Case 1:19-cv-00267-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/07/19 Page 1 of 101 PageID #: 1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`PACT XPP SCHWEIZ AG
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. ______________
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Plaintiff PACT XPP Schweiz AG, for its Complaint against Intel Corporation (“Intel” or
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`“Defendant”), hereby alleges as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff PACT XPP Schweiz AG is a Swiss corporation, with its principal place
`
`of business in Switzerland. PACT XPP Schweiz AG is the assignee of all patents identified in
`
`this Complaint including all rights to sue for past and future damages for infringement of said
`
`patents.
`
`2.
`
`Upon information and belief, Intel is a Delaware corporation with its corporate
`
`headquarters in Santa Clara, California and manufacturing facilities in Oregon, Arizona, New
`
`Mexico, Massachusetts, and numerous other countries.
`
`3.
`
`Intel, founded in 1968, has over an 80% market share in computer processor
`
`technology, and over $70 Billion in revenues producing $29.4 Billion of cash from operations
`
`and returned nearly $16.3 Billion to shareholders in 2018 based on a gross profit margin of
`
`61.7% of revenues. Intel’s two major operating segments are the PC Client Group, which
`
`produced over $37 Billion in revenue for 2018 and focuses on the processors found in consumer-
`
`
`
`1
`
`PACT - Ex. 2002.0001
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00267-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/07/19 Page 33 of 101 PageID #: 33
`
`
`
`certain software, or the like by ODMs, OEMs, and/or end users). Based on these facts and the
`
`facts set forth in the paragraphs above, Intel infringes the ’301 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1)
`
`and (f)(2).
`
`106. As a result of Intel’s infringement of the ’301 Patent, PACT has been damaged.
`
`PACT is entitled to recover for damages sustained as a result of Intel’s wrongful acts in an
`
`amount subject to proof at trial but no less than a reasonable royalty.
`
`107.
`
`In addition, Intel’s infringing acts and practices have caused and are causing
`
`immediate and irreparable harm to PACT.
`
`108. PACT is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the infringement of
`
`the ’301 Patent by Intel has been and continues to be willful. As noted above, at least as of the
`
`service of this Complaint, Intel has actual knowledge of its infringement of the ’301 Patent. Intel
`
`has deliberately continued to infringe in a wanton, malicious, and egregious manner, with
`
`reckless disregard for PACT’s patent rights. Thus, Intel’s infringing actions have been and
`
`continue to be consciously wrongful, entitling PACT to increased damages under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 284.
`
`109. PACT is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that this is an exceptional
`
`case, which warrants an award of attorney’s fees to PACT pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`COUNT IV – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,471,593
`
`110. PACT incorporates each of the above paragraphs 1-35 as though fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`111. PACT is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Intel has infringed and
`
`unless enjoined will continue to infringe one or more claims of the ’593 Patent, in violation of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271, by, among other things, making, using (including testing), offering to sell, and
`
`selling within the United States, supplying or causing to be supplied in or from the United States,
`
`
`
`33
`
`PACT - Ex. 2002.0002
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00267-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/07/19 Page 34 of 101 PageID #: 34
`
`
`
`and importing into the United States, without authority or license, Intel products with the
`
`infringing features, including the Accused Core Instrumentalities and the Accused Xeon
`
`Instrumentalities.
`
`112. For example, the Accused Core Instrumentalities and the Accused Xeon
`
`Instrumentalities embody every limitation of at least claim 1 of the ’593 Patent, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, as set forth below. The further descriptions below, which are based
`
`on publicly available information, are preliminary examples and are non-limiting.
`
`“A data processor on a chip comprising”
`
`113. The Accused Core Instrumentalities and the Accused Xeon Instrumentalities are
`
`processors incorporated on a chip, thus, constitute data processor on a chip.
`
`“a plurality of data processing cores, each of at least some of the processing cores including:
`
`at least one arithmetic logic unit that supports at least division and multiplication of at least
`
`32-bit wide data; and at least 3 registers for storing at least 32-bit wide data”
`
`114. The Accused Core Instrumentalities and the Accused Xeon Instrumentalities are
`
`multi-core processors including ALUs capable of 32-bit wide division and multiplication and at
`
`least 3 general purpose registers being at least 32-bit wide.
`
`“a plurality of memory units to buffer at least 32-bit wide data”
`
`115. The Accused Core Instrumentalities and the Accused Xeon Instrumentalities
`
`include Last Level Caches with line size at least 32-bit to buffer data.
`
`“at least one interface unit for providing at least one communication channel between the
`
`data processor and external memory, and”
`
`116. The Accused Core Instrumentalities and the Accused Xeon Instrumentalities
`
`include a System Agent working with the ring bus system (or equivalents) for providing at least
`
`
`
`34
`
`PACT - Ex. 2002.0003
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00267-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/07/19 Page 35 of 101 PageID #: 35
`
`
`
`one communication channel between the core and external memory such as RAM and/or various
`
`types of DDRs.
