Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/205267465/Mitsubishi-Electric-et-al-v-ViewSonic
Timestamp: 2017-09-21 02:50:38
Document Index: 698852930

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 285', '§ 284', '§ 285']

Mitsubishi Electric et. al. v. ViewSonic | Digital Television | Patent Infringement
Mitsubishi Electric et. al. v. ViewSonic
Description: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00903-MMM-MRW: Mitsubishi Electric Corporation et. al. v. ViewSonic Corporation. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Central ...
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00903-MMM-MRW: Mitsubishi Electric Corporation et. al. v. ViewSonic Corporation. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the Hon. Margaret M. Morrow presiding. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9SB for more info.
MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC CORP. (alternatively named MITSUBISHI DENKI KABUSHIKI KAISHA), KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V, THOMSON LICENSING, GE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, INC., PANASONIC CORPORATION, and SONY CORPORATION, Civil Action No. _____________ Plaintiffs, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. VIEWSONIC CORPORATION (alternatively named VIEWSONIC DISPLAY CO.), Defendant.
COMPLAINT Plaintiffs Mitsubishi Electric Corp. (alternatively named Mitsubishi Denki Kabushiki Kaisha) (“Mitsubishi”), Koninklijke Philips N.V. (“Philips”), Thomson Licensing (“Thomson”), GE Technology Development, Inc. (“GE”), Panasonic Corporation (“Panasonic”), and Sony Corporation (“Sony”), by their undersigned attorneys, for their complaint against defendant ViewSonic Corporation (alternatively named ViewSonic Display Co.) (“ViewSonic”), hereby allege as follows: PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Mitsubishi is a Japanese corporation, having its principal place of
business in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Plaintiff Thomson is a French corporation, having its principal place of business
in Issy-les-Moulineaux, France. 4. Plaintiff GE is a Delaware corporation, having its principal place of business in
Albany, New York. 5. Plaintiff Panasonic is a Japanese corporation, having its principal place of
business in Osaka, Japan. 6. Tokyo, Japan. 7. Defendant ViewSonic, upon information and belief, is a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff Sony is a Japanese corporation, having its principal place of business in
having a regular and established business and sales office in Plantation, Florida. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the
United States, United States Code, Title 35, § 1, et seq. 9. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 10. 1400(b). 11. The Court has personal jurisdiction over ViewSonic because ViewSonic, among Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c), and (d), and
other things, conducts business in, and avails itself of the laws of, the State of Florida. ViewSonic is registered to do business in Florida and has appointed an agent for service of process in Florida. In addition, upon information and belief, ViewSonic through its own acts and/or through the acts of its affiliated companies (acting as its agents or alter egos) makes, uses, offers to sell, sells (directly or through intermediaries), imports, licenses and/or supplies, in this
District and elsewhere in the United States, products, through regular distribution channels, knowing such products would be used, offered for sale and/or sold in this District. PATENTS-IN-SUIT 12. United States Patent No. 7,376,184, entitled “High-Efficiency Encoder and Video
Information Recording/Reproducing Apparatus” (hereinafter, “the ’184 patent”) was duly and legally issued on May 20, 2008. A copy of the ’184 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 13. United States Patent No. 6,097,759, entitled “Image Signal Coding System”
(hereinafter, “the ’759 patent”) was duly and legally issued on August 1, 2000. A copy of the ’759 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 14. United States Patent No. 5,606,539, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Encoding
and Decoding an Audio and/or Video Signal, and a Record Carrier for Use with Such Apparatus” (hereinafter, “the ’539 patent”) was duly and legally issued on February 25, 1997. A copy of the ’539 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 15. United States Patent No. 5,459,789, entitled “Packet TV Program Component
Detector” (hereinafter, “the ’789 patent”) was duly and legally issued on October 17, 1995. A copy of the ’789 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 16. United States Patent No. 5,491,516, entitled “Field Elimination Apparatus for a
Video Compression/Decompression System” (hereinafter, “the ’516 patent”) was duly and legally issued on February 13, 1996. A copy of the ’516 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. 17. United States Patent No. 5,784,107, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Picture
Coding and Method and Apparatus for Picture Decoding” (hereinafter, “the ’107 patent”) was duly and legally issued on July 21, 1998. A copy of the ’107 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 6.
