Case 2:22-cv-00290-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 12/06/22 Page 1 of 95 PageID #: 1117
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`SMITH INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES,
`LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`
`and
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-00290-JRG-RSP
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Smith Interface Technologies, LLC (“Smith Interface” or “Plaintiff”) files this
`
`First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement against Defendants Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`Ltd. (“SEC”) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) (collectively, “Samsung”). Smith
`
`Interface alleges, based on personal knowledge with respect to its own actions and upon
`
`information and belief with respect to all others’ actions, as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Smith Interface is an entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of
`
`Texas with its principal place of business at PO Box 1567, Cedar Park, TX 78630.
`
`2.
`
`SEC is an entity organized and existing under the laws of South Korea with its
`
`principal place of business at 129 Samsung-Ro, Maetan-3dong, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-si,
`
`Gyeonggi-do, Korea. SEC may be served pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(1).
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00290-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 12/06/22 Page 2 of 95 PageID #: 1118
`
`
`
`3.
`
`SEC designs, manufactures, makes, uses, imports into the United States, sells,
`
`and/or offers for sale in the United States SEC smartphones and tablets. SEC’s smartphones and
`
`tablets are marketed, used, offered for sale, and/or sold throughout the United States, including
`
`within this district.
`
`4.
`
`SEA is an entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York
`
`with its principal place of business at 85 Challenger Rd., Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660. SEA
`
`may be served with process through its registered agent with the Texas Secretary of State, CT
`
`Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201.
`
`5.
`
`SEA is a wholly owned subsidiary of SEC and oversees domestic sales and
`
`distribution of Samsung’s consumer electronics products, including the products accused of
`
`infringement in this case.
`
`6.
`
`SEA and SEC have acted in concert with respect to the facts alleged herein such
`
`that any act of SEA is attributable to SEC, and vice versa.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`et seq.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`This is an action arising under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, and 1338(a).
`
`Samsung is subject to this Court’s specific and general personal jurisdiction due at
`
`least to Samsung’s substantial business in this forum, including (i) at least a portion of the
`
`infringements alleged herein; or (ii) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other
`
`persistent courses of conduct, or deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to
`
`individuals in Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00290-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 12/06/22 Page 3 of 95 PageID #: 1119
`
`
`
`10.
`
`Specifically, Samsung intends to and does business in Texas, directly or through
`
`intermediaries and offers its products or services, including those accused of infringement, to
`
`customers and potential customers located in Texas, including in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`11.
`
`Samsung maintains a regular and established place of business in this District,
`
`including 6625 Excellence Way, Plano, TX 75023. WHERE TO FIND US, available at
`
`https://www.sra.samsung.com/locations/ (last accessed Mar. 23, 2022). Samsung refers to this
`
`office as its “Mobile hub” for its smartphone product line. Career & Job Opportunities at Samsung
`
`Electronics America, available at https://www.themuse.com/profiles/samsungelectronicsamerica
`
`/location/plano (last accessed Mar. 23, 2022). Other divisions, including Networks, Mobile
`
`Marketing, Computing and Wearables, and Product Management, are located in the Plano facilities
`
`in this District. Id. Samsung has described this 216,000 square foot “flagship” Plano office, with
`
`over 1,000 employees, as part of its “longstanding and growing commitment to Texas.” Samsung
`
`Electronics America
`
`to Open Flagship North Texas Campus,
`
`available
`
`at
`
`https://news.samsung.com/us/samsung-electronics-america-open-flagship-north-texas-campus/
`
`(last accessed Mar. 23, 2022).
`
`12.
`
`“North Texas is home to Samsung Electronics America’s second biggest employee
`
`population in the U.S. across multiple divisions – Customer Care, Mobile, Mobile R&D and
`
`Engineering.” Id.
`
`13.
`
`In 2020, Samsung announced plans to expand its Plano presence. See Samsung
`
`plans for Plano office expansion, available at https://www.dallasnews.com/business/real-
`
`estate/2021/10/01/samsung-is-growing-its-huge-plano-regional-office/ (last accessed Mar. 28,
`
`2022).
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00290-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 12/06/22 Page 4 of 95 PageID #: 1120
`
`
`
`14.
