Case 1:23-cv-00122-RGA Document 30 Filed 10/16/23 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1486
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 23-122-RGA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`LITL LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC., ASUS
`GLOBAL PTE. LTD., and ASUS
`TECHNOLOGY PTE. LIMITED,
`
`Defendants.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LITL LLC,
`
`Intervenor-Defendant.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION
`
`Pursuant to Rule 24(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Intervenor-Plaintiff Microsoft
`
`Corporation (“Microsoft”) alleges as follows for its Complaint in Intervention against Plaintiff and
`
`Intervenor-Defendant LiTL LLC (“LiTL” or “Plaintiff”):
`
`1.
`
`Microsoft seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement pursuant to the
`
`Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201(a) and 2202.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Microsoft is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington,
`
`PARTIES
`
`with its principal place of business at One Microsoft Way, Redmond, Washington 98052.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff and Defendant in Intervention LiTL LLC purports to be a Delaware
`
`company, having its principal place of business at 501 Boylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts
`
`02116.
`
`RLF1 29647385v.1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00122-RGA Document 30 Filed 10/16/23 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 1487
`
`
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.,
`
`and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. This Court has subject matter
`
`jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and 1400.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over LiTL due to its filing of the original
`
`Complaint and First Amended Complaint in this action.
`
`
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND MICROSOFT’S INTEREST IN THIS ACTION
`
`7.
`
`LiTL filed its original Complaint (D.I. 1) in this action on February 1, 2023,
`
`accusing ASUSTeK Computer Inc., Asus Global Pte. Ltd., and Asus Technology Pte. Limited
`
`(collectively, “ASUS”) of selling computing devices such as laptop computers that infringe certain
`
`claims of: U.S. Patent No. 8,289,688 (“the ’688 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844 (“the ’844
`
`patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,563,229 (“the ’229 patent”); U.S. Patent No.10,289,154 (“the ’154
`
`patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,003,315 (“the ’315 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,880,715 (“the ’715
`
`patent”); U.S. Patent No. 10,564,818 (“the ’818 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 8,612,888 (“the ’888
`
`patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`8.
`
`ASUS is a customer of Microsoft’s.
`
` ASUS sells computer products that
`
`incorporate Microsoft’s Windows Operating System. Microsoft has certain defense and indemnity
`
`obligations to ASUS relating to ASUS’s use of Microsoft’s Windows Operating System.
`
`9.
`
`On May 1, 2023, LiTL filed a First Amended Complaint against ASUS. (D.I. 19
`
`(“First Amended Complaint”).) In the First Amended Complaint, LiTL alleges that LiTL is “the
`
`legal owner by assignment of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the Asserted Patents.”
`
`(First Amended Complaint at ¶ 3; see also id. at ¶¶ 41‒48.)
`
`RLF1 29647385v.1
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00122-RGA Document 30 Filed 10/16/23 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 1488
`
`
`
`10.
`
`The First Amended Complaint specifically identified numerous ASUS devices that
`
`run Windows as allegedly infringing the ’154 patent, the ’315 patent, the ’715 patent, the
`
`’818 patent, and the ’888 patent. (First Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 22, 24‒25, 26‒27, 56‒62, 152‒
`
`161, 168, 174‒182, 194, 200‒205, 212, 218‒221, 228, 234‒241, 248.) In fact, for every count in
`
`the First Amended Complaint, LiTL identifies the same set of ASUS devices running the same
`
`Windows operating system as allegedly infringing.
`
`11.
`
`The First Amended Complaint specifically identifies graphical user interface
`
`features of the Windows Operating System in support of the allegations of infringement for the
`
`’154 patent, the ’315 patent, the ’715 patent, the ’818 patent, and the ’888 patent. (First Amended
`
`Complaint at ¶¶ 159, 161, 174, 176‒182, 200, 203‒205, 219, 221, 234‒236, 238‒241.)
`
`12.
`
`The
`
`’154 patent
`
`is entitled “Portable computer with multiple display
`
`configurations.” The First Amended Complaint alleges that ASUS infringes claim 11 of the
`
`’154 patent. (First Amended Complaint at ¶ 151.) The First Amended Complaint alleges that
`
`ASUS devices that run Microsoft’s Windows Operating System infringe the ’154 patent. (Id. at
`
`¶¶ 152‒161.) The First Amended Complaint relies on user interface features of the Windows
`
`Operating System as demonstrating infringement by the ASUS devices. (Id. at ¶¶ 159, 161.)
`
`13.
`
`The ’315 patent is entitled “System and method for streamlining user interaction
`
`with electronic content.” The First Amended Complaint alleges that ASUS infringes claim 1 of
`
`the ’315 patent. (First Amended Complaint at ¶ 173.) The First Amended Complaint alleges that
`
`ASUS devices that, on information and belief, run Microsoft’s Windows Operating System
`
`infringe the ’315 patent. (Id. at ¶¶ 174‒182.) The First Amended Complaint relies on user
`
`interface features of the Windows Operating System to support the allegations of functionality for
`
`the ASUS devices. (Id. at ¶¶ 174, 176‒182.)
`
`RLF1 29647385v.1
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00122-RGA Document 30 Filed 10/16/23 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 1489
`
`
`
`14.
`
`The ’715 patent is entitled “System and method for streamlining user interaction
`
`with electronic content.” The First Amended Complaint alleges that ASUS infringes claim 1 of
`
`the ’715 patent. (First Amended Complaint at ¶ 199.) The First Amended Complaint alleges that
`
`ASUS devices that, on information and belief, run Microsoft’s Windows Operating System
`
`infringe the ’715 patent. (Id. at ¶¶ 200‒205.) The First Amended Complaint relies on user
`
`interface features of the Windows Operating System to support the allegations of functionality for
`
`the ASUS devices. (Id. at ¶¶ 200, 203‒205.)
`
`15.
`
`The ’818 patent is entitled “System and method for streamlining user interaction
`
`with electronic content.” The First Amended Complaint alleges that ASUS infringes claim 1 of
`
`the ’818 patent. (First Amended Complaint at ¶ 217.) The First Amended Complaint alleges that
`
`ASUS devices that, on information and belief, run Microsoft’s Windows Operating System
`
`infringe the ’818 patent. (Id. at ¶¶ 218‒221.) The First Amended Complaint relies on user
`
`interface features of the Windows Operating System to support the allegations of functionality for
`
`the ASUS devices. (Id. at ¶¶ 219, 221.)
`
`16.
`
`The ’888 patent is entitled “Method and apparatus for managing digital media
`
`content.” The First Amended Complaint alleges that ASUS infringes claim 27 of the ’888 patent.
`
`(First Amended Complaint at ¶ 233.) The First Amended Complaint alleges that ASUS devices
`
`that, on information and belief, run Microsoft’s Windows Operating System infringe the
`
`’888 patent. (Id. at ¶¶ 234‒241.) The First Amended Complaint relies on user interface features
`
`of the Windows Operating System to support the allegations of functionality for the ASUS devices.
`
`(Id. at ¶¶ 234‒236, 238‒241.)
`
`17.
`
`LiTL’s assertions that ASUS’s Windows-based devices infringe the ’154 patent,
`
`the ’315 patent, the ’715 patent, the ’818 patent, and the ’888 patent as a result of functionality
`
`RLF1 29647385v.1
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00122-RGA Document 30 Filed 10/16/23 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 1490
`
`
`
`provided by Windows are tantamount to allegations that Microsoft’s own Windows products
`
`directly infringe these Asserted Patents. Thus, Microsoft has a direct and substantial interest in
`
`defending against and defeating LiTL’s claims of infringement.
`
`18.
