Sie sind auf Seite 1von 23

Case 2:20-cv-02299 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 1 of 23 Page ID #:1

1 GOODWIN PROCTER LLP


I. Neel Chatterjee (SBN 173985)
2 (nchatterjee@goodwinlaw.com)
601 Marshall St.
3 Redwood City, CA 94063
Telephone: (650) 752-3100
4 Facsimile: (650) 853-1038
5 GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
Darryl M. Woo (SBN 100513)
6 (dwoo@goodwinlaw.com)
Three Embarcadero Center
7 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 733-6000
8 Facsimile: (415) 677-9041
9 ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON
SIGNATURE PAGE
10
Attorneys for Plaintiff
11 JBF Interlude 2009 Ltd. - Israel
12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14 WESTERN DIVISION
15
JBF INTERLUDE 2009 LTD –
16 ISRAEL, Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-2299
17 Plaintiff,
18 v. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
INFRINGEMENT
19 QUIBI HOLDINGS LLC, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
20 Defendant.
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
Case 2:20-cv-02299 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 2 of 23 Page ID #:2

1 Plaintiff JBF Interlude Ltd – Israel (“Plaintiff” or “Eko”), parent of U.S.


2 subsidiary Interlude U.S., Inc. d/b/a Eko, brings this Complaint against Defendant
3 Quibi Holdings LLC (“Defendant” or “Quibi”) for patent infringement and
4 misappropriation of trade secrets.
5 NATURE OF THE ACTION
6 1. This is a case to stop the theft of Eko’s technology by Quibi, alleging a
7 civil action for patent infringement under the patent laws of the United States, 35
8 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. and misappropriation of trade secrets under the Defend Trade
9 Secrets Act (“DTSA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1836, et seq.
10 2. Clifton Smith (“Smith”) and Joseph Burfitt (“Burfitt”), two employees
11 of Quibi, are where Quibi’s theft began. Both Burfitt and Smith previously worked
12 for Snapchat, Inc. (which later changed its name to Snap, Inc.; collectively,
13 “Snapchat”) and were provided access to Eko’s confidential and proprietary
14 technology in the course of their employment at Snapchat. Before receiving Eko’s
15 information, Snapchat executed a non-disclosure agreement with Eko, which
16 required Snapchat and its employees, including Burfitt and Smith, to maintain
17 Eko’s disclosed information as confidential, with the understanding that Eko’s
18 technology was proprietary and valuable. As Snapchat employees involved in
19 product and content development, Burfitt and Smith were both copied on email
20 communications disclosing Eko’s confidential and trade secret information, and
21 both were required to maintain the confidentiality of that information and not use it
22 for any purpose other than as expressly permitted by Eko.
23 3. Upon information and belief, Burfitt and Smith left their employment
24 with Snapchat in October 2018 to join Quibi. Prior to their doing so, on or around
25 March 23, 2017, Yoni Bloch, CEO and co-founder of Eko, had met in Los Angeles,
26 California, with Jeffrey Katzenberg, co-founder of investment and holding
27 company WnderCo Holdings LLC (“WndrCo”). During this meeting, Mr. Bloch
28 -1-
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
Case 2:20-cv-02299 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 3 of 23 Page ID #:3

1 presented Eko’s technology to Mr. Katzenberg, including details regarding


2 technology that Quibi now uses in its touted Turnstyle feature. Mr. Katzenberg
3 expressed interest in investing and owning a majority stake in Eko, and Mr. Bloch
4 sent materials to Mr. Katzenberg, including a “sizzle” and APIs/SDKs that
5 embodied the functionality Quibi now calls “Turnstyle,” as alleged below.
6 4. Later that year, on or about October 18, 2017, Mr. Katzenberg founded
7 WCI One, LLC, which he later renamed Quibi Holdings, LLC. As of February
8 2019, Quibi informed Eko that it had not yet built any applications related to Eko’s
9 technology solution, and Eko informed Quibi that it had pending patent applications
10 on Eko’s technology. One of Eko’s applications, which had been filed August 26,
11 2015, resulted in the issuance of U.S. Patent No. 10,460,765 (the “Eko ’765
12 Patent”).
13 5. After initial discussions, Quibi went silent. Upon information and
14 belief, Burfitt and Smith left their employment with Snapchat in or around October
15 2018 to join Quibi. Quibi then secretly filed an application that led to the issuance
16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,554,926 (“the Quibi ’926 Patent”). The Quibi ’926 Patent
17 was directed to the same technology Eko had previously disclosed to Snapchat, and
18 to both Burfitt and Smith, who by now worked for Quibi and were listed as
19 inventors on Quibi’s ’926 Patent. Despite the stunning similarity between the
20 Quibi ’926 Patent and Eko’s earlier-filed ’765 Patent, Quibi did not refer anywhere
21 to Eko’s patented technologies.
22 6. Then, without any notice to or consent from Eko, Quibi introduced a
23 new platform claimed to be its own at the January 2020 CES (Consumer
24 Electronics Show), a major annual industry trade show. For the centerpiece of its
25 keynote, Quibi touted a technology it called “Turnstyle”—the exact same
26 technology Eko had earlier presented to Snapchat and Quibi.
27 7. On January 28, 2020, within weeks of Quibi’s introduction of
28 -2-
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
Case 2:20-cv-02299 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 4 of 23 Page ID #:4

