IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
VITALY EVGENIEVICH PILKIN
1/1,
Vereskovaya Street, apartment 111,
Moscow, 129329, Russian Federation
Plaintiff,
vs.
Sony Interactive Entertainment llc
2207
Bridgepointe Pkwy, San Mateo,
CA
94404, United States
Sony Corporation
1-7-1 Konan Minato-ku, Tokyo, 108-0075 Japan
Hogan Lovells US LLP
Columbia
Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20004, United States
Defendants.
|
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
Civil Action No. 1:17-cv- 02501 (RDM)
PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL
BY JURY
|
SECOND AMENDED
COMPLAINT
Pursuant to Rule 15(a) of
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Vitaly Evgenievich Pilkin on his own behalf
files this amended complaint against the above captioned defendants,
respectfully alleging as follows:
I.
THE PARTIES
Plaintiff:
1. Vitaly Evgenievich Pilkin (Plaintiff) is natural person and citizen of the
Russian Federation, residing in the Russian Federation at the address: 1/1,
Vereskovaya Street, apartment 111, Moscow, 129329, Russian Federation, e-mail: vitalypilkin@gmail.com,
phone number is +79852225545.
Defendants:
2. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC is
Sony Group Company, subsidiary of Sony Corporation, headquartered at 2207
Bridgepointe Pkwy, San Mateo, CA 94404 United States. April, 2016 Sony
Interactive Entertainment LLC joins the forces of all business units belonging
to Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. and Sony Network Entertainment
International LLC, including hardware, software, content and network services
operations. Before merger Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC was known as Sony
Computer Entertainment Inc. and Sony Network Entertainment International LLC.
Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC manufactures, distributes, develops and
markets game consoles PlayStation Vita and computer entertainment system
PlayStation 4. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC is domestic concern and it does
business in the District of Columbia as well as it has agents and other
representatives in the District of Columbia.
3. Sony Corporation is a foreign corporation
headquartered at 1-7-1
Konan Minato-ku, Tokyo, 108-0075 Japan. Sony Corporation does business in the
District of Columbia as well as has agents and other representatives in the
District of Columbia. Securities of Sony Corporation are
listed and traded in the United States. Sony Corporation is issuer and
periodically submits reports before the Securities and Exchange Commission (Washington, DC). Sony Corporation is parent company to Sony
Interactive Entertainment LLC.
4. Hogan Lovells US LLP
is a limited liability partnership registered in the District of Columbia with
its principal place of business at Columbia Square 555
Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20004, United States. Hogan Lovells US LLP is the integral part of the
international legal practice of Hogan Lovells
that comprises Hogan Lovells US LLP, Hogan Lovells International LLP and their
affiliated businesses, including Hogan Lovells (CIS). CEO of the
international legal practice of Hogan Lovells is Stephen J. Immelt who also is
CEO of Hogan Lovells US LLP. Deputy CEO of the international legal
practice of Hogan Lovells is David Hudd who also is CEO of Hogan Lovells International LLP and Director
of Hogan Lovells (CIS). An agency relationship exists between
all integral parts of the international legal practice Hogan Lovells, including between Hogan Lovells (CIS) and domestic concern Hogan Lovells
US LLP. The liability extends to the agents of domestic
concern. Hogan Lovells US LLP participates substantially in the management and
control of Hogan Lovells (CIS) since CEO of the international legal practice of
Hogan Lovells is Stephen J. Immelt who also is CEO of Hogan Lovells US LLP.
II.
JURISDICTION
5. Jurisdiction in
this action is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a), 1343(a)(1), 1357,
2201.
III.
VENUE
6. Venue for this
action is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. §1391.
IV. INFORMATION AND Legal definitions
7. For proper
construing this Amended Complaint, Vitaly Evgenievich Pilkin
(Plaintiff) refers to the following information
and legal definitions:
(a) The patent of the Russian Federation No.2427879 on the
invention “Control of virtual symbols” is called as ‘the patent’.
(b) Vladimir
Vitalievich Miroshnichenko is the inventor of the invention under the patent.
Vladimir Vitalievich Miroshnichenko is called as ‘Inventor’
(c) Plaintiff
and Inventor were the patentees of the invention.
(d) Inventor
was also Plaintiff in this action before he died April 23, 2018. See Dkt. 1.
(e) The
Federal Service on Intellectual Property (the
Russian analogue of the USPTO) is called as ‘Rospatent’.
(f) The elements of
fraud are “(1) a false representation,
(2) made in reference to a material fact, (3) with knowledge of its falsity,
(4) with the intent to deceive, and (5) an action that is taken in reliance
upon the representation.” In re Estate of
Nethken, 978 A.2d 603, 607 (D.C. 2009).
(g) Fraud is defined as an abuse of position, or false
representation, or prejudicing someone's rights for personal gain. Put simply, fraud is an act of
deception intended for personal gain or to cause a loss to another party. The general criminal offence of fraud can include: deception whereby
someone knowingly makes false representation, or they fail to disclose
information, or they abuse a position.
(h) Corruption is defined by Transparency
International as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. World Bank
defines corruption as the abuse of
public office for private gain. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
defines corruption as the abuse of power by a public official for private gain.
Bribery is the most common form of corruption.
V.
INTRODUCTION
8. As a result of conspiracy,
incitements to violate the criminal statute of the United States, bribes,
fraudulent representations, concealment of circumstance relevant to the patent
dispute, corrupt practices, wrongful influence on adjudications rendered by
Rospatent and the Russian courts, concealment of said criminal wrongdoing,
obstruction of criminal investigations and defrauding the United States
committed by Defendants in concert with their affiliates, Plaintiff has been deprived of
the patent and his right to get compensation for the patent infringement that
ensured unjust enrichment of Defendants and their affiliates at the expense of
Plaintiff.
9. Defendants knowingly
and willfully caused to Plaintiff and Inventor
also pain and suffering damages.
10. Since Defendants acted with
deliberate intent to cause harm to Plaintiff and Inventor, with full
understanding that their conduct is wrongful and with willful disregard for the
rights of Plaintiff and Inventor, Defendants’ conduct is outrageous,
fraudulent, egregiously insidious and particularly reprehensible, Defendants do not feel any regret about their wrongdoing, therefore, the Court should appoint punitive damages which will deter
Defendants from similar acts in the future.
VI. STATUTES OF
LIMITATIONS
11. Under §12-301 of
D.C. Code, actions for the recovery of damages may not be brought after the
expiration of the period of three years from the time the right to maintain the
action accrues. Since Defendants and their affiliates committed a series of
illegal acts against Plaintiff the limitation period may begin to run from the
last act in the series. In the 8th Circuit case of Treanor v. MCI Telecommunications, Inc., the court explained that
the continuing-violations doctrine “tolls [freezes] the statute of limitations
in situations where a continuing pattern forms due to [illegal] acts occurring
over a period of time, as long as at least one incident ... occurred within the
limitations period”.
12. As concern
damages related to Defendants’ unjust enrichment, the last illegal acts in the
series have been committed September, 2017. See
¶¶ 134 – 139 of the present Amended Complaint.
13. As concern pain
and suffering damages caused by Defendants to Plaintiff and Inventor, the last
illegal acts in the series have been committed December 22, 2017. See ¶ 140 of this Amended
Complaint.
VII. STATEMENT
OF FACTS
14. August 27, 2011: Rospatent has granted
the patent to Plaintiff and Inventor.
15. The patent has claims comprising two
inventions: the first invention is disclosed in independent claim 1 of the
patent and the second invention is disclosed in independent claim 11 of the
patent.
16. Each invention disclosed in said
independent claims comprises several alternative embodiments of the invention.
Other paragraphs of claims disclose some special not exhaustive cases of
embodiments of said two inventions.
17. October 6, 2011: Plaintiff and
Inventor visited exhibition ‘Gameland 2011’ in Moscow (Russian Federation)
where Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. as manufacturer and developer of game
console PlayStation Vita presented said game console. Plaintiffs found out that
the invention under the patent is used in game console PlayStation Vita.
18. October 12, 2011: Plaintiff submitted
to Sony Computer Entertainment America proofs evidencing that the invention
under the patent is used in game console PlayStation Vita and proposed to buy
the patents rights protected by the patent.
19. October 14, 2011: Plaintiff informed incorporated
in Russia Sony Electronics as Sony Group Company that the invention under the
patent is used in game console PlayStation Vita and proposed to buy the patents
rights protected by the patent. No reply has been received.
20. October 25, 2011: Plaintiff informed
Sony Computer Entertainment Europe that the invention under the patent is used
in game console PlayStation Vita and proposed
to buy the patents rights protected by the patent. No reply has been received.
21. October 26, 2011: Sony Computer Entertainment America replied
on the Plaintiff’s appeal dated October 12, 2011. As follows from said reply,
Sony Computer Entertainment is unable to follow up on the [Plaintiff’s]
submission, since it does not accept any unsolicited ideas and therefore it returns
the Plaintiff’s submission.
22. November 11, 2011: Plaintiff and
Inventor have submitted to Sony Electronics pretension, wherein Sony
Electronics has been invited to pay compensation for the patent infringement
and to license the invention under the patent.
23. December 13, 2011: lawyer of IP
practice of Hogan Lovells (CIS) Anton Bankovskiy as legal representative of
Sony Electronics replied to the pretension. It has been noted in said reply
that law firm Hogan Lovells (CIS) will revert to the patentees after a patent
examination.
24. Sony Corporation and Sony Computer
Entertainment Inc. as manufacturer and developer of game consoles PlayStation
Vita worldwide have got to know from Sony Electronics about the patent dispute
arisen between Sony Electronics and Plaintiff and Inventor presumably November-December
2011, i.e. after Sony Electronics received the pretension wherein Sony
Electronics has been invited to pay compensation for the patent infringement
and to license the invention under the patent.
25. The patent became a barrier to sales
in Russia of game consoles PlayStation Vita manufactured by Sony Computer
Entertainment Inc. and therefore a barrier for Sony Computer Entertainment Inc.
and Sony Corporation to get income from said sales.
26. In this connection Sony Corporation
and Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. have been put before a choice whether to
license the patent or not.
27. Sony Corporation and Sony Computer
Entertainment Inc. turned to Hogan Lovells (CIS) and head of Intellectual
Property practice of Hogan Lovells (CIS) Natalia Gulyaeva
to get advice whether to license the patent or not.
28. Sony Corporation, Sony Computer
Entertainment Inc., Sony Electronics, CEO of Sony Electronics Kenichiro Hibi,
Hogan Lovells (CIS) and head of IP practice of Hogan Lovells (CIS)
Natalia Gulyaeva knew that the patent is used in game console
PlayStation Vita.
29. After receiving advice of head of IP practice of
Hogan Lovells (CIS) Natalia Gulyaeva, Sony Corporation and Sony Computer
Entertainment Inc. have decided not to license the patent but to authorize Moscow
headquarted Sony Group company Sony Electronics headed at that time by Kenichiro
Hibi to submit before the Chamber for Patent Disputes of Rospatent opposition
against the grant by Rospatent of the patent aimed to invalidate the
patent.
30. Sony Corporation, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. and Hogan
Lovells (CIS) voluntary agreed and conspired to combine their financial,
corporate, professional and administrative opportunities to undertake any
possible acts, including the violation of
criminal statute of the United States, to deprive Plaintiff of the
patent in order to ensure sales of game consoles PlayStation Vita in Russia.
Said conspiracy is confirmed by facts disclosed in this Amended Complaint
below.
31. Sony Corporation and Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. conspired to
induce and to aid Sony Electronics in commission of any possible acts,
including the violation of criminal statute
of the United States, in order to deprive Plaintiff of the patent.
32. Sony Corporation and Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. induced, abetted and
aided Sony Electronics and corruptly persuaded
CEO of Sony Electronics Kenichiro Hibi to implement said conspiracy.
33. January 17,
2012: not having received in reasonable terms results of
the patent examination from Hogan Lovells (CIS), Plaintiff and Inventor
appealed to Khoroshevsky District Court of Moscow (Russia) with the claim against
Sony Electronics to stop the patent infringement.
34. There
is expert opinion which confirms that
the invention under the patent is used in game console PlayStation Vita.
35. During consideration by Khoroshevsky
District Court of Moscow of the lawsuit Sony Electronics represented by lawyer
of Hogan Lovells (CIS) Anton Bankovskiy and assistant manager of legal
department of Sony Electronics Evgeniya Vetoshnikova moved the court to
suspend consideration of the lawsuit till the results of consideration by
Rospatent of Sony Electronics’ opposition against the grant of the patent.
36. March 20, 2012: Sony
Electronics represented by lawyer of IP practice of Hogan Lovells (CIS) Anton
Bankovskiy (who is also registered patent attorney of the Russian Federation)
filed in the Chamber for Patent Disputes of Rospatent the opposition of Sony
Electronics against the grant of the patent.
37. There
is the following legal procedure in the Russian Federation: any individual or
entity can oppose the grant of a patent of the Russian Federation on an
invention issued by Rospatent by filing the opposition before the Chamber for
Patent Disputes of Rospatent. As a result of consideration of such opposition
Rospatent may take a decision to invalidate said patent on an invention. Said
decision of Rospatent comes into force immediately. Said decision of Rospatent
can be challenged in the Russian court. If the court finds out that said
decision of Rospatent is unlawful then said patent on an invention shall be
restored.
38. To
recognize by Rospatent a patent on an invention invalid it is necessary to
provide in said opposition evidence showing that at least one alternative
embodiment of an invention protected by said patent is not novel or lack of an
inventive step or industrially not applicable (i.e. unpatentable).
39. Sony Electronics
required in said opposition signed by lawyer of Hogan Lovells (CIS) Anton
Bankovskiy to recognize the patent as invalid due to the invention disclosed in
claim 1 of the patent fails to comply with the patentability criteria
"industrial applicability", "novelty" and "inventive
step", and the invention disclosed in claim 11 of the patent fails to
comply with the patentability criteria "novelty".
40. July 4, 2012: The
Chamber for Patent Disputes of Rospatent satisfied Sony Electronics’ opposition
against the grant of the patent.
41. September 8, 2012: Based
on conclusion of the Chamber for Patent Disputes, Rospatent decided
to satisfy Sony Electronics’ opposition against the grant of the patent and to
recognize the patent as invalid due to the invention disclosed in claim 1 fails
to comply with the patentability criteria "inventive step".
42. On behalf of Sony Electronics assistant
of manager of legal department of Sony Electronics Evgeniya Vetoshnikova (since
May 2012 she is legal manager of Sony Electronics) controlled actions of Hogan
Lovells (CIS) and attended all meetings of the Chamber for Patent Disputes of
Rospatent while Sony Electronics’ opposition against the grant of the patent had
been considering by the Chamber for Patent Disputes of Rospatent.
43. Sony Electronics’
opposition to recognize the patent as invalid (1) does not
contain proofs evidencing that two inventions disclosed in the patent fail to
comply with the patentability and (2) contains
knowingly and willfully falsified proofs aimed to recognize the patent as
invalid.
44. Sony Electronics headed by Kenichiro
Hibi and assistant of legal manager of Sony Electronics
Evgeniya Vetoshnikova were aware of said fraudulent representation (i.e. falsifying
proofs relevant to the patent dispute) committed by lawyer of Hogan Lovells (CIS)
Anton Bankovskiy.
45. Sony Corporation and Sony
Computer Entertainment Inc. induced, abetted and aided Sony Electronics and corruptly persuaded CEO
of Sony Electronics Kenichiro Hibi to pay to Hogan Lovells (CIS) not only for its
legal services as legal representative of Sony Electronics in the Chamber for
Patent Disputes of Rospatent but also for its (i) any possible acts including illegal
in order to recognize the patent as invalid and
(ii) concealing such criminal wrongdoing.
46. Sony
Electronics induced and
corruptly persuaded Hogan Lovells (CIS) (i) to
commit any possible acts including illegal in order to
recognize the patent as invalid, (ii) to
influence wrongfully the decision of Rospatent and (iii) to conceal said
criminal wrongdoing.
47. Sony Electronics headed by Kenichiro
Hibi knowingly paid to Hogan Lovells (CIS) not only for its legal services as
legal representative of Sony Electronics in the Chamber for Patent Disputes of
Rospatent but also for its (i) any possible acts including illegal in order to
recognize the patent as invalid and (ii) concealment
of said criminal wrongdoing. Thus, one part of payments committed by Sony
Electronics in favor of Hogan Lovells (CIS) was the bribe paid by Sony
Electronics to Hogan Lovells (CIS) for said criminal wrongdoing.
48. Said bribe corruptly persuaded Hogan
Lovells (CIS) (i) to falsify proofs in the opposition against the grant of the
patent, (ii) to commit fraudulent representation in support said opposition while
the Chamber for Patent Disputes of Rospatent had been considering said opposition and (iii) to conceal said
criminal wrongdoing.
49. Hogan Lovells (CIS) corruptly
persuaded lawyer of Hogan Lovells (CIS) Anton Bankovskiy to falsify proofs in
the opposition against the grant of the patent, to commit fraudulent
representation in support said opposition while the Chamber for Patent Disputes
of Rospatent had been considering said
opposition and to conceal said criminal wrongdoing.
50. The decision of Rospatent to
invalidate the patent is based completely on falsified proofs contained in the Sony
Electronics’ opposition against the grant of the patent. Arguments and
conclusions put in the basis of the decision of Rospatent to invalidate the
patent do not correspond to evidence available in the patent dispute. Top
executives of Rospatent as the Russian government officials being in their
official capacity have made deliberately false representations and abused of
entrusted power with full understanding that their conduct was wrongful. There
is legal opinion and expert opinions which confirm these facts.
51. Sony
Electronics and Hogan Lovells (CIS) as legal representative of Sony Electronics
influenced wrongfully the decision of Rospatent to invalidate
the patent in order to ensure
unfair and unlawful gain for Sony Group.
52. Rospatent
is the expert in the Russian patent law and that is why the decision of
Rospatent to invalidate the patent is knowingly wrongful since said decision is
completely based on falsified proofs contained in Sony Electronics’ opposition
against the grant of the patent. This fact is confirmed also by legal
opinion and expert opinions.
53. Sony Corporation and Sony
Computer Entertainment Inc. induced, abetted and aided Sony Electronics and corruptly persuaded CEO of Sony
Electronics Kenichiro Hibi to pay to Hogan Lovells (CIS) not only for its legal
services as legal representative of Sony Electronics in the Chamber for Patent
Disputes of Rospatent but also for its (i) unlawful services for corrupting top
executives of Rospatent in order to invalidate the patent and (ii) concealment of said criminal wrongdoing.
54. Sony Electronics headed by Kenichiro
Hibi paid to Hogan Lovells (CIS) not only for its legal services as legal
representative of Sony Electronics in the Chamber for Patent Disputes of
Rospatent but also for its (i) unlawful services for corrupting top executives
of Rospatent in order to invalidate the patent and
(ii) concealment of said criminal wrongdoing.
55. One part of payments committed by
Sony Electronics in favor of Hogan Lovells (CIS) as legal representative of
Sony Electronics in the Chamber for Patent Disputes was a bribe paid by Sony
Electronics to Hogan Lovells (CIS) for its (i) unlawful services for corrupting
top executives of Rospatent in order to invalidate the patent and (ii) concealment of said criminal wrongdoing.
56. Through bribing Hogan Lovells
(CIS) Sony Electronics headed by Kenichiro Hibi corruptly persuaded
Hogan Lovells (CIS) to corrupt top executives of Rospatent in order to invalidate
the patent and to conceal said criminal wrongdoing.
57. Through corruption of top executives
of Rospatent Sony Electronics and Hogan Lovells (CIS) wrongfully influenced the decision of Rospatent to invalidate the patent.
58. Sony Corporation and Sony
Computer Entertainment Inc. knowingly and willfully induced, abetted
and aided Sony Electronics and corruptly
persuaded CEO of Sony Electronics Kenichiro Hibi to corrupt top
executives of Rospatent and to conceal said criminal wrongdoing.
59. Through the commission of the
criminal wrongdoing disclosed in ¶¶
30 - 58 of this Amended Complaint Sony Corporation, Sony Computer
Entertainment Inc., Sony Electronics and Hogan Lovells (CIS) ensured sales of
game consoles PlayStation Vita in Russia.
60. September 24,
2012: Plaintiff challenged the decision of Rospatent to invalidate the patent
by filing complaint against Rospatent in the Russian courts.
61. The Plaintiff’s complaint against the
decision of Rospatent to invalidate the patent has been considered by the Arbitration Court of Moscow as
the court of first instance (the
lawsuit No.A40-128053/12-117-1239),
the Plaintiff’s appeal to reverse the judgment
of the Arbitration Court of Moscow
on the lawsuit has been
considered by the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeals and the Plaintiff’s appeal on
the lawsuit submitted before the court of
cassation has been considered by the Court for Intellectual Property Rights.
62. Rospatent was
defendant on the lawsuit and Sony Electronics and Inventor have been attracted
by the Arbitration Court of Moscow as interested third parties on the lawsuit.
63. Sony Electronics has been represented
in the lawsuit by lawyers of IP practice of Hogan Lovells (CIS) Natalia
Gulyaeva and Vironika Pilyugina who are also registered patent attorneys of the
Russian Federation.
64. On behalf of Sony Electronics legal
manager of Sony Electronics Evgeniya Vetoshnikova controlled actions of Hogan
Lovells (CIS) in the Arbitration Court of
Moscow, the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeals and the Court
for Intellectual Property Rights as court of cassation through attending all hearings
of said courts.
65. Rospatent and lawyers of Hogan
Lovells (CIS) Natalia Gulyaeva and Vironika Pilyugina knowingly and repeatedly falsified
proofs relevant to the lawsuit and concealed from the Arbitration Court of Moscow (July 11, 2013), the Ninth Arbitration Court of
Appeals (October 3, 2013) and the Court for Intellectual Property Rights as
court of cassation (December 4, 2013) circumstances relevant to the lawsuit.
These facts are confirmed by expert opinions.
66. Sony Electronics, CEO of Sony Electronics
Fumiatsu Hirai and legal manager of Sony Electronics Evgeniya
Vetoshnikova were aware of said falsification of proofs relevant to the lawsuit
and concealment from the Russian
courts circumstances relevant to the lawsuit (i.e.
fraudulent representation) committed knowingly and repeatedly by Rospatent and lawyers
of Hogan Lovells (CIS) Natalia Gulyaeva and Vironika Pilyugina.
67. Sony Corporation, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. and Sony Electronics have gained unfair and unlawful
business advantages from said fraudulent representation committed
knowingly and repeatedly by Rospatent and lawyers of Hogan Lovells (CIS) Natalia Gulyaeva and Vironika Pilyugina since said fraudulent arguments of Rospatent and lawyers
of Hogan Lovells (CIS) Natalia Gulyaeva and Vironika Pilyugina have been put at the basis of judgment and
rulings rendered by the Russian judges on the lawsuit.
68. Sony Corporation and Sony
Computer Entertainment Inc. induced, abetted and aided Sony Electronics and corruptly persuaded CEO
of Sony Electronics Fumiatsu Hirai to pay to Hogan Lovells (CIS) not only for its
legal services as legal representative of Sony Electronics in the Russian
courts on the lawsuit but also for its (1) fraudulent representation
committed by lawyers of Hogan Lovells (CIS) Natalia Gulyaeva and Vironika Pilyugina and (2)
concealment of said criminal wrongdoing.
69. Sony Electronics headed by Fumiatsu
Hirai knowingly paid to Hogan Lovells (CIS) not only for its legal services as
legal representative of Sony Electronics in the Russian courts on the lawsuit but also for its (1) fraudulent representation committed by lawyers of Hogan Lovells
(CIS) Natalia
Gulyaeva and Vironika Pilyugina
and (2) concealment of said criminal wrongdoing.
70. One part of payments committed by
Sony Electronics in favor of Hogan Lovells (CIS) was a bribe paid by Sony
Electronics to Hogan Lovells (CIS) for its fraudulent representation and concealment of said criminal
wrongdoing.
71. Through said bribing Sony Electronics
corruptly persuaded Hogan Lovells (CIS) to commit said fraudulent
representation and to
conceal said criminal wrongdoing.
72. Hogan Lovells (CIS) corruptly
persuaded lawyers of Hogan Lovells (CIS) Natalia Gulyaeva and Vironika
Pilyugina to commit said fraudulent
representation and to conceal said criminal wrongdoing.
73. Hogan Lovells (CIS) and lawyers of
Hogan Lovells (CIS) Natalia Gulyaeva and Vironika Pilyugina conspired to commit
said fraudulent representation and to
conceal said criminal wrongdoing.
74. Judges of the
Arbitration Court of Moscow, the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeals and the
Court for Intellectual Property Rights set out judgment
and rulings on the lawsuit which rejected the
Plaintiff’s claims against the decision of Rospatent to invalidate the patent
and confirmed the lawfulness of the decision of Rospatent to invalidate
the patent.
75. Despite Plaintiff has
submitted to the courts proofs which evidence that arguments put at the basis
of the decision of Rospatent to invalidate the patent and proofs presented to the Russian courts by Rospatent
and lawyers of Hogan Lovells (CIS) Natalia Gulyaeva and
Vironika Pilyugina have been falsified,
nevertheless, said judgment and rulings on the lawsuit No.A40-128053/12-117-1239 are completely based on falsified proofs contained
in the Rospatent’s decision and falsified proofs presented to the Russian
courts by Rospatent and lawyers of Hogan Lovells (CIS)
Natalia Gulyaeva and Vironika Pilyugina.
76. The Russian judges as the Russian government officials
being in their official capacity have made deliberately false
representations and abused of entrusted power with
full understanding of their wrongdoing for private gain of Sony
Corporation, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., Sony Electronics and Hogan
Lovells (CIS).
There are a legal opinion and expert opinions
which confirm the above stated facts.
77. Plaintiff
possesses proofs supported by legal opinion and expert opinions evidencing that
the judgment and rulings rendered on the lawsuit were obtained by fraud that deprived Plaintiff of an
adequate opportunity to present its case.
78. As follows from ¶¶ 75 - 77 of this
Amended Complaint, the judgment and
rulings rendered on the lawsuit No.A40-128053/12-117-1239 by the Arbitration Court of Moscow (July 11,
2013), the Ninth
Arbitration Court of Appeals (October 3, 2013) and the Court for Intellectual
Property Rights as the court of cassation (December 4, 2013) were obtained by fraud that deprived Plaintiff of an
adequate opportunity to present its case. As a result Plaintiff became a victim of said fraudulently attained judgment
and rulings.
79. Under D.C. Code §15-364(c)(2), a court of the
District of Columbia may not recognize a foreign-country judgment if the
judgment was obtained by fraud that deprived the losing party of an adequate
opportunity to present its case.
80. Under D.C. Code §15-364(c)(7), a court of the
District of Columbia may not recognize a foreign-country judgment if the
judgment was rendered in circumstances that raise substantial doubt about the
integrity of the rendering court with respect to the judgment.
81. Under D.C. Code §15-364(d), a party resisting
recognition of a foreign-country judgment has the burden of establishing that a
ground for non-recognition stated in subsection (b) or (c) of this section
exists.
82. Sony Corporation and Sony
Computer Entertainment Inc. induced, abetted and aided Sony Electronics and corruptly persuaded CEO
of Sony Electronics Fumiatsu Hirai to pay to Hogan Lovells (CIS) not only for its
legal services of Hogan Lovells (CIS) as legal representative of Sony
Electronics in the Russian courts on the
lawsuit but also for its
(i) unlawful services for corrupting the Russian judges of three Russian courts
who have considered the lawsuit in order to influence wrongfully the
adjudications rendered by the Russian judges and (ii) concealment of said
criminal wrongdoing.
83. Sony Electronics headed by Fumiatsu
Hirai knowingly paid to Hogan Lovells (CIS) not only for its legal services as
legal representative of Sony Electronics in the Russian courts on the lawsuit but also for its (i) unlawful services for corrupting
the Russian judges of three Russian courts who have considered the lawsuit in
order to influence wrongfully the adjudications rendered by the Russian judges
and (ii) concealment of said criminal wrongdoing.
84. One part of payments committed by
Sony Electronics in favor of Hogan Lovells (CIS) was a bribe paid by Sony
Electronics to Hogan Lovells (CIS) for its (i) unlawful services for corrupting
the Russian judges of three Russian courts who have considered the lawsuit in
order to influence wrongfully the adjudications rendered by the Russian judges
and (ii) concealment of said criminal wrongdoing.
85. Through bribing Hogan Lovells (CIS)
Sony Electronics headed by Fumiatsu Hirai corruptly persuaded Hogan Lovells
(CIS) (i) to corrupt the Russian judges of three Russian courts who have
considered the lawsuit in order to influence wrongfully the adjudications
rendered by the Russian judges and (ii) to conceal said criminal wrongdoing.
86. Through the commission of the
criminal wrongdoing disclosed in ¶¶
60 - 85 of this Amended Complaint Sony Corporation, Sony Computer
Entertainment Inc., Sony Electronics and Hogan Lovells (CIS) ensured sales of
game consoles PlayStation Vita in Russia and thus ensured unjust enrichment of
Sony Group companies and Hogan Lovells.
87. February – March 2014 and January - April
2015 Plaintiff informed in detail Defendants and their affiliates about
criminal wrongdoing committed by Sony Electronics and Hogan Lovells (CIS) disclosed
in ¶¶ 30 - 86 of this Amended
Complaint and invited them to stop said criminal activity and to undertake
measures provided for by the law.
88. Nevertheless,
no one of employees and lawyers of Sony Electronics and Hogan Lovells (CIS) has
been punished or dismissed, on the contrary, some of them, who has been named
by Plaintiff as liable for criminal wrongdoing, have been raised in rank
immediately after Plaintiff informed Defendants and their affiliates about aforementioned
criminal wrongdoing.
89. Evgeniya Vetoshnikova has been raised in rank by Sony Electronics from ‘legal
manager’ to ‘senior legal manager’ of Sony Electronics April 2014 one month
after Plaintiff informed Sony Corporation about involvement of Evgeniya
Vetoshnikova in aforementioned criminal wrongdoing.
90. Vironika Pilyugina has been raised in rank from ‘associate’ to ‘senior
associate’ of Hogan Lovells January 2015 immediately after Plaintiff informed
Hogan Lovells US LLP, Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells (CIS) about involvement of Vironika Pilyugina in
aforementioned criminal wrongdoing.
91. Despite
in 2014 and 2015 Defendants,
Sony Electronics and Hogan Lovells
(CIS) have been informed by Plaintiff about the criminal
wrongdoing committed by Sony Electronics and Hogan Lovells (CIS) (see
¶ 87 of this Amended Complaint), nevertheless, Sony
Electronics and Hogan Lovells (CIS) continued to
conspire criminal wrongdoing, to falsify proofs relevant to the lawsuit and to
conceal circumstances relevant to the lawsuit in the Russian courts, to corrupt
the Russian judges, to influence wrongfully adjudications rendered by the
Russian courts, to commit corrupt practices and bribes and to conceal said
criminal wrongdoing that are confirmed by the facts disclosed below in this
Amended Complaint.
92. Disagreeing
with fraudulently attained judgment
and rulings rendered on the lawsuit No.A40-128053/12-117-1239, Plaintiff filed September 8, 2014 to the
Arbitration Court of Moscow as the court
of first instance an application to
review on newly discovered circumstances the enacted judgment on the lawsuit No.A40-128053/12-117-1239 dated July 17, 2013.
93. The
Russian court of first instance considered said Plaintiff’s appeal to review the
enacted judgment on newly discovered circumstances on the lawsuit April
14, 2015, the Russian court of appeals considered said appeal June
13, 2015 and the Russian court
of cassation considered said appeal September 18, 2015.
94. As
before Sony Electronics has been presented in the Russian courts by lawyers of
Hogan Lovells (CIS) Natalia Gulyaeva and Vironika Pilyugina.
95. As
before lawyers of Hogan Lovells (CIS) Natalia Gulyaeva and Vironika Pilyugina knowingly
and repeatedly falsified proofs relevant to the lawsuit and concealed from the Arbitration Court of Moscow (April 14,
2015), the Ninth
Arbitration Court of Appeals (June 13, 2015) and the Court for Intellectual
Property Rights as court of cassation (September 18, 2015) circumstances relevant
to the lawsuit. Said facts are confirmed also by expert opinion.
96. As
before senior legal manager of Sony Electronics Evgeniya
Vetoshnikova attended all court hearing on the lawsuit.
97. As before Sony Electronics was aware
of said fraudulent representation committed by lawyers of Hogan Lovells (CIS) Natalia Gulyaeva and
Vironika Pilyugina.
98. If lawyers of Hogan Lovells (CIS) Natalia Gulyaeva and
Vironika Pilyugina had not falsified proofs relevant to the lawsuit and had not
concealed circumstances relevant to the lawsuit (i.e. fraudulent
representation), then it would have
been established by the court that the
enacted judgment on the lawsuit No.A40-128053/12-117-1239
dated July 17, 2013 rendered by the Arbitration Court of Moscow is wrong and
unjust and therefore Rospatent's decision to recognize the
patent No.2427879 as invalid is illegal. As a result, Plaintiff would have restored
the patent right and the right to get compensation for the patent infringement
in the Russian court.
99. Thus, despite in 2014 and 2015 Defendants, Sony
Electronics and Hogan Lovells (CIS) have been
informed by Plaintiff about the criminal wrongdoing committed by Sony
Electronics and Hogan Lovells (CIS) (see ¶ 87 of this
Amended Complaint), Hogan Lovells (CIS)
as legal representative of Sony Electronics in the Russian courts continued to falsify
proofs relevant to the lawsuit and to conceal from the courts circumstances relevant to the lawsuit (i.e. fraudulent
representation).
100. Sony
Corporation, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. and Sony Electronics have gained unfair and
unlawful business advantages from said fraudulent representation committed by Natalia Gulyaeva and Vironika Pilyugina while the Arbitration Court of Moscow (April 14,
2015), the Ninth
Arbitration Court of Appeals (June 13, 2015) and the Court for Intellectual
Property Rights as court of cassation (September 18, 2015) had been considering
Plaintiff’s application to review on newly discovered circumstances
the enacted judgment on the lawsuit No.A40-128053/12-117-1239
dated July 17, 2013.
101. Sony Corporation and Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. once again induced, abetted
and aided Sony Electronics and corruptly persuaded CEO of Sony Electronics Shigeru
Kumekawa to pay to Hogan Lovells (CIS) not only for its legal services as legal
representative of Sony Electronics in the Russian courts on the lawsuit but also for its (i) fraudulent representation
committed by Natalia
Gulyaeva and Vironika Pilyugina and
(ii) concealment of said criminal wrongdoing.
102. Sony
Electronics headed by Shigeru Kumekawa knowingly and willfully paid to Hogan
Lovells (CIS) not only for its legal services as legal representative of Sony
Electronics in the Russian courts on the
lawsuit but also for its
(i) fraudulent representation committed by Natalia Gulyaeva and Vironika Pilyugina and (ii) concealment of
said criminal wrongdoing.
103. One
part of payments committed by Sony Electronics in favor of Hogan Lovells (CIS)
was a bribe paid by Sony Electronics to Hogan Lovells (CIS) for its (i)
fraudulent representation committed by Natalia Gulyaeva and Vironika Pilyugina and (ii) concealment by
Hogan Lovells (CIS) of said criminal wrongdoing.
104. Through
bribing Hogan Lovells (CIS) Sony Electronics corruptly persuaded Hogan Lovells
(CIS) (i) to commit said fraudulent representation and (ii) to conceal said criminal wrongdoing.
105. Hogan
Lovells (CIS) corruptly persuaded lawyers of Hogan Lovells (CIS) Natalia
Gulyaeva and Vironika
Pilyugina to commit fraudulent representation and to conceal said criminal wrongdoing.
106. Hogan
Lovells (CIS) and lawyers of Hogan Lovells (CIS) Natalia Gulyaeva and Vironika Pilyugina conspired
to commit said fraudulent representation and to conceal said criminal wrongdoing.
107. Judges of the Arbitration Court of
Moscow, the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeals and the Court for Intellectual
Property Rights set out judgment and rulings on the lawsuit which rejected the Plaintiff’s
application to review on newly
discovered circumstances the enacted judgment on the lawsuit No.A40-128053/12-117-1239 dated July 17, 2013.
108. Despite Plaintiff submitted to said Russian courts
proofs which evidence that the
enacted judgment on the lawsuit No.A40-128053/12-117-1239
dated July 17, 2013 does
correspond to the proofs available in the lawsuit, nevertheless, said judgment and rulings on the lawsuit No.A40-128053/12-117-1239 are based on (1) falsified proofs presented to
the Russian courts by lawyers of Hogan Lovells (CIS)
Natalia Gulyaeva and Vironika Pilyugina and (2) voluntary fraudulently presented findings of the
Russian courts.
109. The Russian judges as the
Russian government officials being in their official capacity have made deliberately false representations and abused of entrusted power with full understanding of
their wrongdoing for private gain of Sony Corporation, Sony
Computer Entertainment Inc., Sony Electronics and Hogan Lovells (CIS). There is expert opinion which confirms the above
stated facts.
110. Taking into account ¶¶ 108 - 109 of this Amended Complaint, the judgment and rulings rendered on the
lawsuit No.A40-128053/12-117-1239 by the Arbitration Court of Moscow (April 14, 2015), the Ninth Arbitration Court of
Appeals (June 13, 2015) and the Court for Intellectual Property Rights as the
court of cassation (September 18, 2015) were obtained by fraud that deprived Plaintiff of an
adequate opportunity to present its case.
111. Thus,
in 2015 Plaintiff once again became a victim of
fraudulently attained judgment and rulings rendered by the
Russian courts that have considered the Plaintiff’s
application to review on newly
discovered circumstances the enacted judgment on the lawsuit No.A40-128053/12-117-1239 dated July 17, 2013.
112. If
the Russian court of first instance, the
Russian court of appeals and the Russian court of cassation had
considered impartially the Plaintiff’s
application to review the enacted judgment on the lawsuit No.A40-128053/12-117-1239 dated July 17, 2013 on newly discovered circumstances and
had rendered fair judgment and rulings on the lawsuit, then it
would have been established that the
enacted judgment of the Arbitration Court of Moscow dated July 17, 2013 on the lawsuit is wrong and unjust and therefore Rospatent's
decision to recognize the patent No.2427879 as invalid is illegal. As a result,
Plaintiff would have restored the patent right and the right to get
compensation for the patent infringement.
113. Under
D.C. Code §15-364(c)(2), a court of the
District of Columbia may not recognize a foreign-country judgment if the
judgment was obtained by fraud that deprived the losing party of an adequate
opportunity to present its case.
114. Under
D.C. Code §15-364(c)(7), a court of the
District of Columbia may not recognize a foreign-country judgment if the
judgment was rendered in circumstances that raise substantial doubt about the
integrity of the rendering court with respect to the judgment.
115. Under
D.C. Code §15-364(d), a party resisting
recognition of a foreign-country judgment has the burden of establishing that a
ground for non-recognition stated in subsection (b) or (c) of this section
exists.
116. Sony Corporation and Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. once again induced, abetted
and aided Sony Electronics and corruptly persuaded CEO of Sony Electronics Shigeru
Kumekawa to pay to Hogan Lovells (CIS) not only for its legal services as legal
representative of Sony Electronics in the Russian courts on the lawsuit but also for its (i) unlawful services for corrupting
the Russian judges of three Russian courts who have considered the Plaintiff’s application to review on newly discovered circumstances
the enacted judgment on the lawsuit dated July 17, 2013 in order to
influence wrongfully the adjudications rendered by the Russian judges and (ii) concealment of said
criminal wrongdoing.
117. Sony
Electronics headed by Shigeru Kumekawa once again knowingly paid to Hogan
Lovells (CIS) not only for its legal services as legal representative of Sony
Electronics in the Russian courts on the
lawsuit but also for its
(i) unlawful services for corrupting the Russian judges of three Russian courts
who have considered the Plaintiff’s
application to review on newly
discovered circumstances the enacted judgment on the lawsuit dated July
17, 2013 in order to influence wrongfully the adjudications
rendered by the Russian judges and (ii) concealment of said criminal wrongdoing.
118. Sony
Electronics once again corruptly persuaded Hogan Lovells (CIS) to corrupt the
Russian judges of three Russian courts who have considered the lawsuit on newly
discovered circumstances in order to influence wrongfully the adjudications
rendered by the Russian judges and to conceal said criminal wrongdoing.
119. One
part of payments committed by Sony Electronics in favor of Hogan Lovells (CIS)
was a bribe paid by Sony Electronics to Hogan Lovells (CIS) for its (i) unlawful
services for corrupting the Russian judges of three Russian courts who have
considered the Plaintiff’s application to review on newly discovered circumstances
the enacted judgment on the lawsuit dated July 17, 2013 in order to
influence wrongfully the adjudications rendered by the Russian judges and (ii)
concealment of said criminal wrongdoing.
120. Through
bribing Hogan Lovells (CIS) Sony Electronics headed by Shigeru Kumekawa once
again corruptly persuaded Hogan Lovells (CIS) to corrupt the Russian judges of
three Russian courts who have considered the lawsuit on newly discovered
circumstances in order to influence wrongfully the adjudications rendered by
the Russian judges and to conceal said criminal wrongdoing.
121. Despite in 2014 and 2015 Defendants and their affiliates have
been informed by Plaintiff about the criminal wrongdoing
disclosed in ¶¶ 30 - 86
of this Amended Complaint (see ¶ 87 of this Amended
Complaint), nevertheless, Defendants (i) induced,
abetted and aided Hogan Lovells (CIS) and Sony Electronics to commit the
criminal wrongdoing disclosed in ¶¶ 91 - 120
of this Amended Complaint and to conceal said criminal wrongdoing and (ii)
concealed said criminal wrongdoing disclosed in ¶¶ 30 - 120 of this
Amended Complaint.
122. Through
the commission of the criminal wrongdoing disclosed in ¶¶ 87 - 121 of this Amended Complaint Sony
Corporation, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., Sony Electronics, Hogan Lovells
US LLP, Hogan Lovells International LLP and Hogan Lovells (CIS) ensured sales
of game consoles PlayStation Vita in Russia and thus ensured unjust enrichment
of Sony Group companies and Hogan Lovells.
123. December 24, 2015: answering to the Plaintiff’s second application to review the enacted judgment on the lawsuit No.A40-128053/12-117-1239 dated July 17, 2013 on newly discovered circumstances lawyer of Hogan
Lovells (CIS) Vironika Pilyugina as legal representative of Sony Electronics submitted to the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeals falsified
proofs and concealed from the court circumstances relevant to the lawsuit. This fact is also confirmed by expert
opinion.
124. Sony
Corporation, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. and Sony Electronics gained unfair and
unlawful business advantages from said fraudulent representation (falsifying proofs relevant to the lawsuit and
concealment of circumstances relevant to the lawsuit) committed by Vironika Pilyugina.
125. Sony Corporation and Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. once again induced,
abetted and aided Sony Electronics and corruptly
persuaded CEO of Sony
Electronics Shigeru Kumekawa to pay to Hogan Lovells (CIS) not only for its legal
services as legal representative of Sony Electronics in the Russian court on the lawsuit but also for its fraudulent representation and
concealment of said criminal wrongdoing.
126. Sony
Electronics headed by Shigeru Kumekawa knowingly and willfully paid to Hogan
Lovells (CIS) not only for its legal services as legal representative of Sony
Electronics in the Russian court on the
lawsuit but also for its
fraudulent representation and concealment of said criminal wrongdoing.
127. One
part of payments committed by Sony Electronics in favor of Hogan Lovells (CIS)
was a bribe paid by Sony Electronics to Hogan Lovells (CIS) for said fraudulent
representation.
128. Through
bribing Hogan Lovells (CIS) Sony Electronics corruptly persuaded Hogan Lovells
(CIS) to commit said fraudulent representation and to conceal said criminal
wrongdoing.
129. Hogan
Lovells (CIS) corruptly persuaded lawyer of Hogan Lovells (CIS) Vironika Pilyugina
to commit said fraudulent representation and to conceal said criminal
wrongdoing.
130. Hogan
Lovells (CIS) and lawyer of Hogan Lovells (CIS) Vironika Pilyugina conspired to
commit said fraudulent representation and to conceal said criminal wrongdoing.
131. Despite in 2014 and 2015 Defendants and their affiliates have
been informed by Plaintiff about the criminal wrongdoing
disclosed in ¶¶ 30 - 86
of this Amended Complaint (see ¶ 87 of this Amended
Complaint), nevertheless, Defendants once again (i) induced,
abetted and aided Hogan Lovells (CIS) and Sony Electronics to commit the
criminal wrongdoing disclosed in ¶¶ 123 -
130 of this Amended Complaint and to conceal said criminal wrongdoing.
132. If
lawyer of Hogan Lovells (CIS) Vironika
Pilyugina had not falsified proofs and had not concealed from the court circumstances
relevant to the lawsuit, then it
would have been established by the court that the enacted judgment on the lawsuit No.A40-128053/12-117-1239 dated July 17, 2013 rendered
by the Arbitration
Court of Moscow is wrong and unjust and therefore Rospatent's
decision to recognize the patent as invalid is unlawful. As a result, Plaintiff
would have restored the patent right and the right to get compensation for the
patent infringement in the Russian court.
133. Through
the commission of the criminal wrongdoing disclosed in ¶¶ 123 - 131 of this Amended Complaint Sony
Corporation, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., Sony Electronics, Hogan Lovells
US LLP, Hogan Lovells International LLP and Hogan Lovells (CIS) ensured sales
of game consoles PlayStation Vita in Russia and thus ensured unjust enrichment
of Sony Group companies and Hogan Lovells.
134. In
the period from September 2016 till September 2017 Plaintiff repeatedly
informed in detail Sony Corporation, Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, their
top executives, a large number of Sony Group companies, Hogan Lovells US LLP,
Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells (CIS) and a large number of
partners of Hogan Lovells about the criminal activity disclosed in ¶¶ 14 - 133 of this Amended
Complaint and invited them to undertake measures provided for by the law.
135. Nevertheless, no one of employees and lawyers of Sony
Electronics and Hogan Lovells (CIS) who participated in aforementioned criminal
wrongdoing has been punished or dismissed. Defendants did not demonstrate
the adequacy of the prosecution of employees responsible for the corporation’s
malfeasance.
136. In the beginning of 2017 Plaintiff tried repeatedly to
settle the dispute with Defendants through ADR. All Plaintiff’s proposals
submitted to Defendants in order to settle the dispute alternatively have been ignored.
137. Taking into consideration ¶¶ 14 - 136 of this Amended Complaint, Defendants, their top executives, a large number
of employees, partners and lawyers of Defendants in concert with top
executives, employees and lawyers of their affiliates conspired to conceal and concealed
the above disclosed criminal wrongdoing, obstructed criminal investigations and
defrauded the United States.
138. If
Defendants (i) had undertaken measures provided for by the law, (ii) had not
induced, abetted and aided their affiliates to commit the criminal wrongdoing
disclosed above in this Amended Complaint, (iii) had not concealed the criminal
wrongdoing disclosed above in this Amended Complaint, (iv) had not obstructed criminal investigation and (v) had not
defrauded the United States, then:
(a) it would be established that
Plaintiff has been deprived of the patent and the right to get compensation for
the patent infringement as a result of criminal wrongdoing committed by
Defendants in concert with their affiliates;
(b) Plaintiff would have restored the
patent right and the right to get compensation for the patent infringement;
(c) Defendants would have been obliged to
compensate Plaintiff’s patent infringement damages.
139. As a result of conspiracy and incitements to commit
crimes, bribes, fraudulent representations, concealment of circumstance
relevant to the patent dispute, corrupt practices, wrongful influence
adjudications rendered by Rospatent and the Russian courts, conspiracy to conceal
said criminal wrongdoing, concealment of said criminal wrongdoing from law
enforcement officer, obstruction of criminal investigations and defrauding the
United States committed by Defendants in concert with their affiliates, Plaintiff has been deprived of
the patent and his right to get compensation for the patent infringement that
ensured unjust enrichment of Defendants and their affiliates at the expense of
Plaintiff.
140. December 22, 2017: as a reaction on Plaintiff’s
information about filing of the complaint (Dkt 1) Hogan Lovells’ lawyer Robert
Lindner accused Plaintiff and Inventor of influencing the US elections using
obscene language. The management of Hogan Lovells ignored the request of Plaintiff and Inventor to bring its
apologies for such slander and insult.
VIII.
DEFENDANTS’ LIABILITY
141. For proper understanding the responsibility of Defendants
for their acts, Plaintiff refers to the following provisions of federal
statutes:
(i) 18 U.S.C. §2 provides the following: (a)
whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels,
commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal; (b) whoever willfully causes an act to be
done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against
the United States, is punishable as a principal.
(j) 18 U.S.C. § 371 creates an offense
relating to conspiracy to defraud the United States and
provides the following: if
two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United
States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or
for any purpose. In Hass v. Henkel,
216 U.S. 462 (1910), the Supreme Court stated: The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the
purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any
department of government . . . Any conspiracy which is calculated to obstruct
or impair its efficiency and destroy the value of its operation and reports as
fair, impartial and reasonably accurate, would be to defraud the United States
by depriving it of its lawful right and duty of promulgating or diffusing the
information so officially acquired in the way and at the time required by law
or departmental regulation.
(k) 18 U.S.C. §1001 creates an offense
relating to false statement and
provides the following: if
whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative,
or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and
willfully (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a
material fact; (2) makes
any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document
knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry.
(l) 18 U.S.C.
§1510(a) creates an offense relating to obstruction of criminal investigations and
provides the following: whoever
willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the
communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of
the United States by any person to a criminal investigator.
(m) 18 U.S.C. §1512(b)(1) provides that it shall be unlawful if whoever knowingly
corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in
misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to influence, delay, or prevent the testimony
of any person in an official proceeding.
(n) 18 U.S.C. §1512(b)(3) provides that it shall be unlawful
if whoever knowingly corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so,
or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to prevent
the communication to a law enforcement officer of information relating to the
commission or possible commission of a federal offense.
(o) 18 U.S.C. §1961(1) provides that ‘Racketeering activity’ means: (A) any act … involving ….bribery, ………….;
(B) any act which is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code: …….. section 1510
(relating to obstruction of criminal investigations), …… section 1512 (relating
to tampering with a witness…), …….. .
142. In violation of 18 U.S.C. §2 and 18 U.S.C. §371 Sony Corporation, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. and Hogan Lovells (CIS) conspired to commit and to
conceal any possible acts, including the violation
of criminal statute of the United States, in order to deprive Plaintiff of the
patent and thus to ensure unjust enrichment of Sony Group companies at the expense
of Plaintiff.
143. In violation of 18 U.S.C. §2, 18 U.S.C. §1001, 18 U.S.C.
§1510(a), 18 U.S.C. §1512(b)(1), 18 U.S.C. §1512(b)(3), 18 U.S.C. §1961(1)(A) and 18
U.S.C. §1961(1)(B), Sony
Corporation and Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. repeatedly induced, abetted and
aided Sony Electronics
and corruptly persuaded several CEO of Sony
Electronics:
(a) to pay to Hogan
Lovells (CIS) not only for its legal services of Hogan Lovells (CIS) as legal
representative of Sony Electronics in Rospatent and in the Russian courts but also for its (i) fraudulent
representations and concealment of circumstances relevant to the lawsuit while
the patent dispute had been considering in Rospatent and in the Russian courts, (ii) corrupting top executives of
Rospatent and the Russian judges, (iii) wrongful influence on adjudications of
Rospatent and the Russian courts, (iv) concealment of said criminal wrongdoing;
(b) to conceal said criminal wrongdoing.
144. From the beginning of 2012 till the end of 2015, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2, 18 U.S.C. §1001, 18 U.S.C.
§1510(a), 18 U.S.C. §1512(b)(1), 18 U.S.C. §1512(b)(3), 18 U.S.C. §1961(1)(A) and 18
U.S.C. §1961(1)(B), Sony
Electronics repeatedly induced,
corruptly persuaded and bribed Hogan Lovells
(CIS) (i) to falsify proofs and to conceal circumstances relevant to the
lawsuit while the patent dispute had been considering in Rospatent and in the
Russian courts and (ii) to corrupt top executives of Rospatent and the Russian judges, (iii) to
influence wrongfully the adjudications of Rospatent and the Russian courts, (iv) to conceal said criminal wrongdoing.
145. From the beginning of 2012 till the end of 2015, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2, 18 U.S.C. §1001, 18 U.S.C.
§1510(a), 18 U.S.C. §1512(b)(1), 18 U.S.C. §1512(b)(3), 18 U.S.C. §1961(1)(A) and 18
U.S.C. §1961(1)(B), Sony Electronics willfully and repeatedly paid to Hogan
Lovells (CIS) not only for its legal services as legal representative of Sony
Electronics in Rospatent and in the Russian courts but also for its (i) fraudulent
representations and fraudulent concealment of circumstances relevant to the
lawsuit while the patent dispute had been considering in Rospatent and in the
Russian courts, (ii) corrupting top executives of Rospatent and the Russian
judges, (iii) wrongful influence on the adjudications of Rospatent and the
Russian courts, (iv)
concealment of said conspiracy and criminal wrongdoing.
146. In violation of 18 U.S.C. §1001, 18 U.S.C.
§1512(b)(1), 18 U.S.C. §1961(1)(A), 18 U.S.C. §1961(1)(B), while the patent
dispute had been considering in Rospatent and in the Russian courts Hogan
Lovells (CIS) (i) falsified proofs and concealed circumstances relevant to the
patent dispute, (ii) corrupted top executives of Rospatent and the Russian
judges, (iii) wrongfully influenced the adjudications of Rospatent and the
Russian courts and (iv) concealed
said criminal wrongdoing.
147. In violation of 18 U.S.C. §2, 18 U.S.C. §1001, 18 U.S.C.
§1510(a), 18 U.S.C. §1512(b)(1), 18 U.S.C. §1512(b)(3), 18 U.S.C. §1961(1)(A) and 18
U.S.C. §1961(1)(B), Hogan Lovells (CIS) (i) repeatedly corruptly persuaded
lawyers of Hogan Lovells (CIS) to falsify proofs and to conceal circumstances relevant to the lawsuit while the patent dispute had been considering in Rospatent and in the Russian
courts, (ii) to conceal said criminal
wrongdoing.
148. In violation of 18 U.S.C. §2, 18 U.S.C. §1001, 18 U.S.C.
§1510(a), 18 U.S.C. §1512(b)(1), 18 U.S.C. §1512(b)(3), 18 U.S.C. §1961(1)(A) and 18
U.S.C. §1961(1)(B), Hogan
Lovells US LLP and Hogan Lovells International LLP repeatedly induced, abetted
and aided Hogan Lovells (CIS)
and corruptly persuaded lawyers of Hogan Lovells (CIS) (i) to falsify proofs and to conceal circumstances relevant to the lawsuit while the patent dispute had been considering in the Russian courts, (ii) to
corrupt the Russian judges while the patent dispute had been considering in the
Russian courts, (iii) to influence wrongfully the adjudications of the Russian courts
and (iv) to conceal
said criminal wrongdoing.
149. In violation of 18 U.S.C. §2, 18 U.S.C. §1001, 18 U.S.C.
§1510(a), 18 U.S.C. §1512(b)(1), 18 U.S.C. §1512(b)(3), 18 U.S.C. §1961(1)(A) and 18
U.S.C. §1961(1)(B), Sony
Corporation, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC,
Hogan Lovells US LLP and Hogan Lovells International LLP knowingly and
willfully induced, abetted and aided Sony Electronics and Hogan
Lovells (CIS) to violate the criminal statute of the United States and to conceal
said criminal wrongdoing.
150. In violation of 18 U.S.C. §2, 18 U.S.C. §371, 18 U.S.C. §1001, 18 U.S.C.
§1510(a), 18 U.S.C. §1512(b)(3), Defendants in concert with their affiliates conspired
to conceal and concealed the violation of the
criminal statute of the United States committed by Defendants
in concern with their affiliates, obstructed criminal
investigation and thus defrauded the
United States in order to ensure unjust
enrichment of Defendants at the expense of Plaintiff.
VII.
DAMAGES
Count I. Unjust Enrichment
151. Unjust enrichment means when a person unfairly
gets a benefit by chance, mistake or another's misfortune for which the one
enriched has not paid or worked and morally and ethically should not keep. A
person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another must legally
return the unfairly kept money or benefits. Unjust enrichment is an equitable
doctrine applied in the absence of a contract and used to prevent one person
from being unjustly enriched at another's expense.
152. The Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust
Enrichment states that unjust enrichment is enrichment that lacks an adequate
legal basis. The doctrine of unjust enrichment applies “when a person retains a
benefit (usually money) which in justice and equity belongs to another.” Jordan
Keys & Jessamy, LLP v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 870 A.2d 58, 63
(D.C. 2005). The recipient of such a benefit has “a duty to make restitution to
the other person ‘if the circumstances of its receipt or retention are such
that, as between the two persons, it is unjust for [the recipient] to retain
it.’” Id. (quoting RESTATEMENT OF RESTITUTION § 1 cmt. c (AM. LAW INST. 1937)).
153. To recover on a
theory of unjust enrichment …" the plaintiff "must show that [the
defendant] was unjustly enriched at his expense and that the circumstances were
such that in good conscience [the defendant] should make restitution." Id.
The FRED EZRA COMPANY, Appellant, v. Theodore PEDAS et al., Appellees. No.
95-CV-631, 682 A.2d
173 (1996).
154. “Unjust enrichment occurs when: (1) the plaintiff
conferred a benefit on the defendant; (2) the defendant retains the benefit;
and (3) under the circumstances, the defendant’s retention of the benefit is
unjust.” Euclid St., LLC v. District of Columbia Water & Sewer Auth., 41
A.3d 453, 463 n.10 (D.C. 2012).
155. Thus, “a claim for unjust enrichment
accrues only when the enrichment actually becomes unlawful, i.e., where there
has been a wrongful act giving rise to a duty of restitution.” Thompsen, 878
A.2d at 1225”. United States Court of
Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, Michael J. BREGMAN, Appellant v. Steven
R. PERLES, et al., Appellees. No. 12–7091, April 01, 2014.
156. Based on the calculation of damages suffered by Plaintiff
as a result of wrongdoing committed by Defendants (said
calculation is available in Count Thirty of the original complaint, Dkt.1), Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for damages of $340,000,000.
157. This cause of action is based on the doctrine of
unjust enrichment and it is not civil remedies under 18 USC §1964(c).
Count II. Pain and Suffering Damages
158. Defendants caused to Plaintiff and
Inventor pain and suffering damages that is confirmed by the following facts:
(a) The Board of Directors of Sony Corporation adopted May
28, 2003 the Sony Group Code of Conduct. Taking into account provisions of said
Code of Conduct, Plaintiff and Inventor were sure
that Sony
Corporation, Sony Computer Entertainment Inc., Sony
Interactive Entertainment LLC and Sony
Electronica are law-abiding companies and will respect the patent rights of
Plaintiff and Inventor. It turned out
quite the contrary. There is a
great distance between provisions of said Code of Conduct and facts
disclosed in the present amended complaint. Sony Corporation and Sony
Interactive Entertainment LLC are in fact criminal
companies. Said manifest
disrespect showed by Sony Corporation and Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC to
intellectual property rights of Plaintiff and Inventor caused to Plaintiff and Inventor and continues to cause to
Plaintiff mental suffering and emotional distress.
