1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Gregory S. Bishop (SBN 184680) GBishop@goodw inprocter. com Yue Li (SBN 287280) LLi@goodwinprocter. com GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 135 Commonwealth Drive Menlo Park, CA 94025 Phone: (650) 752-3100 Fax: (650) 853-1038 William J. Bohler (SBN 141970) wjbohler@comcast. net 5424 Sunol Blvd., #10-258 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Phone: (650) 218-6652

9
10
11

Attorney:${ofPldintiff AirTightNetworks, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [DIVISION TO BE ASSIGNED]

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
LIBN2369375J

AIRTIGHT NETWORKS, INC. Plaintiff,

v.
AEROHIVE NETWORKS, INC. Defendant.

AIRTIGHT NETWORKS, INC.'S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

AIRTIGHT NETWORKS, INC.'S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

1 2 3
4

Plaintiff AirTight Networks, Inc. ("AirTight"), for its Complaint against Defendant Aerohive Networks, Inc. ("Defendant"), alleges: THE PARTIES
1.

AirTight is a California corporation that maintains its principal place of business at

5 6 7 8
9

339 North Bernardo Avenue Suite 200, Mountain View, California.

2.

Upon information and belief, Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal

place of business at 330 Gibraltar Drive, Sunnyvale, California. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3.

This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, United States

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Code 1, et seq. The jurisdiction ofthis Court over the subject matter of this action is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a).
4.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because, on information and

belief, Defendant has its principal place of business within this district and has committed acts of infringement within this district. Service may be made on Changming Liu, 330 Gibraltar Drive, Sunnyvale, California, Defendant's registered agent for Service of Process.
5.

Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 139l(b) and (c), and 1400(b). INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

6.

Because this action is an Intellectual Property Action as specified in Civil L.R. 3-2(c),

it is to be assigned on a district-wide basis. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

7.

AirTight is a global provider of secure Wi-Fi solutions that combine its patented and

industry-leading wireless intrusion prevention system ("WIPS") technology with a cloud-managed, controller-less Wi-Fi architecture. AirTight's WIPS technology established its industry leadership by delivering key elements of an effective system that enables enterprise security and compliance professionals to detect, classify, block, and locate Wi-Fi security threats. Specifically, AirTight's patented rogue detection technology, commercially marketed as Marker Packets, has been recognized as a highly effective way to accurately classify wireless threats on networks, thereby providing comprehensive protection against attack sequences that can be launched over access
LIBA/2369375.3

AIRTIGHT NETWORKS, INC.'S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

points. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. On March 4, 2008, United States Patent No. 7,339,914 ("the '914 patent") was duly

and legally issued to AirTight, with Pravin Bhagwat, Shantanu Gogate, and David C. King named as co-inventors, for an invention entitled "Automated Sniffer Apparatus and Method for Monitoring Computer systems for Unauthorized Access." AirTight is the owner of all rights, title, and interests in the '914 patent. A copy of the '914 patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A. The '914 patent covers AirTight's highly effective rogue detection technology, Marker Packets. 9. In August and September 2009, AirTight and Defendant entered into mutual referral

8
9 10 11 12 13 14
15

and partnership agreements, under which Defendant was to refer its security-focused customers to AirTight for its WIPS products. Defendant was aware of AirTight's market-leading position in wireless security and WIPS. As a result of its agreements with AirTight, Defendant also gained access to AirTight's products and technology, including AirTight's patented rogue detection technology. As part ofthe partnership agreement, AirTight provided Defendant a sample of its WIPS products with the patented Marker Packets rogue detection technology. 10. Defendant knew that the Marker Packets technology was patented at least as early

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

as December 2009, while Defendant was working on implementing on-network rogue detection mechanisms for its own products. For example, in December 2009, Devin Akin, Defendant's chief Wi-Fi architect and lead technologist, advised AirTight that Defendant was aware that AirTight had patented the on-network rogue detection technology, and asked AirTight to explain the patented methodology to "help [him] to better understand this methodology." Defendant led AirTight to believe that it made this inquiry as part of the partnership relationship and to avoid AirTight's patents.

II.

Upon information and belief, however, Defendant instead misappropriated AirTight's

patented Marker Packets rogue detection technology and incorporated it into its own products, including but not limited to its HiveAP wireless access point devices and HiveManager software. Moreover, upon information and belief, Defendant provided and/or made available to its customers its user manuals, product manuals and marketing materials that featured and described such rogue detection technology covered by the '914 patent, and encouraged, assisted, and instructed its
LIBAJ2369375.3

AIRTIGHT NETWORKS, INC.'S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

customers to configure and use the patented technology embodied in Defendant's products. Further, 2 3 4 on information and belief, Defendant provided, and continues to provide, its customers with technical and product support to enable them to use, and continue to use, the patented technology embodied in Defendant's products. 12. In about January 2012, AirTight learned of Defendant and its customers'

5
6 7 8 9 10
11

infringement of the '914 patent from an Aerohive channel partner, who described Defendant's method of rogue detection at an industry event. AirTight immediately notified David Flynn, Defendant's CEO, about Defendant's and its customers' liability for patent infringement of the '914 patent. For example, AirTight asked Defendant to promptly remove the Marker Packets rogue detection technology covered by the '914 patent from all Defendant's products, to promptly remove mentioning such technology from all Defendant's user manuals, product manuals and marketing materials, and to ensure that Defendant's customers cease unauthorized use of the patented technology. 13. Upon information and belief, Defendant has not taken necessary or reasonable steps

