`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. _____________
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`))))))))))))))))))))
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SHARP CORPORATION; SHARP
`ELECTRONICS CORPORATION; SHARP
`ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING
`COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC.; SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; SONY
`CORPORATION; SONY ELECTRONICS
`INC.; and SONY CORPORATION OF
`AMERICA,
`
`Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Surpass Tech Innovation LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Surpass Tech”), by and
`
`through its undersigned attorneys, hereby pleads the following claims of patent infringement
`
`against Sharp Corporation; Sharp Electronics Corporation; Sharp Electronics Manufacturing
`
`Company of America, Inc. (collectively, “Sharp”); Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung Electronics”); Sony Corporation; Sony
`
`Electronics Inc.; and Sony Corporation of America; (collectively, “Sony”) and alleges as
`
`follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Surpass Tech is a Delaware limited liability company having an
`
`address at 3422 Old Capitol Trail, Suite 700, Wilmington, Delaware 19808-6192. Surpass
`
`LGD_000040
`
`LG Display Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-00338-LPS Document 1 Filed 03/14/14 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 2
`
`Tech owns all title, rights and interest to United States Patent No. 7,202,843 (the “’843
`
`Patent”) and United States Patent No. 7,420,550 (the “’550 Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Sharp Corporation is a Japanese
`
`corporation having its principal place of business at 22-22 Nagaike-cho, Abeno-ku, Osaka
`
`545-8522, Japan. Sharp Corporation may be served with process under the Delaware long
`
`arm statute, 10 Del. C. § 3104.
`
`3.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Sharp Electronics Corporation is a
`
`New York corporation having its principal place of business at 1 Sharp Plaza, Mahwah,
`
`New Jersey 07495-1163. Defendant Sharp Electronics Corporation can be served via its
`
`registered agent, C T Corporation System, 111 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10011.
`
`4.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Sharp Electronics Manufacturing
`
`Company of America, Inc. is a California corporation having its principal place of business
`
`at 1 Sharp Plaza, Mahwah, New Jersey 07495-1163. Defendant Sharp Electronics
`
`Manufacturing Company of America, Inc. can be served via its registered agent, C T
`
`Corporation System, 818 W. Seventh Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017.
`
`5.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is a
`
`Korean corporation having its principal place of business at San #24 Nongseo-dong,
`
`Giheung-gu, Yongin-City, Gyeonggi-do, Korea 446-711. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`may be served with process under the Delaware long arm statute, 10 Del. C. § 3104.
`
`6.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`is a New York corporation having its principal place of business at 85 Challenger Road,
`
`Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660. Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. can be
`
`2
`
`LGD_000041
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-00338-LPS Document 1 Filed 03/14/14 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 3
`
`served via its registered agent, C T Corporation System, 111 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY
`
`10011.
`
`7.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Sony Corporation is a Japanese
`
`corporation having its principal place of business at 1-7-1, Konan, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-
`
`0075, Japan. Sony Corporation may be served with process under the Delaware long arm
`
`statute, 10 Del. C. § 3104.
`
`8.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Sony Electronics Inc. is a Delaware
`
`corporation having its principal place of business at 16530 Via Esprillo, San Diego,
`
`California 92127. Defendant Sony Electronics, Inc. can be served via its registered agent,
`
`Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808.
`
`9.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Sony Corporation of America is a
`
`New York corporation having its principal place of business at 550 Madison Ave., 27th
`
`Floor, New York, New York 10022. Defendant Sony Corporation of America can be served
`
`via its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 80 State Street, Albany, NY 12207.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`10.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
`
`United States of America, Title 35 of the United States Code. This Court has subject matter
`
`jurisdiction over the matters plead herein under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) in that this is
`
`a civil action arising out of the patent laws of the United States of America.
`
`11.
`
`Samsung Electronics, Sony and Sharp (collectively, “Defendants”) regularly
`
`and deliberately engaged in and continue to engage in activities that result in using, selling,
`
`offering for sale, and/or importing infringing products in and/or into the State of Delaware
`
`and this judicial district. These activities violate Surpass Tech’s rights under the ’843 and
`
`3
`
`LGD_000042
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-00338-LPS Document 1 Filed 03/14/14 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 4
`
`’550 Patents plead herein. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because,
`
`among other things, Defendants conduct business in the State of Delaware and in this
`
`judicial district and thus enjoy the privileges and protections of Delaware law.
`
`12.
`
`Venue is proper in the District of Delaware pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b),
`
`(c) and (d) and 1400(b).
`
`COUNT I
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,202,843
`(Against Sharp, Samsung Electronics and Sony)
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 12 herein by reference as if fully
`
`stated herein.
`
`14.
`
`The ’843 Patent, entitled “Driving Circuit of A Liquid Crystal Display Panel
`
`and Related Driving Method,” issued on April 10, 2007. The ’843 Patent names Yung-
`
`Hung Shen, Shih-Chung Wang, Yuh-Ren Shen and Cheng-Jung Chen as inventors. Surpass
`
`Tech owns by assignment the entire right, title and interest in and to the ’843 Patent,
`
`including the sole right to sue for past and present patent infringement thereof. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ‘843 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`15.
`
`Several of Samsung Electronics’, Sony’s and Sharp’s products, including but
`
`not limited to Samsung Electronics’ UN60ES8000F television having Sharp’s
`
`LK600D3Lxxx liquid crystal display (“LCD”) module, Sony’s KDL-40NX800 television
`
`having Sharp’s LK400D3LA8S LCD module, and Sharp’s LC-70LE735U television having
`
`Sharp’s LK695D3GW20R LCD module practice claims of the ’843 Patent. Surpass Tech
`
`believes, and further alleges, that additional Sharp LCD modules, Samsung Electronics
`
`televisions having Sharp LCD modules, Sony televisions having Sharp LCD modules, and
`
`Sharp televisions having Sharp LCD modules also practice one or more claims of the ’843
`
`4
`
`LGD_000043
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-00338-LPS Document 1 Filed 03/14/14 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 5
`
`Patent (products covered by this paragraph are collectively referred to as “Accused ’843
`
`Products”).
`
`16.
`
`Surpass Tech believes, and thereon alleges, that Sharp has sold and offered to
`
`sell and is selling and offering to sell infringing LCD modules for use in infringing
`
`televisions, and that these LCD modules are material to practicing the ’843 Patent’s
`
`invention, have no substantial non-infringing uses, and are known by Defendants to be
`
`especially made or especially adapted for use in what constitutes infringement of the ’843
`
`Patent. At least as early as February 25, 2014, Sharp had actual knowledge of the ’843
`
`Patent and Plaintiff’s claims that Sharp’s LCD modules are covered by the ’843 Patent.
`
`Sharp is contributing to the acts of using, offering to sell, and/or selling in the United States
`
`and/or importing into the United Sates the infringing Accused ’843 Products by Defendants
`
`by intentionally supplying such material components to Defendants with such knowledge of
`
`the ’843 Patent.
`
`17.
`
`Surpass Tech believes, and thereon alleges, that Sharp has induced and is
`
`inducing the infringement of the ’843 Patent by Defendants with the knowledge that the
`
`induced acts constitute patent infringement, by providing modules which contain every
`
`element of claims of the ’843 Patent. At least as early as February 25, 2014, Sharp had
`
`actual knowledge of the ’843 Patent and Plaintiff’s claims that Sharp’s LCD modules are
`
`covered by the ’843 Patent. Sharp is continuing to induce infringement by Defendants by
`
`intentionally inducing acts of using, offering to sell, and/or selling in the United States
`
`and/or importing into the United States the Accused ’843 Products with such knowledge of
`
`the ’843 Patent.
`
`5
`
`LGD_000044
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-00338-LPS Document 1 Filed 03/14/14 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 6
`
`18.
`
`Surpass Tech believes, and thereon alleges, that any applicable requirements
`
`of 35 U.S.C. § 287 have been satisfied.
`
`19.
`
`Surpass Tech believes, and thereon alleges, that Sharp, Samsung Electronics
`
`and Sony have each infringed, and continue to infringe, claims of the ’843 Patent, in
`
`violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, by among other things, making, using, offering to sell, selling
`
`and/or importing in and/or into the United States, without authority or license from Surpass
`
`Tech, the Accused ’843 Products falling within the scope of claims of the ’843 Patent.
`
`20.
`
`Sharp’s, Samsung Electronics’ and Sony’s acts of infringement have caused
`
`and will continue to cause substantial and irreparable damage to Surpass Tech.
`
`21.
`
`As a result of the infringement of the ’843 Patent by Sharp, Samsung
`
`Electronics and Sony, Surpass Tech has been damaged. Surpass Tech is, therefore, entitled
`
`to such damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 in an amount that presently cannot be pled but
`
`that will be determined at trial.
`
`22.
`
`At least as early as March 10, 2014, Samsung Electronics, Sony and Sharp
`
`had actual knowledge of the ’843 Patent and Plaintiff’s claims that Sharp’s LCD modules,
`
`Samsung Electronics’ televisions containing Sharp’s LCD modules, Sony’s televisions
`
`containing Sharp’s LCD modules, and Sharp’s televisions containing Sharp’s LCD modules
`
`are covered by the ’843 Patent. Upon information and belief, Samsung Electronics’, Sony’s
`
`and Sharp’s acts of infringement of the ’843 Patent have been willful and intentional. Since
`
`at least the above-mentioned date of notice, Samsung Electronics, Sony and Sharp have
`
`acted with an objectively high likelihood that their actions constitute infringement of the
`
`’843 Patent by refusing to take a license and continuing to make and sell infringing Accused
`
`6
`
`LGD_000045
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-00338-LPS Document 1 Filed 03/14/14 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 7
`
`’843 Products. The objectively-defined risk was either known or was so obvious that it
`
`should have been known.
`
`COUNT II
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,420,550
`(Against Sharp, Samsung Electronics, and Sony)
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 22 herein by reference as if fully
`
`stated herein.
`
`24.
`
`The ’550 Patent, entitled “Liquid Crystal Display Driving Device of Matrix
`
`Structure Type and Its Driving Method,” issued on September 2, 2008. The ’550 Patent
`
`names Yuh-Ren Shen, Cheng-Jung Chen, and Chun-Chi Chen as inventors. Surpass Tech
`
`owns by assignment the entire right, title and interest in and to the ’550 Patent, including the
`
`sole right to sue for past and present patent infringement thereof. A true and correct copy of
`
`the ‘550 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`25.
`
`Several of Samsung Electronics’, Sony’s and Sharp’s products, including but
`
`not limited to Samsung Electronics’ UN60ES8000F television having Sharp’s
`
`LK600D3Lxxx liquid crystal display (“LCD”) module, Sony’s KDL-40NX800 television
`
`having Sharp’s LK400D3LA8S LCD module, and Sharp’s LC-70LE735U television having
`
`Sharp’s LK695D3GW20R LCD module practice claims of the ’550 Patent. Surpass Tech
`
`believes, and further alleges, that additional Sharp LCD modules, Samsung Electronics
`
`televisions having Sharp LCD modules, Sony televisions having Sharp LCD modules, and
`
`Sharp televisions having Sharp LCD modules also practice one or more claims of the ’550
`
`Patent (products covered by this paragraph are collectively referred to as “Accused ’550
`
`Products”).
`
`7
`
`LGD_000046
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-00338-LPS Document 1 Filed 03/14/14 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 8
`
`26.
`
`Surpass Tech believes, and thereon alleges, that Sharp has sold and offered to
`
`sell and is selling and offering to sell infringing LCD modules for use in infringing
`
`televisions, and that these LCD modules are material to practicing the ’550 Patent’s
`
`invention, have no substantial non-infringing uses, and are known by Defendants to be
`
`especially made or especially adapted for use in what constitutes infringement of the ’550
`
`Patent. At least as early as February 25, 2014, Sharp had actual knowledge of the ’550
`
`Patent and Plaintiff’s claims that Sharp’s LCD modules are covered by the ’550 Patent.
`
`Sharp is contributing to the acts of using, offering to sell, and/or selling in the United States
`
`and/or importing into the United Sates the infringing Accused ’550 Products by Defendants
`
`by intentionally supplying such material components to Defendants with such knowledge of
`
`the ’550 Patent.
`
`27.
