Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page1 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page2 of 206

1 Plaintiff Thought, Inc. (“Thought”), for its complaint against defendants Oracle 2 Corporation, Oracle America, Inc., and Oracle International Corporation (collectively “Oracle”), 3 alleges as follows:

4 I. NATURE OF THE ACTION 5 1. This is an action under the patent laws of the United States of America, 35 U.S.C. 6 §§ 1, et seq., for infringement of patents assigned to Thought.

7 II. THE PARTIES 8 2. Thought is a corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of 9 California. Thought’s principal place of business is 5 Third Street, Suite 1030, San Francisco 10 California 94103. 11 3. On information and belief, is a corporation organized and 12 existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 500 Oracle 13 Parkway, Redwood City, CA 94065. 14 4. On information and belief, Oracle America, Inc. is a corporation organized and 15 existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 500 Oracle 16 Parkway, Redwood City, CA 94065. 17 5. On information and belief, Oracle International Corporation is a corporation 18 organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business 19 at 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood City, CA 94065.

20 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 21 6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 22 1331 and 1338, in that this is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of 23 the United States, Title 35, United States Code. 24 7. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1) and (c)(2), 25 and 1400(b). 26 8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Oracle because Oracle International is a 27 California corporation, Oracle has its principal place of business in this judicial district, and Oracle 28 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

005006-11 562854V1 - 1 - Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page3 of 206

1 conducts systematic and continuous business in California within this judicial district, and has 2 committed acts of infringement in California and within this judicial district.

3 IV. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 4 9. This is an Intellectual Property Action to be assigned on a district-wide basis under 5 Civil L.R. 3-2(c) and 3-5.

6 V. BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION AND THOUGHT 7 10. Thought was founded by computer engineer Ward Mullins in 1993 to deliver object- 8 oriented programming solutions to corporate clients. Following the release of the 9 programming language by in 1995, Ward Mullins and others at Thought 10 investigated the new language and determined that it provided an effective platform to develop 11 mapping technologies between corporate applications and databases, thereby replacing the 12 cumbersome, inefficient, labor-intensive, and generally ad hoc solutions used previously. 13 11. Using Java, Thought invented a middleware mapping layer for saving object and 14 table information and greatly simplified the task of persisting data. Thought’s dynamic object to 15 relational mapping layer made it possible to keep the database information in a map and not as 16 programming code in the Java object, meaning no bytecode or extension code generation or 17 annotation was needed either at design or runtime in order to persist the data of a Java object. 18 12. Thought incorporated its innovative technologies into its CocoBase® product 19 introduced in January 1997. CocoBase® was licensed widely to numerous customers and partners 20 over the years. 21 13. Thought continued to develop its CocoBase® product, and developed further 22 innovations related to its object to relational mapping technologies, including features such as 23 object navigation, object persistence modeling, dynamic object-based querying, and advanced 24 object data caching.

25 VI. THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT 26 14. Thought is the assignee and owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,857,197 (the “’197 Patent”), 27 entitled System and Method for Accessing Data Stores as Objects. The ‘197 Patent was duly and 28 legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on January 5, 1999 and generally COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - 2 -

005006-11 562854V1 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page4 of 206

