Case 6:20-cv-00840-ADA Document 1 Filed 09/15/20 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`SOLAS OLED LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AGAINST
`APPLE 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 Solas OLED Ltd. (“Plaintiff” or “Solas”)
`
`makes the following allegations against Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Defendant”):
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This complaint arises from Apple’s unlawful infringement of the following United
`
`States patent owned by Solas, which generally relates to touchscreen technology: United States
`
`Patent No. 7,868,880 (“’880 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`OLED displays are revolutionizing electronic devices today. Devices using OLED
`
`displays enhance a user’s viewing experience by allowing for the visual depiction of perfect blacks
`
`as well as colors with high contrast––without distortion. OLED displays naturally emit light and
`
`have the ability to turn off completely. Due to OLED display’s inherent design, devices are thinner,
`
`lighter, and more flexible than ever before. This is because OLED displays use fewer components.
`
`OLED displays are the trendiest and best displays available on the market today.
`
`
`
`1
`
`6:20-cv-840
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00840-ADA Document 1 Filed 09/15/20 Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`3.
`
`But just a few decades ago, OLED display technology was in its infancy. OLED
`
`displays have since undergone significant improvements to enhance the user experience for
`
`consumers throughout the world.
`
`4.
`
`Due to the vision of the companies who developed and those who improved on
`
`OLED display technology, this technology has enjoyed rapid developments and improvements.
`
`Research and development engineers have logged hours and hours of work to push this technology
`
`to the forefront of the display market today. Improvements to this technology can be highly
`
`technical, for example, they can relate to improved designs to the operation of drive control to
`
`improved designs of transistor array substrates. These advancements to the various aspects of the
`
`technology—each building a little on a related advancement before it—get us to the highly
`
`advanced state we enjoy today.
`
`5.
`
`These achievements range from designing the fundamental building blocks, which
`
`enable the operation of OLED display technology, to designing critical enhancements, which
`
`improves important aspects of the user experience and functionality of the OLED display. This
`
`infringement action is about the latter: patented improvements—which took years of research and
`
`millions of dollars in investments to develop, and which are infringed by Apple’s Accused
`
`Products here.
`
`PARTIES
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff Solas Ltd. is an Irish company, having its principal place of business at
`
`Suite 23, The Hyde Building, Carrickmines, Dublin 18, Ireland. Solas is the sole owner by
`
`assignment of all right, title, and interest in each Asserted Patent.
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Apple Inc. is a publicly traded corporation
`
`organized under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of business at One
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00840-ADA Document 1 Filed 09/15/20 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`Apple Park Way, Cupertino, CA 95014.
`
`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 Apple in this action because Apple 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 Apple would not offend traditional
`
`notions of fair play and substantial justice. Apple, directly and through subsidiaries or
`
`intermediaries, has committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in this District by,
`
`among other things, importing, offering to sell, and selling products that infringe the asserted
`
`patent.
`
`10.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §1400 (b). Apple is registered to
`
`do business in Texas, and upon information and belief, Apple has transacted business in this
`
`District and has committed acts of direct and indirect infringement in this District by, among other
`
`things, importing, offering to sell, and selling products that infringe the Asserted Patent. Apple has
`
`regular and established places of businesses in this District, including at 12545 Riata Vista Cir.,
`
`Austin, Texas 78727; 12801 Delcour Dr., Austin, Texas 78727; and 3121 Palm Way, Austin,
`
`Texas 78758. See Exhibits 1-4.
`
`COUNT I
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,868,880
`
`11.
`
`Solas realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00840-ADA Document 1 Filed 09/15/20 Page 4 of 6
`
`
`
`12.
`
`Solas owns by assignment all rights, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`
`(the “’880 Patent”), entitled “Display Apparatus and Drive Control Method Thereof.” The ’880
`
`Patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on January
`
`11, 2011. A true and correct copy of the ’880 Patent is attached as Exhibit 5.
`
`13.
`
`On information and belief, Apple makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, and/or imports
`
`certain products (“Accused Products”), including Apple Watch 3, Apple Watch 4, and Apple
`
`Watch 5, that directly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 2-
`
`40 of the ’880 Patent.
`
`14.
`
`Apple also knowingly and intentionally induces infringement of at least claims 2-
`
`40 of the ’880 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(b). Through the filing and service of this
`
`Complaint, Apple has had knowledge of the ’880 Patent and the infringing nature of the Accused
`
`Products. Despite this knowledge of the ’880 Patent, Apple 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 ’880 Patent.
`
`Apple does so knowing and intending that its customers and end users will commit these infringing
`
`acts. Apple also continues to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import the Accused Products,
`
`despite its knowledge of the ’880 Patent, thereby specifically intending for and inducing its
`
`customers to infringe the ’880 Patent through the customers’ normal and customary use of the
`
`Accused Products.
`
`15.
`
`The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of at least claims 2-40 of the ’880
`
`Patent. A claim chart comparing independent claims 2 and 25 of the ’880 Patent to a representative
`
`Accused Product, the Apple Watch 5, is attached as Exhibit 6.
`
`16.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00840-ADA Document 1 Filed 09/15/20 Page 5 of 6
`
`
`
`the Accused Products, Apple has injured Solas and is liable for infringement of the ’880 Patent
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §271.
`
`17.
`
`As a result of Apple’s infringement of the ’880 Patent, Solas is entitled to monetary
`
`damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Apple’s infringement, but in no event less than
`
`a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Apple, together with interest and costs
`
`as fixed by the Court.
`
`18.
`
`Apple’s infringing activities have injured and will continue to injure Solas, unless
`
`and until this Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ’880 Patent, and,
`
`specifically, enjoining further manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offers for sale that come
`
`within the scope of the patent claims.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Solas respectfully requests that this Court enter:
`
`a.
`
`A judgment in favor of Solas that Apple has infringed, either literally and/or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, the ’880 Patent;
`
`b.
`
`A permanent injunction prohibiting Apple from further acts of infringement of
`
`the ’880 Patent;
`
`c.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Apple to pay Solas its damages, costs, expenses,
`
`and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest for Apple’s infringement of the ’880 Patent; and
`
`d.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Apple to provide an accounting and to pay
`
`supplemental damages to Solas, 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 Solas its reasonable attorneys’ fees against Apple; and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00840-ADA Document 1 Filed 09/15/20 Page 6 of 6
`
`f.
`
`Any and all other relief as the Court may deem appropriate and just under the
`
`circumstances.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Solas, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury of any
`
`issues so triable by right.
`
`Dated: September 15, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By: /s/ Reza Mirzaie
`Reza Mirzaie (CA SBN 246953)
`Paul A. Kroeger (CA SBN 229074)
`Philip X. Wang (CA SBN 262239)
`Kent N. Shum (CA SBN 259189)
`Jonathan Ma (CA SBN 312773)
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1200
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Telephone: (310) 826-7474
`Facsimile: (310) 826-6991
`Email: rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`pkroeger@raklaw.com
`pwang@raklaw.com
`kshum@raklaw.com
`jma@raklaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Solas OLED Ltd.
`
`6
`
`