Case 2:19-cv-09474 Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:1
`
`
`
`
`
`Peter H. Kang (SBN 158101)
`pkang@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`1001 Page Mill Road, Building 1
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 565-7000
`Facsimile: (650) 565-7100
`
`Theodore W. Chandler (SBN 219456)
`tchandler@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
`Los Angeles, CA 90013
`Telephone: (213) 896-6000
`Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
`
`Attorneys for
`Plaintiff LG Electronics Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
` Case No. 2:19-cv-9474
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT AND DEMAND
`FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`LG Electronics Inc.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`Hisense Electronics Manufacturing
`Company of America Corporation;
`HISENSE USA CORPORATION;
`HISENSE INTERNATIONAL (HONG
`KONG) AMERICA INVESTMENT CO.,
`LIMITED (f/k/a HISENSE
`INTERNATIONAL AMERICA
`HOLDINGS CO., LIMITED); HISENSE
`INTERNATIONAL (HK) CO., LIMITED;
`Hisense International Co. Ltd.; Qingdao
`Hisense Electronics Co. Ltd. (f/k/a Hisense
`Electric Co., Ltd.); and Hisense Co., Ltd.,
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-9474
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-09474 Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 2 of 21 Page ID #:2
`
`
`
`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
`
`Plaintiff LG Electronics Inc. (“LGE” or “Plaintiff”), by and through its
`undersigned attorneys, for its Complaint against Defendants Hisense Electronics
`Manufacturing Company of America Corporation; HISENSE USA CORPORATION;
`HISENSE INTERNATIONAL (HONG KONG) AMERICA INVESTMENT CO.,
`LIMITED (f/k/a HISENSE INTERNATIONAL AMERICA HOLDINGS CO.,
`LIMITED); HISENSE INTERNATIONAL (HK) CO., LIMITED; Hisense
`International Co. Ltd.; Qingdao Hisense Electronics Co. Ltd. (f/k/a Hisense Electric
`Co., Ltd.); and Hisense Co., Ltd. (collectively “Hisense” or “Defendants”) alleges as
`follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`Plaintiff LG Electronics Inc. (“LGE”) is a corporation organized under
`1.
`the laws of the Republic of Korea, having its principal place of business at LG Twin
`Towers, 128 Yeoui-daero, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 07736. LGE
`is a global leader in consumer electronics, mobile communications, and home
`appliances, employing approximately 75,000 people in 118 locations worldwide.
`Hisense Electronics Manufacturing Company of America Corporation
`2.
`(“Hisense Mfg.”) is a corporation registered to do business in California, with a
`business office at 11081 Tacoma Drive, Unit B, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
`which is within this judicial district.
`Hisense Mfg. has been involved in the importation of accused products
`3.
`and components thereof to be manufactured abroad, including in Mexico. Hisense
`Mfg. regularly imports and then sends to Mexico containers with televisions and
`components of televisions to be assembled in Mexico. For example, for arrival on
`December 5, 2018, Hisense Mfg. was the recipient of a container including Hisense
`televisions with display, through the Port of Long Beach in this District to be
`unloaded in Otay Mesa, California. By way of another example, for arrival on
`February 25, 2019, Hisense Mfg. was the recipient of a container including parts for
`Hisense Television model numbers 40H4050E, 40H4080E, and 32H4E1 through the
`1
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-9474
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-09474 Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 3 of 21 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`Port of Los Angeles to be unloaded at that port and in this judicial district. Hisense
`Electronica Mexico S.A. De C.V, an entity that manufactures electronics for Hisense
`with an address in Mexico, was notified upon arrival of the shipment, and these
`components were shipped to Mexico for assembly. As a third example, for arrival on
`April 28, 2018, Hisense Mfg. was the recipient of a container including parts for
`Hisense Television model numbers 55H6E and 65H9EPlus through the port of Long
`Beach in this District to be unloaded in Otay Mesa, California. Hisense Electronica
`Mexico S.A. De C.V in Mexico was notified upon arrival of the shipment, and these
`components were shipped to Mexico for assembly.
`HISENSE USA CORPORATION (“Hisense USA”) is a corporation
`4.
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of Georgia.
`Hisense USA makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or imports
`5.
`televisions accused of infringement in this Complaint.
`Televisions accused of infringement in this Complaint have been and are
`6.
`shipped to Hisense USA’s warehouse in or near Lynwood, California — which is
`within this judicial district and is in Los Angeles County and approximately 10 miles
`south of downtown Los Angeles, California — for distribution to retailers in the
`United States.
`Hisense USA has been involved in the importation of accused products.
`7.
`For example, for arrival on January 19, 2019, HISENSE INTERNATIONAL (HONG
`KONG) AMERICA INVESTMENT CO., LIMITED shipped a container including
`Hisense Televisions model number 55R6E to Hisense USA for importation into the
`United States through the Port of Los Angeles to be unloaded at that port and in this
`judicial district. As another example, for arrival on December 21, 2018, Hisense USA
`was the recipient of a container including Hisense Televisions model numbers 55H8E,
`50R7050E, and 43R8E through the Port of Los Angeles to be unloaded at that port
`and in this judicial district.
`
`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
`
`2
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-9474
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-09474 Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 4 of 21 Page ID #:4
`
`
`
`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
`
`HISENSE INTERNATIONAL (HONG KONG) AMERICA
`8.
`INVESTMENT CO., LIMITED (“Hisense Int’l HK Am. Inv.”) is a corporation
`organized and existing under the laws of Hong Kong, China, with a principal place of
`business at Rooms 3101-3105 Singga Commercial Centre, No. 148 Connaught Road
`West, Hong Kong, China. Hisense Int’l HK Am. Inv. formerly did business under the
`name HISENSE INTERNATIONAL AMERICA HOLDINGS CO., LIMITED.
`Hisense Int’l HK Am. Inv. sells, offers for sale, and/or imports
`9.
`televisions accused of infringement in this Complaint as well as television parts for
`assembly into accused televisions abroad, including in Mexico. For example, for
`arrival on January 7, 2019, Hisense Int’l HK Am. Inv. shipped containers including
`Hisense Televisions model number 50R6040E to Hisense USA, through the Port of
`Los Angeles to be unloaded at that port and in this judicial district. As another
`example, for arrival on January 31, 2018, Hisense Int’l HK Am. Inv. shipped
`containers including parts for Hisense Television model number 55H9D to Hisense
`Mfg., through the Port of Los Angeles in this District to be unloaded in Laredo, Texas.
`10. HISENSE INTERNATIONAL (HK) CO., LIMITED (“Hisense Int’l
`HK”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Hong Kong, China,
`with a principal place of business at Rooms 3101-3105 Singga Commercial Centre,
`No. 148 Connaught Road West, Hong Kong, China.
`11. Hisense Int’l HK sells, offers for sale, and/or imports televisions accused
`of infringement in this Complaint. For example, for arrival on October 10, 2019,
`Hisense Int’l HK shipped containers including 55” UHD (4K) 60HZ LED TV Roku
`televisions to Best Buy Co., Inc., through the Port of Los Angeles to be unloaded at
`that port and in this judicial district. Best Buy has sold and currently sells in this State
`and in this District Hisense televisions with the model number 55R7E that match that
`description.
`12. Hisense International Co. Ltd. (“Hisense Int’l Co.”) is a corporation
`organized and existing under the laws of the People’s Republic of China, with a
`3
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-9474
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-09474 Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 5 of 21 Page ID #:5
`
`
`
`principal place of business at Hisense Tower, No.17 Donghaixi Road, Qingdao,
`Shandong Province, 266071 P.R. China, according to its website,
`http://global.hisense.com/contact.
`13. Hisense Int’l Co. sells, offers for sale, and/or imports televisions accused
`of infringement in this Complaint. For example, for arrival on July 13 and 21, 2019,
`Hisense Int’l Co. shipped containers including Hisense Televisions model numbers
`32H4030F1 to Hisense USA, through the Port of Los Angeles to be unloaded at that
`port and in this judicial district. By way of another example, for arrival on January
`11, 2019, Hisense Int’l Co. shipped containers including 55” UHD (4K) 60HZ LED
`TV Roku Hisense Televisions to recipient Best Buy Co. Inc. through the Port of Los
`Angeles to be unloaded at that port and in this judicial district. Best Buy has sold and
`currently sells in this State and in this District Hisense televisions with the model
`number 55R7E that match that description.
`14. Qingdao Hisense Electronics Co. Ltd. (“Qingdao Hisense”) is a
`corporation organized and existing under the laws of the People’s Republic of China,
`with a principal place of business at No. 218, Qianwangang Road, Economic and
`Technological Development Zone, Qingdao, Shandong Province, 266555 P.R. China.
`Qingdao Hisense formerly did business under the name Hisense Electric Co., Ltd.
`15. Qingdao Hisense makes, sells, offers for sale, and/or imports televisions
`accused of infringement in this Complaint and/or components thereof. For example,
`Qingdao Hisense, under its former name Hisense Electrics Co., Ltd., for arrival on
`November 21, 2018, shipped containers including 32” HD (720P) 60Hz LED TV
`Roku televisions to Best Buy Purchasing LLC through the Port of Long Beach to be
`unloaded at that port and in this judicial district. Best Buy has sold and currently sells
`in this State and in this District Hisense televisions with the model numbers 32H4E1
`and 32H4F that match that description.
`
`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
`
`4
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-9474
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-09474 Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 6 of 21 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`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
`
`16. Qingdao Hisense’s former name, Hisense Electric Co., Ltd., is the name
`that appears next to the model number and serial number for Hisense-branded
`televisions imported, offered for sale, and sold in the United States.
`17. Hisense Co., Ltd. (“Hisense Co.”) is a corporation organized and existing
`under the laws of the People’s Republic of China, with a principal place of business at
`Hisense Tower, No.17 Donghaixi Road, Qingdao, Shandong Province, 266071 P.R.
`China.
`18. Hisense Co. is the ultimate parent company of all of the other named
`defendants, and as the ultimate parent, Hisense Co. induces its subsidiaries, affiliates,
`retail partners, and customers in the making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or
`importing of products accused of infringement in this Complaint through its
`subsidiaries.
`19. Defendants are part of the same corporate structure and distribution chain
`for making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing the accused televisions
`in the United States, including in this State and this District. Defendants do business
`as a collective whole as The Hisense Group.
`20. Defendants share the same executives, management, advertising
`platforms, facilities, and distribution chains, and operate as a unitary business venture
`under common ownership to manufacture and distribute televisions accused of
`infringement in this Complaint. For example, Hisense USA and Hisense Mfg. have
`the same office address, the same registered agent, and overlapping officers. By way
`of a second example, Hisense Int’l HK and Hisense Int’l HK Am. Inv. share a
`business address. Hisense Co. and Hisense Int’l Co. also share a business address.
`Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the acts of patent infringement alleged
`herein, and the actions of each Defendant can be attributed to the other Defendants.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`21. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of
`the United States, Title 35 United States Code.
`5
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-9474
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-09474 Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 7 of 21 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`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
`
`22. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
`and 1338(a).
`23. Personal jurisdiction exists over each of the Defendants because each
`Defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with this forum as a result of business
`conducted within this State and this District, and subsidiaries registered to do business
`in this State.
`24. Personal jurisdiction also exists specifically over each of the Defendants
`because each, directly or through affiliates, subsidiaries, agents, or intermediaries,
`transacts business in this State or purposefully directed at this State (including,
`without limitation, the Port of Los Angeles, California, the Port of Long Beach,
`California, warehouses located in this District, and/or retail stores including Best Buy
`and Walmart) by making, importing, offering to sell, selling, and/or having sold
`infringing televisions within this State and District or purposefully directed at this
`State or District.
`25. Personal jurisdiction also exists specifically over each of the Defendants
`because they have overlapping executives, interlocking corporate structures, and close
`relationships as manufacturer, importer, and distributor of accused products.
`26. To the extent any foreign Defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any
`state’s court of general jurisdiction, exercising jurisdiction over the defendant in this
`State and this District would be consistent with due process and this State’s long-arm
`statute in light of facts alleged in this Complaint.
`In addition, each of the Defendants, directly or through affiliates,
`27.
`subsidiaries, agents, or intermediaries, places infringing televisions into the stream of
`commerce knowing they will be sold and used in this State, and economically benefits
`from the retail sale of infringing televisions in this State. For example, Defendants’
`products have been sold and are available for sale in this District at Best Buy and
`Walmart retail stores, and are also available for sale and offered for sale in this
`District through online retailers such as Amazon, Best Buy, and Walmart. Defendants
`6
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-9474
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-09474 Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 8 of 21 Page ID #:8
`
`
`
`also advertise their infringing products to consumers in this State and this District
`through the Hisense USA website. See, e.g., https://www.hisense-
`usa.com/televisions/.
`28. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c) and
`(d) and 1400(b).
`29. Venue is proper over Hisense USA and Hisense Mfg. because they reside
`in this District, have committed acts of direct and indirect infringement in this District,
`have a regular and established place of business in this District, and/or have transacted
`business in this District, including offering to sell, selling, having sold and/or
`importing televisions which infringe at least one of the patents-in-suit. Further, venue
`is proper as to Hisense Mfg. because that Defendant is registered to do business in this
`State with a business address in this District.
`30. Venue is proper over Hisense Co., Hisense Int’l HK Am. Inv., Hisense
`Int’l HK, Hisense Int’l Co., and Qingdao Hisense at least because this is the District in
`which a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred, and because
`they are not resident in the United States, and are all subject to personal jurisdiction in
`this District.
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`31. On April 17, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`(“USPTO”) duly and legally reissued United States Patent No. 8,456,592 as RE46,795
`(“’795 patent”), entitled “Backlight Unit and Liquid Crystal Display Including the
`Same,” and it is publicly available on the USPTO website.
`32. On June 25, 2019, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States
`Patent No. 10,334,311 (“’311 patent”), entitled “Method of Providing External Device
`List and Image Display Device,” and it is publicly available on the USPTO website.
`33. On February 23, 2016, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States
`Patent No. 9,271,191 (“’191 patent”), entitled “Method and Apparatus for
`
`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
`
`7
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-9474
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-09474 Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 9 of 21 Page ID #:9
`
`
`
`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
`
`Transmitting Data Frame in WLAN System,” and it is publicly available on the
`USPTO website.
` On November 23, 2010, the USPTO duly and legally issued United
`34.
`States Patent No. 7,839,452 (“’452 patent”), entitled “Image Display Device in Digital
`TV,” and it is publicly available on the USPTO website.
`KNOWLEDGE OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT AND INFRINGEMENT
`35. The Defendants have had knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit and their
`infringement of the Patents-in-Suit since before the date of this Complaint as
`explained in the following paragraphs, yet Defendants knowingly and intentionally
`continued making, using, importing, offering to sell, and selling infringing products in
`this State and District.
`36. By email to Mr. Fan Kai of Hisense on February 1, 2019, LGE sent a
`letter dated January 31, 2019 addressed to Mr. Liu Hongxin, CEO of Hisense Int’l Co.
`LGE identified all of the patents-in-suit as being infringed, with the exception of the
`’311 patent, which issued later on June 25, 2019. LGE also specified certain
`exemplary models of Hisense Televisions as infringing. LGE’s notice letter offered to
`discuss licensing of LGE’s patents. The letter confirmed LGE’s willingness to license
`its standard-essential Wi-Fi Patents upon fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory
`terms and conditions.
`37. By email dated February 28, 2019, Mr. Fan Kai of Hisense
`acknowledged receipt of the January 31 letter and requested more detailed allegations.
`38. By email dated March 6, 2019, LGE informed Hisense that it would send
`detailed claim charts to be discussed at an in-person meeting.
`39. By email dated March 11, 2019, Mr. Fan Kai of Hisense responded by
`introducing Ms. Zhao (Sally) Xing in the Legal and Intellectual Property Department
`at Hisense Co. to continue negotiations.
`40. By email dated March 22, 2019, LGE provided Ms. Zhao with detailed
`evidence of infringement for each of the Patents-in-Suit, including the application
`8
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-9474
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-09474 Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 10 of 21 Page ID #:10
`
`
`
`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
`
`underlying the ’311 Patent (No. 15/788,510), which was under Notice of Allowance at
`the time and expected to issue soon after.
`41. On April 1, 2019, Ms. Zhao indicated that Hisense was analyzing the
`claim charts sent on March 22, 2019.
`42. Ms. Hanqing (Anita) Wang in the Legal and Intellectual Property
`Department at Hisense Co. took over the correspondence with LGE on April 10, 2019.
`43. LGE and Hisense continued to correspond via email over the next several
`weeks.
`44. LGE repeatedly requested an in-person meeting, but Hisense repeatedly
`provided excuses for delaying such a meeting.
`45. LGE sent over 20 emails to Hisense before the parties finally met in
`person.
`46. All of the emails between LGE and Hisense, and vice versa, were written
`in English.
`47. Hisense did not respond to LGE substantively with regard to any of the
`LGE patents. Specifically, Hisense provided no substantive response to LGE alleging
`non-infringement or invalidity of any LGE patents.
`48. LGE and Hisense representatives met in person on July 5, 2019, in China
`to discuss the allegations of infringement and potential licensing opportunities,
`including but not limited to the Patents-in-Suit. At the meeting, LGE presented a
`Powerpoint written in English regarding its patents, including its patents that are
`essential to the 802.11ac Wi-Fi standard. LGE made an offer to license its standard-
`essential Wi-Fi patents under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and
`conditions.
`49. Defendants have not agreed to license any of the Patents-in-Suit.
`50.
