§s A0 120 Rev 2/99
`
`
`
`TO:
`
`Mail Stop 8
`Director of the US. Patent & Trademark Office
`P.0. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`REPORT ON THE
`FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
`ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR
`TRADEMARK
`
`.
`
`
`
`In Compliance with 35 § 290 and/or 15 U,S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been
`filed in the us. District Court
`NDCA
`on the following
`X Patents or D Trademarks:
`
`
`DOCKET NO.
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`DATE FILED
`
`
`
`(1 CA 94612
`8/29/13
`Oakland Division 1301Cla St. Suite 4008 Oaklan
`
`
`CV 13-04034 DMR
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT
`PLAINTIFF
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,ET.AL
`
`
`CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mamas _
`
`
` mm, m——
`—--—
`
`5 8 059/ 0/5
`
`PATENT OR
`TRADEMARK NO
`
`DATE OF PATENT
`OR TRADEMARK
`
`DATE lNCLUDED
`
`INCLUDED BY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following decision has been rendered orjudgement issued:
`DECISION/JUDGEMENT
`
`DATE
`
` (BY) DEPUTY CLERK
`
`Richard W. Wieking
`
`Valerie Kyono
`
`August 30, 2013
`
`Copy l—Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Commissioner Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Commissioner
`Copy Z—Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Commissioner Copy 4——Case file copy
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 1
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s) have been included:
`
`
`
`
`[J Amendment
`PATENT OR
`DATE OF PATENT
`TRADEMARK N0.
`OR TRADEMARK
`HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`‘
`¢
`W
`J
`1 85/9 923 _—
`
`D Answer
`
`[:1 Cross Bill
`
`D Other Pleading
`
`
`
`
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 1
`
`

`

`KAYEISCHOLERM
`
`Case5:13-cv-04034-DMR Documentl Filed08l29/l3 Page9 of 15
`
`enjoined by this Court.
`
`[\J
`
`42.
`
`On information and belief, LGE’s infringement has been, and continues to be,
`
`willful, wanton, and deliberate, without license or excuse and with fiill knowledge of the ‘825
`
`patent.
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`(Infringement of the ’770 Patent)
`
`43.
`
`Cypress incorporates and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
`
`though set forth in full herein.
`
`44.
`
`Cypress has not licensed or otherwise authorized LGE to make, use, offer for sale,
`
`sell, or import into the United States any products that embody the inventions of the ’770 patent.
`
`45.
`
`LGE has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the ’770 patent by
`
`making, using, importing, offering for sale or selling the LGE Infringing USB Products in the
`
`United States.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`LGE has had actual knowledge of the ’770 patent since at least April 1, 2011.
`
`LGE has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe the ’770 patent
`
`by inducing end-users to infringe the ’770 patent by using the LGE Infringing USB Products.
`
`LGE intentionally took action that induced end-users to infringe the ’7 70 patent by marketing,
`
`selling, and supporting the infringing devices. On information and belief, at least one LGE end
`
`customer or distributor has directly infringed the ’770 patent by acting as instructed by LGE. For
`
`example, LGE supplies end customers and distributors of the LGE Infringing USB Products with
`
`user manuals and other information that instruct downstream users how to operate the LGE
`
`Infringing USB Products, with knowledge that use in accordance with such instructions infringes
`
`the ’770 patent. As detailed by the user manuals and other information supplied by LGE, the
`
`LGE Infringing USB Products infringe multiple Cypress patents. Sale or use of the LGE
`
`Infringing USB Products by end customers or distributors in accordance with LGE’s instructions
`
`constitutes direct infringement of the ’770 patent. LGE had awareness of the ’770 patent and
`
`knew, or was willfully blind to the fact, that its actions would cause direct infringement by end—
`
`users.
`
`48.
`
`LGE has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe the ’770 patent
`
`10
`
`11
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`2.4
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`8
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 2
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 2
`
`

