Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 51 Filed 04/13/23 Page 1 of 23 Page ID #:704
`
`
`
`
`
`Michael Ng (State Bar No. 237915)
`Michael.Ng@kobrekim.com
`Daniel Zaheer (State Bar No. 237118)
`Daniel.Zaheer@kobrekim.com
`KOBRE & KIM LLP
`150 California Street, 19th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone: 415-582-4800
`Facsimile: 415-582-4811
`
`Gabriela M. Ruiz (State Bar No. 227110)
`Gabriela.Ruiz@kobrekim.com
`KOBRE & KIM LLP
`201 S Biscayne Blvd #1900
`Miami, Florida 33131
`Telephone: 305-967-6100
`Facsimile: 305-967-6120
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`RJ TECHNOLOGY LLC
`
`[Additional counsel listed on signature page]
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`vs.
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
` Case No. 8:22-CV-1874
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`RJ TECHNOLOGY LLC
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 51 Filed 04/13/23 Page 2 of 23 Page ID #:705
`
`
`
`Plaintiff RJ Technology LLC brings this action for patent infringement
`against Defendant Apple Inc. (“Defendant” or “Apple”). Plaintiff alleges the
`following:
`
`BACKGROUND
`This lawsuit is an action for patent infringement. RJ Technology LLC
`1.
`alleges that Apple infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,749,641 (“the ’641 patent” or the
`“Asserted Patent”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`Lithium-ion batteries (commonly referred to as “Li-ion batteries”)
`2.
`have powered the modern, mobile economy. These batteries are ubiquitous,
`
`
`supplying power to all manner of consumer electronic devices, such as mobile
`phones, laptops, tablets, and other portable electronic devices.
`As such, improvement of battery performance has been a key driver
`3.
`for successfully competing in the electronics market. That has taken on ever more
`significance with the universal adoption of mobile devices in the everyday lives of
`users everywhere.
`Xiaoping Ren and Jie Sun are the named inventors of the ’641 patent
`4.
`and were early innovators in Li-ion battery technology. Their efforts culminated in
`
`the invention embodied by the Asserted Patent. In 2001, they first applied for and
`were subsequently awarded a patent in their native China. They then applied for
`and were awarded the counterpart ’641 patent in the United States. The ’641 patent
`has now been assigned to RJ Technology LLC, which brings these claims.
`Apple directly infringes the claims of the Asserted Patent, including at
`5.
`least claims 5 and 12, by making, using, offering for sale, selling in the United States,
`and importing into the United States, portable electronic computing and
`communication devices—including smartphones, tablets, smart watches, and
`headphones—that use Li-ion batteries (together, “Accused Products”). Further,
`Apple has indirectly infringed the claims of the Asserted Patent by inducing the
`direct infringement of those claims by others, including among other things by (i)
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 51 Filed 04/13/23 Page 3 of 23 Page ID #:706
`
`
`
`manufacturing and selling the Accused Products, (ii) encouraging others to use the
`Accused Products, for example, through advertising, promoting, and instructing
`others to use the Accused Products in a manner that has resulted in the direct
`
`infringement of the claims in the Asserted Patent by others, and (iii) doing the above
`while knowing that the acts it has encouraged constitute direct patent infringement.
`Apple’s infringement has also been willful.
`RJ Technology LLC seeks damages and other relief for Apple’s
`6.
`wrongful conduct.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`
`RJ Technology LLC is a corporation organized and existing under the
`7.
`laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware.
`Plaintiff’s founders and principals—Messrs. Xiaoping Ren and Jie Sun—are the
`named inventors on the ’641 patent. They have transferred all of their rights, title,
`and interest in the ’641 patent to Plaintiff RJ Technology LLC.
`Apple is a California corporation with a principal place of business
`8.
`located at One Apple Park Way, Cupertino, California 95014. Li-ion batteries are
`essential to Apple’s ability to make and bring to market smartphones, tablets,
`
`watches, and headphones that can satisfy consumer standards and are a crucial part
`of its commercial success.
`THE ASSERTED PATENT
`The ’641 patent, titled “Secondary Lithium Ion Cell or Battery, and
`9.
`Protecting Circuit, Electronic Device, and Charging Device of the Same,” which
`was duly and lawfully issued on July 6, 2010, is based on a U.S. patent application
`filed on May 6, 2004. The ’641 patent claims priority to PCT/CN02/00696, which
`in turn claims priority to Chinese Patent No. ZL 01141615.7 (the “Chinese Patent”).
`10. The ’641 patent discloses and claims an improved secondary (or
`rechargeable) Li-ion cell or battery, along with related methods, including use of a
`charge cutoff voltage above the then-conventionally accepted 4.2 volts and a
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 51 Filed 04/13/23 Page 4 of 23 Page ID #:707
`
`
`
`modification to the ratio between the material used in the positive and negative
`electrodes of the batteries. The ’641 patent discloses that a battery manufactured
`and operated in this manner maintains its capacity over hundreds of charge and
`
`discharge cycles.
`11. Claims 5 and 12 of the ’641 patent are exemplary:
`Claim 5: A secondary lithium ion cell or battery, characterized in that
`the secondary lithium ion cell or battery has a charge cut-off voltage
`of greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V, and a ratio of positive
`electrode material to negative electrode material of the secondary
`
`
`lithium ion cell or battery is from 1:1.0 to 1:2.5, as calculated by a
`theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2 V.
`Claim 12: A secondary lithium ion cell or battery according to claim
`5, wherein the secondary lithium ion cell or battery maintains at least
`75.83% of capacity after 400 cycles.
`The ’641 patent has now been assigned to Mr. Ren’s and Mr. Sun’s company, RJ
`Technology LLC.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`12. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C.
`§ 1 et seq., including but not limited to §§ 271, 281, 282(a), 283, 284, and 285. The
`Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this patent infringement action pursuant
`to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`13. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Apple. Apple has regularly
`conducted and continues to conduct business in the State of California, has directly
`or through its distribution network purposefully placed infringing products into the
`stream of commerce in California, and has committed acts of infringement in this
`federal judicial district including by making, using, offering for sale, selling, or
`importing the Accused Products which infringe the Asserted Patent, and by
`inducing others to infringe the Asserted Patent by using the Accused Products.
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 51 Filed 04/13/23 Page 5 of 23 Page ID #:708
`
`
`
`14. Venue is proper in this judicial district because Apple has regular and
`established places of business in the Central District of California and has
`committed acts of infringement in this judicial district. Apple has numerous
`
`distributors and retailers in this judicial district, including 23 Apple Stores as well
`as offices in Los Angeles, Irvine, and Culver City. All told, Apple maintains over
`100,000 square feet of office space in this judicial district. Apple has also
`announced plans to open two new offices totaling an additional 550,000 square feet
`of space and to make its regional headquarters in this judicial district. Apple
`currently employs over 1,000 people in the Central District of California, many of
`
`
`whom design, sell, manufacture, or support the Accused Products. Apple has also
`announced plans to hire an additional 2,000 employees here in the next few years.
`15. Apple has committed acts of patent infringement in the Central District
`of California, including by advertising, offering to sell, selling, importing, and/or
`distributing infringing products, and/or inducing the sale and use of infringing
`products in the United States, including in the Central District of California,
`knowing and expecting them to be purchased and used by consumers in the United
`States, including in this judicial district, and such infringing products have been
`
`purchased and used in the United States and in this judicial district. For example,
`Apple has regularly imported the Accused Products as well as relevant components,
`including Li-ion batteries, through the Port of Los Angeles. Those products and
`components are also stored in warehouses in the greater Los Angeles area. Apple
`therefore has committed acts of patent infringement and has a regular and
`established place of business in this federal judicial district. Accordingly, venue is
`proper in this federal judicial district, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
`THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS
`16. Apple makes, uses, sells, offers to sell in the United States, and/or
`imports into the United States the Accused Products, all without seeking a license
`to the ’641 patent.
`
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
` 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 51 Filed 04/13/23 Page 6 of 23 Page ID #:709
`
`
`
`(1) The Accused Smartphone Products
`17. Apple makes, uses, sells, and/or offers to sell in the United States,
`and/or imports into the United States various smartphones that infringe at least
`
`claims 5 and 12 of the ’641 patent, including but not limited to the iPhone 6, iPhone
`6S, iPhone 6S Plus, iPhone SE, iPhone SE (2nd generation), iPhone SE (3rd
`generation), iPhone 7, iPhone 7+, iPhone 8, iPhone 8+, iPhone X, iPhone XS,
`iPhone XS Max, iPhone XR, iPhone 11, iPhone 11 Pro, iPhone 11 Pro Max, iPhone
`12, iPhone 12 Pro, iPhone 12 Pro Max, iPhone 12 Mini, iPhone 13, iPhone 13 Mini,
`iPhone 13 Pro, iPhone 13 Pro Max, iPhone 14, iPhone 14 Pro, iPhone 14 Pro Max,
`
`
`and iPhone 14 Plus (the “Accused Smartphone Products”).
`18. The iPhone 11 Pro exemplifies the relevant functionality of each
`Accused Smartphone Product.
`
`
`
`
`
`Refurbished iPhone 11 Pro 512GB – Space Gray (Unlocked), APPLE,
`https://www.apple.com/shop/product/FWCR2LL/A/refurbished-iphone-11-pro-
`512gb-space-gray-
`unlocked?fnode=1eed809e9fd38e9d7cbcc13b442e9fb586f5fe03225abd29802e9a3
`7b77578aab466b8befddbcfa044aa5655ba00ede99b11f6723cd73ae0d6875e5941e7
`7678728eecc4e565c6f3f306e15bfc259d5ae1527ca6cffa725872da72a8ab373f3d
`(last visited Apr. 10, 2023).
`19. The iPhone 11 Pro contains a secondary Li-ion battery as disclosed in
`claim 5 of the Asserted Patent.
`
`
`
` 5
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 51 Filed 04/13/23 Page 7 of 23 Page ID #:710
`
`
`Batteries, APPLE, https://www.apple.com/batteries/ (last visited Apr. 10, 2023).
`20. Further, the Apple iPhone 11 Pro utilizes a Li-ion battery that has a
`
`charge cut-off voltage of greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V as disclosed in claim
`5 of the Asserted Patent. As can be seen on its label, the Li-ion battery used in the
`iPhone 11 Pro has an upper charge limit (充电限制电压) of 4.4 V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Replacement Battery 3046 mAh 3.79 V Compatible with Apple iPhone 11 Pro
`(A2160), ESOURCE PARTS, https://www.esourceparts.ca/replacement-battery-3046-
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 51 Filed 04/13/23 Page 8 of 23 Page ID #:711
`
`
`
`mah-3-79-v-compatible-with-apple-iphone-11-pro-
`a2160.html?utm_source=googleshopping&utm_medium=cse&ep_cur=CAD&key
`word=&gclid=Cj0KCQjwntCVBhDdARIsAMEwACnF6mH5nuYFHW3MnnJRz
`TeiTirg8DTPdMFa1_09PrB-H-x8RGk_pqIaAsOAEALw_wcB (last visited Apr.
`
`10, 2023).
`21. The ratio of positive electrode material to negative electrode material
`of the secondary Li-ion battery used in the Apple iPhone 11 Pro is between 1:1.0
`and 1:2.5, as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at
`4.2 V.
`22. The iPhone 11 Pro Li-ion battery maintains at least 75.83% of its
`
`capacity after 400 charging cycles, as disclosed in claim 12 of the Asserted Patent.
`
`As shown in the advertisement from Apple’s website below, the iPhone 11 Pro Li-
`ion battery maintains 80% of its original capacity after 500 charging cycles.