1 Turnstyle at CES, Eko wrote to Quibi demanding that Quibi cease and desist from
2 any unauthorized use of Eko’s proprietary technology. Exhibit A (January 28
3 Letter from Eko). However, before Quibi responded, Quibi obtained issuance of its
4 ’926 Patent on February 4, 2020. When Eko examined the claims and disclosures
5 of the Quibi ’926 patent, which claimed priority to a provisional application Quibi
6 filed only as early as March 2019, Eko was shocked to discover that they
7 corresponded almost exactly with Eko’s ’765 patent disclosures, filed years earlier
8 in August 2015.
9 8. Quibi dismissively responded on February 10, 2020 to Eko’s letter,
10 denying any infringement by Quibi. Exhibit B (February 10 Letter from Quibi).
11 Quibi claimed that Smith was a non-technical person and disputed Quibi’s
12 infringement allegations.
13 9. Quibi’s statements were false. Mr. Smith was a listed inventor on
14 Quibi’s ’926 patent. And the very noninfringement argument put forward by Quibi
15 was inconsistent with Quibi’s own statements to the press and in the ’926 patent
16 with respect to how Quibi’s TurnStyle technology worked. In fact, the press
17 statements and Quibi’s ’926 patent only confirmed that Quibi Turnstyle was
18 infringing.
19 10. As a result, Eko replied to Quibi’s February 10 letter on March 6,
20 2020, reiterating its concerns and providing Quibi’s counsel with additional facts
21 that Eko had uncovered. Exhibit C (March 6, 2020 Letter to Quibi). Eko requested
22 that Quibi respond to Eko’s concerns. Instead of replying, Quibi responded by
23 suing the incorrect entity.
24 11. Because Quibi refuses to cooperate with Eko or voluntarily rectify its
25 blatant and egregious violation of Eko’s intellectual property rights, Eko now seeks
26 relief from this Court to enjoin Defendant from using Eko’s confidential and trade
27 secret information, from infringing Eko’s ’765 patent, and to require Quibi to
28 -3-
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
Case 2:20-cv-02299 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 5 of 23 Page ID #:5

1 assign Quibi’s ’926 patent to Eko because any innovation underlying Quibi’s ’926
2 patent is Eko’s, not Quibi’s. Eko further seeks an award of damages and attorneys’
3 fees for the injury it has incurred as a result of Defendant’s trade secret
4 misappropriation and willful infringement of the Eko ’765 patent.
5 THE PARTIES
6 12. Eko is an Israeli corporation with its principal and usual place of
7 business located in Tel Aviv, Israel. Eko is the parent corporation of Interlude U.S.,
8 Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal and usual place of business located at
9 235 Park Avenue South, New York, New York. Eko is a media and technology
10 company that specializes in the distribution of interactive multimedia videos.
11 13. Upon information and belief, Quibi is a Delaware corporation with its
12 principal place of business located at 6555 Barton Avenue, Los Angeles, California.
13 Quibi, which was formerly known as WCI One, LLC, is also a media and
14 technology company that focuses on distributing short-form mobile videos.
15 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16 14. This is a civil action, for patent infringement under the patent laws of
17 the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., and for misappropriation of trade secrets
18 under the DTSA, 18 U.S.C. § 1836, et seq.
19 15. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over Eko’s claims
20 for patent infringement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) and 35 U.S.C.
21 §§ 271 et seq.
22 16. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Eko’s federal trade
23 secret claim pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1836(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because
24 Plaintiff has asserted a claim for misappropriation of trade secrets under the Defend
25 Trade Secrets Act of 2016.
26 17. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Quibi because its
27 headquarters are in Los Angeles, California, and it therefore resides in this District.
28 -4-
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
Case 2:20-cv-02299 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 6 of 23 Page ID #:6

