Case 1:23-cv-00121-RGA Document 30 Filed 12/06/23 Page 1 of 77 PageID #: 1707
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`Civil Action No. 23-121-RGA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`LITL LLC,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC. and DELL
`INC.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LITL LLC,
`
`LITL LLC,
`
`Intervenor-Defendant.
`
`Intervenor-Defendant /
`Counterclaim Plaintiff in
`Intervention,
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff /
`Counterclaim Defendant in
`Intervention.
`
`LITL LLC’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND
`COUNTERCLAIMS TO MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S
`COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`Civil Action No. 23-121-RGA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`LITL LLC,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC. and DELL
`INC.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LITL LLC,
`
`LITL LLC,
`
`Intervenor-Defendant.
`
`Intervenor-Defendant /
`Counterclaim Plaintiff in
`Intervention,
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff /
`Counterclaim Defendant in
`Intervention.
`
`LITL LLC’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND
`COUNTERCLAIMS TO MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S
`COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00121-RGA Document 30 Filed 12/06/23 Page 2 of 77 PageID #: 1708
`
`Plaintiff and Intervenor-Defendant LiTL LLC (“Plaintiff” or “LiTL”) hereby responds to
`
`the Complaint in Intervention (“Complaint”) filed by Intervenor-Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation
`
`(“Microsoft”) in LiTL’s action against Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc. (collectively “Dell”),
`
`with the following Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims.
`
`GENERAL DENIAL
`
`Unless specifically admitted below, LiTL denies each and every allegation in the
`
`Complaint in Intervention. To the extent the headings of the Complaint are construed as
`
`allegations, they are each denied.
`
`LiTL hereby answers the numbered paragraphs of the Complaint in Intervention with the
`
`following correspondingly numbered responses:
`
`1.
`
`LiTL admits that Microsoft is seeking a declaratory judgment of non-
`
`infringement but denies that such action is meritorious.
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`LiTL admits the allegations of Paragraph 2, based on information and belief that
`
`Microsoft has described itself accurately.
`
`3.
`
`LiTL admits the allegations of Paragraph 3.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`LiTL admits the allegations of Paragraph 4.
`
`LiTL admits the allegations of Paragraph 5.
`
`LiTL admits the allegations of Paragraph 6.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND MICROSOFT’S INTEREST IN THIS ACTION
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`LiTL admits the allegations of Paragraph 7.
`
`LiTL admits the allegation in Paragraph 8 that Dell is a customer of Microsoft’s
`
`and that Dell sells computer products that incorporate Microsoft’s Windows Operating System.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00121-RGA Document 30 Filed 12/06/23 Page 3 of 77 PageID #: 1709
`
`
`
`LiTL lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 8, and therefore denies them.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`LiTL admits the allegations of Paragraph 9.
`
`LiTL admits the allegation in Paragraph 10 that the First Amended Complaint
`
`specifically identified numerous Dell devices as infringing the ’154, ’315, ’715, ’818, and ’888
`
`patents. LiTL denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`LiTL denies the allegations of Paragraph 11.
`
`LiTL admits the allegation in Paragraph 12 that the ’154 patent is entitled
`
`“Portable computer with multiple display configurations,” and that the First Amended Complaint
`
`alleges that Dell infringes at least claim 1 of the ’154 patent. LiTL denies the remaining
`
`allegations of Paragraph 12.
`
`13.
`
`LiTL admits the allegation in Paragraph 13 that the ’315 patent is entitled
`
`“System and method for streamlining user interaction with electronic content,” and that the First
`
`Amended Complaint alleges that Dell infringes at least claim 1 of the ’315 patent. LiTL denies
`
`the remaining allegations of Paragraph 13.
`
`14.
`
`LiTL admits the allegation in Paragraph 14 that the ’715 patent is entitled
`
`“System and method for streamlining user interaction with electronic content,” and that the First
`
`Amended Complaint alleges that Dell infringes at least claim 1 of the ’715 patent. LiTL denies
`
`the remaining allegations of Paragraph 14.
`
`15.
