Case 6:20-cv-00194 Document 1 Filed 03/17/20 Page 1 of 16
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`NETLIST, INC.,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SK HYNIX INC. and SK HYNIX
`AMERICA INC.
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00194
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`NETLIST, INC.’S
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Netlist, Inc. (“Netlist” or “Plaintiff”) brings this Complaint for patent infringement
`
`(“Complaint”) and for jury trial against Defendants SK hynix, Inc. and SK hynix America Inc.
`
`(collectively “SK hynix” or “Defendants”). Netlist alleges as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Netlist is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State
`
`of Delaware, having a principal place of business at 175 Technology Drive, Suite 150, Irvine,
`
`California 92618.
`
`2.
`
`Netlist is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 9,858,218 (“the ’218 patent”)
`
`(attached as Exhibit 1) and U.S. Patent No. 10,474,595 (“the ’595 patent”) (attached as Exhibit 2)
`
`(together, the “Asserted Patents”). Both of these patents are essential to certain DDR4 memory
`
`module standards promulgated by the Joint Electron Device Engineering Council, or “JEDEC,”
`
`the standard-setting body for the microelectronics industry. The Asserted Patents are therefore
`
`“standard essential.”
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00194 Document 1 Filed 03/17/20 Page 2 of 16
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant SK hynix Inc. is a corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the Republic of Korea (“Korea”), having a principal place of business
`
`at 2091, Gyeongchung-daero, Bubal-eup, Icheon-si, Gyeonggi-do, 17336, Korea. On information
`
`and belief, SK hynix Inc. is the worldwide parent corporation for Defendant SK hynix America
`
`Inc., and is responsible, either directly or indirectly through subsidiaries, for its infringing
`
`activities. References herein to the acts of SK hynix America Inc. should be understood to
`
`encompass such acts by SK hynix Inc.
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant SK hynix America Inc. is a corporation
`
`organized and existing under the laws of California, having a principal place of business at 3101
`
`North 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95134, United States. On information and belief, Defendant SK
`
`hynix America Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of SK hynix Inc. and is a United States operating
`
`company for SK hynix Inc. On information and belief, Defendant SK hynix America Inc. provides
`
`support for sales, technical, and customer/client relationship operations, including the testing,
`
`certification, and qualification of the accused LRDIMM and RDIMM memory modules for use in
`
`customer server products.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`SK hynix America Inc. is registered to do business in Texas.
`
`On information and belief, SK hynix America Inc. maintains a registered agent for
`
`service of process within this District, The Prentice-Hall Corporation System, 211 E. 7th Street,
`
`Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701.
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, SK hynix America Inc. maintains one or more physical
`
`fixed places of business in Texas, including offices at 4201 West Parmer Lane Bldg. B, Suite 245,
`
`Austin, TX 78727, at which, as alleged below, personnel perform certain activities directly related
`
`to the products accused of infringement in this case.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00194 Document 1 Filed 03/17/20 Page 3 of 16
`
`8.
`
`Defendants place, have placed, or contributed to placing infringing products like
`
`Load Reduced Dual In-line Memory Modules (“LRDIMMs”)1 and Registered Dual In-line
`
`Memory Modules (“RDIMMs”)2 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. On information and belief, Defendants have also
`
`derived substantial revenues from infringing acts in this District including from the sale and use
`
`of infringing LRDIMM and RDIMM products.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`9.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United
`
`States, Title 35 of the United States Code § 1, et seq. Accordingly, this Court has subject matter
`
`jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`10.
`
`This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants at least in part
`
`because Defendants conduct business in this Judicial District. Netlist’s causes of action arise, at
`
`least in part, from Defendants’ contacts with and activities in the State of Texas and this District.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants have committed acts of infringement within the State of
`
`Texas and this District by, among other things, directly and/or indirectly using, selling, offering to
`
`sell, or importing products that infringe one or more claims of the ’218 patent and/or the ’595
`
`patent.
`
`11.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants conduct business in this District and
`
`maintain regular and established places of business within this District. For example, SK hynix
`
`America Inc. has maintained regular and established places of business with offices and/or other
`
`facilities in this District, including at least such offices and/or facilities at 4201 West Parmer Lane
`
`
`1 The SK hynix HMA84GL7AMR4N-UH is an exemplary infringing LRDIMM product.
`2 The SK hynix HMA42GR7AFR4N-UH is an exemplary infringing RDIMM product.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00194 Document 1 Filed 03/17/20 Page 4 of 16
`
`Bldg. B, Suite 245, Austin, TX 78727. On information and belief, personnel working at this facility
`
`in Austin engage in activities directly related to the LRDIMM and RDIMM products at issue in
`
`this case.
`
`12.
`
`For example, on information and belief, personnel employed by SK hynix America
`
`Inc. working at this location are semiconductor professionals, including field application
`
`engineers, senior technical marketing managers, and senior quality managers. On information and
`
`belief, these personnel have expertise in, among other aspects of the accused products,
`
`semiconductors, application specific integrated circuits, embedded systems, and testing and
`
`qualification of computer memory modules. On information and belief, one of the Defendants’
`
`largest customers within the United States, Dell Technologies, is based in the Austin area, and
`
`many of the personnel working at the SK hynix America Inc. location in Austin direct their efforts
`
`to providing Dell with the accused products. These efforts include, on information and belief,
`
`extensive testing, certification, and qualification of the accused LRDIMM and RDIMM memory
`
`modules for specific use in Dell server products.
`
`13.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants have placed or contributed to placing
`
`infringing products including, but not limited to, SK hynix LRDIMM and RDIMM products into
`
`the stream of commerce knowing or understanding that such products would be sold and used in
`
`the United States, including in this District. For example, apart from SK hynix America Inc.’s own
`
`activities within this District described above, SK hynix America Inc. also has a distributor—N.F.
`
`Smith & Associates, LP—with a location in this District. On information and belief, this distributor
`
`also sells SK hynix LRDIMM and RDIMM products into the stream of commerce within this
`
`District.3
`
`
`3 See https://www.skhynix.com/eng/support/distributor.jsp; see also https://www.smithweb.com/global-locations/.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00194 Document 1 Filed 03/17/20 Page 5 of 16
`
`14.
`
`On information and belief, SK hynix America Inc. has also derived substantial
`
`revenues from infringing acts in this District, including from the sale and use of infringing products
`
`including, but not limited to, SK hynix’s LRDIMM and RDIMM products.
`
`15.
`
`Defendants have committed acts within this District giving rise to this action, and
`
`have established sufficient minimum contacts with the State of Texas such that the exercise of
`
`jurisdiction would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`
`16.
`
`Venue in this District is proper as to SK hynix Inc. under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3)
`
`because it is a foreign corporation. In re HTC Corp., 889 F.3d 1349, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`17.
`
`Venue is proper in this District as to SK hynix America Inc. pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1391(b), (c), and 1400(b) because SK hynix America Inc. (1) has committed and continue to
`
`commit acts of patent infringement in this District by, among other things, directly and/or
`
`indirectly using, selling, offering to sell, or importing products that infringe one or more claims of
`
`the ’218 patent and/or the ’595 patent, and (2) has done and continue to do business in this District
`
`by maintaining regular and established places of business, including at least at 4201 West Parmer
`
`Lane Bldg. B, Suite 245, Austin, TX 78727. In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2017).
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`18.
`
`Since its founding in 2000, Netlist has been a leading innovator in high-
`
`performance memory module technologies. Netlist designs and manufactures a wide variety of
`
`high-performance products for the cloud computing, virtualization and high-performance
`
`computing markets. Netlist’s technology enables users to derive useful information from vast
`
`amounts of data in a shorter period of time. These capabilities will become increasingly valuable
`
`as the volume of data continues to dramatically increase.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00194 Document 1 Filed 03/17/20 Page 6 of 16
`
`19.
