Positive Technologies Inc. v. Sony Electronics Inc et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against Acer America Corporation, Amazon.com Inc., Apple Inc, Asus Computer International, Barnes & Noble, Inc., Dell Inc., Gateway Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, Kobo Inc., Lenovo (United States) Inc., MSI Computer Corporation, Sony Electronics Inc, ViewSonic Corporation ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0540-2585433.), filed by Positive Technologies Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C)(Bunt, Robert)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION

POSITIVE TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
SONY ELECTRONICS, INC., APPLE,
INC., HEWLETT-PACKARD
COMPANY, ACER AMERICA
CORPORATION, GATEWAY, INC.,
DELL INC., ASUS COMPUTER
INTERNATIONAL, LENOVO
(UNITED STATES) INC., MSI
COMPUTER CORPORATION,
AMAZON.COM, INC., BARNES &
NOBLE, INC., VIEWSONIC
CORPORATION, AND KOBO INC.
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:10-cv-263
§
§
§
§
§
§
§ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Positive Technologies Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Positive Technologies”), by and
through its undersigned counsel, files this Original Complaint against Defendants Sony
Electronics, Inc., Apple, Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, Acer America Corporation, Gateway,
Inc., Dell Inc., Asus Computer International, Lenovo (United States) Inc., MSI Computer
Corporation, Amazon.com, Inc., Barnes & Noble, Inc., ViewSonic Corporation, and Kobo Inc.
(collectively, “Defendants”) as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.

This lawsuit pertains to the Defendants’ infringement of each of the following

U.S. patents: (1) U.S. Patent No. 5,444,457, titled “DC Integrating Display Driver Employing

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 1

Pixel Status Memories” (the “‘457 Patent”); (2) U.S. Patent No. 5,627,558, titled “DC Interating
[sic] Display Driver Employing Pixel Status Memories” (the “‘558 Patent”); and (3) U.S. Patent
No. 5,831,588, titled “DC Integrating Display Driver Employing Pixel Status Memories” (the
“‘588 Patent”). Copies of the ‘457, ‘558, and ‘588 Patents are attached hereto as Exhibits “A”
through “C,” respectively. All of the patents asserted in this lawsuit are referred to collectively
as the “Patents.”
PARTIES
2.

Plaintiff Positive Technologies is a corporation organized under the laws of

California. Positive Technologies is the assignee of all rights, title, and interest in and to the
Patents and possesses all rights of recovery under the Patents.
3.

Defendant Sony Electronics, Inc. (“Sony”) is a corporation organized under the

laws of Delaware, having its principal place of business in San Diego, California. Sony is
registered to do business as a foreign corporation in Texas and is doing business in this judicial
district, in Texas and elsewhere throughout the United States.

Sony’s foreign corporation

registration lists Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC - Lawyers Incorporating Service
Company, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701-3218, as its registered agent for
service of process.
4.

Defendant Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) is a corporation organized under the laws of

California, having its principal place of business in Cupertino, California. Apple is registered to
do business as a foreign corporation in Texas and is doing business in this judicial district, in
Texas and elsewhere throughout the United States. Apple’s foreign corporation registration lists
CT Corporation System, 350 N. St. Paul St., Ste. 2900, Dallas, TX 75201-4234, as its registered
agent for service of process.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 2

5.

Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP”) is a corporation organized under

the laws of Delaware, having its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California. HP is
registered to do business as a foreign corporation in Texas and is doing business in this judicial
district, in Texas and elsewhere throughout the United States. HP’s foreign corporation
registration lists CT Corporation System, 350 N. St. Paul St., Ste. 2900, Dallas, TX 75201-4234,
as its registered agent for service of process.
6.

Defendant Acer America Corporation (“Acer”) is a corporation organized under

the laws of California, having its principal place of business in San Jose, California. Acer is
registered to do business as a foreign corporation in Texas and is doing business in this judicial
district, in Texas and elsewhere throughout the United States.

Acer’s foreign corporation

registration lists CT Corporation System, 350 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas
75201-4234, as its registered agent for service of process.
7.

Defendant Gateway, Inc. (“Gateway”) is a corporation organized under the laws

of California, having its principal place of business in Irvine, California. Gateway does business
in Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas. Gateway may be served via its registered agent for
service of process: The Corporation Trust Company, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington Delaware
19801.
8.

Defendant Dell Inc. (“Dell”) is a corporation organized under the laws of

Delaware, having its principal place of business in Round Rock, Texas. Dell is registered to do
business as a foreign corporation in Texas and is doing business in this judicial district, in Texas
and elsewhere throughout the United States.

