Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/217136925/Innovative-Display-Technologies-v-Google-et-al
Timestamp: 2017-09-24 21:14:03
Document Index: 602095862

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1391', '§ 1400', '§ 299', '§ 287', '§ 287', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 287', '§ 287', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 287', '§ 287', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 287', '§ 287', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 287', '§ 287', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 287', '§ 287', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 287', '§ 287', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 285', '§ 284', '§ 284', '§ 283']

Innovative Display Technologies v. Google et. al. | Patent Infringement | Doctrine Of Equivalents
Innovative Display Technologies v. Google et. al.
Description: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00302: Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Google Inc et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texa...
Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00302: Innovative Display Technologies LLC v. Google Inc et. al. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-lacY for more info.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS INNOVATIVE DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES LLC Plaintiff
, v. GOOGLE INC. and MOTOROLA MOBILITY, LLC, Defendants. § § § § § § § § § § §
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Innovative Display Technologies LLC (“Plaintiff”) by and through its undersigned counsel, files this Complaint against Google, Inc. and Motorola Mobility, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”). THE PARTIES 1. Innovative Display Technologies LLC (“IDT”) is a Texas limited liability company
with its principal place of business located at 2400 Dallas Parkway, Suite 200, Plano, Texas 75093. 2. Upon information and belief, Google, Inc., (“Google”) is a Delaware corporation
with offices at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California 94043. Upon information and belief, Google may be served with process by serving its registered agent, Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC-Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701. 3. Upon information and belief, Motorola Mobility, LLC (“Motorola”) is a
corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principle place of business at 600 North U.S. Highway 45, Libertyville, Illinois 60048. Upon information and belief, Motorola
Mobility, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Google, Inc. Upon information and belief, Google may be served with process by serving its registered agent, CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St., Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201. 4. Upon information and belief, Defendants have conducted and regularly conduct
business within this District, have purposefully availed themselves of the privileges of conducting business in this District, and have sought protection and benefit from the laws of the State of Texas. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.,
Defendants are amenable to service of summons for this action. Furthermore, personal jurisdiction over Defendants in this action comports with due process. Defendants have conducted and regularly conduct business within the United States and this District. Defendants have purposefully availed themselves of the privileges of conducting business in the United States and, more specifically, in this District. Defendants have sought protection and benefit from the laws of the State of Texas by maintaining offices in Texas, by making one or more infringing products in Fort Worth, Texas, and/or by placing infringing products into the stream of commerce through an established distribution channel with the expectation and/or knowledge that they will be purchased by consumers in this District. IDT’s causes of action arise directly from Defendants’ business contacts and other activities in this District. 7. Defendants – directly or through intermediaries (including distributors, retailers,
and others), subsidiaries, alter egos, and/or agents – ships, distributes, offers for sale, and/or sells their products in the United States and this District. Defendants have purposefully and voluntarily 2
placed one or more infringing products, as described below, into the stream of commerce with the expectation and/or knowledge that they will be purchased by consumers in this District. Defendants knowingly and purposefully ship infringing products into and within this District through an established distribution channel. These infringing products have been and continue to be purchased by consumers in this District. Upon information and belief, Defendants have committed the tort of patent infringement in this District and/or has induced others to commit patent infringement in this District. 8. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c), and (d), as well as
28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). One or more of IDT’s witnesses reside in this District. Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District, and therefore is deemed to reside in this District for purposes of venue, and, upon information and belief, Defendants have committed acts within this judicial District giving rise to this action and does business in this District, including but not limited to making sales in this District, providing service and support to their respective customers in this District, and/or operating interactive websites that are available to persons in this District, which websites advertise, market, and/or offer for sale infringing products. Defendants also make one or more infringing products in Fort Worth, Texas. JOINDER 9. Joinder is proper under 35 U.S.C. § 299. The allegations of infringement contained
herein are asserted against the Defendants jointly, severally, or in the alternative and arise, at least in part, out of the same series of transactions or occurrences relating to Defendants’ manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, and importation of one or more of the same accused products. On information and belief, Defendants are part of the same corporate family of companies, and the infringement allegations arise at least in part from Defendants’ collective activities with respect to
