IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`FG SRC LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 1:20-cv-00601-LPS
`
`v.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`XILINX, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff FG SRC LLC (“SRC”) files this First Amended Complaint for Patent
`
`Infringement (“First Amended 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).
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2005, 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 services 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.
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2005, 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 Central Processing Units (“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
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2005, 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 (“SRC Labs”).
`
`B. Accused Products
`
`27. In this First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff accuses the following Xilinx products
`
`(collectively “’867 Accused Products”) of infringing the ’867 patent. 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
`
`Alveo accelerator
`cards
`Kintex UltraScale+
`Evaluation Kit
`Virtex UltraScale+
`Evaluation Kit
`Zynq UltraScale+
`Evaluation Kits and
`Characterization Kits
`
`U25, U200, U250, U280
`
`KCU116
`
`VCU118
`
`ZCU102, ZCU104, ZCU106,
`ZCU111, ZCU208, ZCU216,
`ZCU1275, ZCU1285
`
`Exemplary Part Numbers
`and/or Part Number Prefixes
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2005, p. 4
`
`

`

`Product Family
`
`Exemplary Device Names
`
`Kintex UltraScale
`Evaluation Kit
`Virtex UltraScale
`Evaluation Kit
`Virtex-7 Evaluation
`Kits and Connectivity
`Kits
`Zynq-7000 Evaluation
`Kits
`Kintex UltraScale+
`FPGA devices
`Virtex UltraScale+
`FPGA devices
`
`Zynq UltraScale+
`MPSoC: CG devices
`
`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
`
`KCU105
`
`VCU108
`
`VC707, VC709
`
`ZC702, ZC706
`
`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
`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
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2005, p. 5
`
`

`

`Product Family
`
`Exemplary Device Names
`
`Kintex 7-Series FPGA
`devices
`
`Virtex 7-Series FPGA
`devices
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`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
`XC7Z007S, XC7Z012S,
`XC7Z014S, XC7Z010,
`XC7Z015, XC7Z020, XC7Z030,
`XC7Z035, XC7Z045,
`XC7Z100
`
`
`
`28. In this First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff accuses the ’867 Accused Products and the
`
`U30 Alveo accelerator card of infringing the ’311 patent (collectively “’311 Accused
`
`Products”).
`
`29. Each of the ’867 Accused Products includes an FPGA.
`
`30. Each of the ’311 Accused Products includes an FPGA.
`
`31. 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.
`
`32. An FPGA can be programmed in the field, after it has been plugged into a socket on a
`
`PC board.
`
`33. FPGAs are based around a matrix of configurable logic blocks (“CLBs”) connected via
`
`programmable interconnects.
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2005, p. 6
`
`

`

`34. 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.
`
`35. Today’s FPGAs easily push the 500 MHz performance barrier.
`
`36. Programming an FPGA is a matter of connecting CLBs to create the desired logical
`
`functions (AND, OR, XOR, and so forth) or storage elements (flip-flops and shift registers).
`
`37. Unlike a CPU which is primarily 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.
`
`38. The highly parallelized model in FPGAs is ideal for building custom accelerators to
`
`process compute-intensive problems.
`
`39. 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.
`
`40. The Alveo U200 provides up to 90x higher performance than CPUs on key workloads
`
`at 1/3 the cost. See https://www.xilinx.com/publications/product-briefs/alveo-product-
`
`brief.pdf.
`
`41. The Alveo U280 provides up to 3,000 times higher throughput than CPUs on key
`
`workloads such as Key-Value-Store. See https://www.xilinx.com/publications/product-
`
`briefs/alveo-u280-product-brief.pdf.
`
`42. Defendant’s customers can use FPGAs to accelerate its applications more than 30x
`
`when compared with servers that use CPUs alone.
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2005, p. 7
`
`

`

`43. The speed increases referenced in the prior four paragraphs are a result of the FPGAs
`
`handling compute-intensive, deeply pipelined, hardware-accelerated operations, which also
`
`allows for highly parallelized computing.
`
`V. MARKING AND NOTICE
`
`A. Marking and Constructive Notice to Defendant.
`
`44. 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.
`
`45. 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/pat
`entedtech.asp.
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2005, p. 8
`
`

