Case 5:24-cv-00011 Document 1 Filed 01/22/24 Page 1 of 23 PageID #: 1
`
`In the United States District Court
`For the Eastern District of Texas
`Texarkana Division
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. ____________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Monument Peak Ventures, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd.,
`TCL Technology Group
`Corporation, TCL Industries
`Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL
`Communication Technology
`Holdings Limited, TCT Mobile
`Worldwide Ltd., TCT Mobile
`International Ltd., Huizhou TCL
`Mobile Communication Co. Ltd.,
`and TCL Communication Ltd.
`
`
`Defendants
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Original Complaint
`
`Plaintiff Monument Peak Ventures, LLC, by and for its Complaint against Defendants
`
`TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd.; TCL Technology Group Corporation; TCL Industries Holdings
`
`Co., Ltd.; TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited; TCT Mobile Worldwide Ltd.;
`
`TCT Mobile International Ltd.; Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co. Ltd.; and TCL Com-
`
`munication Ltd. (the “TCL Defendants”) alleges to the Court as follows:
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Monument Peak Ventures, LLC (“MPV”) is a Texas limited liability company,
`
`PARTIES
`
`with its principal place of business in Allen, Texas.
`
`2.
`
`The TCL Defendants in this action (collectively referred to as “TCL”) are for-
`
`eign-based corporations who, along with their own subsidiaries and associates, operate as agents of
`
`mpv’s original complaint
`
`
`
` 1
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00011 Document 1 Filed 01/22/24 Page 2 of 23 PageID #: 2
`
`one another and work in concert together as a business group to make, use, offer to sell, or sell any
`
`patented invention within the United States, or import into the United States infringing products,
`
`including smartphones, in the United States, including in Texas and this judicial district.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL
`
`Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
`
`the Cayman Islands, with its principal place of business at 7th Floor, Building 22E, 22 Science Park
`
`East Avenue, Hong Kong Science Park, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong. TCL Electronics
`
`Holdings Ltd. operates in agency as part of the TCL Group (discussed below).
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant TCL Technology Group Corporation is a
`
`China-based global electronics company and has a regular and established place of business at No.
`
`17, Huifeng Third Road, Zhongkai High-tech Zone, Huizhou, Guangdong, 516001, China. TCL
`
`Technology Group Corporation operates in agency as part of the TCL Group.
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. is a cor-
`
`poration organized and existing under the laws of China with its principal place of business at 22nd
`
`Floor, TCL Technical Tower, Huifeng 3 Road, Zhongkai Development Zone Huizhou, China.
`
`TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. operates in agency as part of the TCL Group.
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant TCL Communication Technology Hold-
`
`ings Limited, is a company organized and existing under the laws of the Cayman Islands or China
`
`with its principal place of business at Block F4, TCL Communication Technology Building, TCL
`
`International E City, Zhong Shan Yuan Road, Nanshan District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, P.R.
`
`China, 518052. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited operates in agency as part of
`
`the TCL Group.
`
`mpv’s original complaint
`
`
`
` 2
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00011 Document 1 Filed 01/22/24 Page 3 of 23 PageID #: 3
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, TCT Mobile Worldwide Ltd. is a corporation orga-
`
`nized under the laws of Hong Kong with a principal place of business at 5/F HK Science Park
`
`Bldg., Shatin, NT, Hong Kong. TCT Mobile Worldwide Ltd. regularly imports and inserts into
`
`the stream of commerce mobile phones and components of mobile phones, such that infringing
`
`mobile phones will be offered for sale and sold in this District. TCT Mobile Worldwide Ltd. oper-
`
`ates in agency as part of the TCL Group.
`
`8.
`
`On information and belief, TCT Mobile International Ltd. is a corporation orga-
`
`nized and existing under the laws of Hong Kong, with a principal place of business located at 1910-
`
`12A Tower 3, China Hong Kong City, 33 Canton Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, 31802888 Hong Kong.
`
`TCT Mobile International Ltd. regularly imports and inserts into the stream of commerce mobile
`
`phones and components of mobile phones, such that infringing mobile phones will be offered for
`
`sale and sold in this District. TCT Mobile International Ltd. operates in agency as part of the TCL
`
`Group.
`
`9.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co.
`
`Ltd. is a company organized and existing under the laws of China with a principal place of business
`
`at No. 86 Hechang Qi Lu Xi, Zhongkai Gaoxin District, Huizhou City, Guandong Province, P.R.
`
`China. Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co. Ltd. regularly imports and inserts into the
`
`stream of commerce mobile phones and related goods, such that infringing mobile phones will be
`
`offered for sale and sold in this District. Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co. Ltd. operates
`
`in agency as part of the TCL Group.
`
`10.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant TCL Communication Ltd. is a company or-
`
`ganized and existing under the laws of China with its principal place of business at 7/F, Block F4,
`
`mpv’s original complaint
`
`
`
` 3
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00011 Document 1 Filed 01/22/24 Page 4 of 23 PageID #: 4
`
`TCL International E City Zhong Shan Yuan Road, Nanshan District, Shenzhen, P.R. China. TCL
`
`Communication Ltd. operates in agency as part of the TCL Group.
`
`11.
`
`On information and belief, the TCL Defendants are part of a related TCL Group
`
`of companies under the umbrella of TCL Electronics Holdings Limited., which includes the vari-
`
`ous TCL subsidiaries, including those wholly owned subsidiaries listed above as defendants in this
`
`action. Using its network of subsidiaries, associates, intermediaries, and distributors, TCL brands
`
`itself as the world’s leading consumer electronics company that is engaged in the research and
`
`development, manufacturing, and sale of consumer electronics products, which are sold all over
`
`the world.
`
`12.
`
`On information and belief, TCL manufactures, imports into the United States,
`
`sells for importation, markets, offers for sale, sells, and distributes products within the United
`
`States after importation, including TCL’s smartphones, that directly infringe, literally and/or un-
`
`der the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the Asserted Patents in violation of 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271(a).
`
`13.
`
`TCL produces smartphones (e.g., the TCL 20 Pro 5G) that perform methods for
`
`processing digital images that enhance digital features in those images according to particularly
`
`programmed algorithms (e.g., a “beauty” mode) included with the smartphones. TCL additionally
`
`produces smartphones (e.g., the TCL 20 Pro 5G) that perform methods for processing digital im-
`
`ages with different angles of view and that use imaging stages for outputting an image and a distance
`
`map of a scene from a captured image signal. The TCL smartphones with similar functionality are
`
`collectively referred to as the “Accused Products.”
`
`14.
`
`TCL has agents, for example authorized sellers and sales representatives, that
`
`mpv’s original complaint
`
`
`
` 4
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00011 Document 1 Filed 01/22/24 Page 5 of 23 PageID #: 5
`
`offer and sell products pertinent to this Complaint through the State of Texas, including in this
`
`Judicial District, and to consumers throughout this Judicial District, such as Amazon.com; Sam’s
`
`Club, 3310 N. 4th St., Longview, Texas 75605; and Sam’s Club, 2025 S. S.W. Loop 323, Tyler,
`
`Texas 75701.
`
`
`
`15.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States Patent Act, namely
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, and 284–85, among others.
`
`16.
`
`This Court has federal subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
`
`and 1338(a) because the action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271
`
`et seq.
`
`17.
`
`This Court has general and specific personal jurisdiction over TCL under the
`
`Texas Long Arm Statute because, among other things, (i) TCL has done and continues to do busi-
`
`ness in Texas and (ii) TCL has, directly and through intermediaries, committed and continues to
`
`commit acts of patent infringement in the State of Texas, including making, using, offering to sell,
`
`and/or selling accused products in Texas, and/or importing accused products into Texas, includ-
`
`ing by Internet sales and sales via retail and wholesale stores, inducing others to commit regular
`
`acts of patent infringement in Texas, and/or committing at least a portion of any other infringe-
`
`ments alleged.
`
`18.
`
`TCL has placed, and is continuing to place, infringing products into the stream of
`
`commerce, via an established distribution channel, with the knowledge and/or understanding that
`
`such products are sold in Texas, including in this District. TCL has derived substantial revenues
`
`from its infringing acts occurring within Texas and within this District. TCL has substantial
`
`mpv’s original complaint
`
`
`
` 5
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00011 Document 1 Filed 01/22/24 Page 6 of 23 PageID #: 6
`
`business in this State and judicial district, including: (A) at least part of its infringing activities
`
`alleged herein; and (B) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent conduct,
`
`and/or deriving substantial revenue from infringing goods offered for sale, sold, and imported, and
`
`services provided to Texas residents vicariously through and/or in concert with its alter egos, in-
`
`termediaries, agents, distributors, importers, customers, subsidiaries, dealer agents, Mobile Vir-
`
`tual Network Operators (MVNOs), retailers, and/or end users, and/or consumers.
`
`19.
`
`Personal jurisdiction is proper because TCL has committed acts of infringement
`
`in this District. This Court has personal jurisdiction over TCL because, among other things, this
`
`action arises from activities TCL purposefully directed towards the State of Texas and this Dis-
`
`trict.
`
`20.
`
`Exercising personal jurisdiction over TCL in this District would not be unreason-
`
`able given TCL’s contacts in this District, the interest in this District of resolving disputes related
`
`to products sold herein, and the harm that would otherwise occur to MPV.
`
`21.
`
`Additionally, as of at least the date of this Complaint, TCL knowingly induces in-
`
`fringement within this District by advertising, marketing, offering for sale and/or selling devices
`
`including infringing functionality within this District, to consumers, customers, manufacturers,
`
`distributors, resellers, partners, and/or end users, and providing instructions, user manuals, ad-
`
`vertising, and/or marketing materials that facilitate, direct or encourage the use of infringing func-
`
`tionality with knowledge thereof.
`
`22.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over TCL because it has continuous and sys-
`
`tematic business contacts with the State of Texas. TCL, directly and through subsidiaries or inter-
`
`mediaries (including distributors, retailers, and licensing partners, dealer agents, and MVNOs),
`
`mpv’s original complaint
`
`
`
` 6
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00011 Document 1 Filed 01/22/24 Page 7 of 23 PageID #: 7
`
`conduct business extensively throughout Texas, by shipping distributing, making, using, offering
`
`for sale, selling, licensing, transmitting (including through its mobile applications and networks) its
`
`infringing products in the state of Texas and the Eastern District of Texas. Furthermore, TCL has
`
`purposefully placed its products into the stream of commerce with the intention and expectation
`
`that they will be purchased and used by consumers in this state and this District. TCL has sold and
`
`offered to sell, and continues to sell and offer to sell, its infringing products within this district and
`
`has committed regular acts of direct and indirect infringement in this district. Defendant’s contacts
`
`with the State of Texas and this District are so pervasive that this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction
`
`would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`
`23.
`
`Further, the TCL entities listed above, as part of the TCL Group, have operated
`
`as agents of one another and vicariously as two arms of the same business group to work in concert
`
`together and enter into agreements that are nearer than arm’s length to conduct business in the
`
`United States, including in Texas and this judicial district. See Trois v. Apple Tree Auction Center,
`
`Incorporated, 882 F.3d 485, 490 (5th Cir. 2018) (“A defendant may be subject to personal jurisdic-
`
`tion because of the activities of its agent within the forum state . . . .”); see also Cephalon, Inc. v.
`
`Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 629 F. Supp. 2d 338, 348 (D. Del. 2009) (“The agency theory may
`
`be applied not only to parents and subsidiaries, but also to companies that are ‘two arms of the
`
`same business group,’ operate in concert with each other, and enter into agreements with each
`
`other that are nearer than arm’s length.”).
`
`24.
`
`TCL products, including, for example the TCL 20 Pro 5G, are or have been widely
`
`sold in retail stores, both brick-and-mortar and online, within this judicial district and in Texas. See
`
`Litecubes, LLC v. Northern Light Products, Inc., 523 F.3d 1353, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[T]he
`
`mpv’s original complaint
`
`
`
` 7
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00011 Document 1 Filed 01/22/24 Page 8 of 23 PageID #: 8
`
`sale [for purposes of § 271] occurred at the location of the buyer.”); see also Semcon IP Inc. v. Kyocera
`
`Corporation, No. 2:18-cv-00197-JRG, 2019 WL 1979930, at *3 (E.D. Tex. May 3, 2019) (denying
`
`accused infringer’s motion to dismiss because plaintiff sufficiently pleaded that purchases of in-
`
`fringing products outside of the United States for importation into and sales to end users in the
`
`U.S. may constitute an offer to sell under § 271(a)).
`
`25.
`
`In the alternative, the Court has personal jurisdiction over the TCL Defendants
`
`under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) because the claims for patent infringement in this
`
`action arise under federal law, the TCL Defendants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the courts
`
`of general jurisdiction of any state, and exercising jurisdiction over the TCL Defendants are con-
`
`sistent with the U.S. Constitution.
`
`VENUE
`
`
`
`26.
