IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES, INC.

, Plaintiff, v. SONIC INDUSTRY, LLC, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. __________________

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY AND NON-INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (FIS), files this Complaint for Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity and Non-Infringement against Defendant Sonic Industry, LLC (Sonic), and respectfully shows the Court as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This action is based on the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United

States Code. In particular, Sonic has overtly alleged, in actual and threatened litigation, that certain of FISs online banking products infringe United States Patent No. 5,954,793 (the 793 Patent) (attached hereto as Exhibit A). Because FIS denies such allegations, a live controversy has arisen between the parties, and FIS seeks a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity. 2. Upon information and belief, Sonics only business is to bring patent

infringement lawsuits. Indeed, since December 2011, Sonic has brought a total of 22 patent infringement lawsuits, all claiming infringement of the 793 Patent. Included in those 22 actions, Sonic brought suit against Helm Bank USA (Helm), an FIS customer. In its complaint against Helm, Sonic alleges that Helm infringes the 793 Patent by making available to customers through online banking the ability to remotely set limits on an account and then receive alerts

{00733571;v1 }

when the account reaches the predetermined limit.

But the accused online banking products are

provided by FIS, and the hardware and software used to perform the accused activity are owned and maintained by and at FISs facilities. Accordingly, based on such FIS online banking products and accused by Sonic, FIS has agreed to defend and indemnify Helm against Sonics allegations. 3. FIS provides such online banking products, which have been accused of

infringement by Sonic, to numerous financial institutions dispersed throughout the United States. 4. In addition to the patent infringement suit brought against Helm for using such

FIS online banking products, Sonic has expressly threatened similar lawsuits against at least 12 other financial institutions that are customers of FIS, and that employ such FIS online banking products. Like the allegations against Helm Bank, Sonic accuses each of those FIS customers, located in both Florida and Texas, of infringement by virtue of their use of such FIS online banking products. For example, Sonics litigation counsel has directed letters to FIS customers that include a draft complaint for infringement of the 793 Patent and included a screen shot depicting FIS online banking products. Again, these same or similar allegations have been made uniformly against at least 12 customers of FIS online banking products. And because it is FIS online banking products that are at issue, FIS has or is in the process of entering into agreements to defend and indemnify each of those entities against Sonics allegations. 5. It is clear that, given the allegations made against FIS online banking products,

FIS is the real party-in-interest with respect to Sonics infringement claims. Contrary to Sonics allegations, however, FIS and its customers do not infringe and have not infringed the 793 Patent, and therefore have a right to engage in the complained-of activity. But as a result of Sonics actions, FIS risks a suit for infringement by continuing to offer its online banking products to its customer base. Thus, rather than continue to run that risk and/or have various courts flooded with at least 12 more separate lawsuits, which is apparently Sonics plan, FIS files this action and seeks a declaration of its legal rightsthat it does not infringe and that the 793 Patent is invalid.

{00733571;v1 }

-2-

THE PARTIES

6.

Plaintiff FIS is a corporation organized under Georgia law, with its headquarters

and principal place of business at 601 Riverside Avenue, Jacksonville, FL 32204. FIS provides online banking and other products to numerous financial institution customers dispersed throughout the United States. 7. On information and belief, Sonic is a limited liability company organized and

existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a principal place of business at 3422 Old Capital Trail, PMB (STE) 1549, Wilmington, Delaware 19808-6192.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This is a civil action seeking a declaration of invalidity and non-infringement of

United States Patent No. 5,954,793 (the 793 Patent) and, thus, arises under the United States patent laws, 35 U.S.C. 271 et seq., and is being further brought under the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201-2202. 9. and 1338(a). 10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Sonic. Sonic is present within and has This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. 1331

minimum contacts with the State of Delaware and the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Sonic is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and has its principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware. 11. This Court can enter the declaratory relief sought in this Complaint because an

actual, live, and justiciable controversy exists between FIS and Sonic within the scope of this Courts jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201. Upon information and belief, Sonics only

{00733571;v1 }

-3-

business is to bring patent infringement lawsuits. Indeed, since December 2011, Sonic has brought a total of 22 patent infringement lawsuits, all claiming infringement of the 793 Patent. Recently, Sonic, as set forth above, sued Helm for allegedly infringing the 793 Patent by using a product provided by FIS. Sonic has further sent letters to at least 12 additional banks, making the same allegations. In each of those instances, however, the accused product is provided by FIS, and FIS has or is in the process of agreeing to indemnify and defend its customers against Sonics allegations. 12. It is clear that Sonic believes that products offered by FIS infringe the 793