`
`Samsung has not disputed this Court’s personal jurisdiction over it in other recent
`
`patent-infringement actions. See, e.g., Answer at ¶ 10, Barkan Wireless v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`
`Ltd. et al., No. 2:18-cv-00028-JRG, Dkt. 25 (E.D. Tex., Apr. 23, 2018); Answer at ¶ 9, Immersion
`
`Corp. v. Samsung Elects. Am., Inc., No. 2:17-cv-572, Dkt. 16 (E.D. Tex. Oct. Oct 24, 2017);
`
`Answer at ¶ 10, Richardson v. Samsung Elects. Co., Ltd., No. 6-17-cv-428, Dkt. 15 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Oct. 20, 2017); Answer at ¶ 8, Spacetime3D, Inc. v. Samsung Elects. Co., Ltd. and Samsung Elects.
`
`Am., Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00372, Dkt. 22 (E.D. Tex. May 16, 2020).
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1400(b) and 1391(c).
`
`Venue is proper against SEA in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)
`
`because it has maintained established and regular places of business in this District and has
`
`committed acts of patent infringement in the District. See In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355, 1362–
`
`63 (Fed. Cir. 2017). See also supra ¶¶ 11–12.
`
`17.
`
`Venue is proper against SEC pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) because venue is
`
`proper in any judicial district against a foreign corporation. See In re HTC Corp., 889 F.3d 1349,
`
`1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`18.
`
`In other recent patent actions, Samsung either “admit[ted],” (Answer at ¶ 14,
`
`Richardson v. Samsung Elects. Co., Ltd., No. 6-17-cv-428, Dkt. 15 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 20, 2017)), or
`
`“d[id] not contest,” (Answer at ¶ 10, Immersion Corp. v. Samsung Elects. Am., Inc., No. 16-cv-
`
`572, Dkt. 16 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 24, 2017)), that this District is a proper venue for patent infringement
`
`actions against it. See also, e.g., Answer at ¶ 12, Barkan Wireless v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et
`
`al., No. 2:18-cv-00028-JRG, Dkt. 25 (E.D. Tex., Apr. 23, 2018); Answer at ¶ 9–10 Spacetime3D,
`
`Inc. v. Samsung Elects. Co., Ltd. and Samsung Elects. Am., Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00372, Dkt. 22 (E.D.
`
`Tex. May 16, 2020).
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00290-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 12/06/22 Page 5 of 95 PageID #: 1121
`
`
`
`THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`19.
`
`In his research, inventor Michael Smith recognized that as processor power and
`
`speed and memory capacity increased, mobile devices such as smartphones would become
`
`increasingly capable of more complex tasks and running feature-rich applications rivaling those
`
`even on desktop computers. But unlike desktop computers, mobile devices, being small and light,
`
`would always have miniature displays with highly limited screen real-estate. This severe constraint
`
`meant that interacting with feature-rich mobile applications would necessarily require different
`
`input and output techniques than those used on desktop computers. For example, instead of a
`
`mouse pointer indicating a single pixel with a mouse click, a user’s finger touches a larger oval’s
`
`worth of pixels all at once, creating the need for finger-sized targets. New user interface widgets
`
`taking such considerations into account would be required to intuitively and effectively operate
`
`mobile device applications.
`
`20.
`
`Therefore, to enable users to operate these new powerful mobile devices and their
`
`feature-rich applications, Smith developed new advanced input and output techniques for mobile
`
`user interfaces. A particular approach Smith used was to develop multi-part gestures, where users
`
`can take successive actions, such as by touching, tapping, long-pressing, or sliding, and receive
`
`feedback at each step, whether visual or tactile (or both). Working in tandem with Smith’s gestures
`
`were integrated forms of feedback, such as using menus offering contextual actions or vibrotactile
`
`pulses used to confirm certain actions. Smith’s intuitive and fluid combination of input and output
`
`enabled users to much more easily and effectively operate feature-rich interfaces on miniature
`
`displays with severely limited screen real-estate. These innovations represent a new class of user
`
`interface interactions distinct from those used on the desktop, and helped to usher in the next phase
`
`of mobile computing.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00290-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 12/06/22 Page 6 of 95 PageID #: 1122
`
`
`
`21.