`
`LiTL admits the allegation in Paragraph 15 that the ’818 patent is entitled
`
`“System and method for streamlining user interaction with electronic content,” and that the First
`
`Amended Complaint alleges that Dell infringes at least claim 1 of the ’818 patent. LiTL denies
`
`the remaining allegations of Paragraph 15.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00121-RGA Document 30 Filed 12/06/23 Page 4 of 77 PageID #: 1710
`
`
`
`16.
`
`LiTL admits the allegation in Paragraph 16 that the ’888 patent is entitled
`
`“Method and apparatus for managing digital media content,” and that the First Amended
`
`Complaint alleges that Dell infringes at least claim 27 of the ’888 patent. LiTL denies the
`
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 16.
`
`17.
`
`LiTL denies the allegations in the first sentence of Paragraph 17. LiTL lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`in Paragraph 17, and therefore denies them.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`LiTL admits the allegations of Paragraph 18.
`
`LiTL admits the allegations of Paragraph 19.
`
`LiTL admits the allegation in Paragraph 20 that Microsoft has an objectively
`
`reasonable apprehension that LiTL will claim that Microsoft’s products, including at least the
`
`Windows Operating System, directly or indirectly infringe one or more claims of the ’154 patent,
`
`the ’315 patent, the ’715 patent, the ’818 patent, and the ’888 patent. LiTL admits the allegation
`
`in Paragraph 20 that an actual controversy exists between Microsoft and LiTL. The remainder of
`
`Paragraph 20 contains statements to which no response is required.
`
`COUNT 1
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,289,154)
`
`21.
`
`LiTL incorporates by reference each of its answers set forth in the foregoing
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`LiTL admits the allegations of Paragraph 22.
`
`LiTL denies the allegations of Paragraph 23.
`
`LiTL admits the allegation in Paragraph 24 that a judicial declaration concerning
`
`these matters is necessary and appropriate, but denies any allegation that Microsoft is entitled to
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00121-RGA Document 30 Filed 12/06/23 Page 5 of 77 PageID #: 1711
`
`
`
`a declaratory judgment of noninfringement. LiTL denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph
`
`24.
`
`COUNT 2
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,003,315)
`
`25.
`
`LiTL incorporates by reference each of its answers set forth in the foregoing
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`LiTL admits the allegations of Paragraph 26.
`
`LiTL denies the allegations of Paragraph 27.
`
`LiTL admits the allegation in Paragraph 28 that a judicial declaration concerning
`
`these matters is necessary and appropriate, but denies any allegation that Microsoft is entitled to
`
`a declaratory judgment of noninfringement. LiTL denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph
`
`28.
`
`COUNT 3
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,880,715)
`
`29.
`
`LiTL incorporates by reference each of its answers set forth in the foregoing
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`LiTL admits the allegations of Paragraph 30.
`
`LiTL denies the allegations of Paragraph 31.
`
`LiTL admits the allegation in Paragraph 32 that a judicial declaration concerning
`
`these matters is necessary and appropriate, but denies any allegation that Microsoft is entitled to
`
`a declaratory judgment of noninfringement. LiTL denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph
`
`32.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00121-RGA Document 30 Filed 12/06/23 Page 6 of 77 PageID #: 1712
`
`
`
`COUNT 4
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,564,818)
`
`33.
`
`LiTL incorporates by reference each of its answers set forth in the foregoing
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`LiTL admits the allegations of Paragraph 34.
`
`LiTL denies the allegations of Paragraph 35.
`
`LiTL admits the allegation in Paragraph 36 that a judicial declaration concerning
`
`these matters is necessary and appropriate, but denies any allegation that Microsoft is entitled to
`
`a declaratory judgment of noninfringement. LiTL denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph
`
`36.
`
`COUNT 5
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,612,888)
`
`37.
`
`LiTL incorporates by reference each of its answers set forth in the foregoing
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`LiTL admits the allegations of Paragraph 38.
`
`LiTL denies the allegations of Paragraph 39.
`
`LiTL admits the allegation in Paragraph 40 that a judicial declaration concerning
`
`these matters is necessary and appropriate, but denies any allegation that Microsoft is entitled to
`
`a declaratory judgment of noninfringement. LiTL denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph
`
`40.
`
`REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`LiTL denies Microsoft’s allegation that it is entitled to or should be granted any relief in
`
`this matter, including the relief that Microsoft requests in paragraphs A-G.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00121-RGA Document 30 Filed 12/06/23 Page 7 of 77 PageID #: 1713
`
`
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`1.
`
`Microsoft’s Complaint fails to state a claim, in whole or in part, upon which
`
`relief can be granted.
`
`2.
`
`LiTL reserves the right to assert additional defenses based on information
`
`learned or obtained during discovery.
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Intervenor-Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff in Intervention LiTL LLC (“LiTL”)
`
`brings these counterclaims for patent infringement against Intervenor-Plaintiff and Counterclaim
`
`Defendant in Intervention Microsoft (“Microsoft”).
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil action for patent infringement under the laws of the United States,
`
`35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
`
`2.
`
`Microsoft has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 8,289,688 (“the ’688 patent”); 8,624,844 (“the ’844 patent”); 9,563,229 (“the ’229
`
`patent “); 10,289,154 (“the ’154 patent”); 9,003,315 (“the ’315 patent”); 9,880,715 (“the ’715
`
`patent”); 10,564,818 (“the ’818 patent”); and 8,612,888 (“the ’888 patent”) (collectively, the
`
`“Asserted Patents”) at least by (1) directly infringing by using, importing, selling, and offering
`
`for sale Microsoft computing devices that infringe one or more claims of each of the ʼ154, ʼ315,
`
`ʼ715, ʼ818, and ʼ888 patents; (2) inducing resellers and customers to infringe one or more claims
`
`of each of the ʼ154, ʼ315, ʼ715, ʼ818, and ʼ888 patents; (3) inducing Dell Technologies Inc. and
`
`Dell Inc. (collectively “Dell”) to infringe one or more claims of each of the Asserted Patents; and
`
`(4) in the alternative to direct infringement, contributorily infringing one or more claims of each
`
`of the ʼ154, ʼ315, ʼ715, ʼ818, and ʼ888 patents by selling, offering for sale, and importing within
`
`the United States Microsoft computing devices.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00121-RGA Document 30 Filed 12/06/23 Page 8 of 77 PageID #: 1714
`
`
`
`3.
`
`LiTL is the legal owner by assignment of the entire right, title, and interest in and
`
`to the Asserted Patents, which were duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office (“USPTO”). LiTL seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief to address
`
`past and ongoing infringement of its valuable patent portfolio.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`LiTL is a Delaware company, having its principal place of business at 501
`
`Boylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02116.
`
`5.
`
`Microsoft is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington,
`
`with its principal place of business at One Microsoft Way, Redmond, Washington 98052.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the
`
`United States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`7.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Microsoft at least because Microsoft
`
`submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court when it filed its Complaint in Intervention and because
`
`Microsoft has committed and continues to commit acts of patent infringement and places
`
`infringing products into the stream of commerce, with the knowledge or understanding that such
`
`products are sold in this District.
`
`8.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b) at least
`
`because Microsoft has availed itself of this venue by intervening in the underlying action against
`
`Dell.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00121-RGA Document 30 Filed 12/06/23 Page 9 of 77 PageID #: 1715
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`LiTL’s Patented Technologies
`
`9.
`
`In 2007, John Chuang had a vision for a new type of computer. He recognized
`
`that traditional computers are designed to meet the needs of everyone from a six year old to the
`
`largest employers on earth. Mr. Chuang set out to build a computer for the home that offered a
`
`simplified operating environment. Mr. Chuang founded LiTL and assembled a team of hardware
`
`and software engineers and user interface designers to achieve his vision.
`
`10.
`
`LiTL developed a webbook, a portable computing device, which launched in
`
`2009. LiTL focused on how a family typically uses the Internet in the home, and optimized the
`
`webbook’s user interface for consuming Internet content.
`
`http://web.archive.org/web/20091204052449/http://www.litl.com/essays/hardware.htm
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00121-RGA Document 30 Filed 12/06/23 Page 10 of 77 PageID #: 1716
`
`
`
`11.
