Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 1 of 35 PageID #: 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
` SOLAS OLED LTD.,
`
`CASE NO.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`JURY DEMANDED
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`Plaintiff Solas OLED Ltd. (“Solas”) files this complaint against Samsung Electronics
`
`Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) (each a “Defendant” and,
`
`collectively, “Defendants”), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,292,144 and 8,526,767
`
`(“Patents-in-Suit”). The Accused Products are the OLED panel displays made, used, offered for
`
`sale, sold, imported by Defendants in the United States and supplied by Defendants to customers
`
`and integrated into electronic devices sold in the United States.
`
`Plaintiff Solas OLED and the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Solas is a technology licensing company organized under the laws of
`
`Ireland, with its headquarters at The Hyde Building, Suite 23, The Park, Carrickmines, Dublin
`
`18, Ireland.
`
`2.
`
`Solas is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,292,144, entitled “Touch-Sensor-
`
`Controller Sensor Hub,” which issued March 22, 2016 (the “’144 patent”). A copy of the ’144
`
`patent is attached to this complaint as Exhibit 1.
`
`1
`
`2:21-cv-00105
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 2 of 35 PageID #: 2
`
`3.
`
`Solas is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,526,767, entitled “Gesture Recognition,”
`
`which issued September 3, 2013 (the “’767 patent”). A copy of the ’767 patent is attached to this
`
`complaint as Exhibit 2.
`
`Defendants and the Accused Products.
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) is a
`
`corporation organized under the laws of South Korea, with its principal place of business at 129,
`
`Samsung-Ro, YeongTong-Gu, Suwon-Si, Gyonggi-Do, 443-742, South Korea.
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(“SEA”) is a United States corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, with
`
`its principal place of business at 85 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660. SEA
`
`is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SEC. SEA distributes certain Samsung consumer electronics
`
`products, including the Accused Products, in the United States.
`
`6.
`
`The Accused Products are laptop computers, mobile phones and tablets made,
`
`used, offered for sale, sold, imported by Defendants in the United States, including without
`
`limitation the Samsung laptop computers and Galaxy mobile phones and tablet devices.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue.
`
`7.
`
`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).
`
`8.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants in this action because
`
`Defendants have established minimum contacts with the United States as a whole such that the
`
`exercise of jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`
`Defendants have purposefully directed activities at the United States, in particular, directing
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 3 of 35 PageID #: 3
`
`Accused Products for sale to customers and distributors within the United States (including
`
`within this District) and engaging in sales and marketing efforts to generate and support such
`
`sales. Defendants have committed acts of infringement of Solas’s patents giving rise to this
`
`action, such as by supplying to distributors and consumer device retailers the Accused Products
`
`in this District, including without limitation the Samsung ATIV and Galaxy laptop computers,
`
`tablets and phones accused of infringement in this case. Defendants, directly and through
`
`subsidiaries, intermediaries, and third parties, have committed and continues to commit acts of
`
`infringement in this District by, among other things, making, using, offering to sell, selling, and
`
`importing products that infringe the Asserted Patents.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b). Defendant
`
`SEC is a foreign corporation. Venue is proper as to a foreign defendant in any district. 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1391(c)(3). Defendant SEA has committed acts of infringement in this District and has regular
`
`and established places of business in this District.
`
`Count 1 – Claim for infringement of the ’144 patent.
`
`10.
`
`Solas incorporates by reference each of the allegations in paragraphs 1–9 above
`
`and further alleges as follows:
`
`11.
`
`On March 22, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,292,144, entitled “Touch-Sensor-Controller Sensor Hub.” Ex. 1.
`
`12.
`
`Solas is the owner of the ’144 patent with full rights to pursue recovery of
`
`royalties for damages for infringement, including full rights to recover past and future damages.
`
`13.
`
`Each claim of the ’144 patent is valid, enforceable, and patent-eligible.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 4 of 35 PageID #: 4
`
`14.
`
`Solas and its predecessors in interest have satisfied the requirements of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 287(a) with respect to the ’144 patent, and Solas is entitled to damages for Defendants’ past
`
`infringement.
`
`15.
