Case 1:17-cv-01446-MN Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Maxell, Ltd. (“Maxell”), by and through its undersigned counsel, files this
`
`
`
`complaint under 35 U.S.C. § 271 for Patent Infringement against Defendants BlackBerry
`
`Corporation and BlackBerry Ltd. (collectively, “Defendants”) and further alleges as follows,
`
`upon actual knowledge with respect to itself and its own acts, and upon information and belief as
`
`to all other matters.
`
`OVERVIEW
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement brought by Maxell. Founded in 1961 as
`
`Maxell Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., Maxell is a leading global manufacturer of information
`
`storage media products, including magnetic tapes, optical discs, and battery products such as
`
`lithium ion rechargeable micro batteries and alkaline dry batteries, and the company has over 50
`
`years of experience producing industry-leading recordable media and energy products for both
`
`the consumer and the professional markets.
`
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`BLACKBERRY CORPORATION and
`BLACKBERRY LTD.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`))))))))))))
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01446-MN Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 2 of 34 PageID #: 2
`
`2.
`
`Maxell has built an international reputation for excellence and reliability, for
`
`pioneering the power supplies and digital recording for today’s mobile and multi-media devices,
`
`and leading the electronics industry in the fields of storage media and batteries.
`
`3.
`
`Since being one of the first companies to develop alkaline batteries and Blu Ray
`
`camcorder discs, Maxell has always assured its customers of industry leading product innovation
`
`and is one of the world’s foremost suppliers of memory, power, audio, and visual goods.
`
`4.
`
`As set forth below, in 2009 Hitachi, Ltd. assigned intellectual property, including
`
`the patents in this case, to Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd. Then, in 2013, Hitachi
`
`Consumer Electronics Co., Ltd. assigned the intellectual property, including the patents in this
`
`case, to Hitachi Maxell, Ltd., which later assigned the patents to Maxell as a result of a
`
`reorganization and name change. This was an effort to align its intellectual property with the
`
`licensing, business development, and research and development efforts of Maxell, including in
`
`the mobile and mobile-media device market (Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi Consumer Electronics Co.,
`
`Ltd., and Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. are referred to herein collectively as “Hitachi”). Maxell continues
`
`to sell products in the mobile device market including wireless charging solutions, wireless flash
`
`drives, multimedia players, storage devices, and headphones. Maxell also maintains intellectual
`
`property related to televisions, tablets, digital cameras, and mobile phones. As a mobile
`
`technology developer and industry leader, and due to its historical and continuous investment in
`
`research and development, Maxell owns a portfolio of patents related to such technologies and
`
`actively enforces its patents through licensing and/or litigation. Maxell is forced to bring this
`
`action against Defendants as a result of Defendants’ knowing and ongoing infringement of
`
`Maxell’s patents.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01446-MN Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 3 of 34 PageID #: 3
`
`PARTIES
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff Maxell, Ltd. is a Japanese corporation with a registered place of business
`
`at 1 Koizumi, Oyamazaki, Oyamazaki-cho, Otokuni-gun, Kyoto, Japan.
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant BlackBerry Ltd. is a Canadian company
`
`with a principal place of business at 2200 University Ave. E Waterloo, ON, Canada N2K 0A7.
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant BlackBerry Corporation is a Delaware
`
`corporation with a principal place of business located at 6700 Koll Center Parkway, #200,
`
`Pleasanton, California 94566.
`
`8.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant BlackBerry Corporation is in the business
`
`of providing information and communications technology solutions. Specifically, BlackBerry
`
`Corporation provides wireless telecommunications equipment, including smart phones, tablets,
`
`and mobile phones.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
`
`9.
`
`Maxell brings this action for patent infringement under the patent laws of the
`
`United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq.
`
`10.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because the action arises under the patent laws of the
`
`United States.
`
`11.
`
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because (1) Maxell’s
`
`claims arise in whole or in part from Defendants’ conduct in Delaware; (2) BlackBerry
`
`Corporation is organized under the laws of Delaware, maintains continuous and systematic
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01446-MN Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 4 of 34 PageID #: 4
`
`contacts within the state of Delaware, and has filed suits against other parties in this jurisdiction;
`
`(3) Defendants have committed a tortuous act causing injury within the state of Delaware,
`
`namely, one or more acts of patent infringement as alleged herein; and (4) Defendants are subject
`
`to personal jurisdiction under the provisions of the Delaware Long Arm Statute, Del. Code. Ann.
`
`Tit. 3 § 3104, by virtue of the fact that, upon information and belief, Defendants have availed
`
`themselves of the privilege of conducting and soliciting business within this State, including
`
`engaging in at least some of the infringing acts alleged herein through the sales and marketing of
`
`infringing products in this State. The allegations and claims set forth in this action arise out of
`
`Defendants’ infringing activities in this State, as well as by others acting as Defendants’ agents
`
`and/or representatives, such that it would be reasonable for this Court to exercise jurisdiction
`
`consistent with the principles underlying the U.S. Constitution, and would not offend traditional
`
`notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`
`12.
`
`Upon further information and belief, Defendants have also established minimum
`
`contacts with this District and regularly transact and do business within this District, including
`
`advertising, promoting and selling products over the internet, through intermediaries,
`
`representatives and/or agents located within this District, that infringe Maxell’s patents, which
`
`products are then sold, packaged, and shipped directly to citizens residing within this State and
`
`this District. Upon further information and belief, Defendants have purposefully directed
`
`activities at citizens of this State and located within this District.
`
`13.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants have purposefully and voluntarily placed
`
`their products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased and
`
`used by customers located in the State of Delaware and the District of Delaware. On information
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01446-MN Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 5 of 34 PageID #: 5
`
`and belief, Defendants’ customers in the District of Delaware have purchased and used and
`
`continue to purchase and use Defendants’ products.
`
`14.
`
` Venue in the District of Delaware is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and
`
`1400 because BlackBerry Corporation and/or its agent resides or may be found in this District,
`
`and BlackBerry Ltd. is not a resident of the United States and may, therefore, be sued in any
`
`judicial district.
`
`COUNT 1- INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,580,999
`
`15. Maxell incorporates paragraphs 1-14 above by reference.
`
`16.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,580,999 (the “’999 Patent,” attached hereto as Exhibit A) duly
`
`issued on June 17, 2003, and is entitled Portable Terminal With the Function of Walking
`
`Navigation.
`
`17. Maxell is the owner by assignment of the ’999 Patent and possesses all rights of
`
`recovery under the ’999 Patent, including the exclusive right to recover for past and future
`
`infringement.
`
`18.
`
`On May 4, 2017, Hitachi contacted Mr. Mark Kokes, the Senior Vice President of
`
`Blackberry, to engage in discussions regarding the potential licensing of Hitachi’s patents,
`
`including the ’999 Patent.
`
`19.
`
`Defendants have directly infringed one or more claims of the ’999 Patent in this
`
`judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, including at least claims 1-6 literally and/or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, by or through making, using, importing, offering for sale
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01446-MN Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 6 of 34 PageID #: 6
`
`and/or selling their telecommunications technology, including by way of example a product
`
`known as the Bold.
`
`20.
`
`The Bold is a portable terminal that has GPS functionality and the function of
`
`walking navigation through one or more GPS mapping applications such as the AT&T
`
`Navigator, the VZ Navigator App, and the Sprint Scout App. The mapping app on the Bold
`
`shows the present place of the Bold by denoting a dot or arrow on a map and includes direction
`
`information denoting an orientation of the Bold including, for example, a compass and/or
`
`gyroscope. For example, an arrow is used to indicate the direction of travel. The Bold also
`
`includes one or more components for obtaining the location of another portable terminal over a
`
`network, e.g., WiFi or cellular. For example, through one of the mapping applications, the user
`
`can share his/her destination address or current location to a second user. The mapping
`
`applications also provide route guidance information as walking navigation from the present
`
`place to the location of another portable terminal with distance information between the
`
`locations.
