Case 6:20-cv-00139-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/21/20 Page 1 of 27
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`SVV TECHNOLOGY INNOVATIONS
`INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-139
`
`JURY DEMANDED
`
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff SVV Technology Innovations Inc. (“SVVTI” or “Plaintiff”) files this complaint
`
`
`
`for patent infringement against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) and Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc. (“SEA”, and collectively “Samsung” or “Defendants”) and states as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff SVVTI is a California corporation with a place of business 1832 Tribute Road,
`
`Suite C, Sacramento, California 95815.
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant SEC is a company organized and existing under the
`
`laws of the country of Korea, with its principal place of business at 129 Samsung-Ro, Yeongtong-
`
`Gu, Suwon, Gyeonggi, 16677, Korea.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant SEA is a wholly owned subsidiary corporation of
`
`SEC organized and existing under the laws of New York with a principal place of business at 85
`
`Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660. SEA is registered to do business in Texas
`
`and has maintained regular and established places of business with offices and/or other facilities
`
`in Texas at least at 12100 Samsung Blvd, Austin, Texas 78754; 2800 Wells Branch Pkwy, Austin,
`
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00139-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/21/20 Page 2 of 27
`
`Texas 78728; 6625 Excellence Way Plano, Texas 75023; and 1301 E. Lookout Drive, Richardson,
`
`Texas 75082.
`
`4.
`
`SEA may be served through its registered agent for service of process, CT Corporation
`
`System, 1999 Bryan St., Suite. 900, Dallas, Texas 75201.
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant SEC is composed of three business units. One
`
`business unit (the CE Division) makes and sells consumer electronics, such as televisions and
`
`refrigerators. A second business unit (Mobile Division) makes and sells mobile devices, such as
`
`smartphones and tablets. A third business unit (LSI Division) makes and sells semiconductor
`
`chips, such as application processors, which are incorporated into smartphones, such as those
`
`made and sold by the Mobile Division.
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant SEA is the U.S. subsidiary that sells Samsung’s
`
`consumer electronics and mobile devices in the United States, including those that incorporate
`
`the infringing technologies.
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, Samsung maintains authorized sellers and sales representatives
`
`that offer and sell products pertinent to this Complaint throughout the State of Texas, including
`
`this District and to consumers throughout this District, such as: AT&T Store at 4330 W Waco
`
`Drive, Waco, Texas 76710; Verizon Authorized Retailer at 2812 W Loop 340, Suite #H-12,
`
`Waco, Texas, 76711; Best Buy at 4627 S Jack Kultgen Expy, Waco, Texas 76706; and
`
`Amazon.com.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States,
`
`Title 35, United States Code. Jurisdiction as to these claims is conferred on this Court by 35
`
`U.S.C. §§1331 and 1338(a).
`
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00139-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/21/20 Page 3 of 27
`
`9.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Samsung because, directly or through
`
`intermediaries, each has committed acts within the Western District of Texas giving rise to this
`
`action and/or has established minimum contacts with the Western District of Texas such that the
`
`exercise of jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`
`10.
`
`For example, Defendant SEA maintains regular and established place offices in the
`
`Western District of Texas, including at 12100 Samsung Blvd, Austin, Texas 78754 and 2800
`
`Wells Branch Pkwy, Austin, Texas 78728.
`
`11.
`
`Further, on information and belief, Defendant SEC directs and controls the actions of
`
`Defendant SEA such that it too maintains regular and established offices in the Western District
`
`of Texas, including at 12100 Samsung Blvd, Austin, Texas 78754, and 2800 Wells Branch Pkwy,
`
`Austin, Texas 78728.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`Defendant SEC also owns and operates a manufacturing facility in Austin, Texas.
`
`In addition, Samsung has placed or contributed to placing infringing products into the
`
`stream of commerce via an established distribution channel knowing or understanding that such
`
`products would be sold and used in the United States, including in the Western District of Texas.
`
`14.
`
`This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants at least in part because
`
`Defendants conduct business in this Judicial District. SVVTI’s causes of action arise, at least in
`
`part, from Defendant’s contacts with and activities in the State of Texas and this Judicial District.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Defendants have committed acts of infringement within the
`
`State of Texas and this Judicial District by, inter alia, directly and/or indirectly making, using,
`
`selling, offering to sell, or importing products that infringe one or more claims of SVVTI’s patents
`
`described below. Defendants’ infringing acts within this Judicial District give rise to this action
`
`and have established minimum contacts with the forum state of Texas.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00139-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/21/20 Page 4 of 27
`
`15.
`
`On information and belief, Samsung also has derived substantial revenues from infringing
`
`acts in this Judicial District, including from the sale and use of infringing products including, but
`
`not limited to, the products accused of infringement below.
`
`16.
`
`Defendants have established minimum contacts with this forum such that the exercise of
`
`jurisdiction over Defendants would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
`
`justice.
`
`17.
`
`Venue in this Judicial District is proper as to SEC under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) because
`
`it is a foreign corporation.
`
`18.
`
`On information and belief, each Defendant exercises direction and control over the
`
`performance of each other Defendant, or they form a joint enterprise such that the performance
`
`by one Defendant is attributable to each other Defendant.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`SVVTI was founded in 2000 by Dr. Sergiy Vasylyev, a scientist and prolific inventor.
`
`Dr. Sergiy Vasylyev has an academic background and more than 20 years of research
`
`experience in physical sciences. He received a M.S. equivalent in Physics and Astronomy from
`
`the Kharkiv State University, Ukraine in 1992 and a Ph.D. in Physics and Mathematics from the
`
`Main Astronomical Observatory of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine in 1996. From
`
`1996 to 1999, he worked with several major academic research institutions and was involved in
`
`diverse research projects in the areas of space physics and solar energy. After immigrating to the
`
`U.S., in 2000, Dr. Vasylyev founded SVV Technology Innovations, Inc. to develop and
`
`commercialize his ideas in several technical fields ranging from optics and information
`
`technology to solar energy and lighting. Dr. Vasylyev is the author of approximately fifty patents
`
`and dozens of patent applications, has had numerous talks and presentations at the national and
`
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00139-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/21/20 Page 5 of 27
`
`international conferences related to space physics, solar energy and lighting and has authored/co-
`
`authored over 30 scientific and technical publications. Dr. Vasylyev’s broad technical expertise
`
`areas include IT/IOT, optics, photonics, lightguide-based illumination systems, solar energy,
`
`daylighting, and solid-state lighting.
`
`21.
`
`Since its inception, SVVTI has been a vehicle for developing and commercializing Dr.
`
`Vasylyev’s inventions, particularly being dedicated to creating impactful technology solutions
`
`that find utility in energy efficiency, renewable energy and certain types consumer products. One
`
`technology focus is optical advances that enhance solar energy harvesting and save energy in
`
`illumination systems.
`
`22.
`
`SVVTI has invented and validated several ground-breaking technology solutions and has
`
`accumulated an extensive knowledge and built a diverse IP portfolio in optics, photonics, solar
`
`energy, daylighting and solid-state lighting fields. SVVTI has received innovation awards from
`
`TechConnect and Cleantech Open.
`
`23.
`
`SVVTI has developed and demonstrated several novel types of optical collectors for solar
`
`energy applications, significantly improving over the traditional technologies in terms of material
`
`intensity, concentration ratio, beam uniformity and solar-to-electric conversion efficiency.
`
`24.
`
`Another notable technology developed by SVVTI is a unique daylight redirecting film
`
`material (Daylighting Fabric®) which is applied to windows of a building façade to redirect
`
`natural daylight deep into the interior space for improving natural illumination and saving energy
`
`used for lighting.
`
`25.
`
`SVVTI has also developed and demonstrated various types of innovative wide-area
`
`illumination panels and backlights employing light guides and light emitting diodes (LEDs).
`
`These panels can be tailored for specific applications and improving various characteristics of
`
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00139-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/21/20 Page 6 of 27
`
`illumination systems, including, for example, light beam diffusion, emission directionality,
`
`material efficiency, luminous efficacy, glare control, design options and aesthetics.
`
`26.
`
`On March 11, 2019, SVVTI sent a letter to SEA, introducing SVVTI, notifying SEA of
`
`several of the patents identified below, and identifying several of Samsung’s products that utilize
`
`SVVTI’s intellectual property.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`SEA received SVVTI’s letter on March 25, 2019.
`
`Defendants have been aware of United States Patent Nos. 8,290,318 (“the ’318 patent”);
`
`8,740,397 (“the ’397 patent”); 9,678,321 (“the ’321 patent”); and 9,880,342 (“the ’342 patent”)
`
`since, at least, March 25, 2019 when SEA received SVVTI’s letter disclosing and attaching each
`
`of these patents, and identifying several of Samsung’s products utilizing claims of such patents
`
`which were also identified in SVVTI’s letter.
`
`29.
`
` Defendants have been aware of United States Patent Nos. 10,269,999 (“the ’999 patent”);
`
`10,439,088 (“the ’088 patent”); and 10,439,089 (“the ’089 patent”) no later than when SVVTI
`
`filed this lawsuit detailing Defendants’ infringing acts based on each of these asserted patents.
`
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`30.
`
`Several of the products accused of infringement below are products that contain displays
`
`using LED-illuminated LCD technology. A LED-illuminated LCD (liquid-crystal display) is a
`
`flat-panel display that uses LED (light-emitting diode) illumination. The illumination may come
`
`from LEDs along one or more sides of the display (edge-lit) or from full-array backlighting
`
`(direct-lit). As explained below, some displays use a quantum dot enhancement film (“QDEF”).
`
`31.
`
`Several of the products accused of infringement below are QLED televisions. QLED
`
`stands for quantum dot LED TV.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00139-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/21/20 Page 7 of 27
`
`32.
`
`Samsung debuted a TV comprising quantum dots for the first time at Consumer
`
`Electronics Show in 2015. See e.g., Consumer Reports, Samsung joins the quantum dot crowd at
`
`CES
`
`2015
`
`with
`
`super
`
`SUHD
`
`TVs
`
`(January,
`
`2015),
`
`available
`
`at
`
`https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2015/01/samsung-joins-the-quantum-dot-crowd-
`
`atces- 2015-with-super-suhd-tvs/index.htm.
`
`33.
`
`Samsung introduced QLED TV in 2017. See, e.g., Samsung, This is QLED TV, Part 7:
`
`QLED TV – How Samsung Achieved Market Dominance in the Premium TV Market (2017),
`
`available
`
`at
`
`https://www.samsung.com/global/tv/news/this-is-qled-tv-part-7-qled-tv-how-
`
`samsung-achieved-dominance-in-the-premium-tv-market/.
`
`34.
`
`Samsung’s share in North America’s high-end TV market, including QLED TVs, has
`
`increased sharply following its launch of QLED TVs in 2017. Id.
`
`35.
`
`Generally, quantum dots are small, semiconductor particles that have unique optical and
`
`electronic properties, including the ability to produce pure monochromatic red, green, and/or blue
`
`light.
`
`36.
`
`A widespread commercial application is using a quantum dot enhancement film
`
`(“QDEF”) layer to improve the LED backlighting in LCD TVs. In this application, light from a
`
`blue LED backlight is converted by quantum dots to relatively pure red and green. This
`
`combination of blue, green and red light incurs less blue-green crosstalk and light absorption in
`
`the color filters after the LCD screen, thereby increasing useful light throughput and providing a
`
`better color gamut.
`
`37.