`

`ISCHOLERm
`
`KAYE
`
`Case5:13-cv-04034-DMR Documentl Filed08/29/13 Page10 of 15
`
`by contributing to direct infringement by end-users who use the LGE Infringing USB Products.
`
`LGE supplied a component whose use by downstream users is infringing; the component is not a
`
`common component suitable for non-infringing use; and LGE supplied the component with the
`
`knowledge of the ‘770 patent and knowledge that the component was especially made or adapted
`
`for use in an infringing manner.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`LGE’s actions are in violation of one or more of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`Cypress has been damaged and irreparably injured by LGE’s infringing activities
`
`and will continue to be so damaged and irreparably injured unless LGE’s infringing activities are
`
`enjoined by this Court.
`
`51.
`
`On information and belief, LGE’s infringement has been, and continues to be,
`
`willful, wanton, and deliberate, without license or excuse and with full knowledge of the ‘770
`
`patent.
`
`FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`(Infringement of the ’497 Patent)
`
`52.
`
`Cypress incorporates and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
`
`though set forth in full herein.
`
`53.
`
`Cypress has not licensed or otherwise authorized LGE to make, use, offer for sale,
`
`sell, or import into the United States any products that embody the inventions of the ’497 patent.
`
`54.
`
`LGE has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the ’497 patent by
`
`making, using, importing, offering for sale or selling the LGE Infringing Touchscreen Products in
`
`the United States.
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`LGE has had actual knowledge of the ’497 patent since at least August 25, 2011.
`
`LGE has had actual knowledge of the published application that finally issued as
`
`the ‘497 patent since at least July 12, 2011.
`
`57.
`
`LGE has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe the ’497 patent
`
`by inducing end-users to infringe the ’497 patent by using the LGE Infringing Touchscreen
`
`Products. LGE intentionally took action that induced end-users to infringe the ’497 patent by
`
`marketing, selling, and supporting the infringing devices. On information and belief, at least one
`
`9
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 3
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 3
`
`

`

`KAYEISCHOLERLLP
`
`Case5:13-cv-04034-DMR Documentl Filed08/29/13 Pagell of 15
`
`Ix)
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`LGE end customer or distributor has directly infringed the ’497 patent by acting asinstructed by
`
`LGE. For example, LGE supplies end customers and distributors of the LGE Infringing
`
`Touchscreen Products with user manuals and other information that instruct downstream users
`
`how to operate the LGE Infringing Touchscreen Products, with knowledge that use in accordance
`
`with such instructions infringes the ’497 patent. As detailed by the user manuals and other
`
`information supplied by LGE, the LGE Infringing Touchscreen Products infringe multiple
`
`Cypress patents. Sale or use of the LGE Infringing Touchscreen Products by end customers or
`
`distributors in accordance with LGE’s instructions constitutes direct infringement of the ’497
`
`patent. LGE had awareness of the ’497 patent and knew, or was willfully blind to the fact, that its
`
`actions would cause direct infringement by end-users.
`
`58.
`
`LGE has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe the ’497 patent
`
`by contributing to direct infringement by end-users who use the LGE Infringing Touchscreen
`
`Products. LGE supplied a component whose use by downstream users is infringing; the
`
`component is not a common component suitable for non-infringing use; and LGE supplied the
`
`component with the knowledge of the ‘497 patent and knowledge that the component was
`
`especially made or adapted for use in an infringing manner.
`
`59.
`
`60.
`
`LGE’s actions are in Violation of one or more of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`Cypress has been damaged and irreparably injured by LGE’s infringing activities
`
`and will continue to be so damaged and irreparably injured unless LGE’s infringing activities are
`
`enjoined by this Court.
`
`61.
`
`Cypress is entitled to damages based on the provisional rights granted under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 154 (d).
`
`62.
`
`On information and belief, LGE’s infringement has been, and continues to be,
`
`willful, wanton, and deliberate, without license or excuse and with full knowledge of the ‘497
`
`patent.
`
`FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`(Infringement of the ’015 Patent)
`
`63.
`
`Cypress incorporates and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
`
`though set forth in full herein.
`
`10
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 4
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 4
`
`