`
`Surpass Tech believes, and thereon alleges, that Sharp has induced and is
`
`inducing the infringement of the ’550 Patent by Defendants with the knowledge that the
`
`induced acts constitute patent infringement, by providing modules which contain every
`
`element of claims of the ’550 Patent. At least as early as February 25, 2014, Sharp had
`
`actual knowledge of the ’550 Patent and Plaintiff’s claims that Sharp’s LCD modules are
`
`covered by the ’550 Patent. Sharp is continuing to induce infringement by Defendants by
`
`intentionally inducing acts of using, offering to sell, and/or selling in the United States
`
`and/or importing into the United States the Accused ’550 Products with such knowledge of
`
`the ’550 Patent.
`
`28.
`
`Surpass Tech believes, and thereon alleges, that any applicable requirements
`
`of 35 U.S.C. § 287 have been satisfied.
`
`8
`
`LGD_000047
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-00338-LPS Document 1 Filed 03/14/14 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 9
`
`29.
`
`Surpass Tech believes, and thereon alleges, that Sharp, Samsung Electronics
`
`and Sony have each infringed, and continue to infringe, claims of the ’550 Patent, in
`
`violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, by among other things, making, using, offering to sell, selling
`
`and/or importing in and/or into the United States, without authority or license from Surpass
`
`Tech, the Accused ’550 Products falling within the scope of claims of the ’550 Patent.
`
`30.
`
`Sharp’s, Samsung Electronics’ and Sony’s acts of infringement have caused
`
`and will continue to cause substantial and irreparable damage to Surpass Tech.
`
`31.
`
`As a result of the infringement of the ’550 Patent by Sharp, Samsung
`
`Electronics and Sony, Surpass Tech has been damaged. Surpass Tech is, therefore, entitled
`
`to such damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 in an amount that presently cannot be pled but
`
`that will be determined at trial.
`
`32.
`
`At least as early as March 10, 2014, Sharp, Samsung Electronics and Sony
`
`had actual knowledge of the ’550 Patent and Plaintiff’s claims that Sharp’s LCD modules,
`
`Samsung Electronics’ televisions containing Sharp’s LCD modules, Sony’s televisions
`
`containing Sharp’s LCD modules, and Sharp’s televisions containing Sharp’s LCD modules
`
`are covered by the ’550 Patent. Upon information and belief, Sharp’s, Samsung Electronics’
`
`and Sony’s acts of infringement of the ’550 Patent have been willful and intentional. Since
`
`at least the above-mentioned date of notice, Sharp, Samsung Electronics, and Sony have
`
`acted with an objectively high likelihood that their actions constitute infringement of the
`
`’550 Patent by refusing to take a license and continuing to make and sell infringing Accused
`
`’550 Products. The objectively-defined risk was either known or was so obvious that it
`
`should have been known.
`
`9
`
`LGD_000048
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-00338-LPS Document 1 Filed 03/14/14 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 10
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages sustained by
`
`Plaintiff as a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial,
`
`which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as
`
`fixed by this Court.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff has incurred and will incur attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses in the
`
`prosecution of this action. The circumstances of this dispute create an exceptional case
`
`within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover its reasonable and
`
`necessary attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELEF
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court find in its favor and against
`
`Defendants, and that the Court grant Plaintiff the following relief:
`
`A.
`
`A judgment that Defendants have infringed the ’843 Patent and/or the ’550
`
`Patent as alleged herein, directly and/or indirectly by way of contributing and/or
`
`inducing infringement of the ’843 Patent and/or the ’550 Patent;
`
`B.
`
`A judgment for an accounting of all damages sustained by Plaintiff as a result of
`
`the acts of infringement by Defendants;
`
`C.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiff damages under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 284, including up to treble damages for willful infringement as
`
`provided by 35 U.S.C. § 284, and any royalties determined to be appropriate;
`
`10
`
`LGD_000049
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-00338-LPS Document 1 Filed 03/14/14 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 11
`
`D.
`
`A permanent injunction enjoining Defendants and its officers, directors, agents,
`
`servants, employees, affiliates, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents and all
`
`others acting in concert or privity with them from direct and/or indirect
`
`infringement of the ’843 Patent and/or the ’550 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
`
`283;
`
`E.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiff pre-judgment and
`
`post-judgment interest on the damages awarded;
`
`F.
`
`A judgment and order finding this to be an exceptional case and requiring
`
`Defendants to pay the costs of this action (including all disbursements) and
`
`attorneys’ fees as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
`
`G.
`
`Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
`
`Dated: March 14, 2014
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Hsiang “James” H. Lin
`Kevin Jones
`Michael C. Ting
`Ken K. Fung
`TECHKNOWLEDGE LAW GROUP LLP
`1521 Diamond Street
`San Francisco, CA 94131
`(415) 816-9525
`jlin@techknowledgelawgroup.com
`kjones@techknowledgelawgroup.com
`mting@techknowledgelawgroup.com
`kfung@techknowledgelawgroup.com
`
`BAYARD, P.A.
`
`/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
`Richard D. Kirk (rk0922)
`Stephen B. Brauerman (sb4952)
`Vanessa R. Tiradentes (vt5398)
`Sara Bussiere (sb5725)
`222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900
`P.O. Box 25130
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 655-5000
`rkirk@bayardlaw.com
`sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
`vtiradentes@bayardlaw.com
`sbussiere@bayardlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Surpass Tech Innovation
`LLC
`
`11
`
`LGD_000050
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-00337-LPS Document 1 Filed 03/14/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 23
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. _____________
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`))))))))))))))))
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.; SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; SONY
`CORPORATION; SONY ELECTRONICS
`INC.; and SONY CORPORATION OF
`AMERICA,
`
`Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Surpass Tech Innovation LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Surpass Tech”), by and
`
`through its undersigned attorneys, hereby pleads the following claims of patent infringement
`
`against Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (“Samsung Display”); Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.;
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung Electronics”); Sony
`
`Corporation; Sony Electronics Inc.; and Sony Corporation of America; (collectively,
`
`“Sony”) and alleges as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Surpass Tech is a Delaware limited liability company having an
`
`address at 3422 Old Capitol Trail, Suite 700, Wilmington, Delaware 19808-6192. Surpass
`
`Tech owns all title, rights and interest to United States Patent No. 7,202,843 (the “’843
`
`Patent”).
`
`LGD_000051
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-00337-LPS Document 1 Filed 03/14/14 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 24
`
`2.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Samsung Display Co., Ltd. is a
`
`Korean corporation having its principal place of business at Samsung st 181, Tangieong-
`
`Myeon, Asan-City, Chungcheongnam-Do, Korea 336-741. Samsung Display Co., Ltd. may
`
`be served with process under the Delaware Long Arm Statute, 10 Del. C. § 3104.
`
`3.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is a
`
`Korean corporation having its principal place of business at San #24 Nongseo-dong,
`
`Giheung-gu, Yongin-City, Gyeonggi-do, Korea 446-711. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`
`may be served with process under the Delaware Long Arm Statute, 10 Del. C. § 3104.
`
`4.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`is a New York corporation having its principal place of business at 85 Challenger Road,
`
`Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660. Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. can be
`
`served via its registered agent, C T Corporation System, 111 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY
`
`10011.
`
`5.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Sony Corporation is a Japanese
`
`corporation having its principal place of business at 1-7-1, Konan, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108-
`
`0075, Japan. Sony Corporation may be served with process under the Delaware Long Arm
`
`Statute, 10 Del. C. § 3104.
`
`6.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Sony Electronics Inc. is a Delaware
`
`corporation having its principal place of business at 16530 Via Esprillo, San Diego,
`
`California 92127. Defendant Sony Electronics Inc. can be served via its registered agent,
`
`Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE 19808.
`
`7.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Sony Corporation of America is a
`
`New York corporation having its principal place of business at 550 Madison Ave., 27th
`
`2
`
`LGD_000052
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-00337-LPS Document 1 Filed 03/14/14 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 25
`
`Floor, New York, New York 10022. Defendant Sony Corporation of America can be served
`
`via its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 80 State Street, Albany, NY 12207.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
`
`United States of America, Title 35 of the United States Code. This Court has subject matter
`
`jurisdiction over the matters plead herein under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) in that this is
`
`a civil action arising out of the patent laws of the United States of America.
`
`9.
`
`Samsung Display, Samsung Electronics, and Sony (collectively,
`
`“Defendants”) regularly and deliberately engaged in and continue to engage in activities that
`
`result in using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing infringing products in and/or into
`
`the State of Delaware and this judicial district. These activities violate Surpass Tech’s rights
`
`under the ’843 Patent plead herein. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants
`
`because, among other things, Defendants conduct business in the State of Delaware and in
`
`this judicial district and thus enjoy the privileges and protections of Delaware law.