`
`The technologies disclosed and claimed in the asserted patents relate generally to
`
`memory modules. Generally speaking, a memory module is a printed circuit board that contains,
`
`among other important components, DRAM integrated circuits. A memory module is typically
`
`installed into a memory slot on a computer motherboard and serves as memory for that computer
`
`system. The ’218 patent relates to memory modules that operate in two distinct modes, where the
`
`module performs memory read or write operations in one mode, and one or more training
`
`sequences in the other. Similarly, the ’595 patent relates to memory modules that operate in two
`
`distinct modes, where the module performs memory read or write operations in one mode, and
`
`operations related to one or more training sequences in the other.
`
`20.
`
`The accused SK hynix DDR4 RDIMM and LRDIMM memory modules are
`
`designed for use in servers, such as those supporting cloud-based computing and other data-
`
`intensive applications. The structure, function, and operation of server memory modules like the
`
`accused devices is defined, specified, and standardized by JEDEC (Joint Electron Device
`
`Engineering Council), the standard-setting body for the microelectronics industry. The accused
`
`RDIMMs are JEDEC-standard compliant memory modules. LRDIMM is a different type of
`
`memory module that is JEDEC-standard compliant, albeit to other JEDEC standards. JEDEC
`
`released the second version of the standard for one of the important memory module components
`
`of both RDIMMs and LRDIMMs, the DDR44 register control device, or RCD, in August of 2019.
`
`21.
`
`Netlist “committed” both of the Asserted Patents to the relevant JEDEC standards
`
`pursuant to the JEDEC Patent Policy, which sets certain obligations for owners of patents (like the
`
`Asserted Patents) that are essential to one or more JEDEC standards. Netlist has in all respects and
`
`at all times acted in a manner consistent with the JEDEC Patent Policy, as set forth in the JEDEC
`
`
`4 DDR4 refers to the latest generation of DRAM memory. Older, slower generations of memory modules used DDR3
`DRAM; even older memory modules used DDR2 DRAM.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00194 Document 1 Filed 03/17/20 Page 7 of 16
`
`Manual of Organization and Procedure, which states in relevant part that “[a] license will be
`
`offered, to applicants desiring to utilize the license for the purpose of implementing the JEDEC
`
`Standard under reasonable terms and conditions that are free of any unfair discrimination . . . .”
`
`Netlist contacted SK hynix in 2015 regarding its need for a license to Netlist’s essential patent
`
`portfolio and has since been negotiating in good faith to reach a resolution—but SK hynix still
`
`refuses to take a license to Netlist’s patents.
`
`22.
`
`In the course of these negotiations, and years before bringing this action, Netlist
`
`offered to license to SK hynix, among other patents in its standard-essential portfolio, the direct
`
`parents of the currently-asserted patents under reasonable terms and conditions that are free of any
`
`unfair discrimination. Unfortunately, SK hynix has not acted as a willing licensee. From the
`
`beginning, SK hynix has taken unreasonable positions and refused to attribute any meaningful
`
`value to Netlist’s fundamental patents. Faced with an intransigent infringer of its standard-essential
`
`patents, Netlist turned to litigation in order to obtain fair compensation for SK hynix’s
`
`unauthorized use of its intellectual property, including in federal district court and at the
`
`International Trade Commission. In turn, SK hynix launched extensive collateral attacks on Netlist
`
`and its intellectual property, including filing multiple post-grant challenges to over a dozen of
`
`Netlist’s standard-essential patents. As a result, the parties have made no progress towards
`
`resolution, despite multiple substantive exchanges, over many years of negotiation, and Netlist’s
`
`multiple, reasonable offers to license.
`
`23.
`
`In June 2016, consistent with its obligations under the JEDEC Patent Policy, Netlist
`
`sent SK hynix a formal letter outlining Netlist’s offer to license Netlist’s patent portfolio related
`
`to RDIMM and LRDIMM technology on reasonable terms and conditions that are free of any
`
`discrimination. Netlist again identified the direct parents of the asserted patents, and informed SK
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00194 Document 1 Filed 03/17/20 Page 8 of 16
`
`hynix that their DDR4 RDIMMs and LRDIMMs practice these patents and additional of Netlist’s
`
`standard essential patent (“SEP”) assets without authorization. Despite this, SK hynix has
`
`continued to hold out, and has refused to accept any of Netlist’s reasonable and non-discriminatory
`
`offers for a license to its SEPs. Notably, the Chief Administrative Law Judge of the International
`
`Trade Commission has twice rejected SK hynix’s allegations that Netlist violated its obligations
`
`under the JEDEC patent policy, and also concluded in the fall of 2019 that Defendants infringed
`
`the claims of another of Netlist’s standard essential patents.
