1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Karin Scherner Aldama (Bar No. 23816) PERKINS COIE LLP 2901 N. Central Avenue Suite 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788 Telephone: 602.351.8000 Facsimile: 602.648.7000 KAldama@perkinscoie.com Christopher Kao (pro hac vice pending) PERKINS COIE LLP 3150 Porter Drive Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212 Telephone: 650.838.4300 Facsimile: 650.838.4350 CKao@perkinscoie.com David J. Tsai (pro hac vice pending) PERKINS COIE LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94111-4131 Telephone: 415.344.7000 Facsimile: 415.344.7050 DTsai@perkinscoie.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Shoom, Inc.

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 vs. Source 3 Systems, LLC, Defendant. Shoom, Inc., Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA No. Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Damages, Equitable Relief, and Other Relief and Demand for Jury Trial

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

Plaintiff Shoom, Inc., (Shoom) for its complaint against Defendant Source 3 Systems, LLC (Source 3) alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION AND RELIEF SOUGHT 1. This action is for declaratory judgment for non-infringement and invalidity

of related U.S. Patent Nos. 7,099,837 (the 837 Patent) and 6,505,173 (the 173 Patent) (collectively, the Patents-in-Suit), injunctive relief, and tortious interference with business relationship and expectancy. 2. The Patents-in-Suit were previously litigated between Shoom and Source

3s predecessor and the prior assignee of the patents-in-suit, Electronic Imaging Systems of America, Inc. (eISA), in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Shoom, Inc. v. Electronic Imaging Systems of America, Inc., et al., Case No. C-07-05612 JSW. 3. In that action against eISA, which Shoom filed on November 5, 2007,

Shoom sought a declaration that its electronic tearsheets and electronic invoice products did not infringe the Patents-in-Suit. Shoom brought the suit because eISAthrough its President John G. Metsig and its outside attorney Edward Manzohad been engaged in a campaign of threats and litigation against Shoom and its customers. 4. On April 24, 2008, after eISA failed to appear, the Court entered judgment

for Shoom, including a declaration that Plaintiff [Shoom] does not and has not infringed United States Patent Nos. 7,099,837 and 6,505,173. 5. Despite the entry of the April 24, 2008 judgment, Source 3the current

assignee of the patents-in-suithas now threatened and brought litigation against Shooms customers for alleged infringement of the previously litigated 837 Patent, based on their use of the very same products that were already found not to infringe either the 837 or 173 Patents. 6. Source 3s acts have irreparably harmed and will continue to irreparably

harm Shooms brand, goodwill, customer relations and reputation, and has cost, and will continue to cost, Shoom prospective business opportunities, while unjustly enriching

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

Source 3.

Accordingly, Shoom brings this complaint seeking declaratory relief,

injunctive relief, damages, and restitution for claims of tortious interference with business relationship and expectancy under Arizona common law. PARTIES 7. Plaintiff Shoom, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of

business at 6345 Balboa Boulevard, Suite 247, Encino, California 91316. 8. On information and belief, defendant Source 3 Systems, LLC is an Arizona

corporation with its principal place of business at 6007 S. 40th Street, Suite 3, Phoenix, Arizona 85042. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 9. This action seeks declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity

of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,099,837 and 6,505,173 and arises under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201 et seq. 10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a), as it arises under the federal patent laws, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1338(b) and 1367(a), as the state law claims arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as the federal law questions, and are substantial claims related to the federal law questions. This Court also has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202 because a substantial controversy exists between Shoom and Source 3 regarding non-infringement and invalidity of the Patents-in-Suit. 11. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Source 3 because Source 3 is an

Arizona corporation with a principal place of business in Arizona. 12. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c), and

1400(b), because Source 3 is subject to personal jurisdiction in this district, resides in this district, and a substantial part of the alleged events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this district.

