Case 8:20-cv-00490 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 1 of 65 Page ID #:1
`
`Christina N Goodrich (SBN 261722)
`christina.goodrich@klgates.com
`K&L GATES LLP
`10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 8th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Tel: (310) 552-5547
`Fax: (310) 552-5001
`
`Theodore J. Angelis (Pro hac vice filed
`concurrently herewith)
`theodore.angelis@klgates.com
`Elizabeth J. Weiskopf (Pro hac vice filed
`concurrently herewith)
`elizabeth.weiskopf@klgates.com
`K&L GATES LLP
`925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Tel: (206) 370-8101
`Fax: (206) 370-6006
`
`Jason A. Engel (Pro hac vice filed
`concurrently herewith)
`jason.engel@klgates.com
`Erik J. Halverson (Pro hac vice filed
`concurrently herewith)
`erik.halverson@klgates.com
`K&L GATES LLP
`70 W. Monroe, Suite 3300
`Chicago, IL 60602
`Tel: (312) 807-4236
`Fax: (312) 827-8145
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Sharp Corporation
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Civil Action No. 8:20-cv-0490
`
`COMPLAINT FOR:
`
`(1) INFRINGEMENT OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 6,937,300;
`(2) INFRINGEMENT OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 6,977,704;
`(3) INFRINGEMENT OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 7,450,206;
`
`SHARP CORPORATION, a Japan
`Corporation
`
`
`
`v.
`
`VIZIO INC., a California
`Corporation; TPV TECHNOLOGY,
`LTD., a Bermuda Corporation; TPV
`DISPLAY TECHNOLOGY
`COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS
`- 1 -
`
`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 8:20-cv-00490 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 2 of 65 Page ID #:2
`
`(XIAMEN) COMPANY LIMITED,
`a China Corporation; TPV
`INTERNATIONAL (USA), INC., a
`California Corporation; TREND
`SMART AMERICA, LTD, a
`California Corporation; TREND
`SMART CE MEXICO S.R.L. DE
`D.V., a Mexico Corporation;
`XIANYANG CAIHONG
`OPTOELECTRONICS
`TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD, a China
`Corporation
`
`
`
`
`Defendants
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(4) INFRINGEMENT OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 8,044,907;
`(5) INFRINGEMENT OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 8,446,556;
`(6) INFRINGEMENT OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 8,471,994;
`(7) INFRINGEMENT OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 8,531,634;
`(8) INFRINGEMENT OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 8,558,959;
`(9) INFRINGEMENT OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 8,797,490;
`(10) INFRINGEMENT OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 8,804,079;
`(11) INFRINGEMENT OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 9,081,239; and
`(12) INFRINGEMENT OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 9,201,275
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS
`- 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
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00490 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 3 of 65 Page ID #:3
`
`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 Sharp Corporation1 (“Plaintiff” or “Sharp”), a Japan Corporation, by
`and through its undersigned counsel, files this Complaint for Patent Infringement
`invoking the Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because the
`claims set forth herein arise under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1
`et seq., and asserting claims against the following Defendants:
`
`Vizio Inc. (“Vizio”), a California Corporation;
`
`TPV Technology, Ltd. (“TPV”), a Bermuda Corporation; TPV Display
`Technology (Xiamen) Company Limited, a China Corporation; TPV International
`(USA), Inc., a California Corporation; Trend Smart America, Ltd (“Trend Smart
`America”), a California Corporation; Trend Smart CE Mexico S.R.L. De D.V.
`(“Trend Smart CE”), a Mexico Corporation (collectively, “TPV Defendants”); and
`
`Xianyang CaiHong Optoelectronics Technology Co., Ltd. (“CHOT”), a
`China Corporation.
`Sharp alleges based on its knowledge, information, and belief, as follows:
`SHARP AND ITS LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY INNOVATIONS
`1.
