InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 15
Posts 1617
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 01/30/2001

Re: nyt post# 22517

Sunday, 10/26/2014 3:00:16 AM

Sunday, October 26, 2014 3:00:16 AM

Post# of 128946
And all the secrecy about any details.. as if we are to believe that every important aspect & detail is somehow protected by "NDA's", jeez, to the point where I feel like we need to use freedom of information act requests. Where's the infringement letters? Where's the responses? I know, I know..."it takes time!" ....days, weeks, months, years, decades (??)

Please post your opinion(s) on my call for a small infringement case to be immediately initiated.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

HERE IS A GOOD Dated: August 28, 2014 TEMPLATE....ONE FIRM ATandT VS COX[/b]
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
AT&T INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY I, L.P.
and AT&T INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY II,
L.P.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; COXCOM,
LLC; COX ARKANSAS TELCOM, L.L.C.;
COX COMMUNICATIONS ARIZONA, LLC;
COX ARIZONA TELCOM, L.L.C.; COX
CALIFORNIA TELCOM, L.L.C., COX
COMMUNICATIONS CALIFORNIA, LLC;
COX COLORADO TELCOM, L.L.C.; COX
CONNECTICUT TELCOM, L.L.C.; COX
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TELCOM, L.P.;
COX FLORIDA TELCOM, L.P.; COX
COMMUNICATIONS GEORGIA, LLC; COX
GEORGIA TELCOM L.L.C.; COX IOWA
TELCOM, L.L.C.; COX IDAHO TELCOM,
L.L.C.; COX COMMUNICATIONS KANSAS,
L.L.C; COX KANSAS TELCOM, L.L.C.; COX
COMMUNICATIONS GULF COAST, L.L.C.;
COX COMMUNICATIONS LOUISIANA,
L.L.C.; COX LOUISIANA TELCOM, L.L.C.;
COX MARYLAND TELCOM, L.L.C; COX
MISSOURI TELCOM, LLC; COX NEBRASKA
TELCOM, L.L.C.; COX COMMUNICATIONS
OMAHA, L.L.C.; COX COMMUNICATIONS
LAS VEGAS, INC.; COX NEVADA TELCOM,
L.L.C.; COX NORTH CAROLINA TELCOM,
L.L.C.; COX OHIO TELCOM, L.L.C.; COX
OKLAHOMA TELCOM, L.L.C.; COX RHODE
ISLAND TELCOM, L.L.C.; COX
COMMUNICATIONS HAMPTON ROADS,
L.L.C.; and COX VIRGINIA TELCOM, L.L.C.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No.__________
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT {00888572;v1 } 2
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
Plaintiffs AT&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. and AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P.
(collectively “AT&T” or “Plaintiff”) file this Complaint for patent infringement against the Cox
Communications Defendants1
(“Cox” or “Defendant”), and alleges as follows:
I. BACKGROUND
1. AT&T and its predecessor companies are the pioneers of our global
telecommunications system. From the telephone to the transistor, technologies developed by
AT&T form the foundation for our modern interconnected digital world. AT&T continues to
invest in research and development to bring new and innovative products and services to market.
AT&T publishes its new inventions and discoveries through the patent system to advance the
state of the art. AT&T’s contributions to the progress of the useful arts have been recognized by
the grant of innumerable patents, eight Nobel prizes, and two Turing awards.
2. Cox is a regional cable company offering services in 22 states. Cox was founded
after its corporate parent, Cox Enterprises Inc., began purchasing and consolidating local cable
operators in the 1960s. Cox has predominately relied on others, such as AT&T, to develop the
technologies necessary to deliver its services to its customers. In every market where Cox offers

1
The Cox Communications Defendants comprise: Cox Communications, Inc.; CoxCom, LLC,
Cox Arkansas Telcom, L.L.C.; Cox Communications Arizona, LLC; Cox Arizona Telcom,
L.L.C.; Cox Communications California, LLC; Cox California Telcom, L.L.C.; Cox Colorado
Telcom, L.L.C.; Cox Connecticut Telcom, L.L.C.; Cox District of Columbia Telcom, L.L.C.;
Cox Florida Telcom, L.P.; Cox Communications Georgia, LLC; Cox Georgia Telcom L.L.C.;
Cox Iowa Telcom, L.L.C.; Cox Idaho Telcom, L.L.C.; Cox Communications Kansas, L.L.C.;
Cox Kansas Telcom, L.L.C.; Cox Communications Gulf Coast, L.L.C.; Cox Communications
Louisiana, L.L.C.; Cox Louisiana Telcom, L.L.C.; Cox Maryland Telcom, L.L.C.; Cox Missouri
Telcom, LLC; Cox Nebraska Telcom, L.L.C.; Cox Communications Omaha, L.L.C.; Cox
Nevada Telcom, L.L.C.; Cox Communications Las Vegas, Inc.; Cox North Carolina Telcom
L.L.C.; Cox Ohio Telcom, L.L.C.; Cox Oklahoma Telcom, L.L.C.; Cox Rhode Island Telcom,
L.L.C.; Cox Virginia Telcom, L.L.C.; and Cox Communications Hampton Roads, L.L.C. {00888572;v1 } 3
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
services, AT&T through its affiliates offers competing wireline and/or wireless data, voice,
and/or video services.
3. In 2009, AT&T contacted Cox regarding Cox’s ongoing infringement of a
number of patents, including some of those enumerated in this complaint. Despite years of
protracted negotiations, Cox has sought to avoid payment for its infringement by repeatedly
delaying and rescheduling negotiations. Given every opportunity, Cox has failed to provide
substantial arguments for either non-infringement or invalidity of AT&T’s patents. Cox’s
conduct constitutes a steadfast refusal to take a license, even though Cox generates billions of
dollars in revenue every year through its use of AT&T’s technologies. AT&T has been forced to
file this lawsuit to obtain a judgment that Cox owes royalty payments for its unauthorized use of
AT&T’s patented inventions.

II. PARTIES
4. Plaintiff AT&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. (“AT&T IP I”) is a Nevada limited
partnership.
