Case 1:23-cv-01237-GBW Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 1 of 130 PageID #: 1
`
`NOKIA TECHNOLOGIES OY,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`HP, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff Nokia Technologies Oy (“Nokia,” or “Plaintiff”) files this Original Complaint
`
`against HP, Inc. (“HP” or “Defendant”) and allege as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Nokia’s patent portfolio includes claims essential to decoding video according to
`
`the H.264 Advanced Video Coding (“H.264”) and H.265 High Efficiency Video Coding (“H.265”)
`
`Standards promulgated by the International Telecommunications Union (“ITU”). The H.264 and
`
`H.265 Standards are some of the most widely used video decoding standards in the world.1 Nokia’s
`
`patents also include claims relating to encoding video.
`
`2.
`
`HP’s unlicensed products (which support and implement, for example, H.264 and
`
`H.265 decoding), including without limitation HP’s laptop and desktop computers (“Accused
`
`Products”), infringe Nokia’s Asserted Patents (defined below).
`
`3.
`
`Nokia is a leading innovator in video coding technology with one of the strongest
`
`video coding patent portfolios in the world. Nokia’s patented inventions allow video to be
`
`
`1 See, e.g., https://valuehub.hp.com/fileadmin/downloads/technical-brief-true-graphics.pdf (“The
`industry’s most common video format for recording, compression, and distribution of video and
`graphics content is H.264.”).
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01237-GBW Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 2 of 130 PageID #: 2
`
`transmitted and received over communications networks, such as Wi-Fi or cellular networks, with
`
`high quality and dramatically lower bandwidth requirements, and minimize the amount of data it
`
`takes to receive and store these videos on mobile devices.
`
`4.
`
`Nokia helped to pioneer the development of modern video coding technology and
`
`has one of the strongest video coding patent portfolios in the world. Nokia’s patented inventions
`
`allow video to be transmitted and received over communications networks, such as Wi-Fi or
`
`cellular networks, with high quality and dramatically lower bandwidth requirements, and
`
`minimize the amount of data it takes to receive and store these videos on mobile devices, such as
`
`mobile phones, laptop computers, and tablet computers. For example, Nokia’s patents include
`
`claims essential to decoding video according to the H.264 and H.265 Standards.
`
`5.
`
`HP currently benefits and has benefitted greatly from Nokia’s innovations, which
`
`among other things enable HP products to stream and capture high quality video more efficiently
`
`and effectively.
`
`6.
`
`Dozens of companies have taken licenses to Nokia’s essential patent claims at rates
`
`that are reasonable and non-discriminatory. Yet, despite receiving multiple offers from Nokia,
`
`HP has refused to take a license to Nokia’s H.264 and H.265 essential decoding patent claims.
`
`HP’s failure to negotiate in good faith to reach an agreement on terms for a license to Nokia’s
`
`standard essential patents for the relevant standards (including Nokia’s patented H.264 and H.265
`
`technology) has forced Nokia to institute this lawsuit.
`
`PARTIES
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff Nokia Tech is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of Finland,
`
`with its principal place of business at Karakaari 7, FIN-02610, Espoo, Finland. Nokia Tech is a
`
`wholly-owned subsidiary of Nokia Corporation (“Nokia Corp.”), and is the sole owner by
`
`assignment of all right, title, and interest in U.S. Patent Nos. 7,532,808; 8,204,134; 7,724,818;
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01237-GBW Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 3 of 130 PageID #: 3
`
`10,536,714; 11,805,267; 8,077,991; 8,050,321; 6,950,469; 7,280,599; 8,036,273 (the “Asserted
`
`Patents”).
`
`8.
`
`On information and belief, HP, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`
`place of business at 1501 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304-1112.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332.
`
`Complete diversity exists. Nokia Technologies Oy is a foreign corporation
`
`organized under the laws of Finland. HP is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
`
`business in California.
`
`11.
`
`The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
`
`12. Moreover, this Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over the patent
`
`infringement claims in this case under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338, and over the non-patent claims
`
`under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367, 2201, and 2202, as the non-patent claims are so related to the patent
`
`infringement claims that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the
`
`United States Constitution.
`
`13.
`
`The Court has specific personal jurisdiction over HP because HP has committed
`
`acts of infringement in this District.
`
`14.
`
`This Court has general personal jurisdiction over HP by virtue of its incorporation
`
`in the State of Delaware. HP has appointed a registered agent for service of process: The
`
`Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange St., Wilmington, DE 19801.
`
`15.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400. For example,
`
`venue is proper as to HP in this District because HP is incorporated in this District.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01237-GBW Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 4 of 130 PageID #: 4
`
`NOKIA’S INVESTMENT IN VIDEO CODING STANDARDS AND RESULTING
`PATENTS
`
`16.
`
`Nokia has consistently been one of the major contributors to wireless
`
`communication, audio, and video standards and technologies that enable many features that are
`
`commonplace and expected of today’s consumer electronics.
`
`17.
`
`In early 1998, the Video Coding Experts Group (“VCEG”) of the International
`
`Telecommunication Union-Telecommunication (ITU-T) issued a call for proposals on a project
`
`called H.26L, the “L” standing for “long term.”
`
`18.
`
`The development of H.26L eventually led to ITU-T Recommendation H.264
`
`Advanced Video Coding for Generic Audiovisual Services (“the H.264 Standard”). Thereafter,
`
`work began on the successor to the H.264 Standard, which published as ITU-T Recommendation
`
`H.265 High Efficiency Video Coding (“the H.265 Standard”). Nokia, a video coding innovator,
`
`contributed numerous innovations to the development of video decoding standards. In addition,
`
`Nokia has developed many other video coding technologies.
`
`19.
`
`Over the last few decades, internet traffic has evolved from simple, text-based
`
`interfaces to a plethora of media, including video. As technology has evolved, the importance and
`
`use of video has skyrocketed. Video coding technologies, including the H.264 and H.265
`
`Standards, are crucial to the development and evolution of modern communication particularly as
`
`video traffic has become an increasingly outsized share of total consumer Internet traffic.
`
`20.
`
`The H.264 and H.265 Standards enable efficient and reliable video decoding in
`
`millions of devices, including computers. The H.264 and H.265 Standards reduce the amount of
`
`data needed to decode digital video and are the two most prominent video decoding standards in
`
`the world. These advances in video coding technology were made possible by the work of Nokia
`
`and other video coding innovators.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01237-GBW Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 5 of 130 PageID #: 5
`
`21.
`
`The H.264 Standard, first released in 2003, was designed to decode high quality
`
`video using lower bit rates than previous standards. The H.264 Standard is flexible enough to
`
`implement across a variety of applications, networks, and systems and offers vastly improved
`
`performance over previous standards, such as MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 Part 2.
`
`22.
`
`The H.265 Standard, first released in 2013, built on the H.264 standard in several
`
`key respects. The H.265 Standard enables consumers to decode video with even less bandwidth
`
`than before and to decode higher quality video in higher resolutions.
`
`23.
`
`In particular, over the past five years, video has become the main form of internet
`
`traffic, coinciding with, for example, the rise in popularity of internet and social media apps. In
`
`2022, video was estimated to be 82% of global consumer internet traffic.
`
`24.
`
`Nokia Corp., together with its wholly owned subsidiaries, has cumulatively
`
`invested over €140 billion in research and development relating to mobile communications and
`
`video coding technologies and, because of this commitment, currently owns more than 20,000
`
`patents worldwide. These include many patents, including some of the Asserted Patents, with
`
`standard essential claims relating to the H.264 and H.265 Standards.
`
`NOKIA’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE ITU COMMON PATENT POLICY AND
`NOKIA’S RELEVANT DECLARATIONS
`
`A.
`
`25.
`
`The ITU and the H.264 and H.265 Standardization Process
`
`Certain claims of Nokia’s patents relate to the H.264 and H.265 Standards
`
`developed by the ITU.
`
`26.
`
`The ITU and the International Standards Organization (“ISO”) jointly published a
`
`standard referred to as “H.264,” “MPEG-4 part 10,” or “Advanced Video Coding” (the “H.264
`
`Standard”). The H.264 Standard development process was initiated by Video Coding Experts
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01237-GBW Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 6 of 130 PageID #: 6
`
`Group (“VCEG”) and finalized by the Joint Video Team (“JVT”), which was a collaborative effort
`
`between VCEG and the Moving Picture Experts Group (“MPEG”).
`
`27.
`
`Following publication of the H.264 Standard, the JVT began work on the H.265
`
`Standard. The H.265 Standard, which is also known as “MPEG-H Part 2” or “High Efficiency
`
`Video Coding,” represents the next step for video quality and coding efficiency after the widely
`
`successful H.264 Standard.
`
`28.
`
`The ITU was formed in 1865 at the International Telegraph Convention and, in
`
`1947; it became a specialized agency of the United Nations, responsible for issues that concern
`
`information and communication technologies. The ITU handles a variety of matters and thus is
`
`organized into various sectors. One of the sectors is Telecommunication Standardization or “ITU-
`
`T.” The mission of ITU-T is to ensure efficient and timely production of standards related to the
`
`field of
`
`telecommunications. The standards developed by ITU-T are referred
`
`to as
`
`“Recommendations.”
`
`29. Within ITU-T, members come together and propose technological solutions for
`
`inclusion in the draft Recommendations. The goal is to draft Recommendations that incorporate
`
`the best available technology to ensure that the standards are of a high quality. The H.264 and
`
`H.265 Standards described above are detailed in the H.264 and H.265 Recommendations.
`
`30.
`
`The contributions that are ultimately included in a Recommendation are often
`
`covered by one or more patent claims, and thus the ITU developed the Common Patent Policy in
`
`order to assist with usage of patented technologies in its standards.
`
`31.
`
`The ITU published Guidelines for Implementation of the Common Patent Policy
`
`(“the Guidelines”). The Guidelines explain that the Common Patent Policy “was drafted in its
`
`operative part as a checklist, covering the three different cases which may arise if a
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01237-GBW Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 7 of 130 PageID #: 7
`
`Recommendation | Deliverable requires licenses for Patents to be practiced or implemented, fully
`
`or partly.” [“Guidelines for Implementation of the Common Patent Policy for ITU-
`
`T/ITURIISOIIEC,”
`
`ITU, Rev.
`
`4
`
`(Dec.
`
`16,
`
`2022)
`
`https://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-
`
`t/patents/policy/guide.pdf].
`
`32.
`
`The Common Patent Policy states:
`
`2. If a Recommendation | Deliverable is developed and such information as referred
`to in paragraph 1 has been disclosed, three different situations may arise:
`
`2.1 The patent holder is willing to negotiate licences free of charge with other
`parties on a non-discriminatory basis on reasonable terms and conditions. Such
`negotiations are left to the parties concerned and are performed outside ITU-T/ITU-
`R/ISO/IEC.
`
`2.2 The patent holder is willing to negotiate licences with other parties on a non-
`discriminatory basis on reasonable terms and conditions. Such negotiations are left
`to the parties concerned and are performed outside ITU-T/ITU-R/ISO/IEC.
`
`2.3 The patent holder is not willing to comply with the provisions of either
`paragraph 2.1 or paragraph 2.2; in such case, the Recommendation | Deliverable
`shall not include provisions depending on the patent.
`
`3. Whatever case applies (2.1, 2.2 or 2.3), the patent holder has to provide a written
`statement to be filed at ITU-TSB, ITU-BR or the offices of the CEOs of ISO or
`IEC, respectively, using the appropriate “Patent Statement and Licensing
`Declaration” form. This statement must not include additional provisions,
`conditions, or any other exclusion clauses in excess of what is provided for each
`case in the corresponding boxes of the form.
`
` [“Common Patent Policy for ITU-TIITU-RIISOIIEC,” ITU (2022), https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-
`
`T/ipr/Pages/policy.aspx].
`
`33.
`
`The Guidelines define the term “Patent” to be “those claims contained in and
`
`identified by patents, utility models and other similar statutory rights based on inventions
`
`(including applications for any of these) solely to the extent that any such claims are essential to
`
`the implementation of a Recommendation | Deliverable. Essential patents are patents that would
`
`be required to implement a specific Recommendation | Deliverable.” [“Guidelines for
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01237-GBW Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 8 of 130 PageID #: 8
`
`Implementation of the Common Patent Policy for ITU-T/ITURIISOIIEC,” ITU, Rev. 4 (Dec. 16,
`
`2022) https://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-t/patents/policy/guide.pdf]. The definition of “Patent”
`
`provided by the Guidelines is mirrored in the Patent Statement and Licensing Declaration Form
`
`that is completed by patent holders who may have patent claims essential to the H.264 or H.265
`
`standards. The Patent Statement and Licensing Declaration Form states that identifying specific
`
`patents on the form is optional but not required. The ITU thus deems “essential” only patent claims
`
`that are essential or necessary for implementation of a specific Recommendation.