Dell’s foreign corporation registration lists

Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC - Lawyers Incorporating Service Company, 211 E. 7th
Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701-3218, as its registered agent for service of process.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 3

9.

Defendant Asus Computer International (“Asus”) is a corporation organized

under the laws of California, having its principal place of business in Fremont, California. Asus
is registered to do business as a foreign corporation in Texas and is doing business in this judicial
district, in Texas and elsewhere throughout the United States.

Asus’ foreign corporation

registration lists Kathrin Esposito, 13 N. Star Road, Allen, TX 75002, as its registered agent for
service of process.
10.

Defendant Lenovo (United States) Inc. (“Lenovo”) is a corporation organized

under the laws of Delaware, having its principal place of business in Morrisville, North Carolina.
Lenovo is registered to do business as a foreign corporation in Texas and is doing business in
this judicial district, in Texas and elsewhere throughout the United States. Lenovo’s foreign
corporation registration lists CT Corporation System, 350 N. St. Paul St., Ste. 2900, Dallas, TX
75201-4234, as its registered agent for service of process.
11.

Defendant MSI Computer Corporation (“MSI”) is a corporation organized under

the laws of California, having its principal place of business in City of Industry, California. MSI
does business in Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas. MSI may be served via its registered
agent for service of process: Connie Yu Chuan Wang, 901 Canada Court, City of Industry,
California 91748.
12.

Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”) is a corporation organized under the

laws of Delaware, having its principal place of business in Seattle, Washington. Amazon does
business in Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas. Amazon may be served via its registered
agent for service of process: Corporation Service Company, 300 Deschutes Way SW, Suite 304,
Tumwater, Washington 98501.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 4

13.

Defendant Barnes & Noble, Inc. (“Barnes & Noble”) is a corporation organized

under the laws of Delaware, having its principal place of business in New York City, New York.
Barnes & Noble is registered to do business as a foreign corporation in Texas and is doing
business in this judicial district, in Texas and elsewhere throughout the United States. Barnes &
Noble’s foreign corporation registration lists Capitol Corporate Services, Inc., 800 Brazos Street,
Suite 400, Austin, Texas 78701, as its registered agent for service of process.
14.

Defendant ViewSonic Corporation (“ViewSonic”) is a corporation organized

under the laws of Delaware, having its principal place of business in Walnut, California.
ViewSonic is registered to do business as a foreign corporation in Texas and is doing business in
this judicial district, in Texas and elsewhere throughout the United States. ViewSonic’s foreign
corporation registration lists CT Corporation System, 350 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 2900, Dallas,
Texas 75201-4234, as its registered agent for service of process.
15.

Defendant Kobo Inc. (“Kobo”) is a corporation organized under the laws of

Delaware, having its principal place of business in Toronto, Ontario. Kobo does business in
Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas. Kobo may be served via its registered agent for
service of process: The Corporation Trust Company, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington Delaware
19801.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16.

This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et

seq., including 35 U.S.C. § 271. This Court has original and exclusive subject matter jurisdiction
over this case for patent infringement under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
17.

The Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant. Each Defendant has

conducted and does conduct business within the State of Texas. Each Defendant, directly and/or

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 5

through intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), offers for sale, sells,
advertises, and/or uses its products and services (including the products accused of infringement
in this lawsuit) in the United States, the State of Texas, and the Eastern District of Texas. Each
Defendant, directly and/or through intermediaries, has committed patent infringement within the
State of Texas, and, more particularly, within the Eastern District of Texas. Each Defendant,
directly and/or through intermediaries, owns or has owned property located in Texas and the
Eastern District of Texas, including the property that it has used to commit patent infringement
as well as substantial additional property. Moreover, each Defendant is subject to general
jurisdiction in this Court.
18.

Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391 and

1400(b).
19.

The patents-in-suit were previously the subject of claims before this Court in the

following actions: Positive Technologies v. BenQ America, et al., Civil Action No. 2:06-cv-22TJW, and Positive Technologies v. BenQ America, et al., Civil Action No. 2:07-cv-67. In the
latter case, the Court held a Markman hearing, issued a claim construction order, and ruled on
dispositive motions that were filed by the Defendants in that action. This Court is a proper venue
and the most convenient venue in this case because, inter alia, it is in the interest of judicial
economy for the same Court to oversee litigation of the patents-in-suit with which the Court is
already familiar.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
20.