`
`Defendants have directly infringed (literally and equivalently) and induced others
`
`to infringe the ’144 patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing products that
`
`infringe the claims of the ’144 patent and by inducing others to infringe the claims of the ’144
`
`patent without a license or permission from Solas, such as for example instructing users of the
`
`Accused Products to perform the patented methods of the ’144 patent.
`
`16.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants make, import, offer for sale, and sell
`
`certain infringing products in the United States. The Accused Products are, for example,
`
`consumer electronic devices manufactured by SEC and imported, sold, and offered for sale in the
`
`United States by SEA, including for example Samsung Galaxy mobile phones. The Accused
`
`Products all have touch controller chips for controlling one or more sensors in the Accused
`
`Products.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung Galaxy S9
`
`Samsung Galaxy S20
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 5 of 35 PageID #: 5
`
`
`
`17.
`
`For example, claim 1 of the ’144 patent claim “a method” as follows:
`
`[1a] “by a controller, controlling a touch sensor of a device, the control of the touch
`
`sensor comprising;”
`
`18.
`
`The Accused Products (such as the Galaxy S9, pictured below) comprise a touch
`
`controller which controls a touch sensor of a device.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 6 of 35 PageID #: 6
`
`[1b] “acquisition of touch-sensor signals from the touch sensor;”
`
`19.
`
`The Accused Products comprise a touch controller which controls a touch sensor
`
`by “acquisition of touch-sensor signals from the touch sensor”:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 7 of 35 PageID #: 7
`
`[1c] “pre-processing of the touch-sensor signals;”
`
`20.
`
`The Accused Products pre-process touch-sensor signals:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 8 of 35 PageID #: 8
`
`
`
`
`
`[1d] “and processing of the touch-sensor signals to determine: whether a touch or
`
`proximity input has occurred with respect to the touch sensor;”
`
`21.
`
`The Accused Products process the touch-sensor signals to determine: whether a
`
`touch or proximity input has occurred with respect to the touch sensor:
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 9 of 35 PageID #: 9
`
`
`
`
`
`[1e] “if the touch or proximity input has occurred with respect to the touch sensor, a
`
`location of the touch or proximity input; and”
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 10 of 35 PageID #: 10
`
`22.
`
`The Accused Products determine, if the touch or proximity input has occurred
`
`with respect to the touch sensor, a location of the touch or proximity input:
`
`
`
`[1f] “by the controller, controlling one or more other sensors of the device, the
`
`control of the other sensors occurring at least in part concurrently with the
`
`acquisition of the touch-sensor signals from the touch sensor or the pre-processing
`
`of the touch-sensor signals.”
`
`23.
`
`The Accused Products’ touch controllers control one or more other sensors of the
`
`device, the control of the other sensors occurring at least in part concurrently with the acquisition
`
`of the touch-sensor signals from the touch sensor or the pre-processing of the touch-sensor
`
`signals:
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 11 of 35 PageID #: 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`24.
`
`Defendants also knowingly and
`
`intentionally
`
`induce and contribute
`
`to
`
`infringement of the ’144 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and 271(c). Through the
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 12 of 35 PageID #: 12
`
`filing and service of this Complaint, Defendants have had knowledge of the ’144 patent and the
`
`infringing nature of the Accused Products. Despite this knowledge of the ’144 patent,
`
`Defendants continue to actively encourage and instruct its customers to use and integrate the
`
`accused products in ways that directly infringe the ’144 patent. Defendants do so knowing and
`
`intending that their customers will commit these infringing acts. Defendants also continue to
`
`make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import the Accused Products, despite their knowledge of
`
`the ’144 patent, thereby specifically intending for and inducing its customers to infringe the ’144
`
`patent through the customers’ normal and customary use of the Accused Products.
`
`25.
`
`Defendants have infringed multiple claims of the ’144 patent, including
`
`independent claim 1. By way of example only, the normal and customary use of the accused
`
`Samsung Galaxy S9 phone infringes an exemplary claim of the ’144 patent, as in the description
`
`set forth above, which Solas provides without the benefit of information about the Accused
`
`Products obtained through discovery.
`
`26.