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

to avoid ongoing infringement by itself or its customers. CLAIMFORRELIEF (Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,339,914) 14. AirTight incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through

13 above as if set forth fully herein. 15. Upon information and belief, Defendant's wireless network products, including but

not limited to HiveAP and HiveManager, use, incorporate, and embody the inventions claimed in the '914 patent, and are covered by one or more claims of the '914 patent. Consequently, the manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale, and/or importation within the United States of Defendant's products and/or services constitutes direct infringement of the '914 patent literally, or under the doctrine of equivalents. 16. Upon information and belief, Defendant has made, used, offered for sale, sold, and/or

26
27 28

imported its HiveAP and HiveManager in the United States and in this district. Defendant has therefore directly infringed, and continues to directly infringe, the '914 patent in violation of35
LIBAJ2369375.3

AIRTIGHT NETWORKS, INC.'S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

U.S.C. 271(a). 17. Upon information and belief, Defendant has actively induced, and continues to

actively induce, the infringement of the '914 patent by its customers. Defendant had knowledge of the '914 patent, but nonetheless encouraged and assisted, and continues to encourage and assist, its customers to use its HiveAP and HiveManager products in an infringing manner. For example, Defendant's user manuals, product manuals and marketing materials to its customers featured and described Defendant's implementation of the rogue detection technology covered by the '914 patent, and instructed its customers how to configure and use the infringing technique. Defendant knew or should have known that such use would directly infringe the '914 patent. Upon information and belief, Defendant had, and continues to have, a specific and actual intent to cause this direct infringement. 18. Upon information and belief, Defendant has contributed to, and continues to

contribute to, the infringement of the '914 patent by its customers. Defendant has offered for sale and sold HiveAP and HiveManager in violation of35 U.S.C. 271(c) by offering to sell, selling, and/or importing within the United States, in whole or in part, a component of (or products for use in practicing) the invention claimed in the '914 patent. Furthermore, upon information and belief, Defendant knew that the HiveAP and HiveManager products embodying Defendant's implementation of the patented rogue detection technology were especially made or adapted for use in a manner that infringes the '914 patent, and that they were not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 19. Upon information and belief, Defendant had knowledge of the '914 patent at the time

infringement of the claims of the '914 patent began. Despite being aware of the '914 patent, Defendant has continued its acts of infringement of the '914 patent. 20. Upon information and belief, Defendant has willfully undertaken and carried out its

infringing activities with knowledge of the '914 patent and in total disregard of AirTight's rights in, to and under the '914 patent. For example, Defendant acknowledged that its products used the Marker Packets technology, which evidences Defendant's knowledge of an objectively high likelihood that its actions would constitute infringement of the '914 patent. Defendant nevertheless
LIBA/2369375.3

AIRTIGHT NETWORKS, INC.'S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

1 2 3 4 5

proceeded with its infringing activities and continues to proceed with such activities even after AirTight formally put Defendant on notice of its infringement of the '914 patent. 21. The aforesaid infringing activities have caused damages and irreparable harm to

AirTight. Unless enjoined, Defendant's actions will continue to cause irreparable harm to AirTight for which it has no adequate remedy at law.

6
7 8 22.

JURY DEMAND
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), AirTight hereby demands a trial by jury on all

issues triable of right by a jury.

9
I0 II I2 I3 I4 15

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, AirTight requests entry of judgment in its favor and against Defendant as follows:

a)
b)

Declaring and adjudging that the '914 patent is valid and enforceable; Adjudging that Defendant has infringed, contributorily infringed, and/or actively

induced infringement of the '914 patent;

c)
d)

Adjudging that Defendant's infringement of the '914 patent has been willful; A temporary and permanent injunction against Defendant and its respective officers,

I6
I7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

agents, employees, and those acting in privity with it, from further infringement, contributory infringement and/ or induced infringement of the '914 patent;

e)

A warding to AirTight damages arising out of Defendant's infringement or

inducement of and/or contributory infringement of the '914 patent, including enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284 because its infringing acts were willful, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest, in an amount according to proof at trial;

f)

A declaration that this is an exceptional case and AirTight should be awarded its costs

and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in this action as provided by 35 U.S.C. 285 or as otherwise permitted by law; g) Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

26
27 28

LIBA/2369375.3

AIRTIGHT NETWORKS, INC.'S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Dated:

January 28, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

2
3
4 5 6 7 GregoS.ishop (SBN84680) GBishop@goodwinprocter.com Yue Li (SBN 287280) LLi@goodwinprocter. com GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 135 Commonwealth Drive Menlo Park, CA 94025 Phone: (650) 752-3100 Fax: (650) 853-1038 William J. Bohler (SBN 141970) wjbohler@comcast.net 5424 Sunol Blvd., #10-258 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Phone: (650) 218-6652

8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Attorneys for Plaintiff AirTight Networks, Inc.

22
23 24 25 26 27 28
LIBA/2369375 3

AIR TIGHT NETWORKS, INC.'S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT