Case 2:14-cv-00201-JRG Document 176 Filed 01/09/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 923
`
`
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`V.
`
`HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, et al.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`INNOVATIVE DISPLAY
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`V.
`
`Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. and Nissan North
`America, Inc.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§ LEAD Cause No. 2:14-CV-201-JRG
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§ Consolidated Cause No. 2:14-CV-202
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`DEFENDANTS NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD. AND NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.’S
`THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT
`
`Pursuant to Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants and Third-Party
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. (“NML”) and Nissan North America, Inc. (“NNA”)
`
`(collectively, “Nissan”), file this Third-Party Complaint for indemnification from third parties
`
`Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. (“Continental”), Panasonic Automotive Systems
`
`Company of America (“Panasonic”), and Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. and its subsidiaries, Stanley
`
`Electric Sales of America, Inc. and Stanley Electric U.S. Co., Inc. (“Stanley”) (collectively,
`
`“Third Party Defendants”), averring and alleging as follows:
`
`- 1 -
`
`IDT Exhibit 2001
`Koito et al. v. IDT
`IPR2015-00575
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00201-JRG Document 176 Filed 01/09/15 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 924
`
`
`
`I.
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Innovative Display Technologies LLC (“IDT”) alleges that Nissan
`
`infringes infringe the Asserted Patents—U.S. Patent Nos. 7,300,194 (“the ’194 patent”),
`
`7,384,177 (“the ’177 patent”), 7,404,660 (“the ’660 patent”), 7,434,974 (“the ’974 patent”),
`
`7,537,370 (“the ’370 patent”), 8,215,816 (“the 816’ patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Display
`
`Patents”) and Nos. 6,508,563 (“the ’563 patent”) and 6,886,956 (“the ’956 patent”) (collectively,
`
`“the Asserted Lighting Patents”)—because Nissan uses parts incorporating allegedly infringing
`
`third party parts in certain of Nissan and Infiniti brand vehicles. Solely for the purpose of
`
`establishing IDT’s allegations against Nissan in the above-captioned lawsuit, Nissan incorporates
`
`by reference the allegations in IDT’s Second Amended Complaint [Cause No. 2:14-CV-202,
`
`Dkt. No. 9].
`
`2.
`
`Nissan denies the allegations in IDT’s Complaint and denies any liability to IDT,
`
`but asserts that, if held liable to IDT, Nissan is entitled to indemnification from the Third-Party
`
`Defendants through Nissan’s Master Purchase Agreements.
`
`II.
`
`PARTIES
`
`3.
`
`Third-Party Plaintiff states that Nissan North America, Inc. is a California
`
`corporation with a principal place of business located in Franklin, Tennessee, and is a wholly-
`
`owned subsidiary of Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., a Japanese corporation with a principal place of
`
`business located in Yokohama, Japan. NML and NNA are responsible for the design,
`
`manufacturing, distribution, marketing, and sales of Nissan and Infiniti brand vehicles. In the
`
`United States, NNA distributes those vehicles to its network of dealerships. Nissan maintains a
`
`network of regional offices that support more than 1,100 independent, franchisee dealerships
`
`across the United States.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00201-JRG Document 176 Filed 01/09/15 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 925
`
`
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of Delaware and having its principal place of business at 1
`
`Continental Drive, Auburn Hills, MI 48326-1581. Continental designs, manufactures, and sells
`
`vehicle components used around the world by vehicle manufacturers, including Nissan.
`
`Continental also has offices located at 15201 Mercantile Dr., Dearborn, MI 48120 and 21440
`
`West Lake Cook Road, 7th Floor, Deer Park, IL 60010. Upon information and belief,
`
`Continental is registered and actively engaged in business within the State of Texas, and
`
`maintains a registered agent in the State of Texas at CT Corp. System, 1999 Bryan St., Ste. 900,
`
`Dallas, TX 75201.
