`
`
`
`CASE 0:16-cv-02891-WMW-SER Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 1 of 25
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
`
`
`REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
`MINNESOTA,
` Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`LSI CORPORATION and AVAGO
`TECHNOLOGIES U.S. INC.,
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.___________
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`))
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Regents of the University of Minnesota (“the University”), by and through its
`
`
`
`undersigned counsel, hereby files this Complaint against LSI Corporation and Avago
`
`Technologies U.S. Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1, et seq., from Defendants’ willful direct and indirect infringement of the method
`
`claims of United States Patent No. 5,859,601 (“the ’601 Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`The University has long supported research and development of innovative
`
`data storage technologies. With this support, Jaekyun Moon, a former University
`
`professor, and Barrett J. Brickner, a Ph.D. student, developed the invention described in
`
`the ’601 Patent during their tenure at the University and assigned the ’601 Patent to the
`
`University. The invention generally claims a method for encoding data to be written to a
`
`magnetic disk in a hard disk drive (“HDD”) that increases the accuracy with which the
`
`
`
`1
`
`LSI Corp. Exhibit 1002
`Page 1
`
`
`
`CASE 0:16-cv-02891-WMW-SER Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 2 of 25
`
`
`
`data are subsequently read off of those magnetic disks, thereby substantially improving
`
`the performance of the HDD and allowing for increased data density.
`
`3.
`
`In the United States, Defendants knowingly designed, developed, tested,
`
`and adopted this invention and incorporated it into HDD chips sold by them in the United
`
`States, thereby gaining a competitive advantage through the resulting improvement in
`
`HDD performance. Rather than compensate the University for this use of University
`
`technology, Defendants have instead willfully infringed the ’601 Patent.
`
`PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`The University is a public institution of higher education created by charter
`
`and perpetuated by the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, Article XIII, Section 3.
`
`The University has its principal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
`
`5.
`
`The University is Minnesota’s flagship research university, with about
`
`30,000 undergraduate students, 16,000 graduate and professional students, 400,000
`
`alumni, and 4,000 faculty.
`
`6.
`
`The University has a long history of innovation, teaching, outreach, and
`
`public service. The University supports and facilitates a wide range of research that
`
`directly benefits the public both in and beyond the State of Minnesota, including
`
`educators, researchers, businesses, employees, and consumers. In fact, from 2009 to
`
`2015, inventions by University researchers generated more than $320 million in revenue
`
`for the University.
`
`7.
`
`Such research requires substantial funding, which the University obtains
`
`from both public and private sources. In 2015, for example, University faculty and staff
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`LSI Corp. Exhibit 1002
`Page 2
`
`
`
`CASE 0:16-cv-02891-WMW-SER Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 3 of 25
`
`
`
`were awarded over $700 million in research funds. Researchers in the College of Science
`
`and Engineering won over $140 million of those funds. The University consistently
`
`ranks among the top U.S. public universities in its amount of research spending.
`
`8.
`
`To maximize the public benefit that its research generates, the University in
`
`some instances patents and/or commercializes inventions generated by its researchers. It
`
`then reinvests a portion of those profits back into its education and research programs in
`
`accordance with its mission of serving the people of the State of Minnesota.
`
`9.
`
`Over the past 20 years, the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`(“USPTO”) has awarded hundreds of patents to the University, including the ’601 Patent,
`
`thereby recognizing the innovative technologies generated by the University’s
`
`researchers.
`
`10. Defendant LSI Corporation (“LSI”) is a Delaware corporation with a
`
`principal place of business at 1320 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose, California 95131.
`
`11. During certain times relevant to this action, LSI maintained offices in this
`
`judicial district, including in Rochester, Mendota Heights, and Bloomington, Minnesota.
`
`12. Defendant Avago Technologies U.S. Inc. (“Avago U.S.”) is a Delaware
`
`corporation with a principal place of business at 1320 Ridder Park Drive, San Jose,
`
`California 95131.
