September 14, 2020
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
`
`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton
`Secretary to the Commission
`U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`500 E Street, SW, Room 112-A
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`Re:
`
`Certain Active Matrix OLED Display Devices and Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-____
`
`Dear Secretary Barton:
`
`In accordance with the Commission’s Temporary Change to the Filing Procedures,
`dated March 16, 2020, enclosed for filing on behalf of Complainant Solas OLED Ltd.
`(“Solas” or “Complainant”) are the following documents in support of Solas’s request that
`the Commission commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of
`1930, as amended:
`
`One (1) electronic copy of the verified Non-Confidential Complaint and the
`1.
`Public Interest Statement. (19 C.F.R. §§ 210.8(a)(1)(i) and 210.8(b));
`
`One (1) electronic copy of the Confidential Complaint and the Public Interest
`2.
`Statement. (19 C.F.R. §§ 210.8(a)(1)(ii) and 210.8(b));
`
`One (1) electronic copy of Solas’ letter and certification requesting confidential
`3.
`treatment for the information contained in the Confidential Exhibit Nos. 8C, 9C, 32C,
`and 33C. (19 C.F.R. §§ 210.5(d) and 201.6(b));
`
`One (1) electronic copy of the accompanying Non-Confidential Exhibits and
`4.
`public version of the Confidential Exhibits. (19 C.F.R. § 210.8(a)(1)(i));
`
`One (1) electronic copy of Confidential Exhibits 8C, 9C, 32C, and 33C. (19
`5.
`C.F.R. §§ 210.8(a)(1)(ii) and 201.6(c));
`
`One (1) electronic copy of the certified versions of United States Patent No.
`6.
`8,139,007 (“the ’007 Patent”); United States Patent No. 7,573,068 (“the ’068 Patent”);
`and United States Patent No. 7,868,880 (“the ’880 Patent) (collectively, the “Asserted
`Patents”) cited in the Complaint as Exhibits 1–3. (19 C.F.R. §§ 210.12(a)(9)(i));
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd.
`Exhibit 1023
`LG Display v. Solas
`IPR2020-01055
`
`Ex. 1023-001
`
`

`

`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton
`September 14, 2020
`Page 2
`
`One (1) electronic copy of the certified versions of each of the assignments for
`7.
`the Asserted Patents cited
`in
`the Complaint as Exhibits 4–7. (19 C.F.R.
`§§ 210.12(a)(9)(ii));
`
`One (1) electronic copy of the certified versions of the prosecution histories for
`8.
`the Asserted Patents included as Appendices A1, B1, and C1 to the Complaint. (19 C.F.R.
`§§ 210.12(c)(1));
`
`One (1) electronic copy of the patent and technical reference documents
`9.
`identified in each of the prosecution histories of the Asserted Patents, included in the
`Complaint as Appendices A2, B2, and C2. (19 C.F.R. §§ 210.12(c)(2)).
`
` Please contact me with any questions regarding this submission. Thank you for your
`attention to this matter.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`Evan H. Langdon
`
`Counsel for Complainant
`Solas OLED Ltd.
`
`Enclosures
`
`Ex. 1023-002
`
`

`

`September 14, 2020
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
`
`REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT
`
`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton
`Secretary to the Commission
`U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`500 E Street, SW, Room 112-A
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`Re:
`
`Certain Active Matrix OLED Display Devices and Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-____
`
`Dear Secretary Barton:
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rules 210.5(d) and 201.6(b)(1), Complainant Solas OLED Ltd.
`(“Solas” or “Complainant”) respectfully requests confidential treatment of the business
`information contained in Exhibit Nos. 8C, 9C, 32C, and 33C (“Conf. Exhibits”) to the Verified
`Complaint.
`
`The information contained in the Conf. Exhibits qualifies as confidential business
`information pursuant to Commission Rule 201.6(a) because:
`
`It is not available to the general public;
`
` The disclosure of such information would cause substantial harm to Solas and to the
`competitive position of Solas; and
` Unauthorized disclosure of the information could impair the Commission’s ability to
`obtain information necessary to perform its statutory function.
`
`Please contact me with any questions regarding this submission. Thank you for your
`attention to this matter.
`
`Ex. 1023-003
`
`