Positive Technologies’ founder and principal owner, Robert Hotto, is the named

inventor on 31 United States patents and several pending United States patent applications. Mr.
Hotto is a prolific inventor whose creative, patented inventions span a diverse range of

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 6

technological fields, including hybrid automotive systems, locking mechanisms, single use
emergency batteries, morphable real-time propellers, firearms, methods of display drive control,
and the first personal digital assistant (PDA).

Through its founder, Positive Technologies

pioneered the development of several innovative technologies in the field of adaptive displays
used in LCD display fields which enabled LCD displays to exhibit the response times necessary
to be commercially viable for use as modern display panel technology in a variety of different
products sold to consumers.
21.

Mr. Hotto has spent the majority of his adult life as an innovator, filing his first

patent application at the age of just 22. A year later, he filed an application for his co-invention
of what is now known as a PDA. Mr. Hotto’s desire to solve the problems and shortcomings
with devices that consumers use every day has led him to create and design innovations that are
embodied in a portfolio of patents. Mr. Hotto’s patents, other than the patents-in-suit, have been
licensed by a number of sizable companies, including AT&T, Apple, and Toshiba.
22.

Mr. Hotto has worked as a consultant in various fields during his career, two of

which were matrix displays and real-time controls.

His consulting work led to his first

introduction to LCD technology in 1977, while working to create a new type of printer, the liquid
crystal printer.

His immediate observation of the technology was the effect that the slow

response times inherent in LCD displays had on the viewing experience. Mr. Hotto remained
interested in LCD technology after that initial exposure, but remained cognizant of its
disadvantages. In 1980, Mr. Hotto transitioned his consulting practice away from working with
display technology as he moved toward consulting in the real-time control industry, where he
focused primarily on optimizing motor control signals.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 7

23.

Even after changing his industry focus, however, Mr. Hotto remained interested in

LCD display technology. In 1987, he set out to discover whether the response time problems
that existed in the late 1970’s had been solved. To his surprise, LCD panels remained plagued
by inadequate response times. Based on his research and familiarity with the principles that he
was using to optimize control systems, Mr. Hotto was convinced that the principles used to
optimize real-time motor controls could also used to improve the response times in LCD
displays.
24.

Not long thereafter, Mr. Hotto began experimenting with LCD display drive

controllers to address and substantially improve the slow response time problem that was
inherent in all LCD displays. In 1989, Mr. Hotto conceived of the invention embodied in the
patents-in-suit, and on May 24, 1991, he filed the patent application that later issued as U.S.
Patent No. 5,280,280, the parent patent of the ‘457, ‘558, and ‘588 Patents.
25.

Through his consulting firm, Positive Technologies, Mr. Hotto worked to

commercialize the invention embodied in the patents-in-suit. Recognizing the value and unique
character of Mr. Hotto’s invention, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), currently
known as DARPA, awarded a grant of approximately $650,000 to Positive Technologies to
further its continuing research, and to also develop and commercialize drive controllers
practicing the invention. Positive Technologies presented the technology to several corporations
through trade shows, personal meetings, demonstrations and formal proposals. While many of
these companies explicitly recognized the advantages of the invention, they declined to license
the patents-in-suit. Despite the marked improvements that Positive Technologies patents brought
to the LCD display industry, cost factors associated with the marketing and promotion of the new

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 8

LCD products precluded Positive Technologies from continuing with its efforts to commercialize
the invention.
26.

Nevertheless, the significant contributions that Positive Technologies’ intellectual

property has made to display technology have been recognized by the LCD and Plasma display
industries. To date, multiple third parties have licensed Positive Technologies’ display drive
control intellectual property.

Positive Technologies’ licensees make up a substantial share of

the United States flat panel television display market and include LG Electronics, Samsung,
Toshiba, Sharp, Vizio, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, Philips, Pioneer, BenQ, and NEC.
COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT 5,444,457
27.

Positive Technologies refers to and incorporates herein the allegations of

Paragraphs 1 – 26 above.
28.

The ‘457 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and

Trademark Office on August 22, 1995, after full and fair examination. Positive Technologies is
the assignee of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ‘457 Patent and possesses all rights of
recovery under the ‘457 Patent.
29.

Sony has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘457

Patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of
35 U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several
types of consumer electronics, including but not limited to laptop computers, desktop computers,
all-in-one computers, and e-readers incorporating an LCD or electrophoretic display panel
utilizing display acceleration techniques claimed in the ‘457 Patent.
30.

