Case 1:18-cv-00806-MN Document 1 Filed 05/29/18 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC.
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`CYPRESS LAKE SOFTWARE, INC.
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. ________________
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`NON-INFRINGEMENT
`
`LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. (“LGEMU”) for its Complaint against Cypress
`
`Lake Software, Inc. (“Cypress”) alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for declaratory judgments of non-infringement under the patent
`
`laws of the United States, Title 35, United States Code, and the Federal Declaratory Judgment
`
`Act, Title 28, United States Code, Sections 2201 and 2202.
`
`RELATED CASE
`
`2.
`
`This complaint seeks relief with respect to the same patents at issue in Cypress
`
`Lake Software, Inc. v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., 17-1133-GMS, filed on August 11, 2017.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`3.
`
`LGEMU is a California corporation having a principal place of business at 1000
`
`Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632.
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Cypress is a Delaware corporation having a principal
`
`place of business at 318 W. Dogwood Street, Woodville, TX 75979.
`
`{01328189;v1 }
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00806-MN Document 1 Filed 05/29/18 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 2
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a)
`
`and (b), as well as 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Cypress because, on information and
`
`belief, Cypress is incorporated in the State of Delaware. Cypress has also filed and has pursued a
`
`patent infringement case here. See Cypress Lake Software, Inc. v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.,
`
`17-1133-GMS (Aug. 11, 2017).
`
`7.
`
`At least because, on information and belief, Cypress is incorporated in the State of
`
`Delaware, venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1391(c), and to the
`
`extent required 1400(b).
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`8.
`
`On August 11, 2017, Cypress filed a complaint accusing LG Electronics U.S.A.,
`
`Inc. (“LGEUS”) of infringement of ten patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,422,858 (“the ’858 patent”);
`
`8,661,361 (“the ’361 patent”); 8,781,299 (“the ’299 patent”); 8,787,731 (“the ’731 patent”);
`
`8,902,054 (“the ’054 patent”); 8,983,264 (“the ’264 patent”); 9,195,765 (“the ’765 patent”);
`
`9,423,923 (“the ’923 patent”); 9,423,938 (“the ’938 patent”); and 9,423,954 (“the ’954 patent”),
`
`attached herein as Exhibits A-J. Shortly thereafter, LGEUS moved to dismiss the complaint for
`
`failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and Cypress (without conferring with
`
`LGEUS), filed its first amended complaint on December 12, 2017, asserting three additional
`
`patents and bringing the total number of asserted patents to thirteen. The three additional patents
`
`are U.S. Patent Nos. 9,817,558 (“the ’558 patent”), 9,823,838 (“the ’838 patent”), and 9,841,878
`
`(“the ’878 patent”), attached herein as Exhibits K-M. In response, LGEUS again moved to
`
`dismiss, because Cypress’s amended complaint did not address the deficiencies in the original
`
`{01328189;v1 }
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00806-MN Document 1 Filed 05/29/18 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 3
`
`
`
`complaint and, in fact, raised additional deficiencies. LGEUS filed its second motion to dismiss
`
`on January 26, 2018. Rather than meet and confer with LGEUS to address the numerous
`
`deficiencies and issues with the original and first amended complaint, Cypress opposed
`
`LGEUS’s motion based in part on its intent to seek leave to file yet another amended complaint.
`
`On February 21, 2018, Cypress filed a motion for leave to amend its complaint a second time.
`
`LGEUS opposed Cypress’s motion for leave in part due to Cypress’s failure to comply with the
`
`meet-and-confer requirements and in part because the proposed second amended complaint is
`
`still deficient.
`
`9.
`
`In addition to the issues and deficiencies that LGEUS raised in its motions to
`
`dismiss and its opposition to Cypress’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint,
`
`Cypress’s original, amended, and proposed second amended complaint all assert vague
`
`infringement allegations. Cypress asserts a total of thirteen patents, some of which have over 200
`
`claims, and while Cypress identifies an exemplary claim from each of the asserted patents, it
`
`fails to provide sufficient detail to show how the accused LG devices map to the claims to
`
`support its infringement allegations.
`
`10.
`
`In its amended complaint, for example, Cypress identified the following accused
`
`LG smartphone and tablet device models that run on the Android operating system: Access,
`
`Aristo, Classic, Escape 3, Escape 3, Fiesta, Fortune, Grace, G4, G5, G6, G Pad, K3, K4, K7, K8,
`
`K10, K20, Nexus 5X, Nexus 6P, Optimus Zone 3, Phoenix 2, Phoenix 3, premier, Rebel, Rebel
`
`2, Risio, Risio 2, Spree, Stylo, Stylo 2, Stylo 3, Treasure, Tribute 5, Tribute HD, V20, XCharge,
`
`X Power, and X Venture (hereinafter “Accused LG Products”). LGEMU imports, offers for sale,
`
`and sells in the U.S. each of these accused LG smartphone and tablet devices.
`
`{01328189;v1 }
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00806-MN Document 1 Filed 05/29/18 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 4
`
`
`
`11.
`
`Cypress and LGEUS were also engaged in a prior lawsuit involving LG-branded
`
`products running on Windows operating system and some of the same patents named in this
`
`complaint. Cypress sought to expand the scope of that lawsuit to include smartphone and tablet
`
`devices that run on the Android operating system. In response, LGEUS informed counsel for
`
`Cypress that LGEUS’s business does not involve smartphones, and LGEMU is relevant to the
`
`smartphone business. LGEUS even suggested that LGEMU be carved out from the prior lawsuit
`
`or that an amended complaint be filed to add LGEMU. Cypress’s counsel responded by
`
`confirming that the non-Microsoft products were not a part of that action.
`
`12.
`
`Because LGEUS informed Cypress that LGEMU is the party responsible for
`
`importing, offering for sale, and selling within the U.S. the Accused LG Products, and because
`
`Cypress has filed suit against LGEUS on those very products, LGEMU has reasonable
`
`apprehension of being sued for infringement of the patents Cypress has asserted against LGEUS.
`
`COUNT ONE:
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,422,858
`
`13.
`
`LGEMU realleges and incorporates by reference each of paragraphs 1-11 above,
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`14.
`
`In Cypress’s amended complaint of December 17, 2017, Cypress alleges that the
`
`Accused LG Products infringe claim 14 of the ’858 patent. While Cypress identifies this claim as
`
`allegedly infringed, it fails to provide sufficient detail to show how the Accused LG Products
`
`map to this asserted claim (or any other claim) to support its infringement allegations. Moreover,
`
`the Accused LG Products do not meet the limitations of the asserted claim. For example, and by
`
`no means limiting, the Accused LG Products do not practice the requirement of “in response to
`
`determining the first media player does not have first presentation focus, indicating that the first
`
`{01328189;v1 }
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00806-MN Document 1 Filed 05/29/18 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 5
`
`
`
`media player is not allowed to play the first media stream,” as recited by the asserted claim of the
`
`’858 patent. The Accused Products therefore do not infringe the claims of the ’858 patent.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`LGEMU does not infringe and has not infringed the claims of the ’858 patent.
`
`LGEMU is entitled to a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 that
`
`the Accused LG Products and LGEMU do not infringe the claims of the ’858 patent.
`
`COUNT TWO:
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,661,361
`
`17.
`
`LGEMU realleges and incorporates by reference each of paragraphs 1-16 above,
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`18.
`
`In Cypress’s amended complaint of December 17, 2017, Cypress alleges that the
`
`Accused LG Products infringe claim 199 of the ’361 patent. While Cypress identifies this claim
`
`as allegedly infringed, it fails to provide sufficient detail to show how the Accused LG Products
`
`map to this asserted claim (or any other claim) to support its infringement allegations. Moreover,
`
`the Accused LG Products do not meet the limitations of the asserted claim. For example, and by
`
`no means limiting, the Accused LG Products do not practice the requirement of “code for
`
`presenting a first navigation control, in a first navigation region determined based on the first
`
`application region, for navigating to a second visual component, of a second application in the
`
`plurality, in a second application region in the presentation space, wherein the first navigation
`
`region is determined based on a location of at least one of the first visual component, a parent
`
`visual component of the first visual component, and a child visual component of the first visual
`
`component,” as recited by the asserted claim of the ’361 patent. The Accused LG Products
`
`therefore do not infringe the claims of the ’361 patent.
`
`19.
`
`LGEMU does not infringe and has not infringed the claims of the ’361 patent.
`
`{01328189;v1 }
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00806-MN Document 1 Filed 05/29/18 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 6
`
`
`
`20.
`
`LGEMU is entitled to a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 that
`
`the Accused LG Products and LGEMU do not infringe the claims of the ’361 patent.
`
`COUNT THREE:
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,781,299
`
`21.
`
`LGEMU realleges and incorporates by reference each of paragraphs 1-20 above,
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`22.
`
`In Cypress’s amended complaint of December 17, 2017, Cypress alleges that the
`
`Accused LG Products infringe claim 1 of the ’299 patent. While Cypress identifies this claim as
`
`allegedly infringed, it fails to provide sufficient detail to show how the Accused LG Products
`
`map to this asserted claim (or any other claim) to support its infringement allegations. Moreover,
`
`the Accused LG Products do not meet the limitations of the asserted claim. For example, and by
`
`no means limiting, the Accused LG Products do not practice the requirement of “code for
`
`indicating, if both the first presentation device and the second presentation device are to be
`
`utilized for presentation based on the execution environment presentation focus information, that
`
`the first media player is allowed to play the first media stream via both the first presentation
`
`device and the second presentation device,” as recited by the asserted claim of the ’299 patent.
`
`The Accused LG Products therefore do not infringe the claims of the ’299 patent.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`LGEMU does not infringe and has not infringed the claims of the ’299 patent.
`
`LGEMU is entitled to a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 that
`
`the Accused LG Products and LGEMU do not infringe the claims of the ’299 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`{01328189;v1 }
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00806-MN Document 1 Filed 05/29/18 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 7
`
`
`
`COUNT FOUR:
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,787,731
`
`25.
`
`LGEMU realleges and incorporates by reference each of paragraphs 1-24 above,
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`26.
`
`In Cypress’s amended complaint of December 17, 2017, Cypress alleges that the
`
`Accused LG Products infringe claim 1 of the ’731 patent. While Cypress identifies this claim as
`
`allegedly infringed, it fails to provide sufficient detail to show how the Accused LG Products
`
`map to this asserted claim (or any other claim) to support its infringement allegations. Moreover,
`
`the Accused LG Products do not meet the limitations of the asserted claim. For example, and by
`
`no means limiting, the Accused LG Products do not practice the requirement of “code for
`
`indicating, if the first media player has first presentation focus, that the first media player is
`
`allowed to play the first media stream via the first presentation device,” as recited by the asserted
`
`claim of the ’731 patent. The Accused LG Products therefore do not infringe the claims of the
`
`’731 patent.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`LGEMU does not infringe and has not infringed the claims of the ’731 patent.
`
`LGEMU is entitled to a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 that
`
`the Accused LG Products and LGEMU do not infringe the claims of the ’731 patent.
`
`COUNT FIVE:
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,902,054
`
`29.
`
`LGEMU realleges and incorporates by reference each of paragraphs 1-28 above,
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`30.
`
`In Cypress’s amended complaint of December 17, 2017, Cypress alleges that the
`
`Accused LG Products infringe claim 1 of the ’054 patent. While Cypress identifies this claim as
`
`{01328189;v1 }
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00806-MN Document 1 Filed 05/29/18 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 8
`
`
`
`allegedly infringed, it fails to provide sufficient detail to show how the Accused LG Products
`
`map to this asserted claim (or any other claim) to support its infringement allegations. Moreover,
`
`the Accused LG Products do not meet the limitations of the asserted claim. For example, and by
`
`no means limiting as LGEUS informed Cypress through its motion to dismiss in the related
`
`action, the Accused LG Products do not come preinstalled with the functionality Cypress
`
`contends practices the asserted claim of the ’054 patent. See Cypress Lake Software, Inc. v. LG
`
`Electronics U.S.A., Inc., 1:17-cv-01133-GMS, D.I. 20, 21. The Accused LG Products therefore
`
`do not infringe the claims of the ’054 patent.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`LGEMU does not infringe and has not infringed the claims of the ’054 patent.
`
`LGEMU is entitled to a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 that
`
`the Accused LG Products and LGEMU do not infringe the claims of the ’054 patent.
`
`COUNT SIX:
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,983,264
`
`33.
`
`LGEMU realleges and incorporates by reference each of paragraphs 1-32 above,
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`34.
`
`In Cypress’s amended complaint of December 17, 2017, Cypress alleges that the
`
`Accused LG Products infringe claim 61 of the ’264 patent. While Cypress identifies this claim as
`
`allegedly infringed, it fails to provide sufficient detail to show how the Accused LG Products
`
`map to this claim (or any other claim) to support its infringement allegations. Moreover, the
`
`Accused LG Products do not meet the limitations of the asserted claim. For example, and by no
`
`means limiting, the Accused LG Products do not practice the requirement of “code for
`
`indicating, if the first presentation device is to be utilized for presentation based on the
`
`presentation focus information, that the first media stream is allowed to be presented via the first
`
`{01328189;v1 }
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00806-MN Document 1 Filed 05/29/18 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 9
`
`
`
`presentation device,” as recited by the asserted claim of the ’264 patent. The Accused LG
`
`Products therefore do not infringe the claims of the ’264 patent.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`LGEMU does not infringe and has not infringed the claims of the ’264 patent.
`
`LGEMU is entitled to a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 that
`
`the Accused LG Products and LGEMU do not infringe the claims of the ’264 patent.
`
`COUNT SEVEN:
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,195,765
`
`37.
`
`LGEMU realleges and incorporates by reference each of paragraphs 1-36 above,
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`38.
`
`In Cypress’s amended complaint of December 17, 2017, Cypress alleges that the
`
`Accused LG Products infringe claim 1 of the ’765 patent. While Cypress identifies this claim as
`
`allegedly infringed, it fails to provide sufficient detail to show how the Accused LG Products
`
`map to this asserted claim (or to any other claim) to support its infringement allegations.
`
`Moreover, the Accused LG Products do not meet the limitations of the asserted claim. For
`
`example, and by no means limiting, as LGEUS informed Cypress through its motion to dismiss
`
`in the related action, the Accused LG Products do not come preinstalled with the functionality
`
`Cypress contends practices the asserted claim of the ’765 patent. See Cypress Lake Software, Inc.
`
`v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., 1:17-cv-01133-GMS, D.I. 20, 21. The Accused LG Products
`
`therefore do not infringe the claims of the ’765 patent.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`LGEMU does not infringe and has not infringed the claims of the ’765 patent.
`
`LGEMU is entitled to a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 that
`
`the Accused LG Products and LGEMU do not infringe the claims of the ’765 patent.
`
`{01328189;v1 }
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00806-MN Document 1 Filed 05/29/18 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 10
`
`
`
`COUNT EIGHT:
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,923
`
`41.
`
`LGEMU realleges and incorporates by reference each of paragraphs 1-40 above,
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`42.
`
`In Cypress’s amended complaint of December 17, 2017, Cypress alleges that the
`
`Accused LG Products infringe claim 4 of the ’923 patent. While Cypress identifies this claim as
`
`allegedly infringed, it fails to provide sufficient detail to show how the Accused LG Products
`
`map to this asserted claim (or to any other claim) to support its infringement allegations.
`
`Moreover, the Accused LG Products do not meet the limitations of the asserted claim. For
`
`example, and by no means limiting, the Accused LG Products do not practice the requirement of
`
`“utilize the display to display the menu in a second location with respect to the location of the
`
`first window, if the first user input takes the form of a second input and is predetermined to cause
`
`menu display, where the menu in the second location is outside the first window and includes the
`
`plurality of elements corresponding to the plurality of applications that are operating except the
`
`first application,” as recited by the asserted claim of the ’923 patent. The Accused LG Products
`
`therefore do not infringe the claims of the ’923 patent.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`LGEMU does not infringe and has not infringed the claims of the ’923 patent.
`
`LGEMU is entitled to a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 that
`
`the Accused LG Products and LGEMU do not infringe the claims of the ’923 patent.
`
`COUNT NINE:
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,938
`
`45.
`
`LGEMU realleges and incorporates by reference each of paragraphs 1-44 above,
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`{01328189;v1 }
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00806-MN Document 1 Filed 05/29/18 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 11
`
`
`
`46.
`
`In Cypress’s amended complaint of December 17, 2017, Cypress alleges that the
`
`Accused LG Products infringe claim 1 of the ’938 patent. While Cypress identifies this claim as
`
`allegedly infringed, it fails to provide sufficient detail to show how the Accused LG Products
`
`map to this asserted claim (or any other claims) to support its infringement allegations.
`
`Moreover, the Accused LG Products do not meet the limitations of the asserted claim. For
`
`example, and by no means limiting, the Accused LG Products do not practice the requirement of
`
`“utilize the display to display the menu in a second location with respect to the location of the
`
`first window, if it is determined that the first user input takes the form of the second input and is
`
`predetermined to cause menu display, where the menu in the second location is outside the first
`
`window and includes the plurality of elements corresponding to the plurality of applications that
`
`are operating except the first application since the first window is already displayed,” as recited
`
`by the asserted claim of the ’938 patent. The Accused LG Products therefore do not infringe the
`
`claims of the ’938 patent.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`LGEMU does not infringe and has not infringed the claims of the ’938 patent.
`
`LGEMU is entitled to a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 that
`
`the Accused LG Products and LGEMU do not infringe the claims of the ’938 patent.
`
`COUNT TEN:
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,423,954
`
`49.
`
`LGEMU realleges and incorporates by reference each of paragraphs 1-48 above,
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`50.
`
`In Cypress’s amended complaint of December 17, 2017, Cypress alleges that the
`
`Accused LG Products infringe claim 14 of the ’954 patent. While Cypress identifies this claim as
`
`allegedly infringed, it fails to provide sufficient detail to show how the Accused LG Products
`
`{01328189;v1 }
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00806-MN Document 1 Filed 05/29/18 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 12
`
`
`
`map to this asserted claim (or any other claims) to support its infringement allegations.
`
`Moreover, the Accused LG Products do not meet the limitations of the asserted claim. For
`
`example, and by no means limiting, the Accused LG Products do not practice the requirement of
`
`“in response to the third user input, change, utilizing the touchscreen, the presentation of the first
`
`window and the second window, such that a first size of the first window and a second size of the
`
`second window are both changed, and the second window remains adjacent to and not
`
`overlapping with respect to the first window,” as recited by the asserted claim of the ’954 patent.
`
`The Accused LG Products therefore do not infringe the claims of the ’954 patent.
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`LGEMU does not infringe and has not infringed the claims of the ’954 patent.
`
`LGEMU is entitled to a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 that
`
`the Accused LG Products and LGEMU do not infringe the claims of the ’954 patent.
`
`COUNT ELEVEN:
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,817,558
`
`53.
`
`LGEMU realleges and incorporates by reference each of paragraphs 1-52 above,
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`54.
`
`In Cypress’s amended complaint of December 17, 2017, Cypress alleges that the
`
`Accused LG Products infringe claim 1 of the ’558 patent. While Cypress identifies this claim as
`
`allegedly infringed, it fails to provide sufficient detail to show how the Accused LG Products
`
`map to this asserted claim (or any other claim) to support its infringement allegations. Moreover,
`
`the Accused LG Products do not meet the limitations of the asserted claim. For example, and by
`
`no means limiting, the Accused LG Products do not practice the requirement of “indicate, if the
`
`first presentation device is to be utilized for presentation based on the presentation focus
`
`information, that the first media stream is allowed to be presented via the first presentation
`
`{01328189;v1 }
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00806-MN Document 1 Filed 05/29/18 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 13
`
`
`
`device,” as recited by the asserted claim of the ’558 patent. The Accused LG Products therefore
`
`do not infringe the claims of the ’558 patent.
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`LGEMU does not infringe and has not infringed the claims of the ’558 patent.
`
`LGEMU is entitled to a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 that
`
`the Accused LG Products and LGEMU do not infringe the claims of the ’558 patent.
`
`COUNT TWELVE:
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,823,838
`
`57.
`
`LGEMU realleges and incorporates by reference each of paragraphs 1-56 above,
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`58.
`
`In Cypress’s amended complaint of December 17, 2017, Cypress alleges that the
`
`Accused LG Products infringe claim 11 of the ’838 patent. While Cypress identifies this claim as
`
`allegedly infringed, it fails to provide sufficient detail to show how the Accused LG Products
`
`map to this asserted claim (or any other claim) to support its infringement allegations. Moreover,
`
`the Accused LG Products do not meet the limitations of the asserted claim. For example, and by
`
`no means limiting, the Accused LG Products do not practice the requirement of “said screen
`
`operatively coupled to the at least one processor configured to present, utilizing the at least one
`
`processor, an application window representation group including a plurality of application
`
`window representations including a second application window representation associated with
`
`the second application and a third application window representation associated with the third
`
`application,” as recited by the asserted claim of the ’838 patent. The Accused LG Products
`
`therefore do not infringe the claims of the ’838 patent.
`
`
`1 While the amended complaint identifies claim 21, the claim language provided in the amended
`complaint is that of claim 1.
`
`{01328189;v1 }
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00806-MN Document 1 Filed 05/29/18 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 14
`
`
`
`59.
`
`60.
`
`LGEMU does not infringe and has not infringed the claims of the ’838 patent.
`
`LGEMU is entitled to a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 that
`
`the Accused LG Products and LGEMU do not infringe the claims of the ’838 patent.
`
`COUNT THIRTEEN:
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,841,878
`
`61.
`
`LGEMU realleges and incorporates by reference each of paragraphs 1-60 above,
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`62.
`
`In Cypress’s amended complaint of December 17, 2017, Cypress alleges that the
`
`Accused LG Products infringe claim 1 of the ’878 patent. While Cypress identifies this claim as
`
`allegedly infringed, it fails to provide sufficient detail to show how the Accused LG Products
`
`map to this asserted claim (or any other claim) to support its infringement allegations. Moreover,
`
`the Accused LG Products do not meet the limitations of the asserted claim. For example, and by
`
`no means limiting, the Accused LG Products do not practice the requirement of “in response to
`
`the detection of the first user input, present, utilizing the at least one processor and the display, a
`
`representation of a second window of the second application in a menu, in a particular region of
`
`the presentation space of the display, for displaying the second window of the second application
`
`in the presentation space of the display in response to a detection of a second user input in
`
`connection with the representation of the second window, the particular region: located in a first
`
`location adjacent to a second location of the first window,,” as recited by the asserted claim of
`
`the ’878 patent. The Accused LG Products therefore do not infringe the claims of the ’878
`
`patent.
`
`63.
`
`LGEMU does not infringe and has not infringed the claims of the ’878 patent.
`
`{01328189;v1 }
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00806-MN Document 1 Filed 05/29/18 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 15
`
`
`
`64.
`
`LGEMU is entitled to a declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 that
`
`the Accused LG Products and LGEMU do not infringe the claims of the ’878 patent.
`
`
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`A. WHEREFORE, LGEMU requests that the Court enter judgment in their favor against
`
`Cypress as follows:
`
`B. Declare that the Accused LG Products do not meet the limitations of any claim of the
`
`’858, ’361, ’299, ’731, ’054, ’264, ’765, ’923, ’938, ’954, ’558, ’838, and ’878 patents.
`
`C. Declare that LGEMU has not infringed and is not infringing, jointly, individually, or
`
`otherwise, any claim of the ’858, ’361, ’299, ’731, ’054, ’264, ’765, ’923, ’938, ’954,
`
`’558, ’838, and ’878 patents.
`
`D. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and/or other applicable laws, find that this an exceptional
`
`case and award LGEMU its attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with this action;
`
`E. Award LGEMU its cost of suit incurred herein;
`
`F. Grant LGEMU any such other and additional relief as this Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`{01328189;v1 }
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00806-MN Document 1 Filed 05/29/18 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ASHBY & GEDDES
`
`/s/ John G. Day
`
`
`
`John G. Day (#2403)
`Andrew E. Mayo (#5207)
`500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor
`P.O. Box 1150
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 654-1888
`jday@ashbygeddes.com
`amayo@ashbygeddes.com
`
`Attorney for LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Parmanand K. Sharma
`Cecilia Sanabria
`Charles E. Geary Jr.
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`(202) 408-4000
`
`Kara A. Specht
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER LLP
`271 17th Street, NW, Suite 1400
`Atlanta, GA 30363-6209
`(404) 653-6400
`
`Dated May 29, 2018
`
`
`{01328189;v1 }
`
`16
`
`