`
`The QDEF layer is able to replace a diffuser used in traditional LCD backlight units.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00139-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/21/20 Page 8 of 27
`
`38.
`
`The use of quantum dots to produce monochromatic red, green and blue light is an
`
`improvement over traditional LCD backlight units which fed a blue LED through a yellow filter
`
`to create white light which was then passed through red, green and blue color filters.
`
`COUNT I
`
`DEFENDANTS’ INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,290,318
`
`SVVTI incorporates by reference the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
`
`On October 16, 2012, United States Patent No. 8,290,318 entitled “Light Trapping Optical
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`Cover” was duly and legally issued after full and fair examination. SVVTI is the owner of all
`
`right, title, and interest in and to the patent by assignment, with full right to bring suit to enforce
`
`the patent, including the right to recover for past infringement damages and the right to recover
`
`future royalties, damages, and income. A true copy of the ’318 patent is attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`The ’318 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`Defendants have directly infringed, and are continuing to directly infringe, literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, at least independent claim 1 of the ’318 patent by importing
`
`into the United States, making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale, at least, its QLED TV and
`
`other products containing LED-illuminated LCD displays, including televisions, computer
`
`monitors, tablets, and handheld devices, in the United States, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`43.
`
`Exemplary charts comparing the asserted claims of the ’318 patent to exemplars of
`
`Defendants’ products are attached as Exhibits 8-11.
`
`44.
`
`Defendants had knowledge of the ’318 patent since, at least, March 25, 2019 when SEA
`
`received SVVTI’s letter disclosing and attaching each of these patents, and identifying several of
`
`Samsung’s products utilizing claims of such patents which were also identified in SVVTI’s letter.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00139-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/21/20 Page 9 of 27
`
`45.
`
`Defendants had knowledge of the ’318 patent since, at least, the filing date of this
`
`complaint.
`
`46.
`
`Defendants’ affirmative acts of selling the Accused Products, causing the Accused
`
`Products to be sold, advertised, offered for sale, and/or distributed, and providing instruction
`
`manuals for the Accused Products have induced and continue to induce Defendants’ customers,
`
`and/or end-users to use the Accused Products in their normal and customary way to infringe the
`
`’318 patent. For example, it can be reasonably inferred that end-users will use the infringing
`
`products, which will cause the end-users to use the elements that are the subject of the claimed
`
`invention. Defendants specifically intended and were aware that these normal and customary
`
`activities would infringe the ’318 Patent. In addition, Defendants provide marketing and/or
`
`instructional materials, such as user guides, that specifically teach end-users to use the Accused
`
`Products in an infringing manner. By providing such instructions, Defendants know (and have
`
`known), or were willfully blind to the probability that its actions have, and continue to, actively
`
`induce infringement. By way of example only, Defendants have induced infringement and
`
`continue to induce infringement of, in addition to other claims, at least claim 1 of the ’318 patent
`
`by selling in the United States, without SVVTI’s authority, infringing products and providing
`
`instructional materials. These actions have induced and continue to induce the direct infringement
`
`of the ’318 patent by end-users. Defendants performed the acts that constitute induced
`
`infringement, and would induce actual infringement, with the knowledge of the ’318 patent and
`
`with the knowledge, or willful blindness to the probability, that the induced acts would constitute
`
`infringement. Upon information and belief, Defendants specifically intended (and intend) that
`
`their actions will results in infringement of at least claim 1 of the ’318 patent, or subjectively
`
`believe that its actions will result in infringement of the ’318 patent but took deliberate actions to
`
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00139-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/21/20 Page 10 of 27
`
`avoid learning of those facts, as set forth above. Upon information and belief, Defendants knew
`
`of the ’318 patent and knew of their infringement, including by way of this lawsuit and earlier as
`
`described above.
`
`47.
