CASE 0:21-cv-02618-SRN-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 12/07/21 Page 1 of 35
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
`
`HUTCHINSON TECHNOLOGY
`INCORPORATED,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Civil Action No. ________
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`SUNCALL CORPORATION,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Hutchinson Technology Incorporated for its Complaint against Suncall Corporation
`
`alleges as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Hutchinson Technology Incorporated (“HTI”) is a Minnesota corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 40 West Highland Park Dr. NE, Hutchinson, Minnesota 55350.
`
`2.
`
`Suncall Corporation (“Suncall”) is a Japanese corporation with its principal place
`
`of business located on 14, Umezunishiura-cho, Ukyo-ku, Kyoto 615-8555, Japan.
`
`NATURE AND BASIS OF ACTION
`
`3.
`
`This is an action by HTI against Suncall for infringement of United States Patent
`
`Nos. 6,856,487; 7,342,750; 7,542,241; 8,228,638; 8,320,083; 8,498,082; 8,717,712; 8,867,173;
`
`9,025,285; 9,111,556; 9,245,555; 9,431,042; 9,524,739; 9,870,792; 10,002,629; and 10,916,265
`
`(the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`4.
`
`This action arises out of Suncall’s acts of direct and indirect infringement of the
`
`Asserted Patents by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling within the United States and/or
`
`importing into the United States certain suspension assemblies for hard disk drives (HDDs) that
`
`
`WEST\295800595.17
`
`1
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-02618-SRN-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 12/07/21 Page 2 of 35
`
`infringe the Asserted Patents, and/or Suncall’s acts of actively inducing infringement or
`
`contributing to infringement of the Asserted Patents.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This Action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United
`
`States Code. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`1331 and 1338(a).
`
`6.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Suncall under the United States
`
`Constitution, applicable state and federal law and, in particular, Minnesota’s long-arm statute
`
`(MINN. STAT. § 543.19) because Suncall has committed acts outside Minnesota causing injury
`
`to HTI in Minnesota, including the acts of infringement set forth more fully below. HTI is a
`
`Minnesota corporation and Minnesota has a substantial interest in providing a forum for HTI’s
`
`claims.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) because
`
`defendant Suncall is a Japanese corporation.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`8.
`
`HTI was founded in 1965 and specializes in high-volume manufacturing of
`
`precision electromechanical components and assemblies. HTI is a key worldwide supplier of
`
`suspension assemblies for hard disk drives (HDDs). Suspension assemblies precisely position the
`
`recording head above the disk and provide the electrical connection from the recording head to the
`
`disk drive’s circuitry. Suspension assemblies are a critical and necessary component for every
`
`HDD. HTI has invested millions of dollars on research and development to support its HDD
`
`suspension assembly business.
`
`9.
`
`HDD component suppliers are well known to each other due to the limited number
`
`of competitors and customers in the global market. For example, Suncall is one of only two
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-02618-SRN-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 12/07/21 Page 3 of 35
`
`manufacturers (other than HTI and its affiliates) that make and sell suspension assemblies for one
`
`or more of three global HDD manufacturers: Western Digital Corporation, Toshiba Corporation,
`
`and Seagate Technologies.
`
`10.
`
`Suncall manufactures, offers to sell, and sells suspension assemblies to Western
`
`Digital Corporation with knowledge that those products are imported into, offered for sale, sold,
`
`and used throughout the United States, including specifically in Minnesota.
`
`11.
`
`Suncall also previously held a license from HTI to certain U.S. patents for use in
`
`Single-Stage Actuated (SSA) HDD suspensions assemblies, predecessor technology to the
`
`suspension assemblies at issue in this Complaint.
`
`12.
`
`Several other HTI patents relating to HDD suspension assemblies that are not at
`
`issue in this Complaint were also cited during prosecution of certain Suncall patent applications.
`
`13.
`
`HTI provided written notice to Suncall regarding Suncall’s infringement of the
`
`Asserted Patents prior to the filing of this Complaint.
`
`14.
`
`For at least these reasons, Suncall has actual or constructive knowledge of the
`
`Asserted Patents and Suncall’s infringement thereof.