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 Shooms Business 13.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Shoom, which began operations in 1996, is a leading provider of

on-line advertisement tracking and invoicing solutions to the newspaper and magazine industries, and its customers include many of the countrys largest print publications including USA TODAY, and a number of newspapers in Arizona, including the Arizona Republic and the Arizona Daily Star. 14. Shooms business involves hosting digitized versions of publications,

advertisements placed in the publications, and invoices for the advertisements. Shoom makes all of these materials easily accessibly on-line to publishers, advertisers and advertising-placement agencies. 15. The primary products that Shoom offers its customers are its electronic

tearsheets and electronic invoice systems. These were the products that Shoom offered in 2007 when it commenced its declaratory judgment action against eISA, and the products remain the same today as they were in 2007. The Patents-in-Suit 16. On information and belief, eISA was an Illinois corporation, with its

principal place of business at 2660 Hicks Road, Suite 405, Rolling Meadows, Illinois 60008, with a western region location in San Diego, California. On information and belief, eISA dissolved on or about September 12, 2008. 17. On information and belief, eISA was the original assignee of the 837 and

173 Patents. 18. The 837 patent, issued on August 28, 2006, is titled System of

Generating Billing Statements for Published Advertising and is based on U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 10/308,869 (the 869 application), filed December 3, 2002. A true and correct copy of the 837 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The face of the 837 patent states that it is a [c]ontinuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 09/418,744, filed October 15 1999, now U.S. Patent No. 6,505,173.

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

19.

As the 837 Patent is a continuation-in-part of Application Serial No.

09/418,744, it contains newly added information and figures. Specifically, Figure 8, which is asserted to schematically illustrate how a publishers infrastructure is coordinated to electronically provide billing services, was newly added as of December 3, 2002. The claims of the 837 Patent find support in this new disclosure; therefore, the 837 patent has an effective priority date of December 3, 2002. 20. On June 29, 2007, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO)

commenced an ex parte reexamination of the 837 Patent. The PTO issued an ex parte reexamination certificate on November 30, 2010, pursuant to which Claims 1-6 of the 837 Patent were canceled, Claim 7 was confirmed as patentable, and Claim 8, subpart h was amended to delete the word first before the word digital and to add the word advertisement between the words digital and document. In addition, Claim 9, dependent on independent Claim 7, and Claims 10-12, all dependent on independent Claim 8, were added to the 837 Patent. A true and correct copy of the reexamination certificate is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 21. The parent of the 837 Patent, the 173 Patent, issued on January 7, 2003

and is entitled Method for Electronically Merging Digitized Data System of Generating Billing Statements for Published Advertising. A true and correct copy of the 173 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C. 22. The named inventors on the face of both the 173 patent and the 837

patent are Willard J. Weibel, Maria Elena Lopez, and John Metsig. 23. On information and belief, on or about January 28, 2008, eISA assigned

the 837 and 173 Patents to Randall Helfrich, who in turn assigned the patents to Defendant Source 3. 24. On information and belief, Source 3 was founded and incorporated in

Arizona on or about December 28, 2007. 25. On information and belief, Mr. Helfrich is an investor and/or principal of

Source 3 and resides in Arizona. Mr. Helfrich is the registered agent for service of

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

process on Source 3. A true and correct copy of Source 3s corporate registration information is attached hereto as Exhibit D. On information and belief, Mr. Helfrich was also an investor and/or principal of eISA. 26. On information and belief, Mr. Metsig previously served as the President

of eISA, and is currently Source 3s Managing Director. Shoom and eISAs Litigation History 27. Shoom and eISA have been adverse in several lawsuits in the past

involving the Patents-in-Suit. 28. On December 3, 2004, Mr. Metsig on behalf of eISA sent a letter to Shoom

inviting Shoom to license the 173 Patent. 29. On or about June 24, 2005, Mr. Metsig first sent letters to a number of

Shooms existing and potential customers advising them of the 173 Patent and suggesting that they required a license to utilize any electronic tearsheets or electronic invoice system. 30. In light of eISAs threats against Shoom and its customers, on August 24,

