Case 6:20-cv-00779-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/25/20 Page 1 of 33
`
` IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 6:20-cv-779
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`AURIGA INNOVATIONS, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION, HP INC., and
`HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
`COMPANY,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff Auriga Innovations, Inc. (“Auriga” or “Plaintiff”) files this complaint for patent
`
`infringement against Defendants Intel Corporation (“Intel”), HP Inc. (“HPI”), and Hewlett Packard
`
`Enterprise Company (“HPE”) (collectively, “Defendants”) under 35 U.S.C. § 217 et seq. as a result
`
`of Defendants’ unauthorized use of Auriga’s patents and alleges as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Auriga is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of
`
`Delaware with its principal place of business at 1891 Robertson Road, Suite 100, Ottawa, ON K2H
`
`5B7 Canada.
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Intel is a Delaware corporation with a place of business
`
`at 2200 Mission College Boulevard, Santa Clara, California 95054.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, since April 1989, Intel has been registered to do business
`
`in the State of Texas under Texas Taxpayer Number 19416727436 and has places of business at
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00779-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/25/20 Page 2 of 33
`
`1300 S Mopac Expressway, Austin, Texas 78746; 6500 River Place Blvd, Bldg 7, Austin, Texas
`
`78730; and 5113 Southwest Parkway, Austin, Texas 78735 (collectively, “Intel Austin Offices”).
`
`https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/location/usa.html.
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, HPI is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of
`
`business at 1501 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304.
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, HPI formally registered to do business in the State of
`
`Texas under Texas SOS file Number 0012093906 in May 1998, and, since at least as early as 2016,
`
`HPI has had an established place of business in this judicial district with a physical office at 3800
`
`Quick Hill Rd. #100, Austin, TX 78728.
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, HPE is a corporation organized under the laws of the
`
`State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 6280 America Center Drive, San Jose,
`
`California, 95002.
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, HPE formally registered to do business in the State of
`
`Texas SOS file Number 0802175187 in March 2015 and has a place of business at 14231 Tandem
`
`Blvd, Austin, Texas 78728. https://www.hpe.com/us/en/contact-hpe.html#location.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United
`
`States Code. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a).
`
`9.
`
`Intel is subject to this Court’s specific and general personal jurisdiction, in
`
`accordance with due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute because, in part, Intel “[r]ecruits
`
`Texas residents, directly or through an intermediary located in this state, for employment inside or
`
`outside this state.” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 17.042.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00779-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/25/20 Page 3 of 33
`
`10.
`
`Additionally, this Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Intel because it
`
`committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in this judicial district in violation of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), and (g). In particular, Intel has made, used, offered to sell, and sold products
`
`and systems in this judicial district, including infringing microprocessors.
`
`11.
`
`In addition, and on information and belief, Intel is subject to the Court’s general
`
`jurisdiction because it regularly conducts and solicits business or otherwise engages in other
`
`persistent courses of conduct in this district, and/or because it derives substantial revenue from the
`
`sale and distribution of goods and services provided to individuals and businesses in this district.
`
`12.
`
`In sum, this Court has specific and general personal jurisdiction over Intel because,
`
`inter alia, Intel, on information and belief: (1) has substantial, continuous, and systematic contacts
`
`with this State and this judicial district; (2) owns, manages, and operates facilities in this State and
`
`this judicial district; (3) enjoys substantial income from sales in this State and this judicial district;
`
`(4) employs Texas residents in this State and this judicial district, and (5) markets products in this
`
`State and judicial district.
`
`13.
`
`Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) as to Defendant Intel.
`
`Intel is registered to do business in Texas, and upon information and belief, Defendant has transacted
`
`business in this district and has committed acts of direct and indirect infringement in this district by,
`
`among other things, making, using, offering to sell, and selling products that infringe the asserted
`
`patents. Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, including offices at
`
`1300 S MoPac Expressway, Austin, Texas 78746; 6500 River Place Blvd, Bldg 7, Austin, Texas
`
`78730;
`
`and
`
`5113
`
`Southwest
`
`Parkway,
`
`Austin,
`
`Texas
`
`78735.