Apple has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘457

Patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 9

35 U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several
types of consumer electronics, including but not limited to laptop computers, desktop computers,
and all-in-one computers incorporating an LCD display panel utilizing display acceleration
techniques claimed in the ‘457 Patent.
31.

Acer has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘457 Patent

either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of 35
U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several types of
consumer electronics, including but not limited to monitors, laptop computers, desktop
computers, and all-in-one computers incorporating an LCD display panel utilizing display
acceleration techniques claimed in the ‘457 Patent.
32.

Gateway has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘457

Patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of
35 U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several
types of consumer electronics, including but not limited to laptop computers, desktop computers,
and all-in-one computers incorporating an LCD display panel utilizing display acceleration
techniques claimed in the ‘457 Patent.
33.

Asus has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘457

Patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of
35 U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several
types of consumer electronics, including but not limited to laptop computers, desktop computers,
and all-in-one computers incorporating an LCD display panel utilizing display acceleration
techniques claimed in the ‘457 Patent.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 10

34.

HP has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘457 Patent

either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of 35
U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several types of
consumer electronics, including but not limited to monitors, laptop computers, desktop
computers, and all-in-one computers incorporating an LCD display panel utilizing display
acceleration techniques claimed in the ‘457 Patent.
35.

Dell has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘457 Patent

either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of 35
U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several types of
consumer electronics, including but not limited to monitors, laptop computers, desktop
computers, and all-in-one computers incorporating an LCD display panel utilizing display
acceleration techniques claimed in the ‘457 Patent.
36.

Lenovo has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘457

Patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of
35 U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several
types of consumer electronics, including but not limited to laptop computers, desktop computers,
and all-in-one computers incorporating an LCD display panel utilizing display acceleration
techniques claimed in the ‘457 Patent.
37.

MSI has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘457 Patent

either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of 35
U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several types of
consumer electronics, including but not limited to laptop computers, desktop computers, and all-

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 11

in-one computers incorporating an LCD display panel utilizing display acceleration techniques
claimed in the ‘457 Patent.
38.

Amazon has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘457

Patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of
35 U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several
types of consumer electronics, including but not limited to e-readers incorporating an
electrophoretic display panel utilizing display acceleration techniques claimed in the ‘457 Patent.
39.

Barnes & Noble has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the

‘457 Patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in
violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing
several types of consumer electronics, including but not limited to e-readers incorporating an
electrophoretic display panel utilizing display acceleration techniques claimed in the ‘457 Patent.
40.

ViewSonic has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘457

Patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of
35 U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several
types of consumer electronics, including but not limited to LCD monitors utilizing display
acceleration techniques claimed in the ‘457 Patent.
41.

Kobo has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘457

Patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of
35 U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several
types of consumer electronics, including but not limited to e-readers incorporating an
electrophoretic display panel utilizing display acceleration techniques claimed in the ‘457 Patent.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 12

42.

Positive Technologies is entitled to recover from each Defendant the damages

sustained by Positive Technologies as a result of each Defendant’s wrongful acts in an amount
subject to proof at trial.
43.

Upon information and belief, Sony’s infringement of the ‘457 Patent (and

possibly the infringement of other Defendants) has been willful and deliberate, entitling Positive
Technologies to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorneys’ fees and costs
incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
44.

Each Defendant’s infringement of Positive Technologies’ exclusive rights under

the ‘457 Patent will continue to damage Positive Technologies’ business, causing irreparable
harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless it is enjoined by this Court.
COUNT II – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT 5,627,558
45.

Positive Technologies refers to and incorporates herein the allegations of

Paragraphs 1 – 44 above.
46.

The ‘558 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and

Trademark Office on May 6, 1997, after full and fair examination. Positive Technologies is the
assignee of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ‘558 Patent and possesses all rights of
recovery under the ‘558 Patent.
47.

Sony has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘558

Patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of
35 U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several
types of consumer electronics, including but not limited to laptop computers, desktop computers,
all-in-one computers, and e-readers incorporating an LCD or electrophoretic display panel
utilizing display acceleration techniques claimed in the ‘558 Patent.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 13

48.

Apple has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘558

Patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of
35 U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several
types of consumer electronics, including but not limited to laptop computers, desktop computers,
and all-in-one computers incorporating an LCD display panel utilizing display acceleration
techniques claimed in the ‘558 Patent.
49.

