Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Words from the great “Forest Gump” movie that are symbolic of IDCC today.
“Run Forest run”. And he ran and ran and ran until he said he was tired and stopped running and went home.
its getting a little silly out there right now...margin clerks in action taking no prisoners
tnyellowtomcat, since earnings it has the feel of the beginning of a short covering...
Gamco, most options are lottery tickets. Most are cashed for the win rather than exercised.
teecee56, I believe put sellers.
gamco...anything deep in the money has already been theoretically excersized ....as the price powers higher...the need to hedge by the options market makers increases...as the delta of the options approaches 1
Teecee56 - This Friday is option expiration and there are over 1,400 call contracts in the money (as of today). Makes me wonder how many might get exercised
Teecee56,
I would hope that these put buyers are fully clothed, but they may be running around naked!
ROTFLMAO - Tomcat
could be a put seller...which is technically a long position...even though out of the money....if a professional was the buyer of the puts on the other side of the trade...he would have to buy some stock to hedge in a ratio vs the long puts
The way out of the money put purchases may just be a hedging transaction, or part of a butterfly or similar.
OR ...
A desperate ruse by the shorties to try to get the stock price back down!
IMHO - Tomcat
Vegas...re gamco options post...put buyer or put seller??
Don't shoot the messenger, but due to the Dutch Auction and the other company buybacks this year, I imagine most stockholders have an unrealized gain in IDCC. Between now and the end of the year (33 business days) many people and taxable funds will be doing some tax loss selling. This year IDCC will often be selected to take gains to offset those losses. A portfolio with a 5% holding of IDCC at the beginning of the year could easily represent 10% by now. Investment diversification equates to how well many people sleep at night. So even retirement accounts may decide to sell some. (JMHM)
Don't get me wrong, IDCC has done a lot of things successfully this year besides retiring a significant amount of their own stock. My first purchase of IDCC was in 1997 and the company's future is brighter than ever. (MO)
Stay safe and have a wonderful 2023! All my best, Gamco.
Fish if the Zacks story you posted holds great.
If not back to the dungeons with them.
If I interpreted Gamco’s article correctly then a bunch of December puts were purchased.
Noteworthy Monday Option Activity: CTAS, XP, IDCC
November 13, 2023 — 03:35 pm EST
Written by BNK Invest for BNK Invest ->
And Interdigital Inc (Symbol: IDCC) saw options trading volume of 1,761 contracts, representing approximately 176,100 underlying shares or approximately 67.1% of IDCC's
average daily trading volume over the past month, of 262,265 shares. Especially high volume was seen for the $80 strike put option expiring December 15, 2023, with 500 contracts trading so far today, representing approximately 50,000 underlying shares of IDCC.
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/noteworthy-monday-option-activity:-ctas-xp-idcc
Sorry m3s, had to post this from Zacks:
IDCC vs. QCOM: Which Stock Is the Better Value Option?
QCOM -0.29%
IDCC +2.50%
Zacks Equity Research
Mon, November 13, 2023 at 10:40 AM CST·2 min read
In this article:
Investors looking for stocks in the Wireless Equipment sector might want to consider either InterDigital (IDCC) or Qualcomm (QCOM). But which of these two stocks is more attractive to value investors? We'll need to take a closer look to find out.
We have found that the best way to discover great value opportunities is to pair a strong Zacks Rank with a great grade in the Value category of our Style Scores system. The proven Zacks Rank emphasizes companies with positive estimate revision trends, and our Style Scores highlight stocks with specific traits.
InterDigital has a Zacks Rank of #2 (Buy), while Qualcomm has a Zacks Rank of #3 (Hold) right now. The Zacks Rank favors stocks that have recently seen positive revisions to their earnings estimates, so investors should rest assured that IDCC has an improving earnings outlook. But this is just one piece of the puzzle for value investors.
Value investors also tend to look at a number of traditional, tried-and-true figures to help them find stocks that they believe are undervalued at their current share price levels.
The Value category of the Style Scores system identifies undervalued companies by looking at a number of key metrics. These include the long-favored P/E ratio, P/S ratio, earnings yield, cash flow per share, and a variety of other fundamentals that help us determine a company's fair value.
