This complaint alleges copyright infringement and conversion claims against Google and Waze. PhantomALERT created a proprietary database of points of interest (traffic conditions, road hazards, speed cameras) for its GPS navigation apps, which it protects with a copyright registration. The complaint alleges that without authorization, Waze copied PhantomALERT's entire database starting in 2012, incorporated the data into its Waze app, and displayed it to users. It further alleges that Google, which acquired Waze in 2013, continued to use and display the copied data. PhantomALERT asserts this was copyright infringement and wrongful conversion of its proprietary data.
Consumer protection is your smartphone too smartarcherlaw1
Archer & Greiner is a full service, regional law firm with a reputation for providing the highest quality, result-driven legal services to corporate and individual clients.
Full 2012 FTC report into suspected antitrust by Google (via WSJ)Tric Park
[the] effect ofGoogle's conduct is to diminish the incentives of vertical websites to invest in, and to develop, new and innovative content. In the alternative, Googlc's conduct may be condemned as a stand-alone violation of Section 5. Google has
presented no efficiency justifi cation for its conduct.
Third, Staff has investigated whether Google has employed ru1ticompetifve
contractual restrictions on the a· utomated cross-management of advertising camp,l aigns. .
Google's main rival (Microsoft) has alleged that Googlc is denying Microsoft c ·tical scale
by employing these restrictions, and thus impairing Microsoft's ability to compe e effectively
in the markets for general search and search advertising. We conclude that thes restrictions
should be condemned under Section 2 because they limit the ability of advertisers to make
use of their own data, and as such, have reduced innovation and increased transaction costs
among advertisers and third-party businesses, and also degraded the quality ofGoogle's
rivals in search and search advertising. Google 's proffered efficiency justification for these
restrictions appears to be pretextual.
Fourth, Staff has investigated whether Google has entered into anticomprtive,
exclusionary agreements with websites for syndicated search and search advcrtisrng services.
We conclude that Google's agreements should be condemned under Section 2 because they
foreclose some p01tion of the market, and, although the agreements result in only modest
anticompetitive effects on publishers, the impact of the agreements in denying scale to
competitors is both competitively significant to its main rival (Microsoft) today, as well as a
significant barrier to entry for potential entrants in the longer term. While Googe presents
efficiency justifications for these agreements, on balance, Staff finds them to be nonpersuasive
TCPA and Contact Center Law: What's on the Horizon in 2017? Ryan Thurman
TCPA class action lawsuit filings surpassed 5,000 in 2016 alone. Top compliance strategies for dealing with the new administration at the FCC, FTC, and CFPB.
The extraordinary two-year legal saga of Pintrips has ended in a California U.S. federal court.
In a bench trial, a judge sided with Pintrips, ruling that the travel-planning site can’t be blocked from using its like-sounding name.
The judge found that Pintrips invented its name by its own efforts. He was persuaded by the evidence that “pin” has been a term in generic use among the computer savvy prior to the existence of Pinterest.
Two years ago Pinterest, which claims to be the country’s third-most visited social network, alleged that Pintrips chose a name similar to its own and thus infringed on its trademark.
But despite the risk of significant legal costs and distraction, Pintrips defended itself until the end, represented by the law firm Kenyon & Kenyon.
Online Enforcement of IP Rights by Injunctions Against ISPs: The English Cour...Victoria Sievers
On Wednesday 6 July 2016 the English Court of Appeal (CoA) handed down its decision in Cartier
International AG & Others -v- British Sky Broadcasting Limited & Others [2016] EWCA Civ 658
(Cartier). This was an appeal from the 2014 High Court ruling of Mr. Justice Arnold (Arnold J) in favour
of the Claimant trademark owners and his findings that the English courts had jurisdiction to grant
injunctions against internet service providers (ISPs) forcing them to take steps to block their customers
from accessing websites whose content infringed trademark rights. For reasons summarised below, the
CoA dismissed the appeal and therefore upheld Arnold J’s original decision. Thus, the door remains open
for trademark owners to seek this type of relief from the English courts.
Consumer protection is your smartphone too smartarcherlaw1
Archer & Greiner is a full service, regional law firm with a reputation for providing the highest quality, result-driven legal services to corporate and individual clients.
Full 2012 FTC report into suspected antitrust by Google (via WSJ)Tric Park
[the] effect ofGoogle's conduct is to diminish the incentives of vertical websites to invest in, and to develop, new and innovative content. In the alternative, Googlc's conduct may be condemned as a stand-alone violation of Section 5. Google has
presented no efficiency justifi cation for its conduct.
Third, Staff has investigated whether Google has employed ru1ticompetifve
contractual restrictions on the a· utomated cross-management of advertising camp,l aigns. .
Google's main rival (Microsoft) has alleged that Googlc is denying Microsoft c ·tical scale
by employing these restrictions, and thus impairing Microsoft's ability to compe e effectively
in the markets for general search and search advertising. We conclude that thes restrictions
should be condemned under Section 2 because they limit the ability of advertisers to make
use of their own data, and as such, have reduced innovation and increased transaction costs
among advertisers and third-party businesses, and also degraded the quality ofGoogle's
rivals in search and search advertising. Google 's proffered efficiency justification for these
restrictions appears to be pretextual.
Fourth, Staff has investigated whether Google has entered into anticomprtive,
exclusionary agreements with websites for syndicated search and search advcrtisrng services.
We conclude that Google's agreements should be condemned under Section 2 because they
foreclose some p01tion of the market, and, although the agreements result in only modest
anticompetitive effects on publishers, the impact of the agreements in denying scale to
competitors is both competitively significant to its main rival (Microsoft) today, as well as a
significant barrier to entry for potential entrants in the longer term. While Googe presents
efficiency justifications for these agreements, on balance, Staff finds them to be nonpersuasive
TCPA and Contact Center Law: What's on the Horizon in 2017? Ryan Thurman
TCPA class action lawsuit filings surpassed 5,000 in 2016 alone. Top compliance strategies for dealing with the new administration at the FCC, FTC, and CFPB.
The extraordinary two-year legal saga of Pintrips has ended in a California U.S. federal court.
In a bench trial, a judge sided with Pintrips, ruling that the travel-planning site can’t be blocked from using its like-sounding name.
The judge found that Pintrips invented its name by its own efforts. He was persuaded by the evidence that “pin” has been a term in generic use among the computer savvy prior to the existence of Pinterest.
Two years ago Pinterest, which claims to be the country’s third-most visited social network, alleged that Pintrips chose a name similar to its own and thus infringed on its trademark.
But despite the risk of significant legal costs and distraction, Pintrips defended itself until the end, represented by the law firm Kenyon & Kenyon.
Online Enforcement of IP Rights by Injunctions Against ISPs: The English Cour...Victoria Sievers
On Wednesday 6 July 2016 the English Court of Appeal (CoA) handed down its decision in Cartier
International AG & Others -v- British Sky Broadcasting Limited & Others [2016] EWCA Civ 658
(Cartier). This was an appeal from the 2014 High Court ruling of Mr. Justice Arnold (Arnold J) in favour
of the Claimant trademark owners and his findings that the English courts had jurisdiction to grant
injunctions against internet service providers (ISPs) forcing them to take steps to block their customers
from accessing websites whose content infringed trademark rights. For reasons summarised below, the
CoA dismissed the appeal and therefore upheld Arnold J’s original decision. Thus, the door remains open
for trademark owners to seek this type of relief from the English courts.
NYC Parking Ticket Cases You Ought to Know AboutLawrence Berezin
You will be shocked at the helpful information contained in these essential parking ticket cases, and how the Evil Empire ignores the law. Read 'em and save your hard earned dough.
Web scraping, or data scraping, is an operation used for extracting data from websites. While web scraping can be done manually, the term typically refers to automated processes implemented using a web crawler or bot. It is a form of electronic copying, in which data is gathered and copied from the web for later analysis and use.
NVIDIA has countersued Samsung in the U.S. District Court in Virginia, citing four graphics patents beyond the seven cited in previous ITC and Delaware cases. The four patents are described in this latest filing.
Lunch and Learn: Fraud Trends in Financial ServicesTransUnion
Fraud in Financial Services doesn’t just affect the bottom line, with the increased focus on security, brand reputation is also at stake. A customer’s personal and financial information is a highly valued asset to a cybercriminal and subject to sophisticated fraud techniques.
We’ll show you how we stop CNP fraud, account takeover, credit application fraud and the use of stolen/synthetic identities with our next-generation fraud prevention solution.
Browse to learn about:
- The power of combining machine learning with human intelligence
- Patterns of Financial Services fraud that we identified in 2017
- Real world examples of how to stop fraud in Financial Services
- How machine learning can help predict fraud before it happens
- The power of leveraging iovation’s device intelligence network
Flextronics AP LLC is a strategic patent development subsidiary of Flextronics International which is a connected vehicle platform solution company. Flextronics AP LLC has developed total of 79 family patents including 11 issued US family patents for the IoT (Internet of Things) connected car up to now
In an endeavour to keep patent enthusiasts abreast with the latest patent related activities in leading geographies, we provide a weekly update of patent cases filed in the US. Go ahead, download the compilation for free!
Joint ad trade letter to ag becerra re ccpa 1.31.2019Greg Sterling
We strongly support the objectives of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), but we have notable concerns around the likely negative impact on California consumers and businesses from some of the specific language in the law. We provide this initial comment to provide you with information about the significant importance of a data-driven and ad-supported online ecosystem, industry efforts to protect privacy, and in section III of the letter draw your attention to several areas that can be addressed and improved through the rulemaking process. We will provide more detailed comments over the coming weeks.
a group of locksmiths has filed a new class action lawsuit against Google, Microsoft and Yahoo. They claim the search engines (Google in particular) are deliberately “flooding” organic results with “scam locksmith listings” known to be false.
In an extensive and lengthy argument, Amazon argues that interactions with the Alexa virtual assistant are free speech. That includes both the human speech commands and the AI/robot responses. Interestingly, Amazon cites Search King v. Google for the proposition that Alexa responses are like search results and entitled to the same editorial protections accorded Google under that ruling and related case law
European Court of Justice Press Release GS Media vs. SanomaGreg Sterling
[W]hen hyperlinks are posted for profit, it may be expected that the person who posted such a link should carry out the checks necessary to ensure that the work concerned is not illegally published. Therefore, it must be presumed that that posting has been done with the full knowledge of the protected nature of the work and of the possible lack of the copyright holder’s consent to publication on the internet. In such circumstances, and in so far as that presumption is not rebutted, the act of posting a clickable link to a work illegally published on the internet constitutes a ‘communication to the public’.
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentationseri bangash
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
In 2020, the Ministry of Home Affairs established a committee led by Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh, former Vice Chancellor of National Law University (NLU), Delhi. This committee was tasked with reviewing the three codes of criminal law. The primary objective of the committee was to propose comprehensive reforms to the country’s criminal laws in a manner that is both principled and effective.
The committee’s focus was on ensuring the safety and security of individuals, communities, and the nation as a whole. Throughout its deliberations, the committee aimed to uphold constitutional values such as justice, dignity, and the intrinsic value of each individual. Their goal was to recommend amendments to the criminal laws that align with these values and priorities.
Subsequently, in February, the committee successfully submitted its recommendations regarding amendments to the criminal law. These recommendations are intended to serve as a foundation for enhancing the current legal framework, promoting safety and security, and upholding the constitutional principles of justice, dignity, and the inherent worth of every individual.
Car Accident Injury Do I Have a Case....Knowyourright
Every year, thousands of Minnesotans are injured in car accidents. These injuries can be severe – even life-changing. Under Minnesota law, you can pursue compensation through a personal injury lawsuit.
A "File Trademark" is a legal term referring to the registration of a unique symbol, logo, or name used to identify and distinguish products or services. This process provides legal protection, granting exclusive rights to the trademark owner, and helps prevent unauthorized use by competitors.
Visit Now: https://www.tumblr.com/trademark-quick/751620857551634432/ensure-legal-protection-file-your-trademark-with?source=share
Guide on the use of Artificial Intelligence-based tools by lawyers and law fi...Massimo Talia
This guide aims to provide information on how lawyers will be able to use the opportunities provided by AI tools and how such tools could help the business processes of small firms. Its objective is to provide lawyers with some background to understand what they can and cannot realistically expect from these products. This guide aims to give a reference point for small law practices in the EU
against which they can evaluate those classes of AI applications that are probably the most relevant for them.
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordinary And Special Businesses And Ordinary And Special Resolutions with Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations, 2018
1. 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
Case No. 15-cv-3986 COMPLAINT
KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP
Karl S. Kronenberger (Bar No. 226112)
Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld (Bar No. 222187)
Ansel J. Halliburton (Bar No. 282906)
150 Post Street, Suite 520
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 955-1155
Facsimile: (415) 955-1158
karl@KRInternetLaw.com
jeff@KRInternetLaw.com
ansel@KRInternetLaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PhantomALERT, Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PHANTOMALERT, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation,
WAZE, INC., a Delaware corporation, and
DOES 1–10, inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No. 15-cv-3986
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
EQUITABLE AND OTHER RELIEF
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case3:15-cv-03986-JCS Document1 Filed09/01/15 Page1 of 11
2. 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
Case No. 15-cv-3986
1
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff PhantomALERT, Inc. (“PhantomALERT”), a Delaware corporation, by
and through its attorneys of record, states and alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. PhantomALERT has created Global Positioning System (“GPS”)-based
navigation applications for mobile phones and GPS devices (the “PhantomALERT
Apps” or the “Apps”).
2. The PhantomALERT Apps notify users of the location of traffic conditions,
road hazards, and traffic enforcement monitors, such as speed cameras (collectively,
the “Points of Interest”). PhantomALERT licenses its Apps to end users and to GPS
device manufacturers.
3. Over the last seven years, PhantomALERT has engaged in a systematic
process of identifying the Points of Interest for its Apps, evaluating which Points of
Interest would be of importance to users of the Apps, vetting the accuracy of the Points
of Interest, organizing the Points of Interest, and refining the data associated with the
Points of Interest.
4. PhantomALERT created and maintains a proprietary database containing
information about the Points of Interest. The PhantomALERT Apps access the
database in real time and then display the Points of Interest to users on a GPS-
generated electronic map.
5. PhantomALERT’s copyrighted works include its Points of Interest
database; its website, which includes software for editing and maintaining the Points of
Interest database (the “Web App”); and software applications for various mobile
devices. PhantomALERT applied for a registration with the United States Copyright
Office covering its Points of Interest database and the source code for the Web App.
On August 20, 2015, the U.S. Copyright Office issued a copyright registration, No.
TXu001954208.
6. Defendants own and operate the Waze application, which is a GPS-based
geographical navigation application that competes with the PhantomALERT Apps.
Case3:15-cv-03986-JCS Document1 Filed09/01/15 Page2 of 11
3. 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
Case No. 15-cv-3986
2
COMPLAINT
7. Without any consent from PhantomALERT, Defendants repeatedly copied
PhantomALERT’s Points of Interest database, incorporated the data into the Waze
application, and displayed the data to users of the Waze application.
8. Defendants have wrongfully profited from their copying and use of the
PhantomALERT Points of Interest database, and PhantomALERT has been harmed.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1331 for PhantomALERT’s claim under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§501 et
seq. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over PhantomALERT’s claims arising
under the laws of the State of California under 28 U.S.C. §1367 because they are so
related to PhantomALERT’s federal claim that they form part of the same case or
controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.
10. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 because Defendants Google
Inc. and Waze, Inc. reside in this district.
11. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they are
headquartered in California, engaged in their misconduct from California, and have
substantial, continuous, and systematic contacts with California.
INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
12. Because this lawsuit is an intellectual property action, pursuant to Local
Civil Rule 3-2, this action should be assigned on a district-wide basis.
PARTIES
13. Plaintiff PhantomALERT, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its primary
office in the District of Columbia.
14. Defendant Waze, Inc. (“Waze”) is a Delaware corporation with its primary
office in Mountain View, California.
15. Defendant Google Inc. (“Google”) is a Delaware corporation with its
primary office in Mountain View, California.
16. PhantomALERT does not know the true names and capacities, whether
Case3:15-cv-03986-JCS Document1 Filed09/01/15 Page3 of 11
4. 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
Case No. 15-cv-3986
3
COMPLAINT
individual, associate, corporate, or otherwise, of Defendants sued herein as Does 1–10
inclusive, and PhantomALERT therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious
names. PhantomALERT will amend this complaint to state the true names and
capacities of Does 1–10 once they have been discovered. PhantomALERT is informed
and believes, and, on that basis, alleges that each Defendant sued herein by a fictitious
name is in some way liable and responsible to PhantomALERT based on the facts
alleged herein.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
PhantomALERT’s Business
17. PhantomALERT began developing its PhantomALERT Apps in 2008. The
Apps display notifications of traffic conditions, speed restrictions, and police monitors on
GPS-generated maps. The Apps alert drivers to these various Points of Interest so that
the users can streamline their drives and avoid citations.
18. PhantomALERT maintains information regarding all of its Points of Interest
in a database. The PhantomALERT Apps access the database when a user enters into
the corresponding geographic area. The Apps then display the Points of Interest on a
GPS-generated map.
19. PhantomALERT uses a systematic process for selecting, coordinating,
and arranging information about the Points of Interest, which it then displays in the
Apps.
20. First, PhantomALERT allows users to submit potential Points of Interest to
PhantomALERT through the Apps.
21. Second, PhantomALERT evaluates whether a Point of Interest submitted
by a user is a genuine Point of Interest based on a proprietary formula as well as human
judgment. Among other things, PhantomALERT determines whether multiple users of
the Apps have reported the same Point of Interest, thereby corroborating its existence.
PhantomALERT also determines whether the reported Point of Interest would be of
importance to users of the Apps. As an example, PhantomALERT may decide to omit a
Case3:15-cv-03986-JCS Document1 Filed09/01/15 Page4 of 11
5. 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
Case No. 15-cv-3986
4
COMPLAINT
“speed trap” Point of Interest from its Apps after determining that the speed trap does
not pose a significant risk to users of the Apps.
22. Third, PhantomALERT refines the geographic and other data associated
with the Point of Interest so that the Point of Interest is displayed in the most helpful
location on users’ GPS-generated maps, with the optimal amount of advance warning to
the user. As an example, the location from which a person reports a speed camera is
typically not the actual location of the camera. PhantomALERT edits the geographic
data associated with the speed camera and adds data to alert users before they drive
within range of the speed camera.
23. Finally, PhantomALERT reviews the timing of the various users’ reports
for a particular Point of Interest to ensure that the Point of Interest remains relevant. As
an example, PhantomALERT may remove a “speed trap” Point of Interest if no recent
reports of the trap have been made.
24. The PhantomALERT Apps do not seek to inform users of every traffic
condition, road hazard, and traffic enforcement monitor that has ever been reported or
that has ever existed. Rather, the Apps seek to inform users of the Points of Interest
that are most relevant to their driving.
25. Using the above-described process, PhantomALERT selects, coordinates,
and arranges the Points of Interest in a creative and original manner that seeks to
increase the usefulness of the Apps. PhantomALERT then stores the data regarding
the selection, coordination, and arrangement of the Points of Interest in its database.
26. On August 20, 2015, the United States Copyright Office issued a copyright
registration for the PhantomALERT App source code and the Points of Interest
database as a compilation, Registration No. TXu001954208.
Defendants’ Business
27. On information and belief, Defendant Waze, Inc. is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Waze Mobile Ltd., an Israeli company formed in 2007.
28. Before being acquired by Google, Waze competed with Plaintiff in
Case3:15-cv-03986-JCS Document1 Filed09/01/15 Page5 of 11
6. 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
Case No. 15-cv-3986
5
COMPLAINT
operating a GPS-based application, which provides route information and traffic details,
including accidents, congestion, and speed and police traps.
29. Like the PhantomALERT App, users of the Waze application report
accidents, traffic conditions, speed and police traps through the application, and thereby
seek to streamline users’ driving experience.
30. Google is a multinational technology company specializing in Internet-
related products and services, including online advertising, cloud computing, software
development and licensing, and online mapping services.
31. On information and belief, in June 2013, Google acquired all of the assets
and liabilities of Waze, and Waze was merged into Google.
32. Since June 2013, Google has operated the Waze application.
Defendants’ Misconduct
33. On July 30, 2010, Noam Bardin, the CEO of Waze, sent Yoseph
Seyoum,1
the CEO of PhantomALERT, an email with a proposal to cooperate in the
operation of their respective GPS-mapping companies.
34. Later that same day, Bardin and Seyoum spoke by telephone. During the
call, Bardin proposed that Waze and PhantomALERT exchange their respective Points
of Interest databases. Because Waze did not appear to have substantial data to share,
Seyoum declined Bardin’s offer.
35. After Seyoum rejected Bardin’s offer to exchange databases, on
information and belief, Waze copied the PhantomALERT Points of Interest database in
its entirety in or around late 2012 without any authorization or consent.
36. Thereafter, on information and belief, Waze copied the PhantomALERT
Points of Interest database on multiple, additional occasions as the database was
updated, starting in or around late 2012.
37. On information and belief, after copying the PhantomALERT database,
1
Mr. Seyoum is also known by the name “Joe Scott,” which he uses in business
dealings.
Case3:15-cv-03986-JCS Document1 Filed09/01/15 Page6 of 11
7. 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
Case No. 15-cv-3986
6
COMPLAINT
Waze incorporated the data into the Waze application in a modified form.
38. On information and belief, after copying the PhantomALERT database,
Waze displayed the data to users through the Waze application.
39. Among other methods, PhantomALERT determined that Waze had
copied its Points of Interest database by observing the presence of fictitious Points of
Interest in the Waze application, which PhantomALERT had seeded into its own
database for the purpose of detecting copying.
40. On information and belief, Waze copied the PhantomALERT database on
multiple occasions after late 2012, re-incorporated the copied data into the Waze
application, and continued to display the Points of Interest data to the users of the Waze
application.
41. On information and belief, Google continued to operate the Waze
application, which copied, modified, and displayed copyrighted information from the
PhantomALERT Points of Interest database, after it acquired Waze in June 2013.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT)
42. PhantomALERT repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in
Paragraphs 1–41 above.
43. The facts regarding the Points of Interest that populate the
PhantomALERT database were selected, coordinated, and arranged by
PhantomALERT in such a way as to render the database as a whole original.
44. PhantomALERT owns a valid copyright in the PhantomALERT Points of
Interest database, which is an original, creative work.
45. PhantomALERT has an active and valid copyright registration covering
the PhantomALERT database as a compilation, Registration No. TXu001954208.