`

`Case5:13-cv-04034—DMR Documentl Filed08/29I13 Page12 of 15
`
`64.
`
`Cypress has not licensed or otherwise authorized LGE to make, use, offer for sale,
`
`sell, or import into the United States any products that embody the inventions of the ’015 patent.
`
`65.
`
`LGE has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the ’015 patent by
`
`making, using, importing, offering for sale or selling the LGE Infringing Touchscreen Products in
`
`the United States.
`
`66.
`
`67.
`
`LGE has had actual knowledge of the ’015 patent since at least March 7, 2012.
`
`LGE has had actual knowledge of the published application that finally issued as
`
`the ‘015 patent since at least July 12, 2011.
`
`68.
`
`LGE has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe the ’015 patent
`
`by inducing end-users to infringe the ’015 patent by using the LGE Infringing Touchscreen
`
`Products. LGE intentionally took action that induced end-users to infringe the ’015 patent by
`
`marketing, selling, and supporting the infringing devices. On information and belief, at least one
`
`LGE end customer or distributor has directly infringed the ’01 5 patent by acting as instructed by
`
`LGE. For example, LGE supplies end customers and distributors of the LGE Infringing
`
`Touchscreen Products with user manuals and other information that instruct downstream users
`
`how to operate the LGE Infringing Touchscreen Products, with knowledge that use in accordance
`
`with such instructions infringes the ’015 patent. As detailed by the user manuals and other
`
`information supplied by LGE, the LGE Infringing Touchscreen Products infringe multiple
`
`Cypress patents. Sale or use of the LGE Infringing Touchscreen Products by end customers or
`
`distributors in accordance with LGE’s instructions constitutes direct infringement of the ’015
`
`patent. LGE had awareness of the ’015 patent and knew, or was willfiJlIy blind to the fact, that its
`
`actions would cause direct infringement by end-users.
`
`69.
`
`LGE has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe the ’015 patent
`
`by contributing to direct infringement by end-users who use the LGE Infringing Touchscreen
`
`Products. LGE supplied a component whose use by downstream users is infringing; the
`
`component is not a common component suitable for non-infringing use; and LGE supplied the
`
`component with the knowledge of the ‘015 patent and knowledge that the component was
`
`especially made or adapted for use in an infringing manner.
`
`1 1
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`10
`
`11
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`YEiSCHOLERm
`
`KA
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 5
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 5
`
`

`

`Case5:13-cv-O4034-DMR Documentl Filed08/29/13 Pagel3 of 15
`
`70.
`
`71.
`
`LGE’s actions are in violation of one or more of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`Cypress has been damaged and irreparably injured by LGE’s infringing activities '
`
`and will continue to be so damaged and in‘eparably injured unless LGE’s infringing activities are
`
`enjoined by this Court.
`
`72.
`
`Cypress is entitled to damages based on the provisional rights granted under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 154 (d).
`
`73.
`
`On information and belief, LGE’s infringement has been, and continues to be,
`
`willful, wanton, and deliberate, without license or excuse and with full knowledge of the ‘015
`
`patent.
`
`SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`(Infringement of the ’973 Patent)
`
`74.
`
`Cypress incorporates and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
`
`though set forth in full herein.
`
`75.
`
`Cypress has not licensed or otherwise authorized LGE to make, use, offer for sale,
`
`sell, or import into the United States any products that embody the inventions of the ’973 patent.
`
`76.
`
`LGE has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the ’973 patent by
`
`making, using, importing, offering for sale or selling the LGE Infringing Touchscreen Products in
`
`the United States.
`
`77.
`
`78.
`
`LGE has had actual knowledge of the ’973 patent since at least August 29, 2013.
`
`LGE has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe the ’973 patent
`
`by inducing end-users to infringe the ’97 3 patent by using the LGE Infringing Touchscreen
`
`Products. LGE intentionally took action that induced end-users to infringe the ’973 patent by
`
`marketing, selling, and supporting the infringing devices.
`
`[On information and belief, at least one
`
`LGE end customer or distributor has directly infringed the ’973 patent by acting as instructed by
`
`LGE. For example, LGE supplies end customers and distributors of the LGE Infringing
`
`Touchscreen Products with user manuals and other information that instruct downstream users
`
`how to’ operate the LGE Infringing Touchscreen Products, with knowledge that use in accordance
`
`with such instructions infringes the ’973 patent. As detailed by the user manuals and other
`
`information supplied by LGE, the LGE Infringing Touchscreen Products infringe multiple
`
`[2
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 6
`
`iSCHOLERm
`
`KAYE
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 6
`
`