1 discloses and claims systems and methods to perform object to relational database mapping by 2 associating objects in an object application with corresponding data that persists over time in a data 3 store. The ‘197 Patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit A. 4 15. Thought is the assignee and owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,985,912 (the “’912 Patent”), 5 entitled Dynamic Object-Driven Database Manipulation and Mapping System Having a Simple 6 Global Interface and an Optional Multiple User Need Only Caching System with Disable and 7 Notify Feature. The ‘912 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and 8 Trademark Office on January 10, 2006 and generally discloses and claims systems and methods to 9 cache certain objects and data. The ‘912 Patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit B. 10 16. Thought is the assignee and owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,999,956 (the “’956 Patent”), 11 entitled Dynamic Object-Driven Database Manipulation and Mapping System. The ‘956 Patent 12 was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on February 14, 13 2006 and generally discloses and claims systems and methods to create and edit object mapping 14 files in an object to relational database mapping system. The ‘956 Patent is attached to this 15 Complaint as Exhibit C. 16 17. Thought is the assignee and owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,043,481 (the “’481 Patent”), 17 entitled System, Method, and for Creating, Maintaining, Navigating, or Manipulating 18 Complex Data Objects and Their Data Relationships. The ‘956 Patent was duly and legally issued 19 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on May 9, 2006 and generally discloses and 20 claims systems and methods to create, maintain, and access complex data objects as a complex data 21 object graph model. The ‘481 Patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit D. 22 18. Thought is the assignee and owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,103,600 (the “’600 Patent”), 23 entitled Displayable Presentation Page and SQL Searchable Relational Data Source 24 Implementation of a System, Method, and Software for Creating or Maintaining Distributed 25 Transparent Persistence of Complex Data Objects and Their Data Relationships. The ‘600 Patent 26 was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on September 5, 27 2006 and generally discloses and claims systems and methods for distributed transparent 28 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - 3 -

005006-11 562854V1 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page5 of 206

1 persistence of complex data objects and associated data stores. The ‘600 Patent is attached to this 2 Complaint as Exhibit E. 3 19. Thought is the assignee and owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,149,730 (the “’730 Patent”), 4 entitled Dynamic Class Inheritance and Distributed Caching with Object Relational Mapping and 5 Cartesian Model Support in a Database Manipulation and Mapping System. The ‘730 Patent was 6 duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on December 12, 2006 7 and generally discloses and claims systems and methods for object to relational mapping and 8 caching. The ‘730 Patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit F. 9 20. Thought is the assignee and owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,176,862 (the “’862 Patent”), 10 entitled Session Bean Implementation of a System, Method, and Software for Creating or 11 Maintaining Distributed Transparent Persistence of Complex Data Objects and Their Data 12 Relationships. The ‘862 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and 13 Trademark Office on January 23, 2007 and generally discloses and claims systems and methods for 14 creating or maintaining distributed transparent persistence of complex data objects and associated 15 data stores.

16 VII. BACKGROUND ON ORACLE 17 21. In its publicly-filed 2011 Form 10K Oracle summarizes its business as follows: 18 Oracle is the world’s largest provider of enterprise software and a leading provider of computer hardware products and services. Our software, hardware systems, and services 19 businesses develop, manufacture, market, host and support database and middleware software, applications software, and hardware systems, with the latter consisting primarily 20 of computer server and storage products. Our businesses provide products and services that 21 are built upon industry standards, are engineered to work together or independently within existing customer information technology (IT) environments, and run securely on a wide 22 range of customer IT environments, including cloud computing environments.

23 22. On January 16, 2008, Oracle announced the acquisition of all outstanding shares of 24 BEA Systems, Inc. in a deal valued at approximately 8.5 billion dollars. Oracle completed the 25 acquisition on or about April 29, 2008. At the time of the acquisition, BEA’s flagship product was 26 the Weblogic application server. Oracle CEO stated that “The addition of BEA 27 28 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - 4 -

005006-11 562854V1 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page6 of 206

1 products and technology will significantly enhance and extend Oracle's Fusion middleware 2 software suite.” 3 23. On April 20, 2009, Oracle announced the acquisition of Sun Microsystems, Inc. in a 4 deal valued at approximately 7.4 billion dollars. Oracle completed the acquisition on or about 5 January 27, 2010. At the time of the acquisition Sun’s flagship software assets were the Java 6 programming language and Solaris operating system. In the acquisition announcement, Oracle 7 noted that the was “Oracle’s fastest growing business, [and] is built on 8 top of Sun’s Java language and software.” Oracle CEO Larry Ellison stated: 9 “Oracle will be the only company that can engineer an integrated system – applications to disk – where all the pieces fit and work together so customers do not have to do it 10 themselves. Our customers benefit as their systems integration costs go down while system performance, reliability and security go up.” 11