`
`Upon information and belief, LiTL has taken the position that at least the use, sale,
`
`and offer for sale of the Windows Operating System pre-installed in the accused ASUS products
`
`infringes one or more claims of the ’154 patent, the ’315 patent, the ’715 patent, the ’818 patent,
`
`and the ’888 patent.
`
`19.
`
`An actual and justiciable controversy exists between Microsoft and LiTL as to
`
`whether or not Microsoft has infringed any claim of the ’154 patent, the ’315 patent, the
`
`’715 patent, the ’818 patent, and the ’888 patent, directly or indirectly, based on the Windows
`
`Operating System.
`
`20.
`
`As a result of LiTL’s Windows-based infringement allegations against ASUS,
`
`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. Therefore, an actual controversy exists between Microsoft and LiTL. By intervening
`
`in this action, Microsoft seeks the Court’s assistance and declaration concerning these matters,
`
`which have been and are subjects of disagreement among the parties.
`
`COUNT 1
`(Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,289,154)
`
`21. Microsoft restates, realleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through
`
`20.
`
`22.
`
`A valid and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between Microsoft and
`
`LiTL regarding the ’154 patent.
`
`RLF1 29647385v.1
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00122-RGA Document 30 Filed 10/16/23 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 1491
`
`
`
`23. Microsoft does not infringe any claim of the ’154 patent, including claim 11, either
`
`directly or indirectly, and thus Microsoft’s customer, ASUS, does not infringe any claim of the ’154
`
`patent, including claim 11, by reason of its incorporation of Microsoft’s Windows Operating System
`
`into its computer products.
`
`24.
`
`A judicial declaration concerning these matters is necessary and appropriate at this
`
`time so that Microsoft can determine its rights and duties with respect to the parties and with respect
`
`to designing, developing, manufacturing, marketing, and selling its products. Absent such a
`
`declaration, LiTL will continue to assert the ’154 patent against Microsoft and/or Microsoft’s
`
`customers, and thereby cause Microsoft irreparable injury and damage. Microsoft has no other
`
`adequate remedy at law.
`
`COUNT 2
`(Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,003,315)
`
`25. Microsoft restates, realleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through
`
`24.
`
`26.
`
`A valid and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between Microsoft and
`
`LiTL regarding the ’315 patent.
`
`27. Microsoft does not infringe any claim of the ’315 patent, including claims 1 and 17,
`
`either directly or indirectly, and thus Microsoft’s customer, ASUS, does not infringe any claim of
`
`the ’315 patent, including claims 1 and 17, by reason of its incorporation of Microsoft’s Windows
`
`Operating System into its computer products.
`
`28.
`
`A judicial declaration concerning these matters is necessary and appropriate at this
`
`time so that Microsoft can determine its rights and duties with respect to the parties and with respect
`
`to designing, developing, manufacturing, marketing, and selling its products. Absent such a
`
`declaration, LiTL will continue to assert the ’315 patent against Microsoft and/or Microsoft’s
`
`RLF1 29647385v.1
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00122-RGA Document 30 Filed 10/16/23 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 1492
`
`
`
`customers, and thereby cause Microsoft irreparable injury and damage. Microsoft has no other
`
`adequate remedy at law.
`
`COUNT 3
`(Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,880,715)
`
`29. Microsoft restates, realleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through
`
`28.
`
`30.
`
`A valid and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between Microsoft and
`
`LiTL regarding the ’715 patent.
`
`31. Microsoft does not infringe any claim of the ’715 patent, including claim 1, either
`
`directly or indirectly, and thus Microsoft’s customer, ASUS, does not infringe any claim of the ’715
`
`patent, including claim 1, by reason of its incorporation of Microsoft’s Windows Operating System
`
`into its computer products.
`
`32.
`
`A judicial declaration concerning these matters is necessary and appropriate at this
`
`time so that Microsoft can determine its rights and duties with respect to the parties and with respect
`
`to designing, developing, manufacturing, marketing, and selling its products. Absent such a
`
`declaration, LiTL will continue to assert the ’715 patent against Microsoft and/or Microsoft’s
`
`customers, and thereby cause Microsoft irreparable injury and damage. Microsoft has no other
`
`adequate remedy at law.