Acer has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘558 Patent

either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of 35
U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several types of
consumer electronics, including but not limited to monitors, laptop computers, desktop
computers, and all-in-one computers incorporating an LCD display panel utilizing display
acceleration techniques claimed in the ‘558 Patent.
50.

Gateway has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘558

Patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of
35 U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several
types of consumer electronics, including but not limited to laptop computers, desktop computers,
and all-in-one computers incorporating an LCD display panel utilizing display acceleration
techniques claimed in the ‘558 Patent.
51.

Asus has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘558

Patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of
35 U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several
types of consumer electronics, including but not limited to laptop computers, desktop computers,

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 14

and all-in-one computers incorporating an LCD display panel utilizing display acceleration
techniques claimed in the ‘558 Patent.
52.

HP has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘558 Patent

either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of 35
U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several types of
consumer electronics, including but not limited to monitors, laptop computers, desktop
computers, and all-in-one computers incorporating an LCD display panel utilizing display
acceleration techniques claimed in the ‘558 Patent.
53.

Dell has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘558 Patent

either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of 35
U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several types of
consumer electronics, including but not limited to monitors, laptop computers, desktop
computers, and all-in-one computers incorporating an LCD display panel utilizing display
acceleration techniques claimed in the ‘558 Patent.
54.

Lenovo has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘558

Patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of
35 U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several
types of consumer electronics, including but not limited to laptop computers, desktop computers,
and all-in-one computers incorporating an LCD display panel utilizing display acceleration
techniques claimed in the ‘558 Patent.
55.

MSI has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘558 Patent

either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of 35
U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several types of

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 15

consumer electronics, including but not limited to laptop computers, desktop computers, and allin-one computers incorporating an LCD display panel utilizing display acceleration techniques
claimed in the ‘558 Patent.
56.

Amazon has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘558

Patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of
35 U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several
types of consumer electronics, including but not limited to e-readers incorporating an
electrophoretic display panel utilizing display acceleration techniques claimed in the ‘558 Patent.
57.

Barnes & Noble has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the

‘558 Patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in
violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing
several types of consumer electronics, including but not limited to e-readers incorporating an
electrophoretic display panel utilizing display acceleration techniques claimed in the ‘558 Patent.
58.

ViewSonic has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘558

Patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of
35 U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several
types of consumer electronics, including but not limited to LCD monitors utilizing display
acceleration techniques claimed in the ‘558 Patent.
59.

Kobo has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘558

Patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of
35 U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several
types of consumer electronics, including but not limited to e-readers incorporating an
electrophoretic display panel utilizing display acceleration techniques claimed in the ‘558 Patent.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 16

60.

Positive Technologies is entitled to recover from each Defendant the damages

sustained by Positive Technologies as a result of each Defendant’s wrongful acts in an amount
subject to proof at trial.
61.

Upon information and belief, Sony’s infringement of the ‘558 Patent (and

possibly the infringement of other Defendants) has been willful and deliberate, entitling Positive
Technologies to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorneys’ fees and costs
incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
62.

Each Defendant’s infringement of Positive Technologies’ exclusive rights under

the ‘558 Patent will continue to damage Positive Technologies’ business, causing irreparable
harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless it is enjoined by this Court.
COUNT III – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT 5,831,588
63.

Positive Technologies refers to and incorporates herein the allegations of

Paragraphs 1 – 62 above.
64.

The ‘588 Patent was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and

Trademark Office on November 3, 1998, after full and fair examination. Positive Technologies
is the assignee of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ‘588 Patent and possesses all rights of
recovery under the ‘588 Patent.
65.

Sony has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘588

Patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of
35 U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several
types of consumer electronics, including but not limited to laptop computers, desktop computers,
all-in-one computers, and e-readers incorporating an LCD or electrophoretic display panel
utilizing display acceleration techniques claimed in the ‘588 Patent.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 17

66.

Apple has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘588

Patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of
35 U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several
types of consumer electronics, including but not limited to laptop computers, desktop computers,
and all-in-one computers incorporating an LCD display panel utilizing display acceleration
techniques claimed in the ‘588 Patent.
67.

Acer has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘588 Patent

either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of 35
U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several types of
consumer electronics, including but not limited to monitors, laptop computers, desktop
computers, and all-in-one computers incorporating an LCD display panel utilizing display
acceleration techniques claimed in the ‘588 Patent.
68.

Asus has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘588

Patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of
35 U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several
types of consumer electronics, including but not limited to laptop computers, desktop computers,
and all-in-one computers incorporating an LCD display panel utilizing display acceleration
techniques claimed in the ‘588 Patent.
69.