`
`Defendants have known how the Accused Products are made and have known, or
`
`have been willfully blind to the fact, that making, using, offering to sell, and selling the Accused
`
`Products to their customers, would constitute willful infringement of the ’144 patent. Those
`
`products imported into and sold within the United States include, without limitation, Samsung
`
`laptop computers, Galaxy tablets and phones.
`
`27.
`
`Defendants have induced, and continue to induce, infringement of the ’144 patent
`
`by actively encouraging others (including its customers) to use, offer to sell, sell, and import the
`
`Accused Products. On information and belief, these acts include providing information and
`
`instructions on the use of the Accused Products; providing information, education and
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 13 of 35 PageID #: 13
`
`instructions to its customers; providing the Accused Products to customers; and indemnifying
`
`patent infringement within the United States.
`
`28.
`
`Solas has been damaged by Defendant’s infringement of the ’144 patent and is
`
`entitled to damages as provided for in 35 U.S.C. § 284, including reasonable royalty damages.
`
`Count 2 – Claim for infringement of the ’767 patent.
`
`Solas incorporates by reference each of the allegations in paragraphs 1–28 above
`
`29.
`
`and further alleges as follows:
`
`30.
`
`On September 3, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,526,767, entitled “Gesture Recognition.” Ex. 2.
`
`31.
`
`Solas is the owner of the ’767 patent with full rights to pursue recovery of
`
`royalties for damages for infringement, including full rights to recover past and future damages.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`Each claim of the ’767 patent is valid, enforceable, and patent-eligible.
`
`Solas and its predecessors in interest have satisfied the requirements of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 287(a) with respect to the ’767 patent, and Solas is entitled to damages for Defendants’ past
`
`infringement.
`
`34.
`
`Defendants have directly infringed (literally and equivalently) and induced others
`
`to infringe the ’767 patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing products that
`
`infringe the claims of the ’767 patent and by inducing others to infringe the claims of the ’767
`
`patent without a license or permission from Solas, such as for example instructing users of the
`
`Accused Products to perform the patented methods of the ’767 patent.
`
`35.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants make, import, offer for sale, and sell
`
`certain infringing products in the United States. The Accused Products are, for example,
`
`consumer electronic devices manufactured by SEC and imported, sold, and offered for sale in the
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 14 of 35 PageID #: 14
`
`United States by SEA, including for example Samsung Galaxy mobile phones. The Accused
`
`Products all have touch controller chips for controlling one or more sensors in the Accused
`
`Products.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung Galaxy S9
`
`Samsung Galaxy S20
`
`
`
`36.
`
`For example, claim 1 of the ’767 patent claim a “touch sensor device” as follows:
`
`[1a] “a sensor having a sensitive area extending in at least one-dimension and
`
`arranged to output sense signals responsive to proximity of an object to the sensitive
`
`area;”
`
`37.
`
`The Accused Products (such as the Galaxy S9, pictured below) comprise a sensor
`
`having a sensitive area extending in at least one-dimension and arranged to output sense signals
`
`responsive to proximity of an object to the sensitive area:
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 15 of 35 PageID #: 15
`
`
`
`
`
`[1b] “a processor operable to execute position-processing logic stored in one or more
`
`tangible media, the position-processing logic, when executed by the processor,
`
`configured to:”
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 16 of 35 PageID #: 16
`
`38.
`
`The Accused Products comprise a processor operable to execute position-
`
`processing logic stored in one or more tangible media, the position-processing logic:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 16
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 17 of 35 PageID #: 17
`
`
`
`[1c] “calculate positions of interactions with the sensitive area from an analysis of
`
`the sense signals; and output a times series of data indicative of the interaction
`
`positions on the sensor, the interactive positions corresponding to the touches; and”
`
`39.
`
`The Accused Products calculate positions of interactions with the sensitive area
`
`from an analysis of the sense signals, and output a times series of data indicative of the
`
`interaction positions on the sensor, the interactive positions corresponding to the touches:
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 17
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 18 of 35 PageID #: 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 18
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 19 of 35 PageID #: 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 19
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 20 of 35 PageID #: 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 20
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 21 of 35 PageID #: 21
`
`
`
`[1d] “a processor operable to execute gesture-processing logic stored in one or more
`
`tangible media, the gesture-processing logic”
`
`40.