`
`Venue is proper in this Judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c) and
`
`1400(b). TCL does business in this judicial district, selling in and delivering mobile phone products
`
`into this judicial district, advertising products for sale to potential customers in this district, and
`
`instructing end users how to use TCL’s infringing products in this judicial district. TCL has com-
`
`mitted acts of infringement in this judicial district and has purposely transacted business in this
`
`judicial district involving the Accused Products.
`
`
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`MPV is a technology licensing company.
`
`The Asserted Patents (United States Patent Nos. 7,092,573 and 7,683,692) origi-
`
`nate from the iconic Kodak patent portfolio.
`
`mpv’s original complaint
`
`
`
` 8
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00011 Document 1 Filed 01/22/24 Page 9 of 23 PageID #: 9
`
`29.
`
`The Asserted Patents claim inventions born from the ingenuity of the Eastman
`
`Kodak Company (“Kodak”), an iconic American imaging technology company that dates to the
`
`late 1800s. The first model of a Kodak camera was released in 1888.
`
`30.
`
`In 1935, Kodak introduced “Kodachrome,” a color reversal stock for movie and
`
`slide film. In 1963, Kodak introduced the Instamatic camera; an easy-to-load point-and-shoot cam-
`
`era. By 1976, Kodak was responsible for 90% of the photographic film and 85% of the cameras sold
`
`in the United States. At the peak of its domination of the camera industry, Kodak invented the first
`
`self-contained digital camera in 1975.
`
`31.
`
`By 1986, Kodak had created the first megapixel sensor that was capable of record-
`
`ing 1,400,000 pixels. While innovating in the digital imaging space, Kodak developed an immense
`
`patent portfolio and extensively licensed its technology. For example, in 2010, Kodak received
`
`$838,000,000 in patent licensing royalties. As part of a reorganization of its business, Kodak sold
`
`many of its patents to some of the biggest names in technology that included Google, Facebook,
`
`Amazon, Microsoft, Samsung, Adobe Systems, HTC, and others for $525,000,000. While numer-
`
`ous digital imaging companies license the use of the Kodak patent portfolio owned by MPV, TCL
`
`persists on infringing the Asserted Patents and using MPV’s technology without a license and with
`
`knowledge of their ongoing infringement.
`
`32.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,092,573. The ʼ573 Patent is titled “Method and System for
`
`Selectively Applying Enhancement to an Image.” The inventions claimed in the ’573 Patent gen-
`
`erally relate to digital image processing and, more particularly, to a method for determining the
`
`amount of enhancement applied to an image based on subject matter in the image.” The ʼ573 Patent
`
`is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`mpv’s original complaint
`
`
`
` 9
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00011 Document 1 Filed 01/22/24 Page 10 of 23 PageID #: 10
`
`33.
`
`The ʼ573 Patent lawfully issued on August 15, 2006, and stems from United States
`
`Application No. 10/016,601 filed December 10, 2001.
`
`34.
`
`The claims of the ’573 Patent are directed to a technical solution for a technical
`
`problem and possess specific limitations for specific technological improvements. For example,
`
`the specification of the ʼ573 Patent discloses shortcomings in the prior art and then explains the
`
`technical way the inventions claimed in the ʼ573 Patent resolve or overcome those shortcomings.
`
`See, e.g., ʼ573 Patent, 1:13-2:38.
`
`35.
`
`For instance, the ’573 Patent specification states that, at the time of the invention,
`
`conventional methods for enhancing images (e.g., sharpening an image) “may result in undesirable
`
`removal of details in grass lawn, textured fabric, or animal hair” and that in conventional systems
`
`“the amount of sharpening, or any other type of enhancement, needs to be adjusted individually
`
`for each scene by a human operator, an expensive process” and that a further “drawback of the
`
`conventional approach is that the amount of sharpening cannot be adjusted easily on a region-by-
`
`region basis within the same image, resulting in having to apply an amount of enhancement that is a
`
`trade-off between different amounts required by different subject matters or objects in the scene.”
`
`’573 Patent, 1:21-42. This led to a need for an improved system “for determining the types and
`
`amounts of enhancement for a particular image, whereby the local quality (e.g., sharpness and
`
`color) of the image can be improved.” ’573 Patent, 2:33-37.
`
`36.
