Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 1 of 29
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00507
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.
`and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Neonode Smartphone LLC (“Neonode”), by and through its attorneys, hereby
`
`alleges the following:
`
`I.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a patent infringement action for damages and other appropriate remedies
`
`for Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.’s
`
`(“SEA’s”) (collectively, “Samsung” or “Defendants”) unauthorized and infringing manufacture,
`
`use, sale, offering for sale, and/or importation of products incorporating Plaintiff’s patented
`
`inventions.
`
`2.
`
`Neonode is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to United States Patent
`
`Nos. 8,095,879 (the “’879 Patent”), issued January 10, 2012 and titled “User Interface for
`
`Mobile Handheld Computer Unit.” A true and correct copy of the ‘879 Patent is attached hereto
`
`as Exhibit A.
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 2 of 29
`
`3.
`
`Neonode is also the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to United States
`
`Patent Nos. 8,812,993 (the “’993 Patent”), issued August 19, 2014 and titled “User Interface.” A
`
`true and correct copy of the ’993 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
`
`4.
`
`Samsung manufactures, provides, sells, offers for sale, imports, and/or distributes
`
`products that directly infringe the ’879 and ‘993 Patents. Further, Samsung indirectly infringes
`
`the ‘879 and ‘993 Patents by inducing and contributing to infringement by others, including
`
`users of Samsung devices.
`
`5.
`
`Neonode seeks monetary damages, prejudgment interest, injunctive relief, and
`
`other relief for Samsung’s past and continuing infringement of the ‘879 and ‘993 Patents.
`
`II.
`
`PARTIES
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff Neonode is a Wyoming limited liability company having a principal
`
`place of business at 30 N. Gould St., Suite R, Sheridan, WY 82801.
`
`7.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant SEC is a corporation organized under the
`
`laws of South Korea, with its principal place of business at 129 Samsung-Ro, Maetan-3dong,
`
`Yeongtong-gu, Suwon, 443-742, South Korea.
`
`8.
`
`Upon information and belief, SEA is a wholly owned subsidiary of SEC and is a
`
`corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of
`
`business at 85 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660.
`
`III.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`9.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement, which arises under the Patent Laws of
`
`the United States, in particular, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 282, 284, and 285. The Court has
`
`jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`10.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Samsung because Samsung has
`
`committed acts giving rise to this action within Texas and within this judicial district.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 3 of 29
`
`Defendants regularly do business or solicit business in this District and in Texas, engage in other
`
`persistent courses of conduct and derive substantial revenue from products and services provided
`
`in this District and in Texas, and have purposefully established substantial, systematic, and
`
`continuous contacts within this District and should reasonably expect to be sued in a court in this
`
`District. For example, Samsung has offices within this district. The website www.samsung.com
`
`solicits sales of infringing products to consumers in this District and in Texas. Given these
`
`contacts, the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over Samsung will not offend traditional notions of
`
`fair play and substantial justice.
`
`11.
`
`Venue in the Western District of Texas is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`1391(b), (c) and l400(b) because Samsung has regular and established places of business in this
`
`District, including at 12100 Samsung Boulevard, Austin, Texas, has committed acts within this
`
`judicial district giving rise to this action, and continues to conduct business in this judicial
`
`district, including multiple acts of making, selling, using, importing and/or offering for sale
`
`infringing products in this District.
`
`IV.
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`12. Magnus Goertz, the named inventor of both the ‘879 and ‘993 Patents, co-
`
`founded Neonode AB in or about 2001. Neonode AB and its affiliated and successor entities
`
`developed and commercialized the Neonode N1 and N2 mobile phones. The N1 and N2
`
`incorporated the company’s zForce and Neno touchscreen and interface technologies, which
`
`enabled production of a phone small enough to fit in the palm of your hand and allowed the user
`
`to navigate menus and functions with simple finger-based taps and swipes. Patents covering
`
`these technologies were later issued in the United States to Neonode Inc. As of 2020, the zForce
`
`technology had been incorporated into at least 73 million products worldwide.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 4 of 29
`
`13.