`
`Suncall’s Acts of Infringement
`
`15.
`
` Suncall is in the business of manufacturing suspension assemblies for HDDs, but
`
`upon information and belief, Suncall does not devote resources in any significant amount to
`
`research and development in support of that business.
`
`16.
`
`Suncall manufactures at least two types of HDD suspension assemblies that infringe
`
`one or more of the Asserted Patents.
`
`17.
`
`One type of infringing Suncall suspension assemblies (the “DSA Accused
`
`Products”) are manufactured for use and are used in Dual-Stage Actuated (DSA) HDDs, including
`
`but not limited to, the following Western Digital (WD) and HGST (a WD subsidiary) HDD product
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-02618-SRN-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 12/07/21 Page 4 of 35
`
`models:
`
`WD100PURZ-85W86Y0;
`
`WD82PURZ;
`
`WD20EZAZ;
`
`WD80EDAZ;
`
`HUH721010ALAE600; WD121PURZ; HUH721212AL4200; and 0F27352 Ultrastar HE10 3.5"
`
`26.1mm.
`
`18.
`
`Another type of infringing Suncall suspension assemblies (the “TSA Accused
`
`Products”) are manufactured for use and are used in Triple-Stage Actuated (TSA) HDDs, including
`
`but not limited to, the following Western Digital (WD) HDD product models: WD181KRYZ and
`
`WD180PURZ.
`
`19.
`
`Upon information and belief, Suncall “makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells” DSA
`
`Accused Products and TSA Accused Products “within the United States or imports [them] into the
`
`United States,” and Suncall has knowledge that such acts constitute direct infringement of one or
`
`more claims of the Asserted Patents.
`
`20. Western Digital Corporation imports (or causes to be imported) into the United
`
`States, and uses, offers to sell, and/or sells within the United States including in Minnesota, HDDs
`
`incorporating Suncall’s DSA Accused Products and TSA Accused Products.
`
`21.
`
`Suncall has actual knowledge or reasonably should have known given its
`
`relationship to Western Digital Corporation and the nature of the HDD markets that Western
`
`Digital HDDs incorporating Suncall’s DSA Accused Products and TSA Accused Products are
`
`imported into the United States and into Minnesota, and used, offered for sale, and/or sold within
`
`the United States, and that such acts constitute direct infringement of one or more claims of the
`
`Asserted Patents.
`
`22.
`
`Upon information and belief, Suncall actively induces Western Digital Corporation
`
`and potentially others to directly infringe one or more claims of the Asserted Patents by
`
`manufacturing and selling the infringing DSA Accused Products and TSA Accused Products for
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-02618-SRN-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 12/07/21 Page 5 of 35
`
`use in HDDs that Suncall knows or should know (i) infringe the Asserted Patents and (ii) will be
`
`imported into the United States and into Minnesota, and used, offered for sale, and/or sold within
`
`the United States.
`
`23.
`
`Suncall has knowledge that its offers to sell or sales of the DSA Accused Products
`
`and TSA Accused Products within the United States and in Minnesota, or importation into the
`
`United States and/or Minnesota, constitutes contributory infringement of the Asserted Patents. At
`
`minimum, Suncall’s DSA Accused Products and TSA Accused Products are a material component
`
`of a patented machine, and are especially made for use in an infringement of one more claims of
`
`the Asserted Patents, and are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial non-infringing use.
`
`COUNT ONE
`SUNCALL’S INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 6,856,487
`
`24.
`
`HTI repeats and realleges the allegations of Paragraphs 1-23 above as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`25.
`
`On February 15, 2005, the USPTO issued United States Patent No. 6,856,487 (“the
`
`’487 Patent”), titled “Suspension with minimized second torsion gain.” A certified copy of the
`
`’487 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`The ’487 Patent is assigned to HTI.