`
`24.
`
`In parallel with its two International Trade Commission complaints, Netlist filed
`
`two federal district court complaints in the Central District of California,5 one in the fall of 2016
`
`and the second a year later. After consolidation, those cases were stayed based on the co-pending
`
`action before the International Trade Commission. Those complaints asserted different patents
`
`from those asserted in this case and, prior to being stayed, no patent claims were construed by the
`
`court, and no meaningful discovery had been exchanged among the parties.
`
`25.
`
`Each of the Defendants has been aware of the parents of the asserted patents since
`
`at least January 2016 when Netlist presented to the Defendants detailed claim charts related to the
`
`parent of the asserted patents. Further, each of the Defendants has been aware of the ’218 patent
`
`since at least January 2018 when Netlist provided Defendants with detailed claim charts describing
`
`how Defendants’ RDIMM and LRDIMM products infringed claims of the ’218 patent. As to the
`
`’595 patent, Netlist informed Defendants in late 2019 that the ’595 patent had issued, and that
`
`Defendants’ LRDIMM and RDIMM products infringed this patent too.
`
`
`
`//
`
`
`5 Defendants do not appear to have any employees or physical presence in the Central District of California.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00194 Document 1 Filed 03/17/20 Page 9 of 16
`
`COUNT I
`
`DEFENDANTS’ INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,858,218
`
`Netlist restates and incorporates by reference all of the allegations made in the
`
`26.
`
`preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
`
`27.
`
`The ’218 patent, entitled “Memory module and methods for handshaking with a
`
`memory controller,” issued to inventor Dr. Hyun Lee on January 2, 2018. The ’218 patent issued
`
`from Application No. 15/088,115, filed on April 1, 2016. The ’218 Patent is the child of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,489,837 (“the ’837 patent”). Netlist owns by assignment the entire right, title and
`
`interest in and to the ’218 patent. The ’218 patent is essential to the JEDEC DDR4 RDIMM
`
`standard, and to the JEDEC DDR4 LRDIMM standard. Netlist committed the ’218 patent to these
`
`standards pursuant to the JEDEC Patent Policy and has, at all times, observed and adhered to its
`
`obligations under this policy.
`
`28.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants directly infringed and are currently
`
`infringing at least the independent and dependent claims of the ’218 patent identified in the chart
`
`below (“the ’218 Asserted Claims”) by, among other things, making, using, selling, offering to
`
`sell, and/or importing within this District and elsewhere in the United States, without authority,
`
`SK hynix DDR4 LRDIMMS (Load-Reduced Dual In-Line Memory Modules) (the “accused
`
`LRDIMM Products”) and SK hynix DDR4 RDIMMs (Registered Dual In-Line Memory Modules)
`
`(the “accused RDIMM Products”). These infringing products include, without limitation, the
`
`exemplary SK hynix DDR4 LRDIMM and RDIMM modules identified in the SK hynix Q1 2017
`
`Databook or Module Product List, attached as Exhibits 3 and 4 respectively (collectively, the
`
`“accused products” or the “accused LRDIMM and RDIMM products”).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00194 Document 1 Filed 03/17/20 Page 10 of 16
`
`’218 Independent Claims
`
`’218 Dependent Claims
`
`1
`
`15
`
`
`
`2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
`
`16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22
`
`29.
`
`An exemplary claim chart comparing the asserted independent claims of the ’218
`
`patent to an exemplary accused LRDIMM product (part number HMA84GL7AMR4N-UH) is
`
`attached as Exhibit 5. An exemplary claim chart comparing the asserted independent claims of the
`
`’218 patent to an exemplary accused RDIMM product (part number HMA42GR7AFR4N-UH) is
`
`attached as Exhibit 6.6
`
`30.
`
`On information and belief, each of Defendants has been aware of the ’837 patent,
`
`the parent of the ’218 patent, and the patents’ disclosures, since at least January 2016. Defendants
`
`have been specifically aware of the ’218 patent claims since at least January of 2018.
`
`31.
`
`Defendants also indirectly infringed, and are currently infringing, the ’218 Asserted
`
`Claims.
`
`32.
`
`In particular, on information and belief, users making routine use of the accused
`
`LRDIMM and RDIMM products infringe at least the ’218 Asserted Claims. On information and
`
`belief, each of the Defendants has induced, and currently induces, the infringement of the ’218
`
`patent. For example, each of Defendants was aware that the accused LRDIMM and RDIMM
`
`
`6 These claim charts are exemplary, and are based on relevant information presently within Netlist’s possession,
`custody, or control. Netlist expressly reserves the right to amend, modify and/or supplement these exemplary
`disclosures as new information, documents, source code, testimony, or knowledge come to light, whether received
`from Defendants or non-parties. Further, Netlist expressly reserves the right to amend, modify and/or supplement
`these exemplary disclosures by identifying, charting, and relying on additional information that describes the
`disclosures and information already contained within these exemplary disclosures. Further, Netlist reserves the right
`to supplement these exemplary disclosures as this case proceeds, including, but not limited, following any Markman
`order in this case. The Asserted Claims have not been construed, and nothing contained in these exemplary disclosures
`is an express or implied admission with respect to the proper construction of the Asserted Claims, or any issue relating
`to any alleged invalidity of such claims.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00194 Document 1 Filed 03/17/20 Page 11 of 16
`
`products infringe at least the ’218 Asserted Claims, and was aware that users making routine use
`
`of the accused LRDIMM and RDIMM products infringe those claims. On information and belief,
`
`each of Defendants specifically intended that users of the accused LRDIMM and RDIMM products
`
`infringe at least the ’218 Asserted Claims, and acted with the intent of causing the infringing acts,
`
`including the infringing routine use of the accused LRDIMM and RDIMM products by users. For
`
`example, on information and belief, Defendants provide specifications, datasheets, instruction
`
`manuals, and/or other materials that encourage and facilitate infringing use of the accused
`
`LRDIMM and RDIMM products by users with the intent of inducing infringement. See, e.g.,
`
`Exhibits 7, 8, and 9.
`
`33.
`
`On information and belief, each of Defendants has contributed, and currently
`
`contributes to, the infringement of at least the ’218 Asserted Claims, including the infringing
`
`routine use of the accused LRDIMM and RDIMM products by users. On information and belief,
`
`Defendants have sold, offered for sale and/or imported within the United States the accused
`
`LRDIMM and RDIMM products for use in an infringing manner. On information and belief, the
`
`accused LRDIMM and RDIMM products have no substantial noninfringing use, and constitute a
`
`material part of the patented invention. On information and belief, Defendants are aware that the
`
`product or process that includes the accused LRDIMM and RDIMM products may be covered by
`
`one or more of the ’218 Asserted Claims or may satisfy one or more of the ’218 Asserted Claims
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents. On information and belief, the use of the product or process that
`
`includes the accused LRDIMM and RDIMM products infringes at least the ’218 Asserted Claims.
`
`34.
`
`Defendants have committed these acts of direct and indirect infringement with
`
`knowledge of the ’218 Asserted Claims and thus have acted with willful, egregious, wanton,
`
`deliberate, and flagrant disregard for Netlist’s rights in the ’218 patent.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00194 Document 1 Filed 03/17/20 Page 12 of 16
`
`35.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ direct, indirect, and willful infringement of the ’218
`
`Asserted Claims, Netlist has suffered and is continuing to suffer monetary damages and is entitled
`
`to a monetary judgment in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendants’ past infringement.
`
`Netlist is also entitled to enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs due to Defendants’
`
`willful, egregious, wanton, deliberate, and flagrant conduct with regard to Netlist’s patent rights.