one or more of Defendants’ accused products. Question of fact common to Defendants will arise in the action, including questions relating to the structure and operation of one or more of the accused products, Defendants’ infringing acts, and, on information and belief, the validity of the patent-in-suit. BACKGROUND A. The Patents-In-Suit. 10. U.S. Patent No. 6,755,547 titled “Light Emitting Panel Assemblies” (“the ’547
patent”) was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on June 29, 2004, after full and fair examination. Jeffery R. Parker is the sole inventor listed on the ’547 patent. A true and correct copy of the ’547 patent is attached as Exhibit A and made a part hereof. 11. U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194 titled “Light Emitting Panel Assemblies” (“the ’194
patent”) was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on November 27, 2007, after full and fair examination. Jeffery R. Parker is the sole inventor listed on the ’194 patent. A true and correct copy of the ’194 patent is attached as Exhibit B and made a part hereof. 12. U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177 titled “Light Emitting Panel Assemblies” (“the ’177
patent”) was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on June 10, 2008, after full and fair examination. Jeffery R. Parker is the sole inventor listed on the ’177 patent. A true and correct copy of the ’177 patent is attached as Exhibit C and made a part hereof. 13. U.S. Patent No. 7,404,660 titled “Light Emitting Panel Assemblies” (“the ’660
patent”) was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on July 29, 2008, after full and fair examination. Jeffery R. Parker is the sole inventor listed on the ’660 patent. A true and correct copy of the ’660 patent is attached as Exhibit D and made a part hereof. 14. U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974 titled “Light Emitting Panel Assemblies” (“the ’974
patent”) was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on October 14, 2008, 4
after full and fair examination. Jeffery R. Parker is the sole inventor listed on the ’974 patent. A true and correct copy of the ’974 patent is attached as Exhibit E and made a part hereof. 15. U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370 titled “Light Emitting Panel Assemblies” (“the ’370
patent”) was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on May 26, 2009, after full and fair examination. Jeffery R. Parker is the sole inventor listed on the ’370 patent. A true and correct copy of the ’370 patent is attached as Exhibit F and made a part hereof. 16. U.S. Patent No. 8,215,816 titled “Light Emitting Panel Assemblies” (“the ’816
patent”) was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on July 10, 2012, after full and fair examination. Jeffery R. Parker is the sole inventor listed on the ’816 patent. A true and correct copy of the ’816 patent is attached as Exhibit G and made a part hereof. 17. The ’547 patent, the ’194 patent, the ’177 patent, the ’660 patent, the ’974 patent,
the ’370 patent, and the ’816 patent are collectively referred to as the “IDT patents” or the “patentsin-suit.” 18. On June 26, 2013, IDT was assigned all of the right, title, and interest in the IDT
patents, including the exclusive right to sue and collect for its own use and benefit all claims for damages by reason of past infringement or use of the IDT patents. 19. The patents-in-suit all share the same ultimate parent patent, U.S. Patent No.
5,613,751. The patents-in-suit share the same named inventor, subject matter, and claim terms. The accused products infringe the patents-in-suit based on the use of the same technology, e.g., backlights for LCDs. B. Defendants’ Infringing Conduct. 20. Upon information and belief, Defendants make, use, offer to sell, and/or sell within,
and/or imports into the United States display products that use the fundamental technologies
covered by the patents-in-suit. Upon information and belief, the infringing display products include, but are not limited to mobile phones and tablets with an LCD. 21. By incorporating the fundamental inventions covered by the patents-in-suit,
Defendants can make improved products, including but not limited to, products with longer displays, thinner displays, and/or displays with a higher light output, a more uniform light output, a lower power requirement, and/or a longer battery life. 22. Upon information and belief, third-party distributors purchase and have purchased
Defendants’ infringing display products for sale or importation into the United States, including in this District. Upon information and belief, third-party consumers use and have used Defendants’ infringing display products in the United States, including in this District. 23. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ have purchased infringing display
products that are made, used, offered for sale, sold within, and/or imported into the United States, including in this District by third-party manufacturers, distributors, and/or importers. COUNT I Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,755,547 24. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of paragraphs 1-25 as
though fully set forth herein. 25. 26. patent. 27. Upon information and belief, to the extent any marking or notice was required by The ’547 patent is valid and enforceable. Defendants have never been licensed, either expressly or impliedly, under the ’547
35 U.S.C. § 287, IDT has complied with the requirements of that statute by providing actual or constructive notice to Defendants of their alleged infringement. Upon information and belief, IDT surmises that any express licensees of the ’547 patent have complied with the marking 6
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287 by placing a notice of the ’547 patent on all goods made, offered for sale, sold within, and/or imported into the United States that embody one or more claims of that patent. 28. Upon information and belief, Defendants have been and are directly infringing