5. Plaintiff AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P. (“AT&T IP II”) is a Nevada limited
partnership.
6. Upon information and belief, Cox Communications, Inc. is incorporated,
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. Cox maintains its principal place
of business at 1400 Lake Hearn Drive, Atlanta, GA, 30319. Cox may be served with process
through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400,
Wilmington, DE 19808. {00888572;v1 } 4
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
7. Upon information and belief, CoxCom, LLC (“CoxCom”) is incorporated,
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. CoxCom maintains its principal
place of business at 1400 Lake Hearn Drive, Atlanta, GA, 30319. Upon information and belief,
CoxCom is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cox Communications, Inc. and is the parent of each of
the remaining Cox Communications Defendants except for Cox Communications Georgia, LLC,
Cox Georgia Telcom, LLC, Cox Communications Las Vegas, Inc., LLC, and Cox Nevada
Telcom LLC, all of which are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Cox Communications, Inc.
CoxCom may be served with process through its registered agent, Corporation Service
Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808.
8. Upon information and belief, Cox Arkansas Telcom, L.L.C. is incorporated,
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business
in Arkansas. Cox Arkansas Telcom, L.L.C. may be served with process through its registered
agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808.
Cox Arkansas Telcom, L.L.C. is a subsidiary of CoxCom.
9. Upon information and belief, Cox Communications Arizona, LLC is incorporated,
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business
in Arizona. Cox Communications Arizona, LLC may be served with process through its
registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington,
DE 19808. Cox Communications Arizona, LLC is a subsidiary of CoxCom.
10. Upon information and belief, Cox Arizona Telcom, L.L.C. is incorporated,
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business
in Arizona. Cox Arizona Telcom, L.L.C. may be served with process through its registered {00888572;v1 } 5
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808.
Cox Arizona Telcom, L.L.C. is a subsidiary of CoxCom.
11. Upon information and belief, Cox Communications California, LLC is
incorporated, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal
place of business at 1400 Lake Hearn Drive NE, Atlanta, Georgia, 30319. Cox Communications
California, LLC may be served with process through its registered agent, Corporation Service
Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808. Cox Communications
California, LLC is a subsidiary of CoxCom.
12. Upon information and belief, Cox California Telcom, L.L.C. is incorporated,
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business
at 1400 Lake Hearn Drive NE, Atlanta, Georgia, 30319. Cox California Telcom, L.L.C. may be
served with process through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville
Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808. Cox California Telcom, L.L.C. is a subsidiary of
CoxCom.
13. Upon information and belief, Cox Colorado Telcom, L.L.C. is incorporated,
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business
at 1400 Lake Hearn Drive NE, Atlanta, Georgia, 30319. Cox Colorado Telcom L.L.C. may be
served with process through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville
Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808. Cox Colorado Telcom L.L.C. is a subsidiary of
CoxCom.
14. Upon information and belief, Cox Connecticut Telcom, L.L.C. is incorporated,
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business {00888572;v1 } 6
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
in Connecticut. Cox Connecticut Telcom, L.L.C. may be served with process through its
registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington,
DE 19808. Cox Connecticut Telcom, L.L.C. is a subsidiary of CoxCom.
15. Upon information and belief, Cox District of Columbia Telcom, L.L.C. is
incorporated, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal
place of business in the District of Columbia. Cox District of Columbia Telcom, L.L.C. may be
served with process through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville
Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808. Cox District of Columbia Telcom, L.L.C. is a
subsidiary of CoxCom.
16. Upon information and belief, Cox Florida Telcom, L.P. is organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business at 1400 Lake Hearn
Drive NE, Atlanta, Georgia, 30319. Cox Florida Telcom, L.P. may be served with process
through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400,
Wilmington, DE 19808. Cox Florida Telcom, L.P. is a subsidiary of CoxCom.
17. Upon information and belief, Cox Communications Georgia, LLC is incorporated,
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business
at 1400 Lake Hearn Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30319. Cox Communications Georgia, LLC may be
served with process through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville
Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808. Cox Communications Georgia, LLC is a subsidiary of
Cox Communications, Inc.
18. Upon information and belief, Cox Georgia Telcom L.L.C. is incorporated,
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business {00888572;v1 } 7
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
at 1400 Lake Hearn Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30319. Cox Georgia Telcom L.L.C. may be served
with process through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road,
Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808. Cox Georgia Telcom L.L.C. is a subsidiary of Cox
Communications Georgia, LLC, which is a subsidiary of Cox Communications, Inc.
19. Upon information and belief, Cox Iowa Telcom, L.L.C. is incorporated, organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business at 1400
Lake Hearn Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30319. Cox Iowa Telcom, L.L.C. may be served with
process through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite
400, Wilmington, DE 19808. Cox Iowa Telcom, L.L.C. is a subsidiary of CoxCom.
20. Upon information and belief, Cox Idaho Telcom, L.L.C. is incorporated,
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business
at 1400 Lake Hearn Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30319. Cox Idaho Telcom, L.L.C. may be served
with process through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road,
Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808. Cox Idaho Telcom, L.L.C. is a subsidiary of CoxCom.
21. Upon information and belief, Cox Communications Kansas, L.L.C. is
incorporated, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal
place of business in Kansas. Cox Communications Kansas, L.L.C. may be served with process
through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400,
Wilmington, DE 19808. Cox Communications Kansas, L.L.C. is a subsidiary of CoxCom.
22. Upon information and belief, Cox Kansas Telcom, L.L.C. is incorporated,
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business
in Kansas. Cox Kansas Telcom, L.L.C. may be served with process through its registered agent, {00888572;v1 } 8
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808. Cox
Kansas Telcom, L.L.C. is a subsidiary of CoxCom.
23. Upon information and belief, Cox Communications Gulf Coast, LLC is
incorporated, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal
place of business at 1400 Lake Hearn Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30319. Cox Communications Gulf
Coast, LLC may be served with process through its registered agent, Corporation Service
Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808. Cox Communications Gulf
Coast, LLC is a subsidiary of CoxCom.