`For more than 40 years, Sharp has been recognized as a pioneering
`innovator in the Liquid Crystal Display (“LCD”) industry. Sharp has invested
`immense resources—and countless hours by its employees in the United States and
`around the world—developing and furthering the LCD technologies used in the
`marketplace.
`2.
`Because of these efforts, the Sharp brand is synonymous with leading
`LCD technologies and is famous throughout the world.
`3.
`Sharp’s reputation is built upon the proprietary technologies that Sharp
`and its predecessors developed. Sharp holds more than 10,000 LCD patents in the
`United States, China, and Japan. This intellectual property is the backbone of Sharp’s
`commercial success.
`
`1 Sharp Corporation is also known as Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha.
`COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00490 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 4 of 65 Page ID #:4
`
`4.
`Recently, Sharp learned that Defendant CHOT is making, using,
`importing, offering to sell, and selling LCD panels that infringe a large number of
`Sharp’s patents. The TPV Defendants, acting in concert with CHOT, manufacture,
`import, and sell televisions that further infringe Sharp’s patents. Those televisions are
`sold to Vizio, which likewise infringes when it offers the televisions to consumers in
`retail outlets throughout the United States.
`5.
`Sharp’s efforts to halt this infringing conduct have been unsuccessful.
`The infringing products are displacing Sharp’s products and sales, and they are
`causing significant financial harm to Sharp. Sharp has therefore brought this action to
`stop the Defendants from using Sharp’s intellectual property.
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`6.
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 1, et seq., from Defendants’ infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,937,300 (“the ’300
`Patent”); 6,977,704 (“the ’704 Patent”); 7,450,206 (“the ’206 Patent”); 8,044,907
`(“the ’907 Patent”); 8,446,556 (“the ’556 Patent”); 8,471,994 (“the ’994 Patent”);
`8,531,634 (“the ’634 Patent”); 8,558,959 (“the ’959 Patent”) 8,797,490 (“the ’490
`Patent”); 8,804,079 (“the ’079 Patent”); 9,081,239 (“the ’239 Patent”); and 9,201,275
`(“the ’275 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”).
`7.
`Sharp is the rightful owner of the Patents-in-Suit. The listed assignee of
`the patents, Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha, is Sharp’s name in transliterated English.
`8.
`Sharp seeks injunctive relief as well as damages comprising both lost
`profits and a reasonable royalty.
`
`THE PARTIES
`9.
`Sharp is a corporation organized under the laws of Japan with its
`principal place of business at 1 Takumi-cho, Sakai-ku, Sakai City, Osaka 590-8522,
`Japan Osaka, Japan.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS
`- 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
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00490 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 5 of 65 Page ID #:5
`
`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. Defendant Vizio is incorporated under the laws of California. Vizio has
`a principal place of business at 39 Tesla, Irvine, CA 92618. Vizio may be served
`through its registered agent for service, Registered Agent Solutions, Inc., via Ricardo
`Orozco at 1220 South St. Ste. 150, Sacramento, CA 95811.
`11. Defendant TPV is incorporated in under the laws of Bermuda. On
`information and belief, TPV has a principal place of business at Units 1208-16, 12/F,
`C-Bons International Center, 108 Wai Yip Street, Kwun Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
`On information and belief, TPV may be served with process in Hong Kong pursuant
`to the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial
`Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters.
`12. TPV Display Technology (Xiamen) Co., Ltd. (“TPV Xiamen”) is
`organized under the laws of China, headquartered at No. 1, Xianghai Road,
`(Xiang’An) Industrial Zone, Torch Hi-New Zon, Xiamen, Fujian, 361101, China. On
`information and belief, TPV Xiamen may be served with process in China pursuant to
`the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents
`in Civil or Commercial Matters. TPV Xiamen is a subsidiary of TPV. See, e.g.,
`https://www.tpv-tech.com/en/PrincipalSubsidiaries.aspx.
`13. TPV International (USA), Inc. (“TPV USA”) is organized under the laws
`of the State of California and maintains its principal place of business at 3737
`Executive Center Drive, Suite 261, Austin, Texas 78731. On information and belief,
`TPV USA can be served with process via its registered agent listed with the California
`Secretary of State, Registered Agent Solutions, Inc. c/o Ricardo Orozco. 1220 South
`St. Ste. 150, Sacramento, CA 95811. TPV USA is a subsidiary of TPV. See, e.g.,
`https://www.tpv-tech.com/en/PrincipalSubsidiaries.aspx.
`14. Defendant Trend Smart America is incorporated under the laws of
`California. On information and belief, Trend Smart America has a principal place of
`business at 2 South Pointe Dr. Ste. 152, Lake Forest, CA, 92630. On information and
`
`COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00490 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 6 of 65 Page ID #:6
`
`belief, Trend Smart America can be served with process via its registered agent listed
`with the California Secretary of State, Sandy Chu, at 2 South Point Dr. Ste. 152, Lake
`Forest, CA, 92630. Trend Smart America is a subsidiary of TPV. See, e.g.,
`https://www.tpv-tech.com/en/PrincipalSubsidiaries.aspx.
`15. On information and belief, Defendant Trend Smart CE is organized under
`the laws of Mexico headquartered at Sor Juana Ines De La Cruz No. 196202, Tijuana,
`Baja California 22435, Mexico. On information and belief, Trend Smart CE may be
`served with process in Mexico pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Service
`Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. On
`information and belief, Trend Smart CE is a wholly owned, indirect subsidiary of
`TPV.
`
`16. On information and belief, Defendant CHOT is organized under the laws
`of China. On information and belief, CHOT has a principal place of business at No.1,
`Gaoke Yilu, Qindu District, Xianyang, Shaanxi, China. On information and belief,
`CHOT may be served with process in China pursuant to the Hague Convention on the
`Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial
`Matters.
`THE DEFENDANTS’ ROLES IN CREATING THE INFRINGING
`TELEVISIONS
`17. The Defendants identified in paragraphs 11–15 above (collectively,
`“TPV Defendants”) are an interrelated group of companies which together operate as
`one of the world’s largest manufacturers of televisions, including televisions provided
`to Defendant Vizio, and sold to consumers and businesses under the Vizio brand
`name.
`18. On information and belief, the TPV Defendants work collectively, and in
`concert, to design, manufacture, import, offer for sale and sell televisions to Defendant
`
`COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS
`- 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
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00490 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 7 of 65 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
`
`Vizio, including Vizio model V705-G1. Such actions occur, in substantial part, in the
`State of California generally and this judicial district in particular.
`19. Packaging for Vizio’s model V705-G1 confirms the TPV Defendants’
`joint action in manufacturing and selling the accused televisions. For example, the
`packaging states that the Vizio model V705-G1 is assembled by Trend America CE in
`Mexico, and import records show that TPV Xiamen provides the accused parts for the
`Vizio televisions to Trend America CE through ports in California and in this District,
`including the Port of Los Angeles.
`20. Labels on the components within the Vizio V705-G1 television further
`show the TPV Defendants’ role in manufacturing the infringing components. For
`example, the Vizio V705-G1 television includes the following label, which shows that
`the components originate from “TPV.”
`
`
`
`
`21. The TPV Defendants obtain the infringing LCD panels from Defendant
`CHOT. On information and belief, the TPV Defendants incorporate LCD panels
`manufactured by CHOT into at least Vizio model V705-G1 and work collectively, and
`in concert, with CHOT to design, manufacture, import, offer for sale, and sell at least
`Vizio model V705-G1 to Vizio in the State of California generally and in this judicial
`district in particular. Again, the components within Vizio’s accused televisions
`demonstrate that CHOT supplies the LCD panels in the accused televisions:
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00490 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 8 of 65 Page ID #:8
`
`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. CHOT and the TPV Defendants work together to create the infringing
`televisions. CHOT is part of the same corporate structure and distribution chain as the
`TPV Defendants, and both are under common ownership and control. TPV is an
`owned and controlled subsidiary and secondary enterprise of the same corporation that
`owns and controls CHOT. On information and belief, in part because of this common
`control, the TPV Defendants and CHOT operate as a unitary business venture in
`connection with the accused LCD panels and are therefore jointly and severally liable
`for the acts of patent infringement alleged herein.
`23. On information and belief, CHOT and the TPV Defendants operate as
`agents of one another for the purposes of making, importing, offering to sell, selling,
`and using the accused devices in the United States, including in this District. For
`example, on information and belief, CHOT and the TPV Defendants conduct business
`in California, at the direction of their common corporate parent. CHOT and the TPV
`Defendants direct the actions of—among other entities—TPV’s U.S. subsidiaries and
`agents, including Trend Smart America and TPV USA. Thus, if the TPV Defendants
`and CHOT did not have those representatives to perform their business in the State of
`California and in this District, CHOT and the TPV Defendants would undertake to
`perform substantially similar services themselves.
`24. TPV treats its affiliates and subsidiaries as part of the same company by,
`for example, reporting its financial results for the “Group” and by branding its
`products manufactured, imported, and sold by its affiliates and subsidiaries with the
`“TPV” brand. See, e.g., https://api.aconnect.com.hk/Attachment/37507;
`https://www.tpv-tech.com/en/GroupProfile.aspx.
`25. The parties to this action are properly joined under 35 U.S.C. § 299
`because the right to relief asserted against Defendants jointly and severally arises out
`of the same series of transactions or occurrences relating to the making and using of
`the same products or processes, including televisions and related processes bearing the
`
`COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00490 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 9 of 65 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
`
`Vizio brand. Additionally, questions of fact common to all Defendants will arise in
`this action.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`26. Subject matter jurisdiction is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§
`1331 and 1338(a) because the claims arise under the patent laws of the United States,
`35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
`27. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Vizio because it is incorporated
`in this District, and maintains a regular and established place of business at 39 Tesla,
`Irvine, CA 92618, located in this District.
`28. As to Vizio, venue is proper in this Judicial District under 28 U.S.C. §
`1400(b) because Vizio is incorporated in California, and has a regular and established
`place of business at 39 Tesla, Irvine, CA 92618, which is located in this District.
`29. The TPV Defendants are subject to the personal jurisdiction in this Court
`and are amenable to service of process pursuant to California’s long-arm statute,
`California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.40, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.
`30. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the TPV Defendants because
`the TPV Defendants have, directly and through agents, committed acts within this
`State and this District giving rise to this action as a result of business conducted
`directly and/or indirectly through its agents within this State and this District, such
`that the exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with due process. For example, on
`information and belief, the TPV Defendants are acting in concert in this State, and in
`this District, to manufacture, use, import, sell, or offer for sale, infringing products to
`Vizio such that the TPV Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction because of the
`activities of their agents within the forum state. The TPV Defendants also maintain a
`presence in this District, including through Trend Smart America, which is
`incorporated in this District and maintains a regular and established place of business
`at 2 South Pointe Dr. Ste. 152, Lake Forest, CA, 92630, located in this District.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00490 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 10 of 65 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
`
`31. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the TPV Defendants because
`the TPV Defendants have purposefully established minimum contacts in California
`and in this District specific to the acts of infringement alleged. For example, on
`information and belief, the TPV Defendants, including TPV Xiamen, and/or their
`agents have directly shipped and continue to directly ship accused products or
`components of accused products into this State and District including into the Port of
`Los Angeles, over a period of years, purposefully directing their actions to this State
`and this District. In addition, on information and belief, TPV solicits customers in the
`State of California and this District, and has one or more customers who are residents
`of the State of California and this District, including Vizio, who use or resell the TPV
`Defendants’ products in the State of California and in this District.
`32. The claims asserted in this complaint arise directly from TPV
`Defendants’ acts in this State and in this District, including the importation, sale, offer
`for sale of accused products into the State of California and into this District,
`including TPV Defendants’ business contacts and other activities in the State of
`California and in this District. The TPV Defendants, directly and/or through
`intermediaries, make, use, sell, ship, import, distribute, and offer for sale, their
`products in the United States, the State of California, and this District.
`33. Personal jurisdiction over the TPV Defendants in this action is also
`proper because the TPV Defendants have placed, and are continuing to place,
`infringing products into the stream of commerce, via an established distribution
`channel, with the knowledge and/or understanding that such products are sold in the
`State of California, including in this District. On information and belief, the TPV
`Defendants knew that collectively, and in concert, they were making, using, offering
`for sale, and/or importing accused products to Vizio in this District. For example, the
`TPV Defendants themselves and/or through their agents or intermediaries packaged
`and labeled the accused products with the Vizio brand and/or shipped products from
`
`COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00490 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 11 of 65 Page ID #:11
`
`China to be incorporated into products imported, sold, or offered for sale to Vizio.
`The TPV Defendants purposefully put the accused products into the stream of
`commerce through an established distribution channel with the expectation that
`infringing products are being and will continue to be purchased and sold in the State
`of California, including in this District, including to Vizio and customers of Vizio.
`For example, on information and belief, the TPV Defendants themselves or through
`their agents and intermediaries contracted with and worked in concert with Vizio to
`supply the accused product in this State and in this District. The claims asserted in
`this complaint for patent infringement arise out of these activities. As a result, the
`TPV Defendants have purposefully availed themselves of the privilege of doing
`business in the State of California such that the exercise of personal jurisdiction in this
`District is proper.
`34. Venue is proper in this District over the TPV Defendants pursuant to 28
`U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1391(c), and 1400(b) because (i) the TPV Defendants have done
`and continue to do business in this District; (ii) the TPV Defendants have committed
`and continue to commit acts of patent infringement in this District, including making,
`using, offering to sell, and/or selling accused products in this District, and/or
`importing accused products into this District, including by internet sales, and/or
`inducing others to commit acts of patent infringement in this District; and (iii) many
`of the TPV Defendants are foreign entities, as shown in paragraphs 11–12 and 15
`above. Venue is also proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because Trend
`Smart America is incorporated in California, and has a regular and established place
`of business at 2 South Pointe Dr. Ste. 152, Lake Forest, CA, 92630, located in this
`District.
`35. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over CHOT. CHOT is subject
`to personal jurisdiction in this Court and is amenable to service of process pursuant to
`
`COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS
`- 11 -
`
`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 8:20-cv-00490 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 12 of 65 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
`
`California long-arm statute, California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.40, and Federal
`Rule of Civil Procedure 4.
`36. This Court has personal jurisdiction over CHOT because CHOT has,
`directly and through agents, committed acts within this State and this District giving
`rise to this action. CHOT has conducted business directly and/or indirectly through its
`agents within this State and this District, such that the exercise of jurisdiction is
`consistent with due process. For example, on information and belief, CHOT works in
`concert with the TPV Defendants and/or Vizio to design, manufacture, import, use,
`sell and offer to sell accused products for importation, sale, offer for sale,
`manufacture, and use in this State and in this District, purposefully directing their
`actions to this State and this District.
`37. CHOT has also purposefully established minimum contacts in California
`and in this District specific to the acts of infringement alleged. On information and
`belief, CHOT directly ships infringing LCD panels to Trend Smart CE in California.
`For example, CHOT purposefully shipped two containers of infringing LCD panels to
`Long Beach, California to Trend Smart CE that arrived on November 26, 2018. The
`claims asserted in this complaint arise from, among other things, this shipment of
`infringing LCD panels. Based on these acts alone, personal jurisdiction over CHOT is
`proper. In addition, on information and belief, CHOT solicits customers in the State
`of California and this District, and has one or more customers who are residents of the
`State of California and this District and who use or resell CHOT’s products in the
`State of California and in this District, including Vizio.
`38. The claims asserted in this complaint arise directly from CHOT’s acts in
`this State and in this District including the importation, sale, offer for sale of accused
`products into the State of California and into this District, including CHOT’s business
`contacts and other activities in the State of California and in this District. CHOT,
`directly, and through intermediaries, makes, uses, sells, ships, imports, distributes, and
`
`COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00490 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 13 of 65 Page ID #:13
`
`offers for sale, its products in the United States, the State of California, and this
`District.
`39. Personal jurisdiction over CHOT in this action is also proper because
`CHOT has placed, and is continuing to place, infringing products into the stream of
`commerce, via an established distribution channel, with the knowledge and/or
`understanding that such products are sold in the State of California, including in this
`District. On information and belief, CHOT knew its LCD panels were used by Trend
`Smart CE and the other TPV Defendants to manufacture, assemble, import, sell, offer
`to sell or use televisions incorporating its LCD panel and that the TPV Defendants
`made, used, offered for sale, and/or imported accused products to Vizio in this
`District. CHOT purposefully put the infringing LCD panels into the stream of
`commerce through the TPV Defendants’ established distribution channel with the
`expectation that infringing products are being and will continue to be purchased and
`sold in the State of California, including in this District, to Vizio and Vizio’s
`customers. The patent infringement claims asserted in this complaint arise out of
`CHOT’s activities. As a result, CHOT has purposefully availed itself of the privilege
`of doing business in the State of California such that the exercise of personal
`jurisdiction in this District is proper.
`40. As to CHOT, venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`1391(b) and (c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1400 because: (i) CHOT does business in this
`District, directly or through intermediaries and agents; (ii) at least a portion of the acts
`of infringement described herein occurred in this District; (iii) CHOT regularly
`solicits business, engages in other persistent courses of conduct, or derives revenue
`from goods and services provided to individuals in this District; and (iv) CHOT is a
`foreign entity.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS
`- 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
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00490 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 14 of 65 Page ID #:14
`
`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
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`U.S. Patent No. 6,937,300
`41. On August 30, 2005, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued U.S.
`Patent No. 6,937,300 (“the ’300 Patent”), titled “LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY
`DEVICE AND METHOD OF FABRICATING THE SAME,” which was filed on
`July 16, 2004 and claims priority to Japanese Applications 2001-306906 and 2002-
`136128 filed on October 2, 2001 and May 10, 2002 respectively. A true and correct
`copy of the ’300 Patent is attached at Exhibit 1.
`42. The ’300 Patent is presumed valid under 35 U.S.C. § 282(a).
`43. Sharp is the owner and assignee of all substantial rights, title, and interest
`in the ’300 Patent.
`44. The ’300 Patent generally describes and claims a liquid crystal display
`device. (Ex. 1, Abstract, Claim 1).
`U.S. Patent No. 6,977,704
`45. On December 20, 2005, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued
`U.S. Patent No. 6,977,704 (“the ’704 Patent”), titled “LIQUID CRYSTAL
`DISPLAY,” which was filed on March 12, 2002 and claims priority to Japanese
`Application 2001-098455 filed on March 30, 2001. A true and correct copy of the
`’704 Patent is attached at Exhibit 2.
`46. The ’704 Patent is presumed valid under 35 U.S.C. § 282(a).
`47. Sharp is the owner and assignee of all substantial rights, title, and interest
`in the ’704 Patent.
`48. The ’704 Patent describes and claims a liquid crystal display with a cured
`material in the liquid crystal layer. (Ex. 2, Abstract, Claim 1).
