Case 6:20-cv-00117-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 1 of 10
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No.
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AGAINST
`ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the United States
`
`of America, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., in which Plaintiff Neodron Ltd. (“Plaintiff” or “Neodron”)
`
`makes the following allegations against Defendant ASUSTeK Computer Inc. (“Defendant”):
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This complaint arises from Defendant’s unlawful infringement of the following
`
`United States patents owned by Neodron, each of which generally relate to touchscreen
`
`technology: United States Patent Nos. 7,821,425 (“’425 Patent”); 7,903,092 (“’092 Patent”); and
`
`8,749,251 (“’251 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`2.
`
`Touchscreen technology plays a ubiquitous and important role in countless
`
`electronic devices today. Beyond just providing greater usability to smartphones, tablets and
`
`notebooks, touchscreens now fill our lives in public and private spaces, from our homes and cars
`
`to the restaurants and stores we visit.
`
`3.
`
`But just a few decades ago, touchscreen technology could only be found in science
`
`fiction books and film. Although the underlying science behind touch technology can be traced
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00117-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 2 of 10
`
`
`
`back to the 1940s, working touchscreens were not conceived and feasible until the mid-1960s,
`
`when the first finger-driven touchscreen was invented by E.A. Johnson in 1965 at the Royal Radar
`
`Establishment in Malvern, United Kingdom. Since then, it took several generations and major
`
`technological advancements for touchscreens to achieve the level of complexity—and
`
`convenience—we see and enjoy today.
`
`4.
`
`Built on the fundamental breakthrough that our hands and fingers can form changes
`
`in the capacitance of electrodes and electrode-connections when they are in close proximity to
`
`them, touch technology has developed rapidly over the years. Along the way, engineers have
`
`worked tirelessly to try to overcome the limitations and roadblocks touch technology presents.
`
`From conceiving various ways to detect (and correctly ignore) unintentional touches, to
`
`minimizing signal “noise,” to reducing the latency and power consumption that comes with any
`
`complex, multi-part electrical process, there have been many advances to various aspects of the
`
`technology—each building a little on a related advancement before it—to get us to the highly
`
`advanced state we enjoy today.
`
`5.
`
`These advancements range from fundamental ones, which make basic touch
`
`technology work, to optional improvements, which typically represent one technological option
`
`that improves aspects of the user experience and functionality of a touchscreen. This infringement
`
`action is about the latter: several patented improvements—which took years of research and
`
`millions of dollars in U.S. investments to develop, and which are infringed by Defendant’s accused
`
`products.
`
`PARTIES
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff Neodron, Ltd. is an Irish company, having its principal place of business
`
`at Unit 4-5, Burton Hall Road, Sandyford, Dublin 18, D18a094. Neodron is the sole owner by
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00117-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 3 of 10
`
`
`
`assignment of all right, title, and interest in each Asserted Patent.
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant ASUSTeK Computer Inc. is a corporation
`
`organized under the laws of Taiwan, with its principal place of business at No. 15, Li-Te Rd.,
`
`Beitou District, Taipei City 112, Taiwan.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United
`
`States Code. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a).
`
`9.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant in this action because
`
`Defendant has committed acts within this District giving rise to this action, and has established
`
`minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over Defendant would not
`
`offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Defendant, directly and through
`
`subsidiaries or intermediaries, has committed and continue to commit acts of infringement in this
`
`District by, among other things, importing, offering to sell, and selling products that infringe the
`
`asserted patents.
`
`10.
`
`Venue is proper in this District. Venue is proper as to a foreign defendant in any
`
`district. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3); In re HTC Corp., 889 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Defendant is a
`
`foreign corporation organized under the laws of Taiwan, with a principal place of business in
`
`Taiwan.
`
`COUNT I
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,821,425
`
`11.
`
`Neodron realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00117-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 4 of 10
`
`
`
`12.
`
`Neodron owns by assignment all rights, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,821,425, entitled “Capacitive Keyboard with Non-Locking Reduced Keying Ambiguity.”
