Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 1 of 89 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION Sandpiper CDN, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Case No. Microsoft Corporation, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT Plaintiff Sandpiper CDN, LLC (“Sandpiper CDN,” “Sandpiper,” or “Plaintiff”) hereby files this Complaint for patent infringement against Defendant Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft” or “Defendant”), and alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. This case involves Microsoft’s willful infringement of Sandpiper CDN’s patents. Sandpiper’s patents, which cover foundational aspects of content delivery network (“CDN”) and other networking technologies, enable Microsoft’s $100 billion-per-year Azure business1 and other wildly successful Microsoft business units. 2. In June 2025, Sandpiper CDN sued Microsoft in the Eastern District of Texas alleging that Microsoft willfully infringes six patents core to CDN and microservices technologies through operation of Microsoft’s own CDNs for itself and through the paid Azure CDN service it 1 See “Press Release & Webcast; Earnings Release FY26 Q4” July 29, 2026 https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/investor/earnings/fy-2026-q4/press-release-webcast (“This year, Azure revenue surpassed $100 billion for the first time. . . .”). 1 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 2 of 89 PageID #: 2 sells to others. Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft, No. 25-664-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 1 (E.D. Tex. June 24, 2025) (hereinafter, “Microsoft I”). In Microsoft I, Sandpiper CDN explained how, in 2006, Microsoft offered tens of millions of dollars for a deal in which Microsoft would have acquired all of the patents now owned by Sandpiper CDN, but when the bidding reached $135 million, Microsoft decided to pay nothing and use the patented technology anyway. See Microsoft I, Dkt. 41, ¶¶ 47-53. 3. Microsoft’s willful infringement extends to the patents in this case by other, distinct Azure technologies. For example, while Microsoft I did not include patents from the Intelligent Traffic Manager (“ITM”) family of patents, this case does, and these ITM patents were of particular interest to Microsoft even after Microsoft’s failed bid in 2006 to acquire the entire patent portfolio now held by Sandpiper CDN. Indeed, Level 3, after paying $135 million for these patents, operated its own ITM service, explaining that “Intelligent Traffic Manager (ITM) is a DNS-based, web administered, global load balancing service,” and that Level 3 practices ITM patents in providing its services.2 A decade later, Microsoft decided to copy Sandpiper’s ITM product and, by at least 2017, released its own “Intelligent Traffic Manager,” explaining “Azure Traffic Manager is a global load balancer” that “uses the Domain Name System (DNS) protocol.”3 And to this day, Microsoft 2 See Intelligent Traffic Manager (ITM) Global Load Balancing Service https://assets.lumen.com/is/content/Lumen/Service-Guide-ITM-Services- 20140423pdf?Creativeid=f6f344ff-d8df-4717-8323-8a2039ac51fa; see also Level 3, “Legal,” https://web.archive.org/web/20141012113846/http://www.level3.com/en/legal/ (“Certain Level 3 content delivery services are provisioned using systems, methods, and/or functionality covered by one or more of the following U.S. Patents: … 7,822,871”). 3 See “Microsoft CEO Mentions Containers and Serverless Computing in Keynote,” Sept. 25, 2017, https://www.sdxcentral.com/news/microsoft-ceo-mentions-containers-and-serverless-computing-in- keynote/ (“As for serverless computing, Microsoft last month added an intelligent traffic manager to its plans with the unveiling of its Azure Event Grid routing service.”); “Architecture best practices for Azure Traffic Manager,” https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/well-architected/service- guides/azure-traffic-manager; “Azure Front Door: Implementing lessons learned following October outages,” https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/azurenetworkingblog/azure-front-door- implementing-lessons-learned-following-october-outages/4479416 (“We have a highly distributed resilient architecture, which protects against failures at the server, rack, site and even at the regional level. This resiliency is achieved by the use of our intelligent traffic management layer ….”). 2 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 3 of 89 PageID #: 3 refers to its Azure Traffic Manager interchangeably as “Intelligent Traffic Management” and depicts it architecturally in public-facing documents as its own architecture:4 4. As explained below, Microsoft also learned of the ITM patent family and its application to CDN services provided by Microsoft at least through public filings in Microsoft I. 5. In addition, there are multiple other infringing Microsoft technologies distinct from those accused of infringement in Microsoft I, as described below. Despite all of the above, over a year after the filing of Microsoft I, Microsoft still has not ceased infringing or paid for a license to any of the patents Sandpiper CDN owns and that Microsoft tried, and failed, to acquire rights to before Microsoft began its infringement. Sandpiper CDN thus files this second lawsuit to hold 4 See “Azure Front Door: Implementing lessons learned following October outages” Dec. 18, 2025 https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/azurenetworkingblog/azure-front-door-implementing- lessons-learned-following-october-outages/4479416. 3 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 4 of 89 PageID #: 4 Microsoft accountable for its continuing and willful infringement of different Sandpiper CDN patents covering distinct but vitally important Microsoft technologies. NATURE OF THE ACTION 6. This is a civil action against Microsoft for patent infringement arising under the patent statutes of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq., for the infringement of United States Patent Nos. 9,021,112, 7,822,871, 7,860,964, 10,116,738, 8,645,517, 9,660,876, 9,647,899, and 8,156,066 (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”). A true and correct copy of each Asserted Patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibits A-H. Each of the Asserted Patents is owned by Plaintiff Sandpiper CDN, and Plaintiff and/or its predecessors-in-interest have satisfied all statutory obligations required to collect pre- and post-filing damages for the full period allowed by law for infringement of the Asserted Patents, including compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287. PARTIES 7. Plaintiff Sandpiper CDN is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware. 8. Defendant Microsoft Corporation is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052. Upon information and belief, Microsoft has been registered to do business in Texas since March 13, 1995, and may be served with process via its registered agent: Corporation Service Company, d/b/a CSC – Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 9. This action arises under the patent statutes of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Microsoft in this action because Microsoft 4 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 5 of 89 PageID #: 5 conducts business in and has committed acts of patent infringement within this District and the State of Texas and has established minimum contacts with the forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over Microsoft would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 11. Microsoft directly and/or through subsidiaries and intermediaries has engaged in continuous, systematic, and substantial activities within this State, including substantial marketing, offering, and sales of products and services. These products and services include Microsoft products and services comprising the accused Content Delivery Network (“CDN”) functionalities. 12. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and/or 1400(b). Defendant maintains regular and established places of business in the Eastern District of Texas and the State of Texas, regularly transacts business in the Eastern District of Texas, and has committed and continues to commit acts of patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas. 13. Personal jurisdiction over Defendant Microsoft is proper in this District because, among other things, Microsoft has seven corporate offices in the State of Texas and employs hundreds of people therein. Microsoft represents that one of those offices is in Frisco, Texas, and thus within this District.5 14. Additionally, Microsoft operates Microsoft Windows Stores within at least ten Best Buy retail locations throughout the State of Texas, including in this District. According to Microsoft, these Windows Stores are a “comprehensive store-within-a-store,” with dedicated “Microsoft specialists” serving Best Buy customers within this “unique environment.”6 These locations are operated by Microsoft within Best Buy stores and are regular and established places of business for 5 Microsoft, Microsoft U.S. Office Locations (available at https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/about/officelocator/all-offices?msockid=325270f10c6b61543e3b64490de760b4). 6 Microsoft, Microsoft and Best Buy announce the Windows Store only at Best Buy, (available at https://news.microsoft.com/source/2013/06/13/microsoft-and-best-buy-announce-the-windows- store-only-at-best-buy-2/). 5 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 6 of 89 PageID #: 6 Microsoft. Indeed, as Microsoft’s vice president of computing for Best Buy put it, “The Windows Store creates the kind of retail destination we all want to shop in, combining great selection, the latest technology, the best service and the lowest prices.”7 Microsoft maintains its distinct business identity at these locations, renting the space from Best Buy and holding out its Windows Stores as discrete retail locations.8 15. Further, Microsoft owns and maintains millions of dollars of real property in Collin County, located within this District.9 16. Microsoft similarly owns and maintains tens of thousands of dollars in business personal property registered at several Best Buy locations in Denton County, also within this District.10 17. Microsoft also holds approximately $2 million worth of business personal property, including data servers, at Aligned Data Center, located at 2800 Summit Avenue, Plano, TX 75074, which is within this District. 18. Microsoft’s website confirms that its “Azure Content Delivery Network” has a “point of presence (POP) location[]” in “Plano, TX, USA.”11 19. Upon information and belief, Microsoft’s Azure POP location operates out of the Aligned Data Center located in this District. 20. Compounding its significant connections to this District, in 2023 Microsoft 7 Id. 8 Microsoft, Talking Retail: The New Windows Store Only at Best Buy (June 13, 2013), (available at https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2013/06/13/talking-retail-the-new-windows-store- only-at-best-buy/). 9 See Collin Central Appraisal District, Property Search (available at https://esearch.collincad.org) (search results for “Microsoft”). 10 See Denton Central Appraisal District, Property Search (available at https://www.dentoncad.com/property-search) (search results for “Microsoft”). 11 Microsoft, “Azure Content Delivery Network Coverage by Metro,” Sept. 27, 2024 (available at https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cdn/cdn-pop-locations). 6 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 7 of 89 PageID #: 7 announced a multi-billion-dollar deal with specialist cloud computing provider CoreWeave to use its datacenters for some of Microsoft’s Azure AI workloads.12 This deal will include Microsoft’s use of CoreWeave’s $1.6 billion datacenter in Plano, Texas, located in this District.13 Microsoft is currently CoreWeave’s biggest customer.14 21. Courts have repeatedly found jurisdiction over Microsoft to be proper in the Eastern District of Texas, including in numerous patent disputes where Microsoft consented to jurisdiction for or litigated in this District, including in Microsoft I.15 22. Microsoft has targeted and continues to direct its business activities toward this District. Given Microsoft’s substantial business and property in this District and the State of Texas, and because of its ongoing infringing activities in this District, Microsoft is subject to this Court’s general and specific jurisdiction pursuant to due process and the Texas Long Arm statute. 23. Venue is likewise proper in this District because of Microsoft’s numerous physical places of business, employees, and property ownership in this District, and because Microsoft has repeatedly consented to litigation in this District. Moreover, as described more fully below, on 12 See Sebastian Moss, Datacenter Dynamics, “Microsoft signs multi-billion dollar deal with GPU cloud provider CoreWeave to meet AI needs” (available at https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/microsoft-signs-multi-billion-dollar-deal-with-gpu- cloud-provider-coreweave-to-meet-ai-needs/). 13 See Sebastian Moss, Datacenter Dynamics, “CoreWeave plans $1.6bn AI cloud data center in Plano, Texas” (available at https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/coreweave-plans-16bn-ai- cloud-data-center-in-plano-texas/). 14 See Reinhardt Krause, CoreWeave Stock Rockets to New High Amid New Data Center Leasing Deal, Investor’s Business Daily, (available at https://www.investors.com/news/technology/coreweave-stock-new-high-nvidia-stock-applied- digital/). 15 See, e.g., Dialect, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 2:24-cv-01067-JRG, Dkt. 13 at paras 12-16 (E.D. Tex. May 19, 2025) (admitting for purposes of this case that Microsoft is subject to personal jurisdiction in EDTX); VPN Tech. Holdings, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 2:25-cv-00001-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 12 at paras 5-7 (Feb. 24, 2025) (admitting personal jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction in EDTX for this case); i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 398 F. Supp. 3d 90 (E.D. Tex. 2019) (declining to contest personal jurisdiction in patent infringement litigation); Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 302 F. Supp. 3d 797 (E.D. Tex. 2018) (declining to contest personal jurisdiction in patent infringement litigation). 7 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 8 of 89 PageID #: 8 information and belief Microsoft commits acts of infringement in this District, including by performing the methods of the Asserted Claims (or at least one or more steps of these method claims) of the Asserted Patents through its CDN POP(s) and/or data centers in this District and otherwise delivering content to end users in this District through the accused CDN services. 24. Venue is also proper and convenient in this District because Sandpiper’s patent portfolio has been litigated in this District, including specific patents asserted in this case. In November 2024, Sandpiper sued Comcast in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting patents within the same portfolio as those asserted in this case, including the ’876 patent asserted against Microsoft in this case. Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Comcast Cable Comm’s, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00886-JRG (E.D. Tex. Nov. 1, 2024) (hereinafter, “Comcast”). Comcast filed a motion to transfer, which was denied, and then filed for mandamus with the Federal Circuit seeking to set aside denial of transfer, which was also denied.16 The case proceeded through claim construction, fact discovery, and expert reports, settling during expert discovery.17 SANDPIPER NETWORKS REVOLUTIONIZES NETWORKING TECHNOLOGIES VITAL FOR CONTENT DELIVERY 25. Today, content delivery networks (“CDN”) enable content providers to quickly deliver online information to millions of consumers simultaneously. But this has not always been the case. 26. In the early 1990s, the Internet rapidly evolved from burgeoning technology to household staple in the span of a few years. This mass adoption led to data congestion issues, as a quickly expanding user base sought simultaneous access to Internet content. The typical computer server in the 1990s was only capable of handling a limited number of simultaneous connections before 16 Id., Dkt. 67, 82; see also in re Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, et al., 26-104 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2025) available at https://fedcircuitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/26-104_Comcast_Order.pdf 17 Comcast, Dkt. 113, 134 (May 4, 2026). 8 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 9 of 89 PageID #: 9 it became overloaded, leading to congested network segments, overburdened servers, and sluggish load times. The problem was even more pronounced for Internet users who lived far from the physical servers hosting their content, who experienced more lag and higher latency due to the geographic distance their signals traveled through physical internet cables. 27. Andrew Swart and David Farber were among the first individuals to develop services that allowed content providers to avoid the common congestion and performance issues that plagued Internet transmission in the mid-1990s. One of their solutions was to deploy CDN servers around the world that would more evenly distribute where data was processed. Mr. Swart and Mr. Farber developed infrastructure that replicated content requested from customers’ origin servers to appropriate CDN servers and transparently rendezvoused the request to the CDN server best able to deliver that content. Their invention helped transform the early Internet, making it more efficient, responsive, and adaptable to users. Unsurprisingly, this service and its architecture were quickly imitated by many others in the industry, including Microsoft. 28. The CDN technology developed by Mr. Swart and Mr. Farber connected consumers to an edge server with available bandwidth that was geographically closer to them. This revolutionary approach provided numerous technical benefits. For example, distributing content across a network of servers alleviated data congestion issues, while connecting consumers to nearby edge servers— rather than distant origin servers—reduced latency. Mr. Swart and Mr. Farber developed and built systems and methods for propagating data from origin servers to edge servers (in one example, a process known as “caching”) for storage and delivery to clients based on network demand/traffic. 29. In 1996, Mr. Swart and Mr. Farber founded Sandpiper Networks Inc. (“Sandpiper Networks”) to further develop and commercialize their novel CDN concepts. By at least May 24, 1996, the Sandpiper Networks team developed infrastructure for delivering streaming resources, such as audio and video, using Sandpiper’s CDN. 9 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 10 of 89 PageID #: 10 30. Sandpiper Networks labored not only to build and implement its CDN, but also to protect its groundbreaking innovation through patent protection. Recognizing that its inventions could revolutionize content delivery worldwide, Sandpiper Networks filed numerous patent applications directed to its foundational CDN technology. 31. From at least May 1998 and through 1999, Sandpiper Networks partnered directly with content providers to cache and deliver their content to end consumers through their CDN. Sandpiper Networks’ first paying customer, the L.A. Times, paid Sandpiper Networks to host the report of Independent Counsel Ken Starr on his investigation of President Bill Clinton (“the Starr Report”) beginning on September 11, 1998. 32. Sandpiper Networks continued gaining widespread notoriety and won numerous awards for its CDN products and services during this time.18 33. In December 1999, Sandpiper merged with Digital Island, Inc. (“Digital Island”) in a deal valued at $1.1B (approximately $2.1B today, adjusting for inflation) with the aim of creating a global computer network that would facilitate consumer e-commerce transactions.19 Digital Island then filed additional patent applications directed to and complementary to CDN technology. 34. Following a series of acquisitions, on or about 2004, the assets of Digital Island and the Sandpiper Networks’ patents were purchased by the data center company Savvis Inc. (“Savvis”). 18 See Nick Wingfield, The Wall Street Journal, “Sandpiper Networks’ Footprint Takes Aim at Internet Traffic” (June 17, 1999), https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB929571998724587925?st=DAy23s&reflink=desktopwebshare_per malink; Karen Kaplan, Los Angeles Times, “Sandpiper Networks’ Footprint Wins Award” (May 31, 1999), https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-may-31-fi-42763-story.html; CBR Staff Writer, Tech Monitor, “Sandpiper Adds RealSystem G2 to its Content Delivery Network” (Aug. 4, 1999), https://www.techmonitor.ai/technology/sandpiper_adds_realsystem_g2_to_its_content_delivery_net work); Barbara Murphy, Los Angeles Times, “Sandpiper Networks Given Investor’s Choice Award” (Oct. 5, 1999) https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-oct-05-me-18779-story.html. 19 Karen Kaplan, L.A. Times, “Sandpiper Networks to Merge with Digital Island in $1.1-Billion Deal” (Oct. 9, 1999) https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-oct-26-fi-26295-story.html. 10 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 11 of 89 PageID #: 11 35. In January 2007, Savvis’ CDN service assets, including the CDNs and patents of Digital Island and Sandpiper Networks, were acquired by Level 3 Communications (“Level 3”). 36. Following the January 2007 acquisition of Sandpiper’s CDN and patents, Level 3 continued innovating upon the technologies described in the Sandpiper Networks and Digital Island patents. Level 3 patented these innovations and eventually became one of the foremost CDN operators in the U.S. 37. Level 3 was acquired by CenturyLink on or about November 2017, and the combined company rebranded as Lumen Technologies, or simply “Lumen,” in September 2020.20 Lumen is headquartered in Monroe, Louisiana, which is approximately a two-hour drive from Marshall, Texas. 38. Sandpiper CDN, a successor to Sandpiper Networks, now holds all rights and title to a portfolio of more than 400 patents resulting from the many years of research and development, hundreds of millions of dollars in capital investment, and ingenuity of numerous engineers employed by Sandpiper CDN and its predecessors. Like Sandpiper Networks, Sandpiper CDN was co-founded and is co-owned by Mr. Swart who, in addition to licensing its foundational patent portfolio, continues to seek commercialization of the Footprint CDN software as well.21 MICROSOFT’S INFRINGEMENT OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS 39. In the early-to-mid 2000s, as demand for CDNs continued its precipitous rise, numerous other companies entered the CDN market to take advantage of the increased demand. These companies commercialized their own CDNs by incorporating the foundational CDN technology pioneered and patented by Sandpiper Networks. 40. The misappropriation of Sandpiper Networks’ patents capitalized on, and 20 See Lumen, “Level 3 Financing completes sale of Sustainability-Linked Senior Notes,” (Jan. 13, 2021), https://ir.lumen.com/news/news-details/2021/Level-3-Financing-completes-sale-of- Sustainability-Linked-Senior-Notes/default.aspx. 21 See generally, https://sandpiper-cdn.com. 11 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 12 of 89 PageID #: 12 undermined, the significant financial investment and years of research into CDN development and implementation undertaken by Sandpiper Networks and its successors. 41. Microsoft is one such company. Beginning in the mid-2000s and throughout the 2010s, as widely used Microsoft products such as the Office suite, the cloud computing platform Azure, and XBOX gaming systems expanded their online operations, Microsoft started relying heavily on third-party CDNs to efficiently deliver its content to consumers. 42. In 2007, for example, 95% of all Microsoft’s online content was delivered by third- party CDNs. Level 3 provided Microsoft with CDN content delivery capabilities, including ITM services, using the technology underlying its patents, including one or more of the Asserted Patents at this time. 43. Microsoft’s General Manager for the Edge Computing Network acknowledged this reliance on Level 3 and third-party CDNs for content delivery in his keynote address at the 2009 Content Delivery Summit.22 By then, as that presentation highlighted, Microsoft was determined to move its content delivery in-house. Microsoft projected that by 2010, it would drop its reliance on Level 3 and other third-party CDNs to just 40% of content delivery. 44. On or about February 2010, Microsoft’s cloud computing platform Azure launched the Azure CDN to its subscribers, using technology described and claimed by one or more of the Asserted Patents. At no point did Microsoft license this patented technology from Sandpiper CDN or its predecessors. 45. From the launch of Azure CDN, and until on or about May 2018, the Azure CDN continued to offer CDN delivery options from third-party providers. This approach permitted users 22 Jeff Cohen Keynote Address Slide Deck, Content Delivery Summit (May 11, 2009), https://conferences.infotoday.com/documents/83/CDNSummit09-Keynote-Microsoft.pdf. 12 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 13 of 89 PageID #: 13 to choose third parties to provide content delivery through the Azure CDN network.23 46. Nevertheless, Microsoft continued to rely on third-party CDNs, including Level 3, throughout the 2010s for most of its content delivery. For example, in 2014, as one analyst estimated, Microsoft still required third-party CDNs for approximately 75% of its content delivery, including increased reliance on Level 3 and the Asserted Patents.24 47. On or about May 2018, Microsoft announced its own CDN, available as an individual provider on the Azure network. This allowed users to select Microsoft among its third-party CDN provider partners through its Azure CDN.25 48. Microsoft’s CDN network, however, infringed the Asserted Patents. 49. Since 2018, Microsoft has greatly expanded its content delivery networks, including with the launch of a public CDN and multiple tiers of Azure CDN services, as well as other Azure products and services, using technology claimed in the Asserted Patents. Moreover, Microsoft has never licensed the Asserted Patents from either Sandpiper CDN or its predecessors. MICROSOFT LEARNS OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS AND WILLFULY INFRINGES THEM 50. During at least part of Microsoft’s infringement of the Asserted Patents, Microsoft either knew of the Asserted Patents, or was willfully blind to them, and disregarded a substantial risk of infringement, making Microsoft’s infringement egregious and willful. 51. Sandpiper Networks and its successors widely publicized the Asserted Patents, which became well known as fundamental patents in the CDN and related spaces. 23 Microsoft Azure Blog, “Announcing Microsoft’s Own Content Delivery Network” (May 7, 2018), https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/announcing-microsoft-s-own-cdn- network/?msockid=325270f10c6b61543e3b64490de760b4. 24 Dan Rayburn, “Microsoft Relying More on Third Party CSNs, Limelight Networks Getting More Business,” Streaming Media Blog (Feb. 17, 2015), https://www.streamingmediablog.com/2015/02/microsoft-third-party-cdns.html. 25 “Announcing Microsoft’s own Content Delivery Network,” Microsoft Azure Blog (May 7, 2018), Announcing Microsoft's own Content Delivery Network | Microsoft Azure Blog. 13 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 14 of 89 PageID #: 14 52. For example, on or about October 1999, when Sandpiper Networks announced its merger with Digital Island, including merged ownership of the Sandpiper Networks’ patents, shares of both companies soared. By the close of trade on the day of the announcement, Sandpiper Networks was valued at over $1 billion, while Digital Island was valued at over $2 billion. Leo Spiegel, then CEO of Sandpiper Networks who became President of the combined company, estimated that given the growing need for CDNs, the market opportunity for the merged companies could exceed $20 billion.26 53. In December 2006, Level 3 announced its acquisition of the Savvis CDN business, including the patents stemming from the inventions of Sandpiper Networks, for $135 million.27 Reports at the time said that there were multiple bidders for these assets.28 Indeed, publicly filed documents describe Level 3 as “the winning bidder” for these patents.29 The unredacted portions of a redacted publicly filed document explains that Level 3 and Limelight both bid on these patents, along with “various third parties,” noting “the substantial interest in the CDN patents shown by a number of companies” and the existence of “third-party bids.”30 The unredacted portions of another such document notes the “competition [Level 3] faced in making the purchase [of the patents],” the “bids and expressions of interest Limelight and other parties made on the entire Savvis CDN 26 Tech Monitor, “Digital Island Merges with Sandpiper Networks” (Oct. 15, 1999), https://www.techmonitor.ai/hardware/digital_island_merges_with_sandpiper_networks. 27 LUMEN, “SAVVIS Hones Strategic Focus with Sale of CDN Business Services to Level 3 Communications” (Dec. 26, 2006), https://news.lumen.com/SAVVIS-Hones-Strategic-Focus-with- Sale-of-CDN-Services-Business-to-Level-3-Communications. 28 Gigaom, “Is Savvis CDN Business For Sale?,” aom/is-savvis-cdn-business-for-sale/ (noting “[t]here have been a few bids from interested parties,” that the “bids … are said to be over $100 million” and that “a majority of its CDN business comes from Microsoft”); see also Data Center Knowledge, “Report: SAVVIS Shopping Its CDN Network,” (Oct. 23, 2006), https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/networking/report-savvis-shopping-its-cdn-network). 29 Level 3 Communications, LLC v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 09-589, (hereinafter, “Limelight Case”), Dkt. 1 (D. Del. Dec. 17, 2007). 30 Limelight Case, Dkt. 269, pp. 6-10. 14 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 15 of 89 PageID #: 15 business,” and that the “Savvis C[DN] patents attracted many suitors when they were put up for sale.”31 Another such document noted the various “bids and expressions of interest” on these assets, stating that “[e]ach bidder had different goals, valuations, and levels of interest in the various assets.”32 54. Further, in 2006 Mr. Andrew Swart, then employed at Savvis as a Vice President of Engineering, was involved with aspects of the due diligence discussions with various prospective bidders for the sale of Sandpiper assets discussed above. At that time, there were several competitive bids for the Sandpiper assets. Mr. Swart travelled to San Francisco to meet with several potential buyers of the Sandpiper assets as part of those diligence discussions. In these presentations Mr. Swart gave to potential buyers, the Sandpiper patents were highlighted to the potential buyers. Around that time, Mr. Swart understood that Microsoft had made an offer to buy the Sandpiper assets. The Sandpiper assets, as offered for sale and eventually sold, included the Sandpiper patents. Mr. Swart’s recollection is that in the early stages of this process, bids were in the $20 million range. Ultimately, the sale to Level 3 was for $135 million (over $223 million in today’s dollars). 55. At the time, Microsoft was by far the largest Savvis CDN customer. One publicly filed document appears to show Savvis’s “estimated monthly revenue” from its CDN contract with Microsoft as $1.1 million, with Savvis’s other nine (anonymized) largest CDN customers totaling $84,100 in monthly revenue.33 As detailed throughout this Amended Complaint, Microsoft was also clearly evaluating its upcoming anticipated CDN use and exploring the possibility of building its own 31 Limelight case, Dkt. 333, pp.2, 7-8. 32 Limelight Case, Dkt. 355, p. 5. 33 Limelight Case, Dkt. 484-1, p. 6; see also id., p. 2 (“Also note that I separated the IP-related diligence request - I understand the IP list is comprehensive” and requesting “a complete list of IP assets”); see also Limelight Case, Dkt. 484-2, p. 4 (appearing to list Savvis’s revenue from Microsoft as over $22.5 million in 2004, over $14 million in 2005, and over $7.8 million in the first two quarters of 2006). 15 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 16 of 89 PageID #: 16 CDN to insource much of this traffic. One October 2008 article reports that “Microsoft is building its own content delivery network (CDN), with Limelight providing software and engineering support.”34 Another report from around that timeframe specifically listed Microsoft as “interested in acquiring a CDN.”35 56. During this time, several applications to the Asserted Patents had been filed and made public: (a) the ’112 patent (filed on March 18, 2008, published on Sept.25, 2008); (b) the ’871 patent (filed on Sept. 30, 2002; published on Apr. 3, 2003); and (c) the ’964 patent (filed on Oct. 27, 2007, published on Sept. 4, 2008). On information and belief, at least the combination of Microsoft’s interest in acquiring a CDN, Savvis’s CDN business being for sale, Microsoft’s bid on those assets that included the Sandpiper patents as a highlighted asset, and Microsoft being Savvis’s largest CDN customer, led Microsoft to gain actual knowledge of Sandpiper’s issued patents and pending applications. 57. Around the time of Level 3’s acquisition, an executive from Level 3 explained that Level 3 “acquired the business primarily for its intellectual property and architecture.”36 Several other publications commented on the importance of the Sandpiper CDN intellectual property, which includes several of the Asserted Patents and/or pending applications, to this sale.37 An executive from 34 https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/hyperscalers/limelight-reworks-software-for-microsoft- cdn. 35 https://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=65394&pageNum=3. 36 Rich Miller, “Level 3 Readies Launch of CDN Network,” Data Center Knowledge (May 11, 2007), https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/networking/level-3-readies-launch-of-cdn-network. 37 See Gigaom, “Level3 Buys Savvis CDN Business,” https://om.co/gigaom/level3-buys-savvis- cdn-business/ (noting how “all the intellectual property that comes with this buy” could help Level 3 become a top competitor in the CDN market); Rich Miller, “Level 3 Acquires Savvis CDN Network,” Data Center Knowledge (Dec. 26, 2006), https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/networking/level- 3-acquires-savvis-cdn-network (“The deal includes network assets, customer contracts, and intellectual property used in Savvis’ CDN business.”); see also Denise Pappalardo, “Level 3 Completes Acquisition of Savvis’ CDN Business,” NetworkWorld (Jan. 23, 2007), https://www.networkworld.com/article/838219/lan-wan-level-3-completes-acquisition-of-savvis- cdn-business.html (“In the cash deal Level 3 picked up network assets, customer contracts and 16 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 17 of 89 PageID #: 17 Microsoft, Microsoft’s then-general manager of Global Foundation Services, also publicly commented on this acquisition at the time, stating it might benefit Microsoft. Specifically, that Microsoft executive stated: “As we grow our online services business, stability and control over our network infrastructure becomes increasingly important to deliver great experiences for our customers, partners and advertisers. We look forward to a continued relationship with Level 3 as they embark upon this next phase of their network evolution.”38 58. Just a few months later, in July 2007, Microsoft spent $200 million to end a co- location agreement with Savvis and become the direct lessee for two data centers. The same Microsoft executive, Microsoft’s then-general manager of Global Foundation Services, publicly commented on this business deal, stating: “The acquisition of these assets is an important part of our vision for a globally scaled data center infrastructure that will keep pace with user demand for innovative online services.”39 59. Ultimately, Level 3 purchased the Savvis CDN business and Sandpiper patents, and Microsoft became one of the largest customers of Level 3. On information and belief, Microsoft remained aware of the Sandpiper patents, including at least specifically the ’112 patent, the ’871 patent, and the ’964 patent, because of Microsoft’s previous interest in acquiring a CDN, Microsoft having been Savvis’s largest customer, Microsoft’s bid on the Savvis assets including the Sandpiper patents that were highlighted to potential buyers as part of that process, and Microsoft becoming one “intellectual property.””); Thomas, “Level 3 Completes Acquisition of SAVVIS Content Delivery Network,” https://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/level-3-completes-acquisition-of-savvis- content-delivery-network-505868) (“Pursuant to the definitive agreement, dated December 23, 2006, Level 3 has paid $132.5 million in cash to acquire certain assets, including network elements, customer contracts, and intellectual property used in SAVVIS's CDN business.”). 38 Brian Prince, Channel Insider, “Level 3 Communications to Buy SAVVIS CDN Division” (Dec. 27, 2006), https://www.channelinsider.com/news-and-trends/level-3-communications-to-buy- savvis-cdn-division/. 39 Rich Miller, “Microsoft Assumes Savvis Leases for $200M,” Data Center Knowledge, https://www.datacenterknowledge.com/hyperscalers/microsoft-assumes-savvis-leases-for-200m. 17 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 18 of 89 PageID #: 18 of Level 3’s largest CDN customers, and Microsoft remained aware of Level 3’s continued prosecution of new patents in the portfolio while Microsoft remained a customer, including the ’517 Patent, the ’738 Patent, the ’876 Patent, the ’899 Patent, and the ’066 patent. 60. Over the years, Microsoft has hired several individuals who previously worked at one of Sandpiper CDN’s predecessor companies at a time when that predecessor owned one or more of Sandpiper CDN’s foundational CDN patents while operating a CDN. As explained above, these patents were widely understood to be central to the value of Sandpiper CDN and its predecessors, such that each of these employees had actual knowledge of those patents, including the Asserted Patents or at least the applications leading to them. For instance, one current Microsoft executive in the St. Louis area was recently described on Microsoft’s website (in a web page cited by Sandpiper in its Microsoft I Complaint that Microsoft has since, it appears, removed) as a “Director” who helps partners “scale their Azure business,” and Microsoft touted him as “bring[ing] over two decades of experience in engineering leadership and cloud strategy, including 12 years at CenturyLink (formerly Savvis), where he served as Director of Engineering for Managed Services.”40 Microsoft, having acquired through these hirings the knowledge of those individuals, either knew of the Asserted Patents and the high likelihood that Microsoft’s CDN activities infringe them, or was willfully blind to the same. 61. Furthermore, Sandpiper has been involved in significant, widely public litigation regarding infringement of its patents, including three of the Asserted Patents against Microsoft. In addition to the pending suit against Microsoft, these lawsuits include: • Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Google LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-03951-AB (C.D. Cal. May 10, 40 See Microsoft I, Dkt. 41 (Second Amended Complaint, Oct. 30, 2025) at ¶ 54; compare https://web.archive.org/web/20250807131523/https://dco.microsoft.com/(S(pzuaqe2d2sj2jxx20sutonh3))/Team.aspx (August 7, 2025 version of the web page with the language quoted in Sandpiper’s Microsoft I filing); with https://dco.microsoft.com/Team.aspx (rerouting, today, to https://partner.microsoft.com/en- US/DCO with no such language). 18 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 19 of 89 PageID #: 19 2024). In May 2024, Sandpiper sued Google in the Central District of California, asserting patents within the same portfolio as those asserted in this case, including the ’112 and ’517 patents asserted against Microsoft in this case. • Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Comcast Cable Comm’s, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00886-JRG (E.D. Tex. Nov. 1, 2024). In November 2024, Sandpiper sued Comcast in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting patents within the same portfolio as those asserted in this case, including the ’876 patent asserted against Microsoft in this case. • Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:26-cv-03893-ELR (N.D. Ga., July 11, 2026). In July 2026, Sandpiper sued Cox in the Northern District of Georgia, asserting patents within the same portfolio as those asserted in this case, including the ’876 Patent asserted against Microsoft in this case. 62. These lawsuits have received significant press coverage, including through press releases and articles from RPX.41 63. On information and belief, Microsoft is a member of RPX and receives notices and updates from RPX on patent litigations. 42 64. On information and belief, as a member of RPX who receives notices and updates on patent litigations, Microsoft received notices discussing the aforementioned lawsuits from Sandpiper. 65. On information and belief, several of these notices specifically named the U.S. Patent numbers of the patents asserted in those cases, some of which are also Asserted Patents in this case, 41 See, e.g., Peter Hayes, “Google Hit with Patent Lawsuit Over Content Delivery Network,” Bloomberg, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/google-hit-with-patent-lawsuit-over-content- delivery-network-5. 42 See, e.g., Xockets, Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp. et al, Case No. 6:24-cv-00453-LS, Dkt. 1 at ¶ 201 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 5, 2024) (“RPX was founded in 2008 and has more than 450 members, including . . . Microsoft.”); Dkt. 128 at n.3 (discussing an RPX-Microsoft Third Amendment to Membership and License Agreement). 19 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 20 of 89 PageID #: 20 and give an overview of the infringement allegations in those cases.43 66. Furthermore, on information and belief, Microsoft at least became aware of the Comcast and Cox cases through monitoring the public filings in those cases, including the Complaints, claim constructions entered in Comcast, and became aware that Comcast ultimately settled the lawsuit with Sandpiper. On information and belief, Microsoft also had knowledge of the settlement agreement and its contents in Comcast before the filing of this lawsuit. As such, Microsoft at least had actual pre-suit knowledge of the ‘876 patent asserted in Comcast, Cox, and this case, knew about Sandpiper’s infringement allegations regarding Comcast and Cox’s CDN networks, understood that Comcast settled its case, and appreciated the risk of its own infringement of at least the ‘876 patent based on offering its own CDN services. 67. As such, Microsoft was either aware of these lawsuits, including the patents asserted therein, or willfully blind to them, and never approached Sandpiper about a license prior to this lawsuit being filed. 68. In June 2025, Sandpiper CDN sued Microsoft in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting patents sharing a common owner as those asserted in this case. In October 2025 Sandpiper CDN filed a First Amended Complaint in Microsoft I showing the history of these two companies 43 RPX, May 12, 2024 “It’s Not Every Patent Complaint That Name Checks ‘The Starr Report’ and Big Bad Voodoo Daddy,” https://insight.rpxcorp.com/news/80905-it-s-not-every-patent-complaint- that-name-checks-the-starr-report-and-big-bad-voodoo-daddy (naming “the six patents (8,595,778; 8,645,517; 8,719,886; 9,021,112; 10,924,573) now in suit against Google”); https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/15685653 (RPX website hosting Sandpiper v Google Complaint, listing U.S. patent number of ‘112 Patent asserted in this case and containing Sandpiper CDN’s infringement allegations in that case); https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/txedce-233870-sandpiper-cdn-v-comcast-cable- communications-llc-d-b-a-xfinity#overview (RPX website hosting docket for Sandpiper CDN v Comcast case, with a clickable “Patents-in-Suit” tab indicating “5 Patents-in-Suit” and a “View Complaint” button); https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/cacdce-925901-sandpiper-cdn-v-google (RPX website hosting docket for Sandpiper v. Google case, with a clickable “Patents-in-Suit” tab indicating “5 Patents-in-Suit” and a “View Complaint” button). 20 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 21 of 89 PageID #: 21 and of Microsoft’s intense interest in acquiring rights to Sandpiper CDN’s patents. Further, a now- public document apparently provided by Savvis in the 2006 timeframe to potential bidders on Savvis’s patents (such as Microsoft), titled “Savvis Content Delivery Related Patents and Published Patent Applications,” specifically listed as a separate item: “ITM Published U.S. Patent Application: US 2003-0065762 A1.”44 That published application issued as the ’871 patent asserted in this case. Moreover, the ’964 Patent, the ’738 Patent, and the ’517 Patent each claim priority to the same application and provisional for the ’871 Patent. Thus, even if Microsoft were somehow not aware in 2006 of that patent application, its inclusion in the “ITM” family, or its importance to “Content Delivery” networks like the one Microsoft was planning in 2006 and operates now, Microsoft was certainly aware of all of this information in October 2025 when it received Sandpiper’s Second Amended Complaint. 69. Level 3, after paying $135 million for the patents now owned by Sandpiper CDN, operated its own ITM service, explaining that “Intelligent Traffic Manager (ITM) is a DNS-based, web administered, global load balancing service,” and that Level 3 practices ITM patents in providing its services.45 70. But at least by 2017 Microsoft decided to release its own “Intelligent Traffic Manager,” explaining “Azure Traffic Manager is a global load balancer” that “uses the Domain 44 See Microsoft I, Dkt. 41, p. 12 n.26 (citing Level 3 Communications, LLC v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 09-589, Dkt. 484-2 (D. Del. Feb. 18, 2009). This was the published application for patent application 10/259,497, and was granted in 2010 as U.S. Patent No. 7,822,871. 45 See Intelligent Traffic Manager (ITM) Global Load Balancing Service https://assets.lumen.com/is/content/Lumen/Service-Guide-ITM-Services- 20140423pdf?Creativeid=f6f344ff-d8df-4717-8323-8a2039ac51fa (“CenturyLink provides ITM Service using the ITM infrastructure of Level 3 Communications.”); see also Level 3, “Legal,” https://web.archive.org/web/20141012113846/http://www.level3.com/en/legal/ (“Certain Level 3 content delivery services are provisioned using systems, methods, and/or functionality covered by one or more of the following U.S. Patents: … 7,822,871”). 21 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 22 of 89 PageID #: 22 Name System (DNS) protocol.”46 71. To this day, Microsoft still refers to its Azure Traffic Manager as an “Intelligent Traffic Manager” in public-facing documents. For example, in response to a CDN outage Microsoft faced just a few months ago, it described: “We have a highly distributed resilient architecture, which protects against failures at the server, rack, site and even at the regional level. This resiliency is achieved by the use of our intelligent traffic management layer which monitors failures and load balances traffic at server, rack or edge sites level within the primary ring, supplemented by a secondary-fallback ring which accepts traffic in case of primary traffic overflow or broad regional failures.” 47 Microsoft further graphically depicted its ITM system in this document. 48 46 See “Microsoft CEO Mentions Containers and Serverless Computing in Keynote,” Sept. 25, 2017, https://www.sdxcentral.com/news/microsoft-ceo-mentions-containers-and-serverless-computing-in- keynote/ (“As for serverless computing, Microsoft last month added an intelligent traffic manager to its plans with the unveiling of its Azure Event Grid routing service.”); “Architecture best practices for Azure Traffic Manager,” https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/well-architected/service- guides/azure-traffic-manager (“Azure Traffic Manager is a global load balancer that can distribute traffic across multiple Azure regions, zones within a region, or datacenters within those zones. It uses the Domain Name System (DNS) protocol to establish a communication path between a client and your workload’s endpoints.”). 47 See “Azure Front Door: Implementing lessons learned following October outages” Dec. 18, 2025 https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/azurenetworkingblog/azure-front-door-implementing- lessons-learned-following-october-outages/4479416. 48 See id. 22 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 23 of 89 PageID #: 23 72. Microsoft was also aware of the ’871 patent at least as of 2008 because Microsoft cited the published application of the ’871 patent during the prosecution of Microsoft’s own patent: U.S. Patent No. 7,467,203, which issued in December 2008. Microsoft also cited that published application in prosecuting Microsoft’s U.S. Patent no. 8,236,980 (issued in December 2012) and 8,577,892 (issued in November 2013), and 10,127,295 (issued in Nov. 2018), and 10,855,596 (issued in Dec. 2020, and titled “Load Balancing Among Multiple Endpoint Computing Systems of a Domain”). 73. Furthermore, in Microsoft I, Microsoft moved to dismiss Sandpiper CDN’s allegations of willful patent infringement but the Court denied the motion, noting, among other things, that “the Court finds plausible Plaintiff’s pleadings that Defendant intended to infringe.” Microsoft I, Dkt. 56, p. 5, adopted at Dkt. 104. 74. As demonstrated by the above, and on information and belief, in the 2006 timeframe 23 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 24 of 89 PageID #: 24 Microsoft was looking to build its own CDN to transition away from the services it received from Savvis, and would later receive from Level 3, and knew it needed to own, or obtain a license to, the Sandpiper patents in order to avoid patent infringement. Microsoft thus conducted appropriate diligence on and bid on the Sandpiper assets, including the Sandpiper patents highlighted in those offers (and specifically including two then-existing patent applications that were granted as patents asserted in this case) but ultimately was unwilling to pay what was necessary to avoid infringement, and decided to willfully infringe the Sandpiper patents anyway. In the years after 2006, as Microsoft continued to purchase CDN services from Level 3 while building out its own CDN, Microsoft still never obtained a license to any Sandpiper patents, even though Microsoft continued to receive more information about the granted Sandpiper patents asserted in this lawsuit, and demonstrated its knowledge of these patents at least by its own patent prosecution efforts. 75. Based at least on the foregoing, Microsoft’s infringement of the Asserted Patents has been, is, and continues to be willful. SANDPIPER CDN 76. Named after the company that originally pioneered and developed CDN technologies in the 1990s, Sandpiper CDN brings this suit to address Microsoft's ongoing and continued infringement of the patented technology claimed by the Asserted Patents. 77. The Asserted Patents are valid and enforceable, and the inventions claimed in the Asserted Patents are enabled, novel, non-obvious, unconventional, and non-routine as of their respective filing dates. ASSERTED PATENTS 78. U.S. Patent No. 9,021,112 (“the ’112 Patent”) is entitled “Content Request Routing and Load Balancing for Content Distribution Networks,” and it claims priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 09/982,721, filed on October 18, 2001. See Ex. A. 24 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 25 of 89 PageID #: 25 79. As Internet use has increased, website owners must address ever-increasing bandwidth needs, dynamic changes in load, and performance issues relating to browsing clients, including clients in remote or distant locations.49 When a server with website content, such as an edge server in a content delivery network, receives multiple requests for website content, delivery of that content can be slow. 80. The inventions claimed by the ’112 Patent provide concrete solutions to technical problems facing computer networks. In certain embodiments of the ’112 Patent, methods are provided for directing Internet users to the geographically nearest content delivery node using anycast addressing applied specifically and deliberately at the DNS tier, not the content delivery tier.50 The ’112 Patent claims are directed to a technical solution to a problem that existed in CDN architectures prior to the invention: anycast addressing could not be applied directly to content servers because doing so caused TCP session fragmentation, as packets within a single session could be routed to different physical machines sharing the same anycast address.51 The ’112 Patent’s inventors recognized that anycast addressing was uniquely compatible with DNS resolution which uses stateless UDP packets, and built a specific two-tier DNS resolution architecture around that compatibility. The patent claims concrete methods in which CDN DNS servers share a common anycast address, use BGP to advertise that address to the surrounding network, and in some embodiments cause the BGP routing infrastructure itself to perform geographic selection by routing each DNS resolution request to the nearest CDN DNS node based on shortest-path metrics. 81. Additionally, in one specific embodiment, the ’112 patent provides a specific two- phase resolution sequence with defined roles for each participant: first, an ISP DNS server resolves 49 ’112 Patent, 1:36-41. 50 ’112 Patent, 1:63-2:8. 51 ’112 Patent at 8:27-45. 25 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 26 of 89 PageID #: 26 the subscriber's hostname to the CDN's shared anycast address, a process that does not require any modification of the ISP's infrastructure; and second, one of the CDN DNS servers, selected by the BGP routing fabric based on network proximity, resolves that hostname to the IP address of the content server at its specific node.52 82. According to one claimed solution in the ’112 Patent, the CDN DNS server is associated with a respective plurality of content servers at its node, and requests for content are resolved to the DNS server, and then resolved to an IP address for one of the associated content servers.53 That route advertisement to the DNS server can be used as a dynamic load-balancing and failover mechanism: when a node becomes overloaded, the advertisement is withdrawn, automatically redirecting subsequent DNS resolution requests to the another node.54 These are concrete, specific implementations rooted in the technical realities of BGP routing, UDP-based DNS, and the incompatibility of anycast with TCP sessions, and not a generic instruction to use a content delivery network for a desirable result. 83. U.S. Patent No. 7,822,871 (the ’871 Patent) is entitled “Configurable Adaptive Global Traffic Control and Management” and it claims priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 10/259,497, filed on September 30, 2002, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 60/325,177, filed on September 28, 2001. See Ex. B. 84. The inventions claimed by the ’871 Patent provide concrete solutions to these technical problems facing computer networks. In one embodiment, the ’871 Patent provides a means to distribute network traffic according to a configurable set of rules that take into account key factors such as server availability, specific requirements of content providers deploying the invention, 52 ’112 Patent at 8:49-65. 53 ’112 Patent at 9:3-21. 54 ’112 Patent at 9:3-21. 26 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 27 of 89 PageID #: 27 including distribution based upon geography, position in IP address space, and load share, and the state of the network at any given moment, including measures of network latency.55 85. For example, in one claimed embodiment of the ’871 Patent, there are three distinct, concrete steps of (1) maintaining a traffic distribution policy used by a domain name server in an adaptive traffic control (ATC) name server network to determine the IP address of a server in response to a request from a client to resolve a hostname, (2) monitoring the operational status of the ATC name server network through a specific event-processing pipeline, and (3) maintaining and broadcasting those processed operation events to domain name servers in the ATC name server network.56 These are specific, concrete operational steps that constitute a technical improvement to how distributed DNS infrastructure is managed, and not a generic instruction to monitor or administer a network. 86. U.S. Patent No. 7,860,964 (the ’964 Patent) is entitled “Policy-Based Content Delivery Network Selection,” and it is a continuation-in-part claiming priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 10/259,497, filed on September 30, 2002, which is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 60/325,177, filed on September 28, 2001. See Ex. C. 87. The ’964 Patent relates to network traffic management, and more specifically to configurable, adaptive, global traffic control and management in networks such as the Internet.57 As content delivery networks grew in commercial importance, content providers increasingly contracted with multiple CDN operators simultaneously, providing redundancy, cost competition, and geographic coverage. Prior DNS-based traffic management, however, could direct a client to only a single CDN provider at a time, through a statically-configured DNS record pointing to that CDN's 55 ’871 Patent at 1:43-52. 56 ’871 Patent, 27:39-63. 57 ’964 Patent, 1:24-27. 27 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 28 of 89 PageID #: 28 namespace. The invention is described in a scenario in which DNS service is provided by a third party on behalf of a content or applications provider.58 88. The inventions claimed by the ’964 Patent provide concrete solutions to these technical problems facing computer networks. In one embodiment, the ’964 Patent describes a subscriber maintaining an even load across all subscriber servers by setting a load share value, with traffic shedding to an overflow server defined by a CName for a CDN when all servers near capacity.59 In another embodiment, the specification describes a concrete multi-CDN configuration in which an ATC is configured to return the domain name of one CDN 1.5 times as often as it returns the domain name of a second CDN, thereby implementing a 1.5-to-1 load share ratio between two distinct CDN providers entirely at the DNS layer.60 89. One claimed embodiment of the ’964 Patent is directed to a “method operable in a framework wherein resources of a content provider are delivered to clients from one of a plurality of distinct content delivery network (CDN) domains distinct from a content provider domain.” The claim requires “obtaining one or more content provider policies relating to delivery of said resources, at least one of said policies relating to a relative load share for each of said plurality of CDN domains.”61 The load share policy requirement is technically specific: the policy must quantify the relative fraction of traffic that each distinct CDN domain is to receive, making it a machine- enforceable distribution rule. The claim further requires “selecting, based at least in part on said one or more content provider policies, one of said plurality of CDN domains.”62 And when a CDN domain is selected, the claim requires “providing the client with a domain name associated with the selected 58 ’964 Patent, 3:4-8. 59 ’964 Patent, 27:8-15. 60 ’964 Patent 28:7-32. 61 ’964 Patent, Claim 19. 62 ’964 Patent, Claim 19. 28 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 29 of 89 PageID #: 29 CDN.”63 The requirement to provide a domain name is a technically significant and specific implementation choice: by returning a domain name in the CDN’s own namespace, the method directs the client’s DNS resolver to continue resolution within the selected CDN’s own infrastructure, enabling that CDN to apply its own geographic and load-based edge selection for the final resolution step. 90. U.S. Patent No. 9,660,876 (the ’876 Patent) is entitled “Collector Mechanism In Content Delivery Network” and it claims priority to U.S. Application No. 13/802,440, filed March 13, 2013, which in turn claims priority from U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/737,072, filed December 13, 2012. See Ex. D. 91. As CDN technology developed, the type of the content served and delivered by CDNs evolved. As a result, CDNs—originally configured to treat requests for all content the same— experienced issues as they started receiving different requests for different types of content, such as video, images, written work, or other multimedia content. Further compounding the issue was the challenge in configuring CDNs to account for different types of parameters associated with delivering content, including responsibilities, security, quality, and the like. 92. The inventors of the ’876 Patent identified these technical problems and invented specific and technical solutions to address them. In particular, the inventors developed, inter alia, a specific and technical solution whereby “state data are used to inform a peering policy of a set of caches,” where a collector system “produce[s] state data relating to and based on information represented in said event data of said multiple event streams.”64 The inventors also discovered that using the state data relating to the event streams to inform a peering policy empowered the customization of computing components in a CDN, which improves computational efficiency of the 63 ’964 Patent, Claim 19. 64 ’876 Patent, claim 1. 29 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 30 of 89 PageID #: 30 CDN through specialization. Moreover, the disclosed inventions of the as the inventors explained to the Patent Office, ’876 Patent are not abstract ideas, but are “applicable and limited by the claims to content delivery networks and provide[] a concrete way to support efficient and scalable content delivery in such networks . . . [and] ‘[are] necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.’”65 The technical solution of the ’876 Patent provides CDNs with the infrastructure and logic to handle specific requests for specific users in a more computationally efficient manner that was more scalable than other existing systems. 93. Indeed, the claims of the ’876 Patent include specific and technical solutions, using specific structures, that were not conventional at the time, and the ’876 Patent describes how the solutions are implemented, as recited in the method of independent claim 1. First, using the claimed state data relating to the event streams to inform a peering policy allows for the customization of computing components in a CDN to improve computational efficiency of the CDN through specialization. Second, using the claimed state data to inform a peering policy for a set of peer caches improves fault tolerance within a CDN to reduce outages. Third, certain CDNs implementing embodiments claimed by the are able to account for the ordering receiving multiple event ’876 Patent of the event streams to improve efficiency in configuring the CDNs by streams, each comprising a timestamp for the event. 94. U.S. Patent No. 9,647,899 (the ’899 Patent) is entitled “Framework Supporting Content Delivery with Content Delivery Services,” and it was filed December 14, 2012, claiming priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/737,072, filed December 13, 2012. See Ex. E. 65 See Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment dated June 2, 2016, p. 12 (successfully traversing a Patent Office rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 to establish that the patent application for the ’876 patent is directed to patent eligible subject matter) (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.Com, L.P., 7773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). 30 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 31 of 89 PageID #: 31 95. Content delivery networks are composed of multiple distinct distributed services operating concurrently, for example collector services for monitoring, analytics, and popularity; reducer services for logging, monitoring, and alarming; control services for control resource distribution and localized feedback; configuration services for configuration validation and resource generation; and primary delivery services including rendezvous and caching.66 A technical problem in CDN design was that these services operated in relative isolation, where each generated its own operational events and maintained its own state, but there was no systematic mechanism by which the operational event data produced by one service would flow as input into other services, be aggregated into CDN-wide state information, and be used to automatically reconfigure how those services were interconnected. 96. The inventions claimed by the ’899 Patent provide concrete solutions to this problem through a specific framework in which event output, state, and service configuration information are systematically connected. As part of the operation of each service or kind of service, a service may produce event information corresponding to events relating to that service, and may obtain state information from other CDN services or components and may generate state information for use by other CDN services or components.67 In one embodiment, a minimal CD service is both an event source and a control sink, meaning that all CDN services consume control information and generate events.68 This mutual interconnection enables a specific technical improvement: a closed feedback loop where each service generates events and receives control, and the resulting events and state flow continuously through the network. 97. Claim 1 requires that some CD services in the CDN “produce event output relating 66 ’899 Patent at col. 11:52-12:9. 67 ’899 Patent at col. 8:18-49. 68 ’899 Patent, 9:41-53. 31 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 32 of 89 PageID #: 32 to their respective operation, wherein at least some of said event output from at least some of said CD services is provided to at least some of said CD services as event input.”69 This cross-service event flow is the foundation of a claimed feedback architecture. Claim 1 also requires specific technical processes based on those interconnected event outputs, requiring the services to “maintain service configuration information specifying associations between CD service instances,” “obtain state information from said CD services,” and “modify said service configuration information to produce modified service configuration information based at least on the state information.”70 The “service configuration information specifying associations between CD service instances” is a technically specific data structure and the claim requires that this configuration be modified based on the state information derived from event flows. 98. U.S. Patent No. 10,116,738 (the ’738 Patent) is entitled “Detecting anomalous conditions in a name server network,” and it was filed November 30, 2015, claiming priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/325,177, filed September 28, 2001. See Ex. F. 99. The ’738 patent is generally directed to network traffic management and configurable traffic control and management. As the volume of Internet traffic grows, content and application providers increasingly need to deliver content from multiple servers at widely separated locations to sustain a good end-user experience under high traffic loads. This creates several challenges, including guaranteeing fault tolerance in the face of individual server or name server failures and maintaining high performance as network conditions change, particularly since the state of the network can shift at any given moment. 100. The inventions claimed by the ’738 Patent provide concrete solutions to addresses these challenges with a system that lets a subscriber define, through a web-based graphical user 69 ’899 Patent, claim 1. 70 ’899 Patent, claim 1. 32 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 33 of 89 PageID #: 33 interface, policies governing how service requests are distributed among the subscriber's servers, while a network of name servers responsible for resolving hostnames to those servers is continuously monitored for its own operational health. 101. Claim 1 requires receiving policies for distribution of service requests to one or more servers in a subscriber server network. The method further requires monitoring the operational status of name servers in a name server network that provides hostname resolution services for the servers in the subscriber server network. When monitoring detects an error or anomalous condition at a particular name server, the system automatically creates a policy reflecting that name server's status, so that subsequent hostname resolution decisions across the name server network take the condition into account. The subscriber is also proactively notified of the detected condition through the same web-based graphical user interface used to configure policies, closing the loop between real-time network monitoring, adaptive policy management, and subscriber visibility. This combination allows the traffic-management system to respond dynamically to name server failures or anomalies without manual intervention, while keeping the subscriber informed so they can take further action if needed. 102. U.S. Patent No. 8,156,066 (the ’066 Patent) titled “Rule-Based Content Request Handling,” issued on April 10, 2012, from an application claiming priority to an April 9, 2008 provisional application. See Ex. G. 103. The inventions claimed in the ’066 Patent address a specific technical problem facing content delivery networks: how a shared distribution infrastructure serving many independent content providers could apply each provider’s own, independently configured access and handling rules to incoming content requests, at scale, without requiring every provider to build and operate separate request-handling infrastructure. The ’066 Patent’s solution involves deriving attribute values not directly supplied by the requester from attribute values already present in an incoming content request, such as deriving the requester’s likely geographic region from the 33 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 34 of 89 PageID #: 34 requester'’s Internet Protocol address. Both the originally supplied and the newly derived attribute values are evaluated against a hierarchy of decision nodes, arranged so that a request is resolved only after propagating through different levels of specific logic culminating in a single decision that dictates whether the request is allowed, denied, or redirected. 104. Claim 14 of the ’066 Patent recite an architecture including: (a) receiving a content request that includes a first set of attribute values; (b) using at least one attribute value from that first set to determine a second, distinct set of attribute values; (c) traversing a hierarchy of decision nodes, each implementing logic based on an attribute value from either set; and (d) yielding, from the last node reached in that hierarchy, a decision dictating how the request is to be answered. Claim 14 requires that the request-disposition decision be reached only through a specific implementation mechanism: deriving a second, distinct set of attribute values from the request’s original attributes and then routing evaluation through a defined multi-node hierarchy that connects its logic to one of those two attribute generations. This defines specific technical implementation and does not simply recite a desired result of deciding whether to allow, deny, or route a request based on the requester's characteristics. Claim 14’s steps thus describe a specific data-transformation and control-flow architecture that a computer must implement to reach the claimed decision, not merely a functional goal that architecture achieves. 105. U.S. Patent No. 8,645,517 (the “’517 Patent) is entitled “Policy-Based Content Delivery Network Selection.” The ’517 Patent claims priority to U.S. Patent Application Number 10/259,497, filed on September 20, 2002. See Ex. H. 106. When using CDN technology, challenges arise related to network traffic associated with requests for content. For example, companies that want to provide their content to end users using a CDN face issues regarding directing network traffic to serve end users’ requests. As one example, issues arise when trying to deliver content from multiple servers at geographically-separated 34 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 35 of 89 PageID #: 35 location with suitable end-user experiences under high traffic loads. 107. The inventors of the ’517 Patent understood these challenges faced by CDN providers and their customers relating to directing network traffic and end-user requests for content. The inventors devised solutions utilizing Domain name Server (DNS) technology and allowing for the resolution of requests to multiple CDNs based on various policies. Embodiments of the disclosed invention solve network traffic issues such as server failure, and controlling the distribution of requests according to economic or contractual parameters, by providing a network distribution infrastructure that can be configured with network traffic rules. These rules can account for factors like server availability, geolocation, load, and latency. The ’517 Patent addresses specific needs in the art via specific combinations, which were not conventional at the time of the invention of the ’517 Patent, and the ’517 Patent describes how specific technical solutions are achieved. For instance, content providers must address how to handle requests from end users, in some cases in accordance with policy constraints faced by the content providers, even as network conditions affecting the Internet are subject to change. The inventors of the ’517 Patent developed methods to address these issues, including methods in which a server network implements policy-based traffic direction. For example, embodiments of the invention in the ’517 Patent provide a specific graphical user interface for obtaining at least one policy for the direction of network traffic, such as using a decision tree with resource and branch nodes. The various criteria that can be used may relate to IP addresses or geographic zones, with answers consisting of IP addresses and CNAMEs, for example. THE ACCUSED MICROSOFT FUNCTIONALITIES 108. Microsoft’s Azure is a cloud computing platform offering a range of cloud services for businesses and developers.71 Core service categories include cloud computing, cloud storage, databases, networking, application hosting and development, and security. Microsoft additionally 71 https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/resources/cloud-computing-dictionary/what-is-azure/ 35 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 36 of 89 PageID #: 36 offers content delivery infrastructure and services through its Azure CDN products, as well as leveraging these products to deliver its own internal content, updates, and other services for Microsoft products. These Azure CDN products include Azure CDN Standard from Microsoft, Azure CDN Standard from Edgio, Azure CDN Premium from Edgio, and Azure Front Door Standard and Premium.72 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cdn/cdn-features 109. Microsoft’s Azure CDN products offer global coverage through distributed points of presence (PoPs) including throughout North America.73 Microsoft’s Azure CDN products utilize repeater servers (e.g., EdgeNodes or Endpoints) for replicating (e.g., caching) content from origin servers.74 Azure CDN products include various performance features and optimizations including acceleration, delivery optimization, video streaming optimization, asset pre-loading, caching rules, customizable rules for content delivery, URL redirect/rewrite, custom DNS support, DDoS protection, authentication, and analytics.75 Azure CDN was announced May 7, 2018 as a public preview.76 110. Azure Front Door is Microsoft’s “modern” CDN product featuring similar content replication and delivery functionality with added scalability and performance.77 Azure Front Door 72 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cdn/cdn-overview; https://learn.microsoft.com/en- us/azure/frontdoor/front-door-overview. 73 https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/products/cdn; https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cdn/cdn- pop-locations. 74 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cdn/cdn-overview 75 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cdn/cdn-features 76 https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/announcing-microsoft-s-own-cdn-network/ 77 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/frontdoor/front-door-overview 36 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 37 of 89 PageID #: 37 provides autoscaling and global traffic distribution with load balancing to ensure high availability.78 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/training/modules/intro-to-azure-front-door/2-what-is-azure-front- door 111. Microsoft further offers Azure Policy, enabling organizations to create, assign, and manage policies to enforce compliance and security across their cloud resources.79 Core features of Azure Policy include resource consistency ensuring uniform configuration across environments as well as security enhancement enforcing restrictions on resource configurations and services.80 112. Microsoft further offers Azure Resource Manager, providing infrastructure management and access control functionality in a unified management platform.81 Azure Resource Manager was introduced in 2014.82 113. Microsoft further offers Azure Traffic Manager, a DNS-based traffic load balancer that distributes traffic to public-facing applications across global Azure regions, providing public endpoints with high availability and quick responsiveness.83 Traffic Manager uses DNS to direct clients to specific service endpoints based on configured routing methods and provides distribution 78 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/frontdoor/front-door-faq 79 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/governance/policy/overview 80 https://sonraisecurity.com/blog/what-is-azure-policy-all-you-need-to-know/ 81 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-resource-manager/management/overview 82 https://web.archive.org/web/20161029053752/https://azure.microsoft.com/en- us/documentation/articles/resource-manager-deployment-model/ 83 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/traffic-manager/traffic-manager-overview 37 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 38 of 89 PageID #: 38 of traffic according to one of several routing methods, as well as continuous monitoring of endpoint health with automatic failover when endpoints fail. Traffic Manager caches DNS responses through configurable time-to-live (TTL) values which are configurable.84 114. Microsoft further offers Azure Monitor, a unified observability service for collecting, analyzing, and acting on telemetry data from cloud and hybrid environments, enabling users to understand the health, performance, and reliability of Azure applications and infrastructure resources by bringing together metrics, logs, traces, and events into a single user experience.85 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-monitor/fundamentals/overview Azure Monitor collects logs and metrics from all resources across Azure services and integrates this monitoring into the Azure portal for each service. Azure Monitor also proactively notifies subscribers when issues are identified in collected data. 115. Microsoft further offers Azure Peering Service, a networking service that enhances connectivity to Microsoft cloud services such as Microsoft 365, Dynamics 365, SaaS services, Azure, and others. Through Azure Peering service, Microsoft partners with internet service providers (“ISPs”) to provide reliable and high-performing public connectivity through optimal routing from 84 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/traffic-manager/traffic-manager-overview 85 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-monitor/fundamentals/overview 38 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 39 of 89 PageID #: 39 and to the Microsoft network.86 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/peering-service/about Through Azure Peering Service, Microsoft ensures traffic stays on its own high-capacity, low-latency, and high-reliability Microsoft global network until traffic is as close to its destination as possible. Azure Peering Service further provides geo-redundancy by interconnecting Microsoft’s network with service providers at multiple metro locations, such that is one Azure Edge has degraded performance, traffic routes via alternative sites.87 116. On information and belief, Microsoft operates its CDNs for both Microsoft’s internal use (e.g., Windows updates, its Xbox gaming ecosystem, cloud gaming, third-party gaming, Office 365 tools, Copilot, Teams and Skype videoconferencing, Azure content delivery, delivery of apps, games, and software through the online Microsoft Store, video streaming like Linkedin Learning, and web services like Microsoft Edge and Bing), and for external use, with Microsoft leasing its Azure CDN network to third parties. 117. The aforementioned products and services are collectively the “Accused Microsoft Functionalities.” 86 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/peering-service/about 87 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/peering-service/about 39 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 40 of 89 PageID #: 40 COUNT I: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’112 PATENT 118. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein, and further alleges as follows. 119. Microsoft directly infringes, either individually or jointly through the direction and control of others, at least claim 1 of the ’112 Patent through one or more of the Accused Microsoft Functionalities. For instance, Microsoft Front Door CDN comprises a network through which Microsoft provides a plurality of Domain Name System servers associated with a Content Delivery Network that share a common anycast address, and where each CDN DNS server is associated with a respective plurality of content servers. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/route-server/anycast 120. Microsoft causes said plurality of CDN DNS servers to be authoritative for a hostname associated with a content provider by causing said common anycast address to be associated with said hostname. 40 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 41 of 89 PageID #: 41 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/dns/dns-domain-delegation https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/dns/dns-domain-delegation 41 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 42 of 89 PageID #: 42 https://ipinfo.io/13.107.236.4?lookup_source=search-bar 121. Microsoft, responsive to a request for content associated with the content provider and issued by a client, said request including at least said hostname, causes said hostname to be resolved to said common anycast address by an Internet Service Provider DNS server, and then by one of said plurality of CDN DNS servers, resolves said hostname to identify an IP address for use by the client to retrieve the content from a content server. For example, Microsoft causes an ISP DNS server to resolve office.com to the anycast IP address of Azure DNS servers at 150.171.21.5, which then in turn resolve a hostname to an Azure Front Door IP address at 13.107.6.156. 42 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 43 of 89 PageID #: 43 COUNT II: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’871 PATENT 122. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein, and further alleges as follows. 123. Microsoft directly infringes, either individually or jointly through the direction and control of others, at least claim 44 of the ’871 Patent through operation of one or more of the Accused Microsoft Functionalities. For instance, Microsoft Azure Traffic Manager operates global DNS name servers in connection to Azure Resource Manager, Azure Portal, Azure Monitor, and related control plane management interfaces to perform a method of an adaptive traffic control framework. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/traffic-manager/traffic-manager-overview 124. Microsoft Azure features a server network comprising hardware in combination with software. For instance, Microsoft cloud datacenters include server hardware with Azure service software operating on this hardware. 43 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 44 of 89 PageID #: 44 https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/the-anatomy-of-a-datacenter-how-microsofts-datacenter-hardware- powers-the-microsoft-cloud/ 125. Microsoft further maintains at least one policy used by at least one domain name server in an adaptive traffic control (ATC) name server network to determine the IP address of a server in a server network in response to a request from a client to resolve a hostname. For instance, Traffic Manager name servers for trafficmanager.net receive DNS requests and return endpoints based on configured endpoint state, health, and routing method. 44 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 45 of 89 PageID #: 45 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/traffic-manager/traffic-manager-how-it-works 126. Microsoft monitors the operational status of the ATC name server network comprising receiving, by an ATC network monitoring mechanism in the ATC administrative framework, events sent from at least one monitoring mechanism of the at least one domain name server. For instance, Azure Monitor monitors operational status of name servers in the network. 45 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 46 of 89 PageID #: 46 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-monitor/overview 46 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 47 of 89 PageID #: 47 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-monitor/overview https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/dns/monitor-dns 127. As an additional example, Microsoft monitors the operational status of its DNS servers, for instance through the Azure Service Health service. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/service-health/service-health-notifications-properties 47 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 48 of 89 PageID #: 48 128. Microsoft consolidates the events to form consolidated events, and processes the consolidated events. For instance, Azure Monitor collects activity logs, resource logs, metrics, and other telemetry which can be routed to a Log Analytics workspace to be queried, correlated, aggregated, filtered, and transformed. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-monitor/platform/activity-log 129. Further, Microsoft Sentinel allows Windows DNS server logs to be streamed and filtered via the Azure Monitor Agent. 48 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 49 of 89 PageID #: 49 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/sentinel/dns-ama-fields 49 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 50 of 89 PageID #: 50 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/sentinel/dns-ama-fields 130. In maintaining the at least one policy, Microsoft receives, by an adaptive traffic control (ATC) policy management mechanism of an administrative master agent (AMA) in the ATC administrative framework, the at least one policy from at least one source. For instance, Azure Traffic Manager provides adaptive policy-based domain name service (DNS) using Traffic Manager routing methods, which are policies that determine how DNS queries are answered. 50 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 51 of 89 PageID #: 51 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/traffic-manager/traffic-manager-routing-methods 131. Traffic Manager routing methods are defined using the Azure Portal. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/traffic-manager/traffic-manager-manage-profiles 132. In maintaining the at least one policy, Microsoft further broadcasts the received at least one policy to the at least one domain name server in the ATC name server network. COUNT III: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’964 Patent 133. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the foregoing 51 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 52 of 89 PageID #: 52 paragraphs as though fully set forth herein, and further alleges as follows. 134. Microsoft directly infringes, either individually or jointly through the direction and control of others, at least claim 19 of the ’964 Patent through operation of one or more of the Accused Microsoft Functionalities. For instance, Azure Front Door and/or CDN, and Azure Traffic Manager perform a method operable in a framework wherein resources of a content provider are delivered to clients from one of a plurality of distinct content delivery network domains distinct from a content provider domain. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/guide/networking/global-web-applications/mission- critical-content-delivery 52 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 53 of 89 PageID #: 53 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/traffic-manager/traffic-manager-overview https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/guide/networking/global-web-applications/mission- critical-content-delivery 135. Further, Microsoft obtains content provider policies relating to delivery of resources 53 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 54 of 89 PageID #: 54 where those policies relate to a relative load share for each of the plurality of CDN domains. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/traffic-manager/traffic-manager-routing-methods https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/traffic-manager/traffic-manager-routing-methods 136. Microsoft further selects one of the plurality of CDN domains based on the content provider policies, and provides clients with a domain name associated with the selected CDN. 54 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 55 of 89 PageID #: 55 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/traffic-manager/traffic-manager-overview https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/guide/networking/global-web-applications/mission- critical-content-delivery COUNT IV: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’899 PATENT 137. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein, and further alleges as follows. 138. Microsoft directly infringes, either individually or jointly through the direction and control of others, at least claim 1 of the ’899 Patent through operation of one or more of the Accused Microsoft Functionalities. For instance, Azure Front Door and/or CDN provides content delivery systems with a plurality of computers configured to run CD services. 55 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 56 of 89 PageID #: 56 https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/products/cdn https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/products/cdn https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/products/cdn https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cdn/monitoring-and-access-log 56 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 57 of 89 PageID #: 57 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cdn/monitoring-and-access-log https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cdn/monitoring-and-access-log 57 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 58 of 89 PageID #: 58 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cdn/monitoring-and-access-log 139. These CD services produce event output relating to their respective operations, and that output is provided to CD services. Microsoft’s Azure Front Door and/or CDN also obtains event input from CD services, and produces, as respective state output, state information based on the event input from the CD services. 58 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 59 of 89 PageID #: 59 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cdn/monitoring-and-access-log https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cdn/monitoring-and-access-log 140. Further, Microsoft’s Azure Front Door and/or CDN maintains service configuration information specifying associations between CD service instances, obtains state information from said CD service instances, and modifies said service configuration information to produce modified service configuration information based on the state information. 59 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 60 of 89 PageID #: 60 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-monitor/overview https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-monitor/overview 60 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 61 of 89 PageID #: 61 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-monitor/overview https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-monitor/overview 61 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 62 of 89 PageID #: 62 COUNT V: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’876 PATENT 141. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein, and further alleges as follows. 142. Microsoft directly infringes, either individually or jointly through the direction and control of others, at least claim 1 of the ’876 Patent through operation of one or more of the Accused Microsoft Functionalities. For instance, Microsoft Azure Front Door and/or CDN, Azure Monitor, Azure Peering Service comprise a CDN with multiple CD services with a collector system. https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/products/cdn https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/products/cdn https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/products/cdn 62 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 63 of 89 PageID #: 63 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/peering-service/about https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/peering-service/about 63 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 64 of 89 PageID #: 64 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/peering-service/about 143. Azure Front Door and/or CDN, Azure Monitor, Azure Peering Service further receive multiple event streams of event data, said multiple event streams comprising event data from a plurality of CD services in the CDN, and said plurality of CDN services including a first CD services, each event of said event stream comprising a timestamp for said event and information relating to said event. 64 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 65 of 89 PageID #: 65 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/internet-peering/walkthrough-monitoring-telemetry https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/internet-peering/walkthrough-monitoring-telemetry 144. Microsoft further produces state data relating to and based information represented in said event data of the multiple event streams, and asynchronously responds to queries relating to said state data. 65 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 66 of 89 PageID #: 66 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/internet-peering/walkthrough-monitoring-telemetry 66 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 67 of 89 PageID #: 67 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/internet-peering/walkthrough-monitoring-telemetry https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-monitor/fundamentals/data-platform 145. Microsoft further, in response to queries from CD services relating to said state data, provides said state data to said first CD service, wherein said state data are used to inform a peering policy of a set of peer caches. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/peering-service/about 67 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 68 of 89 PageID #: 68 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/peering-service/about https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/frontdoor/front-door-routing-architecture 68 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 69 of 89 PageID #: 69 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/frontdoor/front-door-overview COUNT VI: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’066 PATENT 146. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein, and further alleges as follows. 147. Microsoft directly infringes, either individually or jointly through the direction and control of others, at least claim 14 of the ’066 Patent through operation of one or more of the Accused Microsoft Functionalities. For instance, Azure Web Application Firewall (“WAF”) functionality is implemented in software running on Microsoft’s global edge network and evaluates incoming requests against configured rules. For instance, Web Application Firewall receives content requests including first sets of attribute values and uses at least one of the attribute values from the first set of attribute values to determine a second set of attribute values. 69 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 70 of 89 PageID #: 70 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/web-application-firewall/overview https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/web-application-firewall/overview 70 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 71 of 89 PageID #: 71 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/frontdoor/front-door-rules-engine https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/web-application-firewall/afds/waf-front-door-custom-rules https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/frontdoor/rules-match-conditions https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/frontdoor/rule-set-server-variables 148. Web Application Firewall further traverses a hierarchy of decision nodes, where each decision node implements business logic based on one of the attribute values from the first set of 71 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 72 of 89 PageID #: 72 attribute values or the second set of attribute values; and yields a decision from a last node in the hierarchy, wherein the decision dictates how to respond to the content request. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/web-application-firewall/afds/waf-front-door-custom-rules https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/web-application-firewall/afds/waf-front-door-tuning 72 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 73 of 89 PageID #: 73 COUNT VII: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’738 PATENT 149. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein, and further alleges as follows. 150. Microsoft directly infringes, either individually or jointly through the direction and control of others, at least claim 1 of the ’738 Patent through operation of one or more of the Accused Microsoft Functionalities. For instance, Azure Traffic Manager, Azure Monitor, and Azure Service Health receive from subscribers, via a web-based graphical user interface, one or more policies for distribution of service requests to one or more servers in a subscriber server network. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-monitor/overview 73 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 74 of 89 PageID #: 74 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-monitor/overview https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-monitor/overview 74 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 75 of 89 PageID #: 75 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-monitor/overview 151. Azure Traffic Manager, Azure Monitor, and Azure Service Health further monitor operational statuses of some of a plurality of name servers in a name server network that provide hostname resolution service for the one more server in the subscriber server network. Azure further, based on said monitoring, when an error or anomalous condition is detected at a particular name server of the name server network, creates policies to indicate the status of the particular name server, wherein the policy is taken into account when resolving hostnames using the name server network. 75 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 76 of 89 PageID #: 76 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-monitor/overview https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-monitor/overview 76 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 77 of 89 PageID #: 77 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/dns/monitor-dns https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/firewall/monitor-firewall 77 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 78 of 89 PageID #: 78 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/service-health/service-health-notifications-properties 152. Azure Traffic manager further sends alerts regarding the error or anomalous condition detected at a particular name server to the subscriber via the web-based graphical user interface. 78 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 79 of 89 PageID #: 79 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-monitor/overview https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-monitor/alerts/alerts-overview 79 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 80 of 89 PageID #: 80 https://azure.status.microsoft/status/history/?trackingId=PSM0-BQ8 COUNT VIII: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’517 PATENT 153. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein, and further alleges as follows. 154. Microsoft directly infringes, either individually or jointly through the direction and control of others, at least claim 1 of the ’517 Patent through operation of one or more of the Accused Microsoft Functionalities. For instance, Azure Front Door and Azure CDN, and Azure Traffic Manager provide an adaptive traffic control network. 80 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 81 of 89 PageID #: 81 https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/products/cdn https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/products/cdn https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/traffic-manager/traffic-manager-overview 81 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 82 of 89 PageID #: 82 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/traffic-manager/traffic-manager-routing-methods 155. Azure Front Door/CDN and Traffic Manager performs a method in which an adaptive traffic control name server network implements policy-based traffic direction, where Azure Front Door/CDN and Traffic Manager provides a graphical user interface (GUI) and uses said GUI to obtain at least one policy for direction of network traffic, wherein the GUI supports the setting of said at least one policy using a decision tree representing rules. https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/get-started/azure-portal 82 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 83 of 89 PageID #: 83 https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/get-started/azure-portal https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/get-started/azure-portal https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/traffic-manager/quickstart-create-traffic-manager-profile 83 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 84 of 89 PageID #: 84 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/traffic-manager/quickstart-create-traffic-manager-profile https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/traffic-manager/quickstart-create-traffic-manager-profile 84 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 85 of 89 PageID #: 85 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/traffic-manager/quickstart-create-traffic-manager-profile 156. Azure Front Door/CDN and Traffic Manager further provides said at least one policy to the name server network, wherein the decision tree comprises one or more resource nodes, and one or more branch nodes, wherein the one or more resource nodes specify one or more answers to be provided in response to a Domain Name Service (DNS) request, and wherein the one or more branch nodes specify one or more decision criteria to be applied, and wherein the GUI supports the specification of: (i) one or more answers for the one or more resource nodes, and (ii) one or more decision criteria for the one or more branch nodes, wherein the one or more criteria are selected from criteria related to: world zones, countries, states, time zones, and blocks of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, and wherein the one or more resource nodes are selected from: IP addresses, canonical name (CNAME) records, mail exchange (MX) records, name server (NS) records, and load sharing server sets; and wherein the answers are selected from: IP addresses and CNAMEs. 85 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 86 of 89 PageID #: 86 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/traffic-manager/quickstart-create-traffic-manager-profile https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/traffic-manager/quickstart-create-traffic-manager-profile https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/traffic-manager/quickstart-create-traffic-manager-profile 86 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 87 of 89 PageID #: 87 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/traffic-manager/quickstart-create-traffic-manager-profile https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/traffic-manager/traffic-manager-routing-methods 87 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 88 of 89 PageID #: 88 https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/traffic-manager/traffic-manager-routing-methods PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Plaintiff requests entry of judgment in its favor and against Microsoft as follows: A. Judgment that Microsoft has directly infringed one or more claims of each of the Asserted Patents pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271; B. An award of lost profits and/or reasonable royalty damages to compensate Plaintiff for Microsoft’s infringement, including damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, as well as prejudgment and post-judgment interest; C. An award of costs and expenses in this action, including an award of Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; D. A permanent injunction restraining and enjoining Microsoft, and its respective officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with Microsoft who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise, from any further sales or use of their infringing products and/or services and any other infringement of the Asserted Patents; E. A finding that Microsoft has willfully infringed one or more claims of the Asserted Patents; F. A finding that this is an exceptional case, and awarding treble damages due to Microsoft’s deliberate and willful conduct, and ordering Microsoft to pay 88 Case 2:26-cv-00681 Document 1 Filed 08/11/26 Page 89 of 89 PageID #: 89 Plaintiff’s costs of suit and attorneys’ fees; and G. Any such other and further relief as the Court may deem just, proper, and equitable under the circumstances. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff respectfully demands a trial by jury on all claims and issues so triable. Dated: August 11, 2026 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Ryan D. Dykal Ryan D. Dykal (MO State Bar No. 60905) Jordan T. Bergsten (DC Bar No. 90032105) Mark D. Schafer (pro hac vice forthcoming) Philip Eckert (pro hac vice forthcoming) Anita Liu (TX State Bar No. 24134054) BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 1401 New York Ave, NW Washington, DC 20005 (t): 202-274-1109 rdykal@bsfllp.com jbergsten@bsfllp.com mschafer@bsfllp.com peckert@bsfllp.com aliu@bsfllp.com Carolyn Drell (pro hac vice forthcoming) BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 (t): 914-749-8200 cdrell@bsfllp.com Counsel for Plaintiff Sandpiper CDN, LLC 89