`
`As an example, claim 1 of the ’487 Patent recites “A disk drive suspension having
`
`a minimized 2nd torsion characteristic, said suspension comprising a load beam having a given
`
`side profile and centerline rotation axis and comprising a base portion, a spring portion, and a beam
`
`portion, said beam portion having a distal section supporting a flexure having a tongue, a dimple
`
`between said tongue and said load beam, and a slider carried on said tongue for gimballing
`
`movement about said dimple, said dimple having a given height that displaces said beam portion
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-02618-SRN-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 12/07/21 Page 6 of 35
`
`so that the beam portion side profile is biased from said centerline rotation axis, said beam portion
`
`distal section having a bend of a size and location to offset the displacement of said beam portion
`
`by said dimple while maintaining said beam portion straight before said distal section, whereby
`
`said beam portion side profile registers with its said centerline rotation axis and its 2nd torsion
`
`characteristic is minimized.”
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`Suncall was aware of the ’487 Patent prior to the filing of this lawsuit.
`
`Suncall’s TSA Accused Products literally contain each element of the disk drive
`
`suspension covered by at least claim 1 of the ’487 Patent.
`
`30.
`
`Upon information and belief, Suncall “makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells” TSA
`
`Accused Products “within the United States or imports [them] into the United States,” and such
`
`acts constitute direct infringement of at least claim 1 of the ’487 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`31.
`
`By providing its TSA Accused Products, Suncall actively induces others, such as
`
`Western Digital Corporation, to directly infringe one more claims of the ’487 Patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(a), and thus Suncall is liable for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`32.
`
`Suncall is liable as a contributory infringer for infringement of one or more claims
`
`of the ’487 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) because Suncall offers to sell or sells within the United
`
`States or imports into the United States its TSA Accused Products, which constitute a component
`
`of a patented machine, constituting a material part of the invention, and Suncall knows the same
`
`to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of one or more claims of
`
`the ’487 Patent, and the TSA Accused Products are not a staple article or commodity of commerce
`
`suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
`
`33.
`
`Upon information and belief, Suncall’s acts of infringement have been, and
`
`continue to be, willful and deliberate, and have caused substantial damage to HTI.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-02618-SRN-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 12/07/21 Page 7 of 35
`
`34.
`
`Upon information and belief, Suncall will continue its infringement of one or more
`
`claims of the ’487 Patent unless enjoined by the Court. Suncall’s infringing conduct thus causes
`
`HTI irreparable harm and will continue to cause such harm without the issuance of an injunction.
`
`COUNT TWO
`SUNCALL’S INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,342,750
`
`35.
`
`HTI repeats and realleges the allegations of Paragraphs 1-34 above as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`36.
`
`On March 11, 2008, the USPTO issued United States Patent No. 7,342,750 (“the
`
`’750 Patent”), titled “Method for providing electrical crossover in a laminated structure.” A
`
`certified copy of the ’750 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`The ’750 Patent is assigned to HTI.
`
`As an example, claim 1 of the ’750 Patent recites “A laminated suspension,
`
`comprising: a support layer; a non-continuous first trace electrically connecting a slider to a pre-
`
`amplifier; a second trace electrically connecting the slider to the pre-amplifier, the second trace to
`
`cross over the non-continuous first trace at a first trace crossover point, and to remain electrically
`
`isolated from the non-continuous first trace; and an insulating layer isolating the non-continuous
`
`first trace and the second trace from the first support layer.”
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`Suncall was aware of the ’750 Patent prior to the filing of this lawsuit.
`
`Suncall’s DSA Accused Products and TSA Accused Products literally contain each
`
`element of the laminated suspension covered by at least claim 1 of the ’750 Patent.
`
`41.
`
`Upon information and belief, Suncall “makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells” DSA
`
`Accused Products and/or TSA Accused Products “within the United States or imports [them] into
`
`the United States,” and such acts constitute direct infringement of at least claim 1 of the ’750 Patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-02618-SRN-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 12/07/21 Page 8 of 35
`
`42.
`
`By providing its DSA Accused Products and/or TSA Accused Products, Suncall
`
`actively induces others, such as Western Digital Corporation, to directly infringe one more claims
`
`of the ’750 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), and thus Suncall is liable for infringement under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`43.
