Innovative Display Technologies LLC et al v. Apple Inc.

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against Apple Inc. ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0540-4603471.), filed by Innovative Display Technologies LLC, Delaware Display Group LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H)(Bragalone, Jeffrey)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
INNOVATIVE DISPLAY
TECHNOLOGIES LLC AND
DELAWARE DISPLAY GROUP LLC

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Plaintiffs,
v.
APPLE INC.,
Defendant.

C.A. No. ____
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
Innovative Display Technologies LLC and Delaware Display Group LLC (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”) by and through their undersigned counsel, file this Complaint against Apple, Inc.
(“Apple”).
THE PARTIES
1.

Innovative Display Technologies LLC (“IDT”) is a Texas limited liability company

with its principal place of business located at 2400 Dallas Parkway, Suite 200, Plano, Texas 75093.
2.

Delaware Display Group LLC (“DDG”) is a Delaware limited liability company

with its principal place of business located at 2400 Dallas Parkway, Suite 200, Plano, Texas 75093.
3.

Upon information and belief, Apple, Inc., is a California corporation with offices

at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California 95014 and at 12545 Riata Vista Circle, Austin, Texas
78727. Upon information and belief, Apple may be served with process by serving its registered
agent, C T Corp. System, 1999 Bryan St., Ste. 900, Dallas, TX 75201.

1

4.

Upon information and belief, Apple has conducted and regularly conducts business

within this District, has purposefully availed itself of the privileges of conducting business in this
District, and has sought protection and benefit from the laws of the State of Texas.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5.

This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.,

including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 283, 284, and 285. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction
over this case for patent infringement under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
6.

As further detailed herein, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Apple. Apple

is amenable to service of summons for this action. Furthermore, personal jurisdiction over Apple
in this action comports with due process. Apple has conducted and regularly conducts business
within the United States and this District. Apple has purposefully availed itself of the privileges of
conducting business in the United States and, more specifically, in this District. Apple has sought
protection and benefit from the laws of the State of Texas by maintaining offices in Texas and/or
by placing infringing products into the stream of commerce through an established distribution
channel with the expectation and/or knowledge that they will be purchased by consumers in this
District. IDT’s causes of action arise directly from Apple’s business contacts and other activities
in this District.
7.

Apple – directly or through intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and

others), subsidiaries, alter egos, and/or agents – ships, distributes, offers for sale, and/or sells its
products in the United States and this District. Apple has purposefully and voluntarily placed one
or more of its infringing products, as described below, into the stream of commerce with the
expectation and/or knowledge that they will be purchased by consumers in this District. Apple
knowingly and purposefully ships infringing products into and within this District through an
established distribution channel. These infringing products have been and continue to be purchased
2

by consumers in this District. Upon information and belief, Apple has committed the tort of patent
infringement in this District and/or has induced others to commit patent infringement in this
District.
8.

Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c), and (d), as well as

28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). One or more of IDT’s witnesses reside in this District. Apple is subject to
personal jurisdiction in this District, and therefore is deemed to reside in this District for purposes
of venue, and, upon information and belief, Apple has committed acts within this judicial District
giving rise to this action and does business in this District, including but not limited to making
sales in this District, providing service and support to their respective customers in this District,
and/or operating an interactive website that is available to persons in this District, which website
advertises, markets, and/or offers for sale infringing products.
BACKGROUND
A.

The Patents-In-Suit.
9.

U.S. Patent No. 6,755,547 titled “Light Emitting Panel Assemblies” (“the ’547

patent”) was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on June 29, 2004,
after full and fair examination. Jeffery R. Parker is the sole inventor listed on the ’547 patent. A
true and correct copy of the ’547 patent is attached as Exhibit A and made a part hereof.
10.

U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194 titled “Light Emitting Panel Assemblies” (“the ’194

patent”) was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on November 27,
2007, after full and fair examination. Jeffery R. Parker is the sole inventor listed on the ’194 patent.
A true and correct copy of the ’194 patent is attached as Exhibit B and made a part hereof.
11.

U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177 titled “Light Emitting Panel Assemblies” (“the ’177

patent”) was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on June 10, 2008,

3

after full and fair examination. Jeffery R. Parker is the sole inventor listed on the ’177 patent. A
true and correct copy of the ’177 patent is attached as Exhibit C and made a part hereof.
12.

U.S. Patent No. 7,404,660 titled “Light Emitting Panel Assemblies” (“the ’660

patent”) was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on July 29, 2008,
after full and fair examination. Jeffery R. Parker is the sole inventor listed on the ’660 patent. A
true and correct copy of the ’660 patent is attached as Exhibit D and made a part hereof.
13.

U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974 titled “Light Emitting Panel Assemblies” (“the ’974

patent”) was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on October 14, 2008,
after full and fair examination. Jeffery R. Parker is the sole inventor listed on the ’974 patent. A
true and correct copy of the ’974 patent is attached as Exhibit E and made a part hereof.
14.

U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370 titled “Light Emitting Panel Assemblies” (“the ’370

patent”) was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on May 26, 2009,
after full and fair examination. Jeffery R. Parker is the sole inventor listed on the ’370 patent. A
true and correct copy of the ’370 patent is attached as Exhibit F and made a part hereof.
15.

U.S. Patent No. 7,914,196 titled “Light Redirecting Film Systems Having Pattern

of Variable Optical Elements” (“the ’196 patent”) was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office on March 29, 2011, after full and fair examination. Jeffery R. Parker,
Timothy A. McCollum, and Robert M. Ezell are the inventors listed on the ’196 patent. A true and
correct copy of the ’196 patent is attached as Exhibit G and made a part hereof.
16.

