Case 4:21-cv-00376 Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`SHERMAN DIVISION
`
`PICTOS TECHNOLOGIES INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
`SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 21-cv-00376
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Pictos Technologies Inc. (“Pictos”) files this Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`against Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung
`
`Semiconductor, Inc., and Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”), and
`
`asserts as follows:
`
`The Parties
`Pictos is an intellectual property company that holds more than 70 patents on core
`
`technologies relating to image sensors and other features used in consumer electronic products
`
`such as cell phones, digital cameras, tablet computers, and laptops. Years ago, at the request of
`
`the United States Government, a team of engineers at Pictos’s predecessor-in-interest developed
`
`image sensor technologies for use in military applications, and subsequently developed those
`
`technologies for commercial uses as well. At a high level, an image sensor is a device that
`
`converts an optical image into electronic signals, such as those used by digital cameras and cell
`
`phones. Pictos’s predecessors to this imaging technology went on to include a publicly traded
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00376 Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 2
`
`U.S. corporation that also designed and manufactured products in the field of DVDs and other
`
`audiovisual equipment. Ultimately, as the owner of a broad array of patent rights directed to
`
`image sensors, Pictos has licensed its patents including the patents-in- suit. Pictos has a place of
`
`business at 109 Bonaventura Blvd., San Jose, CA 95134, and is incorporated in the state of
`
`Delaware.
`
`
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) is a
`
`corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of Korea, with its principal
`
`place of business at 416, Maetan 3-dong, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do 443-742,
`
`Korea.
`
`
`
`On information and belief, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) is a
`
`subsidiary of Defendant Samsung Electronics, and is organized and existing under the laws of
`
`New York with its principal place of business at 85 Challenger Rd., Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660.
`
`Upon information and belief, SEA has corporate offices in the Eastern District of Texas at 1303
`
`East Lookout Drive, Richardson, Texas 75082 and 2800 Technology Drive, Suite 200, Plano,
`
`Texas 75074, and also maintains a 216,000 square-foot campus at 6625 Excellence Way, Plano,
`
`Texas 75023.
`
`
`
`On information and belief, Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (“SSI”) is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, with its principal place of
`
`business located at 3655 North First Street, San Jose, California 95134, and is a subsidiary of
`
`SEA.
`
`
`
`On information and belief, Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC (“SAS”) is a
`
`limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of Delaware, with its principal
`
`place of business at 12100 Samsung Boulevard, Austin, Texas 78754.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00376 Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 3
`
`
`
`On information and belief, SAS is a subsidiary of SSI, which is a subsidiary of
`
`SEA, which is a subsidiary of SEC.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`This is a complaint for patent infringement that arises under the laws of the
`
`
`
`United States, Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`
`
`This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`1331 and 1338.
`
`
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant SEC in this action because
`
`SEC has committed acts within the Eastern District of Texas giving rise to this action and has
`
`established minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over SEC
`
`would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Defendant SEC, directly
`
`and through subsidiaries or intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), has
`
`committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in this District by among other things
`
`offering to sell and selling products that infringe the asserted patents.
`
`
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant SEA in this action because
`
`SEA has committed acts within the Eastern District of Texas giving rise to this action and has
`
`established minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over SEA
`
`would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Defendant SEA, directly
`
`and through subsidiaries or intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), has
`
`committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in this District by among other things
`
`offering to sell and selling products that infringe the asserted patents. SEA has also been
`
`authorized to do business in the State of Texas by the Texas Secretary of State. Further, SEA
`
`designated C T Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201, as its
`
`registered agent.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00376 Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 4
`
`
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant SSI in this action because SSI
`
`has committed acts within the Eastern District of Texas giving rise to this action and has
`
`established minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over SSI
`
`would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Defendant SSI, directly
`
`and through subsidiaries or intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), has
`
`committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in by among other things offering to
`
`sell and selling products that infringe the asserted patents. Defendant SSI is also authorized by
`
`the Texas Secretary of State to do business in the State of Texas and designated C T Corporation
`
`System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201, as its registered agent.
`
`
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant SAS in this action because
`
`SAS has committed acts within the Eastern District of Texas giving rise to this action and has
`
`established minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of jurisdiction over SAS
`
`would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Defendant SAS, directly
`
`and through subsidiaries or intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), has
`
`committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in by among other things offering to
`
`sell and selling products that infringe the asserted patents. Defendant SAS is also authorized by
`
`the Texas Secretary of State to do business in the State of Texas and designated C T Corporation
`
`System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201, as its registered agent.
`
`
`
`Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-(c)
`
`and 1400 because Defendants have committed acts of direct and indirect infringement in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas and have transacted business in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`Defendants have authorized sellers and sales representatives throughout Texas that offer and sell
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00376 Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 5
`
`infringing products pertinent to this Complaint, including in this District and to consumers
`
`throughout this District
`
`
`
`Each Defendant, through its own acts and/or through the acts of each other
`
`Defendant acting as its agent, representative, or alter ego, makes, uses, sells, and/or offers to sell
`
`infringing products within this District, has a continuing presence within the District, and has the
`
`requisite minimum contacts with the District such that this is a fair and reasonable venue. Upon
`
`information and belief, each Defendant has transacted and continues to transact business within
`
`this District.
`
`
`
`As more fully set forth below, the patents owned and asserted by Pictos in this
`
`case include United States Patent No. 6,838,651. That patent was the subject of a prior litigation
`
`recently handled by this District, thus making this action a “related” case under this District’s
`
`Local Patent Rule 2-6. See Imperium (IP) Holdings, Inc. v. Apple Inc., et al., Case No. 4:11-CV-
`
`163-RC-ALM (E.D. Tex.). Additionally, Pictos1, SEC, SEA, and SSI were previously before
`
`this court related to other patents owned and asserted by Pictos. See Imperium IP Holdings
`
`(Cayman), Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, Case. No. 4:14-cv-00371-ALM (E.D.
`
`Tex.).
`
`Background Facts
`This case involves innovative technology developed in the 1980s by Rockwell
`
`
`
`International while working for the United States Department of Defense on satellite imaging,
`
`including important contributions to the CMOS imaging sensors that power all of our mobile
`
`phone and laptop cameras today.
`
`
`Pictos was formerly known as Imperium (IP) Holdings, Inc.
`
`1
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00376 Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 6
`
`
`
`In June 2003, ESS Technology, Inc. (“ESS”) acquired Pictos Technologies, Inc., a
`
`California company, from Conexant Systems, Rockwell’s successor. This acquisition included
`
`Pictos’s digital imaging patent portfolio. At the time, Pictos developed and supplied image
`
`processors, CMOS image sensors, camera modules and embedded software throughout the U.S.
`
`marketplace. Pictos’s consumer products included one of the world’s smallest VGA color
`
`sensors, CMOS imaging sensors and modules, as well as the fastest click-to-click, high
`
`performance low power image processors that supported multiple digital output formats.
`
`
`
`As part of its research and development, ESS continued to develop patents and trade
`
`secrets that enabled the practice of ESS’s technology. In particular, ESS developed testing
`
`methodologies, methods, and equipment that allowed practitioners of the technology to fine tune
`
`their digital cameras so that colors, exposure, white balance, and other imaging criteria could be
`
`set to exact standards. But ESS’s core strength lay in marketing and getting products to market.
`
`
`
`ESS was incredibly successful in gaining acceptance of its new digital imaging
`
`technology by manufacturers. By the fourth quarter of 2003, driven by tripled revenues in
`
`camera phones, Pictos had increased revenues more than 75% over the prior year.
`
`
`
`ESS’s technology caught Samsung’s attention and by March 2005 Samsung had
`
`selected ESS’s 1.3 megapixel ES2260M chip for inclusion in its A890 handset, Samsung’s first
`
`mobile phone designed for Verizon’s EVDO broadband network. ESS’s engineers spent
`
`considerable time directly assisting Samsung’s engineers in the United States and in Korea.
`
`
`
`ESS and Samsung signed non-disclosure agreements under which ESS gave
`
`Samsung access to ESS’s engineers, laboratories, source code, and expertise.
`
`
`
`Samsung took advantage of this access. Samsung’s engineers photographed,
`
`measured, and analyzed every aspect of ESS’s testing and calibration laboratory in the United
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00376 Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 7
`
`States. Samsung then reproduced an exact replica – down to the lines on the floor – of ESS’s
`
`laboratory in Korea. ESS’s laboratory specifications were the result of decades of development,
`
`investment, and research, to create the necessary machines, software, and methodologies to test
`
`and tune digital imaging components.
`
`
`
`Samsung entered into contracts with ESS to purchase ESS’s digital imaging
`
`components, such as the cutting edge ES2260M chip, and then used the resulting access to ESS’s
`
`technology to copy that technology. Samsung then ceased doing business with Pictos. But
`
`Samsung had catapulted itself from a minor player in the CMOS industry to eventually become
`
`the second largest CMOS manufacturer in the world.
