`
`CMI CORP. V. PATENT OF YOSHIHARU HIRAKATA and
`
`SHUNPEI YAMAZAKI
`
`IPR 2013-00068
`
`
`
`
`
`\oooqoxuxub-‘Lomvw
`
`NM‘NNNNNNNww'awr—‘wwi—Hi—l
`
`oo.\]O\Lh-S>‘UJNHOKDOO\IO\U14>L»JNHO
`
`Douglas R Peterson (SBN 215949)
`dpeterson@steptoe.com
`'STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800
`' L03 Angeles', California 90067—5 052
`Telephone:
`(310) 734-3200
`
`Facsimile:(3 10). 7343300 sschlitter@steptoe.'com
`
`2
`Taras A. Gracey (movingforpro hac vice admission) .
`tg‘racey@steptoe com
`Amanda K. Streff (movzngfor 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 (movzngfor pro hac vice admission)
`dkopp@steptoe. com
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`
`1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW 2
`Washington DC 20036 ‘
`Telephone:- (202) 429—3000
`Facsimile:
`(202) 4293902
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, Semiconductor Energy
`- Laboratory Co., Ltd.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`2.22% 2 2222- 222222122)
`
`Plaintiffi
`
`,
`
`vs.
`
`»
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`CI’IIMEI INNOLUX CORPORATION,
`CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS USA,
`INC ACER AMERICA
`-
`CORPORATION, VIEWSONIC
`CORPORATION, VIZIO, INC” and
`WESTINGHOUSE DIGITAL, LLC,
`Defendants. V ‘
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`.
`Plaintiff Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd. (“SEL”), by its -
`attorneys,.complains against defendants ChimeiInnoluxCorporatiOn (“CMI”), Chi
`3 Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc. (“CMO USA”), Acer America Corporation ‘
`. 4.
`(“Acer”), ViewSonic Corporation (“ViewSonic”), VIZIO, Inc. (“VIZIO”), and
`5 Westinghouse Digital, LLC (“Westinghouse”) (collectively “Defendants”), as
`
`1 2
`
`.6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`follows:
`
`.
`PARTIES
`Plaintiff SEL is a corporation organized under the laws of Japan with
`1.
`its principal place of business at 398 Hase, Atsugi—shi, Kanagawa—Ken 243-0036
`Japan. "
`'
`
`On information and belief, Defendant CMI is a corporation organized
`2.
`11
`under the laws of Taiwan with its principal place of business at No. 160, Kesyue
`12
`13 Rd., Jhunan Science Park, MiaoliCounty 350, Taiwan, R.O;C. On information
`14
`and belief-CMI is a company established on March18, 2010 as a result ofthe ‘
`' 15 merger of Innolux Display Corporation With Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation
`' l6
`(“CMO”) and TPO Displays Corporation. CMI manufactures electronic“ products
`17
`in Taiwan and directly and/or indirectly imports, sells inand/or offers for sale its
`18
`products in California and elsewhere in the United States; In addition, CMI
`. 19
`provides these products to third parties through" an established distribution channel v
`
`20
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`, 27
`
`.28
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Defendant CMO USA is organized under the laws of Delaware and, ..
`3.
`on information and belief, has its principal place ofbusiness at 101 Metro Drive -
`Suite 510, San Jose, California 95110. On information and belief, CMO USA is a
`subsidiary. ofChi Mei Optoelectronics Japan Co., Ltd., which is itself a subsidiary
`of CMI. On information and belief, CMO USA directly and/or indirectly imports,
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`' 1
`
`
`
`sells and/or offers for sale in California and elSewhere in the United States
`1
`products manufactured by CMI.
`i 2
`_ 4.
`Defendant Acer is organized under the laws of California and, on
`'3
`information and belief, has its principal place of business at 333 W. 'San Carlos St,
`4
`Suite 1500, San Jose, California 95110. Acer is a domestic subsidiary of Acer, “Inc.
`5
`that. directly and/0r indirectly makes, imports, sells, and/or offers for sale its
`'6
`products in California and elsewhere in the United States.
`"“7
`5.
