Case 1:11-cv-11544-RWZ Document 1 Filed 09/01/11 Page 1 of 14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
) VLINGO CORPORATION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED )
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Vlingo Corporation ("Vlingo"), as and for its complaint against defendant,
Nuance Communications, Inc.'s ("Nuance"), states as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is an action for unfair competition under federal, state and common law, commercial bribery, breach of contract, and intentional interference with prospective advantageous relationships.
THE PARTIES
2. Vlingo is a Delaware corporation having a principal place of business at
17 Dunster Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138.
3. Nuance is a Delaware corporation having a principal place of business at 1
Wayside Road, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803. Case 1:11-cv-11544-RWZ Document 1 Filed 09/01/11 Page 2 of 14
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. This Court has jurisdiction over Vlingo's federal unfair competition claim pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121. This Court has jurisdiction over Vlingo's state law claims pursuant to the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction.
5. Venue is proper in herein as both parties reside in, and most of the acts complained of occurred within, this District.
COUNT 1 (Unfair Competition — 15 U.S.C. § 1125)
6. Vlingo realleges and incorporates by reference the matters set forth in paragraph 1 through 5 above.
7. This claim is brought pursuant to the unfair competition laws of the United
States, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1121 et seq.
8. On or around June 16, 2008, Nuance filed suit against Vlingo in the Eastern
District of Texas alleging that Vlingo infringed United States patent number 6,766,295 ("the
`295 patent").
9. On or around June 16, 2008, Nuance issued a press release falsely and misleadingly stating that Vlingo infringed the '295 patent. This press release misrepresented the nature, characteristics and qualities of Vlingo's products, services and commercial activities.
10. On August 9, 2011, a jury sitting in the District of Massachusetts, to which the case filed by Nuance in Texas had been transferred, determined that Vlingo did not infringe the asserted claims of the '295 patent.
11. Nuance's conduct set forth above constitutes unfair competition in violation of
15 U.S.C. § 1125.
2 Case 1:11-cv-11544-RWZ Document 1 Filed 09/01/11 Page 3 of 14
12. Nuance's acts of unfair competition have caused harm to Vlingo.
13. Nuance will continue to cause harm to Vlingo unless and until Nuance is enjoined.
COUNT II (Unfair Competition — Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 93A, §§ 2, 11)
14. Vlingo realleges and incorporates by reference the matters set forth in paragraph 1 through 13 above.
15. This claim is brought pursuant to the unfair competition laws of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 93A, §§ 2, 11.
16. Nuance has been aware of Vlingo since Vlingo's inception as Mobeus, Inc. in
June 2006 and, since that time, has coveted Vlingo's innovative, cutting-edge technology.
17. In or around August/September 2006, Vlingo disclosed prototype products to
Nuance sales representative, Felix Goffman, for evaluation. Mr. Goffman and others at
Nuance were impressed with and excited about Vlingo's work. Nuance asked Vlingo to be part of a "mobile solutions showcase" at Nuance's 2006 Annual Users Group Conference.
18. At the conference in Orlando, Florida, there was a lot of excitement by
Nuance. This excitement led to an invitation for Vlingo's Founder, Mike Phillips, to have lunch with Nuance's Chief Executive Officer, Paul Ricci.
19. On October 24, 2006, Mike Phillips met with Paul Ricci who offered on behalf of Nuance to acquire Vlingo. Mr. Phillips declined Mr. Ricci's offer.
20. In November 2006, another meeting took place between Mike Phillips, John
Nguyen, and Paul Ricci. This meeting took place at Vlingo's office in Kendall Square,
Cambridge, Massachusetts. At this meeting, Paul Ricci once again offered on behalf of
Nuance to acquire Vlingo. Mike Phillips and John Nguyen informed Paul Ricci that Vlingo
3 Case 1:11-cv-11544-RWZ Document 1 Filed 09/01/11 Page 4 of 14
did not wish to be acquired by Nuance.