under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and/or indirectly infringing, by way of inducement with specific intent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), the ’547 patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors, and/or consumers (directly or through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or importing into the United States, without authority, display products that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’547 patent, including but not limited to mobile phones and tablets with an LCD (e.g., Google Nexus 5, 7, and 10, Motorola Atrix HD, and Moto G), their display components, and/or other products made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported by Defendants that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’547 patent. 29. Upon information and belief, distributors and consumers that purchase Defendants’
display products that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’547 patent, including but not limited to mobile phones and tablets with an LCD (e.g., Google Nexus 5, 7, and 10, Motorola Atrix HD, and Moto G), also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’547 patent by using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors or consumers (directly or through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or importing into the United States, those infringing display products. 30. Upon information and belief, the third-party manufacturers, distributors, and
importers that sell display products to Defendants that include all of the limitations of one or more
claims of the ’547 patent, also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’547 patent by making, offering to sell, and/or selling (directly or through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) infringing products in this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or importing infringing products into the United States. 31. Upon information and belief, Google and Motorola had knowledge of the ’547
patent and its infringing conduct by September 4, 2012 and September 6, 2012, respectively, when they were formally placed on notice of their infringement. 32. Upon information and belief, since at least the above-mentioned date of notice,
Defendants have actively induced, under U.S.C. § 271(b), third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers and/or consumers that purchase or sell display products that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’547 patent, including but not limited to mobile phones and tablets with an LCD (e.g., Google Nexus 5, 7, and 10, Motorola Atrix HD, and Moto G), to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’547 patent. Since at least the notice provided on the abovementioned date, Defendants do so with knowledge, or with willful blindness of the fact, that the induced acts constitute infringement of the ’547 patent. 33. Upon information and belief, Defendants intend to cause, and have taken
affirmative steps to induce, infringement by these third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers, and/or consumers by, inter alia, creating advertisements that promote the infringing use of display products, creating established distribution channels for these products into and within the United States, purchasing these products, manufacturing these products in conformity with U.S. laws and regulations, distributing or making available instructions or manuals for these products to purchasers and prospective buyers, and/or providing technical support, replacement parts, or services for these products to these purchasers in the United States.
Upon information and belief, Defendants’ acts of infringement of the ’547 patent
have been willful and intentional. Since at least the above-mentioned date of notice, Defendants have acted with an objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of the ’547 patent by refusing to take a license and continuing to make and sell its display products, including but not limited to mobile phones and tablets with an LCD (e.g., Google Nexus 5, 7, and 10, Motorola Atrix HD, and Moto G), and the objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have been known. 35. As a direct and proximate result of these acts of patent infringement, Defendants
have encroached on the exclusive rights of IDT and its licensees to practice the ’547 patent, for which IDT is entitled to at least a reasonable royalty. COUNT II Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194 36. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of paragraphs 1-37 as
though fully set forth herein 37. 38. patent. 39. Upon information and belief, to the extent any marking or notice was required by The ’194 patent is valid and enforceable. Defendants have never been licensed, either expressly or impliedly, under the ’194
35 U.S.C. § 287, IDT has complied with the requirements of that statute by providing actual or constructive notice to Defendants of their alleged infringement. Upon information and belief, IDT surmises that any express licensees of the ’194 patent have complied with the marking requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287 by placing a notice of the ’194 patent on all goods made, offered for sale, sold within, and/or imported into the United States that embody one or more claims of that patent. 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and/or indirectly infringing, by way of inducement with specific intent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), the ’194 patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors, and/or consumers (directly or through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or importing into the United States, without authority, display products that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’194 patent, including but not limited to mobile phones and tablets with an LCD (e.g., Google Nexus 5, 7, and 10, Motorola Atrix HD, and Moto G), their display components, and/or other products made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported by Defendants that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’194 patent. 41. Upon information and belief, distributors and consumers that purchase Defendants’