United States Patent No. 5,481,553, entitled “Methods and Apparatus for
Preventing Rounding Errors When Transform Coefficients Representing a Motion Picture Signal Are Inversely Transformed” (hereinafter, “the ’553 patent”) was duly and legally issued on January 2, 1996. A copy of the ’553 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 7. THE MPEG-2 STANDARD 19. In the 1990s, the Moving Pictures Expert Group (“MPEG”) (a working group
formed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)) developed the “MPEG-2 Standard.” The MPEG-2
Standard defines, among other things, a technology for compressing digital video signals (for example, moving picture signals in movies or television) so that the amount of information needed to represent the digital video signals is reduced. This enables a dramatic reduction in the storage space or transmission capacity needed to store or transmit the digital video signals yet still allows a faithful, high quality presentation of such video signals. 20. Thus, the MPEG-2 Standard facilitates, among other things, the storage, playing,
transmission and reproduction of digital terrestrial broadcast television, digital cable television, full-length films on DVD discs, and digital satellite television broadcasts in the United States. 21. The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) also has adopted certain
standards as the required standards for transmitting and receiving terrestrial broadcast digital television (“DTV”) in the United States. FCC rules require broadcasters to broadcast DTV signals in compliance with those standards, and require DTV receivers (such as television sets) to be equipped with tuners for receiving, decoding and presenting such DTV signals in compliance with those standards. The standards also require that DTV signals contain video
encoded in compliance with the MPEG-2 Standard, which is the only type of video that can be transmitted in a terrestrially broadcast DTV signal in the United States. VIEWSONIC’S INFRINGEMENT 22. 23. Each of the patents-in-suit is infringed by practice of the MPEG-2 Standard. ViewSonic makes, uses, offers to sell, sells (directly or through intermediaries),
imports, licenses and/or supplies in this District and elsewhere in the United States, numerous products which comply with the MPEG-2 Standard (“ViewSonic’s MPEG-2 Products”). 24. ViewSonic advertises that its MPEG-2 Products, including its television sets,
comply with the standards mandated by the FCC which in turn require compliance with the MPEG-2 Standard. 25. Upon information and belief, ViewSonic’s MPEG-2 Products include (but are not VT1601LED, VT1901LED, VT2430, VT2405LED, and
limited to) the following television set model numbers: VT2215LED, VT2755LED, VT3255LED, VT4236LED,
VT4210LED. Without discovery from ViewSonic, Plaintiffs are not able to ascertain at the pleading stage all ViewSonic products with MPEG-2 functionality. 26. ViewSonic has infringed and continues to infringe, literally and/or under the
doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the patents-in-suit by making, using, offering to sell, selling (directly or through intermediaries), importing, licensing and/or supplying in this District and elsewhere in the United States, products, including but not limited to ViewSonic’s MPEG-2 Products, that are covered by claims of, perform the methods claimed in, and/or are made by a process claimed in the patents-in-suit without authority, consent or license. 27. Upon information and belief, ViewSonic has also sold and provided and continues
to sell and provide its MPEG-2 Products, directly and/or indirectly, to third parties, including but
not limited to customers, users, distributors, and/or resellers (such as retailers) (collectively, “downstream parties”). 28. Upon information and belief, the downstream parties directly infringe one or more
claims of the patents-in-suit by making, using, offering to sell, selling (directly or through intermediaries), importing, licensing and/or supplying in this District and elsewhere in the United States, products, including but not limited to ViewSonic’s MPEG-2 Products, that are covered by claims of, perform the methods claimed in, and/or are made by a process claimed in the patentsin-suit without authority, consent or license. 29. MPEG LA is a company that offers a “one-stop-shop” license for a pool of
patents for practicing the MPEG-2 Standard (“MPEG-2 pool license”). Mitsubishi, Philips, Thomson, GE, Panasonic, and Sony are licensors in the MPEG-2 pool license and the ’184, ’759, ’539, ’789, ’516, ’107, and ’553 patents are licensed under the MPEG-2 pool license. MPEG LA offers the MPEG-2 pool license on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms. 30. Nearly 2,000 companies have taken the MPEG-2 pool license, including major
consumer electronics sellers that compete with ViewSonic. 31. In addition, Mitsubishi has committed to individually license the ’184 and/or ’759
patents, Philips has committed to individually license the ’539 patent, Thomson has committed to individually license the ’789 patent, GE has committed to individually license the ’516 patent, Panasonic has committed to individually license the ’107 patent, and Sony has committed to individually license the ’553 patent; each on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms. 32. Thus, any company may obtain a license directly from Mitsubishi for the ’184
and/or ’759 patents, from Philips for the ’539 patent, from Thomson for the ’789 patent, from
GE for the ’516 patent, from Panasonic for the ’107 patent, and from Sony for the ’553 patent; or, alternatively, may obtain the MPEG-2 pool license from MPEG LA. 33. MPEG LA offered the MPEG-2 pool license to ViewSonic on several occasions
but ViewSonic has declined to take the license. 34. Plaintiffs gave written notice to ViewSonic of its infringement. For example,