`
`21.
`
`The foregoing features and capabilities of the Bold, and Defendants’ description
`
`and/or demonstration thereof, including in user manuals and advertising, reflect Defendants’
`
`direct infringement by satisfying every element of at least claims 1-6 of the ’999 Patent, under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`22.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants further infringe the ’999 Patent through
`
`additional products utilizing the same or reasonably similar functionalities as described above
`
`with respect to the Bold (collectively, “the ’999 Accused Products”). The ’999 Accused Products
`
`include, by way of examples, BlackBerry Z10, KeyOne, Bold 9930, Classic, Q10, Bold 9650,
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01446-MN Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 7 of 34 PageID #: 7
`
`Z30, Curve 8330, Tour 9630, PRIV, Curve 9630, Torch 9860, Bold 9900, Bold 9810, Pearl
`
`9100, Curve 3G 9300, Bold 9800, Bold 9700, Curve, Curve 8320, Bold, 8820, 8800, Curve
`
`8310, Passport, Leap, Classic Blackberry, Pearl, Torch 9810, Style 9670. These additional
`
`products each include all necessary hardware and operating systems and work as described
`
`above with respect to the Bold. Maxell reserves the right to discover and pursue any additional
`
`infringing devices that incorporate infringing functionalities. For the avoidance of doubt, the
`
`’999 Accused Products are identified to describe the Defendants’ infringement and in no way
`
`limit the discovery and infringement allegations against Defendants concerning other devices
`
`that incorporate the same or reasonably similar functionalities.
`
`23.
`
`Defendants have indirectly infringed at least claims 1-6 of the ’999 Patent in this
`
`judicial district and elsewhere in the United States by, among other things, actively inducing the
`
`use, offering for sale, selling, or importation of at least the ’999 Accused Products. Defendants’
`
`customers who purchase devices and components thereof and operate such devices and
`
`components in accordance with Defendants’ instructions directly infringe one or more claims of
`
`the ’999 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. Defendants instruct their customers through at
`
`least user guides, such as
`
`those for
`
`the Bold
`
`located at
`
`the following website:
`
`http://help.blackberry.com/en/blackberry-bold-9650/6.0/user-guide-pdf/userguide_series_13.pdf.
`
`Defendants are thereby liable for infringement of the ’999 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`24.
`
`Defendants have indirectly infringed at least claims 1-6 of the ’999 Patent, by,
`
`among other things, contributing to the direct infringement of others, including customers of the
`
`’999 Accused Products by making, offering to sell, or selling, in the United States, or importing a
`
`component of a patented machine, manufacture, or combination, or an apparatus for use in
`
`practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01446-MN Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 8 of 34 PageID #: 8
`
`be especially made or especially adapted for use in infringement of the ’999 Patent, and not a
`
`staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
`
`25.
`
`For example, the ’999 Accused Products include GPS mapping applications. This
`
`is a component of a patented machine, manufacture, or combination, or an apparatus for use in
`
`practicing a patented process. Furthermore, such applications are a material part of the invention
`
`and upon information and belief are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial non-infringing use. Thus, Defendants are liable for infringement of the ’999 Patent
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`26.
`
`Defendants have been on notice of the ’999 Patent since at least the invitation for
`
`negotiations sent by Hitachi on May 4, 2017, and at the latest, the service of this complaint. By
`
`the time of trial, Defendants will thus have known and intended (since receiving such notice),
`
`that their continued actions would actively induce and contribute to actual infringement of at
`
`least claims 1-6 of the ’999 Patent.
`
`27.