`

`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton
`September 14, 2020
`Page 2
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`Evan H. Langdon
`
`Counsel for Complainant
`Solas OLED Ltd.
`
`Ex. 1023-004
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN ACTIVE MATRIX OLED
`DISPLAY DEVICES AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-_____
`
`CERTIFICATION REGARDING REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT
`
`I, Evan H. Langdon, counsel for Complainant Solas OLED Ltd. (“Solas” or
`
`“Complainant”), declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I have reviewed Solas’ Verified Complaint and Confidential Exhibit Nos. 8C, 9C,
`
`32C, and 33C (“Conf. Exhibits”) filed concurrently with this Certification.
`
`2.
`
`Confidential Exhibit No. 8C is a list of Complainant’s licensees, the identity of
`
`which is regarded as Complainant’s confidential business information.
`
`3.
`
`Confidential Exhibit No. 9C is the licensing agreement between Solas and its
`
`licensee, eMagin Corporation (“eMagin”). The licensing agreement between the Parties contains
`
`confidential business information, including confidential information related to the licensing terms
`
`between the Parties, which is not available for public dissemination. Disclosure of this information
`
`to the public would cause substantial harm to Solas, its competitive position, and its ability to
`
`negotiate future licensing agreements.
`
`4.
`
`Confidential Exhibit No. 32C is an agreement between Solas and its licensee,
`
`eMagin. The agreement between the Parties contains confidential business information, including
`
`confidential information related to terms of the agreement between the Parties, which is not
`
`available for public dissemination. Disclosure of this information to the public would cause
`
`substantial harm to Solas and its competitive position.
`
`Ex. 1023-005
`
`

`

`5.
`
`Confidential Exhibit No. 33C is an agreement between Solas and its licensee,
`
`eMagin. The agreement between the Parties contains confidential business information, including
`
`confidential information related to terms of the agreement between the Parties, which is not
`
`available for public dissemination. Disclosure of this information to the public would cause
`
`substantial harm to Solas and its competitive position.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this
`
`14th day of September, 2020 in Arlington, VA.
`
`___________________________
`Evan H. Langdon
`NIXON PEABODY LLP
`799 9th Street NW, Suite 500
`Washington, DC 20001-5327
`Telephone: 202-585-8000
`Facsimile: 202-585-8080
`E-Mail: Solas_ITC@nixonpeabody.com
`
`Counsel for Complainant
`Solas OLED Ltd.
`
`2
`
`Ex. 1023-006
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN ACTIVE MATRIX OLED
`DISPLAY DEVICES AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
` Investigation No. 337-TA-____
`
`STATEMENT REGARDING THE PUBLIC INTEREST
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.8(b), 19 C.F.R. § 210.8(b), Complainant Solas OLED
`
`Ltd. (“Solas” or “Complainant”) respectfully submits this Statement Regarding the Public Interest.
`
`Solas seeks limited exclusion orders and cease and desist orders against the Proposed Respondents’
`
`active matrix organic light emitting diode (“OLED”) display devices and components thereof that
`
`infringe United States Patent Nos. 8,139,007 (“’007 Patent”), 7,573,068 (“’068 Patent”), and
`
`7,868,880 (“’880 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`Exclusion of the Proposed Respondents’ infringing products from the United States will
`
`have no adverse effect on the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions
`
`in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United
`
`States, or United States consumers. The Commission has declined to direct Administrative Law
`
`Judges to make recommendations on the impact requested remedial orders would have on the
`
`public interest in investigations involving electronic products. See, e.g., Certain Network Personal
`
`Computers & Mobile Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1083, Notice of Institution (Aug. 28, 2019) (Nov.
`
`14, 2017) (omitting delegation of public interest to the ALJ). This Investigation does not present
`
`an exceptional circumstance where a compelling public interest would supersede entry of the
`
`requested remedial orders. Instead, the requested relief serves a strong public interest in protecting
`
`intellectual property rights and promoting innovation. See, e.g., Certain Baseband Processor
`
`Ex. 1023-007
`
`