`

`KAYEISCIHOLERM
`
`Case5:13-cv-O4034-DMR Documentl Filed08/29l13 Page14 of 15
`
`Cypress patents. Sale or use of the LGE Infringing Touchscreen Products by end customers or
`
`distributors in accordance with LGE’s instructions constitutes direct infringement of the ’973
`
`patent. LGE had awareness of the ’973 patent and knew, or was willfiilly blind to the fact, that its
`
`actions would cause direct infringement by end-users.
`
`79.
`
`LGE has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe the ’973 patent
`
`by contributing to direct infringement by end-users who use the LGE Infringing Touchscreen
`
`Products. LGE supplied a component whose use by downstream users is infringing; the
`
`component is not a common component suitable for non—infringing use; and LGE supplied the
`
`component with the knowledge of the ’973 patent and knowledge that the component was
`
`especially made or adapted for use in an infringing manner.
`
`80.
`
`81.
`
`LGE’s actions are in violation of one or more of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. ‘§ 271.
`
`Cypress has been damaged and irreparably injured by LGE’S infringing activities
`
`and will continue to be so damaged and irreparably injured unless LGE’s infringing activities are
`
`enjoined by this Court.
`
`82.
`
`On information and belief, LGE’s infringement has been, and continues to be,
`
`willful, wanton, and deliberate, without license or excuse and with full knowledge of the ’973
`
`patent.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Cypress requests that this Court grant the following relief:
`
`a.
`
`Enter judgment that the LGE Infringing USB Products infringe the ’ 103, ’825, and
`
`’770 patents and the LGE Infringing Touchscreen Products infringe the ’497, ’015, and ’973
`
`patents;
`
`b.
`
`Enter an order permanently enjoining LGE and its officers, directors, agents,
`
`servants, employees, attorneys, licensees, successors, assigns, and customers, and those in active
`
`concert or participation with any of them, from making, using, offering to sell, or selling in the
`
`United States or importing into the United States any devices that infringe any claim of the
`
`Asserted Patents;
`
`l3
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMEN’I‘
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 7
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 7
`
`

`

`Case5:13-cv-04034-DMR Documentl Filed08l29/13 PagelS of 15
`
`0.
`
`Award Cypress its damages, including lost profits, resulting from LGE’s
`
`infringement in an amount to be determined at trial, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 154 and 284;
`
`(1.
`
`e.
`
`Find this to be an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285;
`
`Award Cypress prejudgment interest and post-judgment interest on its damages
`
`and award Cypress its costs;
`
`f.
`
`Perform an accounting of LGE’s infringing sales not presented at trial and award
`
`Cypress additional damages from any such infringing sales; and
`
`g.
`
`Award Cypress its costs and attorneys’ fees and such other and further relief as the
`
`Court deems just and appropriate.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Cypress hereby demands
`
`trial by jury on all issues raised by the Complaint.
`
`Dated: August 29, 2013
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`
`By
`
`/5/ Michael J. Malecek
`Michael J. Malecek
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR
`CORPORATION
`
`
`
`KAYElSCHOI—ERLLP
`
`14
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 8
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 8
`
`

`

`Case5:13-cv-O4034-DMR Documentl Filed08/29/13 Pagel of 15
`
`Michael J. Maleeek (State Bar No. 171034)
`Email address: michael.malecek@kayescholer.com
`Marisa Armanino Williams (State Bar No. 264907)
`Email address: marisa.armanino@kayescholer.com
`Robert S. Magee (State Bar No. 271443)
`Email address: robert.magee@kayescholer.com
`KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`
`Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 400
`3000 El Camino Real
`Palo Alto, California 94306
`Telephone: (650) 319-4500
`Facsimile:
`(650) 319-4700
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR
`CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`Case No.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., and
`LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A.,
`INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`KAYEISCHOLERLLP
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`27
`
`28
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT TNFRINGEMEN'I'
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 9
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 9
`
`

