`
`
`
`SEL EXHIBIT NO. 2001
`
`
`CHI MEI INNOLUX CORP. v. PATENT OF SEMICONDUCTOR ENERGY
`LABORATORY CO., LTD.
`
`IPR2013-00064
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Douglas R. Peterson (SBN 215949)
`dpeterson@steptoe.com
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800
`Los Angeles, California 90067—5052
`Telephone:
`(310) 734—3200
`Facsimile:(310) 734-3300
`
`Stanley A. Schlitter (movingfor pro hac vice admissiOn
`sschlitter@steptoe.com
`‘-
`Taras A. Gracey (movingfor pro hac vice admission)
`tgracey@steptoe.com
`Amanda K. Streff (movingfor pro hac vice admission)
`astreff@steptoe.com
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`115 South La Salle Street, Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60603
`Telephone: (312) 577-1300
`Facsimile: (312) 577-1370
`
`,
`
`Daniel A. Kopp (movingfor pro hac vice admission)
`dkopp@steptoe.com
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`
`1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
`Washington DC 20036
`Telephone: (202) 429—3000
`Facsimile:
`(202) 429-3902
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, Semiconductor Energy
`Laboratory Co., Ltd.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`2 (3%?
`3 ,
`
`: m is”
`
`.2.
`
`2“2 2222311 (ma)
`
`§
`
`,
`
`,,
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`SEMICONDUCTOR ENERGY
`LABORATORY co, LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`VS.
`
`CHIMEI INNOLUX CORPORATION,
`CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS USA,
`INC., ACER AMERICA
`CORPORATION, VIEWSONIC
`CORPORATION, VIZIO, INC., and
`WESTINGHOUSE DIGITAL, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`‘3
`
`
`
`\DOONONKJ‘IAUJNr—t
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`' 28
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`

`

`Plaintiff Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd. (“SEL”), by its
`
`attorneys,.complains against defendants Chimei Innolux Corporation (“CMI”), Chi
`
`Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc. (“CMO USA”), Acer America Corporation
`
`(“Acer”), ViewSonic Corporation (“ViewSonic”), VIZIO, Inc. (“VIZIO”), and
`
`Westinghouse Digital, LLC (“Westinghouse”) (collectively “Defendants”), as
`
`follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff SEL is a corporation organized under the laws of Japan with
`
`its principal place of business at 398 Hase, Atsugi-shi, Kanagawa—Ken 243 -0036
`
`Japan.
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant CMI is a corporation organized
`
`under the laws of Taiwan with its principal place of business at No. 160, Kesyue
`
`Rd., Jhunan Science Park, Miaoli County 350, Taiwan, R.O.C. On information
`
`and belief, CMI is a company established on March18, 2010 as a result of the
`
`merger of Innolux Display Corporation with Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation
`
`(“CMO”) and TPO Displays Corporation. CMI manufactures electronic products
`
`in Taiwan and directly and/or indirectly imports, sells in and/or offers for sale its
`
`products in California and elsewhere in the United States. In addition, CMI
`
`provides these products to third parties through an established distribution channel
`
`knowing that these third parties will import, sell, offer for sale, and/or use these
`
`products in California and elsewhere in the United States using their nationwide
`
`contacts and distribution channels.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant CMO USA is organized under the laws of Delaware and,
`
`on information and belief, has its principal place of business at 101 Metro Drive
`
`Suite 510, San Jose, California 95110. On information and belief, CMO USA is a
`
`subsidiary of Chi Mei Optoelectronics Japan Co., Ltd., which is itself a subsidiary
`
`of CMI. On information and belief, CMO USA directly and/or indirectly imports,
`
`l
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`

