Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/28/19 Page 1 of 17
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`SOLAS OLED LTD., an Irish corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD., a Korean
`corporation; LG ELECTRONICS, INC., a
`Korean corporation; and SONY
`CORPORATION, a Japanese corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 6:19-CV-00236-ADA
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANT
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`Defendant LG Display Co., Ltd (“LG Display”) answers each paragraph of the Second
`
`Amended Complaint of Solas OLED Ltd. (“Solas” or “Plaintiff”), alleging infringement of U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 7,432,891, 7,573,068, and 7,907,137 (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”), and provides
`
`defenses and counterclaims as follows:
`
`ANSWER
`
`1.
`
`LG Display is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations of paragraph 1 including the preceding heading, and, on that basis,
`
`denies them.
`
`2.
`
`LG Display admits that a copy of a document purporting to be U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,432,891 (the “’891 patent”) is attached to the Second Amended Complaint. LG Display admits
`
`that a copy of a document purporting to be U.S. Patent No. 7,573,068 (the “’068 patent”) is
`
`attached to the Second Amended Complaint. LG Display admits that a copy of a document
`
`purporting to be U.S. Patent No. 7,907,137 (the “’137 patent”) is attached to the Second Amended
`
`Complaint. LG Display is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 2, and, on that basis, denies them.
`
`ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANT LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. – Page 1
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1013
`Page 001
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/28/19 Page 2 of 17
`
`3.
`
`LG Display admits that LG Display is a corporation organized under the laws of
`
`the Republic of Korea. LG Display admits that LG Electronics, Inc. (“LG Electronics”) is a
`
`corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of Korea. LG Display is without knowledge
`
`or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph
`
`3 including the preceding heading, and, on that basis, denies them.
`
`4.
`
`LG Display admits that Plaintiff purports to identify general categories of accused
`
`products in paragraph 4. Except as expressly admitted, LG Display denies the remaining
`
`allegations, if any, contained in paragraph 4.
`
`5.
`
`LG Display admits that it designs, produces, and sells OLED display panels. LG
`
`Display admits that LG Electronics sells products incorporating LG Display OLED display panels.
`
`LG Display admits that Sony Corporation (“Sony”) sells products, including OLED televisions,
`
`incorporating LG Display OLED display panels. LG Display is without knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 5, and, on that
`
`basis, denies them.
`
`6.
`
`LG Display admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s
`
`claims made pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281, et seq. LG Display denies that it has committed
`
`or is committing any act of patent infringement within this or any other District. Except as
`
`expressly admitted, LG Display denies the remaining allegations, if any, contained in paragraph 6
`
`including the preceding heading.
`
`7.
`
`For purposes of this action only, LG Display will not dispute personal jurisdiction
`
`of this Court. LG Display denies that it has committed or is committing any act of patent
`
`infringement within this or any other District. Except as expressly admitted, LG Display denies
`
`the remaining allegations, if any, contained in paragraph 7.
`
`8.
`
`LG Display admits that it designs, produces, and sells OLED display panels that
`
`are incorporated into products sold by LG Electronics and Sony Corporation. Except as expressly
`
`admitted, LG Display denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 8.
`
`ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANT LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. – Page 2
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1013
`Page 002
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/28/19 Page 3 of 17
`
`9.
`
`LG Display admits that it and LG Electronics are Korean corporations. For
`
`purposes of this action only, LG Display will not dispute whether venue is proper in this Court
`
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3). No response is otherwise required to paragraph 9. To the extent
`
`that the Court deems a response necessary, LG Display denies the allegations, if any, contained in
`
`paragraph 9.
`
`10.
`
`LG Display is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations of paragraph 10 including the preceding heading, and, on that basis,
`
`denies them.
`
`11.
`
`LG Display is without knowledge or information regarding the origin of the
`
`purported “image and circuit diagram” in paragraph 11 and, at least on that basis, denies that the
`
`purported “image and circuit diagram” is an accurate representation of the accused products.
