Case 4:19-cv-00696-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 1 of 26 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`SHERMAN DIVISION
`
`LARGAN PRECISION CO., LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ABILITY OPTO-ELECTRONICS
`TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.;
`NEWMAX TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.;
`AND HP INC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. ________________
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Largan Precision Co., Ltd. (“Largan”) files this complaint for patent
`
`infringement against Defendants Ability Opto-Electronics Technology Co., Ltd.; Newmax
`
`Technology Co., Ltd.; and HP Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), and asserts as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Largan is the world’s largest supplier of high-end imaging lenses for smartphones.
`
`Largan’s lenses can be found in Apple iPhones, as well as in a wide array of other consumer
`
`electronic products, including notebook computers, laptop computers, tablets, webcams, and
`
`scanners, from a variety of end-product manufacturers.
`
`2.
`
`Innovation has been the cornerstone of Largan’s success in the imaging lens
`
`industry. When other manufacturers were still using glass, Largan pioneered the design and
`
`production of plastic aspherical lenses. Largan’s innovations have continued as phones and
`
`computers have become smaller and imaging capability in these devices has become
`
`indispensable. To address the ever-growing need for compact, high-performance imaging lenses,
`
`EX 2002 Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-00696-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 2 of 26 PageID #: 2
`
`Largan has developed new technologies, for which it has sought patent protection in the United
`
`States and elsewhere. Largan currently holds 668 United States patents.
`
`3.
`
`These patents include the four patents-in-suit here: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,274,518
`
`(“the ’518 Patent”); 8,395,691 (“the ’691 Patent”); 8,988,796 (“the ’796 Patent”); and 9,146,378
`
`(“the ’378 Patent”) (collectively, “the patents-in-suit”).
`
`4.
`
`Largan is a Taiwanese corporation with its principal place of business located at
`
`No. 11, Jingke Road, Nantun District, Taichung City 40852, Taiwan. Largan was founded in
`
`1987 and has been publicly listed on the Taiwan Stock Exchange since 2002.
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Ability Opto-Electronics Technology Co.,
`
`Ltd. (“AOET”) is a Taiwanese corporation with its principal place of business located at 2F, No.
`
`33, Keya Road, Daya District, Taichung City 428, Taiwan.
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, Newmax Technology Co., Ltd. (“Newmax”) is a
`
`Taiwanese corporation with its principal place of business located at No. 37, Jiadong Road,
`
`Waipu District, Taichung City 438, Taiwan.
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant HP Inc. (“HP”) is a Delaware corporation
`
`with its principal place of business located at 1501 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This is a complaint for patent infringement that arises under the laws of the
`
`United States, Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`9.
`
`This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1331 and 1338.
`
`10.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant AOET in this action because
`
`AOET has committed acts within the Eastern District of Texas giving rise to this action and has
`
`established minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over AOET
`2
`
`EX 2002 Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-00696-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 3 of 26 PageID #: 3
`
`would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Defendant AOET,
`
`directly and through subsidiaries or intermediaries (including distributors, resellers, and others),
`
`has committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in this District by, among other
`
`things, offering to sell and selling products that infringe the patents-in-suit.
`
`11.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Newmax in this action
`
`because Newmax has committed acts within the Eastern District of Texas giving rise to this
`
`action and has established minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of
`
`jurisdiction over Newmax would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
`
`justice. Defendant Newmax, directly and through subsidiaries or intermediaries (including
`
`distributors, resellers, and others), has committed and continues to commit acts of infringement
`
`in this District by, among other things, offering to sell and selling products that infringe the
`
`patents-in-suit.
`
`12.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant HP in this action because HP
`
`has committed acts within the Eastern District of Texas giving rise to this action and has
`
`established minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over HP
`
`would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Defendant HP, directly
`
`and through subsidiaries or intermediaries (including distributors, resellers, and others), has
`
`committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in this District by, among other things,
`
`offering to sell and selling products that infringe the patents-in-suit. HP is registered to do
`
`business in the State of Texas and has appointed CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St., Ste.
`
`900, Dallas, TX 75201 as its agent for service of process.
`
`13.
`
`On information and belief, HP has regular and established places of business in
`
`Texas and this District. Without limitation, these include HP’s campus in Plano, Texas, located
`
`
`
`3
`
`EX 2002 Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-00696-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 4 of 26 PageID #: 4
`
`at 6080 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 400, Plano, TX 75024, and/or 5400 Legacy Drive, Plano, TX
`
`75024. Additionally, the “Service Center Locator” on HP’s website indicates that HP has
`
`authorized service centers for “Consumer Desktops and Notebooks” located at 1201 E Spring
`
`Creek Parkway Suite C-130, Plano, TX, 75074; 1920 Eldorado Parkway, Suite 600, McKinney,
`
`TX, 75069; and 6205 Coit Road Suite 336, Plano, TX 75024. Further, HP has committed patent
`
`infringement in this District; solicits and induces customers/users in this District, including via
`
`its website at www.hp.com; and has customers/users who are residents of this District and who
`
`purchase, acquire, and/or use HP’s infringing products in this District.
`
`14.
`
`Based on the above, venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas under 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)–(c) and 1400.
`
`15.
`
`Joinder of the Defendants is also proper under 35 U.S.C. § 299 because Largan’s
`
`right to relief is asserted against Defendants jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to
`
`or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences
`
`relating to the making, using, importing into the United States, offering for sale, or selling of the
`
`same accused products or processes, including imaging lenses and HP products incorporating
`
`imaging lenses; and questions of fact common to all Defendants will arise in the action.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`16.
`
`AOET is a direct competitor of Largan. And this isn’t the first case Largan has
`
`brought to stop AOET’s infringement of Largan’s intellectual property rights.
`
`17.
`
`In December 2017, Taiwan’s Intellectual Property Court awarded Largan 1.52
`
`billion Taiwanese dollars (roughly $50 million) for AOET’s misappropriation of Largan’s trade
`
`secrets. International press coverage hailed the outcome as the largest-ever award for trade secret
`
`misappropriation in Taiwan.
`
`
`
`4
`
`EX 2002 Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-00696-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 5 of 26 PageID #: 5
`
`18.
`
`As these media reports recounted, that litigation began nearly four years earlier
`
`and stemmed from AOET’s hiring away of several engineers from Largan. AOET convinced
`
`those engineers to disclose protected Largan information and used that misappropriated
`
`information to file patent applications seeking to capture ownership over Largan’s own trade
`
`secrets. Because of this, the court’s award also transferred ownership of a set of Taiwanese
`
`patents filed by AOET to Largan.
`
`19.
`
`Besides the civil proceedings at Taiwan’s Intellectual Property Court, Largan also
`
`filed a December 2012 criminal complaint in Taiwan against AOET, the former Largan
`
`engineers that AOET had hired, and AOET’s then General Manager Andy Lo. As the
`
`international press reported, the public prosecutor filed an indictment in Taichung District Court
`
`in April 2015, after completing the criminal investigation. The indictment charged AOET for
`
`copyright violations, and the engineers and Mr. Lo for copyright violations and disclosure of
`
`commercial or industrial secrets, among other charges. These criminal proceedings remain
`
`pending.
`
`20.
`
`After Largan learned of AOET’s trade secret theft, Largan also discovered that
`
`AOET and other companies were producing lens systems that infringed Largan’s United States
`
`patents.
`
`21.
`
`Largan notified AOET that its 877C and 798 series lens products infringed several
`
`Largan United States patents, including the ’691 Patent, via August 9 and 12, 2013 letters.
`
`22.
`
`On August 9, 2013, Largan also notified manufacturers, including HP, that
`
`AOET’s 877C and 798 series and another company’s lens products may infringe Largan patents,
`
`including the ’691 patent.
`
`
`
`5
`
`EX 2002 Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-00696-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 6 of 26 PageID #: 6
`
`23.
`
`Additional discussions and a meeting between Largan and AOET followed, but
`
`ultimately AOET did not agree to license Largan’s patents at that time.
`
`24.
`
`Largan initiated United States district court patent infringement actions against
`
`Genius Electronic Optical Co., Ltd. in June 2013 and Samsung Electronics in November 2013.
