Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 1 Filed 09/06/19 Page 1 of 19
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`NEODRON LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No.
`
`v.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`LENOVO GROUP LTD., LENOVO (UNITED
`STATES) INC., and MOTOROLA MOBILITY
`LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AGAINST LENOVO GROUP LTD.,
`LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC., AND MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the United States
`
`of America, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., in which Plaintiff Neodron Ltd. (“Plaintiff” or “Neodron”)
`
`makes the following allegations against Defendants Lenovo Group Ltd., Lenovo (United States)
`
`Inc., and Motorola Mobility LLC (collectively, “Defendants”):
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This complaint arises from Defendants’ unlawful infringement of the following
`
`United States patents owned by Neodron, each of which generally relate to touchscreen
`
`technology: United States Patent Nos. 8,102,286 (“’286 Patent”); 8,451,237 (“’237 Patent”);
`
`8,502,547 (“’547 Patent”); 8,946,574 (“’574 Patent”); 9,086,770 (“’770 Patent”); 10,088,960
`
`(“’960 Patent”); and 7,821,502 (“’502 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`2.
`
`Touchscreen technology plays a ubiquitous and important role in countless
`
`electronic devices today. Beyond just providing greater usability to smartphones, tablets, and
`
`1
`
`5:19-cv-5644
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 1 Filed 09/06/19 Page 2 of 19
`
`
`
`notebooks, touchscreens now fill our lives in public and private spaces, from our homes and cars
`
`to the restaurants and stores we visit.
`
`3.
`
`But just a few decades ago, touchscreen technology could only be found in science
`
`fiction books and film. Although the underlying science behind touch technology can be traced
`
`back to the 1940s, working touchscreens were not conceived and feasible until the mid-1960s,
`
`when the first finger-driven touchscreen was invented by E.A. Johnson in 1965 at the Royal Radar
`
`Establishment in Malvern, United Kingdom. Since then, it took several generations and major
`
`technological advancements for touchscreens to achieve the level of complexity—and
`
`convenience—we see and enjoy today.
`
`4.
`
`Built on the fundamental breakthrough that our hands and fingers can form changes
`
`in the capacitance of electrodes and electrode-connections when they are in close proximity to
`
`them, touch technology has developed rapidly over the years. Along the way, engineers have
`
`worked tirelessly to try to overcome the limitations and roadblocks touch technology presents.
`
`From conceiving various ways to detect (and correctly ignore) unintentional touches, to
`
`minimizing signal “noise,” to reducing the latency and power consumption that comes with any
`
`complex, multi-part electrical process, there have been many advances to various aspects of the
`
`technology—each building a little on a related advancement before it—to get us to the highly
`
`advanced state we enjoy today.
`
`5.
`
`These advancements range from fundamental ones, which make basic touch
`
`technology work, to optional improvements, which typically represent one technological option
`
`that improves aspects of the user experience and functionality of a touchscreen. This infringement
`
`action is about the latter: several patented improvements—which took years of research and
`
`millions of dollars in U.S. investments to develop, and which are infringed by Defendants’ accused
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 1 Filed 09/06/19 Page 3 of 19
`
`
`
`products.
`
`PARTIES
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff Neodron Ltd. is an Irish company, having its principal place of business at
`
`Unit 4-5, Burton Hall Road, Sandyford, Dublin 18, D18a094. Neodron is the sole owner by
`
`assignment of all right, title, and interest in each Asserted Patent.
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Lenovo Group Ltd. is organized under the
`
`laws of the People’s Republic of China, with its principal place of business is at 6 Chuang ye Road,
`
`Haidian District, Beijing 100085, China.
`
`8.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Lenovo (United States) Inc., a wholly-owned
`
`subsidiary of Lenovo Group Ltd., is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
`
`Delaware, with principal place of business at 1009 Think Place, Building One, Morrisville, North
`
`Carolina 27560.
`
`9.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Motorola Mobility LLC is a Delaware
`
`limited liability company with its principal office located at 222 W. Merchandise Mart Plaza, Suite
`
`1800, Chicago, Illinois 60654.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`10.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United
`
`States Code. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a).