`
`The ‘879 and ‘993 Patents relate to the Neno technology for presenting and
`
`interacting with a user interface of a mobile handheld computer unit that includes a touch
`
`sensitive display.
`
`14.
`
`The specification common to both the ‘879 Patent and the ‘993 Patent identifies
`
`technical problems in the prior art and discloses solutions to these problems. For instance, the
`
`specification explains that there was a recognized problem in the prior art as of 2002, the priority
`
`date of both patents, providing an interface on mobile handheld computers that was “adapted to
`
`handle a large amount of information and different kinds of traditional computer-related
`
`applications on a small handheld computer unit.” (‘879 Patent, col. 1:49-52; ‘993 Patent, col.
`
`1:59-62) It was also “a problem to provide a small handheld computer unit with an easily
`
`accessible text input function.” (‘879 Patent, col. 1:56-57; ‘993 Patent, col. 1:66-67) It was
`
`“also a problem to provide a simple way to make the most commonly used functions for
`
`navigation and management available in the environment of a small handheld computer unit.”
`
`(‘879 Patent, col. 1:58-61; ‘993 Patent, col. 2:1-4)
`
`15.
`
`In order to overcome these problems, the ‘879 and ‘993 Patents taught, among
`
`other things, that a mobile device with a touch sensitive display could be configured to provide a
`
`user interface presenting multiple representations of predefined functions, each of which could
`
`be activated when the device detects a particular type of movement of an object on the display,
`
`such as, for example, a user’s finger touching the display and gliding away from the touched
`
`location. This teaching was novel, and, among other things, enabled more effective use of the
`
`limited space available on the touch sensitive display of a mobile computer unit such as a
`
`smartphone.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 5 of 29
`
`V.
`
`SAMSUNG’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`16.
`
`On information and belief, Samsung has known of the ‘879 Patent since shortly
`
`after it issued, on January 10, 2012.
`
`17.
`
`On or about July 13, 2005, Neonode Sweden AB entered into a Research &
`
`Development and License Agreement with Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“the Samsung
`
`Agreement”). Pursuant to this agreement, Neonode Sweden AB licensed certain patent
`
`applications “and the patents into which they may mature” in the zForce and Neno portfolios to
`
`Samsung; one of those applications, specifically identified in the Samsung Agreement, was U.S.
`
`Application No. 10/315,250, which later issued as the ‘879 Patent. On information and belief,
`
`the Samsung Agreement terminated according to its terms by no later than early 2009.
`
`18.
`
`On or about February 8, 2012, Apple Inc. filed a complaint against Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications
`
`America, LLC, entitled Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., in the U.S. District
`
`Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 12-CV-00630-LHK (“the Apple v.
`
`Samsung litigation”). In the Apple v. Samsung litigation, Apple alleged that the defendant
`
`Samsung entities had infringed and were infringing a number of Apple patents. Among the
`
`Apple patents asserted in this action were U.S. Patent No. 8,046,721, entitled “Unlocking a
`
`device by performing gestures on an unlock image.” On information and belief, this patent
`
`became widely known as the “swipe to unlock” or “slide to unlock” patent.
`
`19.
`
`On information and belief, Samsung and/or its litigation counsel regularly
`
`monitored industry press relating to the subject matter of the litigation against Apple and
`
`undertook substantial research and investigative efforts to obtain information pertinent to the
`
`subject matter of the litigation against Apple, on an ongoing basis from at least February 2012
`
`forward.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 6 of 29
`
`20.
`
`On or about February 22, 2012, an article entitled “Neonode Beat Apple By Three
`
`Years With The Swipe-To-Unlock Patent” was published in the online journal The Tech Journal,
`
`https://thetechjournal.com/tech-news/industry-news/neonode-beat-apple-by-three-years-with-
`
`the-swipe-to-unlock-patent.xhtml. The article stated, among other things, that “[a] small but
`
`feisty Swedish company, Neonode figured out how to integrate a slide to unlock feature in its
`
`phones, long before Apple even considering making an iPhone.” The article further stated:
`
`Apparently, in July 2004, Neonode introduced to the market a small phone called N1 that
`
`had the unlock feature. Neonode already had patented a slide to unlock feature, without
`
`the associated graphics and obtained the patent in December 2002 (the US patent
`
`number: 8095879).