24. Upon information and belief, Cox Communications Louisiana, L.L.C. is
incorporated, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal
place of business at 1400 Lake Hearn Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30319. Cox Communications
Louisiana, L.L.C. may be served with process through its registered agent, Corporation Service
Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808. Cox Communications
Louisiana, L.L.C. is a subsidiary of CoxCom.
25. Upon information and belief, Cox Louisiana Telcom, L.L.C. is incorporated,
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business
at 1400 Lake Hearn Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30319. Cox Louisiana Telcom, L.L.C. may be
served with process through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville
Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808. Cox Louisiana Telcom, L.L.C. is a subsidiary of
CoxCom.
26. Upon information and belief, Cox Maryland Telcom, L.L.C. is incorporated,
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business {00888572;v1 } 9
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
in Maryland. Cox Maryland Telcom L.L.C. may be served with process through its registered
agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808.
Cox Maryland Telcom, L.L.C. is a subsidiary of CoxCom.
27. Upon information and belief, Cox Missouri Telcom, LLC is incorporated,
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business
in Missouri. Cox Missouri Telcom, LLC may be served with process through its registered agent,
Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808. Cox
Missouri Telcom, LLC is a subsidiary of CoxCom.
28. Upon information and belief, Cox Nebraska Telcom, L.L.C. is incorporated,
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business
at 1400 Lake Hearn Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30319. Cox Nebraska Telcom, L.L.C. may be
served with process through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville
Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808. Cox Nebraska Telcom, L.L.C. is a subsidiary of
CoxCom.
29. Upon information and belief, Cox Communications Omaha, L.L.C. is
incorporated, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal
place of business at 1400 Lake Hearn Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30319. Cox Communications
Omaha, L.L.C. may be served with process through its registered agent, Corporation Service
Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808. Cox Communications
Omaha, L.L.C. is a subsidiary of CoxCom.
30. Upon information and belief, Cox Nevada Telcom, L.L.C. is incorporated,
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business {00888572;v1 } 10
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
in Nevada. Cox Nevada Telcom, L.L.C. may be served with process through its registered agent,
Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808. Cox
Nevada Telcom, L.L.C. is a subsidiary of Cox Communications, Inc.
31. Upon information and belief, Cox Communications Las Vegas, Inc. is
incorporated, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal
place of business in Nevada. Cox Communications Las Vegas, Inc. may be served with process
through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400,
Wilmington, DE 19808. Cox Communications Las Vegas, Inc. is a subsidiary of Cox
Communications, Inc.
32. Upon information and belief, Cox North Carolina Telcom L.L.C. is incorporated,
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business
at 1400 Lake Hearn Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30319. Cox North Carolina Telcom L.L.C. may be
served with process through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville
Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808. Cox North Carolina Telcom L.L.C. is a subsidiary of
CoxCom.
33. Upon information and belief, Cox Ohio Telcom, L.L.C. is incorporated, organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business in Ohio.
Cox Ohio Telcom, L.L.C. may be served with process through its registered agent, Corporation
Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808. Cox Ohio Telcom,
L.L.C. is a subsidiary of CoxCom.
34. Upon information and belief, Cox Oklahoma Telcom, L.L.C. is incorporated,
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business {00888572;v1 } 11
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
in Oklahoma. Cox Oklahoma Telcom, L.L.C. may be served with process through its registered
agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808.
Cox Oklahoma Telcom, L.L.C. is a subsidiary of CoxCom.
35. Upon information and belief, Cox Rhode Island Telcom, L.L.C. is incorporated,
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business
at 1400 Lake Hearn Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30319. Cox Rhode Island Telcom, L.L.C. may be
served with process through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville
Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808. Cox Rhode Island Telcom, L.L.C. is a subsidiary of
CoxCom.
36. Upon information and belief, Cox Virginia Telcom, L.L.C. is incorporated,
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Virginia, with a principal place of business
at 6205 Peachtree Dunwoody Road, Atlanta, Georgia, 30328. Cox Virginia Telcom, L.L.C. may
be served with process through the Secretary of State. Cox Virginia Telcom, L.L.C. is a
subsidiary of CoxCom.
37. Upon information and belief, Cox Communications Hampton Roads, L.L.C. is is
incorporated, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal
place of business at 1400 Lake Hearn Drive NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30319. Cox Communications
Hampton Roads, L.L.C. may be served with process through its registered agent, Corporation
Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808. Cox
Communications Hampton Roads, L.L.C. is a subsidiary of CoxCom. {00888572;v1 } 12
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
38. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, United
States Code § 1, et seq. This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over this case for
patent infringement under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
39. Personal jurisdiction exists generally over each of the Defendants because they
have sufficient minimum contacts with the forum as a result of business conducted within the
State of Delaware. All Defendants (with the exception of Cox Virginia Telcom, L.L.C., a
Virginia entity) are residents of the State of Delaware, are organized under the laws of the State
of Delaware, and maintain an agent for service in the State of Delaware. Each of the Defendant
entities has also availed itself of the courts in this District and is therefore subject to personal
jurisdiction. See Complaint, Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sprint Comms. Co., Case No. 1:12-cv-
00487-UNA, Dkt. No. 1 (D. Del. Apr. 16, 2012).
40. Venue is appropriate in the District of Delaware under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b),
1391(c)(2), and 1400(b).
IV. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
41. United States Patent No. 5,809,492 (“the ‘492 Patent”) entitled “APPARATUS
AND METHOD FOR DEFINING RULES FOR PERSONAL AGENTS,” was duly and legally
issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on September 15, 1998 after full and
fair examination. A request for ex parte reexamination of the ’492 Patent was filed on June 3,
2010. On September 27, 2013, the United States Patent Office duly and legally issued Ex Parte
Reexamination Certificate No. 5,809,492 C1 confirming the patentability of claims 1, 2, 12, 13,
24-27, claim 30 as amended, and claims 31-45 which were added during the reexamination. {00888572;v1 } 13
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
AT&T IP II is the assignee of all rights, title, and interest in the ‘492 Patent, including the right
to recover damages for past infringement. A copy of the ‘492 Patent with its Reexamination
Certificate is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint.