`Defendant ViewSonic is organized under the laws ofDelaware and,
`i 8
`on inforrhation and belief, has its principal placeof business at 381 Brea Canyon
`9
`10 Rd, Walnut, California 91789. ViewSonic directly and/or indirectly makes,
`11
`imports, sells, and/or offers for sale its products in California and elsewhere in the
`12 United States.
`i
`
`i
`
`Defendant VIZIO is organized under the laws of Delaware and, on
`6.
`_ 13
`information and belief, has its principal place ofbusiness at 39 Tesla, Irvine,
`14
`- 15 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 1300,0range, California 92868. Westinghouse ,
`directly and/or indirectly makes, imports, sells, and/or offers for sale its products in
`21 California and elsewhere in the United States.
`22
`. JURISDICTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`i 17
`1 8
`
`1 9
`
`’20
`
`23
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`8.
`i This is an action arising under the patent laws of the United States,
`Title 35 ofthe United States Code. This Court has subject matterjurisdiction
`under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant Each
`'9.
`Defendant, directly and/or through intermediaries or established distribution
`channels (including distributors, onlinevretailers, and others), ships, distributes,
`
`.
`.
`2
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`offers for sale, sells, and/or advertises its productsIn or into the United States, the
`State of California, and this District. Each Defendant has purposefully and '
`voluntarily placed one or more ofIts infringingproducts, 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 business1n this District.
`
`1 O
`
`11
`
`_ 12
`
`13
`
`14‘
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`ll. VenueIS proper in this judicial distriCt under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (b),
`(c) and (d) and 1400(b) because thisIS an action for patent infringement, CMI13 an
`alien, and the Defendants reside1n 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 business1n this District, and have committed, or have induced, acts of
`infiingement in this District.
`
`
`
`VENUE
`
`PATENTS-IN—SUIT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`\OOONONUIAUJNH‘
`
`
`
`
`1s
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`,
`
`24
`
`1 25
`
`'26
`
`27_
`'28
`
`13. United States Patent No. 6,404,480 (‘fthe ‘480 patent”),ientitled
`“Contact Structure,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and
`
`.
`3
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Trademark Office on June 112002. 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, reaffirrrfing the patentability ofall
`claims of the 480 patent without amendment. A true and correct copy of the480
`patent and Reexamination CertificateIS attached heretoas Exhibit A andIS
`
`
`
`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 ofthe 102 patentlS _
`attached hereto as Exhibit B andIS incorporated herein by this reference.
`15. United States Patent No. 7,876,413 (“the 413 patent”), entitled
`
`'
`
`“Electronic Apparatus With a Flexible Printed Circuit and a 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
`“El,ectro~Optical Device and Thin Film Transistor and Method for Forming the '
`Same,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office on April 12, 2011. Atrue and correct copy ofthe ‘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 ofthe978 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E
`andIS incorporated herein by this reference.
`
`
`onooqo‘mgcomp—“A
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13'
`
`V 14
`
`15.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`._ 19
`
`20
`
`‘21.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`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
`patentis attached hereto as Exhibit F andIS incorporated herein by this reference.
`.
`19.
`SELis the owner of all right, title and interest in and to the ‘480, ‘102,
`‘413, ‘311,‘978, and‘ 204 patents (collectively the “Patents—in—Suit”) and1s
`
`entitled to sue for past and future infi'ingement.
`
`BACKGROUND-
`
`©00\10\Ut-l>_wt\)»—a
`
`NNNNNNNNNh—ll—db—db—dr—lr—‘r—lb—dk—‘HOOQQM-bWNHOWOOflOm-fiWNH‘O
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 Foundation1n 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
`
`
`
`xovooqcxmlsm.m,_.
`
`(DO—(QONMAUJNHOCOOQQM-thl-‘O
`
`. 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
`
`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 '
`products based on that technology, ineluding 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.
`
`‘
`
`'
`
`.
`
`SEL’s contributions and advancements in the field of TFT~LCD
`24.
`technology include the inventions described and claimed in the six Patents—in—Suit,
`
`among others.
`
`, Thin—Film Transistor Liquid—Crystal Displays
`25. An important field of research for SEL has beenin the area ofthin—
`film transistor liquid-crystal displays (“TPT-LCD”). Modern TFT—LCD screens
`
`use an active—matrix structure in which each LCD pixel is individually controlled
`
`by a thin—film transistor (“TFT”).
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT '
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`\OOOVONU‘l-hbdklr-i
`
`
`
`1 O
`
`l l
`
`12
`
`l3
`
`l4
`
`1'5
`
`16
`
`17
`
`l 8
`
`l 9
`
`20
`
`21
`
`. 22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`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 ofTFTs, which are
`electronic switching devices made of microscopically thin films, including
`semiconductor material, that turn each individual pixel in the display “on” or “oft”
`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 ofred, blue and green) and a polarizer. The amount of light thatIS permitted
`to pass through the polarizer and color filter on the front substrateIS determined by
`the polarization state ofthat light, which1ntum'1s 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 ofthe 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.
`i
`i
`27.
`The TFT~LCD technology is widely used because it enables
`thousands or millions of TFTs to work independently to control thousands or
`millions ofpixels that together form sharp, vibrant images on screens ofLCD 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
`27 . CMO, International Display Technology USA, Inc. (which, on information and
`28
`belief, later became Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, Inc) Westinghouse Digital
`
`
`
`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—1VIHP ’
`(“the CMO Litigation”). The ‘480 patent was among the four patents asserted in
`the CMO Litigation.
`'
`h
`
`i
`
`29. During the CMO Litigation, the court granted SEL’s motion for
`
`summary judgment that products sold by CMO infringed the ‘480 patent.
`
`CMO filed a request with-the United States Patent and Trademark
`30.
`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 reaffirmng the patentability, without
`
`amendment, of all claims in the ‘480 patent.
`
`Following a settlement entered into between SEL and CMO, Chi Mei
`32.
`Optoelectronics Japan Co., Ltd, CMO USA, and,Westinghouse, the CMO .
`
`Litigation was dismissed July 6, 2007.
`
`,
`
`Communications Between SEL and CMI ‘
`
`33.
`patents.
`
`1 On May 7, 2010, SEL sent a letter to CMI offering a license to SEL’s
`V
`I
`'
`.
`.
`
`34.
`
`SEL sent another letter to CM 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.
`.
`
`\000x10xtn4nuawp—A
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12'
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`p 28
`
`.
`. 8 _-
`-
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`\OOO\IO\UIJ>~UJN)—A
`
`In a letter dated November. 22 2010, SEL responded to CMI and
`35.
`requested a meeting to explain the relevance between SEL’s patents and CMI’s
`
`products.
`
`V
`
`,
`
`SEL’s counsel sent CMI a letter on December 22, 2011, addressed to
`36.
`Mr Charles Hsu, Director, Patent Division, Legal & IP Center ofCMI, 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 sixPatents—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—LB4 Rev.C1, V260H1~
`LE2 Rev.Cl, V315B6—P01 Rev.C5, M270H3-L01 Rev.Cl,,M236H3—L05 Rev.C2,
`
`M270H1—L01 Rev.Cl, M236H3—LA2 Rev.C1, 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 ofthird parties, including at least Acer, ViewSonic, VIZIO and
`
`Westinghouse to infringe the Patentsin—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’3 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 variousthird parties, knowing
`
`that these third parties will use their respective nationwide contacts and distributio
`channels to'import, sell, offer for sale, and/oruse the CMI Products in California
`and elsewhere in the United States. These distribution channels include at least
`
`9
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`KOOO\]O\UIJ>DJ[\).1—I
`
`’ CMO USA, Acer, ViewSonic, VIZIO, andWestinghouse. CMI intendsfor the
`CMI Products to enter the United States, and CMI knows or reasonably should
`know that the CMI Products infringe the six Paterits—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/or1n California and
`elsewhere1n the United States, the CMI Products that infiinge 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 used1n California and elsewhere1n ,
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`' 10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`l6
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`V 20
`
`21
`
`- 22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25‘
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`.
`41. VIZIO has imported and soldLa‘nd 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 Patentsin—Suit.
`- 42. Westinghouse has imported and sold, and continues to import and sell
`into and/or1n California and elsewherein the United States, LCD—~type products
`that1ncorporate the CMI Products that infringeat least certain of the Patents:~1n—
`Suit.
`.
`'
`CMI has had actual notiCe in accordance with 35 U.S.C; § 287 as to
`43.
