Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 1 of 134
`
`LOCKE LORD LLP
`Regina J. McClendon (SBN 184669)
`rmcclendon@lockelord.com
`Meagan S. Tom (SBN 273489)
`meagan.tom@lockelord.com
`101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1950
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 318-8810
`Fax: (415) 676-5816
`
`Bryan G. Harrison (pro hac vice to be filed)
`bryan.harrison@lockelord.com
`Terminus 200, Suite 1200
`3333 Piedmont Road NE
`Atlanta, GA 30305
`Telephone: (404) 870-4600
`Fax: (404) 872-5547
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`AU Optronics Corporation America
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT AND EQUITABLE
`RELIEF
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`)))))))))))))
`
`AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA,
`a California corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`VISTA PEAK VENTURES, LLC
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA, for its Complaint for Declaratory
`
`Judgment and Equitable Relief, avers and alleges as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA (“AUO USA”)
`
`is a
`
`corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of California with its principal place of
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`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
`
`101MontgomeryStreet,Suite1950
`
`SanFrancisco,CA94104
`
`LockeLordLLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 2 of 134
`
`business and center of operations located at 1525 McCarthy Blvd., Suite 218, Milpitas, California
`
`95035.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant VISTA PEAK VENTURES, LLC (“Defendant”) is a limited liability
`
`company that purports to be organized and existing under the laws of the state of Texas with its
`
`business address located at 1400 Preston Rd, Suite 472, Plano, TX 75093.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant has filed three separate actions in the Marshall Division of the District
`
`Court for the Eastern District of Texas accusing AUO USA’s parent company, AU Optronics
`
`Corporation (“AUO”), of infringing the following United States Patents: U.S. Patent No. 5,929,947
`
`(“the ’947 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,579,749 (“the ’749 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,674,093 (“the
`
`’093 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,800,872 (“the ’872 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,891,196 (“the ’196
`
`patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,088,401 (“the ’401 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,404,474 (“the ’474
`
`patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,657,699 (“the ’699 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,009,673 (“the ’673
`
`patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,499,119 (“the ’119 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,781,643 (“the ’643
`
`patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,046,327 (“the ’327 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 6,730,970 (“the ’970
`
`patent”), collectively, the “Asserted Patents.” See Vista Peak Ventures, LLC v. AU Optronics Corp.,
`
`Case Nos. 2:18-cv-00276-JRG, ¶¶ 10, 22, 34, 46, 57, 68, 80; 2:18-cv-00278-JRG, ¶¶ 10, 33, 44, 45,
`
`56; and 2:18-cv-00279-JRG, ¶¶ 10, 34, 45.
`
`4.
`
`In an effort to manufacture personal jurisdiction over AUO, Defendant further alleged
`
`in each of these complaints that AUO controls AUO USA and that AUO USA “has committed acts
`
`within Texas giving rise to this action and/or has established minimum contacts with Texas such that
`
`personal jurisdiction over AUO would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
`
`justice.” See Vista Peak Ventures, LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., Case Nos. 2:18-cv-00276-JRG, ¶¶ 8-
`
`9; 2:18-cv-00278-JRG, ¶¶ 8-9; and 2:18-cv-00279-JRG, ¶¶ 8-9.
`
`5.
`
`In ad damnum clause in each of its complaints, Defendant requests the court, inter
`
`alia, to enjoin AUO USA from “making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing any products
`
`that
`
`infringe the Asserted Patents, and any other injunctive relief the Court deems just and
`
`equitable.” See Vista Peak Ventures, LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., Case Nos. 2:18-cv-00276-JRG,
`
`pp. 28-29; 2:18-cv-00278-JRG, pp. 22; and 2:18-cv-00279-JRG, pp. 19-20.
`
`2
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`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
`
`101MontgomeryStreet,Suite1950
`
`SanFrancisco,CA94104
`
`LockeLordLLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 3 of 134
`
`6.
`
`Consequently, this action arises under the patent laws of the United States, namely 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, and 284-285, among others.
`
`7.
`
`Jurisdiction: This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
`
`and 1338(a).
`
`8.
`
`Intradistrict Assignment: Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-5(b), this case is properly
`
`assigned to the San Jose division.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant is subject to this Court’s specific personal jurisdiction pursuant to due
`
`process and/or the California Long Arm Statute, due at least to Defendant’s substantial business in
`
`this State and judicial district, including its engagement of Ascenda Law Group of 333 W. San
`
`Carlos Street, Suite 200, San Jose, California 95110 as counsel to acquire the Asserted Patents, see
`
`Assignment Reel/Frame No. 045469/0023 from Getner Foundation LLC to Vista Peak Ventures,
`
`LLC (attached hereto as Exhibit A), and, upon information and belief, authorizing that Firm’s filing
`
`of powers of attorney to act on behalf of Defendant before the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office with respect to at least some of the Asserted Patents after their acquisition.
`
`10.
`
`Defendant is also subject to this Court’s specific personal jurisdiction pursuant to due
`
`process and/or the California Long Arm Statute due at least to Defendant’s targeting of specific
`
`residents of this State and judicial district, including AUO USA, against whom Defendant seeks
`
`injunctive relief in its complaints filed in the Eastern District of Texas based upon its assertions that
`
`AUO USA both infringes the Asserted Patents and aids in AUO’s alleged infringement of the
`
`Asserted Patents. See Vista Peak Ventures, LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., Case Nos. 2:18-cv-00276-
`
`JRG, ¶¶ 8-9; 2:18-cv-00278-JRG, ¶¶ 8-9; and 2:18-cv-00279-JRG, ¶¶ 8-9. Had Defendant included
`
`AUO USA as a party defendant in its complaints against AUO, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c)(3) and 1400(b)
`
`would require those complaints to have been filed in this District. Defendant’s failure to name AUO
`
`USA as a party defendant in its complaints notwithstanding Defendant’s claim for injunctive relief
`
`against AUO USA for alleged infringement of the Asserted Patents is tantamount to depriving AUO
`
`USA of its procedural rights to defend such claims in the legally appropriate venue, namely, this
`
`District.
`
`11.
`
`Venue is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because this District is the
`
`3
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`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
`
`101MontgomeryStreet,Suite1950
`
`SanFrancisco,CA94104
`
`LockeLordLLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 4 of 134
`
`location where a substantial portion of the events at issue in this suit occurred.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`12.
`
`Each of the Asserted Patents was issued between July 27, 1999, and March 3, 2009,
`
`to NEC Corporation or its affiliates (collectively, “NEC”).
`
`13.
`
`Since at least 2001, AUO and AUO USA have been and continue to be engaged in
`
`the business of thin film transistor liquid crystal displays (“TFT-LCDs”) and other flat panel displays
`
`used in a wide variety of applications.
`
`14.
`
`Since at least 2003, NEC has been a customer of AUO, purchasing its TFT-LCD
`
`display products. See https://www.auo.com/en-global/New_Archive/detail/news_Product_20030120.
`
`15.
`
`Upon information and belief, NEC has been aware of the TFT-LCD technology of
`
`AUO that Defendant accuses of infringement in its complaints since at least 2003.
`
`16.
`
`NEC assigned the Asserted Patents to Getner Foundation LLC (“Getner”) in April
`
`2011. See Assignment Reel Frame No. 026312/0213 from NEC Corporation to Getner Foundation
`
`LLC (attached hereto as Exhibit B) and Assignment Reel Frame No. 026254/0400 from NEC
`
`Corporation to Getner Foundation LLC (attached hereto as Exhibit C). Getner assigned the Asserted
`
`Patents to Defendant in February 2018. See Exhibit A.
`
`17.
`
`For each Asserted Patent, Defendant has accused AUO of patent infringement under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by “making, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing those TFT-LCD panels,
`
`their components, and/or products containing same that incorporate the fundamental technologies
`
`covered by [one of the Asserted Patents], or by having [AUO USA] do the same.” See Vista Peak
`
`Ventures, LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., Case Nos. 2:18-cv-00276-JRG, ¶¶ 24, 36, 48, 59, 70, 82;
`
`2:18-cv-00278-JRG, ¶¶ 24, 35, 47, 58; and 2:18-cv-00279-JRG, ¶¶ 25, 36, 47.
`
`18.
`
`Defendant
`
`is seeking from the District Court in the Eastern District of Texas:
`
`(i) damages sustained as a result of the alleged infringements, including up to treble damages; and
`
`(ii) “[a] preliminary and permanent injunction against AUO, [AUO USA], or anyone acting on its
`
`behalf from making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing any products that infringe the
`
`Asserted Patents, and any other injunctive relief the Court deems just and equitable… .” See Vista
`
`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
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`101MontgomeryStreet,Suite1950
`
`SanFrancisco,CA94104
`
`LockeLordLLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 5 of 134
`
`Peak Ventures, LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., Case Nos. 2:18-cv-00276-JRG, ¶ 93; 2:18-cv-00278-
`
`JRG, ¶69; and 2:18-cv-00279-JRG, ¶ 57.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`
`NON-INFRINGEMENT OF EACH OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`19.
`
`AUO USA hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 18, above, as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`20.
`
`On July 10, 2018, AUO USA received notice of three separate lawsuits Defendant
`
`filed against AUO in which Defendant, inter alia, also accused AUO USA of engaging in conduct
`
`constituting direct and indirect infringement of the Asserted Patents in the United States and aiding
`
`AUO in such infringement.
`
`21.
`
`AUO USA denies that it has directly infringed any valid claim of the Asserted Patents
`
`and further denies that it has induced the infringement or contributed to the infringement of any valid
`
`claim of the Asserted Patents, either individually or in concert with AUO.
`
`22.
`
`By virtue of the foregoing, an actual and justifiable controversy has arisen and now
`
`exists between AUO USA and Defendant, within the jurisdiction of the Court, regarding whether
`
`AUO USA infringes one or more of the Asserted Patents.
`
`23.
`
`Declaratory relief is both appropriate and necessary in light of the conflicting
`
`positions of the parties. AUO USA desires a judicial determination of the parties’ respective rights
`
`and obligations in connection with each of the Asserted Patents.
`
`24.
`
`For the reasons set forth above, AUO USA respectfully requests that this Court
`
`declare that, for each claim in the Asserted Patents for which Defendant claims infringement by
`
`AUO USA, AUO USA has not directly infringed each one of the Asserted Patents, either literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, and has neither induced the infringement nor contributed to the
`
`infringement, of such claims either individually or in concert with AUO. Specifically, AUO USA
`
`respectfully requests that this Court issue a judicial declaration to the effect that (inter alia, without
`
`limitation) AUO USA’s:
`
`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
`
`5
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`101MontgomeryStreet,Suite1950
`
`SanFrancisco,CA94104
`
`LockeLordLLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 6 of 134
`
`• Use, importation, sales, and offers to sell TFT-LCD panels does not directly or
`indirectly infringe the ’947 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents;
`
`• Use, importation, sales, and offers to sell TFT-LCD panels does not directly or
`indirectly infringe the ’749 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents;
`
`• Use, importation, sales, and offers to sell TFT-LCD panels does not directly or
`indirectly infringe the ’093 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents;
`
`• Use, importation, sales, and offers to sell TFT-LCD panels does not directly or
`indirectly infringe the ’872 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents;
`
`• Use, importation, sales, and offers to sell TFT-LCD panels does not directly or
`indirectly infringe the ’196 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents;
`
`• Use, importation, sales, and offers to sell TFT-LCD panels does not directly or
`indirectly infringe the ’401 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents;
`
`• Use, importation, sales, and offers to sell TFT-LCD panels does not directly or
`indirectly infringe the ’474 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents;
`
`• Use, importation, sales, and offers to sell TFT-LCD panels does not directly or
`indirectly infringe the ’699 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents;
`
`• Use, importation, sales, and offers to sell TFT-LCD panels does not directly or
`indirectly infringe the ’673 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents;
`
`• Use, importation, sales, and offers to sell TFT-LCD panels does not directly or
`indirectly infringe the ’119 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents;
`
`• Use, importation, sales, and offers to sell TFT-LCD panels does not directly or
`indirectly infringe the ’643 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents;
`
`• Use, importation, sales, and offers to sell TFT-LCD panels does not directly or
`indirectly infringe the ’327 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents;
`
`• Use, importation, sales, and offers to sell TFT-LCD panels does not directly or
`indirectly infringe the ’970 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents;
`
`and
`
`6
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`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
`
`101MontgomeryStreet,Suite1950
`
`SanFrancisco,CA94104
`
`LockeLordLLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 7 of 134
`
`• Actions do not constitute inducement of infringement or contributory infringement of
`any claim in the Asserted Patents.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`
`NO WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT OF EACH OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`25.
`
`AUO USA hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 18, above, as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`26.
`
`On July 10, 2018, AUO USA received notice of three separate lawsuits Defendant
`
`filed against AUO in which Defendant, inter alia, accused AUO USA of engaging in alleged willful
`
`infringement of the Asserted Patents in the United States.
`
`Vista Peak Ventures, LLC v. AU
`
`Optronics Corp., Case Nos. 2:18-cv-00276-JRG, ¶¶ 29, 41, 52, 63, 75, 87; 2:18-cv-00278-JRG, ¶¶
`
`28, 40, 51, 63; and 2:18-cv-00279-JRG, ¶¶ 29, 40, 51.
`
`27.
`
`AUO USA denies that it infringes, directly or indirectly, any valid claim of the
`
`Asserted Patents.
`
`28.
`
`By virtue of the foregoing, an actual and justifiable controversy has arisen and now
`
`exists between AUO USA and Defendant, within the jurisdiction of the Court, regarding whether
`
`AUO USA engaged in any course of conduct or possessed the requisite intent to willfully infringe
`
`one or more of the Asserted Patents.
`
`29.
`
`Declaratory relief is both appropriate and necessary in light of the conflicting
`
`positions of the parties. AUO USA desires a judicial determination of the parties’ respective rights
`
`and obligations in connection with each of the Asserted Patents.
`
`30.
`
`For the reasons set forth above, AUO USA respectfully requests that this Court
`
`declare that, for each claim in the Asserted Patents for which Defendant claims infringement by
`
`AUO USA, AUO USA does not willfully infringe such claims. Specifically, AUO USA respectfully
`
`requests that this Court issue a judicial declaration to the effect that (inter alia, without limitation)
`
`AUO USA’s:
`
`• Use, importation, sales, and offers to sell TFT-LCD panels does not willfully infringe
`the ’947 patent;
`
`7
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`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
`
`101MontgomeryStreet,Suite1950
`
`SanFrancisco,CA94104
`
`LockeLordLLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 8 of 134
`
`• Use, importation, sales, and offers to sell TFT-LCD panels does not willfully infringe
`the ’749 patent;
`
`• Use, importation, sales, and offers to sell TFT-LCD panels does not willfully infringe
`the ’093 patent;
`
`• Use, importation, sales, and offers to sell TFT-LCD panels does not willfully infringe
`the ’872 patent;
`
`• Use, importation, sales, and offers to sell TFT-LCD panels does not willfully infringe
`the ’196 patent;
`
`• Use, importation, sales, and offers to sell TFT-LCD panels does not willfully infringe
`the ’401 patent;
`
`• Use, importation, sales, and offers to sell TFT-LCD panels does not willfully infringe
`the ’474 patent;
`
`• Use, importation, sales, and offers to sell TFT-LCD panels does not willfully infringe
`the ’699 patent;
`
`• Use, importation, sales, and offers to sell TFT-LCD panels does not willfully infringe
`the ’673 patent;
`
`• Use, importation, sales, and offers to sell TFT-LCD panels does not willfully infringe
`the ’119 patent;
`
`• Use, importation, sales, and offers to sell TFT-LCD panels does not willfully infringe
`the ’643 patent;
`
`• Use, importation, sales, and offers to sell TFT-LCD panels does not willfully infringe
`the ’327 patent; and
`
`• Use, importation, sales, and offers to sell TFT-LCD panels does not willfully infringe
`the ’970 patent.
`
`8
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`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
`
`101MontgomeryStreet,Suite1950
`
`SanFrancisco,CA94104
`
`LockeLordLLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 9 of 134
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION:
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`
`INVALIDITY OF EACH OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`31.
`
`AUO USA hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 18, above, as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`32.
`
`On July 10, 2018, AUO USA received notice of three separate lawsuits Defendant
`
`filed against AUO in which Defendant accused AUO USA of engaging in alleged infringement of
`
`the Asserted Patents. Vista Peak Ventures, LLC v. AU Optronics Corp., Case Nos. 2:18-cv-00276-
`
`JRG, ¶¶ 29, 41, 52, 63, 75, 87; 2:18-cv-00278-JRG, ¶¶ 28, 40, 51, 63; and 2:18-cv-00279-JRG, ¶¶
`
`29, 40, 51.
`
`33.
`
`AUO USA denies that it infringes, directly or indirectly, any valid claim of the
`
`Asserted Patents.
`
`34.
`
`By virtue of the foregoing, an actual and justifiable controversy has arisen and now
`
`exists between AUO USA and Defendant, within the jurisdiction of the Court, regarding whether
`
`each claim of the Asserted Patents is valid.
`
`35.
`
`Declaratory relief is both appropriate and necessary in light of the conflicting
`
`positions of the parties. AUO USA desires a judicial determination of the parties’ respective rights
`
`and obligations in connection with the validity of every claim in each of the Asserted Patents.
`
`36.
`
`For the reasons set forth above, AUO USA respectfully requests that this Court
`
`declare that each claim in the Asserted Patents for which Defendant claims infringement by AUO
`
`USA is invalid for failing to satisfy all of the requirements and conditions for patentability specified
`
`in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112. AUO USA respectfully requests that this Court issue a
`
`judicial declaration to the effect that (inter alia, without limitation):
`
`• Any claim of the ’947 patent that Defendant asserts AUO USA infringes in its
`complaints is invalid under one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112;
`
`• Any claim of the ’749 patent that Defendant asserts AUO USA infringes in its
`complaints is invalid under one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112;
`
`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
`
`9
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`101MontgomeryStreet,Suite1950
`
`SanFrancisco,CA94104
`
`LockeLordLLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 10 of 134
`
`• Any claim of the ’093 patent that Defendant asserts AUO USA infringes in its
`complaints is invalid under one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112;
`
`• Any claim of the ’872 patent that Defendant asserts AUO USA infringes in its
`complaints is invalid under one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112;
`
`• Any claim of the ’196 patent that Defendant asserts AUO USA infringes in its
`complaints is invalid under one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112;
`
`• Any claim of the ’401 patent that Defendant asserts AUO USA infringes in its
`complaints is invalid under one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112;
`
`• Any claim of the ’474 patent that Defendant asserts AUO USA infringes in its
`complaints is invalid under one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112;
`
`• Any claim of the ’699 patent that Defendant asserts AUO USA infringes in its
`complaints is invalid under one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112;
`
`• Any claim of the ’673 patent that Defendant asserts AUO USA infringes in its
`complaints is invalid under one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112;
`
`• Any claim of the ’119 patent that Defendant asserts AUO USA infringes in its
`complaints is invalid under one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112;
`
`• Any claim of the ’643 patent that Defendant asserts AUO USA infringes in its
`complaints is invalid under one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112;
`
`• Any claim of the ’327 patent that Defendant asserts AUO USA infringes in its
`complaints is invalid under one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112; and
`
`• Any claim of the ’970 patent that Defendant asserts AUO USA infringes in its
`complaints is invalid under one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RELIEF UNDER THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`IS BARRED BY EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL
`
`37.
`
`AUO USA hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 18, above, as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`38.
`
`The Asserted Patents issued to NEC before and after 2003.
`
`10
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`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
`
`101MontgomeryStreet,Suite1950
`
`SanFrancisco,CA94104
`
`LockeLordLLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 11 of 134
`
`39.
`
`Upon information and belief, NEC has been aware of various AUO display
`
`technologies since at least 2003 and aware of the TFT-LCD technology accused of infringement by
`
`Defendant in its complaints since around that same time.
`
`40.
`
`Neither AUO nor AUO USA has been accused of infringing the Asserted Patents
`
`until February 2018, years after the time they began selling the products accused of infringing those
`
`patents and years after NEC, the original owner of the Asserted Patents, had been made aware of the
`
`accused AUO display technologies.
`
`41.
`
`As a result of the inexcusable delay in bringing suit against AUO and AUO USA for
`
`alleged infringement of the Asserted Patents, and AUO and AUO USA’s detrimental reliance on
`
`NEC having not brought any infringement action for the Asserted Patents, Defendant should be
`
`estopped from obtaining relief for any alleged patent infringement.
`
`42.
`
`Under the circumstances, it would be against equity and good conscience to permit
`
`Defendant to obtain any relief under the Asserted Patents, including any damages, including
`
`enhanced damages, or injunctions based on alleged infringements of the same.
`
`WHEREFORE, AUO USA prays that the Court:
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`1.
`
`Determine and declare the parties’ respective rights and obligations under the
`
`Asserted Patents.
`
`2.
`
`Find and declare that AUO USA does not infringe each of the Asserted Patents,
`
`directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and in no event willfully.
`
`3.
`
`Find and declare that each claim asserted by Defendant for each Asserted Patent is
`
`invalid.
`
`4.
`
`Find and declare that Defendant is equitably estopped from any relief under the
`
`Asserted Patents.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Award AUO USA its reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in this matter.
`
`Award AUO USA such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper,
`
`premises considered.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`11
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`101MontgomeryStreet,Suite1950
`
`SanFrancisco,CA94104
`
`LockeLordLLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 12 of 134
`
`Dated: July 27, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`LOCKE LORD LLP
`
`By: /s/ Regina J. McClendon
`Regina J. McClendon
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Pursuant
`
`to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38, Plaintiff AU Optronics Corporation America hereby
`
`demands a trial by jury.
`Dated: July 27, 2018
`
`LOCKE LORD LLP
`
`By: /s/ Regina J. McClendon
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA
`
`12
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
`
`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
`
`101MontgomeryStreet,Suite1950
`
`SanFrancisco,CA94104
`
`LockeLordLLP
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 13 of 134
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 14 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 1 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 15 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 2 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 16 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 3 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 17 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 4 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 18 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 5 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 19 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 6 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 20 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 7 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 21 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 8 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 22 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 9 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 23 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 10 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 24 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 11 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 25 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 12 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 26 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 13 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 27 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 14 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 28 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 15 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 29 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 16 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 30 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 17 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 31 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 18 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 32 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 19 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 33 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 20 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 34 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 21 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 35 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 22 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 36 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 23 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 37 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 24 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 38 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 25 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 39 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 26 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 40 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 27 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 41 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 28 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 42 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 29 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 43 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 30 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 44 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 31 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 45 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 32 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 46 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 33 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 47 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 34 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 48 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 35 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 49 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 36 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 50 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 37 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 51 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 38 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 52 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 39 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 53 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 40 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 54 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 41 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 55 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 42 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 56 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 43 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 57 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 44 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 58 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 45 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 59 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 46 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 60 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 47 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 61 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 48 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 62 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 49 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 63 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 50 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 64 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 51 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 65 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 52 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 66 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 53 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 67 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 54 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 68 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 55 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 69 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 56 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 70 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 57 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 71 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 58 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 72 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 59 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 73 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 60 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 74 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 61 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 75 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 62 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 76 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 63 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 77 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 64 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 78 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 65 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 79 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 66 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 80 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 67 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 81 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 68 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 82 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 69 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 83 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 70 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 84 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 71 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 85 of 134
`
`Exhibit A, Page 72 of 87
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-04574 Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 86 of 134
`
`Exh