46. On information and belief, without any authorization or consent,
Defendants copied and reproduced the PhantomALERT database.
47. On information and belief, without any authorization or consent,
Case3:15-cv-03986-JCS Document1 Filed09/01/15 Page7 of 11
8. 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
Case No. 15-cv-3986
7
COMPLAINT
Defendants prepared derivative works of the PhantomALERT database.
48. On information and belief, without any authorization or consent,
Defendants distributed copies of the PhantomALERT database, and/or derivative works
thereof, to the public by sale, lease, or lending in the form of an end user license.
49. On information and belief, without any authorization or consent,
Defendants publicly displayed the PhantomALERT database and/or derivative works
thereof.
50. On information and belief, Defendants began copying, reproducing,
preparing derivative works, displaying, and licensing the PhantomALERT Points of
Interest database in late 2012, and Defendants continued to engage in this conduct
through and past June 2013.
51. On information and belief, in June 2013, Google acquired all of Waze’s
liabilities, including all liability associated with Waze’s copyright infringement.
52. On information and belief, following Google’s acquisition of Waze, Google
incorporated aspects of the Waze application, including information from the
PhantomALERT Points of Interest database, into Google’s own mapping services.
Thereafter, on information and belief, Google reproduced the information from the
Points of Interest database, created derivative works from the information, displayed the
information, and sold or leased the information to users through an end user license
agreement.
53. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has been harmed and
Defendants have wrongfully profited.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(CONVERSION)
54. PhantomALERT repeats and incorporates by reference the allegations in
Paragraphs 1–41 above.
55. PhantomALERT owns the data within the PhantomALERT Points of
Interest database.
Case3:15-cv-03986-JCS Document1 Filed09/01/15 Page8 of 11
9. 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
Case No. 15-cv-3986
8
COMPLAINT
56. Without any authorization or consent, Waze copied the PhantomALERT
database and incorporated the data into the Waze application, thereby disposing of
PhantomALERT’s property in a manner inconsistent with PhantomALERT’s possession
of that property.
57. On information and belief, in June 2013, Google acquired all of Waze’s
liabilities, including all liability associated with Waze’s wrongful conversion of the
PhantomALERT database.
58. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct, PhantomALERT has been injured.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PhantomALERT prays for a judgment against Defendants as
follows:
1. For a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendants to cease
operating the Waze website and application;
2. For an award of damages and monetary equitable relief in an amount to
be proven at trial, comprising the following:
a. Compensatory damages in the form of PhantomALERT’s lost
profits and Defendants’ wrongful profits, including through the
calculation of a reasonable royalty, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §504;
b. The amount of Defendants’ unjust enrichment pursuant to 17
U.S.C. §504;
c. Compensatory damages pursuant to California common law for
Defendants’ conversion of PhantomALERT’s database;
d. Punitive damages, pursuant to California Civil Code section 3294;
e. PhantomALERT’s costs of suit;
f. Pre-judgment interest to the extent allowed by law; and
//
//
//
Case3:15-cv-03986-JCS Document1 Filed09/01/15 Page9 of 11
12. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
(Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) (If Known)
(Place an “X” in One Box Only) (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
(U.S. Government Not a Party) or
and
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
(Place an “X” in One Box Only)
(Place an “X” in One Box Only)
(specify)
(Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity)
(See instructions):
IX. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil L.R. 3-2)
PHANTOMALERT, INC., a Delaware corporation
Washington, D.C.
Karl S. Kronenberger; Jeffrey M. Rosenfeld; Ansel J. Halliburton
KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP
150 Post St., Suite 520, San Francisco, CA 94108; (415) 955-1155
GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation, WAZE, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive
17 U.S.C. §§501 et seq.
Copyright infringement; conversion
09/01/2015 s/ Karl S. Kronenberger
Case3:15-cv-03986-JCS Document1-1 Filed09/01/15 Page1 of 1