IDCC currently has a forward P/E ratio of 10.27, while QCOM has a forward P/E of 13.70. We also note that IDCC has a PEG ratio of 0.59. This metric is used similarly to the famous P/E ratio, but the PEG ratio also takes into account the stock's expected earnings growth rate. QCOM currently has a PEG ratio of 1.09.
Another notable valuation metric for IDCC is its P/B ratio of 3.97. The P/B ratio pits a stock's market value against its book value, which is defined as total assets minus total liabilities. For comparison, QCOM has a P/B of 6.41.
These metrics, and several others, help IDCC earn a Value grade of A, while QCOM has been given a Value grade of C.
IDCC stands above QCOM thanks to its solid earnings outlook, and based on these valuation figures, we also feel that IDCC is the superior value option right now.
After Hours Trade: 16:33:28 $91.57 15 shares
Teecee they can buy more for an even higher price. I won’t be upset with them.
looks like the buyers have found some supply since yesterday afternoon....although it has come at a price !!
Burn baby burn. Burn this mother down.
ALAS ! ! ! Price now over $90. And I was worried in the beginning of the month when the price looked like it was retreating back to the $60's.
Up $2 now, Shorts appear to be between a rock and a hard spot. Improving fundamentals, what to do, short more to bring the price down short term, or run for the hills.
Yep up $1.74…cooking with gas now!
OF ALL THE STOCKS OUT THERE TO SHORT, IDCC IS ONE OF THE WORST SELECTIONS!
IMHO - Tomcat
Good volume with a nicely increasing share price.
Good volume for the first hour of trading.
its anybodys guess....games are being played....shorts covered about 250k shares in the period ended 10/31....still nearly 3 myn...this recent move seems to have taken them by surprise.....they might have to short some more to surpress price
Closed up 2.4 points on volume of 345,310 shares, Nice move today. Share price up about 3.7% over the week.
up 2.5 points on 119k shares at 1.40pm..
Wall Street Analysts Think InterDigital (IDCC) Could Surge 28.81%: Read This Before Placing a Bet
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/wall-street-analysts-think-interdigital-idcc-could-surge-28.81:-read-this-before-placing-a
High close for this latest "cycle"....supply is getting tighter.....as the company continues to ..."Shrink"...it's the biggest buyback in history......find me another company who has shrunk the available supply by 60 pct since they started buying back stock
Badger never sell yourself short. After all of these years why should someone else walk in and get the long term gains for a short term investment. Me I am in for the long haul. However, I will sell when we r at a $20 billion dollar capitalization and relevant share price.
Thanks Monterey2000. At what point does this company become an attractive target? With all their cash, IP, and ongoing revenue streams along with the incredible amount of new licensing opportunities that are now right in front of us, I'm somewhat amazed that IDCC is still publicly traded. I know many here have alluded to this company being taken private or being bought out, but it would seem that such an event if on the horizon is currently a closely guarded secret. IDCC still shows plenty of upside potential so here I'll stay a bit longer. Back to lurking.
I believe IDCC is still buying.
Check Vegas’ post with this link
You can also read transcript or listen to coneference call as more details provided there.
Link to transcript here
It would seem that IDCC is at an inflection point once again. Up nicely on low volume would seem to imply a lack of supply in available shares at the current price level. Any positive news and the $100+ targets are quickly in play. What is the status of the company's buy back? How much is still available to spend under their current plan? Any indication that they're still in the market for more shares?
Momentum continues for Avanci and its independent, global licensing solutions as Hyundai and Kia sign 5G Vehicle agreements
November 7, 2023, 3:00 am
Avanci 4G Vehicle program flourishing, with eight new licensors and nine new auto brands under license in the past year
Recently launched Avanci 5G Vehicle program rapidly gaining momentum, with 62 licensors and seven auto brands already under license including world leading automakers Hyundai and Kia
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/momentum-continues-avanci-independent-global-080000397.html
DUBLIN, November 07, 2023--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Avanci, the independent global leader in joint licensing solutions, today shared progress in its Avanci Vehicle licensing programs.