`
`Defendants’ infringement has been and continues to be willful and deliberate. Upon
`
`information and belief, Defendants deliberately infringed the ’318 patent and acted recklessly and
`
`in disregard to the ’318 patent by making, having made, using, importing, and offering for sale
`
`products that infringe the ’318 patent. Upon information and belief, the risks of infringement
`
`were known to Defendants and/or were so obvious under the circumstances that the infringement
`
`risks should have been known. Upon information and belief, Defendants have no reasonable non-
`
`infringement theories. Upon information and belief, Defendants have not attempted any
`
`design/sourcing change to avoid infringement. Defendants have acted despite an objectively high
`
`likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the ’318 patent. In addition, this
`
`objectively-defined risk was known or should have been known to Defendants. Upon information
`
`and belief, Defendants have willfully infringed and/or continues to willfully infringe the ’318
`
`patent. Defendants’ actions of being made aware of its infringement, not developing any non-
`
`infringement theories, not attempting any design/sourcing change, and not ceasing its
`
`infringement constitute egregious behavior beyond typical infringement.
`
`COUNT II
`
`DEFENDANTS’ INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,740,397
`
`SVVTI incorporates by reference the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
`
`On June 3, 2014, United States Patent No. 8,740,397 entitled “Optical Cover Employing
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`Microstructured Surfaces” was duly and legally issued after full and fair examination. SVVTI is
`
`the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the patent by assignment, with full right to bring
`
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00139-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/21/20 Page 11 of 27
`
`suit to enforce the patent, including the right to recover for past infringement damages and the
`
`right to recover future royalties, damages, and income. A true copy of the ’397 patent is attached
`
`as Exhibit 2.
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`The ’397 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`Defendants have directly infringed, and are continuing to directly infringe, literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, at least independent claim 1 of the ’397 patent by importing
`
`into the United States, making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale, at least, its QLED TV and
`
`other products containing LED-illuminated LCD displays, including televisions, computer
`
`monitors, tablets, and handheld devices, in the United States, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`52.
`
`Exemplary charts comparing the asserted claims of the ’397 patent to exemplars of
`
`Defendants’ products are attached as Exhibits 12-19.
`
`53.
`
`Defendants had knowledge of the ’397 patent since, at least, March 25, 2019 when SEA
`
`received SVVTI’s letter disclosing and attaching each of these patents, and identifying several of
`
`Samsung’s products utilizing claims of such patents which were also identified in SVVTI’s letter.
`
`54.
`
`Defendants had knowledge of the ’397 patent since, at least, the filing date of this
`
`complaint.
`
`55.
`
`Defendants’ affirmative acts of selling the Accused Products, causing the Accused
`
`Products to be sold, advertised, offered for sale, and/or distributed, and providing instruction
`
`manuals for the Accused Products have induced and continue to induce Defendants’ customers,
`
`and/or end-users to use the Accused Products in their normal and customary way to infringe the
`
`’397 patent. For example, it can be reasonably inferred that end-users will use the infringing
`
`products, which will cause the end-users to use the elements that are the subject of the claimed
`
`invention. Defendants specifically intended and were aware that these normal and customary
`
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00139-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/21/20 Page 12 of 27
`
`activities would infringe the ’397 Patent. In addition, Defendants provide marketing and/or
`
`instructional materials, such as user guides, that specifically teach end-users to use the Accused
`
`Products in an infringing manner. By providing such instructions, Defendants know (and have
`
`known), or were willfully blind to the probability that its actions have, and continue to, actively
`
`induce infringement. By way of example only, Defendants have induced infringement and
`
`continue to induce infringement of, in addition to other claims, at least claim 1 of the ’397 patent
`
`by selling in the United States, without SVVTI’s authority, infringing products and providing
`
`instructional materials. These actions have induced and continue to induce the direct infringement
`
`of the ’397 patent by end-users. Defendants performed the acts that constitute induced
`
`infringement, and would induce actual infringement, with the knowledge of the ’397 patent and
`
`with the knowledge, or willful blindness to the probability, that the induced acts would constitute
`
`infringement. Upon information and belief, Defendants specifically intended (and intend) that
`
`their actions will results in infringement of at least claim 1 of the ’397 patent, or subjectively
`
`believe that its actions will result in infringement of the ’397 patent but took deliberate actions to
`
`avoid learning of those facts, as set forth above. Upon information and belief, Defendants knew
`
`of the ’397 patent and knew of their infringement, including by way of this lawsuit and earlier as
`
`described above.