`
`These mobile UI advances resulted in numerous patents, including U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`10,671,212 (the “’212 Patent”); 10,606,396 (the “’396 Patent”); 10,642,413 (the “’413 Patent”);
`
`10,788,931 (the “’931 Patent”); 10,656,754 (the “’754 Patent”); 10,782,819 (the “’819 Patent”);
`
`and 10,649,580 (the “’580 Patent”); and 10,656,758 (the “’758 Patent”) (collectively, the
`
`“Asserted Patents”).
`
`22.
`
`The ’212 Patent, titled “Gesture-equipped touch screen system, method, and
`
`computer program product,” issued on June 2, 2020. See Ex. A. Smith is the sole named inventor
`
`of the ’212 Patent. The ’212 Patent application (No. 16/558,028) was filed August 30, 2019, and
`
`is a continuation of and claims priority to numerous patents, patent applications, and provisional
`
`patent applications dating back to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/515,835, filed Aug. 5, 2011.
`
`Smith Interface is the assignee and sole owner of the ’212 Patent and has the full and exclusive
`
`right to bring action and recover damages for Samsung’s infringement of the ’212 Patent.
`
`23.
`
`The ’396 Patent, titled “Gesture-equipped touch screen methods for duration-based
`
`functions,” issued on March 31, 2020. See Ex. B. Smith is the sole named inventor of the ’396
`
`Patent. The ’396 Patent application (No. 16/155,876) was filed October 9, 2018, and is a
`
`continuation of and claims priority to numerous patents, patent applications, and provisional patent
`
`applications dating back to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/515,835, filed Aug. 5, 2011. Smith
`
`Interface is the assignee and sole owner of the ’396 Patent and has the full and exclusive right to
`
`bring action and recover damages for Samsung’s infringement of the ’396 Patent.
`
`24.
`
`The ’413 Patent, titled “Gesture-equipped touch screen system, method, and
`
`computer program product,” issued on May 5, 2020. See Ex. C. Smith is the sole named inventor
`
`of the ’413 Patent. The ’413 Patent application (No. 16/169,961) was filed October 24, 2018, and
`
`is a continuation of and claims priority to numerous patents, patent applications, and provisional
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00290-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 12/06/22 Page 7 of 95 PageID #: 1123
`
`
`
`patent applications dating back to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/515,835, filed Aug. 5, 2011.
`
`Smith Interface is the assignee and sole owner of the ’413 Patent and has the full and exclusive
`
`right to bring action and recover damages for Samsung’s infringement of the ’413 Patent.
`
`25.
`
`The ’931 Patent, titled “Devices, methods, and graphical user interfaces for
`
`manipulating user interface objects with visual and/or haptic feedback,” issued on September 29,
`
`2020. See Ex. D. Smith is the sole named inventor of the ’931 Patent. The ’931 Patent application
`
`(No. 16/724,366) was filed December 22, 2019, and is a continuation of and claims priority to
`
`numerous patents, patent applications, and provisional patent applications dating back to U.S.
`
`Provisional Application No. 61/515,835, filed Aug. 5, 2011. Smith Interface is the assignee and
`
`sole owner of the ’931 Patent and has the full and exclusive right to bring action and recover
`
`damages for Samsung’s infringement of the ’931 Patent.
`
`26.
`
`The ’754 Patent, titled “Devices and methods for navigating between user
`
`interfaces,” issued on May 19, 2020. See Ex. E. Smith is the sole named inventor of the ’754
`
`Patent. The ’754 Patent application (No. 16/438,455) was filed June 11, 2019, and is a continuation
`
`of and claims priority to numerous patents, patent applications, and provisional patent applications
`
`dating back to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/515,835, filed Aug. 5, 2011. Smith Interface
`
`is the assignee and sole owner of the ’754 Patent and has the full and exclusive right to bring action
`
`and recover damages for Samsung’s infringement of the ’754 Patent.
`
`27.
`
`The ’819 Patent, titled “Gesture-equipped touch screen system, method, and
`
`computer program product,” issued on September 22, 2020. See Ex. F. Smith is the sole named
`
`inventor of the ’819 Patent. The ’819 Patent application (No. 16/155,879) was filed October 9,
`
`2018, and is a continuation of and claims priority to numerous patents, patent applications, and
`
`provisional patent applications dating back to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/515,835, filed
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00290-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 12/06/22 Page 8 of 95 PageID #: 1124
`
`
`
`Aug. 5, 2011. Smith Interface is the assignee and sole owner of the ’819 Patent and has the full
`
`and exclusive right to bring action and recover damages for Samsung’s infringement of the ’819
`
`Patent.