`
`The Accused Products have a processor operable to execute gesture-processing
`
`logic stored in one or more tangible media, the gesture-processing logic, when executed by the
`
`processor, configured to analyze the time series of data to distinguish one or more gesture inputs
`
`from the time series of data, the gesture-processing logic being coded with gesture-recognition
`
`code comprising a plurality of state-machine modules:
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 21
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 22 of 35 PageID #: 22
`
`
`
`
`
`[1e] “when executed by the processor, configured to analyze the time series of data
`
`to distinguish one or more gesture inputs from the time series of data, the gesture-
`
`processing logic being coded with gesture-recognition code comprising a plurality of
`
`state-machine modules, the plurality of state-machine modules comprising:”
`
`41.
`
`The Accused Products have a logic “when executed by the processor, configured
`
`to analyze the time series of data to distinguish one or more gesture inputs from the time series of
`
`data, the gesture-processing logic being coded with gesture-recognition code comprising a
`
`plurality of state-machine modules:
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 22
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 23 of 35 PageID #: 23
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 23
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 24 of 35 PageID #: 24
`
`
`
`
`
`[1f] “a first one-touch state-ma chine module, the first one-touch state-machine
`
`module being operable to recognize at least a first one-touch gesture and generate a
`
`first output based on the first one-touch gesture;”
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 24
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 25 of 35 PageID #: 25
`
`42.
`
`The Accused Products have a first one-touch state-machine module, the first one-
`
`touch state-machine module being operable to recognize at least a first one-touch gesture and
`
`generate a first output based on the first one-touch gesture:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 25
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 26 of 35 PageID #: 26
`
`
`
`[1g] “a second one-touch state-machine module, the second one-touch state-machine
`
`module being operable to recognize at least a second one-touch gesture and generate
`
`a second output based on the second one-touch gesture; and”
`
`43.
`
`The Accused Products have a second one-touch state-machine module, the second
`
`one-touch state-machine module being operable to recognize at least a second one-touch gesture
`
`and generate a second output based on the second one-touch gesture:
`
`
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 26
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 27 of 35 PageID #: 27
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 27
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 28 of 35 PageID #: 28
`
`[1h] “a multi-touch state-machine module operable to: receive, directly from the
`
`first one-touch state-machine module, the first output; receive, directly from the
`
`second one-touch state-machine module, the second output; and”
`
`44.
`
`The Accused Products have a multi-touch state-machine module operable to:
`
`receive, directly from the first one-touch state-machine module, the first output; receive, directly
`
`from the second one-touch state-machine module, the second output:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 28
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 29 of 35 PageID #: 29
`
`[1i] “recognize, based on at least the first and second outputs, at least one multi-
`
`touch gesture, the first one-touch state-machine module, the second one-touch state-
`
`machine module, and the multi-touch state-machine module being distinct state-
`
`machine modules; and output the recognized multi-touch gesture.”
`
`45.
`
`The Accused Products recognize, based on at least the first and second outputs, at
`
`least one multi-touch gesture, the first one-touch state-machine module, the second one-touch
`
`state-machine module, and the multi-touch state-machine module being distinct state-machine
`
`modules; and output the recognized multi-touch gesture:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`29
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 29
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 30 of 35 PageID #: 30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`30
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 30
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 31 of 35 PageID #: 31
`
`
`
`46.
`
`Defendants also knowingly and
`
`intentionally
`
`induce and contribute
`
`to
`
`infringement of the ’767 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and 271(c). Through the
`
`filing and service of this Complaint, Defendants have had knowledge of the ’767 patent and the
`
`infringing nature of the Accused Products. Defendant SEC also has had knowledge of the ’767
`
`patent through the issuance of U.S. Patent No. 9,207,792 on December. 8, 2015 and assignment
`
`to SEC, which cites on its face the ’767 patent. Despite this knowledge of the ’767 patent,
`
`Defendants continue to actively encourage and instruct its customers to use and integrate the
`
`accused products in ways that directly infringe the ’767 patent. Defendants do so knowing and
`
`intending that their customers will commit these infringing acts. Defendants also continue to
`
`make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import the Accused Products, despite their knowledge of
`
`the ’767 patent, thereby specifically intending for and inducing its customers to infringe the ’767
`
`
`
`
`31
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 31
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 32 of 35 PageID #: 32
`
`patent through the customers’ normal and customary use of the Accused Products.
