Case 1:21-cv-20026-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2021 Page 1 of 18
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`
`
`
`
`Case No. ________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LIGHTSIDE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`CURTIS INTERNATIONAL LTD.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT - JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Plaintiff, LIGHTSIDE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC (“Lightside” or “Plaintiff”), for its
`
`complaint against CURTIS INTERNATIONAL LTD. (“Curtis” or “Defendant”) alleges:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271, this is a civil action for patent infringement of United
`
`States Patent No. 8,842,727, (‘727 Patent) United States Patent No. 5,999,220 (‘220 Patent),
`
`United States Patent No. 6,370,198 (‘198 Patent), and United States Patent No. 8,228,979 (‘979
`
`Patent) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”).
`
`2.
`
`A copy of the ‘727 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A; a copy of the ‘220 Patent
`
`is attached hereto as Exhibit B; a copy of the ‘198 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C; a copy
`
`of the ‘979 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
`
`PARTIES
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Lightside is a Texas limited liability company with a principal place of
`
`business at 700 Lavaca St., Suite 1401, Austin, TX 78701-3101.
`
`555494.1
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-20026-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2021 Page 2 of 18
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of the ‘727 Patent, the ‘220 Patent, the ‘198
`
`Patent, and the ‘979 Patent, with sole rights to enforce Patents-in-Suit and to sue infringers.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant Curtis is a Canadian limited company with its principal place of business
`
`in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Upon information and belief Defendant is registered to do business
`
`in Florida.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Curtis’s products include a variety of monitors, televisions and
`
`networked video products, including products sold under the brand name ProScan.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a), this Court has original jurisdiction over
`
`the subject matter of this action because this is an action arising under the Patent Laws of the
`
`United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et. seq.
`
`8.
`
`This court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant conducts
`
`business in this Judicial District and infringing activity alleged herein took place in this Judicial
`
`District. Further, the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with Due Process under the United
`
`States Constitution.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c).
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`10.
`
`Ken Washino is the inventor of the inventions claimed and disclosed in the Patents-
`
`in-Suit.
`
`11. Mr. Washino is the epitome of the ingenious tinkerer who used inventive skills and
`
`a deep understanding of the industry to resolve a long-standing problem that succeeded where
`
`others had failed.
`
`555494.1
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-20026-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2021 Page 3 of 18
`
`12. Mr. Washino was born in Aichi Prefecture, Japan, on February 21, 1953. His
`
`parents operated a small commercial farm in this rural area. He became interested in
`
`communications and electronics at an early age, acquiring an amateur ham radio license by the
`
`time he was thirteen years old. During his junior high school and high school years, he built a
`
`transmitter and receiver from salvaged parts of an old tube television. From such experiences, he
`
`learned the basics of analog communications.
`
`13.
`
`In 1974, Mr. Washino found a position as an audio recording engineer with a
`
`Japanese documentary film company working in the U.S. This expanded to other production and
`
`post-production tasks. During the years that Mr. Washino worked in this business, he gained a
`
`working knowledge of film production and of production and post-production processes.
`
`14.
`
`After Mr. Washino returned to Japan, he earned an Electronics Engineering degree
`
`from Nihon Kogakuin Technical College in Tokyo in 1979, and in 1981 acquired a first class
`
`broadcast engineering license. By that time, Mr. Washino was already working as a camera design
`
`engineer for Ikegami, a Japanese manufacturer of high-end video cameras. In 1985, he was
`
`appointed Video Field Sales Engineer and sent to the U.S. This experience enabled Mr. Washino
`
`to acquire a deep insight into the competitive market for equipment and services and to appreciate
`
`the needs of and problems encountered by video professionals. Mr. Washino then decided to
`
`establish himself in the U.S. permanently and formed his own video services company, focused
`
`on video production, post-production, and video cassette duplication in New York City.
`
`15.
`
`By late 1986, Mr. Washino had acquired the market knowledge, technical skills,
`
`and financial resources to begin working on some of the ideas he had to improve efficiency and
`
`preserve quality in video field production. He identified the need for a universal camera control
`
`system and developed a prototype. Subsequent experimentation with early digital video devices
`
`555494.1
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-20026-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2021 Page 4 of 18
`
`soon led to his 1992 inventions for Video Field Production, Video Monitoring and Conferencing,
`
`and PC-Based Audio/Video Production. In 1989, Mr. Washino began working on high-speed video
`
`duplication and filed his first patent application in 1993.
`
`16.
`
`From then on, Mr. Washino developed a long series of inventions related to video
`
`production, post-production and signal distribution that could accommodate the coming digital
`
`and High-Definition “multiple format” future.
`
`17.
`
`By October 2014, Mr. Washino had been granted twenty U.S. patents on inventions
`
`for which he is the inventor or co-inventor, with fourteen foreign equivalents.
`
`18.
`
`The ‘727 Patent, ‘220 Patent, ‘198 Patent and ‘979 Patent are directed to the field
`
`of video production, photographic image processing, and computer graphics. The inventions
`
`disclosed relate to multi-format audio/video production.
`
`19.
`
`Upon information and belief, Curtis made, sold, offered for sale, used, and/or
`
`imported products in the United States that implement the inventive concept of the Patents-in-Suit,
`
`including by way of example, Curtis’ ProScan-branded products, including but not limited to
`
`ProScan HDTV products and other similar television products (the “Accused Products”)
`
`COUNT I: DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘727 PATENT
`
`20.
`
`The allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs 1-19 are hereby re-alleged
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`21.
`
`The ‘727 Patent is titled “Wide-Band Multi-Format Audio/Video Production
`
`System With Frame-Rate Conversion.”
`
`22.
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘727 Patent states:
`
`A method performed by a video apparatus, comprising:
`receiving compressed video from a source;
`
`555494.1
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-20026-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2021 Page 5 of 18
`
`decompressing the compressed video content to generate uncompressed video
`content in an internal format having a frame rate of 24 frames per second (fps)
`comprising progressive frames of pixel image data having an original pixel
`resolution;
`buffering progressive frames of pixel image data in a high-capacity memory buffer
`supporting asynchronous random read and write access;
`processing the progressive frames of pixel image data in the buffered progressive
`frames to perform a frame rate conversion from 24 fps to a higher output frame
`rate; and
`outputting a digital HDTV video signal configured to display the video content on
`an HDTV at the output frame rate, wherein the digital HDTV video signal is a
`progressive signal having a pixel resolution of at least 1920x1080 pixels.
`Claim 5 of the ‘727 Patent states:
`The method of claim 1, wherein the original pixel resolution is less than 1920x1080
`pixels, the method further comprising employing pixel interpolation hardware to perform
`an up-conversion of the original pixel resolution to output a digital HDTV video signal
`having a pixel resolution of 1920x1080 pixels.
`Claim 6 of the ‘727 Patent states:
`The method of claim 1, wherein the source comprises one of a cable or satellite
`broadcast source.
`Claim 7 of the ‘727 Patent states:
`The method of claim 1, wherein the source comprises a DVD-type video disk, and
`the compressed video content is received by reading video content stored on the DVD-type
`video disk.
`Claim 9 of the ‘727 Patent states:
`
`The method of claim 1, further comprising performing inter-frame interpolation of
`progressive frame pixel image data to perform the frame rate conversion.
`Claim 11 of the ‘727 Patent states:
`A video apparatus, comprising:
`means for at least one of receiving or retrieving compressed video data;
`a high-capacity memory buffer supporting asynchronous random read and write
`access;
`digital signal processing circuitry; and
`a graphics processor;
`
`555494.1
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-20026-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2021 Page 6 of 18
`
`wherein the apparatus is configured to,
`decompress compressed video content that is received or retrieved by the
`apparatus using at least one of the digital signal processing circuitry and the
`graphics processor to generate uncompressed video content in an internal
`format having a frame rate of 24 frames per second (fps) comprising
`progressive frames of pixel image data having an original pixel resolution;
`buffer progressive frames of pixel image data in the high-capacity memory
`buffer;
`process the progressive frames of pixel image data in the buffered progressive
`frames using at least one of the digital processing circuity and the graphics
`processor to perform a frame-rate conversion from 24 fps to a higher output
`frame rate; and
`output a digital HDTV video signal configured to display the video content on
`an HDTV at the output frame rate, wherein the digital HDTV video signal
`is a progressive signal having a pixel resolution of at least 1920xx1080
`pixels.
`Claim 15 of the ‘220 Patent states:
`The video apparatus of claim 11, wherein the original pixel resolution is less than
`1920x1080 pixels, and the apparatus is further configured to perform an up-conversion of
`the original pixel resolution to output a digital HDTV video signal having a pixel resolution
`of 1920x1080 pixels.
`Claim 19 of the ‘727 Patent states:
`The video apparatus of claim 11, wherein the apparatus is configured to employ at
`least one of the digital processing circuitry and the graphics processor to perform inter-
`frame interpolation of progressive frame pixel image data buffered in the memory buffer
`to perform the frame rate conversion.
`Defendant’s Accused Products infringe Claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 15, and 19 of the
`23.
`
`‘727 Patent.
`
`24. Without license or authorization and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), on
`
`information and belief, Defendant directly infringed one or more claims of the ’727 Patent in this
`
`Judicial District and throughout the United States, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by
`
`making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing their Accused Products, and/or induced
`
`infringement or engage in contributory infringement by such actions with their Accused Products,
`
`555494.1
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-20026-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2021 Page 7 of 18
`
`that performs all of the limitations of the asserted claims as shown in the accompanying claim
`
`chart, submitted herewith as Exhibit E.
`
`25.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has known of the ’727 Patent and that use of
`
`their Accused Products results in direct infringement of one or more claims of the ’727 Patent, and
`
`Defendant has engaged in actions which have knowingly resulted in such direct infringement.
`
`26. Without license or authorization and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), on
`
`information and belief, Defendant infringed one or more claims of the ’727 Patent in this Judicial
`
`District and throughout the United States, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by actively
`
`inducing direct infringement of the ‘727 Patent via end-user use of their Accused Products, which,
`
`when used in normal operation and as prescribed by written operational guidance for the Accused
`
`Products as provided by Defendant, results in such end-users performing all of the limitations of
`
`the asserted claims, as shown and described in detail in the accompanying claim chart, submitted
`
`herewith as Exhibit E.
`
`27. Without license or authorization and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), on
`
`information and belief, Defendant indirectly infringed one or more claims of the ’727 Patent in
`
`this Judicial District and throughout the United States, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`through offers to sell or sales within the United States or imports into the United States of one or
`
`more component(s) of an apparatus for use in practicing the methods of the ’727 Patent claims and
`
`constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially
`
`adapted for use in an infringement of the ’727 Patent claims, and not an article or commodity
`
`suitable for substantial non-infringing use, wherein Defendant’s Accused Products, when used in
`
`normal operation and as prescribed by written operational guidance for the Accused Products as
`
`555494.1
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-20026-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2021 Page 8 of 18
`
`provided by Defendant, result in such end-users performing all of the limitations of the asserted
`
`claims as shown in the accompanying claim chart, submitted herewith as Exhibit E.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant’s infringement.
`
`For the avoidance of doubt, Plaintiff only seeks damages which are not barred by
`
`the statute of limitations for infringement that occurred prior to the patent expiring on April 7,
`
`2017.
`
`COUNT II: DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘220 PATENT
`
`30.
`
`The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-19 above are hereby re-alleged as if fully
`
`set forth herein future.
`
`31.
`
`The ‘220 Patent is titled “Multi-Format Audio/Video Production System With
`
`Frame-Rate Conversion.”
`
`32.
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘220 Patent states:
`
`A multi-format audio/video production system adapted for use with a display
`device, comprising:
`an input to receive a signal representative of an audio/video program in one of a
`plurality of display formats;
`high-capacity video storage means including an asynchronous program recording
`and reproducing capability;
`an operator control; and
`a graphics processor in communication with the input, the high-capacity video
`storage means, and the operator control, enabling a user to perform the
`following functions:
`a) convert the display format of the audio/video program received through the input
`into an intermediate production format,
`b) perform a frame-rate conversion of the audio/video program received through
`the input means using the asynchronous recording and reproducing capability
`associated with the high-capacity video storage means, and
`c) output a program having a display format or frame rate different than that of the
`audio/video program received through the input.
`
`555494.1
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-20026-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2021 Page 9 of 18
`
`Claim 2 of the ‘220 Patent states:
`
`The multi-format audio/video production system of claim 1, wherein the graphics
`processor is operative to output a program in a standard television format regardless of the
`display format of the input program.
`Claim 3 of the ‘220 Patent states:
`The multi-format audio/video production system of claim 1, wherein the graphics
`processor is operative to output a program in a widescreen format regardless of the display
`format of the input program.
`Claim 4 of the ‘220 Patent states:
`The multi-format audio/video production system of claim 1, wherein the graphics
`processor is operative to output a program in an enhanced-definition format regardless of
`the display format of the input program.
`Claim 5 of the ‘220 Patent states:
`The multi-format audio/video production system of claim 4, wherein the enhanced
`definition format is an HDTV format.
`Claim 9 of the ‘220 Patent states:
`The multi-format audio/video production system of claim 1, wherein the graphics
`processor is further operative to perform an interpolation operation with respect to the
`program received through the input so as to reduce the number of pixels associated with
`the production format as compared to the input display format.
`Defendant’s Accused Products infringe Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9 of the ‘220 Patent.
`33.
`
`34. Without license or authorization and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), on
`
`information and belief, Defendant directly infringed one or more claims of the ’220 Patent in this
`
`Judicial District and throughout the United States, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by
`
`making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing their Accused Products, and/or induced
`
`infringement or engage in contributory infringement by such actions with their Accused Products,
`
`that performs all of the limitations of the asserted claims as shown in the accompanying claim
`
`chart, submitted herewith as Exhibit F.
`
`555494.1
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-20026-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2021 Page 10 of 18
`
`35.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has known of the ’220 Patent and that use of
`
`their Accused Products results in direct infringement of one or more claims of the ’220 Patent, and
`
`Defendant has engaged in actions which have knowingly resulted in such direct infringement.
`
`36. Without license or authorization and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), on
`
`information and belief, Defendant infringed one or more claims of the ’220 Patent in this Judicial
`
`District and throughout the United States, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by actively
`
`inducing direct infringement of the ‘220 Patent via end-user use of their Accused Products, which,
`
`when used in normal operation and as prescribed by written operational guidance for the Accused
`
`Products as provided by Defendant, results in such end-users performing all of the limitations of
`
`the asserted claims, as shown and described in detail in the accompanying claim chart, submitted
`
`herewith as Exhibit F.
`
`37. Without license or authorization and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), on
`
`information and belief, Defendant indirectly infringed one or more claims of the ’220 Patent in
`
`this Judicial District and throughout the United States, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`through offers to sell or sales within the United States or imports into the United States of one or
`
`more component(s) of an apparatus for use in practicing the methods of the ’220 Patent claims and
`
`constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially
`
`adapted for use in an infringement of the ’220 Patent claims, and not an article or commodity
`
`suitable for substantial non-infringing use, wherein Defendant’s Accused Products, when used in
`
`normal operation and as prescribed by written operational guidance for the Accused Products as
`
`provided by Defendant, result in such end-users performing all of the limitations of the asserted
`
`claims as shown in the accompanying claim chart, submitted herewith as Exhibit F.
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant’s infringement.
`
`555494.1
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-20026-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2021 Page 11 of 18
`
`39.
`
`For the avoidance of doubt, Plaintiff only seeks damages which are not barred by
`
`the statute of limitations for infringement that occurred prior to the patent expiring on April 7,
`
`2017.
`
`COUNT III: DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘198 PATENT
`
`40.
`
`The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-19 above are hereby re-alleged as if fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`41.
`
`The ‘198 Patent is titled “Wide-Band Multi-Format Audio/Video Production
`
`System With Frame-Rate Conversion.”
`
`42.
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘198 Patent states:
`
`A method of producing a video program, comprising the steps of:
`receiving an input video program in an input format;
`converting the input video program into a digital production format by sampling
`the input program at sampling frequency in excess of 18 megahertz;
`providing high-capacity video storage means equipped with an asynchronous
`program recording and reproducing capability to perform a frame-rate
`conversion; and
`processing the video program in the production format using the high-capacity
`video storage means on a selective basis to output a version of the video
`program having a desired frame rate and image dimensions in pixels.
`Claim 2 of the ‘198 Patent states:
`The method of claim 1, wherein the production format uses a frame rate of 24
`frames per second.
`Claim 3 of the ‘198 Patent states:
`The method of claim 1, wherein the step of processing the video program in the
`production format includes the use of pixel interpolation.
`Claim 4 of the ‘198 Patent states:
`The method of claim 1, wherein the output version of the program has image
`dimensions pixels of 1024x576; 1280x720; or 1920x1080.