`
`10.
`
`Venue is proper in the District of Delaware pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b),
`
`(c) and (d) and 1400(b).
`
`COUNT I
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,202,843
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 10 herein by reference as if fully
`
`stated herein.
`
`12.
`
`The ’843 Patent, entitled “Driving Circuit of A Liquid Crystal Display Panel
`
`and Related Driving Method,” issued on April 10, 2007. The ’843 Patent names Yung-
`
`Hung Shen, Shih-Chung Wang, Yuh-Ren Shen and Cheng-Jung Chen as inventors. Surpass
`
`3
`
`LGD_000053
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-00337-LPS Document 1 Filed 03/14/14 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 26
`
`Tech owns by assignment the entire right, title and interest in and to the ’843 Patent,
`
`including the sole right to sue for past and present patent infringement thereof. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ‘843 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`13.
`
`Several of Defendants’ products, including but not limited to Samsung
`
`Electronics’ UN40F6300AF television having Samsung Display’s LSF400HJ01-A01 liquid
`
`crystal display (“LCD”) module, Samsung Electronics’ UN46ES8000 television having
`
`Samsung Display’s LTJ460HQ10-V LCD module, Samsung Electronics’ UN55F8000BF
`
`television having Samsung Display’s LSF550HQ01-A01 LCD module, and Sony’s KDL-
`
`32EX720 television having Samsung Display’s LTY320HJ01 LCD module, practice claims
`
`of the ’843 Patent. Surpass Tech believes, and further alleges, that additional Samsung
`
`Display’s and Samsung Electronics’ LCD modules, Samsung Electronics televisions having
`
`Samsung Display’s or Samsung Electronics’ LCD modules, and Sony televisions having
`
`Samsung Display’s or Samsung Electronics’ LCD modules also practice claims of the ’843
`
`Patent (products covered by this paragraph are collectively referred to as “Accused
`
`Products”).
`
`14.
`
`Surpass Tech believes, and thereon alleges, that Samsung Display and
`
`Samsung Electronics have sold and offered to sell and/or are selling and offering to sell
`
`infringing LCD modules for use in infringing televisions, and that these LCD modules are
`
`material to practicing the ’843 Patent’s invention, have no substantial non-infringing uses,
`
`and are known by Defendants, including Samsung Display and Samsung Electronics, to be
`
`especially made or especially adapted for use in what constitutes infringement of the ’843
`
`Patent. At least as early as March 6, 2014, Samsung Display had actual knowledge of the
`
`’843 Patent and Plaintiff’s claims that Samsung Display’s LCD modules are covered by the
`
`4
`
`LGD_000054
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-00337-LPS Document 1 Filed 03/14/14 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 27
`
`’843 Patent. Samsung Display is contributing to the acts of using, offering to sell, and/or
`
`selling in the United States and/or importing into the United Sates the infringing Accused
`
`Products by Samsung Electronics and Sony by intentionally supplying such material
`
`components to Samsung Electronics and Sony with such knowledge of the ’843 Patent.
`
`15.
`
`Surpass Tech believes, and thereon alleges, that Samsung Display has
`
`induced and is inducing the infringement of the ’843 Patent by Samsung Electronics and
`
`Sony with the knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement, by providing
`
`modules which contain every element of claims of the ’843 Patent. At least as early as
`
`March 6, 2014, Samsung Display had actual knowledge of the ’843 Patent and Plaintiff’s
`
`claims that Samsung Display’s LCD modules are covered by the ’843 Patent. Samsung
`
`Display is continuing to induce infringement by Samsung Electronics and Sony by
`
`intentionally inducing acts of using, offering to sell, and/or selling in the United States
`
`and/or importing into the United States the Accused Products with such knowledge of the
`
`’843 Patent.
`
`16.
`
`Surpass Tech believes, and thereon alleges, that any applicable requirements
`
`of 35 U.S.C. § 287 have been satisfied.
`
`17.
`
`Surpass Tech believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants have each
`
`infringed, and continue to infringe, claims of the ’843 Patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. §
`
`271, by among other things, making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing in
`
`and/or into the United States, without authority or license from Surpass Tech, the Accused
`
`Products falling within the scope of claims of the ’843 Patent.