`

`sells and/or offers for sale in California and elsewhere in the United States
`
`products manufactured by CMI.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant Acer is organized under the laws of California and, on
`
`information and belief, has its principal place of business at 333 W. San Carlos St.,
`
`Suite 1500, San Jose, California 95110. Acer is a domestic subsidiary of Acer, Inc.
`
`that directly and/or indirectly makes, imports, sells, and/or offers for sale its
`
`products in California and elsewhere in the United States.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant ViewSonic is organized under the laws of Delaware and,
`
`on information and belief, has its principal placepof business at 381 Brea Canyon
`
`Rd., Walnut, California 91789. ViewSonic directly and/or indirectly makes,
`
`imports, sells, and/or offers for sale its products in California and elsewhere in the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`United States.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`6.
`
`Defendant VIZIO is organized under the laws of Delaware and, on
`
`information and belief, has its principal place of business at 39 Tesla, Irvine,
`
`California 92618. VIZIO directly and/or indirectly makes, imports, sells, and/or
`
`offers for sale its products in California and elsewhere in the United States.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant Westinghouse is organized under the laws of Delaware
`
`and, on information and belief, has its principal place of business at 500 North
`
`State College Boulevard, Suite 1300, Orange, California 92868. Westinghouse
`
`directly and/or indirectly makes, imports, sells, and/or offers for sale its products in
`
`California and elsewhere in the United States.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`8.
`
`This is an action arising under the patent laws of the United States,
`
`Title 35 of the United States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction
`
`under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`9.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant. Each
`
`Defendant, directly and/or through intermediaries or established distribution
`channels (including distributors, online retailers, and others), ships, distributes,
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`2
`
`

`

`O00\1ON{I}Ab.)[\Jr—i\
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`offers for sale, sells, and/or advertises its products in or into the United States, the
`
`State of California, and this District. Each Defendant has purposefully and
`
`voluntarily placed one or more of its infringing products, as described herein, into
`
`the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by
`
`customers within this District. These infringing products have been, and continue
`
`to be, purchased by customers within this District. On information and belief,
`
`Defendants derive substantial revenue from the sale of infringing products
`
`distributed within this District, and/or expect or should reasonably expect their
`
`actions to have consequences within this District, and derive substantial revenue
`
`from interstate and international commerce. In addition, Defendants continue to
`knowingly induce infringement within this State and-within this District by
`
`contracting with others to market and sell infringing products with the knowledge
`
`and intention of facilitating infringing sales of the infringing products by others
`
`within this District.
`
`10. Acer and VIZIO have agents for service in this District and, on
`
`information and belief, ViewSonic, VIZIO, and Westinghouse have their principal
`
`place of business in this District.
`
`VENUE
`
`11. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b),
`
`(c) and (d) and 1400(b) because this is an action for patent infringement, CMI is an
`
`alien, and the Defendants reside in this District.
`
`12.
`
`CMO USA, Acer, Viewsonic, VIZIO, and Westinghouse are
`
`authorized to do business, are doing business and/or have a regular and established
`
`place of business in this District, and have committed, or have induced, acts of
`
`infringement in this District.
`
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`13. United States Patent No. 6,404,480 (“the ‘480 patent”),éentitled
`“Contact Structure,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and
`
`3
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`

