Case 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 03/06/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`RAYTHEON COMPANY
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR,
`INC., SAMSUNG
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
`AND LLC,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO: 2:15-cv-341
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff, Raytheon Company (“Raytheon”), makes
`
`this Complaint for Patent
`
`Infringement (“Complaint”) against Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications
`
`America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung” or “Defendants”), wherein, pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 271 and 281, Raytheon seeks a judgment of infringement by Defendants of U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,591,678 (the “’678 Patent”) and damages resulting therefrom pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, and
`
`such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. In support Raytheon alleges the following.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff, Raytheon Company (“Raytheon”) is a Delaware corporation and is
`
`1.
`
`headquartered at 870 Winter Street Waltham, MA 02451. Raytheon has multiple locations
`
`within the State of Texas, including its Plano and McKinney locations within this Judicial
`
`District.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 03/06/15 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 2
`
`
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) is a
`
`corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of Korea, with its principal
`
`place of business at 416, Maetan 3-dong, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do 443-742,
`
`Korea.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(“SEA”) is a subsidiary of Defendant SEC and is a corporation organized and existing under the
`
`laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business at 85 Challenger Road,
`
`Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660.
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (“SSI”) is a
`
`subsidiary of Defendants SEC and SEA and is a corporation organized and existing under the
`
`laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business at 3655 North First Street, San
`
`Jose, California 95134.
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Samsung Telecommunications America,
`
`LLC (“STA”) is a subsidiary of Defendants SEC and SEA and is a corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located in
`
`this Judicial District at 1301 East Lookout Drive, Richardson, Texas 75082.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, namely, 35 U.S.C.
`
`6.
`
`§§ 1 et seq. This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a) and 1338(a).
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391 and 1400(b).
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Samsung. On information and belief,
`
`Samsung has sufficient minimum contacts within the State of Texas and the Eastern District of
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 03/06/15 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 3
`
`
`
`Texas and, pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute, Samsung has
`
`purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business in the State of Texas and in
`
`the Eastern District of Texas. On information and belief, Samsung has conducted and does
`
`conduct business within the State of Texas and within the Eastern District of Texas. At least one
`
`Samsung entity, STA, has its headquarters in this Judicial District. Samsung directly or through
`
`intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), ships distributes, offers for sale,
`
`and/or sells its products in the United States, the State of Texas, and in the Eastern District of
`
`Texas. On information and belief, Samsung has purposefully and voluntarily placed one or more
`
`of its products, as described below, into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they
`
`will be purchased by consumers in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`9.
`
`On information and belief, and as discussed below, Samsung has committed acts
`
`of patent infringement within the State of Texas and within the Eastern District of Texas. On
`
`information and belief, Samsung purposefully and voluntarily placed one or more of its products
`
`made by the ’678 Patent process, as described below, into the stream of commerce with the
`
`expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the State of Texas and within the
`
`Eastern District of Texas before the expiration of the ’678 Patent.
`
`JOINDER
`
`On information and belief, the right to relief asserted against Defendants under
`
`10.
`
`Count I of this Complaint arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions
`
`or occurrences relating
`
`to
`
`the making, using, selling, offering and/or
`
`importing of
`
`microelectronic devices made during the term of the ’678 Patent by a process or processes that
`
`fall within the scope of one or more claims of the ’678 Patent, and/or products incorporating any
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 03/06/15 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 4
`
`
`
`such microelectronic devices. Therefore, questions of fact common to all Defendants will arise
`
`in this action and joinder of Defendants under 35 U.S.C. § 299 are proper.
`
`COUNT I
`(INFRINGEMENT OF ’678 PATENT)
`
`Raytheon refers to and incorporates herein the allegations of paragraphs 1-10.
`
`On January 7, 1997, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 5,591,678 entitled “Process of Manufacturing a
`
`Microelectric Device using a Removable Support Substrate and Etch-Stop” (“the ’678 Patent”).
`
`Though now expired, the ’678 Patent is and was valid and enforceable at this time and during the
`
`entirety of its term. A true and correct copy of the ’678 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`13.
`
`Presently, and during all times herein relevant, Raytheon, including any pertinent
`
`entity acquired by Raytheon, has been and is the sole owner of all right, title and interest in the
`
`’678 Patent, including the right to recover for past infringement.
`
`14.
`
`On information and belief, Samsung, through itself and/or one or more of its
`
`entities, subsidiaries, affiliates, business divisions, or business units, directly infringed the ’678
`
`Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271, including at least 35 U.S.C. § 271(g), by importing into the
`
`United States or offering to sell, selling, or using within the United States certain microelectronic
`
`devices that were made during the term of the ’678 Patent by a process or processes that fall
`
`within the scope of one or more claims of the ’678 Patent (“the ’678 Patent Processes”), without
`
`authority from Raytheon, including but not limited to devices known as the Samsung S5K2P1
`
`and Samsung S5K3H2 back-illuminated complementary metal oxide semiconductor (“CMOS”)
`
`image sensors, as well as other microelectronic devices made by the’678 Patent Processes
`
`(collectively, the “Samsung Microelectronic Devices”).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 03/06/15 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 5
`
`
`
`15.
`
`On information and belief, Samsung, including SSI, working at the direction of
`
`and/or under the control of SEC and/or SEA, used or caused others to use the ’678 Patent
`
`Processes during the term of the ’678 Patent to make all or a substantial portion of the Samsung
`
`Microelectronic Devices that were used, sold, offered for sale, and/or imported within or into the
`
`United States in violation of at least 35 U.S.C. § 271(g).
`
`16.
`
`On information and belief, and as an example, Samsung, including SEC, SEA,
`
`and/or Samsung entities working at the direction of and/or under the control of entities such as
`
`SEC and/or SEA, used, sold, offered for sale, and/or imported within or into the United States
`
`certain devices that incorporated the Samsung Microelectronic Devices made using the ’678
`
`Patent Processes during the term of the ’678 Patent in violation of at least 35 U.S.C. § 271(g),
`
`including but not limited to devices within the Samsung “SMART” family of digital cameras
`
`(including, but not limited to the WB 250 SMART Camera, the WB800F SMART Camera and
`
`the EX2F SMART Camera), the Samsung “Galaxy” family of digital cameras (including, but not
`
`limited to the Galaxy Camera Wi-Fi, the GC100 Galaxy Camera AT&T and the GC120 Galaxy
`
`Camera Verizon), the Samsung family of digital camcorders (including, but not limited to the
`
`Q20, QF30, W300 and S15 32GB SSD Wi-Fi Camcorder) (the foregoing collectively, the
`
`“Samsung Infringing Camera Products”).
`
`17.
`
`On information and belief, and as another example, Samsung, including SEC,
`
`SEA, STA and/or Samsung entities working at the direction of and/or under the control of
`
`entities such as SEC, SEA and/or STA, used, sold, offered for sale, and/or imported within or
`
`into the United States certain devices that incorporated the Samsung Microelectronic Devices
`
`made using the ’678 Patent Processes during the term of the ’678 Patent in violation of at least
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(g), including but not limited to tablets and smartphones within the Samsung
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 03/06/15 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 6
`
`
`
`“Galaxy” family of tablets and smartphones (including, but not limited to the Galaxy S III,
`
`Galaxy S4 and Galaxy Note II) (the foregoing collectively, the “Samsung Infringing Mobile
`
`Devices”).
`
`18.
`
`Samsung has been on actual notice of the ’678 Patent since no later than June
`
`2013 when Raytheon provided Samsung with information showing the substantial likelihood,
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 295, that the process(es) that Samsung used to manufacture the Samsung
`
`Microelectronic Devices during the term of the ’678 Patent, fall within the scope of one or more
`
`claims of the ’678 Patent.
`
`19.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 295, Raytheon requested that Samsung reveal its
`
`process(es) for making the Samsung Microelectronic Devices and has otherwise made
`
`reasonable efforts to determine the process(es) that Samsung used during the term of the ’678
`
`Patent to manufacture the Samsung Microelectronic Devices. To date, Samsung has refused to
`
`reveal the process(es) it used during the term of the ’678 Patent to manufacture the Samsung
`
`Microelectronic Devices. Therefore, pursuant to at least 35 U.S.C. § 295, the Samsung
`
`Microelectronic Devices shall be presumed to have been made by processes that infringe the
`
`’678 Patent and the burden of establishing that the Samsung Microelectronic Devices were not
`
`made by infringing processes shall be on Samsung.
`
`20.
`
`On information and belief, with actual notice of the ’678 Patent and its
`
`applicability to the process(es) that Samsung used to manufacture Samsung Microelectronic
`
`Devices during the term of the ’678 Patent, as described above, Samsung induced infringement
`
`of the ’678 Patent during its term in violation of at least 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by, among other
`
`things, knowingly and with intent, actively encouraging others to use, sell, offer for sale, and/or
`
`import Samsung Microelectronic Devices in a manner that constitutes infringement of one or
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 03/06/15 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 7
`
`
`
`more claims of the ’678 Patent pursuant to at least 35 U.S.C. § 271(g). On information and
`
`belief, this inducing activity was ongoing during the term of the ’678 Patent and did not stop
`
`after Samsung received actual notice of the ’678 Patent as described above.
`
`21.
`
`As a result of Samsung’s infringement of the ’678 Patent, Raytheon has suffered
`
`damage. Raytheon is entitled to recover from Samsung damages adequate to compensate for
`
`such infringement, which have yet to be determined.
`
`22.
`
`On information and belief, despite its knowledge of the ’678 Patent, Samsung
`
`made the decision to continue to use its processes and thus infringe the ’678 Patent during its
`
`term. As a result, Samsung’s knowledge of the ’678 Patent may be willful, and if so, Raytheon
`
`is entitled to treble damages and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action, along with
`
`prejudgment interest under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284, 285.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Raytheon demands a trial by jury of any and all issues triable of right before a
`
`23.
`
`jury, pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Eastern District of Texas
`
`Local Rule 38.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`24. WHEREFORE, Raytheon respectfully prays for the following relief:
`
`25.
`
`An order adjudging that Defendants’ processes presumptively infringe under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 295;
`
`26.
`
`An order adjudging that Defendants have infringed, directly and indirectly by way
`
`of inducing the infringement of, the ’678 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271;
`
`27.
`
`An order adjudging that Defendants’ infringement was willful;
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 03/06/15 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 8
`
`
`
`28.
`
`An order adjudging that this case is “exceptional” within the meaning of
`
`35 U.S.C. § 285 against Defendants;
`
`29.
`
`A full accounting for an award of damages to Raytheon for Defendants’
`
`infringement of the ’678 Patent, including enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284,
`
`together with pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and disbursements;
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`An award of Raytheon’s reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs; and
`
`A grant of such other and further equitable or legal relief as this Court may deem
`
`just and proper.
`
`Dated: March 6, 2015
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`By: /s/ William E. Davis, III
`William E. Davis, III
`Texas State Bar No. 24047416
`THE DAVIS FIRM P.C.
`213 N. Fredonia Street, Suite 230
`Longview, Texas 75601
`Telephone: (903) 230-9090
`Facsimile: (903) 230-9661
`E-mail: bdavis@bdavisfirm.com
`
`Of Counsel
`
`Thomas J. Filarski
`Stanley A. Schlitter
`Daniel S. Stringfield
`Brian Fahrenbach
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`115 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60603
`Phone: (312) 577-1300
`Email: tfilarski@steptoe.com
` sschlitter@steptoe.com
` dstringfield@steptoe.com
` bfahrenbach@steptoe.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`RAYTHEON COMPANY
`
`
`
`8
`
`