`
`18.
`
`Defendants’ acts of infringement have caused and will continue to cause
`
`substantial and irreparable damage to Surpass Tech.
`
`5
`
`LGD_000055
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-00337-LPS Document 1 Filed 03/14/14 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 28
`
`19.
`
`As a result of the infringement of the ’843 Patent by Defendants, Surpass
`
`Tech has been damaged. Surpass Tech is, therefore, entitled to such damages pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 284 in an amount that presently cannot be pled but that will be determined at trial.
`
`20.
`
`At least as early as March 10, 2014, Samsung Display, Samsung Electronics
`
`and Sony had actual knowledge of the ’843 Patent and Plaintiff’s claims that Samsung
`
`Display’s and Samsung Electronics’ LCD modules, Samsung Electronics’ televisions
`
`containing Samsung Display’s or Samsung Electronics’ LCD modules, and Sony’s
`
`televisions containing Samsung Display’s or Samsung Electronics’ LCD modules are
`
`covered by the ’843 Patent. Upon information and belief, Samsung Display’s, Samsung
`
`Electronics’ and Sony’s acts of infringement of the ’843 Patent have been willful and
`
`intentional. Since at least the above-mentioned date of notice, Samsung Display, Samsung
`
`Electronics and Sony have acted with an objectively high likelihood that their actions
`
`constitute infringement of the ’843 Patent by refusing to take a license and continuing to
`
`make and sell infringing Accused Products. The objectively-defined risk was either known
`
`or was so obvious that it should have been known.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendants the damages sustained by
`
`Plaintiff as a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial,
`
`which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as
`
`fixed by this Court.
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff has incurred and will incur attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses in the
`
`prosecution of this action. The circumstances of this dispute create an exceptional case
`
`6
`
`LGD_000056
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-00337-LPS Document 1 Filed 03/14/14 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 29
`
`within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover its reasonable and
`
`necessary attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELEF
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court find in its favor and against
`
`Defendants, and that the Court grant Plaintiff the following relief:
`
`A.
`
`A judgment that Defendants have infringed the ’843 Patent as alleged herein,
`
`directly and/or indirectly by way of contributing and/or inducing infringement
`
`of the ’843 Patent;
`
`B.
`
`A judgment for an accounting of all damages sustained by Plaintiff as a result of
`
`the acts of infringement by Defendants;
`
`C.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiff damages under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 284, including up to treble damages for willful infringement as
`
`provided by 35 U.S.C. § 284, and any royalties determined to be appropriate;
`
`D.
`
`A permanent injunction enjoining Defendants and its officers, directors, agents,
`
`servants, employees, affiliates, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents and all
`
`others acting in concert or privity with them from direct and/or indirect
`
`infringement of the ’843 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283;
`
`E.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiff pre-judgment and
`
`post-judgment interest on the damages awarded;
`
`F.
`
`A judgment and order finding this to be an exceptional case and requiring
`
`7
`
`LGD_000057
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-00337-LPS Document 1 Filed 03/14/14 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 30
`
`Defendants to pay the costs of this action (including all disbursements) and
`
`attorneys’ fees as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
`
`G.
`
`Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
`
`Dated: March 14, 2014
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Hsiang “James” H. Lin
`Kevin Jones
`Michael C. Ting
`Ken K. Fung
`TECHKNOWLEDGE LAW GROUP LLP
`1521 Diamond Street
`San Francisco, CA 94131
`(415) 816-9525
`jlin@techknowledgelawgroup.com
`kjones@techknowledgelawgroup.com
`mting@techknowledgelawgroup.com
`kfung@techknowledgelawgroup.com
`
`BAYARD, P.A.
`
`/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
`Richard D. Kirk (rk0922)
`Stephen B. Brauerman (sb4952)
`Vanessa R. Tiradentes (vt5398)
`Sara Bussiere (sb5725)
`222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900
`P.O. Box 25130
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 655-5000
`rkirk@bayardlaw.com
`sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
`vtiradentes@bayardlaw.com
`sbussiere@bayardlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff Surpass Tech Innovation
`LLC
`
`8
`
`LGD_000058