`
`The webbook provided multiple display modes. In laptop mode, users access a
`
`keyboard and touchpad to browse the Internet and access apps that can be arranged as a set of
`
`cards.
`
`
`http://web.archive.org/web/20091204052449/http://www.litl.com/essays/hardware.htm
`
`
`12.
`
`Rotating the webbook display into “easel mode” allows users to easily consume
`
`content from the Internet via a streamlined, intuitive interface.
`
`
`
`http://web.archive.org/web/20091201114605/http://www.litl.com/easy-to-use/intuitive-
`interface.htm
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00121-RGA Document 30 Filed 12/06/23 Page 11 of 77 PageID #: 1717
`
`
`
`13.
`
`In easel mode the webbook’s keyboard faces away from the user, and content is
`
`enlarged on the display for easier viewing from further away.
`
`
`http://web.archive.org/web/20130420102239/http://litl.com/webbook/meet-webbook/more-
`fun.htm
`
`
`14.
`
`The webbook can also be configured in “frame mode,” in which the keyboard
`
`faces down into the surface on which the webbook rests.
`
`
`
`’688 patent, Figure 26.
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00121-RGA Document 30 Filed 12/06/23 Page 12 of 77 PageID #: 1718
`
`
`
`15.
`
`The webbook delivers content from a user’s favorite websites via “channels” to
`
`provide an experience that resembles watching television.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`http://web.archive.org/web/20091204052453/http://www.litl.com/essays/software.htm
`
`
`16.
`
`LiTL’s investment in innovation has produced a portfolio that includes over 30
`
`patents in the United States as well as additional patents in other countries across the globe.
`
`LiTL’s Asserted Patents
`
`17.
`
`LiTL’s Counterclaims focus on eight LiTL patents directed to various aspects of
`
`computing devices that can be used in multiple display modes.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00121-RGA Document 30 Filed 12/06/23 Page 13 of 77 PageID #: 1719
`
`
`
`18.
`
`LiTL is the current owner by assignment of the entire right, title, and interest in
`
`and to the ’688 patent titled “Portable computer with multiple display configurations.” The ’688
`
`patent issued on October 16, 2012. The patent is generally directed to portable computers
`
`configurable between a plurality of display modes. A copy of the ʼ688 patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit A.
`
`19.
`
`LiTL is the current owner by assignment of the entire right, title, and interest in
`
`and to the ’844 patent titled “Portable computer with multiple display configurations.” The ’844
`
`patent was duly and legally issued on January 7, 2014. The patent is generally directed to
`
`portable computers configurable between a plurality of display modes. A copy of the ʼ844 patent
`
`is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`20.
`
`LiTL is the current owner by assignment of the entire right, title, and interest in
`
`and to the ’229 patent titled “Portable computer with multiple display configurations.” The ’229
`
`patent was duly and legally issued on February 7, 2017. The patent is generally directed to
`
`portable computers configurable between a plurality of display modes. A copy of the ʼ229 patent
`
`is attached as Exhibit C.
`
`21.
`
`LiTL is the current owner by assignment of the entire right, title, and interest in
`
`and to the ’154 patent titled “Portable computer with multiple display configurations.” The ’154
`
`patent was duly and legally issued on May 14, 2019. The patent is generally directed to portable
`
`computers configurable between a plurality of display modes. A copy of the ʼ154 patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit D.
`
`22.
`
`LiTL is the current owner by assignment of the entire right, title, and interest in
`
`and to the ’315 patent titled “System and method for streamlining user interaction with electronic
`
`content.” The ’315 patent was duly and legally issued on April 7, 2015. The patent is generally
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00121-RGA Document 30 Filed 12/06/23 Page 14 of 77 PageID #: 1720
`
`
`
`directed to a user interface configured to display a plurality of views of computer content. A
`
`copy of the ʼ315 patent is attached as Exhibit E.
`
`23.
`
`LiTL is the current owner by assignment of the entire right, title, and interest in
`
`and to the ’715 patent titled “System and method for streamlining user interaction with electronic
`
`content.” The ’715 patent was duly and legally issued on January 30, 2018. The patent is
`
`generally directed to a user interface configured to display a plurality of views of computer
`
`content. A copy of the ʼ715 patent is attached as Exhibit F.