`
`
`
`As is not surprising when a behemoth in the mobile industry steals technology and
`
`then stops doing business with a small digital imaging semiconductor company, ESS’s camera
`
`business quickly plummeted. By early 2007, ESS was forced to officially close its phone camera
`
`operations and instead attempted to salvage what it could by licensing its technology.
`
`
`
`In 2008, as a part of the separation of its operating businesses and its licensing
`
`businesses, ESS rolled its licensing efforts into Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd.
`
`(“Imperium”). Through mergers and related agreements ESS assigned all of its patents and trade
`
`secrets to Imperium.
`
`
`
`After three years of unsuccessful attempts to license its technology without
`
`litigation, Imperium brought a patent infringement suit against Apple, Kyocera, LG, Motorola,
`
`Nokia, Research in Motion, and Sony Ericsson in the Eastern District of Texas alleging
`
`infringement of the ’651 Patent and other patents not at issue here (the “Apple Litigation”).
`
`
`
`As part of its effort to license its technology, Imperium entered into discussions
`
`with a patent broker. Allegedly working on behalf of a major player in the industry, the patent
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00376 Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 8
`
`broker negotiated with Imperium for the license or purchase of Imperium’s patent portfolio starting
`
`in May 2011. In fact, that broker was retained by Samsung. Samsung twice evaluated Imperium’s
`
`70-plus patent portfolio between 2011 and 2014 and said “thanks but no thanks.” Samsung was
`
`therefore on notice of its infringement at least as early as its analysis and has continued to infringe
`
`since that date.
`
`
`
`In the Apple Litigation, after extensive motions practice, each of the seven
`
`defendants separately settled with Imperium.
`
`
`
`Despite the foregoing pre-suit negotiations, and notice of its infringement, Samsung
`
`refused to settle, continued to infringe, and Imperium was forced to bring suit against Samsung in
`
`2014.
`
`
`
`In 2016, after significant motions practice and a six-day trial, the jury found that
`
`Samsung infringed Imperium’s patents, Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman) Ltd. v. Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., et. al., Civil Action No. 4:14-CV-371, Dkt. 253 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2016) (reversed
`
`on other grounds), and, unsurprisingly, the Court found that Samsung had willfully done so,
`
`Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 4:14-CV-371,
`
`2017 WL 4038883 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2017) (reversed on other grounds).
`
`
`
`Through a merger, Imperium IP Holdings became a Delaware corporation named
`
`Pictos Technologies Inc. in late 2019.
`
`
`
`In October 2020, at Pictos’s request, the International Trade Commission initiated
`
`an investigation into Samsung’s unfair trade practices, including its infringement of the patents at
`
`issue here. That investigation is ongoing.
`
`COUNT ONE
`Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,838,651
`Pictos re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-32 above.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00376 Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 9
`
`
`
`On January 4, 2005, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
`
`duly and legally issued United States Patent No. 6,838,651 (the “’651 Patent”), entitled “High
`
`Sensitivity Snap Shot CMOS Image Sensor.” Pictos is the owner of the ’651 Patent, a true and
`
`correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint.
`
`
`
`The ‘651 Patent describes a device and method to create high-sensitivity image
`
`sensors that allow images to be taken in low light and with high sensitivity. The Patent teaches
`
`using four pixels, a red pixel, a blue pixel, and two green pixels, to represent a single pixel, or a
`
`plurality of four pixels to represent a plurality of pixels, two or more analog-to-digital converters
`
`and a color interpolation circuit. The analog-to-digital converters convert the output of the pixels
`
`into digital signals and the color interpolation circuit combines the digital signals to determine
`
`the color of the single pixel or plurality of pixels.
`
`
`
`Defendants infringe, and continue to infringe, one or more claims of the ’651
`
`Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by manufacturing, using, selling, offering for sale,
`
`and/or importing devices with image sensors, including, but not limited to the S5K2X7, S5K2E1,
`
`S5K2L2, S5K2L3, S5K2L4, S5KGH1, S5K2LA, S5K2LD, S5K2M8, S5K2P2, S5K2P6,
`
`S5K2X5, S5K3H1, S5K3J1, S5K3L2, S5K3L6, S5K3M3, S5K3M5, S5K3P8, S5K3P9,
`
`S5K4E6, S5K4EC, and S5K4H5 (collectively the “’651 Accused Devices”) throughout the
`
`United States, including in this judicial district.
