UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

SOPHOS INC., Plaintiff, v. RPOST HOLDINGS, INC., RPOST COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED, and RPOST INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NONINFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY Plaintiff Sophos Incorporated (Sophos) hereby pleads the following claims for Declaratory Judgment against Defendants RPost Holdings, Inc. (RPost Holdings), RPost Communications Limited (RPost Communications) and RPost International Limited (RPost International) (collectively, RPost), and alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This action is based on the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NONINFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY

States Code. RPost has alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,504,628 (the 628 patent), 8,224,913 (the 913 patent), 8,209,389 (the 389 patent) and 8,468,199 (the 199 patent) (collectively, the Patents-in-Suit) based on certain alleged ongoing activity by Sophos. Sophos contends that it has the right to engage in the accused activity without license to any of the Patents-in-Suit. Sophos thus seeks a declaration that it does not infringe the Patents-in-Suit and that the Patents-in-Suit are invalid.

WEST\245201774.3

PARTIES 2. Plaintiff Sophos is a Massachusetts corporation having its principal place of

business in the United States at 3 Van de Graaf Drive, Second Floor, Burlington, MA 01803. For nearly thirty years Sophos has been a global leader in antivirus and endpoint security protection. 3. On information and belief, Defendant RPost Holdings is a corporation organized

under the laws of the State of Delaware. 4. On information and belief, Defendant RPost Communications is a corporation

organized under the laws of the Nation of Bermuda. 5. On information and belief, Defendant RPost International is a corporation

organized under the laws of the Nation of Bermuda. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This is a civil action regarding allegations of patent infringement and patent

invalidity arising under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code, in which Sophos seeks declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act. Thus, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338, 2201 and 2202. 7. An actual, justiciable controversy exists between Sophos (on the one hand) and

RPost (on the other) by virtue of RPosts allegations that Sophos infringes the Patents-in-Suit by making, using, offering to sell or selling electronic message outbound content filtering and security products (content filtering, email encryption, data leak prevention, archive, etc.) and message delivery/failure tracking products in the United States. 8. Sophos contends that it has a right to make and sell its software, systems, and

-2WEST\245201774.3

technology, including those incorporated in its products, without license from RPost. 9. The Court has personal jurisdiction over RPost because RPost has conducted

substantial business in (and has substantial contact with) this District. Among other things, RPost has sent a letter to Sophos in this District accusing it of infringing the Patents-in-Suit and offering to discussa business resolution with Sophos. A true and correct copy of RPosts October 16, 2013, letter to Sophos is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Sophos, who RPost accuses of infringing the Patents-in-Suit, resides in this District. On information and belief, RPost and/or its affiliated companies also market, offer for sale and sell products in this District. See, e.g., www.rpost.com. Furthermore, on information and belief, RPost maintains an office in Boston, MA. See, e.g., www.rpost.com/contact-us. 10. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 in that a

substantial part of the acts giving rise to the claim occurred in this judicial district, and because RPost is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 11. On August 6, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO)

issued the 628 patent entitled System And Method For Verifying Delivery And Integrity Of Electronic Messages. The 628 patent states on its face that it was assigned to RPost Communications. A true and correct copy of the 628 patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit B. 12. On July 17, 2012, the PTO issued the 913 patent entitled System And Method

For Verifying Delivery And Integrity Of Electronic Messages. The 913 patent states on its face that it was assigned to RPost Communications. A true and correct copy of the 913 patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit C.

-3WEST\245201774.3

13.

On June 26, 2012, the PTO issued the 389 patent entitled System And Method

For Verifying Delivery And Integrity Of Electronic Messages. The 389 patent states on its face that it was assigned to RPost Communications. A true and correct copy of the 389 patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit D. 14. On June 18, 2013, the PTO issued the 199 patent entitled System And Method

For Verifying Delivery And Integrity Of Electronic Messages. The 199 patent states on its face that it was assigned to RPost International. A true and correct copy of the 199 patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit E. 15. On information and belief, RPost Communications asserts that it has right, title,

and interest in the 628, 913 and 389 patents. 16. On information and belief, RPost International asserts that it has right, title, and

interest in the 199 patent. 17. On information and belief, RPost Holdings asserts that it is an exclusive licensee

of at least the 389 and 913 patents. 18. On October 16, 2013, Ray Owens of RPost sent a letter to Greg Crowley, legal

counsel for Sophos, with the Re: line Claim Charts per Patent Infringement Notice. The October 16 letter alleges that [b]y this letter, we would like to ensure that you are informed that Sophos is offering products and services, namely Unified Threat Management, Enduser Protection Suites, SafeGuard Encryption, Secure Email Gateway, Server Security and PureMessage that we believe infringe certain patents owned by RPost. Exhibit A at 1. 19. RPosts October 16 letter contains a Preliminary Summary Analyses with claim

charts alleging infringement of certain Sophos products for claim 30 of the 628 patent, claim 1 of the 913 patent, claim 7 of the 389 patent, and claim 1 of the 199 patent. Exhibit A at 2-5.

-4WEST\245201774.3

The letter also names a number of other RPost patents. Id. 20. RPosts October 16 letter requests that Sophos consider the value of your use of

RPost's patents, the adverse effects of having to remove the covered features from use, and your cost to compensate RPost for past damages. Please also consider that RPost practices its patents and your continued willful infringement of its patents may result in trebled damages of RPosts lost profits. Exhibit A at 1. RPost further requests that Sophos immediately cease and desist from manufacture, use, or offer for sale RPosts patented technology through your products and services that contain RPosts patented technology. Id. at 1-2. 21. Sophos does not infringe the Patents-in-Suit. Additionally, the Patents-in-Suit are

invalid. Accordingly, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between Sophos and RPost as to whether Sophos infringes any valid claim of the Patents-in-Suit. Absent a declaration of noninfringement and/or invalidity, RPost will continue to wrongly assert the Patents-in-Suit against Sophos, and thereby cause Sophos irreparable harm. COUNT I Declaratory Relief Regarding Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,628 22. Sophos restates and incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in

paragraphs 1 through 21 above, as if fully set forth herein. 23. patent. 24. On information and belief, RPost claims to be the owner of all right, title and RPost contends that Sophos has or is infringing one or more claims of the 628

interest in the 628 patent, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under that patent and the right to any remedies for infringement of it. 25. Sophos does not infringe any claim of the 628 patent, directly or indirectly,

-5WEST\245201774.3

contributorily or otherwise, literally or by the doctrine of equivalents, through its or its customers activities in conjunction with any of Sophoss products or services. 26. As set forth above, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between Sophos

and RPost as to Sophoss noninfringement of the 628 patent. 27. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.,

Sophos requests that this Court enter a judgment that Sophos does not infringe, under any theory of infringement, any valid claim of the 628 patent. COUNT II Declaratory Relief Regarding Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,504,628 28. Sophos restates and incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in

paragraphs 1 through 27 above, as if fully set forth herein. 29. 30. Upon information and belief, RPost contends that the 628 patent is valid. The claims of the 628 patent are invalid for failure to comply with one or more of

the conditions for patentability set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. 31. As set forth above, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between Sophos

and RPost as to whether the claims of the 628 patent are invalid. 32. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.,

Sophos requests that this Court enter a judgment that the claims of the 628 patent are invalid pursuant to Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. COUNT III

-6WEST\245201774.3

Declaratory Relief Regarding Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,224,913 33. Sophos restates and incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in

paragraphs 1 through 32 above, as if fully set forth herein. 34. patent. 35. On information and belief, RPost claims to be the owner of all right, title and RPost contends that Sophos has or is infringing one or more claims of the 913

interest in the 913 patent, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under that patent and the right to any remedies for infringement of it. 36. Sophos does not infringe any claim of the 913 patent, directly or indirectly,

contributorily or otherwise, literally or by the doctrine of equivalents, through its or its customers activities in conjunction with any of Sophoss products or services. 37. As set forth above, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between Sophos

and RPost as to Sophoss noninfringement of the 913 patent. 38. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.,

Sophos requests that this Court enter a judgment that Sophos does not infringe, under any theory of infringement, any valid claim of the 913 patent. COUNT IV Declaratory Relief Regarding Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,224,913 39. Sophos restates and incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in

paragraphs 1 through 38 above, as if fully set forth herein. 40. 41. Upon information and belief, RPost contends that the 913 patent is valid. The claims of the 913 patent are invalid for failure to comply with one or more of

-7WEST\245201774.3

the conditions for patentability set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. 42. As set forth above, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between Sophos

and RPost as to whether the claims of the 913 patent are invalid. 43. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.,

Sophos requests that this Court enter a judgment that the claims of the 913 patent are invalid pursuant to Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. COUNT V Declaratory Relief Regarding Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,209,389 44. Sophos restates and incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in

paragraphs 1 through 43 above, as if fully set forth herein. 45. patent. 46. On information and belief, RPost claims to be the owner of all right, title and RPost contends that Sophos has or is infringing one or more claims of the 389

interest in the 389 patent, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under that patent and the right to any remedies for infringement of it. 47. Sophos does not infringe any claim of the 389 patent, directly or indirectly,

contributorily or otherwise, literally or by the doctrine of equivalents, through its or its customers activities in conjunction with any of Sophoss products or services. 48. As set forth above, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between Sophos

and RPost as to Sophoss noninfringement of the 389 patent. 49. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.,