`

`46. The website listed in the notice, WWW.SRCCOMP.COM/
`
`TECHPUBS/PATENTEDTECH.ASP, stated the following:
`
`47. The website also listed at least the following patents since September 30, 2010. The ’867
`
`
`
`patent, asserted in this case, is highlighted:
`
`Patent # Patent Title
`
`6,026,459
`
`System and method for dynamic priority conflict resolution in a multi-processor
`computer system having shared memory resources
`
`6,076,152
`
`Multiprocessor computer architecture incorporating a plurality of memory
`algorithm processors in the memory subsystem
`
`6,247,110
`
`Multiprocessor computer architecture incorporating a plurality of memory
`algorithm processors in the memory subsystem
`
`6,295,598
`
`Split directory-based cache coherency technique for a multi-processor computer
`system
`
`6,339,819
`
`Multiprocessor with each processor element accessing operands in loaded input
`buffer and forwarding results to FIFO output buffer
`
`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
`
`System and method providing cache coherency and atomic memory operations in
`a multiprocessor computer architecture
`
`6,594,736
`
`System and method for semaphore and atomic operation management in a
`multiprocessor
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2005, p. 9
`
`

`

`6,627,985
`
`Reconfigurable processor module comprising hybrid stacked integrated circuit die
`elements
`
`6,781,226
`
`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
`
`6,961,841
`
`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
`
`6,983,456
`
`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
`
`7,003,593
`
`Computer system architecture and memory controller for close-coupling within a
`hybrid processing system utilizing an adaptive processor interface port
`
`7,124,211
`
`System and method for explicit communication of messages between processes
`running on different nodes in a clustered multiprocessor system
`
`7,126,214
`
`Reconfigurable processor module comprising hybrid stacked integrated circuit die
`elements
`
`7,134,120 Map compiler pipelined loop structure
`
`7,149,867
`
`System and method of enhancing efficiency and utilization of memory bandwidth
`in reconfigurable hardware
`
`7,155,602
`
`Interface for integrating reconfigurable processors into a general purpose
`computing system
`
`7,155,708
`
`Debugging and performance profiling using control-dataflow graph
`representations with reconfigurable hardware emulation
`
`7,167,976
`
`Interface for integrating reconfigurable processors into a general purpose
`computing system
`
`7,197,575
`
`Switch/network adapter port coupling a reconfigurable processing element to one
`or more microprocessors for use with interleaved memory controllers
`
`7,225,324
`
`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
`
`7,282,951
`
`Reconfigurable processor module comprising hybrid stacked integrated circuit die
`elements
`
`7,299,458
`
`System and method for converting control flow graph representations to control-
`dataflow graph representations
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2005, p. 10
`
`

`

`7,373,440
`
`Switch/network adapter port for clustered computers employing a chain of multi-
`adaptive processors in a dual in-line memory module format
`
`7,406,573
`
`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
`
`7,424,552
`
`Switch/network adapter port incorporating shared memory resources selectively
`accessible by a direct execution logic element and one or more dense logic devices
`
`7,565,461
`
`Switch/network adapter port coupling a reconfigurable processing element to one
`or more microprocessors for use with interleaved memory controllers
`
`7,620,800
`
`Multi-adaptive processing systems and techniques for enhancing parallelism and
`performance of computational functions
`
`
`B. Actual Notice to Defendant.
`
`48. Xilinx is well-aware of the patents asserted in this action and that instrumentalities
`
`accused herein infringe those patents.
`
`49. On or around February 22, 2013, counsel for SRC Computers sent a notice letter to
`
`Xilinx advising that “Our client has recently become aware of Xilinx’ Zynq-7000 All
`
`Programmable SoC devices which are stated to integrate an ARM® dual-core Cortex™-A9
`
`CPU as an application processor unit in conjunction with programmable logic. From the
`
`information presently available to us, these devices may possibly involve SRC Computers’
`
`patented technology.”
`
`50. Between July 2015 and November 2015 SRC Computers and Xilinx communicated
`
`regarding a potential acquisition by Xilinx of SRC Computers and/or its intellectual property
`
`(“IP”). Persons involved on behalf of Xilinx included Greer Person, Ron Satori, Nate Gazdik,
`
`Michael White, and Ivo Bolsens. Persons involved on behalf of SRC Computers included
`
`Brandon Freeman and Jon Huppenthal.
`
`51. A third party, 3LP Advisors, LLC (“3LP”), assisted with discussions on behalf of SRC
`
`Computers.
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2005, p. 11
`
`

