`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`LITL LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HP INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`LITL LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC. and DELL
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`LITL LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.Stipulation
`
`ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC., ASUS
`GLOBAL PTE. LTD., and ASUS
`TECHNOLOGY PTE. LIMITED,
`
`Defendants.
`
`C.A. No. 23-00120-RGA
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 23-00121-RGA
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 23-00122-RGA
`
`
`
`
`STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER PERMITTING INTERVENTION
`BY MICROSOFT CORPORATION IN CERTAIN ACTIONS
`
`WHEREAS, Plaintiff LiTL, LLC filed complaints in the above-captioned actions against
`
`Defendants HP Inc., Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., and ASUSTeK Computer Inc., Asus Global
`
`Pte. Ltd., and Asus Technology Pte. Limited, (collectively, the “Microsoft Customer Defendants”),
`
`accusing various of the Microsoft Customer Defendants’ convertible laptop devices (the “Accused
`
`Devices”) of patent infringement;
`
`RLF1 29647115v.1
`
`-1-
`
`EX-1019
`Microsoft Inc. v. LiTL LLC
`
`

`

`
`
`WHEREAS, the Microsoft Customer Defendants are customers of proposed intervenor
`
`Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”), and certain of the Accused Devices in those actions, when
`
`sold by the Microsoft Customer Defendants, are pre-loaded with Microsoft’s Windows software;
`
`WHEREAS, Microsoft believes that the infringement allegations against the Microsoft
`
`Customer Defendants in these actions relating to U.S. Patent Nos. 10,289,154 (“the ’154 patent”);
`
`9,003,315 (“the ’315 patent”); 9,880,715 (“the ’715 patent”); 10,564,818 (“the ’818 patent”); and
`
`8,612,888 (“the ’888 patent”) (collectively, the “Microsoft-Asserted Patents”) are based at least in
`
`part upon the inclusion of Microsoft’s Windows software in certain Accused Devices;
`
`WHEREAS, as the developer and supplier of the accused Windows functionality,
`
`Microsoft contends that it has a strong interest in defending its software and represents that it
`
`wishes to intervene in the cases involving the Microsoft Customer Defendants so that it can
`
`participate in these litigations;
`
`WHEREAS, Microsoft possesses technical documents concerning its Windows software,
`
`Microsoft employs individuals who are knowledgeable about technical issues concerning its
`
`Windows software, and Microsoft believes that its participation in these cases as a party would
`
`greatly facilitate the taking of relevant discovery;
`
`WHEREAS, the Microsoft Customer Defendants do not oppose Microsoft’s intervention
`
`into their actions; and
`
`WHEREAS, the Court has not yet entered a scheduling order in any of the above-captioned
`
`cases;
`
`IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the parties, pursuant to Rule 24 of the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and subject to the approval and order of the Court, as follows:
`
`1. Microsoft Corporation is granted permission to intervene in the actions against the
`
`Microsoft Customer Defendants (Case Nos. 23-00120-RGA, 23-00121-RGA, and 23-00122-
`
`RLF1 29647115v.1
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`
`
`RGA), and to file the Complaints in Intervention for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement
`
`that are attached hereto as Exhibits A–C in the corresponding actions. The filing of Microsoft’s
`
`Complaints in Intervention for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement shall be without
`
`prejudice to LiTL’s right to challenge the sufficiency of these pleadings or to its right to assert any
`
`defense.
`
`2. Upon the filing of the Complaints in Intervention for Declaratory Judgment of Non-
`
`Infringement that are attached hereto as Exhibits A-C, the captions of Case Nos. 23-00120-RGA,
`
`23-00121-RGA, and 23-00122-RGA shall be as set forth in Exhibits A-C.
