Case 6:19-cv-00320-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/21/19 Page 1 of 12
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 6:19-cv-320
`
`v.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`LENOVO GROUP LTD. and LENOVO
`(UNITED STATES) INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AGAINST
`LENOVO GROUP LTD. AND LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the United States
`
`of America, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., in which Plaintiff Neodron Ltd. (“Plaintiff” or “Neodron”)
`
`makes the following allegations against Defendants Lenovo Group Ltd. and Lenovo (United
`
`States) Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”):
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This complaint arises from Defendants’ unlawful infringement of the following
`
`United States patents owned by Neodron, each of which generally relate to touchscreen
`
`technology: United States Patent Nos. 8,432,173 (“’173 Patent”); 8,791,910 (“’910 Patent”);
`
`9,024,790 (“’790 Patent”); and 9,372,580 (“’580 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`2.
`
`Touchscreen technology plays a ubiquitous and important role in countless
`
`electronic devices today. Beyond just providing greater usability to smartphones, tablets and
`
`notebooks, touchscreens now fill our lives in public and private spaces, from our homes and cars
`
`to the restaurants and stores we visit.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00320-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/21/19 Page 2 of 12
`
`
`
`3.
`
`But just a few decades ago, touchscreen technology could only be found in science
`
`fiction books and film. Although the underlying science behind touch technology can be traced
`
`back to the 1940s, working touchscreens were not conceived and feasible until the mid-1960s,
`
`when the first finger-driven touchscreen was invented by E.A. Johnson in 1965 at the Royal Radar
`
`Establishment in Malvern, United Kingdom. Since then, it took several generations and major
`
`technological advancements for touchscreens to achieve the level of complexity—and
`
`convenience—we see and enjoy today.
`
`4.
`
`Built on the fundamental breakthrough that our hands and fingers can form changes
`
`in the capacitance of electrodes and electrode-connections when they are in close proximity to
`
`them, touch technology has developed rapidly over the years. Along the way, engineers have
`
`worked tirelessly to try to overcome the limitations and roadblocks touch technology presents.
`
`From conceiving various ways to detect (and correctly ignore) unintentional touches, to
`
`minimizing signal “noise,” to reducing the latency and power consumption that comes with any
`
`complex, multi-part electrical process, there have been many advances to various aspects of the
`
`technology—each building a little on a related advancement before it—to get us to the highly
`
`advanced state we enjoy today.
`
`5.
`
`These advancements range from fundamental ones, which make basic touch
`
`technology work, to optional improvements, which typically represent one technological option
`
`that improves aspects of the user experience and functionality of a touchscreen. This infringement
`
`action is about the latter: several patented improvements—which took years of research and
`
`millions of dollars in U.S. investments to develop, and which are infringed by Defendants’ accused
`
`products.
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00320-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/21/19 Page 3 of 12
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff Neodron, Ltd. is an Irish company, having its principal place of business
`
`at Unit 4-5, Burton Hall Road, Sandyford, Dublin 18, D18a094. Neodron is the sole owner by
`
`assignment of all right, title, and interest in each Asserted Patent.
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Lenovo Group Ltd. is organized under the
`
`laws of the People’s Republic of China, with its principal place of business is at 6 Chuang ye Road,
`
`Haidian District, Beijing 100085, China.
`
`8.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Lenovo (United States) Inc., a wholly-owned
`
`subsidiary of Lenovo Group Ltd., is corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware,
`
`with principal place of business at 1009 Think Place, Building One, Morrisville, North Carolina
`
`27560.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`9.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United
`
`States Code. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a).
`
`10.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants in this action because
`
`Defendants have committed acts within this District giving rise to this action, and have established
`
`minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over Defendants would
`
`not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Defendants, directly and through
`
`subsidiaries or intermediaries, have committed and continue to commit acts of infringement in this
`
`District by, among other things, importing, offering to sell, and selling products that infringe the
`
`asserted patents.
`
`11.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b). Defendants
`
`are registered to do business in Texas, and upon information and belief, Defendants have
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00320-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/21/19 Page 4 of 12
`
`
`
`transacted business in this District and have committed acts of direct and indirect infringement in
`
`this District by, among other things, making, using, offering to sell, selling, and importing products
`
`that infringe the asserted patents. On information and belief, Defendants have a regular and
`
`established place of business in the District, including multiple service centers in Austin and San
`
`Antonio, Texas, and Defendants employ employees and advertise jobs in this District.1
`
`COUNT I
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,432,173
`
`12.
`
`Neodron realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`13.
`
`Neodron owns by assignment all rights, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,432,173, entitled “Capacitive Position Sensor.” The ’173 Patent was duly and legally issued by
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office on April 30, 2013. A true and correct copy of
`
`the ’173 Patent is attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`14.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import
`
`certain products (“Accused Products”), such as the Lenovo Tab 4 10.1 and the Lenovo Yoga 730,
`
`that directly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1–19 of
`
`the ’173 Patent.
`
`15.
`
`Defendants also knowingly and intentionally induce infringement of at least claims
`
`1 and 3–9 of the ’173 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Through the filing and service of
`
`this Complaint, and also through the filing and service of a complaint with the United States
`
`International Trade Commission (ITC) pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C.
`
`
`1 See, e.g., https://www.service-center-locator.com/lenovo/texas/lenovo-austin-texas.htm;
`https://lenovocareers.com/areas-mobile.html.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00320-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/21/19 Page 5 of 12
`
`
`
`§ 1337, Defendants have had knowledge of the ’173 Patent and the infringing nature of the
`
`Accused Products. Despite this knowledge of the ’173 Patent, Defendants continue to actively
`
`encourage and instruct their customers and end users (for example, through user manuals and
`
`online instruction materials on their website) to use the Accused Products in ways that directly
`
`infringe the ’173 Patent. Defendants do so knowing and intending that their customers and end
`
`users will commit these infringing acts. Defendants also continue to make, use, offer for sale, sell,
`
`and/or import the Accused Products, despite their knowledge of the ’173 Patent, thereby
`
`specifically intending for and inducing their customers to infringe the ’173 Patent through the
`
`customers’ normal and customary use of the Accused Products.
`
`16.
`
`The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of at least claims 1–19 of the
`
`’173 Patent. Claim charts comparing independent claims 1, 10 and 19 of the ’173 Patent to
`
`representative Accused Products, the Lenovo Tab 4 10.1 and the Lenovo Yoga 730, are attached
`
`as Exhibits 2–3.
`
`17.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States
`
`the Accused Products, Defendants have injured Neodron and are liable for infringement of the ’173
`
`Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`18.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’173 Patent, Neodron is entitled to
`
`monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendants’ infringement, but in no
`
`event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendants, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`19.
`
`Defendants’ infringing activities have injured and will continue to injure Neodron,
`
`unless and until this Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ’173 Patent,
`
`and, specifically, enjoining further manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offers for sale that
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00320-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/21/19 Page 6 of 12
`
`
`
`come within the scope of the patent claims.
`
`COUNT II
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,791,910
`
`20.
`
`Neodron realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`21.
`
`Neodron owns by assignment all rights, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,791,910 (the “’910 Patent”), entitled “Capacitive Keyboard With Position-Dependent Reduced
`
`Keying Ambiguity.” The ’910 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office on July 29, 2014. A true and correct copy of the ’910 Patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit 4.
`
`22.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import
`
`certain products (“Accused Products”), such as the Lenovo Yoga 730, that directly infringe,
`
`literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1–37 of the ’910 Patent.
`
`23.