21. In February 2007, Vlingo received several visits from Rich Palmer, then head of corporate development at Nuance. Mr. Palmer indicated that Nuance wanted to create a
"technology partnership" with Vlingo. Rich Palmer reminded Mr. Phillips that Mr. Ricci takes all Nuance business personally. Mr. Palmer informed Mr. Phillips that Mr. Ricci was very disappointed that Phillips left Scansoft and did not accept Mr. Ricci's invitation to acquire Vlingo. Mr. Palmer informed Mr. Phillips that Mr. Ricci can be vindictive if he does not get his way and that Vlingo would not be happy if Mr. Palmer and Mr. Phillips could not work out a technology partnership and the matter was placed in the hands of people with big egos, such as Mr. Ricci. Finally, Mr. Palmer threatened Mr. Phillips with bearing the exorbitant cost of intellectual property litigation and told Mr. Phillips to inform his Board that they can either take the technology partnership deal offered by Nuance or pay $20 million in legal fees vindicating themselves in intellectual property litigation.
22. Vlingo did not agree to sell the company to Nuance as twice requested by
Mr. Ricci and did not enter into a technology partnership with Nuance as requested by
Mr. Palmer. In response to Vlingo's refusal to be acquired and share its technology with
Nuance, Nuance filed suit for patent infringement on June 16, 2008 in an effort to leverage the acquisition of Vlingo. Nuance filed the suit in the Eastern District of Texas notwithstanding that Nuance is headquartered in Burlington, Massachusetts and Vlingo is headquartered in
Cambridge, Massachusetts. Nuance filed in the Eastern District of Texas with knowledge that such forum was not convenient to Vlingo or Nuance and with the intent to increase the expense of litigation to Vlingo, so as to leverage a potential acquisition of Vlingo.
23. Nuance filed the complaint in the Eastern District of Texas after another case
4 Case 1:11-cv-11544-RWZ Document 1 Filed 09/01/11 Page 5 of 14
previously filed by Nuance in that forum against a Massachusetts-based defendant had been transferred to the District of Massachusetts. More particularly, on March 30, 2006, Nuance filed a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas against Voice Signal
Technologies, Inc. ("VST") in an effort to use that litigation to force VST to sell the company to Nuance. Nuance's complaint against VST acknowledged that VST was headquartered in
Woburn, Massachusetts. Upon VST's motion, that case was transferred to the District of
Massachusetts on October 30, 2006. In the Order transferring the VST case to this District,
Magistrate Judge Craven expressly determined that Massachusetts is a more convenient forum, because both Nuance and VST are based in Massachusetts, and that litigating in Texas is more expensive for two Massachusetts based companies. Nonetheless, in an effort to drive up Vlingo's litigation expenses and leverage an acquisition, Nuance filed its complaint herein against Vlingo in the Eastern District of Texas.
24. On August 3, 2009, Judge Folsom ordered Nuance's case against Vlingo transferred from the Eastern District of Texas to the District of Massachusetts, finding that
"Nrial in Massachusetts would undoubtedly be more convenient and less costly to both parties.
25. The patent infringement case, pending in Massachusetts as Civil Action No.
09-cv-11414, recently decided in Vlingo's favor was filed and conducted against Vlingo not for the legitimate purpose of enforcing Nuance's patent rights, but for the purpose of coercing
Vlingo into selling itself to Nuance for a commercially unreasonable price.
26. Prior to filing the patent suit, Nuance failed to investigate or determine whether or not the accused Vlingo products operate as described herein, but proceeded to file suit regardless, in an effort to leverage the acquisition of Vlingo.
5 Case 1:11-cv-11544-RWZ Document 1 Filed 09/01/11 Page 6 of 14
27. Prior to filing the patent suit, Nuance knew that it needed access to the code used in the accused Vlingo products to determine whether or not those products obtained a sample of the speaker's speech and incorporated the sample into the speech recognition system. Prior to filing the complaint in this case, Nuance failed to obtain or investigate the code used in the accused Vlingo products. Prior to filing the patent suit, Nuance never identified to Vlingo the '295 patent as being infringed by any Vlingo product, nor did Nuance even request Vlingo to examine its code.