`
`24.
`
`LiTL is the current owner by assignment of the entire right, title, and interest in
`
`and to the ’818 patent titled “System and method for streamlining user interaction with electronic
`
`content.” The ’818 patent was duly and legally issued on February 18, 2020. The patent is
`
`generally directed to a user interface configured to display a plurality of views of computer
`
`content. A copy of the ʼ818 patent is attached as Exhibit G.
`
`25.
`
`LiTL is the current owner by assignment of the entire right, title, and interest in
`
`and to the ’888 patent titled “Method and apparatus for managing digital media content.” The
`
`’888 patent was duly and legally issued on December 17, 2013. The patent relates generally to
`
`accessing and managing digital media libraries on streamlined computing devices with a
`
`plurality of selectable I/O profiles. A copy of the ʼ888 patent is attached as Exhibit H.
`
`Microsoft’s Knowledge of LiTL’s Asserted Patents and Microsoft’s Infringement
`
`26.
`
`By at least as early as May 2021, Microsoft knew that LiTL had asserted against
`
`Lenovo certain of the Asserted Patents in LiTL LLC v. Lenovo (United States), Inc. et al, No.
`
`1:20-cv-00689-RGA (D. Del.).
`
`27.
`
`In about May 2021, a LiTL executive spoke with an Assistant General Counsel
`
`for Microsoft about LiTL’s technology and patents.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00121-RGA Document 30 Filed 12/06/23 Page 15 of 77 PageID #: 1721
`
`
`
`28.
`
`On May 10, 2021, LiTL sent Microsoft a letter asserting that “[a] number of
`
`LiTL’s patents are applicable to Microsoft products, including the Surface line of products,” and
`
`identified the patents in LiTL’s patent portfolio, including each of the Asserted Patents. The
`
`letter included detailed claim charts that provide an element-by-element explanation of how an
`
`exemplary Microsoft Surface product infringes at least one claim in each of the ’154 patent, the
`
`’315 patent, the ’715 patent, the ’818 patent, and the ’888 patent.
`
`Microsoft’s Incorporation of LiTL’s Patented Technologies
`Into Microsoft’s Surface Devices
`
`29.
`
`The allegations provided below are exemplary and without prejudice to LiTL’s
`
`infringement contentions. In providing these allegations, LiTL does not convey or imply any
`
`particular claim constructions or the precise scope of the claims. LiTL’s claim construction
`
`contentions regarding the meaning and scope of the claim terms will be provided under the
`
`Court’s scheduling order and local rules.
`
`30.
`
`As detailed in the claim charts that LiTL provided to Microsoft in 2021,
`
`Microsoft’s Surface devices can be used in multiple configurations depending on the orientation
`
`of the keyboard relative to the display:
`
`https://youtu.be/qABelSX3rwk?t=24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00121-RGA Document 30 Filed 12/06/23 Page 16 of 77 PageID #: 1722
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`https://youtu.be/qABelSX3rwk?t=24
`
`
`
`
`https://youtu.be/qABelSX3rwk?t=24
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00121-RGA Document 30 Filed 12/06/23 Page 17 of 77 PageID #: 1723
`
`
`
`
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_j3aPr_y6k&t=158s
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00121-RGA Document 30 Filed 12/06/23 Page 18 of 77 PageID #: 1724
`
`
`
`31.
`
`Rotating the keyboard behind the display disables the keyboard so that the
`
`Surface device does not detect key presses.
`
`
`https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/surface/how-to-use-your-surface-type-cover-129f7e73-5dc7-
`dd14-aaf6-5e848c074887
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00121-RGA Document 30 Filed 12/06/23 Page 19 of 77 PageID #: 1725
`
`
`
`32.
`
`Rotating the keyboard behind the display also causes the user interface to change
`
`to make interactions via the touchscreen more convenient, e.g., certain content is enlarged.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`33.
`
`On October 2, 2019, at a Microsoft Surface event in New York City, Microsoft
`
`demonstrated the multiple display modes of the Surface Pro 7.