`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
`
`
`
`
`1 0
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`later than November 3, 2004, the date the CMO Litigation was filed. Therefore, on
`
`
`
`informatiOn and belief, such CMI 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
`
`p—ly—a
`
`l—‘O
`
`1—d1—nLON
`)-—t‘)—-*r--‘ONUI-b
`Fan—-OO\1
`
`NL—AOKO
`
`MNNr—A
`
`N L1»)
`
`NNNNN_oo\10\m.1:
`
`W,W\lmUi-AWNH"
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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, ‘311‘978,‘and1‘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? U.S..PATENT NO. 6,404,480
`
`45.
`
`SEL repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1—44,
`
`inclusive.
`
`.
`
`p
`
`,
`
`,
`
`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 infiingement 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 infiinged 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/or1mportin
`at least the following CMI Products and any similar products and related
`technology: CMI Module Numbers V315H3—LB4 Rev.Cl; V260H1-LE2 Rev.C1;
`V315B6-P01 Rev.C5; M27OHB-L01 Rev.C1; M236H3—L05 Rev.C2 ; M27OH1—
`L01 ReV.C1; and M236H3—LA2 ReV.C1. Defendants CMI and CMO USA are
`liable for their infringement of the ‘480‘patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`.
`l l
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`48. Defendant Acer has infringed and/or induced infringement of, andIS
`l
`continuing to infringe and/or induce infringement of, one or more ofthe480
`2
`patent claims, including but not limited to claim 1, by making, using, selling,
`3
`offering for sale, and/or importing at least the following CMI Products and any
`4
`similar products and related technology: CMI Module Number M270H3 —L01
`5
`6 Rev.Cl found in Aceriproduct number S273HL bmii; and CMI Medule Number
`7 M236I-I3—L05 Rev.C2 found in Acer product number HSZ44HQ bmii. Defendant
`8 Acer is liable for its infringement ofthe ‘480 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`9 ,
`49. Defendant ViewSonic has infringed and/or induced infiingement of,
`'10
`and is continuing to infringe and/or induce infidngement of, one‘or more of the
`11
`‘480 patent claims, including but not limited to claim 1, by making, using, selling,
`12‘
`offering for sale, and/or importing at least the following CMI Products and any
`. 13
`similar products and related technology: CMI Module Number M270Hl-L01
`Rev.Cl found1n ViewSonic product number VX2739wm; and CMI Module
`14
`Number M23 6H3 ~LA2 Rev.Cl foundin .ViewSonic product number VX2450wm—
`
`15
`
`LED. Defendant ViewSonicIS liable for its infringement ofthe 480 patent
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`’
`50. DefendantVIZIO has infringed and/or induced infiingement of, and is
`continuing to infringe and/or induce infringement of, one or more of the ‘480
`patent claims, including but notlimited 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 ofthe ‘480 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`i
`5 l. Defendant Westinghouse has infringed and/or induced infringement
`of, and is continuing to infringe and/or induce infringement of, one or more of the
`i480 patent claims, including but not limited to claim 1, by making, using, selling,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`2o
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`‘24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28.
`
`1 2
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`l
`2
`
`offering for sale, and/or importing at least the following CMI Product and any
`similar product and related technology: CMI Module Number V315B6—P01 ,
`
`3 Rev.C5 found in Westinghouse product number LD—3255VX. Defendant
`
`4 Westinghouse is liable for its infringement of the ‘480 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. ‘
`
`5
`
`6
`
`§ 271.
`
`.
`
`52.’ With knowledge of the ‘480 patent and its infringement of the ‘480
`
`patent, Defendant CMI also has infringed and continues to infringe onefor more of
`7
`the ‘480 patent claims, including but not limited to claim 1, by actively inducing
`8
`others, including at least CMO USA, Acer, ViewSonic, 'VIZIO, and Westinghouse,
`9
`to use, sell, import, and/or offer for sale infringing products in the United. States.
`10
`11 Upon information and belief, Defendants CMO USA, Acer, ViewSonic, VIZIO,
`12
`and Westinghouse have infringed and continue to infringe one or more ofthe ‘480 .
`l3
`patent claims, including but not limited to claim .1, by actively inducing others,
`14
`including their customers, to use, sell, import, and/or offer for sale infringing
`15
`products in the United States.