`

`KAYE'SCHOLERm
`
`Case5213-cv-04034-DMR Documentl Filed08l29/13 Page2 of 15
`
`1
`
`\OOO\]O\
`
`Plaintiff Cypress Semiconductor Corporation (“Cypress” or “Plaintiff”) alleges:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Cypress is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
`
`Delaware with its principal place of business located at 198 Champion Court, San Jose,
`
`California. Cypress is a supplier of high—performance, mixed-signal, programmable solutions that
`
`provide customers with rapid time-to-market and exceptional system value. Cypress’s
`
`innovations are used in a wide variety of consumer electronics, such as networking and
`telecommunication equipment, touchscreen devices, mobile handsets, video and imaging devices,
`
`as well as in military communication devices.
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant LG Electronics, Inc. (“LGE Inc”) is a
`
`corporation organized and existing under the laws of Korea with a principal place of business at
`
`20, Yeouido-dong, Yeongdeungpo-Gu, Seoul 150-721, Korea.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (“LGE USA”)
`
`is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal
`
`place of business at 1000 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632.
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant LG Electronics Mobilecomrn U.S.A., Inc.
`
`(“LGE Mobilecomm”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
`
`California with a principal place of business at 10225 Willow Creek Road, San Diego, California
`
`92 1 3 1 .
`
`5.
`
`As further described below, LGE Inc, LGE U.S.A., and LGE Mobilecomm
`
`(collectively, “LGE”) manufacture and sell mobile phones and other products that infringe
`
`multiple Cypress patents.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 100, et
`
`seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1 33 8(a).
`
`7.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over LGE and venue is proper in the Northern
`
`District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) and § 1400(b). LGE maintains
`
`l
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 10
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 10
`
`

`

`YEKAlSCHOLERm
`
`Case5:13-cv-04034-DMR Documentl Filed08/29/13 Page3 of 15
`
`offices in this District, transacts business involving infringing products within this District, and
`
`offers infringing products for sale in this District. On information and belief, LGE derives
`
`significant revenue from the sale of infringing products distributed and used within this District,
`
`and/or expects or should reasonably expect its actions to have consequences within this District,
`
`and derives substantial revenue from interstate and international commerce.
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`
`8.
`
`This is an Intellectual Property Action to be assigned on a district-wide basis
`
`pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-2(c).
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`9.
`
`For over thirty years, Cypress has been a pioneer and market innovator in
`
`semiconductor technology. Cypress products include the PSoC® l, PSoC® 3, PSoC® 4, and
`
`PSoC® 5 programmable system—on-chip families, and Cypress is the world leader in capacitive
`
`user interface solutions including CapSense® touch sensing, TrueTouch® touchscreens, and
`
`trackpad solutions for notebook PCs and peripherals. Cypress is also the world leader in
`
`universal serial bus (“USB”) controllers, which enhance connectivity and performance in a wide
`
`range of consumer and industrial products. Cypress is also the world leader in static random
`
`access memory (“SRAM”) and nonvolatile RAM memories.
`
`10.
`
`To develop its industry-leading products, Cypress has made extensive and
`
`continuous investments in research and development (“R&D”). Cypress’s R&D efforts have
`
`been essential to its success as a supplier of semiconductor solutions. Cypress’s R&D
`
`organization works closely with its manufacturing facilities, suppliers and customers to improve
`
`semiconductor designs and lower manufacturing costs.
`
`1 1.
`
`To protect these critical R&D efforts, Cypress places a high value on its
`
`intellectual property. Cypress has applied for and received over 2000 patents worldwide in a
`
`variety of semiconductor-related technologies, and has more than 800 pending US. and foreign
`
`patent applications. Cypress has over 250 issued US. patents and over 200 pending US. patent
`
`applications directed towards USB and touchscreen technology.
`
`[0
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`2
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 11
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 11
`
`

