Case 2:21-cv-00136-JRG Document 2 Filed 04/20/21 Page 1 of 56 PageID #: 59
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`(MARSHALL DIVISION)
`
`
`
`
`BISHOP DISPLAY TECH LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.; and SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`A KOREAN CORPORATION
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 2:21-cv-00136
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Bishop Display Tech LLC (“Bishop” or “Plaintiff”) files this Amended Complaint
`
`against Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”), Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(“SEA”), and Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (“SDC”) (collectively “Samsung” or “Defendants”) for
`
`infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,525,798 (the “’798 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,787,829 (the
`
`“’829 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,801,293 (the “’293 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,816,208 (the
`
`“’208 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,850,303 (the “’303 patent”) U.S. Patent No. 6,906,769 (the “’769
`
`patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 7,414,682 (the “’682 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, SEC is a company organized and existing under the laws
`
`of the Republic of Korea with its principal place of business located at 129 Samsung-Ro,
`
`Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, 443-742 in the Republic of Korea. SEC may be served at
`
`least by process under the Hague Convention.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1028, P. 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00136-JRG Document 2 Filed 04/20/21 Page 2 of 56 PageID #: 60
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, SEA does business in the State of Texas and in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas, is a New York corporation with its principal place of business at 85
`
`Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660 and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SEC.
`
`SEA has a business location in this District at 6625 Excellence Way, Plano, TX. 75023. SEA may
`
`be served in Texas at least via its registered agent, CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street,
`
`Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201.
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, SDC is a Korean corporation, and wholly-owned
`
`subsidiary of SEC, with its principal place of business located at 1, Samsung-ro, Giheung-gu,
`
`Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-Do, in the Republic of Korea.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant SDC makes and supplies displays incorporated into the accused
`
`products. Defendants SEC and SEA make and supply the accused products.
`
`6.
`
`Upon information and belief, SEC, SDC, and SEA, along with other foreign and
`
`U.S.-based subsidiaries (which act as part of a global network of overseas sales and manufacturing
`
`subsidiaries on behalf of SEC) have operated as agents of one another and vicariously as parts of
`
`the same business group to work in concert together and enter into agreements that are nearer than
`
`arm’s length. For example, SEC (and SDC), alone and via at least SEA’s activities, conducts
`
`business in the United States, including importing, distributing, and selling the accused display
`
`products that incorporate devices, systems, and processes that infringe the Asserted Patents in
`
`Texas and this judicial district. See Trois v. Apple Tree Auction Center, Inc., 882 F.3d 485, 490
`
`(5th Cir. 2018) (“A defendant may be subject to personal jurisdiction because of the activities of
`
`its agent within the forum state….”); see also Cephalon, Inc. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 629
`
`F. Supp. 2d 338, 348 (D. Del. 2009) (“The agency theory may be applied not only to parents and
`
`subsidiaries, but also to companies that are ‘two arms of the same business group,’ operate in
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1028, P. 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00136-JRG Document 2 Filed 04/20/21 Page 3 of 56 PageID #: 61
`
`concert with each other, and enter into agreements with each other that are nearer than arm’s
`
`length.”).
`
`7.
`
`Through offers to sell, sales, imports, distributions, and other related agreements to
`
`transfer ownership of SEC accused display products with distributors and customers operating in
`
`and maintaining a significant business presence in the U.S. and/or its U.S. subsidiary SEA, SEC
`
`and SDC do business in the U.S., the state of Texas, and in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`
`8.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, namely 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`271, 281, and 284-285, among others.
`
`9.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a).
`
`10. With respect to SEC, venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1391(c). SEC and SDC are foreign entities and may be sued in any judicial district under 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3).
`
`11. With respect to SEA, venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). On
`
`information and belief, SEA has committed acts of infringement in the District and/or has induced
`
`acts of patent infringement by others in this District and has a regular and established place of
`
`business within the District. For example, Samsung has offices at 6625 Excellence Way, Plano,
`
`TX. 75023.
`
`12.
