Refined Recommendation Corporation v. Netflix, Inc. Doc.

1
Case 2:07-cv-04981-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 10/16/2007 Page 1 of 4

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
2
Jean-Marc Zimmerman (JZ 7743)
3 Zimmerman, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
226 St. Paul Street
4 Westfield, NJ 07090
Tel: (908) 654-8000
5 Fax: (908) 654-7207
jmzimmerman@zlk.com
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff Refined Recommendation Corporation
7

8 REFINED RECOMMENDATION
CORPORATION, Case No.
9
Plaintiff,
10
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
11 v. INFRINGEMENT
12 NETFLIX, INC.,
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
13 Defendant.
14
15
Plaintiff, Refined Recommendation Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Refined
16
Recommendation”), demands a jury trial and complains against the defendant as follows:
17
THE PARTIES
18
1. Refined Recommendation is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
19
the State of Delaware, having a place of business at 500 Newport Center Drive, 7th Floor, Newport
20
21 Beach, California 92660.

22 2. Upon information and belief, Netflix, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as ”Defendant” or

23 “Netflix”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having a

24 place of business at 100 Winchester Circle, Los Gatos, California 95032.

25

26

27
28
1
REFINED RECOMMENDATION V. NETFLIX

Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 2:07-cv-04981-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 10/16/2007 Page 2 of 4

1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2 3. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States of America, Title 35 of

3 the United States Code. This Court has jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
4 1338(a).
5
4. On information and belief, Defendant is doing business and committing
6
infringements in this judicial district and are subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district.
7
5. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).
8
CLAIM FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
9
6. Plaintiff, Refined Recommendation, repeats and incorporates herein the entirety of
10
11 the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 5 above.

12 7. On August 12, 2003, U.S. Patent No. 6,606,102 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘102

13 patent”) was duly and legally issued to Gary Odom for an invention entitled “Optimizing Interest

14 Potential”. The ‘102 Patent was subsequently assigned to Refined Recommendation. A copy of the
15 ‘102 patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 1.
16
8. Refined Recommendation is the owner of all right, title and interest in and to the
17
‘102 patent.
18
COUNT ONE
19
9. Plaintiff, Refined Recommendation, repeats and incorporates herein the entirety of
20
the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 8 above.
21
10. Netflix has and still is infringing, actively inducing the infringement of and
22

23 contributorily infringing in this judicial district, the ‘102 patent by, among other things, making,

24 using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing computer hardware, software and systems for

25 accommodating user interests pursuant to a claim of the ‘102 patent without permission from
26 Refined Recommendation and will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court.
27
28
2
REFINED RECOMMENDATION V. NETFLIX
 Case 2:07-cv-04981-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 10/16/2007 Page 3 of 4

1 11. Plaintiff has been damaged by such infringing activities by the Defendant of the

2 ‘102 patent and will be irreparably harmed unless such infringing activities are enjoined by this
3 Court.
4
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
5
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff Refined Recommendation prays for judgment against the
6
Defendant Netflix on all the counts and for the following relief:
7
A. Declaration that the Plaintiff is the owner of the ‘102 patent, and that the Plaintiff has
8
the right to sue and to recover for infringement thereof;
9
B. Declaration that the ‘102 patent is valid and enforceable;
10
C. Declaration that the Defendant has infringed, actively induced infringement of, and
11
contributorily infringed the ‘102 patent;
12
D. A preliminary and permanent injunction against the Defendant, each of its officers,
13
agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, all parent and subsidiary corporations,
14
their assigns and successors in interest, and those persons acting in active concert or
15
participation with them, including distributors and customers, enjoining them from
16
continuing acts of infringement, active inducement of infringement, and contributory
17
infringement of Refined Recommendation’s ‘102 patent;
18
Q. An accounting for damages under 35 U.S.C. §284 for infringement of Refined
19
Recommendation’s ‘102 patent by the Defendant and the award of damages so
20
ascertained to the Plaintiff, Refined Recommendation, together with interest as
21
provided by law;
22
R. Award of Refined Recommendation’s costs and expenses; and
23
S. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem proper, just and equitable.
24
25

26

27
28
3
REFINED RECOMMENDATION V. NETFLIX
 Case 2:07-cv-04981-DMC-MF Document 1 Filed 10/16/2007 Page 4 of 4

1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2 The Plaintiff, Refined Recommendation, demands a trial by jury of all issues properly triable
3 by jury in this action.
4 By: /s/Jean-Marc Zimmerman
Jean-Marc Zimmerman (JZ 7743)
5 Zimmerman, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
226 St. Paul Street
6 Westfield, NJ 07090
Tel: (908) 654-8000
7 Fax: (908) 654-7207
jmzimmerman@zlk.com
8 Attorneys for Plaintiff Refined
Recommendation Corporation
9
10 Dated: October 12, 2007
Westfield, NJ
11

12
13

14
15

16
17
18

19

20
21

22

23

24
25

26

27
28
4
REFINED RECOMMENDATION V. NETFLIX