2005, Shoom filed a suit against eISA in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of California, Case No. 05-CV-3434, (Shoom v. eISA I) seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the 173 Patent. 31. eISA successfully moved to dismiss Shoom v. eISA Iwhich was decided

prior to the Supreme Courts ruling in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007), which altered the standard for evaluating declaratory judgment jurisdictionon the ground that the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the suit because eISA had not made any explicit threats of litigation before Shoom filed suit. In that suit, eISAs President Mr. Metsig submitted a declaration on March 1, 2006 stating that eISA had no intention of bringing an action against Shoom in connection with Shooms electronic tearsheet and electronic invoice systems. 32. Notwithstanding Mr. Metsigs sworn declaration to the contrary submitted

to the Court in Shoom v. eISA I, however, eISA proceeded to file suit against Shoom

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

and one of Shooms customers, Gannett Co., Inc. (Gannett), on February 9, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, eISA v. Gannett Co., Inc, et al, Case No. 07-CV-791. In that suit, eISA alleged that Shoom and its customer Gannett infringed the 837 Patenta continuation of the previously asserted 173 Patent. 33. Shortly after filing the complaint in the eISA v. Gannett action, eISAs

counsel Edward Manzo (who is now counsel for Source 3) sent a copy of the complaint to Gannett on February 12, 2007. In the letter, Mr. Manzo cited a Shoom press release announcing that USA TODAY, a newspaper owned by a subsidiary of Gannett, would be using Shooms electronic tearsheets and electronic invoice services, and stated that USA TODAYs use of these systems infringed the 837 Patent. 34. On February 15, 2007, Gannett informed Shoom that it would not enter

into a contract with Shoom until the issues regarding eISAs claims could be resolved. After damaging Shooms business relationship with Gannett, and with other customers and potential customers by filing the suit, eISA ultimately dismissed the suit against Shoom and Gannett without prejudice on April 13, 2007. 35. On March 16, 2007, eISA continued its litigation strategy by suing

MerlinOne, Inc., Tribune Publishing Company, the Chicago Tribune Company, and the Tribune Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for infringement of the 837 Patent (Case No. 07-CV-1490). 36. On May 16, 2007, MerlinOne, Inc. successfully moved to stay the

litigation pending the reexamination of the 837 Patent that it had requested. On March 5, 2008, Edward Manzo appeared on behalf of eISA and requested the action be dismissed without prejudice. The Court denied eISAs request and instead dismissed the case with prejudice. 37. Given the continuing threat of litigation by eISA and the looming cloud of

uncertainty created by the 837 and 173 Patents, Shoom filed another declaratory

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

judgment action against eISA in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on November 5, 2007, Case No. C-07-05612 JSW (Shoom v. eISA II). 38. In its Complaint in Shoom v. eISA II, Shoom sought declaratory judgment

of non-infringement of the 837 and 173 Patents, among other things. 39. Although eISAs agent for service of process was properly served on

November 9, 2007, eISA never answered the Complaint in Shoom v. eISA II. The Clerk of the Court entered default against eISA on December 12, 2007, and Shoom promptly thereafter, on December 27, 2007, moved for entry of a Final Judgment in the case. 40. In response to Shooms motion, Mr. Metsig sent an e-mail to Shoom on

January 9, 2008 acknowledging that he was aware of the suit and expressing eISAs intent to default. 41. On April 8, 2008, United States Magistrate Judge Spero entered a Report

and Recommendation regarding Shooms motion for a Final Judgment. In his Report and Recommendation, Judge Spero advised the Court in Shoom v. eISA II to enter a declaratory judgment that Shooms processes do not and have not infringed any claim of the 173 or the 837 patents. 42. On April 25, 2008, the Court in Shoom v. eISA II adopted Magistrate Judge

Speros Report and Recommendation and entered a Final Judgment against eISA declaring that Plaintiff does not and has not infringed United States Patent Nos. 7,099,837 and 6,505,173. 43. Shoom and its customers, including USA TODAY, have since relied upon

the Northern District of California District Courts Final Judgment in Shoom v. eISA II and continued to utilize Shooms electronic tearsheets and electronic invoice systems without fear of further litigation related to the 837 and 173 Patents. Source 3s Threats and Litigation 44. Mr. Manzonow writing on behalf of Source 3has recently resumed

sending letters to Shooms customers asserting infringement of the 837 Patent and threatening litigation. For example, on February 18, 2011, Mr. Manzo sent demand