`
`Largan eventually resolved those suits in 2016 through settlements.
`
`25. While these suits and the trade secret case proceeded, Largan continued to
`
`investigate AOET’s patent infringement. Although AOET repeatedly stated in its annual reports
`
`starting in 2015 that it considered the United States “the main market” for its products, tracing
`
`infringing lenses to end-products sold in the United States is complicated by the lengthy supply
`
`chains of end-product manufacturers (i.e., imaging-lens manufacturers may sell lenses to module
`
`integrators in Asia, who sell finished cameras to system integrators in Asia, and so on).
`
`26.
`
`As part of its investigation, Largan thus enlisted the support of a computed
`
`tomography (“CT”) scanner (like the type used in medical care) to confirm its belief that
`
`AOET’s lenses were infringing and were incorporated into end products sold in the United
`
`States.
`
`27.
`
`Largan’s investigation revealed that HP had incorporated AOET’s infringing
`
`lenses, or infringing lenses from another manufacturer, into at least 15 HP products sold in the
`
`United States, including the HP Spectre Folio, and 14 models of HP Pavilion, Envy, Omen,
`
`EliteBook, and ZBook computers.
`
`28.
`
`Largan shared these findings with HP in March 2019. In particular, Largan
`
`informed HP that these 15 products infringed five Largan patents, including the ’518, ’691, and
`
`’796 Patents. Largan provided HP with CT scans of the suspected AOET lenses and an element-
`
`by-element comparison of the lenses used in the HP products and Largan’s patents.
`
`
`
`6
`
`EX 2002 Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-00696-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 7 of 26 PageID #: 7
`
`29.
`
`Largan continued to investigate and continued to identify more infringing
`
`products. And, on April 3, 2019, Largan informed HP that several models of HP EliteBooks and
`
`ZBooks, as well as many other HP products, also infringed the ’378 patent.
`
`30.
`
`A series of communications between Largan and HP during the next few months
`
`confirmed Largan’s understanding that that AOET and other Largan direct competitors,
`
`including Newmax, were supplying infringing lenses for certain HP products sold in the United
`
`States, including some of the 15 that Largan had first identified to HP.
`
`31.
`
`As such, Largan notified AOET in a May 20, 2019 letter of its infringement of
`
`Largan’s ’518 and ’691 Patents through the incorporation of AOET lenses in HP products.
`
`Largan also included the CT scans of the AOET lenses used in the HP products and asked AOET
`
`to identify the AOET product models shown in the images.
`
`32.
`
`AOET responded that it was uncertain as to Largan’s concerns. AOET requested
`
`a comparison analysis from Largan—an odd ask given that AOET had the detailed schematics
`
`for its own products, while Largan did not and had to use a CT scanner and other testing to make
`
`its infringement determinations.
`
`33.
`
`Largan promptly sent AOET the charts that it had sent to HP, nonetheless, and
`
`noted its understanding that AOET should have received copies of them previously from HP.
`
`Largan also followed up one week later, noting that AOET had sufficient technical data to verify
`
`its products and the item-by-item claim charts, but received no timely response.
`
`34.
`
`In an effort to end what Largan perceived as AOET’s obfuscation, Largan asked
`
`HP to identify the AOET lens models used in the identified HP products, and for additional
`
`information identifying the lens suppliers for the HP products containing multiple cameras.
`
`
`
`7
`
`EX 2002 Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-00696-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 8 of 26 PageID #: 8
`
`35.
`
`HP demurred, responding that it would now defer to AOET. This response
`
`ignored that Largan was seeking knowledge that HP would have and that AOET seemed
`
`unwilling to provide regarding which HP products contained which lenses.
`
`36.
`
`In August 2019, Largan updated AOET on Largan’s understanding of the HP
`
`products and AOET components that infringed Largan’s patents, including the ’796 Patent.
`
`Largan again asked AOET to identify AOET lens models used in the HP products, noted that HP
`
`had given permission for AOET to do so, and copied HP on these communications.
`
`37.