`

`\OOO\]O\UIJ>~UJNV—¢
`
`mammgwwwoggzaaiatSZE
`
`NNNNNNNN'N‘
`
`Trademark Office on June 11, 2002. The ‘480 patent has been re—examined by the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office pursuant to a request by CMO for such
`
`re—examination. The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a Re-
`
`examination Certificate on December 30, 2008, reaffirming the patentability of all
`
`claims of the ‘480 patent without amendment. A true and correct copy of the ‘480
`
`patent and Reexamination Certificate is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is
`
`incorporated herein by this reference.
`
`14. United States Patent No. 7,697,102 (“the ‘ 102 patent”), entitled
`
`“Contact Structure,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office on April 13, 2010. A true and correct copy of the ‘ 102 patent is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit B and is incorporated herein by this reference.
`15.1 United States Patent No. 7,876,413 (“the ‘413 patent”), entitled
`
`“Electronic Apparatus With a Flexible Printed Circuit and .21 Transparent
`
`Conductive Layer,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office on January 25, 2011. A true and correct copy of the ‘413 patent
`
`is attached hereto as Exhibit C and is incorporated herein by this reference.
`
`16. United States Patent No. 7,923,311 (“the ‘311 patent”), entitled
`
`“Electro-Optical Device and Thin Film Transistor and Method for Formng the
`
`Same,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office on April 12, 2011. Atrue and correct copy of the ‘3 11 patent is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit D and is incorporated herein by this reference.
`
`17. United States Patent No. 7,956,978 (“the ‘978 patent”), entitled
`
`“Liquid-Crystal Display Device Having a Particular Conductive Layer,” was duly
`
`and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on June 7,
`
`2011. A true and correct copy of the ‘978 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E
`
`and is incorporated herein by this reference.
`
`18. United States Patent No. 8,068,204 (“the ‘204 patent”), entitled
`
`“Electronic Apparatus With a Flexible Printed Circuit and a Transparent
`
`4
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Conductive Layer,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trademark Office on November 29, 2011. A true and correct copy of the ‘204
`
`
`
`
`
`\OOONO‘iU‘I-bwmr—A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`patent is attached hereto as Exhibit F and is incorporated herein by this reference.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SEL is the owner of all right, title and interest in and to the ‘480, ‘ 102,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‘413, ‘31 1, ‘978, and ‘204 patents (collectively the “Patents-in-Suit”) and is
`
`19.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`entitled to sue for past and fiiture infringement.
`
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`
`SEL Is a Technology Pioneer
`
`
`
`
`20.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Established in 1980, SEL is a Japanese company that develops
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`technology in the fields of, among others, semiconductor thin—film transistors, thin-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`film integrated circuits, liquid crystal displays, computer processing units on glass
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and on plastic substrates, organic light-emitting diode displays, and solar energy.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SEL is headquartered in Atsugi-shi, Japan and employs over 700 people.
`
`
`
`
`21.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SEL’s employees, including scientists, perform research and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`development in the field of, among others, semiconductor integrated circuits and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`thin-film transistors for driving displays used in LCD TVs, computer monitors, cell
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`phone displays, and other products. As a part of its research and development,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SEL designs electronic circuits through simulation using a supercomputer and then
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`designs photomasks that it uses in manufacturing prototype displays and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`semiconductor devices in SEL’s clean room facility. SEL then evaluates, analyzes,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and further improves the prototype displays and semiconductor devices.
`
`
`
`
`22.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SEL and its scientists have received awards for technology they
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`developed, including, among others, the National Commendation for Invention
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Award from the Japan Institute of Invention and Innovation in2007 and again in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2010. SEL received the Okochi Memorial Technology Award from the Okochi
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Memorial Foundation in 2010, as a co-recipient with Sharp Corp. In 2009, SEL
`and co—recipient Sharp Corp. received a Commendation for Science and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Technology by the Japanese Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and
`
`
`
`
`5
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WQQMLWNHQEESSGEEEZS
`
`NNNNNNNNN
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Technology. In 2002, SEL received an Intellectual Property Merit Award from the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Japan Patent Office. Other awards include an award for display products of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`year from the Society for Information Display, the Grand Prize of Advanced
`
`
`
`\OOONQUI-b-UJNi—d
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Display (diploma of merit) in 2000, the Director Prize from the Science and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Technology Agency of Japan, and the Medal with Purple Ribbon, an award
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`bestowed by the Japanese Prime Minister’s Office.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23. Many of SEL’s contributions to its fields of research have been
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`formally documented in publications and thousands of issued patents, including in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the United States. SEL has contributed to the advancement of thin-film transistor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`liquid—crystal display technology, resulting in the improvement of commercial
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ooqampwmonESEGESEZ'c—S
`
`NNNNNNNN‘N
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`products based on that technology, including large—screen LCD TVs, computer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`monitors, and screens for cell phones, digital cameras, and other products. SEL’s
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`research has led to, among other beneficial advances, longer-lasting LCD devices,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`improvements in display quality, an increase in display area for a given size
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`screen, and lower manufacturing costs. Some of the world’s most important
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`technology companies have taken notice of SEL’s contributions and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`accomplishments by providing significant capital investment in SEL in exchange
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`for shares of SEL stock, including TDK Corporation, which owns about 30% of
`
`
`
`SEL.
`
`
`
`‘
`
`
`
`24.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SEL’s contributions and advancements in the field of TFT—LCD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`technology include the inventions described and claimed in the six Patents-i‘n-Suit,
`
`
`
`
`among others.
`
`
`
`. Thin-Film Transistor Liquid-Crystal Displays
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25. An important field of research for SEL has been in the area of thin—
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`film transistor liquid—crystal displays (“TFT—LCD”). Modern TFT-LCD screens
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`use an active—matrix structure in which each LCD pixel is individually controlled
`
`
`
`
`
`
`by a thin-film transistor (“TFT”).
`
`
`
`
`6
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`\OOO\]O\U1-I>UJN>—A
`
`mammaww~o$$33$§$535
`
`NNNNNNNNN
`
`26. A TFT-LCD screen generally consists of a backlight and two glass
`
`substrates (a back substrate and a front substrate spaced several millionths of a
`
`meter apart) with liquid crystal material sandwiched between them. The back
`
`substrate typically contains an array of thousands or millions of TFTs, which are
`
`electronic switching devices made of microscopically thin films, including
`
`semiconductor material, that turn each individual pixel in the display “on” or “off”
`
`so that collectively the pixels form an image on the screen. The front substrate is
`
`fitted with color filters (each pixel has a color filter, typically using the primary
`
`colors of red, blue and green) and a polarizer. The amount of light that is permitted
`to pass through the polarizer and color filter on the front substrate is determined by
`
`the polarization state of that light, which in turn is determined by whether the TFT
`
`for a given pixel is “on” or “off.” When the TFT is turned “on,” the electrical
`
`charge passing through the TFT causes a rotation in the angle of the liquid crystal
`
`molecules in proximity to that TFT. Thus, light from the backlight passing throug
`
`a pixel with an “on” TFT and, consequently, with rotated liquid crystal molecules,
`
`will pass through the polarizer and color filter to create a pixel of color on the
`
`display screen. On the other hand, light from the backlight that passes through a
`
`pixel with an “off’ TFT and, therefore, with non-rotated liquid crystal molecules,
`
`will be absorbed by the polarizer on the front substrate and will not appear on the
`
`display screen.
`
`27.
`
`The TFT-LCD technology is widely used because it enables
`
`thousands or millions of TFTs to work independently to control thousands or
`
`millions of pixels that together form sharp, Vibrant images on screens of LCD TVs,
`
`computer monitors, laptop computers, cell phones, and other products.
`
`Defendants’ Knowledge of SEL’s Patents
`
`28.
`
`Before the formation of CMI, SEL previously filed a lawsuit against
`
`CMO, International Display Technology USA, Inc. (which, on information and
`
`belief, later became Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc.), Westinghouse Digital
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`7
`
`