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Robert M. Vrana
`Adam W. Poff (#3990)
`Robert M. Vrana (#5666)
`Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`302-571-6600
`apoff@ycst.com
`rvrana@ycst.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff LiTL LLC
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`Michael A. Albert
`Eric J. Rutt
`Gerald B. Hrycyszyn
`Suresh S. Rav
`Jason W. Balich
`Jie Xiang
`Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210
`617-646-8000
`
` /s/ Brian A. Biggs
`Brian A. Biggs (#5591)
`Angela C. Whitesell (#5547)
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`1201 North Market Street, Suite 2100
`Wilmington, DE 19801-1147
`302-468-5700
`brian.biggs@us.dlapiper.com
`angela.whitesell@us.dlapiper.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant HP Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`DLA Piper LLP (US)
`Sean Cunningham
`Erin Gibson
`4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100
`San Diego, CA 92121-2133
`858-677-1400
`
`James M. Heintz
`One Fountain Square
`11911 Freedom Drive, Suite 300
`Reston, VA 20190-5602
`703-773-4000
`
`RLF1 29647115v.1
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Jackob Ben-Ezra
`845 Texas Avenue, Suite 3800
`Houston, TX 77002
`713-425-8431
`
`Claire E. Schuster
`33 Arch Street, 26th Floor
`Boston, MA 02110-1447
`617-406-6000
`
`Aima Mori
`444 West Lake Street, Suite 900
`Chicago, IL 60606-0089
`312-368-4000
`
` /s/ Jeremy A. Tigan
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP
`1201 North Market Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`jtigan@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`Eugene Y. Mar
`Erik Olson
`Tom Pardini
`Raven Quesenberry
`One Bush Street, Suite 900
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`(415) 954-4400
`
`RLF1 29647115v.1
`
`-4-
`
`

`

` /s/ Stephen J. Kraftschik
`Stephen J. Kraftschik (#5623)
`Polsinelli PC
`222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1101
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 252-0920
`skraftschik@polsinelli.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`ASUSTeK Computer Inc., ASUS Global Pte.
`Ltd., and ASUS Technology Pte. Ltd.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP
`Robert H. Sloss
`Jack Shaw
`3000 El Camino Real, Suite 5-400
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`(650) 645-9000
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`ASUSTeK Computer Inc., ASUS Global Pte.
`Ltd., and ASUS Technology Pte. Ltd.
`
` /s/ Kelly E. Farnan
`Kelly E. Farnan (#4395)
`Richards Layton & Finger, P.A.
`One Rodney Square
`920 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`farnan@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Intervenor
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`Christina J. McCullough
`Jassiem Moore
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101-3099
`(206) 359-8000
`
`RLF1 29647115v.1
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Chao (Wendy) Wang
`3150 Porter Drive
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
`(650) 838-4300
`
`Kyle R. Canavera
`11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300
`San Diego, CA 92130-2080
`(858) 720-5700
`
`Chad Campbell
`Elizabeth Baxter
`2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000
`Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788
`(602) 351-8000
`
`Dated: October 13, 2023
`
`October
`16
`SO ORDERED, this _______ day of __________________ 2023.
`
`/s/ Richard G. Andrews
`______________________________________
`United States District Judge
`
`RLF1 29647115v.1
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 23-120-RGA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`LITL LLC,
`
`v.
`
`HP INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LITL LLC,
`
`Intervenor-Defendant.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION
`
`Pursuant to Rule 24(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Intervenor-Plaintiff
`
`Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) alleges as follows for its Complaint in Intervention against
`
`Plaintiff and Intervenor-Defendant LiTL LLC (“LiTL” or “Plaintiff”):
`
`1.
`
`Microsoft seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement pursuant to the
`
`Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201(a) and 2202.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Microsoft is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington,
`
`PARTIES
`
`with its principal place of business at One Microsoft Way, Redmond, Washington 98052.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff and Defendant in Intervention LiTL LLC purports to be a Delaware
`
`company, having its principal place of business at 501 Boylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts
`
`02116.
`
`RLF1 29647322v.1
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.,
`
`and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. This Court has subject matter
`
`jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and 1400.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over LiTL due to its filing of the original
`
`Complaint and First Amended Complaint in this action.
`
`
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND MICROSOFT’S INTEREST IN THIS ACTION
`
`7.
`
`LiTL filed its original Complaint (D.I. 1) in this action on February 1, 2023,
`
`accusing HP Inc. (“HP”) of selling computing devices such as laptop computers that infringe
`
`certain claims of: U.S. Patent No. 8,289,688 (“the ’688 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844 (“the
`
`’844 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,563,229 (“the ’229 patent”); U.S. Patent No.10,289,154 (“the
`
`’154 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,003,315 (“the ’315 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,880,715 (“the ’715
`
`patent”); U.S. Patent No. 10,564,818 (“the ’818 patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 8,612,888 (“the ’888
`
`patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`8.
`
`HP is a customer of Microsoft’s. HP sells computer products that incorporate
`
`Microsoft’s Windows Operating System. Microsoft has certain defense and indemnity obligations
`
`to HP relating to HP’s use of Microsoft’s Windows Operating System.
`
`9.
`
`On May 3, 2023, LiTL filed a First Amended Complaint against HP. D.I. 20
`
`(“First Amended Complaint”). In the First Amended Complaint, LiTL alleges that LiTL is “the
`
`legal owner by assignment of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the Asserted Patents.”
`
`First Amended Complaint at ¶ 3; see also id. at ¶¶ 18-25.
`
`10.
`
`The First Amended Complaint specifically identified numerous HP devices
`
`running Windows as allegedly infringing the ’154 patent, the ’315 patent, the ’715 patent, the
`
`RLF1 29647322v.1
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`
`
`’818 patent, and the ’888 patent. (First Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 33‒42, 186‒195, 199, 205‒213,
`
`228, 234‒239, 243, 249‒252, 256, 262‒269, 273.) In fact, for every count in the First Amended
`
`Complaint, LiTL identifies the same set of HP devices running the same Windows operating
`
`system as allegedly infringing.
`
`11.
`
`The First Amended Complaint specifically identifies graphical user interface
`
`features of Microsoft’s Windows Operating System in support of the allegations of infringement
`
`for the ’154 patent, the ’315 patent, the ’715 patent, the ’818 patent, and the ’888 patent. (First
`
`Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 195, 205, 207‒210, 212‒213, 234, 237‒239, 250, 252, 262‒264, 266‒
`
`269.)
`
`12.
`
`The ’154 patent
`
`is entitled “Portable computer with multiple display
`
`configurations.” The First Amended Complaint alleges that HP infringes claim 11 of the
`
`’154 patent. First Amended Complaint at ¶ 185. The First Amended Complaint alleges that HP
`
`devices that run Microsoft’s Windows Operating System infringe the ’154 patent. Id. at ¶¶ 186-
`
`195. The First Amended Complaint relies on user interface features of the Windows Operating
`
`System as demonstrating infringement by the HP devices. Id. at ¶ 195.
`
`13.
`
`The ’315 patent is entitled “System and method for streamlining user interaction
`
`with electronic content.” The First Amended Complaint alleges that HP infringes claim 1 of the
`
`’315 patent. First Amended Complaint at ¶ 204. The First Amended Complaint alleges that HP
`
`devices that run Microsoft’s Windows Operating System infringe the ’315 patent. Id. at ¶¶ 205-
`
`213. The First Amended Complaint relies on user interface features of the Windows Operating
`
`System to support the allegations of functionality for the HP devices. Id. at ¶¶ 205, 207-210, 212-
`
`213.
`
`RLF1 29647322v.1
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`
`
`14.