`
`47.
`
`Defendants have infringed multiple claims of the ’767 patent, including
`
`independent claim 1. By way of example only, the accused Samsung Galaxy S9 phone infringes
`
`an exemplary claim of the ’767 patent, as in the description set forth above, which Solas provides
`
`without the benefit of information about the Accused Products obtained through discovery.
`
`48.
`
`Defendants have known how the Accused Products are made and have known, or
`
`have been willfully blind to the fact, that making, using, offering to sell, and selling the Accused
`
`Products to their customers, would constitute willful infringement of the ’767 patent. Those
`
`products imported into and sold within the United States include, without limitation, Samsung
`
`laptop computers, Galaxy tablets and phones.
`
`49.
`
`Defendants have induced, and continue to induce, infringement of the ’767 patent
`
`by actively encouraging others (including its customers) to use, offer to sell, sell, and import the
`
`Accused Products. On information and belief, these acts include providing information and
`
`instructions on the use of the Accused Products; providing information, education and
`
`instructions to its customers; providing the Accused Products to customers; and indemnifying
`
`patent infringement within the United States.
`
`50.
`
`Solas has been damaged by Defendant’s infringement of the ’767 patent and is
`
`entitled to damages as provided for in 35 U.S.C. § 284, including reasonable royalty damages.
`
`Jury demand.
`
`51.
`
`Solas demands trial by jury of all issues.
`
`Relief requested.
`
`Solas prays for the following relief:
`
`
`
`
`32
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 32
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 33 of 35 PageID #: 33
`
`A.
`
`A judgment in favor of Solas that Defendants have infringed the ’144 patent and
`
`the ’767 patent, and that the ’144 patent and the ’767 patent are valid, enforceable, and patent-
`
`eligible;
`
`B.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay Solas compensatory damages,
`
`costs, expenses, and pre- and post-judgment interest for its infringement of the asserted patents,
`
`as provided under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`C.
`
`A permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from further acts of infringement
`
`of the ’144 patent and the ’767 patent;
`
`D.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Defendants to provide an accounting and to pay
`
`supplemental damages to Solas, including, without limitation, pre-judgment and
`
`post-judgment interest;
`
`E.
`
`A finding that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and an award of
`
`Solas’ reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and
`
`F.
`
`Any and all other relief to which Solas may be entitled.
`
`
`
`
`33
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 33
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 34 of 35 PageID #: 34
`
`Dated: March 22, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Reza Mirzaie
`Reza Mirzaie
`CA State Bar No. 246953
`Email: rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`Marc Fenster
`CA State Bar No. 181067
`Email: mfenster@raklaw.com
`Neil A. Rubin
`CA State Bar No. 250761
`Email: nrubin@raklaw.com
`James S. Tsuei
`CA State Bar No. 285530
`Email: jtsuei@raklaw.com
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Blvd. 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Telephone: 310-826-7474
`
`
`
`
`
`34
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 34
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00105-JRG Document 1 Filed 03/22/21 Page 35 of 35 PageID #: 35
`
`
`T. John Ward, Jr.
`Texas State Bar No. 00794818
`Email: jw@wsfirm.com
`Claire Abernathy Henry
`Texas State Bar No. 24053063
`Email: claire@wsfirm.com
`Andrea L. Fair
`Texas State Bar No. 24078488
`Email: andrea@wsfirm.com
`WARD, SMITH & HILL, PLLC
`PO Box 1231
`Longview, Texas 75606-1231
`(903) 757-6400 (telephone)
`(903) 757-2323 (facsimile)
`
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF,
`SOLAS OLED, LTD.
`
`35
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG V. SOLAS
`IPR2021-01254
`Exhibit 2001
`Page 35
`
`