display products that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’194 patent, including but not limited to mobile phones and tablets with an LCD (e.g., Google Nexus 5, 7, and 10, Motorola Atrix HD, and Moto G), also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’194 patent by using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors or consumers (directly or through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or importing into the United States, those infringing display products. 42. Upon information and belief, the third-party manufacturers, distributors, and
importers that sell display products to Defendants that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’194 patent, also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’194 patent by making, offering to sell, and/or selling (directly or
through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) infringing products in this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or importing infringing products into the United States. 43. Upon information and belief, Google and Motorola had knowledge of the ’194
patent and its infringing conduct by September 4, 2012 and September 6, 2012, respectively, when they were formally placed on notice of their infringement. 44. Upon information and belief, since at least the above-mentioned date of notice,
Defendants’ have actively induced, under U.S.C. § 271(b), third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers and/or consumers that purchase or sell display products that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’194 patent, including but not limited to mobile phones and tablets with an LCD (e.g., Google Nexus 5, 7, and 10, Motorola Atrix HD, and Moto G), to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’194 patent. Since at least the notice provided on the abovementioned date, Defendants do so with knowledge, or with willful blindness of the fact, that the induced acts constitute infringement of the ’194 patent. 45. Upon information and belief, Defendants intend to cause, and have taken
affirmative steps to induce, infringement by these third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers, and/or consumers by, inter alia, creating advertisements that promote the infringing use of display products, creating established distribution channels for these products into and within the United States, purchasing these products, manufacturing these products in conformity with U.S. laws and regulations, distributing or making available instructions or manuals for these products to purchasers and prospective buyers, and/or providing technical support, replacement parts, or services for these products to these purchasers in the United States. 46. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ acts of infringement of the ’194 patent
have been willful and intentional. Since at least the above-mentioned date of notice, Defendants
have acted with an objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of the ’194 patent by refusing to take a license and continuing to make and sell their display products, including but not limited to mobile phones and tablets with an LCD (e.g., Google Nexus 5, 7, and 10, Motorola Atrix HD, and Moto G), and the objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have been known. 47. As a direct and proximate result of these acts of patent infringement, Defendants
have encroached on the exclusive rights of IDT and its licensees to practice the ’194 patent, for which IDT is entitled to at least a reasonable royalty. COUNT III Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177 48. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of paragraphs 1-49 as
though fully set forth herein. 49. 50. patent. 51. Upon information and belief, to the extent any marking or notice was required by The ’177 patent is valid and enforceable. Defendants have never been licensed, either expressly or impliedly, under the ’177
35 U.S.C. § 287, IDT has complied with the requirements of that statute by providing actual or constructive notice to Defendants of its alleged infringement. Upon information and belief, IDT surmises that any express licensees of the ’177 patent have complied with the marking requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287 by placing a notice of the ’177 patent on all goods made, offered for sale, sold within, and/or imported into the United States that embody one or more claims of that patent. 52. Upon information and belief, Defendants have been and are directly infringing
under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and/or indirectly 12
infringing, by way of inducement with specific intent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), the ’177 patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors, and/or consumers (directly or through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or importing into the United States, without authority, display products that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’177 patent, including but not limited to mobile phones and tablets with an LCD (e.g., Google Nexus 5, 7, and 10, Motorola Atrix HD, and Moto G), their display components, and/or other products made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported by Defendants that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’177 patent. 53. Upon information and belief, distributors and consumers that purchase Defendants’
display products that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’177 patent, including but not limited to mobile phones and tablets with an LCD (e.g., Google Nexus 5, 7, and 10, Motorola Atrix HD, and Moto G), also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’177 patent by using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors or consumers (directly or through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or importing into the United States, those infringing display products. 54. Upon information and belief, the third-party manufacturers, distributors, and
importers that sell display products to Defendants that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’177 patent, also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’177 patent by making, offering to sell, and/or selling (directly or through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) infringing products in this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or importing infringing products into the United States.