`
`On information and belief, each Defendant is subject to this Court’s specific and
`
`general personal jurisdiction pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute, due at
`
`least to its substantial business in this State and judicial district, including: (A) performing at least
`
`part of its infringing activities alleged herein; and (B) regularly doing or soliciting business,
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1028, P. 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00136-JRG Document 2 Filed 04/20/21 Page 4 of 56 PageID #: 62
`
`engaging in other persistent conduct, and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods sold and
`
`services provided to Texas residents. Defendants have placed and continue to place infringing
`
`products, such as televisions, displays, monitors, and other display devices, into the stream of
`
`commerce via an established distribution channel with the knowledge and/or intent that those
`
`products were sold and continue to be sold in the United States and Texas, including in this District.
`
`13.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants have significant ties to, and presence in, the
`
`State of Texas and the Eastern District of Texas, making venue in this judicial district both proper
`
`and convenient for this action. For Defendants SDC and SEC, venue is proper as to a foreign
`
`defendant in any district. Defendant SEA has regular and established places of business in this
`
`district at: 1301 East Lookout Drive, Richardson, Texas 75080; and 6635 Declaration Drive, Plano,
`
`TX 75023.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`COUNT I
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,525,798)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 13 herein by reference.
`
`This cause of action arises under the patent laws of the United States, and in
`
`particular, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner of the ’798 patent with all substantial rights to the ’798 patent
`
`including the exclusive right to enforce, sue, and recover damages for past infringement.
`
`17.
`
`The ’798 patent is valid, enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance with
`
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`DIRECT INFRINGEMENT (35 U.S.C. §271(a))
`
`18.
`
`Defendants infringed literally, and/or under the Doctrine of Equivalents, one or
`
`more claims of the ’798 patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in Texas and the United States.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1028, P. 4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00136-JRG Document 2 Filed 04/20/21 Page 5 of 56 PageID #: 63
`
`19.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants, either by themselves (individually and/or
`
`in concert) and/or via an agent, infringed literally, and/or under the Doctrine of Equivalents, at
`
`least claim 1 of the ’798 patent by, among other things, making, using, selling, offering for sale,
`
`and/or importing products, such as televisions and mobile phones, that satisfy the limitations of
`
`claim 1. Further, SEC is vicariously liable for this infringing conduct of SDC and/or SEA, as well
`
`as other related Samsung entities, and affiliates, (under both the alter ego and agency theories)
`
`because, as an example and upon information and belief, SEC, SDC, and SEA are essentially the
`
`same company, and SEC has the right and ability to control SDC’s and SEA’s infringing acts and
`
`receives a direct financial benefit from SEA’s and SDC’s infringement.
`
`20.
`
`The products accused of infringing the ’798 patent comprise a liquid crystal display
`
`unit. For example, the QN55 includes an LCD display and LCM label.
`
`
`
`21.
`
`The products accused of infringing the ’798 patent comprise a plurality of pixels
`
`each including a plurality of common electrodes, a plurality of pixel electrodes, and a
`
`semiconductor switching element. The inner surface of the substrate of the display of the products
`
`accused of infringing the ’798 patent includes a plurality of pixels. For example, an examination
`
`of the QN55 television demonstrates this:
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1028, P. 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00136-JRG Document 2 Filed 04/20/21 Page 6 of 56 PageID #: 64
`
`22.
`
`The products accused of infringing the ’798 patent include a plurality of common
`
`electrodes and a plurality of pixel electrodes. For example, an examination of the QN55 television
`
`
`
`demonstrates this:
`
`23.
`
`The products accused of infringing the ’798 patent further include a semiconductor
`
`switching element. For example, an examination of the QN55 television demonstrates this:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1028, P. 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00136-JRG Document 2 Filed 04/20/21 Page 7 of 56 PageID #: 65
`
`24.
`
`The products accused of infringing the ’798 patent comprise a plurality of scanning
`
`signal lines. For example, an examination of the QN55 television demonstrates this:
`
`
`
`Scanning signal lines
`
`25.