`
`Except as expressly admitted, LG Display denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`LG Display is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations of paragraph 12, and, on that basis, denies them.
`
`13.
`
`No response is required to paragraph 13 including its preceding heading. To the
`
`extent that the Court deems a response necessary, LG Display incorporates by reference its
`
`responses to paragraphs 1 through 12 of the Second Amended Complaint as set forth above.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`LG Display admits the allegations contained in paragraph 14.
`
`LG Display is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations of paragraph 15, and, on that basis, denies them.
`
`16.
`
`Denied.
`
`17.
`
`Denied.
`
`18.
`
`Denied.
`
`19.
`
`LG Display admits that the ’891 patent purports to claim priority to foreign
`
`application DE10254511. LG Display is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 19, and, on that basis, denies them.
`
`ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANT LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. – Page 3
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1013
`Page 003
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/28/19 Page 4 of 17
`
`20.
`
`LG Display admits that KR100768047B1 is a Korean patent titled “OLED display
`
`apparatus and drive method thereof” that cites DE10254511B4 and identifies “LG.PHILIPS LCD
`
`CO., LTD” as the applicant and a filing date of November 30, 2005. LG Display admits that
`
`KR101200884B1 is a Korean patent titled “Light emitting diode and light emitting display device
`
`and method for driving the same” that cites KR100580956B1 and identifies “LG DISPLAY CO.,
`
`LTD.” as the applicant and a filing date of June 14, 2006. LG Display admits that
`
`KR101390316B1 is a Korean patent titled “AMOLED and driving method thereof” that cites
`
`KR20040045352A and identifies “LG DISPLAY CO., LTD” as the applicant and a filing date of
`
`October 30, 2007. LG Display admits that KR101597037B1 is a Korean patent titled “Organic
`
`light emitting display for compensating electrical characteristics deviation of driving element” that
`
`cites DE10254511B4 and identifies “LG Display Co., Ltd.” as the applicant and a filing date of
`
`June 26, 2014. Except as expressly admitted, LG Display denies the remaining allegations, if any,
`
`contained in paragraph 20.
`
`21.
`
`Denied.
`
`22.
`
`LG Display admits that LG Electronics has invested in LG Display. LG Display
`
`admits that it has prepared and prosecuted patent applications. LG Display denies that the ’891
`
`patent is relevant to the products designed by LG Display. LG Display is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 22,
`
`and, on that basis, denies them.
`
`23.
`
`Denied.
`
`24.
`
`LG Display admits that JP5278119B2 is a Japanese Patent titled “Method of driving
`
`a display device” that cites DE10254511A and identifies “SONY CORP” as the applicant and a
`
`filing date of April 2, 2009. LG Display is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 24, and, on that basis, denies them.
`
`25.
`
`Denied.
`
`26.
`
`Denied.
`
`ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANT LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. – Page 4
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1013
`Page 004
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/28/19 Page 5 of 17
`
`27.
`
`LG Display admits that it supplies OLED display panels that are incorporated in
`
`the Sony Bravia 55A1 OLED Television. Except as expressly admitted, LG Display denies the
`
`remaining allegations contained in paragraph 27.
`
`28.
`
`Denied.
`
`29.
`
`Denied.
`
`30.
`
`No response is required to paragraph 30 including the preceding heading. To the
`
`extent that the Court deems a response necessary, LG Display incorporates by reference its
`
`responses to paragraphs 1 through 29 of the Second Amended Complaint as set forth above.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`LG Display admits the allegations contained in paragraph 31.
`
`LG Display is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations of paragraph 32, and, on that basis, denies them.
`
`33.
`
`Denied.
`
`34.
`
`LG Display denies that the Sony Bravia 55A1 OLED Television and the LG
`
`OLED55B7A OLED Television infringe any claim of the ’068 patent. LG Display is without
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to any allegations regarding the Sony
`
`Trimaster EL PVM-A250 OLED Monitor or the Sony Electronic Viewfinder FDA-EV1MK and,
`
`on that basis, denies them. LG Display denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 34.