`
`“a bus system flexibly interconnecting the plurality of processing cores, the plurality of
`
`memory units, and the at least one interface”
`
`117. The Accused Core Instrumentalities and the Accused Xeon Instrumentalities
`
`include at least a ring bus system (or equivalents) flexibly interconnecting the cores, LLCs, and
`
`the System Agent, etc.
`
`“wherein: the bus system includes a first structure dedicated for data transfer in a first
`
`direction and a second structure dedicated for data transfer in a second direction, and”
`
`118.
`
`In the Accused Core Instrumentalities and the Accused Xeon Instrumentalities,
`
`the above identified ring bus system (or equivalents) transfers data in at least two directions with
`
`two structures as shown in the two figures below:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`“each of at least some of the data processing cores includes a physically dedicated connection
`
`to at least one physically assigned one of the plurality of memory units, the assigned one of the
`
`
`
`35
`
`PACT - Ex. 2002.0004
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00267-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/07/19 Page 36 of 101 PageID #: 36
`
`
`
`plurality of memory units being accessible by another of the data processing cores via a
`
`secondary bus path of the bus system”
`
`119.
`
`In the Accused Core Instrumentalities and the Accused Xeon Instrumentalities,
`
`each core includes a physically dedicated connection to at least one physically assigned LLC as
`
`shown in the two figures above. The assigned LLC is accessible by another core via a secondary
`
`bus path of the ring bus system (or equivalents) as shown in the two figures above.
`
`120.
`
`In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, Intel has infringed and is currently infringing,
`
`directly and/or through intermediaries, the ’593 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for
`
`sale, and/or importing into the United States, without authority, products that practice at least
`
`claim 1 of the ’593 Patent. These products include the Accused Core Instrumentalities and the
`
`Accused Xeon Instrumentalities, and any other products that incorporate the Accused Core
`
`Instrumentalities and the Accused Xeon Instrumentalities. Intel has infringed and is currently
`
`infringing literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`121. On information and belief, PACT asserts that Intel was aware of this patent before
`
`this lawsuit was filed, and at least as of the service of this Complaint, Intel had actual knowledge
`
`of its infringement of the ’593 Patent.
`
`122. PACT is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Intel, subsequent to the
`
`time it first learned of the ’593 Patent and at least as of the time of service of this Complaint,
`
`specifically
`
`intended
`
`to
`
`induce patent
`
`infringement by
`
`third-party original equipment
`
`manufacturers (OEMs), customers, and users of the Accused Core Instrumentalities and the
`
`Accused Xeon Instrumentalities and had knowledge that the inducing acts would cause
`
`infringement or is willfully blind to the possibility that their inducing acts would cause
`
`infringement. Intel has sold and continues to sell the Accused Core Instrumentalities and the
`
`
`
`36
`
`PACT - Ex. 2002.0005
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00267-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/07/19 Page 37 of 101 PageID #: 37
`
`
`
`Accused Xeon Instrumentalities to OEMs making OEM products (e.g., computers, servers,
`
`laptops, tablets, etc.), knowing that the Accused Core Instrumentalities and the Accused Xeon
`
`Instrumentalities will be included in the OEM products and sold to customers in the United
`
`States in violation of U.S. patent law, and/or to original design manufacturers (ODMs), knowing
`
`that the Accused Core Instrumentalities and the Accused Xeon Instrumentalities will ultimately
`
`be included in OEM products and sold to customers in the United States.
`
`123.
`
`Indeed, Intel’s “Intel Inside” campaign has informed customers through
`
`advertising and stickers on the OEM products themselves that the products contain the Accused
`
`Core Instrumentalities and the Accused Xeon Instrumentalities. Intel also knows that many such
`
`OEM products that contain the Accused Core Instrumentalities and the Accused Xeon
`
`Instrumentalities are made outside the United States and are imported into the United States in
`
`violation of U.S. patent law. Intel also knows that U.S. customers of the OEMs use the OEM
`
`products containing the Accused Core Instrumentalities and the Accused Xeon Instrumentalities
`
`in the United States in violation of U.S. patent law.
`
`124.
`
`Intel also publicly provides documentation, including datasheets available through
`
`Intel’s publicly accessible ARK service and software developer’s manuals, instructing customers
`
`on uses of Intel’s products that infringe the ’593 Patent. See, e.g., http://ark.intel.com. In
`
`addition, Intel specifically advertises and promotes the infringing use of Intel’s products,
`
`including the ring bus system and its equivalent. See, e.g., https://software.intel.com/en-
`
`us/articles/how-memory-is-accessed.
`
`125. On information and belief, Intel’s customers directly infringe the ’593 Patent by,
`
`for example, making, using, offering to sell, and selling within the United States, and importing
`
`
`
`37
`
`PACT - Ex. 2002.0006
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00267-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/07/19 Page 38 of 101 PageID #: 38
`
`
`
`into the United States, without authority or license, products containing the Accused Core
`
`Instrumentalities and the Accused Xeon Instrumentalities.
`
`126.
`
`Intel contributes to the infringement of the ’593 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271(c). As stated above, on information and belief Intel was aware of the ’593 Patent before
`
`this lawsuit was filed but Intel was aware of the ’593 Patent at least as of the time of service of
`
`this Complaint. Intel thus offers to sell and sells within the United States the Accused Core
`
`Instrumentalities and the Accused Xeon Instrumentalities knowing that those products constitute
`
`a material part of the claimed invention because Intel incorporates the accused components (ring
`
`bus system, multi-cores, LLCs, etc.) into the Accused Core Instrumentalities and the Accused
`
`Xeon Instrumentalities.
`
`127.
`
`Intel knows that the Accused Core Instrumentalities and the Accused Xeon
`
`Instrumentalities are especially made or especially adapted for use in infringing the ’593 Patent
`
`because the Accused Core Instrumentalities and the Accused Xeon Instrumentalities all contain
`
`the infringing components (ring bus system, multi-cores, LLCs, etc.). Furthermore, because the
`
`Accused Core Instrumentalities and the Accused Xeon Instrumentalities contain the infringing
`
`components (ring bus system, multi-cores, LLCs, etc.), they are not a staple article or commodity
`
`of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
`
`128.
`
`In addition, Intel offers to sell and sells the Accused Core Instrumentalities and
`
`the Accused Xeon Instrumentalities to Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and/or
`
`Original Design Manufacturers
`
`(ODMs) who
`
`then
`
`incorporate
`
`the Accused Core
`
`Instrumentalities and the Accused Xeon Instrumentalities into infringing products which are used,
`
`sold, offered for sale, and/or imported in the United States in an infringing manner. Accordingly,
`
`Intel is liable as a contributory infringer.
`
`
`
`38
`
`PACT - Ex. 2002.0007
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00267-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/07/19 Page 39 of 101 PageID #: 39
`
`
`
`129.
`
`In the alternative, to the extent Intel does not meet all of the limitations of
`
`the ’593 Patent by making the Accused Core Instrumentalities and the Accused Xeon
`
`Instrumentalities in the United States, Intel infringes under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1) and (f)(2) by
`
`supplying from the United States a substantial portion of the components of the Accused Core
`
`Instrumentalities and the Accused Xeon Instrumentalities (for example, structures or components
`
`contained in semiconductor wafers or dies or the like), and actively induces the combination of
`
`components outside the United States in a manner that would infringe the ’593 Patent (for
`
`example, by packaging or assembly, or by incorporation into desktop computers, laptops, servers,
`
`tablets, or the like by ODMs or OEMs). Intel further supplies from the United States
`
`components which are especially made and especially adapted for use in practicing the ’593
`
`Patent, and not staple articles or a commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-
`
`infringing use (for example, structures or components contained in semiconductor wafers or dies
`
`or the like). Intel knows the components are especially made and especially adapted to be
`
`combined outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the ’593 Patent (for
`
`example, by packaging or assembly, or by incorporation into desktop computers, laptops, servers,
`
`tablets, or the like by ODMs or OEMs). Based on these facts and the facts set forth in the
`
`paragraphs above, Intel infringes the ’593 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1) and (f)(2).
`
`130. As a result of Intel’s infringement of the ’593 Patent, PACT has been damaged.
`
`PACT is entitled to recover for damages sustained as a result of Intel’s wrongful acts in an
`
`amount subject to proof at trial but no less than a reasonable royalty.
`
`131.
`
`In addition, Intel’s infringing acts and practices have caused and are causing
`
`immediate and irreparable harm to PACT.
`
`
`
`39
`
`PACT - Ex. 2002.0008
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00267-UNA Document 1 Filed 02/07/19 Page 40 of 101 PageID #: 40
`
`
`
`132. PACT is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the infringement of
`
`the ’593 Patent by Intel has been and continues to be willful. As noted above, at least as of the
`
`service of this Complaint, Intel has actual knowledge of its infringement of the ’593 Patent. Intel
`
`has deliberately continued to infringe in a wanton, malicious, and egregious manner, with
`
`reckless disregard for PACT’s patent rights. Thus, Intel’s infringing actions have been and
`
`continue to be consciously wrongful, entitling PACT to increased damages under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 284.
`
`133. PACT is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that this is an exceptional
`
`case, which warrants an award of attorney’s fees to PACT pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`COUNT V – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,686,549
`
`134. PACT incorporates each of the above paragraphs 1-35 as though fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`135. PACT is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Intel has infringed and
`
`unless enjoined will continue to infringe one or more claims of the ’549 Patent, in violation of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271, by, among other things, making, using (including testing), offering to sell, and
`
`selling within the United States, supplying or causing to be supplied in or from the United States,
`
`and importing into the United States, without authority or license, Intel products with the
`
`infringing features,
`
`including
`
`the Accused Core Instrumentalities,
`
`the Accused Xeon
`
`Instrumentalities, Atom processors, and/or other products comprising active interposer(s)
`
`interconnecting multiple dies and/or processors, including, but not limited to, Intel chips and/or
`
`chiplets implementing Foveros technology, such as Lakefield (the “Accused Stacking
`
`Instrumentalities”).
`
`136. For example, the Accused Stacking Instrumentalities embody every limitation of
`
`at least claim 39 of the ’549 Patent, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, as set forth
`
`
`
`40
`
`PACT - Ex. 2002.0009
`
`