`
`34.
`
`The H.264 Recommendation specifies the implementation of decoders and
`
`specifically defines the “decoding process” as “[t]he process specified in this Recommendation |
`
`International Standard that reads a bitstream and derives decoded pictures from it.” Ex. 1 at 6
`
`[Recommendation ITU-T H.264]. It does not, however, specify the implementation of encoders.
`
`The H.264 Recommendation defines “encoding process” as “[a] process, not specified in this
`
`Recommendation | International Standard, that produces a bitstream conforming to this
`
`Recommendation | International Standard.” Id.
`
`35.
`
`Similarly, the H.265 Recommendation only specifies the implementation of
`
`decoders. See Ex. 2 at 5 [Recommendation ITU-T H.265] (defining (i) “decoding process” as
`
`“[t]he process specified in this Specification that reads a bitstream and derives decoded pictures
`
`from it” and (ii) “encoding process” as “[a] process not specified in this Specification that produces
`
`a bitstream conforming to this Specification.”).
`
`B.
`Nokia’s Compliance with the ITU Common Patent Policy and Nokia’s
`Relevant Declarations
`
`36.
`
`Nokia protects its investments in research and development with intellectual
`
`property. Nokia owns many patents related to video decoding technology, and it continues to
`
`develop and secure intellectual property as it innovates in this industry. By voluntarily contributing
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01237-GBW Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 9 of 130 PageID #: 9
`
`its research and development innovations to the standard-setting process at the ITU—through
`
`technical contributions in standardization meetings—Nokia has a large number of patent claims
`
`essential to the H.264 and H.265 Standards. Industry members attending the standardization
`
`meetings chose to adopt Nokia’s technology into the standards because of its benefits and merit.
`
`37.
`
`Nokia has committed that it is prepared to grant licenses to any patent claims
`
`essential to the H.264 and H.265 Standards on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms
`
`and conditions.
`
`38.
`
`Consistent with the ITU Common Patent Policy, Nokia timely notified standard
`
`setting participants that Nokia may obtain patents on its contributions, including by submitting
`
`Patent Statement and Licensing Declarations to the ITU in which Nokia declares in good faith that
`
`it is prepared to grant licenses to the essential claims of the relevant patents on RAND terms and
`
`conditions.
`
`C.
`
`39.
`
`Nokia’s Negotiations with HP
`
`Nokia has been negotiating with HP in a good faith effort to license Nokia’s H.264-
`
`and H.265-related patents (“Nokia’s Video Patents”) since 2019. In that time, HP has sold
`
`hundreds of millions of infringing products but has paid no royalties. Nokia has made offers to HP
`
`consistent with licenses agreed to by over 50 companies, but the parties have been unable to reach
`
`agreement.
`
`40.
`
`In November 2019, Nokia contacted HP regarding its infringement of Nokia’s
`
`patents related to the H.264 standard (“Nokia’s H.264 Patents”). Nokia proposed that the parties
`
`enter into a non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) so Nokia could share confidential information
`
`regarding HP’s infringement, and so the parties could share commercially sensitive information,
`
`including HP’s past sales volumes and projections. HP refused to agree that any technical
`
`information exchanged should be covered by NDA. Although the parties were in the process of
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01237-GBW Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 10 of 130 PageID #: 10
`
`negotiating the provisions of the NDA, Nokia proceeded with delivering a presentation to HP on
`
`March 12, 2020 that summarized certain aspects of the H.264 standard and Nokia’s related patents.
`
`41.
`
`On July 22, 2020, Nokia sent HP a list of exemplary Nokia H.264 Patents and the
`
`corresponding sections of the H.264 standard, as well as identification of infringing HP products.
`
`Nokia also sent six exemplary H.264 decoding claim charts.
`
`42.
`
`On December 8, 2020, an NDA was executed. Following execution of the NDA,
`
`Nokia sent HP a license offer covering the decoding claims of its H.264 Patents at its well-
`
`established rate. Nokia also sent the terms and conditions corresponding with the license offer and
`
`requested a call with HP on December 17 or 18 to discuss.
`
`43.
`
`On January 15, 2021, the parties finally spoke by phone. Over the next several
`
`weeks, Nokia provided HP with additional materials, including seven claim charts for claims
`
`relating to encoding video into H.264-compliant formats and an anonymized list of twelve
`
`exemplary licenses supporting Nokia’s offer. Nokia also sent HP lists of patents with claims
`
`relating to H.264 decoding and to encoding video into H.264-compliant formats.