`
`35.
`
`Denied.
`
`36.
`
`LG Display admits that US10,103,212B2 is a United States Patent titled “Display
`
`device, method of manufacturing
`
`the same, and electronic apparatus”
`
`that cites
`
`US2006/0098521A1 and identifies “Sony Corporation” as the applicant and a filing date of July
`
`16, 2014. LG Display is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 36, and, on that basis, denies them.
`
`37.
`
`Denied.
`
`38.
`
`Denied.
`
`39.
`
`Denied.
`
`ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANT LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. – Page 5
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1013
`Page 005
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/28/19 Page 6 of 17
`
`40.
`
`LG Display admits that LG Electronics has invested in and worked with LG
`
`Display. LG Display admits that it has prepared and prosecuted patent applications. LG Display
`
`denies that the ’068 patent is relevant to the products designed by LG Display. LG Display is
`
`without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 40, and, on that basis, denies them.
`
`41.
`
`Denied.
`
`42.
`
`Denied.
`
`43.
`
`LG Display admits that it supplies OLED display panels that are incorporated in
`
`the Sony Bravia 55A1 OLED Television. Except as expressly admitted, LG Display denies the
`
`remaining allegations contained in paragraph 43.
`
`44.
`
`Denied.
`
`45.
`
`Denied.
`
`46.
`
`No response is required to paragraph 46 including the preceding heading. To the
`
`extent that the Court deems a response necessary, LG Display incorporates by reference its
`
`responses to paragraphs 1 through 45 of the Second Amended Complaint as set forth above.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`LG Display admits the allegations contained in paragraph 47.
`
`LG Display is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations of paragraph 48, and, on that basis, denies them.
`
`49.
`
`Denied.
`
`50.
`
`Denied.
`
`51.
`
`Denied.
`
`52.
`
`LG Display admits that US10,062,327 is a United States Patent titled “Data driver
`
`and organic light emitting display panel, display device, and driving method for sensing and
`
`compensating a mobility of the driving transistor” that cites US2006/0221015A1 and identifies
`
`“LG Display Co. Ltd.” as the applicant and a filing date of May 27, 2016. LG Display denies the
`
`remaining allegations of paragraph 52.
`
`53.
`
`Denied.
`
`ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANT LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. – Page 6
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1013
`Page 006
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/28/19 Page 7 of 17
`
`54.
`
`LG Display admits that LG Electronics has invested in and worked with LG
`
`Display. LG Display admits that it has prepared and prosecuted patent applications. LG Display
`
`denies that the ’137 patent is relevant to the products designed by LG Display. LG Display is
`
`without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 54, and, on that basis, denies them.
`
`55.
`
`Denied.
`
`56.
`
`LG Display admits that US8345027B2 is a United States Patent titled “Image
`
`display device and driving method of image display device” that cites US2006/0221015A1 and
`
`identifies “Sony Corporation” as the assignee and a filing date of March 4, 2009. LG Display is
`
`without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 56, and, on that basis, denies them.
`
`57.
`
`Denied.
`
`58.
`
`Denied.
`
`59.
`
`LG Display admits that it supplies OLED display panels that are incorporated in
`
`the Sony Bravia 55A1 OLED Television. Except as expressly admitted, LG Display denies the
`
`remaining allegations contained in paragraph 59.
`
`60.
`
`Denied.
`
`61.
`
`Denied.
`
`62.
`
`No response is required to paragraph 62 including the preceding heading. To the
`
`extent that the Court deems a response necessary, LG Display incorporates by reference its
`
`responses to paragraphs 1 through 61 of the Second Amended Complaint as set forth above.
`
`63.
`
`LG Display denies that Solas is entitled to any relief because none of the asserted
`
`patents are valid, enforceable, or infringed.
`
`64.
`
`No response is required to paragraph 64 including the preceding heading. To the
`
`extent that the Court deems a response necessary, LG Display incorporates by reference its
`
`responses to paragraphs 1 through 63 of the Second Amended Complaint as set forth above.
`
`ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANT LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. – Page 7
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1013
`Page 007
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/28/19 Page 8 of 17
`
`65.
`
`LG Display denies that Solas is entitled to any injunctive relief because none of the
`
`asserted patents are valid, enforceable, or infringed.
`
`66.
`
`No response is required to paragraph 66 including the preceding heading. To the
`
`extent that the Court deems a response necessary, LG Display incorporates by reference its
`
`responses to paragraphs 1 through 65 of the Second Amended Complaint as set forth above.
`
`67.
`
`LG Display denies that Solas is entitled to any relief because none of the asserted
`
`patents are valid, enforceable, or infringed.
`
`68.
`
`No response is required to paragraph 68 including the preceding heading. To the
`
`extent that the Court deems a response necessary, LG Display incorporates by reference its
`
`responses to paragraphs 1 through 67 of the Second Amended Complaint as set forth above.
`
`69.
`
`LG Display is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations of paragraph 69, and, on that basis, denies them.
`
`70.
`
`71.
`
`LG Display also demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`Except as expressly admitted above, LG Display denies each and every allegation
`
`in Solas’ Second Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement. In addition, LG Display denies
`
`any allegation that may be implied or inferred from the headings in the Second Amended
`
`Complaint.
`
`72.
`
`LG Display denies that Solas is entitled to any relief in this action.
`
`DEFENSES
`
`LG Display asserts the following additional defenses without assuming the burden of proof
`
`on any issue that LG Display would not have otherwise, including without admitting or
`
`acknowledging that it bears the burden of proof as to any of them. LG Display incorporates the
`
`admissions and denials in paragraphs 1 through 72, above.
`
`FIRST DEFENSE
`
`73.
`
`LG Display does not infringe, and has not infringed (either directly, contributorily,
`
`or by inducement), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and is not liable for
`
`infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANT LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. – Page 8
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1013
`Page 008
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/28/19 Page 9 of 17
`
`SECOND DEFENSE
`
`74.
`
`Each claim of the Patents-in-Suit is invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the
`
`conditions of patentability, including without limitation those set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102,
`
`103, and/or 112.
`
`THIRD DEFENSE
`
`75.
`
`Solas’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of disclaimer.
`
`FOURTH DEFENSE
`
`76.
`
`Solas’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of prosecution history
`
`estoppel.
`
`FIFTH DEFENSE
`
`77.
`
`Plaintiff is not entitled to enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, at least because
`
`Plaintiff has failed to show, and cannot show, that LG Display has intentionally, willfully, or
`
`deliberately infringed any valid and enforceable claim of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`78.
`
`Solas’ claim for damages is barred, in whole or in part, by 35 U.S.C. § 286.
`
`SIXTH DEFENSE
`
`SEVENTH DEFENSE
`
`79.
`
`Solas’ request for a permanent injunction is barred in whole or in part by the
`
`doctrine of laches.
`
`EIGHTH DEFENSE
`
`80.
`
`Solas’ claims are barred in whole or in part by a failure of the owner and/or licensee
`
`of the Patents-in-Suit to mark relevant products as required by 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`
`NINTH DEFENSE
`
`81.
`
`To the extent that Solas’ claims are directed to acts occurring outside the United
`
`States, those claims for relief are barred or limited by the doctrine of territoriality by 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271 et seq., including but not limited to § 271(a) and (c).
`
`
`
`
`
`ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANT LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. – Page 9
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1013
`Page 009
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/28/19 Page 10 of 17
`
`OTHER DEFENSES RESERVED
`
`82.
`
`LG Display reserves the right to assert additional defenses if such defenses are
`
`discovered during litigation.
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`For its counterclaims, LG Display alleges:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`LG Display is a Korean corporation organized under the laws of Korea, with its
`
`principal place of business in LG Twin Tower 128, Yeoui-daero, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul 07336,
`
`South Korea.