`
`
`
`By way of example, the ’651 Accused Devices are designed to have two analog to
`
`digital converters (ADCs), one of which converts the red and blue signals and one of which
`
`converts the green signals. The ’651 Accused Devices include at least Conventional Full or
`
`Conventional Binning modes that practice the claims of the ’651 Patent. The ’651 Accused
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00376 Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 10
`
`Devices infringe at least claim 1 of the `651 patent, as described in the exemplary claim chart
`
`attached as Exhibit D.
`
`
`
`Defendants also indirectly infringe the ’651 Patent by inducing infringement by
`
`others, such as manufacturers, resellers, and/or end-users of the ’651 Accused Devices, of one or
`
`more claims of the ’651 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. On information and belief,
`
`Defendants knew of the ’651 Patent and knew of its infringement, including by way of this
`
`lawsuit and, earlier, by way of an investigation filed in October 2020 and currently pending
`
`before the International Trade Commission, third-party subpoenas served on Samsung
`
`Semiconductor, Inc. in March 2012 that identified Pictos’s ’651 Patent, and through review and
`
`analysis conducted by one or more Defendants in 2011 through a patent broker.
`
`
`
`Defendants’ affirmative acts in this District of selling the ’651 Accused Devices
`
`and products containing the ’651 Accused Devices, causing the ’651 Accused Devices and
`
`products containing the ’651 Accused Devices to be manufactured and distributed, and providing
`
`instruction manuals for the ’651 Accused Devices and products containing the ’651 Accused
`
`Devices have induced and continue to induce Defendants’ manufacturers, resellers, and/or end-
`
`users to make or use the ’651 Accused Devices in their normal and customary way to infringe
`
`the ’651 Patent. Defendants specifically intended and were aware that these normal and
`
`customary activities would infringe the ’651 Patent. Defendants performed the acts that
`
`constitute induced infringement, and would induce actual infringement, with the knowledge of
`
`the ’651 Patent and with the knowledge, or willful blindness to the probability, that the induced
`
`acts would constitute infringement.
`
`
`
`Defendants also indirectly infringe the ’651 Patent by manufacturing, using,
`
`selling, offering for sale, and/or importing the ’651 Accused Devices with knowledge that the
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00376 Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 11
`
`’651 Accused Devices were and are especially manufactured and/or especially adapted for use in
`
`an infringement of the ’651 Patent, and are not a staple article or commodity of commerce
`
`suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
`
`
`
`On information and belief, including the allegations above showing knowledge
`
`and intent, Defendants’ infringement has been and continues to be deliberate, willful, and in
`
`reckless disregard of Pictos’s patent rights.
`
`
`
`Pictos has been, and continues to be, damaged by Defendants’ infringement of the
`
`’651 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`COUNT TWO
`Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,323,671
`Pictos re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-32 above.
`
`On January 29, 2008, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
`
`duly and legally issued United States Patent No. 7,323,671 (the “’671 Patent”), entitled “Method
`
`and apparatus for varying a CMOS sensor control voltage.” Pictos is the owner of the ’671
`
`Patent, a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit B to this Complaint.
`
`
`
`The ‘671 Patent describes a device and method for creating that device that
`
`combines the advantages of a CCD and CMOS sensor with regard to low noise, low cost, and
`
`high performance through a robust design that anticipates variations in the manufacturing
`
`process and thus minimizes defective products by using variable voltage circuitry.
`
`
`
`Defendants infringe, and continue to infringe, one or more claims of the ’671
`
`Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by manufacturing, using, selling, offering for sale,
`
`and/or importing devices with image sensors, including, but not limited to the S5K2X7, S5K2E1,
`
`S5K2L2, S5K2L3, S5K2L4, S5KGH1, S5K2L3, S5K2LA, S5K2LD, S5K2M8, S5K2P2,
`
`S5K2P6, S5K2X5, S5K3H1, S5K3J1, S5K3L2, S5K3L6, S5K3M3, S5K3M5, S5K3P8,
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00376 Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 12
`
`S5K3P9, S5K4E6, S5K4EC, and S5K4H5 (collectively the “’671 Accused Devices”) throughout
`
`the United States, including in this judicial district.
`
`
`
`By way of example, the ’671 Accused Devices have variable voltage circuitry that
`
`can change the voltage applied to the transfer gates in pixel circuits. The ’671 Accused Devices
`
`infringe at least claim 1 of the `671 patent, as described in the exemplary claim chart attached as
`
`Exhibit E.