`

`52. In order to assist Xilinx with reviewing SRC Computers’ patent portfolio, 3LP
`
`provided Xilinx with a list of SRC Computers’ IP, including the ’867 patent, on or around
`
`October 1, 2015.
`
`53. 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, including the ’311 patent and ’867 patent. SRC Labs, LLC v. Amazon Web Services, Inc.,
`
`No. 1-17-cv-01227 (E.D. Va.). The complaint (the “Amazon Complaint”) filed in that case (the
`
`“Amazon Case”) alleged that the Amazon Defendants’ products infringed the ’867 patent and
`
`’311 patent based on its usage of Xilinx FPGA products.
`
`54. 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
`
`that device of infringing the ’867 patent in this First Amended Complaint and accused said
`
`device of infringement in its Original Complaint for Patent Infringement (“Original
`
`Complaint”) in this case.
`
`55. 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. Plaintiff accuses that device of infringing the
`
`’311 patent in this First Amended Complaint and accused said device of infringement in its
`
`Original Complaint.
`
`56. On or around January 8, 2018, SRC Labs, LLC served Xilinx with a subpoena in the
`
`Amazon Case. That subpoena explicitly referenced the ’867 patent and the ’311 patent
`
`providing Xilinx with further notice of the patents.
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2005, p. 12
`
`

`

`57. After learning of the ’867 and ’311 patents, and that its products infringed those patents,
`
`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.
`
`58. 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.).
`
`A. All Asserted Patents are Owned by SRC.
`
`VI. THE PATENTS
`
`59. 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.
`
`60. 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
`
`61. 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.
`
`62. A true and correct copy of the ’867 patent is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`63. The ’867 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2005, p. 13
`
`

`

`2. U.S. Patent 9,153,311
`
`64. 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.
`
`65. A true and correct copy of the ’311 patent is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`66. The ’311 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`VII. COUNT ONE: DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’867 PATENT
`
`67. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as though set forth herein.
`
`68. Defendant has at no time, either expressly or impliedly, been licensed under the ’867
`
`patent.
`
`69. 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 ’867 Accused Products. For example, on information and belief Defendant tests,
`
`manufactures, and uses each of the ’867 Accused Products in an infringing manner at least in
`
`order to (1) ensure that functionality such as that appearing in SRC’s claim charts attached
`
`hereto, including but not limited to those portions of the charts describing descriptors for
`
`Defendant’s AXI Central Direct Memory Access v.4.1 LogiCore IP core—which are
`
`documented in its AXI Central Direct Memory Access v.4.1 LogiCore IP Product Guide—
`
`PG034, work as described and (2) provide support regarding said functionality to its customers,
`
`members of its Partner Program, such as its Premier Partners, Certified Partners, Alliance
`
`Partners, and Accelerator Partners (see https://www.xilinx.com/alliance.html) and members
`
`of its University Program (see https://www.xilinx.com/support/university.html).
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2005, p. 14
`
`

`

`70. Defendant’s direct infringement of the ’867 patent by the ’867 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.
`
`71. Plaintiff adopts, and incorporates by reference, as if fully stated herein, Exhibits C
`
`through G, which are claim charts that describe and demonstrate how the ’867 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: INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’867 PATENT
`
`72. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as though set forth herein.
`
`73. Defendant induces infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by actively and knowingly
`
`aiding and abetting direct infringement by its users.
`
`74. As discussed in § V.B, Defendant received actual and constructive notice of the ’867
`
`patent.
`
`75. Defendant learned of its infringement of the ’867 patent at least as a result of the filing
`
`of the Original Complaint in this case as well as the filing of this First Amended Complaint.
`
`76. Defendant also learned that its products infringe the ’867 patent as a result of the
`
`Amazon Complaint and/or the Amazon Case.
`
`77. Through at least the filing of the Original Complaint and this First Amended
`
`Complaint, and the claim charts attached to both complaints, Defendant learned that its
`
`actions would result in users of the ’867 Accused Products infringing the ’867 patent.
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2005, p. 15
`
`

`

`78. For example, the claim charts attached to both complaints show how Defendant’s AXI
`
`Central Direct Memory Access v.4.1 LogiCore IP Product Guide, PG034 specifically provides
`
`users with instructions on using the ’867 Accused Products in an infringing manner, such as by
`
`providing instructions regarding descriptors used with said products, and said guide and
`
`descriptors are explicitly illustrated in Plaintiff’s claim charts.
`
`79. Moreover, Defendant provides guides such as that described above, as well as training
`
`and support to its customers, members of its Partner Program, such as its Premier Partners,
`
`Certified Partners, Alliance Partners, and Accelerator Partners (see
`
`https://www.xilinx.com/alliance.html) and members of its University Program (see
`
`https://www.xilinx.com/support/university.html).
`
`80. On information and belief Xilinx teaches users to optimize applications including
`
`optimizing usage of direct memory access, such as that shown by usage of the descriptors in
`
`SRC’s claim charts.
`
`81. Xilinx actively provides support services for its products. An important part of Xilinx’s
`
`support services is the Xilinx Community Portal. See
`
`https://www.xilinx.com/community.html. Xilinx hosts forums where members can ask
`
`questions and receive support both from Xilinx engineers and fellow members.
`
`82. Defendant induces infringement of the ’867 patent by marketing the ’867 Accused
`
`Products and providing LogiCORE IP cores, documentation (i.e. the AXI Central Direct
`
`Memory Access v.4.1 LogiCore IP Product Guide, PG034), training, and support (i.e. through
`
`its Partner Program, and support for non-program members) on how to use said products in
`
`ways that infringe the ’867 patent.
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2005, p. 16
`
`