U.S. Patent No. 8,215,816 titled “Light Emitting Panel Assemblies” (“the ’816

patent”) was duly and legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on July 10, 2012,
after full and fair examination. Jeffery R. Parker is the sole inventor listed on the ’816 patent. A
true and correct copy of the ’816 patent is attached as Exhibit H and made a part hereof.

4

17.

The ’196 patent is referred to as the “DDG patent.”

18.

The ’547 patent, the ’194 patent, the ’177 patent, the ’660 patent, the ’974 patent,

the ’370 patent, and the ’816 patent are collectively referred to as the “IDT patents.” Together,
the “DDG patent” and the “IDT patents” are the “patents-in-suit.”
19.

On June 26, 2013, IDT was assigned all of the right, title, and interest in the IDT

patents, including the exclusive right to sue and collect for its own use and benefit all claims for
damages by reason of past infringement or use of the IDT patents.
20.

On December 20, 2013, DDG was assigned all of the right, title, and interest in the

DDG patent, including the exclusive right to sue and collect for its own use and benefit all claims
for damages by reason of past infringement or use of the DDG patent.
21.

The patents-in-suit all share the same ultimate parent patent, U.S. Patent No.

5,613,751. The patents-in-suit share inventors, subject matter, and claim terms. The accused
products infringe the patents-in-suit based on the use of the same technology, e.g., backlights for
LCDs. And IDT and DDG share a common corporate parent.
B.

Apple’s Infringing Conduct.
22.

Upon information and belief, Apple makes, uses, offers to sell, and/or sells within,

and/or imports into the United States display products that use the fundamental technologies
covered by the patents-in-suit. Upon information and belief, the infringing display products
include, but are not limited to, desktops, laptops, monitors, mobile phones, music players, and
tablets with an LCD.
23.

By incorporating the fundamental inventions covered by the patents-in-suit, Apple

can make improved products, including but not limited to, products with longer displays, thinner
displays, and/or displays with a higher light output, a more uniform light output, a lower power
requirement, and/or a longer battery life.
5

24.

Upon information and belief, third-party distributors purchase and have purchased

Apple’s infringing display products for sale or importation into the United States, including in this
District. Upon information and belief, third-party consumers use and have used Apple’s infringing
display products in the United States, including in this District.
25.

Upon information and belief, Apple has purchased infringing display products that

are made, used, offered for sale, sold within, and/or imported into the United States, including in
this District by third party manufacturers, distributors, and/or importers.
COUNT I
Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,755,547
26.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation of paragraphs 1-25 as

though fully set forth herein.
27.

The ’547 patent is valid and enforceable.

28.

Apple has never been licensed, either expressly or impliedly, under the ’547 patent.

29.

Upon information and belief, to the extent any marking or notice was required by

35 U.S.C. § 287, IDT has complied with the requirements of that statute by providing actual or
constructive notice to Apple of its alleged infringement. Upon information and belief, IDT
surmises that any express licensees of the ’547 patent have complied with the marking
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287 by placing a notice of the ’547 patent on all goods made, offered
for sale, sold within, and/or imported into the United States that embody one or more claims of
that patent.
30.

Upon information and belief, Apple has been and is directly infringing under 35

U.S.C. § 271(a), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and/or indirectly infringing,
by way of inducement with specific intent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), the ’547 patent by making,
using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors, and/or consumers (directly or
6

through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States
and/or importing into the United States, without authority, display products that include all of the
limitations of one or more claims of the ’547 patent, including but not limited to desktops, laptops,
monitors, mobile phones, music players, and tablets with an LCD (e.g., the iPad 3, iPad 4, iPhone
4, iPhone 5, and MacBook Air), their display components, and/or other products made, used, sold,
offered for sale, or imported by Apple that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of
the ’547 patent.
31.

Upon information and belief, distributors and consumers that purchase Apple’s

display products that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’547 patent,
including but not limited to desktops, laptops, monitors, mobile phones, music players, and tablets
with an LCD (e.g., the iPad 3, iPad 4, iPhone 4, iPhone 5, and MacBook Air), also directly infringe,
either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’547 patent by
using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors or consumers (directly or through
intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or
importing into the United States, those infringing display products.
32.

Upon information and belief, the third-party manufacturers, distributors, and

importers that sell display products to Apple that include all of the limitations of one or more
claims of the ’547 patent, also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’547 patent by making, offering to sell, and/or selling (directly or
through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) infringing products in this District and elsewhere
within the United States and/or importing infringing products into the United States.
33.

Upon information and belief, Apple had knowledge of the ’547 patent and its

infringing conduct prior to April 5, 2013. Prior to that date, Apple had knowledge of the ’547

7

patent and its infringing conduct at least as a result of its interaction with companies affiliated with
the ’547 patent’s inventor, Jeffery Parker.
34.

Upon information and belief, since at least the above-mentioned date of notice,

Apple has actively induced, under U.S.C. § 271(b), third-party manufacturers, distributors,
importers and/or consumers that purchase or sell display products that include all of the limitations
of one or more claims of the ’547 patent, including but not limited to desktops, laptops, monitors,
mobile phones, music players, and tablets with an LCD (e.g., the iPad 3, iPad 4, iPhone 4, iPhone
5, and MacBook Air), to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’547 patent. Since at least the
notice provided on the above-mentioned date, Apple does so with knowledge, or with willful
blindness of the fact, that the induced acts constitute infringement of the ’547 patent.
35.