12 24. Oracle continues to deploy the Oracle Weblogic Server and boasts that it is the 13 “foundation” of Oracle Fusion Middleware software and is “compliant with the Java EE 14 specification. Oracle WebLogic Server incorporates clustering and caching technology, which 15 increases application reliability, performance, security and .” On information and belief, 16 accused versions of Oracle Weblogic Server are compliant with either or both Java EE 5 and Java 17 EE 6. 18 25. Oracle also offers database and application software, hardware, application 19 development tools, and hosting and other cloud services that rely on its middleware including 20 Oracle Weblogic Server. 21 VIII. ORACLE’S KNOWLEDGE OF THOUGHT’S PATENT PORTFOLIO 22 26. Each version of Thought’s CocoBase® product was marked with the ‘197 Patent 23 following its issuance by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on January 5, 1999. 24 27. Oracle has cited Thought’s ‘197 Patent as prior art on the face of U.S. Patents 25 7,599,948 and 8,145,685 assigned to Oracle International Corporation. 26 28. Oracle has cited Thought’s ‘956 Patent as prior art on the face of U.S. Patents 27 7,882,132, 7,904,487, 7,853,573, 7,809,763, 7,801,856, 7,689,580, 7,630,974,7,613,794, 28 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - 5 -

005006-11 562854V1 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page7 of 206

1 7,526,490, and 7,512,585 assigned to Oracle International Corporation as well as 7,805,507 and 2 7,711,625 assigned to Oracle America, Inc. 3 29. Oracle has cited the ‘912 Patent as prior art on the face of U.S. Patents 7,904,487, 4 7,882,132, 7,809,763, 7,630,974, 7,613,794, 7,512,585 assigned to Oracle International 5 Corporation. 6 30. Between October 2, 1997 and February 25, 2004, twenty eight (28) requests for an 7 evaluation version of Thought’s CocoBase® software were received from email addresses 8 associated with oracle.com (14), us.oracle.com (2), and dk.oracle.com (12 total, 1 unique). Each 9 request generated a responsive email from Thought that included a link to download an evaluation 10 version of the CocoBase® software. Each version downloaded after January 5, 1999 included 11 information stating that the software was covered by the claims of the ‘197 Patent. 12 31. Between September 30, 1997 and June 2, 2003, one hundred and eighteen (118) 13 requests for an evaluation version of Thought’s CocoBase® software were received from email 14 addresses associated with sun.com (63 total, 58 unique), sweden.sun.com (2), singapore.sun.com (3 15 total, 2 unique), east.sun.com (5 total, 4 unique), west.sun.com (1), central.sun.com (1), 16 italy.sun.com (1), canada.sun.com (1), germany.sun.com (1), austria.sun.com (2 total, 1 unique), 17 india.sun.com (1), aus.sun.com (1), and belgium.sun.com (36 total, 1 unique). Each request 18 generated a responsive email from Thought that included a link to download an evaluation version 19 of the CocoBase® software. Each version downloaded after January 5, 1999 included information 20 stating that the software was covered by the claims of the ‘197 Patent. This notice and actual 21 knowledge of Thought’s CocoBase® software and patent portfolio passed to Oracle as a result of 22 Oracle’s acquisition of Sun Microsystems, Inc. in 2010. 23 32. In an email dated May 2, 2002 to Ted Farrell, currently Chief Architect and Senior 24 Vice President Tools and Middleware at Oracle, Ward Mullins of Thought identified certain 25 technologies covered by Thought’s current and then-pending patent rights so that Oracle would not 26 “accidentally violate [Thought’s] intellectual property.” The email specifically called out the 27 following technologies: 28 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - 6 -

005006-11 562854V1 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page8 of 206

1  Repository based O/R (object relational) mapping, specifically referencing the ‘197 2 Patent;

3  Navigation of the object model based upon a repository, generally referencing 4 Thought’s then pending patent applications;

5  Dynamic persistence, for example by using a session bean or an entity bean, 6 generally referencing Thought’s then pending patent applications;