`

`Chips & Chipsets, Transmitter & Receiver (Radio) Chips, Power Control Chips & Prods.
`
`Containing Same, Including Cellular Telephone Handsets, Inv. No. 337-TA-543, Comm’n Op. at
`
`136–37 (June 19, 2007).
`
`I.
`
`Explanation of How the Accused Products Potentially Subject to the Remedial
`Orders Are Used in The United States
`
`The Accused Products subject to the remedial orders in this Investigation are electronic
`
`devices that include active matrix OLED displays, which are commonly used by end consumers
`
`for personal, business, entertainment, and communication purposes. The category of Accused
`
`Products for each Proposed Respondent varies and includes: Apple Watches with active matrix
`
`OLED displays; Dell laptops with active matrix OLED displays; Motorola smartphones with
`
`active matrix OLED displays; Samsung smartphone and tablets with active matrix OLED displays;
`
`and Sony and LG televisions and monitors with active matrix OLED displays. As shown in the
`
`table below, the Proposed Respondents’ Accused Products are in different product categories:
`
`Motorola
`
`Samsung
`
`X X
`
`
`
`Sony
`
`LG
`
`Dell
`
`
`
`X
`
`
`
`
`
`X X
`
`Apple
`
`X
`
`
`
`Smartwatches
`Mobile Phones & Tablets
`Laptops
`Televisions and Monitors
`
`Moreover, the Accused Products are a limited subset of consumer products offered by the Proposed
`
`Respondents and, further yet, a subset of those products with OLED displays that incorporate the
`
`innovative active matrix OLED technology covered by the Asserted Patents.
`
`II.
`
`The Requested Remedial Orders Do Not Pose Any Public Health, Safety, or
`Welfare Concerns
`
`Issuance of the requested remedial orders would have no adverse effect on the public
`
`health, safety, or welfare in the United States. In general, concerns about a negative impact on
`
`2
`
`Ex. 1023-008
`
`

`

`public health, safety, or welfare have come up in cases involving pharmaceuticals, essential
`
`equipment for medical treatment, or green technology products, such as hybrid cars and solar
`
`panels. See Spansion, Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 629 F.3d 1331, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see
`
`also Certain Fluidized Supporting Apparatus & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-182/ 188,
`
`USITC Pub. 1667, Comm’n Op. at 23–25 (Oct. 1984). None of these concerns are present here.
`
`Rather, the Accused Products are electronic consumer devices containing OLED displays and
`
`components thereof. These products fall into the category of premium consumer electronics and
`
`are not used to promote public health, safety, or welfare, or any specific public interest issues that
`
`the Commission has previously considered. See https://www.trustedreviews.com/opinion/oled-vs-
`
`led-lcd-2924602 (last visited, Sept. 9, 2020) (“[OLED is] quite a big deal and is thought to be
`
`trickling down to premium Android handsets . . . as well as featuring in high-end TVs[.]”).
`
`Moreover, to the extent any of the Proposed Respondents’ Accused Products implicate public
`
`health, safety, or welfare concerns, alternative non-infringing products that perform substantially
`
`similar functions as—and that compete with—the Proposed Respondents’ Accused Products are
`
`readily available to consumers in the United States. Thus the requested remedial orders would not
`
`significantly impact the overall availability of like or similar products in the United States.
`
`III.
`
`Alternative Competitive Articles That Could Replace the Accused Products if
`They Were to Be Excluded are Readily Available
`
`The consumer electronics market for products similar to the Accused Products is diverse
`
`and highly competitive. There are, of course, various modern display technologies, including
`
`liquid crystal displays, various light emitting diode display types, and OLED displays. And within
`
`the subset of the display market that includes OLED displays, there are passive matrix and active
`
`matrix OLED display devices. The Proposed Respondents are only a subset of suppliers of active
`
`matrix OLED display devices in the United States and many non-infringing alternatives are
`
`3
`
`Ex. 1023-009
`
`