Upon information and belief, Apple intends to cause, and has taken affirmative

steps to induce, infringement by these third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers, and/or
consumers by, inter alia, creating advertisements that promote the infringing use of display
products, creating established distribution channels for these products into and within the United
States, purchasing these products, manufacturing these products in conformity with U.S. laws and
regulations, distributing or making available instructions or manuals for these products to
purchasers and prospective buyers, and/or providing technical support, replacement parts, or
services for these products to these purchasers in the United States.
36.

Upon information and belief, Apple’s acts of infringement of the ’547 patent have

been willful and intentional. Since at least the above-mentioned date of notice, Apple has acted
with an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the ’547 patent by
refusing to take a license and continuing to make and sell its display products, including but not
limited to desktops, laptops, monitors, mobile phones, music players, and tablets with an LCD

8

(e.g., the iPad 3, iPad 4, iPhone 4, iPhone 5, and MacBook Air), and the objectively-defined risk
was either known or so obvious that it should have been known.
37.

As a direct and proximate result of these acts of patent infringement, Apple has

encroached on the exclusive rights of IDT and its licensees to practice the ’547 patent, for which
IDT is entitled to at least a reasonable royalty.
COUNT II
Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194
38.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation of paragraphs 1-37 as

though fully set forth herein
39.

The ’194 patent is valid and enforceable.

40.

Apple has never been licensed, either expressly or impliedly, under the ’194 patent.

41.

Upon information and belief, to the extent any marking or notice was required by

35 U.S.C. § 287, IDT has complied with the requirements of that statute by providing actual or
constructive notice to Apple of its alleged infringement. Upon information and belief, IDT
surmises that any express licensees of the ’194 patent have complied with the marking
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287 by placing a notice of the ’194 patent on all goods made, offered
for sale, sold within, and/or imported into the United States that embody one or more claims of
that patent.
42.

Upon information and belief, Apple has been and is directly infringing under 35

U.S.C. § 271(a), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and/or indirectly infringing,
by way of inducement with specific intent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), the ’194 patent by making,
using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors, and/or consumers (directly or
through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States
and/or importing into the United States, without authority, display products that include all of the
9

limitations of one or more claims of the ’194 patent, including but not limited to desktops, laptops,
monitors, mobile phones, music players, and tablets with an LCD (e.g., the iPad 3, iPad 4, iPhone
4, iPhone 5, and MacBook Air), their display components, and/or other products made, used, sold,
offered for sale, or imported by Apple that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of
the ’194 patent.
43.

Upon information and belief, distributors and consumers that purchase Apple’s

display products that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’194 patent,
including but not limited to desktops, laptops, monitors, mobile phones, music players, and tablets
with an LCD (e.g., the iPad 3, iPad 4, iPhone 4, iPhone 5, and MacBook Air), also directly infringe,
either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’194 patent by
using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors or consumers (directly or through
intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or
importing into the United States, those infringing display products.
44.

Upon information and belief, the third-party manufacturers, distributors, and

importers that sell display products to Apple that include all of the limitations of one or more
claims of the ’194 patent, also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’194 patent by making, offering to sell, and/or selling (directly or
through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) infringing products in this District and elsewhere
within the United States and/or importing infringing products into the United States.
45.

Upon information and belief, Apple had knowledge of the ’194 patent and its

infringing conduct prior to April 5, 2013. Prior to that date, Apple had knowledge of the ’194
patent and its infringing conduct at least as a result of its interaction with companies affiliated with
the ’194 patent’s inventor, Jeffery Parker.

10

46.

Upon information and belief, since at least the above-mentioned date of notice,

Apple has actively induced, under U.S.C. § 271(b), third-party manufacturers, distributors,
importers and/or consumers that purchase or sell display products that include all of the limitations
of one or more claims of the ’194 patent, including but not limited to desktops, laptops, monitors,
mobile phones, music players, and tablets with an LCD (e.g., the iPad 3, iPad 4, iPhone 4, iPhone
5, and MacBook Air), to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’194 patent. Since at least the
notice provided on the above-mentioned date, Apple does so with knowledge, or with willful
blindness of the fact, that the induced acts constitute infringement of the ’194 patent.
47.

Upon information and belief, Apple intends to cause, and has taken affirmative

steps to induce, infringement by these third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers, and/or
consumers by, inter alia, creating advertisements that promote the infringing use of display
products, creating established distribution channels for these products into and within the United
States, purchasing these products, manufacturing these products in conformity with U.S. laws and
regulations, distributing or making available instructions or manuals for these products to
purchasers and prospective buyers, and/or providing technical support, replacement parts, or
services for these products to these purchasers in the United States.
48.

Upon information and belief, Apple’s acts of infringement of the ’194 patent have

been willful and intentional. Since at least the above-mentioned date of notice, Apple has acted
with an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the ’194 patent by
refusing to take a license and continuing to make and sell its display products, including but not
limited to desktops, laptops, monitors, mobile phones, music players, and tablets with an LCD
(e.g., the iPad 3, iPad 4, iPhone 4, iPhone 5, and MacBook Air), and the objectively-defined risk
was either known or so obvious that it should have been known.

11

49.

As a direct and proximate result of these acts of patent infringement, Apple has

encroached on the exclusive rights of IDT and its licensees to practice the ’194 patent, for which
IDT is entitled to at least a reasonable royalty.
COUNT III
Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,384,177
50.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation of paragraphs 1-49 as

though fully set forth herein.
51.