1 18. Venue is proper in this judicial district for Eko’s claims for patent
2 infringement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(b). Quibi’s headquarters
3 are in Los Angeles, California, and it therefore resides in this judicial district
4 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
5 19. Venue is proper in this judicial district for Eko’s federal trade secret
6 misappropriation claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of
7 the events giving rise to the claim occurred in the State of California and in this
8 judicial district.
9 FACTS
10 Eko’s Groundbreaking Innovation
11 20. Eko is an innovative media and technology company that, since 2010,
12 has been developing and obtaining intellectual property protection for its inventions
13 in streaming and interactive media, seamless video streaming, video player
14 technology, user experience and video authoring. Eko provides, for example, an
15 interactive video platform in which consumers can optimize video viewing on a
16 mobile device, such as a mobile phone.
17 21. Eko has invested substantially in research and development of the
18 technologies of its platform, including spending tens of millions of dollars and
19 thousands of man-hours to develop groundbreaking technology related to its
20 seamless horizontal to vertical switching technology for mobile devices. The
21 sensitive, confidential, and proprietary information and trade secrets developed
22 through this investment enable Eko to succeed in its business.
23 22. At all times, Eko has taken reasonable measures to protect the
24 confidentiality of its proprietary trade secret information, including storing its
25 source code on password-protected servers and disclosing it only on a need-to-
26 know or protected NDA basis. Eko requires, for example, that all employees and
27 third parties with access to Eko’s proprietary information execute confidentiality
28 -5-
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
Case 2:20-cv-02299 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 7 of 23 Page ID #:7

1 and non-disclosure agreements before being granted access.


2 23. Eko also seeks patent protection for particular innovations. To date,
3 Eko has over 18 pending patent applications and 15 issued patents, including the
4 Eko ’765 patent at issue in this lawsuit.
5 The Patent In Suit
6 24. Plaintiff Eko is the owner by assignment of all right, title and interest,
7 including the right to sue for damages, in and to United States Patent No.
8 10,460,765 (“the Eko ’765 Patent”), entitled “Systems and Methods for Adaptive
9 and Responsive Video,” which was duly and legally issued on October 29, 2019.
10 The ’765 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application No. 14/835,857, filed on
11 August 26, 2015. The ’857 application published as U.S. Patent Publication No.
12 2017/0062012 on March 2, 2017. A copy of the ’765 Patent is attached to the
13 Complaint as Exhibit D.
14 25. The Eko ’765 Patent is valid and enforceable under United States
15 patent laws.
16 26. The claims of the Eko ’765 patent are directed to systems and methods
17 that improve the technology involved in playing back video presentations. It is
18 particularly useful for mobile devices, such as handheld phones and tablets which
19 are easily and often rotated between vertical “portrait” and horizontal “landscape”
20 views. Rather than crop or letterbox a presentation as did the prior art, Eko’s
21 invention advances video display technology by providing seamless transition from
22 a first state of a video presentation to a second state of video presentation. In
23 particular, the ’765 patent describes simultaneously receiving two video
24 presentations, playing the first video based on properties of a playback device,
25 providing a mapping of media player height and width ranges, determining that a
26 playback window has changed dimensions (e.g., from vertical to horizontal), and,
27 using the mapping, seamlessly transitioning from the first video to the second
28 -6-
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
Case 2:20-cv-02299 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 8 of 23 Page ID #:8

1 video. The properties can include, for example, physical orientation, physical
2 screen size, screen resolution, and/or window size of the device; the second video
3 may include, for example, different video or audio content, different dimensional
4 ratios, and/or different video quality; and the transition from the first video to the
5 second may include changing the position, the shape, and/or the size of a viewing
6 region.
7 27. Claim 1 of the ’765 Patent, for example, recites as follows:
8 A computer-implemented method comprising:
9 identifying one or more properties associated with a user device;
10 receiving video from a first video presentation;
11 receiving, simultaneously with the video from the first video presentation,
12 video from a second, different video presentation;
13 configuring a first state of the video from the first video presentation based
14 on at least one of the properties associated with the user device;
15 presenting the video from the first video presentation according to the first
16 state;
17 providing a mapping of video presentations to media player window height
18 ranges and media player window width ranges; and
19 during playback of the video from the first video presentation:
20 determining that a media player window in which the video is playing
21 has been resized to change from first dimensions comprising a first
22 height and a first width to second, different dimensions comprising a
23 second height and a second width;
24 determining that the second height is included in a particular one of the
25 media player window height ranges;
26 determining that the second width is included in a particular one of the
27 media player window width ranges;
28 -7-
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
Case 2:20-cv-02299 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 9 of 23 Page ID #:9