`

`Electronics, LLC (which, on information and belief, later became Westinghouse
`
`Digital, LLC), International Display Technology Co., Ltd. (which, on information
`
`and belief, later became Chi Mei Optoelectronics Japan Co., Ltd), and CTX
`
`Technology Corp. on November 3, 2004, for infringement of four patents owned
`by SEL, in the Northern District of California having case no. 04-cv—04675—MI—1P ‘
`
`(“the CMO Litigation”). The ‘480 patent was among the four patents asserted in
`
`the CMO Litigation.
`
`29. During the CMO Litigation, the court granted SEL’s motion for
`
`summary judgment that products sold by CMO infringed the ‘480 patent.
`
`30.
`
`CMO filed a request with the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office for ex parte reexamination of the ‘480 patent on March 24, 2006, while the
`CMO Litigation was pending, which was subsequently granted and given Control
`
`No. 90/007,985.
`
`31. On December 30, 2008, the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office issued a Re-examination Certificate reaffirming the patentability, without
`
`amendment, of all claims in the ‘480 patent.
`
`32.
`
`Following a settlement entered into between SEL and CMO, Chi Mei
`
`Optoelectronics Japan Co., Ltd., CMO USA, and Westinghouse, the CMO
`
`Litigation was dismissed July 6, 2007.
`
`Communications Between SEL and CMI
`
`33. On May 7, 2010, SEL sent a letter to CMI offering a license to SEL’s
`
`patents.
`
`34.
`
`SEL sent another letter to CMI on November 3, 2010, offering a
`
`license to CMI for the use of certain SEL patents including the ‘480 and ‘ 102
`
`patents. CMI responded to SEL’S November 3 letter on November 18, 2010, and
`
`requested more technical information from SEL concerning its patents and CMI’s
`
`products.
`
`\OOO\]O\U‘IAUJN>—A
`
`mommawm~8$§3533$538
`
`NNNNNNNN
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`8
`
`