`
`
`
`Batteries, APPLE, https://www.apple.com/batteries/service-and-
`recycling/#:~:text=iPhone%20Owners,Prices%20and%20terms%20may%20vary
`(last visited Apr. 10, 2023).
`(2) The Accused Tablet Products
`23. Apple makes, uses, sells, and/or offers to sell in the United States,
`and/or imports into the United States various tablets that infringe at least claims 5
`and 12 of the ’641 patent, including but not limited to the iPad 5, iPad 6, iPad 7,
`iPad 8, iPad 9, iPad 10, iPad Air (3rd Generation), iPad Air (4th Generation), iPad
`Air (5th Generation), iPad Mini 4, iPad Mini 5, iPad Mini 6, 2016 iPad Pro (9.7”),
`2017 iPad Pro (10.5”), iPad Pro 1 (11”), iPad Pro 1 (12.9”), iPad Pro 2 (11”), iPad
`Pro 2 (12.9”), iPad Pro 3 (11”), iPad Pro 3 (12.9”), iPad Pro 4, and iPad Pro 5 (the
`“Accused Tablet Products”).
`
` 7
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 51 Filed 04/13/23 Page 9 of 23 Page ID #:712
`
`24. The iPad Air (4th Generation) exemplifies the relevant functionality of
`each Accused Tablet Product.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iPad Air (4th generation) – Technical Specifications, APPLE,
`
`https://support.apple.com/kb/SP828?locale=en_US (last visited Apr. 10, 2023).
`
`25. The iPad Air (4th Generation) contains a secondary Li-ion battery as
`disclosed in claim 5 of the Asserted Patent.
`
`
`Batteries, APPLE, https://www.apple.com/batteries/ (last visited Apr. 10, 2023).
`
`26. Further, the iPad Air (4th Generation) utilizes a Li-ion battery that has
`a charge cut-off voltage of greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V as disclosed in
`claim 5 of the Asserted Patent. As can be seen on its label, the Li-ion battery used
`in the iPhone 11 Pro has an upper charge limit (充电限制电压) of 4.35 V.
`
`
`
` 8
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 51 Filed 04/13/23 Page 10 of 23 Page ID #:713
`
`
`
`
`iPad Air 4 Teardown, iFixit (Mar. 3, 2021),
`https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPad+Air+4+Teardown/141032 (image at 3:38,
`which has been sharpened) (last visited Apr. 10, 2023).
`
`27. The ratio of positive electrode material to negative electrode material
`of the secondary Li-ion battery used in the iPad Air (4th Generation) is between
`1:1.0 and 1:2.5, as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage
`set at 4.2 V.
`28. The iPad Air (4th Generation) Li-ion battery maintains at least 75.83%
`of its capacity after 400 charging cycles, as disclosed in claim 12 of the Asserted
`
`
`Patent. As shown in the advertisement from Apple’s website below, the iPad Air
`(4th Generation) maintains 80% of its capacity after 1000 complete charge cycles.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`Batteries, APPLE, https://www.apple.com/batteries/service-and-
`recycling/#:~:text=iPhone%20Owners,Prices%20and%20terms%20may%20vary
`
`(last visited Apr. 10, 2023).
`(3) The Accused Smart Watch Products
`29. Apple makes, uses, sells, and/or offers to sell in the United States,
`and/or imports into the United States various smart watches that infringe at least
`claims 5 and 12 of the ’641 patent, including but not limited to the Apple Watch
`Series 1, Apple Watch Series 2, Apple Watch Series 3, Apple Watch Series 4, Apple
`Watch Series 5, Apple Watch SE, Apple Watch Series 6, Apple Watch Series 7,
`Apple Watch Ultra, Apple Watch SE (2nd Generation), Apple Watch Series 8, and
`Apple Watch Hermes (the “Accused Smart Watch Products”).
`30. The Apple Watch Series 7 exemplifies the relevant functionality of
`each Accused Smart Watch Product.
`
`
` 9
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 51 Filed 04/13/23 Page 11 of 23 Page ID #:714
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Apple Watch Series 7, APPLE,
`https://web.archive.org/web/20220710092539/https://www.apple.com/apple-
`
`watch-series-7/ (last visited Apr. 10, 2023).
`
`31. The Apple Watch Series 7 contains a secondary Li-ion battery as
`disclosed in claim 5 of the Asserted Patent.
`
`
`Batteries, APPLE, https://www.apple.com/batteries/ (last visited Apr. 10, 2023).
`32. Further, the Apple Watch Series 7 utilizes a Li-ion battery that has a
`charge cut-off voltage of greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V as disclosed in claim
`5 of the Asserted Patent. As can be seen on its label, the Li-ion battery used in the
`Apple Watch Series 7 has an upper charge limit of 4.45 V.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 51 Filed 04/13/23 Page 12 of 23 Page ID #:715
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Juli Clover, Apple Watch Series 7 Teardown Reveals Battery Capacity, Display
`Updates and More, MacRumors (Oct. 21, 2021 1:42 PM PDT),
`https://www.macrumors.com/2021/10/21/apple-watch-series-7-teardown-
`ifixit/#:~:text=The%2041mm%20%E2%80%8CApple%20Watch%20Series%207
`%E2%80%8C%20features%20a,new%2C%20brighter%20displays%20rather%20
`than%20adding%20battery%20life (last visited Apr. 10, 2023).
`
`33. The ratio of positive electrode material to negative electrode material
`of the secondary Li-ion battery used in the Apple Watch Series 7 is between 1:1.0
`and 1:2.5, as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at
`4.2 V.
`34. The Apple Watch Series 7 maintains at least 75.83% of its capacity
`after 400 charging cycles, as disclosed in claim 12 of the Asserted Patent. As shown
`in the advertisement from Apple’s website below, the Apple Watch Series 7
`maintains 80% of its battery’s capacity after 1000 complete charge cycles.
`
`
`
`11
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 51 Filed 04/13/23 Page 13 of 23 Page ID #:716
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Batteries, APPLE, https://www.apple.com/batteries/service-and-
`recycling/#:~:text=iPhone%20Owners,Prices%20and%20terms%20may%20vary
`(last visited Apr. 10, 2023).
`(4) The Accused Headphone Products
`35. Apple makes, uses, sells, and/or offers to sell in the United States,
`
`
`and/or imports into the United States various headphones that infringe at least claim
`5 of the ’641 patent, including but not limited to the Airpods, Airpods 2, Airpods 3,
`Airpods Pro, Airpods Pro 2, and Airpods Max (the “Accused Headphone Products”).
`36. The Apple Airpods Pro exemplifies the relevant functionality of each
`Accused Headphone Product.
`
`
`
`
`
`AirPods Pro, APPLE,
`https://web.archive.org/web/20220703124624/https://www.apple.com/airpods-
`pro/ (last visited Apr. 10, 2023).
`37. The Apple Airpods Pro contains a secondary Li-ion battery as
`disclosed in claim 5 of the Asserted Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`12
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 51 Filed 04/13/23 Page 14 of 23 Page ID #:717
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Batteries, APPLE, https://www.apple.com/batteries/ (last visited Apr. 10, 2023).
`38. Further, the Apple Airpods Pro utilizes a Li-ion battery that has a
`charge cut-off voltage of greater than 4.2 V but less than 5.8 V as disclosed in claim
`
`
`5 of the Asserted Patent. As can be seen on its label, the Li-ion battery used in the
`Apple Airpods Pro has an upper charge limit (充电限制电压) of 4.35 V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AirPods Pro Teardown, iFixit (Oct. 31, 2019),
`https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/AirPods+Pro+Teardown/127551 (last visited
`Apr. 10, 2023).
`39. The ratio of positive electrode material to negative electrode material
`of the secondary Li-ion battery used in the Apple Airpods Pro is between 1:1.0 and
`1:2.5, as calculated by a theoretic capacity with a charge cut-off voltage set at 4.2
`V.