1 evaluating the mapping to determine that the second video presentation


2 is mapped to both the particular media player window height range and
3 the particular media player window width range; and
4 in response to the evaluating, seamlessly transitioning from the video
5 from the first video presentation to the video from the second video
6 presentation based on the change.
7

8 Eko’s Confidential Disclosures To Snapchat Employees


9 28. In July 2015, Eko began negotiations with Snapchat regarding
10 integrating Eko technology with Snapchat’s platform, where Eko would work with
11 Snapchat to distribute interactive shows. Snapchat personnel involved in these
12 discussions included Marcus Wiley and Smith.
13 29. In August 2015, Eko filed an application for a patent that eventually
14 issued as the Eko ’765 Patent, disclosing and describing responsive videos that
15 change seamlessly based on device orientation, as depicted in Figure 2 of the Eko
16 ’765 patent (reproduced below):
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25
30. In order to facilitate further discussions, Eko and Snapchat entered into
26
a Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement (“Snapchat NDA”) on December 9, 2015.
27
The Snapchat NDA specified that either party receiving confidential information
28 -8-
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
Case 2:20-cv-02299 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 10 of 23 Page ID #:10

1 from the disclosing party would not disclose, publish, distribute, or otherwise
2 disseminate confidential information to anyone other than its employees and those
3 bound by the confidentiality obligations as restrictive as the Snapchat NDA itself.
4 This approach was consistent with Eko’s approach to protection of its technology,
5 which includes storage of code on password protected servers, requiring non-
6 disclosure agreements with third parties, and training of employees not to use or
7 disclose confidential, commercially valuable information.
8 31. As alleged above, Eko’s CEO and co-founder had met with Mr.
9 Katzenberg on or around March 23, 2017, and disclosed to Mr. Katzenberg Eko’s
10 technology, including details regarding the technology that Quibi now uses in its
11 touted Turnstyle feature.
12 32. During this same visit to Los Angeles, Mr. Bloch also met with Smith,
13 who was then employed with Snapchat, and shared information with him under
14 NDA regarding Eko’s proprietary technology.
15 33. On separate occasions in June and July 2017, Snapchat personnel
16 expressed continued interest in Eko, including statements to the effect that “Eko
17 does interactivity best.”
18 34. During March through May 2018, still pursuant to NDA, Eko and
19 Snapchat moved forward to integrate Eko content onto the Snapchat platform. In
20 particular, Defendants Burfitt and Smith were copied on email communications
21 between Snapchat and Eko discussing the integration of Eko’s proprietary
22 technology to Snapchat’s staging application, utilizing technology that Quibi now
23 uses for its Turnstyle feature.
24 Background and Formation of Quibi
25 35. Upon information and belief, Jeffrey Katzenberg on or about
26 October 18, 2017, founded Quibi initially as WCI One, LLC a Delaware limited
27 liability company. WCI One, LLC filed a Certificate of Amendment to the
28 -9-
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
Case 2:20-cv-02299 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 11 of 23 Page ID #:11

1 Delaware Secretary of State to change its name to Quibi Holdings, LLC on May 16,
2 2019.
3 36. Upon information and belief, on around October 2018, numerous
4 Snapchat employees left Snapchat to join Quibi’s team, including Clifton Smith and
5 Joseph Burfitt.
6 37. In or around February 2019, Quibi informed Eko that it had not yet
7 started building any applications. But a mere one month later, Quibi demonstrated
8 a feature to Eko in which video could transition seamlessly from horizontal to
9 vertical orientations. Eko informed Quibi that Eko had applied for a patent on this
10 exact technology, but Quibi never followed up regarding licensing of Eko’s patent,
11 which issued as the Eko ’765 patent on October 29, 2019.
12 38. Then, in January 2020, Quibi introduced its new platform at the
13 January 2020 CES, featuring technology Quibi called “Turnstyle.” As alleged
14 above, the Quibi ’926 Patent was issued on February 4, 2020. Both Quibi’s
15 Turnstyle and Quibi’s ’926 patent feature the technology claimed by Eko’s ’765
16 patent.
17 Defendant’s Improper Use of Eko’s Proprietary Technology
18 39. Quibi has publicly disclosed that Turnstyle features the exact same
19 technology claimed by Eko’s ’765 patent. For example, Quibi asserted during its
20 2020 CES keynote that it had “invented a new experience and technology that we
21 call Turnstyle” that allows users to “move at will between full screen portrait and
22 full screen landscape” that “required engineering breakthroughs in technology and
23 user experience.”1
24 40. Quibi also publicly stated, numerous times, that Turnstyle is a
25 technology that allows users to seamlessly switch between portrait and landscape
26 viewing modes and experience the same scenes in different perspectives in those
27
1
See CES 2020 keynote, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXOG9yNRjxk
28 - 10 -
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
Case 2:20-cv-02299 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 12 of 23 Page ID #:12