28. Prior to filing the patent suit, Nuance knew or should have known that the asserted claims of the '295 patent are not infringed by Vlingo, a fact confirmed by the jury verdict rendered in that case on August 9, 2011 finding that Vlingo did not infringe any of the asserted claims of the '295 patent.
29. Nuance's assertion that the Vlingo products infringe the '295 patent was objectively baseless and interposed in bad faith for anti-competitive purposes. As set forth above, contemporaneous with the filing of the patent case in Texas in Texas on June 16th,
2008, Nuance issued a press release falsely representing to the marketplace that Vlingo is infringing the '295 patent. This tactic was orchestrated by Nuance in bad faith so as to drive down the value of Vlingo and leverage an acquisition by Nuance at a commercially unreasonable price. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand after a review of the relevant source code that the Vlingo products do not incorporate each element of the asserted claims. Moreover, the United States Patent & Trademark Office has rejected the asserted claims of the '295 patent as unpatentable.
30. By asserting claims against Vlingo that Nuance knew or should have known are not infringed, issuing a false press release, and threatening to cause Vlingo to expend
6 Case 1:11-cv-11544-RWZ Document 1 Filed 09/01/11 Page 7 of 14
$20,000,000 in legal fees, Nuance attempted to force Vlingo into being acquired by Nuance at an artificially and unreasonably low price.
31. In September 2009, Vlingo's Chief Executive Officer, David Grannan, and
Chief Technical Officer, Mike Phillips, met with Nuance's Chief Executive Officer, Paul
Ricci, Steve Chambers and Helgi Bloom in California. Nuance offered to acquire Vlingo.
Vlingo rejected this offer.
32. Several days later, Paul Ricci and Steve Chambers, capitalizing upon the
Massachusetts patent suit, made a telephone call to Dave Grannan and Mike Phillips. At the time of this telephone call Mr. Ricci was the CEO and Chairman of the Board of Nuance. At the time of this telephone call Mr. Ricci knew that Messrs. Grannan and Phillips were corporate officers of Vlingo each having a fiduciary duty to Vlingo. Mr. Ricci at this time further appreciated that Messrs. Grannan, Phillips and Nguyen were key persons at Vlingo.
33. During the telephone call referenced in the preceding paragraph, in violation of
Massachusetts' prohibition against commercial bribery, Mr. Ricci, the CEO and Chairman of the Board of Nuance, a public company, offered to pay Messrs. Grannan, Phillips and Nguyen
$5 million dollars each if they could convince the Vlingo board of directors to approve the acquisition of Vlingo on the terms previously proposed by Nuance. Mr. Ricci made an alternative offer in the event that they were unsuccessful in convincing the Vlingo board to accept the acquisitions term proposed by Nuance. Alternatively, Mr. Ricci offered Messrs.
Phillips, Grannan and Nguyen $5 million each plus the monies they would have received had the acquisition went through, if they would quit Vlingo and work for Nuance. Mr. Ricci made this offer knowing full well that Messrs. Grannan, Phillips and Nguyen were key persons whose departure from Vlingo would cripple the company and, thus put Vlingo out of
7 Case 1:11-cv-11544-RWZ Document 1 Filed 09/01/11 Page 8 of 14
business.
34. Mr. Phillips did not accept the $5 million dollars offered by Mr. Ricci.
35. Mr. Grannan did not accept the $5 million dollars offered by Mr. Ricci.
36. Mr. Nguyen did not accept the $5 million dollars offered by Mr. Ricci.
37. Messrs. Phillips, Grannan and Nguyen did not accept Mr. Ricci's alternative offer to quit Vlingo and join Nuance.
38. By using patent litigation as a tool to leverage the acquisition of Vlingo,
Nuance is improperly using its patent to obtain and/or coerce an unfair commercial advantage to compete with Vlingo and has caused damage, reparable and irreparable, to Vlingo.
39. Nuance's acts of unfair competition described above constitute knowing and willful violations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, §§ 2 and 11.