`
`Defendants undertook and continue their infringing actions despite an objectively
`
`high likelihood that such activities infringed the ’999 Patent, which has been duly issued by the
`
`USPTO, and is presumed valid. For example, since at least May 4, 2017, Defendants have been
`
`aware of an objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted and continue to constitute
`
`infringement of the ’999 Patent, and that the ’999 Patent is valid. On information and belief,
`
`Defendants could not reasonably, subjectively believe that their actions do not constitute
`
`infringement of the ’999 Patent, nor could they reasonably, subjectively believe that the patent is
`
`invalid. Despite that knowledge and subjective belief, and the objectively high likelihood that
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01446-MN Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 9 of 34 PageID #: 9
`
`their actions constitute infringement, Defendants have continued their infringing activities. As
`
`such, Defendants willfully infringe the ’999 Patent.
`
`28. Maxell has been damaged by Defendants’ infringement of the ’999 Patent.
`
`COUNT 2- INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,170,394
`
`29. Maxell incorporates paragraphs 1-28 above by reference.
`
`30.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,170,394 (the “’394 Patent,” attached hereto as Exhibit B) duly
`
`issued on May 1, 2012, and is entitled Multimedia Player Displaying Operation Panel
`
`Depending on Contents.
`
`31. Maxell is the owner by assignment of the ’394 Patent and possesses all rights of
`
`recovery under the ’394 Patent, including the exclusive right to recover for past and future
`
`infringement.
`
`32.
`
`Defendants have directly infringed one or more claims of the ’394 Patent in this
`
`judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, including at least claims 2, 4, 5, and 7
`
`literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by or through making, using, importing,
`
`offering for sale and/or selling their telecommunications technology, including by way of
`
`example a product known as the DTEK60.
`
`33.
`
`The DTEK60 is an apparatus that reproduces video and music. The DTEK60
`
`incorporates electronic components and/or a processor programmed to receive 4G LTE and/or
`
`WiFi signals inputted at an antenna and extracting digital content, programmed to receive
`
`content stored in the memory, and record video inputted via a camera. The DTEK60 includes
`
`electronic components and/or a processor programmed to reproduce digital content received in
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01446-MN Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 10 of 34 PageID #: 10
`
`one or more multimedia messaging protocols and programmed to reproduce video content
`
`received by network communication components or retrieved from the memory. The DTEK60
`
`includes electronic components and/or processor programmed to output a reproduced MMS,
`
`audio file, and/or video to a display or to speakers.
`
`34.
`
`The DTEK60 displays digital content being outputted together with a display of a
`
`linear content operation panel allowing user-instruction regarding linear reproduction functions
`
`of the reproduced digital content. The DTEK60 also displays the outputted digital content
`
`together with a display of an interactive content operation panel allowing user-instruction of
`
`interactive functions outside of the digital content reproducing apparatus. The linear content
`
`operation panel and the interactive content operation panel for the DTEK60 are distinct panels
`
`from each other and no disabling of buttons is required to generate them. Only one of the linear
`
`content operation panel or the interactive content operation panel is displayed at a time with the
`
`outputted digital content together in one screen. The DTEK60 includes a processor programmed
`
`to control the display of the graphical user interface, for example by providing GU Interfaces
`
`corresponding to linear content and interactive content.
`
`35.
`
`The foregoing features and capabilities of the DTEK60, and Defendants’
`
`description and/or demonstration thereof, including in user manuals and advertising, reflect
`
`Defendants’ direct infringement by satisfying every element of at least claims 2, 4, 5, and 7 of
`
`the ’394 Patent, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`36.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants further infringe the ’394 Patent through
`
`additional products utilizing the same or reasonably similar functionalities as described above
`
`with respect to the DTEK60 (collectively, “the ’394 Accused Products”). The ’394 Accused
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01446-MN Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 11 of 34 PageID #: 11
`
`Products include, by way of examples, DTEK50, KeyOne, PRIV, Q10, Q20, Classic SQC100-4,
`
`Bold Touch 9930, Q5, Torch 9810, Z30, Z10, Curve 3G 9300, Curve 9360, Leap, Passport, and
`
`Classic. These additional products each include all necessary hardware and operating systems
`
`and work as described above with respect to the DTEK60. Maxell reserves the right to discover
`
`and pursue any additional infringing devices that incorporate infringing functionalities. For the
`
`avoidance of doubt, the ’394 Accused Products are identified to describe the Defendants’
`
`infringement and in no way limit the discovery and infringement allegations against Defendants
`
`concerning other devices that incorporate the same or reasonably similar functionalities.