`
`The ’715 patent is entitled “System and method for streamlining user interaction
`
`with electronic content.” The First Amended Complaint alleges that HP infringes claim 1 of the
`
`’715 patent. First Amended Complaint at ¶ 233. The First Amended Complaint alleges that HP
`
`devices that run Microsoft’s Windows Operating System infringe the ’715 patent. Id. at ¶¶ 234-
`
`239. The First Amended Complaint relies on user interface features of the Windows Operating
`
`System to support the allegations of functionality for the HP devices. Id. at ¶¶ 234, 237-239.
`
`15.
`
`The ’818 patent is entitled “System and method for streamlining user interaction
`
`with electronic content.” The First Amended Complaint alleges that HP infringes claim 1 of the
`
`’818 patent. First Amended Complaint at ¶ 248. The First Amended Complaint alleges that HP
`
`devices that run Microsoft’s Windows Operating System infringe the ’818 patent. Id. at ¶¶ 249‒
`
`252, 256. The First Amended Complaint relies on user interface features of the Windows
`
`Operating System to support the allegations of functionality for the HP devices. Id. at ¶¶ 250, 252.
`
`16.
`
`The ’888 patent is entitled “Method and apparatus for managing digital media
`
`content.” The First Amended Complaint alleges that HP infringes claim 27 of the ’888 patent.
`
`First Amended Complaint at ¶ 261. The First Amended Complaint alleges that HP devices that
`
`run Microsoft’s Windows Operating System infringe the ’888 patent. Id. at ¶¶ 262‒269, 273. The
`
`First Amended Complaint relies on user interface features of the Windows Operating System to
`
`support the allegations of functionality for the HP devices. Id. at ¶¶ 262‒264, 266‒269.
`
`17.
`
`LiTL’s assertions that HP’s Windows-based devices infringe the ’154 patent, the
`
`’315 patent, the ’715 patent, the ’818 patent, and the ’888 patent as a result of functionality
`
`provided by Windows are tantamount to allegations that Microsoft’s own Windows products
`
`directly infringe these Asserted Patents. Thus, Microsoft has a direct and substantial interest in
`
`defending against and defeating LiTL’s claims of infringement.
`
`RLF1 29647322v.1
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`
`
`18.
`
`Upon information and belief, LiTL has taken the position that at least the use, sale,
`
`and offer for sale of the Windows Operating System pre-installed in the accused HP products
`
`infringes one or more claims of the ’154 patent, the ’315 patent, the ’715 patent, the ’818 patent,
`
`and the ’888 patent.
`
`19.
`
`An actual and justiciable controversy exists between Microsoft and LiTL as to
`
`whether or not Microsoft has infringed any claim of the ’154 patent, the ’315 patent, the
`
`’715 patent, the ’818 patent, and the ’888 patent, directly or indirectly, based on the Windows
`
`Operating System.
`
`20.
`
`As a result of LiTL’s Windows-based infringement allegations against HP,
`
`Microsoft has an objectively reasonable apprehension that LiTL will claim that Microsoft’s
`
`products, including at least the Windows Operating System, directly or indirectly infringe one or
`
`more claims of the ’154 patent, the ’315 patent, the ’715 patent, the ’818 patent, and the
`
`’888 patent. Therefore, an actual controversy exists between Microsoft and LiTL. By intervening
`
`in this action, Microsoft seeks the Court’s assistance and declaration concerning these matters,
`
`which have been and are subjects of disagreement among the parties.
`
`COUNT 1
`(Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,289,154)
`
`21.
`
`Microsoft restates, realleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through
`
`20.
`
`22.
`
`A valid and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between Microsoft and
`
`LiTL regarding the ’154 patent.
`
`23.
`
`Microsoft does not infringe any claim of the ’154 patent, including claim 11, either
`
`directly or indirectly, and thus Microsoft’s customer, HP, does not infringe any claim of the
`
`RLF1 29647322v.1
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`
`
`’154 patent, including claim 11, by reason of its incorporation of Microsoft’s Windows Operating
`
`System into its computer products.
`
`24.