`
`Rather than respond to this request, AOET instead sent a response to Largan’s
`
`earlier May 20 infringement notice, and denied infringement.
`
`38.
`
`Also in August 2019, Largan notified Newmax that lenses Newmax was
`
`providing to HP and that had been incorporated into HP products were infringing Largan’s
`
`patents, including at least the ’796 and ’378 Patents. This notice included Largan’s CT scans of
`
`Newmax lenses and an explanation of Largan’s understanding of the specific HP products
`
`incorporating those lenses.
`
`39.
`
`Further communications between Largan and Newmax followed a similar pattern
`
`to those between Largan and AOET. Largan copied HP on the infringement notice to Newmax.
`
`But Newmax stated that it could not “clarify” the “patent infringement issue” unless Largan
`
`provided the names of the Newmax product models at issue—i.e., information available to and in
`
`the control of Newmax and/or HP, not Largan.
`
`40. With AOET, Newmax, and HP each declining to take responsibility for the
`
`ongoing and willful infringement of Largan’s intellectual property, Largan brings this case to
`
`enforce its duly-earned United States patent rights.
`
`
`
`8
`
`EX 2002 Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-00696-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 9 of 26 PageID #: 9
`
`COUNT ONE
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,274,518
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`Largan re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1–40 above.
`
`On September 25, 2007, the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(“USPTO”) duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 7,274,518, entitled “Optical System for
`
`Taking Image.” Largan is the owner of the ’518 Patent, a true and correct copy of which is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`43.
`
`The ’518 Patent generally is directed to addressing increasing needs for compact,
`
`high-resolution imaging lenses. At the time, conventional high-resolution optical systems in
`
`mobile phone cameras usually consisted of an assembly of four imaging lenses, with the first two
`
`lenses being spherical lenses glued together to eliminate chromatic aberration. E.g., ’518 Patent
`
`at 1:21–25. But these systems had significant disadvantages, since the arrangement of the
`
`spherical lens limited the flexibility of the optical system and could not easily be made smaller.
`
`Additionally, the gluing process for glass lenses made manufacturing difficult and limited
`
`performance. See, e.g., id. at 1:25–31. Accordingly, the ’518 Patent disclosed a new four-lens
`
`optical system, where the first lens is an aspherical lens that provides strong positive refractive
`
`power, and the second lens serves to balance and correct aberrations in the system. The ’518
`
`Patent also details, among other things, desired shapes of individual lenses in the system, radii of
`
`curvature, Abbe numbers, focal lengths, and refractive indices.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`The ’518 Patent is valid and enforceable under the United States Patent Laws.
`
`Defendant HP has infringed and is infringing, either literally or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents, at least claim 1 of the ’518 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq., directly
`
`and/or indirectly, by making, using, offering for sale, or selling in the United States, and/or
`
`importing into the United States without authority or license, products that incorporate infringing
`
`
`
`9
`
`EX 2002 Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-00696-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 10 of 26 PageID #: 10
`
`lens systems supplied by AOET and/or Newmax, including without limitation the HP Spectre
`
`Folio, Pavilion X360 14M-BA, Pavilion X360 14-BA, Pavilion X360 14T-BA, EnvyX360,
`
`Omen X17, Omen 17, and ChromeBook X360 11 G1 EE. On information and belief, HP knew
`
`or should have known of the ’518 Patent and of its infringement, including by way of this lawsuit
`
`and, earlier, by way of the notice that Largan provided in March 2019 and/or Largan’s marking
`
`of products embodying the ’518 Patent starting on January 20, 2012.
`
`46.
`
`Defendant AOET has infringed and is infringing, either literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, at least claim 1 of the ’518 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq.,
`
`directly and/or indirectly, by making, using, offering for sale, or selling in the United States,
`
`and/or importing into the United States without authority or license, infringing lens systems,
`
`including without limitation those systems incorporated into the HP products enumerated above.