`
`37.
`
`Defendants have indirectly infringed at least claims 2, 4, 5, and 7 of the ’394
`
`Patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States by, among other things, actively
`
`inducing the use, offering for sale, selling, or importation of at least the ’394 Accused Products.
`
`Defendants’ customers who purchase devices and components thereof and operate such devices
`
`and components in accordance with Defendants’ instructions directly infringe one or more
`
`claims of the ’394 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. Defendants instruct their customers
`
`through at least user guides, such as those for the DTEK60 located at the following website:
`
`http://help.blackberry.com/en/dtek60/current/user-guide-pdf/DTEK60-6.0-User-Guide-en.pdf.
`
`Defendants are thereby liable for infringement of the ’394 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`38.
`
`Defendants have indirectly infringed at least claims 2, 4, 5, and 7 of the ’394
`
`Patent, by, among other things, contributing to the direct infringement of others, including
`
`customers of the ’394 Accused Products by making, offering to sell, or selling, in the United
`
`States, or importing a component of a patented machine, manufacture, or combination, or an
`
`apparatus for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention,
`
`knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in infringement of the ’394
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01446-MN Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 12 of 34 PageID #: 12
`
`Patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing
`
`use.
`
`39.
`
`For example, the ’394 Accused Products include linear and interactive content
`
`operation control panels. These are components of a patented machine, manufacture, or
`
`combination, or an apparatus for use in practicing a patented process. Furthermore, such
`
`components are a material part of the invention and upon information and belief are not staple
`
`articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. Thus,
`
`Defendants are liable for infringement of the ’394 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`40.
`
`Defendants have been on notice of the ’394 Patent since at the latest, the service
`
`of this complaint. By the time of trial, Defendants will thus have known and intended (since
`
`receiving such notice), that their continued actions would actively induce and contribute to actual
`
`infringement of at least claims 2, 4, 5, and 7 of the ’394 Patent.
`
`41.
`
`Defendants undertook and continue their infringing actions despite an objectively
`
`high likelihood that such activities infringed the ’394 Patent, which has been duly issued by the
`
`USPTO, and is presumed valid. For example, since at least the service of this complaint,
`
`Defendants have been aware of an objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted and
`
`continue to constitute infringement of the ’394 Patent, and that the ’394 Patent is valid. On
`
`information and belief, Defendants could not reasonably, subjectively believe that their actions
`
`do not constitute infringement of the ’394 Patent, nor could they reasonably, subjectively believe
`
`that the patent is invalid. Despite that knowledge and subjective belief, and the objectively high
`
`likelihood that their actions constitute infringement, Defendants have continued their infringing
`
`activities. As such, Defendants willfully infringe the ’394 Patent.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01446-MN Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 13 of 34 PageID #: 13
`
`42. Maxell has been damaged by Defendants’ infringement of the ’394 Patent.
`
`COUNT 3- INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,973,334
`
`43. Maxell incorporates paragraphs 1-42 above by reference.
`
`44.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,973,334 (the “’334 Patent,” attached hereto as Exhibit C) duly
`
`issued on December 6, 2005, and is entitled Cellular Telephone.
`
`45. Maxell is the owner by assignment of the ’334 Patent and possesses all rights of
`
`recovery under the ’334 Patent, including the exclusive right to recover for past and future
`
`infringement.
`
`46.
`
`Defendants have directly infringed one or more claims of the ’334 Patent in this
`
`judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, including at least claims 1 and 4 literally
`
`and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by or through making, using, importing, offering for
`
`sale and/or selling their telecommunications technology, including by way of example a product
`
`known as the PRIV.