`
`2.
`
`Solas is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Ireland, with its
`
`headquarters at 4-5 Burton Hall Road, Sandyford, Dublin 18.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement under the patent laws of the United States,
`
`including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281 et seq.
`
`4.
`
`Solas is subject to personal jurisdiction, and venue is proper as to Solas in this
`
`district.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`FIRST COUNTERCLAIM
`Declaration of Non-infringement of the ’891 Patent
`
`LG Display incorporates paragraphs 1 through 4, above.
`
`Solas alleges it is the owner of the ’891 patent.
`
`Solas has asserted the ’891 patent against LG Display in this action, alleging that
`
`LG Display has infringed and/or infringes, directly and/or indirectly, the ’891 patent.
`
`8.
`
`LG Display has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any claim
`
`of the ’891 patent.
`
`9.
`
`For example, and without limitation, LG Display does not infringe claim 1 of the
`
`’891 patent because the accused products do not comprise “feedback coupling” or a “third thin
`
`film transistor which during driving its gate through a driving conductor taps a diode driving
`
`ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANT LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. – Page 10
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1013
`Page 010
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/28/19 Page 11 of 17
`
`current at an output of said first current-driving transistor and supplies a current measuring- and
`
`voltage regulating circuit, said current measuring- and voltage regulating circuit providing to the
`
`data conductor a voltage signal which is dependent on a current measuring result and a voltage
`
`comparison, so that the diode during driving of said gate of said third transistor due to its non-
`
`linear switching characteristic acts as a switch for a current deviation in said current measuring-
`
`and voltage regulating circuit.”
`
`10.
`
`An actual case and controversy exists between Solas and LG Display based on
`
`Solas having alleged infringement of the ’891 patent, and that controversy is ripe for adjudication
`
`by this Court.
`
`11.
`
`To resolve the legal and factual questions raised by Solas and to afford relief from
`
`the uncertainty and controversy that Solas’ accusations have caused, LG Display is entitled to a
`
`declaratory judgment that it does not infringe and has not infringed any claim of the ’891 patent.
`
`SECOND COUNTERCLAIM
`Declaration of Invalidity of the ’891 Patent
`
`LG Display incorporates paragraphs 1 through 11, above.
`
`Solas alleges that the claims of the ’891 patent are valid and enforceable.
`
`Each of the claims of the ’891 patent is invalid for failure to comply with one or
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`more requirements of the patent laws of the United States, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.
`
`15.
`
`For example, and without limitation, the claims of the ’891 patent, including claim
`
`1, are rendered obvious by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0101172 to Bu alone or
`
`in combination with other prior art and/or the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`16.
`
`Furthermore, the claims of the ’891 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at least
`
`because they are directed to the abstract idea of regulating an input using measurement-based
`
`feedback, and lack an inventive concept that could transform those claims into a patentable
`
`invention.
`
`ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANT LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. – Page 11
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1013
`Page 011
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/28/19 Page 12 of 17
`
`17.
`
`An actual case and controversy exists between Solas and LG Display based on
`
`Solas having alleged infringement of the ’891 patent, and that controversy is ripe for adjudication
`
`by this Court.
`
`18.
`
`To resolve the legal and factual questions raised by Solas and to afford relief from
`
`the uncertainty and controversy that Solas’ accusations have caused, LG Display is entitled to a
`
`declaratory judgment that one or more claims of the ’891 patent are invalid.
`
`THIRD COUNTERCLAIM
`Declaration of Non-infringement of the ’068 Patent
`
`LG Display incorporates paragraphs 1 through 18, above.
`
`Solas alleges it is the owner of the ’068 patent.
`
`Solas has asserted the ’068 patent against LG Display in this action, alleging that
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`LG Display has infringed and/or infringes, directly and/or indirectly, the ’068 patent.
`
`22.
`
`LG Display has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any claim
`
`of the ’068 patent.
`
`23.