among other things, MPEG LA, on behalf of each Plaintiff, gave written notice to ViewSonic of its infringement. 35. ViewSonic has also not entered into a license under any of the ’184, ’759, ’539,
’789, ’516, ’107, and ’553 patents with any of Plaintiffs. 36. In short, notwithstanding the fact that ViewSonic was and continues to be aware
that its products infringed and are infringing the patents-in-suit, ViewSonic has refused to take a license. 37. 38. Infringement of the patents-in-suit by ViewSonic is, therefore, willful. For the same reasons, among others, ViewSonic has known that the acts by
downstream parties of making, using, offering to sell, selling (directly or through intermediaries), importing, licensing and/or supplying ViewSonic’s MPEG-2 Products, in this District and elsewhere in the United States, directly infringe the patents-in-suit. 39. Further, upon information and belief, ViewSonic has specifically intended to
induce, and has induced, downstream parties to infringe the patents-in-suit by making, using, offering to sell, selling (directly or through intermediaries), importing, licensing and/or supplying in this District and elsewhere in the United States, its MPEG-2 Products, knowing that the use of these products causes others to infringe Plaintiffs’ patents-in-suit. For example, ViewSonic has advertised, licensed, and/or provided instructions for such products with the specific intent and
encouragement that the downstream parties infringe the patents-in-suit. Also, upon information and belief, ViewSonic has provided downstream parties with instructions and/or user guides indicating that its products employ the MPEG-2 Standard. 40. 41. ViewSonic’s infringing actions were and are without authority, consent or license. Plaintiffs have each suffered damages as a result of the direct and indirect
infringing actions of ViewSonic, and will continue to suffer such damages as long as those infringing actions continue. COUNT I: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,376,184 42. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-41 above are repeated and realleged as
if fully set forth herein. 43. Mitsubishi is the assignee and owner of the right, title, and interest in and to the
’184 patent, now and for the entire period of and relevant to the infringement, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patent and the right to any remedies for infringement of it. 44. was filed. 45. Based on, among other things, the facts incorporated by reference in paragraph ViewSonic is, and has been, on notice of the ’184 patent since before this lawsuit
42, and alleged in paragraphs 43-44, ViewSonic has and continues to directly infringe and/or indirectly infringe by inducement, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’184 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. 46. Upon information and belief, the infringement of the ’184 patent by ViewSonic
has been willful.
Mitsubishi has been damaged and continues to be damaged by ViewSonic’s
infringement of the ’184 patent. COUNT II: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,097,759 48. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-41 above are repeated and realleged as
if fully set forth herein. 49. Mitsubishi is the assignee and owner of the right, title, and interest in and to the
’759 patent, now and for the entire period of and relevant to the infringement, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patent and the right to any remedies for infringement of it. 50. was filed. 51. Based on, among other things, the facts incorporated by reference in paragraph ViewSonic is, and has been, on notice of the ’759 patent since before this lawsuit
48, and alleged in paragraphs 49-50, ViewSonic has and continues to directly infringe and/or indirectly infringe by inducement, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’759 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. 52. Upon information and belief, the infringement of the ’759 patent by ViewSonic
has been willful. 53. Mitsubishi has been damaged and continues to be damaged by ViewSonic’s
infringement of the ’759 patent. COUNT III: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,606,539 54. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-41 above are repeated and realleged as
if fully set forth herein. 55. Philips is the assignee and owner of the right, title, and interest in and to the ’539
patent, now and for the entire period of and relevant to the infringement, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patent and the right to any remedies for infringement of it. 56. was filed. 57. Based on, among other things, the facts incorporated by reference in paragraph ViewSonic is, and has been, on notice of the ’539 patent since before this lawsuit
54, and alleged in paragraphs 55-56, ViewSonic has and continues to directly infringe and/or indirectly infringe by inducement, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’539 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. 58. Upon information and belief, the infringement of the ’539 patent by ViewSonic
has been willful. 59. Philips has been damaged and continues to be damaged by ViewSonic’s
infringement of the ’539 patent. COUNT IV: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,459,789 60. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-41 above are repeated and realleged as
if fully set forth herein. 61. Thomson is the assignee and owner of the right, title, and interest in and to the
’789 patent, now and for the entire period of and relevant to the infringement, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patent and the right to any remedies for infringement of it. 62. was filed. ViewSonic is, and has been, on notice of the ’789 patent since before this lawsuit
Based on, among other things, the facts incorporated by reference in paragraph