`
`https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/location/usa.html.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00779-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/25/20 Page 4 of 33
`
`reads “Intel” as shown in the image below:
`
`14.
`
`Affixed to the exterior of the Intel Austin Offices is large and clear signage that
`
`
`
`
`
`15.
`
`On information and belief, Intel uses each of its Austin offices as a regular and
`
`established place of business because this is where numerous important employees work, including
`
`engineers who work on the Intel microprocessors accused of infringement in this action. Intel’s
`
`website describes that “Intel’s Austin facility is a research and development center for more than
`
`1700 employees who innovate at the boundaries of technology to make amazing experiences
`
`possible
`
`for
`
`business
`
`and
`
`society,
`
`and
`
`for
`
`every
`
`person
`
`on
`
`Earth.”
`
`https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/corporate-responsibility/intel-in-texas.html.
`
`16.
`
`Intel, directly and/or through its agents, advertises in this district and, through its
`
`website and other websites, offers to sell, sells, and/or distributes its products in this district and/or
`
`has induced the sale and use of its products in this district. This includes distribution to HPI and HPE
`
`as described below.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00779-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/25/20 Page 5 of 33
`
`17.
`
`HPI is subject to this Court’s specific and general personal jurisdiction, in
`
`accordance with due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute because, in part, HPI “recruits
`
`Texas residents, directly or through an intermediary located in this state, for employment inside or
`
`outside this state.” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 17.042; https://jobs.hp.com/en-
`
`us/showjob/jobid/1921/productsecurityengineer?prefilters=none&CloudSearchLocation=none&Cl
`
`oudSearchValue=none.
`
`18.
`
`Additionally, this Court has specific personal jurisdiction over HPI because it
`
`committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in this judicial district in violation of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(a) and (g). In particular, HPI has made, used, offered to sell, and sold products and
`
`systems in this judicial district, including infringing desktop and laptop computers incorporating
`
`infringing microprocessors from Defendant Intel.
`
`19.
`
`In addition, and on information and belief, HPI is subject to the Court’s general
`
`jurisdiction because it regularly conducts and solicits business or otherwise engages in other
`
`persistent courses of conduct in this district, and/or because it derives substantial revenue from the
`
`sale and distribution of goods and services provided to individuals and businesses in this district.
`
`20.
`
`In sum, this Court has specific and general personal jurisdiction over HPI because,
`
`inter alia, HPI, on information and belief: (1) has substantial, continuous, and systematic contacts
`
`with this State and this judicial district; (2) owns, manages, and operates facilities in this State and
`
`this judicial district; (3) enjoys substantial income from sales in this State and this judicial district;
`
`(4) employs Texas residents in this State and this judicial district, and (5) markets products in this
`
`State and judicial district.
`
`21.
`
`Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) as to Defendant HPI. HPI
`
`is registered to do business in Texas, and upon information and belief, Defendant has transacted
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00779-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/25/20 Page 6 of 33
`
`business in this district and has committed acts of direct and indirect infringement in this district by,
`
`among other things, making, using, offering to sell, selling, and importing products that infringe the
`
`asserted patents. Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, including
`
`offices at 3800 Quick Hill Road #100, Austin, Texas 78728. Affixed to the exterior of the Austin
`
`Office is large and clear signage that reads “HP” as shown in the image below:
`
`
`
`
`
`22.
`
`On information and belief, HPI uses its Austin office as a regular and established
`
`place of business because this is where numerous important employees work, including, but not
`
`limited to a Director of IT, a Director of Governmental Affairs, software and hardware engineers,
`
`and other engineers.
`
`23.
`
`Moreover, consumers in this district are able to purchase infringing laptop and
`
`desktop computers from HPI through its online website at https://store.hp.com/us/en. HPI, directly
`
`and/or through its agents, advertises in this district and, through its website and other websites, offers
`
`to sell, sells, and/or, distributes its products in this district and/or has induced the sale and use of its
`
`products in this district.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00779-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/25/20 Page 7 of 33
`
`24.
`
`In addition, upon information and belief, HPI, either directly or through its agents,
`
`distributes, markets, delivers and sells, among other products, infringing laptop and desktop
`
`computers within this judicial district through many stores in Waco, Austin, and San Antonio and
`
`the surrounding area, such as Best Buy, S.P. Richards Co., Staples Inc., and Fry’s Electronics.