Intel signs up as licensor to Avanci 4G and 5G connected car programmes
Car maker Kia and parent company Hyundai Motor Company are Avanci’s latest 5G licensees, while Intel is now a licensor
no links
After all these buybacks they are saving annual dividend monies despite the recent increase to .40 cents
Bump that baby up another .10 next quarter and the balance sheet won’t notice any difference… especially if they keep continuing the March to <25 million shares
days to cover is as large as its been...over 15...because of the extremely high institutional interest 100+%....its still easy to borrow....sometimes thats the biggest trap of all....if youre borrowing shares "on special"....it makes you pause before shorting more...not so much when they are freely lent
Teecee,
Well, these ill-advised shorts will have to "Pay a Price, to get out of the Vice!!"
IMHO - Tomcat
big cat....its not like they can just pack up and leave.....id like to think of it like the scene in the movie bronx tale...."we asked you politely to leave....now you cant leave"
I think the shorts should MOVE ON to greener pastures!
Tomcat
zdog - I don't think the "willful infringement" was ever included in any other court filings against any other infringers but I could be wrong.
You asked, "Thanks, Do you recall if they asserted willful infringement against anyone else over the years?"
Thanks, Do you recall if they asserted willful infringement against anyone else over the years?
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
126. WHEREFORE, InterDigital respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment
in favor of InterDigital as follows:
(a) That Lenovo is liable for infringement, contributing to the infringement, and/or
inducing the infringement of one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit;
(b) An award of damages adequate to compensate InterDigital for the infringement that
has occurred, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, including prejudgment and post-judgment interest;
(c) An award of enhanced damages including, without limitation, treble damages for
willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
(d) An accounting and/or supplemental damages for all damages occurring after any
discovery cutoff and through the Court’s decision regarding the imposition of a permanent
injunction;
(e) An award of attorneys’ fees based on this being an exceptional case pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 285, including prejudgment interest on such fees;
(f) Enter a permanent injunction against all Lenovo products found to infringe the
Patents-in-Suit;
(g) Award, in lieu of an injunction, a compulsory forward royalty;
(h) Costs and expenses in this action; and
(i) An award of any further relief that this Court deems just and proper.
Paullee - Thank you so very much!
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
NO. 23-cv-00493-FL
INTERDIGITAL, INC.,
INTERDIGITAL VC HOLDINGS, INC.,
INTERDIGITAL PATENT HOLDINGS,
INC., and INTERDIGITAL MADISON
PATENT HOLDINGS SAS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LENOVO GROUP LIMITED, LENOVO
(UNITED STATES) INC., and
MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
InterDigital, Inc., InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., and
InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS (collectively, “InterDigital” or “Plaintiffs”), bring this
Complaint for patent infringement against Defendants Lenovo Group Limited, Lenovo (United
States) Inc., and Motorola Mobility LLC, collectively (“Lenovo”). In support of this Complaint,
InterDigital alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF ACTION
1. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
2. Defendants have infringed and continue to infringe at least one claim of United
States Patent Nos. 10,250,877, (the “’877 Patent”), 8,674,859 (the “’859 Patent”), 9,674,556 (the
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 1 of 35
- 2 -
“’556 Patent”), 9,173,054 (the “’054 Patent”), and 8,737,933 (the “’933 Patent”) (collectively,
the “Asserted Patents”).
3. Defendants infringe directly, literally, and/or by the doctrine of equivalents,
and/or induces infringement of the Asserted Patents by developing, making, using, selling,
offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States products that incorporate InterDigital’s
patented technology.
4. InterDigital seeks damages and other relief for Lenovo’s infringement of
InterDigital’s patented technology.
THE PARTIES
5. InterDigital, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business
at 200 Bellevue Parkway, Suite 300, Wilmington, DE 19809.
6. InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business at 200 Bellevue Parkway, Suite 300, Wilmington, DE 19809.
7. InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business at 200 Bellevue Parkway, Suite 300, Wilmington, DE 19809.
8. InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS is a French corporation with its
principal place of business at 3 Rue du Colonel Moll, Paris, France 75017.
9. On information and belief, Defendant Lenovo Group Limited is a corporation
operating under the laws of Hong Kong with its principal place of business at 23rd Floor,
Lincoln House, Taikoo Place, 979 King’s Road. On information and belief, Lenovo Group Ltd.
is the corporate parent of a multinational conglomerate that operates under the name “Lenovo”
and refers to itself and its subsidiaries as the “Group.”