`

`available from both the Proposed Respondents and other third-party sources. The Proposed
`
`Respondents, as well as third-party sources, currently offer for sale numerous non-OLED
`
`consumer electronics that would not be affected by the requested remedial orders. For example,
`
`only Apple’s Apple Watch is at issue in this Investigation, which accounts for less than 35% of the
`
`wearables market. Numerous digital watches from Fitbit and Amazon, among others, are available
`
`to consumers.1 Mobile phones with active matrix OLED displays account for less than 25% of the
`
`mobile phone market and tablets with active matrix OLED displays account for even less of the
`
`tablet market. Samsung and Motorola themselves offer non-OLED smartphones, as do countless
`
`other smartphone manufacturers.2 Televisions and monitors with OLED displays account for less
`
`than 5% of the television market. For example, in addition to the countless LED LCD displays on
`
`the market, Sony’s Bravia line of televisions also includes non-OLED Smart TVs.3 Finally, laptops
`
`with OLED displays account for less than 25% of the laptop market. Dell offers laptops with both
`
`OLED and non-OLED displays.4 Accordingly, the Proposed Respondents’ Accused Products
`
`could be replaced by other available consumer electronic products should their infringing products
`
`be subject to the requested remedial orders.
`
`No public interest concerns exist where the market contains an adequate supply of
`
`competitive or substitute products for infringing products subject to a remedial order. See, e.g.,
`
`Certain Elec. Digital Media Devices & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-796, Comm’n Op.
`
`at 119–21 (Sept. 6, 2013) (finding the availability of adequate competitive products does not
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`4
`
`https://www.wareable.com/apple/best-apple-watch-alternatives-ios-smartwatch-950
`(last visited, Sept. 9, 2020).
`https://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/phones/all-phones/ (last visited, Sept. 9, 2020);
`https://www.motorola.com/us/smartphones (last visited, Sept. 9, 2020).
`https://www.sony.com/electronics/bravia (last visited, Sept. 9, 2020).
`https://www.dell.com/en-us/shop/scc/sc/laptops (last visited, Sept. 9, 2020).
`
`4
`
`Ex. 1023-010
`
`

`

`warrant denying relief); Certain Mobile Devices, Associated Software, & Components Thereof,
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-744, Comm’n Op. at 30–31 (June 5, 2012).
`
`IV.
`
`The Requested Remedial Orders Would Not Adversely Impact U.S. Consumers
`
`As discussed above, consumers will have available to them a wide variety of substitute
`
`products—including competitive or substitute non-infringing OLED and non-OLED display
`
`consumer electronic products—if the Accused Products are excluded from the United States. In
`
`view of the availability of commercial alternatives to the Accused Products, the exclusion of the
`
`infringing OLED display devices and components thereof will not negatively impact consumers
`
`in the United States. The requested relief is in the public interest because it would serve the purpose
`
`of enforcing United States intellectual property rights and eliminating the Proposed Respondents’
`
`unfair competition. See Certain Two-Handle Centerset Faucets & Escutcheons & Components
`
`Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-422, Comm’n Op. at 9 (July 21, 2000). Precluding the Proposed
`
`Respondents from importing and selling their infringing products will also benefit the public
`
`interest by protecting innovators, such as Solas and its licensee eMagin, who make substantial
`
`domestic investments to research and develop new OLED technology. Permitting unlicensed
`
`parties like the Proposed Respondents who outsource their manufacturing overseas and import and
`
`sell infringing OLED display devices to continue their unfair acts not only devalues the Asserted
`
`Patents, but would undermine Solas’ licensee, eMagin’s, investments in manufacturing OLED
`
`displays in the United States, and future investment in related technology. See Certain Display
`
`Controllers & Prods. Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-491/481, Comm’n Op. at 66 (Feb. 2005).
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Accordingly, there are no public interest concerns preventing issuance of the requested
`
`remedial orders. The Commission should not direct the Administrative Law Judge to receive
`
`evidence on the impact of those remedial orders on the public interest.
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1023-011
`
`