Upon information and belief, Google and Motorola had knowledge of the ’177
patent and its infringing conduct by September 4, 2012 and September 6, 2012, respectively, when they were formally placed on notice of their infringement. 56. Upon information and belief, since at least the above-mentioned date of notice,
Defendants have actively induced, under U.S.C. § 271(b), third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers and/or consumers that purchase or sell display products that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’177 patent, including but not limited to mobile phones and tablets with an LCD (e.g., Google Nexus 5, 7, and 10, Motorola Atrix HD, and Moto G), to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’177 patent. Since at least the notice provided on the abovementioned date, Defendants do so with knowledge, or with willful blindness of the fact, that the induced acts constitute infringement of the ’177 patent. 57. Upon information and belief, Defendants intend to cause, and have taken
affirmative steps to induce, infringement by these third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers, and/or consumers by, inter alia, creating advertisements that promote the infringing use of display products, creating established distribution channels for these products into and within the United States, purchasing these products, manufacturing these products in conformity with U.S. laws and regulations, distributing or making available instructions or manuals for these products to purchasers and prospective buyers, and/or providing technical support, replacement parts, or services for these products to these purchasers in the United States. 58. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ acts of infringement of the ’177 patent
have been willful and intentional. Since at least the above-mentioned date of notice, Defendants have acted with an objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of the ’177 patent by refusing to take a license and continuing to make and sell its display products,
including but not limited to mobile phones and tablets with an LCD (e.g., Google Nexus 5, 7, and 10, Motorola Atrix HD, and Moto G), and the objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have been known. 59. As a direct and proximate result of these acts of patent infringement, Defendants
have encroached on the exclusive rights of IDT and its licensees to practice the ’177 patent, for which IDT is entitled to at least a reasonable royalty. COUNT IV Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,404,660 60. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of paragraphs 1-61 as
though fully set forth herein. 61. 62. patent. 63. Upon information and belief, to the extent any marking or notice was required by The ’660 patent is valid and enforceable. Defendants have never been licensed, either expressly or impliedly, under the ’660
35 U.S.C. § 287, IDT has complied with the requirements of that statute by providing actual or constructive notice to Defendants of their alleged infringement. Upon information and belief, IDT surmises that any express licensees of the ’660 patent have complied with the marking requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287 by placing a notice of the ’660 patent on all goods made, offered for sale, sold within, and/or imported into the United States that embody one or more claims of that patent. 64. Upon information and belief, Defendants have been and is directly infringing under
35 U.S.C. § 271(a), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and/or indirectly infringing, by way of inducement with specific intent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), the ’ 660 patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors, and/or consumers (directly or 15
through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or importing into the United States, without authority, display products that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’660 patent, including but not limited to mobile phones and tablets with an LCD (e.g., Google Nexus 5, 7, and 10, Motorola Atrix HD, and Moto G), their display components, and/or other products made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported by Defendants that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’660 patent. 65. Upon information and belief, distributors and consumers that purchase Defendants’
display products that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’660 patent, including but not limited to mobile phones and tablets with an LCD (e.g., Google Nexus 5, 7, and 10, Motorola Atrix HD, and Moto G), also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’660 patent by using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors or consumers (directly or through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or importing into the United States, those infringing display products. 66. Upon information and belief, the third-party manufacturers, distributors, and
importers that sell display products to Defendants that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’660 patent, also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’660 patent by making, offering to sell, and/or selling (directly or through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) infringing products in this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or importing infringing products into the United States. 67. Upon information and belief, Google and Motorola had knowledge of the ’660
patent and its infringing conduct by September 4, 2012 and September 6, 2012, respectively, when they were formally placed on notice of their infringement.
Upon information and belief, since at least the above-mentioned date of notice,
Defendants have actively induced, under U.S.C. § 271(b), third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers and/or consumers that purchase or sell display products that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’660 patent, including but not limited to mobile phones and tablets with an LCD (e.g., Google Nexus 5, 7, and 10, Motorola Atrix HD, and Moto G), to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’660 patent. Since at least the notice provided on the abovementioned date, Defendants do so with knowledge, or with willful blindness of the fact, that the induced acts constitute infringement of the ’660 patent. 69. Upon information and belief, Defendants intend to cause, and have taken
affirmative steps to induce, infringement by these third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers, and/or consumers by, inter alia, creating advertisements that promote the infringing use of display products, creating established distribution channels for these products into and within the United States, purchasing these products, manufacturing these products in conformity with U.S. laws and regulations, distributing or making available instructions or manuals for these products to purchasers and prospective buyers, and/or providing technical support, replacement parts, or services for these products to these purchasers in the United States. 70. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ acts of infringement of the ’660 patent
have been willful and intentional. Since at least the above-mentioned date of notice, Defendants have acted with an objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of the ’660 patent by refusing to take a license and continuing to make and sell its display products, including but not limited to mobile phones and tablets with an LCD (e.g., Google Nexus 5, 7, and 10, Motorola Atrix HD, and Moto G), and the objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have been known.