`

`\OOO\IO\UIJ>UJN'—‘
`
`mummpwwh—OES‘OSEGESE:S
`
`N‘NNNNNNNN
`
`35.
`
`In a letter dated November 22, 2010, SEL responded to CMI and
`
`requested a meeting to explain the relevance between SEL’s patents and CMI’s
`
`products.
`
`36.
`
`SEL’s counsel sent CMI a letter on December 22, 2011, addressed to
`
`Mr. Charles Hsu, Director, Patent Division, Legal & IP Center of CMI, with a cop
`
`to Mr. Peterson Tien, Vice President and General Counsel of CMI, stating that
`
`several CMI products being sold in the United States infringed certain of SEL’s
`
`patents. Specifically, the December 22 letter stated the six Patents—in-Suit, among
`
`others, were being infringed by the following CMI products that were being
`
`incorporated into end products that were being sold in the United States: CMI LCD
`
`modules model numbers CMI Module Numbers V315H3-LE4 Rev.Cl, V260Hl—
`
`LE2 Rev.Cl, V315B6-P01 Rev.CS, M270H3~L01 Rev.Cl, M236H3-L05 Rev.C2,
`
`M270Hl-L01 Rev.Cl, M236H3-LA2 Rev.Cl, MT215DW02, and MT215DW01 .
`
`(collectively “CMI Products”). Furthermore, the December 22 letter stated that
`
`CMI’s continued distribution of the listed LCD modules constituted active
`
`inducement of third parties, including at least Acer, ViewSonic, VIZIO, and
`
`Westinghouse, to infringe the Patents-in—Suit, given that CMI supplies the CMI
`
`Products to these customers with the knowledge (a) that the CMI Products will be
`
`incorporated into the customer’s products, (b) that the CMI Products will be
`
`imported into and sold within the US, and (c) that the CMI Products infringe the
`
`Patents—in—Suit.
`
`37.
`
`CMI has directly and/or indirectly imported, offered for sale, and sold
`
`the CMI Products, and continues to import, offer for sale, and sell the CMI
`
`Products into and/or in California and elsewhere in the United States, directly and
`
`through established distribution channels involving various third parties, knowing
`
`that these third parties will use their respective nationwide contacts and distributio
`
`channels to import, sell, offer for sale, and/or use the CMI Products in California
`
`and elsewhere in the United States. These distribution channels include at least
`
`9
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`

`

`\OOONO‘xU‘I-b-UJNH
`
`wuamhwm~o$;:;;:;5:3
`
`NNNNNNNNN
`
`CMO USA, Acer, ViewSonic, VIZIO, and Westinghouse. CMI intends for the
`
`CMI Products to enter the United States, and CMI knows or reasonably should
`
`know that the CMI Products infringe the six Patents-in—Suit.
`
`38. On information and belief, CMO USA has directly and/or indirectly
`
`imported and sold, and continues to import and sell, into and/or in California and
`
`elsewhere in the United States, the CMI Products that infringe the SEL patents.
`
`Furthermore, on information and belief, CMO USA has supplied to third parties,
`
`and continues to supply to third parties the CMI Products knowing that the CMI
`
`Products will be sold, offered for sale, and/or used in California and elsewhere in
`
`the United States.
`
`39. Acer has imported and sold, and continues to import and sell, into
`
`and/or in California and elsewhere in the United States, LCD—type products that
`
`incorporate the CMI Products that infringe at least certain of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`40. ViewSonic has imported and sold, and continues to import and sell,
`
`into and/or in California and elsewhere in the United States, LCD-type products
`
`that incorporate the CMI Products that infringe at least certain of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit.
`
`41. VIZIO has imported and sold, and continues to import and sell, into
`
`and/or in California and elsewhere in the United States, LCD—type products that
`
`incorporate the CMI Products that infringe at least certain of the Patents—in-Suit.
`
`42. Westinghouse has imported and sold, and continues to import and sell,
`
`into and/or in California and elsewhere in the United States, LCD-type products
`
`that incorporate the CMI Products that infringe at least certain of the Patents—in-
`
`Suit.
`
`'
`
`43.
`
`CMI has had actual notice in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 287 as to
`
`the six Patents—in-Suit. Specifically, on information and belief, CMI personnel,
`
`who were employees of CMO prior to the merger of CMO with Innolux Display
`
`Corporation and TPO Displays Corporation, had notice of the ‘480 patent by no
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`1 0
`
`

