Case 2:15-cv-00342-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 03/06/15 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO: 2:15-cv-342
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RAYTHEON COMPANY
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`SONY KABUSHIKI KAISHA (A/K/A
`SONY CORPORATION), SONY
`CORPORATION OF AMERICA, SONY
`SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION,
`SONY EMCS CORPORATION, SONY
`ELECTRONICS, INC., SONY MOBILE
`COMMUNICATIONS, INC., SONY
`MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS AB
`AND SONY MOBILE
`COMMUNICATIONS (USA), INC.,
`OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`AND APPLE, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff, Raytheon Company (“Raytheon”), makes
`
`this Complaint for Patent
`
`Infringement
`
`(“Complaint”) against Defendants Sony Kabushiki Kaisha
`
`(aka “Sony
`
`Corporation”), Sony Corporation of America, Sony Semiconductor Corporation, Sony EMCS
`
`Corporation, Sony Electronics, Inc., Sony Mobile Communications, Inc., Sony Mobile
`
`Communications AB and Sony Mobile Communications (USA), Inc. (collectively, “Sony”);
`
`Defendant OmniVision Technologies, Inc. (“OmniVision”); and Defendant Apple, Inc.
`
`(“Apple”) (collectively, Sony, OmniVision, and Apple are referred to herein as “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
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00342-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 03/06/15 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 2
`
`
`
`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.
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (aka “Sony Corporation”) is a
`
`corporation organized under the laws of Japan and is headquartered at 7-1 Konan, Minato-ku,
`
`Tokyo, 108-0075, Japan. On information and belief, Sony Corporation is the worldwide parent
`
`corporation for the other Sony entities named herein, and is responsible, through itself and/or
`
`through one or more subsidiaries, affiliates, business divisions, or business units, for at least
`
`Sony’s infringing activities and products described below.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Sony Corporation of America is a corporation
`
`organized under the laws of the State of New York and is headquartered at 550 Madison Avenue,
`
`27th Floor, New York, NY 10022. On information and belief, Sony Corporation of America is
`
`the United States headquarters of Sony Corporation and is responsible, through itself and/or
`
`through one or more subsidiaries, affiliates, business divisions, or business units, for at least
`
`Sony’s infringing activities and products described below.
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Sony Semiconductor Corporation is a corporation
`
`organized under the laws of Japan and is headquartered at 2-3-2 Momochihama, Sawara-ku,
`
`Fukuoka, 814-0001, Japan. On information and belief, Defendant Sony Semiconductor
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00342-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 03/06/15 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 3
`
`
`
`Corporation is a wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary of Sony Corporation and is an affiliate
`
`of Sony Corporation of America.
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, Sony EMCS Corporation is a corporation organized
`
`under the laws of Japan and is headquartered at 7-1 Konan, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 108-0075, Japan.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Sony EMCS Corporation is a wholly-owned and
`
`controlled subsidiary of Sony Corporation and is an affiliate of Sony Corporation of America.
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, Sony Electronics, Inc. is a corporation organized under
`
`the laws of the State of Delaware and is headquartered at 16530 Via Esprillo, San Diego,
`
`California 92127. On information and belief, Defendant Sony Electronics, Inc. is a wholly-
`
`owned and controlled subsidiary of Sony Corporation and/or Sony Corporation of America.
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, Sony Mobile Communications AB is a corporation
`
`organized under the laws of Sweden and is headquartered at 221 88 Lund, Sweden. On
`
`information and belief, Defendant Sony Mobile Communications AB is a wholly-owned and
`
`controlled subsidiary of Sony Corporation and is an affiliate of Sony Corporation of America.
`
`8.
`
`On information and belief, Sony Mobile Communications, Inc. is a corporation
`
`organized under the laws of Japan and is headquartered at W-building 1- 8-15 Konan 1-chome,
`
`Minato-ku, Tokyo, 108-0075, Japan. On information and belief, Defendant Sony Mobile
`
`Communications, Inc.
`
`is a wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary of Sony Mobile
`
`Communications AB and is an affiliate of Sony Corporation of America and/or Sony Mobile
`
`Communications, Inc.
`
`9.
`
`On information and belief, Sony Mobile Communications (USA), Inc. is a
`
`corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and is headquartered 3333
`
`Piedmont Road, Suite 600, Atlanta, Georgia 30305. On information and belief, Defendant Sony
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00342-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 03/06/15 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 4
`
`
`
`Mobile Communications (USA), Inc. is a wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary of Sony
`
`Mobile Communications AB and is an affiliate of Sony Corporation of America.
`
`10.
`
`On information and belief, OmniVision Technologies, Inc. (“OmniVision”) is a
`
`corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and is headquartered at 4275
`
`Burton Drive Santa Clara, California 95054.
`
`11.
`
`On information and belief, Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) is a corporation organized under
`
`the laws of the State of California and is headquartered at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California
`
`95014.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, namely, 35 U.S.C.
`
`12.
`
`§§ 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).
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391 and 1400(b).
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Sony. On information and belief, Sony
`
`has sufficient minimum contacts within the State of Texas and the Eastern District of Texas and,
`
`pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute, Sony 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, Sony has conducted and does conduct business within the
`
`State of Texas and within the Eastern District of Texas. Sony 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 the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`15.
`
`On information and belief, and as discussed below, Sony has committed acts of
`
`patent infringement within the State of Texas and within the Eastern District of Texas. On
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00342-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 03/06/15 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 5
`
`
`
`information and belief, Sony 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.
`
`16.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over OmniVision. On information and belief,
`
`OmniVision has sufficient minimum contacts within the State of Texas and the Eastern District
`
`of Texas and, pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute, OmniVision 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, OmniVision has conducted and does
`
`conduct business within the State of Texas and within the Eastern District of Texas. OmniVision
`
`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 the Eastern
`
`District of Texas.
`
`17.
`
`On information and belief, and as discussed below, OmniVision has committed
`
`acts of patent infringement within the State of Texas and within the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`On information and belief, OmniVision 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.
`
`18.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Apple. On information and belief,
`
`Apple has sufficient minimum contacts within the State of Texas and the Eastern District of
`
`Texas and, pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute, Apple has purposefully
`
`availed itself of the privileges of conducting business in the State of Texas and in the Eastern
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00342-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 03/06/15 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 6
`
`
`
`District of Texas. On information and belief, Apple has conducted and does conduct business
`
`within the State of Texas and within the Eastern District of Texas. Apple 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 the Eastern District of
`
`Texas.
`
`19.
`
`On information and belief, and as discussed below, Apple has committed acts of
`
`patent infringement within the State of Texas and within the Eastern District of Texas. On
`
`information and belief, Apple 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
`
`20.
`
`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
`
`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 is proper.
`
`COUNT I
`(INFRINGEMENT OF ’678 PATENT)
`
`Raytheon refers to and incorporates herein the allegations of paragraphs 1-20.
`
`On January 7, 1997, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 5,591,678 entitled “Process of Manufacturing a
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00342-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 03/06/15 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 7
`
`
`
`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.
`
`23.
`
`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.
`
`24.
`
`On information and belief, Sony, 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 Sony “Exmor R” and
`
`“Sony Exmor RS” back-illuminated complementary metal oxide semiconductor (“CMOS”)
`
`image sensors, as well as other microelectronic devices made by the ’678 Patent Processes
`
`(collectively, the “Sony Microelectronic Devices”).
`
`25.
`
`On information and belief, and as an example, Sony, including entities such as
`
`Sony Semiconductor Corporation, working at the direction of and/or under the control of Sony
`
`Corporation and/or Sony Corporation of America, 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 Sony
`
`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).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00342-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 03/06/15 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 8
`
`
`
`26.
`
`On information and belief, and as another example, Sony, including entities such
`
`as Sony EMCS Corporation and/or Sony Electronics, Inc., working at the direction of and/or
`
`under the control of Sony Corporation and/or Sony Corporation of America, used, sold, offered
`
`for sale, and/or imported within or into the United States certain devices that incorporate the
`
`Sony 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 Sony “Cyber-shot ® DSC-HX” family of digital cameras (including, but not limited to the
`
`DSC-HX50V and DSC-HX300), the Sony “Cyber-shot ® DSC-RX” family of digital cameras
`
`(including, but not limited to the DSC-RX100 II), the Sony “Cyber-shot ® DSC-TX” family of
`
`digital cameras (including, but not limited to the DSC-TX30), the Sony “Cyber-shot ® DSC-
`
`WX” family of digital cameras (including, but not limited to the DSC-WX9, DSC-WX80 and
`
`DSC-WX300), the Sony “Handycam ® HDR-PJ” family of digital camcorders (including, but
`
`not limited to the HDR-PJ430, HDR-PJ650 and HDR-PJ790), and the Sony “NXCAM HXR-
`
`NX” family of professional camcorders (including, but not limited to the HXR-NX30U and the
`
`HXR-NX70U) (the foregoing collectively, the “Sony Infringing Camera Products”).
`
`27.
`
`On information and belief, and as another example, Sony, including entities such
`
`as Sony Mobile Communications Inc., Sony Mobile Communications AB and/or Sony Mobile
`
`Communications (USA), Inc., working at the direction of and/or under the control of Sony
`
`Corporation and/or Sony Corporation of America, used, sold, offered for sale, and/or imported
`
`within or into the United States certain devices that incorporate the Sony 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 Sony
`
`Xperia™ family of tablets and smartphones (including, but not limited to the “Xperia acro S,”
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00342-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 03/06/15 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 9
`
`
`
`“Xperia L,” “Xperia M,” “Xperia SL,” “Xperia SP,” “Xperia T,” “Xperia TL,” “Xperia Z,” and
`
`“Xperia ZL”) (the foregoing collectively, the “Sony Infringing Mobile Devices”) and within the
`
`family of the Apple Products.
`
`28.
`
`Sony has been on actual notice of the ’678 Patent since no later than August 2013
`
`when Raytheon provided Sony with information showing the substantial likelihood, pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. § 295, that the process(es) that Sony used to manufacture the Sony Microelectronic
`
`Devices during the term of the ’678 Patent, fall within the scope of one or more claims of the
`
`’678 Patent.
`
`29.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 295, Raytheon requested that Sony reveal its process(es)
`
`for making the Sony Microelectronic Devices and has otherwise made reasonable efforts to
`
`determine the process(es) that Sony used during the term of the ’678 Patent to manufacture the
`
`Sony Microelectronic Devices. To date, Sony has refused to reveal the process(es) it used during
`
`the term of the ’678 Patent to manufacture the Sony Microelectronic Devices. Therefore,
`
`pursuant to at least 35 U.S.C. § 295, the Sony Microelectronic Devices shall be presumed to have
`
`been made by processes that infringe the ’678 Patent and the burden of establishing that the Sony
`
`Microelectronic Devices were not made by infringing processes shall be on Sony.
`
`30.
`
`On information and belief, with actual notice of the ’678 Patent and its
`
`applicability to the process(es) that Sony used to manufacture Sony Microelectronic Devices
`
`during the term of the ’678 Patent, as described above, Sony 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
`
`Sony Microelectronic Devices in a manner that constitutes infringement of one or more claims of
`
`the ’678 Patent pursuant to at least 35 U.S.C. § 271(g). On information and belief, this inducing
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00342-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 03/06/15 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 10
`
`
`
`activity was ongoing during the term of the ’678 Patent and did not stop after Sony received
`
`actual notice of the ’678 Patent as described above.
`
`31.
`
`As a result of Sony’s infringement of the ’678 Patent, Raytheon has suffered
`
`damage. Raytheon is entitled to recover from Sony damages adequate to compensate for such
`
`infringement, which have yet to be determined.
`
`32.
`
`On information and belief, despite its knowledge of the ’678 Patent, Sony made
`
`the decision to continue to use the ’678 Patent Processes and thus infringe the ’678 Patent during
`
`its term. As a result, Sony’s infringement following Sony’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.
`
`33.
`
`On information and belief, OmniVision, 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 OmniVision
`
`“OV5650” back-illuminated complementary metal oxide semiconductor (“CMOS”) image
`
`sensor, as well as other microelectronic devices made by the ’678 Patent Processes (collectively,
`
`the “OmniVision Microelectronic Devices”).
`
`34.
`
`On information and belief, and as an example, OmniVision used or caused others
`
`to use the ’678 Patent Processes during the term of the ’678 Patent to make all or a substantial
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00342-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 03/06/15 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 11
`
`
`
`portion of the OmniVision 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).
`
`35.
`
`On information and belief, and as another example, OmniVision used, sold,
`
`offered for sale, and/or imported within or into the United States the OmniVision
`
`Microelectronic Devices for use in one or more of the Apple Products in violation of at least 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(g).
`
`36.
`
`OmniVision has been on actual notice of the ’678 Patent since no later than about
`
`September 2013 when Raytheon provided Apple, a customer of OmniVision, with information
`
`showing the substantial likelihood, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 295, that the process(es) that
`
`OmniVision used to manufacture the OmniVision Microelectronic Devices during the term of
`
`the ’678 Patent, fall within the scope of one or more claims of the ’678 Patent. Upon
`
`information and belief, Apple provided OmniVision with this information no later than about
`
`September 2013.
`
`37.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 295, Raytheon requested Apple to reveal the process(es)
`
`for making the OmniVision Microelectronic Devices and has otherwise made reasonable efforts
`
`to determine the process(es) that OmniVision used during the term of the ’678 Patent to
`
`manufacture the OmniVision Microelectronic Devices. To date, OmniVision and Apple have
`
`refused to reveal the process(es) used during the term of the ’678 Patent to manufacture the
`
`OmniVision Microelectronic Devices. Therefore, pursuant to at least 35 U.S.C. § 295, the
`
`OmniVision Microelectronic Devices shall be presumed to have been made by processes that
`
`infringe the ’678 Patent and the burden of establishing that the OmniVision Microelectronic
`
`Devices were not made by infringing processes shall be on OmniVision.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00342-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 03/06/15 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 12
`
`
`
`38.
`
`On information and belief, with actual notice of the ’678 Patent and its
`
`applicability
`
`to
`
`the process(es)
`
`that OmniVision used
`
`to manufacture OmniVision
`
`Microelectronic Devices during the term of the ’678 Patent, as described above, OmniVision
`
`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 OmniVision Microelectronic Devices in a manner that constitutes
`
`infringement of one or 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 OmniVision received actual notice of the ’678 Patent as described above.
`
`39.
`
`As a result of OmniVision’s infringement of the ’678 Patent, Raytheon has
`
`suffered damage. Raytheon is entitled to recover from OmniVision damages adequate to
`
`compensate for such infringement, which have yet to be determined.
`
`40.
`
`On information and belief, despite its knowledge of the ’678 Patent, OmniVision
`
`made the decision to continue to use the ’678 Patent Processes and thus infringe the ’678 Patent
`
`during its term. As a result, OmniVision’s infringement following OmniVision’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.
`
`41.
`
`On information and belief, Apple, 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
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00342-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 03/06/15 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 13
`
`
`
`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 the Sony Microelectronic Devices or
`
`OmniVision Microelectronic Devices.
`
`42.
`
`On information and belief, and as an example, Apple used, sold, offered for sale,
`
`and/or imported within or into the United States certain devices that incorporate Sony
`
`Microelectronic Devices and/or OmniVision 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 Apple iPhone ® family of smartphones
`
`(including, but not limited to the Apple iPhone 4, Apple iPhone 4S, Apple iPhone 5 and Apple
`
`iPhone 5S), the Apple iPod ® family of media players (including, but not limited to the Apple
`
`iPod Touch 5th Generation) and the Apple iPad ® family of tablet computers (including, but not
`
`limited to the Apple iPad Mini, Apple iPad with Retina Display and Apple iPad 3) (collectively,
`
`the “Apple Products”).
`
`43.
`
`Apple has been on actual notice of the ’678 Patent since no later than September
`
`2013 when Raytheon provided Apple with information showing the substantial likelihood,
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 295, that the process(es) used to manufacture Sony Microelectronic
`
`Devices and/or OmniVision Microelectronic Devices that were incorporated in the Apple
`
`Products during the term of the ’678 Patent, fall within the scope of one or more claims of the
`
`’678 Patent.
`
`44.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 295, Raytheon made reasonable efforts to determine the
`
`process(es) used during the term of the ’678 Patent to manufacture the Sony Microelectronic
`
`Devices and/or OmniVision Microelectronic Devices that were incorporated in the Apple
`
`Products. To date, Apple has refused to reveal what process(es) were used during the term of the
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00342-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 03/06/15 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 14
`
`
`
`’678 Patent
`
`to manufacture
`
`the Sony Microelectronic Devices and/or OmniVision
`
`Microelectronic Devices that were incorporated in the Apple Products. Therefore, pursuant to at
`
`least 35 U.S.C. § 295, the Sony Microelectronic Devices and/or OmniVision Microelectronic
`
`Devices that were incorporated in the Apple Products shall be presumed to have been made by
`
`processes that infringe the ’678 Patent and the burden of establishing that such devices were not
`
`made by infringing processes shall be on Apple.
`
`45.
`
`On information and belief, with actual notice of the ’678 Patent and its
`
`applicability to the process(es) used to manufacture Sony Microelectronic Devices and/or
`
`OmniVision Microelectronic Devices during the term of the ’678 Patent, as described above,
`
`Apple 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 Sony Microelectronic Devices and/or OmniVision
`
`Microelectronic Devices in a manner that constitutes infringement of one or 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 Apple received
`
`actual notice of the ’678 Patent as described above.
`
`46.
`
`As a result of Apple’s infringement of the ’678 Patent, Raytheon has suffered
`
`damage. Raytheon is entitled to recover from Apple damages adequate to compensate for such
`
`infringement, which have yet to be determined.
`
`47.
`
`On information and belief, despite its knowledge of the ’678 Patent, Apple made
`
`the decision to continue to incorporate the Sony Microelectronic Devices or OmniVision
`
`Microelectronic Devices into the Apple Products and thus infringe the ’678 Patent during its
`
`term. As a result, Apple’s infringement following Apple’s knowledge of the ’678 Patent may be
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00342-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 03/06/15 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 15
`
`
`
`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
`
`48.
`
`jury, pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Eastern District of Texas
`
`Local Rule 38.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`49. WHEREFORE, Raytheon respectfully prays for the following relief:
`
`50.
`
`An order adjudging that Defendants’ processes presumptively infringe under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 295;
`
`51.
`
`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;
`
`52.
`
`53.
`
`An order adjudging that Defendants’ infringement was willful;
`
`An order adjudging that this case is “exceptional” within the meaning of
`
`35 U.S.C. § 285 against Defendants;
`
`54.
`
`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;
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-00342-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 03/06/15 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 16
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`