`
`COUNT 4
`(Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,564,818)
`
`33. Microsoft restates, realleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through
`
`32.
`
`34.
`
`A valid and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between Microsoft and
`
`LiTL regarding the ’818 patent.
`
`RLF1 29647385v.1
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00122-RGA Document 30 Filed 10/16/23 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 1493
`
`
`
`35. Microsoft does not infringe any claim of the ’818 patent, including claim 1, either
`
`directly or indirectly, and thus Microsoft’s customer, ASUS, does not infringe any claim of the ’818
`
`patent, including claim 1, by reason of its incorporation of Microsoft’s Windows Operating System
`
`into its computer products.
`
`36.
`
`A judicial declaration concerning these matters is necessary and appropriate at this
`
`time so that Microsoft can determine its rights and duties with respect to the parties and with respect
`
`to designing, developing, manufacturing, marketing, and selling its products. Absent such a
`
`declaration, LiTL will continue to assert the ’818 patent against Microsoft and/or Microsoft’s
`
`customers, and thereby cause Microsoft irreparable injury and damage. Microsoft has no other
`
`adequate remedy at law.
`
`COUNT 5
`(Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,612,888)
`
`37. Microsoft restates, realleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through
`
`36.
`
`38.
`
`A valid and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between Microsoft and
`
`LiTL regarding the ’888 patent.
`
`39. Microsoft does not infringe any claim of the ’888 patent, including claim 27, either
`
`directly or indirectly, and thus Microsoft’s customer, ASUS, does not infringe any claim of the ’888
`
`patent, including claim 27, by reason of its incorporation of Microsoft’s Windows Operating System
`
`into its computer products.
`
`40.
`
`A judicial declaration concerning these matters is necessary and appropriate at this
`
`time so that Microsoft can determine its rights and duties with respect to the parties and with respect
`
`to designing, developing, manufacturing, marketing, and selling its products. Absent such a
`
`declaration, LiTL will continue to assert the ’888 patent against Microsoft and/or Microsoft’s
`
`RLF1 29647385v.1
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00122-RGA Document 30 Filed 10/16/23 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 1494
`
`
`
`customers, and thereby cause Microsoft irreparable injury and damage. Microsoft has no other
`
`adequate remedy at law.
`
`Therefore, Microsoft requests judgment against LiTL as follows:
`
`REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`A Declaration that Microsoft does not infringe any claim of the ’154 patent;
`
`A Declaration that Microsoft does not infringe any claim of the ’315 patent;
`
`A Declaration that Microsoft does not infringe any claim of the ’715 patent;
`
`A Declaration that Microsoft does not infringe any claim of the ’818 patent;
`
`A Declaration that Microsoft does not infringe any claim of the ’888 patent;
`
`A determination that this case is “exceptional” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 285, entitling Microsoft to an award of its reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses
`
`and costs; and
`
`g.
`
`A grant of such other and further equitable or legal relief as the Court deems proper.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Microsoft hereby demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`Christina J. McCullough
`Jassiem Moore
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101-3099
`(206) 359-8000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kelly E. Farnan
`Kelly E. Farnan (#4395)
`Richards Layton & Finger, P.A.
`One Rodney Square
`920 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`farnan@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Intervenor-Plaintiff
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`RLF1 29647385v.1
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00122-RGA Document 30 Filed 10/16/23 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 1495
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Chao (Wendy) Wang
`3150 Porter Drive
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
`(650) 838-4300
`
`Kyle R. Canavera
`11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300
`San Diego, CA 92130-2080
`(858) 720-5700
`
`Chad Campbell
`Elizabeth Baxter
`2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000
`Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788
`(602) 351-8000
`
`Dated: October 13, 2023
`
`
`
`
`RLF1 29647385v.1
`
`-10-
`
`