`
`47.
`
`The PRIV is a cellular telephone used in a CDMA system, such as WCDMA, TD-
`
`SCDMA, and CDMA 1x.
`
`48.
`
`The PRIV has at least one antenna for receiving signals from and transmitting
`
`signals to cell-cite stations, such as a base station. The PRIV supports and implements at least the
`
`UMTS (universal mobile telecommunications service) standards and relevant technical
`
`specifications promulgated by the 3GPP. For example, the PRIV’s antenna receives a first
`
`communication signal (such as data signals transmitted on a downlink channel) and a
`
`transmitting power control signal (such as a TPC transmitted on a downlink channel) from a cell-
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01446-MN Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 14 of 34 PageID #: 14
`
`site station (such as a base station), as evidenced by the 3GPP Standards. The PRIV also has an
`
`antenna that transmits a second communication signal (such as data on an uplink channel) to the
`
`cell-site station (base station), as demonstrated by the 3GPP Specifications.
`
`49.
`
`According
`
`to
`
`the 3GPP standards,
`
`the PRIV has a duplexer and an
`
`encoder/decoder connected to the antenna. The PRIV has a receiver connected to the antenna
`
`through the duplexer in accordance with 3GPP technical specifications. The receiver is
`
`configured to derive and output a power control signal from the transmitting power control signal
`
`(TPC) sent from the cell-site station, as required by the 3GPP standards.
`
`50.
`
`The PRIV has an acoustic transducer in accordance with the 3GPP standards. The
`
`PRIV also has a transmitter connected to the encoder/decoder and to the antenna through the
`
`duplexer, a controller connected to the receiver and the transmitter, and a power amplifier. The
`
`controller includes a central processing unit and a memory and controls the transmitter.
`
`51.
`
`The foregoing features and capabilities of the PRIV, and Defendants’ description
`
`and/or demonstration thereof, including in user manuals and advertising, reflect Defendants’
`
`direct infringement by satisfying every element of at least claims 1 and 4 of the ’334 Patent,
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`52.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants further infringe the ’334 Patent through
`
`additional products utilizing the same or reasonably similar functionalities as described above
`
`with respect to the PRIV (collectively, “the ’334 Accused Products”). The ’334 Accused
`
`Products include, by way of examples, Z10 Bold 9930, Classic, Q10, Bold 9650, Bold 9700, Z30
`
`Curve 8330, Curve 9320, Tour 9630, KeyOne, Curve 3G, Z30, 8530, Q5, Z30, Torch 9800,
`
`Torch 9850, Torch 9860, Bold 9000, Torch 2 9810, Porsche Design P’9981, and Torch 9850.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01446-MN Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 15 of 34 PageID #: 15
`
`These additional products each include all necessary hardware and operating systems and work
`
`as described above with respect to the PRIV. Maxell reserves the right to discover and pursue
`
`any additional infringing devices that incorporate infringing functionalities. For the avoidance of
`
`doubt, the ’334 Accused Products are identified to describe the Defendants’ infringement and in
`
`no way limit the discovery and infringement allegations against Defendants concerning other
`
`devices that incorporate the same or reasonably similar functionalities.
`
`53.
`
`Defendants have indirectly infringed at least claims 1 and 4 of the ’334 Patent in
`
`this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States by, among other things, actively inducing
`
`the use, offering for sale, selling, or importation of at least the ’334 Accused Products.
`
`Defendants’ customers who purchase devices and components thereof and operate such devices
`
`and components in accordance with Defendants’ instructions directly infringe one or more
`
`claims of the ’334 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. Defendants instruct their customers
`
`through at least user guides, such as those for the PRIV located at the following website:
`
`https://help.blackberry.com/en/priv/current/user-guide-pdf/PRIV-6.0-User-Guide-en.pdf.