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

letters to a number of Shooms customers and potential customers in the publishing industry, including Gannett, the ultimate parent company of both USA TODAY and USA TODAY International Corporation. In the letters, Source 3 suggested that the targeted publishers should license the 837 Patent from Source 3 to continue use of electronic tearsheets and electronic invoice services. 45. These letters, like the ones from Mr. Manzos prior letter-writing

campaign, are causing uncertainty and doubt among Shooms existing and potential customers, and are damaging Shooms business. 46. In particular, potential Shoom customers have declined to enter contracts

for Shooms electronic tearsheets and electronic invoice systems as a result of these new threats. 47. Moreover, the National Association of Newspapers, an organization

representing nearly 2,000 newspapers, has received numerous inquiries from its membersall of whom are either existing Shoom customers or potential customers regarding Source 3s threats. As a result, the entire industry is on alert and virtually frozen until this threat is resolved. 48. On June 15, 2011, Source 3 filed an action against USA TODAY

International Corporation, an affiliate of Shooms customer USA TODAY, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Source 3 Systems, LLC v. USA TODAY International Corporation, et al., Case No. 11-CV-4081, alleging infringement of the 837 Patent. A true and correct copy of the Complaint from that case is attached hereto as Exhibit E. USA TODAY International Corporation, its parent and affiliates have sought indemnification and defense from Shoom with respect to Source 3s action against USA TODAY International Corporation. 49. An actual and justiciable controversy therefore exists between Shoom and

Source 3 as to whether Shoom or any of its customers, including USA TODAY, infringes any claim of the 837 and 173 Patents, directly or indirectly, by making, using, distributing, selling, or offering to sell Shooms electronic tearsheets and

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

invoicing software and services. Shoom and Source 3 have adverse legal interests, and the dispute between the parties is of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment. 50. Further, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between Shoom and

Source 3 as to whether any of the claims of the 837 and 173 Patents are valid and enforceable. 51. Finally, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between Shoom and

Source 3 as to whether restitution should be granted for Shooms claims of tortious interference with business relationship and expectancy under Arizona common law. COUNT ONE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,099,837 52. through 51. 53. Shooms products have previously been adjudicated as not infringing the Shoom restates, realleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1

837 Patent. A true and correct copy of the final judgment from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Shoom, Inc. v. eISA II is attached hereto as Exhibit F. Shoom does not infringe any claim of the 837 Patent, either directly or indirectly (e.g., by inducing or contributing to infringement) by making, using, distributing, selling, or offering to sell its electronic tearsheets and invoicing software and services. 54. None of Shooms customers, including, but not limited to USA TODAY,

infringes any claim of the 837 Patent, directly or indirectly (e.g., by inducing or contributing to infringement) by making, using, distributing, selling, or offering to sell Shooms electronic tearsheets and invoicing software and services. 55. A judicial declaration that Shoom and its customers do not infringe any

claim of the 837 Patent is necessary and appropriate at this time to enable Shoom and its customers and potential customers to ascertain their rights and duties with respect to the making, using, distributing, selling, or offering to sell any of Shooms electronic

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

tearsheets and invoicing software and services. Absent such a declaration, Source 3or any future assignee of the 837 Patentwill continue to assert the 837 Patent against Shoom and/or Shooms customers and potential customers, and thereby cause Shoom irreparable injury and damage. Shoom has no other adequate remedy at law. 56. This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. 285, entitling Shoom to an

award of its attorneys fees incurred in connection with this action. COUNT TWO DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,099,837 57. through 56. 58. One or more claims of the 837 Patent are invalid under the patent laws of Shoom restates, realleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1

the United States as follows: (a) One or more of the claims of the 837 Patent are not patentable

because the alleged inventions claimed therein do not constitute patentable subject matter as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101; (b) One or more of the claims of the 837 Patent are invalid under 35

U.S.C. 102 because the alleged inventions claimed therein are anticipated by one or more prior art reference(s); (c) One or more of the claims of the 837 Patent are invalid under 35