HP has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘588 Patent

either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of 35
U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several types of
consumer electronics, including but not limited to monitors, laptop computers, desktop

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 18

computers, and all-in-one computers incorporating an LCD display panel utilizing display
acceleration techniques claimed in the ‘588 Patent.
70.

Dell has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘588 Patent

either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of 35
U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several types of
consumer electronics, including but not limited to monitors, laptop computers, desktop
computers, and all-in-one computers incorporating an LCD display panel utilizing display
acceleration techniques claimed in the ‘588 Patent.
71.

Lenovo has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘588

Patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of
35 U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several
types of consumer electronics, including but not limited to laptop computers, desktop computers,
and all-in-one computers incorporating an LCD display panel utilizing display acceleration
techniques claimed in the ‘588 Patent.
72.

MSI has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘588 Patent

either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of 35
U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several types of
consumer electronics, including but not limited to laptop computers, desktop computers, and allin-one computers incorporating an LCD display panel utilizing display acceleration techniques
claimed in the ‘588 Patent.
73.

Amazon has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘588

Patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of
35 U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 19

types of consumer electronics, including but not limited to e-readers incorporating an
electrophoretic display panel utilizing display acceleration techniques claimed in the ‘588 Patent.
74.

Barnes & Noble has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the

‘588 Patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in
violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing
several types of consumer electronics, including but not limited to e-readers incorporating an
electrophoretic display panel utilizing display acceleration techniques claimed in the ‘588 Patent.
75.

ViewSonic has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘588

Patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of
35 U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several
types of consumer electronics, including but not limited to LCD monitors utilizing display
acceleration techniques claimed in the ‘588 Patent.
76.

Kobo has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the ‘588

Patent either directly or through acts of contributory infringement or inducement in violation of
35 U.S.C. § 271, by manufacturing, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or marketing several
types of consumer electronics, including but not limited to e-readers incorporating an
electrophoretic display panel utilizing display acceleration techniques claimed in the ‘588 Patent.
77.

Positive Technologies is entitled to recover from each Defendant the damages

sustained by Positive Technologies as a result of each Defendant’s wrongful acts in an amount
subject to proof at trial.
78.

Upon information and belief, Sony’s infringement of the ‘588 Patent (and

possibly the infringement of other Defendants) has been willful and deliberate, entitling Positive

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 20

Technologies to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorneys’ fees and costs
incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
79.

Each Defendant’s infringement of Positive Technologies’ exclusive rights under

the ‘588 Patent will continue to damage Positive Technologies’ business, causing irreparable
harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law, unless it is enjoined by this Court.
JURY DEMAND
80.

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiff Positive Technologies, respectfully requests this Court to enter judgment in its
favor against each Defendant, granting the following relief:
A.

An adjudication that each Defendant has infringed and continues to

infringe claims of the ‘457, ‘558, and ‘588 Patents;
B.

An award to Positive Technologies of damages adequate to compensate

Positive Technologies for Defendants’ acts of infringement together with
prejudgment interest;
C.

An award to Positive Technologies of enhanced damages, up to and

including trebling of Positive Technologies damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284,
for Sony’s willful infringement;
D.

An award of Positive Technologies’ costs of suit and reasonable attorneys’

fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 due to the exceptional nature of this case, or as
otherwise permitted by law;
E.

A grant of permanent injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, enjoining

each Defendant from further acts of infringement; and

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 21

F.

Dated: July 22, 2010

Any further relief that this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Walter J. “Skip” Scott by permission
Robert Christopher Bunt
Walter J. “Skip” Scott
Attorney-In-Charge
State Bar No. 17918405
[e-mail]
Leonard A. Hirsch
State Bar No. 09717300
[e-mail]
Jason P. Fulton
State Bar No. 24040936
[e-mail]
DIAMOND MCCARTHY LLP
1201 Elm Street, Suite 3400
Dallas, Texas 75270
[phone]
[phone] Fax
Eric S. Tautfest
State Bar No. 24028534
[e-mail]
George T. Scott
State Bar No. 24061276
[e-mail]
THE WARE FIRM
2101 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 1900
Dallas, Texas 75201
Robert Christopher Bunt
State Bar No. 00787165
Robert M. Parker
State Bar No. 15498000
PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C.
100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1114
Tyler, Texas 75702
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Email: [e-mail]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
POSITIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 22

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Page 23