IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION GUARDIAN MEDIA TECHNOLOGIES,

LTD., Plaintiff, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13-CV-482

Plaintiff Guardian Media Technologies, Ltd. (Guardian) files this Original Complaint against the above-named defendant, alleging, based on its own knowledge as to itself and its own actions, and based on information and belief as to all other matters, as follows: PARTIES 1. Guardian is a limited partnership formed under the laws of the State of

Texas, with a principal place of business in Longview, Texas. 2. Defendant Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft) is a corporation organized

under the laws of Washington with a principal place of business in Redmond, Washington. Microsoft can be served via its registered agent for service of process: Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC Lawyers Incorporating Service Company; 211 East 7th Street, Ste. 620; Austin, TX 78701-3218.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This is an action for infringement of a United States patent arising under 35

U.S.C. 271, 281, and 28485, among others. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of the action under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a). 4. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391 and 1400(b). Upon

information and belief, defendant has transacted business in this district and has committed acts of patent infringement in this district. 5. Defendant is subject to this Courts specific and general personal

jurisdiction under due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute, due at least to defendants substantial business in this forum, including: (i) at least a portion of the infringements alleged herein; and (ii) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses of conduct, and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to individuals in Texas and in this district. COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 4,930,158 6. On May 29, 1990, United States Patent No. 4,930,158 (the 158 patent)

was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office for an invention titled Selective Video Playing System. 7. On November 4, 2008, the United States Patent and Trademark Office

issued a Reexamination Certificate for the 158 patent which confirmed the patentability of claims 811 and 1922 of the 158 patent. 8. Guardian is the owner of the 158 patent with all substantive rights in and to

that patent, including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action, enforce the 158

patent against infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times. The 158 patent has expired. 9. As it pertains to this lawsuit, the 158 patent generally relates to parental

control features in video players (including desktop or laptop computers and video game consoles) that allow owners of the players to restrict the types of video viewed by others. 10. Microsoft, either alone and/or in conjunction with others, including its

customers and/or suppliers, made, had made, used, imported, provided, supplied, distributed, sold, and/or offered for sale products with parental control features (including at least the following 158 Accused Products/158 Accused Services: Xbox 360 with the Xbox Live Marketplace, Xbox 360 with Windows Media Extender/Windows Media Center and/or computers running Windows Media Center, Xbox 360 with the Xbox 360 HD DVD Player, Windows Media Center and/or computers running Windows Media Center, Windows Media Player and/or computers running Windows Media Center) that infringed one or more claims of the 158 patent. 11. Microsoft is accused of infringing the 158 patent both directly and

indirectly with respect to the 158 Accused Products and 158 Accused Services. 12. 13. Microsoft first had knowledge of the 158 patent at least as early as 2004. Microsofts infringement was willful from the date that it first had

knowledge of the 158 patent. 14. Microsofts customers and/or suppliers directly made, had made, used,

imported, provided, supplied, distributed, sold, and/or offered for sale the 158 Accused Products and/or the 158 Accused Services.

15.

Microsoft induced and/or contributed to infringement of the 158 patent by

its customers and/or suppliers. 16. Microsoft took active steps, directly and/or through contractual

relationships with others, to cause infringement with both knowledge of the 158 patent and the specific intent to cause its customers and/or suppliers to make, use, sell, import, or otherwise provide the 158 Accused Products/158 Accused Services in a manner that infringed the 158 patent, knowing the same to constitute an infringement of the above patents. Such steps by Microsoft included, among other things, advising or directing its customers and/or suppliers to make, use, sell, or import the 158 Accused Products/158 Accused Services in an infringing manner, advertising and promoting the use of the 158 Accused Products/158 Accused Services in an infringing manner, and/or distributing instructions that guide users to use the 158 Accused Products/158 Accused Services in an infringing manner. These activities include instructing customers on how to watch content-rated videos on the 158 Accused Products/158 Accused Services and to control what videos can be watched using the parental control functionality of the 158 Accused Products/158 Accused Services. These activities further include directing or encouraging third parties to make and/or sell the 158 Accused Products/158 Accused Services. 17. Microsoft made, sold, offered for sale, used, and/or imported 158 Accused

Products/158 Accused Services that have or are hardware and/or software components that are especially designed to be used with such other devices and systems in carrying out parental control actions. These components in the 158 Accused Products/158 Accused Services constitute a material part of the invention of one or more asserted claims of the patents in suit and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-

infringing use. These distinct and separate components are used only to provide parental controls in the manner described by the patents in suit and not any other method, such as prior parental control techniques for scrambling and unscrambling a television or other video signal. 18. For the reasons stated above, Microsoft infringes the 158 patent both

directly and indirectly. 19. Guardian has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by

defendant alleged above and, thus, defendant is liable to Guardian in an amount that adequately compensates it for defendants infringement, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. 284. COUNT II INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 4,930,160 20. On May 29, 1990, United States Patent No. 4,930,160 (the 160 patent)

was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office for an invention titled Automatic Censorship of Video Programs. 21. On April 7, 2009, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a

Reexamination Certificate for the 160 patent which confirmed the patentability of claims 3, 6, 7, 16, 19, and 20 of the 160 patent. 22. Guardian is the owner of the 160 patent with all substantive rights in and to

that patent, including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action, enforce the 160 patent against infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times. The 160 patent has expired.