The ’177 patent is valid and enforceable.

52.

Apple has never been licensed, either expressly or impliedly, under the ’177 patent.

53.

Upon information and belief, to the extent any marking or notice was required by

35 U.S.C. § 287, IDT has complied with the requirements of that statute by providing actual or
constructive notice to Apple of its alleged infringement. Upon information and belief, IDT
surmises that any express licensees of the ’177 patent have complied with the marking
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287 by placing a notice of the ’177 patent on all goods made, offered
for sale, sold within, and/or imported into the United States that embody one or more claims of
that patent.
54.

Upon information and belief, Apple has been and is directly infringing under 35

U.S.C. § 271(a), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and/or indirectly infringing,
by way of inducement with specific intent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), the ’177 patent by making,
using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors, and/or consumers (directly or
through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States
and/or importing into the United States, without authority, display products that include all of the
limitations of one or more claims of the ’177 patent, including but not limited to desktops, laptops,
monitors, mobile phones, music players, and tablets with an LCD (e.g., the iPad 3, iPad 4, iPhone
12

4, iPhone 5, and MacBook Air), their display components, and/or other products made, used, sold,
offered for sale, or imported by Apple that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of
the ’177 patent.
55.

Upon information and belief, distributors and consumers that purchase Apple’s

display products that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’177 patent,
including but not limited to desktops, laptops, monitors, mobile phones, music players, and tablets
with an LCD (e.g., the iPad 3, iPad 4, iPhone 4, iPhone 5, and MacBook Air), also directly infringe,
either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’177 patent by
using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors or consumers (directly or through
intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or
importing into the United States, those infringing display products.
56.

Upon information and belief, the third-party manufacturers, distributors, and

importers that sell display products to Apple that include all of the limitations of one or more
claims of the ’177 patent, also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’177 patent by making, offering to sell, and/or selling (directly or
through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) infringing products in this District and elsewhere
within the United States and/or importing infringing products into the United States.
57.

Upon information and belief, Apple had knowledge of the ’177 patent and its

infringing conduct prior to April 5, 2013. Prior to that date, Apple had knowledge of the ’177
patent and its infringing conduct at least as a result of its interaction with companies affiliated with
the ’177 patent’s inventor, Jeffery Parker.
58.

Upon information and belief, since at least the above-mentioned date of notice,

Apple has actively induced, under U.S.C. § 271(b), third-party manufacturers, distributors,

13

importers and/or consumers that purchase or sell display products that include all of the limitations
of one or more claims of the ’177 patent, including but not limited to desktops, laptops, monitors,
mobile phones, music players, and tablets with an LCD (e.g., the iPad 3, iPad 4, iPhone 4, iPhone
5, and MacBook Air), to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’177 patent. Since at least the
notice provided on the above-mentioned date, Apple does so with knowledge, or with willful
blindness of the fact, that the induced acts constitute infringement of the ’177 patent.
59.

Upon information and belief, Apple intends to cause, and has taken affirmative

steps to induce, infringement by these third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers, and/or
consumers by, inter alia, creating advertisements that promote the infringing use of display
products, creating established distribution channels for these products into and within the United
States, purchasing these products, manufacturing these products in conformity with U.S. laws and
regulations, distributing or making available instructions or manuals for these products to
purchasers and prospective buyers, and/or providing technical support, replacement parts, or
services for these products to these purchasers in the United States.
60.

Upon information and belief, Apple’s acts of infringement of the ’177 patent have

been willful and intentional. Since at least the above-mentioned date of notice, Apple has acted
with an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the ’177 patent by
refusing to take a license and continuing to make and sell its display products, including but not
limited to desktops, laptops, monitors, mobile phones, music players, and tablets with an LCD
(e.g., the iPad 3, iPad 4, iPhone 4, iPhone 5, and MacBook Air), and the objectively-defined risk
was either known or so obvious that it should have been known.

14

61.

As a direct and proximate result of these acts of patent infringement, Apple has

encroached on the exclusive rights of IDT and its licensees to practice the ’177 patent, for which
IDT is entitled to at least a reasonable royalty.
COUNT IV
Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,404,660
62.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation of paragraphs 1-61 as

though fully set forth herein.
63.

The ’660 patent is valid and enforceable.

64.

Apple has never been licensed, either expressly or impliedly, under the ’660 patent.

65.

Upon information and belief, to the extent any marking or notice was required by

35 U.S.C. § 287, IDT has complied with the requirements of that statute by providing actual or
constructive notice to Apple of its alleged infringement. Upon information and belief, IDT
surmises that any express licensees of the ’660 patent have complied with the marking
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287 by placing a notice of the ’660 patent on all goods made, offered
for sale, sold within, and/or imported into the United States that embody one or more claims of
that patent.
66.

Upon information and belief, Apple has been and is directly infringing under 35

U.S.C. § 271(a), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and/or indirectly infringing,
by way of inducement with specific intent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), the ’660 patent by making,
using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors, and/or consumers (directly or
through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States
and/or importing into the United States, without authority, display products that include all of the
limitations of one or more claims of the ’660 patent, including but not limited to desktops, laptops,
monitors, mobile phones, music players, and tablets with an LCD (e.g., the iPad 3, iPad 4, iPhone
15

4, iPhone 5, and MacBook Air), their display components, and/or other products made, used, sold,
offered for sale, or imported by Apple that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of
the ’660 patent.
67.