40. Unless enjoined, Nuance will continue to compete unfairly with Vlingo.
COUNT III (Unfair Competition — Common Law)
41. Vlingo realleges and incorporates by reference the matters set forth in paragraph 1 through 40 above.
42. This claim arises under the common law of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
43. Nuance's conduct described above constitutes a knowing and willful violation of the common law of unfair competition in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
44. Nuance's acts of unfair competition have caused damage, reparable and irreparable to Vlingo.
45. Unless enjoined, Nuance will continue to compete unfairly with Vlingo in violation of the common law.
8 Case 1:11-cv-11544-RWZ Document 1 Filed 09/01/11 Page 9 of 14
COUNT IV (Commercial Bribery — Mass. Gen. Laws chs. 93A, §§ 2, 11 & 271, § 39)
46. Vlingo realleges and incorporates by reference the matters set forth in paragraph 1 through 45 above.
47. This claim is brought pursuant to the unfair competition laws of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 93A, §§ 2, 11.
48. The offers of payments and other inducements and things of value to Vlingo representatives in order to influence their conduct set forth above regarding Nuance's acquisition of Vlingo constitutes knowing and willful acts of commercial bribery in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws chs. 93A, §§ 2, 11 and 271, § 39.
49. By its acts of commercial bribery, Nuance has caused damage to Vlingo.
COUNT V (Breaches of Contracts)
50. Vlingo realleges and incorporates by reference the matters set forth in paragraph 1 through 49 above.
51. On or around July 14, 2011, Vlingo and Nuance entered into two confidentiality agreements pursuant to which Vlingo disclosed confidential information to
Nuance regarding certain financial transactions that Vlingo was negotiating with, inter alia,
AT&T.
52. Under the terms of these agreements, Nuance was prohibited from using any information provided to Nuance by Vlingo for any purpose other than conducting compromise negotiations.
53. In violation of the confidentiality provisions of these agreements, Nuance used confidential information provided by Vlingo to Nuance under the protection of the
9 Case 1:11-cv-11544-RWZ Document 1 Filed 09/01/11 Page 10 of 14
agreements to communicate with at least AT&T in order to interrupt and interfere in Vlingo's attempts to enter into a commercially advantageous business relationship with AT&T.
54. More particularly Steve Chambers, Executive Vice President of Nuance, called AT&T and urged AT&T not to form a syndicate with Vlingo because Nuance was forming its own syndicate that Nuance urged AT&T to join.
55. By contacting at least AT&T in violation of the terms of these agreements,
Nuance breached the agreements.
56. Nuance's breaches of these agreements caused damage to Vlingo.
57. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Nuance's breach of contract is deemed to cause irreparable harm to Vlingo. Moreover, Nuance's breach of these agreements did, in fact, cause irreparable harm to Vlingo.
58. Unless enjoined, Nuance will continue to cause reparable and irreparable harm to Vlingo.
COUNT VI (Intentional Interference with Prospective Advantageous Relationships)
59. Vlingo realleges and incorporates by reference the matters set forth in paragraph 1 through 58 above.
60. In August/September 2010, Vlingo was negotiating with Nokia to sell Vlingo products and services to Nokia. Nuance was also negotiating with Nokia to sell Nuance products and services to Nokia.
61. Nuance was aware that Vlingo was negotiating to sell Vlingo products and services to Nokia.
62. The person negotiating with Vlingo on behalf of Nokia was Bruce Bowden.
10 Case 1:11-cv-11544-RWZ Document 1 Filed 09/01/11 Page 11 of 14
63. During the negotiations with Vlingo Mr. Bowden requested that Vlingo provide Nokia with a detailed analysis of Vlingo's patent portfolio and Vlingo's patent strategy.
64. On August 30, 2010 and September 1, 2010, Vlingo sent Mr. Bowden the requested analysis and strategy.
65. In a telephone call with Nokia's Janne Karjalainen on September 15, 2010,
Vlingo was informed that Nokia and Vlingo were in agreement in principal on the terms laid out in Nokia's Request for Proposal and that Vlingo should plan to have the appropriate personnel travel to London to start drafting a contract with Nokia's attorneys on September
23 and 24, 2010.