`
`44.
`
`On May 13, 2021, Nokia sent HP an additional 32 claim charts showing HP’s
`
`infringement of encoding and decoding patent claims in Nokia patents relating to the H.264
`
`standard. It also sent license offers for H.264 decoding and encoding video into H.264-compliant
`
`formats at its well-established rates.
`
`45.
`
`On July 9, 2021, Nokia sent HP 24 claim charts showing HP’s infringement of
`
`encoding and decoding patent claims in Nokia patents related to the H.265 Standard.
`
`46.
`
`On August 13, 2021, Nokia also extended offers for Nokia’s claims relating to
`
`encoding video into H.265-compliant formats, decoding H.265-compliant video, and a combined
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01237-GBW Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 11 of 130 PageID #: 11
`
`offer for both, all at Nokia’s well-established rates. These offers also included lower rates for HP’s
`
`lower price products.
`
`47.
`
`On August 27, 2021, Nokia sent HP a list of exemplary Nokia H.265 patents claims
`
`and HP products, and on September 28, 2021, Nokia sent an additional list of decoding and
`
`encoding patent claims infringed by HP’s products. On October 1, 2021, Nokia sent HP an
`
`additional anonymized list of H.264 and H.265 licenses supporting its offers.
`
`48.
`
`From January to March 2022, the parties engaged in extensive technical discussions
`
`over Nokia’s patents, meeting seven times. Once the technical meetings concluded, Nokia sent
`
`HP an additional offer, this one a lump sum offer covering its H.264 and H.265 decoding and
`
`encoding patent claims, based on Nokia’s well-established rates.
`
`49.
`
`HP has not accepted any of Nokia’s offers. To this day, HP has not paid a single
`
`royalty for its infringement despite Nokia’s good faith efforts to negotiate.
`
`50.
`
`HP’s actions as an unwilling licensee, its refusal to negotiate in good faith, and its
`
`continued unauthorized use of Nokia’s patents have prompted Nokia to seek the relief detailed in
`
`this Complaint.
`
`THE NOKIA ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`51.
`
`Nokia complied with any applicable marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`287(a) at least because the asserted method claims do not require marking and/or there is nothing
`
`to mark.
`
`A.
`
`52.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,532,808 (“the ’808 Patent”)
`
`The ’808 Patent, entitled “Method for Coding Motion in a Video Sequence” issued
`
`on May 12, 2009, to inventor Jani Lainema. The ’808 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application
`
`No. 10/390,549, filed on March 14, 2003, and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01237-GBW Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 12 of 130 PageID #: 12
`
`60/365,072, filed on March 15, 2002. The ’808 Patent expires on December 11, 2025. A true and
`
`correct copy of the ’808 Patent is attached as Exhibit 3.
`
`53.
`
`The ’808 Patent is not directed to merely an abstract idea or any patent-ineligible
`
`concept. Instead, the ’808 Patent is directed to novel and unconventional improvements to motion-
`
`compensated prediction in the field of digital video coding. The ’808 Patent provides
`
`improvements over prior motion compensated prediction and video compression techniques that
`
`result in substantial benefits to motion prediction, video compression, video quality, and video
`
`playback. These substantial benefits are enjoyed by users of the Accused Products when, for
`
`example, watching video over the Internet.
`
`54.
`
`A digital video sequence is a sequence of still images with “the illusion of motion
`
`being created by displaying consecutive images of the sequence on after the other at a relatively
`
`fast rate.” ’808 Patent at 1:15-19. These still images are referred to as frames. “Each frame of an
`
`uncompressed digital video sequence comprises an array of image pixels.” Id. at 1:32-33. Frames
`
`in commonly used video formats may have millions of pixels.
`
`55.
`
`The ’808 Patent describes that video frames in a given digital video sequence may
`
`contain various forms of redundancy. Id. at 2:36-46. “Temporal redundancy” refers to the fact that
`
`“objects appearing in one frame of a sequence are likely to appear in subsequent frames.” Id.
`
`56.
`
` As the ’808 Patent explains, “motion-compensated prediction” can take advantage
`
`of temporal redundancy to “predict” the image content of some frames from “one or more other
`
`frames in the sequence, known as ‘reference frames.’” Id. at 3:15-18. Predictions can be achieved
`
`by tracking the motion of objects or regions of an image between a given frame and one or more
`
`reference frames. Id. at 3:18-23.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01237-GBW Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 13 of 130 PageID #: 13
`
`57.
`
`Prior to the ’808 Patent, some motion-compensated prediction techniques involved
`
`assigning “coding modes” to “macroblocks” (a region of 16x16 image pixels in the original
`
`image). See id. at 1:64-2:6. One such coding mode was referred to as “SKIP” mode. SKIP mode
`
`was assigned to macroblocks that could be copied from a reference frame without using or having
`
`to take into account motion-compensated prediction. ’808 Patent at 10:64-67. SKIP mode prior to
`
`the ’808 Patent provided benefits in certain scenarios without motion from frame to frame.
`
`58.
`
`As explained in the ’808 Patent, “it is necessary for a corresponding video decoder
`
`to be aware of that coding mode in order for it to correctly decode the received information relating
`
`to the macroblock in question.” ’808 Patent at 11:20-24. “Therefore, an indication of the coding
`
`mode assigned to each macroblock is provided in the video bit-stream.” ’808 Patent at 11:24-27.
`
`The indication is transmitted using a variable length codeword, where “the shortest codeword is
`
`used to represent the coding mode that is statistically most likely to occur.” ’808 Patent at 11:27-
`
`32.
`
`59.
`
`However, SKIP mode could not effectively address problems with certain types of
`
`redundancy within video sequences—for example, global and regional motion, such as might
`
`occur when phenomena like panning or zooming are present in a video sequence. Id. at 12:41-47.
`
`For example, redundancies may occur in a video sequence when footage is captured by a video
`
`camera moving horizontally from fixed position or when translational motion occurs, such as when
`
`a volleyball moves overhead across a court. Prior motion-compensated prediction techniques could
`
`not efficiently or effectively handle these scenarios. For example, in the prior H.263+ video coding
`
`standard, this global motion scenario was addressed by using a highly complex global motion
`
`compensation technique that required the decoder to rely on additional information. Id. at 12:48-
`
`13:30. This prior solution was computationally intensive and less efficient. Id.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01237-GBW Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 14 of 130 PageID #: 14
`
`60.
`
`The ’808 Patent overcame these technical challenges in the prior systems by
`
`inventing an improved skip coding mode. The ’808 Patent’s improved skip coding mode can
`
`address certain scenarios with motion (and/or without motion) without the need for additional
`
`motion data For example, the ’808 Patent teaches that the skip coding mode is associated with
`
`either a zero (non-active) motion vector or a non-zero (active motion vector), where the decision
`
`is made by analyzing the motion of other macroblocks or sub-blocks in a region surrounding the
`
`macroblock to be coded. ’808 Patent at 14:23-32. Therefore, for example, “SKIP mode
`
`macroblocks can adapt to the motion in the region surrounding them, enabling global or regional
`
`motion to [be] taken account of in an efficient manner.” Id. at 14:48-51.
`
`61.
`
`The assigned motion vector can then be used by the decoder, for example, to form
`
`a prediction for the given macroblock with respect to a reference frame. These unconventional
`
`solutions allow a decoder to, for example, reliably and efficiently decode video sequences with a
`
`drastically reduced amount of information. Because the ’808 Patent inventions use the surrounding
`
`macroblocks or sub-blocks to determine the assignment of the motion vector for the skip coding
`
`mode for an image segment, there is no need for the video decoder to use additional information
`
`in order to decode certain types of motion. Id. at 14:52-64.
`
`62.
`
`The ’808 Patent therefore provides specific technological improvements to the
`
`functionality and capabilities of video coding technology that, for example, “not only provides an
`
`improvement in coding efficiency in the presence of global motion . . . but also enables regional
`
`motion to be represented in an efficient manner.” Id. at 14:14-22.
`
`63.
`
`The novel solutions of the ’808 Patent, including redefining skip coding mode to
`
`adapt to the motion of surrounding regions, were not well-understood, routine, or conventional,
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01237-GBW Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 15 of 130 PageID #: 15
`
`nor were they simply comprised of well-understood, routine, and conventional activities
`
`previously known to the industry.
`
`64.
`
`On information and belief, HP directly infringes at least Claim 7 of the ’808 Patent
`
`through its manufacture, sale for importation, importation, use, and sale after importation of one
`
`or more of its Accused Products.
`
`65.
`
`Because at least Claim 7 of the ’808 Patent is essential to the H.264 Standard, the
`
`Accused Products’ incorporation of the H.264 Standard infringes at least Claim 7 of the ’808
`
`Patent.
`
`66.
`
`As just one example of HP’s infringement, HP manufactures and sells laptops with
`
`graphics processing units that decode H.264-compliant video. An example of such an HP Accused
`
`Product is the HP Spectre X360 laptop series, which includes an Intel Iris XE Graphics processor
`
`and is capable of decoding H.264-compliant video.
`
`Source: https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop/slp/spectre-family/hp-spectre-x-
`360?jumpid=ps_con_nb_pm&utm_medium=ps&utm_source=ga&utm_campaign=HP-
`Store_US_BRA_PS_CPS_Intel_CCF_Google_All_SEM_Exact_Notebooks-
`Product&utm_term=hp%20spectre%20x360&matchtype=e&adid=523561102024&addisttype=g
`&cq_src=google_ads&cq_cmp=1340281852&cq_con=59220066208&cq_term=hp%20spectre%
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01237-GBW Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 16 of 130 PageID #: 16
`
`20x360&cq_med=&cq_plac=&cq_net=g&cq_pos=&cq_plt=gp&ds_rl=1231771&ds_rl=125402
`2&gclid=EAIaIQobChMInbTn8NibggMVZEt_AB0f0wqOEAAYASAAEgJTcPD_BwE&gclsrc
`=aw.ds
`
`
`
`
`
`Source: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/articles/technical/encode-and-
`decode-capabilities-for-7th-generation-intel-core-processors-and-newer.html?wapkw=encode
`
`
`67.
`
`Additionally, HP instructs and encourages users to use the HP Accused Products in
`
`a manner that infringes at least Claim 7 of the ’808 Patent by advertising the products’ ability to
`
`stream and watch video:
`
`Source: https://www.hp.com/us-en/laptops-and-2-in-1s/spectre.html
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01237-GBW Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 17 of 130 PageID #: 17
`
`68.
`
`Additionally, on information and belief, HP publishes customer reviews of the HP
`
`Accused Products that show its customers actually use the HP Accused Products to stream and
`
`watch video:
`
`
`Source: https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop/pdp/hp-spectre-x360-2-in-1-laptop-16-f2047nr#reviews
`69.
`As another example of HP’s infringement, HP manufactures and sells desktop
`
`computers with graphics processing units that decode H.264-compliant video. An example such
`
`an Accused Product is the HP Pavilion Series of Desktop PC, which includes either an Intel UHD
`
`Graphics 770 or an AMD Radeon Graphics processor, both of which decode H.264-compliant
`
`video.
`
`Source: https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop/mdp/pavilion--1/pavilion-desktop-344542--1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01237-GBW Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 18 of 130 PageID #: 18
`
`
`
`
`Source: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/docs/onevpl/developer-reference-media-intel-
`hardware/1-0/features-and-formats.html#ENCODE-11-12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Source: https://www.amd.com/en/products/specifications/graphics
`
`
`70.
`
`Additionally, HP publishes customer reviews of the HP Accused Products that
`
`show its customers actually use the HP Accused Products to stream and watch video:
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-01237-GBW Document 1 Filed 10/31/23 Page 19 of 130 PageID #: 19
`
`
`Source: https://www.hp.com/us-en/shop/pdp/hp-pavilion-desktop-tp01-3025t-bundle-pc#reviews
`
`
`HP knowingly and intentionally induces users of one or more of the HP Accused
`
`71.
`
`Products to directly infringe at least Claim 7 of the ’808 Patent by encouraging, instructing, and
`
`aiding one or more persons in the United States, including HP employees who test and operate
`
`Accused Products at the direction of HP, to make, use (including testing those devices and
`
`methods), sell, or offer to sell one or more of the HP Accused Products, during or after such
`
`article’s importation into the United States, in a manner that infringes the ’808 Patent.
`
`72.
`
`For example, as seen in the HP publications above, HP advertises the HP Spectre
`
`X360 laptop and HP Pavilion desktop on its website so that consumers may purchase and use the
`
`products, thus inducing its customers to also infringe the ’808 Patent. On information and belief,
`
`HP also advertises other HP products that infringe the ’808 Patent