1 two modes. For example:


2 • “Quibi on Wednesday revealed a new mobile video technique called
3 Turnstyle that allows mobile video consumers to seamlessly switch
4 between watching the same video on their smartphones either vertically
5 or horizontally. . . . The technology, which was demoed to reporters on
6 Tuesday at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas, is a huge
7 part of what Quibi thinks will help differentiate its product from other
8 mobile video experiences, like Snapchat or Instagram. . . . The new
9 format allows Quibi's users to experience the same scenes from slightly
10 different perspectives. . . . ‘Vertical feels quite intimate,’ said Catherine
11 Hardwicke, a veteran Hollywood director and executive producer of the
12 new Quibi show ‘Don't Look Deeper.’ ‘You're quite closer [to the
13 camera] and you don't have all the cinema-scope around you. In a
14 landscape format, you feel more the environment — what the character is
15 interacting with. It's interesting — you could watch the whole show
16 twice." 2 (emphasis added)
17 • “Today at the company's CES keynote, we finally learned about its killer
18 feature: Turnstyle, a patent-pending technology that lets you easily switch
19 between portrait and landscape viewing modes, all the while keeping
20 what matters in frame. . . . As I watched Tom Conrad, Quibi's chief
21 product officer (and the founder of Pandora), effortlessly jump between
22 portrait and landscape modes, I thought to myself, ‘Why hasn't anyone
23 done this before?’”3 (emphasis added)
24

25
2
https://www.axios.com/quibi-unveils-turnstyle-its-flagship-mobile-video-format-03a19028-0a7e-4d1a-8173-
26 211cd979ee71.html

27 3
https://www.engadget.com/2020/01/08/quibi-mobile-video-turnstyle/

28 - 11 -
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
Case 2:20-cv-02299 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 13 of 23 Page ID #:13

1 • “Quibi is ready to talk about the app’s signature technology, Turnstyle,


2 however, which lets users switch between portrait and landscape video
3 instantly when they rotate their phones.”4 (emphasis added)
4 • “Specifically, Quibi is using a new engineering technology it’s calling
5 ‘Turnstyle,’ which allows the viewer to move between portrait mode
6 viewing and landscape viewing, seamlessly — and without any black
7 bars to fill the rest of the screen when switching to landscape video. This
8 technology, when demoed, worked very well. The shift from portrait to
9 landscape and back again was smooth and fast — an almost
10 imperceptible transition.”5 (emphasis added)
11 41. To show how the Turnstyle functionality applies the invention of the
12 ’765 patent, below are screen captures from a recent demonstration of the Turnstyle
13 feature, paired with a tweet which appears to be from Quibi’s Twitter account.
14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 42. These features, however, are also disclosed and claimed by the Eko
26
4
https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/20/quibis-streaming-service-app-launches-in-app-stores-for-pre-
27 order/2020/02/20/quibis-streaming-service-app-launches-in-app-stores-for-pre-order/
5
https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/08/quibi-ces/
28 - 12 -
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
Case 2:20-cv-02299 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 14 of 23 Page ID #:14