66. On September 21, 2010, Vlingo was informed by Nokia that Nokia intended to move forward with a vendor other than Vlingo.
67. On September 21, 2010, Mr. Bowden informed Vlingo that he was leaving
Nokia and was "now conflicted with from working with [Vlingo.]"
68. Mr. Bowden left Nokia to work for Nuance. In a letter dated September 9,
2010, filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission, Nuance announced the confirmation of Mr. Bowden's employment with Nuance at a starting base salary of
$350,000 and numerous additional forms of remuneration.
69. Pursuant to the terms of his employment at Nuance, Mr. Bowden was hired
"at will,"
70. Upon information and belief, Mr. Bowden's at will salary and other remuneration at Nuance is substantially higher than his salary and other remuneration while employed by Nokia.
11 Case 1:11-cv-11544-RWZ Document 1 Filed 09/01/11 Page 12 of 14
71. During the period of his current employment with Nuance, Mr. Bowden was
in possession of the confidential information provided to him by Vlingo while Mr. Bowden
was employed by Nokia.
72. Upon information and belief, Nuance lured Mr. Bowden away from Nokia with unrealistic higher salary and other remuneration in order to obtain valuable, confidential information about Vlingo in order to interfere with the prospective advantageous business relationship between Vlingo and Nokia and obtain the Nokia business for Nuance.
73. Mr. Bowden specifically requested confidential information from Vlingo, and was in possession of such information, while employed by Nokia, while negotiating his employment with Nuance, when he accepted employment with Nuance in September, 2010, and during his employment at Nuance.
74. By its conduct regarding Nokia and Mr. Bowden set forth above, Nuance obtained business from Nokia that, absent Nuance's intentional interference, would have been given by Nokia to Vlingo.
75. As set forth above, Nuance also violated its confidentiality agreements with
Vlingo in order to deter, inter alia, AT&T from entering into an advantageous business relationship with Vlingo.
76. By its conduct regarding AT&T, Nuance interfered with the prospective advantageous relationship between Vlingo and AT&T.
77. By its intentional interferences with Vlingo's prospective advantageous relationships with, inter alia, Nuance has caused damage, reparable and irreparable, to
Vlingo.
12 Case 1:11-cv-11544-RWZ Document 1 Filed 09/01/11 Page 13 of 14
78. Unless enjoined, Nuance will continue to intentionally interfere with Vlingo's prospective advantageous relationships.
WHEREFORE, Vlingo prays that:
A. Judgment be entered in favor of Vlingo on all counts of the Complaint;
B. Nuance, its officers, agents, servants, employees, and those persons in active
concert or participation with it, be enjoined from competing unfairly with
Vlingo;
C. Nuance, its officers, agents, servants, employees, and those persons in active
concert or participation with it be enjoined from all further acts of commercial
bribery regarding Vlingo;
D. Nuance, its officers, agents, servants, employees, and those persons in active
concert or participation with it be enjoined from all further beaches of its
confidentiality agreements with Vlingo;
E. Nuance, its officers, agents, servants, employees, and those persons in active
concert or participation with it be enjoined from all further attempts to
interfere with Vlingo's prospective advantageous business relationships;
F. Nuance account for the damages they have caused to Vlingo by their unlawful
conduct described above;
G. Vlingo be awarded its attorneys' costs and fees incurred in this action; and
H. Vlingo be awarded such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
JURY DEMAND
Vlingo demands trial by jury on all issues set forth above so triable.
13 Case 1:11-cv-11544-RWZ Document 1 Filed 09/01/11 Page 14 of 14
VLINGO CORPORATION
Dated: September 1, 2011 By: /s/ Dean G. Bostock Paul J. Hayes (BBO# 227000) Dean G. Bostock (BBO# 549747) Eugene A. Feher (BBO# 550762) James C. Hall (BBO# 656019) Jacob W. Schneider (BBO# 675315) HAYES BOSTOCK & CRONIN LLC 300 Brickstone Square, 9th Floor Andover, MA 01810 Tel: 978-809-3850 Fax: 978-809-3869 Email: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ischneiderAhbelic.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
14
Case 1:11-cv-11544-RWZ Document 1-1 Filed 09/01/11 Page 1 of 2 ctts.JS 44 (Rev. 12/07) CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE. INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS VLINGO CORPORATION NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Middlesex County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Middlesex (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE LAND INVOLVED.