`
`
`
`Defendants also indirectly infringe the ’671 Patent by inducing infringement by
`
`others, such as manufacturers, resellers, and/or end-users of the ’671 Accused Devices, of one or
`
`more claims of the ’671 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. On information and belief,
`
`Defendants knew of the ’671 Patent and knew of its infringement, including by way of this
`
`lawsuit and, earlier, by way of an investigation filed in October 2020 and currently pending
`
`before the International Trade Commission and through review and analysis conducted by one or
`
`more Defendants in 2011 through a patent broker.
`
`
`
`Defendants’ affirmative acts in this District of selling the ’671 Accused Devices
`
`and products containing the ’671 Accused Devices, causing the ’671 Accused Devices and
`
`products containing the ’671 Accused Devices to be manufactured and distributed, and providing
`
`instruction manuals for the ’671 Accused Devices and products containing the ’671 Accused
`
`Devices have induced and continue to induce Defendants’ manufacturers, resellers, and/or end-
`
`users to make or use the ’671 Accused Devices in their normal and customary way to infringe
`
`the ’671 Patent. Defendants specifically intended and were aware that these normal and
`
`customary activities would infringe the ’671 Patent. Defendants performed the acts that
`
`constitute induced infringement, and would induce actual infringement, with the knowledge of
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00376 Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 13
`
`the ’671 Patent and with the knowledge, or willful blindness to the probability, that the induced
`
`acts would constitute infringement.
`
`
`
`Defendants also indirectly infringe the ’671 Patent by manufacturing, using,
`
`selling, offering for sale, and/or importing the ’671 Accused Devices with knowledge that the
`
`’671 Accused Devices were and are especially manufactured and/or especially adapted for use in
`
`an infringement of the ’671 Patent, and are not a staple article or commodity of commerce
`
`suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
`
`
`
`On information and belief, including the allegations above showing knowledge
`
`and intent, Defendants’ infringement has been and continues to be deliberate, willful, and in
`
`reckless disregard of Pictos’s patent rights.
`
`
`
`Pictos has been, and continues to be, damaged by Defendants’ infringement of the
`
`’671 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`COUNT THREE
`Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,800,145
`Pictos re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-32 above.
`
`On September 21, 2010, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent
`
`No. 7,800,145 (the “’145 Patent”), entitled “Method and apparatus for controlling charge transfer
`
`in CMOS sensors with a transfer gate work function” Pictos is the owner of the ’145 Patent, a
`
`true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit C to this Complaint.
`
`
`
`The ‘145 Patent describes a device and method to create image sensors that allow
`
`images to be taken in low light and with high sensitivity. The ‘145 Patent teaches a device and
`
`method whereby pixels are made more highly sensitive to light and less sensitive to light “noise”
`
`at lower cost by controlling and specifically placing concentrations of dopants when fabricating
`
`image sensors. The ’145 Patent describes using doping regions around photodiodes, control
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00376 Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 14
`
`terminals, transfer gates, and reset devices to allow more efficient control of the flow of electrons
`
`from photodiodes through transfer transistors to floating diffusion nodes while limiting the flow
`
`of electrons between the rows and columns that make up an image sensor.
`
`
`
`Defendants infringe, and continue to infringe, one or more claims of the ’145
`
`Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by manufacturing, using, selling, offering for sale,
`
`and/or importing devices with image sensors, including, but not limited to the S5K2X7, S5K2E1,
`
`S5K2L2, S5K2L3, S5K2L4, S5KGH1, S5K2L3, S5K2LA, S5K2LD, S5K2M8, S5K2P2,
`
`S5K2P6, S5K2X5, S5K3H1, S5K3J1, S5K3L2, S5K3L6, S5K3M3, S5K3M5, S5K3P8,
`
`S5K3P9, S5K4E6, S5K4EC, and S5K4H5 (collectively the “’145 Accused Devices”) throughout
`
`the United States, including in this judicial district.
`
`
`
`By way of example, the ’145 Accused Devices include doping regions placed
`
`around photodiodes, control terminals, transfer gates, and reset devices to control the flow of
`
`electrons from the photodiodes through the transfer gates. The ’145 Accused Devices infringe at
`
`least claim 1 of the `145 patent, as described in the exemplary claim chart attached as Exhibit F.