1 ’765 patent. For example, Claim 1 of the Eko ’765 patent describes the following
2 features: (i) “providing a mapping of video presentations to media player window
3 height ranges and media player window width ranges,” (ii) “during playback of a
4 video from the first video presentation: determining that a media player window in
5 which the video is playing has been resized to change from first dimensions . . . to
6 second, different dimensions,” (iii) “evaluating the mapping to determine that the
7 second video presentation is mapped to both the particular media player window
8 height range and the particular media player window width range,” and (iv) “in
9 response to the evaluating, seamlessly transitioning from the video from the first
10 video presentation to the video from the second video presentation based on the
11 change.”
12 43. Referencing Figures 5A and 5B, for example, the Eko ’765 patent’s
13 specification describes how these “mapping,” “determining,” and “evaluating”
14 steps are performed so that users can seamlessly switch between portrait and
15 landscape modes and get different perspectives of the same scene when they rotate
16 their phones. It describes in relevant part:
17 FIGS. 5A and 5B depict a change in device property which results
18 in the viewport 510a to a lecture video 500 changing both size
19 and location. In the first instance, in FIG. 5A, the viewport 510a
20 allows the user to view the full height (300 units) and width (450
21 units) of the video 500, thereby displaying the full dimensions of
22 the lecture video 500, including the speaker, presentation screen,
23 and audience. The viewport 510a is a rectangular shape (although
24 other shapes are contemplated), and the upper left-hand corner of
25 the viewport 510a is positioned at coordinates (0, 0). Referring
26 now to FIG. 5B, upon detecting a change in a property of the
27 device (e.g., the device is rotated from landscape to portrait
28 - 13 -
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
Case 2:20-cv-02299 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 15 of 23 Page ID #:15

1 mode), the viewport 510b is modified in size and repositioned to


2 better accommodate the modified state of the device. Specifically,
3 the viewport 510b is modified to a size that better fills the screen
4 of the user device (height=300 units, width=200 units) and is
5 positioned with the upper left-hand corner at coordinates (200, 0),
6 to better focus on the speaker. The video and viewport may be
7 zoomed out or in so that the viewport fills the height and/or width
8 of the device display.
9 ’765 patent, 6:60-7:13 (emphasis added).
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21 44. Quibi not only copied Eko’s technology, but applied for a patent on the
22 exact same technology. A provisional application for Quibi’s ’926 patent was filed
23 on March 11, 2019, and a nonprovisional application was filed two months later, on
24 May 17, 2019. The Quibi ’926 patent issued on February 4, 2020.
25

26

27

28 - 14 -
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
Case 2:20-cv-02299 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 16 of 23 Page ID #:16

1 45. A cursory examination of Quibi’s ’926 patent and Eko’s ’765 patent
2 reveals a striking resemblance. For example, there is a clear similarity in the aspect
3 ratio solution between Figure 2 of the Eko ’765 patent and Figures 3A and 3B of
4 the Quibi ’926 patent.
5

10

11

12 Eko’s ’765 patent Quibi’s ’926 patent


13

14
46. Moreover, like Eko, Quibi describes the use of “cropping” and
15
“letterboxing” as conventional solutions to fix the problem relating to aspect ratio
16
and the disadvantages of using “cropping” and “letterboxing.” The Eko ’765 patent
17
describes “seamlessly transitioning from a first to a second video” depending on
18
many different “properties” including “aspect ratio.” Eko ’765 patent, 1:35-2:11;
19
4:46-49. It explains in relevant part:
20
“Digital videos have fixed resolutions, fixed proportions, and fixed content.
21
Dynamic changes to digital video are limited to adaptations in video size and
22
quality to accommodate, for example, different device screen sizes or
23
available communications bandwidth. However, such changes have their
24
own disadvantages. For example, videos scaled to fit a screen size having a
25
different aspect ratio are typically cropped, which results in a loss of content,
26
or are letterboxed, with mattes abutting the video. . . . In general, the present
27
disclosure describes a ‘smart video response’ technique, in which video
28 - 15 -
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
Case 2:20-cv-02299 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 17 of 23 Page ID #:17

1 content (streaming or otherwise) can adapt in real-time, with targeted,


2 customized, or other responsive content, to changes in properties associated
3 with a user device, all without scaling, letterboxing, or other noted
4 disadvantages of the prior art.”)
5 Eko ’765 patent, 1:25-33 (emphasis added). The Eko ’765 patent expressly
6 mentions “aspect ratio” as one of the properties that triggers a change in how video
7 is displayed on a mobile device. Eko ’765 patent, 4:46-49 (“Other properties of
8 user devices, such as smartphone 200, can include screen resolution, aspect ratio,
9 display proportions, and physical screen size.”) (emphasis added).
10 47. The Quibi ’926 patent, similarly, explains in relevant part:
11 “Such mobile devices place new demands on video content. One such
12 demand relates to the aspect ratio (e.g., the ratio of a display width to a
13 display height) of the video content. Under desired viewing conditions, a
14 native aspect ratio of a video asset ( e.g., a source file containing video
15 content) matches the aspect ratio of the display on which the video asset is
16 presented. For example, when viewing a video asset on a display having a
17 16:9 aspect ratio, it is desirable that the video asset itself have a 16:9 aspect
18 ratio. If the video asset has an aspect ratio that differs from the aspect ratio of
19 the display, one of two conventional solutions can be used to format the
20 video asset for the display: either the video asset can be cropped to fit the
21 display (e.g., via “pan and scan” techniques); or the video asset can be
22 “letterboxed” by adding dummy content (e.g., black bars) to fill the regions
23 of the display unoccupied by the video asset. Neither solution is desirable:
24 cropping the video asset results in the cropped content being unviewable on
25 the display (which can affect the viewer's understanding or appreciation of
26 the video asset); and letterboxing the video asset results in regions of the
27 display being effectively unused (which can impair visibility, especially on
28 - 16 -
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
Case 2:20-cv-02299 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 18 of 23 Page ID #:18