`

`later than November 3, 2004, the date the CMO Litigation was filed. Therefore, on
`
`information and belief, such CMl personnel had notice of the ‘480 patent by no
`
`later than November 3, 2004. CMO USA and Westinghouse also had actual notice
`
`of the ‘480 patent by no later than November 3,, 2004 based on the CMO
`
`Litigation, in which they were defendants. CMI had notice of the‘480 patent and
`
`the ‘ 102 patent by no later than November 3, 2010, and CMI had notice of the
`‘413, ‘3 1 1, ‘978, and ‘204 patents by no later than December 22, 2011.
`
`44. All of the Defendants have notice of the six Patents-in-Suit by the
`
`filing of this Complaint.
`
`COUNT I — INFRINGEMENT OF US. PATENT NO. 6,404,480
`
`45.
`
`SEL repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1-44,
`
`inclusive.
`
`46.
`
`On June 11, 2002, the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`issued the ‘480 patent, entitled “Contact Structure.” SEL is the owner, by means
`
`of assignment, of the ‘480 patent. SEL is entitled to sue and recover damages for
`
`past and future infringement of the ‘480 patent. The ‘480 patent is a duly and
`
`legally issued United States patent.
`
`47. Defendant CMI and, upon information and belief, Defendant CMO
`
`USA have infringed and/or induced infringement of, and are continuing to infringe
`
`and/or induce infringement of, one or more of the ‘480 patent claims, including but
`
`not limited to claim 1, by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importin
`
`at least the followingCMl Products and any similar products and related
`
`technology: CMI Module Numbers V315H3—LE4 Rev.Cl; V260H1—LE2 Rev.Cl;
`
`V315B6—P01 Rev.CS; M270H3-L01 Rev.C1;M236H3—L05 Rev.C2 ; M270H1-
`
`L01 Rev.Cl; and M23 6H3-LA2 Rev.Cl. Defendants CMI and CMO USA are
`
`liable for their infringement of the ‘480 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`\DOO\]O\UIJ>~UJNI-*
`
`moomswmonESEGESEES
`
`NNNNNNNNN
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`1 1
`
`

`

`48. Defendant Acer has infringed and/or induced infringement of, and is
`
`continuing to infringe and/or induce infringement of, one or more of the ‘480
`
`patent claims, including but not limited to claim 1, by making, using, selling,
`
`offering for sale, and/or importing at least the following CMI Products and any
`
`similar products and related technology: CMI Module Number M270H3-L01
`
`Rev.Cl found in Acer product number SZ73HL bmii; and CMI Module Number
`
`M236H3—L05 Rev.C2 found in Acer product number HSZ44HQ bmii. Defendant
`
`Acer is liable for its infringement of the ‘480 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`49. Defendant ViewSonic has infringed and/or induced infringement of,
`
`and is continuing to infringe and/or induce infringement of, one or more of the
`
`‘480 patent claims, including but not limited to claim I, by making, using, selling,
`
`offering for sale, and/or importing at least the following CMI Products and any
`
`similar products and related technology: CMI Module Number M270Hl —L01
`
`Rev.Cl found in ViewSonic product number VX2739wm; and CMI Module
`
`Number M23 6H3 -LA2 Rev.Cl found in ViewSonic product number VX2450wm-
`
`LED. Defendant ViewSonic is liable for its infringement of the ‘480 patent
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`50. Defendant VIZIO has infringed and/or induced infringement of, and is
`
`continuing to infringe and/or induce infringement of, one or more of the ‘480
`
`patent claims, including but not limited to claim 1, by making, using, selling,
`
`offering for sale, and/or importing at least the following CMI Products and any
`
`similar products and related technology: CMI Module Number V315H3-LE4
`
`Rev.Cl found in VIZIO product number E322MV; and CMI Module Number
`
`V260Hl-LE2 Rev.Cl found in VIZIO product number E260MV. Defendant
`
`VIZIO is liable for its infringement of the ‘480 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`51. Defendant Westinghouse has infringed and/or induced infringement
`
`of, and is continuing to infringe and/or induce infringement of, one or more of the
`
`‘480 patent claims, including but not limited to claim I, by making, using, selling,
`
`\OOO\]O\U‘IJ>UJNy—‘
`
`\zoxmiswwwoBgSSGECSKSZS
`
`NNNNNNNN
`
`28‘
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`I 2
`
`