`
`56.
`
`Defendants’ infringement has been and continues to be willful and deliberate. Upon
`
`information and belief, Defendants deliberately infringed the ’397 patent and acted recklessly and
`
`in disregard to the ’397 patent by making, having made, using, importing, and offering for sale
`
`products that infringe the ’397 patent. Upon information and belief, the risks of infringement
`
`were known to Defendants and/or were so obvious under the circumstances that the infringement
`
`risks should have been known. Upon information and belief, Defendants have no reasonable non-
`
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00139-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/21/20 Page 13 of 27
`
`infringement theories. Upon information and belief, Defendants have not attempted any
`
`design/sourcing change to avoid infringement. Defendants have acted despite an objectively high
`
`likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the ’397 patent. In addition, this
`
`objectively-defined risk was known or should have been known to Defendants. Upon information
`
`and belief, Defendants have willfully infringed and/or continues to willfully infringe the ’397
`
`patent. Defendants’ actions of being made aware of its infringement, not developing any non-
`
`infringement theories, not attempting any design/sourcing change, and not ceasing its
`
`infringement constitute egregious behavior beyond typical infringement.
`
`COUNT III
`
`DEFENDANTS’ INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,678,321
`
`SVVTI incorporates by reference the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
`
`On June 13, 2017, United States Patent No. 9,678,321 entitled “Light Trapping Optical
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`Structure” was duly and legally issued after full and fair examination. SVVTI is the owner of all
`
`right, title, and interest in and to the patent by assignment, with full right to bring suit to enforce
`
`the patent, including the right to recover for past infringement damages and the right to recover
`
`future royalties, damages, and income. A true copy of the ’321 patent is attached as Exhibit 3.
`
`59.
`
`60.
`
`The ’321 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`Defendants have directly infringed, and are continuing to directly infringe, literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, at least independent claim 1 of the ’321 patent by importing
`
`into the United States, making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale, at least, its QLED TV and
`
`other products containing LED-illuminated LCD displays, including televisions, computer
`
`monitors, tablets, and handheld devices, in the United States, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00139-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/21/20 Page 14 of 27
`
`61.
`
`Exemplary charts comparing the asserted claims of the ’321 patent to exemplars of
`
`Defendants’ products are attached as Exhibits 20-23.
`
`62.
`
`Defendants had knowledge of the ’321 patent since, at least, March 25, 2019 when SEA
`
`received SVVTI’s letter disclosing and attaching each of these patents, and identifying several of
`
`Samsung’s products utilizing claims of such patents which were also identified in SVVTI’s letter.
`
`63.
`
`Defendants had knowledge of the ’321 patent since, at least, the filing date of this
`
`complaint.
`
`64.