`Instead, Defendants knowingly and intentionally have continued to make,
`use, sell, offer to sell, and import infringing products, including through the Port of Los
`Angeles and the Port of Long Beach, in this State and this District.
`9
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-9474
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-09474 Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 11 of 21 Page ID #:11
`
`
`
`COUNT I: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’795 PATENT
`51. LGE realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
`paragraphs 1 through 50.
`52. LGE is the owner by assignment of all right, title and interest in and to
`the ’795 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, including the right to sue for and collect past
`damages.
`53. Defendants are, and have been, on notice of the ’795 patent since before
`the lawsuit was filed. Among the ways that actual notice was provided to Defendants
`is the email correspondence beginning on February 1, 2019 referenced above,
`including detailed claim charts sent to Hisense on March 22, 2019.
`54. Defendants have and continue to directly infringe, literally and/or under
`the doctrine of equivalents, the ’795 patent by, among other things, making, using,
`offering to sell, selling and/or importing, without authority or license from LGE,
`televisions in this State and District and elsewhere in the United States, which
`embody, incorporate, or otherwise practice one or more claims of the ’795 patent,
`including at least Hisense model 55H9D and 55H9EPlus, and other similar edge-lit
`LED televisions, including televisions with “H9D” and “H9EPlus” in the model
`number.
`55. By way of example, the accused Hisense televisions infringe at least
`exemplary claim 20 of the ’795 patent as described in detail in the attached claim
`chart, Exhibit 1.
`56. Defendants have and continue to induce infringement of one or more
`claims of the ’795 patent under 35 U.S.C § 271(b) by actively inducing the other
`Defendants, related entities, retailers, and/or customers to make, use, sell, offer to sell,
`and/or import, products covered by one or more claims of the ’795 patent.
`
`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
`
`10
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-9474
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-09474 Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 12 of 21 Page ID #:12
`
`
`
`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
`
`57. For example, Hisense has advertised and currently advertises its
`televisions as allowing a user to watch cable channels, use streaming platforms, and
`play games, among other things. Each of these activities — and any other activity that
`would cause a user to operate the television — requires use of the back-light unit that
`infringes at least claim 20 of the ’795 patent. Hisense also provides user guides to
`instruct customers on how to operate the television, thereby using the back-light unit.
`There is no substantial non-infringing use for the accused products because the
`claimed back-light structure is essential to the operation of the accused televisions.
`58. As explained above, Hisense has had actual knowledge of the ’795 patent
`prior to this Complaint and at least as of the date of this Complaint. Hisense was
`notified that its televisions infringe the ’795 patent no later than February 1, 2019, and
`LGE provided further detail in the form of claim charts demonstrating that Hisense’s
`televisions infringe the ’795 patent on March 22, 2019. Despite having actual
`knowledge of infringement, Hisense has continued to induce infringement of one or
`more claims of the ’795 patent.
`59. Defendants have and continue to infringe one or more claims of the ’795
`patent under 35 U.S.C § 271(f)(1) and (2) at least by importing components of back-
`light units that have no substantial non-infringing uses into this State and District, and
`then exporting them to foreign countries, including but not limited to Mexico, for
`assembly into infringing televisions.
`60. Defendants’ infringement of the ’795 patent has been and continues to be
`willful.
`61. Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendants will continue to infringe the
`’795 patent, and LGE will continue to suffer irreparable harm and harm for which
`damages are inadequate. Accordingly, LGE is entitled to injunctive relief against such
`infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 283.
`62. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’795 patent, LGE has been
`and continues to be irreparably injured with respect to its business and intellectual
`11
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-9474
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-09474 Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 13 of 21 Page ID #:13
`
`
`
`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
`
`property rights, and is entitled to recover past damages for such injuries pursuant to 35
`U.S.C. § 284.
`COUNT II: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’311 PATENT
`63. LGE realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
`paragraphs 1 through 50.
`64. LGE is the owner by assignment of all right, title and interest in and to
`the ’311 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, including the right to sue for and collect past
`damages.
`65. Defendants are, and have been, on notice of the ’311 patent since before
`the lawsuit was filed. Among the ways that actual notice was provided to Defendants
`is the email correspondence beginning on February 1, 2019 referenced above,
`including detailed claim charts sent to Hisense on March 22, 2019.
`66. Defendants have been and are currently directly infringing, literally
`and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’311 patent by, among other things,
`making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing, without authority or license
`from LGE, televisions in this State and District and elsewhere in the United States,
`which embody, incorporate, or otherwise practice one or more claims of the ’311
`patent, including at least Hisense models 55R7E and 50R7050E, and other televisions
`with an “R” or “H4” in the model number.