`
`For example, despite claiming for over four years that they are willing licensees to Netlist’s
`
`standard essential patents, Defendants have continued their extensive and intentional infringement
`
`with callous disregard for Netlist’s intellectual property rights. In fact, even after the Chief
`
`Administrative Law Judge of the International Trade Commission twice concluded on review of
`
`an extensive evidentiary record that Netlist did not violate whatever RAND obligations it owed to
`
`Defendants, they continue to refuse to pay a reasonable royalty for their ongoing unauthorized use
`
`of Netlist’s patented technology.
`
`COUNT II
`
`DEFENDANTS’ INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,474,595
`
`Netlist restates and incorporates by reference all of the allegations made in the
`
`36.
`
`preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
`
`37.
`
`The ’595 patent, entitled “Memory module having an open-drain output pin for
`
`parity error in a first mode and for training sequences in a second mode,” issued to inventor Dr.
`
`Hyun Lee on November 12, 2019. The 595 patent issued from Application No. 15/857,553, filed
`
`on December 28, 2017. The ’595 Patent is the child of the ’837 patent”. Netlist owns by assignment
`
`the entire right, title and interest in and to the ’595 patent. The ’595 patent is essential to the JEDEC
`
`DDR4 RDIMM standard, and to the JEDEC DDR4 LRDIMM standard. Netlist committed the
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00194 Document 1 Filed 03/17/20 Page 13 of 16
`
`’595 patent to these standards pursuant to the JEDEC Patent Policy and has, at all times, observed
`
`and adhered to its obligations under this policy.
`
`38.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants directly infringed and are currently
`
`infringing at least the independent and dependent claims of the ’595 patent identified in the chart
`
`below (“the ’595 Asserted Claims”) by, among other things, making, using, selling, offering to
`
`sell, and/or importing within this District and elsewhere in the United States, without authority,
`
`the accused LRDIMM and RDIMM products.
`
`’595 Independent Claims
`
`’595 Dependent Claims
`
`1
`
`10
`
`
`
`2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
`
`11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
`
`39.
`
`An exemplary claim chart comparing the asserted independent claims of the ’595
`
`patent to an exemplary accused LRDIMM product (part number HMA84GL7AMR4N-UH) is
`
`attached as Exhibit 10. An exemplary claim chart comparing the asserted independent claims of
`
`the ’595 patent to an exemplary accused RDIMM product (part number HMA42GR7AFR4N-UH)
`
`is attached as Exhibit 11.7
`
`
`7 These claim charts are exemplary, and are based on relevant information presently within Netlist’s possession,
`custody, or control. Netlist expressly reserves the right to amend, modify and/or supplement these exemplary
`disclosures as new information, documents, source code, testimony, or knowledge come to light, whether received
`from Defendants or non-parties. Further, Netlist expressly reserves the right to amend, modify and/or supplement
`these exemplary disclosures by identifying, charting, and relying on additional information that describes the
`disclosures and information already contained within these exemplary disclosures. Further, Netlist reserves the right
`to supplement these exemplary disclosures as this case proceeds, including, but not limited, following any Markman
`order in this case. The Asserted Claims have not been construed, and nothing contained in these exemplary disclosures
`is an express or implied admission with respect to the proper construction of the Asserted Claims, or any issue relating
`to any alleged invalidity of such claims.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00194 Document 1 Filed 03/17/20 Page 14 of 16
`
`40.
`
`On information and belief, each of Defendants has been aware of the ’837 patent,
`
`the parent of the ’595 patent, and the patents’ disclosures, since at least January 2016. Defendants
`
`have been aware of the ’595 patent claims since at least late 2019.
`
`41.
`
`In particular, on information and belief, users making routine use of the accused
`
`LRDIMM and RDIMM products infringe at least the ’595 Asserted Claims. On information and
`
`belief, each of the Defendants has induced, and currently induces, the infringement of the ’595
`
`patent. For example, each of Defendants was aware that the accused LRDIMM and RDIMM
`
`products infringe at least the ’595 Asserted Claims, and was aware that users making routine use
`
`of the accused LRDIMM and RDIMM products infringe those claims. On information and belief,
`
`each of Defendants specifically intended that users of the accused LRDIMM and RDIMM products
`
`infringe at least the ’595 Asserted Claims, and acted with the intent of causing the infringing acts,
`
`including the infringing routine use of the accused LRDIMM and RDIMM products by users. For
`
`example, on information and belief, Defendants provide specifications, datasheets, instruction
`
`manuals, and/or other materials that encourage and facilitate infringing use of the accused
`
`LRDIMM and RDIMM products by users with the intent of inducing infringement. See, e.g.,
`
`Exhibits 6, 7, and 8.