`
`11.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants in this action because
`
`Defendants have committed acts within this District giving rise to this action, and have established
`
`minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over Defendants would
`
`not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Defendants, directly and through
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 1 Filed 09/06/19 Page 4 of 19
`
`
`
`subsidiaries or intermediaries, have committed and continue to commit acts of infringement in this
`
`District by, among other things, making, using, offering to sell, selling, and importing products
`
`that infringe the Asserted Patents.
`
`12.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b). Upon
`
`information and belief, Defendants have transacted business in this District and have committed
`
`acts of direct and indirect infringement in this District by, among other things, making, using,
`
`offering to sell, selling, and importing products that infringe the Asserted Patents. At least Lenovo
`
`(United States) Inc. is registered to do business in California, and both Lenovo (United States) Inc.
`
`and Motorola Mobility LLC maintain offices and/or employ employees in this District at 3325
`
`Scott Boulevard, Santa Clara, California 95054. Lenovo Group Ltd. is not a resident in the United
`
`States and may be sued in any judicial district. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c)(3).
`
`13.
`
`On information and belief, Lenovo (United States) Inc. has a regular and
`
`established place of business in the District. For example, Lenovo (United States) Inc. operates
`
`offices at 3325 Scott Boulevard, Santa Clara, California 95054. Lenovo (United States) Inc. also
`
`advertises jobs, including engineering jobs, in this District on their website, as shown below.1
`
`
`1 https://lenovocareers.com/
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 1 Filed 09/06/19 Page 5 of 19
`
`
`
`14.
`
`On information and belief, Motorola Mobility LLC has a regular and established
`
`place of business in the District. For example, Motorola Mobility LLC maintains offices and/or
`
`employs employees at 3325 Scott Boulevard, Santa Clara, California 95054. Motorola Mobility
`
`LLC also advertises jobs, including engineering jobs, in this District, as shown below.2
`
`
`
`
`2 See, e.g., https://lenovocareers.com/areas-mobile.html. Motorola Mobility LLC is a subsidiary
`of Lenovo Group Ltd.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 1 Filed 09/06/19 Page 6 of 19
`
`
`
`COUNT I
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,102,286
`
`
`
`15.
`
`Neodron realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`16.
`
`Neodron owns by assignment all rights, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,102,286, entitled “Capacitive Keyboard with Non-Locking Reduced Keying Ambiguity.”
`
`The ’286 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 1 Filed 09/06/19 Page 7 of 19
`
`
`
`January 24, 2012. A true and correct copy of the ’286 Patent is attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`17.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import
`
`certain products (“Accused Products”), such as the Lenovo Yoga 730 and Motorola Moto G6, that
`
`directly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, claims 1-24 of the ’286 Patent.
`
`18.
`
`Defendants also knowingly and intentionally induce infringement of claims 1-24 of
`
`the ’286 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Through the filing and service of this Complaint,
`
`Defendants have had knowledge of the ’286 Patent and the infringing nature of the Accused
`
`Products. Despite this knowledge of the ’286 Patent, Defendants continue to actively encourage
`
`and instruct their customers and end users (for example, through their user manuals and online
`
`instruction materials on their websites) to use the Accused Products in ways that directly infringe
`
`the ’286 Patent. Defendants do so knowing and intending that their customers and end users will
`
`commit these infringing acts. Defendants also continue to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or
`
`import the Accused Products, despite their knowledge of the ’286 Patent, thereby specifically
`
`intending for and inducing their customers to infringe the ’286 Patent through the customers’
`
`normal and customary use of the Accused Products.
`
`19.
`
`The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of claims 1-24 of the ’286 Patent.
`
`A claim chart comparing independent claim 1 of the ’286 Patent to a representative Accused
`
`Product, the Lenovo Yoga 730, is attached as Exhibit 2.
`
`20.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States
`
`the Accused Products, Defendants have injured Neodron and are liable for infringement of the ’286
`
`Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`21.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’286 Patent, Neodron is entitled to
`
`monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendants’ infringement, but in no
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 1 Filed 09/06/19 Page 8 of 19
`
`
`
`event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendants, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`22.
`
`Defendants’ infringing activities have injured and will continue to injure Neodron,
`
`unless and until this Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ’286 Patent,
`
`and, specifically, enjoining further manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offers for sale that
`
`come within the scope of the patent claims.
`
`COUNT II
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,451,237
`
`23.
`
`Neodron realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`24.
`
`Neodron owns by assignment all rights, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,451,237, entitled “Sensitivity Control as a Function of Touch Shape.” The ’237 Patent was duly
`
`and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on May 28, 2013. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ’237 Patent is attached as Exhibit 3.
`
`25.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import
`
`certain products (“Accused Products”), such as the Lenovo Thinkpad X1 Yoga, that directly
`
`infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, claims 1-24 of the ’237 Patent.
`
`26.
`
`Defendants also knowingly and intentionally induce infringement of claims 1-24 of
`
`the ’237 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Through the filing and service of this Complaint,
`
`Defendants have had knowledge of the ’237 Patent and the infringing nature of the Accused
`
`Products. Despite this knowledge of the ’237 Patent, Defendants continue to actively encourage
`
`and instruct their customers and end users (for example, through their user manuals and online
`
`instruction materials on their websites) to use the Accused Products in ways that directly infringe
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 1 Filed 09/06/19 Page 9 of 19
`
`
`
`the ’237 Patent. Defendants do so knowing and intending that their customers and end users will
`
`commit these infringing acts. Defendants also continue to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or
`
`import the Accused Products, despite their knowledge of the ’237 Patent, thereby specifically
`
`intending for and inducing their customers to infringe the ’237 Patent through the customers’
`
`normal and customary use of the Accused Products.
`
`27.
`
`The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of claims 1-24 of the ’237 Patent.
`
`A claim chart comparing independent claim 16 of the ’237 Patent to a representative Accused
`
`Product, the Lenovo Thinkpad X1 Yoga, is attached as Exhibit 4.
`
`28.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States
`
`the Accused Products, Defendants have injured Neodron and are liable for infringement of the ’237
`
`Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`29.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’237 Patent, Neodron is entitled to
`
`monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendants’ infringement, but in no
`
`event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendants, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`30.
`
`Defendants’ infringing activities have injured and will continue to injure Neodron,
`
`unless and until this Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ’237 Patent,
`
`and, specifically, enjoining further manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offers for sale that
`
`come within the scope of the patent claims.
`
`COUNT III
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,502,547
`
`31.
`
`Neodron realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 1 Filed 09/06/19 Page 10 of 19
`
`
`
`32.
`
`Neodron owns by assignment all rights, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,502,547, entitled “Capacitive Sensor.” The ’547 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office on August 6, 2013. A true and correct copy of the ’547 Patent
`
`is attached as Exhibit 5.
`
`33.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import
`
`certain products (“Accused Products”), such as the Lenovo Yoga 730 and Motorola Moto G6, that
`
`directly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, claims 1-17 of the ’547 Patent.
`
`34.
`
`Defendants also knowingly and intentionally induce infringement of claims 1-17 of
`
`the ’547 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Through the filing and service of this Complaint,
`
`Defendants have had knowledge of the ’547 Patent and the infringing nature of the Accused
`
`Products. Despite this knowledge of the ’547 Patent, Defendants continue to actively encourage
`
`and instruct their customers and end users (for example, through their user manuals and online
`
`instruction materials on their websites) to use the Accused Products in ways that directly infringe
`
`the ’547 Patent. Defendants do so knowing and intending that their customers and end users will
`
`commit these infringing acts. Defendants also continue to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or
`
`import the Accused Products, despite their knowledge of the ’547 Patent, thereby specifically
`
`intending for and inducing their customers to infringe the ’547 Patent through the customers’
`
`normal and customary use of the Accused Products.
`
`35.
`
`The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of claims 1-17 of the ’547 Patent.
`
`A claim chart comparing independent claim 1 of the ’547 Patent to a representative Accused
`
`Product, the Lenovo Yoga 730, is attached as Exhibit 6.
`
`36.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States
`
`the Accused Products, Defendants have injured Neodron and are liable for infringement of the ’547
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 1 Filed 09/06/19 Page 11 of 19
`
`
`
`Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`37.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’547 Patent, Neodron is entitled to
`
`monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendants’ infringement, but in no
`
`event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendants, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`38.
`
`Defendants’ infringing activities have injured and will continue to injure Neodron,
`
`unless and until this Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ’547 Patent,
`
`and, specifically, enjoining further manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offers for sale that
`
`come within the scope of the patent claims.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,946,574
`
`39.
`
`Neodron realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`40.
`
`Neodron owns by assignment all rights, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,946,574, entitled “Two-Layer Sensor Stack.” The ’574 Patent was duly and legally issued by the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office on February 3, 2015. A true and correct copy of
`
`the ’574 Patent is attached as Exhibit 7.
`
`41.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import
`
`certain products (“Accused Products”), such as the Lenovo Thinkpad X1 Yoga, that directly
`
`infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, claims 1-15 of the ’574 Patent.
`
`42.
`
`Defendants also knowingly and intentionally induce infringement of claims 1-15 of
`
`the ’574 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Through the filing and service of this Complaint,
`
`Defendants have had knowledge of the ’574 Patent and the infringing nature of the Accused
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 1 Filed 09/06/19 Page 12 of 19
`
`
`
`Products. Despite this knowledge of the ’574 Patent, Defendants continue to actively encourage
`
`and instruct their customers and end users (for example, through their user manuals and online
`
`instruction materials on their websites) to use the Accused Products in ways that directly infringe
`
`the ’574 Patent. Defendants do so knowing and intending that their customers and end users will
`
`commit these infringing acts. Defendants also continue to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or
`
`import the Accused Products, despite their knowledge of the ’574 Patent, thereby specifically
`
`intending for and inducing their customers to infringe the ’574 Patent through the customers’
`
`normal and customary use of the Accused Products.
`
`43.
`
`The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of claims 1-15 of the ’574 Patent.
`
`A claim chart comparing independent claim 1 of the ’574 Patent to a representative Accused
`
`Product, the Lenovo Thinkpad X1 Yoga, is attached as Exhibit 8.
`
`44.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States
`
`the Accused Products, Defendants have injured Neodron and are liable for infringement of the ’574
`
`Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`45.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’574 Patent, Neodron is entitled to
`
`monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendants’ infringement, but in no
`
`event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendants, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`46.
`
`Defendants’ infringing activities have injured and will continue to injure Neodron,
`
`unless and until this Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ’574 Patent,
`
`and, specifically, enjoining further manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offers for sale that
`
`come within the scope of the patent claims.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 1 Filed 09/06/19 Page 13 of 19
`
`
`
`COUNT V
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,086,770
`
`47.
`
`Neodron realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`48.
`
`Neodron owns by assignment all rights, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,086,770, entitled “Touch Sensor with High-Density Macro-Feature Design.” The ’770 Patent
`
`was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on July 21, 2015.
`
`A true and correct copy of the ’770 Patent is attached as Exhibit 9.
`
`49.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import
`
`certain products (“Accused Products”), such as the Lenovo Thinkpad X1 Yoga, that directly
`
`infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, claims 1-15 of the ’770 Patent.
`
`50.
`
`Defendants also knowingly and intentionally induce infringement of claims 1-15 of
`
`the ’770 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Through the filing and service of this Complaint,
`
`Defendants have had knowledge of the ’770 Patent and the infringing nature of the Accused
`
`Products. Despite this knowledge of the ’770 Patent, Defendants continue to actively encourage
`
`and instruct their customers and end users (for example, through their user manuals and online
`
`instruction materials on their websites) to use the Accused Products in ways that directly infringe
`
`the ’770 Patent. Defendants do so knowing and intending that their customers and end users will
`
`commit these infringing acts. Defendants also continue to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or
`
`import the Accused Products, despite their knowledge of the ’770 Patent, thereby specifically
`
`intending for and inducing their customers to infringe the ’770 Patent through the customers’
`
`normal and customary use of the Accused Products.
`
`51.
`
`The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of claims 1-15 of the ’770 Patent.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 1 Filed 09/06/19 Page 14 of 19
`
`
`
`A claim chart comparing independent claim 7 of the ’770 Patent to a representative Accused
`
`Product, the Lenovo Thinkpad X1 Yoga, is attached as Exhibit 10.
`
`52.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States
`
`the Accused Products, Defendants have injured Neodron and are liable for infringement of the ’770
`
`Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`53.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’770 Patent, Neodron is entitled to
`
`monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendants’ infringement, but in no
`
`event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendants, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`54.
`
`Defendants’ infringing activities have injured and will continue to injure Neodron,
`
`unless and until this Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ’770 Patent,
`
`and, specifically, enjoining further manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offers for sale that
`
`come within the scope of the patent claims.
`
`COUNT VI
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,088,960
`
`55.
`
`Neodron realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`56.
`
`Neodron owns by assignment all rights, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,088,960, entitled “Sensor Stack with Opposing Electrodes.” The ’960 Patent was duly and
`
`legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on October 2, 2018. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ’960 Patent is attached as Exhibit 11.
`
`57.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import
`
`certain products (“Accused Products”), such as the Lenovo Thinkpad X1 Yoga, that directly
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 1 Filed 09/06/19 Page 15 of 19
`
`
`
`infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, claims 1-17 of the ’960 Patent.
`
`58.
`
`Defendants also knowingly and intentionally induce infringement of claims 1-17 of
`
`the ’960 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Through the filing and service of this Complaint,
`
`Defendants have had knowledge of the ’960 Patent and the infringing nature of the Accused
`
`Products. Despite this knowledge of the ’960 Patent, Defendants continue to actively encourage
`
`and instruct their customers and end users (for example, through their user manuals and online
`
`instruction materials on their websites) to use the Accused Products in ways that directly infringe
`
`the ’960 Patent. Defendants do so knowing and intending that their customers and end users will
`
`commit these infringing acts. Defendants also continue to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or
`
`import the Accused Products, despite their knowledge of the ’960 Patent, thereby specifically
`
`intending for and inducing their customers to infringe the ’960 Patent through the customers’
`
`normal and customary use of the Accused Products.
`
`59.
`
`The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of claims 1-17 of the ’960 Patent.
`
`A claim chart comparing independent claim 1 of the ’960 Patent to a representative Accused
`
`Product, the Lenovo Thinkpad X1 Yoga, is attached as Exhibit 12.
`
`60.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States
`
`the Accused Products, Defendants have injured Neodron and are liable for infringement of the ’960
`
`Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`61.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’960 Patent, Neodron is entitled to
`
`monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendants’ infringement, but in no
`
`event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendants, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`62.
`
`Defendants’ infringing activities have injured and will continue to injure Neodron,
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 1 Filed 09/06/19 Page 16 of 19
`
`
`
`unless and until this Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ’960 Patent,
`
`and, specifically, enjoining further manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offers for sale that
`
`come within the scope of the patent claims.
`
`COUNT VII
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,821,502
`
`63.
`
`Neodron realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`64.
`
`Neodron owns by assignment all rights, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,821,502, entitled “Two-Dimensional Position Sensor.” The ’502 Patent was duly and legally
`
`issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on October 26, 2010. A true and correct
`
`copy of the ’502 Patent is attached as Exhibit 13.
`
`65.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import
`
`certain products (“Accused Products”), such as the Lenovo Tab 4 10, that directly infringe, literally
`
`and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, claims 1-24 of the ’502 Patent.
`
`66.
`
`Defendants also knowingly and intentionally induce infringement of claims 1-24 of
`
`the ’502 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Through the filing and service of this Complaint,
`
`Defendants have had knowledge of the ’502 Patent and the infringing nature of the Accused
`
`Products. Despite this knowledge of the ’502 Patent, Defendants continue to actively encourage
`
`and instruct their customers and end users (for example, through their user manuals and online
`
`instruction materials on their websites) to use the Accused Products in ways that directly infringe
`
`the ’502 Patent. Defendants do so knowing and intending that their customers and end users will
`
`commit these infringing acts. Defendants also continue to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or
`
`import the Accused Products, despite their knowledge of the ’502 Patent, thereby specifically
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 1 Filed 09/06/19 Page 17 of 19
`
`
`
`intending for and inducing their customers to infringe the ’502 Patent through the customers’
`
`normal and customary use of the Accused Products.
`
`67.
`
`The Accused Products satisfy all claim limitations of claims 1-24 of the ’502 Patent.
`
`A claim chart comparing independent claim 1 of the ’502 Patent to a representative Accused
`
`Product, the Lenovo Tab 4 10, is attached as Exhibit 14.
`
`68.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing into the United States
`
`the Accused Products, Defendants have injured Neodron and are liable for infringement of the ’502
`
`Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`69.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ infringement of the ’502 Patent, Neodron is entitled to
`
`monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendants’ infringement, but in no
`
`event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendants, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`70.
`
`Defendants’ infringing activities have injured and will continue to injure Neodron,
`
`unless and until this Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ’502 Patent,
`
`and, specifically, enjoining further manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offers for sale that
`
`come within the scope of the patent claims.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Neodron respectfully requests that this Court enter:
`
`a.
`
`A judgment in favor of Neodron that Defendants have infringed, either literally
`
`and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, the ’286 Patent, the ’237 Patent, the ’547 Patent, the ’574
`
`Patent, the ’770 Patent, the ’960 Patent, and the ’502 Patent;
`
`b.
`
`A permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from further acts of infringement
`
`of the ’286 Patent, the ’237 Patent, the ’547 Patent, the ’574 Patent, the ’770 Patent, the ’960
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 1 Filed 09/06/19 Page 18 of 19
`
`
`
`Patent, and the ’502 Patent;
`
`c.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay Neodron its damages, costs,
`
`expenses, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest for Defendants’ infringement of the ’286
`
`Patent, the ’237 Patent, the ’547 Patent, the ’574 Patent, the ’770 Patent, the ’960 Patent, and the
`
`’502 Patent; and
`
`d.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Defendants to provide an accounting and to pay
`
`supplemental damages to Neodron, including without limitation, pre-judgment and post-judgment
`
`interest;
`
`e.
`
`A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the meaning
`
`of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding to Neodron its reasonable attorneys’ fees against Defendants;
`
`and
`
`f.
`
`Any and all other relief as the Court may deem appropriate and just under the
`
`circumstances.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Neodron, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requests a trial by jury of
`
`any issues so triable by right.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 6, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Reza Mirzaie
`
`Reza Mirzaie (CA SBN 246953)
`Email: rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`Marc A. Fenster (CA SBN 181067)
`Email: mfenster@raklaw.com
`Brian D. Ledahl (CA SBN 186579)
`Email: bledahl@raklaw.com
`Paul A. Kroeger (CA SBN 229074)
`Email: pkroeger@raklaw
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-05644-SI Document 1 Filed 09/06/19 Page 19 of 19
`
`Philip X. Wang (CA SBN 262239)
`pwang@raklaw.com
`Neil A. Rubin (CA SBN 250761)
`Email: nrubin@raklaw.com
`Amy E. Hayden (CA SBN 287026)
`Email: ahayden@raklaw.com
`Shani Williams (SBN 274509)
`Email: swilliams@raklaw.com
`Kristopher R. Davis (IL SBN 6296190)
`Email: kdavis@raklaw.com
`Christian W. Conkle (CA SBN 306374)
`Email: cconkle@raklaw.com
`Kent N. Shum (CA SBN 259189)
`Email: kshum@raklaw.com
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Blvd. 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Phone: (310) 826-7474
`Fax: (310) 826-6991
`
`Matthew D. Aichele (VA SBN 77821)
`Email: maichele@raklaw.com
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`800 Maine Avenue, SW, Suite 200
`Washington, DC 20024
`Phone: (310) 826-7474
`Fax: (310) 826-6991
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Neodron Ltd.
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`