`
`Each claim of the ʼ573 Patent is presumed valid and is directed to patent eligible
`
`subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and the technologies claimed in the ʼ573 Patent disclose
`
`improvements based on controlling image enhancement, which are improvements in the com-
`
`puter-related technology of digital image enhancement. See McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games
`
`mpv’s original complaint
`
`
`
` 10
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00011 Document 1 Filed 01/22/24 Page 11 of 23 PageID #: 11
`
`Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`37.
`
`For example, claim 1 of the ’573 Patent is directed to a specific method for pro-
`
`cessing a digital image. The method requires (1) “applying a subject matter detector to the digital
`
`image to produce a belief map of values indicating the degree of belief that pixels in the digital
`
`image belong to target subject matter, said values defining a plurality of belief regions;” (2) “deter-
`
`mining the sizes of each of said belief regions in said belief map;” and (3) “enhancing the digital
`
`image, said enhancing varying pixel by pixel in accordance with both the degree of belief and the
`
`size of the respective said belief region.” Based on these limitations, the claims provide limiting
`
`detail that confines the claim to a concrete solution to an identified problem. These claim elements
`
`as an ordered combination were not well-understood, routine, and conventional at the time of the
`
`invention.
`
`38.
`
`The specification of the ’573 Patent also evinces that the technologies claimed in
`
`the ʼ573 Patent comprise features and functions that were not, alone or in combination, considered
`
`well-understood by nor routine, generic, and conventional to skilled artisans in the industry at the
`
`time of invention stating that conventional methods for enhancing images were unpredictable,
`
`where “the quality of the resulting image often varies depending on the image content” such as
`
`“removal of details” like “texture.” ’573 Patent, 1:21-42. This led to a need satisfied by the
`
`claimed method, for example “determining the types and amounts of enhancement for a particular
`
`image, whereby the local quality (e.g., sharpness and color) of the image can be improved depend-
`
`ing on detecting different objects or subject matters contained within the image.” Id. at 2:33-37.
`
`39.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,683,962. The ʼ962 Patent is titled “Camera Using Multiple
`
`Lenses and Image Sensors in a Rangefinder Configuration to Provide a Range Map” and is attached
`
`mpv’s original complaint
`
`
`
` 11
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00011 Document 1 Filed 01/22/24 Page 12 of 23 PageID #: 12
`
`as Exhibit B. The inventions claimed in the ’962 Patent generally relate to digital cameras providing
`
`a novel and inventive method that uses multiple lenses and image sensors to provide an improved
`
`and extended range-finding capability by utilizing both images to support a range mapping func-
`
`tion.
`
`40.
`
`The ʼ962 Patent lawfully issued on May 12, 2009, and stems from United States
`
`Application No. 11/684,036 filed March 23, 2010.
`
`41.
`
`The claims of the ’962 Patent are directed to a technical solution for a technical
`
`problem and possess specific limitations for a specific improvement. For example, the specification
`
`of the ʼ962 Patent discloses shortcomings in the prior art and then explains the technical way the
`
`inventions claimed in the ʼ962 Patent resolve or overcome those shortcomings. See, e.g., ʼ962 Pa-
`
`tent, 1:15-7:25.
`
`42.
`
`Each claim of the ʼ962 Patent is presumed valid and is directed to patent eligible
`
`subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and the technologies claimed in the ʼ962 Patent disclose a
`
`specific manner of using a range map to modify an image providing “an improved capability in a
`
`multi-lens digital camera for measuring the distance to portions of the scene being photographed.”
`
`ʼ962 Patent, 7:29-35. Thus, the technologies claimed in the ʼ962 Patent disclose improvements in
`
`the computer-related technology of digital image enhancement. See McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco
`
`Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`43.
`
`For example, claim 9 of the ’962 Patent is directed to a specific method and system
`
`to enable dynamic depth of field images by blurring of portions of the output image that correspond
`
`to areas of the scene that lie outside of a desired depth of field. See, e.g., ʼ962 Patent, 21:15-55.
`
`
`
`
`
`mpv’s original complaint
`
`
`
` 12
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00011 Document 1 Filed 01/22/24 Page 13 of 23 PageID #: 13
`
`COUNT 1
`
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,573)
`
`MPV incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference.
`
`This cause of action arises under the patent laws of the United States, including
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq.
`
`46.
`
`MPV is the owner of the ’573 Patent, with all substantial rights to the ’573 Patent
`
`including the exclusive right to enforce, sue, and recover damages for past infringement.