`
`25.
`
`On information and belief, HPI derives substantial revenue from the sale of
`
`infringing laptop and desktop computers distributed to and within this district.
`
`26.
`
`On information and belief, HPI has previously litigated at least one patent
`
`infringement case before this court without contesting jurisdiction and venue. See Iron Oak
`
`Technologies, LLC v. HP Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-01068, W.D. Texas.
`
`27.
`
`HPE is subject to this Court’s specific and general personal jurisdiction, in
`
`accordance with due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute because, in part, HPE “recruits
`
`Texas residents, directly or through an intermediary located in this state, for employment inside or
`
`outside this state.” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 17.042; https://careers.hpe.com/job/Hewlett-
`
`Packard-Enterprise-Austin-Texas/112221816.
`
`28.
`
`Additionally, this Court has specific personal jurisdiction over HPE because it
`
`committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in this judicial district in violation of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(a) and (g). In particular, HPE has made, used, offered to sell, and sold products and
`
`systems in this judicial district, including infringing server computers incorporating infringing
`
`microprocessors from Defendant Intel.
`
`29.
`
`In addition, and on information and belief, HPE is subject to the Court’s general
`
`jurisdiction because it regularly conducts and solicits business or otherwise engages in other
`
`persistent courses of conduct in this district, and/or because it derives substantial revenue from the
`
`sale and distribution of goods and services provided to individuals and businesses in this district.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00779-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/25/20 Page 8 of 33
`
`30.
`
`In sum, this Court has specific and general personal jurisdiction over HPE because,
`
`inter alia, HPE, on information and belief: (1) has substantial, continuous, and systematic contacts
`
`with this State and this judicial district; (2) owns, manages, and operates facilities in this State and
`
`this judicial district; (3) enjoys substantial income from sales in this State and this judicial district;
`
`(4) employs Texas residents in this State and this judicial district, and (5) markets products in this
`
`State and judicial district.
`
`31.
`
`Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) as to Defendant HPE.
`
`HPE is registered to do business in Texas, and upon information and belief, Defendant has transacted
`
`business in this district and has committed acts of direct and indirect infringement in this district by,
`
`among other things, making, using, offering to sell, selling, and importing products that infringe the
`
`asserted patents. Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district, including
`
`offices at 14231 Tandem Blvd, Austin, Texas 78728. At the entrance of the Austin Office is a clear
`
`signage that reads “Hewlett Packard Enterprise” as shown in the image below:
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00779-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/25/20 Page 9 of 33
`
`
`
`32.
`
`On information and belief, HPE uses its Austin office as a regular and established
`
`place of business because this is where numerous important employees work, including, but not
`
`limited to a Director & Associate General Counsel, VP and GM Data Center Networking, software
`
`and hardware engineers, and other engineers.
`
`33.
`
`Moreover, consumers in this district are able to purchase infringing server
`
`computers from HPE through its online website at https://buy.hpe.com/us/en/. HPE, directly and/or
`
`through its agents, advertises in this district and, through its website and other websites, offers to
`
`sell, sells, and/or distributes its products in this district and/or has induced the sale and use of its
`
`products in this district.
`
`34.
`
`On information and belief, HPE derives substantial revenue from the sale of
`
`infringing server computers distributed to and within this district.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00779-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/25/20 Page 10 of 33
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`35.
`
`Auriga is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,888,736 (the “736 Patent”), entitled
`
`“MUGFET with Optimized Fill Structures,” which issued February 15, 2011. A copy of the 736
`
`Patent is attached to this complaint as Exhibit 1.
`
`36.
`
`Auriga is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,763,932 (the “932 Patent), entitled “Multi-
`
`Bit High-Density Memory Device and Architecture and Method of Fabricating Multi-Bit High-
`
`Density Memory Devices,” which issued on July 27, 2010. A copy of the 932 Patent is attached to
`
`this complaint as Exhibit 2.
`
`37.
`
`Auriga is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,000,537 (the “537 Patent”), entitled
`
`“FinFET Devices Having Recessed Liner Materials to Define Different Fin Heights,” which issued
`
`on April 7, 2015. A copy of the 537 Patent is attached to this complaint as Exhibit 3.