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, Stanley Electric Co., Ltd. is a corporation organized
`
`and existing under the laws of Japan and has a principal place of business at 2-9-13 Nakameguro,
`
`Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8636, Japan. Upon information and belief, Stanley Electric U.S. Co.,
`
`Inc., is a subsidiary of Stanley Electric Co., Ltd., and is a corporation organized and existing
`
`under the laws of Ohio and having its principal place of business in the United States at 420 East
`
`High Street London, OH 43140. Upon information and belief, Stanley Electric Sales of America
`
`Inc. is a subsidiary of Stanley Electric Co., Ltd., and is a corporation organized and existing
`
`under the laws of California and having its principal place of business in the United States at 36
`
`Executive Park Suite 230, Irvine, CA 92614-6713. Stanley, through its subsidiaries, designs,
`
`manufactures, and sells vehicle components used around the world by vehicle manufacturers,
`
`including Nissan. Upon information and belief, Stanley and its subsidiaries can be served with
`
`process through a registered agent in Texas at CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St., Suite
`
`900, Dallas, TX 75201, and/or a registered agent in Ohio at Sunsaku Onishi, 420 E. High St.,
`
`London, OH 43140.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00201-JRG Document 176 Filed 01/09/15 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 926
`
`
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, Panasonic Automotive Systems Company of America
`
`is a division of Panasonic Corporation of North America, which is a division of Panasonic
`
`Corporation. On information and belief, Panasonic Automotive Systems Company of America is
`
`organized under the laws of Michigan and has its registered office at 26455 American Drive,
`
`Southfield, Michigan 48034. Upon information and belief, Panasonic designs, manufactures,
`
`and sells vehicle components used in Nissan vehicles. Upon information and belief, Panasonic
`
`Automotive Systems Company of America maintains a registered agent in Michigan at The
`
`Corporation Company, 30600 Telegraph Road, Suite 2345, Bingham Farms, Michigan 48025
`
`and Panasonic Corporation of North America maintains a registered agent in the State of Texas
`
`at CT Corp. System, 1999 Bryan St., Ste. 900, Dallas, TX 75201.
`
`III.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement brought by Innovative Display
`
`Technologies, LLC (“IDT”) against Nissan and others, arising under the patent laws of the
`
`United States, specifically, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, based in part on allegations in IDT’s Infringement
`
`Contentions that certain vehicles infringe IDT’s patents because the vehicles contain parts that
`
`incorporate Accused Parts.
`
`8.
`
`Nissan’s liability, if any, with respect to the Accused Parts is attributable to
`
`Nissan’s inclusion of parts that incorporate the Accused Parts. Nissan obtains these parts
`
`directly from the Third Party Defendants. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this
`
`action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this
`
`third-party complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367(a) and 1332.
`
`9.
`
`This Court also has personal jurisdiction over the Third Party Defendants
`
`pursuant to the Texas long-arm statute because they do business in Texas directly by designing,
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00201-JRG Document 176 Filed 01/09/15 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 927
`
`
`
`manufacturing, and selling vehicle parts that are installed into Nissan and Infiniti branded
`
`vehicles manufactured by Nissan, which Nissan then sells in the State of Texas and in this
`
`District through its independent dealerships. Further, the Third Party Defendants are, on
`
`information and belief, fully aware that they design, manufacture, and sell vehicle parts that are
`
`then sold in Nissan and Infiniti branded vehicles throughout the United States, and particularly in
`
`Texas. By designing, manufacturing, and selling vehicle parts that the Third Party Defendants
`
`are fully aware will be used in the State of Texas and in this District, the Third Party Defendants
`
`have participated in the allegedly infringing acts asserted by IDT in its Complaint. Venue is
`
`proper in this Court with respect to this third-party complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400.
`
`IV.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`10.
`
`Third-Party Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1-9 as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`11.
`
`IDT has alleged that Nissan infringes the Asserted Patents because certain Nissan
`
`vehicles contain parts made and sold by Third Party Defendants Continental and Stanley that
`
`incorporate a display or tail light component that allegedly infringes (“Accused Parts”), as
`
`alleged in IDT’s Infringement Contentions. On November 18, 2014, IDT served its Preliminary
`
`Infringement Contentions on Nissan, charting which Accused Parts infringed which Asserted
`
`Patents. Charts B1 through B6 accuse LCD displays, such as in navigation modules, contained in
`
`Nissan products of infringing the Asserted Display Patents. Similarly, charts C1 and C2 accuse
`
`headlights or taillights contained in Nissan products of infringing the Asserted Lighting Patents.