`U.S. Patent No. 7,450,206
`49. On November 11, 2008, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued
`U.S. Patent No. 7,450,206 (“the ’206 Patent”), titled “LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY
`
`COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00490 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 15 of 65 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
`
`DEVICE AND METHOD OF FABRICATING THE SAME,” which was filed on
`July 16, 2004 and claims priority to Japanese Applications 2001-306906 and 2002-
`136128 filed on October 2, 2001 and May 10, 2002 respectively. A true and correct
`copy of the ’206 Patent is attached at Exhibit 3.
`50. The ’206 Patent is presumed valid under 35 U.S.C. § 282(a).
`51. Sharp is the owner and assignee of all substantial rights, title, and interest
`in the ’206 Patent.
`52. The ’206 Patent describes and claims generally describes and claims a
`liquid crystal display device. (Ex. 3, Abstract, Claim 2).
`U.S. Patent No. 8,044,907
`53. On October 25, 2011, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued U.S.
`Patent No. 8,044,907 (“the ’907 Patent”), titled “LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY
`AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME,” which was filed on
`December 6, 2010 and claims priority to Japanese Applications 2003-073553, 2003-
`095319, 2003-096779, and 2004-048296 filed on March 18, 2003, March 31, 2003,
`March 31, 2003, and February 24, 2004 respectively. A true and correct copy of the
`’907 Patent is attached at Exhibit 4.
`54. The ’807 Patent is presumed valid under 35 U.S.C. § 282(a).
`55. Sharp is the owner and assignee of all substantial rights, title, and interest
`in the ’907 Patent.
`56. The ’907 Patent generally describes and claims a liquid crystal display
`device with a polymer formed between two substrates with a plurality of threshold
`voltages associated with a plurality of areas within the display. (Ex. 4, Abstract,
`Claim 1).
`U.S. Patent No. 8,446,556
`57. On May 21, 2013, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued U.S.
`Patent No. 8,446,556 (“the ’556 Patent”), titled “FLEXIBLE PRINTED CIRCUIT
`
`COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00490 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 16 of 65 Page ID #:16
`
`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
`
`AND ELECTRIC CIRCUIT STRUCTURE,” which was filed on June 24, 2009 and
`claims priority to Japanese Application 2008-178299. A true and correct copy of the
`’556 Patent is attached at Exhibit 5.
`58. The ’556 Patent is presumed valid under 35 U.S.C. § 282(a).
`59. Sharp is the owner and assignee of all substantial rights, title, and interest
`in the ’556 Patent.
`60. The ’556 Patent describes and claims a circuit structure with a wiring
`pattern on a base film of a printed circuit board. (Ex. 5, Abstract, Claim 1).
`U.S. Patent No. 8,471,994
`61. On June 25, 2013, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued U.S.
`Patent No. 8,471,994 (“the ’994 Patent”), titled “LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY
`DEVICE AND METHOD FOR FABRICATING THE SAME,” which was filed on
`March 18, 2011 and claims priority to Japanese Application 2000-295266 filed on
`September 27, 2000. A true and correct copy of the ’994 Patent is attached at Exhibit
`6.
`
`62. The ’994 Patent is presumed valid under 35 U.S.C. § 282(a).
`63. Sharp is the owner and assignee of all substantial rights, title, and interest
`in the ’994 Patent.
`64. The ’994 Patent describes and claims a liquid crystal display device with
`micro-structures directionally configured with respect to a polarizer layer and an
`analyzer layer. (Ex. 6, Abstract, Claim 1).
`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,634
`65. On September 10, 2013, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued
`U.S. Patent No. 8,531,634 (“the ’634 Patent”), titled “LIQUID CRYSTAL
`DISPLAY,” which was filed on November 22, 2010 and claims priority to Japanese
`Application 2001-098455 filed on March 30, 2001. A true and correct copy of the
`’634 Patent is attached at Exhibit 7.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Case 8:20-cv-00490 Document 1 Filed 03/10/20 Page 17 of 65 Page ID #:17
`
`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
`
`66. The ’634 Patent is presumed valid under 35 U.S.C. § 282(a).
`67. Sharp is the owner and assignee of all substantial rights, ti