23.

As it pertains to this lawsuit, the 160 patent generally relates to parental

control features video players (including desktop or laptop computers and video game consoles) that allow owners of the players to restrict the types of video viewed by others. 24. Microsoft, either alone and/or in conjunction with others, including its

customers and/or suppliers, made, had made, used, imported, provided, supplied, distributed, sold, and/or offered for sale products with parental control features (including at least the following 160 Accused Products/160 Accused Services: Xbox 360, Xbox 360 with the Xbox Live Marketplace, Xbox 360 with Windows Media Extender/Windows Media Center and/or computers running Windows Media Center, Xbox 360 with the Xbox 360 HD DVD Player, Windows Media Center and/or computers running Windows Media Center, Windows Media Player and/or computers running Windows Media Player, Windows Vista and/or computers running Windows Vista) that infringed one or more claims of the 160 patent. 25. Microsoft is accused of infringing the 160 patent both directly and

indirectly with respect to the 160 Accused Products and 160 Accused Services. 26. 27. Microsoft first had knowledge of the 160 patent at least as early as 2004. Microsofts infringement was willful from the date that it first had

knowledge of the 160 patent. 28. Microsofts customers and/or suppliers directly made, had made, used,

imported, provided, supplied, distributed, sold, and/or offered for sale the 160 Accused Products and/or the 160 Accused Services. 29. Microsoft induced and/or contributed to infringement of the 160 patent by

its customers and/or suppliers.

30.

Microsoft took active steps, directly and/or through contractual

relationships with others, to cause infringement with both knowledge of the 160 patent and the specific intent to cause its customers and/or suppliers to make, use, sell, import, or otherwise provide the 160 Accused Products/160 Accused Services in a manner that infringed the 160 patent, knowing the same to constitute an infringement of the above patents. Such steps by Microsoft included, among other things, advising or directing its customers and/or suppliers to make, use, sell, or import the 160 Accused Products/160 Accused Services in an infringing manner, advertising and promoting the use of the 160 Accused Products/160 Accused Services in an infringing manner, and/or distributing instructions that guide users to use the 160 Accused Products/160 Accused Services in an infringing manner. These activities include instructing customers on how to watch content-rated videos on the 160 Accused Products/160 Accused Services and to control what videos can be watched using the parental control functionality of the 160 Accused Products/160 Accused Services. These activities further include directing or encouraging third parties to make and/or sell the 160 Accused Products/160 Accused Services. 31. Microsoft made, sold, offered for sale, used, and/or imported 160 Accused

Products/160 Accused Services that have or are hardware and/or software components that are especially designed to be used with such other devices and systems in carrying out parental control actions. These components in the 160 Accused Products/160 Accused Services constitute a material part of the invention of one or more asserted claims of the patents in suit and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. These distinct and separate components are used only to provide parental controls in the manner described by the patents in suit and not any other method, such as

prior parental control techniques for scrambling and unscrambling a television or other video signal. 32. For the reasons stated above, Microsoft infringes the 160 patent both

directly and indirectly. 33. Guardian has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by

defendant alleged above and, thus, defendant is liable to Guardian in an amount that adequately compensates it for defendants infringement, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. 284. JURY DEMAND Guardian hereby requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable by right. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Guardian requests that the Court find in its favor and against defendant, and that the Court grant Guardian the following relief: a. Judgment that one or more claims of the 158 and 160 patents have been

directly and/or indirectly infringed, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by defendant and/or by others acting in concert therewith; b. Judgment that defendant account for and pay to Guardian all damages to

and costs incurred by Guardian because of defendants infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein, including, under 35 U.S.C. 284, enhanced damages for willful infringement; c. That Guardian be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the

damages caused by defendants infringing activities and other conduct complained of

herein; d. That this Court declare this an exceptional case and award Guardian its

reasonable attorneys fees and costs in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 285; and e. That Guardian be granted such other and further relief as the Court may

deem just and proper under the circumstances. Dated: June 11, 2013 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Larry D. Thompson, Jr. Matthew J. Antonelli Texas Bar No. 24068432 matt@ahtlawfirm.com Zachariah S. Harrington Texas Bar No. 24057886 zac@ahtlawfirm.com Larry D. Thompson, Jr. Texas Bar No. 24051428 larry@ahtlawfirm.com ANTONELLI, HARRINGTON & THOMPSON LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 430 Houston, TX 77006 (713) 581-3000 (713) 581-3020 fax S. Calvin Capshaw State Bar No. 03873900 Elizabeth L. DeRieux State Bar No. 05770585 D/. Jeffrey Rambin State Bar No. 00791478 CAPSHAW DeRIEUX, LLP 114 E. Commerce St. Gladewater, TX 75647 Tel: (903) 236-9800 Fax: (903) 236-8787 E-mail: ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com E-mail: ederieux@capshawlaw.com E-mail: jrambin@capshawlaw.com Attorneys for Guardian Media Technologies, Ltd. 9