`
`38.
`
`Auriga is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,957,479 (the “479 Patent”), entitled
`
`“Formation of Multi-Height MugFET,” which issued on February 17, 2015. A copy of the 479 Patent
`
`is attached to this complaint as Exhibit 4.
`
`39.
`
`Auriga is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,234,594 (the “594 Patent”), entitled
`
`“Redundant Micro-Loop Structure for Use in an Integrated Circuit Physical Design Process and
`
`Method of Forming the Same,” which issued on July 31, 2012. A copy of the 594 Patent is attached
`
`to this complaint as Exhibit 5.
`
`40.
`
`Auriga is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,901,738 (the “738 Patent”), entitled
`
`“Method of Manufacturing an Enhanced Electromigration Performance Hetero-Junction Bipolar
`
`Transistor,” which issued on December 2, 2014. A copy of the 738 Patent is attached to this
`
`complaint as Exhibit 6.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00779-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/25/20 Page 11 of 33
`
`41.
`
`Auriga is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,362,229 (the “229 Patent”), entitled
`
`“Semiconductor Devices with Enhanced Electromigration Performance,” which issued on June 7,
`
`2016. A copy of the 229 Patent is attached to this complaint as Exhibit 7.
`
`42.
`
`Auriga is the assignee and owner of all right, title and interest to the 736, 932, 537,
`
`479, 594, 738, and 229 Patents. Auriga has the legal right to enforce these patents, sue for
`
`infringement, and seek equitable relief and damages.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`43.
`
`To meet the demand for ever-more-powerful microprocessor devices with lower
`
`power requirements, engineers have long sought to increase the number of transistors—the basic
`
`building block of computing devices—that can be packed into the same area, typically by shrinking
`
`the size of their components and reducing the distance between them. In accordance with the well-
`
`known “Moore’s Law,” which predicts that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit
`
`will double about every two years, the size of these structures has continued to shrink dramatically.
`
`As an example, today’s Intel microprocessors can include more than 100 million transistors in each
`
`square millimeter of chip, up from approximately 3 million per square millimeter in 2007.
`
`https://newsroom.intel.com/newsroom/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2017/03/Kaizad-Mistry-2017-
`
`Manufacturing.pdf.
`
`44.
`
`To create ever-denser chips with smaller components, semiconductor
`
`manufacturers have moved rapidly from one semiconductor fabrication process technology, or
`
`microarchitecture, to another. These microarchitectures are typically named for characteristic sizes
`
`or distances between structures on a chip. Most Intel microprocessors are currently fabricated at
`
`what Intel characterizes as a 14 nanometer (“14nm”) microarchitecture. From 2000, preceding Intel
`
`microarchitectures included 180nm, 130nm, 90nm, 65nm, 45nm, and 22nm.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00779-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/25/20 Page 12 of 33
`
`45.
`
`Keeping up with Moore’s law creates significant engineering problems. As the size
`
`of semiconductor components shrinks and density increases, the difficulty in fabrication of
`
`semiconductor products significantly increases and numerous significant operational problems for
`
`the resultant semiconductor devices are introduced, such as parasitic resistances and capacitances,
`
`heat issues, interconnect delays as electrical resistance increases as wires shrink, and “short-channel
`
`effects,” which occur when the length of the channel becomes comparable to the depletion layer
`
`widths of the source and drain junctions.
`
`46.
`
`One response to these issues has been an industry-wide movement away from so-
`
`called planar architectures, in which the gate of a metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor
`
`(MOSFET) sits atop a conductive channel, to a three-dimensional or “multigate” architecture, in
`
`which the gate is placed on multiple sides of the channel and controls the channel current at each
`
`such side to perform switching. These latter devices are typically referred to as FinFETs because the
`
`conducting channel forms characteristic fins on the silicon surface that are in contact with the gate
`
`on three sides. FinFET devices have significantly faster switching times and offer higher current
`
`density than planar technology.
`
`47.
`
`The 736 Patent is directed to an efficient architecture for a FinFET integrated circuit
`
`device that solves problems inherent in the fabrication of nano-scale devices. The 736 Patent notes
`
`that “[u]niformity is becoming more and more critical as lithography is severely challenged” by
`
`increasing density, resulting in “local non-uniformities” in the resulting semiconductor structure.
`
`736 Patent, 1:12-15. The 736 Patent addresses these issues through an innovative structure that
`
`includes on the semiconductor surface active FinFET structures and inactive FinFET fill structures
`
`between the active structures, in which the gates of the active and inactive structures are parallel and
`
`have the same pitch.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00779-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/25/20 Page 13 of 33
`
`48.
`
`The 932 Patent is directed to a memory structure that helps prevent “pattern-
`
`mismatch” during semiconductor processing to allow for increased density of memory devices. The
`
`932 Patent explains that “pattern-mismatch” occurs “when normal photolithographic groundrule and
`
`sub-photolithographic groundrule structures are used in the same structure” and “can cause yield
`
`loss and imperfect connections.” 932 Patent, 1:22-26. The 932 Patent addresses pattern-mismatch
`
`by an innovative structure that has groups of staggered nano-fins, where each group of nano-fins
`
`have a common contact, the contacts being on different sides of the staggered groups of nano-fins,
`
`and each group of nano-fins have at least two gates to electrically control the conductance of the
`
`nano-fins.
`
`49.
`
`The 537 Patent generally relates to FinFET devices having different fin heights
`
`defined by trenches having liner material with different thicknesses. The 537 Patent teaches
`
`incorporating differences in recessing of liner materials to create differences in fin height to provide
`
`greater flexibility in FinFET design which may contribute to the goals of “increased performance
`
`and lower production cost.” See 537 Patent at 2:56-3:5.
`
`50.
`
`The 479 Patent generally relates to FinFET devices having rectangular fins of
`
`different heights and a certain structure of trenches and gates that are part of the FinFET device. The
`
`particular structures disclosed in the 479 Patent are inventions in which “different shapes and
`
`surfaces are utilized to increase density.” See 479 Patent at 1:13-17.
`
`51.
`
`Another response to the issues created by following Moore’s Law is fabricating
`
`structures to allow for greater accuracy and reliability. The 594 Patent generally relates to a
`
`redundant micro-loop structure for use in an integrated circuit physical design process and method
`
`of forming the same. The 594 Patent discloses structures in which redundant vias are used “in an
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00779-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/25/20 Page 14 of 33
`
`integrated circuit physical design process, in order to reduce the complexity of the manufacturing
`
`process, maintain high wiring density, and maximize manufacturing yield.” See id. at 1:33-37.
`
`52.
`
`Furthermore, electromigration (EM)—referring to a certain type of unwanted
`
`movement of materials in a semiconductor device—decreases the reliability of an integrated circuit,
`
`including possible loss of connections or failure of the circuit. See 738 Patent at 1:14-45. EM effects
`
`become more pronounced with smaller integrated circuits where metal line widths are small and the
`
`current is high. See generally id. at 1:24-26, 1:33-43. The 738 Patent relates generally to reducing
`
`EM issues in a semiconductor device through use of a staple structure, where a staple structure in its
`
`most simple form is a conductive bar connecting two or more vias on a metal line in electrical contact
`
`with the device, such that current passing through the metal line will also pass through the vias and
`
`the conductive bar. The 738 Patent is directed to methods for forming a staple structure in a
`
`semiconductor device.
`
`53.
`
`The 229 Patent relates generally to reducing electromigration (EM) issues in a
`
`semiconductor device through use of a staple structure, as described above in paragraph 52 in
`
`relation to the 738 Patent. The 229 Patent is directed to the staple structure in a semiconductor device.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ACTS OF INFRINGEMENT
`
`54.
`
`Intel has made, used, sold, and offered for sale and continues to make, use, sell, and
`
`offer to sell in the United States microprocessor products fabricated at a 14++ nm or smaller
`
`microarchitecture which incorporate FinFET (called Tri-Gate by Intel) technology that infringe at
`
`least one claim of each of the Asserted Patents. Infringing Intel microprocessors fabricated at the
`
`14++ nm microarchitecture node include (by way of example only) microprocessors in the Coffee
`
`Lake, Whiskey Lake, Amber Lake, and Comet Lake families, which further include (by way of
`
`example only) processor models 8300H (Coffee Lake), 8665U (Whiskey Lake), 8510Y (Amber
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00779-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/25/20 Page 15 of 33
`
`Lake), and 10710U (Comet Lake). Infringing Intel microprocessors fabricated at the 10nm process
`
`node include (by way of example only) microprocessors in the Cannon Lake and Ice Lake families,
`
`which further include (by way of example only) processor models 8121U (Cannon Lake) and
`
`1065G7 (Ice Lake). Collectively, the Intel microprocessor products fabricated at a 14++ nm or
`
`smaller microarchitecture are referred to as the Intel Accused Products.
`
`55.
`
`Defendant HPI has made, used, sold, and offered for sale and continues to make,
`
`use, sell, and offer to sell in the United States products that infringe at least one claim of each
`
`Asserted Patent because they incorporate the Intel Accused Products, including laptops, notebooks,
`
`desktops, and all-in-one PCs. Infringing HPI laptop and notebook products include (by way of
`
`example only) HPI Pavilion, Spectre, Envy, Elite, Omen, and Elitebook laptops, including (by way
`
`of example only) the following models: Spectre x360 (now incorporating Intel Core i7 1065G7 “Ice
`
`Lake” microprocessor), Pavilion 15t (now incorporating Intel Core i7 1065G7 “Ice Lake”
`
`microprocessor), Envy x 360 (now incorporating Intel Core i7 10510U “Comet Lake”
`
`microprocessor), Omen 17t (now incorporating Intel Core i5 10300H “Comet Lake microprocessor),
`
`and EliteBook 850 G6 (now incorporating Intel Core i7 10510U “Comet Lake” microprocessor).
`
`Infringing HPI desktop and all-in-one PC products include (by way of example only) the Envy,
`
`Omen, EliteDesk, Pavilion, Prodesk and Z Workstation families, including (by way of example only)
`
`the following models: Envy All-In-One 32-a0035 (now incorporating Intel Core i5 9400 “Coffee
`
`Lake” microprocessor), Omen Obelisk Desktop 875-1055XT (now incorporating Intel Core i7
`
`9700K “Coffee Lake” microprocessor), EliteDesk 800 G5 (now incorporating Intel Core i7 9700
`
`“Coffee Lake” microprocessor), Pavilion TG01-0160xt (now incorporating Intel Core i7 9700
`
`“Coffee Lake” microprocessor), and Prodesk 600 G5 Desktop Mini PC (now incorporating Intel
`
`Core i7 9700T “Coffee Lake” microprocessor). Collectively, these products, which infringe at least
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00779-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/25/20 Page 16 of 33
`
`one claim of each Asserted Patent because they incorporate an Intel Accused Product, are referred
`
`to as the HPI Accused Products.
`
`56.
`
`Defendant HPE has made, used, sold, and offered for sale and continues to make,
`
`use, sell, and offer to sell in the United States products that infringe at least one claim of each
`
`Asserted Patent because such products incorporate the Intel Accused Products, including server
`
`computers. Infringing HPE server products include (by way of example only) ProLiant Servers
`
`including (by way of example only) the following models: ProLiant DL20 Gen10 Server (now
`
`incorporating Intel Xeon E-2224 “Coffee Lake” microprocessor), ProLiant ML30 Gen10 Server
`
`(now incorporating Intel Xeon E-2224 “Coffee Lake” microprocessor), and ProLiant MicroServer
`
`Gen 10 Plus (now incorporating Intel Xeon E-2224 “Coffee Lake” microprocessor). Collectively,
`
`these products, which infringe at least one claim of each Asserted Patent because they incorporate
`
`an Intel Accused Product, are referred to as the HPE Accused Products.
`
`57.
`
`Collectively, the Intel Accused Products, HPI Accused Products, and HPE Accused
`
`Products are referred to as the Accused Products. Further discovery may reveal additional infringing
`
`Accused Products.
`
`58.
`
`Defendants’ acts of infringement have damaged Plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to
`
`recover from Defendants the damages Plaintiff incurred and is continuing to incur as a result of
`
`Defendants’ wrongful acts.