7  Code generation based upon a repository of metadata related to O/R (object 8 relational) mapping, generally referencing Thought’s then pending patent 9 applications. 10 33. In an email dated August 4, 2003 to Craig Russell of Sun Microsystems, 11 currently an Architect at Oracle, Dan Wilson of Thought declined an invitation from Russell to 12 participate in a conference to develop a new Java Data Objects specification, called JDO2. Wilson 13 declined to participate due to potential adverse effects on Thought’s patent and pending patent 14 rights. Wilson did suggest that Russell and the Sun technology licensing committee review the 15 CocoBase® solution to further understand Thought’s views of the proper changes to the Java Data 16 Objects specification. Wilson also noted that if JDO2 incorporated Thought’s patent-protected 17 technology, Thought would enter into negotiations with Sun and others to discuss an appropriate 18 license fee. 19 34. Craig Russell was specification lead on JDO2 and, on information and belief, was 20 involved with JSR 220 and JSR 317 Expert Groups that merged JDO2 into the Java Persistence 21 API. 22 35. Thought’s CocoBase® architecture and patented technology were incorporated into 23 the JSR 220: Enterprise JavaBeansTM, version 3.0 specification of the Java Persistence API in 24 May, 2006. Thought’s patented and then-patent pending technology was further adopted by the 25 JSR 317 Expert Group with Java Persistence API 2.0. Thought’s patented technology was adopted 26 without Thought’s consent. 27 36. Oracle also has notice of Thought’s patent portfolio through service of this 28 Complaint. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - 7 -

005006-11 562854V1 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page9 of 206

1 IX. COUNT I 2 INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘197 PATENT 3 37. Thought re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations stated in 4 paragraphs 1-36 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 5 38. Oracle has been and continues to directly and/or indirectly infringe (literally or 6 under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of the ‘197 Patent by making, using, offering 7 for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States products that either alone, or in 8 combination with other products for which they are intended to be used, include elements that meet 9 all of the limitations of the infringed claims. These infringing Oracle products include products that 10 embody the EJB 3.0 and later standards and Java Persistence API. Accused products include, but 11 are not necessarily limited to, the following: Oracle Weblogic Server version 10.3.0 and later 12 including Oracle Cloud Services that use Oracle Weblogic Server, Oracle TopLink version 10.1.3.5 13 and later, all versions of Sun/Oracle Glassfish Server, Exalogic Elastic Cloud versions X2-2 and 14 X3-2, and Oracle JDeveloper 10.1.3.1 and later. 15 39. Oracles’s infringement of the ‘197 Patent has been on a massive scale, and has 16 taken place with actual knowledge of the inventions claimed therein. On information and belief, 17 Oracle undertook an objectively high likelihood that its actions in making, using, offering for sale, 18 selling and/or importing into the United States the accused products constituted infringement of a 19 valid patent and are therefore willful infringement. 20 40. As a result of Oracle’s infringement of the ‘197 Patent, Thought has been and will 21 continue to be irreparably harmed unless and until Oracle’s infringement is enjoined by this Court. 22 41. As a result of Oracle’s infringement of the ‘197 Patent, Thought has been and will 23 continue to be damaged in an amount to be proved at trial, but not less than a reasonable royalty for 24 each infringement.

25 X. COUNT II 26 INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘912 PATENT 27 42. Thought re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations stated in 28 paragraphs 1-41 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - 8 -

005006-11 562854V1 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page10 of 206

1 43. Oracle has been and continues to directly and/or indirectly infringe (literally or 2 under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of the ‘912 Patent by making, using, offering 3 for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States products that either alone, or in 4 combination with other products for which they are intended to be used, include elements that meet 5 all of the limitations of the infringed claims. These infringing Oracle products include products that 6 embody Java Persistence API 2.0 and later. Accused products include, but are not necessarily 7 limited to, the following: Oracle Weblogic Server version 10.3.3 and later including Oracle Cloud 8 Services that use Oracle Weblogic Server, Oracle TopLink version 11.1.1.3 and later, Sun/Oracle 9 Glassfish Server version 3.0 and later, version 3.5 and later, and Exalogic Elastic 10 Cloud versions X2-2 and X3-2. 11 44. Oracles’s infringement of the ‘912 Patent has been on a massive scale, and on 12 information and belief has taken place with actual knowledge of the inventions claimed therein. On 13 information and belief, Oracle undertook an objectively high likelihood that its actions in making, 14 using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States the accused products 15 constituted infringement of a valid patent and are therefore willful infringement. 16 45. As a result of Oracle’s infringement of the ‘912 Patent, Thought has been and will 17 continue to be irreparably harmed unless and until Oracle’s infringement is enjoined by this Court. 18 46. As a result of Oracle’s infringement of the ‘912 Patent, Thought has been and will 19 continue to be damaged in an amount to be proved at trial, but not less than a reasonable royalty for 20 each infringement.