`
`13. Avago U.S. or one of its affiliate companies maintains a design office with
`
`over 100 employees in this judicial district.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`LSI Corp. Exhibit 1002
`Page 3
`
`
`
`CASE 0:16-cv-02891-WMW-SER Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 4 of 25
`
`
`
`14.
`
`LSI and Avago U.S. are both wholly owned indirect subsidiaries of holding
`
`company Avago Technologies Limited, which is in turn a wholly owned indirect
`
`subsidiary of holding company Broadcom Limited.
`
`15.
`
`LSI was formed as a result of the merger of LSI Logic Corporation and
`
`Agere Systems Inc. in 2007. Avago Technologies Limited then acquired LSI in 2014.
`
`The ultimate parent company, Broadcom Limited, was formed on February 1, 2016, as a
`
`result of a merger between Avago Technologies Limited and Broadcom Corporation. As
`
`of November 1, 2015, Avago Technologies Limited and its subsidiaries employed about
`
`8,200 persons globally, with 56% of the workforce located in North America.
`
`16.
`
`LSI designs, develops, and supplies storage and networking integrated
`
`circuits, including HDD chips (“HDD Chips”). HDD Chips include but are not limited to
`
`HDD controller systems-on-a-chip (“SOCs”) and/or stand-alone read channel chips, both
`
`of which are sold under the TrueStore tradename.
`
`17.
`
`Since March 2015, Avago U.S. has handled the U.S. sale and distribution
`
`of LSI products, including the product line of SOCs sold under the TrueStore tradename.
`
`18. Defendants have a “direct sales force focused on supporting large OEMs
`
`[original equipment manufacturers]” and also distribute “a substantial portion of []
`
`products through [a] broad distribution network,” including “large global electronic
`
`components distributors.” Exhibit 1 (Avago Technologies Limited 2015 10-K) at 4.
`
`19. U.S. distributors of Defendants’ products include Avnet Electronics
`
`Marketing and Digi-Key. Avnet Electronics Marketing maintains an office in this
`
`judicial district, at 2740 American Boulevard West, Suite 150, Bloomington, Minnesota
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`LSI Corp. Exhibit 1002
`Page 4
`
`
`
`CASE 0:16-cv-02891-WMW-SER Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 5 of 25
`
`
`
`55431. Digi-Key maintains an office in this judicial district, at 701 Brooks Avenue
`
`South, Thief River Falls, Minnesota 56701.
`
`20. Upon information and belief, Defendants have provided and currently
`
`provide customized HDD Chip information, data, simulators, and chips incorporating the
`
`invention described in the ’601 Patent to customers who manufacture HDDs, including
`
`Seagate Technology PLC (“Seagate”) and HGST, Inc. (“HGST”). Upon information and
`
`belief, Defendants have also provided and currently provide both Seagate and HGST with
`
`know-how regarding the invention of the ’601 Patent and support and instructions for the
`
`invention of the ’601 Patent.
`
`21.
`
`Seagate maintains facilities in this judicial district, in Bloomington and
`
`Shakopee, Minnesota.
`
`22. HGST maintains a facility in this judicial district, in Rochester, Minnesota.
`
`23.
`
`These Seagate and HGST facilities undertake, among other things, research
`
`and development on HDDs that incorporate Defendants’ HDD Chips, and, in that regard,
`
`Seagate and HGST personnel have worked and currently work with Defendants’
`
`personnel on all manner of HDD technology, including the invention of the ’601 Patent.
`
`24. Defendants locate their field application engineers and design engineers “in
`
`many cases near [their] top customers” to “enhance[] their customer reach and [their]
`
`visibility into new product opportunities and enable[ them] to support [their] customers in
`
`each stage of their product development cycle, from early stages of production design
`
`through volume manufacturing and future growth.” Exhibit 1 (Avago Technologies
`
`Limited 2015 10-K) at 8.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`LSI Corp. Exhibit 1002
`Page 5
`
`
`
`CASE 0:16-cv-02891-WMW-SER Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 6 of 25
`
`
`
`25. Defendants have “a diversified and well-established base of thousands of
`
`end customers, located throughout the world, which [they] serve through [their] multi-
`
`channel sales and fulfillment system.” Exhibit 1 (Avago Technologies Limited 2015
`
`10-K) at 4.
`
`26. Upon information and belief, products incorporating Defendants’ HDD
`
`Chips that infringe the ’601 Patent when operated are offered for sale and/or sold at retail
`
`stores throughout Minnesota and are used by end users within the state.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`27.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
`
`United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq.
`
`28.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
`
`1332 and 1338(a).
`
`29.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants
`
`regularly conduct business in the State of Minnesota and this judicial district, either
`
`directly or through agents, including distributors. On information and belief, Defendants
`
`have also committed acts of infringement or contributed to or induced acts of
`
`infringement by others in the State of Minnesota and this judicial district, including
`
`working directly with Defendants’ customers located in the state regarding the design,
`
`development, testing, and use of the invention. Defendants have further voluntarily
`
`placed infringing products and/or components of products into the stream of commerce
`
`with the expectation that their products or products incorporating their components would
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`LSI Corp. Exhibit 1002
`Page 6
`
`
`
`CASE 0:16-cv-02891-WMW-SER Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 7 of 25
`
`be shipped into, offered for sale in, and sold in the State of Minnesota and this judicial
`
`district.
`
`30. As a result, Defendants have intentionally availed themselves of the
`
`privilege of conducting business in this state and district, have purposefully directed
`
`activity at this state and district, and have established sufficient minimum contacts with
`
`this state and district such that Defendants can reasonably and fairly anticipate being
`
`haled into this Court.
`
`31. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1400(b) and
`
`1391(b)-(c) because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in, and so reside in,
`
`this district.
`
`A.
`
`Data Storage
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`32. An HDD is a ubiquitous device that stores digital information on one or
`
`more rotating disks, also sometimes referred to as “platters,” that are coated with
`
`magnetic material.
`
`33. Data are stored in sequential, individual magnetically coated regions on the
`
`disk by means of controlling the direction of magnetization of each individual region.
`
`34. An HDD comprises a read/write device that includes both a write head that
`
`writes the data to the disk and a read head that reads the data once they are written.
`
`35. When user data are to be written to the disk, the data are encoded and then
`
`the encoded data are converted into an analog signal that is sent to the write head. The
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`LSI Corp. Exhibit 1002
`Page 7
`
`
`
`CASE 0:16-cv-02891-WMW-SER Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 8 of 25
`
`
`
`write head records the resulting signal on the magnetic disk by magnetically polarizing
`
`the regions on the disk in accordance with the received signal.
`
`36.
`
`Each polarized region on the magnetic recording layer of the disk has a
`
`magnetic polarization that, once written by the write head, is oriented in a particular
`
`direction. The magnetic polarity of these regions can be changed from one direction to
`
`its opposite by the write head in order to write the data to the disk.
`
`37. An HDD also includes a read channel that performs the “immensely tricky
`
`task of converting the analog data signal” generated from the disk of the HDD “into
`
`binary bits.” See www.avagotech.com/products/hard-disk-drives/socs-read-channel.
`
`38. When adjacent polarized regions are magnetized in opposing directions,
`
`there is a “transition” in the polarity of the regions that is detected by the read channel of
`
`the HDD when reading the data.
`
`39. When reading the data from the disk, the read head hovers over the disk as
`
`the disk rotates below it. The read head senses the magnetic fields from the magnetic
`
`medium and converts the sensed magnetic fields into an analog “readback” signal.
`
`40. A sequence detector in the read channel converts the analog readback signal
`
`into binary data by determining from the signal the likely sequence of transitions and
`
`non-transitions recorded to the magnetic medium, where detected transitions can indicate
`
`a binary “1” and a nontransition can indicate a binary “0”.