`
`53. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ infringement of the ‘480
`16
`patent is willful, intentional, and deliberate. Defendants? infringement of the ‘480’
`17
`patent has damaged and will continue to damage SEL. Defendants had actual
`.
`18
`l9 knowledge of the ‘480 patent based upon the CMO Litigation, the reexamination
`20 ofthe ‘480 patent, SEL’s letter to CMI dated November 3, 2010, the netice letter
`21
`sent by SEL’S counsel to CMI dated December 22, 2011, and/or the filing of this
`22 Complaint. Nevertheless, Defendants have willfully, deliberately, and ‘
`
`intentionally infringed and continue to infringe the ‘480 patent despite an
`23
`objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement.
`24
`54. Defendants’ infringement of the ‘400 patent has, caused and will
`25
`continue to cause SEL irreparable harm unless enjoined‘by the Court. SEL'has no
`26
`adequate remedy at law. SEL’s damages from the infringing activities of
`27,
`28' Defendants are not yet determined.
`
`13
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`'\OOO\IO\UIJ>UJI\)1—A
`
`NNNNNNNNNh—Ah—ér—ur—ur—db—‘r—ah—AHH
`
`COUNT II— INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,697,102
`55.
`SEL repeats and reallegesthe allegations1n paragraphs 1 54,
`inclusive.
`‘
`56. ‘ On April 13,2010, the United States Patent and Trademark OffiCe V
`issuedthe ‘ 102 patent, entitled “Contact Structure.” SEL is the owner, by means
`of assignment, ofthe ‘ 102 patent. SEL is entitled to sue and recover damages for
`past and future infringement ofthe ‘ 102 patent. The ‘ 102 patent is a duly and
`
`legally issued United States patent.
`‘57. Defendant CM 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.Cl; V26OH1—LE2 Rev.Cl;
`V3 15136—1301 Rev.CS; M270H3—L01 Rev.C 1; M236H3—L05 Rev.CZ; M270H1—L01
`Rev.Cl ;. and M236H3~LA2 Rev.Cl. Defendants CM and CMO USA are liable
`for their infringement of the ‘ 102 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`.5 8. Defendant Acer has infringed and/or induced infringement of, and is
`continuing to infringe and/0r induce infringement of, one or more of the ‘ 102 '
`patent clairns, including but not limited to claims 15 and 27, by making, using, I
`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
`
`M23 6H3-L05 Rev.CZ found in Acer product number HSZ44HQ bmii. Defendant
`Acer is liable for its infringement ofthe ‘ 102 patent pursuant to 35‘ U.S.C. § 27.1.
`5 9. Defendant ViewSonic has infringed and/or induced infringement of,
`andis continuing to infringe and/or induce infringement of,one or more of the
`
`14
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-
`
`‘ 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 technologyz‘ CMI Module Number
`M270H1—L01 Rev.C1 found in ViewSonic product number VX2739wm; and CMI
`Module Number M2361-13~LA2 ReV.C1 found in ViewSonic product number
`VX2450wm—LED. Defendant ViewSonic is liable for its infringement ofthe ‘ 102
`patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`.
`i
`I
`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 prodrict and related technology: CMI Module Number V315H3~LE4
`
`Rev.Cl found in VIZIO product number E322MV. Defendant VIZIO also has
`
`infringed and/or induced infringement of, and is continuing to infringe and/or
`
`induce infringement of, one or more of the ‘ 102 patentclaims, including but not
`limited to claims 15 and 27, 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 V260H1—LE2 Rev.Cl found in VIZIO product
`
`number E26OMV. Defendant VIZIO is liable for its infringement of the ‘ 102
`
`patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`61. Defendant Westinghouse has infringed and/or induced infringement
`of, and is continuing to infringe and/or induce infringement of, one or more Of the v
`‘ 102 patent claims, including but not limited to claim 15, by making, using, selling,
`
`
`
`
`
`0.,mNONM-b.WNH
`
`1 O
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`V 17
`
`,18
`
`119
`
`20
`
`21
`22
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`offering for sale, and/or importing at least the following CMI Product and any
`24
`similar product and related technology: CMI Module Number V315B6~P01
`25
`26 Rev.C5 found in Westinghouise product number LD-3255VX. Defendant
`'27 . Westinghouse is liable for