`
`Id. The article included images of Figures 11 and 12 from the ‘879 Patent. On information and
`
`belief, Samsung became aware of this article shortly after it was published.
`
`
`
`21.
`
`On or about February 27, 2012, an article entitled “A Swedish Company Claims It
`
`Owns A Swipe Patent Used By Apple” was published in the online journal Tech Crunch,
`
`https://techcrunch.com/2012/02/27/a-swedish-company-claims-it-owns-a-swipe-patent-that-is-
`
`used-by-apple/. The article stated, among other things:
`
`Another front has opened in the multi-faceted story of patent battles: Neonode, an optical
`
`touchscreen tech company based in Sweden, says that it has been granted a patent in the
`
`U.S. that covers the touch-and-glide gesture that it claims is used on devices like the
`
`iPhone and iPad.
`
`The patent is notable not only because Neonode says the patent covers functions like the
`
`horizontal touch gesture that Apple uses between screens on its iOS devices, as well as in
`
`the slide-to-unlock feature. But also because slide-to-unlock is the same feature that
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 7 of 29
`
`Apple has been citing in its own patent lawsuits against Android device makers Motorola
`
`and Samsung.
`
`Id. The article identified the patent by number – “number 8,095,879 from the U.S. Patent and
`
`Trademark Office.” Id. On information and belief, Samsung became aware of this article
`
`shortly after it was published.
`
`22.
`
`On or about February 28, 2012, an article entitled “Swedish company claims
`
`rights to ‘slide to unlock’ with new UI patent” was published in the online journal
`
`“appleinsider,”
`
`https://appleinsider.com/articles/12/02/28/swedish_company_claims_rights_to_slide_to_unlock_
`
`with_new_ui_patent. The article stated, among other things, that “Neonode says it was issued
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879 which covers gesture-based interaction with a touch sensitive surface,
`
`a description that is similar to Apple's "slide to unlock" patent,” and that:
`
`If Apple is indeed sued over the '879 patent, it wouldn't be the first time the company has
`
`seen Neonode in a court hearing. In August 2011, Samsung trotted out a relatively
`
`obscure device made by the Swedish company in defense of an Apple suit regarding
`
`"slide to unlock" functionality.
`
`Id. The article included images of Figures 10-12 from the ‘879 Patent. On information and
`
`belief, Samsung became aware of this article shortly after it was published.
`
`23.
`
`On March 19, 2012, Joseph Shain, Neonode Inc.’s Vice President of Intellectual
`
`Property, and well as Bjorn Thomas Eriksson, CEO of Neonode Technologies AB and Neonode
`
`Inc., were deposed by counsel for Apple and Motorola Mobility, Inc. in the action entitled
`
`Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., in the U.S District Court for the Southern District of
`
`Florida, Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-UU. In the course of this deposition, the ‘879 Patent was
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 8 of 29
`
`marked as an exhibit, and counsel for both Apple and Motorola asked Mr. Shain numerous
`
`questions relating to the patent. The law firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
`
`(“Quinn Emanuel”) served as counsel for Motorola in this action and appeared on behalf of
`
`Motorola at this deposition; Quinn Emanuel also served as counsel for Samsung in the
`
`concurrently-pending Apple Inc. v. Samsung litigation.
`
`24.
`
`On information and belief, Samsung has known of the ‘993 Patent since shortly
`
`after it issued, on August 19, 2014.
`
`25.
`
`On or about July 8, 2013, Samsung filed “Samsung’s Reduction of Invalidity
`
`References,” Dkt. No. 671, in the Apple v. Samsung litigation. Samsung’s Reduction of
`
`Invalidity References identified “Neonode N1 Quickstart Guide V0.5” as a reference against
`
`Apple’s “swipe to unlock” patent. On information and belief, to the extent that Samsung was not
`
`already aware of the ‘879 Patent, the process of undertaking research and investigation regarding
`
`prior art references pertinent to Apple’s “swipe to unlock” patent, in combination with articles
`
`previously published concerning the ‘879 Patent, as well as the interrogation by Samsung’s
`
`counsel at the March 19, 2012 deposition, caused Samsung to become aware of the existence of
`
`the ‘879 Patent prior to submitting this filing.
`
`26.
`
`After a 13-day trial in the Apple v. Samsung litigation, the jury found the asserted
`
`claims of Apple’s “swipe to unlock” patent infringed and not invalid. Samsung appealed the
`
`finding that the patent was not invalid. In an opinion issued on or about February 26, 2016, the
`
`Federal Circuit held that Apple’s “swipe to unlock” patent would have been obvious over a
`
`combination that included the Neonode N1 Quickstart Guide. In a second opinion issued on or
`
`about October 7, 2016, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, held that there was substantial
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 9 of 29
`
`evidence to support the jury’s finding that Apple’s “swipe to unlock” patent was not obvious
`
`over the cited combination, and affirmed and reinstated the district court judgment.
`
`27.
`
`On information and belief, to the extent that Samsung was not already aware of
`
`the ‘879 and ‘993 Patents, Samsung’s reliance on the Neonode N1 Quickstart Guide as a
`
`principal prior art reference over several years of litigation that included a jury trial, an appeal to
`
`the Federal Circuit and two issued Federal Circuit opinions on the merits, combined with
`
`Samsung’s knowledge of the ‘879 Patent – from which the ‘993 Patent descended as a
`
`continuation – from at least early 2012, caused Samsung to become aware of the ‘993 Patent as a
`
`result of, inter alia, the work of its counsel in connection with the Apple v. Samsung litigation.
`
`
`
`28.
`
`Samsung was again made aware of the ‘879 and ‘993 Patents on or about
`
`September 24, 2015, when Mr. Shain informed Claude Stern, an attorney with Quinn Emanuel,
`
`that John Quinn was authorized to explore Samsung’s interest in Neonode Inc.’s patent portfolio.
`
`On or about October 22, 2015, Stern informed Mr. Shain that Samsung had told Quinn that it
`
`was uninterested.
`
`VI.
`
`THE INFRINGING SAMSUNG DEVICES
`
`29.
`
`The Samsung Galaxy S line of smartphones was released for sale in the United
`
`States in or about June 2010. Although the Galaxy S line ran the Android operating system,
`
`from the beginning the devices used a proprietary user interface designed and developed by
`
`Samsung, initially called TouchWiz, later rebranded as Samsung Experience and still later as
`
`One UI. The code for executing Samsung’s proprietary interface was also loaded onto
`
`Samsung’s Galaxy Note, Galaxy Tab, and Galaxy A series devices, among others.
`
` 30.
`
`Swipe Typing. On information and belief, beginning in or about October 2012,
`
`Samsung Galaxy S, Galaxy A, Galaxy Note, and Galaxy Tab devices running version 4.2 and
`
`later versions of the Android operating system provided users a functionality that Samsung
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 10 of 29
`
`branded as “Continuous Input.” Continuous Input was a “swipe typing” functionality that
`
`provided users the ability to enter text on a keyboard by gliding an object (such as the user’s
`
`finger) across the keys on a keyboard rather than tapping each key individually:
`
`31.
`
`On information and belief, Samsung believed that its Continuous Input
`
`functionality favorably differentiated Samsung’s mobile devices from competing devices sold by
`
`Apple Inc., which for several years following the introduction of Continuous Input lacked a
`
`native keyboard with swipe-typing functionality:
`
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 11 of 29
`
`
`
`32.
`
`Incoming Call Interface. On information and belief, since at least around 2013,
`
`Samsung Galaxy S and Galaxy A devices, Galaxy Note devices, and at least some models of
`
`Galaxy Tab devices have presented the user with an “Incoming call” interface that requires the
`
`user to, e.g., accept an incoming voice call by touching a green “phone” icon and swiping away
`
`from the icon, or decline an incoming voice call and send the caller to voicemail by touching a
`
`red “phone” icon and swiping away from that icon:
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 12 of 29
`
`
`
`33.