`
`28.
`
`The ’580 Patent, titled “Devices, methods, and graphical use interfaces for
`
`manipulating user interface objects with visual and/or haptic feedback,” issued on May 12, 2020.
`
`See Ex. G. Smith is the sole named inventor of the ’580 Patent. The ’580 Patent application (No.
`
`16/664,777) was filed October 25, 2019, and is a continuation of and claims priority to numerous
`
`patents, patent applications, and provisional patent applications dating back to U.S. Provisional
`
`Application No. 61/515,835, filed Aug. 5, 2011. Smith Interface is the assignee and sole owner of
`
`the ’580 Patent and has the full and exclusive right to bring action and recover damages for
`
`Samsung’s infringement of the ’580 Patent.
`
`29.
`
`The ’758 Patent, titled “Gesture-equipped touch screen system, method, and
`
`computer program product,” issued on May 19, 2020. See Ex. H. Smith is the sole named inventor
`
`of the ’758 Patent. The ’758 Patent application (No. 16/664,780) was filed October 25, 2019, and
`
`is a continuation of and claims priority to numerous patents, patent applications, and provisional
`
`patent applications dating back to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/515,835, filed Aug. 5, 2011.
`
`Smith Interface is the assignee and sole owner of the ’758 Patent and has the full and exclusive
`
`right to bring action and recover damages for Samsung’s infringement of the ’758 Patent.
`
`SAMSUNG ONE UI AND THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS
`
`30.
`
`Samsung infringes the Asserted Patents by making, using, selling, offering to sell,
`
`and importing its smartphones and tablets that run Samsung One UI. Exemplary accused infringing
`
`smartphones and tablets include, but are not limited to, the Samsung Galaxy Note Series, S Series,
`
`Z Series, A Series, M/F Series, XCover Series, J Series, Galaxy Tab S Series, and Galaxy Tab A
`
`Series (collectively the “Accused Products”).
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00290-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 12/06/22 Page 9 of 95 PageID #: 1125
`
`
`
`31.
`
` In November 2018, Samsung “introduce[d] a new and intuitive interface design
`
`called One UI.” SDC 2018: Samsung Reveals Breakthroughs in Intelligence, IoT and Mobile UX,
`
`Samsung Newsroom U.S. (Nov. 7, 2018), available at: https://news.samsung.com/us/sdc-2018-
`
`samsung-mobile-ux-one-ui-infinity-flex-display-bixby-smartthings-platform/.
`
`32.
`
`One UI “represents an integral part of [Samsung’s] mission to continually create .
`
`. . intuitive experiences for [its] consumers throughout their device lifecycle.” Samsung One UI 3
`
`Takes User Experience to New Heights with Android 11, Samsung Newsroom (Dec. 3, 2020),
`
`available at: https://news.samsung.com/global/samsung-one-ui-3-takes-user-experience-to-new-
`
`heights-with-android-11.
`
`33.
`
`One UI is designed to “deliver a new kind of mobile experience allowing users to
`
`do things they couldn’t do with an ordinary smartphone.” Id. To deliver this new kind of mobile
`
`experience, One UI “simplify[ies] and streamline[s] interactions” and makes the user’s
`
`“experience more natural, seamless and efficient.” One UI Beta Program: Android 10 on Galaxy
`
`S10 Available Starting Today, Samsung Newsroom U.S. (Oct. 14, 2019), available at:
`
`https://news.samsung.com/us/one-ui-beta-program-android-10-galaxy-s10-coming-soon/.
`
`34.
`
`Samsung considers One UI to have “rewritten smartphone history.” How Samsung
`
`Galaxy Has Rewritten Smartphone History in 10 Innovative Technologies, Samsung Newsroom
`
`(Feb. 9, 2022), available at: https://news.samsung.com/global/how-samsung-galaxy-has-
`
`rewritten-smartphone-history-in-10-innovative-technologies.
`
`SAMSUNG’S KNOWLEDGE OF SMITH’S INVENTIONS
`
`35.
`
`The Asserted Patents, along with patent publications and patents sharing a common
`
`claim of priority, inventorship, and/or ownership with the Asserted Patents (“Smith Patent
`
`Family”), have been cited more than 500 times in the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`during the prosecution of other U.S. patent applications.
