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

Nicola A. Pisano (State Bar No. 151282) napisano@jonesday.com Christopher C. Bolten (State Bar No. 268284) ccbolten@jonesday.com JONES DAY 12265 El Camino Real, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: 858.314.1200 Facsimile: 858.314.1150 Patrick Michael (State Bar No. 169745) pmichael@jonesday.com Elaine Wallace (State Bar No. 197882) ewallace@JonesDay.com JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104-1500 Telephone: 415.626.3939 Facsimile: 415.875.5700 Attorneys for Plaintiff SMARTDRIVE SYSTEMS, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SMARTDRIVE SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. DRIVECAM, INC., Defendant. [JURY TRIAL DEMANDED] COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Case No. '12CV0683 LAB MDD

Plaintiff SmartDrive Systems, Inc. (SmartDrive), a Delaware corporation, by and through its attorneys alleges the following: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,139,820 (the 820 patent)

against defendant DriveCam, Inc. (DriveCam) under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), (b) and (c). / /
SFI-728082v1

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 8. 9. 4. 2.

PARTIES Plaintiff SmartDrive is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business

at 9276 Scranton Road, Suite 500, San Diego, CA 92121. 3. Defendant DriveCam is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business

at 8911 Balboa Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123. JURISDICTION AND VENUE This is an action arising under the Patent Laws of the United States. Accordingly,

this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a). 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant. Defendants headquarters

and principal place of business are in this District. In addition, on information and belief, Defendant has transacted business and supplied goods and services in this District, purposely availed itself of the privileges and benefits of the laws of this State, and committed acts of patent infringement during the course of its business in this District. 6. 7. SmartDrive is also headquartered, and has its business operations, in this District. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 and 1400(b). FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF [Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,139,820] Paragraphs 1 through 7 are incorporated by reference as if fully stated herein. On March 20, 2012, the 820 patent, entitled Discretization Facilities for Vehicle

Event Data Recorder, was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent & Trademark Office to inventors James Plante, Ramesh Kasavaraju, Gregory Mauro and Andrew Nickerson. SmartDrive owns by assignment the entire right, title and interest in and to the 820 patent including the right to bring this suit for damages. A true and correct copy of the 820 patent is attached as Exhibit A. 10. 820 patent. 11. DriveCam has directly infringed, and continues to infringe, at least claims 1-6 and Upon service of this complaint, if not earlier, DriveCam has had knowledge of the

8-18 of the 820 patent by importing, making, using, offering to sell and selling DriveCams DC2
SFI-728082v1

-2-

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

and DC3 systems and associated software, including DriveCams Event Review Process software, in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(a). 12. Additionally, DriveCams customers and end users also directly infringe at least

claim 1-6 and 8-18 of the 820 patent by using the DC2 and DC3 systems and associated software in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(a). 13. DriveCam encourages, provides support and instructs its customers and end users

to use the DC2 and DC3 systems and associated software in a manner that infringes at least claims 1-6 and 8-18 of the 820 patent. Upon service of this complaint, if not earlier, DriveCam will have had knowledge of the 820 patent, knowledge that its actions induce infringement of the 820 patent, knowledge that infringement of the 820 patent has and will continue to take place, and upon information and belief, intent that such infringement take place. DriveCams ongoing inducement with such knowledge and intent therefore subjects DriveCam to liability as an indirect infringer in violation of 35 U.S.C. 271(b). 14. DriveCams DC2 and DC3 systems and associated software are especially made

and adapted for infringing the 820 patent, are not a staple article or commodity of commerce, and that have no substantial non-infringing uses. DriveCams ongoing importation, manufacture, use, offers to sell and sales of its DC2 and DC3 systems and associated software with such knowledge contribute to its users infringement and subject DriveCam to liability as an indirect infringer under 35 U.S.C. 271(c). 15. SmartDrive has been and will continue to be irreparably damaged by DriveCams

infringement of the 820 patent. 16. DriveCams infringement will continue unless enjoined by this Court. REQUEST FOR RELIEF Wherefore SmartDrive requests the following relief: a) A judgment that DriveCam has infringed and is infringing the 820 patent; b) An order enjoining DriveCam, its officers, agents, employees, and those persons in active concert or participation with any of them, and DriveCams successors and assigns, from infringing the 820 patent;
SFI-728082v1

-3-

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
SFI-728082v1

c) An award of damages adequate to compensate SmartDrive for its damages resulting from DriveCams infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284, together with pre- and postjudgment interest and an accounting; d) A finding that this is an exceptional case and award to SmartDrive of its reasonable attorneys fees in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 285 and/or other applicable authority; e) An award to SmartDrive of its costs; and f) Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: March 20, 2012

JONES DAY

By: /s/ Patrick Michael Patrick Michael Attorneys for Plaintiff SMARTDRIVE SYSTEMS, INC. Email: pmichael@jonesday.com

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), SmartDrive demands a trial by jury of this action. Dated: March 20, 2012 JONES DAY

By: /s/ Patrick Michael Patrick Michael Attorneys for Plaintiff SMARTDRIVE SYSTEMS, INC. Email: pmichael@jonesday.com

-4-

COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

INDEX OF EXHIBITS to Complaint for Patent Infringement Exhibit Tab A Title United States Patent No. US 8,139,820 B2 Page Numbers 1-22

SFI-728088v1

EXHIBIT A

Exhibit A Page 1

Exhibit A Page 2

Exhibit A Page 3

Exhibit A Page 4

Exhibit A Page 5

Exhibit A Page 6

Exhibit A Page 7

Exhibit A Page 8

Exhibit A Page 9

Exhibit A Page 10

Exhibit A Page 11

Exhibit A Page 12

Exhibit A Page 13

Exhibit A Page 14

Exhibit A Page 15

Exhibit A Page 16

Exhibit A Page 17

Exhibit A Page 18

Exhibit A Page 19

Exhibit A Page 20

Exhibit A Page 21

Exhibit A Page 22