-8WEST\245201774.3

Sophos requests that this Court enter a judgment that Sophos does not infringe, under any theory of infringement, any valid claim of the 389 patent. COUNT VI Declaratory Relief Regarding Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,209,389 50. Sophos restates and incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in

paragraphs 1 through 49 above, as if fully set forth herein. 51. 52. Upon information and belief, RPost contends that the 389 patent is valid. The claims of the 389 patent are invalid for failure to comply with one or more of

the conditions for patentability set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. 53. As set forth above, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between Sophos

and RPost as to whether the claims of the 389 patent are invalid. 54. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.,

Sophos requests that this Court enter a judgment that the claims of the 389 patent are invalid pursuant to Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. COUNT VII Declaratory Relief Regarding Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,468,199 55. Sophos restates and incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in

paragraphs 1 through 54 above, as if fully set forth herein. 56. patent. RPost contends that Sophos has or is infringing one or more claims of the 199

-9WEST\245201774.3

57.

On information and belief, RPost claims to be the owner of all right, title and

interest in the 199 patent, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under that patent and the right to any remedies for infringement of it. 58. Sophos does not infringe any claim of the 199 patent, directly or indirectly,

contributorily or otherwise, literally or by the doctrine of equivalents, through its or its customers activities in conjunction with any of Sophoss products or services. 59. As set forth above, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between Sophos

and RPost as to Sophoss noninfringement of the 199 patent. 60. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.,

Sophos requests that this Court enter a judgment that Sophos does not infringe, under any theory of infringement, any valid claim of the 199 patent. COUNT VIII Declaratory Relief Regarding Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,468,199 61. Sophos restates and incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in

paragraphs 1 through 60 above, as if fully set forth herein. 62. 63. Upon information and belief, RPost contends that the 199 patent is valid. The claims of the 199 patent are invalid for failure to comply with one or more of

the conditions for patentability set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. 64. As set forth above, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between Sophos

and RPost as to whether the claims of the 199 patent are invalid. 65. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.,

Sophos requests that this Court enter a judgment that the claims of the 199 patent are invalid

-10WEST\245201774.3

pursuant to Title 35 of the United States Code, including without limitation 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Sophos respectfully prays for judgment in favor of Sophos and against RPost, as follows: A. For a judicial determination and declaration that Sophos has not infringed and is

not infringing, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, any claim of the Patents-in-Suit; B. is invalid; C. For injunctive relief against RPost, and all persons acting on its behalf or in For a judicial determination and declaration that each claim of the Patents-in-Suit

concert with it, restraining them from further prosecuting or instituting any action against Sophos or Sophoss customers claiming that the Patents-in-Suit are valid or infringed, or for representing that Sophoss products or services, or that others use thereof, infringe the Patents-in-Suit; D. For a declaration that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285 and for an

award of attorneys fees and costs in this action; and E. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all issues and claims so triable.

-11WEST\245201774.3

Dated: November 12, 2013

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Nicholas G. Papastavros Nicholas G. Papastavros, BBO # 635742 Maya P. Choksi, BBO # 679861 DLA Piper LLP (US) 33 Arch Street, 26th Floor Boston, MA 02110-1447 (617) 406-6000 (telephone) (617) 406-6100 (facsimile) nick.papastavros@dlapiper.com maya.choksi@dlapiper.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF SOPHOS INC.

OF COUNSEL: Sean Cunningham (pro hac vice to be filed) Kathryn Riley Grasso (pro hac vice to be filed) Ryan W. Cobb (pro hac vice to be filed) DLA PIPER LLP (US) 401 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 699-2700 (telephone) (619) 699-2701 (facsimile) sean.cunningham@dlapiper.com kathryn.riley@dlapiper.com ryan.cobb@dlapiper.com Todd S. Patterson (pro hac vice to be filed) DLA Piper LLP (US) 401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2500 Austin, Texas 78701-3799 (512) 457-7000 (telephone) (512) 457-7001 (facsimile) todd.patterson@dlapiper.com

-12WEST\245201774.3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that on this 12th day of November, 2013, all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document through the Courts CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be served by a facsimile transmission and/or first class mail. /s/Nicholas G. Papastavros Nicholas G. Papastavros

-13WEST\245201774.3