`Claim 5 of the ‘198 Patent states:
`
`555494.1
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-20026-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2021 Page 12 of 18
`
`The method of claim 4, using a sampling frequency of up to 37 Mhz at the image
`dimensions of 1024x576 and 1280x720.
`Claim 7 of the ‘198 Patent states:
`The method of claim 1, wherein the input video is standard or widescreen NTSC or
`
`PAL.
`
`Claim 13 of the ‘198 Patent states:
`The method of claim 1, wherein the frame rate of the output version of the program
`is higher than one or both of the input and production formats.
`Claim 15 of the’198 Patent states:
`The method of claim 1, wherein the high-capacity digital video storage means
`includes an asynchronous read/write capability used to perform a frame-rate conversion.
` Claim 16 of the’198 Patent states:
`The method of claim 1, wherein the step of processing the video program in the
`production format includes the use of line doubling or quadrupling.
`Defendant’s Accused Products infringe Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 15, and 16 of the ‘198
`43.
`
`Patent.
`
`44. Without license or authorization and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), on
`
`information and belief, Defendant directly infringed one or more claims of the ’198 Patent in this
`
`Judicial District and throughout the United States, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by
`
`making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing their Accused Products, and/or induced
`
`infringement or engage in contributory infringement by such actions with their Accused Products,
`
`that performs all of the limitations of the asserted claims as shown in the accompanying claim
`
`chart, submitted herewith as Exhibit G.
`
`45.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has known of the ’198 Patent and that use of
`
`their Accused Products results in direct infringement of one or more claims of the ’198 Patent, and
`
`Defendant has engaged in actions which have knowingly resulted in such direct infringement.
`
`555494.1
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-20026-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2021 Page 13 of 18
`
`46. Without license or authorization and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), on
`
`information and belief, Defendant infringed one or more claims of the ’198 Patent in this Judicial
`
`District and throughout the United States, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by actively
`
`inducing direct infringement of the ‘198 Patent via end-user use of their Accused Products, which,
`
`when used in normal operation and as prescribed by written operational guidance for the Accused
`
`Products as provided by Defendant, results in such end-users performing all of the limitations of
`
`the asserted claims, as shown and described in detail in the accompanying claim chart, submitted
`
`herewith as Exhibit G.
`
`47. Without license or authorization and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), on
`
`information and belief, Defendant indirectly infringed one or more claims of the ’198 Patent in
`
`this Judicial District and throughout the United States, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`through offers to sell or sales within the United States or imports into the United States of one or
`
`more component(s) of an apparatus for use in practicing the methods of the ’198 Patent claims and
`
`constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially
`
`adapted for use in an infringement of the ’198 Patent claims, and not an article or commodity
`
`suitable for substantial non-infringing use, wherein Defendant’s Accused Products, when used in
`
`normal operation and as prescribed by written operational guidance for the Accused Products as
`
`provided by Defendant, result in such end-users performing all of the limitations of the asserted
`
`claims as shown in the accompanying claim chart, submitted herewith as Exhibit G.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged by Defendant’s infringement.
`
`For the avoidance of doubt, Plaintiff only seeks damages which are not barred by
`
`the statute of limitations for infringement that occurred prior to the patent expiring on April 7,
`
`2017.
`
`555494.1
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-20026-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2021 Page 14 of 18
`
`COUNT IV: DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘979 PATENT
`
`50.
`
`The allegations contained in paragraphs 1-19 above are hereby re-alleged as if fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`51.
`
`The ‘979 Patent is titled “Wide-Band Multi-Format Audio/Video Production
`
`System With Frame-Rate Conversion.”
`
`52.
`
`Claim 1 of the ‘979 Patent states:
`
`A method of processing an audio/video program to output a modified version of
`the program at a desired display rate, comprising the steps of:
`providing a computer including RAM, ROM and a processor;
`the computer receiving an input video program in a first interlaced format having
`no added redundant frames or fields;
`the computer de-interlacing the input video program to generate a video program
`in a first progressive format comprising a sequence of progressive frames, each
`progressive frame being derived from a respective one, and only one, of the
`fields in the first interlaced format;
`the computer removing or repeating some of the frames of the video program in the
`first progressive format to generate a program in a second progressive format;
`and
`the computer outputting the program in the second progressive format, wherein the
`display rate of the program is at least 48 frames-per-second, and is an integer
`multiple of substantially 24, 25, or 30 frames-per-second.
