Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 1 of 53
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`Marc A. Fenster, State Bar No. 181067
`mfenster@raklaw.com
`Benjamin T. Wang, State Bar No. 228712
`bwang@raklaw.com
`Neil A. Rubin, State Bar No. 250761
`nrubin@raklaw.com
`James S. Tsuei (CA Bar No. 285530)
`jtsuei@raklaw.com
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`Telephone: (310) 826-7474
`Facsimile: (310) 826-6991
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`COREPHOTONICS, LTD.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`COREPHOTONICS, LTD.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`vs.
`
`APPLE INC.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`3:19-cv-4809
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 2 of 53
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Corephotonics, Ltd. (“Corephotonics”) hereby submits its Complaint
`
`against Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`This is a civil action for infringement under the patent laws of the United States, 35
`
`2.
`U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
`3.
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent
`
`9,661,233 (the “’233 patent”), entitled “Dual Aperture Zoom Digital Camera,” on May 23, 2017.
`
`Corephotonics is the legal owner of the ’233 patent by assignment. A true and correct copy of the
`
`’233 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`4.
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent
`
`10,230,898 (the “’898 patent”), entitled “Dual Aperture Zoom Camera With Video Support And
`
`Switching / Non-Switching Dynamic Control,” on March 12, 2019. Corephotonics is the legal
`
`owner of the ’898 patent by assignment. A true and correct copy of the ’898 patent is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit B.
`5.
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent
`
`10,288,840 (the “’840 patent”), entitled “Miniature Telephoto Lens Module And A Camera
`
`Utilizing Such A Lens Module,” on May 14, 2019. Corephotonics is the legal owner of the ’840
`
`patent by assignment. A true and correct copy of the ’840 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`6.
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent
`
`10,317,647 (the “’647 patent”), entitled “Miniature Telephoto Lens Assembly,” on June 11, 2019.
`
`Corephotonics is the legal owner of the ’647 patent by assignment. A true and correct copy of the
`
`’647 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
`7.
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent
`
`10,324,277 (the “’277 patent”), entitled “Miniature Telephoto Lens Assembly,” on June 18, 2019.
`
`Corephotonics is the legal owner of the ’277 patent by assignment. A true and correct copy of the
`
`’277 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 3 of 53
`
`
`
`8.
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent
`
`10,330,897 (the “’897 patent”), entitled “Miniature Telephoto Lens Assembly,” on June 25, 2019.
`
`Corephotonics is the legal owner of the ’897 patent by assignment. A true and correct copy of the
`
`’897 patent as-issued, together with a certificate of correction dated July 23, 2019, is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit F.
`9.
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent
`
`10,225,479 (the “’479 patent”), entitled “Dual Aperture Zoom Digital Camera,” on March 5, 2019.
`
`Corephotonics is the legal owner of the ’479 patent by assignment. A true and correct copy of the
`
`’479 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
`10.
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent
`
`10,015,408 (the “’408 patent”), entitled “Dual Aperture Zoom Digital Camera,” on July 3, 2018.
`
`Corephotonics is the legal owner of the ’408 patent by assignment. A true and correct copy of the
`
`’408 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit H.
`11.
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent
`
`10,356,332 (the “’332 patent”), entitled “Dual Aperture Zoom Camera With Video Support And
`
`Switching / Non-Switching Dynamic Control,” on July 16, 2019. Corephotonics is the legal owner
`
`of the ’332 patent by assignment. A true and correct copy of the ’332 patent is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit I.
`12.
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent
`
`10,326,942 (the “’942 patent”), entitled “Dual Aperture Zoom Digital Camera,” on June 18, 2019.
`
`Corephotonics is the legal owner of the ’942 patent by assignment. A true and correct copy of the
`
`’942 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit J.
`13.
`
`Apple has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of each of the
`
`’233 patent, the ’898 patent, the ’840 patent, the ’647 patent, the ’277 patent, the ’897 patent, the
`
`’479 patent, the ’408 patent, the ’332 patent, and the ’942 patent (collectively the “Asserted
`
`Patents”), at least by importing, using, selling, and/or offering to sell the iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8
`
`Plus, iPhone X, iPhone Xs, and/or iPhone Xs Max (the “Accused Products”), as set forth in detail
`
`below. Corephotonics seeks, among other things, monetary damages and injunctive relief.
`
`
`
`2
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 4 of 53
`
`
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff Corephotonics is a company organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`State of Israel with its principal place of business at 25 HaBarzel St., Tel Aviv 6971035, Israel.
`15.
`
`Defendant Apple is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State
`
`of California with its principal place of business at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`16.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Corephotonics’ claims for patent
`
`infringement pursuant to the 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`17.
`
`Apple is subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction because Apple resides and has
`
`its primary place of business within this District. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over
`
`Apple because Apple has committed and induced acts of patent infringement and has regularly
`
`and systematically conducted and solicited business in this District by and through at least its sales
`
`and offers for sale of Apple products and services, and other contractual arrangements with Apple
`
`customers and third parties using such Apple products and services located in and/or doing
`
`business in this District.
`18.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1400(b) because
`
`Apple resides in this District, has a regular and established place of business in this District, and
`
`has committed acts of infringement in this District.
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`
`19.
`
`This action for patent infringement is assigned on a district-wide basis under Civil
`
`L.R. 3-2(c).
`
`A.
`20.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`Corephotonics’ Dual Camera Technology Innovations
`
`Corephotonics is a pioneer in the development of dual camera technologies for
`
`mobile devices. Corephotonics was founded in 2012 to develop the next generation of mobile
`
`phone cameras. Its founders brought with them decades of experience in the fields of optics and
`
`miniature digital cameras and were led by Dr. David Mendlovic, a Professor at Tel Aviv University
`
`and former Chief Scientist of the Israeli Ministry of Science.
`
`
`
`3
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 5 of 53
`
`
`
`21.
`
`Corephotonics’ dual-aperture camera technology changes the way smartphones
`
`take pictures by using advanced lens design and sophisticated computational optics. The advanced
`
`lens design is used to create a miniature telephoto lens that can fit within the confines of a modern,
`
`thin smartphone but still provide the superior image quality and light sensitivity demanded by
`
`smartphone consumers.
`22.
`
`Corephotonics’ innovative dual-aperture camera technology uses two fixed-focal
`
`length lenses, a wide-angle lens as typically found in smartphones with single-aperture cameras,
`
`and a miniature telephoto lens. Traditional optical zoom is accomplished by using a variable focal
`
`length lens assembly. At the small formats required for smartphones, however, it is difficult to
`
`reliably include movable components, so smartphones were stuck with small, fixed lenses. This
`
`means that in a typical single-aperture smartphone camera, all zoom functionality is provided with
`
`digital zoom, i.e., a processor digitally modifies the image to create a magnified but poorer
`
`resolution image. With Corephotonics’ dual-aperture camera technology, by contrast, the second
`
`camera with telephoto lens provides much higher optical resolution than the wide-angle camera.
`
`Images from both of these cameras can also be processed by computational algorithms to create
`
`an effectively greater level of zoom without degrading image quality by combining digital and
`
`optical zoom.
`23.
`
`For video, which captures thirty or more frames per second, Corephotonics
`
`discovered that implementing image fusion for each frame demands higher than normal processing
`
`resources and power. At the same time, the beneficial pixel finesse achieved by image fusion is
`
`less observable at the rapid frame rate of HD video due to human perception limits. Corephotonics
`
`thus developed technology for dual-aperture cameras where image fusion is only used when taking
`
`still pictures, but not for video. In video, when zooming in, digital zoom is used first on the image
`
`from the wide-angle camera only and then switched to the image from the telephoto camera only.
`
`When zooming back out, a similar transition happens from using the telephoto camera only,
`
`switching back to the wide-angle camera only. This approach conserves resources and power.
`
`Because the two lenses are different and necessarily view the subject from different points of view,
`
`
`
`4
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 6 of 53
`
`
`
`Corephotonics also developed special processing that can ensure that the transition from the wide
`
`lens to the telephoto lens and back would be smooth.
`24.
`
`Corephotonics has filed for and received patents on its advanced telephoto lens
`
`designs, multi-aperture camera technologies, and optical processing technologies, including the
`
`patents-in-suit. Corephotonics is continuing to develop multi-aperture camera technologies, and it
`
`has filed and obtained patents on these technologies as well.
`25.
`
`The press recognized Corephotonics’ pioneering advances in dual-aperture camera
`
`technology for smartphones. For example, Corephotonics demonstrated its dual-aperture camera
`
`technology at Mobile World Congress (MWC) 2014 and received very positive reviews from the
`
`tech media, including headlines such as “Corephotonics’ dual-camera tech will change smartphone
`
`imaging”1 and statements like “We think [the Corephotonics dual camera technology] has the
`
`potential to change the direction of smartphone photography.”2
`26.
`
`Corephotonics now employs over 60 staff, the majority of whom are engineers,
`
`scientists, and technologists. Corephotonics depends on its patents to protect its business and
`
`continue to develop its innovative miniaturized multi-camera technologies, for mobile devices and
`
`new applications. The customers of Corephotonics’ technology offerings include leading camera
`
`module and mobile device manufacturers.
`27.
`
`Corephotonics spent years demonstrating its technologies to Apple and discussing
`
`potential collaborations and business arrangements. Apple, however, refused. Instead, Apple has
`
`gone ahead and marketed its newest generations of iPhones with dual cameras that employ
`
`Corephotonics’ innovative designs – without any regard to Corephotonics’ intellectual property
`
`rights.
`
`
`imaging,” C|Net,
`smartphone
`tech will change
`1 “Corephotonics’ dual-camera
`https://www.cnet.com/news/corephotonics-dual-camera-tech-will-change-smartphone-imaging/
`2 “Best of Mobile World Congress: Samsung Galaxy S5, Mozilla $25 phone, smart glove and
`more,” C|Net, ”https://www.cnet.com/news/best-of-mobile-world-congress-samsung-galaxy-s5-
`mozilla-25-phone-smart-glove-and-more/
`5
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 7 of 53
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Apple’s Interest in Corephotonics’ Technology and Intellectual
`Property
`
`28.
`
`As one of its first acts as a company, Corephotonics reached out to Apple in the
`
`hopes of establishing a strategic partnership. The founding team contacted someone they knew
`
`from their previous work in digital camera technology, Graham Townsend, then Senior Director
`
`Camera Hardware at Apple, highlighting some of the innovations Corephotonics was working on
`
`related to a high-end compact camera module (“CCM”) solution. Throughout 2012, Corephotonics
`
`and Apple had meetings regarding the early technologies that Corephotonics was developing
`
`during that time. At an early meeting in June 2012, Corephotonics told Apple of its intention to
`
`protect its current and future developments in multi-camera technology with patents.
`29.
`
`In May 2013, an Apple engineer emailed Corephotonics communicating Apple’s
`
`interest in learning more about Corephotonics’ other technology offerings and intellectual
`
`property, in particular a telephoto lens that for a dual-aperture camera that included a telephoto
`
`lens and associated software algorithms, and expressed interest in learning more about that
`
`invention. Corephotonics provided a brief description of its telephoto lens architecture that was
`
`part of its intellectual property and referenced other pending patents.
`30.
`
`In June 2013, a meeting was held at Corephotonics’ headquarters in Tel Aviv, Israel
`
`with Mr. Townsend and other Apple camera engineers. At this meeting Corephotonics described
`
`its intellectual property and technology plans, which included a detailed presentation and
`
`discussion of computational algorithms for dual-aperture cameras and numerous system
`
`architecture and design details for a dual system. These design details closely resembled what was
`
`eventually deployed in the market by Apple. At the same time, Corephotonics also engaged in
`
`engineering discussions of its telephoto lens design, and sent a file describing the lens design and
`
`including key design details. Corephotonics provided Apple with a full set of technology
`
`descriptions covering what was discussed. At the meeting, Corephotonics provided Mr. Townsend
`
`with a USB drive containing presentation files, which included a Corephotonics’ five element
`
`telephoto lens design layout, information about Corephotonics’ algorithm, and a slide describing
`
`Corephotonics’ pending patent applications and patent plans, including filing of applications
`
`underlying the Asserted Patents. Corephotonics followed up with further correspondence, which
`6
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 8 of 53
`
`
`
`included technical descriptions and responses to Apple’s technical inquiries. Later, in October
`
`2013, a larger team, this time including members of Apple’s image processing and system groups,
`
`visited Corephotonics’ Tel Aviv office again for more in-depth discussions, which included dual
`
`camera processing methods.
`31.
`
`During this period through late 2014, Corephotonics personnel visited Apple’s
`
`facilities in California on numerous occasions, meeting with key members of Apple’s camera team,
`
`including the leaders of Apple’s hardware and software efforts. Corephotonics personnel set up
`
`numerous simulations and demonstrations of its technology for Apple. Apple further evaluated
`
`Corephotonics’ test boards, lens modules, and simulation files at its own facilities, in the absence
`
`of Corephotonics personnel.
`32.
`
`During this period in 2014, Corephotonics learned from the contractor who was
`
`manufacturing Corephotonics’ prototype telephoto lens modules that Apple had sought
`
`Corephotonics’ samples from them without notifying Corephotonics, and the contractor had
`
`rejected that request. Corephotonics then contacted Apple and agreed to provide Apple with
`
`physical samples of Corephotonics’ lens and camera modules, which embody the claimed designs
`
`of Corephotonics ’647, ’277, and ‘897 patents.
`33.
`
`Apple also received “black box” simulation files for Corephotonics’ lens designs
`
`and a software simulator for the computational algorithms for image processing, and also was
`
`provided access to Corephotonics’ system prototypes, which simulated embodiments of U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 9,185,291 (“’291 patent”) and 9,538,152 (“’152 patent) (as well as continuations
`
`therefrom, such as the ’233, ‘479, and ’408 patents asserted in this Complaint).
`34.
`
`In May 2014, Corephotonics was told by Apple that high-level technical staff and
`
`executives in Apple’s camera engineering group had observed a demonstration of Corephotonics’
`
`technology and had reacted very positively. Corephotonics understood that Apple’s management
`
`had determined to move forward and engage with Corephotonics.
`35.
`
`In June 2014, Apple expressed interest in licensing Corephotonics’ dual camera
`
`algorithms and software for commercial use in its devices, and a meeting was arranged for July
`
`30, 2014. Apple provided a business proposal prior to that meeting. Corephotonics provided
`
`
`
`7
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 9 of 53
`
`
`
`Apple’s business team with a description of its range of technology offerings and provided Apple
`
`with a description of its (then) over ten patent families, including low-profile telephoto lens designs
`
`for mobile cameras and algorithms for improving dual-aperture cameras with telephoto lenses.
`
`During this meeting, in response to Corephotonics claim about the commercial value of its patents,
`
`Apple’s lead negotiator responded that even if Apple infringed, it would take years and millions
`
`of dollars in litigation before Apple might have to pay something.
`36.
`
`After the meeting, Apple asked Corephotonics to provide a sample of its telephoto
`
`lens. Apple indicated that it intended to evaluate Corephotonics’ lens design and that it could
`
`potentially engage with Corephotonics on lens design technology depending on the outcome of
`
`that evaluation.
`37.
`
`By late August, business negotiations were halted by Apple. Technical discussions
`
`between Apple and Corephotonics continued until later that year, while Corephotonics was waiting
`
`to hear from Apple’s business team.
`38.
`
`On November 18, 2014, an article appeared in the media reporting that Apple would
`
`potentially adopt dual-aperture camera technology, suggesting that it would be similar to the dual
`
`camera technology that Corephotonics had developed and presented earlier that year, and which
`
`Corephotonics had been discussing over this period with Apple.3 Apple did not engage in further
`
`efforts to obtain a license to Corephotonics’ intellectual property.
`39.
`
`In January 2016, after sporadic contacts with Apple personnel through 2015,
`
`Corephotonics again reached out to Apple. Corephotonics’ CEO, Dr. Mendlovic, emailed a high-
`
`level hardware executive suggesting continued collaboration. Corephotonics pointed out,
`
`“Corephotonics had the privilege to be the first to invent, implement and demonstrate dual cameras
`
`which outperform the best single compact cameras. Thus, our IP portfolio is the widest and, in our
`
`opinion, has the best defensive value for such applications.” Corephotonics offered to discuss
`
`collaboration and joint projects with Apple. The Apple executive wrote back that he was looking
`
`into it, and that another Apple engineer would be in touch. That engineer and a colleague from
`
`
`3 See “Apple May Introduce ‘Biggest Camera Jump Ever’ in Next-Generation iPhone,”
`https://www.macrumors.com/2014/11/18/apple-biggest-camera-jump-ever/.
`8
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 10 of 53
`
`
`
`Apple visited Corephotonics’ facility in Israel for an in-person meeting, at which Corephotonics
`
`presented some of its most recent technology offerings.
`40.
`
`At that meeting and in subsequent meetings and communications, Apple expressed
`
`interest in learning more about Corephotonics’ technologies. Corephotonics indicated a desire to
`
`formalize a business arrangement, and in June 2016, Mr. Townsend emailed Corephotonics
`
`introducing them to Apple personnel on its business side to engage in setting up a deal that would
`
`govern the technology collaboration. Corephotonics sent Apple a proposal, and in August 2016,
`
`Apple followed up and asked Corephotonics to provide a proposal for licensing its intellectual
`
`property to Apple. Corephotonics informed Apple that its intellectual property included over 25
`
`patent families, and discussions continued to proceed.
`41.
`
`On September 7, 2016, Apple announced the iPhone 7 Plus, which included, for
`
`the first time for Apple, a rear dual camera assembly including a telephoto camera for enhanced
`
`zoom – one of Corephotonics’ core innovative concepts. Apple specifically touted the telephoto
`
`camera on iPhone 7 Plus as a key feature. The hardware specifications and important software
`
`functionalities were similar to what Corephotonics had shown and demonstrated to Apple
`
`throughout the aforementioned exchanges starting in 2013.
`42.
`
`By October 2016, negotiations between Corephotonics had stopped progressing,
`
`and Corephotonics arranged a face-to-face meeting with Apple. Two meetings were set up, which
`
`included technical and business personnel from Apple. During these meetings, Corephotonics
`
`offered to negotiate an agreement with Apple for access to Corephotonics’ technology offerings
`
`and patents. Corephotonics offered to share its patents with Apple employees at both meetings. At
`
`the second meeting, Mr. Townsend stated that he was not permitted by his company to look at the
`
`patents, and he asked Corephotonics instead to send it to Apple’s business personnel instead. One
`
`of Apple’s business personnel followed up immediately thereafter with an unsolicited email
`
`stating, “Please do not send any patents to us until further notice. Legal counsel might reach out
`
`with any questions.”
`43.
`
`Corephotonics did not hear from Apple’s legal counsel after receiving that email.
`
`In an attempt to continue efforts to develop a business relationship, during 2017 Corephotonics
`
`
`
`9
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 11 of 53
`
`
`
`again met with and communicated with individuals from Apple’s camera team on several
`
`occasions, but Apple no longer expressed interest in continuing to discuss a collaboration with
`
`Corephotonics.
`44.
`
`On October 31, 2017, Corephotonics wrote to Apple informing it that after
`
`examining Apple’s iPhone 7 Plus and 8 Plus cameras and zoom functionality, it believed that these
`
`products infringed certain of Corephotonics’ patents. Apple did not respond.
`45.
`
`On November 6, 2017, Corephotonics filed a complaint alleging and describing the
`
`infringement by Apple’s iPhone 7 Plus product of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,402,032 (“’032 patent”),
`
`9,568,712 (“’712 patent”), the ’291 patent”, and the ’152 patent. That case is pending in this
`
`District before the Honorable Judge Lucy Koh, Case No. 5:17-cv-06457-LHK, and is
`
`administratively stayed pending resolution of inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings initiated by
`
`Apple against Corephotonics’ patents.
`46.
`
`On April 16, 2018, Corephotonics wrote to Apple informing it that it had examined
`
`Apple’s iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8 Plus, and iPhone X products and concluded those products
`
`infringed U.S. Patent No. 9,857,568 (“the ’568 patent”) as well as recently allowed claims in U.S.
`
`Patent Application 15/424,853 (’853 application), the latter of which is a continuation of the ’291
`
`patent.
`
`47.
`
`On April 25, 2018, Apple responded to Corephotonics’ April 18, 2018
`
`correspondence with a letter of its own, wherein Apple stated that Corephotonics had not
`
`“articulate[d] any detail for its claim” relating to the ’568 patent and’853 application but suggested
`
`that it had begun an “investigation into [Corephotonics’] allegations.”
`48.
`
`On April 30, 2018, Corephotonics filed a second complaint alleging and describing
`
`infringement by Apple’s iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8 Plus, and iPhone X products of the ’712 patent
`
`and U.S. Patent No. 9,568,712 and the ’568 patent. That case is pending in this District before
`
`Judge Koh, Case No. 5:18-cv-02555-LHK, and is administratively stayed pending the resolution
`
`of related IPR proceedings.
`
`
`
`10
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 12 of 53
`
`
`
`49.
`
`On July 26, 2018, Corephotonics wrote to Apple to informing it that the ’853
`
`application had been issued as the ’408 patent, and reiterated Corephotonics’ belief that the iPhone
`
`X infringed the issued claims of the ’408 patent.
`50.
`
`On August 8, 2018, Apple responded to Corephotonics’ July 26, 2018 letter,
`
`contending again that Corephotonics had provided insufficient information regarding the ’408
`
`patent and that such fact “impede[d] Apple’s investigation into [the] allegations.”
`51.
`
`On November 30, 2018, Corephotonics wrote to Apple to inform it that Apple
`
`infringed claims that would soon issue in U.S. Patent Application Nos. 15/540,676 (“the ’676
`
`application”), 15/817,235 (“the ’235 application”), 15/976,391 (“the ’391 application”), and
`
`15/976,422 (“the ’422 application”). Attached to that letter were charts, prepared by
`
`Corephotonics, describing Apple’s infringement of certain recently-allowed claims of the ’408
`
`patent, the ’391 application, the ’422 application; the ’235 application, and U.S. Patent Application
`
`15/324,720 (“the ’720 application”).
`52.
`
`Of the patent applications identified by Corephotonics in its November 30, 2018
`
`the ’676 application issued as the ’840 patent;
`
`the ’235 application issued as the ’277 patent;
`
`letter, all subsequently matured into issued patents now asserted in this Complaint:
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`53.
`
`the ’391 application issued as the ’897 patent;
`
`the ’422 application issued as the ’647 patent; and
`
`the ’720 application issued as the ’898 patent.
`
`During the relevant time period, Corephotonics continued to prosecute and obtain
`
`continuation patents on the patents it had already specifically identified and/or asserted against
`
`Apple in its pending litigations. This included U.S. Application No. 16/048,242, which is a
`
`continuation of the ’291 patent (and the ’408 patent, as well) and later issued as the ’479 patent.
`
`C.
`
`Apple’s Analysis of Corephotonics’ Patents and Patent Applications
`During Apple’s Pursuit of its Own Patents
`
`54.
`
`During the period that Apple was in discussions with Corephotonics, and
`
`investigating and evaluating Corephotonics’ technology, Apple was filing its own patent
`
`
`
`11
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 13 of 53
`
`
`
`applications on small-format camera designs, including telephoto cameras that could be used in a
`
`mobile device. During this time, Corephotonics’ patents and related patent applications were
`
`significant in the art. Apple was well aware of Corephotonics’ patents and related patent
`
`applications, including the patents in suit and applications that issued as the patents in suit, as it
`
`sought to obtain its own patents over Corephotonics’ prior art.
`55.
`
`For instance, Apple filed U.S. Patent Application No. 14/069,027 (the “’027
`
`application”), which later issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,223,118. On February 18, 2015, the U.S.
`
`Patent & Trademark Office issued an Office Action in the prosecution of the ’027 application. The
`
`examiner cited published application U.S. Pub. App. No. 2015/0029601A1 to Dror, et al. (the
`
`“Dror Application”), as anticipating, or rendering obviousness in combination with other
`
`references, all the pending claims of the ’027 application. The Dror Application is a family member
`
`of certain of the patents asserted by Corephotonics in this action and its two previously-filed
`
`actions (referred to herein nonexclusively as “Dror family” patents and applications). Amendments
`
`and arguments associated with those amendments were filed on May 15, 2015, which extensively
`
`discussed Corephotonics’ patent application and analyzed purported differences between its
`
`disclosures and the claims of Apple’s ’027 application. The inventor of Apple’s ’027 application,
`
`Roman Mercado continued to work for Apple through the introduction of the iPhone 7 Plus.
`56.
`
`Apple was familiar with and had analyzed the extent of Corephotonics’ patent
`
`portfolio throughout its pursuit of Apple’s own patents. By way of example, the earliest IDS that
`
`Apple filed for the ’720 application, filed on September 30, 2015, included four references, of
`
`which two of the four were Corephotonics patent applications. Other examples of Apple’s actual
`
`knowledge and familiarity with Corephotonics’ patent portfolio include:
`• Apple also disclosed the Dror Application as prior art to its ’720 application, submitted in
`Apple’s March 24, 2016 IDS filing. Apple further disclosed the Dror Application as prior
`
`art to its ’716 application and its ’136 application.
`• The ’291 patent to Shabtay et al. (of which multiple patents asserted in this Complaint are
`continuations, such as the ’233 patent, ’408 patent, and ‘479 patent) is cited on the face of
`
`
`
`12
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
`
`APPLE V. COREPHOTONICS
`IPR2020-00905
`Exhibit 2004
`Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 14 of 53
`
`
`
`numerous patents assigned to Apple, such as U.S. Patent Nos. 9,769,389; 9,774,787;
`
`9,781,345; 10,063,783; 10,122,931; 10,136,048; and 10,264,188.
`• Published patent applications within the same family as the ’291 patent (nonexclusively
`referred to herein as “Shabtay family” patents and app