`
`47.
`
`The ’573 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in compliance with Title
`
`35 of the United States Code.
`
`48.
`
`TCL has infringed one or more claims of the ’573 Patent in this District and else-
`
`where in Texas and the United States.
`
`49.
`
`TCL has infringed (and via its agent(s)) claims of the ’573 Patent (including for
`
`example, and as illustrated below, claim 1) by, among other things, making, using, testing (includ-
`
`ing its own use and testing), selling, offering for sale, importing, and/or licensing in the United
`
`States without authority, the methods claimed by the ’573 Patent, namely through its TCL-
`
`branded smartphones (“TCL Accused Smartphones”).
`
`50.
`
`Upon information and belief, and as one illustration without limitation, TCL in-
`
`fringes claim 1 of the ’573 Patent in the exemplary manner described below.
`
`51.
`
`TCL Accused Smartphones perform a method for processing a digital image using
`
`the phone’s cameras. As an example, the TCL 20 Pro 5G has a “48 MP quad camera system” that
`
`“empowers [users] to create high-definition photos and videos anytime, anywhere . . . .”1
`
`
`
` 1
`
` See, e.g., https://www.tcl.com/us/en/products/mobile/20-series/20-pro-5g-grey-moondust-
`
`mpv’s original complaint
`
`
`
` 13
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00011 Document 1 Filed 01/22/24 Page 14 of 23 PageID #: 14
`
`52.
`
`TCL Accused Smartphones, for example, apply a beauty mode subject matter be-
`
`lief detector to the digital image to identify the pixels containing target subject matter, such as eyes
`
`or skin. The process of identifying target subject matter includes identifying pixels that are likely
`
`to belong to the subject matter, resulting in a map of belief values. Thus, TCL Accused
`
`Smartphones apply a subject matter detector to the digital image to produce a belief map of saliency
`
`values indicating the degree of the belief that they belong to a main subject (i.e., “target subject
`
`matter”), said values defining a plurality of belief regions:2
`
`53.
`
`TCL Accused Smartphones also apply a subject matter detector (e.g., AI detection
`
`technology) to produce a belief map of values indicating the degree of belief that pixels in the image
`
`belong to a face (“target subject matter”):3
`
`54.
`
`TCL Accused Smartphones determine the sizes of each belief region and enhance
`
`
`
`
`gray (last visited January 4, 2024).
`2 See TCL 20 Pro 5G User Guide at 24.
`3 See id. at 23.
`
`mpv’s original complaint
`
`
`
` 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00011 Document 1 Filed 01/22/24 Page 15 of 23 PageID #: 15
`
`the image pixel by pixel in accordance with the identification of target subject matter (i.e., threshold
`
`degree of belief) and the size of the respective belief region. If skin smoothing is selected, the pixels
`
`comprising skin are enhanced pixel by pixel in accordance with the belief that the pixels comprise
`
`skin and the size of the region identified as skin.
`
`55.
`
`Thus, TCL Accused Smartphones determine the sizes of each of the belief regions
`
`in the belief map and enhance the digital image (enhancing varying pixel by pixel in accordance
`
`with both the degree of belief and the size of the respective belief region).
`
`56.
`
`TCL’s other smartphones—including the TCL 40 Series,4 30 Series,5 the remain-
`
`ing 20 Series,6 10 Series,7 and Stylus smartphones—infringe the ’573 Patent in the same way as
`
`the TCL 20 Pro 5G.
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`TCL is liable for its infringements of the ’573 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`MPV has been damaged because of TCL’s unlicensed infringing conduct de-
`
`scribed in this Count. TCL is thus liable to MPV in an amount that adequately compensates MPV
`
`for TCL’s infringement, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty together with in-
`
`terest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`59.
`
`MPV has satisfied the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287 and is entitled to recover
`
`damages for infringement occurring before the filing of this lawsuit.
`
`
`
` 4
`
` The TCL 40 Series comprise the TCL 40 X 5G, TCL 40 XE 5G, TCL 40 XL, TCL 40 T mod-
`els.
`5 The TCL 30 Series comprise the TCL 30 5G, TCL 30 V 5G, TCL 30 XE 5G, TCL 30 XL, and
`TCL 30 SE models.
`6 The TCL 20 Series comprise the TCL 20 Pro 5G, TCL 20 5G (A and AX), TCL 20S, TCL 20
`SE, and TCL 20 XE models.