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`COUNT ONE: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,888,736
`
`59.
`
`Auriga incorporates by reference each of the allegations in the paragraphs above
`
`and further alleges as follows:
`
`60.
`
`Defendants have directly infringed (literally and equivalently) at least one claim of
`
`the 736 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by making, using, offering to sell, and selling the Accused
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00779-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/25/20 Page 17 of 33
`
`Products. Defendants have infringed claims of the 736 Patent, including independent Claims 1 and
`
`2.
`
`61.
`
`Intel directly infringes the 736 Patent. By way of example only, a representative
`
`Intel Accused Product, the Intel 14nm++ i5-8400 Coffee Lake BX80684I58400 Processor, infringes
`
`an exemplary claim of the 736 Patent, as in the description set forth in the claim chart attached hereto
`
`as Exhibit 8, which Auriga provides without the benefit of information about the accused device
`
`obtained through discovery.
`
`62.
`
`HPI directly infringes the 736 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and selling
`
`HPI Accused Products that incorporate the Intel Accused Products. By way of example only, a
`
`representative HPI Accused Product, the ZBook 15v G5 Mobile Workstation, incorporates an Intel
`
`14nm++ i5-9300H Coffee Lake Processor. Accordingly, HPI Accused Products infringe the 736
`
`Patent in the same way as the Intel Accused Products, as described in Exhibit 8.
`
`63.
`
`HPE directly infringes the 736 Patent by making, using, offering to sell, and selling
`
`HPE Accused Products that incorporate the Intel Accused Products. By way of example only, a
`
`representative HPE Accused Product, the ProLiant DL20 Gen 10 Server incorporates an Intel
`
`14nm++ Xeon E-2224 Coffee Lake Processor. Accordingly, HPE Accused Products infringe the 736
`
`Patent in the same way as the Intel Accused Products, as described in Exhibit 8.
`
`64.
`
`On information and belief, Intel has actively induced and continues to actively
`
`induce infringement of one or more claims of the 736 Patent, including but not limited to Claims 1
`
`and 2, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Such inducement includes without limitation, with specific
`
`intent to encourage the infringement, knowingly inducing third parties such as OEMs, including
`
`Defendants HPI and HPE, to incorporate the Intel Accused Products into desktop, laptop, and server
`
`computers, such as the HPI and HPE Accused Products. Intel advertises and encourages, through
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00779-ADA Document 1 Filed 08/25/20 Page 18 of 33
`
`marketing and sales efforts, these entities to incorporate its infringing microprocessors in their
`
`products. For example, Intel’s website states “Intel designs advanced, high-performance processors
`
`for every usage, including enterprise-scale servers, IoT devices, laptops, desktops, workstations, and
`
`mobile devices. Find
`
`the
`
`technology you need here.” https://www.intel.com/content/
`
`www/us/en/products/processors.html;
`
`see
`
`also,
`
`e.g.,
`
`https://www.intel.com/content/
`
`www/us/en/products/docs/processors/core/10th-gen-processors.html;
`
`https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/benchmarks/intel-data-center-performance.html.
`
`Intel
`
`also encourages third parties to incorporate its infringing microprocessors by designing and
`
`packaging Intel’s microprocessor products to be easily integrated into third party desktop, laptop,
`
`and server computers, including by adopting standard packaging and socket types that will accept
`
`the Accused
`
`Intel
`
`Products.
`
`See,
`
`e.g.
`
`https://www.intel.sg/content/www/xa/en/
`
`support/articles/000055173/processors.html?wapkw=socket%20information;
`
`https://www.intel.sg/content/www/xa/en/support/articles/000005670/processors.html.
`
`65.
`
`Intel has actual knowledge of the 736 Patent since at least the service upon Intel of
`
`this Complaint. By the time of trial, Intel will have known and intended (since receiving such notice)
`
`that its continued actions would infringe and actively induce and contribute to the infringement of
`
`one or more claims of the 736 Patent.
`
`66.
`
`As a result of Intel’s marketing, advertising, instruction, and sales, other entities,
`
`including HPI and HPE, incorporate the infringing microprocessor