have encroached on the exclusive rights of IDT and its licensees to practice the ’660 patent, for which IDT is entitled to at least a reasonable royalty. COUNT V Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974 72. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of paragraphs 1-73 as
though fully set forth herein. 73. 74. patent. 75. Upon information and belief, to the extent any marking or notice was required by The ’974 patent is valid and enforceable. Defendants have never been licensed, either expressly or impliedly, under the ’974
35 U.S.C. § 287, IDT has complied with the requirements of that statute by providing actual or constructive notice to Defendants of their alleged infringement. Upon information and belief, IDT surmises that any express licensees of the ’974 patent have complied with the marking requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287 by placing a notice of the ’974 patent on all goods made, offered for sale, sold within, and/or imported into the United States that embody one or more claims of that patent. 76. Upon information and belief, Defendants have been and is directly infringing under
35 U.S.C. § 271(a), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and/or indirectly infringing, by way of inducement with specific intent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), the ’974 patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors, and/or consumers (directly or through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or importing into the United States, without authority, display products that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’974 patent, including but not limited to mobile phones 18
and tablets with an LCD (e.g., Google Nexus 5, 7, and 10, Motorola Atrix HD, and Moto G), their display components, and/or other products made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported by Defendants that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’974 patent. 77. Upon information and belief, distributors and consumers that purchase Defendants’
display products that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’974 patent, including but not limited to mobile phones and tablets with an LCD (e.g., Google Nexus 5, 7, and 10, Motorola Atrix HD, and Moto G), also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’974 patent by using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors or consumers (directly or through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or importing into the United States, those infringing display products. 78. Upon information and belief, the third-party manufacturers, distributors, and
importers that sell display products to Defendants that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’974 patent, also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’974 patent by making, offering to sell, and/or selling (directly or through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) infringing products in this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or importing infringing products into the United States. 79. Upon information and belief, Google and Motorola had knowledge of the ’974
patent and its infringing conduct by September 4, 2012 and September 6, 2012, respectively, when they were formally placed on notice of their infringement. 80. Upon information and belief, since at least the above-mentioned date of notice,
Defendants have actively induced, under U.S.C. § 271(b), third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers and/or consumers that purchase or sell display products that include all of the limitations
of one or more claims of the ’974 patent, including but not limited to mobile phones and tablets with an LCD (e.g., Google Nexus 5, 7, and 10, Motorola Atrix HD, and Moto G), to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’974 patent. Since at least the notice provided on the abovementioned date, Defendants do so with knowledge, or with willful blindness of the fact, that the induced acts constitute infringement of the ’974 patent. 81. Upon information and belief, Defendants intend to cause, and have taken
affirmative steps to induce, infringement by these third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers, and/or consumers by, inter alia, creating advertisements that promote the infringing use of display products, creating established distribution channels for these products into and within the United States, purchasing these products, manufacturing these products in conformity with U.S. laws and regulations, distributing or making available instructions or manuals for these products to purchasers and prospective buyers, and/or providing technical support, replacement parts, or services for these products to these purchasers in the United States. 82. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ acts of infringement of the ’974 patent
have been willful and intentional. Since at least the above-mentioned date of notice, Defendants have acted with an objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of the ’974 patent by refusing to take a license and continuing to make and sell its display products, including but not limited to mobile phones and tablets with an LCD (e.g., Google Nexus 5, 7, and 10, Motorola Atrix HD, and Moto G), and the objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have been known. 83. As a direct and proximate result of these acts of patent infringement, Defendants
have encroached on the exclusive rights of IDT and its licensees to practice the ’974 patent, for which IDT is entitled to at least a reasonable royalty.
COUNT VI Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370 84. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of paragraphs 1-85 as
though fully set forth herein. 85. 86. patent. 87. Upon information and belief, to the extent any marking or notice was required by The ’370 patent is valid and enforceable. Motorola has never been licensed, either expressly or impliedly, under the ’370
35 U.S.C. § 287, IDT has complied with the requirements of that statute by providing actual or constructive notice to Motorola of its alleged infringement. Upon information and belief, IDT surmises that any express licensees of the ’370 patent have complied with the marking requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287 by placing a notice of the ’370 patent on all goods made, offered for sale, sold within, and/or imported into the United States that embody one or more claims of that patent. 88. Upon information and belief, Motorola has been and is directly infringing under 35
U.S.C. § 271(a), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and/or indirectly infringing, by way of inducement with specific intent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), the ’ 370 patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors, and/or consumers (directly or through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or importing into the United States, without authority, display products that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’370 patent, including but not limited to mobile phones and tablets with an LCD (e.g., Motorola Atrix HD and Moto G) their display components, and/or other products made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported by Motorola that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’370 patent. 21
Upon information and belief, distributors and consumers that purchase Motorola’s
display products that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’370 patent, including but not limited to mobile phones and tablets with LCD (e.g., Motorola Atrix HD and Moto G), also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’370 patent by using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors or consumers (directly or through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or importing into the United States, those infringing display products. 90. Upon information and belief, the third-party manufacturers, distributors, and
importers that sell display products to Motorola that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’370 patent, also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’370 patent by making, offering to sell, and/or selling (directly or through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) infringing products in this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or importing infringing products into the United States. 91. Upon information and belief, Motorola had knowledge of the ’370 patent and its
infringing conduct by September 6, 2012, when it was formally placed on notice of its infringement. 92. Upon information and belief, since at least the above-mentioned date of notice,
Motorola has actively induced, under U.S.C. § 271(b), third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers and/or consumers that purchase or sell display products that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’370 patent, including but not limited to mobile phones and tablets with an LCD (e.g., Motorola Atrix HD and Moto G), to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’370 patent. Since at least the notice provided on the above-mentioned date, Motorola does so with
knowledge, or with willful blindness of the fact, that the induced acts constitute infringement of the ’370 patent. 93. Upon information and belief, Motorola intends to cause, and has taken affirmative
steps to induce, infringement by these third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers, and/or consumers by, inter alia, creating advertisements that promote the infringing use of display products, creating established distribution channels for these products into and within the United States, purchasing these products, manufacturing these products in conformity with U.S. laws and regulations, distributing or making available instructions or manuals for these products to purchasers and prospective buyers, and/or providing technical support, replacement parts, or services for these products to these purchasers in the United States. 94. Upon information and belief, Motorola’s acts of infringement of the ’370 patent
have been willful and intentional. Since at least the above-mentioned date of notice, Motorola has acted with an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the ’370 patent by refusing to take a license and continuing to make and sell its display products, including but not limited to mobile phones and tablets with an LCD (e.g., the Motorola Atrix HD and Moto G), and the objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have been known. 95. As a direct and proximate result of these acts of patent infringement, Motorola has
encroached on the exclusive rights of IDT and its licensees to practice the ’370 patent, for which IDT is entitled to at least a reasonable royalty. COUNT VIII Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,215,816 96. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of paragraphs 1-109 as
though fully set forth herein. 97. The ’816 patent is valid and enforceable. 23
98. patent. 99.
Defendants have never been licensed, either expressly or impliedly, under the ’816
35 U.S.C. § 287, IDT has complied with the requirements of that statute by providing actual or constructive notice to Defendants of their alleged infringement. Upon information and belief, IDT surmises that any express licensees of the ’816 patent have complied with the marking requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287 by placing a notice of the ’816 patent on all goods made, offered for sale, sold within, and/or imported into the United States that embody one or more claims of that patent. 100. Upon information and belief, Defendants have been and is directly infringing under
35 U.S.C. § 271(a), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and/or indirectly infringing, by way of inducement with specific intent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), the ’ 816 patent by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors, and/or consumers (directly or through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or importing into the United States, without authority, display products that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’816 patent, including but not limited to mobile phones and tablets with an LCD (e.g., Google Nexus 5, 7, and 10, Motorola Atrix HD, and Moto G), their display components, and/or other products made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported by Defendants that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’816 patent. 101. Upon information and belief, distributors and consumers that purchase Defendants’
display products that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’816 patent, including but not limited to mobile phones and tablets with an LCD (e.g., Google Nexus 5, 7, and 10, Motorola Atrix HD, and Moto G), also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine
of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’816 patent by using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors or consumers (directly or through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or importing into the United States, those infringing display products. 102. Upon information and belief, the third-party manufacturers, distributors, and
importers that sell display products to Defendants that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’816 patent, also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’816 patent by making, offering to sell, and/or selling (directly or through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) infringing products in this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or importing infringing products into the United States. 103. Upon information and belief, Google and Motorola had knowledge of the ’816
patent and its infringing conduct by September 4, 2012 and September 6, 2012, respectively, when they were formally placed on notice of their infringement. 104. Upon information and belief, since at least the above-mentioned date of notice,
Defendants have actively induced, under U.S.C. § 271(b), third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers and/or consumers that purchase or sell display products that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’816 patent, including but not limited to mobile phones and tablets with an LCD (e.g., Google Nexus 5, 7, and 10, Motorola Atrix HD, and Moto G), to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’816 patent. Since at least the notice provided on the abovementioned date, Defendants do so with knowledge, or with willful blindness of the fact, that the induced acts constitute infringement of the ’816 patent. 105. Upon information and belief, Defendants intend to cause, and have taken
affirmative steps to induce, infringement by these third-party manufacturers, distributors,
importers, and/or consumers by, inter alia, creating advertisements that promote the infringing use of display products, creating established distribution channels for these products into and within the United States, purchasing these products, manufacturing these products in conformity with U.S. laws and regulations, distributing or making available instructions or manuals for these products to purchasers and prospective buyers, and/or providing technical support, replacement parts, or services for these products to these purchasers in the United States. 106. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ acts of infringement of the ’816 patent
have been willful and intentional. Since at least the above-mentioned date of notice, Defendants have acted with an objectively high likelihood that their actions constituted infringement of the ’816 patent by refusing to take a license and continuing to make and sell its display products, including but not limited to mobile phones and tablets with an LCD (e.g., Google Nexus 5, 7, and 10, Motorola Atrix HD, and Moto G), and the objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have been known. 107. As a direct and proximate result of these acts of patent infringement, Defendants
have encroached on the exclusive rights of IDT and its licensees to practice the ’816 patent, for which IDT is entitled to at least a reasonable royalty. CONCLUSION 108. Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Google the damages sustained by Plaintiff as a
result of Defendants’ wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court. 109. Plaintiff has incurred and will incur attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses in the
prosecution of this action. The circumstances of this dispute create an exceptional case within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285, and Plaintiff is entitled to recover its reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. JURY DEMAND 110. Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 111. Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court find in its favor and against
Defendants, and that the Court grant Plaintiff the following relief: A. A judgment that Defendants have infringed the patents-in-suit as alleged herein, directly and/or indirectly by way of inducing infringement of such patents; B. A judgment for an accounting of all damages sustained by Plaintiff as a result of the acts of infringement by Defendants; C. A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiff damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, including up to treble damages for willful infringement as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 284, and any royalties determined to be appropriate; D. A permanent injunction enjoining Defendants and their officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, affiliates, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents and all others acting in concert or privity with them from direct and/or indirect infringement of the patents-in-suit pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283; E. A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay Plaintiff pre-judgment and postjudgment interest on the damages awarded;
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Jeffrey R. Bragalone Jeffrey R. Bragalone (lead attorney) Texas Bar No. 02855775 Patrick J. Conroy Texas Bar No. 24012448 Justin B. Kimble Texas Bar No. 24036909 T. William Kennedy, Jr. Texas Bar No. 24055771 Daniel F. Olejko Pennsylvania Bar No. 205512 Bragalone Conroy PC 2200 Ross Avenue Suite 4500W Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: (214) 785-6671 Fax: (214) 785-6680 jbragalone@bcpc-law.com pconroy@bcpc-law.com jkimble@bcpc-law.com bkennedy@bcpc-law.com dolejko@bcpc-law.com
Documents Similar To Innovative Display Technologies v. Google et. al.
stable croatian Right Zoom 2.1 google drive software Mega Mega 849241890
Beneficial Innovations, Inc. v. Blockdot, Inc. et al - Document No. 69