1 mobile devices with limited display space). . . . The present disclosure


2 describes such one or more solutions, which improve on conventional
3 approaches by providing a data-efficient mechanism for quickly and
4 seamlessly changing an aspect ratio of video content on a mobile device
5 display.”
6 Quibi ’926 patent, 1:30-2:10 (emphasis added).
7 48. The claims are also strikingly similar. The Eko ’765 patent’s Claim 1
8 recites “receiving video from a first video presentation [and] . . . video from a
9 second, different video presentation,” and “during playback of the video from the
10 first video presentation,” “seamlessly transitioning from the video from the first
11 video presentation to the video from the second video presentation based on the
12 change” in a “height” and “width” of a “window in which the video is playing.”
13 This “seamlessly transitioning” language (similar to the “seamlessly changing”
14 language in the Quibi ’926 patent’s specification cited above) also appears in
15 multiple claims of the Eko ’765 patent.
16 49. In language similar to that of Eko’s ’765 Patent, Quibi’s ’926 Patent’s
17 Claim 1 recites “receiving . . . a first video asset . . . with a first aspect ratio; and a
18 second video asset . . . with a second aspect ratio, different from the first aspect
19 ratio,” “determining . . . a desired aspect ratio,” and “presenting . . . the selected
20 video asset at the desired aspect ratio,” based on “a width” and “a height” of “a
21 frame” of the respective first and second video assets.
22 50. The face of the Quibi ’926 patent does not disclose any consideration
23 of Eko’s patents—even though Quibi was on notice of Eko’s patents at least as
24 early as March 2019.
25

26

27

28 - 17 -
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
Case 2:20-cv-02299 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 19 of 23 Page ID #:19

1 CAUSES OF ACTION
2 COUNT I – MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS UNDER
3 DEFEND TRADE SECRETS ACT
4 51. Eko incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs
5 1 through 50 of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
6 52. Eko owns and possesses confidential and trade secret information, as
7 alleged above.
8 53. Eko’s confidential and trade secret information relates to products and
9 services used, sold, and ordered in, or intended to be used, sold, and/or ordered in,
10 interstate and foreign commerce. Specifically, Eko’s confidential and trade secret
11 information concerning its formatting and storage of video files to facilitate its
12 smart video response system, is used by customers throughout the United States.
13 54. Eko has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret
14 and confidential by, among other steps, limiting access to such information, storing
15 Eko’s source code on password-protected servers, and requiring employees and
16 third parties to abide by confidentiality agreements and observe Eko’s policy on
17 protecting Eko’s proprietary and confidential information.
18 55. Eko’s proprietary and confidential information derives independent
19 economic value from not being generally known to and not being readily
20 ascertainable through proper means by another person who could obtain economic
21 value from the disclosure or use of the information. For example, a competitor
22 such as Quibi with access to Eko’s trade secrets could avoid having to invest the
23 tens of millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours to research and develop its
24 technology that Eko invested.
25 56. In violation of Eko’s rights, Defendant has willfully misappropriated
26 Eko’s trade secrets. Burfitt and Smith obtained Eko confidential information while
27 at Snapchat, including source code not disclosed in Eko’s ’765 patent, and
28 - 18 -
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
Case 2:20-cv-02299 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 20 of 23 Page ID #:20

