Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/170647473/Cypress-Semiconductor-v-Silego-Technology
Timestamp: 2017-07-26 23:53:14
Document Index: 542014541

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 100', '§ 1331', '§ 1391', '§ 1400', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285']

Cypress Semiconductor v. Silego Technology | Patent Infringement | Patent
Cypress Semiconductor v. Silego TechnologyUploaded by PriorSmartRelated InterestsPatent InfringementPatentComplaintCivil Law (Common Law)Monopoly (Economics)Rating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedDescription: Official Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. None: Cypress Semiconductor Corporation v. Silego Technology, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Californi...View MoreOfficial Complaint for Patent Infringement in Civil Action No. None: Cypress Semiconductor Corporation v. Silego Technology, Inc. Filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, no judge yet assigned. See http://news.priorsmart.com/-l9bv for more info.Copyright: Public DomainDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13Michael J. Malecek (State Bar No. 171034) Email address: michael.malecek@kayescholer.com Marisa Armanino Williams (State Bar No. 264907) Email address: marisa.armanino@kayescholer.com Robert S. Magee (State Bar No. 271443) Email address: robert.magee@kayescholer.com KAYE SCHOLER LLP Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 400 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto, California 94306 Telephone: (650) 319-4500 4500 Facsimile: (650) 319-4700 4700 Terence P. Woodsome e (State Bar No. 240908) Email address: twde@cypress.com CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION 198 Champion Court San Jose, California 95134 Telephone: (408) 544-1035 1035 Facsimile: (408) 456-1821 1821 Attorneys for Plaintiff CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. SILEGO TECHNOLOGY, INC. Defendant. CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, Plaintiff, Case No. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff Cypress Semiconductor Corporation (“Cypress” or “Plaintiff”) alleges: PARTIES
Cypress is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Delaware with its principal place of business located at 198 Champion Court, San Jose, California. Cypress is a supplier of high high-performance, mixed-signal, signal, programmable solutions that provide customers with rapid time time-to-market market and exceptional system value. Cypress’s innovations are used in a wide variety of consumer electronics, such as networking and an telecommunication equipment, touchscreen devices, mobile handsets, video and imaging devices, as well as in military communication devices. 2. On information and belief, Defendant Silego Technology, Inc. (“Silego”) is a
corporation organized and existing un under the laws of the State of Delaware with its corporate headquarters located at 1715 Wyatt Drive, Santa Clara, CA 95054. 3. As further described below, Silego designs, uses, and sells products that infringe
multiple Cypress patents. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This is action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 100, et
seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Silego and venue is proper in the
Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) and § 1400(b). Silego is headquartered in this District, transacts business involving infringing products within this District, and offers infringing products for sale in this Dis District. trict. On information and belief, Silego derives significant revenue from the sale of infringing products distributed and used within this District, and/or expects or should reasonably expect its actions to have consequences within this District, and derives ves substantial revenue from interstate and international commerce.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11. 7. 6.
INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT This is an Intellectual Property Action to be assigned on a district-wide district basis
pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3 3-2(c). BACKGROUND For over thirty years, Cypress has been a pioneer and market innovator in
semiconductor technology. Cypress products include the PSoC® 1, PSoC® 3, PSoC® 4, and PSoC® 5 Programmable S System-on-Chip hip families, and Cypress is the world leader in capacitive user interface solutions including CapSense® touch sensing, TrueTouch® touchscreens, and trackpad solutions for notebook PCs and peripherals. Cypress is also the world leader in universal serial bus (“USB”) controllers, which enhance connectivity and performance in a wide range of consumer and industrial products. Cypress is also the world leader in static random access memory (“SRAM”) and nonvolatile RAM memories. 8. To develop its industry industry-leading leading products, Cypress has made extensive and
continuous investments in research and development (“ (“R&D”). R&D”). Cypress’s R&D efforts have been essential to its success as a supplier of semiconductor solutions. Cypress’s R&D organization works closely with its manufacturing facilities, suppliers and customers to improve semiconductor designs and lower manuf manufacturing costs. 9. To protect these critical R&D efforts, Cypress places a high value on its
intellectual property. Cypress has applied for and received over 2000 patents worldwide in a variety of semiconductor-related related technologies, and has more than 800 pending pen U.S. and foreign patent applications. Cypress has over 250 issued U.S. patents and over 50 pending U.S. patent applications directed towards PSoC® and other programmable mixed mixed-signal signal array technology. 10. To protect the interests of Cypress’s customers, who benefit from Cypress’s
leading-edge edge technology and rely upon Cypress's proprietary solutions to compete in the marketplace, Cypress cannot allow unauthorized use of its intellectual property. CYPRESS PATENTS On June 21, 2005, the United States Patent a and nd Trademark Office duly and legally
issued United States Patent No. 6,910,126 (“the ’126 patent”), entitled “Programming
Methodology and Architecture for a Programmable Analog System,” to Cypress Microsystems, Inc. Cypress owns the ’126 patent by assignm assignment. ent. A true and correct copy of the ’126 patent is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint. 12. On May 22, 2007, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
issued United States Patent No. 7,221,187 (“the ’187 patent”), entitled “Programmable “Programmab Microcontroller Architecture (Mixed Analog/Digital),” to Cypress. Cypress owns the ’187 patent by assignment. A true and correct copy of the ’187 patent is attached as Exhibit B to this Complaint. 13. On November 2, 2010, the United States Patent and Trad Trademark emark Office duly and
legally issued United States Patent No. 7,825,688 (“the ’688 patent”), entitled “Programmable Microcontroller Architecture (Mixed Analog/Digital),” to Cypress. Cypress owns the ’688 patent by assignment. A true and correct copy of t the he ’688 patent is attached as Exhibit C to this Complaint. 14. The ’126 patent, ’187 patent, and ’688 patent will be referred to below as the
“Asserted Patents.” INFRINGEMENT BY SILEGO 15. The products designed, imported, used, and sold by Silego that infringe one or
more claims of the Asserted Patents include, but are not limited to, Silego’s GreenPAK (SLG46200) and GreenPAK2 (SLG46400) products and associated software, firmware, and peripheral components, as well as other Silego programmable mixed mixed-signal signal array products pr and associated software, firmware, and peripheral components that incorporate the same or similar features, functionality, and/or architecture (collectively, the “Silego Infringing Products”). The identification of products and parts in this Compla Complaint int is by way of example only, and on information and belief, the exemplary products and parts identified in this Complaint are representative of all Silego products and parts with reasonably similar features, functionality and/or architecture, whether dis discontinued, current or future. 16. The Silego Infringing Products have no substantial non non-infringing infringing use.
According to Silego’s website and other publicly available documents, and on
information and belief, the Silego Infringing Products are sold to distributors distributor and end customers in the United States. These distributors and end customers are supplied with datasheets and other information that instruct downstream users how to operate the Silego Infringing Products, and Silego provides these instructions while kn knowing since at least 2012 that the Silego Infringing Products infringe multiple Cypress patents, including one or more of the Asserted Patents. Sale or use of the Silego Infringing Products in accordance with Silego’s instructions on how to operate these devices constitutes direct infringement of the Asserted Patents. 18. Silego is aware that the Silego Infringing Products infringe the Asserted Patents.