`
`The products accused of infringing the ’798 patent comprise a plurality of video
`
`signal lines for outputting signals to the pixel electrodes. For example, an examination of the QN55
`
`
`
`television demonstrates this:
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1028, P. 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00136-JRG Document 2 Filed 04/20/21 Page 8 of 56 PageID #: 66
`
`26.
`
`The products accused of infringing the ’798 patent comprise an array substrate
`
`having the pixels, the scanning signal lines, and the video signal lines arranged on a surface thereof.
`
`For example, within a QN55 television the display includes an array substrate, a liquid crystal cell
`
`
`
`layer, and a counter substrate:
`
`27.
`
`The products accused of infringing the ’798 patent comprise a counter substrate
`
`arranged opposite the array substrate. For example, as shown above within a QN55 television the
`
`
`
`counter substrate is opposite the array substrate.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1028, P. 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00136-JRG Document 2 Filed 04/20/21 Page 9 of 56 PageID #: 67
`
`28.
`
`The products accused of infringing the ’798 patent comprise a liquid crystal layer
`
`sandwiched between the array substrate and the counter substrate. For example, as shown above,
`
`and below, within a QN55 television the liquid crystal layer is between the array and counter
`
`substrates. The products accused of infringing the ’798 patent each include an LCD display that is
`
`sandwiched between the array and counter substrates.
`
`Source: https://pid.samsungdisplay.com/en/learning-center/blog/lcd-structure.1
`
`
`
`29.
`
`Each of the pixels in the products accused of infringing the ’798 patent includes a
`
`plurality of electrode pairs, each electrode pair comprising one of the common electrodes and an
`
`adjacent one of the pixel electrodes. For example, an examination of the QN55 television
`
`demonstrates this:
`
`
`1 The LCD structure for Samsung’s displays is illustrative, as detailed throughout this Complaint; the particular details
`of each Samsung model is within Defendants’ possession, custody, and control.
`9
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1028, P. 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00136-JRG Document 2 Filed 04/20/21 Page 10 of 56 PageID #: 68
`
`30.
`
`The products accused of infringing the ’798 patent are configured such that at least
`
`one of the electrode pairs differs from other electrode pairs in a thickness of its common electrode
`
`or a thickness of its pixel electrode. For example, an examination of the QN55 television
`
`
`
`demonstrates this:
`
`
`
`31.
`
`At a minimum, Defendants have known of the ʼ798 patent at least as early as the
`
`service date of this complaint. Further, on information and belief, Defendants have known of the
`
`’798 patent at least as early as the filing date of the original complaint. In addition, Defendants
`
`have known about the ʼ798 patent since at least July 29, 2020, when Defendants received notice
`
`of its infringement.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1028, P. 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00136-JRG Document 2 Filed 04/20/21 Page 11 of 56 PageID #: 69
`
`INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT (35 U.S.C. §271(b))
`
`32.
`
`Based on the information presently available to Plaintiff, absent discovery,
`
`Defendants have also indirectly infringed one or more claims of the ʼ798 patent by inducing
`
`infringement, including, at least, the importation and sale of products that, as set forth above,
`
`infringe the ʼ798 patent. For example, Defendants induce and have induced the importation and
`
`sale of products accused of infringing the ʼ798 patent (e.g., QN55) by retailers. Further, SEC and/or
`
`SDC also induce and have induced the importation and sale of products accused of infringing the
`
`ʼ798 patent (e.g., QN55) by SEA.
`
`33.
`
`Defendants have known of the ʼ798 patent and its infringement at least as early as
`
`the service date of this complaint. Further, on information and belief, Defendants have known of
`
`the ʼ798 patent and its infringement at least as early as the filing date of the original complaint. In
`
`addition, Defendants have known about the ʼ798 patent since at least July 29, 2020, when
`
`Defendants received notice of the ʼ798 patent and its infringement.
`
`34.