`Claim 3 of the ‘979 Patent states:
`The method of claim 1, wherein the first interlaced format is NTSC or HDTV at 30
`
`fps.
`
`Claim 4 of the ‘979 Patent states:
`A method of processing an audio/video program to output a modified version of
`the program at a desired display rate, comprising the steps of:
`providing a computer including RAM, ROM and a processor;
`the computer receiving an input video program in a first progressive format having
`no added redundant frames;
`
`555494.1
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-20026-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2021 Page 15 of 18
`
`the computer repeating each frame of the first progressive format to generate a
`program in an intermediate progressive format having a frame rate exactly twice
`that of the first progressive format;
`the computer removing or repeating some of the frames of the video program in the
`intermediate progressive format to generate a program in a second progressive
`format; and
`the computer outputting the program in the second progressive format, wherein the
`display rate of the program is at least 48 frames-per-second, and is an integer
`multiple of substantially 24, 25, or 30 frames-per-second.
`Claim 5 of the ‘979 Patent states:
`The method of claim 4, wherein the first progressive format is at 24, 25 or 30 fps.
`Claim 9 of the ‘979 Patent states:
`A method of processing an audio/video program to output a modified version of
`the program at a desired display rate, comprising the steps of:
`providing a computer including RAM, ROM and a processor;
`the computer receiving an input video program in a first format having no added
`redundant frames or fields, and having a frame rate that is an integer multiple
`of 24 fps;
`the computer determining if the input video program is in an interlaced format, the
`computer de-interlacing the input video program to generate a video program
`in a first progressive format comprising a sequence of progressive frames, each
`progressive frame being derived from a respective one, and only one, of the
`fields in the first format;
`the computer removing or repeating some of the frames of the video program in the
`first progressive format to generate a program in an intermediate progressive
`format at a frame rate of at least 48 frames per second, if not already in that
`format; and
`the computer outputting the program in the intermediate progressive format
`wherein the display rate is an integer multiple substantially of 24, 25, or 30
`frames-per-second and is greater than or equal to 48 frames per second.
`Claim 11 of the ‘979 Patent states:
`The method of claim 1 further including the step of displaying the program on a
`display device following outputting of the program.
`Claim 12 of the ‘979 Patent states:
`The method of claim 4 further including the step of displaying the program on a
`display device following outputting of the program.
`
`555494.1
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-20026-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2021 Page 16 of 18
`
`Claim 13 of the ‘979 Patent states:
`The method of claim 9 further including the step of displaying the program on a
`display device following outputting of the program.
`Defendant’s Accused Products infringe Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12 and 13 of the
`53.
`
`‘979 Patent.
`
`54. Without license or authorization and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), on
`
`information and belief, Defendant directly infringed one or more claims of the ’979 Patent in this
`
`Judicial District and throughout the United States, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by
`
`making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing their Accused Products, and/or induced
`
`infringement or engage in contributory infringement by such actions with their Accused Products,
`
`that performs all of the limitations of the asserted claims as shown in the accompanying claim
`
`chart, submitted herewith as Exhibit H.
`
`55.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has known of the ’979 Patent and that use of
`
`their Accused Products results in direct infringement of one or more claims of the ’979 Patent, and
`
`Defendant has engaged in actions which have knowingly resulted in such direct infringement.
`
`56. Without license or authorization and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), on
`
`information and belief, Defendant infringed one or more claims of the ’979 Patent in this Judicial
`
`District and throughout the United States, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by actively
`
`inducing direct infringement of the ‘979 Patent via end-user use of their Accused Products, which,
`
`when used in normal operation and as prescribed by written operational guidance for the Accused
`
`Products as provided by Defendant, results in such end-users performing all of the limitations of
`
`the asserted claims, as shown and described in detail in the accompanying claim chart, submitted
`
`herewith as Exhibit H.
`
`555494.1
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-20026-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/05/2021 Page 17 of 18
`
`57. Without license or authorization and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), on
`
`information and belief, Defendant indirectly infringed one or more claims of the ’979 Patent in
`
`this Judicial District and throughout the United States, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`through offers to sell or sales within the United States or imports into the United States of one or
`
`more component(s) of an apparatus for use in practicing the methods of the ’979 Patent claims and
`
`constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially
`
`adapted for use in an infringement of the ’979 Patent claims, and not an article or commodity
`
`suitable for substantial non-infring