`
`Additionally, AOET has been and/or currently is an active inducer of infringement of the ’518
`
`Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and a contributory infringer of the ’518 Patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271(c). On information and belief, AOET knew or should have known of the ’518 Patent and
`
`of its infringement, including by way of this lawsuit and, earlier, by way of the notice that
`
`Largan provided in May 2019, Largan’s marking of products embodying the ’518 Patent starting
`
`on January 20, 2012, and/or through AOET’s communications with HP. AOET provided the
`
`accused infringing lens systems at least to HP and, on information and belief, instructions to use
`
`such lens systems in an infringing manner while being on notice of (or willfully blind to) the
`
`’518 Patent and the infringement. Thus, on information and belief, AOET knew or should have
`
`known of the ’518 Patent and of its own infringing acts, or deliberately took steps to avoid
`
`learning of those facts, and knowingly and intentionally encouraged and aided at least HP to
`
`directly infringe the ’518 Patent. In addition, the accused infringing lens systems are known by
`
`
`
`10
`
`EX 2002 Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-00696-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 11 of 26 PageID #: 11
`
`AOET to be specifically made or adapted for use in an infringing manner, and are not staple
`
`articles with substantial noninfringing uses.
`
`47.
`
`Defendant Newmax has infringed and is infringing, either literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, at least claim 1 of the ’518 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq.,
`
`directly and/or indirectly, by making, using, offering for sale, or selling in the United States,
`
`and/or importing into the United States without authority or license, infringing lens systems,
`
`including without limitation those systems incorporated into the HP products enumerated above.
`
`Additionally, Newmax has been and/or currently is an active inducer of infringement of the ’518
`
`Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and a contributory infringer of the ’518 Patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271(c). On information and belief, Newmax knew or should have known of the ’518 Patent and
`
`of its infringement, including by way of this lawsuit and, earlier, by way of Largan’s marking of
`
`products embodying the ’518 Patent starting on January 20, 2012, and/or through Newmax’s
`
`communications with HP. Newmax provided the accused infringing lens systems at least to HP
`
`and, on information and belief, instructions to use such lens systems in an infringing manner
`
`while being on notice of (or willfully blind to) the ’518 Patent and the infringement. Thus, on
`
`information and belief, Newmax knew or should have known of the ’518 Patent and of its own
`
`infringing acts, or deliberately took steps to avoid learning of those facts, and knowingly and
`
`intentionally encouraged and aided at least HP to directly infringe the ’518 Patent. In addition,
`
`the accused infringing lens systems are known by Newmax to be specifically made or adapted
`
`for use in an infringing manner, and are not staple articles with substantial noninfringing uses.
`
`48.
`
`As just one non-limiting example, the four lens element system supplied by
`
`AOET and/or Newmax that is incorporated in the HP Spectre Folio infringes claim 1 of the ’518
`
`
`
`11
`
`EX 2002 Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-00696-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 12 of 26 PageID #: 12
`
`Patent. The below CT scan, as well as additional testing and measurement data, confirms that
`
`this lens system meets each and every claim element of at least claim 1 of the ’518 Patent.
`
`
`
`49.
`
`On information and belief, including the allegations above showing knowledge
`
`and intent, Defendants’ infringement has been and continues to be deliberate, willful, and in
`
`reckless disregard of Largan’s patent rights.
`
`50.
`
`Largan has been, and continues to be, damaged by Defendants’ infringement of
`
`the ’518 Patent.
`
`COUNT TWO
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,395,691
`
`51.
`
`Largan re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1–40 above.
`
`
`
`12
`
`EX 2002 Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-00696-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 13 of 26 PageID #: 13
`
`52.
`
`On March 12, 2013, the USPTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,395,691, entitled “Optical Image-Capturing Lens Assembly.” Largan is the owner of the ’691
`
`Patent, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`53.
`
`The ’691 Patent also is generally directed to addressing the ever-increasing
`
`demand for compact, high-resolution imaging lenses. At the time, many compact imaging lens
`
`assemblies in portable electronic products used three lens elements, but these conventional
`
`systems weren’t suitable for higher-end lens modules. E.g., ’691 Patent at 1:30–42. Conventional
`
`systems used four imaging lenses, with the first two lenses being glass spherical lenses glued
`
`together to eliminate chromatic aberration. E.g., ’691 Patent at 1:42–46. But these systems had
`
`significant disadvantages, since the arrangement of the spherical lens limited the flexibility of the
`
`optical system and could not easily be made smaller. Additionally, the gluing process for glass
`
`lenses made manufacturing difficult and ultimately limited performance. See, e.g., id. at 1:46–53.