`
`Defendants are thereby liable for infringement of the ’334 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`54.
`
`Defendants have indirectly infringed at least claims 1 and 4 of the ’334 Patent, by,
`
`among other things, contributing to the direct infringement of others, including customers of the
`
`’334 Accused Products by making, offering to sell, or selling, in the United States, or importing a
`
`component of a patented machine, manufacture, or combination, or an apparatus for use in
`
`practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to
`
`be especially made or especially adapted for use in infringement of the ’334 Patent, and not a
`
`staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01446-MN Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 16 of 34 PageID #: 16
`
`55.
`
`For example, the ’334 Accused Products include a component to effectuate power
`
`control functionality. This is a component of a patented machine, manufacture, or combination,
`
`or an apparatus for use in practicing a patented process. Furthermore, such component is a
`
`material part of the invention and upon information and belief is not a staple article or
`
`commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. Thus, Defendants are liable
`
`for infringement of the ’334 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`56.
`
`Defendants have been on notice of the ’334 Patent since at the latest, the service
`
`of this complaint. By the time of trial, Defendants will thus have known and intended (since
`
`receiving such notice), that their continued actions would actively induce and contribute to actual
`
`infringement of at least claims 1 and 4 of the ’334 Patent.
`
`57.
`
`Defendants undertook and continue their infringing actions despite an objectively
`
`high likelihood that such activities infringed the ’334 Patent, which has been duly issued by the
`
`USPTO, and is presumed valid. For example, since at least the service of this complaint,
`
`Defendants have been aware of an objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted and
`
`continue to constitute infringement of the ’334 Patent, and that the ’334 Patent is valid. On
`
`information and belief, Defendants could not reasonably, subjectively believe that their actions
`
`do not constitute infringement of the ’334 Patent, nor could they reasonably, subjectively believe
`
`that the patent is invalid. Despite that knowledge and subjective belief, and the objectively high
`
`likelihood that their actions constitute infringement, Defendants have continued their infringing
`
`activities. As such, Defendants willfully infringe the ’334 Patent.
`
`58. Maxell has been damaged by Defendants’ infringement of the ’334 Patent.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01446-MN Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 17 of 34 PageID #: 17
`
`COUNT 4- INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,199,821
`
`59. Maxell incorporates paragraphs 1-58 above by reference.
`
`60.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,199,821 (the “’821 Patent,” attached hereto as Exhibit D) duly
`
`issued on April 3, 2007, and is entitled Imaging Apparatus and Method for Controlling White
`
`Balance.
`
`61. Maxell is the owner by assignment of the ’821 Patent and possesses all rights of
`
`recovery under the ’821 Patent, including the exclusive right to recover for past and future
`
`infringement.
`
`62.
`
`Defendants have directly infringed one or more claims of the ’821 Patent in this
`
`judicial district and elsewhere in the United States, including at least claim 7, literally and/or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, by or through making, using, importing, offering for sale
`
`and/or selling their telecommunications technology, including by way of example a product
`
`known as the DTEK60.
`
`63.
`
`The DTEK60 is an image processing apparatus with a display that displays
`
`images that are picked up by an image pick up device and processed by an image processor. The
`
`image pickup device is a 21 megapixel auto-focus camera sensor. The 21 megapixel auto-focus
`
`camera sensor is an optical system used to pick up an image of an object. The DTEK60 has a
`
`white balance circuit that ensures that white objects in images picked up by the image sensor
`
`appear white. The DTEK60 also includes a circuit and/or processor for detecting object distance,
`
`detecting a zoom value, and detecting object brightness. For example, the DTEK60 has
`
`autofocus functions, brightness measurement functions, zooming functions, and white balance
`
`functionalities. The DTEK60 controls white balance in an image based on these distance, zoom,
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01446-MN Document 1 Filed 10/13/17 Page 18 of 34 PageID #: 18
`
`and brightness values. The DTEK60 also has a circuit for setting a threshold on the basis of
`
`object