`
`On information and belief, despite having knowledge of the ʼ798 patent and its
`
`infringement, Defendants specifically intended for retailers to import and sell products accused of
`
`infringing the ʼ798 patent. Further, SEC and/or SDC specifically intended for SEA to import and
`
`sell products accused of infringing the ʼ798 patent. On information and belief, Defendants instruct
`
`and encourage the importers to import and/or sell products accused of infringing the ʼ798 patent.
`
`On information and belief, the purchase and sale agreements between Defendants and the
`
`importers provide such instruction and/or encouragement. Further, on information and belief, SEA
`
`exists for inter alia, the purpose of importing and selling products accused of infringing the ʼ798
`
`patent in the United States.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1028, P. 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00136-JRG Document 2 Filed 04/20/21 Page 12 of 56 PageID #: 70
`
`35.
`
`Upon information and belief, despite having knowledge of the ’798 patent and
`
`knowledge that it is directly and/or indirectly infringing one or more claims of the ’798 patent,
`
`Defendants have nevertheless continued its infringing conduct and disregarded an objectively high
`
`likelihood of infringement. Defendants’ infringing activities relative to the ’798 patent have been,
`
`and continue to be, willful, wanton, malicious, in bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful,
`
`flagrant, and an egregious case of misconduct beyond typical infringement such that Plaintiff is
`
`entitled under 35 U.S.C. § 284 to enhanced damages up to three times the amount found or
`
`assessed.
`
`36.
`
`Each Defendant is liable for these infringements of the ’798 patent pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271.
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of Defendants’ infringing conduct described
`
`in this Count. Defendants are, thus, liable to Plaintiff in an amount that adequately compensates
`
`Plaintiff for Defendants’ infringements, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty,
`
`together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff has complied with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287, to the extent
`
`necessary and/or applicable, and is entitled to collect pre- and post-filing damages for Defendants’
`
`infringements of the ’798 patent.
`
`COUNT II
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,787,829)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 38 herein by reference.
`
`This cause of action arises under the patent laws of the United States, and in
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`particular, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq.
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner of the ’829 patent with all substantial rights to the ’829 patent
`
`including the exclusive right to enforce, sue, and recover damages for past and future infringement.
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1028, P. 12
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00136-JRG Document 2 Filed 04/20/21 Page 13 of 56 PageID #: 71
`
`42.
`
`The ’829 patent is valid, enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance with
`
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`DIRECT INFRINGEMENT (35 U.S.C. §271(a))
`
`43.
`
`Defendants have, and continue to, infringe one or more claims of the ’829 patent in
`
`this judicial district and elsewhere in Texas and the United States.
`
`44.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants, either by themselves (individually and/or
`
`in concert) and/or via an agent, infringed literally, and/or under the Doctrine of Equivalents,
`
`infringed at least claim 1 of the ’829 patent by, among other things, making, using, selling, offering
`
`for sale, and/or importing products, such as televisions and mobile phones, that satisfy the
`
`limitations of claim 1. Further, SEC is vicariously liable for this infringing conduct of SDC and/or
`
`SEA, as well as other related Samsung entities, and affiliates, (under both the alter ego and agency
`
`theories) because, as an example and upon information and belief, SEC, SDC, and SEA are
`
`essentially the same company, and SEC has the right and ability to control SDC’s and SEA’s
`
`infringing acts and receives a direct financial benefit from SEA’s and SDC’s infringement.
`
`45.
`
`The products accused of infringing the ’829 patent comprise a liquid crystal display
`
`panel. For example, the QN55 includes an LCD display panel and LCM label.
`
`46.
`
`The products accused of infringing the ’829 patent comprise an array substrate. For
`
`example, within a QN55 television the display includes an array substrate, a liquid crystal cell
`
`
`
`layer, and a counter substrate:
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1028, P. 13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00136-JRG Document 2 Filed 04/20/21 Page 14 of 56 PageID #: 72
`
`47.
`
`The products accused of infringing the ’829 patent comprise a counter substrate
`
`opposing the array substrate. For example, as shown above within a QN55 television the counter
`
`
`
`substrate is opposite the array substrate.
`
`48.