`
`Accordingly, the ’691 Patent disclosed a new four-lens optical system that could reduce the size
`
`of the lens assembly while also achieving an enlarged field of view and higher resolution. E.g.,
`
`id. at 2: 53–56. The ’691 Patent thus details, among other things, the desired shapes of individual
`
`lenses in the system, distance between the object-side surface of the first lens and the electronic
`
`sensor, focal lengths, Abbe numbers, image height, and lens thicknesses at optical axis.
`
`54.
`
`55.
`
`The ’691 Patent is valid and enforceable under the United States Patent Laws.
`
`Defendant HP has infringed and is infringing, either literally or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents, at least claim 21 of the ’691 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq.,
`
`directly and/or indirectly, by making, using, offering for sale, or selling in the United States,
`
`and/or importing into the United States without authority or license, products that incorporate
`
`infringing lens systems supplied by AOET and/or Newmax, including without limitation the HP
`
`
`
`13
`
`EX 2002 Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-00696-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 14 of 26 PageID #: 14
`
`Spectre Folio, Pavilion X360 14M-BA, Pavilion X360 14-BA, Pavilion X360 14T-BA, Envy
`
`X360, Omen X 17, Omen 17, and ChromeBook X360 11 G1 EE. On information and belief, HP
`
`knew or should have known of the ’691 Patent and of its infringement, including by way of this
`
`lawsuit and, earlier, by way of the notices that Largan provided in August 2013 and March 2019,
`
`Largan’s marking of products embodying the ’691 Patent starting on March 22, 2013, and/or
`
`through HP’s communications with AOET.
`
`56.
`
`Defendant AOET has infringed and is infringing, either literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, at least claim 21 of the ’691 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 et
`
`seq., directly and/or indirectly, by making, using, offering for sale, or selling in the United States,
`
`and/or importing into the United States without authority or license, infringing lens systems,
`
`including without limitation those systems incorporated into the HP products enumerated above.
`
`Additionally, AOET has been and/or currently is an active inducer of infringement of the ’691
`
`Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and a contributory infringer of the ’691 Patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271(c). On information and belief, AOET knew or should have known of the ’691 Patent and
`
`of its infringement, including by way of this lawsuit and, earlier, by way of the notices that
`
`Largan provided in August 2013 and May 2019, Largan’s marking of products embodying the
`
`’691 Patent starting on March 22, 2013, and/or AOET’s prosecution of its U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,097,860 (during which an August 4, 2015 Office Action cited the pre-grant patent application
`
`that issued as the ’691 Patent). AOET provided the accused infringing lens systems at least to HP
`
`and, on information and belief, instructions to use such lens systems in an infringing manner
`
`while being on notice of (or willfully blind to) the ’691 Patent and the infringement. Thus, on
`
`information and belief, AOET knew or should have known of the ’691 Patent and of its own
`
`infringing acts, or deliberately took steps to avoid learning of those facts, and knowingly and
`
`
`
`14
`
`EX 2002 Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-00696-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 15 of 26 PageID #: 15
`
`intentionally encouraged and aided at least HP to directly infringe the ’691 Patent. In addition,
`
`the accused infringing lens systems are known by AOET to be specifically made or adapted for
`
`use in an infringing manner, and are not staple articles with substantial noninfringing uses.
`
`57.
`
`Defendant Newmax has infringed and is infringing, either literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, at least claim 21 of the ’691 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 et
`
`seq., directly and/or indirectly, by making, using, offering for sale, or selling in the United States,
`
`and/or importing into the United States without authority or license, infringing lens systems,
`
`including without limitation those systems incorporated into the HP products enumerated above.
`
`Additionally, Newmax has been and/or currently is an active inducer of infringement of the ’691
`
`Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and a contributory infringer of the ’691 Patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271(c). On information and belief, Newmax knew or should have known of the ’691 Patent and
`
`of its infringement, including by way of this lawsuit and, earlier, by way of Largan’s marking of
`
`products embodying the ’691 Patent starting on March 22, 2013, and/or Newmax’s prosecution
`
`of its U.S. Patent No. 10,007,096 (during which a June 28, 2017 Office Action cited the pre-
`
`grant patent application that issued as the ’691 Patent) and/or through its communications with
`
`HP. Newmax provided the accused infringing lens systems at least to HP and, on information
`
`and belief, instructions to use such lens systems in an infringing manner while being on notice of
`
`(or willfully blind to) the ’691 Patent and the infringement. Thus, on information and belief,
`
`Newmax knew or should have known of the ’691 Patent and of its own infringing acts, or
`
`deliberately took steps to avoid learning of those facts, and knowingly and intentionally
`
`encouraged and aided at least HP to directly infringe the ’691 Patent. In addition, the accused
`
`infringing lens systems are known by Newmax to be specifically made or adapted for use in an
`
`infringing manner, and are not staple articles with substantial noninfringing uses.
`
`
`
`15
`
`EX 2002 Page 15
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-00696-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 16 of 26 PageID #: 16
`
`58.
`
`As just one non-limiting example, the four lens element system supplied by
`
`AOET and/or Newmax that is incorporated in the HP Spectre Folio infringes claim 21 of the
`
`’691 Patent. The below CT scan, as well as additional testing and measurement data, confirms
`
`that this lens system meets each and every claim element of at least claim 21 of the’691 Patent.
`
`
`
`59.
`
`On information and belief, including the allegations above showing knowledge
`
`and intent, Defendants’ infringement has been and continues to be deliberate, willful, and in
`
`reckless disregard of Largan’s patent rights.
`
`60.
`
`Largan has been, and continues to be, damaged by Defendants’ infringement of
`
`the ’691 Patent.
`
`COUNT THREE
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,988,796
`
`61.
`
`Largan re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1–40 above.
`
`
`
`16
`
`EX 2002 Page 16
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-00696-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 17 of 26 PageID #: 17
`
`62.
`
`On March 24, 2015, the USPTO duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,988,796, entitled “Image Capturing Lens System, Imaging Device and Mobile Terminal.”
`
`Largan is the owner of the ’796 Patent, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit C.
`
`63.
`
`The ’796 Patent also is generally directed to addressing the ever-increasing
`
`demand for compact, high-resolution imaging lenses. At the time, many compact imaging lens
`
`assemblies in portable electronic products used three lens elements, but these conventional
`
`systems weren’t suitable for higher-end lens modules. E.g., ’796 Patent at 1:26–33. Other
`
`conventional systems used four imaging lenses, but these systems had difficulty obtaining a large
`
`field of view while maintaining a short total track length. Further, they were unfavorable for
`
`resolving power and illumination in the peripheral region of an image, and thus were limited in
`
`quality. E.g., id. at 1:34–41. Accordingly, the ’796 Patent disclosed a new four-lens optical
`
`system to overcome those disadvantages, with detailed descriptions of, among other things, the
`
`desired shapes of individual lenses in the system, focal lengths, axial distance between object-
`
`side surface of first lens and the image-side surface of fourth lens, central lens thickness, radii of
`
`curvature, Abbe numbers, and f-numbers.
`
`64.
`
`65.
`
`The ’796 Patent is valid and enforceable under the United States Patent Laws.
`
`Defendant HP has infringed and is infringing, either literally or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents, at least claim 21 of the ’796 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq.,
`
`directly and/or indirectly, by making, using, offering for sale, or selling in the United States,
`
`and/or importing into the United States without authority or license, products that incorporate
`
`infringing lens systems supplied by AOET and/or Newmax, including without limitation the HP
`
`Pavilion X360, EliteBook 735 G5, EliteBook 745, EliteBook 755, EliteBook 830 G5, EliteBook
`
`
`
`17
`
`EX 2002 Page 17
`
`

`

`Case 4:19-cv-00696-ALM Document 1 Filed 09/25/19 Page 18 of 26 PageID #: 18
`
`840 G5,