`7 The TCL 10 Series comprise the TCL 10 Pro, TCL 10 5G UW, and TCL 10L models.
`
`mpv’s original complaint
`
`
`
` 15
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00011 Document 1 Filed 01/22/24 Page 16 of 23 PageID #: 16
`
`COUNT 2
`
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,683,962)
`
`MPV incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference.
`
`This cause of action arises under the patent laws of the United States, including
`
`60.
`
`61.
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq.
`
`62.
`
`MPV is the owner of the ’962 Patent with all substantial rights to the ’962 Patent,
`
`including the exclusive right to enforce, sue, and recover damages for past and future infringement.
`
`63.
`
`The ’962 Patent is valid, enforceable and was duly issued in compliance with Title
`
`35 of the United States Code.
`
`64.
`
`Direct Infringement. TCL has, and continues to, infringe one or more claims of
`
`the ’962 Patent in this District and elsewhere in Texas and the United States.
`
`65.
`
`On information and belief, TCL has, and continues to, via an agent or agents, in-
`
`fringe claims of the ’962 Patent (including for example, and as illustrated below, claim 9) by, among
`
`other things, making, using, testing (including its own use and testing), selling, offering for sale,
`
`importing and/or licensing in the United States without authority systems, products, and methods
`
`claimed by the ’962 Patent, namely through the TCL Accused Smartphones.
`
`66.
`
`Upon information and belief, and as one illustration without limitation, Defendant
`
`infringes claim 9 of the ’962 Patent in the exemplary manners described below.
`
`67.
`
`TCL Accused Smartphones have multiple cameras that perform a method for us-
`
`ing those cameras, having two image stages for producing an output image and a range map of a
`
`scene from a captured image signal.
`
`68.
`
`The TCL Accused Smartphones include a digital camera with two imaging stages
`
`for outputting an image (“producing an output image”) and a distance map (a “range map”) of a
`
`mpv’s original complaint
`
`
`
` 16
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00011 Document 1 Filed 01/22/24 Page 17 of 23 PageID #: 17
`
`scene from a captured image signal.
`
`69.
`
`For example, TCL 20 Pro 5G smartphones form a 48 MP image (“first image”)
`
`of the scene from a sensor output of the 48 MP image sensor (“first image sensor”) located in the
`
`48 MP image stage (“first imaging stage”) and forms a 2 MP image (“second image”) of the scene
`
`from a sensor output of the 2 MP image depth sensor (“second image sensor”) in the 2 MP image
`
`stage (“second imaging stage”):8
`
`
`
`70.
`
`For the TCL 20 Pro 5G, the 48 MP and 2 MP cameras have different angles of
`
`
`
` See TCL 20 Pro 5G User Guide at 5; see also https://www.gsmarena.com/tcl_20_pro_5g-
`10855.php (last retrieved January 4, 2024).
`
`
`
` 8
`
`mpv’s original complaint
`
`
`
` 17
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00011 Document 1 Filed 01/22/24 Page 18 of 23 PageID #: 18
`
`view.
`
`71.
`
`Thus, the TCL Accused Smartphones perform “forming a first image of the scene
`
`from a sensor output of a first image sensor located in a first imaging stage” and “forming a second
`
`image of the scene from a sensor output of a second image sensor located in a second imaging stage,
`
`wherein the first and second images have different angles of view.”
`
`72.
`
`The TCL 20 Pro 5G, for example, performs “selecting the sensor output from one
`
`of the imaging stages as the captured image signal” where it selects the sensor output from the 48
`
`MP imaging stages as the primary captured image signal.
`
`73.
`
`The TCL 20 Pro 5G, for example, performs “using the images from both imaging
`
`stages to generate a range map identifying the distances to different portions of the scene” where
`
`it compares the image content from the 48 MP image and the 2 MP image (i.e., “uses the images
`
`from both imaging sensors”) to generate a depth map (i.e., “range map”).9
`
`74.
`
`The TCL 20 Pro 5G, for example, compares the image content from the 48 MP
`
`image stage and the 2 MP image stage (“uses the images from both imaging stages”) to generate a
`
`distance map identifying the distances to objects in the foreground and the background (“different
`
`portions”) of the scene.
`
`75.
`
`TCL Accused Smartphones’ portrait mode measures the distance to the main sub-
`
`ject in the foreground, focuses on the main subject, and blurs the background.
`
`76.
`
`The dis