Case 1:01-cv-01770-RJL Document 1 Filed 08/21/01 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHRISTOPHER M. CRAWFORD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) DIGITAL RIVER, INC., ) NETOBJECTS, INC., ) NETWORK ASSOCIATES, INC., ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CYBERIAN OUTPOST, INC., ) BEYOND CORPORATION, ) , INC., and ) TUCOWS.COM, INC. ) ) Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, CHRISTOPHER CRAWFORD ("Crawford"), complains of defendants, DIGITAL RIVER, INC. ("Digital River"), NETOBJECTS, INC.("NetObjects"), NETWORK ASSOCIATES, INC.("NAI"),CYBERIAN OUTPOST, INC. ("Outpost"), BEYOND CORPORATION ("Beyond"), MACROMEDIA, INC. ("Macromedia") and TUCOWS.COM, INC.("Tucows") as follows:

Nature of Lawsuit

1. This is a complaint for patent infringement of United States Patent No. 6,014,651 entitled "Commercial Online Distribution Systems and Methods Using Encryption for Security," issued on January 11, 2000 ("the '651 patent") (attached hereto as Exhibit A). 2. This claim arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§1-376. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1338. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c),(d) and § 1400(b). Case 1:01-cv-01770-RJL Document 1 Filed 08/21/01 Page 2 of 16

Parties

3. Crawford is an individual residing at 3010 Wisconsin Avenue NW, #C8, Washington, D.C. 20016. He is the sole inventor of the inventions claimed in the '651 patent. 4. Crawford also owns all right, title and interest in the '651 patent. He, therefore, has standing to sue for infringement. 5. Digital River has its principal place of business at 9625 W. 76th Street, Suite 150, Eden Prairie, MN 55344. Digital River is engaged in the design, implementation, operation and hosting of web sites and electronic commerce systems and conducts business throughout the United States, including this judicial district. 6. NetObjects has its principal place of business at 301 Galveston Drive, Redwood City, CA 94063. NetObjects is engaged in the business of creating and selling software for building, changing and managing web sites and conducts business throughout the United States, including this judicial district. 7. NAI has its principal place of business at 3965 Freedom Circle, Santa Clara, CA 95054. NAI is engaged in the business of creating and selling antivirus, security and network management software and conducts business throughout the United States, including this judicial district. 8. Outpost has its principal place of business at 25 N. Main Street, Kent, CT 06757. Outpost is engaged in the business of selling computer hardware and software and conducts business throughout the United States, including this judicial district.

2 Case 1:01-cv-01770-RJL Document 1 Filed 08/21/01 Page 3 of 16

9. Beyond has its principal place of business at 3200 Patrick Henry Drive, Santa Clara, CA 95054. Beyond is engaged in the business of selling computer hardware and software and conducts business throughout the United States, including this judicial district. 10. Macromedia has its principal place of business at 600 Townsend Street, San Francisco, CA 94103. Macromedia is engaged in the business of developing, selling and supporting software products and technologies for use on the and conducts business throughout the United States, including this judicial district. 11. Tucows is a Canadian company having a principal place of business at 96 Mowat Avenue, Toronto, ON M6K 3M1. Tucows is engaged in the business of selling software products through its own and through online distributors located throughout the United States. Tucows conducts business throughout the United States, including this judicial district.

Acts of Infringement by Digital River

12. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Digital River by virtue of its tortious acts of patent infringement committed in the District of Columbia and its transaction of business in the District of Columbia. 13. Digital River owns and/or controls the content and operation of its interactive website at www.digitalriver.com and www.ebot.com.

3 Case 1:01-cv-01770-RJL Document 1 Filed 08/21/01 Page 4 of 16

14. Digital River has directly infringed the ‘651 patent by, among other things, the provision of online software purchase and delivery services including its Outsource Commerce Services, its eBot download agent, and other operations performed in whole or in part through www.digitalriver.com and www.ebot.com. 15. Digital River has also actively induced infringement of the '651 patent in the United States by, among other things, developing, implementing, supporting, providing technical assistance for, advertising and otherwise promoting its electronic software delivery ("ESD") services to others and by using or selling products specially designed and adapted to be used in connection with infringing ESD systems. 16. As a result, Digital River has successfully recruited other software vendors who now make or use infringing systems and methods for the online purchase and delivery of software in the United States, including defendants Outpost and NetObjects. 17. Digital River has also contributorily infringed the '651 patent by, among other things, making, using, selling and offering to sell in the United States components of ESD systems that are recited in the claims of the '651 patent, knowing such components to be specially made or specially adapted for use in an infringement of the '651 patent and not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 18. Digital River was given actual notice of its infringement of the '651 patent, at the latest, by April 30, 2001.

4 Case 1:01-cv-01770-RJL Document 1 Filed 08/21/01 Page 5 of 16

19. The acts of infringement by Digital River have been willful and deliberate, having been done with full knowledge of the '651 patent, at least since April 30, 2001. 20. Crawford has been damaged by the infringing acts of Digital River. He is entitled to recover damages from Digital River in an amount adequate to compensate him for the infringement that has occurred.

5 Case 1:01-cv-01770-RJL Document 1 Filed 08/21/01 Page 6 of 16

Acts of Infringement by NetObjects

21. This Court has personal jurisdiction over NetObjects by virtue of its tortious acts of patent infringement committed in the District of Columbia and its transaction of business in the District of Columbia. 22. NetObjects owns and/or controls the content and operation of its interactive website at www.netobjects.com, including the NetObjects Online Store. 23. Through activities occurring in whole or in part at www.netobjects.com, NetObjects has directly infringed the '651 patent by, among other things, making or using methods or services for the electronic distribution of software to its customers. 24. NetObjects has also actively induced infringement of the '651 patent in the United States by, among other things, installing, supporting, providing technical assistance for, advertising and otherwise promoting its ESD services to others and by using or selling products specially designed and adapted to be used in connection with infringing ESD systems. 25. As a result, NetObjects has induced computer users to use infringing systems and methods for the online purchase and delivery of software in the United States. 26. NetObjects has also contributorily infringed the '651 patent by, among other things, making or using in the United States components of ESD systems that are recited in the claims of the '651 patent, knowing such components to be specially made or specially adapted for use in an infringement of the '651 patent and

6 Case 1:01-cv-01770-RJL Document 1 Filed 08/21/01 Page 7 of 16

not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 27. NetObjects was given actual notice of its infringement of the '651 patent, at the latest, by February 2, 2001. 28. The acts of infringement by NetObjects have been willful and deliberate, having been done with full knowledge of the '651 patent, at least since February 2, 2001. 29. Crawford has been damaged by the infringing acts of NetObjects. He is entitled to recover damages from NetObjects in an amount adequate to compensate him for the infringement that has occurred.

Acts of Infringement by NAI

30. This Court has personal jurisdiction over NAI by virtue of its tortious acts of patent infringement committed in the District of Columbia and its transaction of business in the District of Columbia. 31. NAI owns and/or controls the content and operation of its interactive at www.nai.com, www.mcafee.com, www.mcafee-at- home.com; www.mcafeeb2b.com; www.sniffer.com; www.pgp.com; and www.magicsolutions.com. 32. NAI has directly infringed the ‘651 patent by, among other things, the provision of online software purchase and delivery services including the McAfee ViruScan products and services; the McAfee.com Clinic, McAfee PC Maintenance Software and Personal Firewall products and services; the McAfee Download Center and McAfee Store; the Privacy Store; Magic Solutions Prime Support;

7 Case 1:01-cv-01770-RJL Document 1 Filed 08/21/01 Page 8 of 16

the ZAC Suite Jumpstart products and services; the DAT and Engine Update services and other operations performed in whole or in part through NAI websites at www.nai.com; www.mcafee.com, www.sniffer.com; www.pgp.com; www.mcafee-at-home.com; www.mcafeeb2b.com; and www.magicsolutions.com. 33. NAI has also actively induced infringement of the '651 patent in the United States by, among other things, installing, supporting, providing technical assistance for, advertising and otherwise promoting its ESD services and release update services to others and by using or selling products specially designed and adapted to be used in connection with infringing ESD and release update systems. 34. As a result, NAI has induced computer users to use infringing systems and methods for the online purchase and delivery of software in the United States. 35. NAI has also contributorily infringed the '651 patent by, among other things, making or using in the United States components of ESD systems and release update systems that are recited in the claims of the '651 patent, knowing such components to be specially made or specially adapted for use in an infringement of the '651 patent and not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 36. NAI was given actual notice of its infringement of the '651 patent, at the latest, by February 15, 2001.

8 Case 1:01-cv-01770-RJL Document 1 Filed 08/21/01 Page 9 of 16

37. The acts of infringement by NAI have been willful and deliberate, having been done with full knowledge of the '651 patent, at least since February 15, 2001. 38. Crawford has been damaged by the infringing acts of NAI. He is entitled to recover damages from NAI in an amount adequate to compensate him for the infringement that has occurred.

Acts of Infringement by Outpost

39. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Outpost by virtue of its tortious acts of patent infringement committed in the District of Columbia and its transaction of business in the District of Columbia. 40. Outpost owns and/or controls the content and operation of its interactive website at www.outpost.com. 41. Through activities occurring in whole or in part at www.outpost.com. Outpost has directly infringed the '651 patent by, among other things, making or using methods or services for the electronic distribution of software to its customers. 42. Outpost has also actively induced infringement of the '651 patent in the United States by, among other things, installing, supporting, providing technical assistance for, advertising and otherwise promoting its ESD services to others and by using or selling products specially designed and adapted to be used in connection with infringing ESD systems. 43. As a result, Outpost has induced computer users to use infringing systems and methods for the online purchase and delivery of software in the United States.

9 Case 1:01-cv-01770-RJL Document 1 Filed 08/21/01 Page 10 of 16

44. Outpost has also contributorily infringed the '651 patent by, among other things, making or using in the United States components of ESD systems that are recited in the claims of the '651 patent, knowing such components to be specially made or specially adapted for use in an infringement of the '651 patent and not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 45. Outpost was given actual notice of its infringement of the '651 patent, at the latest, by February 2, 2001. 46. The acts of infringement by Outpost have been willful and deliberate, having been done with full knowledge of the '651 patent, at least since February 2, 2001. 47. Crawford has been damaged by the infringing acts of Outpost. He is entitled to recover damages from Outpost in an amount adequate to compensate him for the infringement that has occurred.

Acts of Infringement by Beyond

48. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Beyond by virtue of its tortious acts of patent infringement committed in the District of Columbia and its transaction of business in the District of Columbia. 49. Beyond owns and/or controls the content and operation of its interactive website at www.beyond.com, including its "Software Superstore" and the "Download Pro" download agent. 50. Through activities occurring in whole or in part at www.beyond.com. Beyond has directly infringed the '651 patent by,

10 Case 1:01-cv-01770-RJL Document 1 Filed 08/21/01 Page 11 of 16

among other things, making or using methods or services for the electronic distribution of software to its customers. 51. Beyond has also actively induced infringement of the '651 patent in the United States by, among other things, developing, implementing, supporting, providing technical assistance for, advertising and otherwise promoting its ESD services to others (including the "eStores by Beyond.com" service) and by using or selling products specially designed and adapted to be used in connection with infringing ESD systems. 52. As a result, Beyond has induced computer users and software vendors to use infringing systems and methods for the online purchase and delivery of software in the United States, including defendant NAI. 53. Beyond has also contributorily infringed the '651 patent by, among other things, making or using in the United States components of ESD systems that are recited in the claims of the '651 patent, knowing such components to be specially made or specially adapted for use in an infringement of the '651 patent and not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 54. Beyond was given actual notice of its infringement of the '651 patent, at the latest, by February 1, 2001. 55. The acts of infringement by Beyond have been willful and deliberate, having been done with full knowledge of the '651 patent, at least since February 1, 2001.

11 Case 1:01-cv-01770-RJL Document 1 Filed 08/21/01 Page 12 of 16

56. Crawford has been damaged by the infringing acts of Beyond. He is entitled to recover damages from Beyond in an amount adequate to compensate him for the infringement that has occurred.