`

`Dated: September 14, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`_______________________________
`Evan H. Langdon
`NIXON PEABODY LLP
`799 9th Street NW, Suite 500
`Washington, DC 20001-5327
`Phone: 202-585-8000
`Facsimile: 202-585-8080
`E-mail: solas_itc@nixonpeabody.com
`
`Paulina M. Starostka
`NIXON PEABODY LLP
`70 West Madison St., Suite 3500
`Chicago, IL 60602
`
`Reza Mirzaie
`Marc A. Fenster
`Brian D. Ledahl
`Neil A. Rubin
`Philip X. Wang
`C. Jay Chung
`Kent N. Shum
`Amy E. Hayden
`Christian W. Conkle
`Shani Williams
`Kristopher R. Davis
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Phone: (310) 826-7474
`E-Mail: rak_solas_itc@raklaw.com
`
`Matthew D. Aichele
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`800 Maine Avenue, SW, Suite 200
`Washington, DC 20024
`Phone: (202) 664-0623
`
`Counsel for Complainant Solas OLED Ltd.
`
`6
`
`Ex. 1023-012
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN ACTIVE MATRIX OLED
`DISPLAY DEVICES AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
` Investigation No. 337-TA-____
`
`COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 337 OF THE
`TARIFF ACT OF 1930, AS AMENDED
`
`COMPLAINANT:
`SOLAS OLED LTD.
`Suite 23
`The Hyde Building, Carrickmines
`Dublin 18, Ireland
`Phone: +353 1 691 7398
`
`COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT:
`Reza Mirzaie
`Marc A. Fenster
`Brian D. Ledahl
`Neil A. Rubin
`Philip X. Wang
`C. Jay Chung
`Kent N. Shum
`Amy E. Hayden
`Christian W. Conkle
`Shani Williams
`Kristopher R. Davis
`Jonathan Ma
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Phone: (310) 826-7474
`
`Matthew D. Aichele
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`800 Maine Avenue, SW, Suite 200
`Washington, DC 20024
`Phone: (202) 664-0623
`
`Evan H. Langdon
`NIXON PEABODY LLP
`799 9th Street NW, Suite 500
`
`PROPOSED RESPONDENTS:
`APPLE INC.
`One Apple Park Way
`Cupertino, CA 95014
`Phone: (408) 996-1010
`
`DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC.
`One Dell Way
`Round Rock, TX 78682
`Phone: (800) 289-3355
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC.
`LG Twin Tower 128 Yeoui-daero
`Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, 07336, South
`Korea
`Phone: 82-2-2673-0630
`
`LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC.
`1000 Sylvan Ave
`Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
`Phone: (201) 266-2215
`
`LG DISPLAY AMERICA, INC.
`2540 North First St, Suite 400
`San Jose, CA 95131
`Phone: (408) 350-7700
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.
`LG Twin Tower 128 Yeoui-daero
`Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, 07336, South
`Korea
`Phone: 82-23-777-1010
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`
`Ex. 1023-013
`
`

