UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`CANON, INC.
`
`vs.
`
`ROKU INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:19-cv-00245
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Canon, Inc. (“Canon” or “Plaintiff”) brings this Complaint for Patent
`
`Infringement (“Complaint”) and for Jury Trial against Roku Inc. (“Roku” or “Defendant”).
`
`Plaintiff alleges as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1
`
`Canon is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Japan. Its
`
`principal place of business is located at 30-2, Shimomaruko 3-chome, Ohta-ku, Tokyo 146-8501,
`
`Japan.
`
`2
`
`Defendant Roku, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and is authorized to do business
`
`in Texas.
`
`3
`
`Roku may be served through its agent for service of process, Corporation Service
`
`Company, 211 E. 7th St, Suite 620, Austin Texas 78701.
`
`1
`
`Roku Exhibit 1028
`Roku, Inc. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
`Page 00001
`
`

`

`
`
`4
`
`Roku has a regular and established place of business at 9606 N. Mopac
`
`Expressway, Suite 400, Austin, Texas 78759.
`
`5
`
`On information and belief, Roku is responsible for all phases of the Roku TVs’
`
`research and development – including the development, planning, manufacturing, and marketing
`
`of Roku TVs.
`
`6
`
`Furthermore, on information and belief, Roku – on its own and/or through third
`
`parties – makes, sells, offers for sale, imports, and/or uses infringing systems comprising
`
`televisions that integrate and make use of the Roku Operation System (the “Roku OS”) in this
`
`judicial District. These infringing systems are referred to as “Roku TVs.”
`
`7
`
`On information and belief, Roku – on its own and/or through third parties –
`
`advertises, markets, and/or otherwise promotes Roku TVs in this judicial District.
`
`8
`
`On information and belief, Roku has a licensing agreement with TCL Electronics
`
`Holdings Ltd. and TTE Technology Inc. (collectively “TCL”) wherein Roku purports to
`
`authorize and to induce TCL to make, sell, offer for sale, import and/or use Roku TVs in the U.S.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`9
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
`
`United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. Accordingly, this Court has subject matter
`
`jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`10
`
`This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant at least in part
`
`because Defendant conducts business in this Judicial District. Canon’s causes of action arise, at
`
`least in part, from Defendant’s contacts with and activities in the State of Texas and this Judicial
`
`District. Upon information and belief, Defendant has committed acts of infringement within the
`
`2
`
`Roku Exhibit 1028
`Page 00002
`
`

`

`
`
`State of Texas and this Judicial District by, inter alia, directly and/or indirectly using, selling or
`
`offering to sell products that infringe one or more claims of Canon’s patents asserted herein.
`
`11
`
`Thus, Defendant has established minimum contacts with the State of Texas and
`
`the exercise of jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
`
`justice.
`
`12
`
`Venue is proper in this Judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), (c) and
`
`1400(b) because (1) Defendant has done and continues to do business in this Judicial District;
`
`and (2) Defendant has committed and continues to commit acts of patent infringement in this
`
`Judicial District by, inter alia, directly and/or indirectly using, selling or offering to sell
`
`infringing products in this Judicial District.
`
`THE CANON PATENTS
`
`13
`
`On June 29, 2010, the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) issued
`
`United States Patent No. 7,746,413 (“the ’413 Patent”), titled “Operation Screen Controlling
`
`Method, Operation Screen Controlling Program, and Display Device” to Canon as assignee of
`
`the inventors, Keiichi Aoyama, Shigeki Mori, and Shuntaro Aratani. A true and correct copy of
`
`the ‘413 Patent is attached as Exhibit 1 to this Complaint and is incorporated by reference herein.
`
`14
`
`The ’413 Patent is generally directed to a display controlling method or system
`
`for displaying operation screens that are suitable for various remote controls with various
`
`attributes. The ’413 Patent discloses and specifically claims inventive and patentable subject
`
`matters that represent significant improvements over conventional display controlling
`
`method/system that was available at the time of filing of the ’413 Patent and are more than just
`
`generic apparatus or software components performing conventional activities.
`
`3
`
`Roku Exhibit 1028
`Page 00003
`
`

`

`
`
`15
`
`At the time of filing of the ‘413 Patent, “there has been proposed a television
`
`receiver, which is enabled to use a plurality of remote control devices [] by giving priority to the
`
`individual remote control devices to improve the operability of the television received” “[i]n case
`
`a plurality of remote control devices for controlling a television receiver” were available. Ex. 1
`
`at Col. 1, ll. 17-24. Such proposed television receiver, however, had the problem of its
`
`“operation screen of a graphical user interface” being not suited for the attributes and operation
`
`devices associated with the remote control device used to control the graphical user interface.
`
`Id., Col. 1, ll. 28-30. The ‘413 Patent’s claimed display controlling method/system solves this
`
`problem of “the operability” being “degraded by the remote control device used” by reciting
`
`specific and significant improvements over the conventional display controlling method/system,
`
`such as, for example, to acquire an attribute of a remote control device, determine the most
`
`suitable operation form corresponding to the remote control device’s attribute by evaluating a
`
`degree of suitability between the remote control device’s attributes and the operation forms
`
`stored by the apparatus as the subject of controlling and display the most suitable operation form.
`
`The claims of the ’413 Patent are directed to these specific improvements in the capabilities of
`
`display controlling technology and devices, not to an abstract process that merely invokes these
`
`devices as tools.
`
`16
`
`Given the state of the art at the time of filing of the ‘413 Patent, the claim
`
`limitations of the ‘413 Patent, both individually and as an ordered combination, were not
`
`conventional, well-understood, or routine. The ‘413 Patent discloses, among other things, an
`
`unconventional technological solution to an issue arising specifically in the context of controlling
`
`electronic display and communications between electronic devices. The solution implemented
`
`4
`
`Roku Exhibit 1028
`Page 00004
`
`

`

`
`
`by the ‘413 Patent provides a specific and substantial improvement over prior electronic display
`
`and communications systems in electronic devices, including by introducing novel elements
`
`combined in an unconventional manner directed to improving the function and working of
`
`electronic devices such as, inter alia, the claimed “determining an operation form corresponding
`
`to the remote control device from among a plurality of operation forms previously stored based
`
`on the acquired attribute of the remote control device…wherein, in the step of determining the
`
`operation form, the operation form corresponding to the remote control device is determined by
`
`evaluating a degree of suitability between the remote control device and each of the plurality of
`
`operation forms based on the acquired attribute of the remote control device” (Claim 1). As
`
`discussed above, these claimed elements and their combination were not present in the prior art,
`
`and represent unconventional and concrete improvements over the prior art.
`
`17
`
`Consistent with the problem addressed being rooted in electronic displays and
`
`communications between electronic devices, the ‘413 Patent’s solutions are also rooted in the
`
`same technology that cannot be performed with pen and paper or in the human mind. This
`
`technical context is reflected in the ‘413 Patent’s claims, as described above.
`
`18
`
`A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventions of the ‘413
`
`Patent would not have understood that the inventions could or would be performed solely in the
`
`human mind or using pen and paper. Using pen and paper would ignore the stated purpose of the
`
`‘413 Patent and the problem the patented technology was specifically designed to address.
`
`Doing so would also run counter to the inventors’ detailed description of the inventions, and the
`
`language of the claims, and be a practical impossibility.
`
`5
`
`Roku Exhibit 1028
`Page 00005
`
`

`

`
`
`19
`
`On December 13, 2011, the USPTO issued United States Patent No. 8,078,767
`
`(“the ’767 Patent”), titled “Display Apparatus, Control Method Thereof, and Program” to Canon
`
`as assignee of the inventor, Junji Kotani. A true and correct copy of the ‘767 Patent is attached
`
`as Exhibit 2 to this Complaint and is incorporated by reference herein.
`
`20
`
`The ’767 Patent is generally directed to a display method or system that displays
`
`an image from an external device for some period of time after being disconnected when the
`
`external device is of predetermined class. The ’767 Patent discloses and specifically claims
`
`inventive and patentable subject matters that represent specific and significant improvements
`
`over conventional display method/system that was available at the time of filing of the ’767
`
`Patent and are more than just generic apparatus or software components performing conventional
`
`activities.
`
`21
`
`At the time of filing of the ‘767 Patent, “the conventional display apparatus
`
`[could] be connected to various devices, and [could] display image data stored in a connected
`
`device. However, independently of the device class to be connected, when a communication
`
`[was] disconnected, the display operation of an image transmitted from that device end[ed]. For
`
`this reason, in addition to the image display end operation that the user intended by removing the
`
`flash memory or USB cable, the image display operation often end[ed] without the intention of
`
`the user by the control on the device side that logically disconnects a communication
`
`connection.” Ex. 2 at Col. 5, ll. 15-25. The ‘767 Patent’s claimed display method/system solved
`
`this problem by, for example, reciting the specific method of determining to continue or to end
`
`displaying contents retrieved from the external device connected to the display apparatus, at the
`
`time of disconnection of the external device, by recognizing and distinguishing among the
`
`6
`
`Roku Exhibit 1028
`Page 00006
`
`

`

`
`
`classes / types of external devices as well as how such device is disconnected from the display
`
`apparatus. The claims of the ’767 Patent are directed to these specific improvements in the
`
`capabilities of the aforementioned display technology and devices, not to an abstract process that
`
`merely invokes these devices as tools.
`
`22
`
`Given the state of the art at the time of filing of the ‘767 Patent, the claim
`
`limitations of the ‘767 Patent, both individually and as an ordered combination, were not
`
`conventional, well-understood, or routine. The ‘767 Patent discloses, among other things, an
`
`unconventional technological solution to an issue arising specifically in the context of controlling
`
`electronic display and communications between electronic devices. The solution implemented
`
`by the ‘767 Patent provides a specific and substantial improvement over prior electronic display
`
`and communications systems in electronic devices, including by introducing novel elements
`
`combined in an unconventional manner directed to improving the function and working of
`
`electronic devices such as, inter alia, the claimed “control unit acquir[ing] class information
`
`indicating a class of the external device from the external device via said connection unit,
`
`control[ing] said display unit to continue the display based on the data received from the external
`
`device at the time of disconnection of the communication connection with the external device if
`
`the class of the external device indicated by the class information is a predetermined class, and
`
`control[ing] said display unit to end the display based on the data received from the external
`
`device at the time of disconnection of the communication connection with the external device if
`
`the class of the external device indicated by the class information is not the predetermined class.”
`
`(Claim 1). As discussed above, these claimed elements and their combination were not present
`
`in the prior art, and represent unconventional and concrete improvements over the prior art.
`
`7
`
`Roku Exhibit 1028
`Page 00007
`
`

`

`
`
`23
`
`Consistent with the problem addressed being rooted in electronic displays and
`
`communications between electronic devices, the ‘767 Patent’s solutions are also rooted in the
`
`same technology that cannot be performed with pen and paper or in the human mind. This
`
`technical context is reflected in the ‘767 Patent’s claims, as described above.
`
`24
`
`A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventions of the ‘767
`
`Patent would not have understood that the inventions could or would be performed solely in the
`
`human mind or using pen and paper. Using pen and paper would ignore the stated purpose of the
`
`‘767 Patent and the problem the patented technology was specifically designed to address.
`
`Doing so would also run counter to the inventors’ detailed description of the inventions, and the
`
`language of the claims, and be a practical impossibility.
`
`25
`
`On January 1, 2013, the USPTO issued United States Patent No. 8,346,986 (“the
`
`’986 Patent”), titled “Display Apparatus, Control Method Thereof, and Program” to Canon as
`
`assignee of the inventor, Junji Kotani. A true and correct copy of the ‘986 Patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit 3 to this Complaint and is incorporated by reference herein.
`
`26
`
`The ’986 Patent is generally directed to a display method or system that displays
`
`an image from an external device for some period of time after being disconnected when the type
`
`of external device is of a class and/or when the disconnection was logical or physical. The ’986
`
`Patent discloses and specifically claims inventive and patentable subject matters that represent
`
`specific significant improvements over conventional display method/system that was available at
`
`the time of filing of the ’986 Patent and are more than just generic apparatus or software
`
`components performing conventional activities.
`
`8
`
`Roku Exhibit 1028
`Page 00008
`
`

`

`
`
`27
`
`At the time of filing of the ‘986 Patent, “the conventional display apparatus
`
`[could] be connected to various devices, and [could] display image data stored in a connected
`
`device. However, independently of the device class to be connected, when a communication
`
`[was] disconnected, the display operation of an image transmitted from that device end[ed]. For
`
`this reason, in addition to the image display end operation that the user intended by removing the
`
`flash memory or USB cable, the image display operation often end[ed] without the intention of
`
`the user by the control on the device side that logically disconnects a communication
`
`connection.” Ex. 3 at Col. 5, ll. 15-25. The ‘986 Patent’s claimed display method/system solved
`
`this problem by, for example, reciting the specific method of determining to continue or to end
`
`displaying contents retrieved from the external device connected to the display apparatus, at the
`
`time of disconnection of the external device, by recognizing and distinguishing among the
`
`classes / types of external devices as well as how such device is disconnected from the display
`
`apparatus. The claims of the ’986 Patent are directed to these specific improvements in the
`
`capabilities of the aforementioned display technology and systems, not to an abstract process that
`
`merely invokes these systems as tools.
`
`28
`
`Given the state of the art at the time of filing of the ‘986 Patent, the claim
`
`limitations of the ‘986 Patent, both individually and as an ordered combination, were not
`
`conventional, well-understood, or routine. The ‘986 Patent discloses, among other things, an
`
`unconventional technological solution to an issue arising specifically in the context of controlling
`
`electronic display and communications between electronic devices. The solution implemented
`
`by the ‘986 Patent provides a specific and substantial improvement over prior electronic display
`
`and communications systems in electronic devices, including by introducing novel elements
`
`9
`
`Roku Exhibit 1028
`Page 00009
`
`

`

`
`
`combined in an unconventional manner directed to improving the function and working of
`
`electronic devices such as, inter alia, the claimed “determination unit configured to determine
`
`whether or not to continue the display of the image received from the external device by
`
`detecting whether the communication is physically disconnected or whether the communication
`
`is logically disconnected when the communication with the external device is disconnected”
`
`(Claim 1). As discussed above, these claimed elements and their combination were not present
`
`in the prior art, and represent unconventional and concrete improvements over the prior art.
`
`29
`
`Consistent with the problem addressed being rooted in electronic displays and
`
`communications between electronic devices, the ‘986 Patent’s solutions are also rooted in the
`
`same technology that cannot be performed with pen and paper or in the human mind. This
`
`technical context is reflected in the ‘986 Patent’s claims, as described above.
`
`30
`
`A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventions of the ‘986
`
`Patent would not have understood that the inventions could or would be performed solely in the
`
`human mind or using pen and paper. Using pen and paper would ignore the stated purpose of the
`
`‘986 Patent and the problem the patented technology was specifically designed to address.
`
`Doing so would also run counter to the inventors’ detailed description of the inventions, and the
`
`language of the claims, and be a practical impossibility.
`
`31
`
`On April 29, 2014, the USPTO issued United States Patent No. 8,713,206 (“the
`
`’206 Patent”), titled “Display Apparatus, Control Method Thereof, and Program” to Canon as the
`
`assignee of the inventor, Junji Kotani. A true and correct copy of the ’206 Patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit 4 to this Complaint and is incorporated by reference herein.
`
`10
`
`Roku Exhibit 1028
`Page 00010
`
`

`

`
`
`32
`
`The ’206 Patent is generally directed to a display method or system that displays
`
`an image from an external device for some period of time after being disconnected, the period of
`
`time varying based on the type of external device and/or whether the disconnection was logical
`
`or physical. The ’206 Patent discloses and specifically claims inventive and patentable subject
`
`matters that represent specific and significant improvements over conventional display
`
`method/system that was available at the time of filing of the ’206 Patent and are more than just
`
`generic apparatus or software components performing conventional activities.
`
`33
`
`At the time of filing of the ‘206 Patent, “the conventional display apparatus
`
`[could] be connected to various devices, and [could] display image data stored in a connected
`
`device. However, independently of the device class to be connected, when a communication
`
`[was] disconnected, the display operation of an image transmitted from that device end[ed]. For
`
`this reason, in addition to the image display end operation that the user intended by removing the
`
`flash memory or USB cable, the image display operation often end[ed] without the intention of
`
`the user by the control on the device side that logically disconnects a communication
`
`connection.” Ex. 4 at Col. 5, ll. 19-29. The ‘206 Patent’s claimed display method/system solved
`
`this problem by, for example, reciting the specific method of determining to continue or to end
`
`displaying contents retrieved from the external device connected to the display apparatus, at the
`
`time of disconnection of the external device, by recognizing and distinguishing among the
`
`classes / types of external devices as well as how such device is disconnected from the display
`
`apparatus. The claims of the ’206 Patent are directed to these specific improvements in the
`
`capabilities of the aforementioned display technology and systems, not to an abstract process that
`
`merely invokes these systems as tools.
`
`11
`
`Roku Exhibit 1028
`Page 00011
`
`

`

`
`
`34
`
`Given the state of the art at the time of filing of the ‘206 Patent, the inventive
`
`concepts of the ‘206 Patent were not conventional, well-understood, or routine. The ‘206 Patent
`
`discloses, among other things, an unconventional technological solution to an issue arising
`
`specifically in the context of controlling electronic display and communications between
`
`electronic devices. The solution implemented by the ‘206 Patent provides a specific and
`
`substantial improvement over prior electronic display and communications systems in electronic
`
`devices, including by introducing novel elements directed to improving the function and working
`
`of electronic devices such as, inter alia, the claimed “display control unit [that] varies a period of
`
`time from the disconnection to the stopping of the display of the image depending on a
`
`determination result as to whether the disconnection of the communication with the external
`
`device is a physical disconnection or a logical disconnection.” (Claim 7). As discussed above,
`
`these claimed elements and their combination were not present in the prior art, and represent
`
`unconventional and concrete improvements over the prior art.
`
`35
`
`Consistent with the problem addressed being rooted in electronic displays and
`
`communications between electronic devices, the ‘206 Patent’s solutions are also rooted in the
`
`same technology that cannot be performed with pen and paper or in the human mind. This
`
`technical context is reflected in the ‘206 Patent’s claims, as described above.
`
`36
`
`A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventions of the ‘206
`
`Patent would not have understood that the inventions could or would be performed solely in the
`
`human mind or using pen and paper. Using pen and paper would ignore the stated purpose of the
`
`‘206 Patent and the problem the patented technology was specifically designed to address.
`
`12
`
`Roku Exhibit 1028
`Page 00012
`
`

`

`
`
`Doing so would also run counter to the inventors’ detailed description of the inventions, and the
`
`language of the claims, and be a practical impossibility.
`
`37
`
`On October 5, 2010, the USPTO issued United States Patent No. 7,810,130 (“the
`
`’130 Patent”), titled “Method and Apparatus of Power Management for Moving Image-
`
`Streaming Content” to Canon as assignee of the inventors Atsushi Mizutome and Masaki
`
`Kutsuna. A true and correct copy of the ’130 Patent is attached as Exhibit 5 to this Complaint
`
`and is incorporated by reference herein.
`
`38
`
`The ’130 Patent is generally directed to a method and system for buffering
`
`streaming contents while the contents are not being displayed on a television either while the
`
`television’s power is off or while the user is viewing other programs. The ’130 Patent discloses
`
`and specifically claims inventive and patentable subject matters that represent specific and
`
`significant improvements over conventional method/system for streaming internet contents on a
`
`television that was available at the time of filing of the ’130 Patent and are more than just generic
`
`apparatus or software components performing conventional activities.
`
`39
`
`At the time of filing of the ‘130 Patent, the inventor recognized that a
`
`“conventional broadcast system is currently being shifted to a digital broadcast system in which
`
`television signals are transmitted as digital signals” and the “shift to the digital broadcast system
`
`is underway to enhance image quality and to increase the number of channels by utilizing digital
`
`transmission and coding technologies.” Ex. 5 at Col. 1, ll. 19-24. The inventor of the ‘130
`
`Patent further observed that at the time of filing of the ‘130 Patent, “it [was] becoming
`
`widespread to use the Internet to provide a distribution of moving images comparable in quality
`
`to that of the television broadcast, that is, a distribution of streaming contents” but unlike
`
`13
`
`Roku Exhibit 1028
`Page 00013
`
`

`

`
`
`television broadcast receiving, “the streaming broadcast is not received immediately after calling
`
`up a desired channel.” Id. at Col. 1, ll. 27-42. The inventor, then, proposed that “in the near
`
`future, while communication infrastructures are improved in the individual households, it
`
`becomes widespread to enjoy the streaming broadcast, as well as the conventional television
`
`broadcast, on television in living rooms” where the users of such streaming system would
`
`demand “to select and audiovisually enjoy a program (contents) of the streaming broadcast in
`
`such a manner as to feel as comfortable as in the conventional television broadcast.” Id. at Col. 2,
`
`ll. 6-17. After recognizing this future needs, the inventor foresaw potential problems that the
`
`‘130 Patent proposes to solve, namely, “a general television audience is accustomed to watching
`
`television, that is, being able to audiovisually enjoy a desired program immediately after turning
`
`on a power and selecting a corresponding channel. Therefore, it is impractical for the television
`
`audience himself/herself to find out main data and a location (address (and a file name)) of
`
`streaming contents that he/she wishes to audiovisually enjoy, and to perform the pull-type
`
`operation for receiving distributed contents based on the found data. Thus, it is necessary to
`
`provide a form capable of selecting and audiovisually enjoying contents by a simpler method
`
`such that the audience feels as comfortable as when audiovisually enjoying a television
`
`program.” Id. at Col. 2, ll. 25-38. As another problem the inventor sought to solve, the inventor
`
`recognized that “unlike the general process for receiving the television broadcast, the receiving
`
`process for the streaming contents requires a time period of several to ten and several seconds at
`
`the time of switching the streaming contents which corresponds to the time of changing channels
`
`on television. Meanwhile, the user must wait for the same time period...for buffering…desired
`
`streaming contents in a distribution side server and a time period required for buffering a
`
`14
`
`Roku Exhibit 1028
`Page 00014
`
`

`

`
`
`predetermined amount of the streaming contents on a receiving terminal side.” Id. at Col. 2, ll.
`
`45-53. The ‘130 Patent’s claimed buffering method/system solves these problems addressed
`
`above by reciting significant improvements over the conventional television system and method
`
`of streaming contents, namely, for example, to store URL information associated with the
`
`desired streaming contents, to access the URLs repeatedly while the TV is turned off or while the
`
`TV is displaying broadcast programs, to buffer the streaming contents while the TV is turned off
`
`or while the TV is displaying broadcast programs and to display the buffered contents after the
`
`TV is turned back on or controlled to switch from displaying broadcast programs to displaying
`
`streaming contents again. The claims of the ’130 Patent are directed to these specific
`
`improvements in the capabilities of the aforementioned buffering technology and systems, not to
`
`an abstract process that merely invokes these systems as tools.
`
`40
`
`Given the state of the art at the time of filing of the ‘130 Patent, the inventive
`
`concepts of the ‘130 Patent were not conventional, well-understood, or routine. The ‘130 Patent
`
`discloses, among other things, an unconventional technological solution to an issue arising
`
`specifically in the context of electronic buffering and streaming devices and communications
`
`between electronic devices. The solution implemented by the ‘130 Patent provides a specific
`
`and substantial improvement over prior electronic buffering, streaming and communications
`
`systems in electronic devices, including by introducing novel elements directed to improving the
`
`function and working of electronic devices such as, inter alia, the claimed “control unit for (1)
`
`controlling, responsive to the receiving by the operation unit of the operation of turning off the
`
`power source, to read out the URL information stored in the memory unit, and (2) controlling,
`
`while the power source is in an off state, to periodically repeat accessing of a URL of the moving
`
`15
`
`Roku Exhibit 1028
`Page 00015
`
`

`

`
`
`image-streaming content which had been displayed before the turning off the power source, so as
`
`to receive by the receiving unit and to buffer in the buffering unit the latest moving image-
`
`streaming content, and (3) controlling, responsive to the receiving by the operation unit of the
`
`operation of turning on the power source, to read out from the buffering unit the latest buffered
`
`moving image-streaming content and to start the displaying on the display screen of the latest
`
`buffered moving image-streaming content” (Claim 1). As discussed above, these claimed
`
`elements and their combination were not present in the prior art, and represent unconventional
`
`and concrete improvements over the prior art.
`
`41
`
`Consistent with the problem addressed being rooted in electronic streaming,
`
`buffering and communications between electronic devices, the ‘130 Patent’s solutions are also
`
`rooted in the same technology that cannot be performed with pen and paper or in the human
`
`mind. This technical context is reflected in the ‘130 Patent’s claims, as described above.
`
`42
`
`A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the inventions of the ‘130
`
`Patent would not have understood that the inventions could or would be performed solely in the
`
`human mind or using pen and paper. Using pen and paper would ignore the stated purpose of the
`
`‘130 Patent and the problem the patented technology was specifically designed to address.
`
`Doing so would also run counter to the inventors’ detailed description of the inventions, and the
`
`language of the claims, and be a practical impossibility.
`
`43
`
`Canon is the sole owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to the ’413,
`
`’767, ’986, ’206 and ’130 Patents (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”), including the right to sue
`
`and recover for any and all infringements thereof. While the Asserted Patents reference “Canon
`
`16
`
`Roku Exhibit 1028
`Page 00016
`
`

`

`
`
`Kabushiki Kaisha” as their Assignee, “Canon Kabushiki Kaisha” is a Japanese translation for
`
`Canon Inc. and is an identical entity as Canon Inc., the plaintiff of this action.
`
`44
`
`The Asserted Patents are valid and enforceable.
`
`DEFENDANT’S INFRINGING PRODUCTS AND ACTIVITIES
`
`45
`
`Defendant, its Roku TV licensees, and its customers make, use, sell or offer to sell
`
`within the United States or import into the United States the Roku TVs that integrate and make
`
`use of the Roku OS.
`
`46
`
`Certain Roku TVs comprise a television that displays a number of operation
`
`screens, each with a number of operation forms that can be and are displayed, depending on the
`
`remote control device being used. They are capable of acquiring an attribute of a remote control
`
`device and determining an operation form corresponding to the remote control device from
`
`among a plurality of operation forms based on the acquired attribute of the remote control device
`
`by evaluating a degree of suitability between the remote control device and the plurality of
`
`operation forms and display an operation screen related to the determined operation form
`
`displayed. On information, the Roku OS helps implement these capabilities in these Roku TVs’
`
`hardware and software.
`
`47
`
`Certain Roku TVs, moreover, comprise a television to which various classes /
`
`types of external devices can be connected; contents retrieved from these various external
`
`devices can be displayed on the system’s display. Furthermore, each of these Roku TVs are
`
`capable of recognizing and also distinguishing among the classes / ty