1 deliberately disclosed that information to their later employer, Quibi to use Eko’s
2 trade secret information for Quibi’s benefit.
3 57. Defendant’s misappropriation of Eko’s trade secret information has
4 been intentional, knowing, willful, malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive.
5 58. If Defendant’s conduct is not remedied, Quibi will continue to
6 misappropriate, disclose, and use Eko’s trade secret information for their own
7 benefit, and to Eko’s detriment.
8 59. Because Eko’s remedy at law is inadequate, Eko seeks, in addition to
9 damages, permanent injunctive relief to recover and protect its trade secrets and
10 other legitimate business interests.
11 60. As the direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Eko has
12 suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and significant damages, in an
13 amount to be proven at trial.
14 61. Eko is also entitled to an award of exemplary damages and attorneys’
15 fees.
16 COUNT II – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,460,765
17 (Against Quibi Only)
18 62. Eko incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs
19 1 through 61 of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
20 63. Quibi infringes at least Claims 1 and 10 of the Eko ’765 Patent.
21 64. Quibi’s technology, comprising the Turnstyle feature, performs a
22 computer-implemented method comprising: identifying one or more properties
23 associated with a user device; receiving a video for playback on the user device;
24 configuring a first state of the video based on at least one of the properties
25 associated with the user device; presenting the video according to the first state; and
26 during playback of the video: determining that a change in at least one of the
27 properties associated with the user device has occurred; seamlessly transitioning the
28 - 19 -
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
Case 2:20-cv-02299 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 21 of 23 Page ID #:21

1 video to a second state based on the change, as recited in Claim 1 of the Eko ’765
2 Patent.
3 65. Quibi’s technology, comprising the Turnstyle feature, includes a
4 system comprising: at least one memory storing computer-executable instructions;
5 at least one processor for executing the instructions storing on the memory, wherein
6 execution of the instructions programs to at least one processor to perform
7 operations comprising: identifying one or more properties associated with a user
8 device; receiving a video for playback on the user device; configuring a first state
9 of the video based on at least one of the properties associated with the user device;
10 presenting the video according to the first state; and during playback of the video:
11 determining that a change in at least one of the properties associated with the user
12 device has occurred; seamlessly transitioning the video to a second state based on
13 the change, as recited in Claim 10 of the Eko ’765 Patent.
14 66. Quibi’s direct infringement as described above has injured and
15 continues to injure Eko, and Eko is entitled to recover damages adequate to
16 compensate it for such infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty.
17 67. Quibi has had notice of Eko’s application for the Eko ’765 Patent since
18 at least March 2019.
19 68. Quibi’s infringement of the Eko ’765 Patent has been and continues to
20 be willful and deliberate as Quibi has acted in an objectively reckless manner in
21 view of the high likelihood that its acts constituted infringement of the Eko ’765
22 Patent and with full knowledge of Eko’s rights in the Eko ’765 Patent.
23 69. For the reasons stated above, Eko is entitled to enhanced damages
24 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 and attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
25 §285.
26

27

28 - 20 -
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
Case 2:20-cv-02299 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 22 of 23 Page ID #:22

1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF


2 WHEREFORE, Eko respectfully demands judgment in its favor and against
3 Defendant Quibi as follows:
4 a. Declaring that Quibi has misappropriated Eko’s confidential and trade
5 secret information pursuant to the Defend Trade Secrets Act, and that the
6 misappropriation has been willful and malicious.
7 b. Declaring that Quibi has infringed the Eko ’765 Patent, and that the
8 infringement has been willful.
9 c. Awarding damages as described in each of the above claims, in favor of
10 Plaintiff Eko and against Quibi in amounts to be determined at trial.
11 d. Enjoining Quibi and its respective officers, agents, servants, employees
12 and attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or participation with
13 them, from using Eko’s trade secret information and from selling, offering
14 for sale, marketing or using the Turnstyle feature.
15 e. Enjoining Quibi and its respective officers, agents, servants, employees,
16 attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with Quibi
17 who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise,
18 from selling, offering for sale, marketing, or using the Turnstyle feature
19 and any other infringement of the Eko ’765 Patent.
20

21 JURY DEMAND
22 Plaintiff Eko respectfully demands a jury trial pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38
23 on all issues so triable.
24

25

26

27

28 - 21 -
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION
Case 2:20-cv-02299 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 23 of 23 Page ID #:23

1 Dated: March 10, 2020 /s/ I. Neel Chatterjee


2 I. Neel Chatterjee

3 Attorneys for Plaintiff JBF Interlude


4 OF COUNSEL: Ltd – Israel

5 GOODWIN PROCTER LLP


Cindy Chang (pro hac vice to be filed)
6 (cindychang@goodwinlaw.com)
620 8th Avenue
7 New York, New York 10018
Telephone: (212) 813 8800
8 Facsimile: (212) 355-3333
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 22 -
COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AND
TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION