`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.; LG ELECTRONICS,
`USA, INC.; AND LG ELECTRONICS
`MOBILECOMM USA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Memory Integrity, LLC (“MI”), by way of this Complaint for Patent
`
`Infringement (“Complaint”) against the above-named Defendants LG Electronics, Inc., LG
`
`Electronics USA, Inc., and LG Electronics Mobilecomm USA, Inc. (collectively, “LG” or
`
`“Defendants”), alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the
`
`United States, Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff MI is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of
`
`Delaware with a place of business at 1220 N. Market Street, Suite 806, Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19801.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant LG Electronics, Inc. is a corporation
`
`organized under the laws of Korea with its principal place of business at 20 Yeouido-dong,
`
`Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul 150-721, Korea.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01806-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/01/13 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 2
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant LG Electronics USA, Inc. is a corporation
`
`organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 1000
`
`Sylvan Ave, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632. On information and belief, LG Electronics
`
`USA, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of LG Electronics, Inc.
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant LG Electronics Mobilecomm USA, Inc. is a
`
`corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business
`
`at 10225 Willow Creek Road, San Diego CA 92131. On information and belief, LG Electronics
`
`Mobilecomm USA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of LG Electronics, Inc.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants Defendant LG Electronics USA and LG
`
`Electronics Mobilecomm USA, Inc. are subject to the jurisdiction of this Court by virtue of the
`
`fact that they are organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. On information and belief,
`
`Defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of this Court by reason of their acts of patent
`
`infringement which have been committed in this Judicial District, and by virtue of their regularly
`
`conducted and systematic business contacts in this State. As such, Defendants have purposefully
`
`availed themselves of the privilege of conducting business within this Judicial District; have
`
`established sufficient minimum contacts with this Judicial District such that they should
`
`reasonably and fairly anticipate being haled into court in this Judicial District; and at least a
`
`portion of the patent infringement claims alleged herein arise out of or are related to one or more
`
`of the foregoing activities.
`
`8.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(b).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01806-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/01/13 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 3
`
`JOINDER
`
`9.
`
`Joinder is proper under 35 U.S.C. § 299. The allegations of infringement
`
`contained herein are asserted against the Defendants jointly, severally, or in the alternative and
`
`arise, at least in part, out of the same series of transactions or occurrences relating to Defendants’
`
`manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, and importation of the same accused products. On
`
`information and belief, the Defendants are part of the same corporate family of companies, and
`
`the infringement allegations arise at least in part from the Defendants’ collective activities with
`
`respect to the Defendants’ accused products. Questions of fact common to the Defendants will
`
`arise in the action, including questions relating to the structure and operation of the accused
`
`products, Defendants’ infringing acts and, on information and belief, the validity of the patent-in-
`
`suit.
`
`THE PATENT-IN-SUIT
`
`10.
`
`On November 13, 2007, United States Patent No. 7,296,121 (the “’121 Patent”),
`
`entitled “Reducing Probe Traffic in Multiprocessor Systems,” was duly and legally issued by the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the ’121 Patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint.
`
`11. MI is the assignee and owner of the right, title and interest in and to the ’121
`
`Patent, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patent and the right to
`
`any remedies for infringement of it.
`
`COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,296,121
`
`12.
`
`The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 11 are hereby
`
`realleged and incorporated herein by reference.
`
`13.
`
`In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), LG has directly infringed and continues to
`
`directly infringe, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’121 Patent by making,
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01806-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/01/13 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 4
`
`using, offering for sale, selling, and importing products (the “Accused Instrumentalities”) and by
`
`performing methods that practice the subject matter claimed in one or more claims of the ’121
`
`Patent, including but not limited to claim 1, in the United States, including within this Judicial
`
`District, without the authority of MI. For example, LG has directly infringed the ’121 Patent by
`
`selling products that contain a multicore processor that utilizes a probe filtering unit to reduce
`
`probe traffic in a computer system. The Accused Instrumentalities include, but are not limited to
`
`the T-Mobile G-Slate with Google by LG.
`
`14.
`
`LG has had actual knowledge of the ’121 Patent and its infringement of that
`
`patent since at least the date of service of this Complaint.
`
`15.
`
`LG is also inducing infringement of the ’121 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b),
`
`since at least the date of service of this Complaint, by actively aiding and abetting others
`
`(including its direct and indirect customers) whose sale, offer for sale, importation, and use of the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities constitutes direct infringement. LG has engaged in these actions with
`
`either the specific intent to cause infringement or with willful blindness to the infringement that
`
`it is causing. For example, LG’s actions that actively induce its customers to directly infringe at
`
`least claim 25 of the ’121 Patent include selling the Accused Instrumentalities, providing user
`
`manuals regarding use of the Accused Instrumentalities, and providing technical support
`
`regarding the use of the Accused Instrumentalities, where the use of the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities during normal operation by LG’s customers infringes at least claim 25 of the
`
`’121 Patent. The use of the Accused Instrumentalities identified above during normal operation
`
`directly infringes claim 25 of the ’121 Patent in at least the following manner:
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01806-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/01/13 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 5
`
`(a)
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities comprise a plurality of processing nodes
`
`because they contain multicore processors. The cores are connected in a point-to-point
`
`architecture and each core has an associated L1 cache memory;
`
`(b)
`
`One of the processor cores requests access to a memory line by
`
`transmitting a probe to the Snoop Control Unit (the probe filtering unit);
`
`(c)
`
`The Snoop Control Unit evaluates the probe using a copy of the L1 data
`
`cache tag RAMs which is representative of the states associated with selected L1 caches
`
`to determine whether a valid copy of the memory line is in any of the L1 caches;
`
`(d)
`
`The Snoop Control Unit transmits the probe only to selected ones of the
`
`cores identified in the evaluating step;
`
`(e)
`
`The Snoop Control Unit accumulates responses from the selected cores;
`
`and
`
`core.
`
`(f)
`
`The Snoop Control Unit responds to the original request from the first
`
`16.
`
`LG is also committing contributory infringement of the ’121 Patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(c) since at least the date of service of this Complaint by importing and selling the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities to others, including but not limited to its customers, knowing and/or
`
`being willfully blind to the fact that these products constitute a material part of the invention,
`
`were especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of the ’121 Patent, and
`
`have no substantial non-infringing uses. For example, the Accused Instrumentalities constitute
`
`a material part of the claimed invention at least because they contain all of the components that
`
`perform the method of reducing probe traffic in a computer system as claimed in claim 25 of the
`
`’121 Patent. The Accused Instrumentalities were made or especially adapted for use in an
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01806-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/01/13 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 6
`
`infringement of the ’121 Patent and have no substantial non-infringing uses at least because they
`
`contain components whose only purpose is to reduce probe traffic in a computer system as
`
`claimed in claim 25 of the ’121 Patent. The use of the Accused Instrumentalities identified
`
`above by LG’s customers during normal operation directly infringes claim 25 of the ’121 Patent
`
`in at least the following manner:
`
`(a)
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities comprise a plurality of processing nodes
`
`because they contain multicore processors. The cores are connected in a point-to-point
`
`architecture and each core has an associated L1 cache memory;
`
`(b)
`
`One of the processor cores requests access to a memory line by
`
`transmitting a probe to the Snoop Control Unit (the probe filtering unit);
`
`(c)
`
`The Snoop Control Unit evaluates the probe using a copy of the L1 data
`
`cache tag RAMs which is representative of the states associated with selected L1 caches
`
`to determine whether a valid copy of the memory line is in any of the L1 caches;
`
`(d)
`
`The Snoop Control Unit transmits the probe only to selected ones of the
`
`cores identified in the evaluating step;
`
`(e)
`
`The Snoop Control Unit accumulates responses from the selected cores;
`
`and
`
`core.
`
`(f)
`
`The Snoop Control Unit responds to the original request from the first
`
`17. MI has been harmed by LG’s infringing activities.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`MI demands a jury trial on all issues and claims so triable.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, MI prays for judgment as follows:
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01806-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/01/13 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 7
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`An adjudication that LG has infringed the ’121 patent;
`
`An award of damages to be paid by LG adequate to compensate MI for
`
`past infringement of the ’121 Patent, and any continuing or future infringement through the date
`
`such judgment is entered, including prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs, expenses and
`
`an accounting of all infringing acts including but not limited to those acts not presented at trial;
`
`c.
`
`An order that LG pays an ongoing royalty in an amount to be determined
`
`for any continued infringement after the date judgment is entered; and
`
`d.
`
`Such further relief at law and in equity as the Court may deem just and
`
`proper.
`
`Dated: November 1, 2013
`
`STAMOULIS & WEINBLATT LLC
`
`
`
`/s/ Richard C. Weinblatt
`Stamatios Stamoulis #4606
`stamoulis@swdelaw.com
`Richard C. Weinblatt #5080
`weinblatt@swdelaw.com
`Two Fox Point Centre
`6 Denny Road, Suite 307
`Wilmington, DE 19809
`Telephone: (302) 999-1540
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Memory Integrity, LLC
`
`
`
`7