42. The ‘492 Patent discloses methods and apparatuses for software agents to
incorporate user information and generate and maintain rules, identify and repair conflicting
rules, and implement the actions mandated by those rules. The advances of the ‘492 patent allow
user interactions with complex computer programs to be simplified, which in turn allows rules to
be programmed into computers without the need for the user to have any expertise in the art.
43. United States Patent No. 6,118,976 (“the ‘976 Patent”) entitled “ASYMMETRIC
DATA COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM,” was duly and legally issued by the United States
Patent and Trademark Office on September 12, 2000 after full and fair examination. Two
requests for ex parte reexamination of the ‘976 Patent were filed on December 4, 2010 and
January 10, 2011. On November 30, 2011, the United States Patent Office duly and legally
issued Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate No. 6,118,976 C1 confirming the patentability of
claims 19 and 27 and adding claims 32-52. AT&T IP I is the assignee of all rights, title, and
interest in the ‘976 patent, including the right to recover damages for past infringement. A copy
of the ‘976 Patent with its Reexamination Certificate is attached as Exhibit B to this Complaint.
44. The ‘976 Patent discloses a point to multipoint distribution system for analog and
digital content including a return path for user control information. The ‘976 Patent discloses
both the overall content distribution system and the component parts, such as set top boxes,
needed to implement such a system. The advances of the ‘976 patent allow a single device to {00888572;v1 } 14
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
select between and tune both analog and digital content streams, and to transmit data back to the
source of one or more of those streams.
45. United States Patent No. 6,487,200 (“the ‘200 Patent”) entitled “PACKET
TELEPHONE SYSTEM,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and
Trademark Office on November 26, 2002 after full and fair examination. A certificate of
correction was issued on March, 11, 2003. AT&T IP II is the assignee of all rights, title, and
interest in the ‘200 patent, including the right to recover damages for past infringement. A copy
of the ‘200 Patent with its certificate of correction is attached as Exhibit C to this Complaint.
46. The ‘200 Patent discloses a packet telephone system employing network interface
units that convert between voice and DTMF signals from telephony devices and packets from a
packet network. The ‘200 Patent also discloses important features of such systems, including the
remote programmability of network interface units and the use of equipment identification
numbers to manage the packet network and connected devices.
47. United States Patent No. 6,952,668 (“the ‘668 Patent”) entitled “METHOD AND
APPARATUS FOR PERFORMING PACKET LOSS OR FRAME ERASURE
CONCEALMENT,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark
Office on October 4, 2005 after full and fair examination. AT&T IP II is the assignee of all
rights, title, and interest in the ‘668 patent, including the right to recover damages for past
infringement. A copy of the ‘668 Patent is attached as Exhibit D to this Complaint.

48. United States Patent No. 7,233,897 (“the ‘897 Patent”) entitled “METHOD AND
APPARATUS FOR PERFORMING PACKET LOSS OR FRAME ERASURE
CONCEALMENT,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark {00888572;v1 } 15
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
Office on June 19, 2007 after full and fair examination. Certificates of correction issued for the
‘897 patent on September 4, 2007 and September 28, 2010. AT&T IP II is the assignee of all
rights, title, and interest in the ‘897 Patent, including the right to recover damages for past
infringement. A copy of the ‘897 Patent with its certificates of correction is attached as Exhibit
E to this Complaint.
49. United States Patent No. 7,908,140 (“the ‘140 Patent”) entitled “METHOD AND
APPARATUS FOR PERFORMING PACKET LOSS OR FRAME ERASURE
CONCEALMENT,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark
Office on March 15, 2011 after full and fair examination. AT&T IP II is the assignee of all
rights, title, and interest in the ‘140 patent, including the right to recover damages for past
infringement. A copy of the ‘140 Patent is attached as Exhibit F to this Complaint.
50. The ‘668, ‘897, and ‘140 Patents (collectively, “Kapilow Patents”) disclose
methods and apparatuses for performing packet loss or frame erasure concealment in a packet
based network used for voice transmission. Packet loss or frame erasure concealment allows a
packet based network to simulate the quality of a circuit switched telephone network by inserting
estimates of missing voice clips when packets are lost during transmission. The advances of the
Kapilow Patents made packet based telephone service acceptable to users accustomed to the
quality of circuit switched telephone service.
51. United States Patent No. 6,993,353 (“the ‘353 Patent”) entitled “CABLE DATA
SERVICE METHOD,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark
Office on January 31, 2006 after full and fair examination. AT&T IP II is the assignee of all {00888572;v1 } 16
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
rights, title, and interest in the ‘353 patent, including the right to recover damages for past
infringement. A copy of the ‘353 Patent is attached as Exhibit G to this Complaint.
52. The ‘353 Patent discloses a method for transmitting data over an RF cable using
multiple RF channels that are then recombined at a receiver. This method, commonly referred to
as channel bonding, allows for efficient use of cable spectrum to deliver high bandwidth
connections to subscribers.
53. United States Patent No. 7,907,714 (“the ‘714 Patent”) entitled “PROFILE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM INCLUDING USER INTERFACE FOR ACCESSING AND
MAINTAINING PROFILE DATA OF USER SUBSCRIBED TELEPHONY SERVICES,” was
duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on June 19, 2007 after
full and fair examination. A certificate of correction issued for the ‘714 patent on August 16,
2011. AT&T IP I is the assignee of all rights, title, and interest in the ‘714 patent, including the
right to recover damages for past infringement. A copy of the ‘714 Patent with its certificate of
correction is attached as Exhibit H to this Complaint.
54. The ‘714 Patent discloses a management system that allows users to access and
maintain their own subscriber profile information. This allows subscribers to obtain a higher
level of service while simultaneously lowering cost to the service provider by reducing the need
for customer service representatives.