`
`Defendants also knowingly and intentionally induce infringement of at least claims
`
`1–12 of the ’910 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Through the filing and service of this
`
`Complaint, and also through the filing and service of a complaint with the United States
`
`International Trade Commission (ITC) pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1337, Defendants have had knowledge of the ’910 Patent and the infringing nature of the
`
`Accused Products. Despite this knowledge of the ’910 Patent, Defendants continue to actively
`
`encourage and instruct their customers and end users (for example, through user manuals and
`
`online instruction materials on their website) to use the Accused Products in ways that directly
`
`infringe the ’910 Patent. Defendants do so knowing and intending that their customers and end
`
`users will commit these infringing acts. Defendants also continue to make, use, offer for sale, sell,
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00320-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/21/19 Page 7 of 12
`
`
`
`and/or import the Accused Products, despite their knowledge of the ’910 Patent, thereby
`
`specifically intending for and inducing their customers to infringe the ’910 Patent through the
`
`customers’ normal and customary use of the Accused Products.
`
`24.
`
`The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of at least claims 1–37 of
`
`the ’910 Patent. A claim chart comparing independent claims 1, 13, and 25 of the ’910 Patent to a
`
`representative Accused Product, the Lenovo Yoga 730, is attached as Exhibit 5.
`
`25.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States
`
`the Accused Products, Defendants have injured Neodron and are liable for infringement of the ’910
`
`Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`26.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’910 Patent, Neodron is entitled to
`
`monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendants’ infringement, but in no
`
`event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendants, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`27.
`
`Defendants’ infringing activities have injured and will continue to injure Neodron,
`
`unless and until this Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ’910 Patent,
`
`and, specifically, enjoining further manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offers for sale that
`
`come within the scope of the patent claims.
`
`COUNT III
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,024,790
`
`28.
`
`Neodron realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`29.
`
`Neodron owns by assignment all rights, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,024,790 (the “’790 Patent”), entitled “Capacitive Keyboard With Non-Locking Reduced Keying
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00320-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/21/19 Page 8 of 12
`
`
`
`Ambiguity.” The ’790 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office on May 5, 2015. A true and correct copy of the ’790 Patent is attached as Exhibit
`
`6.
`
`30.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import
`
`certain products (“Accused Products”), such as the Lenovo Yoga 730, that directly infringe,
`
`literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1, 4–8, 10–14, and 16–24 of
`
`the ’790 Patent.
`
`31.
`
`Defendants also knowingly and intentionally induce infringement of at least claims
`
`7, 8, 10–12, and 22–24 of the ’790 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Through the filing
`
`and service of this Complaint, and also through the filing and service of a complaint with the
`
`United States International Trade Commission (ITC) pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of
`
`1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, Defendants have had knowledge of the ’790 Patent and the infringing
`
`nature of the Accused Products. Despite this knowledge of the ’790 Patent, Defendants continue
`
`to actively encourage and instruct their customers and end users (for example, through user
`
`manuals and online instruction materials on their website) to use the Accused Products in ways
`
`that directly infringe the ’790 Patent. Defendants do so knowing and intending that their customers
`
`and end users will commit these infringing acts. Defendants also continue to make, use, offer for
`
`sale, sell, and/or import the Accused Products, despite their knowledge of the ’790 Patent, thereby
`
`specifically intending for and inducing their customers to infringe the ’790 Patent through the
`
`customers’ normal and customary use of the Accused Products.
`
`32.
`
`The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of at least claims 1, 4–8, 10–14,
`
`and 16–24 of the ’790 Patent. A claim chart comparing independent claims 1, 7, and 13 of the ’790
`
`Patent to a representative Accused Product, the Lenovo Yoga 730, is attached as Exhibit 7.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00320-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/21/19 Page 9 of 12
`
`
`
`33.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States
`
`the Accused Products, Defendants have injured Neodron and are liable for infringement of the ’790
`
`Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`34.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’790 Patent, Neodron is entitled to
`
`monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendants’ infringement, but in no
`
`event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendants, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`35.
`
`Defendants’ infringing activities have injured and will continue to injure Neodron,
`
`unless and until this Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ’790 Patent,
`
`and, specifically, enjoining further manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offers for sale that
`
`come within the scope of the patent claims.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,372,580
`
`36.