60, and alleged in paragraphs 61-62, ViewSonic has and continues to directly infringe and/or indirectly infringe by inducement, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’789 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. 64. Upon information and belief, the infringement of the ’789 patent by ViewSonic
has been willful. 65. Thomson has been damaged and continues to be damaged by ViewSonic’s
infringement of the ’789 patent. COUNT V: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,491,516 66. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-41 above are repeated and realleged as
if fully set forth herein. 67. GE is the assignee and owner of the right, title, and interest in and to the ’516
patent, now and for the entire period of and relevant to the infringement, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patent and the right to any remedies for infringement of it. 68. was filed. 69. Based on, among other things, the facts incorporated by reference in paragraph ViewSonic is, and has been, on notice of the ’516 patent since before this lawsuit
66, and alleged in paragraphs 67-68, ViewSonic has and continues to directly infringe and/or indirectly infringe by inducement, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’516 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. 70. Upon information and belief, the infringement of the ’516 patent by ViewSonic
GE has been damaged and continues to be damaged by ViewSonic’s infringement
of the ’516 patent. COUNT VI: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,784,107 72. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-41 above are repeated and realleged as
if fully set forth herein. 73. Panasonic is the assignee and owner of the right, title, and interest in and to the
’107 patent, now and for the entire period of and relevant to the infringement, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patent and the right to any remedies for infringement of it. 74. was filed. 75. Based on, among other things, the facts incorporated by reference in paragraph ViewSonic is, and has been, on notice of the ’107 patent since before this lawsuit
72, and alleged in paragraphs 73-74, ViewSonic has and continues to directly infringe and/or indirectly infringe by inducement, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’107 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. 76. Upon information and belief, the infringement of the ’107 patent by ViewSonic
has been willful. 77. Panasonic has been damaged and continues to be damaged by ViewSonic’s
infringement of the ’107 patent. COUNT VII: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,481,553 78. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-41 above are repeated and realleged as
Sony is the assignee and owner of the right, title, and interest in and to the ’553
patent, now and for the entire period of and relevant to the infringement, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patent and the right to any remedies for infringement of it. 80. was filed. 81. Based on, among other things, the facts incorporated by reference in paragraph ViewSonic is, and has been, on notice of the ’553 patent since before this lawsuit
78, and alleged in paragraphs 79-80, ViewSonic has and continues to directly infringe and/or indirectly infringe by inducement, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’553 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271. 82. Upon information and belief, the infringement of the ’553 patent by ViewSonic
has been willful. 83. Sony has been damaged and continues to be damaged by ViewSonic’s
infringement of the ’553 patent. EXCEPTIONAL CASE 84. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-83 above are repeated and realleged as
if fully set forth herein. 85. Based on, among other things, the facts alleged in paragraphs 1-83, including
ViewSonic’s intentional use of the MPEG-2 Standard, ViewSonic’s knowledge of its infringement and its downstream parties’ infringement, and ViewSonic’s continued direct and/or indirect infringement, this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and Plaintiffs are entitled to their reasonable costs and expenses of litigation.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court enter a judgment: A. B. Declaring that ViewSonic has infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 7,376,184, 6,097,759, 5,606,539, 5,459,789, 5,491,516, 5,784,107, and 5,481,553; Awarding Plaintiffs damages adequate to compensate for ViewSonic’s infringing activities, including supplemental damages for any post-verdict infringement up until entry of the final judgment with an accounting as needed, together with prejudgment and post-judgment interest on the damages awarded; all of these damages to be enhanced in an amount up to treble the amount of compensatory damages as justified under 35 U.S.C. § 284; Declaring that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding Plaintiffs their reasonable costs and expenses of litigation, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees; and Awarding Plaintiffs such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. JURY DEMAND Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury as to all claims and all issues properly triable thereby.
Respectfully submitted, PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 2255 Glades Road, Suite 421 Atrium Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 241-7400 Facsimile: (561) 241-7145 /s/ Payal Salsburg Matthew Triggs Florida Bar No. 0865745 mtriggs@proskauer.com Payal Salsburg Florida Bar No. 0057038 psalsburg@proskauer.com
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP Steven M. Bauer* Justin J. Daniels* One International Place Boston, MA 02110 (617) 526-9600 * pro hac admission to be sought Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Documents Similar To Mitsubishi Electric et. al. v. ViewSonic