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 2 of 35
- 3 -
10. On information and belief, Defendant Lenovo (United States) Inc. (“Lenovo
USA”) is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Delaware with its principal place
of business at 8001 Development Dr., Morrisville, North Carolina 27560. On information and
belief, Lenovo USA is a wholly owned subsidiary of (or is otherwise controlled by) Lenovo
Group Ltd. and is part of the Lenovo Group.
11. Defendant Motorola Mobility LLC (“Motorola”) is a limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of
business at 222 W. Merchandise Mart Plaza, Suite 1800, Chicago, Illinois 60654. Upon
information and belief, Motorola is a wholly owned subsidiary of (or is otherwise controlled by)
Lenovo Group Ltd. and is part of the Lenovo Group.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12. This is an action arising under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C.
§ 271. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
13. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Lenovo. Lenovo has done and continues
to do business in the State of North Carolina. Lenovo has, directly or through subsidiaries or
intermediaries, purposefully and voluntarily placed its infringing products and/or services into
the stream of commerce with the specific intention and expectation that its infringing products
and/or services will be purchased and used by consumers in North Carolina and in this District.
In doing so, Lenovo has established minimum contacts in North Carolina such that the exercise
of jurisdiction over Lenovo would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice as required to satisfy constitutional requirements for due process.
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 3 of 35
- 4 -
14. Venue as to Lenovo Group Ltd. is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(c)(3) because venue is proper in any judicial district against a foreign corporation. See In
re HTC Corp., 889 F.3d 1349, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
15. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because Lenovo
has committed, and continues to commit, acts of infringement in this District and has regular and
established places of business in this District.
16. Lenovo’s presence in this District is substantial. Lenovo’s headquarters, research
center, and sales center located at 8001 Development Dr., Morrisville, North Carolina 27560
comprise Lenovo’s “home.”1 In addition to its headquarters, Lenovo also maintains a physical
presence in this District at a fulfillment center located at 6540 Franz Warner Pkwy, Whisett,
North Carolina 37477. Lenovo employs full-time personnel at such facilities.2
17. In total, Lenovo employs around 6,000 people in North Carolina. Lenovo also
currently employs several individuals located in this District who likely have knowledge relevant
to Lenovo’s infringement of the Asserted Patents.
18. Having purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business with
residents of this judicial district, Lenovo should reasonably and fairly anticipate being brought
into court in this district to resolve the parties’ dispute regarding Lenovo’s infringement of
InterDigital’s Patents.
19. Venue as to Motorola is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)
because Motorola has committed, and continues to commit, acts of infringement in this District
1 “5 ways Lenovo positively impacted the Triangle in 2022 and what’s coming in 2023” WRAL
News, (Dec. 22, 2022), https://www.wral.com/5-ways-lenovo-positively-impacted-the-triangle-
in-2022-and-what-s-coming-in-2023/20640384/.
2 https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/about/locations/?orgRef=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.
google.com%252F.
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 4 of 35
- 5 -
and has regular and established places of business in this District. For example, on information
and belief, Motorola has an established place of business in this judicial district at 8001
Development Dr., Morrisville, North Carolina 27560. See MyMail, LTD., v. Lenovo Group LTD.,
et al., Case No. 1:18-CV-00048-LY, Dkt. 22 at 1-2 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2018) (Lenovo and
Motorola moved to transfer to this District stating “Lenovo and Motorola both have offices in
Morrisville, North Carolina, and over three quarters of all Lenovo employees are located there.
The EDNC will thus be a hub for relevant documents, witnesses, and evidence.”).
20. Upon information and belief, Motorola is a wholly owned subsidiary of (or is
otherwise controlled by) Lenovo Group Ltd. and is part of the Lenovo Group. Lenovo offers for
sale Motorola devices on its website:
Source: https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/phones/.
21. Notably, one of the Accused Products in this action is the Lenovo ThinkPhone by
Motorola—which is a direct collaboration between the parties:
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 5 of 35
- 6 -
Source: https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/p/phones/motorola-smartphones/thinkphone/thinkphone-
by-motorola/pmipmfq34m3?orgRef=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.google.com%252F.
22. On information and belief, Motorola has and is hiring employees in this District.
For example, Lenovo recently had a job listing for a Sales Manager and identified the role as
“part of Motorola.” The posting was for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Area.3 Motorola has
twenty job postings for North Carolina as of July 17, 2023.4
23. Motorola currently employs several individuals in this District who likely have
knowledge relevant to Motorola’s infringement of the Asserted Patents as well as the crossover
between Motorola and Lenovo.