`
`The ’425 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on
`
`October 26, 2010. A true and correct copy of the ’425 Patent is attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`13.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, and/or
`
`imports certain products (“Accused Products”), such as the ASUS VivoBook Flip 14 TP401MA,
`
`that directly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, claims 1–40 of the ’425
`
`Patent.
`
`14.
`
`Defendant also knowingly and intentionally induces infringement of claims 1–40
`
`of the ’425 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Through the filing and service of this
`
`Complaint, and also through the filing and service of a complaint with the United States
`
`International Trade Commission (ITC) pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1337, Defendant has had knowledge of the ’425 Patent and the infringing nature of the Accused
`
`Products. Despite this knowledge of the ’425 Patent, Defendant continues to actively encourage
`
`and instruct its customers and end users (for example, through user manuals and online instruction
`
`materials on its website) to use the Accused Products in ways that directly infringe the ’425 Patent.
`
`Defendant does so knowing and intending that its customers and end users will commit these
`
`infringing acts. Defendant also continues to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import the
`
`Accused Products, despite its knowledge of the ’425 Patent, thereby specifically intending for and
`
`inducing its customers to infringe the ’425 Patent through the customers’ normal and customary
`
`use of the Accused Products.
`
`15.
`
`The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of claims 1–40 of the ’425
`
`Patent. A claim charts comparing independent claims 7, 16, 25, and 33 of the ’425 Patent to
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00117-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 5 of 10
`
`
`
`representative Accused Product, the ASUS VivoBook Flip 14 TP401MA, is attached as Exhibit 2.
`
`16.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States
`
`the Accused Products, Defendant has injured Neodron and are liable for infringement of the ’425
`
`Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`17.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’425 Patent, Neodron is entitled to
`
`monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendant’s infringement, but in no
`
`event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendant, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`18.
`
`Defendant’s infringing activities have injured and will continue to injure Neodron,
`
`unless and until this Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ’425 Patent,
`
`and, specifically, enjoining further manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offers for sale that
`
`come within the scope of the patent claims.
`
`COUNT II
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,903,092
`
`19.
`
`Neodron realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`20.
`
`Neodron owns by assignment all rights, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,903,092 (the “’092 Patent”), entitled “Capacitive Keyboard with Position Dependent Reduced
`
`Keying Ambiguity.” The ’092 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office on March 8, 2011. A true and correct copy of the ’092 Patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit 3.
`
`21.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, and/or
`
`imports certain products (“Accused Products”), such as the ASUS VivoBook Flip 14 TP401MA,
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00117-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 6 of 10
`
`
`
`that directly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, claims 1–14 of the ’092
`
`Patent.
`
`22.
`
`Defendant also knowingly and intentionally induces infringement of claims 1–14
`
`of the ’092 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Through the filing and service of this
`
`Complaint, and also through the filing and service of a complaint with the United States
`
`International Trade Commission (ITC) pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1337, Defendant has had knowledge of the ’092 Patent and the infringing nature of the Accused
`
`Products. Despite this knowledge of the ’092 Patent, Defendant continues to actively encourage
`
`and instruct its customers and end users (for example, through user manuals and online instruction
`
`materials on its website) to use the Accused Products in ways that directly infringe the ’092 Patent.
`
`Defendant does so knowing and intending that its customers and end users will commit these
`
`infringing acts. Defendant also continues to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import the
`
`Accused Products, despite its knowledge of the ’092 Patent, thereby specifically intending for and
`
`inducing its customers to infringe the ’092 Patent through the customers’ normal and customary
`
`use of the Accused Products.
`
`23.
`
`The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of claims 1–14 of the ’092
`
`Patent. A claim chart comparing independent claims 1, 2, and 13 of the ’092 Patent to
`
`representative Accused Product, the ASUS VivoBook Flip 14 TP401MA, is attached as Exhibit 4.
`
`24.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States
`
`the Accused Products, Defendant has injured Neodron and are liable for infringement of the ’092
`
`Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`25.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’092 Patent, Neodron is entitled to
`
`monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendant’s infringement, but in no
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00117-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 7 of 10
`
`
`
`event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendant, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`26.