(C) Attorney's (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known) Hayes Bostock & Cronin LLC, 300 Brickstone Sq., 9th Floor, Andover, MA 01810 (978) 809.3850 II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place an "X" in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) ❑ 1 U.S. Government p9 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ❑ 1 0 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ❑ 4 ❑ 4 of Business In This State
❑ 2 U.S Government 0 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ❑ 2 ❑ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 0 5 ❑ 5 Defendant of Business In Another State (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) Citizen or Subject of a 0 3 0 3 Foreign Nation 0 6 0 6 Fosetait Country " in One Box Onit• CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES 1 0 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 0 610 Agriculture 0 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 0 400 State Reapportionment ❑ 120 Marine ❑ 310 Airplane 0 362 Personal Injury - 0 620 Other Food & Drug 0 423 Withdrawal 0 410 Antitrust ❑ 130 Miller Act ❑ 315 Airplane Product Med. Malpractice 0 625 Drug Related Seizure 28 USC 157 ❑ 430 Banks and Banking 0 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 0 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 0 450 Commerce O 150 Recovery of Overpayment ❑ 320 Assault, Libel & Product Liability ❑ 630 Liquor Laws r _PROPERTY imam. 0 460 Deportation &Enforcement ofludgment Slander 0 368 Asbestos Personal ❑ 640 R.R. & Truck ❑ 820 Copyrights 0 470 Racketeer Influenced and O 151 Medicare Act 0 330 Federal Employers' Injury Product ❑ 650 Airline Regs. ❑ 830 Patent Corrupt Organizations 0 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability Liability 0 660 Occupational 0 840 Trademark 0 480 Consumer Credit Student Loans ❑ 340 Marine PERSONAL PROPERTY Safety/Health ❑ 490 Cable/Sat TV (Excl. Veterans) ❑ 345 Marine Product 0 370 Other Fraud 0 690 Other ❑ 810 Selective Service ❑ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability 0 371 Truth in Lending LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ❑ 850 Securities/Commodities/ of Veteran's Benefits 0 350 Motor Vehicle 0 380 Other Personal ❑ 710 Fair Labor Standards ❑ 861 HIA (1395ff) Exchange 0 160 Stockholders' Suits ❑ 355 Motor Vehicle Property Damage Act ❑ 862 Black Lung (923) 0 875 Customer Challenge 0 190 Other Contract Product Liability ❑ 385 Property Damage 0 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 0 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 12 USC 3410 0 195 Contract Product Liability ❑ 360 Other Personal Product Liability ❑ 730 Labor/Mgmt.Reporting 0 864 SSID Title XVI 1:41 890 Other Statutory Actions ❑ 196 Franchise Injury & Disclosure Act ❑ 865 RSI (405(g)) 0 891 Agricultural Acts r REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 0 740 Railway Labor Act FEDERAL. TAX SUITS 0 892 Economic Stabilization Act ❑ 210 Land Cuneklunntion 0 441 Voting ❑ 510 Motions to Vacate 0 790 Other Labor Litigation ❑ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff 0 893 Environmental Matters 0 220 Foreclosure 0 442 Employment Sentence 0 791 Empl. Ret, Inc. or Defendant) 0 894 Energy Allocation Act O 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 0 443 Housing/ Habeas Corpus: Security Act ❑ 871 IRS—Third Party 0 895 Freedom of Information 0 240 Torts to Land Accommodations ❑ 530 General 26 USC 7609 Act ❑ 245 Tort Product Liability 0 444 Welfare n 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION, ❑ 900Appeal of Fee Determination ❑ 290 All Other Real Property CI 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 0 540 Mandamus & Other 0 462 Naturalization Application Under Equal Access Employment ❑ 550 Civil Rights ❑ 463 Habeas Corpus - to Justice ❑ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities • ❑ 555 Prison Condition Alien Detainee 0 950 Constitutionality of Other 0 465 Other Immigration State Statutes 0 440 Other Civil Rights Actions
V. ORIGIN Appeal to District (Place an "X" in One Box Only) Judge from IR 1 Original 0 2 Removed from 0 3 Remanded from O 4 Reinstated or 0 g Transferred from 0 6 Multidistrict 0 7 another district Litigation Magistrate Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened (specify) Judgment $2titute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause: untair competition and related state law claims VII. REQUESTED IN CI CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND S CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: COMPLAINT: UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 JURY DEMAND: IC Yes 0 No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See instructions): IF ANY JUDGE Rya W. Zobel DOCKET NUMBER 1 :09-cv-11414 DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD La' AA IS ::i1C-ILA-f? FOR OFFICE SE LY