`
`Lock Screen. On information and belief, since at least around 2014, Samsung
`
`Galaxy S, Galaxy A, Galaxy Note, and Galaxy Tab devices have included code for presenting
`
`the user with a Lock Screen that includes the legend “Swipe to unlock” or “Swipe to open” in the
`
`lower center portion of the display. For example, the Lock Screen interface on a Galaxy S10
`
`with the “Screen lock type” set to PIN and biometric security not enabled presents this display:
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 13 of 29
`
`
`
`Following execution of a swiping gesture across the display, the Lock Screen as displayed above
`
`transitions to, e.g., a passcode or PIN entry screen.
`
`
`
`34.
`
`On information and belief, since at least around 2014, the Lock Screen presented
`
`by Samsung Galaxy S, Galaxy A, Galaxy Note, and Galaxy Tab devices has included one or
`
`more Lock Screen shortcuts, typically depicted as one or more icons in the lower portion of the
`
`display. For example, the Lock Screen shortcuts in the screen shot of the Galaxy S10 shown
`
`above are for the phone application (in the lower left corner of the display) and the camera
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 14 of 29
`
`application (in the lower right corner of the display). Lock Screen shortcuts are activated by a
`
`swiping gesture that begins at the location of the icon and glides away from the icon along the
`
`display.
`
`35.
`
`On information and belief, in or about April 2017, Samsung released the Galaxy
`
`S8 and Galaxy S8+ devices in the United States. One of the new features touted for the devices
`
`was the incorporation of facial recognition security. This feature was incorporated into
`
`subsequent models of Samsung Galaxy S devices, as well as into Galaxy Note, Galaxy A, and
`
`Galaxy Tab devices. In order to prevent accidental unlocking of the devices that included the
`
`new feature, they were configured to stay on the Lock Screen following use of the facial
`
`recognition feature to unlock the device, presenting an “opened padlock” graphic across the
`
`upper center of the display, until the user executes a swiping gesture across the display. For
`
`example, the Lock Screen interface on a Galaxy S10 with the “Screen lock type” set to PIN and
`
`facial recognition security enabled presents this display:
`
`:
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 15 of 29
`
`
`
`36.
`
`Following execution of a swiping gesture across the display, the display
`
`transitions to the Home Screen. With facial recognition security configured for use on the
`
`devices, executing a swipe downward from the location where the “opened padlock” graphic is
`
`presented will not cause the display to transition to the Home Screen until after the “opened
`
`padlock” graphic has been instantiated on the display.
`
`
`
`COUNT I:
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘879 PATENT
`
`37.
`
`Neonode incorporates paragraphs 1 through 36 herein by reference.
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 16 of 29
`
`38.
`
`Samsung has been and is presently directly infringing at least claim 1 of the ‘879
`
`Patent by making, using, selling, or offering for sale within the United States, and/or importing
`
`into the United States, Samsung Galaxy S, Galaxy A, Galaxy Note, and Galaxy Tab devices
`
`(collectively, “the Samsung Galaxy Devices.”).
`
`39.
`
`As one non-limiting example of the claims of the ‘879 Patent that are infringed by
`
`the Samsung Galaxy Devices, claim 1 of the ‘879 Patent recites:
`
`
`
`40.
`
`The Samsung Galaxy Devices are mobile handheld computer units, and include a
`
`memory storing code which, when read by a processor, allows the devices to present a user
`
`interface as described below.
`
`41.
`
`The Samsung Galaxy Devices include a display that is touch sensitive, in which
`
`one or more representations of functions are provided.
`
`42.
`
`Direct Infringement – Lock Screen: The Samsung Galaxy Devices present a
`
`Lock Screen, from which a user may transition to, e.g., a passcode entry screen:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 17 of 29
`
`
`
`43.
`
`In the display as set forth above, the “Swipe to unlock” legend is a representation
`
`of a function, the representation consists of only one option for activating the function, and the
`
`function is activated by a multi-step operation comprising (i) an object (such as a user’s finger)
`
`touching the display at the location of the “Swipe to unlock” representation and (ii) gliding along
`
`the display away from the touched location. The “Swipe to unlock” representation is not
`
`relocated or duplicated during the gliding.