`

`KAYElSCHOLERm
`
`Case5:13-cv-04034-DMR Documentl Filed08l29l13 Page4 of 15
`
`12.
`
`To protect the interests of Cypress's customers, who benefit from Cypress's
`
`leading-edge technology and rely upon Cypress's proprietary solutions to compete in the
`
`marketplace, Cypress cannot allow unauthorized use of its intellectual property.
`
`CYPRESS PATENTS
`
`13.
`
`On January 4, 2000, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued United States Patent No. 6,012,103 (“the ’ 103 patent”), entitled “Bus Interface
`
`System and Method,” to Cypress. Cypress owns the ’ 103 patent by assignment. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ’ 103 patent is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint.
`
`14.
`
`On June 19, 2001, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued United States Patent No. 6,249,825 (“the ’825 patent”), entitled “Universal Serial Bus
`
`Interface System and Method,” to Cypress. Cypress owns the ’825 patent by assignment. A true
`
`and correct copy of the ’825 patent is attached as Exhibit B to this Complaint.
`
`15.
`
`On December 10, 2002, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued United States Patent No. 6,493,770 (“the ’770 patent”), entitled “System for
`
`Reconfiguring a Peripheral Device by Downloading Information from a Host and Electronically
`
`Simulating a Physical Disconnection and Reconnection to Reconfigure the Device,” to Cypress.
`
`Cypress owns the ’770 patent by assignment. A true and correct copy of the ’770 patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit C to this Complaint.
`
`16.
`
`On August 23, 2011, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued United States Patent No. 8,004,497 (“the ’497 patent”), entitled “Two-Pin
`
`Buttons,” to Cypress. Cypress owns the ’497 patent by assignment. A true and correct copy of
`
`the ’497 patent is attached as Exhibit D to this Complaint.
`
`17.
`
`On November 15, 2011, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued United States Patent No. 8,059,015 (“the ’015 patent”), entitled “Capacitance
`
`Sensing Matrix for Keyboard Architecture,” to Cypress. Cypress owns the ’01 5 patent by
`
`assignment. A true and correct copy of the ’015 patent is attached as Exhibit E to this Complaint.
`
`18.
`
`On August 27, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued United States Patent No. 8,519,973 (“the ’973 patent”), entitled “Apparatus and
`
`3
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`U1
`
`\1O\.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 12
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 12
`
`

`

`Case5213-cv-04034-DMR Documentl Filed08l29l13 Pages of 15
`
`to
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`Methods for Detecting a Conductive Object at a Location,” to Cypress. Cypress owns the ’973
`
`patent by assignment. A true and correct copy of the ’973 patent is attached as Exhibit F to this
`
`Complaint.
`
`19.
`
`The ’ 103 patent, ’825 patent, and ’770 patent will be referred to below as the
`
`“Cypress USB Patents.” The ’497 patent, ’01 5 patent, and ’973 patent will be referred to below
`
`as the “Cypress Touchscreen Patents” (and together with the USB Patents, the “Asserted
`
`Patents”).
`
`INFRINGEMENT BY LGE
`
`20.
`
`The products manufactured, imported and sold by LGE that infringe one or more
`
`claims of the Cypress USB Patents include, but are not limited to, the Fathom V8750 mobile
`
`phone and associated software, firmware, and peripheral. components, as well as other LGE
`
`mobile phones and products, and associated software, firmware, and peripheral components that
`
`incorporate the same or similar USB features, functionality, and/or architecture (collectively, the
`
`“LGE Infringing USB Products”). The identification of products and parts in this Complaint is
`
`by way of example only, and on information and belief, the exemplary products and parts
`identified in this Complaint are representative of all LGE products and parts with reasonably
`
`similar features, functionality and/or architecture, whether discontinued, current or future.
`
`21.
`
`The products manufactured, imported and sold by LGE that infringe one or more
`
`claims of the Cypress Touchscreen patents include, but are not limited to, the Optimus S LS670
`
`mobile phone and associated software, firmware, and peripheral components, as well as other
`
`LGE mobile phones and products, and associated software, firmware, and peripheral components
`
`that incorporate the same or similar touchscreen features, functionality, and/or architecture
`
`(collectively, the “LGE Infringing Touchscreen Products”), The identification of products and
`
`parts in this Complaint is by way of example only, and on information and belief, the exemplary
`
`products and parts identified in this Complaint are representative of all LGE products and parts
`
`with reasonably similar features, functionality and/or architecture, whether discontinued, current
`
`or future.
`
`KAYEiSCHOLERm
`
`4
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 13
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 13
`
`

`

`
`
`KAYEISCHOLERLLP
`
`CaseS:13-cv-04034—DMR Documentl Filed08/29/13 Page6 of 15
`
`22.
`
`The LGE Infringing USB Products and LGE Infringing Touchscreen Products
`
`k)
`
`(collectively, the “LGE Infringing Products”) have no substantial non-infringing use.
`
`23.
`
`According to LGE’s website and other publicly available documents, and on
`
`information and belief, the LGE Infringing Products are sold to distributors and end customers in
`
`the United States. These distributors and end customers are supplied with user manuals and other
`
`information that instruct downstream users how to operate the LGE Infringing Products, and LGE
`
`provides these instructions while knowing since at least 2011 that the LGE Infringing Products
`
`infringe multiple Cypress patents, including one or more of the Asserted Patents. Sale or use of
`
`the LGE Infringing Products in accordance with LGE’s instructions on how to operate these
`
`devices constitutes direct infringement of the Asserted Patents.
`
`24.
`
`LGE is aware that the LGE Infringing Products infringe the Asserted Patents. In
`
`an effort to resolve LGE’s infringement without resorting to litigation, Cypress made LGE aware
`
`of the Cypress USB Patents in April 2011 and the Cypress Touchscreen Patents in July 2011, and
`
`on multiple subsequent occasions. LGE ultimately refused to participate in any further licensing
`
`negotiations and, on information and belief, continued infringing the Asserted Patents.
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`(Infringement of the ’103 Patent)
`
`25.
`
`Cypress incorporates and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
`
`though set forth in filll herein.
`
`26.
`
`Cypress has not licensed or otherwise authorized LGE to make, use, offer for sale,
`
`sell, or import into the United States any products that embody the inventions of the ’103 patent.
`
`27.
`
`LGE has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the ’ 103 patent by
`
`making, using, importing, offering for sale or selling the LGE Infringing USB Products in the
`
`United States.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`LGE has had actual knowledge of the ’ 103 patent since at least April 1, 2011.
`
`LGE has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe the ’ 103 patent
`
`by inducing end-users to infringe the ’ 103 patent by using the LGE Infringing USB Products.
`
`LGE intentionally took action that induced end-users to infringe the ’ 103 patent by marketing,
`
`5
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 14
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 14
`
`

`

`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`KAYEISCHOLERLLP
`
`Case5213-cv-04034-DMR Documentl Filed08l29l13 Page? of 15
`
`selling, and supporting the infringing devices. On information and belief, at least one LGE end
`
`customer or distributor has directly infringed the ’ 103 patent by acting as instructed by LGE. For
`
`example, LGE supplies end customers and distributors of the LGE Infringing USB Products with
`
`user manuals and other information that instruct downstream users how to operate the LGE
`
`Infringing USB Products, with knowledge that use in accordance with such instructions infringes
`
`the ’ 103 patent. As detailed by the user manuals and other information supplied by LGE, the
`
`LGE Infringing USB Products infringe multiple Cypress patents. Sale or use of the LGE
`
`Infringing USB Products by end customers or distributors in accordance with LGE’s instructions
`
`constitutes direct infringement of the ’103 patent. LGE had awareness of the ’ 103 patent and
`
`knew, or was willfully blind to the fact, that its actions would cause direct infringement by end-
`
`users.
`
`30.
`
`LGE has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe the ’ 103 patent
`
`by contributing to direct infringement by end-users who use the LGE Infringing USB Products.
`
`LGE supplied a component whose use by downstream users is infringing; the component is not a
`
`common component suitable for non—infringing use; and LGE supplied the component with the
`
`knowledge of the ’ 103 patent and knowledge that the component was especially made or adapted
`
`for use in an infringing manner.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`LGE’s actions are in violation of one or more of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`Cypress has been damaged and irreparably injured by LGE’s infringing activities
`
`and will continue to be so damaged and irreparably injured unless LGE’s infringing activities are
`
`enjoined by this Court.
`
`33.
`
`On information and belief, LGE’s infringement has been, and continues to be,
`
`willful, wanton, and deliberate, without license or excuse and with full knowledge of the ’ 103
`
`patent.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`(Infringement of the ’825 Patent)
`
`34.
`
`Cypress incorporates and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
`
`though set forth in full herein.
`
`35.
`
`Cypress has not licensed or otherwise authorized LGE to make, use, offer for sale,
`
`6
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 15
`
`BLACKBERRY EX. 1010, pg. 15
`
`

`

`CaseS:13-cv-O4034-DMR Documentl Filed08l29/13 Page8 of 15
`
`sell, or import into the United States any products that embody the inventions of the ’825 patent.
`
`36.
`
`LGE has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the ’825 patent by
`
`ma