RECEIPT 6 AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE Case 1:11-cv-11544-RWZ Document 1-1 Filed 09/01/11 Page 2 of 2
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 12/07)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows: I. (a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title. (b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.) (c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section "(see attachment)". II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.C.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below. United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box. Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.) III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party. IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerks in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the most definitive. V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes. Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts. Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box. Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date. Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers. Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above. Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box for an appeal from a magistrate judge's decision. VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. Demand. In this space enter the dollar amount (in thousands of dollars) being demanded or indicate other demand such as a preliminary injunction. Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded. VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases. Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet. Case 1:11-cv-11544-RWZ Document 1-2 Filed 09/01/11 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
VLINGO CORPORATION v. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 1. Title of case (name of first party on each side only)
2. Category in which the case belongs based upon the numbered nature of suit code listed on the civil cover sheet. (See local rule 40.1(a)(1)).
410, 441, 470, 535, 830*, 891, 893, 894, 895, R.23, REGARDLESS OF NATURE OF SUIT. El II. 110, 130, 140, 160, 190, 196, 230, 240, 290,320,362, 370, 371, 380, 430, 440, 442-446, 710, 720, 730, 740, 790, 820*, 840*, 850, 870, 871.
120, 150, 151, 152, 153, 195, 210, 220, 245, 310, 315, 330, 340, 345, 350, 355, 360, 365, 368, 385, 400, 422, 423, 450, 460, 462, 463, 465, 480, 490, 510, 530, 540, 550, 555, 610, 620, 625, 630, 640, 650, 660, 690, 791, 810, 861- 865, 875, 890, 892, 900, 950.
*Also complete AO 120 or AO 121. for patent, trademark or copyright cases.
3. Title and number, If any, of related cases. (See local rule 40.1(g)). If more than one prior related case has been filed in this district please indicate the title and number of the first filed case in this court. NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. VLINGO CORPORATION, No. 1:09-cv-11414
4. Has a prior action between the same parties and based on the same claim ever been filed in this court?
YES [ NO
5. Does the complaint in this case question the constitutionality of an act of congress affecting the public interest? (See 28 USC §2403) YES ❑ NO [11 If so, is the U.S.A. or an officer, agent or employee of the U.S. a party? YES El NO n
6. Is this case required to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges pursuant to title 28 USC §2284? YES n NO 12:1 7. Do all of the parties in this action, excluding governmental agencies of the united states and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ("governmental agencies"), residing in Massachusetts reside in the same division? - (See Local Rule 40.1(d)). YES kid NO
A. If yes, in which division do all of the non-governmental parties reside? Eastern Division VI Central Division [7 Western Division 1
B. If no, in which division do the majority of the plaintiffs or the only parties, excluding governmental agencies, residing in Massachusetts reside?
Eastern Division Central Division I Western Division
8. If filing a Notice of Removal - are there any motions pending in the state court requiring the attention of this Court? (If yes, submit a separate sheet identifying the motions) YES El NO ❑
(PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT) ATTORNEY'S NAME Dean G. Bostock ADDRESS Hayes Bostock & Cronin LLC, 300 Brickstone Sq., 9th Floor, Andover, MA 01810
TELEPHONE NO. 978-809-3850
(CategoryForm4-4-11.wpd - 414/11)