`
`For example, and without limitation, LG Display does not infringe claim 13 of the
`
`’068 patent because the accused products do not comprise “a plurality of feed interconnections”
`
`or “a plurality of supply lines which are patterned together with the sources and drains of said
`
`plurality of driving transistors and arrayed to cross said plurality of signal lines via the gate
`
`insulating film, one of the source and the drain of each of driving transistors being electrically
`
`connected to one of the supply lines.”
`
`24.
`
`An actual case and controversy exists between Solas and LG Display based on
`
`Solas having alleged infringement of the ’068 patent, and that controversy is ripe for adjudication
`
`by this Court.
`
`25.
`
`To resolve the legal and factual questions raised by Solas and to afford relief from
`
`the uncertainty and controversy that Solas’ accusations have caused, LG Display is entitled to a
`
`declaratory judgment that it does not infringe and has not infringed any claim of the ’068 patent.
`
`
`
`ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANT LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. – Page 12
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1013
`Page 012
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/28/19 Page 13 of 17
`
`FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM
`Declaration of Invalidity of the ’068 Patent
`
`LG Display incorporates paragraphs 1 through 25, above.
`
`Solas alleges that the claims of the ’068 patent are valid and enforceable.
`
`Each of the claims of the ’068 patent is invalid for failure to comply with one or
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`more requirements of the patent laws of the United States, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102, 103, and 112.
`
`29.
`
`For example, and without limitation, the claims of the ’068 patent are rendered
`
`obvious by PCT Patent Application No. WO 03/079441 to Childs, alone or in combination with
`
`other prior art and/or the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`30.
`
`An actual case and controversy exists between Solas and LG Display based on
`
`Solas having alleged infringement of the ’068 patent, and that controversy is ripe for adjudication
`
`by this Court.
`
`31.
`
`To resolve the legal and factual questions raised by Solas and to afford relief from
`
`the uncertainty and controversy that Solas’ accusations have caused, LG Display is entitled to a
`
`declaratory judgment that one or more claims of the ’068 patent are invalid.
`
`FIFTH COUNTERCLAIM
`Declaration of Non-infringement of the ’137 Patent
`
`LG Display incorporates paragraphs 1 through 31, above.
`
`Solas alleges it is the owner of the ’137 patent.
`
`Solas has asserted the ’137 patent against LG Display in this action, alleging that
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`LG Display has infringed and/or infringes, directly and/or indirectly, the ’137 patent.
`
`35.
`
`LG Display has not infringed and does not infringe, directly or indirectly, any claim
`
`of the ’137 patent.
`
`36.
`
`For example, and without limitation, LG Display does not infringe claim 10 of the
`
`’137 patent because the accused products do not comprise “a gradation signal generation circuit
`
`which generates a gradation current having a current value for allowing the optical element to
`
`perform a light emitting operation at a luminance corresponding to a luminance gradation of the
`
`ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANT LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. – Page 13
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1013
`Page 013
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/28/19 Page 14 of 17
`
`display data, as a gradation signal corresponding to the luminance gradation of the display data,
`
`and supplies the gradation current to the display pixel through a data line connected to the display
`
`pixel” or “a threshold voltage detection circuit which detects a threshold voltage peculiar to the
`
`drive element of the display pixel through the data line.”
`
`37.
`
`An actual case and controversy exists between Solas and LG Display based on
`
`Solas having alleged infringement of the ’137 patent, and that controversy is ripe for adjudication
`
`by this Court.
`
`38.
`
`To resolve the legal and factual questions raised by Solas and to afford relief from
`
`the uncertainty and controversy that Solas’ accusations have caused, LG Display is entitled to a
`
`declaratory judgment that it does not infringe and has not infringed any claim of the ’137 patent.
`
`SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM
`Declaration of Invalidity of the ’137 Patent
`
`LG Display incorporates paragraphs 1 through 38, above.
`
`Solas alleges that the claims of the ’137 patent are valid and enforceable.