`
`https://news.microsoft.com/october-2-2019/
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00121-RGA Document 30 Filed 12/06/23 Page 20 of 77 PageID #: 1726
`
`
`
`
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmaioTs0NH8&t=3544s
`
`
`
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmaioTs0NH8&t=3544s
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00121-RGA Document 30 Filed 12/06/23 Page 21 of 77 PageID #: 1727
`
`
`
`
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmaioTs0NH8&t=3780s
`
`
`34.
`
`As detailed below, each element of at least one claim of each of the Asserted
`
`
`
`Patents is literally present in the Surface 3, Surface Go, Surface Go 2, Surface Go 3, Surface Go 4,
`
`Surface Pro (1st Gen), Surface Pro 2, Surface Pro 3, Surface Pro 4, Surface Pro 2017 (5th Gen),
`
`Surface Pro 6, Surface Pro 7, Surface Pro 7+, Surface Pro 8, Surface Pro 9, Surface Pro X
`
`(collectively, the “Accused Surface Devices”) in combination with any of the following keyboards:
`
`Surface Pro Signature Keyboard, Surface Pro Keyboard, Surface Pro X Signature Keyboard,
`
`Surface Pro X Keyboard, Surface Pro Signature Type Cover, Surface Pro Type Cover, Surface Pro
`
`Type Cover with Fingerprint ID, Surface Go Signature Type Cover, Surface Go Type Cover, or
`
`Surface Type Cover (collectively, the “Accused Surface Keyboards”), or is literally practiced by
`
`Microsoft personnel, agents or customers who use the Accused Surface Devices with the
`
`Accused Surface Keyboards (collectively, the “Accused Microsoft Products”). To the extent
`
`that any element is not literally present or practiced, each such element is present or practiced
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`35.
`
`The Accused Microsoft Products are sold and offered for sale on Microsoft’s
`
`website. The Accused Microsoft Products are also sold and offered for sale through resellers such
`
`as Best Buy. For example, the Microsoft Surface Pro 7+ with Surface Pro Type Cover is offered
`
`for sale on Best Buy’s website and at in-store locations such as at Best Buy Christiana in Delaware.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00121-RGA Document 30 Filed 12/06/23 Page 22 of 77 PageID #: 1728
`
`
`
`
`https://www.bestbuy.com/site/microsoft-surface-pro-7-12-3-touch-screen-intel-core-i3-8gb-
`memory-128gb-ssd-with-black-type-cover-platinum/6482181.p?skuId=6482181
`
`
`Microsoft’s Inducement of Dell’s Direct Infringement
`
`
`
`36.
`
`Microsoft provides the Windows operating system to Dell to be pre-installed on
`
`Dell convertible laptops including, but not limited to, Latitude 3120 2-in-1; Latitude 3189 2-in-1;
`
`Latitude 3190 2-in-1; Latitude 3310 2-in-1; Latitude 3330 2-in-1; Latitude 3379 2-in-1; Latitude
`
`3390 2-in-1; Latitude 5289 2-in-1; Latitude 5300 2-in-1; Latitude 5310 2-in-1; Latitude 5320 2-
`
`in-1; Latitude 5330 2-in-1; Latitude 7310 2-in-1; Latitude 7330 2-in-1; Latitude 7389 2-in-1;
`
`Latitude 7390 2-in-1; Latitude 7400 2-in-1; Latitude 7410 2-in-1; Latitude 7420 2-in-1; Latitude
`
`7430 2-in-1; Latitude 9330 2-in-1; Latitude 9410 2-in-1; Latitude 9420 2-in-1; Latitude 9430 2-
`
`in-1; Latitude 9510 2-in-1; Latitude 9520 2-in-1; Inspiron 3153 2-in-1; Inspiron 3158 2-in-1;
`
`Inspiron 3168 2-in-1; Inspiron 3169 2-in-2; Inspiron 3179 2-in-1; Inspiron 3185 2-in-1; Inspiron
`
`3195 2-in-1; Inspiron 5368 2-in-1; Inspiron 5378 2-in-1; Inspiron 5379 2-in-1; Inspiron 5400 2-
`
`in-1; Inspiron 5406 2-in-1; Inspiron 5410 2-in-1; Inspiron 5481 2-in-1; Inspiron 5482 2-in-1;