`
`The claim charts rely solely on allegations that the design of the Accused Parts in the parts
`
`supplied to Nissan infringe the Asserted Patents.
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00201-JRG Document 176 Filed 01/09/15 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 928
`
`
`
`12.
`
`The Third Party Defendants each entered into Nissan’s Master Purchase
`
`Agreement, governing the sale of Third Party Defendants’ parts to NML and NNA for use in
`
`Nissan and Infiniti vehicles. The terms of Nissan’s Master Purchase Agreement require that the
`
`Third Party Defendant defend, indemnify, and hold harmless Nissan and its Affiliates.
`
`13.
`
`Through Continental’s predecessor Continental Teves,
`
`Inc., Continental
`
`Automotive Systems, Inc. has a valid and enforceable contract dated October 22, 2004, with
`
`Nissan known as the Master Purchase Agreement (“Nissan-Continental MPA”) for the supply of
`
`vehicle parts. Under this contract, Continental designs, develops, and tests components for
`
`Nissan. Nissan then issues purchase orders for components that Continental then manufactures,
`
`sells, and delivers to Nissan. Nissan then installs these components into Nissan and Infiniti
`
`vehicles, including vehicles sold in the State of Texas. The Nissan-Continental MPA contains
`
`specific provisions whereby Continental agreed to indemnify Nissan or any Nissan affiliate for
`
`any loss, liability, damages, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees and expert
`
`fees arising from any claim alleging infringement by the supplied components. The Nissan-
`
`Continental MPA also contains general indemnification provisions, where Continental agreed to
`
`indemnify Nissan or any Nissan affiliate for any third party claims. Having been sued by IDT
`
`for infringement for vehicle parts designed, manufactured, and supplied by Continental that are
`
`used in Nissan and Infiniti vehicles, Nissan seeks indemnification under the Nissan-Continental
`
`MPA.
`
`14.
`
`Panasonic Automotive Systems Company of America has a valid and enforceable
`
`contract dated March 2, 2006, with Nissan known as the Master Purchase Agreement (“Nissan-
`
`Panasonic MPA”) for the supply of vehicle parts. Upon information and belief, Panasonic
`
`designs, develops, and tests vehicle components for Nissan. Nissan then issues purchase orders
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00201-JRG Document 176 Filed 01/09/15 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 929
`
`
`
`for vehicle components that Panasonic, upon information and belief, then manufactures, sells,
`
`and delivers to Nissan. Nissan then installs these vehicle components into Nissan and Infiniti
`
`vehicles, including vehicles sold in the State of Texas. The Nissan-Panasonic MPA contains
`
`specific provisions whereby Panasonic agreed to indemnify Nissan or any Nissan affiliate for
`
`any loss, liability, damages, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees and expert
`
`fees arising from any claim alleging infringement by the supplied components. The Nissan-
`
`Panasonic MPA also contains general indemnification provisions, where Panasonic agreed to
`
`indemnify Nissan or any Nissan affiliate for any third party claims. Having been sued by IDT
`
`for infringement for vehicle parts designed, manufactured, and supplied by Panasonic that are
`
`used in Nissan and Infiniti vehicles, Nissan seeks indemnification under the Nissan-Panasonic
`
`MPA.
`
`15.
`
`Stanley has a valid and enforceable contract dated February 18, 2003, with Nissan
`
`known as the Master Purchase Agreement (“Nissan-Stanley MPA”) for the supply of vehicle
`
`parts. Under this contract, Stanley designs, develops, and tests components for Nissan. Nissan
`
`then issues purchase orders for components that Stanley then manufactures, sells, and delivers to
`
`Nissan. Nissan then installs these components into Nissan and Infiniti vehicles, including
`
`vehicles sold in the State of Texas. The Nissan-Stanley MPA contains specific provisions
`
`whereby Stanley agreed to indemnify Nissan or any Nissan affiliate, which includes NML, for
`
`any loss, liability, damages, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees and expert
`
`fees arising from any claim alleging infringement by the supplied components. The Nissan-
`
`Stanley MPA also contains general indemnification provisions, where Stanley agreed to
`
`indemnify Nissan for any third party claims. Having been sued by IDT for infringement for
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00201-JRG Document 176 Filed 01/09/15 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 930
`
`
`
`vehicle parts designed, manufactured, and supplied by Stanley that are used in Nissan and Infiniti
`
`vehicles, Nissan seeks indemnification under the Nissan-Stanley MPA.