`
`Neodron realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`37.
`
`Neodron owns by assignment all rights, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,372,580 (the “’580 Patent”), entitled “Enhanced Touch Detection Methods.” The ’580 Patent
`
`was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on June 21, 2016.
`
`A true and correct copy of the ’580 Patent is attached as Exhibit 8.
`
`38.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import
`
`certain products (“Accused Products”), such as the Lenovo Yoga 730, that directly infringe,
`
`literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 1–12 of the ’580 Patent.
`
`39.
`
`Defendants also knowingly and intentionally induce infringement of at least claims
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00320-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/21/19 Page 10 of 12
`
`
`
`1–4 of the ’580 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Through the filing and service of this
`
`Complaint, and also through the filing and service of a complaint with the United States
`
`International Trade Commission (ITC) pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1337, Defendants have had knowledge of the ’580 Patent and the infringing nature of the
`
`Accused Products. Despite this knowledge of the ’580 Patent, Defendants continue to actively
`
`encourage and instruct their customers and end users (for example, through user manuals and
`
`online instruction materials on their website) to use the Accused Products in ways that directly
`
`infringe the ’580 Patent. Defendants do so knowing and intending that their customers and end
`
`users will commit these infringing acts. Defendants also continue to make, use, offer for sale, sell,
`
`and/or import the Accused Products, despite their knowledge of the ’580 Patent, thereby
`
`specifically intending for and inducing their customers to infringe the ’580 Patent through the
`
`customers’ normal and customary use of the Accused Products.
`
`40.
`
`The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of at least claims 1–12 of
`
`the ’580 Patent. A claim chart comparing independent claims 1, 5, and 9 of the ’580 Patent to a
`
`representative Accused Product, the Lenovo Yoga 730, is attached as Exhibit 9.
`
`41.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States
`
`the Accused Products, Defendants have injured Neodron and are liable for infringement of the ’580
`
`Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`42.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’580 Patent, Neodron is entitled to
`
`monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendants’ infringement, but in no
`
`event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendants, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`43.
`
`Defendants’ infringing activities have injured and will continue to injure Neodron,
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00320-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/21/19 Page 11 of 12
`
`
`
`unless and until this Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ’580 Patent,
`
`and, specifically, enjoining further manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offers for sale that
`
`come within the scope of the patent claims.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Neodron respectfully requests that this Court enter:
`
`a.
`
`A judgment in favor of Neodron that Defendants have infringed, either literally
`
`and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’173 Patent, the ’910 Patent, the ’790 Patent, and
`
`the ’580 Patent;
`
`b.
`
`A permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from further acts of infringement
`
`of the ’173 Patent, the ’910 Patent, the ’790 Patent, and the ’580 Patent;
`
`c.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay Neodron its damages, costs,
`
`expenses, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest for Defendants’ infringement of the ’173
`
`Patent, the ’910 Patent, the ’790 Patent, and the ’580 Patent; and
`
`d.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Defendants to provide an accounting and to pay
`
`supplemental damages to Neodron, including without limitation, pre-judgment and post-judgment
`
`interest;
`
`e.
`
`A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the meaning
`
`of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding to Neodron its reasonable attorneys’ fees against Defendants;
`
`and
`
`f.
`
`Any and all other relief as the Court may deem appropriate and just under the
`
`circumstances.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Neodron, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury of
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00320-ADA Document 1 Filed 05/21/19 Page 12 of 12
`
`
`
`any issues so triable by right.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 21, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Paul A. Kroeger
`
`Reza Mirzaie (CA SBN 246953)
`rmirzaie @ raklaw.com
`Paul A. Kroeger (CA SBN 229074)
`pkroeger@raklaw.com
`Philip X. Wang (CA SBN 262239)
`pwang@raklaw.com
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Blvd. 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Phone: (310) 826-7474
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Neodron Ltd.
`
`12
`
`