`

`\DOO\]O\U‘I-¥>-UJNr—i
`
`mummawNv—‘ozazaEEGET—‘S
`
`NNNNNNNNN
`
`offering for sale, and/or importing at least the following CMI Product and any
`
`similar product and related technology: CMI Module Number V315B6-P01
`
`Rev.C5 found in Westinghouse product number LD-3255VX. Defendant
`
`Westinghouse is liable for its infringement of the ‘480 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271.
`
`52. With knowledge of the ‘480 patent and its infringement of the ‘480
`
`patent, Defendant CMI also has infringed and continues to infringe one or more of
`
`the ‘480 patent claims, including but not limited to claim 1, by actively inducing
`
`others, including at least CMO USA, Acer, ViewSonic, 'VIZIO, and Westinghouse,
`
`to use, sell, import, and/or offer for sale infringing products in the United States.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants CMO USA, Acer, ViewSonic, VIZIO,
`
`and Westinghouse have infringed and continue to infringe one or more of the ‘480
`
`patent claims, including but not limited to claim _1, by actively inducing others,
`
`including their customers, to use, sell, import, and/or offer for sale infringing
`
`products in the United States.
`
`53. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ infringement of the ‘480
`
`patent is willful, intentional, and deliberate. Defendants’ infringement of the ‘480
`
`patent has damaged and will continue to damage SEL. Defendants had actual
`
`knowledge of the ‘480 patent based upon the CMO Litigation, the reexamination
`
`of the ‘480 patent, SEL’s letter to CMI dated November 3, 2010, the notice letter
`
`sent by SEL’S counsel to CMI dated December 22, 2011, and/or the filing of this
`
`Complaint. Nevertheless, Defendants have willfully, deliberately, and
`
`intentionally infringed and continue to infringe the ‘480 patent despite an
`
`objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement.
`
`54. Defendants’ infringement of the ‘480 patent has caused and will
`
`continue to cause SEL irreparable harm unless enjoined by the Court. SEL has no
`
`adequate remedy at law. SEL’s damages from the infringing activities of
`
`Defendants are not yet determined.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`1 3
`
`

`

`\OOOQO‘xm-b-DJNH
`
`mummngHQGESEGESEZS
`
`NNNNNNNNN
`
`COUNT II —— INFRINGEMENT OF US. PATENT NO. 7,697,102
`
`55.
`
`SEL repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1—54,
`
`inclusive.
`
`56.
`
`On April 13, 2010, the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`issued the ‘ 102 patent, entitled “Contact Structure.” SEL is the owner, by means
`
`of assignment, of the ‘ 102 patent. SEL is entitled to sue and recover damages for
`
`past and future infringement of the ‘ 102 patent. The ‘ 102 patent is a duly and
`
`legally issued United States patent.
`
`57. Defendant CMI and, upon information and belief, Defendant CMO
`
`USA have infringed and/or induced infringement of, and are continuing to infringe
`
`and/or induce infringement of, one or more of the ‘ 102 patent claims, including but
`
`not limited to claims 15 and 27, by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or
`
`importing at least the following CMI Products and any similar products and related
`
`technology: CMI Module Numbers V315H3—LE4 Rev.C1; V26OH1-LE2 Rev.C1;
`
`V315B6-P01 ReV.C5; M270H3-L01 ReV.C1; M236H3-L05 ReV.C2; M270H1—L01
`
`ReV.C1;‘ and M236H3—LA2 ReV.C1. Defendants CMI and CMO USA are liable
`
`for their infringement of the ‘ 102 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`58. Defendant Acer has infringed and/or induced infringement of, and is
`continuing to infringe and/or induce infringement of, one or more of the ‘ 102 I
`
`patent claims, including but not limited to claims 15 and 27, by making, using,
`
`selling, offering for sale, and/or importing at least the following CMI Products and
`
`any similar products and related technology: CMI Module Number M270H3-L01
`
`ReV.C1 found in Acer product number S273HL bmii; and CMI Module Number
`
`M23 6H3 —L05 ReV.C2 found in Acer product number HS244HQ bmii. Defendant
`
`Acer is liable for its infringement of the ‘ 102 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`59. Defendant ViewSonic has infringed and/or induced infringement of,
`
`and is continuing to infringe and/or induce infringement of, one or more of the
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`l 4
`
`

`

`‘ 102 patent claims, including but not limited to claims 15 and 27, by making,
`
`using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing at least the following CMI
`
`Products and any similar products and related technology: CMI Module Number
`
`M27OHl-L01 ReV.Cl found in ViewSonic product number VX2739wm; and CMI
`
`Module Number M23 6H3—LA2 ReV.C1 found in ViewSonic product number
`VX2450wm—LED. Defendant ViewSonic is liable for its infringement of the ‘ 102
`
`patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`60. Defendant VIZIO has infringed and/or induced infringement of, and is
`
`continuing to infringe and/or induce infringement of, one or more of the ‘ 102
`
`patent claims, including but not limited to claim 15, by making, using, selling,
`
`offering for sale, and/or importing at least the following CMI Product and any
`
`similar product and related technology: CMI Module Number V315H3—LE4
`
`ReV.C1 found in VIZIO product number E3 22MV. Defendant VIZIO also has
`
`infringed an