U.S.C. 103 because the alleged inventions claimed therein are obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art in view of one or more prior art reference(s); and/or (d) One or more of the claims of the 837 Patent are invalid under 35

U.S.C. 112 because the specifications thereof do not contain adequate written descriptions of the alleged inventions, the manner and process of making and using the alleged inventions, and/or do not conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter. 59. A judicial declaration that the 837 Patent is invalid is necessary and

appropriate at this time to enable Shoom and its customers and potential customers to

10

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

ascertain their rights and duties with respect to the making, using, distributing, selling, or offering to sell any of Shooms electronic tearsheets and invoicing software and services. Absent such a declaration, Source 3 will continue to assert the 837 patent against Shoom and/or Shooms customers and potential customers, and thereby cause Shoom irreparable injury and damage. Shoom has no other adequate remedy at law. 60. This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. 285, entitling Shoom to an

award of its attorneys fees incurred in connection with this action. COUNT THREE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,505,173 61. through 60. 62. Shooms products have previously been adjudicated as not infringing the Shoom restates, realleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1

173 Patent. Exhibit F. Shoom does not infringe any claim of the 173 patent, either directly or indirectly (e.g., by inducing or contributing to infringement) by making, using, distributing, selling, or offering to sell its electronic tearsheets and invoicing software and services. 63. None of Shooms customers, including, but not limited to Gannett and

USA TODAY, infringes any claim of the 173 Patent, directly or indirectly (e.g., by inducing or contributing to infringement) by making, using, distributing, selling, or offering to sell Shooms electronic tearsheets and invoicing software and services. 64. A judicial declaration that Shoom and its customers do not infringe any

claim of the 173 Patent is necessary and appropriate at this time to enable Shoom and its customers and potential customers to ascertain their rights and duties with respect to the making, using, distributing, selling or offering to sell any of Shooms electronic tearsheets and invoicing software and services. Absent such a declaration, Source 3or any future assignee of the 173 Patentwill continue to assert the 173 Patent against Shoom and/or Shooms customers and potential customers, and thereby cause Shoom irreparable injury and damage. Shoom has no other adequate remedy at law.

11

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

65.

This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. 285, entitling Shoom to an

award of its attorneys fees incurred in connection with this action. COUNT FOUR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,505,173 66. through 65. 67. One or more claims of the 173 Patent are invalid under the patent laws of Shoom restates, realleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1

the United States as follows: (a) One or more of the claims of the 173 Patent are not patentable

because the alleged inventions claimed therein do not constitute patentable subject matter as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 101; (b) One or more of the claims of the 173 Patent are invalid under 35

U.S.C. 102 because the alleged inventions claimed therein are anticipated by one or more prior art reference(s); (c) One or more of the claims of the 173 Patent are invalid under 35

U.S.C. 103 because the alleged inventions claimed therein are obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art in view of one or more prior art reference(s); and/or (d) One or more of the claims of the 173 Patent are invalid under 35

U.S.C. 112 because the specifications thereof do not contain adequate written descriptions of the alleged inventions, the manner and process of making and using the alleged inventions, and/or do not conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter. 68. A judicial declaration that the 173 Patent is invalid is necessary and

appropriate at this time to enable Shoom and its customers and potential customers to ascertain their rights and duties with respect to the making, using, distributing, selling or offering to sell any of Shooms electronic tearsheets and invoicing software and services. Absent such a declaration, Source 3 will continue to assert the 173 Patent

12

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

against Shoom and/or Shooms customers and potential customers, and thereby cause Shoom irreparable injury and damage. Shoom has no other adequate remedy at law. 69. This is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. 285, entitling Shoom to an

award of its attorneys fees incurred in connection with this action. COUNT FIVE INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS AND EXPECTANCY 70. through 69. 71. Shoom makes a substantial number of sales, has established customer Shoom restates, realleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1

relationships, and has the expectancy to establish additional customer relationships as a result of the excellent reputation of its products and services. 72. As set forth in the above allegations, on information and belief, Source 3