`
`41. One performance metric for a read channel is the bit error rate (“BER”),
`
`which is the rate at which the read channel makes errors in determining the data written
`
`to the disk.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`LSI Corp. Exhibit 1002
`Page 8
`
`
`
`CASE 0:16-cv-02891-WMW-SER Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 9 of 25
`
`
`
`42.
`
`“Data continues to grow, driven by video, social media, enterprise
`
`applications and the cloud. To meet this demand, hard drive manufacturers continually
`
`drive more capacity per platter in hard drives.” See www.avagotech.com/products/hard-
`
`disk-drives/socs-read-channel.
`
`43.
`
`The data written and corresponding readback waveform in an HDD include
`
`noise that limits the reliability of the HDD.
`
`44. A major and increasing source of noise in HDDs over the past 15 years is
`
`media noise, which includes noise resulting from transitions on the magnetic media.
`
`45.
`
`Increasing the data capacity of an HDD increases the density of the
`
`transitions on the magnetic disk, which in turn increases the amount of noise in the
`
`analog data signal generated by the read head as it passes over the bit regions.
`
`B.
`
`The University’s Patent
`
`46. On January 12, 1999, the USPTO issued the ’601 Patent, titled “Method
`
`and Apparatus for Implementing Maximum Transition Run Codes.” A true and correct
`
`copy of the ’601 Patent is attached as Exhibit 2.
`
`47.
`
`The invention described by the ’601 Patent relates generally to a coding
`
`scheme for an HDD, referred to in the ’601 Patent by the coined phrase “Maximum
`
`Transition Run” (“MTR”) codes, that improves the BER of sequence detectors in the read
`
`channels of an HDD by “eliminat[ing] certain error-prone data patterns from the
`
`allowable set of input patterns that are to be recorded” on the disks of the HDD. See ’601
`
`Patent at col. 2:40-47.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`LSI Corp. Exhibit 1002
`Page 9
`
`
`
`CASE 0:16-cv-02891-WMW-SER Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 10 of 25
`
`
`
`48.
`
`The named inventors for the ’601 Patent are Jaekyun Moon and Barrett J.
`
`Brickner.
`
`49. When the University filed the application that matured into the ’601 Patent
`
`(application Serial No. 08/730,716), Dr. Moon was a professor in the Department of
`
`Electrical Engineering at the University and Dr. Brickner was Dr. Moon’s Ph.D. student.
`
`50. On or around 2005, CRC Press published Coding and Signal Processing for
`
`Magnetic Recording Systems, edited by Bane Vasic and Erozan M. Kurtas, eds.
`
`51. A true and correct copy of Chapter 17 of Coding and Signal Processing for
`
`Magnetic Recording Systems is attached as Exhibit 3.
`
`52.
`
`In Chapter 17, titled “Runlength Limited Sequences,” author Kees A.
`
`Schouhamer Immink states that “[m]aximum transition run (MTR) codes” were
`
`“introduced by Moon and Brickner.” Exhibit 3 at § 17.3.1, p. 17-4.
`
`53. On or around 1997, authors Kelly Knudson and Cory S. Modlin published a
`
`paper entitled “Time-varying MTR Codes for High Density Magnetic Recording” in the
`
`Proceedings of the IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference 1997.
`
`54. A true and correct copy of the Knudson-Modlin paper is attached as
`
`Exhibit 4.
`
`55.
`
`In that paper, as authority for the proposition that “[m]aximal transition run
`
`(MTR) codes have been suggested as a means of achieving coding gain for high density
`
`magnetic recording,” the authors cite two papers written by Drs. Moon and Brickner
`
`about MTR codes: (1) J. Moon and B. Brickner, “MTR codes for data storage systems,”
`
`Invention Disclosure No. 96025, University of Minnesota, September 1995, and (2) J.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`LSI Corp. Exhibit 1002
`Page 10
`
`
`
`CASE 0:16-cv-02891-WMW-SER Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 11 of 25
`
`
`
`Moon and B. Brickner, “Maximum Transition Run Codes for Data Storage Systems,”
`
`1996 Digests of Intermag ‘96, HB-IO, April 1996.
`
`56.
`
`The two papers by Drs. Moon and Brickner are the sole support that
`
`Knudson and Modlin cite for the use of MTR codes.
`
`57.
`
`In April 2001, a paper authored by four IBM Research members, Roy D.
`
`Cideciyan, Evangelos Eleftheriou, Brian Marcus and Dharmendra Modha, entitled
`
`“Maximum Transition Run Codes for Generalized Partial Response Channels,” appeared
`
`in the IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, Vol. 19, No. 4 (“IBM
`
`Research Paper”).
`
`58. A true and correct copy of the IBM Research Paper is attached as Exhibit 5.
`
`59.
`
`The IBM Research Paper states, “maximum transition run (MTR) (j, k)
`
`codes have been introduced by Moon and Brickner to provide coding gain for extended
`
`partial response channels.”
`
`60. As described in the ’601 Patent, a dataword that is to be recorded on a disk
`
`of an HDD is encoded using a selected MTR code with specified so-called j and k
`
`constraints, to thereby create a codeword for writing to the disk.
`
`61. As described in the ’601 Patent, the j constraint imposes a limit on the
`
`maximum number of consecutive transitions that are written to the disk of a HDD. See
`
`’601 Patent at col. 2:59-61.
`
`62. As described in the ’601 Patent, the k constraint imposes a limit on the
`
`maximum number of consecutive regions on the disk without a transition. See ’601
`
`Patent at col. 1:27-33.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`LSI Corp. Exhibit 1002
`Page 11
`
`
`
`CASE 0:16-cv-02891-WMW-SER Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 12 of 25
`
`63. Claim 13 of the ’601 Patent claims “[a] method for encoding m-bit binary
`
`datawords into n-bit binary codewords in a recorded waveform, where m and n are
`
`preselected positive integers such that n is greater than m, comprising the steps of:
`
`receiving binary datawords; and producing sequences of n-bit codewords; imposing a
`
`pair of constrains (j;k) on the encoded waveform; generating no more than j consecutive
`
`transitions of said sequence in the recorded waveform such that j ≥ 2; and generating no
`
`more than k consecutive sample periods of said sequences without a transition in the
`
`recorded waveform.” ’601 Patent at col. 10:46-59.
`
`64. Claim 14 of the ’601 Patent claims the method as in Claim 13 “wherein the
`
`consecutive transition limit is defined by the equation 2 ≤ j < 10.” ’601 Patent at col.
`
`10:60-61.
`
`65.
`
`Eliminating error-prone transition runs with an MTR code in an HDD read
`
`channel improves the BER of the read channel.
`
`66.
`
`The improvement in the BER provided by MTR codes in an HDD read
`
`channel “can be traded for an increase in storage density if the error rate performance [of
`
`the read channel] is already satisfactory.” ’601 Patent at col. 2:49-51.
`
`67.
`
`The MTR coding scheme described in the ’601 Patent improves a physical
`
`process by overcoming limitations in physical devices―i.e., improving the accuracy of
`
`determining what data are recorded on a magnetic medium in an HDD from what the
`
`read/write head in the HDD has sensed.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`LSI Corp. Exhibit 1002
`Page 12
`
`
`
`CASE 0:16-cv-02891-WMW-SER Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 13 of 25
`
`
`
`68.
`
`The University is the owner and assignee of all right, title, and interest in
`
`and to the ’601 Patent and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement
`
`thereof, including past damages.
`
`C.
`
`Defendants’ Unauthorized Use of the Methods Claimed in the ’601 Patent
`
`69. Defendants make, use, and sell devices with so-named “MTR” code
`
`capability, including HDD Chips sold under the tradename TrueStore and simulators for
`
`reading MTR-encoded waveforms (“the MTR-enabled Products”).
`
`70. A senior engineering executive of Defendants has admitted to developing
`
`MTR coding technology for LSI.
`
`71.
`
`Specifically, Dr. Shaohua Yang states on his LinkedIn page that he
`
`“[d]eveloped RLL/MTR modulation coding solutions” while employed as Director,
`
`Distinguished Engineer, DSP System Architecture at “LSI, an Avago Technologies
`
`Company” between June 2007 and May 2014. Dr. Yang is now a Director of
`
`Engineering at “Avago Technologies.” See www.linkedin.com/in/shaohua-yang-
`
`9520641.
`
`72. A true and correct redacted copy of Dr. Yang’s LinkedIn page dated August
`
`17, 2016, is attached as Exhibit 6.
`
`73.
`
`Likewise, another senior engineering executive of Defendants has
`
`publically indicated that LSI uses MTR coding technology.
`
`74. Dr. Yuan Xing Lee was an LSI Vice President from 2007 to 2014 and is
`
`now a “vice president for the Data Controller Division Engineering in Broadcom
`
`Limited.” See https://www.linkedin.com/in/yuan-xing-lee-5906225.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`LSI Corp. Exhibit 1002
`Page 13
`
`
`
`CASE 0:16-cv-02891-WMW-SER Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 14 of 25
`
`75. A true and correct redacted copy of Dr. Lee’s LinkedIn page dated August
`
`17, 2016, is attached as Exhibit 7.
`
`76.
`
`In 2012, Dr. Lee gave a presentation at the Chinese American Information
`
`Storage Society (“CAISS”) Annual Conference titled “Read Chanel [sic] Technologies
`
`for Data Storage.”
`
`77. A true and correct copy of the slides for Dr. Lee’s presentation to CAISS at
`
`its 2012 annual conference is attached as Exhibit 8.
`
`78.
`
`In Slide 6 of his presentation, shown below, Dr. Lee declared “RLL:
`
`transition aware” was a “major” technology for HDDs in the “Beyond 2010” period.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LSI Corp. Exhibit 1002
`Page 14
`
`
`
`CASE 0:16-cv-02891-WMW-SER Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 15 of 25
`
`
`
`79.
`
`“RLL” in this context means “run length limited.”
`
`80. Upon information and belief, in this slide, “RLL: transition aware” refers to
`
`MTR codes.
`
`81. Upon information and belief, Defendants have designed, tested, and used
`
`the MTR-enabled Products in the United States in a manner that performs the methods
`
`described in one or more method claims of the ’601 Patent, including but not limited to
`
`claims 13 and 14.
`
`82. Defendants provide HDD Chips and simulators to customers that include
`
`HDD manufacturers. Defendants provide these chips and simulators to HDD
`
`manufacturers in the United States for, among other purposes, design, development,
`
`testing, and qualification of the chips.
`
`83.
`
`The Defendants have provided to customers HDD Chips and simulators
`
`that are MTR-enabled.
`
`84. At Defendants’ direction, Defendants’ HDD manufacturer customers have
`
`operated the HDD Chips and simulators provided by Defendants in the United States.
`
`85. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ HDD manufacturer customers
`
`have operated the HDD Chips and simulators, including MTR-enabled Products, at
`
`Defendants’ direction in the United States in a manner that performs the methods
`
`described in one or more method claims of the ’601 Patent, including but not limited to
`
`claims 13 and 14.
`
`86. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ MTR-enabled Products, when
`
`operated in the United States by Defendants, their customers, or end users (who purchase
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`LSI Corp. Exhibit 1002
`Page 15
`
`
`
`CASE 0:16-cv-02891-WMW-SER Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 16 of 25
`
`
`
`Defendants’ customers’ HDD products incorporating the MTR-enabled Products), as the
`
`case may be, produce, from received m-bit binary datawords, sequences of n-bit binary
`
`codewords in a waveform, where the MTR j and k constraints are imposed on the
`
`waveform, such that the j constraint is greater than or equal to 2.
`
`87. Upon information and belief, Defendants direct, instruct, and assist their
`
`HDD manufacturer customers regarding the use of the MTR-enabled Products such that
`
`when operated, the MTR-enabled Products produce, from received m-bit binary
`
`datawords, sequences of n-bit binary codewords in a waveform, where the MTR j and k
`
`constraints are imposed on the waveform, such that the j constraint is greater than or
`
`equal to two.
`
`88. Defendants direct, instruct, and assist their HDD manufacturer customers to
`
`use the MTR-enabled Products in an infringing manner through documentation, including
`
`product specifications, user guides, and register maps, which provides instructions to the
`
`customers on how to operate the MTR-enabled Products in an infringing manner.
`
`89. Defendants also direct, instruct, and assist their HDD manufacturer
`
`customers in operating MTR-enabled Products in an infringing manner through meetings,
`
`phone calls, and emails between Defendants’ engineers and Defendants’ HDD
`
`manufacturer customers’ engineers, in which Defendants’ engineers provide technical
`
`briefings, demonstrate the benefits of MTR coding, and instruct the customer’s engineers
`
`about how to use the MTR-enabled Products in an infringing manner.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`LSI Corp. Exhibit 1002
`Page 16
`
`
`
`CASE 0:16-cv-02891-WMW-SER Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 17 of 25
`
`
`
`90. Defendants provide their HDD manufacturer customers with HDD Chips
`
`that are enabled with MTR functionality such that when operated the HDD Chips infringe
`
`method claims of the ’601 Patent.
`
`91. Defendants further assist their HDD manufacturer customers in using HDD
`
`Chips provided by Defendants in an infringing manner.
`
`92. Upon information and belief, the Defendants’ MTR-enabled Products can
`
`be programmed to use MTR codes where j equals 3.
`
`93.
`
`The components of the read channel in Defendants’ MTR-enabled Products
`
`that encode the MTR code are specifically designed to perform methods claimed in the
`
`’601 Patent.
`
`94.
`
` The components of the read channel in Defendants’ MTR-enabled
`
`Products that encode the MTR code cannot be used in a noninfringing manner.
`
`D.
`
`Defendants’ Sales Cycle for the MTR-enabled Products
`
`95. Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in an extensive design,
`
`development, and sales cycle (“Sales Cycle”) to sell their HDD Chips.
`
`96.
`
`The Sales Cycle is “typically lengthy” and requires Defendants “to incur
`
`significant design and development expenditures and to dedicate … engineering
`
`resources in pursuit of a single customer.” Exhibit 1 (Avago Technologies Limited 2015
`
`10-K) at 17.
`
`97.
`
`The Sales Cycle “involves a significant investment of money, time, and
`
`effort on the part of both the chip supplier and the OEM,” e.g., Western Digital, Toshiba,
`
`Seagate and HGST. See Pl. Mem. In Supp. of Mot. For Entry of Prelim. Inj. at 8,
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`LSI Corp. Exhibit 1002
`Page 17
`
`
`
`CASE 0:16-cv-02891-WMW-SER Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 18 of 25
`
`
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Emulex Corp., No. SACV09-1058 JVS (ANx) (C.D. Cal. Jan. 18,
`
`2012).
`
`98. During this Sales Cycle, Defendants work closely with potential customers
`
`to optimize and customize their HDD Chips for incorporation into customers’ HDD
`
`products. “By collaborating with [their] customers, [Defendants] have opportunities to
`
`develop high value-added customized products for them ….” Exhibit 1 (Avago
`
`Technologies Limited 2015 10-K) at 8.
`
`99. During the Sales Cycle, Defendants make substantial U.S.-based use of
`
`their HDD Chips and simulators both at their own U.S. facilities and at the U.S. facilities
`
`of their HDD manufacturer customers. Such use includes extensive testing, performance
`
`validation, qualification, and demonstrations of the HDD Chips and simulators.
`
`100. Defendants instruct and encourage their HDD manufacturer customers to
`
`extensively test, evaluate, validate, and qualify Defendants’ HDD Chips and simulators
`
`throughout the Sales Cycle in the United States.
`
`101. Defendants’ “business is dependent on [their] winning competitive bid
`
`selection processes, known as ‘design wins,’ to develop semiconductors for use in [their]
`
`customers’ end products.” Exhibit 1 (Avago Technologies Limited 2015 10-K) at 17.
`
`102. “Design wins are not simply sale-by-sale decisions; rather, they represent
`
`the culmination of a process that includes multiple stages and carries with it ramifications
`
`that can last for years.” See Br. of Pl.-Appellee Broadcom Corp. at 52, Broadcom Corp.
`
`v. Emulex Corp., No. 2012-1309 (Fed. Circ. July 26, 2012).
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`LSI Corp. Exhibit 1002
`Page 18
`
`
`
`CASE 0:16-cv-02891-WMW-SER Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 19 of 25
`
`103. Use of the HDD Chips and simulators by both Defendants and their HDD
`
`manufacturer customers during the Sales Cycle results in lucrative “design wins” with
`
`Defendants’ HDD manufacturer customers.
`
`104. Defendants’ “design wins” in the United States result in substantial orders
`
`from customers for Defendants’ HDD Chips, such that the “design wins” constitute sales
`
`of the HDD Chips in the United States.
`
`105.
`
`In addition to and as part of the U.S. “design wins” that constitute the sales
`
`of Defendants’ HDD Chips, substantial activities of the sales transaction occur in the
`
`United States.
`
`106. Without Defendants’ and their HDD manufacturer customers’ U.S.-based
`
`use of the HDD Chips during the Sales Cycle, Defendants would not have achieved
`
`critical design wins (i.e., sales), would not have shipped hundreds of millions of their
`
`HDD Chips to customers, and would not have obtained the resulting profits.
`
`107. Defendants use and sell all of their MTR-enabled Products through this
`
`Sales Cycle.
`
`108. During the Sales Cycle, Defendants, through use of the MTR-enabled
`
`Products, perform method claims of the ’601 Patent, including at least claims 13 and 14.
`
`109. During the Sales Cycle, Defendants instruct and encourage their HDD
`
`manufacturer customers to use the MTR-enabled Products in modes that practice one or
`
`more methods claimed in the ’601 Patent with the intent that such customers will
`
`purchase MTR-enabled Products for use in the customers’ HDD products in MTR-
`
`enabled modes.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`LSI Corp. Exhibit 1002
`Page 19
`
`
`
`CASE 0:16-cv-02891-WMW-SER Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 20 of 25
`
`
`
`110. The BER performance gain provided by infringing use of MTR codes in
`
`Defendants’ MTR-enabled Products was necessary for Defendants to secure design wins
`
`with their HDD manufacturer customers.
`
`E.
`
`Defendants’ Knowledge of the ’601 Patent
`
`111. The University notified LSI of the ’601 Patent directly in April 2013.
`
`112.
`
` In April 2013, a representative of the University’s Office of Technology
`
`Commercialization contacted LSI for the purpose of discussing licensing of the ’601
`
`Patent by phone.
`
`113. During the April 2013 call that included LSI’s in-house counsel (now the
`
`Director and Managing IP Counsel for Avago and Broadcom Limited), LSI denied using
`
`outside intellectual property and stated that LSI respects the intellectual property rights of
`
`others.
`
`114. Based on LSI’s denial, the University did not proceed further with the
`
`licensing discussion.
`
`115.
`
`In January 2014, a patent examiner cited the ’601 Patent during the
`
`examination of LSI’s U.S. Patent No. 8,730,067, again making LSI aware of the ’601
`
`Patent.
`
`116. U.S. Patent No. 8,730,067 has been assigned to Avago Technologies
`
`General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
`
`COUNT I—INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’601 PATENT
`
`117. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-113 are incorporated herein by
`
`reference.
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`LSI Corp. Exhibit 1002
`Page 20
`
`
`
`CASE 0:16-cv-02891-WMW-SER Document 1 Filed 08/25/16 Page 21 of 25
`
`
`
`118. Defendants are now and/or have been directly and/or indirectly infringing
`
`method claims of the ’601 Patent, as proscribed by 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq., by, without
`
`permission or authority from the University, using wit
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