Upon information and belief, distributors and consumers that purchase Apple’s

display products that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’660 patent,
including but not limited to desktops, laptops, monitors, mobile phones, music players, and tablets
with an LCD (e.g., the iPad 3, iPad 4, iPhone 4, iPhone 5, and MacBook Air), also directly infringe,
either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’660 patent by
using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors or consumers (directly or through
intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or
importing into the United States, those infringing display products.
68.

Upon information and belief, the third-party manufacturers, distributors, and

importers that sell display products to Apple that include all of the limitations of one or more
claims of the ’660 patent, also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’660 patent by making, offering to sell, and/or selling (directly or
through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) infringing products in this District and elsewhere
within the United States and/or importing infringing products into the United States.
69.

Upon information and belief, Apple had knowledge of the ’660 patent and its

infringing conduct prior to April 5, 2013. Prior to that date, Apple had knowledge of the ’660
patent and its infringing conduct at least as a result of its interaction with companies affiliated with
the ’660 patent’s inventor, Jeffery Parker.
70.

Upon information and belief, since at least the above-mentioned date of notice,

Apple has actively induced, under U.S.C. § 271(b), third-party manufacturers, distributors,

16

importers and/or consumers that purchase or sell display products that include all of the limitations
of one or more claims of the ’660 patent, including but not limited to desktops, laptops, monitors,
mobile phones, music players, and tablets with an LCD (e.g., the iPad 3, iPad 4, iPhone 4, iPhone
5, and MacBook Air), to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’660 patent. Since at least the
notice provided on the above-mentioned date, Apple does so with knowledge, or with willful
blindness of the fact, that the induced acts constitute infringement of the ’660 patent.
71.

Upon information and belief, Apple intends to cause, and has taken affirmative

steps to induce, infringement by these third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers, and/or
consumers by, inter alia, creating advertisements that promote the infringing use of display
products, creating established distribution channels for these products into and within the United
States, purchasing these products, manufacturing these products in conformity with U.S. laws and
regulations, distributing or making available instructions or manuals for these products to
purchasers and prospective buyers, and/or providing technical support, replacement parts, or
services for these products to these purchasers in the United States.
72.

Upon information and belief, Apple’s acts of infringement of the ’660 patent have

been willful and intentional. Since at least the above-mentioned date of notice, Apple has acted
with an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the ’660 patent by
refusing to take a license and continuing to make and sell its display products, including but not
limited to desktops, laptops, monitors, mobile phones, music players, and tablets with an LCD
(e.g., the iPad 3, iPad 4, iPhone 4, iPhone 5, and MacBook Air), and the objectively-defined risk
was either known or so obvious that it should have been known.

17

73.

As a direct and proximate result of these acts of patent infringement, Apple has

encroached on the exclusive rights of IDT and its licensees to practice the ’660 patent, for which
IDT is entitled to at least a reasonable royalty.
COUNT V
Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,434,974
74.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation of paragraphs 1-73 as

though fully set forth herein.
75.

The ’974 patent is valid and enforceable.

76.

Apple has never been licensed, either expressly or impliedly, under the ’974 patent.

77.

Upon information and belief, to the extent any marking or notice was required by

35 U.S.C. § 287, IDT has complied with the requirements of that statute by providing actual or
constructive notice to Apple of its alleged infringement. Upon information and belief, IDT
surmises that any express licensees of the ’974 patent have complied with the marking
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287 by placing a notice of the ’974 patent on all goods made, offered
for sale, sold within, and/or imported into the United States that embody one or more claims of
that patent.
78.

Upon information and belief, Apple has been and is directly infringing under 35

U.S.C. § 271(a), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and/or indirectly infringing,
by way of inducement with specific intent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), the ’974 patent by making,
using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors, and/or consumers (directly or
through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States
and/or importing into the United States, without authority, display products that include all of the
limitations of one or more claims of the ’974 patent, including but not limited to desktops, laptops,
monitors, mobile phones, music players, and tablets with an LCD (e.g., the iPad 3, iPad 4, iPhone
18

4, iPhone 5, and MacBook Air), their display components, and/or other products made, used, sold,
offered for sale, or imported by Apple that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of
the ’974 patent.
79.

Upon information and belief, distributors and consumers that purchase Apple’s

display products that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’974 patent,
including but not limited to desktops, laptops, monitors, mobile phones, music players, and tablets
with an LCD (e.g., the iPad 3, iPad 4, iPhone 4, iPhone 5, and MacBook Air), also directly infringe,
either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’974 patent by
using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors or consumers (directly or through
intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or
importing into the United States, those infringing display products.
80.

Upon information and belief, the third-party manufacturers, distributors, and

importers that sell display products to Apple that include all of the limitations of one or more
claims of the ’974 patent, also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’974 patent by making, offering to sell, and/or selling (directly or
through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) infringing products in this District and elsewhere
within the United States and/or importing infringing products into the United States.
81.

Upon information and belief, Apple had knowledge of the ’974 patent and its

infringing conduct prior to April 5, 2013. Prior to that date, Apple had knowledge of the ’974
patent and its infringing conduct at least as a result of its interaction with companies affiliated with
the ’974 patent’s inventor, Jeffery Parker.
82.