55. The ‘492 Patent, ‘976 Patent, ‘200 Patent, ‘668 Patent, ‘353 Patent, ‘897 Patent,
‘140 Patent, and ’714 Patent are referred to collectively as the “Patents-In-Suit.” The Patents-InSuit
each relate to systems and methods for improving the quality and reducing the cost of
telecommunications network services. {00888572;v1 } 17
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
56. Cox is engaged in the business of offering television, internet, and telephone
services to its subscribers, as well as renting them the necessary equipment. Cox offers
television service through set top boxes that practice the claims of the ‘492 and ‘976 Patents.
Cox also offers telephone service through a packet telephone network infringing the ‘200, ‘897,
‘140, and ‘668 Patents. In addition, Cox offers internet service by infringing the ‘353 Patent.
Cox also manages its users of these services and maintains their customer profiles by infringing
the ‘714 Patent.
V. COUNT I: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘492 PATENT
57. Cox has directly infringed and continues to infringe, directly and/or indirectly, the
‘492 Patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United
States, without authority, Digital Video Recorders (DVRs) and Set Top Boxes (STBs), that
embody one or more claims of the ‘492 Patent. Accused DVRs and STBs include at least the
Explorer 8000, 8240, and 8300 DVRs.
58. Cox has induced and is inducing infringement of the ‘492 Patent in the United
States in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The direct infringement occurs when Cox, its
contractors and employees, customers, and/or subscribers use the accused DVRs and STBs to
create, organize, identify, and resolve potentially conflicting program recording requests. Cox
knows the ‘492 Patent is infringed when the accused DVRs and STBs are used. For example, in
May 2010, AT&T representatives provided a detailed demonstration of Cox’s Explorer 8300HD
infringement of claim 1 of the ‘492 Patent. In spite of this knowledge, Cox continued to induce
its employees, customers, and/or subscribers to use the accused DVRs and STBS, thereby
infringing the ‘492 Patent, by providing subscribers with the accused DVRs and STBs and {00888572;v1 } 18
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
providing instructions and support for their use. Upon information and belief, Cox generated
significant revenue in connection with the sale and/or rental of the accused DVRs and STBs even
though Cox knew that such actions would induce actual infringement.
59. Cox indirectly infringes one or more claims of the ‘492 Patent by contributory
infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Direct infringement occurs when Cox, its contractors
and employees, customers, and/or subscribers use the accused DVRs and STBs to create,
organize, identify, and resolve potentially conflicting program recording requests. The accused
DVRs and STBs include particular functionality within their hardware and software components
for creating rules, organizing rules into a hierarchical order, determining when rules are in
conflict, and suggesting repairs to those rules. The accused DVRs and STBs do not function in
an acceptable manner absent the claimed functionality for creating, organizing, identifying and
resolving potentially conflicting rules. Furthermore, the functionality of creating and managing
rules does not operate in isolation, but is designed to operate with the accused DVRs and STBs.
Absent the claimed functionality of creating and managing rules, the accused DVRs and STBs
would not operate in an acceptable manner. The systems and software for creating, organizing,
identifying, and resolving potentially conflicting program recording requests are non-staple
articles with no substantial non-infringing use other than infringing the ‘492 Patent. The accused
DVRs and STBs are especially adapted to operate in a manner that infringes the ‘492 Patent.
Any other use would be unusual, far-fetched, illusory, impractical, occasional, aberrant, or
experimental. Cox has known since at least May 2010 that the accused DVRs and STBs and
their hardware and software components responsible for creating, organizing, identifying, and
resolving potentially conflicting program recording requests are non-staple articles with no {00888572;v1 } 19
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
substantial use other than infringing the ‘492 Patent, but has continued to provide the accused
DVRs and STBs to its customers and subscribers.
60. Cox’s infringement of the ‘492 Patent has been willful and deliberate. Cox has
known about the ‘492 Patent since at least May 2010, when it received a detailed demonstration
of its infringement. Moreover, Cox lacks justifiable belief that there is no infringement, or that
the infringed claims are invalid, and has acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its
conduct constitutes infringement of a valid patent. AT&T is therefore entitled to an award of
enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs in bringing this action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§
284 and 285.
61. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts and practices of the Defendant
in infringing, directly and/or indirectly, one or more claims of the ’492 Patent, AT&T has
suffered, is suffering, and will continue to suffer injury and damages for which it is entitled to
relief under 35 U.S.C. § 284, in an amount to be determined at trial.
VI. COUNT II: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘976 PATENT
62. Cox has directly infringed and continues to infringe, directly and/or indirectly, the
‘976 Patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United
States, without authority, DVRs and STBs that embody one or more claims of the ‘976 Patent.
Accused DVRs and STBs include at least the Explorer 8000, 8000HD, 8300, and 8300HD series
DVRs.
63. Cox has induced and is inducing infringement of the ‘976 Patent by others in the
United States in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The direct infringement occurs when Cox, its
contractors and employees, customers, and/or subscribers use the accused DVRs and STBs to {00888572;v1 } 20
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
receive Cox’s services. Cox knows the ‘976 Patent is infringed by the accused DVRs and STBs
and induces infringement by requiring its customers and/or subscribers to use these infringing
articles in order to receive Cox’s services. For example, on or before May 2010, AT&T
representatives provided a detailed demonstration of Cox’s Explorer 8300HD infringing claim
19 of the ‘976 Patent. In spite of this knowledge, Cox continued to require its customers and/or
subscribers to use the accused DVRs and STBs, thereby infringing the ‘976 patent, in order to
receive Cox’s services. Upon information and belief, Cox and its employees, agents, and
technicians continued to sell, rent, install, and/or service the accused DVRs and STBs to Cox’s
customers and/or subscribers after learning of their infringement. Upon information and belief,
Cox generated significant revenue in connection with the sale and/or rental of the accused DVRs
and STBs, even though Cox knew that such actions would induce actual infringement.
64. Cox indirectly infringes one or more claims of the ‘976 Patent by contributory
infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Direct infringement occurs when Cox, its contractors
and employees, customers, and/or subscribers use the accused DVRs and STBs to receive Cox’s
services. The accused DVRs and STBs include particular functionality within their hardware
and software components for receiving, tuning, decoding, and displaying analog and digital
inputs on an external display and transmitting subscriber requests and other information back to
Cox’s facilities. The accused DVRs and STBs do not function in an acceptable manner absent
the claimed functionality. The claimed functionality in the accused DVRs and STBs has no
substantial non-infringing use other than infringing the ‘976 Patent. The accused DVRs and
STBs are especially adapted to infringe the ‘976 Patent. Any other use would be unusual, farfetched,
illusory, impractical, occasional, aberrant, or experimental. Cox has known since at
least May 2010 that the accused DVRs and STBs and their hardware and software components {00888572;v1 } 21
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
responsible for receiving, tuning, decoding, and displaying analog and digital inputs on an
external display and transmitting subscriber requests and other information back to Cox’s
facilities are non-staple articles with no substantial use other than infringing the ‘976 Patent, but
has continued to provide the accused DVRs and STBs to its customers and subscribers.
65. Cox’s infringement of the ‘976 Patent has been willful and deliberate. Cox has
known about the ‘976 Patent since at least May 2010, when it received a detailed demonstration
of its infringement. Moreover, Cox lacks justifiable belief that there is no infringement, or that
the infringed claims are invalid, and has acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its
conduct constitutes infringement of a valid patent. AT&T is therefore entitled to an award of
enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs in bringing this action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§
284 and 285.
66. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts and practices of the Defendants
in infringing, directly and/or indirectly, one or more claims of the ‘976 Patent, AT&T has
suffered, is suffering, and will continue to suffer injury and damages for which it is entitled to
relief under 35 U.S.C. § 284, in an amount to be determined at trial.

VII. COUNT III: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘200 PATENT
67. Cox has directly infringed and continues to infringe, directly and/or indirectly, the
‘200 Patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United
States, without authority, a telephone system that embodies at least claim 2 of the ‘200 Patent.
The accused telephone systems include at least Cox’s digital telephone system and related
network and equipment. {00888572;v1 } 22
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
68. Cox has induced and is inducing infringement of the ‘200 Patent in the United
States in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The direct infringement occurs when Cox, its
contractors and employees, customers, and/or subscribers use Cox’s digital telephone system.
Cox knows the ‘200 Patent is infringed when their digital telephone system is used. For example,
in September 2009, AT&T representatives provided a detailed demonstration of Cox’s digital
telephone system’s infringement of claim 2 of the ‘200 Patent. In spite of this knowledge, Cox
continued to induce its employees, customers, and/or subscribers to use its digital telephone
system, thereby infringing the ‘200 Patent. Upon information and belief, Cox generated
significant revenue through its subscribers’ use of its digital telephone system, even though Cox
knew that such actions would induce actual infringement.
69. Cox indirectly infringes one or more claims of the ‘200 Patent by contributory
infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Direct infringement occurs when Cox, its contractors
and employees, customers, and/or subscribers use Cox’s digital telephone system. The accused
telephone system includes particular functionality within its hardware and software components
that are especially made to infringe the ‘200 Patent, with no substantial non-infringing uses. For
example, the eMTAs in Cox’s digital telephone system, including the Motorola SBV5220 VOIP
Cable Modem, are non-staple articles that do not function in an acceptable manner unless part of
the claimed telephone system. Any other use would be unusual, far-fetched, illusory,
impractical, occasional, aberrant, or experimental. Cox has known since at least September 2009
that its digital telephone system and its component parts are non-staple articles with no
substantial use other than infringing the ‘200 Patent, but has continued to provide its digital
telephone service and related equipment to its customers and subscribers. {00888572;v1 } 23
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
70. Cox’s infringement of the ‘200 Patent has been willful and deliberate. Cox has
known about the ‘200 Patent since at least September 2009, when it received a detailed
demonstration of its infringement. Moreover, Cox lacks justifiable belief that there is no
infringement, or that the infringed claims are invalid, and has acted despite an objectively high
likelihood that its conduct constitutes infringement of a valid patent. AT&T is therefore entitled
to an award of enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs in bringing this action pursuant to
35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285.
71. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts and practices of the Defendants
in infringing, directly and/or indirectly, one or more claims of the ‘200 Patent, AT&T has
suffered, is suffering, and will continue to suffer injury and damages for which it is entitled to
relief under 35 U.S.C. § 284, in an amount to be determined at trial.
VIII. COUNT IV: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘668 PATENT
72. Cox has directly infringed and continues to infringe, directly and/or indirectly, the
‘668 Patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United
States, without authority, packet telephone system network components including at least
eMTAs that embody at least claim 1 of the ‘668 Patent. The accused components include all of
Cox’s eMTAs and other network components implementing G.711 Appendix I packet loss
concealment or an equivalent, including at least the Motorola 5220 and Arris TM502G,
TM202A, and TM402A models.
73. Cox has induced and is inducing infringement of the ‘668 Patent in the United
States in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The direct infringement occurs when Cox, its
contractors and employees, customers, and/or subscribers use the accused components. Cox {00888572;v1 } 24
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
knows the ‘668 Patent is infringed when the accused network components are used. For example,
in February 2010, AT&T representatives provided a detailed demonstration of Cox’s accused
eMTAs infringing the Kapilow Patents, specifically claim 1 of the ‘897 Patent. In spite of this
knowledge, Cox continued to induce its employees, customers, and/or subscribers to use the
accused components, thereby infringing the ‘668 Patent. Upon information and belief, Cox
generated significant revenue through its subscribers’ use of the accused components, even
though Cox knew its customers’ use constituted actual infringement.
74. Cox indirectly infringes one or more claims of the ‘668 Patent by contributory
infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Direct infringement occurs when Cox, its contractors
and employees, customers, and/or subscribers use Cox’s packet telephone system network
components including at least the accused components. The accused components include
particular functionality within their hardware and software components that is especially made to
infringe the ‘668 patent, with no substantial non-infringing uses. For example, the hardware and
software components in the accused components related to packet loss concealment are nonstaple
articles that do not function in an acceptable manner unless part of the claimed apparatus.
