`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`SOLAS OLED LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No.
`
`v.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.;
`SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AGAINST
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`AND SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the United States
`
`of America, 35 U.S.C. §1 et seq., in which Plaintiff Solas OLED Ltd. (“Plaintiff” or “Solas”)
`
`makes the following allegations against Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Samsung” or
`
`“Defendants”):
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This complaint arises from Samsung’s unlawful infringement of the following
`
`United States patents owned by Solas, each of which generally relate to touchscreen technology:
`
`United States Patent Nos. 7,573,068 (“’068 Patent”) and 7,868,880 (“’880 Patent”) (collectively,
`
`the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`2.
`
`OLED displays are revolutionizing electronic devices today. Devices using OLED
`
`displays enhance a user’s viewing experience by allowing for the visual depiction of perfect blacks
`LG Display
`Exhibit 1022
`LG Display v. Solas
`IPR2020-01238
`
`1
`
`2:20-cv-307
`
`Ex. 1022-001
`
`
`
`as well as colors with high contrast––without distortion. OLED displays naturally emit light and
`
`have the ability to turn off completely. Due to OLED display’s inherent design, devices are thinner,
`
`lighter, and more flexible than ever before. This is because OLED displays use fewer components.
`
`OLED displays are the trendiest and best displays available on the market today.
`
`3.
`
`But just a few decades ago, OLED display technology was in its infancy. OLED
`
`displays have since undergone significant improvements to enhance the user experience for
`
`consumers throughout the world.
`
`4.
`
`Due to the vision of the companies who developed and those who improved on
`
`OLED display technology, this technology has enjoyed rapid developments and improvements.
`
`Research and development engineers have logged hours and hours of work to push this technology
`
`to the forefront of the display market today. Improvements to this technology can be highly
`
`technical, for example, they can relate to improved designs to the operation of drive control to
`
`improved designs of transistor array substrates. These advancements to the various aspects of the
`
`technology—each building a little on a related advancement before it—get us to the highly
`
`advanced state we enjoy today.
`
`5.
`
`These achievements range from designing the fundamental building blocks, which
`
`enable the operation of OLED display technology, to designing critical enhancements, which
`
`improves important aspects of the user experience and functionality of the OLED display. This
`
`infringement action is about the latter: patented improvements—which took years of research and
`
`millions of dollars in investments to develop, and which are infringed by Samsung’s Accused
`
`Products here.
`
`PARTIES
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff Solas Ltd. is an Irish company, having its principal place of business at
`
`2
`
`Ex. 1022-002
`
`
`
`Suite 23, The Hyde Building, Carrickmines, Dublin 18, Ireland. Solas is the sole owner by
`
`assignment of all right, title, and interest in the Asserted Patent.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is a publicly traded corporation organized
`
`under the laws of South Korea. It has its principal place of business at 129 Samsung-Ro,
`
`Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, 443-742, South Korea.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is a corporation organized under the
`
`laws of the State of New York. Its principal place of business is at 85 Challenger Rd., Ridgefield
`
`Park, New Jersey 07660.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant Samsung Display Co., Ltd. is a corporation organized under the laws of
`
`Korea. Its principal place of business is at 1 Samsung-Ro, Giheung-gu, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-Do,
`
`17113, South Korea.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`10.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United
`
`States Code. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a).
`
`11.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Samsung in this action because Samsung
`
`has committed acts within this District giving rise to this action, and has established minimum
`
`contacts with this forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over Samsung would not offend
`
`traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Samsung, directly and through subsidiaries
`
`or intermediaries, has committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in this District by,
`
`among other things, importing, offering to sell, and selling products that infringe the Asserted
`
`Patent.
`
`12.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b). Upon
`
`3
`
`Ex. 1022-003
`
`
`
`information and belief, Defendants have transacted business in this District and have committed
`
`acts of direct and indirect infringement in this District by, among other things, making, using,
`
`offering to sell, selling, and importing products that infringe the Asserted Patent. Defendants have
`
`regular and established places of businesses in this District, including at 1301 East Lookout Drive,
`
`Richardson, Texas 75080 and 6635 Declaration Drive, Plano, TX 75023.
`
`13.
`
`Furthermore, venue is proper as to a foreign defendant in any district. 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1391(c)(3); In re HTC Corp., 889 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Defendants Samsung Electronics
`
`Co., Ltd. and Samsung Display Co., Ltd. are foreign corporations organized under the laws of
`
`South Korea, with principal places of business in South Korea.
`
`COUNT I
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,573,068
`
`14.
`
`Solas realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`15.
`
`Solas owns by assignment all rights, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No. 7,573,068
`
`(the “’068 Patent”), entitled “Transistor Array Substrate and Display Panel.” The ’068 Patent was
`
`duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on August 11, 2009. A
`
`true and correct copy of the ’068 Patent is attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`16.
`
`On information and belief, Samsung makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, and/or
`
`imports certain products (“Accused Products”), including Galaxy J7, Galaxy J3, Galaxy J2, Galaxy
`
`A6, Galaxy A6 Plus, Galaxy S7, Galaxy S7 Edge, Galaxy S7 Active, Galaxy S8, Galaxy S8+,
`
`Galaxy S8 Active, Galaxy Fold, Galaxy Z Fold2 5G Galaxy A80, Galaxy A71 5G, Galaxy A71
`
`5G UW, Galaxy A51, Galaxy A51 5G, Galaxy A51 5G UW, Galaxy A50, Galaxy A20, Galaxy
`
`S9, Galaxy S9+, Galaxy S10, Galaxy S10+, Galaxy S10 5G, Galaxy S10 Lite, Galaxy S10e, Note
`
`4
`
`Ex. 1022-004
`
`
`
`8, Note 9, Note 10, Note 10 5G, Note 10+, Note 10+ 5G, Galaxy S20, Galaxy S20+, Galaxy S20
`
`5G, Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G, Galaxy Note20 5G, Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G, Galaxy Z Flip, Galaxy Z
`
`Flip 5G, that directly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 13-
`
`17 of the ’068 Patent.
`
`17.
`
`Samsung also knowingly and intentionally induces infringement of at least claims
`
`13-17 of the ’068 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(b). Through the filing and service of this
`
`Complaint, Samsung has had knowledge of the ’068 Patent and the infringing nature of the
`
`Accused Products. Despite this knowledge of the ’068 Patent, Samsung continues to actively
`
`encourage and instruct its customers and end users (for example, through user manuals and online
`
`instruction materials on its website) to use the Accused Products in ways that directly infringe
`
`the ’068 Patent. Samsung does so knowing and intending that its customers and end users will
`
`commit these infringing acts. Samsung also continues to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or
`
`import the Accused Products, despite its knowledge of the ’068 Patent, thereby specifically
`
`intending for and inducing its customers to infringe the ’068 Patent through the customers’ normal
`
`and customary use of the Accused Products.
`
`18.
`
`The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of at least claims 13-17 of
`
`the ’068 Patent. A claim chart comparing independent claim 13 of the ’068 Patent to a
`
`representative Accused Product, Samsung Galaxy S20 5G, is attached as Exhibit 2.
`
`19.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States
`
`the Accused Products, Samsung has injured Solas and is liable for infringement of the ’068 Patent
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271.
`
`20.
`
`As a result of Samsung’s infringement of the ’068 Patent, Solas is entitled to
`
`monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Samsung’s infringement, but in no
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1022-005
`
`
`
`event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Samsung, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`21.
`
`Samsung’s infringing activities have injured and will continue to injure Solas,
`
`unless and until this Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ’068 Patent,
`
`and, specifically, enjoining further manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offers for sale that
`
`come within the scope of the patent claims.
`
`COUNT II
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,868,880
`
`22.
`
`Solas realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`23.
`
`Solas owns by assignment all rights, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`
`(the “’880 Patent”), entitled “Display Apparatus and Drive Control Method Thereof.” The ’880
`
`Patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on January
`
`11, 2011. A true and correct copy of the ’880 Patent is attached as Exhibit 3.
`
`24.
`
`On information and belief, Samsung makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, and/or
`
`imports certain products (“Accused Products”), including Galaxy J7, Galaxy J3, Galaxy J2, Galaxy
`
`A6, Galaxy A6 Plus, Galaxy S7, Galaxy S7 Edge, Galaxy S7 Active, Galaxy S8, Galaxy S8+,
`
`Galaxy S8 Active, Galaxy Fold, Galaxy Z Fold2 5G Galaxy A80, Galaxy A71 5G, Galaxy A71
`
`5G UW, Galaxy A51, Galaxy A51 5G, Galaxy A51 5G UW, Galaxy A50, Galaxy A20, Galaxy
`
`S9, Galaxy S9+, Galaxy S10, Galaxy S10+, Galaxy S10 5G, Galaxy S10 Lite, Galaxy S10e, Note
`
`8, Note 9, Note 10, Note 10 5G, Note 10+, Note 10+ 5G, Galaxy S20, Galaxy S20+, Galaxy S20
`
`5G, Galaxy S20 Ultra 5G, Galaxy Note20 5G, Galaxy Note20 Ultra 5G, Galaxy Z Flip, Galaxy Z
`
`Flip 5G, that directly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 2-
`
`6
`
`Ex. 1022-006
`
`
`
`40 of the ’880 Patent.
`
`25.
`
`Samsung also knowingly and intentionally induces infringement of at least claims
`
`2-40 of the ’880 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(b). Through the filing and service of this
`
`Complaint, Samsung has had knowledge of the ’880 Patent and the infringing nature of the
`
`Accused Products. Despite this knowledge of the ’880 Patent, Samsung continues to actively
`
`encourage and instruct its customers and end users (for example, through user manuals and online
`
`instruction materials on its website) to use the Accused Products in ways that directly infringe
`
`the ’880 Patent. Samsung does so knowing and intending that its customers and end users will
`
`commit these infringing acts. Samsung also continues to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or
`
`import the Accused Products, despite its knowledge of the ’880 Patent, thereby specifically
`
`intending for and inducing its customers to infringe the ’880 Patent through the customers’ normal
`
`and customary use of the Accused Products.
`
`26.
`
`The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of at least claims 2-40 of the ’880
`
`Patent. A claim chart comparing independent claims 2, 3, and 25 of the ’880 Patent to a
`
`representative Accused Product, the Samsung Galaxy S20 5G, is attached as Exhibit 4.
`
`27.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States
`
`the Accused Products, Samsung has injured Solas and is liable for infringement of the ’880 Patent
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271.
`
`28.
`
`As a result of Samsung’s infringement of the ’880 Patent, Solas is entitled to
`
`monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Samsung’s infringement, but in no
`
`event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Samsung, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`29.
`
`Samsung’s infringing activities have injured and will continue to injure Solas,
`
`7
`
`Ex. 1022-007
`
`
`
`unless and until this Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ’880 Patent,
`
`and, specifically, enjoining further manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offers for sale that
`
`come within the scope of the patent claims.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Solas respectfully requests that this Court enter:
`
`a.
`
`A judgment in favor of Solas that Samsung has infringed, either literally and/or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’068 Patent and the ’880 Patent;
`
`b.
`
`A permanent injunction prohibiting Samsung from further acts of infringement of
`
`the ’068 Patent and the ’880 Patent;
`
`c.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Samsung to pay Solas its damages, costs, expenses,
`
`and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest for Samsung’s infringement of the ’068 Patent and
`
`the ’880 Patent; and
`
`d.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Samsung to provide an accounting and to pay
`
`supplemental damages to Solas, including without limitation, pre-judgment and post-judgment
`
`interest;
`
`e.
`
`A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the meaning
`
`of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding to Solas its reasonable attorneys’ fees against Samsung; and
`
`f.
`
`Any and all other relief as the Court may deem appropriate and just under the
`
`circumstances.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Solas, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury of any
`
`issues so triable by right.
`
`Dated: September 15, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Reza Mirzaie
`
`8
`
`Ex. 1022-008
`
`
`
`Reza Mirzaie (CA SBN 246953)
`Paul A. Kroeger (CA SBN 229074)
`Philip X. Wang (CA SBN 262239)
`Kent N. Shum (CA SBN 259189)
`Jonathan Ma (CA SBN 312773)
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1200
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Telephone: (310) 826-7474
`Facsimile: (310) 826-6991
`Email: rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`pkroeger@raklaw.com
`pwang@raklaw.com
`kshum@raklaw.com
`jma@raklaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Solas OLED Ltd.
`
`9
`
`Ex. 1022-009
`
`