`
`
`13
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 51 Filed 04/13/23 Page 15 of 23 Page ID #:718
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COUNT ONE: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT 7,749,641
`40. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations
`contained in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`41. The ’641 patent is valid and enforceable. Apple does not have a license
`to practice any of the limitations claimed in the ’641 patent.
`42. By making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling products in the
`United States, and/or importing them into the United States, including but not
`limited to the Accused Products, Apple has injured Plaintiff and is liable to Plaintiff
`for directly infringing one or more claims of the Asserted Patent pursuant to 35
`
`
`U.S.C. § 271(a).
`43. Apple knowingly encourages and intends to induce infringement of the
`Asserted Patent by (i) making, using, offering for sale, and/or selling products in
`the United States, and/or importing them into the United States, including but not
`limited to the Accused Products and (ii) encouraging and instructing its customers
`on how to use the inventions claimed in the Asserted Patent, the claims of which
`are directly infringed by Apple’s customers. Apple therefore also infringes the
`Asserted Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`44. For example, through various marketing and advertising materials,
`Apple encourages and instructs its customers on how to use the inventions claimed
`in the Asserted Patent, which Apple advertises as a core feature of the Accused
`Products, as shown by way of a non-limiting example below:
`
`
`iPhone User Guide, APPLE, https://support.apple.com/guide/iphone/charge-the-
`battery-iph63eecc618/ios (last visited Apr. 10, 2023).
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 51 Filed 04/13/23 Page 16 of 23 Page ID #:719
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Batteries, APPLE, https://www.apple.com/batteries/ (last visited April 12, 2023).
`45. Apple performs these actions with knowledge of the Asserted Patent.
`Apple became aware of the Asserted Patent through its litigations against Plaintiff’s
`
`
`founders in China. On March 21, 2018, Plaintiff’s founders, the named inventors
`on the Asserted Patent, initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple at the
`Beijing Intellectual Property Court to recover damages and to obtain an injunction
`against Apple for its infringement of the Chinese Patent. The complaint in that
`action, which was provided to Apple, specifically refers to the Asserted Patent here,
`in explaining that the same invention covered by the Chinese Patent had also been
`claimed in a patent issued in the United States. The litigation over the Chinese
`Patent was hotly contested by Apple and consisted of extensive proceedings
`
`litigated over a period of five years so far, including appeals all the way up to
`China’s highest court, the People’s Republic of China Supreme People’s Court.
`That court described its decision in that case as one of its top ten intellectual
`property decisions of 2020.
`46. On June 6, 2018, shortly after it was sued in China, Apple filed a
`request with the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA),1
`seeking a declaration of invalidity of the Chinese Patent.
`47. Apple’s request was unsuccessful. On April 15, 2019, the CNIPA
`issued its decision, holding that thirteen of the fourteen claims in the Chinese Patent
`
`
`1 The CNIPA is the equivalent of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
`15
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 51 Filed 04/13/23 Page 17 of 23 Page ID #:720
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`were valid, and only a single claim—which is unlike any claim in the ’641 patent—
`was invalid.
`48. Apple appealed the decision to the Beijing IP Court, and the appeal
`
`went all the way up to the People’s Republic of China Supreme People’s Court,
`which left the CNIPA’s validity findings in place. Apple filed a petition for
`reconsideration of the judgment (a procedure similar to a motion for reconsideration
`or for a rehearing en banc), which was summarily rejected by the Supreme People’s
`Court. During this period, the suit before the Beijing IP Court was dismissed without
`prejudice, per rules issued by the PRC Supreme People’s Court.
`
`
`49. On June 1, 2021, the named inventors renewed their patent
`infringement suit against Apple at the Beijing High People’s Court. In the complaint,
`the named inventors again made reference to the ’641 patent, by noting that the
`inventions covered by the Chinese Patent had also been patented in the United States.
`A copy of the complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The action against Apple
`before the Beijing High People’s Court is currently pending.
`50. Even putting aside the references in the Chinese litigations to the
`Asserted Patent, Apple’s knowledge of the Chinese Patent, the intensity of the
`
`Chinese litigations, the size of the product base impacted by the Asserted Patent,
`and the similarities between the Chinese Patent and the Asserted Patent would have
`inevitably caused (and on information and belief did cause) Apple and its lawyers
`to obtain knowledge of the ’641 patent and of Apple’s infringement of the patent.
`The Asserted Patent claims priority to the Chinese Application, and its specification
`is translated directly from the Chinese Patent’s specification. Claims 5–10 of the
`Asserted Patent are also literal translations of claims 5–10 of the Chinese Patent.
`Those claims are asserted in the Chinese litigations, and were unsuccessfully
`challenged by Apple in the proceedings. The Asserted Patent is the only patent in
`the family to issue in the United States, and indeed the only issued patent outside of
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`16
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 51 Filed 04/13/23 Page 18 of 23 Page ID #:721
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`East Asia. The family is exceptionally small, with just two other issued patents, one
`in South Korea (KR1008370B1), and one in Japan (JP5005877B2).
`51. The products accused in the China litigation are substantially the same
`
`broad set of key Apple product lines that are accused in this case. Those products
`are critical to Apple’s success both in the Chinese market and the United States
`market—one from which Apple derives nearly half of its $394 billion dollars in
`revenue, and one which has only one issued patent in the relevant patent family,
`the ’641 patent.
`52. Apple’s legal budget matches its size. Apple has an estimated $1
`
`
`billion annual legal budget and hires only exceptional law firms both in the United
`States and China to litigate patent disputes.
`53. Notably, despite having litigated a motion to dismiss regarding the
`sufficiency of RJ Technology’s pleading of Apple’s pre-suit knowledge of the
`Asserted Patent, Apple has never asserted that it did not in fact have knowledge of
`the ’641 patent prior to this suit’s filing—whether through the litigation in China or
`otherwise. Instead, Apple has studiously avoided making such a factual
`representation, despite RJ Technology having asked Apple to so assert in
`
`connection with the briefing on the motion to dismiss, and in its opening set of
`interrogatories.
`54. On February 24, 2022, in an interrogatory, RJ Technology asked Apple
`to “[d]escribe in detail all facts and circumstances under which Apple first became
`aware of the Patent-in-Suit.” RJ Technology specifically asked “the date(s) when
`this occurred, the source of information, the identity of the person(s) who received
`the information on Apple’s behalf, when and how Apple first obtained a copy of the
`patent-in-suit, and any actions taken by Apple or any of its directors, officers, or
`employees as a result.”
`55. On March 23, 2022, Apple requested an additional two weeks to
`respond to the interrogatory. Despite this additional time, and with more than six
`17
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-01874-JVS-JDE Document 51 Filed 04/13/23 Page 19 of 23 Page ID #:722
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`weeks in total to prepare an appropriate response, on April 10, 2022, Apple again
`refused to answer directly as to when it first became aware of the Asserted Patent.
`Instead, Apple answered evasively, stating only that it “first reviewed” the Asserted
`
`Patent “following service of Plaintiff’s Complaint on October 19, 2022.” (Emphasis
`added.)2 Apple’s response is conspicuously silent as to when Apple and its agents
`first acquired knowledge of the U.S. patent, even though that is the question asked
`in the interrogatory. Apple’s ongoing evasiveness on this subject, and its failure to
`address the fact that the complaints in the Chinese litigations expressly refer to the
`Asserted Patent here, further supports the inference that Apple had pre-suit
`
`
`knowledge of the ’641 patent and Apple’s infringement of it, or at a minimum was
`willfully blind to both.
`In view of the above facts, Apple had knowledge not only of the
`56.
`Chinese Patent, but also had specific knowledge of the Asserted Patent itself, prior
`to the filing of this litigation.
`57.