`
`Each of the claims of the ’137 patent is invalid for failure to comply with one or
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`more requirements of the patent laws of the United States, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 102, 103, and 112.
`
`42.
`
`For example, and without limitation, each and every claim of the ’137 patent is
`
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103 as anticipated and/or rendered obvious by U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,358,941 to Ono alone or in combination with other prior art and/or the knowledge of a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art.
`
`43.
`
`An actual case and controversy exists between Solas and LG Display based on
`
`Solas having alleged infringement of the ’137 patent, and that controversy is ripe for adjudication
`
`by this Court.
`
`44.
`
`To resolve the legal and factual questions raised by Solas and to afford relief from
`
`the uncertainty and controversy that Solas’ accusations have caused, LG Display is entitled to a
`
`declaratory judgment that one or more claims of the ’137 patent are invalid.
`
`ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANT LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. – Page 14
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1013
`Page 014
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/28/19 Page 15 of 17
`
`REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`
`45.
`
`LG Display respectfully requests the following relief:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`That Solas take nothing on its Complaint;
`
`That the Court dismiss each and every claim related to LG Display in Solas’
`
`Complaint with prejudice;
`
`C.
`
`A declaration that LG Display has not infringed and does not infringe,
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, directly or indirectly, any valid
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`K.
`
`L.
`
`enforceable claim of the ’891 patent;
`
`A declaration that the ’891 patent is invalid;
`
`That the Court limit or bar Solas’ ability to enforce the ’891 patent in equity;
`
`A declaration that LG Display has not infringed and does not infringe,
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, directly or indirectly, any valid
`
`enforceable claim of the ’068 patent;
`
`A declaration that the ’068 patent is invalid;
`
`That the Court limit or bar Solas’ ability to enforce the ’068 patent in equity;
`
`A declaration that LG Display has not infringed and does not infringe,
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, directly or indirectly, any valid
`
`enforceable claim of the ’137 patent;
`
`A declaration that the ’137 patent is invalid;
`
`That the Court limit or bar Solas’ ability to enforce the ’137 patent in equity;
`
`That the Court declare that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285
`
`and award to LG Display its reasonable costs and expenses of litigation,
`
`including attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees and other expenses incurred
`
`in connection with this action;
`
`M.
`
`That the Court grant LG Display pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
`
`on all amounts awarded; and
`
`ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANT LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. – Page 15
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1013
`Page 015
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/28/19 Page 16 of 17
`
`N.
`
`That the Court award LG Display any other and further relief the Court may
`
`deem just and proper.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`46.
`
`LG Display demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ Jennifer H. Doan
`Jennifer H. Doan
`Texas Bar No. 08809050
`Joshua R. Thane
`Texas Bar No. 24060713
`HALTOM & DOAN
`6500 Summerhill Road, Suite 100
`Texarkana, TX 75503
`Tel: 903.255.1000
`Fax: 903.255.0800
`Email: jdoan@haltomdoan.com
`Email: jthane@haltomdoan.com
`
`Douglas E. Lumish
`California State Bar No. 183863
`Email: doug.lumish@lw.com
`Gabriel S. Gross
`California State Bar No. 254672
`Email: gabe.gross@lw.com
`Andrew Max Goldberg
`California State Bar No. 307254
`Email: drew.goldberg@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`140 Scott Drive
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Tel: 650.328.4600
`Fax: 650.463.2600
`
`Joseph H. Lee
`California State Bar No. 248046
`Email: joseph.lee@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor
`Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1925
`Tel: 714.540.1235
`Fax: 714.755.8290
`
`
`ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANT LG DISPLAY CO., LTD. – Page 16
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1013
`Page 016
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00236-ADA Document 41 Filed 10/28/19 Page 17 of 17
`
`Blake R. Davis
`California State Bar No. 294360
`Email: blake.davis@lw.com
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`505 Montgomery Street
`Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
`Tel: 415.391.0600
`Fax: 415.395.8095
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.; LG
`ELECTRONICS, INC.; and SONY
`CORPORATION
`
`
`
`