Any other use would be unusual, far-fetched, illusory, impractical, occasional, aberrant, or
experimental.
Cox has known since at least February 2010 that its accused components and their
component parts are non-staple articles with no substantial use other than infringing the ‘668
patent, but has continued to provide its digital telephone service and related equipment to its
customers and subscribers.

75. Cox’s infringement of the ‘668 Patent has been willful and deliberate. Cox has

known about the ‘668 Patent since at least February 2010, when it received a detailed
demonstration of its infringement of the Kapilow Patents. Moreover, Cox lacks justifiable belief {00888572;v1 } 25
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
that there is no infringement, or that the infringed claims are invalid, and has acted despite an
objectively high likelihood that its conduct constitutes infringement of a valid patent. AT&T is
therefore entitled to an award of enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs in bringing this
action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285.
76. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts and practices of the Defendant
in infringing, directly and/or indirectly, one or more claims of the ‘668 Patent, AT&T has
suffered, is suffering, and will continue to suffer injury and damages for which it is entitled to
relief under 35 U.S.C. § 284, in an amount to be determined at trial.
IX. COUNT V: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘897 PATENT
77. Cox has directly infringed and continues to infringe, directly and/or indirectly, the
‘897 Patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United
States, without authority, packet telephone system network components including at least
eMTAs that embody at least claim 1 of the ‘897 Patent. The accused components include all of
Cox’s eMTAs and other network components implementing G.711 Appendix I packet loss
concealment or an equivalent, including at least the Motorola 5220 and Arris TM502G,
TM202A, and TM402A models.
78. Cox has induced and is inducing infringement of the ‘897 Patent in the United
States in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The direct infringement occurs when Cox, its
contractors and employees, customers, and/or subscribers use packet telephone system network
components including at least the accused components. Cox knows the ‘897 Patent is infringed
when the accused network components are used. For example, in February 2010, AT&T
representatives provided a detailed demonstration of Cox’s accused eMTAs infringing the {00888572;v1 } 26
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
Kapilow Patents, specifically claim 1 of the ‘897 Patent. In spite of this knowledge, Cox
continued to induce its employees, customers, and/or subscribers to use the accused components,
thereby infringing the ‘897 Patent. Upon information and belief, Cox generated significant
revenue through its subscribers’ use of the accused components, even though Cox knew its
customers’ use constituted actual infringement.
79. Cox indirectly infringes one or more claims of the ‘897 Patent by contributory
infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Direct infringement occurs when Cox, its contractors
and employees, customers, and/or subscribers use Cox’s packet telephone system network
components including at least the accused components. The accused components include
particular functionality within their hardware and software components that is especially made to
infringe the ‘897 patent, with no substantial non-infringing uses. For example, the hardware and
software components in the accused components related to packet loss concealment are nonstaple
articles that do not function in an acceptable manner unless part of the claimed methods
and apparatuses. Any other use would be unusual, far-fetched, illusory, impractical, occasional,
aberrant, or experimental. Cox has known since at least February 2010 that its accused
components and their component parts are non-staple articles with no substantial use other than
infringing the ‘897 patent, but has continued to provide its digital telephone service and related
equipment to its customers and subscribers.
80. Cox’s infringement of the ‘897 Patent has been willful and deliberate. Cox has
known about the ‘897 Patent since at least February 2010, when it received a detailed
demonstration of its infringement of the Kapilow Patents. Moreover, Cox lacks justifiable belief
that there is no infringement, or that the infringed claims are invalid, and has acted despite an
objectively high likelihood that its conduct constitutes infringement of a valid patent. AT&T is {00888572;v1 } 27
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
therefore entitled to an award of enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs in bringing this
action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285.
81. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts and practices of the Defendants
in infringing, directly and/or indirectly, one or more claims of the ‘897 Patent, AT&T has
suffered, is suffering, and will continue to suffer injury and damages for which it is entitled to
relief under 35 U.S.C. § 284, in an amount to be determined at trial.
X. COUNT VI: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘140 PATENT
82. Cox has directly infringed and continues to infringe, directly and/or indirectly, the
‘140 Patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United
States, without authority, packet telephone system network components including at least
eMTAs that embody at least claim 1 of the ‘140 Patent. The accused components include all of
Cox’s eMTAs and other network components implementing G.711 Appendix I packet loss
concealment or equivalent, including at least the Motorola 5220 and Arris TM502G, TM202A,
and TM402A models.
83. Cox has induced and is inducing infringement of the ‘140 Patent in the United
States in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The direct infringement occurs when Cox, its
contractors and employees, customers, and/or subscribers use packet telephone system network
components including at least the accused components. Cox knows the ‘140 Patent is infringed
when the accused network components are used. For example, in February 2010, AT&T
representatives provided a detailed demonstration of Cox’s accused eMTAs infringing the
Kapilow Patents, specifically claim 1 of the ‘897 Patent. AT&T also informed Cox that
additional patents, including the ‘140, were still in prosecution. Cox therefore knew of the ‘140 {00888572;v1 } 28
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
patent, or was willfully blind of its existence, when it issued on March 2011. In spite of this
knowledge, Cox continued to induce its employees, customers, and/or subscribers to use the
accused components, thereby infringing the ‘140 Patent. Upon information and belief, Cox
generated significant revenue through its subscribers’ use of the accused components, even
though Cox knew its customers’ use constituted actual infringement.
84. Cox indirectly infringes one or more claims of the ‘140 Patent by contributory
infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Direct infringement occurs when Cox, its contractors
and employees, customers, and/or subscribers use Cox’s packet telephone system network
components including at least the accused components. The accused network components
include particular functionality within their hardware and software components especially made
to infringe the ‘140 patent, with no substantial non-infringing uses. For example, the hardware
and software components in the accused components related to packet loss concealment are nonstaple
articles that do not function in an acceptable manner unless part of the claimed methods.