21 XI. COUNT III 22 INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘956 PATENT 23 47. Thought re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations stated in 24 paragraphs 1-46 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 25 48. Oracle has been and continues to directly and/or indirectly infringe (literally or 26 under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of the ‘956 Patent by making, using, offering 27 for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States products that either alone, or in 28 combination with other products for which they are intended to be used, include elements that meet COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - 9 -

005006-11 562854V1 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page11 of 206

1 all of the limitations of the infringed claims. Accused products include, but are not necessarily 2 limited to, the following: Oracle Weblogic Server version 10.3.0 and later including Oracle Cloud 3 Services that use Oracle Weblogic Server, Oracle TopLink version 10.1.3.5 and later, all versions 4 of Sun/Oracle Glassfish Server, Exalogic Elastic Cloud versions X2-2 and X3-2, Oracle 5 JDeveloper 10.1.3.1 and later, and NetBeans IDE 6.01 and later. 6 49. Oracles’s infringement of the ‘912 Patent has been on a massive scale, and on 7 information and belief has taken place with actual knowledge of the inventions claimed therein. On 8 information and belief, Oracle undertook an objectively high likelihood that its actions in making, 9 using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States the accused products 10 constituted infringement of a valid patent and are therefore willful infringement. 11 50. As a result of Oracle’s infringement of the ‘912 Patent, Thought has been and will 12 continue to be irreparably harmed unless and until Oracle’s infringement is enjoined by this Court. 13 51. As a result of Oracle’s infringement of the ‘912 Patent, Thought has been and will 14 continue to be damaged in an amount to be proved at trial, but not less than a reasonable royalty for 15 each infringement.

16 XII. COUNT IV 17 INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘481 PATENT 18 52. Thought re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations stated in 19 paragraphs 1-51 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 20 53. Oracle has been and continues to directly and/or indirectly infringe (literally or 21 under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of the ‘481 Patent by making, using, offering 22 for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States products that either alone, or in 23 combination with other products for which they are intended to be used, include elements that meet 24 all of the limitations of the infringed claims. Accused products include, but are not necessarily 25 limited to, the following: Oracle Weblogic Server version 10.3.0 and later including Oracle Cloud 26 Services that use Oracle Weblogic Server, Oracle TopLink version 10.1.3.5 and later, all versions 27 of Sun/Oracle Glassfish Server, Exalogic Elastic Cloud versions X2-2 and X3-2, Oracle 28 JDeveloper 10.1.3.1 and later, and NetBeans IDE 6.01 and later. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - 10 -

005006-11 562854V1 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page12 of 206

1 54. Oracles’s infringement of the ‘481 Patent has been on a massive scale, and on 2 information and belief has taken place with actual knowledge of the inventions claimed therein. On 3 information and belief, Oracle undertook an objectively high likelihood that its actions in making, 4 using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States the accused products 5 constituted infringement of a valid patent and are therefore willful infringement. 6 55. As a result of Oracle’s infringement of the ‘481 Patent, Thought has been and will 7 continue to be irreparably harmed unless and until Oracle’s infringement is enjoined by this Court. 8 56. As a result of Oracle’s infringement of the ‘481 Patent, Thought has been and will 9 continue to be damaged in an amount to be proved at trial, but not less than a reasonable royalty for 10 each infringement.