has intentionally undertaken a campaign to interfere with Shooms legitimate business relationships and expectancies. Source 3s specific purpose of asserting the 837 and 173 Patents against Shooms customers is to discourage Shooms customers and potential customers from using Shooms software and services. 73. Source 3 knows of Shooms business relationships and expectancies and,

without justification, intentionally interfered, and continues to interfere, with existing business relationships, and has sought and seeks to frustrate Shooms expected customer relationships. 74. As a direct result of the wrongful and unlawful conduct of Source 3

against Shoom and its existing and potential business relationships, Shoom has lost, and will continue to lose, significant business, significantly damaging Shoom. 75. Source 3s conduct was aggravated and outrageous and committed with an

evil mind, that is with the improper intent to injure and/or defraud or to deliberately interfere with the rights of Shoom, consciously disregarding the substantial risk of significant harm to Shoom.

13

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

76.

Source 3s actions have been taken in full knowledge of the preexisting

judgment in Shooms favor that Shooms products do not infringe the Patents-in-Suit. 77. A judgment against Source 3 for intentional interference with business

relations and expectancy is necessary and appropriate as follows: a. Compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, plus

interest thereon from the date incurred until the date paid in full, calculated at the statutory rate; and b. Punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter and punish

Source 3 and any future assignee(s) of the 837 and 173 Patents from such conduct in the future, which amount is to be determined at trial. 78. Source 3s unlawful conduct is causing Shoom severe and irreparable Unless

harm that cannot be adequately remedied solely by monetary damages.

restrained and enjoined by this Court, Source 3s unlawful actions are likely to continue to Shooms harm and detriment. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Shoom prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: A. Declaring that Shoom and Shooms customers, including USA TODAY International Corporation, have not infringed and are not infringing directly, or indirectly by way of inducing or contributing to infringement of, whether willfully or otherwise, any valid and/or enforceable claim of the 837 and 173 Patents; B. Declaring all claims of the 837 and 173 Patents to be invalid; C. Permanently enjoining Source 3, its agents, and all persons acting in concert or participation with Source 3 from asserting claims against Shoom and Shooms customers, including USA TODAY International Corporation, for infringement of the 837 and 173 Patents; D. Issuing temporary and permanent injunctive relief against Source 3, its officers, agents, representatives, servants, employees, attorneys,

14

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

successors, and assigns, and all others in active concert or participation with Source 3 from: (1) (2) disparaging Shoom and Shooms services and products; falsely representing that Shoom is infringing alleged patent

rights of Source 3; (3) using and misusing any and all alleged patent rights of the 837

and 173 Patents in competition with Shoom; and (4) disseminating communications that are in any respect false,

misleading and intended to tarnish and diminish the substantial goodwill Shoom has cultivated with respect to its company, products, and proprietary rights associated therewith; E. Issuing a judgment against Source 3 in an amount sufficient to compensate Shoom for all damages in an amount according to proof at trial, including but not limited to actual, treble, and punitive damages, caused by Source 3, such as, but not limited to, Shooms lost business, any of Source 3s ill-gotten and unjustly derived revenue, and Shooms expenditures spent repairing its goodwill and relationships with its customers and potential customers; F. Issuing a judgment against Source 3 for disgorgement of profits; G. Awarding pre- and post-judgment interest in the amount allowed by law; H. Adjudging this case exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 285, entitling Shoom to an award of its reasonable attorneys fees, expenses, and costs; and I. Granting such additional relief as the Court deems just and proper.

15

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 Dated: July 27, 2011

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff Shoom hereby demands trial by jury on all issues so triable by right.

PERKINS COIE LLP By: s/ Karin Scherner Aldama Karin Scherner Aldama 2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788 Christopher Kao (pro hac vice pending) 3150 Porter Drive Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212 David J. Tsai (pro hac vice pending) Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 2400 San Francisco, CA 94111-4131 Attorneys for Plaintiff Shoom, Inc.

16

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 27, 2011, I electronically transmitted the attached documents to the Clerks Office using the CM/ECF. I hereby certify that on July 27, 2011, I served the attached document by first class mail on the Judge assigned via CM/ECF, United States District Court of Arizona, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85003-2118.

s/ Jessica N. Griffith

17