Any other use would be unusual, far-fetched, illusory, impractical, occasional, aberrant, or
experimental. Cox has known since at least March 2011 that its accused components and their
component parts are non-staple articles with no substantial use other than infringing the ‘140
patent, but has continued to provide its digital telephone service and related equipment to its
customers and subscribers.
85. Cox’s infringement of the ‘140 Patent has been willful and deliberate. Cox has
known about the Kapilow Patents since at least February 2010, when it received a detailed
demonstration of its infringement, and knew of or was willfully blind to the existence of the ‘140
Patent as of its issuance in March 2011. Moreover, Cox lacks justifiable belief that there is no
infringement, or that the infringed claims are invalid, and has acted despite an objectively high {00888572;v1 } 29
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
likelihood that its conduct constitutes infringement of a valid patent. AT&T is therefore entitled
to an award of enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs in bringing this action pursuant to
35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285.
86. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts and practices of the Defendants
in infringing, directly and/or indirectly, one or more claims of the ‘140 Patent, AT&T has
suffered, is suffering, and will continue to suffer injury and damages for which it is entitled to
relief under 35 U.S.C. § 284, in an amount to be determined at trial.
XI. COUNT VII: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘353 PATENT
87. Cox has directly infringed and continues to infringe, directly and/or indirectly, the
‘353 Patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United
States, without authority, a cable internet system that embodies at least claim 1 of the ‘353
Patent. The accused cable internet systems include at least Cox’s DOCSIS 3.0 system and
related network and equipment.
88. Cox has induced and is inducing infringement of the ‘353 Patent in the United
States in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The direct infringement occurs when Cox, its
contractors and employees, customers, and/or subscribers use Cox’s cable internet system. Cox
knows the ‘353 Patent is infringed when their cable internet system is used. For example, in
February 2010, AT&T representatives provided a detailed demonstration of Cox’s cable internet
system’s infringement of claim 1 of the ‘353 Patent. In spite of this knowledge, Cox continued
to induce its employees, customers, and/or subscribers to use its cable internet system, thereby
infringing the ‘353 Patent. Upon information and belief, Cox generated significant revenue {00888572;v1 } 30
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
through its subscribers’ use of its cable internet system, even though Cox knew that its actions
would induce actual infringement.
89. Cox indirectly infringes one or more claims of the ‘353 Patent by contributory
infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Direct infringement occurs when Cox, its contractors
and employees, customers, and/or subscribers use Cox’s cable internet system. The accused
cable internet system includes particular functionality within their hardware and software
components that is especially made to infringe the ‘353 Patent, with no substantial noninfringing
uses. For example, the cable modems, cable modem termination systems, and RF
gateways in Cox’s DOCSIS 3.0 cable internet system are or contain components that are nonstaple
articles that do not function in an acceptable manner unless practicing the claimed
methods of the ‘353 Patent. Any other use would be unusual, far-fetched, illusory, impractical,
occasional, aberrant, or experimental. Cox has known since at least February 2010 that its cable
internet system and component parts are non-staple articles with no substantial use other than
infringing the ‘353 Patent, but has continued to provide its cable internet service and related
equipment to its customers and subscribers.
90. Cox’s infringement of the ‘353 Patent has been willful and deliberate. Cox has
known about the ‘353 Patent since at least February 2010, when it received a detailed
demonstration of its infringement. Moreover, Cox lacks justifiable belief that there is no
infringement, or that the infringed claims are invalid, and has acted despite an objectively high
likelihood that its conduct constitutes infringement of a valid patent. AT&T is therefore entitled
to an award of enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs in bringing this action pursuant to
35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285. {00888572;v1 } 31
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
91. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts and practices of the Defendant
in infringing, directly and/or indirectly, one or more claims of the ‘353 Patent, AT&T has
suffered, is suffering, and will continue to suffer injury and damages for which it is entitled to
relief under 35 U.S.C. § 284, in an amount to be determined at trial.
XII. COUNT VIII: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘714 PATENT
92. Cox has directly infringed and continues to infringe, directly and/or indirectly, the
‘714 Patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United
States, without authority, a profile management system that embodies one or more claims of the
‘714 Patent. The accused profile management systems include at least Cox’s Voice Manager
system and related network and equipment.
93. As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts and practices of the Defendant
in infringing, directly and/or indirectly, one or more claims of the ‘714 Patent, AT&T has
suffered, is suffering, and will continue to suffer injury and damages for which it is entitled to
relief under 35 U.S.C. § 284, in an amount to be determined at trial.
XIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
A. A judgment that Cox has infringed the Patents-In-Suit, directly and/or indirectly;
B. A judgment awarding Plaintiff actual damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 (but in no
event less than a reasonable royalty), and supplemental damages for any continuing post-verdict
infringement up until entry of the final judgment, with an accounting as needed; {00888572;v1 } 32
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
C. A judgment and order requiring Cox to pay a compulsory ongoing royalty for any
future infringement of the patents-in-suit;
D. A judgment and order requiring Cox to pay Plaintiff pre-judgment and postjudgment
interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;
E. A judgment and order finding this to be an exceptional case and requiring Cox to
pay the costs of this action (including all disbursements) and Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 285;
F. A judgment and order finding that Cox’s infringement is willful and deliberate,
entitling Plaintiff to enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
G. An accounting for any damages that are not encompassed within the
determination of the jury; and
H. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
XIV. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff hereby demands trial by a jury.
{00888572;v1 } 33
IF "" = "6" "Error! Unknown document property name.
Of Counsel:
Theodore Stevenson, III
Jared Hoggan
MCKOOL SMITH, PC
300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 978-4000
Dated: August 28, 2014
ASHBY & GEDDES
/s/ Lauren E. Maguire
_______________________________
John G. Day (#2403)
Lauren E. Maguire (#4261)
ASHBY & GEDDES
500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19899
(302) 654-1888
jday@ashby-geddes.com
lmaguire@ashby-geddes.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs AT&T Intellectual
Property I, L.P. and AT&T Intellectual
Prop



to leave the world a little better;whether by a healthy child,a garden patch or a redeemed social condition;to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived.
This is the meaning of success[