Patent. FIS, on the other hand, denies any and all allegations of infringement and contends that the 793 Patent is invalid. Because of FISs position that its online banking products do not infringe and it will continue to provide the accused products to customers, because Sonic has already brought suit against one of FISs customers and threatens to do so against numerous others, and because FIS has or is in the process of agreeing to defend and indemnify its customers threatened or actually sued by Sonic, the parties have adverse legal interests of sufficient immediacy and reality that an actual case and controversy exists between FIS and Sonic. FIS is the real party-in-interest to Sonics infringement allegations, as opposed to its customers, who are essentially unnecessary third parties. And without the declarations sought in this matter, FIS will continue to suffer actual harm to FISs legitimate right and business interest in offering its customers online banking products free of baseless claims of patent infringement, which harm has been realized by Sonics threats to file law suits against FISs online banking customers. The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have each recognized that declaratory relief is appropriate under such circumstances. 13. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)-(c) and 1400(b).

{00733571;v1 }

-4-

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the 793 Patent) 14. FIS hereby incorporates by reference its allegations contained in paragraphs 1

through 13 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 15. FIS does not make, use, offer for sale, sell, import, or export, and has not ever

made, used, offered to sell, sold, imported, or exported, a method, device, or apparatus that infringes, either directly, contributorily, or by inducement, any valid and enforceable claim of the 793 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 16. As set forth in detail above, an actual, live, and justiciable controversy exists

between FIS and Sonic concerning the non-infringement of the 793 Patent. 17. Accordingly, FIS seeks and is entitled to a judgment against Sonic that FIS online

banking products have not infringed and do not infringe (directly, indirectly, contributorily, or by inducement) any valid and enforceable claim of the 793 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the 793 Patent) 18. FIS hereby incorporates by reference its allegations contained in paragraphs 1

through 17 of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 19. 20. Sonic contends that the 793 Patent is valid. FIS denies Sonics contention and alleges that the 793 Patent is invalid. The

793 Patent is invalid for failure to meet at least one of the conditions of patentability specified in Title 35 of the United States Code. No claim of the 793 Patent can be validly construed to cover any products and/or products imported, made, used, sold, or offered for sale by FIS. 21. As set forth in detail above, an actual controversy exists between FIS and Sonic as

to whether the 793 Patent is valid.

{00733571;v1 }

-5-

22.

Accordingly, FIS seeks and is entitled to a judgment against Sonic that the 793 EXCEPTIONAL CASE FINDING

Patent is invalid.

23.

Because this matter constitutes an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. 285, FIS is

entitled an award of its reasonable and necessary attorneys fees. JURY DEMAND 24. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, FIS demands a trial by jury on all

issues triable of right by a jury. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, FIS prays for a declaratory judgment against Defendant as follows: A. Declare that FIS has not infringed and does not infringe in any manner any claim

of the 793 patent; B. C. Declare that each and every claim of the 793 patent is invalid; Permanently enjoin Plaintiff, its successors and assigns, and anyone acting in

concert therewith or on its behalf, from attempting to enforce the 793 patent against FIS or any parents, affiliates, or subsidiaries of FIS or any of its respective officers, agents, employees, successors, and assigns. D. Find this case exceptional and award FIS its costs and expenses, including

reasonable attorneys fees, in accordance with the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 285 or otherwise; and E. Award FIS any additional relief as the Court may deem appropriate and just under

the circumstances.

{00733571;v1 }

-6-

ASHBY & GEDDES /s/ Tiffany Geyer Lydon ___________________________________ Steven J. Balick (#2114) Tiffany Geyer Lydon (#3950) Andrew C. Mayo (#5207) 500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor P.O. Box 1150 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 654-1888 sbalick@ashby-geddes.com tlydon@ashby-geddes.com amayo@ashby-geddes.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. Of Counsel: John G. Flaim Bart Rankin Terry A. Saad BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2300 Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 978-3000 john.flaim@bakermckenzie.com bart.rankin@bakermckenzie.com terry.saad@bakermckenzie.com Dated: March 15, 2013

{00733571;v1 }

-7-