`
`V.
`
`CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`COUNT I: INDEMNIFICATION
`
`16.
`
`Third-Party Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1-15 as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`17.
`
`On March 10, 2014, IDT filed a complaint against Nissan alleging patent
`
`infringement, and subsequently amended the complaint on March 19, 2014 and April 11, 2014.
`
`[Cause No. 2:14-CV-202, Dkt. Nos. 1, 7, and 9] Nissan incorporate IDT’s complaint by
`
`reference, solely for the limited purpose of its allegations.
`
`18.
`
`Nissan denies any liability, but if IDT is successful in its claims, Nissan may be
`
`held liable for the relief prayed for in IDT’s complaint solely because of the conduct of the
`
`Third-Party Defendants, namely the use of components designed, manufactured, and sold by the
`
`Third-Party Defendants that are then used in the Nissan and Infiniti vehicles. Nissan’s liability
`
`would be vicarious only and the direct and proximate result of the active and affirmative conduct
`
`on the part of the Third-Party Defendants.
`
`19.
`
`Nissan has denied and does deny that it has infringed the Asserted Patents and/or
`
`that it is in any way liable to IDT. However, if Third-Party Plaintiffs are held liable to IDT for
`
`patent infringement by virtue of the incorporation of the Accused Parts in parts used in Nissan’s
`
`vehicles, then Third-Party Defendants will have breached their obligations to defend, hold
`
`harmless and indemnify Nissan and any Nissan Affiliate, and Third-Party Defendants will be
`
`liable to Nissan for all such amounts for which Nissan and any Nissan affiliates may be held
`
`liable to IDT as well as all related costs, expenses, and attorneys’ and professional fees incurred.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00201-JRG Document 176 Filed 01/09/15 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 931
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Nissan demands a trial by jury on all issues presented in this third-party complaint.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Nissan respectfully requests that the Third Party Defendants be
`
`summoned to appear and answer, and the Court enter judgment that:
`
`A.
`
`If Nissan is found liable to IDT for infringement of any IDT patents by virtue of
`
`the incorporation of Accused Parts in parts used in Nissan’s vehicles, that Nissan is entitled to
`
`indemnity and/or contribution from Third-Party Defendants for all amounts for which Third-
`
`Party Plaintiffs may be held liable;
`
`B.
`
`Nissan recovers as money damages from Third-Party Defendants all amounts
`
`Nissan may be required to pay to IDT in this action, if any, as well as all of Nissan’s costs,
`
`expenses, professional fees and attorney’s fees related to IDT’s allegations that the Accused
`
`Parts infringe;
`
`C.
`
`Nissan recovers its costs, expenses, and professional and attorneys’ fees incurred
`
`in prosecution of this third-party complaint; and
`
`D.
`
`Nissan recovers such other and further relief as the Court finds just and equitable.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:14-cv-00201-JRG Document 176 Filed 01/09/15 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 932
`
`
`
`Dated: January 9, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`__________________
`/s/ Sean N. Hsu
`JEFFREY S. PATTERSON, LEAD COUNSEL
`State Bar No. 15596700
`jpatterson@hdbdlaw.com
`JEFFREY J. COX
`State Bar No. 04947530
`jcox@hdbdlaw.com
`SEAN N. HSU
`State Bar No. 24056952
`shsu@hdbdlaw.com
`HARTLINE DACUS BARGER DREYER LLP
`8750 North Central Expressway, Suite 1600
`Dallas, Texas 75231
`(214) 369-2100
`(214) 369-2118 (fax)
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD. AND
`NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have
`consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s
`CM-ECF system on the 9th day of January, 2015.
`
`
`
`/s/ Sean N. Hsu
`Sean N. Hsu
`
`
`
`
`__________________
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`