`
`The products accused of infringing the ’829 patent comprise a liquid crystal layer
`
`sandwiched between a surface of the array substrate and a surface of the counter substrate. For
`
`example, as shown above within a QN55 television the liquid crystal layer is between the array
`
`and counter substrates. The products accused of infringing the ’829 patent each include an LCD
`
`display that is sandwiched between the array and counter substrates.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1028, P. 14
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00136-JRG Document 2 Filed 04/20/21 Page 15 of 56 PageID #: 73
`
`
`
`Source: https://pid.samsungdisplay.com/en/learning-center/blog/lcd-structure
`
`49.
`
`The products accused of infringing the ’829 patent comprise a plurality of image
`
`signal lines located over the surface of the array substrate that is in contact with the liquid crystal
`
`layer, the image signal lines being aligned in a same direction. As shown above, the array substrate
`
`is in contact with the liquid crystal layer. For example, an examination of the QN55 television
`
`demonstrates this:
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1028, P. 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00136-JRG Document 2 Filed 04/20/21 Page 16 of 56 PageID #: 74
`
`
`
`50.
`
`The products accused of infringing the ’829 patent comprise a plurality of scanning
`
`signal lines located over the surface of the array substrate over which the image signal lines are
`
`located, the scanning signal lines being located perpendicular to the image signal lines. As shown
`
`above, the image signal lines are located over the array substrate. For example, an examination of
`
`the QN55 television demonstrates this:
`
`51.
`
`The products accused of infringing the ’829 patent comprise a line-shaped pixel
`
`electrode located in each of pixel regions of the array substrate that is surrounded by the image
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1028, P. 16
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00136-JRG Document 2 Filed 04/20/21 Page 17 of 56 PageID #: 75
`
`signal lines and the scanning signal lines, the pixel electrode located parallel to the image signal
`
`lines or to the scanning signal lines. As shown above and below, the image signal lines are located
`
`over the array substrate. For example, an examination of the QN55 television demonstrates this:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`52.
`
`The products accused of infringing the ’829 patent comprise a common electrode
`
`located in each of the pixel regions and located parallel to the pixel electrode. For example, an
`
`examination of the QN55 television demonstrates this:
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1028, P. 17
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00136-JRG Document 2 Filed 04/20/21 Page 18 of 56 PageID #: 76
`
`
`
`53.
`
`The products accused of infringing the ’829 patent comprise a switching element
`
`for electrically connecting the pixel electrode and one of the image signal lines in response to a
`
`signal received from the scanning signal lines. The switching element is located such that an
`
`electric charge can pass from it to the pixel electrode, the image signal lines, and the scanning
`
`signal lines. For example, an examination of the QN55 television demonstrates the presence of a
`
`switching element:
`
`Scan line
`Switching element
`Image signal
`Connection to pixel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1028, P. 18
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00136-JRG Document 2 Filed 04/20/21 Page 19 of 56 PageID #: 77
`
`54.
`
`The products accused of infringing the ’829 patent are configured such that of the
`
`pixel electrode and the common electrode, the electrode that is located adjacent to and parallel to
`
`one of the image signal lines or one of the scanning signal lines comprises an opaque conductor,
`
`and at least one of the other electrodes comprises a transparent conductor. For example, an
`
`examination of the QN55 television demonstrates this:
`
`
`
`55.
`
`At a minimum, Defendants have known of the ʼ829 patent at least as early as the
`
`service date of this complaint. Further, on information and belief, Defendants have known of the
`
`’829 patent at least as early as the filing date of the original complaint. In addition, Defendants
`
`have known about the ʼ829 patent since at least July 29, 2020, when Defendants received notice
`
`of its infringement. Further, on information and belief, Defendants’ conduct before the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and foreign offices, suggest that it was aware of
`
`the ʼ829 patent prior to receiving the letter. For example, in prosecuting U.S. Patent Publication
`
`No. 2007/0139597, Defendants disclosed the family associated with the ʼ829 patent to the USPTO.
`
`INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT (35 U.S.C. §271(b))
`
`56.