`
`
`
`Defendants also indirectly infringe the ’145 Patent by inducing infringement by
`
`others, such as manufacturers, resellers, and/or end-users of the ’145 Accused Devices, of one or
`
`more claims of the ’145 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. On information and belief,
`
`Defendants knew of the ’145 Patent and knew of its infringement, including by way of this
`
`lawsuit and, earlier, by way of an investigation filed in October 2020 and currently pending
`
`before the International Trade Commission and through review and analysis conducted by one or
`
`more Defendants in 2011 through a patent broker.
`
`
`
`Defendants’ affirmative acts in this District of selling the ’145 Accused Devices
`
`and products containing the ’145 Accused Devices, causing the ’145 Accused Devices and
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00376 Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 15
`
`products containing the ’145 Accused Devices to be manufactured and distributed, and providing
`
`instruction manuals for the ’145 Accused Devices and products containing the ’145 Accused
`
`Devices have induced and continue to induce Defendants’ manufacturers, resellers, and/or end-
`
`users to make or use the ’145 Accused Devices in their normal and customary way to infringe
`
`the ’145 Patent. Defendants specifically intended and were aware that these normal and
`
`customary activities would infringe the ’145 Patent. Defendants performed the acts that
`
`constitute induced infringement, and would induce actual infringement, with the knowledge of
`
`the ’145 Patent and with the knowledge, or willful blindness to the probability, that the induced
`
`acts would constitute infringement.
`
`
`
`Defendants also indirectly infringe the ’145 Patent by manufacturing, using,
`
`selling, offering for sale, and/or importing the ’145 Accused Devices with knowledge that the
`
`’145 Accused Devices were and are especially manufactured and/or especially adapted for use in
`
`an infringement of the ’145 Patent, and are not a staple article or commodity of commerce
`
`suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
`
`
`
`On information and belief, including the allegations above showing knowledge
`
`and intent, Defendants’ infringement has been and continues to be deliberate, willful, and in
`
`reckless disregard of Pictos’s patent rights.
`
`
`
`Pictos has been, and continues to be, damaged by Defendants’ infringement of the
`
`’145 Patent.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
` WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Pictos demands judgment against Defendants, including
`
`their affiliates, officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert or
`
`participation with them, as follows:
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00376 Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 16
`
`An award to Plaintiff Pictos of such damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 as proven
`
`against Defendants for infringement of the ’651 Patent, ’671 Patent, and ’145 Patent, together
`
`with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
`
`A permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from further acts of infringement
`
`of the ’651 Patent, ’671 Patent, and ’145 Patent;
`
`A declaration that Defendants have willfully infringed the ’651 Patent, ’671
`
`Patent, and ’145 Patent;
`
`An increase in the award of damages to Plaintiff Pictos up to three times the
`
`amount of its actual damages for Defendant’s willful infringement, as authorized by 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 284;
`
`An award to Plaintiff Pictos of the costs of this action and its reasonable
`
`attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
`
`Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and appropriate.
`
`Dated: May 14, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /s/ Michael J. Lennon
`
`Gregory L. Ewing, Esq.
`DC Bar No. 484684 (to be admitted pro hac vice)
`gewing@potomaclaw.com
`Potomac Law Group, PLLC
`1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Phone: 202-204-3005
`Facsimile: 202-318-7707
`
`Michael J. Lennon, Esq.
`NY Bar No. 1160506
`Email: mlennon@potomaclaw.com
`Potomac Law Group, PLLC
`1177 Avenue of the Americas, 5th Floor
`New York, NY 10036
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00376 Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 17
`
`Phone: 646-519-7477
`Facsimile: 202-318-7707
`
`Attorneys for Pictos Technologies Inc.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00376 Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 18
`
`JURY DEMAND
`Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Pictos demands a
`
`trial by jury.
`
`Dated: May 14, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /s/ Michael J. Lennon
`
`Gregory L. Ewing, Esq.
`DC Bar No. 484684 (to be admitted pro hac vice)
`gewing@potomaclaw.com
`Potomac Law Group, PLLC
`1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Phone: 202-204-3005
`Facsimile: 202-318-7707
`
`Michael J. Lennon, Esq.
`NY Bar No. 1160506
`Email: mlennon@potomaclaw.com
`Potomac Law Group, PLLC
`1177 Avenue of the Americas, 5th Floor
`New York, NY 10036
`Phone: 646-519-7477
`Facsimile: 202-318-7707
`
`Attorneys for Pictos Technologies Inc.
`
`18
`
`