`

`83. For example, Defendant induces infringement by providing Kits2 that allow users to
`
`develop, simulate, debug, and compile FGPA applications. Defendant actively provides
`
`support services for its Kits, and other products, directly and through its Community Forum, in
`
`which Xilinx engineers provide support to users.
`
`84. Defendant specifically intends for users of its products to infringe and knows that its
`
`acts will result in patent infringement.
`
`IX.COUNT THREE: WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’867 PATENT
`
`85. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as though set forth herein.
`
`86. Defendant has and continues to willfully infringe the ’867 patent.
`
`87. As discussed in § V.B herein, Defendant has long had knowledge of the ’867 patent and
`
`that its products infringe that patent.
`
`88. Even if Defendant had not had such knowledge previously, Defendant would learn of
`
`the ’867 patent and its infringement as a result of the filing and/or service of Plaintiff’s Original
`
`Complaint and this First Amended 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).
`
`89. Despite knowing of the ’867 patent, Defendant continued and continues making, using,
`
`offering for sale, and selling the ’867 Accused Products resulting in infringement as discussed
`
`in Counts One and Two herein. At least because of its knowledge of the ’867 patent and its
`
`claims, Defendant knew or should have known that its conduct resulted in infringement of
`
`several claims of the ’867 patent. Moreover, Defendant was provided information regarding its
`
`infringement in the Original Complaint and this First Amended Complaint.
`
`2 “Kits” includes the accused evaluation kits, characterization kits, and connectivity kits.
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2005, p. 17
`
`

`

`90. 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.
`
`91. Therefore, Defendant’s infringement was intentional or knowing. Defendant knows or
`
`should know that its continued activities result in infringement of the ’867 patent.
`
`92. Defendant’s actions have not been consistent with the standards of behavior in its
`
`industry.
`
`93. Defendant made no effort to avoid infringing the ’867 patent.
`
`94. Defendant’s infringement of the ’867 patent is willful, deliberate, and/or consciously
`
`wrongful, and 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.
`
`X. COUNT FOUR: DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’311 PATENT
`
`95. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as though set forth herein.
`
`96. Defendant has at no time, either expressly or impliedly, been licensed under the ’311
`
`patent.
`
`97. 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 ’311 Accused Products. For example, on information and belief Defendant tests,
`
`manufactures, and uses each of the ’311 Accused Products in an infringing manner at least in
`
`order to (1) ensure that functionality such as that appearing in SRC’s claim charts attached
`
`hereto, including but not limited to those portions of the charts describing partial
`
`reconfiguration, works as described and (2) provide support regarding said reconfiguration to
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2005, p. 18
`
`

`

`its customers, members of its Partner Program, such as its Premier Partners, Certified Partners,
`
`Alliance Partners, and Accelerator Partners (see https://www.xilinx.com/alliance.html) and
`
`members of its University Program (see https://www.xilinx.com/support/university.html).
`
`98. Defendant’s direct infringement of the ’311 patent by the ’311 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.
`
`99. Plaintiff adopts, and incorporates by reference, as if fully stated herein, Exhibits H
`
`through K, which are claim charts that describe and demonstrate how the ’311 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.
`
`XI.COUNT FIVE: INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’311 PATENT
`
`100. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all paragraphs above as though set forth herein.
`
`101. Defendant induces infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by actively and knowingly
`
`aiding and abetting direct infringement by its users.
`
`102. As discussed in § V.B, Defendant received actual and constructive notice of the ’311
`
`patent.
`
`103. Defendant learned of its infringement of the ’311 patent at least as a result of the filing
`
`of the Original Complaint in this case as well as the filing of this First Amended Complaint.
`
`104. Defendant also learned that its products infringe the ’311 patent as a result of the
`
`Amazon Complaint and/or the Amazon Case.
`
`Patent Owner FG SRC LLC
`IPR 2021-00633, Ex. 2005, p. 19
`
`

`

`105. Through at least the filing of the Original Complaint and this First Amended
`
`Complaint, and the claim charts attached to both complaints, Defendant learned that its
`
`actions would result in users of