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00290-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 12/06/22 Page 10 of 95 PageID #: 1126
`
`
`
`36.
`
`Among those citations, over 20 Samsung patents and patent publications include
`
`citations to patents and patent publications in the Smith Patent Family.
`
`37.
`
`On January 27, 2017, during the prosecution of Samsung’s U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,871,664, a patent examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office identified a member
`
`of the Smith Patent Family to Samsung.
`
`38.
`
`On September 8, 2017, during the prosecution of Samsung’s U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,402,002, a patent examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office identified a
`
`member of the Smith Patent Family to Samsung.
`
`39.
`
`On August 27, 2018, during the prosecution of Samsung’s U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,331,208, a patent examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office identified a
`
`member of the Smith Patent Family to Samsung.
`
`40.
`
`On October 16, 2018, during the prosecution of Samsung’s U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,761,723, a patent examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office identified a
`
`member of the Smith Patent Family to Samsung.
`
`41.
`
`On July 12, 2019, during the prosecution of Samsung’s U.S. Patent No. 10,949,012,
`
`which identifies its technical field as “a technology for providing a user interface associated with
`
`a force sensor,” Samsung identified a member of the Smith Patent Family in a filing to the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`42.
`
`On July 15, 2019, during the prosecution of Samsung’s U.S. Patent No. 10,754,938,
`
`a patent examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office identified a member of the
`
`Smith Patent Family to Samsung. On April 22, 2020, during the prosecution of Samsung’s U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,754,938, a patent examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`identified two additional members of the Smith Patent Family to Samsung.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00290-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 12/06/22 Page 11 of 95 PageID #: 1127
`
`
`
`43.
`
`On July 30, 2019, during the prosecution of Samsung’s U.S. Patent No. 11,200,165,
`
`Samsung identified a member of the Smith Patent Family in a filing to the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office.
`
`44.
`
`On August 30, 2019, during the prosecution of Samsung’s U.S. Patent No.
`
`11,366,563, a patent examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office identified a
`
`member of the Smith Patent Family to Samsung.
`
`45.
`
`On January 17, 2020, during the prosecution of Samsung’s U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,929,007, a patent examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office identified a
`
`member of the Smith Patent Family to Samsung.
`
`46.
`
`On April 17, 2020, during the prosecution of Samsung’s U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,963,154, a patent examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office identified a
`
`member of the Smith Patent Family to Samsung.
`
`47.
`
`On October 14, 2020, during the prosecution of Samsung’s U.S. Patent No.
`
`11,029,797, a patent examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office identified a
`
`member of the Smith Patent Family to Samsung.
`
`48.
`
`On December 9, 2020, during the prosecution of Samsung’s U.S. Patent No.
`
`11,068,160, a patent examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office identified a
`
`member of the Smith Patent Family to Samsung.
`
`49.
`
`On January 28, 2021, during the prosecution of Samsung’s U.S. Patent No.
`
`11,231,785, a patent examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office identified a
`
`member of the Smith Patent Family to Samsung.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00290-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 12/06/22 Page 12 of 95 PageID #: 1128
`
`
`
`50.
`
`On February 10, 2022, during the prosecution of Samsung’s U.S. Patent No.
`
`11,353,992, a patent examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office identified a
`
`member of the Smith Patent Family to Samsung.
`
`51.
`
`Further, the Smith Patent Family is known in the technology industry and has
`
`been cited in numerous US patents since the earliest publication of the Smith Patent Family.
`
`These citations were on patents assigned to well-known Samsung competitors: Apple, Microsoft,
`
`IBM, Intel, Micron, Oracle, and Snap, Inc. See e.g.
`
`https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160188181A1/en?oq=US20160188181 (last accessed
`
`December 5, 2022); https://patents.google.com/patent/US9417754B2/en?oq=9417754 (last
`
`accessed December 5, 2022);
`
`https://patents.google.com/patent/US9432298B1/en?oq=US9432298 (last accessed December 5,
`
`2022).
`
`52.
`
`Upon information and belief, Samsung’s largest competitors cite to the Smith
`
`Patent Family and/or have the Smith Patent Family cited to them during prosecution of their
`
`patents.
`
`53.