`
`42.
`
`On information and belief, each of Defendants has contributed, and currently
`
`contributes to, the infringement of at least the ’595 Asserted Claims, including the infringing
`
`routine use of the accused LRDIMM and RDIMM products by users. On information and belief,
`
`Defendants have sold, offered for sale and/or imported within the United States the accused
`
`LRDIMM and RDIMM products for use in an infringing manner. On information and belief, the
`
`accused LRDIMM and RDIMM products have no substantial noninfringing use, and constitute a
`
`material part of the patented invention. On information and belief, Defendants are aware that the
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00194 Document 1 Filed 03/17/20 Page 15 of 16
`
`product or process that includes the accused LRDIMM and RDIMM products may be covered by
`
`one or more of the ’595 Asserted Claims or may satisfy one or more of the ’595 Asserted Claims
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents. On information and belief, the use of the product or process that
`
`includes the accused LRDIMM and RDIMM products infringes at least the ’595 Asserted Claims.
`
`43.
`
`Defendants have committed these acts of direct and indirect infringement with
`
`knowledge of at least the ’595 Asserted Claims and thus have acted with willful, egregious,
`
`wanton, deliberate, and flagrant disregard for Netlist’s rights in the ’595 patent.
`
`44.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ direct, indirect, and willful infringement of at least the
`
`’595 Asserted Claims, Netlist has suffered and is continuing to suffer monetary damages and is
`
`entitled to a monetary judgment in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendants’ past
`
`infringement. Netlist is also entitled to enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, and costs due
`
`to Defendants’ willful, egregious, wanton, deliberate and flagrant conduct with regard to Netlist’s
`
`patent rights. For example, despite claiming for over four years that they are willing licensees to
`
`Netlist’s standard essential patents, Defendants have continued their extensive and intentional
`
`infringement with callous disregard for Netlist’s intellectual property rights. In fact, even after the
`
`Chief Administrative Law Judge of the International Trade Commission twice concluded on
`
`review of an extensive evidentiary record that Netlist did not violate whatever RAND obligations
`
`it owed to Defendants, they continue to refuse to pay a reasonable royalty for their ongoing
`
`unauthorized use of Netlist’s patented technology.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Netlist respectfully requests that judgment be entered:
`
`A.
`
`Declaring that Defendants have infringed and are infringing, directly and indirectly,
`
`the claims of the asserted patents;
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00194 Document 1 Filed 03/17/20 Page 16 of 16
`
`B.
`
`Compensating Netlist for all damages caused by Defendants’ infringement of the
`
`asserted patents;
`
`C.
`
`Ordering Defendants to account for and pay damages caused to Netlist by
`
`Defendants’ unlawful acts of patent infringement;
`
`D.
`
`Entering judgment that Defendants’ acts of patent infringement are willful,
`
`egregious, wanton, deliberate, and flagrant conduct and enhancing Netlist’s damages up to three
`
`times their amount under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`E.
`
`Granting Netlist pre- and post-judgment interests, together with all costs and
`
`expenses;
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`Granting Netlist its reasonable attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285;
`
`Awarding such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff demands a jury trial for all issues deemed to be triable by a jury.
`
`
`
`Dated: March 17, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Andrew H. DeVoogd
`Andrew H. DeVoogd
` (Admitted to practice in WDTX)
` Massachusetts BBO No. 670203
` E-mail: AHDeVoogd@mintz.com
`MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND
` POPEO P.C.
`One Financial Center
`Boston, MA 02111
`Tel: 617-542-6000
`Fax: 617-542-2241
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Netlist Inc.
`
`16
`
`