`

`Washington, DC 20001-5327
`Phone: (202) 585-8000
`
`Paulina M. Starostka
`NIXON PEABODY LLP
`70 West Madison St., Suite 3500
`Chicago, IL 60602
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`222 W. Merchandise Mart Plaza
`Suite 1800
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Phone: (800) 668-6765
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`129 Samsung-Ro
`Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-si,
`Gyeonggi-do, 443-742, South Korea
`Phone: 82-2-2255-0114
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`85 Challenger Rd.
`Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
`Phone: (201) 229-4000
`
`SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.
`1 Samsung-Ro
`Giheung-gu, Yongin-si,
`Gyeonggi-Do, 17113, South Korea
`Phone: 82-31-5181-1114
`
`SONY ELECTRONICS INC.
`16535 Via Esprillo
`San Diego, CA 92127
`Phone: (858) 942-2400
`
`ii
`
`Ex. 1023-014
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. I
`EXHIBITS ................................................................................................................................... III
`APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................... V
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1
`II. THE PARTIES .......................................................................................................................3
`A.
`COMPLAINANT AND DOMESTIC INDUSTRY PARTNER .............................3
`B.
`PROPOSED RESPONDENTS ................................................................................6
`Apple ............................................................................................................6
`Dell ...............................................................................................................6
`LG ................................................................................................................7
`Motorola .......................................................................................................8
`Samsung .......................................................................................................9
`Sony ...........................................................................................................10
`III. THE TECHNOLOGY AND PRODUCTS AT ISSUE ......................................................10
`IV. THE ASSERTED PATENTS ..............................................................................................15
`A.
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,139,007 ...............................................................................15
`Identification of the Patent and Ownership ...............................................15
`Nontechnical Description of the Patent .....................................................16
`Foreign Counterparts of the Patent ............................................................17
`Licensees ....................................................................................................17
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,573,068 ...............................................................................17
`Identification of the Patent and Ownership ...............................................17
`Nontechnical Description of the Patent .....................................................18
`Foreign Counterparts of the Patent ............................................................18
`Licensees ....................................................................................................19
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,868,880 ...............................................................................19
`Identification of the Patent and Ownership ...............................................19
`Nontechnical Description of the Patent .....................................................20
`Foreign Counterparts of the Patent ............................................................20
`Licensees ....................................................................................................21
`V. UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR ACTS OF THE PROPOSED RESPONDENTS .............21
`A.
`APPLE ...................................................................................................................21
`
`C.
`
`B.
`
`i
`
`Ex. 1023-015
`
`