`
`Defendant’s infringing activities have injured and will continue to injure Neodron,
`
`unless and until this Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ’092 Patent,
`
`and, specifically, enjoining further manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offers for sale that
`
`come within the scope of the patent claims.
`
`COUNT III
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,749,251
`
`27.
`
`Neodron realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`28.
`
`Neodron owns by assignment all rights, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,749,251 (the “’251 Patent”), entitled “Proximity Sensor.” The ’251 Patent was duly and legally
`
`issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on June 10, 2014. A true and correct copy
`
`of the ’251 Patent is attached as Exhibit 5.
`
`29.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, and/or
`
`imports certain products (“Accused Products”), such as the ASUS VivoBook Flip 14 TP401MA,
`
`that directly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, claims 1–20 of the ’251
`
`Patent.
`
`30.
`
`Defendant also knowingly and intentionally induces infringement of claims 1–20
`
`of the ’251 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Through the filing and service of this
`
`Complaint, and also through the filing and service of a complaint with the United States
`
`International Trade Commission (ITC) pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1337, Defendant has had knowledge of the ’251 Patent and the infringing nature of the Accused
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00117-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 8 of 10
`
`
`
`Products. Despite this knowledge of the ’251 Patent, Defendant continues to actively encourage
`
`and instruct its customers and end users (for example, through user manuals and online instruction
`
`materials on its website) to use the Accused Products in ways that directly infringe the ’251 Patent.
`
`Defendant does so knowing and intending that its customers and end users will commit these
`
`infringing acts. Defendant also continues to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import the
`
`Accused Products, despite its knowledge of the ’251 Patent, thereby specifically intending for and
`
`inducing its customers to infringe the ’251 Patent through the customers’ normal and customary
`
`use of the Accused Products.
`
`31.
`
`The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of claims 1–20 of the ’251
`
`Patent. A claim chart comparing independent claims 1, 10, and 16 of the ’251 Patent to
`
`representative Accused Products, the ASUS VivoBook Flip 14 TP401MA, is attached as Exhibit
`
`6.
`
`32.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States
`
`the Accused Products, Defendant has injured Neodron and are liable for infringement of the ’251
`
`Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`33.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’251 Patent, Neodron is entitled to
`
`monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendant’s infringement, but in no
`
`event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendant, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`34.
`
`Defendant’s infringing activities have injured and will continue to injure Neodron,
`
`unless and until this Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ’251 Patent,
`
`and, specifically, enjoining further manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offers for sale that
`
`come within the scope of the patent claims.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00117-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 9 of 10
`
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Neodron respectfully requests that this Court enter:
`
`a.
`
`A judgment in favor of Neodron that Defendant has infringed, either literally and/or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’425 Patent, the ’092 Patent, and the ’251 Patent;
`
`b.
`
`A permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from further acts of infringement of
`
`the ’425 Patent, the ’092 Patent, and the ’251 Patent;
`
`c.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Defendant to pay Neodron its damages, costs,
`
`expenses, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest for Defendant’s infringement of the ’425
`
`Patent, the ’092 Patent, and the ’251 Patent; and
`
`d.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Defendant to provide an accounting and to pay
`
`supplemental damages to Neodron, including without limitation, pre-judgment and post-judgment
`
`interest;
`
`e.
`
`A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the meaning
`
`of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding to Neodron its reasonable attorneys’ fees against Defendant; and
`
`f.
`
`Any and all other relief as the Court may deem appropriate and just under the
`
`circumstances.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Neodron, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury of
`
`any issues so triable by right.
`
`
`Dated: February 14, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Reza Mirzaie
`
`Reza Mirzaie (CA SBN 246953)
`rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`Paul A. Kroeger (CA SBN 229074)
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00117-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/14/20 Page 10 of 10
`
`pkroeger@raklaw.com
`Philip X. Wang (CA SBN 262239)
`pwang@raklaw.com
`Kent N. Shum (CA SBN 259189)
`kshum@raklaw.com
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Blvd. 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Phone: (310) 826-7474
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Neodron Ltd.
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`