`67. By way of example, the accused Hisense televisions infringe at least
`exemplary claim 1 of the ’311 patent as described in detail in the attached claim chart,
`Exhibit 2.
`68. Defendants have and continue to induce infringement of one or more
`claims of the ’311 patent under 35 U.S.C § 271(b) by actively inducing the other
`Defendants, related entities, retailers, and/or customers to make, use, sell, offer to sell,
`and/or import, products covered by one or more claims of the ’311 patent.
`12
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-9474
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-09474 Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 14 of 21 Page ID #:14
`
`
`
`69. For example, Hisense’s user manual for the Hisense 55R7E television
`instructs users to set up multiple inputs, and the user manual instructs users to switch
`between inputs and select highlighted options in a manner that infringes at least claim
`1 of the ’311 patent.
`70. As explained above, Hisense has had actual knowledge of the ’311 patent
`prior to this Complaint and at least as of the date of this Complaint. LGE provided
`Hisense with detailed claim charts demonstrating that Hisense’s televisions infringe
`the ’311 patent on March 22, 2019. Despite having actual knowledge of its
`infringement, Hisense has continued to induce infringement of one or more claims of
`the ’311 patent.
`71. Defendants have and continue to infringe one or more claims of the ’311
`patent under 35 U.S.C § 271(f)(1) at least by importing components of televisions into
`this State and District, and then exporting them to foreign countries, including but not
`limited to Mexico, for assembly into infringing televisions.
`72. Defendants’ infringement of the ’311 patent has been and continues to be
`willful.
`73. Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendants will continue to infringe the
`’311 patent, and LGE will continue to suffer irreparable harm and harm for which
`damages are inadequate. Accordingly, LGE is entitled to injunctive relief against such
`infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 283.
`74. As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’311 patent, LGE has been
`and continues to be irreparably injured with respect to its business and intellectual
`property rights, and is entitled to recover past damages for such injuries pursuant to 35
`U.S.C. § 284.
`COUNT III: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’191 PATENT
`75. LGE realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
`paragraphs 1 through 50.
`
`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
`
`13
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-9474
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-09474 Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 15 of 21 Page ID #:15
`
`
`
`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
`
`76. LGE is the owner by assignment of all right, title and interest in and to
`the ’191 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, including the right to sue for and collect past
`damages.
`77. Defendants are, and have been, on notice of the ’191 patent since before
`the lawsuit was filed. Among the ways that actual notice was provided to Defendants
`is the email correspondence beginning on February 1, 2019 referenced above,
`including detailed claim charts sent to Hisense on March 22, 2019.
`78. Defendants have been and are currently directly infringing, literally
`and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’191 patent by, among other things,
`making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing, without authority or license
`from LGE, televisions in this State and District and elsewhere in the United States,
`which embody, incorporate, or otherwise practice one or more claims of the ’191
`patent, including at least Hisense models 55H9EPlus and 55H9F, and other televisions
`that comply with the Wi-Fi 802.11ac standard.
`79. By way of example, the accused Hisense televisions infringe at least
`exemplary claim 6 of the ’191 patent as described in detail in the attached claim chart,
`Exhibit 3.
`80. Defendants have and continue to induce infringement of one or more
`claims of the ’191 patent under 35 U.S.C § 271(b) by actively inducing the other
`Defendants, related entities, retailers, and/or customers to make, use, sell, offer to sell,
`and/or import, products covered by one or more claims of the ’191 patent.
`81. For example, Hisense advertises the Wi-Fi capabilities of Hisense models
`55H9EPlus and 55H9F, and, in particular, the infringing 802.11ac connection
`capability as a built in Wi-Fi feature. By way of another example, the user manual for
`the 55H9EPlus includes instructions on how to connect to a wireless network,
`including via the supported 802.11ac communication protocol. The user manual for
`14
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-9474
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-09474 Document 1 Filed 11/04/19 Page 16 of 21 Page ID #:16
`
`
`
`the 55H9EPlus also recommends using 802.11ac routers as opposed to 802.11b or
`802.11g routers because with 802.11b and g connections “the video may not play
`smoothly.”
`82. As explained above, Hisense has had actual knowledge of the ’191 patent
`prior to this Complaint and at least as of the date of this Complaint. Hisense was
`notified that its televisions infringe the ’191 patent no later than February 1, 2019, and
`LGE provided further detail in the form of claim chart