Acts of Infringement by Macromedia

57. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Macromedia by virtue of its tortious acts of patent infringement committed in the District of Columbia and its transaction of business in the District of Columbia. 58. Macromedia owns and/or controls the content and operation of its interactive websites at www.macromedia.com and www.shockwave.com, including the Macromedia Worldwide Store. 59. Through activities occurring in whole or in part at www.macromedia.com and www.shockwave.com, Macromedia has directly infringed the '651 patent by, among other things, making or using methods or services for the electronic distribution of software and software release updates to its customers. 60. Macromedia has also actively induced infringement of the '651 patent in the United States by, among other things, installing, supporting, providing technical assistance for, advertising and otherwise promoting its ESD services and release update services to others and by using or selling products specially designed and adapted to be used in connection with infringing ESD and release update systems. 61. As a result, Macromedia has induced computer users to use infringing systems and methods for the online purchase and delivery of software and software release updates in the United States.

12 Case 1:01-cv-01770-RJL Document 1 Filed 08/21/01 Page 13 of 16

62. Macromedia has also contributorily infringed the '651 patent by, among other things, making or using in the United States components of ESD and release update systems that are recited in the claims of the '651 patent, knowing such components to be specially made or specially adapted for use in an infringement of the '651 patent and not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 63. Macromedia was given actual notice of its infringement of the '651 patent, at the latest, by February 2, 2001. 64. The acts of infringement by Macromedia have been willful and deliberate, having been done with full knowledge of the '651 patent, at least since February 2, 2001. 65. Crawford has been damaged by the infringing acts of Macromedia. He is entitled to recover damages from Macromedia in an amount adequate to compensate him for the infringement that has occurred.

Acts of Infringement by Tucows

66. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Tucows by virtue of its tortious acts of patent infringement committed in the District of Columbia and its transaction of business in the District of Columbia. 67. Tucows owns and/or controls the content and operation of its interactive website at www.tucows.com, including its Download Store. 68. Through activities occurring in whole or in part at www.tucows.com. Tucows has directly infringed the '651 patent by,

13 Case 1:01-cv-01770-RJL Document 1 Filed 08/21/01 Page 14 of 16

among other things, making or using methods or services for the electronic distribution of software to its customers. 69. Tucows has also actively induced infringement of the '651 patent in the United States by, among other things, installing, supporting, providing technical assistance for, advertising and otherwise promoting its ESD services to others and by using or selling products specially designed and adapted to be used in connection with infringing ESD systems. 70. As a result, Tucows has induced computer users to use infringing systems and methods for the online purchase and delivery of software in the United States. 71. Tucows has also contributorily infringed the '651 patent by, among other things, making or using in the United States components of ESD systems that are recited in the claims of the '651 patent, knowing such components to be specially made or specially adapted for use in an infringement of the '651 patent and not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. 72. Tucows was given actual notice of its infringement of the '651 patent, at the latest, by February 1, 2001. 73. The acts of infringement by Tucows have been willful and deliberate, having been done with full knowledge of the '651 patent, at least since February 1, 2001. 74. Crawford has been damaged by the infringing acts of Tucows. He is entitled to recover damages from Tucows in an amount adequate to compensate him for the infringement that has occurred.

14 Case 1:01-cv-01770-RJL Document 1 Filed 08/21/01 Page 15 of 16

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Crawford seeks judgment against each of the defendants, individually, separately and jointly, as follows: 1. An award of damages adequate to compensate Crawford for the infringement of the '651 patent that has occurred, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty; 2. A determination that infringement by each defendant has been willful and deliberate and an award to Crawford of damages as provided for in the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 284, together with prejudgment interest from the date infringement began; 3. An award to Crawford of all remedies available under 35 U.S.C. § 285; 4. A permanent injunction prohibiting all defendants from further acts of infringement of the '651 patent. 5. Such other and further relief as this Court and/or a jury may deem proper and just.

15 Case 1:01-cv-01770-RJL Document 1 Filed 08/21/01 Page 16 of 16

JURY DEMAND

Crawford hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues presented in this Complaint that are so triable.

Michael B. Ray D.C. Bar No.434287 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 1100 New York Avenue, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 371-2600 Raymond P. Niro Gregory P. Casimer NIRO, SCAVONE, HALLER & NIRO 181 West Madison, Suite 4600 Chicago, Illinois 60602 (312) 236-0733 Attorneys for Christopher Crawford

16