`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HISENSE INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD AND
`HISENSE USA CORPORATION,
`
`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 Hisense International Co.,
`
`LTD. and Hisense USA Corporation (collectively referred to as “Hisense” 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 Hisense International Co., LTD. is a
`
`corporation organized under the laws of China with its principal place of business at Hisense
`
`Tower, 17 Donghaixi Road, Qingdao, 266071, Shandong, China.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01983-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/26/13 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 2
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Hisense USA Corporation is a corporation
`
`organized under the laws of the State of Georgia with its principal place of business at 7310
`
`McGinnis Ferry Road, Suwanee, GA 30024.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.
`
`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.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and 1400(b).
`
`JOINDER
`
`8.
`
`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
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01983-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/26/13 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 3
`
`products, Defendants’ infringing acts and, on information and belief, the validity of the patent-in-
`
`suit.
`
`THE PATENT-IN-SUIT
`
`9.
`
`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.
`
`10. 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
`
`11.
`
`The allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs 1 through 10 are hereby
`
`realleged and incorporated herein by reference.
`
`12.
`
`In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), Defendants have directly infringed and
`
`continue to directly infringe, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’121 Patent
`
`by making, 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, Defendants
`
`have 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 Hisense Sero 7 Pro.
`
`13.
`
`Defendants have had actual knowledge of the ’121 Patent and their infringement
`
`of that patent since at least the date of service of this Complaint.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01983-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/26/13 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 4
`
`14.
`
`Defendants are 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 their direct and indirect customers) whose sale, offer for sale, importation, and use of
`
`the Accused Instrumentalities constitutes direct infringement. Defendants have engaged in these
`
`actions with either the specific intent to cause infringement or with willful blindness to the
`
`infringement that they are causing. For example, Defendants’ actions that actively induce their
`
`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 Defendants’ customers infringe 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:
`
`(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;
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01983-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/26/13 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 5
`
`(e)
`
`The Snoop Control Unit accumulates responses from the selected cores;
`
`(f)
`
`The Snoop Control Unit responds to the original request from the first
`
`and
`
`core.
`
`15.
`
`Defendants are 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 their 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 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 Defendants’ 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 a. Control Unit (the probe filtering unit);
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01983-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/26/13 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 6
`
`(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. MI has been harmed by Defendants’ 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:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`An adjudication that Defendants have infringed the ’121 Patent;
`
`An award of damages to be paid by Defendants 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 Defendants pay 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.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:13-cv-01983-GMS Document 1 Filed 11/26/13 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 7
`
`Dated: November 26, 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
`
`