(b) Hogan Lovells has multiple awards and has high
rankings over the years. Plaintiff and Inventor were sure that Hogan Lovells as
international legal practice, including Hogan Lovells US
LLP, Hogan Lovells International LLP and Hogan Lovells (CIS), is a law-abiding company and will respect the rights
of Plaintiff and Inventor. It turned out quite the contrary. Hogan Lovells is
in fact a criminal company. Said manifest disrespect showed by Hogan Lovells to
intellectual property rights of Plaintiff and Inventor caused to Plaintiff and Inventor and continues to cause to
Plaintiff mental suffering and emotional distress.
(c) As a result of deliberate violation
of the criminal statute of the United States committed by Defendants, their affiliates, top
executives, employees and lawyers Plaintiff and Inventor have been wrongfully deprived of the right to get
compensation for the patent infringement that caused to Plaintiff and Inventor and continues to cause to
Plaintiff mental suffering and emotional distress.
(d) Despite multiple appeals of Plaintiff and
Inventor to Defendants, their affiliates, top executives, employees and lawyers, nevertheless, Defendants, fully understanding their wrongdoing, have not
demonstrated their desire to contact with Plaintiff and Inventor with a view to
pay restitution for their deliberate criminal wrongdoing. On the contrary, Defendants have ignored all invitations of Plaintiff and Inventor to
settle the dispute and to compensate damages in the pretrial order. In other words, Defendants do not feel any regret about their criminal wrongdoing
that caused to Plaintiff and
Inventor and continues to cause to Plaintiff mental suffering and emotional distress.
(e) Defendants displayed actual intent to cause losses to Plaintiff and
Inventor that caused to Plaintiff and Inventor and continues to cause to Plaintiff mental suffering and emotional distress.
(f) In order to ensure unjust
enrichment at the expense of Plaintiff and Inventor Defendants in concert with
their affiliates knowingly and willfully violated criminal statute of the
United States that caused to Plaintiff and Inventor and
continues to cause to Plaintiff
mental suffering and emotional distress.
(g) Defendants
knowingly, willfully and wrongfully have deprived Inventor as the author of two
inventions which were protected by the patent of the author's right to the
name. Such blatant injustice and deception caused to
Plaintiff and Inventor and continues to cause to Plaintiff mental suffering and emotional distress.
(h) Wrongful invalidation of the patent invalidated also dozens
of embodiments of the first and the second inventions which have been protected
by the patent that caused to Plaintiff and Inventor and continue to cause to Plaintiff mental suffering and emotional distress.
(i) It was said at Hogan Lovells’ official website that
Natalia Gulyaeva as the partner of Hogan Lovells advised Sony Corporation and
Sony Computer Entertainment Inc. on patent licensing in Russia and represented
the client in the patent disputes with the Russian patent trolls. Said
allegation refers to Plaintiff and Inventor as the owner of the patent. Plaintiff
and Inventor are not patent trolls. Said Hogan Lovells’ deliberate pejorative usage of term
“patent trolls” towards Plaintiff and Inventor is a defamation that discredits Plaintiff
and caused to Plaintiff and
Inventor
and continues to cause to Plaintiff mental suffering and emotional distress.
(j) Defendants have discriminated
human rights of Plaintiff and Inventor just because Plaintiff and Inventor lived
in the Russian Federation where corruption is rampant. If Plaintiff and
Inventor had lived in the United States, then, Defendants could
not commit the above mentioned offenses against Plaintiff and Inventor. Thus,
it turns out that the respect or disrespect for human rights of people by Defendants
depends on the country these
people live. Said manifest discrimination
of the human rights of Plaintiff and Inventor caused to Plaintiff and Inventor and continues to cause to Plaintiff
mental suffering and emotional distress.
(k) Deliberate violation of the
criminal statute of the United States
committed by Defendants, their top executives, employees and lawyers disrupted Plaintiff’s and Inventor’s professional
plans as Plaintiff and Inventor were forced during 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014,
2015, 2016 and 2017 to spend a lot of time to protect their rights knowingly
and willfully violated by Defendants that caused to
Plaintiff and Inventor and continues to cause to Plaintiff mental suffering and emotional distress.
(l) December 22, 2017: Hogan Lovells accused Plaintiff and
Inventor of influencing the US elections using obscene language. The
management of Hogan Lovells ignored the request
of Plaintiff and Inventor to bring its apologies for such slander and insult. Such
slander and insult together with
actual refusal of Hogan Lovell’s management to bring its apologies caused to Plaintiff and Inventor and continues to cause to
Plaintiff mental suffering and emotional distress.
(m) Unconcealed and blatant injustice knowingly and
willfully committed by Defendants in concert with their affiliates for many
years caused to Inventor mental suffering and emotional distress and impacted
extremely negative on his health and April 23, 2018 he died before reaching the
age of 51.
(n) Inventor was not only Plaintiff’s partner in business
and creative activity but also a friend. His untimely death caused by
unconcealed and blatant injustice knowingly and willfully committed by
Defendants in concert with their affiliates for many years is causing to Plaintiff mental suffering and
emotional distress.
159. Justice is expressed in adequacy of
legal liability. In this regard, Defendants will grasp their legal liability
for pain and suffering damages caused to Plaintiff and procedural successor of
Inventor if the Court will set a fair and commensurate amount of compensation.
Count III. Punitive Damages
160. Punitive damages is a
monetary compensation awarded to an injured party that goes beyond that which
is necessary to compensate the individual for losses and that is intended to
punish the wrongdoer. Punitive
damages are usually reserved for when the defendant has displayed actual intent to cause harm. The purposes of punitive damages are to punish a defendant and to deter
similar acts in the future.
161. Defendants acted
with deliberate intent to cause harm to Plaintiff and Inventor with full
understanding that their conduct is wrongful, with willful disregard for the
rights of Plaintiff and Inventor. Defendants’ conduct is outrageous,
fraudulent, egregiously insidious and particularly reprehensible. Defendants do not feel any regret about committed by them aforementioned
wrongdoing.
VIII.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiff
respectfully prays for relief and judgment against all Defendants,
jointly and severally, as follows:
A. That this Court
issue a permanent injunction that will do the following:
(i) Prohibit each Defendant and its successors, officers,
employees, and all persons acting in concert with each Defendant, to violate
any criminal statute of the United States and associate directly or indirectly,
with any other person known to them to be engaged in such violation or with any
person in concert or participation with them.
(ii) Order each Defendant to disclose and make available to
the Department of Justice all documents and evidence relating to the violation
of the criminal statute of the United States committed, directly or indirectly, by Defendants and their
respective agents, affiliates, servants, officers, directors, employees and all
persons acting in concert with them.
B. That this Court
issue a declaratory judgment that will do the following:
(a) Pursuant to D.C.
Code §15-364 declare that the United States District Court of the
District of Columbia does not recognize the following foreign-country judgments and rulings:
i. The judgment of the Arbitration Court of
Moscow dated July 17, 2013, the ruling of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeals dated October 3, 2013 and the
ruling of the Court for Intellectual Property Rights as the court of cassation
dated December 6, 2013 rendered on the lawsuit No.A40-128053/12-117-1239.
ii. The judgment of the Arbitration Court of
Moscow dated April 14, 2015, the ruling of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeals dated June 30, 2015 and the ruling of the of the Court for Intellectual Property Rights as
the court of cassation dated September 18, 2015 rendered on the lawsuit No.A40-128053/12-117-1239 on newly discovered
circumstances.
(b) Declare that the invention under the patent is used in game console PlayStation Vita.
C. Award
compensatory damages for Plaintiff in the amount of $340,000,000 on
Count I.
D. Award pain and
suffering damages for Plaintiff and procedural
successor of Miroshnichenko Vladimir Vitalievich (former Plaintiff before his
death) on Count II.
E. Award punitive
damages on Count III.
F. Grant Plaintiff
both pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law.
G. Grant Plaintiff
such other and further relief as this Court finds just and proper.
IX.
DEMAND
FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff demands a trial by
jury on all issues in this action.
Date: June 21, 2018
Respectfully submitted,
Vitaly Pilkin
Plaintiff Pro Se
1/1, Vereskovaya Street,
apartment 111,
Moscow, 129329,
Russian Federation,
Phone: +79852225545.
E-mail: vitalypilkin@gmail.com
