Complaints: Cylink's complaint against RSA

[Anonymous User <nobody@c2.org>]

-- Cylink's complaint against RSA ------------------------------------------

Jon Michaelson, Esq., (State Bar No. 083815) 
Kurt H. Taylor, Esq., (State Bar No. 127077) 
Robert W. Ricketson, Esq., (State Bar No. 148481) 
HOPKINS & CARLEY 
A Law Corporation 
150 Almaden Boulevard, Fifleenth Floor 
San Jose, California 95113-2089 
Telephone: (408) 286-9800 
 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
CYLINK CORPORATION 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
CYLINK CORPORATION, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
RSA DATA SECURITY, INC., 
Defendants. 
 
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY 
JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE 
RELIEF AND DEMAND FOR JURY 
TRIAL 
 
I . Plaintiff Cylink Corporation is incorporated under the laws of the 
State of California, and has its principal place of business therein. 
 
2. Defendant RSA Data Security, Inc. ("RSADSI") is a corporation 
incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, and has its principal 
and a regular and established place of business a 100 Marine Boulevard, 
Redwood City, CA 94065. 
 
3. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under the Federal Declaratory 
Judgments Act, Title 28, United States Code, Sections 2201 and 2202, and 
under the laws of the United States concerning actions relating to patents, 
Title 28, United States Code, Section 1338(a), as shown by the facts 
alleged below. 
 
4. On September 20, 1983, U.S. Letter Patent No. 4,405,829 entitled 
"Cryptographic Communications System and Method" was issued to inventors 
and assignors R. Rivest, A. Shamir and L. Adleman ("the Patent"). 
 
5. Cylink is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that in or 
about 1984 defendant RSADSI obtained an exclusive license to the Patent. 
 
6. Cylink has made and/or offered for sale within the past six years and 
since the issuance of the said Letters Patent, certain encryption products. 
 
7. Beginning in or about December 1993, RSADSI has charged that Cylink's 
manufacture and sale of said encryption products infringes the Patent and 
all claims thereof. On June 28, 1993, RSADSI delivered to Cylink's wholly-
owned subsidiary, in this judicial district, a letter expressly stating 
RSADSI's intent to bring an infringement action against Cylink. A true and 
correct copy of RSADSI 's letter to Cylink dated June 29, 1994 is attached 
hereto as Exhibit A. 
 
8. There is a substantial and continuing justiciable controversy between 
Cylink and RSADSI as to RSADSIs right to threaten or maintain suit for 
infringement of the Patent, and as to the validity, scope, and 
enforceability thereof, and as to whether any of Cylink's products 
infringes any valid claim thereof. 
 
9. Cylink is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that the 
Patent is invalid unenforceable, and void, for one or more of the following 
reasons: 
	(a) The alleged invention was not novel; 
	(b) The differences (if any) between the alleged invention and the 
prior art were such that the alleged invention would have been obvious at 
the time made to a person having ordinary skill in the art; 
	(c) The claims of the Patent, and/or the Patent as a whole, fails to 
meet one or more of the requirements of 35 U.S.C. section 1 12. 
	(d) If there is any invention in the subject matter of the Patent, 
which is denied, the Patent nevertheless was not obtained in a manner 
consistent with the provisions of Title 35 of the United States Code. 
	(e) The claims of the Patent are functional, indefinite, and are 
broader than the alleged invention as set forth in the specification of the 
Patent. 
 
10. Cylink will seek leave of court to amend this complaint to assert such 
additional grounds for invalidity as may be ascertained and shall give such 
notice prior to trial as may be required by 35 U.S.C. section 282 of the 
matters specified therein. 
 
11. Cylink is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that its 
encryption products do not infringe on the Patent or its claims. 
 
12. Cylink is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that the 
Patent is unenforceable for reasons including, but not necessarily limited 
to the following: 
	(a) RSADSI, with full knowledge of the activities of Cylink, has 
failed to assert the Patent for a period of 3 years while Cylink invested 
time and money in building its business and goodwill, and RSADSI is now 
guilty of laches and cannot maintain any cause of action against plaintiff 
under the Patent. 
	(b) Pursuant to certain written agreements, RSADSI has obligated 
itself to license Cylink to make, use, and sell products employing all 
inventions claimed in the patent, and is therefore estopped from asserting 
the Patent against Cylink. True and correct copies of these agreements are 
attached hereto and incorporated in this complaint as Exhibits B and C. 
 
13. RSADSI has denied that it is obligated to license Cylink as alleged in 
paragraph 12(b) above. Cylink and its wholly owned subsidiary have 
initiated an arbitration proceeding against RSADSI pursuant to the written 
agreements between the parties. By bringing this suit, as it has been 
forced to do in order to protect itself against the threat of litigation by 
RSADSI, Cylink does not waive its right to a determination through 
contractually mandated arbitration that RSADSI is obligated to grant to 
Cylink a license to the Patent according to the terms of the parties' 
agreements. 


WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands: 
	(a) Entry of judgment that RSADSI is without right or authority to 
threaten or to maintain suit against plaintiff or its customers for alleged 
infringement of Letters Patent No. 4,405,829; that the Patent is invalid, 
unenforceable, and void in law; and that the Patent is not infringed by 
Cylink because of the making, selling, or using of any products made, sold, 
or used by Cylink. 
	(b) Entry of a preliminary injunction enjoining RSADSI, its officers, 
agents, servants. employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active 
concert or participation with it who receive actual notice thereof from 
initiating infringement litigation and from threatening Cylink or any of 
its customers, dealers, agents, servants, or employees, or any prospective 
or present seller, dealer, or use of Cylink's products, with infringement 
litigation or charging any of them either verbally or in written with 
infringement of Letters Patent No. 4,405,829 because of the manufacture, 
use, sale, or offering for sale of products made by Cylink, to be made 
permanent following trial. 
	(c) Entry of judgment for its costs and reasonable attorney fees 
incurred by Cylink herein. 
	(d) Such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. 
 
DATED: June 30, 1994 
 
HOPKINS & CARLEY 
A Law Corporation 
BY: Kurt H. Taylor, Esq. 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
CYLINK CORPORATION 
 
 
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 
Cylink hereby demands trial by jury of all issues triable of right by jury. 
 
DATED: June 30, 1994 
HOPKINS & CARLEY 
A Law Corporation 
By Kurt H. Taylor, Esq. 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
CYLINK CORPORATION 

-- End ---------------------------------------------------------------------