Upon information and belief, since at least the above-mentioned date of notice,

Apple has actively induced, under U.S.C. § 271(b), third-party manufacturers, distributors,

19

importers and/or consumers that purchase or sell display products that include all of the limitations
of one or more claims of the ’974 patent, including but not limited to desktops, laptops, monitors,
mobile phones, music players, and tablets with an LCD (e.g., the iPad 3, iPad 4, iPhone 4, iPhone
5, and MacBook Air), to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’974 patent. Since at least the
notice provided on the above-mentioned date, Apple does so with knowledge, or with willful
blindness of the fact, that the induced acts constitute infringement of the ’974 patent.
83.

Upon information and belief, Apple intends to cause, and has taken affirmative

steps to induce, infringement by these third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers, and/or
consumers by, inter alia, creating advertisements that promote the infringing use of display
products, creating established distribution channels for these products into and within the United
States, purchasing these products, manufacturing these products in conformity with U.S. laws and
regulations, distributing or making available instructions or manuals for these products to
purchasers and prospective buyers, and/or providing technical support, replacement parts, or
services for these products to these purchasers in the United States.
84.

Upon information and belief, Apple’s acts of infringement of the ’974 patent have

been willful and intentional. Since at least the above-mentioned date of notice, Apple has acted
with an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the ’974 patent by
refusing to take a license and continuing to make and sell its display products, including but not
limited to desktops, laptops, monitors, mobile phones, music players, and tablets with an LCD
(e.g., the iPad 3, iPad 4, iPhone 4, iPhone 5, and MacBook Air), and the objectively-defined risk
was either known or so obvious that it should have been known.

20

85.

As a direct and proximate result of these acts of patent infringement, Apple has

encroached on the exclusive rights of IDT and its licensees to practice the ’974 patent, for which
IDT is entitled to at least a reasonable royalty.
COUNT VI
Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370
86.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation of paragraphs 1-85 as

though fully set forth herein.
87.

The ’370 patent is valid and enforceable.

88.

Apple has never been licensed, either expressly or impliedly, under the ’370 patent.

89.

Upon information and belief, to the extent any marking or notice was required by

35 U.S.C. § 287, IDT has complied with the requirements of that statute by providing actual or
constructive notice to Apple of its alleged infringement. Upon information and belief, IDT
surmises that any express licensees of the ’370 patent have complied with the marking
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287 by placing a notice of the ’370 patent on all goods made, offered
for sale, sold within, and/or imported into the United States that embody one or more claims of
that patent.
90.

Upon information and belief, Apple has been and is directly infringing under 35

U.S.C. § 271(a), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and/or indirectly infringing,
by way of inducement with specific intent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), the ’370 patent by making,
using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors, and/or consumers (directly or
through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States
and/or importing into the United States, without authority, display products that include all of the
limitations of one or more claims of the ’370 patent, including but not limited to desktops, laptops,
monitors, mobile phones, music players, and tablets with an LCD (e.g., iPhone 4 and iPhone 5)
21

their display components, and/or other products made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported by
Apple that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’370 patent.
91.

Upon information and belief, distributors and consumers that purchase Apple’s

display products that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’370 patent,
including but not limited to desktops, laptops, monitors, mobile phones, music players, and tablets
with LCD (e.g., iPhone 4 and iPhone 5), also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine
of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’370 patent by using, offering to sell, and/or selling
to third-party distributors or consumers (directly or through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in
this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or importing into the United States, those
infringing display products.
92.

Upon information and belief, the third-party manufacturers, distributors, and

importers that sell display products to Apple that include all of the limitations of one or more
claims of the ’370 patent, also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’370 patent by making, offering to sell, and/or selling (directly or
through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) infringing products in this District and elsewhere
within the United States and/or importing infringing products into the United States.
93.

Upon information and belief, Apple had knowledge of the ’370 patent and its

infringing conduct prior to April 5, 2013. Prior to that date, Apple had knowledge of the ’370
patent and its infringing conduct at least as a result of its interaction with companies affiliated with
the ’370 patent’s inventor, Jeffery Parker.
94.

Upon information and belief, since at least the above-mentioned date of notice,

Apple has actively induced, under U.S.C. § 271(b), third-party manufacturers, distributors,
importers and/or consumers that purchase or sell display products that include all of the limitations

22

of one or more claims of the ’370 patent, including but not limited to desktops, laptops, monitors,
mobile phones, music players, and tablets with an LCD (e.g., iPhone 4 and iPhone 5), to directly
infringe one or more claims of the ’370 patent. Since at least the notice provided on the abovementioned date, Apple does so with knowledge, or with willful blindness of the fact, that the
induced acts constitute infringement of the ’370 patent.
95.

Upon information and belief, Apple intends to cause, and has taken affirmative

steps to induce, infringement by these third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers, and/or
consumers by, inter alia, creating advertisements that promote the infringing use of display
products, creating established distribution channels for these products into and within the United
States, purchasing these products, manufacturing these products in conformity with U.S. laws and
regulations, distributing or making available instructions or manuals for these products to
purchasers and prospective buyers, and/or providing technical support, replacement parts, or
services for these products to these purchasers in the United States.
96.

Upon information and belief, Apple’s acts of infringement of the ’370 patent have

been willful and intentional. Since at least the above-mentioned date of notice, Apple has acted
with an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the ’370 patent by
refusing to take a license and continuing to make and sell its display products, including but not
limited to desktops, laptops, monitors, mobile phones, music players, and tablets with an LCD
(e.g., the iPhone 4 and iPhone 5), and the objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious
that it should have been known.
97.

As a direct and proximate result of these acts of patent infringement, Apple has

encroached on the exclusive rights of IDT and its licensees to practice the ’370 patent, for which
IDT is entitled to at least a reasonable royalty.

23

COUNT VII
Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,914,196
98.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation of paragraphs 1-97 as

though fully set forth herein.
99.

The ’196 patent is valid and enforceable.

100.

Apple has never been licensed, either expressly or impliedly, under the ’196 patent.

101.

Upon information and belief, to the extent any marking or notice was required by

35 U.S.C. § 287, DDG has complied with the requirements of that statute by providing actual or
constructive notice to Apple of its alleged infringement. Upon information and belief, DDG
surmises that any express licensees of the ’196 patent have complied with the marking
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287 by placing a notice of the ’196 patent on all goods made, offered
for sale, sold within, and/or imported into the United States that embody one or more claims of
that patent.
102.

Upon information and belief, Apple has been and is directly infringing under 35

U.S.C. § 271(a), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and/or indirectly infringing,
by way of inducement with specific intent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), the ’196 patent by making,
using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors, and/or consumers (directly or
through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States
and/or importing into the United States, without authority, display products that include all of the
limitations of one or more claims of the ’196 patent, including but not limited to desktops, laptops,
monitors, mobile phones, music players, and tablets with an LCD (e.g., the iPad 3, iPad 4, iPhone
4, iPhone 5, and MacBook Air), their display components, and/or other products made, used, sold,
offered for sale, or imported by Apple that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of
the ’196 patent.
24

103.

Upon information and belief, distributors and consumers that purchase Apple’s

display products that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’196 patent,
including but not limited to desktops, laptops, monitors, mobile phones, music players, and tablets
with an LCD (e.g., the iPad 3, iPad 4, iPhone 4, iPhone 5, and MacBook Air), also directly infringe,
either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’196 patent by
using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors or consumers (directly or through
intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or
importing into the United States, those infringing display products.
104.

Upon information and belief, the third-party manufacturers, distributors, and

importers that sell display products to Apple that include all of the limitations of one or more
claims of the ’196 patent, also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’196 patent by making, offering to sell, and/or selling (directly or
through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) infringing products in this District and elsewhere
within the United States and/or importing infringing products into the United States.
105.

Upon information and belief, Apple had knowledge of the ’196 patent and its

infringing conduct prior to April 5, 2013. Prior to that date, Apple had knowledge of the ’196
patent and its infringing conduct at least as a result of its interaction with companies affiliated with
the ’196 patent’s inventor, Jeffery Parker.
106.

Upon information and belief, since at least the above-mentioned date of notice,

Apple has actively induced, under U.S.C. § 271(b), third-party manufacturers, distributors,
importers and/or consumers that purchase or sell display products that include all of the limitations
of one or more claims of the ’196 patent, including but not limited to desktops, laptops, monitors,
mobile phones, music players, and tablets with an LCD (e.g., the iPad 3, iPad 4, iPhone 4, iPhone

25

5, and MacBook Air), to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’196 patent. Since at least the
notice provided on the above-mentioned date, Apple does so with knowledge, or with willful
blindness of the fact, that the induced acts constitute infringement of the ’196 patent.
107.

Upon information and belief, Apple intends to cause, and has taken affirmative

steps to induce, infringement by these third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers, and/or
consumers by, inter alia, creating advertisements that promote the infringing use of display
products, creating established distribution channels for these products into and within the United
States, purchasing these products, manufacturing these products in conformity with U.S. laws and
regulations, distributing or making available instructions or manuals for these products to
purchasers and prospective buyers, and/or providing technical support, replacement parts, or
services for these products to these purchasers in the United States.
108.

Upon information and belief, Apple’s acts of infringement of the ’196 patent have

been willful and intentional. Since at least the above-mentioned date of notice, Apple has acted
with an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the ’196 patent by
refusing to take a license and continuing to make and sell its display products, including but not
limited to desktops, laptops, monitors, mobile phones, music players, and tablets with an LCD
(e.g., the iPad 3, iPad 4, iPhone 4, iPhone 5, and MacBook Air), and the objectively-defined risk
was either known or so obvious that it should have been known.
109.

As a direct and proximate result of these acts of patent infringement, Apple has

encroached on the exclusive rights of DDG and its licensees to practice the ’196 patent, for which
DDG is entitled to at least a reasonable royalty.

26

COUNT VIII
Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,215,816
110.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege each and every allegation of paragraphs 1-109 as

though fully set forth herein.
111.

The ’816 patent is valid and enforceable.

112.

Apple has never been licensed, either expressly or impliedly, under the ’816 patent.

113.

Upon information and belief, to the extent any marking or notice was required by

35 U.S.C. § 287, IDT has complied with the requirements of that statute by providing actual or
constructive notice to Apple of its alleged infringement. Upon information and belief, IDT
surmises that any express licensees of the ’816 patent have complied with the marking
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287 by placing a notice of the ’816 patent on all goods made, offered
for sale, sold within, and/or imported into the United States that embody one or more claims of
that patent.
114.

Upon information and belief, Apple has been and is directly infringing under 35

U.S.C. § 271(a), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and/or indirectly infringing,
by way of inducement with specific intent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), the ’816 patent by making,
using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors, and/or consumers (directly or
through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States
and/or importing into the United States, without authority, display products that include all of the
limitations of one or more claims of the ’816 patent, including but not limited to desktops, laptops,
monitors, mobile phones, music players, and tablets with an LCD (e.g., the iPad 3, iPad 4, iPhone
4, iPhone 5, and MacBook Air), their display components, and/or other products made, used, sold,
offered for sale, or imported by Apple that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of
the ’816 patent.
27

115.

Upon information and belief, distributors and consumers that purchase Apple’s

display products that include all of the limitations of one or more claims of the ’816 patent,
including but not limited to desktops, laptops, monitors, mobile phones, music players, and tablets
with an LCD (e.g., the iPad 3, iPad 4, iPhone 4, iPhone 5, and MacBook Air), also directly infringe,
either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’816 patent by
using, offering to sell, and/or selling to third-party distributors or consumers (directly or through
intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) in this District and elsewhere within the United States and/or
importing into the United States, those infringing display products.
116.

Upon information and belief, the third-party manufacturers, distributors, and

importers that sell display products to Apple that include all of the limitations of one or more
claims of the ’816 patent, also directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the ’816 patent by making, offering to sell, and/or selling (directly or
through intermediaries and/or subsidiaries) infringing products in this District and elsewhere
within the United States and/or importing infringing products into the United States.
117.

Upon information and belief, Apple had knowledge of the ’816 patent and its

infringing conduct prior to April 5, 2013. Prior to that date, Apple had knowledge of the ’816
patent and its infringing conduct at least as a result of its interaction with companies affiliated with
the ’816 patent’s inventor, Jeffery Parker.
118.

Upon information and belief, since at least the above-mentioned date of notice,

Apple has actively induced, under U.S.C. § 271(b), third-party manufacturers, distributors,
importers and/or consumers that purchase or sell display products that include all of the limitations
of one or more claims of the ’816 patent, including but not limited to desktops, laptops, monitors,
mobile phones, music players, and tablets with an LCD (e.g., the iPad 3, iPad 4, iPhone 4, iPhone

28

5, and MacBook Air), to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’816 patent. Since at least the
notice provided on the above-mentioned date, Apple does so with knowledge, or with willful
blindness of the fact, that the induced acts constitute infringement of the ’816 patent.
119.

Upon information and belief, Apple intends to cause, and has taken affirmative

steps to induce, infringement by these third-party manufacturers, distributors, importers, and/or
consumers by, inter alia, creating advertisements that promote the infringing use of display
products, creating established distribution channels for these products into and within the United
States, purchasing these products, manufacturing these products in conformity with U.S. laws and
regulations, distributing or making available instructions or manuals for these products to
purchasers and prospective buyers, and/or providing technical support, replacement parts, or
services for these products to these purchasers in the United States.
120.

Upon information and belief, Apple’s acts of infringement of the ’816 patent have

been willful and intentional. Since at least the above-mentioned date of notice, Apple has acted
with an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the ’816 patent by
refusing to take a license and continuing to make and sell its display products, including but not
limited to desktops, laptops, monitors, mobile phones, music players, and tablets with an LCD
(e.g., the iPad 3, iPad 4, iPhone 4, iPhone 5, and MacBook Air), and the objectively-defined risk
was either known or so obvious that it should have been known.
121.

As a direct and proximate result of these acts of patent infringement, Apple has

encroached on the exclusive rights of IDT and its licensees to practice the ’816 patent, for which
IDT is entitled to at least a reasonable royalty.

29

CONCLUSION
122.

Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Apple the damages sustained by Plaintiffs as

a result of Apple’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at trial, which, by law, cannot be
less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court.
123.

Plaintiffs have incurred and will incur attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses in the

prosecution of this action. The circumstances of this dispute create an exceptional case within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285, and Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their reasonable and necessary
attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.
JURY DEMAND
124.

Plaintiffs hereby request a trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
125.

Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court find in their favor and against Apple,

and that the Court grant Plaintiffs the following relief:
A.

A judgment that Apple has infringed the patents-in-suit as alleged herein, directly
and/or indirectly by way of inducing infringement of such patents;

B.

A judgment for an accounting of all damages sustained by Plaintiffs as a result of
the acts of infringement by Apple;

C.

A judgment and order requiring Apple to pay Plaintiffs damages under 35 U.S.C.
§ 284, including up to treble damages for willful infringement as provided by 35
U.S.C. § 284, and any royalties determined to be appropriate;

D.

A permanent injunction enjoining Apple and its officers, directors, agents, servants,
employees, affiliates, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents and all others acting

30

in concert or privity with them from direct and/or indirect infringement of the
patents-in-suit pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283;
E.

A judgment and order requiring Apple to pay Plaintiffs pre-judgment and postjudgment interest on the damages awarded;

F.

A judgment and order finding this to be an exceptional case and requiring Apple to
pay the costs of this action (including all disbursements) and attorneys’ fees as
provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285; and

G.

Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

31

Dated: April 8, 2014

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Jeffrey R. Bragalone
Jeffrey R. Bragalone (lead attorney)
Texas Bar No. 02855775
Patrick J. Conroy
Texas Bar No. 24012448
Justin B. Kimble
Texas Bar No. 24036909
T. William Kennedy, Jr.
Texas Bar No. 24055771
Daniel F. Olejko
Pennsylvania Bar No. 205512
Bragalone Conroy PC
2200 Ross Avenue
Suite 4500W
Dallas, TX 75201
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

T. John Ward Jr.
Texas Bar No. 00794818
Claire Abernathy Henry
Ward & Smith Law Firm
1127 Judson Road, Suite 220
Longview, TX 75601
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
INNOVATIVE DISPLAY
TECHNOLOGIES LLC AND
DELAWARE DISPLAY GROUP LLC

32