In an effort to resolve Silego’s infringement without resorting to litigation, Cypress made Silego aware of the Asserted Patents in May 2012, , and again on multiple subsequent subseque occasions. On information and belief, Silego continues to infringe the Asserted Patents. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Infringement of the ’126 Patent) 19. Cypress incorporates and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
though set forth in full l herein. 20. Cypress has not licensed or otherwise authorized Silego to make, use, offer for
sale, sell, or import into the United States any products that embody the inventions of the ’126 patent. 21. Silego has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe infri the ’126 patent by
making, using, importing, offering for sale or selling the Silego Infringing Products in the United States. 22. 23. Silego has had actual knowledge of the ’126 patent since at least May 29, 2012. Silego has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe the ’126 patent
by inducing end users to infringe the ’126 patent by making, using, and programming the Silego Infringing Products. Silego intentionally took action that induced end users to infringe the ’126 patent by marketing, selling, elling, and supporting the infringing devices. On information and belief, at least one Silego end customer or distributor has directly infringed the ’126 patent by acting as
instructed by Silego. For example, Silego supplies end customers and distributors of the Silego Infringing Products with datasheets and other information that instruct downstream users how to operate the Silego Infringing Products, with knowledge that use in accordance with such instructions infringes the ’126 patent. As detailed by the datasheets and other information supplied by Silego, the Silego Infringing Products infringe multiple Cypress patents. Sale or use of the Silego Infringing Products by end customers or distributors in accordance with Silego’s Sileg instructions constitutes direct infringement of the ’126 patent. Silego had awareness of the ’126 patent and knew, or was willfully blind to the fact, that its actions would cause direct infringement by end users. 24. Silego has indirectly infringed and c continues ontinues to indirectly infringe the ’126 patent
by contributing to direct infringement by end users who make, use, and program the Silego Infringing Products. Silego supplied a component whose use by downstream users is infringing; the component is not a common component suitable for non non-infringing infringing use; and Silego supplied the component with the knowledge of the ’126 patent and knowledge that the component was especially made or adapted for use in an infringing manner. 25. § 271. 26. Cypress has been damaged and irreparably injured by Silego’s infringing activities Silego’s actions are in violation of one or more of the provisions of 35 U.S.C.
and will continue to be so damaged and irreparably injured unless Silego’s infringing activities are enjoined by this Court Court. 27. On information and belief, Silego’s infringement has been, and continues to be,
willful, wanton, and deliberate, without license or excuse and with full knowledge of the ’126 patent. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Infringement of the ’187 Patent) 28. Cypress incor incorporates porates and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
though set forth in full herein. 29. Cypress has not licensed or otherwise authorized Silego to make, use, offer for
sale, sell, or import into the United States any products that embody the inventions of the ’187 patent. 30. Silego has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the ’187 patent by
making, using, importing, offering for sale or selling the Silego Infringing Products in the United States. 31. 32. Silego has had actual knowledge o of f the ’187 patent since at least May 29, 2012. Silego has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe the ’187 patent
by inducing end users to infringe the ’187 patent by making, using, and programming the Silego Infringing Products. Silego intentionally took action that induced end users to infringe the ’187 patent by marketing, selling, and supporting the infringing devices. On information and belief, at least one Silego end customer or distributor has directly infringed the ’187 patent by acting as instructed by Silego. For example, Silego supplies end customers and distributors of the Silego Infringing Products with datasheets and other information that instruct downstream users how to operate the Silego Infringing Products, with knowled knowledge ge that use in accordance with such instructions infringes the ’187 patent. As detailed by the datasheets and other information supplied by Silego, the Silego Infringing Products infringe multiple Cypress patents. Sale or use of the Silego Infringing Pro Products ducts by end customers or distributors in accordance with Silego’s instructions constitutes direct infringement of the ’187 patent. Silego had awareness of the ’187 patent and knew, or was willfully blind to the fact, that its actions would cause direct infringement nfringement by end users. 33. Silego has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe the ’187 patent
by contributing to direct infringement by end users who make, use, and program the Silego Infringing Products. Silego supplied a component whose use by downstream users is infringing; the component is not a common component suitable for non non-infringing infringing use; and Silego supplied the component with the knowledge of the ‘187 patent and knowledge that the component was especially made or adapted for use in an infringing manner. 34. Silego’s actions are in violation of one or more of the provisions of 35 U.S.C.
§ 271. 35. Cypress has been damaged and irreparably injured by Silego’s infringing activities
and will continue to be so damaged and irreparably injured u unless nless Silego’s infringing activities are enjoined by this Court. 36. On information and belief, Silego’s infringement has been, and continues to be,
willful, wanton, and deliberate, without license or excuse and with full knowledge of the ‘187 patent. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Infringement of the ’688 Patent) 37. Cypress incorporates and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as
though set forth in full herein. 38. Cypress has not licensed or otherwise authorized Silego to make, use, offer for
sale, sell, or import into the United States any products that embody the inventions of the ’688 patent. 39. Silego has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the ’688 patent by
making, using, importing, offering for sale or selling the Silego Infringing Products Pr in the United States. 40. 41. Silego has had actual knowledge of the ’688 patent since at least May 29, 2012. Silego has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe the ’688 patent
by inducing end users to infringe the ’688 patent by making, u using, sing, and programming the Silego Infringing Products. Silego intentionally took action that induced end users to infringe the ’688 patent by marketing, selling, and supporting the infringing devices. On information and belief, at least one Silego end customer tomer or distributor has directly infringed the ’688 patent by acting as instructed by Silego. For example, Silego supplies end customers and distributors of the Silego Infringing Products with datasheets and other information that instruct downstream users use how to operate the Silego Infringing Products, with knowledge that use in accordance with such instructions infringes the ’688 patent. As detailed by the datasheets and other information supplied by Silego, the Silego Infringing Products infringe multi multiple ple Cypress patents. Sale or use
of the Silego Infringing Products by end customers or distributors in accordance with Silego’s instructions constitutes direct infringement of the ’688 patent. Silego had awareness of the ’688 patent and knew, or was will willfully fully blind to the fact, that its actions would cause direct infringement by end users. 42. Silego has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe the ’688 patent
by contributing to direct infringement by end users who make, use, and program the Silego Infringing Products. Silego supplied a component whose use by downstream users is infringing; the component is not a common component suitable for non non-infringing infringing use; and Silego supplied the component with the knowledge of the ‘688 patent and knowl knowledge edge that the component was especially made or adapted for use in an infringing manner. 43. § 271. 44. Cypress has been damaged and irreparably injured by Silego’s infringing activities activitie Silego’s actions are in violation of one or more of the provisions of 35 U.S.C.
and will continue to be so damaged and irreparably injured unless Silego’s infringing activities are enjoined by this Court. 45. On information and belief, Silego’s infringement has been, and continues to be,
willful, wanton, and deliberate, without license or excuse and with full knowledge of the ‘688 patent. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Cypress requests that this Court grant the following relief: a. ’688 patents; b. Enter an order per permanently manently enjoining Silego and its officers, directors, agents, Enter judgment that the Silego Infringing Products infringe the ’126, ’187, and
servants, employees, attorneys, licensees, successors, assigns, and customers, and those in active concert or participation with any of them, from making, using, offering to sell, or selling in the United States or importing into the United States any devices that infringe any claim of the Asserted Patents;
Award Cypress its damages, including lost profits, resulting from Silego’s
infringement in an amount to be determined at trial, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; d. e. Find this to be an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; Award Cypress prejudgment interest and post post-judgment judgment interest on its damages
and award Cypress its costs; f. Perform an accounting of Silego’s infringing sales not presented at trial and award
Cypress additional damages from any such infringing sales; and g. Award Cypress its costs and attorneys’ fees and such other and further relief as the
Court deems just and appropriate. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Feder Federal al Rules of Civil Procedure, Cypress hereby demands trial by jury on all issues raised by the Complaint.