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00121-RGA Document 30 Filed 12/06/23 Page 23 of 77 PageID #: 1729
`
`
`
`Inspiron 5485 2-in-1; Inspiron 5491 2-in-1; Inspiron 5568 2-in-1; Inspiron 5578 2-in-1; Inspiron
`
`5579 2-in-1; Inspiron 5582 2-in-1; Inspiron 5591 2-in-1; Inspiron 7300 2-in-1; Inspiron 7306 2-
`
`in-1; Inspiron 7353 2-in-1; Inspiron 7359 2-in-1; Inspiron 7368 2-in-1; Inspiron 7373 2-in-1;
`
`Inspiron 7375 2-in-1; Inspiron 7378 2-in-1; Inspiron 7386 2-in-1; Inspiron 7390 2-in-1; Inspiron
`
`7391 2-in-1; Inspiron 7405 2-in-1; Inspiron 7415 2-in-1; Inspiron 7420 2-in-1; Inspiron 7425 2-
`
`in-1; Inspiron 7500 2-in-1; Inspiron 7506 2-in-1; Inspiron 7568 2-in-1; Inspiron 7569 2-in-1;
`
`Inspiron 7573 2-in-1; Inspiron 7579 2-in-1; Inspiron 7586 2-in-1; Inspiron 7590 2-in-1; Inspiron
`
`7591 2-in-1; Inspiron 7620 2-in-1; Inspiron 7706 2-in-1; Inspiron 7773 2-in-1; Inspiron 7778 2-
`
`in-1; Inspiron 7779 2-in-1; Inspiron 7786 2-in-1; Inspiron 7791 2-in-1; XPS 13 7390 2-in-1; XPS
`
`13 9310 2-in-1; XPS 13 9365 2-in-1; and XPS 15 9575 2-in-1 (collectively, the “Accused Dell
`
`Products”). The Accused Dell Products are non-limiting examples that were identified based on
`
`publicly available information, and LiTL reserves the right to identify additional infringing
`
`activities, products and services, including, for example, on the basis of information obtained
`
`during discovery.
`
`37.
`
`Since at least as early as April 2023, Microsoft has been aware of the allegations
`
`in LiTL’s Complaint that Dell has infringed the ’688, ’844, ’229, ʼ154, ʼ315, ʼ715, ʼ818, and
`
`ʼ888 patents.
`
`38.
`
`As detailed LiTL’s Complaint against Dell, each element of at least one claim of
`
`each of the Asserted Patents is literally present in the Accused Dell Products, or is literally
`
`practiced by Dell personnel, agents or customers who use the Accused Dell Products. To the
`
`extent that any element is not literally present or practiced, each such element is present or
`
`practiced under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00121-RGA Document 30 Filed 12/06/23 Page 24 of 77 PageID #: 1730
`
`
`
`39.
`
`Microsoft has made extensive use of LiTL’s patented technologies, including the
`
`technology described and claimed in the Asserted Patents. LiTL is committed to defending its
`
`proprietary and patented technology. LiTL requests that this Court award it damages sufficient
`
`to compensate for Microsoft’s infringement of the Asserted Patents, find this case exceptional
`
`and award LiTL its attorneys’ fees and costs, and grant an injunction against Microsoft to prevent
`
`ongoing infringement of the Asserted Patents.
`
`COUNT I
`
`(Induced Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,289,688)
`
`40.
`
`LiTL incorporates by reference and realleges all the foregoing paragraphs of
`
`these Counterclaims as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Microsoft’s Induced Infringement Involving the Accused Dell Products
`
`41.
`
`Since at least as early as April 2023, Microsoft has known of LiTL’s allegations
`
`that the Accused Dell Products infringe at least claim 19 of the ’688 patent when imported, used,
`
`sold or offered for sale by Dell or resellers such as Best Buy, and used by customers or other
`
`users, as detailed in LiTL’s Complaint (D.I. 1) in this action.
`
`42.
`
`Since at least as early as April 2023, Microsoft has induced infringement of at
`
`least claim 19 of the ’688 patent by providing the Windows operating system to Dell to be pre-
`
`installed on the Accused Dell Products.