11 XIII. COUNT V 12 INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘600 PATENT 13 57. Thought re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations stated in 14 paragraphs 1-56 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 15 58. Oracle has been and continues to directly and/or indirectly infringe (literally or 16 under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of the ‘600 Patent by making, using, offering 17 for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States products that either alone, or in 18 combination with other products for which they are intended to be used, include elements that meet 19 all of the limitations of the infringed claims. These infringing Oracle products include products 20 that embody the EJB 3.0 and later standards and Java Persistence API. Accused products include, 21 but are not necessarily limited to, the following: Oracle Weblogic Server version 10.3.3 and later 22 including Oracle Cloud Services that use Oracle Weblogic Server, Oracle TopLink version 11.1.1.3 23 and later, Sun/Oracle Glassfish Server version 3.0 and later, and Exalogic Elastic Cloud versions 24 X2-2 and X3-2. 25 59. Oracles’s infringement of the ‘600 Patent has been on a massive scale, and on 26 information and belief has taken place with actual knowledge of the inventions claimed therein. On 27 information and belief, Oracle undertook an objectively high likelihood that its actions in making, 28 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - 11 -

005006-11 562854V1 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page13 of 206

1 using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States the accused products 2 constituted infringement of a valid patent and are therefore willful infringement. 3 60. As a result of Oracle’s infringement of the ‘600 Patent, Thought has been and will 4 continue to be irreparably harmed unless and until Oracle’s infringement is enjoined by this Court. 5 61. As a result of Oracle’s infringement of the ‘600 Patent, Thought has been and will 6 continue to be damaged in an amount to be proved at trial, but not less than a reasonable royalty for 7 each infringement.

8 XIV. COUNT VI

9 INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘730 PATENT 10 62. Thought re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations stated in 11 paragraphs 1-61 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 12 63. Oracle has been and continues to directly and/or indirectly infringe (literally or 13 under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of the ‘730 Patent by making, using, offering 14 for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States products that either alone, or in 15 combination with other products for which they are intended to be used, include elements that meet 16 all of the limitations of the infringed claims. These infringing Oracle products include products 17 that embody the EJB 3.0 and later standards and Java Persistence API. Accused products include, 18 but are not necessarily limited to, the following: Oracle Weblogic Server version 10.3.3 and later 19 including Oracle Cloud Services that use Oracle Weblogic Server, Oracle TopLink version 11.1.1.3

20 and later, Sun/Oracle Glassfish Server version 3.0 and later, and Exalogic Elastic Cloud versions 21 X2-2 and X3-2. 22 64. Oracles’s infringement of the ‘730 Patent has been on a massive scale, and on 23 information and belief has taken place with actual knowledge of the inventions claimed therein. On 24 information and belief, Oracle undertook an objectively high likelihood that its actions in making, 25 using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States the accused products 26 constituted infringement of a valid patent and are therefore willful infringement. 27 65. As a result of Oracle’s infringement of the ‘730 Patent, Thought has been and will 28 continue to be irreparably harmed unless and until Oracle’s infringement is enjoined by this Court. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - 12 -

005006-11 562854V1 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page14 of 206

1 66. As a result of Oracle’s infringement of the ‘730 Patent, Thought has been and will 2 continue to be damaged in an amount to be proved at trial, but not less than a reasonable royalty for 3 each infringement.

4 XV. COUNT VII

5 INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘862 PATENT 6 67. Thought re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations stated in 7 paragraphs 1-66 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 8 68. Oracle has been and continues to directly and/or indirectly infringe (literally or 9 under the doctrine of equivalents) one or more claims of the ‘862 Patent by making, using, offering 10 for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States products that either alone, or in 11 combination with other products for which they are intended to be used, include elements that meet 12 all of the limitations of the infringed claims. These infringing Oracle products include products 13 that embody the EJB 3.0 and later standards and Java Persistence API. Accused products include, 14 but are not necessarily limited to, the following: Oracle Weblogic Server version 10.3.3 and later 15 including Oracle Cloud Services that use Oracle Weblogic Server, Oracle TopLink version 11.1.1.3 16 and later, Sun/Oracle Glassfish Server version 3.0 and later, and Exalogic Elastic Cloud versions 17 X2-2 and X3-2. 18 69. Oracles’s infringement of the ‘862 Patent has been on a massive scale, and on 19 information and belief has taken place with actual knowledge of the inventions claimed therein. On 20 information and belief, Oracle undertook an objectively high likelihood that its actions in making, 21 using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States the accused products 22 constituted infringement of a valid patent and are therefore willful infringement. 23 70. As a result of Oracle’s infringement of the ‘862 Patent, Thought has been and will 24 continue to be irreparably harmed unless and until Oracle’s infringement is enjoined by this Court. 25 26 27 28 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - 13 -

005006-11 562854V1 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page15 of 206

1 71. As a result of Oracle’s infringement of the ‘862 Patent, Thought has been and will 2 continue to be damaged in an amount to be proved at trial, but not less than a reasonable royalty for 3 each infringement.

4 XVI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 5 Wherefore, Thought respectfully requests that this Court: 6 1. Enter a judgment in favor of Thought that Oracle has infringed one or more claims 7 of the ‘197 Patent, ‘912 Patent, ‘956 Patent, ‘481 Patent, ‘600 Patent, ‘730 Patent, and ‘862 Patent; 8 2. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Oracle, its officers, directors, agents, 9 servants, affiliates, employees, successors, assigns, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents and all 10 others acting in active concert therewith from infringing and/or inducing others to infringe or 11 contribute to the infringement of the ‘197 Patent, ‘912 Patent, ‘956 Patent, ‘481 Patent, ‘600 12 Patent, ‘730 Patent, and ‘862 Patent; 13 3. Award Thought damages in an amount sufficient to compensate for Oracle’s 14 infringement of the ‘197 Patent, ‘912 Patent, ‘956 Patent, ‘481 Patent, ‘600 Patent, ‘730 Patent, 15 and ‘862 Patent in an amount to be proved at trial, but not less than a reasonable royalty; 16 4. Award prejudgment interest to Thought under 35 U.S.C. § 284; 17 5. If supported by the evidence, award increased damages, under 35 U.S.C. § 284, in 18 an amount not less than three times the amount of actual damages awarded to Thought; 19 6. If supported by the evidence, declare this case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 20 and award Thought reasonable attorney’s fees; and 21 7. Grant Thought such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable. 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - 14 -

005006-11 562854V1 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page16 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page17 of 206

EXHIBIT A Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page18 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page19 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page20 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page21 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page22 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page23 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page24 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page25 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page26 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page27 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page28 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page29 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page30 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page31 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page32 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page33 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page34 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page35 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page36 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page37 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page38 of 206

EXHIBIT B Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page39 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page40 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page41 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page42 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page43 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page44 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page45 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page46 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page47 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page48 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page49 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page50 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page51 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page52 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page53 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page54 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page55 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page56 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page57 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page58 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page59 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page60 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page61 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page62 of 206

EXHIBIT C Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page63 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page64 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page65 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page66 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page67 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page68 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page69 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page70 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page71 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page72 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page73 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page74 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page75 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page76 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page77 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page78 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page79 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page80 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page81 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page82 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page83 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page84 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page85 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page86 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page87 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page88 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page89 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page90 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page91 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page92 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page93 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page94 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page95 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page96 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page97 of 206

EXHIBIT D Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page98 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page99 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page100 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page101 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page102 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page103 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page104 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page105 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page106 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page107 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page108 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page109 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page110 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page111 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page112 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page113 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page114 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page115 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page116 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page117 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page118 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page119 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page120 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page121 of 206

EXHIBIT E Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page122 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page123 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page124 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page125 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page126 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page127 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page128 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page129 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page130 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page131 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page132 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page133 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page134 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page135 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page136 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page137 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page138 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page139 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page140 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page141 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page142 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page143 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page144 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page145 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page146 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page147 of 206

EXHIBIT F Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page148 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page149 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page150 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page151 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page152 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page153 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page154 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page155 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page156 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page157 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page158 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page159 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page160 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page161 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page162 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page163 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page164 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page165 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page166 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page167 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page168 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page169 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page170 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page171 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page172 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page173 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page174 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page175 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page176 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page177 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page178 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page179 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page180 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page181 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page182 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page183 of 206

EXHIBIT G Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page184 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page185 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page186 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page187 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page188 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page189 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page190 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page191 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page192 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page193 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page194 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page195 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page196 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page197 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page198 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page199 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page200 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page201 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page202 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page203 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page204 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page205 of 206 Case3:12-cv-05601-JSW Document1 Filed10/31/12 Page206 of 206