Dated: September 24, , 2013
Respectfully submitted, KAYE SCHOLER LLP By /s/ Michael J. Malecek Michael J. Malecek Attorneys for Plaintiff CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To Cypress Semiconductor v. Silego TechnologySkip carouselBetter Mouse Company v. Mad Catz Interactive Et. Al.NoticeAuto Crane Company v. G S Hydraulics et. al.Voice Domain Technologies v. AppleZerorez Franchising Systems v. Dirt Free Carpet & Upholstery CleaningUnified Messaging Solutions v. OrbitzUnified Messaging Solutions v. Commerce BancsharesUnified Messaging Solutions v. GrouponUnified Messaging Solutions v. Southwest AirlinesUnified Messaging Solutions v. ScottradeUnified Messaging Solutions v. Discover Financial ServicesMcRo v. Codemasters et. al.Turbo Style v. Domains by Proxy - ComplaintLee v. Wildlife EnterprisesDelphix v. ActifioEtagz v. Dynaflex International et. al.Etagz v. Active PeopleA.R. Arena Products v. Grayling IndustriesArrivalStar et. al. v. Cubic Global Tracking SolutionsEclipse IP v. United AirlinesSuk et. al. v. Bed Bath & BeyondLodsys Group v. JirboInternet Access Solutions LLCLiberty Safe and Security Products v. Rhino MetalsShire Development et. al. v. Osmotica PharmaceuticalWolf Run Hollow v. Sports AuthorityLandmark Technology v. DeluxeMcDavid v Nike ComplaintPolygroup Macau v. Willis ElectricKimball ComplaintDocuments About Patent InfringementSkip carouselNokia Complaint Against Apple in federal district court, WisconsinGreenwich Ballistics v. Jamison InternationalFacebook's Counterclaims to Yahoo's Patent LawsuitNYT Complaint Against LodsysNike v. SkechersKoninklijke Philips N.V. et. al. v. Nintendo et. al.BU v ApplePosner OrderSemantic Compaction Systems et. al. v. Speak For Yourself et. al.Treehouse Avatar Technologies v. TurbineBose vs Beats (ITC complaint)Bose v. Beats Civil ComplaintRockstar v Samsung.pdfLodsys Complaint Against Adidas BestBuy Et AlAmended Galaxy Complaint3D Systems v. Formlabs et. al.PersonalWeb Technologies et. al. v. Rackspace et. al.Ameranth v. OpenTableB.E. Technology v. Motorola Mobility HoldingsEli Lilly And Company v. Glenmark GenericsBrandywine Communications Technologies v. West Coast InternetRichmond v. Winchance Solar Fujian Technology et. al.Ingeniador v. Recreational EquipmentExtang et. al. v. Yukon TrailOgma v. Nyko TechnologiesAnalog Devices v. knowles electronicsGlycoBioSciences v. Innocutis Holding et. al.Virtual Radiologic et. al. v. Tandem Radiology et. al.Ubicomm v. Blue Ribbon MotoringHussmann v. HeatcraftMore From PriorSmartSkip carouselLike kind card game (US patent 6193235)Like kind money board table game (US patent 6186505)Intelligent user interface including a touch sensor device (US patent 8288952)User interface with proximity sensing (US patent 8035623)Wine cellar alarm system (US patent 8710985)Cell regulatory genes, encoded products, and uses related thereto (US patent 7030227)Multicasting method and apparatus (US patent 6434622)Method and apparatus for retrieving data from a network using linked location identifiers (US patent 6226655)Casino bonus game using player strategy (US patent 6645071)High-speed serial linking device with de-emphasis function and the method thereof (US patent 7313187)Casing spacer (US patent 6736166)Advance Products & Systems v. CCI Piping SystemsModern Telecom Systems LLCTracBeam v. AppleRichmond v. Creative IndustriesSenju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Metrics et. al.VIA Technologies et. al. v. ASUS Computer International et. al.Perrie v. PerrieEckart v. Silberline ManufacturingSenju Pharmaceutical et. al. v. Metrics et. al.Kenzinc v. imblowingup et. al.Sun Zapper v. Devroy et. al.Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Fresenius KabiTracBeam v. T-Mobile et. al.ATEN International v. Uniclass Technology et. al.Mcs Industries v. Hds TradingDok Solution v. FKA Distributung et. al.GRQ Investment Management v. Financial Engines et. al.Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Fresenius KabiMultiplayer Network Innovations v. Konami Digital Entertainment