`
`
`
`- 17 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 18 of 29
`
`44.
`
`By way of additional example, the Samsung Galaxy Devices present a Lock
`
`Screen from which a user may transition to the Home Screen:
`
`
`
`45.
`
`In the display as set forth above, the “Swipe to open” legend is a representation of
`
`a function, the representation consists of only one option for activating the function, and the
`
`function is activated by a multi-step operation comprising (i) an object (such as a user’s finger)
`
`touching the display at the location of the “Swipe to open” representation and (ii) gliding along
`
`the display away from the touched location. The “Swipe to open” representation is not relocated
`
`or duplicated during the gliding.
`
`
`
`- 18 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 19 of 29
`
`46.
`
`By way of additional example, the Lock Screen shortcut icons depicted on the
`
`Lock Screen display of the Samsung Galaxy Devices are representations of functions, each of
`
`which consists of only one option for activating the function, and the functions are activated by a
`
`multi-step operation comprising (i) an object (such as a user’s finger) touching the display at the
`
`location of the icon and (ii) gliding along the display away from the touched location. The icons
`
`are not relocated or duplicated during the gliding.
`
`47.
`
`Direct Infringement – Swipe Typing: By way of additional example, the
`
`Samsung Galaxy Devices present a “keyboard” display enabling text entry into a text field:
`
`
`
`
`
`- 19 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 20 of 29
`
`48.
`
`In the display as set forth above, each of the “key” icons of the virtual keyboard is
`
`a representation of a function, each of the key icons consist of only one option for activating the
`
`function (i.e., one letter), and the function may be activated by a multi-step operation comprising
`
`(i) an object (such as a user’s finger) touching the display at the location of the key and (ii)
`
`gliding along the display away from the touched location. Keys are not relocated or duplicated
`
`during the gliding.
`
`49.
`
`Direct Infringement – Incoming Call: By way of additional example, the
`
`Samsung Galaxy Devices present the following display when the device receives an incoming
`
`call:
`
`
`
`
`
`- 20 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 21 of 29
`
`50.
`
`
`Each of the two “telephone” icons (one green, one red) in the lower portion of the
`
`display is a representation of a function, each of them consist of only one option for activating
`
`the function, and the function is activated by a multi-step operation comprising (i) an object
`
`(such as a user’s finger) touching the display at the location of the icon and (ii) gliding along the
`
`display away from the touched location. The telephone icons are not relocated or duplicated
`
`during the gliding.
`
`51.
`
`Samsung has never been, and is not now, licensed under the ‘879 Patent, and has
`
`never been authorized by any owner of the ‘879 Patent to engage in the acts alleged herein.
`
`
`
`- 21 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 22 of 29
`
`52.
`
`Samsung’s infringement of the ‘879 Patent has been and continues to be willful.
`
`On information and belief, based on at least the facts alleged at paragraphs 16-28 above,
`
`Samsung has known of the ‘879 Patent since at least February 22, 2012. Samsung is a large
`
`corporation with a large and experienced legal department, and highly sophisticated in-house and
`
`outside intellectual property counsel. Samsung knew or should have known that its conduct in
`
`making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing the Samsung Galaxy Devices has
`
`infringed and does infringe the ‘879 Patent, yet proceeded to engage in such conduct despite a
`
`high likelihood that a court would find the products to be infringing.
`
`53.
`
`54.
`
`The ‘879 Patent is not invalid and is enforceable.
`
`Neonode has sustained significant damages as a direct and proximate result of
`
`Samsung’s infringement of the ‘879 Patent.
`
`COUNT II:
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘993 PATENT
`
`Neonode incorporates paragraphs 1 through 54 herein by reference.
`
`Direct Infringement: Samsung has been and is presently directly infringing at
`
`
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`least claim 1 of the ‘993 Patent by making, using, selling, or offering for sale within the United
`
`States, and/or importing into the United States, Samsung Galaxy S, Galaxy A, Galaxy Note, and
`
`Galaxy Tab devices that include or included code for enabling the device to stay on the Lock
`
`Screen following use of facial recognition security (collectively, “the Infringing ‘993 Devices”).
`
`57.
`
`As one non-limiting example of the claims of the ‘993 Patent that are infringed by
`
`the Infringing ‘993 Devices, claim 1 of the ‘993 Patent recites:
`
`
`
`- 22 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 23 of 29
`
`
`
`58.
`
`The Infringing ‘993 Devices are electronic devices having a touch sensitive
`
`display screen and include a memory storing code which, when executed by a processor, causes
`
`the processor to present a user interface as outlined below.
`
`59.
`
`The user interface of the Infringing ‘993 Devices includes at least one tap-present
`
`state, in which a plurality of tap-activatable icons for a plurality of pre-designated system
`
`functions are present, each system function of which is activated in response to a tap on its
`
`respective icon, including at least the following.
`
`60.
`
`The Home Screen interface of the Infringing ‘993 Devices includes tap-
`
`activatable icons for a plurality of pre-designated system functions, such as a telephone function,
`
`an email function, a browser function and a camera function. For example, the Home Screen
`
`interface on a Galaxy S10 presents multiple such tap-activatable icons:
`
`
`
`- 23 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 24 of 29
`
`
`
`61.
`
`The user interface of the Infringing ‘993 Devices includes a Lock Screen in which
`
`tap-activatable icons are absent, but in which at least one otherwise-activatable graphic is
`
`present, consisting of an “opened padlock” graphic in the upper center of the display. For
`
`example, the Lock Screen interface on a Galaxy S10 presents this otherwise-activatable graphic:
`
`
`
`- 24 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 25 of 29
`
`
`
`Neither the telephone icon in the lower left, nor the camera icon in the lower right, nor any of the
`
`icons in the upper right corner of the display, of the Lock Screen are tap-activatable.
`
`62. When setting up facial recognition security on an Infringing ‘993 Device, the user
`
`is presented with an option to “Stay on Lock Screen,” which configures the device to stay on the
`
`Lock Screen after the device has been unlocked with facial recognition until the user swipes
`
`across the display. This option is enabled by default. With facial recognition security
`
`configured for use on an Infringing ‘993 Device, and with the “Stay on Lock screen” option
`
`enabled, the interface will transition from the Lock Screen to the Home Screen after, e.g., the
`
`
`
`- 25 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 26 of 29
`
`user touches the location where the “opened padlock” graphic is presented and glides downward
`
`on the display.
`
`63.
`
`The instructions that cause the processor to enable configuration of the Infringing
`
`‘993 Devices to use facial recognition security, and to stay on the Lock Screen following
`
`unlocking of the device using facial recognition security until the user has executed a swipe
`
`across the display, is present on the devices when they are made, used, sold, or offered for sale
`
`within the United States, and/or imported into the United States, by or for Samsung.
`
`64.
`
`Indirect Infringement: Samsung has been and is presently indirectly infringing
`
`at least claim 1 of the ‘993 Patent, including by inducing users of Samsung devices to use
`
`devices that infringe the ‘993 Patent.
`
`65.
`
`Samsung has induced and continues to induce users of Samsung devices to use
`
`products that infringe the ‘993 Patent by, among other things, prompting and encouraging users
`
`of Samsung Galaxy S, Galaxy A, Galaxy Note, and Galaxy Tab devices to enable facial
`
`recognition security, and setting “Stay on Lock screen” as enabled by default. For example,
`
`Samsung’s website, at https://www.samsung.com/us/support/answer/ANS00062630/ and
`
`https://www.samsung.com/us/support/answer/ANS00083151/, provides detailed instructions to
`
`users of Infringing ‘993 Devices concerning how to enable facial recognition security and unlock
`
`their devices using facial recognition security.
`
`66.
`
`Users of the Infringing ‘993 Devices have committed and continue to commit acts
`
`of direct infringement by way of their past and ongoing configuring of the devices for facial
`
`recognition security and their use of the devices to perform the functionality alleged above.
`
`67.
`
`On information and belief, based on at least the facts alleged at paragraphs 16-28
`
`above, Samsung has known of the ‘993 P