`
`Defendants’ affirmative acts of selling the Accused Products, causing the Accused
`
`Products to be sold, advertised, offered for sale, and/or distributed, and providing instruction
`
`manuals for the Accused Products have induced and continue to induce Defendants’ customers,
`
`and/or end-users to use the Accused Products in their normal and customary way to infringe the
`
`’321 patent. For example, it can be reasonably inferred that end-users will use the infringing
`
`products, which will cause the end-users to use the elements that are the subject of the claimed
`
`invention. Defendants specifically intended and were aware that these normal and customary
`
`activities would infringe the ’321 Patent. In addition, Defendants provide marketing and/or
`
`instructional materials, such as user guides, that specifically teach end-users to use the Accused
`
`Products in an infringing manner. By providing such instructions, Defendants know (and have
`
`known), or were willfully blind to the probability that its actions have, and continue to, actively
`
`induce infringement. By way of example only, Defendants have induced infringement and
`
`continue to induce infringement of, in addition to other claims, at least claim 1 of the ’321 patent
`
`by selling in the United States, without SVVTI’s authority, infringing products and providing
`
`instructional materials. These actions have induced and continue to induce the direct infringement
`
`of the ’321 patent by end-users. Defendants performed the acts that constitute induced
`
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00139-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/21/20 Page 15 of 27
`
`infringement, and would induce actual infringement, with the knowledge of the ’321 patent and
`
`with the knowledge, or willful blindness to the probability, that the induced acts would constitute
`
`infringement. Upon information and belief, Defendants specifically intended (and intend) that
`
`their actions will results in infringement of at least claim 1 of the ’321 patent, or subjectively
`
`believe that its actions will result in infringement of the ’321 patent but took deliberate actions to
`
`avoid learning of those facts, as set forth above. Upon information and belief, Defendants knew
`
`of the ’321 patent and knew of their infringement, including by way of this lawsuit and earlier as
`
`described above.
`
`65.
`
`Defendants’ infringement has been and continues to be willful and deliberate. Upon
`
`information and belief, Defendants deliberately infringed the ’321 patent and acted recklessly and
`
`in disregard to the ’321 patent by making, having made, using, importing, and offering for sale
`
`products that infringe the ’321 patent. Upon information and belief, the risks of infringement
`
`were known to Defendants and/or were so obvious under the circumstances that the infringement
`
`risks should have been known. Upon information and belief, Defendants have no reasonable non-
`
`infringement theories. Upon information and belief, Defendants have not attempted any
`
`design/sourcing change to avoid infringement. Defendants have acted despite an objectively high
`
`likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the ’321 patent. In addition, this
`
`objectively-defined risk was known or should have been known to Defendants. Upon information
`
`and belief, Defendants have willfully infringed and/or continues to willfully infringe the ’321
`
`patent. Defendants’ actions of being made aware of its infringement, not developing any non-
`
`infringement theories, not attempting any design/sourcing change, and not ceasing its
`
`infringement constitute egregious behavior beyond typical infringement.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Page 15
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00139-ADA Document 1 Filed 02/21/20 Page 16 of 27
`
`DEFENDANTS’ INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,880,342
`
`SVVTI incorporates by reference the paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.
`
`On January 30, 2018, United States Patent No. 9,880,342 entitled “Collimating
`
`66.
`
`67.
`
`Illumination Systems Employing Planar Waveguide” was duly and legally issued after full and
`
`fair examination. SVVTI is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the patent by
`
`assignment, with full right to bring suit to enforce the patent, including the right to recover for
`
`past infringement damages and the right to recover future royalties, damages, and income. A true
`
`copy of the ’342 patent is attached as Exhibit 4.
`
`68.
`
`69.
`
`The ’342 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`Defendants have directly infringed, and are continuing to directly infringe, literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, at least independent claim 1 of the ’342 patent by importing
`
`into the United States, making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale, at least, its QLED TV and
`
`other products containing LED-illuminated LCD displays, including televisions, computer
`
`monitors, tablets, and handheld devices, in the United States, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`
`70.
`
`Exemplary charts comparing the asserted claims of the ’342 patent to exemplars of
`
`Defendants’ products are attached as Exhibits 24-30.
`
`71.
`
`Defendants had knowledge of the ’342 patent since, at least, March 25, 2019 when SEA
`
`received SVVTI’s letter disclosing and attaching each of these patents, and identifying several of
`
`Samsung’s products utilizing claims of such patents which were also identified in SVVTI’s letter.
`
`72.
`
`Defendants had knowledge of the ’342 patent since, at least, the filing date of this
`
`complaint.
`
`73.
`
`Defendants’ affirmative act