`
`Based on the information presently available to Plaintiff, absent discovery,
`
`Defendants have also indirectly infringed one or more claims of the ʼ829 patent by inducing
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1028, P. 19
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00136-JRG Document 2 Filed 04/20/21 Page 20 of 56 PageID #: 78
`
`infringement, including, at least, the importation and sale of products that, as set forth above,
`
`infringe the ʼ829 patent. For example, Defendants induce and have induced the importation and
`
`sale of products accused of infringing the ʼ829 patent (e.g., QN55) by retailers. Further, SEC and/or
`
`SDC also induce and have induced the importation and sale of products accused of infringing the
`
`ʼ829 patent (e.g., QN55) by SEA.
`
`57.
`
`Defendants have known of the ʼ829 patent and its infringement at least as early as
`
`the service date of this complaint. Further, on information and belief, Defendants have known of
`
`the ʼ829 patent and its infringement at least as early as the filing date of the original complaint. In
`
`addition, Defendants have known about the ʼ829 patent since at least July 29, 2020, when
`
`Defendants received notice of the ʼ829 patent and its infringement.
`
`58.
`
`On information and belief, despite having knowledge of the ʼ829 patent and its
`
`infringement, Defendants specifically intended for retailers to import and sell products accused of
`
`infringing the ʼ829 patent. Further, SEC and/or SDC specifically intended for SEA to import and
`
`sell products accused of infringing the ʼ829 patent. On information and belief, Defendants instruct
`
`and encourage the importers to import and/or sell products accused of infringing the ʼ829 patent.
`
`On information and belief, the purchase and sale agreements between Defendants and the
`
`importers provide such instruction and/or encouragement. Further, on information and belief, SEA
`
`exists for inter alia, the purpose of importing and selling products accused of infringing the ʼ829
`
`patent in the United States.
`
`59.
`
`Upon information and belief, despite having knowledge of the ’829 patent and
`
`knowledge that it is directly and/or indirectly infringing one or more claims of the ’829 patent,
`
`Defendants have nevertheless continued its infringing conduct and disregarded an objectively high
`
`likelihood of infringement. Defendants’ infringing activities relative to the ’829 patent have been,
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1028, P. 20
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00136-JRG Document 2 Filed 04/20/21 Page 21 of 56 PageID #: 79
`
`and continue to be, willful, wanton, malicious, in bad-faith, deliberate, consciously wrongful,
`
`flagrant, and an egregious case of misconduct beyond typical infringement such that Plaintiff is
`
`entitled under 35 U.S.C. § 284 to enhanced damages up to three times the amount found or
`
`assessed.
`
`60.
`
`Each Defendant is liable for these infringements of the ’829 patent pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271.
`
`61.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of Defendants’ infringing conduct described
`
`in this Count. Defendants are, thus, liable to Plaintiff in an amount that adequately compensates
`
`Plaintiff for Defendants’ infringements, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty,
`
`together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`62.
`
`Plaintiff has complied with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287, to the extent
`
`necessary and/or applicable, and is entitled to collect pre- and post-filing damages for Defendants’
`
`infringements of the ’829 patent.
`
`COUNT III
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,801,293)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 62 herein by reference.
`
`This cause of action arises under the patent laws of the United States, and in
`
`63.
`
`64.
`
`particular, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq.
`
`65.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner of the ’293 patent with all substantial rights to the ’293 patent
`
`including the exclusive right to enforce, sue, and recover damages for past infringement.
`
`66.
`
`The ’293 patent is valid, enforceable and was duly issued in full compliance with
`
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1028, P. 21
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00136-JRG Document 2 Filed 04/20/21 Page 22 of 56 PageID #: 80
`
`DIRECT INFRINGEMENT (35 U.S.C. §271(a) and §271(g))
`
`67.
`
`Defendants infringed one or more claims of the ’293 patent in this judicial district
`
`and elsewhere in Texas and the United States.
`
`68.
`
`On information and belief, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271(a) and §271(g),
`
`Defendants, either by themselves (individually and/or in concert) and/or via an agent, infringed
`
`literally, and/or under the Doctrine of Equivalents, infringed at least claim 1 of the ’293 patent by,
`
`among other things, making, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing products, such as
`
`televisions and mobile phones, that were made in a manner that satisfied the limitations of claim
`
`1. Further, SEC is vicariously liable for this infringing conduct of SDC and/or SEA, as well as
`
`other related Samsung entities, and affiliates, (under both the alter ego and agency theories)
`
`because, as an example and upon information and belief, SEC, SDC, and SEA are essentially the
`
`same company, and SEC has the right and ability to control SDC’s and SEA’s infringing acts and
`
`receives a direct financial benefit from SEA’s and SDC’s infringement.
`
`69.
`
`The products made using the method of manufacturing accused of infringing the
`
`’293 patent comprise an in-plane electric field mode liquid crystal element having a pair of
`
`substrates. For example, the QN55 includes an LCD display, which would include a liquid crystal
`
`element.
`
`70.
`
`The liquid crystal element has a pair of substrates. For example, within a QN55
`
`television the display includes a liquid crystal element having two substrates:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1028, P. 22
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00136-JRG Document 2 Filed 04/20/21 Page 23 of 56 PageID #: 81
`
`
`
`Source: https://pid.samsungdisplay.com/en/learning-center/blog/lcd-structure
`
`71.
`
`At least one of the substrates on the products made using the method of
`
`manufacturing accused of infringing the ’293 patent includes pixel electrodes for generating an in-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1028, P. 23
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00136-JRG Document 2 Filed 04/20/21 Page 24 of 56 PageID #: 82
`
`plane electric field, common electrodes, and an insulating film for insulating these electrodes from
`
`one another. For example, an examination of the array substrate in the QN55 television
`
`demonstrates this:
`
`
`
`72.
`
`The products made using the method of manufacturing accused of infringing the
`
`’293 patent include orientation films provided on the inner side of one or both of the substrates
`
`and a liquid crystal layer sandwiched between the substrates. For example, the orientation film is
`
`evidenced by the ability of the liquid crystal molecules to align. Further, applying a UV light to a
`
`polymer-based orientation film will cause the film to glow. An examination of the array substrate
`
`in the QN55 television demonstrates the presence of an orientation film that glows under UV light:
`
`73.
`
`The products made using the method of manufacturing accused of infringing the
`
`’293 patent were made via a stripping step of stripping, by rubbing, a predetermined portion of the
`
`orientation film on the electrodes or lines once formed on the inner side of one or both of the
`
`substrates. For example, in order for the liquid crystal molecules to align, the orientation film must
`
`
`
`
`
`
`24
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1028, P. 24
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00136-JRG Document 2 Filed 04/20/21 Page 25 of 56 PageID #: 83
`
`be in the pixel region. However, the film cannot be in the spacer area on top of gate and common
`
`lines. Accordingly, the film is stripped via rubbing from the gate and common lines. An
`
`examination of the array substrate in the QN55 television evidences this:
`
`Stripped areas of film
`
`
`
`
`
`74.
`
`In addition, Defendants have imported into the United States, offered to sell, sold
`
`or used within the United States infringing products, including those identified herein, that are
`
`manufactured by patented methods claimed in the ’293 Patent, including at least claim 1, as
`
`articulated herein. Such infringing manufacturing process has been performed during the term of
`
`the ’293 patent, without a license to the Defendants for such infringement, and such accused and
`
`infringing products have not been materially changed by any subsequent process, nor have such
`
`accused and infringing products become a trivial and/or non-essential component of another
`
`product.
`
`75.
`
`At a minimum, Defendants have known of the ʼ293 patent at least as early as the
`
`service date of this complaint. Further, on information and belief, Defendants have known of the
`
`ʼ293 patent at least as early as the filing date of the original complaint. In addition, Defendants
`
`have known about the ʼ293 patent since at least July 29, 2020, when Defendants received notice
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`SAMSUNG, EXH. 1028, P. 25
`
`