`

`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Infringement of the ’068 Patent .................................................................21
`Infringement of the ’880 Patent .................................................................22
`DELL .....................................................................................................................23
`Infringement of the ’068 Patent .................................................................23
`Infringement of the ’880 Patent .................................................................24
`LG ..........................................................................................................................25
`Infringement of the ’007 Patent .................................................................25
`Infringement of the ’068 Patent .................................................................27
`Infringement of the ’880 Patent .................................................................28
`MOTOROLA .........................................................................................................29
`Infringement of the ’068 Patent .................................................................29
`Infringement of the ’880 Patent .................................................................30
`SAMSUNG ............................................................................................................32
`Infringement of the ’068 Patent .................................................................32
`Infringement of the ’880 Patent .................................................................33
`SONY .....................................................................................................................34
`Infringement of the ’007 Patent .................................................................34
`Infringement of the ’068 Patent .................................................................35
`Infringement of the ’880 Patent .................................................................36
`VI. SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF IMPORTATION ................................................................37
`A.
`APPLE ...................................................................................................................37
`B.
`DELL .....................................................................................................................38
`C.
`LG ..........................................................................................................................38
`D.
`MOTOROLA .........................................................................................................38
`E.
`SAMSUNG ............................................................................................................39
`F.
`SONY .....................................................................................................................39
`VII.CLASSIFICATION OF THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS UNDER THE HARMONIZED
`TARIFF SCHEDULE ..........................................................................................................39
`VIII. RELATED LITIGATION...............................................................................................40
`IX. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY ....................................................................................................40
`A.
`TECHNICAL PRONG ..........................................................................................41
`B.
`ECONOMIC PRONG ............................................................................................42
`X. RELIEF REQUESTED .......................................................................................................45
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`ii
`
`Ex. 1023-016
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`Certified United States Patent Nos. 8,139,007 (“’007 Patent”)
`Certified United States Patent Nos. 7,573,068 (“’068 Patent”)
`Certified United States Patent Nos. 7,868,880 (“’880 Patent”)
`Certified Assignment at Reel/Frame 016931/0752 (’068)
`Certified Assignment at Reel/Frame 017928/0059 (’880)
`Certified Assignment at Reel/Frame 022571/0010 (’007)
`Certified Assignment at Reel/Frame 040823/0287 (’007, ’068, ’880)
`Complainant’s Identification of License Agreements
`Solas-eMagin License Agreement
`eMagin Corporation’s 2019 Form 10-K
`Receipt from Costco showing the purchase of Apple Watch 5
`Photograph(s) of product and/or packaging of the Apple Watch 5
`Receipt from Amazon.com showing the purchase of Dell XPS 15
`Photograph(s) of product and/or packaging of the Dell XPS 15
`Receipt from Best Buy showing the purchase of Sony Bravia 55A8H OLED TV
`Photograph(s) of product and/or packaging of the Sony Bravia 55A8H OLED TV
`Receipt from Motorola U.S. Store showing the purchase of the Motorola Edge
`Photograph(s) of product and/or packaging of the Motorola Edge
`Receipt from Amazon.com showing the purchase of Samsung Galaxy S20 5G
`Photograph(s) of product and/or packaging of the Samsung Galaxy S20 5G
`Infringement Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 7,573,068 to Apple Watch 5
`Infringement Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 7,568,880 to Apple Watch 5
`Infringement Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 7,573,068 to Dell XPS 15
`Infringement Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880 to Dell XPS 15
`Infringement Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 8,139,007 to Sony Bravia 55A8H
`OLED TV
`Infringement Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 7,573,068 to Sony Bravia 55A8H
`OLED TV
`
`iii
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8C
`9C
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`Ex. 1023-017
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Description
`Infringement Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880 to Sony Bravia 55A8H
`OLED TV
`Infringement Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 7,573,068 to Motorola Edge
`Infringement Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880 to Motorola Edge
`Infringement Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 7,573,068 to Samsung Galaxy S20
`5G
`Infringement Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880 to Samsung Galaxy S20
`5G
`
`Domestic Industry Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 8,139,007
`Domestic Industry Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 7,573,068
`Domestic Industry Claim Chart for U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`https://www.emagin.com/about/manufacturing-operations
`
`Exhibit
`Number
`27
`
`28
`29
`
`30
`
`31
`
`32C
`33C
`34
`35
`36
`37
`
`iv
`
`Ex. 1023-018
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`APPENDICES
`
`Description
`
`Certified copy of the prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. 8,139,007
`References cited in the prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. 8,139,007
`Certified copy of the prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. 7,573,068
`References cited in the prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. 7,573,068
`Certified copy of the prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`References cited in the prosecution history of U.S. Patent No. 7,868,880
`
`Appendix
`Letter
`A1
`A2
`B1
`B2
`C1
`C2
`
`v
`
`Ex. 1023-019
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This Complaint is filed by Complainant Solas OLED Ltd. (“Solas” or
`
`“Complainant”) pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337
`
`(“Section 337”). OLED is an acronym for organic light emitting diode.
`
`2.
`
`Complainant brings this action to remedy violations of Section 337 arising from the
`
`unlawful and unauthorized importation into the United States, the sale for importation into the
`
`United States, and/or the sale within the United States after importation, of certain active matrix
`
`OLED display devices, and components thereof (the “Accused Products”) that infringe one or
`
`more of the Asserted Claims of United States Patent Nos. 8,139,007 (“the ’007 Patent,” attached
`
`as Exhibit 1), 7,573,068 (“the ’068 Patent,” attached as Exhibit 2), and 7,868,880 (“the ’880
`
`Patent,” attached as Exhibit 3) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`3.
`
`Complainant asserts that the Accused Products infringe at least the following claims
`
`of one or more Asserted Patents in violation of Section 337(a)(1)(B)(i), either literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents:
`
`Asserted Patent
`’007 Patent
`’068 Patent
`’880 Patent
`
`Asserted Claims1
`1, 2-10, 11, and 12-15
`13 and 14-17
`2, 3, 4-24, 25, and 26-40
`
`Table 1. The Asserted Claims.
`
`4.
`
`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
`
`1 Independent claims are in bold.
`
`1
`
`Ex. 1023-020
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`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.
`
`5.
`
`But just a few decades ago, OLED display technology was in its infancy. OLED
`
`displays have since undergone significant improvements to enhance the user