`
`A judicial declaration concerning these matters is necessary and appropriate at this
`
`time so that Microsoft can determine its rights and duties with respect to the parties and with respect
`
`to designing, developing, manufacturing, marketing, and selling its products. Absent such a
`
`declaration, LiTL will continue to assert the ’154 patent against Microsoft and/or Microsoft’s
`
`customers, and thereby cause Microsoft irreparable injury and damage. Microsoft has no other
`
`adequate remedy at law.
`
`COUNT 2
`(Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,003,315)
`
`25.
`
`Microsoft restates, realleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through
`
`24.
`
`26.
`
`A valid and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between Microsoft and
`
`LiTL regarding the ’315 patent.
`
`27.
`
`Microsoft does not infringe any claim of the ’315 patent, including claims 1 and
`
`17, either directly or indirectly, and thus Microsoft’s customer, HP, does not infringe any claim of
`
`the ’315 patent, including claims 1 and 17, by reason of its incorporation of Microsoft’s Windows
`
`Operating System into its computer products.
`
`28.
`
`A judicial declaration concerning these matters is necessary and appropriate at this
`
`time so that Microsoft can determine its rights and duties with respect to the parties and with respect
`
`to designing, developing, manufacturing, marketing, and selling its products. Absent such a
`
`declaration, LiTL will continue to assert the ’315 patent against Microsoft and/or Microsoft’s
`
`customers, and thereby cause Microsoft irreparable injury and damage. Microsoft has no other
`
`adequate remedy at law.
`
`RLF1 29647322v.1
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`
`
`28.
`
`COUNT 3
`(Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,880,715)
`
`29.
`
`Microsoft restates, realleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through
`
`30.
`
`A valid and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between Microsoft and
`
`LiTL regarding the ’715 patent.
`
`31.
`
`Microsoft does not infringe any claim of the ’715 patent, including claim 1, either
`
`directly or indirectly, and thus Microsoft’s customer, HP, does not infringe any claim of the
`
`’715 patent, including claim 1, by reason of its incorporation of Microsoft’s Windows Operating
`
`System into its computer products.
`
`32.
`
`A judicial declaration concerning these matters is necessary and appropriate at this
`
`time so that Microsoft can determine its rights and duties with respect to the parties and with respect
`
`to designing, developing, manufacturing, marketing, and selling its products. Absent such a
`
`declaration, LiTL will continue to assert the ’715 patent against Microsoft and/or Microsoft’s
`
`customers, and thereby cause Microsoft irreparable injury and damage. Microsoft has no other
`
`adequate remedy at law.
`
`COUNT 4
`(Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,564,818)
`
`33. Microsoft restates, realleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through
`
`32.
`
`34.
`
`A valid and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between Microsoft and
`
`LiTL regarding the ’818 patent.
`
`35. Microsoft does not infringe any claim of the ’818 patent, including claim 1, either
`
`directly or indirectly, and thus Microsoft’s customer, HP, does not infringe any claim of the
`
`RLF1 29647322v.1
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`
`
`’818 patent, including claim 1, by reason of its incorporation of Microsoft’s Windows Operating
`
`System into its computer products.
`
`36.
`
`A judicial declaration concerning these matters is necessary and appropriate at this
`
`time so that Microsoft can determine its rights and duties with respect to the parties and with respect
`
`to designing, developing, manufacturing, marketing, and selling its products. Absent such a
`
`declaration, LiTL will continue to assert the ’818 patent against Microsoft and/or Microsoft’s
`
`customers, and thereby cause Microsoft irreparable injury and damage. Microsoft has no other
`
`adequate remedy at law.
`
`COUNT 5
`(Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,612,888)
`
`37. Microsoft restates, realleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1
`
`through 36.
`
`38.
`
`A valid and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between Microsoft
`
`and LiTL regarding the ’888 patent.
`
`39. Microsoft does not infringe any claim of the ’888 patent, including claim 27,
`
`either directly or indirectly, and thus Microsoft’s customer, HP, does not infringe any claim of
`
`the ’888 patent, including claim 27, by reason of its incorporation of Microsoft’s Windows
`
`Operating System into its computer products.
`
`40.
`
`A judicial declaration concerning these matters is necessary and appropriate at
`
`this time so that Microsoft can determine its rights and duties with respect to the parties and with
`
`respect to designing, developing, manufacturing, marketing, and selling its products. Absent
`
`such a declaration, LiTL will continue to assert the ’888 patent against Microsoft and/or
`
`RLF1 29647322v.1
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`
`
`Microsoft’s customers, and thereby cause Microsoft irreparable injury and damage. Microsoft
`
`has no other adequate remedy at law.
`
`REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`Therefore, Microsoft requests judgment against LiTL as follows:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`A Declaration that Microsoft does not infringe any claim of the ’154 patent;
`
`A Declaration that Microsoft does not infringe any claim of the ’315 patent;
`
`A Declaration that Microsoft does not infringe any claim of the ’715 patent;
`
`A Declaration that Microsoft does not infringe any claim of the ’818 patent;
`
`A Declaration that Microsoft does not infringe any claim of the ’888 patent;
`
`A determination that this case is “exceptional” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 285, entitling Microsoft to an award of its reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs; and
`
`g.
`
`A grant of such other and further equitable or legal relief as the Court deems
`
`proper.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Microsoft hereby demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`Christina J. McCullough
`Jassiem Moore
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101-3099
`(206) 359-8000
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kelly E. Farnan
`Kelly E. Farnan (#4395)
`Richards Layton & Finger, P.A.
`One Rodney Square
`920 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`farnan@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Intervenor-Plaintiff
`Microsoft Corporation
`
`RLF1 29647322v.1
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`Chao (Wendy) Wang
`3150 Porter Drive
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
`(650) 838-4300
`
`Kyle R. Canavera
`11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300
`San Diego, CA 92130-2080
`(858) 720-5700
`
`Chad Campbell
`Elizabeth Baxter
`2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000
`Phoenix, AZ 85012-2788
`(602) 351-8000
`
`Dated: October 13, 2023
`
`RLF1 29647322v.1
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 23-121-RGA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`LITL LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC. and DELL
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Intervenor-Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LITL LLC,
`
`Intervenor-Defendant.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION
`
`Pursuant to Rule 24(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Intervenor-Plaintiff
`
`Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) alleges as follows for its Complaint in Intervention against
`
`Plaintiff and Intervenor-Defendant LiTL LLC (“LiTL” or “Plaintiff”):
`
`1.
`
`Microsoft seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement pursuant to the
`
`Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201(a) and 2202.
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Microsoft is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Washington,
`
`with its principal place of business at One Microsoft Way, Redmond, Washington 98052.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff and Defendant in Intervention LiTL LLC purports to be a Delaware
`
`company, having its principal place of business at 501 Boylston Street, Boston, Massachusetts
`
`02116.
`
`RLF1 29647450v.1
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.,
`
`and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. This Court has subject matter
`
`jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and 1400.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over LiTL due to its filing of the original
`
`Complaint and First Amended Complaint in this action.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND MICROSOFT’S INTEREST IN THIS ACTION
`
`7.
`
`LiTL filed its original Complaint (D.I. 1) in this action on February 1, 2023,
`
`accusing Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc. (collectively, “Dell”) of selling computing devices
`
`such as laptop computers that infringe certain claims of: U.S. Patent No. 8,289,688 (“the ’688
`
`patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,624,844 (“the ’844 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,563,229 (“the ’229
`
`patent”); U.S. Patent No.10,289,154 (“the ’154 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,003,315 (“the ’315
`
`patent”); U.S. Patent No. 9,880,715 (“the ’715 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 10,564,818 (“the ’818
`
`patent”); and U.S. Patent No. 8,612,888 (“the ’888 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`8.
`
`Dell is a customer of Microsoft’s. Dell sells computer products that incorporate
`
`Microsoft’s Windows Operating System. Microsoft has certain defense and indemnity obligations
`
`to Dell relating to Dell’s use of Microsoft’s Windows Operating System.
`
`9.
`
`On May 8, 2023, LiTL filed a First Amended Complaint against Dell. (D.I. 18
`
`(“First Amended Complaint”).) In the First Amended Complaint, LiTL alleges that LiTL is “the
`
`legal owner by assignment of the entire right, title, and interest in and to the Asserted Patents.”
`
`(First Amended Complaint at ¶ 3; see also id. at ¶¶ 19‒26.)
`
`RLF1 29647450v.1
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`
`
`10.
`
`The First Amended Complaint specifically identified numerous Dell devices that
`
`run Windows as allegedly infringing the ’154 patent, the ’315 patent, the ’715 patent, the
`
`’818 patent, and the ’888 patent. (First Amended Complaint at ¶¶ 34‒38, 40, 42, 203‒208, 213,
`
`219‒227, 232, 238‒243, 248, 254‒257, 262, 268‒275, 280.) In fact, for every count in the First
`
`Amended Complaint, LiTL identifies the same set of Dell devices running the same Windows
`
`operating system as allegedly infringing.
`
`11.
`
`The First Amended Complaint specifically identifies graphical user interface
`
`features of the Windows Operating System in support of the allegations of infringement for the
`
`’154 patent, the ’315 patent, the ’715 patent, the ’818 patent, and the ’888 patent. (First Amended
`
`Complaint at ¶¶ 207, 219, 221‒224, 226‒227, 238, 241‒243, 255, 257, 268‒270, 272‒275.)
`
`12.
`
`The ’154 patent
`
`is entitled “Portable computer with multiple display
`
`configurations.” The First Amended Complaint alleges that Dell infringes claim 1 of the
`
`’154 patent. (First Amended Complaint at ¶ 202.) The First Amended Complaint alleges that Dell
`
`devices that run Microsoft’s Windows Operating System infringe the ’154 patent. (Id. at ¶¶ 203‒
`
`208.) The First Amended Complaint relies on user interface features of the Windows Operating
`
`System as demonstrating infringement by the Dell devices. (Id. at ¶ 207.)
`
`13.
`
`The ’315 patent is entitled “System and method for streamlining user interaction
`
`with electronic content.” The First Amended Complaint alleges that Dell infringes claim 1 of the
`
`’315 patent. (First Amended Complaint at ¶ 218.) The First Amended Complaint alleges that Dell
`
`devices that, on information and belief, run Microsoft’s Windows Operating System infringe the
`
`’315 patent. (Id. at ¶¶ 219‒227.) The First Amended Complaint relies on user interface features
`
`of the Windows Operating System to support the allegations of functionality for the Dell devices.
`
`(Id. at ¶¶ 219, 221‒224, 226‒227.)
`
`RLF1 29647450v.1
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`
`
`14.
`
`The ’715 patent is entitled “System and method for streamlining user interaction
`
`with electronic content.” The First Amended Complaint alleges that Dell infringes claim 1 of the
`
`’715 patent. (First Amended Complaint at ¶ 237.) The First Amended Complaint alleges that Dell
`
`devices that, on information and belief, run Microsoft’s Windows Operating System infringe the
`
`’715 patent. (Id. at ¶¶ 238‒243.) The First Amended Complaint relies on user interface features
`
`of the Windows Operating System to support the allegations of functionality for the Dell devices.
`
`(Id. at ¶¶ 238, 241‒243.)
`
`15.
`
`The ’818 patent is entitled “System and method for streamlining user interaction
`
`with electronic content.” The First Amended Complaint alleges that Dell infringes claim 1 of the
`
`’818 patent. (First Amended Complaint at ¶ 253.) The First Amended Complaint alleges that Dell
`
`devices that, on information and belief, run Microsoft’s Windows Operating System infringe the
`
`’818 patent. (Id. at ¶¶ 254‒257.) The First Amended Complaint relies on user interface features
`
`of the Windows Operating System to support the allegations of functionality for the Dell devices.
`
`(Id. at ¶¶ 255, 257.)
`
`16.
`
`The ’888 patent is entitled “Method and apparatus for managing digital media
`
`content.” The First Amended Complaint alleges that Dell infringes claim 27 of the ’888 patent.
`
`(First Amended Complaint at ¶ 267.) The First Amended Complaint alleges that Dell devices that,
`
`on information and belief, run Microsoft’s Windows Operating System infringe the ’888 patent.
`
`(Id. at ¶¶ 268‒275.) The First Amended Complaint relies on user interface features of the
`
`Windows Operating System to support the allegations of functionality for the Dell devices. (Id. at
`
`¶¶ 268‒270, 272‒275.)
`
`17.
`
`LiTL’s assertions that Dell’s Windows-based devices infringe the ’154 patent, the
`
`’315 patent, the ’715 patent, the ’818 patent, and the ’888 patent as a result of functionality
`
`RLF1 29647450v.1
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`
`
`provided by Windows are tantamount to allegations that Microsoft’s own Windows products
`
`directly infringe these Asserted Patents. Thus, Microsoft has a direct and substantial interest in
`
`defending against and defeating LiTL’s claims of infringement.
`
`18.
`
`Upon information and belief, LiTL has taken the position that at least the use, sale,
`
`and offer for sale of the Windows Operating System pre-installed in the accused Dell products
`
`infringes one or more claims of the ’154 patent, the ’315 patent, the ’715 patent, the ’818 patent,
`
`and the ’888 patent.
`
`19.
`
`An actual and justiciable controversy exists between Microsoft and LiTL as to
`
`whether or not Microsoft has infringed any claim of the ’154 patent, the ’315 patent, the
`
`’715 patent, the ’818 patent, and the ’888 patent, directly or indirectly, based on the Windows
`
`Operating System.
`
`20.
`
`As a result of LiTL’s Windows-based infringement allegations against Dell,
`
`Microsoft has an objectively reasonable apprehension that LiTL will claim that Microsoft’s
`
`products, including at least the Windows Operating System, directly or indirectly infringe one or
`
`more claims of the ’154 patent, the ’315 patent, the ’715 patent, the ’818 patent, and the
`
`’888 patent. Therefore, an actual controversy exists between Microsoft and LiTL. By intervening
`
`in this action, Microsoft seeks the Court’s assistance and declaration concerning these matters,
`
`which have been and are subjects of disagreement among the parties.
`
`COUNT 1
`(Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,289,154)
`
`21.
`
`Microsoft restates, realleges, and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through
`
`20.
`
`22.
`
`A valid and justiciable controversy has arisen and exists between Microsoft and
`
`LiTL regarding the ’154 patent.
`
`RLF1 29647450v.1
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`
`
`23.
`
`Microsoft does not infringe any claim of the ’154 patent, including claim 11, either
`
`directly or indirectly, and thus Microsoft’s customer, Dell, does not infringe any claim of the ’154
`
`patent, including claim 11, by reason of its incorporation of Microsoft’s Windows Operating System
`
`into its computer products.
`
`24.
`
`A judicial declaration concerning these matters is necessary and appropriate at this
`
`time so that Microsoft can determine its rights and duties with respect to the parties and with respect
`
`to designing, developing, manufacturing, marketing, and selling its products. Absent such a
`
`declaration, LiTL will continue to assert the ’154 patent against Microsoft and/or Microsoft’s
`
`customers, and thereby cause Microsoft irreparable injury and damage. Microsoft has no other
`
`adequate remedy at law.
`
`COUNT 2
`(Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,003,315)
`
`25.
`
`Microsoft restates, realleges, and