throbber
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`SOLAS OLED LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No.
`
`v.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AGAINST
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`
`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 Defendant Motorola Mobility LLC (“Motorola” or
`
`“Defendant”):
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This complaint arises from Motorola’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
`
`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,
`
`1
`
`LG Display
`Exhibit 1024
`LG Display v. Solas
`IPR2020-01238
`
`6:20-cv-842
`
`Ex. 1024-001
`
`

`

`
`
`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 Motorola’s Accused
`
`Products here.
`
`PARTIES
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff Solas Ltd. is an Irish company, having its principal place of business at
`
`Suite 23, The Hyde Building, Carrickmines, Dublin 18, Ireland. Solas is the sole owner by
`
`assignment of all right, title, and interest in each Asserted Patent.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Ex. 1024-002
`
`

`

`
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Motorola Mobility LLC is a Delaware
`
`limited liability company, with its principal place of business at 222 W. Merchandise Mark Plaza
`
`Suite 1800, Chicago, Illinois 60654.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`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).
`
`9.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Motorola in this action because Motorola
`
`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 Motorola would not offend
`
`traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Motorola, 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
`
`patents.
`
`10.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Motorola is registered
`
`to do business in Texas, and upon information and belief, Motorola has transacted business in this
`
`District and has 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
`
`Patents. On information and belief, Motorola has regular and established places of business in the
`
`District, including service centers in Austin and Waco, Texas. See Exhibits 1-2. On information
`
`and belief, these service centers are dedicated to the service and support of Motorola products,
`
`including the Accused Products.
`
`COUNT I
`
`
`
`3
`
`Ex. 1024-003
`
`

`

`
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,573,068
`
`11.
`
`Solas realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`12.
`
`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 3.
`
`13.
`
`On information and belief, Motorola makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, and/or
`
`imports certain products (“Accused Products”), including Edge, Edge+, RAZR, RAZR2, One
`
`Zoom, Moto z4, Moto z3 OLED smartphones, that directly infringe, literally and/or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 13-17 of the ’068 Patent.
`
`14. Motorola 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, Motorola has had knowledge of the ’068 Patent and the infringing nature of the
`
`Accused Products. Despite this knowledge of the ’068 Patent, Motorola 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. Motorola does so knowing and intending that its customers and end users will
`
`commit these infringing acts. Motorola 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.
`
`15.
`
`The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of at least claims 13-17 of
`
`
`
`4
`
`Ex. 1024-004
`
`

`

`
`
`the ’068 Patent. A claim chart comparing independent claim 13 of the ’068 Patent to a
`
`representative Accused Product, Motorola Edge, is attached as Exhibit 4.
`
`16.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States
`
`the Accused Products, Motorola has injured Solas and is liable for infringement of the ’068 Patent
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271.
`
`17.
`
`As a result of Motorola’s infringement of the ’068 Patent, Solas is entitled to
`
`monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Motorola’s infringement, but in no
`
`event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Motorola, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`18. Motorola’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
`
`19.
`
`Solas realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`20.
`
`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 5.
`
`21.
`
`On information and belief, Motorola makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, and/or
`
`imports certain products (“Accused Products”), including Edge, Edge+, RAZR, RAZR2, One
`
`
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1024-005
`
`

`

`
`
`Zoom, Moto z4, Moto z3 OLED smartphones, that directly infringe, literally and/or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 2-40 of the ’880 Patent.
`
`22. Motorola 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, Motorola has had knowledge of the ’880 Patent and the infringing nature of the
`
`Accused Products. Despite this knowledge of the ’880 Patent, Motorola 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. Motorola does so knowing and intending that its customers and end users will
`
`commit these infringing acts. Motorola 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.
`
`23.
`
`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 Motorola Edge, is attached as Exhibit 6.
`
`24.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States
`
`the Accused Products, Motorola has injured Solas and is liable for infringement of the ’880 Patent
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271.
`
`25.
`
`As a result of Motorola’s infringement of the ’880 Patent, Solas is entitled to
`
`monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Motorola’s infringement, but in no
`
`event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Motorola, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Ex. 1024-006
`
`

`

`
`
`26. Motorola’s infringing activities have injured and will continue to injure Solas,
`
`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 Motorola has infringed, either literally and/or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’068 Patent and the ’880 Patent;
`
`b.
`
`A permanent injunction prohibiting Motorola from further acts of infringement of
`
`the ’068 Patent and the ’880 Patent;
`
`c.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Motorola to pay Solas its damages, costs, expenses,
`
`and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest for Motorola’s infringement of the ’068 Patent and
`
`the ’880 Patent; and
`
`d.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Motorola 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 Motorola; 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.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Ex. 1024-007
`
`

`

`Dated: September 15, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By: /s/ Reza Mirzaie
`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.
`
`8
`
`Ex. 1024-008
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket