IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`Case No. ____________________
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`FG SRC LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`XILINX, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff FG SRC LLC (“SRC”) files this Original Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`(“Complaint”) against Defendant Xilinx, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Xilinx”). Plaintiff alleges
`
`as follows:
`
`I. NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1. This is an action for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,149,867 (the “’867 patent”) and
`
`9,153,311 (the “’311 patent”).
`
`2. SRC is a limited liability company incorporated in Delaware and is the successor to SRC
`
`Computers, LLC (“SRC Computers”).
`
`3. Xilinx, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at 2100
`
`Logic Drive, San Jose, California 95154.
`
`II. JURISDICTION
`
`4. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.,
`
`including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 283, 284, and 285. This is a patent infringement lawsuit, over
`
`which this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 1
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2004, p. 1
`
`

`

`5. This Court has general and specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it is
`
`present in and transacts and conducts business in and with residents of this District and the
`
`State of Delaware. Defendant is incorporated in the State of Delaware and has conducted and
`
`does conduct business therein. Defendant has purposefully and voluntarily availed itself of the
`
`privileges of conducting business in the United States and the State of Delaware by
`
`continuously and systematically placing goods into the stream of commerce through a
`
`distribution channel with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in
`
`Delaware. Plaintiff’s causes of action arise directly from Defendant’s business contacts and
`
`other activities in the State of Delaware.
`
`6. Upon information and belief, Defendant has committed acts of infringement in this
`
`District giving rise to this action and does business in this District, including making sales
`
`and/or providing service and support for its customers in this District. Defendant purposefully
`
`and voluntarily sold one or more of its infringing products with the expectation that they
`
`would be purchased by consumers in this District. These infringing products have been and
`
`continue to be purchased by consumers in this District.
`
`III.VENUE
`
`7. Venue is proper as to Defendant under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) in that Defendant is
`
`incorporated in Delaware and, therefore, resides in this District. TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft
`
`Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514, 1521 (2017).
`
`IV. FG SRC LLC AND DEFENDANT’S PRODUCTS
`A. FG SRC LLC
`
`8. SRC Computers was co-founded by Seymour R. Cray, Jim Guzy, and Jon Huppenthal
`
`in 1996 to produce unique high-performance computer systems using Intel’s Merced
`
`microprocessor.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 2
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2004, p. 2
`
`

`

`9. SRC is the successor to SRC Computers.
`
`10. Jim Guzy is a co-founder of Intel Corporation and served on Intel’s board for 38 years.
`
`11. Mr. Guzy was named to Forbes Midas List, which surveys the top tech deal makers in
`
`the world, in 2006 and 2007.
`
`12. Seymour Cray was an American electrical engineer and supercomputer architect who
`
`designed a series of computers that were the fastest in the world for decades.
`
`13. Mr. Cray has been credited with creating the supercomputing industry.
`
`14. Unfortunately, Mr. Cray died shortly after founding SRC Computers.
`
`15. But his legacy was carried on by Jon Huppenthal and a talented team of engineers that
`
`worked with Mr. Cray and Mr. Huppenthal for decades.
`
`16. SRC Computers’ focus was creating easy-to-program, general-purpose reconfigurable
`
`computing systems.
`
`17. In early 1997, Mr. Huppenthal and his team realized that the microprocessors of the
`
`day had many shortcomings relative to the custom processing engines that they were used to.
`
`18. As a result, they decided to incorporate dedicated processing elements built from Field
`
`Programmable Gate Arrays (“FPGAs”) and that idea quickly evolved into a novel system
`
`combining reconfigurable processors and CPUs.
`
`19. SRC Computers’ heterogenous system had 100x performance, 1/50th of the operating
`
`expense, 1/100th of the power usage, and required 1/500th of the space of more traditional
`
`computer systems.
`
`20. SRC Computers’ proven systems are used for some of the most demanding military
`
`and intelligence applications, including the simultaneous real-time processing and analysis of
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 3
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2004, p. 3
`
`

`

`radar, flight and mission data collected from a variety of aerial vehicles in over 1,000 successful
`
`counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency missions for the U.S. Department of Defense.
`
`21. SRC Computers offered its first commercial product in 2015 called the Saturn 1 server.
`
`22. The Saturn 1 was 100 times faster than a server with standard Intel microprocessors
`
`while using one percent of the power.
`
`23. The Saturn 1 was designed to be used in HP’s Moonshot server chassis for data centers.
`
`24. SRC Computers has had over 30 U.S. patents issued for its innovative technology.
`
`25. SRC Computers’ patent portfolio covers numerous aspects of reconfigurable computing
`
`and has more than 2,090 forward citations.
`
`26. In February 2016, SRC Computers restructured into three new entities: a corporate
`
`parent FG SRC LLC, an operating company DirectStream, LLC (“DirectStream”), and a
`
`licensing entity SRC Labs, LLC.
`
`B. Accused Products
`
`27. In this complaint, Plaintiff accuses the following Xilinx products (collectively “Accused
`
`Products”) of infringing the ’867 and ‘’311 patents. For clarity, accused product families are
`
`listed, as are exemplary device names and/or part numbers or part number prefixes.
`
`Product Family
`
`Exemplary Device Names
`
`Exemplary Part Numbers
`and/or Part Number Prefixes
`
`
`Alveo accelerator
`cards
`Kintex UltraScale+
`FPGA devices
`Virtex UltraScale+
`FPGA devices
`
`Zynq UltraScale+
`MPSoC: CG devices
`
`U25, U200, U250, U280
`
`KU3P, KU5P, KU9P,
`KU11P, KU13P, KU15P
`VU3P, VU5P, VU7P, VU9P,
`VU11P, VU13P, VU19P,
`VU27P, VU29P, VU31P,
`VU33P, VU35P, VU37P,
`VU45P, VU47P
`ZU2CG, ZU3CG, ZU4CG,
`ZU5CG, ZU6CG, ZU7CG,
`ZU9CG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 4
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2004, p. 4
`
`

`

`Product Family
`
`Exemplary Device Names
`
`Zynq UltraScale+
`MPSoC: EG devices
`
`Zynq UltraScale+
`MPSoC: EV devices
`Zynq Ultrascale+
`RFSoC devices
`
`Kintex UltraScale
`FPGA devices
`
`Virtex UltraScale
`FPGA devices
`
`Spartan 7-Series
`FPGA devices
`Artix 7-Series FPGA
`devices
`
`Kintex 7-Series FPGA
`devices
`
`Virtex 7-Series FPGA
`devices
`
`ZU2EG, ZU3EG, ZU4EG,
`ZU5EG, ZU6EG, ZU7EG,
`ZU9CG, ZU11EG, ZU15EG,
`ZU17EG, ZU19EG
`ZU4EV, ZU5EV, ZU7EV
`
`ZU21DR, ZU25DR,
`ZU27DR, ZU28DR,
`ZU29DR, ZU39DR,
`ZU43DR, ZU46DR,
`ZU47DR, ZU48DR,
`ZU49DR
`KU025, KU035, KU040,
`KU060, KU085, KU095,
`KU115
`XCVU065, XCVU080,
`XCVU095, VCVU125,
`XCVU160, XCVU190,
`XCVU440
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exemplary Part Numbers
`and/or Part Number Prefixes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`XC7S6, XC7S15, XC7S25,
`XC7S50, XC7S75, XC7S100
`XC7A12T, XC7A15T,
`XC7A25T, XC7A35T,
`XC7A50T, XC7A75T,
`XC7A100T, XC7A200T
`XC7K70T, XC7K160T,
`XC7K325T, XCE7K325T,
`XC7K355T, XCE7K355T,
`XC7K410T, XCE7K410T,
`XC7K420T, XCE7K420T,
`XC7K480T, XCE7K480T
`XC7V585T, XCE7V585T,
`XC7V2000T, XC7VX330T,
`XCE7VX330T, XC7VX415T,
`XCE7VX415T, XC7VX485T,
`XCE7VX485T, XC7VX550T,
`XCE7VX550T, XC7VX690T,
`XCE7VX690T, XC7VX980T,
`XCE7VX980T, XCVX1140T,
`XC7VH580T, XC7VH870T
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 5
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2004, p. 5
`
`

`

`Product Family
`
`Exemplary Device Names
`
`Zynq-7000 SoC
`devices
`
`Z-7007S, Z-7012S, Z-7014S,
`Z-7010, Z-7015, Z-7020, Z-
`7030,
`Z-7035, Z-7045, Z-7100
`
`Exemplary Part Numbers
`and/or Part Number Prefixes
`XC7Z007S, XC7Z012S,
`XC7Z014S, XC7Z010,
`XC7Z015, XC7Z020, XC7Z030,
`XC7Z035, XC7Z045,
`XC7Z100
`
`
`
`28. Each of the Accused Products includes an FPGA.
`
`29. In contrast to a purpose-built chip which is designed with a single function in mind and
`
`then hardwired to implement it, an FPGA is more flexible.
`
`30. An FPGA can be programmed in the field, after it has been plugged into a socket on a
`
`PC board.
`
`31. FPGAs are based around a matrix of configurable logic blocks (CLBs) connected via
`
`programmable interconnects.
`
`32. FPGAs can be reprogrammed to desired application or functionality requirements after
`
`manufacturing. This feature distinguishes FPGAs from Application Specific Integrated
`
`Circuits (ASICs), which are custom manufactured for specific design tasks.
`
`33. Today’s FPGAs easily push the 500 MHz performance barrier.
`
`34. Programming an FPGA is a matter of connecting them up to create the desired logical
`
`functions (AND, OR, XOR, and so forth) or storage elements (flip-flops and shift registers).
`
`35. Unlike a CPU which is essentially serial (with a few parallel elements) and has fixed-
`
`size instructions and data paths (typically 32 or 64 bit), an FPGA can be programmed to
`
`perform many operations in parallel, and the operations themselves can be of almost any
`
`width, large or small.
`
`36. The highly parallelized model in FPGAs is ideal for building custom accelerators to
`
`process compute-intensive problems.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 6
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2004, p. 6
`
`

`

`37. Properly programmed, an FPGA has the potential to provide a 30x or greater speedup
`
`to many types of genomics, seismic analysis, financial risk analysis, big data search, and
`
`encryption algorithms and applications.
`
`38. The Alveo U200 provides up to 90x higher performance than CPUs on key workloads
`
`at 1/3 the cost.
`
`39. The Alveo U280 provides up to 3000 times higher throughput than CPUs on key
`
`workloads such as Key-Value-Store.
`
`40. Defendant’s customers can use FPGAs to accelerate its applications more than 30x
`
`when compared with servers that use CPUs alone.
`
`41. The speed increase is a result of the FPGAs handling compute-intensive, deeply
`
`pipelined, hardware-accelerated operations, which also allows for highly parallelized
`
`computing.
`
`V. DEFENDANT RECEIVED CONSTRUCTIVE AND ACTUAL NOTICE
`
`42. SRC Computers complied with 35 U.S.C. § 287 by (i) placing the required notice on all,
`
`or substantially all, of its products made, offered for sale, sold, or imported into the United
`
`States, or (ii) providing actual notice to Defendant.
`
`A. Constructive Notice to Defendant.
`
`43. For example, SRC Computers placed notices such as the following on all, or
`
`substantially all, of its products since at least February 19, 2013:1
`
`
`1 E.g., https://web.archive.org/web/20100930014237/http://www.srccomp.com/techpubs/
`patentedtech.asp.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 7
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2004, p. 7
`
`

`

`
`44. The website listed in the notice, WWW.SRCCOMP.COM/
`
`TECHPUBS/PATENTEDTECH.ASP, stated the following:
`
`
`
`45. The website also listed at least the following patents since September 30, 2010. The ’867
`
`
`
`patent, asserted in this case, is highlighted:
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 8
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2004, p. 8
`
`

`

`6,026,459
`
`Patent # Patent Title
`System and method for dynamic priority conflict resolution in a multi-processor
`computer system having shared memory resources
`Multiprocessor computer architecture incorporating a plurality of memory
`algorithm processors in the memory subsystem
`Multiprocessor computer architecture incorporating a plurality of memory
`algorithm processors in the memory subsystem
`Split directory-based cache coherency technique for a multi-processor computer
`system
`Multiprocessor with each processor element accessing operands in loaded input
`buffer and forwarding results to FIFO output buffer
`
`6,076,152
`
`6,247,110
`
`6,295,598
`
`6,339,819
`
`6,434,687
`
`System and method for accelerating web site access and processing utilizing a
`computer system incorporating reconfigurable processors operating under a single
`operating system image
`
`6,356,983
`
`6,594,736
`
`6,627,985
`
`6,781,226
`
`6,961,841
`
`6,983,456
`
`System and method providing cache coherency and atomic memory operations in
`a multiprocessor computer architecture
`System and method for semaphore and atomic operation management in a
`multiprocessor
`Reconfigurable processor module comprising hybrid stacked integrated circuit die
`elements
`Reconfigurable processor module comprising hybrid stacked integrated circuit die
`elements
`6,836,823 Bandwidth enhancement for uncached devices
`6,941,539 Efficiency of reconfigurable hardware
`Multiprocessor computer architecture incorporating a plurality of memory
`algorithm processors in the memory subsystem
`6,964,029 System and method for partitioning control-dataflow graph representations
`Process for converting programs in high-level programming languages to a
`unified executable for hybrid computing platforms
`6,996,656 System and method for providing an arbitrated memory bus in a hybrid
`computing system
`Computer system architecture and memory controller for close-coupling within a
`hybrid processing system utilizing an adaptive processor interface port
`System and method for explicit communication of messages between processes
`running on different nodes in a clustered multiprocessor system
`Reconfigurable processor module comprising hybrid stacked integrated circuit die
`elements
`7,134,120 Map compiler pipelined loop structure
`
`7,003,593
`
`7,124,211
`
`7,126,214
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 9
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2004, p. 9
`
`

`

`7,149,867
`
`7,155,602
`
`7,155,708
`
`7,167,976
`
`7,197,575
`
`7,225,324
`
`7,282,951
`
`7,299,458
`
`7,373,440
`
`7,406,573
`
`System and method of enhancing efficiency and utilization of memory bandwidth
`in reconfigurable hardware
`Interface for integrating reconfigurable processors into a general purpose
`computing system
`Debugging and performance profiling using control-dataflow graph
`representations with reconfigurable hardware emulation
`Interface for integrating reconfigurable processors into a general purpose
`computing system
`Switch/network adapter port coupling a reconfigurable processing element to one
`or more microprocessors for use with interleaved memory controllers
`Multi-adaptive processing systems and techniques for enhancing parallelism and
`performance of computational functions
`7,237,091 Multiprocessor computer architecture incorporating a plurality of memory
`algorithm processors in the memory subsystem
`Reconfigurable processor module comprising hybrid stacked integrated circuit die
`elements
`System and method for converting control flow graph representations to control-
`dataflow graph representations
`Switch/network adapter port for clustered computers employing a chain of multi-
`adaptive processors in a dual in-line memory module format
`Reconfigurable processor element utilizing both coarse and fine grained
`reconfigurable elements
`7,421,524 Switch/network adapter port for clustered computers employing a chain of multi-
`adaptive processors in a dual in-line memory module format
`Switch/network adapter port incorporating shared memory resources selectively
`accessible by a direct execution logic element and one or more dense logic devices
`Switch/network adapter port coupling a reconfigurable processing element to one
`or more microprocessors for use with interleaved memory controllers
`Multi-adaptive processing systems and techniques for enhancing parallelism and
`performance of computational functions
`
`7,424,552
`
`7,565,461
`
`7,620,800
`
`
`B. Actual Notice to Defendant.
`
`46. Xilinx is well-aware of the patents asserted in this action and that instrumentalities
`
`accused herein infringe those patents. On October 18, 2017, SRC Labs sued Amazon Web
`
`Services, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., and VADATA, Inc. (collectively the “Amazon
`
`Defendants”) alleging infringement of five patents which included the ’311 patent and ’867
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 10
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2004, p. 10
`
`

`

`patent. SRC Labs, LLC v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., No. 1-17-cv-01227 (E.D. Va.). The
`
`complaint filed in that case (the “Amazon Complaint”) alleged that the Amazon Defendants’
`
`products infringed the ’867 patent and ’311 patent based on its usage of Xilinx FPGA products.
`
`47. Moreover, specifically, the Amazon Complaint included—as Exhibit G—a publicly-
`
`available claim chart demonstrating how the Amazon Defendants’ product EC2 F1 Instance
`
`infringed the ’867 patent based on its usage of a Xilinx UltraScale+ FPGA. Plaintiff accuses
`
`Defendant of that device of infringing the ’867 patent in this complaint.
`
`48. The Amazon Complaint also included—as Exhibit J—a publicly-available claim chart
`
`showing how the Amazon Defendants’ product EC2 F1 Instance infringed the ’311 patent
`
`based on its usage of a Xilinx UltraScale+ FPGA.
`
`49. After learning that usage of its products infringed the ’867 patent and ’311 patent, on
`
`July 13, 2018 Xilinx filed a petition for inter partes review, requesting that the Board of Patent
`
`Trials and Appeals cancel claims 1 through 5 and 8 through 10 of the ’311 patent. IPR2018-
`
`01395 (hereinafter “the Xilinx IPR”), Paper No. 1. In its petition, Xilinx noted the complaint
`
`against the Amazon Defendants and admitted that “Amazon and Xilinx have a
`
`customer/supplier relationship” and that “Xilinx Ultrascale+ FPGAs and its Vivado Design
`
`Suite are referenced in the SRC Labs complaint . . .” That petition was denied on January 23,
`
`2019. IPR201801395, Paper No. 17.
`
`50. The district court case against the Amazon Defendants was transferred to the Western
`
`District of Washington on March 1, 2018. SRC Labs, LLC et al v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., No.
`
`2-18-cv-00317 (W.D. Wa.).
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 11
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2004, p. 11
`
`

`

`VI. THE PATENTS
`A. All Asserted Patents are Owned by SRC.
`
`51. On January 22, 2020, DirectStream assigned both the ’867 patent and ’311 patent to
`
`SRC. The assignment was recorded with the USPTO on January 24, 2020 at Reel/Frame
`
`051615/0344.
`
`52. All maintenance fees have been paid to the USPTO to keep the ’867 patent and ’311
`
`patent enforceable for their full term.
`
`B. Description of the Asserted Patents.
`1. U.S. Patent 7,149,867
`
`53. The ’867 patent is entitled “System and method of enhancing efficiency and utilization
`
`of memory bandwidth in reconfigurable hardware” and issued on December 12, 2006.
`
`54. A true and correct copy of the ’867 patent is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`55. The ’867 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`2. U.S. Patent 9,153,311
`
`56. The ’311 patent is entitled “System and method for retaining DRAM data when
`
`reprogramming reconfigurable devices with DRAM memory controllers” and issued on
`
`October 6, 2015.
`
`57. A true and correct copy of the ’311 patent is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`58. The ’311 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`VII. COUNT ONE: DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’867 PATENT
`
`59. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as though set forth herein.
`
`60. Defendant has at no time, either expressly or impliedly, been licensed under the ’867
`
`patent.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 12
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2004, p. 12
`
`

`

`61. Defendant has and continues to directly infringe the ’867 patent by making, using,
`
`offering for sale, selling, and/or importing in or into the United States in violation of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271(a) the Accused Products.
`
`62. Defendant’s direct infringement of the ’867 patent by the Accused Products has caused,
`
`and will continue to cause, substantial and irreparable damage to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is therefore
`
`entitled to an award of damages adequate to compensate for Defendant’s infringement, but not
`
`less than a reasonable royalty, together with pre- and post-judgment interest and costs as fixed
`
`by the Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`63. Plaintiff adopts, and incorporates by reference, as if fully stated herein, Exhibits C
`
`through F, which are claim charts that describe and demonstrate how the Accused Products
`
`infringe exemplary claims of the ’867 patent. These charts collectively show that Xilinx
`
`infringes at least claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 11, and 12 of the ’867 patent.
`
`VIII. COUNT TWO: WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’867 PATENT
`
`64. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as though set forth herein.
`
`65. Defendant has and continues to willfully infringe the ’867 patent.
`
`66. As discussed in § V.B herein, Defendant has long had knowledge of the ’867 patent and
`
`that its products infringe that patent.
`
`67. Even if Defendant had not had such knowledge previously, Defendant would learn of
`
`the patent and its infringement as a result of the filing and/or service of this complaint, and this
`
`district does not require pre-suit knowledge to establish willfulness. DermaFocus LLC v. Ulthera,
`
`Inc., 201 F. Supp. 3d 465, 473 (D. Del. 2016).
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 13
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2004, p. 13
`
`

`

`68. Defendant continued and continues making, using, offering for sale, and selling the
`
`Accused Products despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions infringe several claims
`
`of the ’867 patent.
`
`69. Defendant has continued its infringement of the ’867 patent despite its knowing that
`
`claims 1, 3 through 9, and 11 through 19 of the ’867 patent were held valid on May 10, 2019
`
`by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in inter partes review proceeding IPR2019-00103, a
`
`proceeding requested by Defendant’s customers: the Amazon Defendants.
`
`70. Defendant’s actions have not been consistent with the standards of behavior in its
`
`industry.
`
`71. Defendant made no effort to avoid infringing the ’867 patent.
`
`72. Therefore, Plaintiff should receive enhanced damages up to three times the amount of
`
`actual damages for Defendant’s willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`IX.
`
` COUNT THREE: DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’311 PATENT
`
`73. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as though set forth herein.
`
`74. Defendant has at no time, either expressly or impliedly, been licensed under the ’311
`
`patent.
`
`75. Defendant has and continues to directly infringe the ’311 patent by making, using,
`
`offering for sale, selling, and or importing in or into the United States in violation of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271(a) the Accused Products.
`
`76. Defendant’s direct infringement of the ’311 patent by the Accused Products has caused,
`
`and will continue to cause, substantial and irreparable damage to Plaintiff. Plaintiff is therefore
`
`entitled to an award of damages adequate to compensate for Defendant’s infringement, but not
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 14
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2004, p. 14
`
`

`

`less than a reasonable royalty, together with pre- and post-judgment interest and costs as fixed
`
`by the Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`77. Plaintiff adopts, and incorporates by reference, as if fully stated herein, Exhibits G
`
`through I, which are claim charts that describe and demonstrate how the Accused Products
`
`infringe exemplary claims of the ’311 patent. These charts collectively show that Xilinx
`
`infringes at least claims 1, 3, 9, and 10 of the ’311 patent.
`
`X. COUNT FOUR: WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’311 PATENT
`
`78. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as though set forth herein.
`
`79. Defendant has and continues to willfully infringe the ’311 patent.
`
`80. As discussed in § V.B herein, Defendant has long had knowledge of the ’311 patent and
`
`that its products infringe that patent.
`
`81. Even if Defendant had not had such knowledge previously, Defendant would learn of
`
`the patent and its infringement as a result of the filing of this complaint, and this district does
`
`not require pre-suit knowledge to establish willfulness. DermaFocus LLC v. Ulthera, Inc., 201 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 465, 473 (D. Del. 2016).
`
`82. Defendant continued and continues making, using, offering for sale, and selling the
`
`Accused Products despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions infringe several claims
`
`of the ’311 patent.
`
`83. Defendant has continued its infringement of the ’311 patent despite its knowing that
`
`claims 1 through 5 and 8 through 10 of the ’311 patent were held valid on January 23, 2019 in
`
`the Xilinx IPR.
`
`84. Defendant’s actions have not been consistent with the standards of behavior in its
`
`industry.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 15
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2004, p. 15
`
`

`

`85. Defendant made no effort to avoid infringing the ’311 patent.
`
`86. Therefore, Plaintiff should receive enhanced damages up to three times the amount of
`
`actual damages for Defendant’s willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`XI.
`
` CONCLUSION
`
`87. Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant the damages sustained by SRC as a result
`
`of Xilinx’s 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.
`
`88. Plaintiff has incurred and will incur attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses in the
`
`prosecution of this action.
`
`89. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend, supplement, or modify its allegations of
`
`infringement as facts regarding such allegations arise during the course of this case.
`
`XII. JURY DEMAND
`
`90. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury for all causes of action.
`
`XIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Plaintiff requests the following relief:
`
`A. A judgment that Defendant has infringed and continues to infringe the ’867 patent and
`
`’311 patent;
`
`B. A judgment and order requiring Defendant to pay Plaintiff damages under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 284, including treble damages for willful infringement as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 284, and
`
`supplemental damages for any continuing post-verdict infringement up until entry of the final
`
`judgment with an accounting as needed;
`
`C. A judgment and order requiring Defendant to pay Plaintiff pre-judgment and post-
`
`judgment interest on the damages awarded;
`
`D. A judgment and order awarding a compulsory ongoing royalty; and
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 16
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2004, p. 16
`
`

`

`E. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
`
`Dated: April 30, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Stamatios Stamoulis
`Stamatios Stamoulis (#4606)
`Richard C. Weinblatt (#5080)
`Two Fox Point Centre
`6 Denny Road, Suite 307
`Wilmington, DE 19809
`Tel: (302) 999-1540
`stamoulis@swdelaw.com
`weinblatt@swdelaw.com
`
`
`
`SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP
`Michael W. Shore* (mshore@shorechan.com)
`Alfonso Garcia Chan* (achan@shorechan.com)
`Ari B. Rafilson* (arafilson@shorechan.com)
`William D. Ellerman* (wellerman@shorechan.com)
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300
`Dallas, TX 75202
`Tel: (214) 593-9110
`SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300
`Dallas, Texas 75202
`Telephone (214) 593-9110
`Facsimile (214) 593-9111
`
`
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff FG SRC LLC
`
` *
`
` Application for pro hac vice to be filed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT – Page 17
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2004, p. 17
`
`