`
`Upon information and belief, and based on the many repeated references to the
`
`Smith Patent Family in Samsung’s own patents, by March 2020 Samsung was aware of, had actual
`
`knowledge of, and was following the prosecution of the Smith Patent Family and knew of its
`
`relevance to both the field of mobile user interfaces and its own products.
`
`54.
`
`Upon information and belief, Samsung was following the Smith Patent Family as
`
`it obtained each of the patents-in-suit and had Samsung engineers review the specification and
`
`claims of each Asserted Patent.
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00290-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 12/06/22 Page 13 of 95 PageID #: 1129
`
`
`
`55.
`
`Upon information and belief, and based on Samsung’s actual knowledge of the
`
`Smith Patent Family and its relevance to the field of mobile user interfaces, Samsung has notice
`
`and actual, or constructive, knowledge of each of the Asserted Patents the day each Asserted Patent
`
`issued.
`
`56.
`
`In the alternative, upon information and belief and based on the many repeated
`
`references to the Smith Patent Family in Samsung’s own patents as well as others in the industry,
`
`Samsung was willfully blind to the Smith Patent Family and deliberately failed to probe, at least
`
`by choosing not to investigate the Smith Patent Family in view of the high probability of
`
`infringement, the Smith Patent Family’s relevance to both the field of mobile user interfaces and
`
`Samsung’s own products.
`
`57.
`
` Upon information and belief, despite Samsung’s actual knowledge of, or willful
`
`blindness to, the Smith Patent Family, Samsung used, implemented, and/or developed One UI
`
`features that infringed the Asserted Patents.
`
`58.
`
`In addition, Samsung has actual knowledge of the Asserted Patents by virtue of this
`
`litigation and, at least, as of the date it received notice.
`
`COUNT I
`(CLAIM FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’212 PATENT)
`
`59.
`
`Smith Interface incorporates the foregoing paragraphs by reference as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`60.
`
`61.
`
`A true and accurate copy of the ’212 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`All claims of the ’212 Patent are valid and enforceable, and each enjoys a statutory
`
`presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282.
`
`62.
`
`The claims of the ’212 patent are directed to an improvement of the user interface
`
`on a mobile device and not an abstract idea.
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00290-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 12/06/22 Page 14 of 95 PageID #: 1130
`
`
`
`63.
`
`Smith Interface is the sole owner of the ’212 Patent and possesses rights to past
`
`damages.
`
`64.
`
`
`Independent claim 16 of the ’212 Patent recites:
`
`16. A mobile device, comprising:
`
`a touch screen;
`
`an actuator;
`
`at least one processor;
`
`memory configured to store an application; and
`
`one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored
`in the memory and configured to be executed by the at least one
`processor, the one or more programs including instructions to:
`
`
`
`display indicia, utilizing the touch screen;
`
`when a first duration of a touch being applied to the touch screen
`is detected as ceasing in connection with the indicia, perform an
`operation;
`
`
`when a second duration of the touch, that is different than the first
`duration of the touch, being applied to the touch screen is
`detected in connection with the indicia after the first duration is
`detected without the ceasing, output feedback that is perceptible
`by touch, utilizing the actuator;
`
`
`when the second duration of the touch being applied to the touch
`screen is detected in connection with the indicia after the first
`duration of the touch is detected without the ceasing, display at
`least one menu including a plurality of particular actions;
`
`
`when a selection touch being applied to the touch screen is
`detected in connection with at least one of the particular actions
`of the at least one menu after the second duration of the touch
`being applied to the touch screen is detected in connection with
`the indicia after the first duration of the touch is detected without
`the ceasing, perform the at least one particular action; and
`
`
`when a slide or swipe gesture being applied to the touch screen is
`detected after the second duration of the touch being applied to
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00290-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 12/06/22 Page 15 of 95 PageID #: 1131
`
`
`
`the touch screen is detected in connection with the indicia after
`the first duration of the touch is detected without the ceasing,
`change at least one aspect of the display of the at least one menu.
`
`
`In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, Samsung has been and is still infringing (both
`
`65.
`
`literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents), contributing to infringement, and/or inducing
`
`others to infringe of the ’212 Patent by making, using, offering for sale, selling, importing, or
`
`encouraging and intending that others to use mobile devices that practice at least claim 16 of the
`
`’212 Patent, including but not limited to the Accused Products.
`
`66.
`
`As described above, Samsung designs, manufactures, makes, uses, provides,
`
`imports into the United States, sells and/or offers for sale in the United States the Accused Products
`
`and thus directly infringes (both literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents) the ’212 Patent.
`
`67.
`
`On information and belief, Samsung is currently and will continue to actively
`
`induce and encourage infringement of the ’212 Patent. Samsung has known of the ’212 Patent as
`
`described above and, at a minimum, at least since the time this complaint was filed and served on
`
`Samsung. On information and belief, Samsung nevertheless actively encourages others to infringe
`
`the ’212 Patent. On information and belief, Samsung knowingly induces infringement by others,
`
`including resellers, retailers, and end users of the Accused Products. For example, Samsung’s
`
`customers and the end users of the Accused Products test and/or operate the Accused Products in
`
`the United States in accordance with Samsung’s instructions contained in, for example, its user
`
`manuals, and as Samsung intends One UI to be used, thereby also performing the claimed methods
`
`and directly infringing the asserted claims of the Accused Products requiring such operation. These
`
`facts give rise to a reasonable inference that Samsung knowingly induces others, including
`
`resellers, retailers, and end users, to directly infringe the ’212 Patent, and that Samsung possesses
`
`a specific intent to cause such infringement.
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00290-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 12/06/22 Page 16 of 95 PageID #: 1132
`
`
`
`68.
`
`Samsung also contributes to infringement of the ’212 Patent by selling for
`
`importation into the United States, importing into the United States, and/or selling within the
`
`United States after importation the accused devices and the non-staple constituent parts of those
`
`devices, which are not suitable for substantial noninfringing use and which embody a material part
`
`of the invention described in the ’212 Patent. These mobile electronic devices are known by
`
`Samsung to be especially made or especially adapted for use in the infringement of the ’212 Patent.
`
`These mobile devices are known by Samsung to be especially made or especially adapted for use
`
`in the infringement of the ’212 Patent. Specifically, on information and belief, Samsung sells the
`
`accused devices to resellers, retailers, and end users with knowledge that the devices are used for
`
`infringement. End users of those mobile electronic devices directly infringe the ’212 Patent.
`
`69.
`
`Smith Interface has, to the extent required, complied with the marking statute, 35
`
`U.S.C. § 287.
`
`70.
`
`As a result of Samsung’s infringement of the ’212 Patent, Smith Interface has
`
`suffered and continues to suffer damages. Thus, Smith Interface is entitled to recover from
`
`Samsung the damages Smith Interface sustained (and continues to sustain) as a result of Samsung’s
`
`wrongful and infringing acts in an amount no less than a reasonable royalty.
`
`71.
`
`Samsung’s infringement of the ’212 Patent has been willful. Samsung has known
`
`of the ’212 Patent as described above and, at a minimum, at least since the time of or shortly after
`
`filing of the Original Complaint. Further, at least since the time of or shortly after filing of the
`
`Original Complaint, Samsung has been aware of how One UI infringes at least claim 16 of the
`
`’212 Patent as detailed in the Original Complaint. Since that time, Samsung has not updated or
`
`modified One UI to cease its infringement of the ’212 Patent. Upon information and belief,
`
`Samsung deliberately and intentionally infringed, and continues to deliberately and intentionally
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00290-JRG-RSP Document 28 Filed 12/06/22 Page 17 of 95 PageID #: 1133
`
`
`
`infringe, the ’212 Patent. Samsung knew or should have known that its actions would cause
`
`infringement of the ’212 Patent, yet, Samsung has, and continues to, infringe the ’212 Patent.
`
`72.
`
`This is an exceptional case warranting an award of treble damages to Smith
`
`Interface under 35 U.S.C. § 284, and an award of Smith Interface’s attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 285.
`
`73.
`
`By way of non-limiting example(s), set forth below (with claim language in bold
`
`and italics) is exemplary evidence of infringement of claim 16 of the ’212 Patent by the Accused
`
`Products. This description is based on publicly available information. Smith Interface reserves the
`
`right to modify this description, including, for example, on the basis of information about the
`
`Accused Products that it obtains during discovery.
`
`74.
`
`16(a): “A mobile device, comprising: a touch screen; an actuator; at least one
`
`processor; memory configured to s