Case 1:20-cv-01483-UNA Document 1 Filed 11/03/20 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. ________
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`))))))))))
`
`
`)
`)
`
`
`ARENDI S.A.R.L.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC. and
`LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Arendi S.A.R.L. (“Arendi”) brings this action for infringement of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,917,843 (“the ’843 Patent”) under 35 U.S.C. §271 against Defendants LG Electronics, Inc. and
`
`LG Electronics USA, Inc. (collectively, “LG” or “Defendants”), demands a jury trial, and alleges:
`
`Related Actions
`
`1.
`
`This case is related to the following cases currently pending before Chief Judge
`
`Stark in this District:
`
` Arendi S.A.R.L v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., Case No. 12-1595-LPS
`
` Arendi S.A.R.L v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 12-1596-LPS
`
` Arendi S.A.R.L v. Blackberry Limited et al., Case No. 12-1597-LPS
`
` Arendi S.A.R.L v. HTC Corp., Case No. 12-1600-LPS
`
` Arendi S.A.R.L v. Motorola Mobility LLC, Case No. 12-1601-LPS
`
` Arendi S.A.R.L v. Sony Mobile Communications (USA) et al., Case No. 12-1602-
`LPS
` Arendi S.A.R.L v. Google LLC, Case No. 13-919-LPS
`
` Arendi v. Oath Inc., Case No. 13-920-LPS
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01483-UNA Document 1 Filed 11/03/20 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 2
`
`2.
`
`This case is related to the following cases that were pending before Chief Judge
`
`Stark in this District but have since been dismissed:
`
` Arendi S.A.R.L v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD et al., Case No. 12-1598-LPS
`
` Arendi S.A.R.L v. Microsoft Mobile (f/k/a Nokia Inc.), Case No. 12-1599-LPS
`
`Parties
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Arendi is a Société à responsabilité limitée organized and existing under
`
`the law of Luxembourg with its principle place of business in Luxembourg.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant LG Electronics, Inc. (“LGE”) is a South Korean corporation with its
`
`principle place of business of LG Twin Towers, 20 Yeouido-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul,
`
`Republic of Korea 150-721.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant LG Electronics USA, Inc. (“LG USA”) is a wholly owned subsidiary of
`
`LGE and is a Delaware corporation with its principle place of business at 1000 Sylvan Avenue,
`
`Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632. Upon information and belief, Defendant may be served with
`
`process c/o United States Corporation Company, 251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, Delaware
`
`19808.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`6.
`
`This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.,
`
`including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 283, 284, and 285. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction
`
`over this patent infringement action under 28 U.S.C §1331 and 1338(a).
`
`7.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants by virtue of their systematic
`
`and continuous contacts with this jurisdiction as well as their continuous presence in this District.
`
`Defendants have committed acts of patent infringement in this District and a substantial part of the
`
`events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred in this District. Defendants have placed and
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01483-UNA Document 1 Filed 11/03/20 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 3
`
`continue to place, Accused Products in the stream of commerce, through an established channel of
`
`distribution, with the knowledge and intent to use and sell products in this District.
`
`8.
`
`Defendants are thus subject to this Court’s specific and general personal jurisdiction
`
`pursuant to their substantial business in this forum, including: (i) committing at least a portion of
`
`the infringements alleged herein in this judicial District; (ii) regularly doing or soliciting business,
`
`engaging in other persistent courses of conduct, and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods
`
`and services provided to individuals in this forum state and in this judicial District; and (iii)
`
`incorporating in this District. Furthermore, Defendants have been sued in this judicial District
`
`before and have not contested personal jurisdiction.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1400(b), because
`
`LGE is a foreign defendant and subject to suit in any judicial district, and LG USA is incorporated
`
`in this district. See In re HTC Corp., 889 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2018); TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods
`
`Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017).
`
`The Patent-in-Suit
`
`10.
`
`On March 29, 2011, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843, entitled “Method, System and Computer Readable Medium for
`
`Addressing Handling from a Computer Program.” A copy of the ’843 Patent is attached as Exhibit
`
`1 to this Complaint. The ’843 Patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`11.
`
`Arendi is the exclusive owner of all right, title, and interest in the ’843 Patent,
`
`including the right to bring this suit for patent infringement.
`
`12.
`
`The ’843 Patent’s specification explains the need to retrieve information from a
`
`data source external to a document, such as a database. It also observes that information in the
`
`database becomes stale and, therefore, “must constantly be updated by the user,” which requires
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01483-UNA Document 1 Filed 11/03/20 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 4
`
`the user to have access to the database and understand how to use and modify the database or else
`
`rely on the intervention of an administrator. Ex. 1, ’843 Patent, at 1:27-35, 1:43-49. The invention
`
`of the ’843 Patent obviates the need for the user to be familiar with the database in order to search
`
`for, retrieve, and modify information. The Abstract summarizes the invention accordingly:
`
`A method, system and computer readable medium for providing . . . a function item,
`such as a key, button, icon, or menu, tied to a user operation in a computer, whereby
`a single click on the function item in a window or program on a computer screen,
`or one single selection in a menu in a program, initiates retrieval of name and
`addresses and/or other person or company related information, while the user works
`simultaneously in another program, e.g., a word processor.
`
`Ex. 1, at Abstract; see also id. at 2:14-23 (similar language used to achieve “objects” of the
`
`invention). The Federal Circuit similarly described the ’843 Patent as “directed to providing
`
`beneficial coordination between a first computer program displaying a document and a second
`
`computer program for searching an external information source. The patent allows a user to access
`
`and conduct a search using the second computer program while remaining in the first computer
`
`program displaying the document.” Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc., 832 F. 3d 1355, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016). Use of the invention, the specification adds, can be implemented “with a minimal number
`
`of user commands.” Ex. 1, at 9:51-54. The invention streamlines the process of creating and
`
`updating records in the database, allowing such tasks to be performed directly from the document.
`
`See id. at 9:57-60.
`
`13.
`
`The claims of the ’843 Patent thus provide non-abstract ideas, unconventional
`
`inventive concepts, and reflect a practical application of the invention as described in the
`
`specifications. In particular, the ’843 Patent has been found by this Court to be directed to an
`
`improvement in computer functionality. See Arendi S.a.r.l. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., Case No.
`
`12-1595-LPS (January 2, 2020) (D.I. 178).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01483-UNA Document 1 Filed 11/03/20 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 5
`
`Count 1
`
`(Direct, Indirect, and Willful Infringement of the ’843 Patent)
`
`Arendi incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs.
`
`Defendants have directly infringed, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`least claims 1, 8, 23, and 30 of the ’843 Patent under 35 §§ U.S.C. 271(a) and 271(g) by making,
`
`using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United States, mobile
`
`telecommunication devices, mobile phones, tablets, and other products practicing at least claims
`
`1, 8, 23, and 30 of the ’843 Patent (“the Accused Instrumentalities”). The Accused
`
`Instrumentalities include the following products and devices: LG Stylo 4, LG Q7+, LG G7 ThinQ,
`
`LG V35 ThinQ, LG V30, LG V30+, LG G Pad, LG K30, LG Stylo 3, LG G6, LG V20, LG Zone
`
`4, LG K30, LG X Venture, LG Grace, LG Fiesta, LG Aristo, LGK20, LG Harmony, LG K20 Plus,
`
`LG Stylo 3 Plus, LG K8, LG G6 Plus, LG Stylo 2 Plus, LG X Power, LG K10, LG X Power, LG
`
`Rebel 2, LG Tribute HD, LG Phoenix 3, LG Fortune, LG Risio 2, LG K10, LG K3, LG K8, LG
`
`G5, LG Escape 3, LG Stylo 2, LG K8 V, LG K7, LG Classic, LG Rebel, LG Treasure, LG Premier,
`
`LG G4, LG G Vista 2, LG V10, LG Spree, LG Tribute 2, LG Tribute 5, LG G Stylo, LG Escape
`
`2, LG G Flex 2, LG Leon, LG G Stylo, LG G Flex 2, LG Destiny, LG Power, LG G Stylo, LG G
`
`Flex 2, LG Optimus G Pro, LG G3, LG G Vista, LG G3 Vigor, LG Access, LG Optimus Fuel,
`
`LG Volt, LG Google Nexus 4, LG Optimus F5, LG Optimus F3Q, LG Optimus G, LG Venice,
`
`LG Optimus 7, LG Optimus F7, LG Optimus G Sprint, LG Optimus L9, LG Optimus F7, LG
`
`Lucid 2, LG Optimus Select, LG Mach LS860, LG Optimus Regard, LG Motion 4G, LG Spirit
`
`4G, LG Escape, LG Splendor, LG Optimus Exceed, LG Viper, LG Doubleplay, LG Connect 4G,
`
`LG Optimus 2, MG Mytouch, LG Optimus Net, LG Optimus Elite, LG Marquee, LG MS690, LG
`
`Optimus M+, LG Esteem, LG Nitro HD, LG Optimus Slider, LG Enlighten, LG Lucid 4G, LG
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01483-UNA Document 1 Filed 11/03/20 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 6
`
`Thrill 4G, LG G2xT, LG Genesis, LG Optimus, LG Optimus S, LG Optimus 1, LG Vortex, LG
`
`Thrive, LG Phoenix, LG Apex, LG Ally, LG Optimus T, LG Axis, LG dLite, LG Sentio, LG Exalt
`
`LTE, LG 450, LG Helix, LG Clout, LG Tritan, LG CF360, LG GS170, LG 102, LG 108C, LG
`
`109C, LG 237C, LG 283 C, LG 305C, LG 329G, LG 500G, LG Samba, LG Envoy, LG Envoy II,
`
`LG Saber, LG Wine 2, LG Mystique, LG UX220, LG Banter, LG Revere, LG Revere 2, LG Revere
`
`3, LG Terra, LG Cosmos, LG Cosmos 2, LG Cosmos 3, LG Cosmos Touch, LG Extravert, LG
`
`Exalt II, LG Octane, LG enV Touch. LG VX5500, LG Accolade, LG Glance, LG Chocolate 3, LG
`
`Chocolate Touch, LG enV 3, LG Versa, LG Neon, LG Encore, LG GU292, LG GU295, LG
`
`GW370, LG 306G, LG Force, LG 442BG, LG Remarq, LG Rumor Touch, LG Rumor Reflex, LG
`
`Rumor 2, LG LX370, LG Lotus Elite, LG Imprint, LG Lyric, LG Beacon, LG Banter Touch, LG
`
`Shine II, LG 101, LG Bliss, LG Vu Plus Vu, LG Converse, LG Swift, LG Rhythm, LG A430, LG
`
`Prime, LG B470, LG G Pad F, LG G Pad X, LG G Pad II, LG G-Slate T-Mobile, LG G Pad 10,
`
`LG G Pad 8.3, LG G Pad F2, and similar products. On October 19, 2020, this Court ruled that the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities were not part of the related action asserting the ’843 Patent, Arendi
`
`S.A.R.L v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., Case No. 12-1595-LPS (D.I. 213).
`
`16.
`
`Defendants likewise have induced infringement of the ’843 Patent under 35 U.S.C
`
`§271(b). Defendants actively encouraged their customers, including consumers and cellphone
`
`carriers, to directly infringe the ’843 Patent by using, selling, offering for sale, and importing the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities. Upon information and belief, Defendants actively encouraged their
`
`customers to use, sell, offer for sale, and import into the United States the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities by and through Defendants’ sales and marketing efforts and supporting materials,
`
`instructions, product manuals, and/or technical information provided to consumers. Defendants
`
`touted the technological benefits of the Accused Instrumentalities, including the claimed invention,
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01483-UNA Document 1 Filed 11/03/20 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 7
`
`and actively encouraged customers to use the claimed invention. Defendants knew that their
`
`customers’ acts constituted direct infringement of at least one claim of the ’843 Patent since at
`
`least November 29, 2012 and thus specifically intended that their customers infringe one or more
`
`claims of the ’843 Patent. As a result of Defendants’ active encouragement and intentional
`
`inducement, Defendants’ customers have committed acts of direct infringement of the ’843 Patent.
`
`17.
`
`Defendants likewise are liable as contributory infringers of the ’843 Patent under
`
`35 U.S.C. 271(c). Since at least November 29, 2012, LG has, with knowledge of the ’843 Patent,
`
`contributed to the infringement of one or more claims of the ’843 Patent by selling, offering to
`
`sell, and importing into the United States the Accused Instrumentalities with the knowledge that
`
`the Accused Instrumentalities are especially designed or adapted to operate and be used in the
`
`manner that infringes and with the knowledge that its customers, end users, and other third parties
`
`will continue to practice the claimed invention. Defendants have performed these acts of
`
`contributory infringement with the knowledge that the infringing information handling technology
`
`is not a staple of commerce suitable for substantially non-infringing uses.
`
`18.
`
`Furthermore, Defendants’ infringement has been willful. Defendants learned of the
`
`’843 Patent no later than November 29, 2012 by virtue of a prior lawsuit against them. Despite
`
`knowledge of the ’843 Patent, Defendants continued to infringe at least claims 1, 8, 23, and 30 of
`
`the ’843 Patent through their manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, and importing into and in the
`
`United States of the Accused Instrumentalities. Defendants thus acted despite an objectively high
`
`likelihood that their acts constituted patent infringement. Defendants’ continued acts of
`
`infringement despite knowledge of the ’843 Patent are thus intentional and deliberate and
`
`constitute willful infringement entitling Arendi to enhanced damages.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01483-UNA Document 1 Filed 11/03/20 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 8
`
`19.
`
`Defendants’ direct, indirect, and willful infringement of the ’843 Patent has caused
`
`substantial damage to Arendi. Therefore, Arendi is entitled to an award of damages adequate to
`
`compensate for Defendants’ infringement, but not less than a reasonable royalty, together with
`
`pre-and post-judgment interest and costs as fixed by the Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284. Arendi is
`
`likewise entitled to enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`Jury Demand
`
`20.
`
`Arendi hereby demands a trial by jury for its causes of action.
`
`Requested Relief
`
`21.
`
`Arendi requests the following relief:
`
`a. A judgment that Defendants have directly infringed either literally and/or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents the ’843 Patent;
`
`b. A judgment that Defendants have induced infringement of the ’843 Patent;
`
`c. A judgment that Defendants have contributorily infringed the ’843 Patent;
`
`d. A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay Arendi damages under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 284, including treble damages for willful infringement as provided by 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 284, and supplemental damages for any continuing post-verdict infringement
`
`through entry of the final judgment with an accounting as needed;
`
`e. A judgment that this is an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285
`
`and Arendi is therefore entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees;
`
`f. A judgment and order requiring Defendants to pay Arendi pre-judgment and post-
`
`judgment interest on the damages awarded;
`
`g. A judgment and order awarding a compulsory ongoing royalty;
`
`h. Awarding Arendi the costs of this action; and
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-01483-UNA Document 1 Filed 11/03/20 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 9
`
`i. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 3, 2020
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Seth Ard
`Beatrice Franklin
`Max Straus
`SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`Tel: (212) 336-8330
`sard@susmangodfrey.com
`bfranklin@susmangodfrey.com
`mstraus@susmangodfrey.com
`
`John Lahad
`Emi Lawson
`SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP
`1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
`Houston, TX 77002-5096
`Tel: (713) 651-9366
`jlahad@susmangodfrey.com
`elawson@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Kalpana Srinivasan
`SUSMAN GODFREY, LLP
`1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Tel: (310) 789-3106
`ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Kemper Diehl
`SUSMAN GODFREY, L.L.P.
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
`Seattle, WA 98101-3000
`Tel: (206) 516-3880
`kdiehl@susmangodfrey.com
`
`
`
`SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP
`
`
`/s/ Neal C. Belgam
`Neal C. Belgam (No. 2721)
`Eve H. Ormerod (No. 5369)
`1000 West Street, Suite 1501
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 652-8400
`nbelgam@skjlaw.com
`eormerod@skjlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Arendi S.A.R.L.
`
`9
`
`