the 2004 Set tlement Agreement is unauthorized equipment , and no purchase or othpr trar,saction involving that equipment changes that fact . DIRECTV's use cf that e quipment constitutes an unauthorized use under 35 U. S . C. 271 (a) . The accused equipment therefore infringes th," patent claims set forth in paragraph 73 , supra . 23 99 . GLOBAL COM has been damaged by the act i ons of DIRECT'! and the DIRECTV SUPPORTING PARTIES . 100 . DIRECTV' s actions violate the provisions of 35 U. S . C. 271 (a) . 101. DIRECTV is aware and has been aware of the existenc'2 of the Singl e Wire Pa tents . DI RECTV's inf ringe ment of t he Single Wire Pa tent s has b een a nd c o nti nue s t o b e \.;il1ful and deliberate . 102 . DIRECTV' s infringement of the Single \hre Patents has callsed and is causing irreparable harm to GLOBAL GLOBAL is entitled to damages in an amount to be determinerl at trial as a result of DIRECTV' s infringement , to entry of an injunct i on against further infringement by DIRECTV, treb ling of dama g es. COUNT V - CONTRI BUTORY INFRINGEMENT AS TO DIRECTV and t o 10 3. Plainti ff hereb y i n corpora t es by r e ference all of the allegations contained in pa r agraphs 1 throug h 75 as se t forth prior to Count I . 104 . Defendant DIRECTV imports the accused equipment into the United States. The accused equipment is especially made or especially adapted f or use in t he infringement of the Single "lire Patents . The a ccused e quipment in f ringes the se t 24 forth in Paragraph 73 , sup r a. subs t a ntial non-infringing use The accused equipme nt has no 105 . GLOBAL COM has been damaged by the actions of DIRECTV and the DIRECTV SUPPORTING PARTIES . 106 . DIRECTV' s action s violate the p rov isions o f 35 U. S . C. 271 (c) . 107 . DIRECTV is al'lare and has been al-Iar e of the e x istence of the Single Wi re Patents . DI RECTV ' s contributory infringeme nt o f the Single Wi r e Patents has been and continues to be willful and deliberate. 108 . DIRECTV' s contribut ory infringement of the Singl e Wire Pa t ent s has caus ed and is causing irreparable harm to GLOBAL C O ~ : . GLOBAL COM is entitled to damages in an amount to be determined at trial as a result of DIRECTV ' s contri butcry infringement , 2ontributory damages . t o entry infringement o f by an injunc tion against fur ther DIRECTV, and to trebling of PRAYER FOR RELIEF - ALL COUNTS WHEREFORE , GLOBAL COM prays for reli ef against the Defendants and r equest that the Court enter j udgment against DIRECTV and in f a vor of GLOBAL COM as f ollows : A. Tha t the Court hol ds tha t DIRECTV ha s breached the 2004 Settlement Agreement including , but not limited 25 to , breaching the implied covenant of good fa i th a nd fair d ea l ing . 8 . That the Court hold that DIRECTV has infringed, has induced the infringement of , and/or has cont r ibuted to the infringement of the ' 702 , ' 71 7 , ' 791, ' 064, and ' 520 Patents ; C. That the Court enter a per manent injunction against further inf ringement of , inducement of infrinyement of , and/or cont r ibution to the infringement of the ' 702 , ' 717 , ' 791 , ' 064 , and ' 520 Patents by DIRECTV as well as its of f icers, s ubsidiaries , empl o yees , and affiliates; D. That the Court order DIRECTV to pay compensatory damages t o GLOBAL COM pursuant to 35 U. S.C . E . That the Court fi nd DIRECTV guilty of \,illf ul infringement of , inducement of infringement of , a nd/or contribution to the infringe ment 0f th" ' 7 17 , ' 791 , '064, and ' 520 Patents a nd enter an trebling damages pursuant to 35 U. S . C. 285; F. That the Court deem this an exceptional ca5e and awari GLOBAL COM reasonable attorney fees and costs pursuanc to 35 U.S. C. 285 ; 26 G. That the Court a"lard damages i n fa"or of GLOBAL COMil and against DIRECTV based upon the causes of action pleade d in this Complaint; and H. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper . JURY TRIAL GLOBAL COM he r eby request s a trial by j u ry p ursuant to Fed . R. Civ . P. 38(b) on all issues so triabl e . Dated : December 19 , 2012 /s/ John Wiley Hor ton J . Wiley Ho r ton , Esq . wiley@pennington1aw . com PENNINGTON , MOORE , WILKINSON , BELL & DUNBAR, P.A . 215 S . Monroe St reet , 2 ~ Floor Ta llahassee , FL 32301 850 222-3533 - office 850 222 - 2126 - fax Co-Counsel for Plaintiff AND Guy M. Burns , Esq. guyb@jpfirm. com JOHNSON , POPE , BOKOR, RUPPEL & BURNS , LLP 403 E. Madison St ree t, Suite 400 Tampa , FL 33602 813 225-25 00 - office 183 223 - 7118 - fax Co-Counsel for Plaintiff 27 AND Michael J . Brickman , Esq . mbr i ckman@rpwb . com James C. Bradley , Esq . Nina H. Fields , Esq . RICHARDSON , PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN 1 74 East Bay Street Charleston , SC 2940 1 843 727-6520 - office 850 222-2126 - f ax Co-Counsel for Plaintiff 28