`
`Suncall is liable as a contributory infringer for infringement of one or more claims
`
`of the ’750 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) because Suncall offers to sell or sells within the United
`
`States or imports into the United States its DSA Accused Products and/or TSA Accused Products,
`
`which constitute a component of a patented machine, constituting a material part of the invention,
`
`and Suncall knows the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement
`
`of one or more claims of the ’750 Patent, and the DSA Accused Products and TSA Accused
`
`Products are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing
`
`use.
`
`44.
`
`Upon information and belief, Suncall’s acts of infringement have been, and
`
`continue to be, willful and deliberate, and have caused substantial damage to HTI.
`
`45.
`
`Upon information and belief, Suncall will continue its infringement of one or more
`
`claims of the ’750 Patent unless enjoined by the Court. Suncall’s infringing conduct thus causes
`
`HTI irreparable harm and will continue to cause such harm without the issuance of an injunction.
`
`COUNT THREE
`SUNCALL’S INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 7,542,241
`
`46.
`
`HTI repeats and realleges the allegations of Paragraphs 1-45 above as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`47.
`
`On June 2, 2009, the USPTO issued United States Patent No. 7,542,241 (“the ’241
`
`Patent”), titled “Disk drive suspension with 1st and 2nd torsion control through rail height variation
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-02618-SRN-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 12/07/21 Page 9 of 35
`
`and offsetting beam portion deflection.” A certified copy of the ’241 Patent is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit C.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`The ’241 Patent is assigned to HTI.
`
`As an example, claim 1 of the ’241 Patent recites “A disk drive suspension
`
`comprising a base portion, a spring portion and a generally planar beam portion for supporting a
`
`flexure and a slider in gimballing relation with said beam portion about a dimple and for operative
`
`association with a disk, said suspension having a mass providing an inertia in use divided into an
`
`upper inertia component and a lower inertia component at a plane of excitation extending between
`
`said base portion and said dimple, said beam portion being locally deflected out of its general plane
`
`to vary the distribution of suspension mass in said upper inertia component and said lower inertia
`
`component in inertia balance adjusting relation, said beam left and right edge rails being varied in
`
`height along their lengths to correspondingly locally vary the amount and distribution of said
`
`suspension mass.”
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`Suncall was aware of the ’241 Patent prior to the filing of this lawsuit.
`
`Suncall’s DSA Accused Products and TSA Accused Products literally contain each
`
`element of the disk drive suspension covered by at least claim 1 of the ’241 Patent.
`
`52.
`
`Upon information and belief, Suncall “makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells” DSA
`
`Accused Products and/or TSA Accused Products “within the United States or imports [them] into
`
`the United States,” and such acts constitute direct infringement of at least claim 1 of the ’241 Patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`53.
`
`By providing its DSA Accused Products and/or TSA Accused Products, Suncall
`
`actively induces others, such as Western Digital Corporation, to directly infringe one more claims
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-02618-SRN-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 12/07/21 Page 10 of 35
`
`of the ’241 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), and thus Suncall is liable for infringement under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`54.
`
`Suncall is liable as a contributory infringer for infringement of one or more claims
`
`of the ’241 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) because Suncall offers to sell or sells within the United
`
`States or imports into the United States its DSA Accused Products and/or TSA Accused Products,
`
`which constitute a component of a patented machine, constituting a material part of the invention,
`
`and Suncall knows the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement
`
`of one or more claims of the ’241 Patent, and the DSA Accused Products and TSA Accused
`
`Products are not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing
`
`use.
`
`55.
`
`Upon information and belief, Suncall’s acts of infringement have been, and
`
`continue to be, willful and deliberate, and have caused substantial damage to HTI.
`
`56.
`
`Upon information and belief, Suncall will continue its infringement of one or more
`
`claims of the ’241 Patent unless enjoined by the Court. Suncall’s infringing conduct thus causes
`
`HTI irreparable harm and will continue to cause such harm without the issuance of an injunction.
`
`COUNT FOUR
`SUNCALL’S INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 8,228,638
`
`57.
`
`HTI repeats and realleges the allegations of Paragraphs 1-56 above as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`58.
`
`On July 24, 2012, the USPTO issued United States Patent No. 8,228,638 (“the ’638
`
`Patent”), titled “Load beam having a controlled droop angle.” A certified copy of the ’638 Patent
`
`is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
`
`59.
`
`The ’638 Patent is assigned to HTI.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-02618-SRN-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 12/07/21 Page 11 of 35
`
`60.
`
`As an example, claim 1 of the ’638 Patent recites “A load beam comprising: a. an
`
`edge region; and b. a bent rail that was formed by folding the edge region of the load beam; c.
`
`wherein the edge region of the load beam was coined before the edge region was folded into the
`
`bent rail thereby producing a coined region; wherein the coined region is located in the bent rail at
`
`a position adjacent where differently shaped first and second planar regions of the load beam
`
`meet.”
`
`61.
`
`62.
`
`Suncall was aware of the ’638 Patent prior to the filing of this lawsuit.
`
`Suncall’s DSA Accused Products literally contain each element of the suspension
`
`load beam covered by at least claim 1 of the ’638 Patent.
`
`63.
`
`Upon information and belief, Suncall “makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells” DSA
`
`Accused Products “within the United States or imports [them] into the United States,” and such
`
`acts constitute direct infringement of at least claim 1 of the ’638 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`64.
`
`By providing its DSA Accused Products, Suncall actively induces others, such as
`
`Western Digital Corporation, to directly infringe one more claims of the ’638 Patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(a), and thus Suncall is liable for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`65.
`
`Suncall is liable as a contributory infringer for infringement of one or more claims
`
`of the ’638 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) because Suncall offers to sell or sells within the United
`
`States or imports into the United States its DSA Accused Products, which constitute a component
`
`of a patented machine, constituting a material part of the invention, and Suncall knows the same
`
`to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of one or more claims of
`
`the ’638 Patent, and the DSA Accused Products are not a staple article or commodity of commerce
`
`suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-02618-SRN-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 12/07/21 Page 12 of 35
`
`66.
`
`Upon information and belief, Suncall’s acts of infringement have been, and
`
`continue to be, willful and deliberate, and have caused substantial damage to HTI.
`
`67.
`
`Upon information and belief, Suncall will continue its infringement of one or more
`
`claims of the ’638 Patent unless enjoined by the Court. Suncall’s infringing conduct thus causes
`
`HTI irreparable harm and will continue to cause such harm without the issuance of an injunction.
`
`COUNT FIVE
`SUNCALL’S INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 8,320,083
`
`68.
`
`HTI repeats and realleges the allegations of Paragraphs 1-67 above as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`69.
`
`On November 27, 2012, the USPTO issued United States Patent No. 8,320,083
`
`(“the ’083 Patent”), titled “Electrical interconnect with improved corrosion resistance for a disk
`
`drive head suspension.” A certified copy of the ’083 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
`
`70.
`
`71.
`
`The ’083 Patent is assigned to HTI.
`
`As an example, claim 1 of the ’083 Patent recites “An electrical interconnect for a
`
`disk drive head suspension comprising: an insulating base; a conductor arrayed in a wiring pattern
`
`on said insulating base; a substrate supporting said insulating base opposite said conductor; a
`
`nickel shell, said nickel shell coating substantially all an upper surface and side surfaces of said
`
`conductor; a gold shell, said gold shell coating substantially all of said nickel shell, wherein said
`
`conductor, nickel shell and gold shell define at least one terminal pad; and a covercoat, said
`
`covercoat coating substantially all of said gold shell up to but excluding said at least one terminal
`
`pad, whereby said terminal pad has an exposed gold top and an exposed gold side.”
`
`72.
`
`73.
`
`Suncall was aware of the ’083 Patent prior to the filing of this lawsuit.
`
`Suncall’s TSA Accused Products literally contain each element of the electrical
`
`interconnect for a disk drive head suspension covered by at least claim 1 of the ’083 Patent.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-02618-SRN-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 12/07/21 Page 13 of 35
`
`74.
`
` Upon information and belief, Suncall “makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells” TSA
`
`Accused Products “within the United States or imports [them] into the United States,” and such
`
`acts constitute direct infringement of at least claim 1 of the ’083 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`75.
`
`By providing its TSA Accused Products, Suncall actively induces others, such as
`
`Western Digital Corporation, to directly infringe one more claims of the ’083 Patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(a), and thus Suncall is liable for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`76.
`
`Suncall is liable as a contributory infringer for infringement of one or more claims
`
`of the ’083 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) because Suncall offers to sell or sells within the United
`
`States or imports into the United States its TSA Accused Products, which constitute a component
`
`of a patented machine, constituting a material part of the invention, and Suncall knows the same
`
`to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of one or more claims of
`
`the ’083 Patent, and the TSA Accused Products are not a staple article or commodity of commerce
`
`suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
`
`77.
`
`Upon information and belief, Suncall’s acts of infringement have been, and
`
`continue to be, willful and deliberate, and have caused substantial damage to HTI.
`
`78.
`
`Upon information and belief, Suncall will continue its infringement of one or more
`
`claims of the ’083 Patent unless enjoined by the Court. Suncall’s infringing conduct thus causes
`
`HTI irreparable harm and will continue to cause such harm without the issuance of an injunction.
`
`COUNT SIX
`SUNCALL’S INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 8,498,082
`
`79.
`
`HTI repeats and realleges the allegations of Paragraphs 1-78 above as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-02618-SRN-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 12/07/21 Page 14 of 35
`
`80.
`
`On July 30, 2013, the USPTO issued United States Patent No. 8,498,082 (“the ’082
`
`Patent”), titled “DSA suspension with improved microactuator stroke length.” A certified copy
`
`of the ’082 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
`
`81.
`
`82.
`
`The ’082 Patent is assigned to HTI.
`
`As an example, claim 11 of the ’082 Patent recites “A dual stage actuated (DSA)
`
`suspension for a disk drive, the suspension comprising: a proximal portion attached to an actuator
`
`arm; a distal portion to which a head slider is mounted; a microactuator disposed on said
`
`suspension and mounted between the proximal portion and the distal portion of the suspension and
`
`affixed to each of said portions; a conductive ground path comprising conductive polymer
`
`extending between a first and generally horizontal surface of the microactuator and a grounded flat
`
`surface on at least one of said portions, the first surface of the microactuator and the grounded flat
`
`surface of the suspension being separated by a horizontal gap; a non-conductive polymer disposed
`
`on said first surface of the microactuator and extending across the gap and onto and over the
`
`grounded flat surface of the suspension and bonded directly to said grounded flat surface of the
`
`suspension.”
`
`83.
`
`84.
`
`Suncall was aware of the ’082 Patent prior to the filing of this lawsuit.
`
`Suncall’s TSA Accused Products literally contain each element of the suspension
`
`for a disk drive covered by at least claim 1 of the ’082 Patent.
`
`85.
`
`Upon information and belief, Suncall “makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells” TSA
`
`Accused Products “within the United States or imports [them] into the United States,” and such
`
`acts constitute direct infringement of at least claim 11 of the ’082 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-02618-SRN-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 12/07/21 Page 15 of 35
`
`86.
`
`By providing its TSA Accused Products, Suncall actively induces others, such as
`
`Western Digital Corporation, to directly infringe one more claims of the ’082 Patent under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(a), and thus Suncall is liable for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`87.
`
`Suncall is liable as a contributory infringer for infringement of one or more claims
`
`of the ’082 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) because Suncall offers to sell or sells within the United
`
`States or imports into the United States its TSA Accused Products, which constitute a component
`
`of a patented machine, constituting a material part of the invention, and Suncall knows the same
`
`to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of one or more claims of
`
`the ’082 Patent, and the TSA Accused Products are not a staple article or commodity of commerce
`
`suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
`
`88.
`
`Upon information and belief, Suncall’s acts of infringement have been, and
`
`continue to be, willful and deliberate, and have caused substantial damage to HTI.
`
`89.
`
`Upon information and belief, Suncall will continue its infringement of one or more
`
`claims of the ’082 Patent unless enjoined by the Court. Suncall’s infringing conduct thus causes
`
`HTI irreparable harm and will continue to cause such harm without the issuance of an injunction.
`
`COUNT SEVEN
`SUNCALL’S INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 8,717,712
`
`90.
`
`HTI repeats and realleges the allegations of Paragraphs 1-89 above as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`91.
`
`On May 6, 2014, the USPTO issued United States Patent No. 8,717,712 (“the ’712
`
`Patent”), titled “Disk drive suspension assembly having a partially flangeless load point dimple.”
`
`A certified copy of the ’712 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
`
`92.
`
`The ’712 Patent is assigned to HTI.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-02618-SRN-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 12/07/21 Page 16 of 35
`
`93.
`
`As an example, claim 1 of the ’712 Patent recites “ A suspension assembly of a disk
`
`drive, the suspension assembly comprising: a flexure; and a load beam, the load beam formed from
`
`a substrate and comprising a major planar area, the load beam further comprising a void in the
`
`substrate, a dimple formed from the substrate, and a flange, wherein the flange is a region of the
`
`major planar area that extends partially around the dimple but does not extend along an edge of
`
`the dimple, the edge of the dimple adjacent to the void, and the dimple is in contact with the flexure
`
`and is configured to transfer a force to the flexure while allowing the flexure to move relative to
`
`the load beam.”
`
`94.
`
`95.
`
`Suncall was aware of the ’712 Patent prior to the filing of this lawsuit.
`
`Suncall’s DSA Accused Products found in at least the WD HDD model
`
`WD20EZAZ literally contain each element of the suspension assembly of a disk drive covered by
`
`at least claim 1 of the ’712 Patent.
`
`96.
`
`Upon information and belief, Suncall “makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells” DSA
`
`Accused Products found in at least the WD HDD model WD20EZAZ “within the United States or
`
`imports [them] into the United States,” and such acts constitute direct infringement of at least claim
`
`1 of the ’712 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`97.
`
`By providing its DSA Accused Products found in at least the WD HDD model
`
`WD20EZAZ, Suncall actively induces others, such as Western Digital Corporation, to directly
`
`infringe one more claims of the ’712 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), and thus Suncall is liable
`
`for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`98.
`
`Suncall is liable as a contributory infringer for infringement of one or more claims
`
`of the ’712 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) because Suncall offers to sell or sells within the United
`
`States or imports into the United States its DSA Accused Products found in at least the WD HDD
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`CASE 0:21-cv-02618-SRN-DLM Doc. 8 Filed 12/07/21 Page 17 of 35
`
`model WD20EZAZ, which constitute a component of a patented machine, constituting a material
`
`part of the invention, and Suncall knows the same to be especially made or especially adapted for
`
`use in an infringement of one or more claims of the ’712 Patent, and the DSA Accused Products
`
`found in at least the WD HDD model WD20EZAZ are not a staple article or commodity of
`
`commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
`
`99.
`
`Upon information and belief, Suncall’s acts of infringement have been, and
`
`continue to be, willful and deliberate, and have caused substantial damage to HTI.
`
`100. Upon information and belief, Suncall will continue its infringement of one or more
`
`claims of the ’712 Patent unless enjoined by the Court. Suncall’s infringing conduct thus causes
`
`HTI irreparable harm and will continue to cause such harm without the issuance of an injunction.
`
`COUNT EIGHT
`SUNCALL’S INFRINGEMENT OF UNITED STATES PATENT NO. 8,867,173
`
`101. HTI repeats and realleges the allegations of Paragraphs 1-100 above as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`102. On October 21, 2014, the USPTO issued United States Patent No. 8,867,173 (“the
`
`’173 Patent”), titled “Balanced multi-trace transmission in a hard disk drive flexure.” A certified
`
`copy of the ’173 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit H.
`
`103. The ’173 Patent is assigned to HTI.
`
`104. As an example, claim 1 of the ’173 Patent recites “A disk drive suspension having
`
`a minimized 2nd torsion characteristic, said suspension comprising a load beam having a given
`
`side profile and centerline rotation axis and comprising a base portion, a spring portion, and a beam
`
`portion, said beam portion having a distal section supporting a flexure having a tongue, a dimple
`
`between said tongue and said load beam, and a slider carried on said tongue for gimballing
`
`movement about said dimple, said