`
`Microsoft’s Willful Infringement
`
`43.
`
`Since at least as early as April 2023, Microsoft has continued to provide to Dell
`
`the Windows operating system for pre-installation on the Accused Dell Products knowing that
`
`the Accused Dell Products infringe the ’688 patent.
`
`44.
`
`Microsoft’s induced infringement of at least claim 19 of the ’688 patent has been
`
`willful. The willful nature of Microsoft’s induced infringement is demonstrated by Microsoft’s
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00121-RGA Document 30 Filed 12/06/23 Page 25 of 77 PageID #: 1731
`
`
`
`provision to Dell of the Windows operating system for pre-installation on the Accused Dell
`
`Products.
`
`LiTL’s Injury Due to Microsoft’s Induced Infringement
`
`45.
`
`The foregoing description of Microsoft’s induced infringement is based on
`
`publicly available information. LiTL reserves the right to modify this description, including, for
`
`example, on the basis of information about the Accused Dell Products that it obtains during
`
`discovery.
`
`46.
`
`LiTL has been and is being irreparably harmed, and has incurred and will
`
`continue to incur damages, as a result of Microsoft’s induced infringement of the ʼ688 patent.
`
`47.
`
`Microsoft’s induced infringement of the ʼ688 patent has damaged and continues
`
`to damage LiTL in an amount yet to be determined, of no less than a reasonable royalty.
`
`COUNT II
`
`(Induced Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844)
`
`48.
`
`LiTL incorporates by reference and realleges all the foregoing paragraphs of
`
`these Counterclaims as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Microsoft’s Induced Infringement Involving the Accused Dell Products
`
`49.
`
`Since at least as early as April 2023, Microsoft has known of LiTL’s allegations
`
`that the Accused Dell Products infringe at least claims 10 and 17 of the ’844 patent when
`
`imported, used, sold or offered for sale by Dell or resellers such as Best Buy, and used by
`
`customers or other users, as detailed in LiTL’s Complaint (D.I. 1) in this action.
`
`50.
`
`Since at least as early as April 2023, Microsoft has induced infringement of at
`
`least claims 10 and 17 of the ’844 patent by providing the Windows operating system to Dell to
`
`be pre-installed on the Accused Dell Products.
`
`24
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00121-RGA Document 30 Filed 12/06/23 Page 26 of 77 PageID #: 1732
`
`
`
`Microsoft’s Willful Infringement
`
`51.
`
`Since at least as early as April 2023, Microsoft has continued to provide to Dell
`
`the Windows operating system for pre-installation on the Accused Dell Products knowing that
`
`the Accused Dell Products infringe the ’844 patent.
`
`52.
`
`Microsoft’s induced infringement of at least claims 10 and 17 of the ’844 patent
`
`has been willful. The willful nature of Microsoft’s induced infringement is demonstrated by
`
`Microsoft’s provision to Dell of the Windows operating system for pre-installation on the
`
`Accused Dell Products.
`
`LiTL’s Injury Due to Microsoft’s Induced Infringement
`
`53.
`
`The foregoing description of Microsoft’s induced infringement is based on
`
`publicly available information. LiTL reserves the right to modify this description, including, for
`
`example, on the basis of information about the Accused Dell Products that it obtains during
`
`discovery.
`
`54.
`
`LiTL has been and is being irreparably harmed, and has incurred and will
`
`continue to incur damages, as a result of Microsoft’s induced infringement of the ʼ844 patent.
`
`55.
`
`Microsoft’s induced infringement of the ʼ844 patent has damaged and continues
`
`to damage LiTL in an amount yet to be determined, of no less than a reasonable royalty.
`
`COUNT III
`
`(Induced Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,563,229)
`
`56.
`
`LiTL incorporates by reference and realleges all the foregoing paragraphs of
`
`these Counterclaims as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Microsoft’s Induced Infringement Involving the Accused Dell Products
`
`57.
`
`Since at least as early as April 2023, Microsoft has known of LiTL’s allegations
`
`that the Accused Dell Products infringe at least claim 1 of the ’229 patent when imported, used,
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-00121-RGA Document 30
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