24. Gregg Locher, Sr. Director, WW Alliance Partners at Lenovo, “was recruited for
2nd international assignment in China to help lead the merging of Lenovo and Motorola smart
phone supply chain operations.”5 Mr. Locher is located in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Area
according to his LinkedIn Page. Id.
3 https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/3633510991/.
4 https://motorolasolutions.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/Careers?q=north%20carolina&
timeType=436f05d7afa343d5a8c9f92ef3e8c71b.
5 https://www.linkedin.com/in/gregglocher/.
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 6 of 35
- 7 -
25. Frederick DiBerto, Senior Procurement Manager of Mobile Memory for Phones,
Tablets and Smart Devices currently works for both Lenovo and Motorola.6 Mr. Diberto is
located in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina. Id.
26. Ritch Russ, Director, Technology & Innovation Sourcing at Lenovo/Motorola
currently works at both Lenovo and Motorola, working on folding OLED devices, ThinkPad X1
Fold, and Motorola Razr platform.7 Mr. Russ is located in Raleigh, NC. Id.
27. Finally, venue is also convenient in this District. This is at least true because of
this District’s close ties to this case—including the technology, relevant witnesses, and sources
of proof noted above—and its ability to quickly and efficiently move this case to resolution. In
fact, in a previous case where Lenovo and Motorola have both been named defendant, Lenovo
and Motorola have moved for transfer to EDNC due to the significant amount of overlap in the
district. See MyMail, Case No. 1:18-CV-00048-LY, Dkt. 22 at 1-2 (“Lenovo and Motorola both
have offices in Morrisville, North Carolina, and over three quarters of all Lenovo employees are
located there. The EDNC will thus be a hub for relevant documents, witnesses, and evidence.”).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
28. InterDigital is one of the most successful and innovative research and
development companies of the last half century. InterDigital was founded by Sherwin Seligsohn
in 1972 as International Mobile Machines Corporation (IMM). In 1976, IMM demonstrated one
of the first wireless telephones during the bicentennial celebrations in Philadelphia’s Fairmount
Park, the same place that Alexander Graham Bell first demonstrated his telephone 100 years
earlier.
6 https://www.linkedin.com/in/frederick-diberto-7912595a/.
7 https://www.linkedin.com/in/ritch-russ-248b8112/.
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 7 of 35
- 8 -
29. Above all else, InterDigital is an engineering company that for more than 50 years
has been at the forefront of developing innovative and foundational wireless communication,
video coding, and other digital technologies. InterDigital has developed and implemented a wide
variety of wireless technologies, systems, and products, many of which form the backbone of
modern-day digital wireless communication. It has also helped develop and shape technologies
in every aspect of the network – from handsets to base stations and mobile edge computing; from
IoT sensors to streaming video and beyond.
30. Every year, InterDigital pours roughly 20% of its total revenues into continued
research and development and has invested more than one billion dollars in research and
development, alone. At its facilities in Delaware and throughout the United States, InterDigital
researches, develops, engineers, and licenses technology for advanced video coding technologies
as well as other cutting-edge technology. InterDigital’s world-class Research and Innovation
Lab—with locations in Indiana, New Jersey, and Washington D.C.—has designed and developed
a range of key technologies instrumental to video coding.
31. InterDigital and its employees’ technical contributions have been recognized the
world over. Its employees have held or currently hold more than 100 significant leadership
positions on standard setting bodies. InterDigital has also won many awards for its technical
discoveries. In just the last seven years, InterDigital has won more than 25 industry awards,
including several awards from entities such as IEEE, IBC, and CSI, among others. From mobile
technologies that underpin smartphones, networks and services to video technologies that are the
foundation for today’s most popular products and services, InterDigital’s research and
development teams help improve every product they work on, from the most basic to the most
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 8 of 35
- 9 -
advanced. Today, InterDigital still follows in the footsteps of its founder, developing an even
more connected world.
32. Lenovo is a global manufacturer of various cellular, wireless, and video devices—
including smartphones, computers, tablets, and components thereof. Consumers use these
products to utilize and enjoy a variety of audiovisual, entertainment, and social media services in
the United States. On information and belief, Lenovo’s products use wireless file-sharing,
AOMedia Video 1 (“AV1”) and VP9 (“VP9”) technology, covered by InterDigital’s Patents.
Yet, despite reaping the benefits of InterDigital’s patented technology, Lenovo refuses to pay its
fair share for the technology it exploits.
THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
33. The Asserted Patents provide benefits to the AOMedia Video 1 (“AV1”) and VP9
(“VP9”) protocols and enable wireless file-sharing between devices. The Asserted Patents are
important to, inter alia, the delivery and consumption of an enormous amount of video content
on a daily basis. The AV1/VP9 patents generally relate to video encoding/decoding (“CODEC”)
technology, which helps facilitate the transfer of video media to and from electronic devices by
reducing the size of files prior to transmission (encoding) and decoding it on a receiving device
after reception (decoding). The File-Sharing patents relate to technology that allows mobile
device users to transfer data between devices without using pre-existing cellular or network
infrastructure.
34. The ’877 Patent is entitled “Method and Device for Coding an Image Block,
Corresponding Decoding Method and Decoding Device” and issued on April 2, 2019, to
inventors Philippe Bordes, Pierre Andrivon, and Philippe Salmon. InterDigital Madison Patent
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 9 of 35
- 10 -
Holdings SAS owns, by assignment, all right, title, and interest in and to the ’877 Patent. A true
and correct copy of the ’877 Patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 1.
35. The ’859 Patent is entitled “Methods for Arithmetic Coding and Decoding and
Corresponding Devices” and issued on March 18, 2014, to inventors Philippe Bordes,
Dominique Thoreau, Jerome Vieron, and Edouard Francois. InterDigital Madison Patent
Holdings SAS owns, by assignment, all right, title, and interest in and to the ’859 Patent. A true
and correct copy of the ’859 Patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 2.
36. The ’556 Patent is entitled “Methods and Apparatus for in-Loop De-Artifact
Filtering” and issued on June 6, 2017, to inventors Meng-Ping Kao, Peng Yin, and Divorra
Escoda. InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. owns, by assignment, all right, title, and interest in and to
the ’556 Patent. A true and correct copy of the ’556 Patent is attached to this Complaint as
Exhibit 3.
37. The ’054 Patent is entitled “Data Transfer Between Wireless Devices” and issued
on October 27, 2015, to inventors Alan G. Carlton and Alexander Reznik. InterDigital Patent
Holdings, Inc. owns, by assignment, all right, title, and interest in and to the ’054 Patent. A true
and correct copy of the ’054 Patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 4.
38. The ’933 Patent is entitled “Data Transfer Between Wireless Devices” and issued
on May 27, 2014, to inventors Alan G. Carlton and Alexander Reznik. InterDigital Patent
Holdings, Inc. owns, by assignment, all right, title, and interest in and to the ’933 Patent. A true
and correct copy of the ’933 Patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 5.
39. The Patents-in-Suit were duly issued by the USPTO and are valid under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 10 of 35
- 11 -
40. The claims of the ’054 and ’933 Patents are valid and enforceable. The claims of
the ’054 and ’933 Patents, when viewed as a whole, including as an ordered combination, are not
merely the recitation of well-understood, routine, or conventional technologies or components.
The claimed advancements in secure wireless file-sharing technology were not well-known,
routine, or conventional at the time of the invention, and represent specific improvements over
the prior art and prior existing wireless file-sharing systems and methods.
41. At the time of the patented inventions, using touch screens and wireless protocols
to transfer data from one wireless device to another was cumbersome and inefficient. However,
by inventing a secure novel transfer method that combined a Bluetooth protocol for nearby
device detection, and WiFi for the fast transfer of data, the inventors of the ’054 and ’933 Patents
created a “simplified and more intuitive approach to data transfer between devices” that
facilitated “the more regular use of file transfer schemes in spontaneous situations.” ’054 Patent
at 1:40-43.
42. When the application to which the Asserted Patents claim priority was filed on
December 23, 2008, the world’s first prominent mobile “smartphone” had been available to
consumers for less than two years.8 Even though, as the ’054 Patent’s specification
acknowledges, “the sophistication of user interfaces supporting data transfers has developed (for
example, [through] the emergence of touch screen and multi-touch technology)” in devices such
8 Apple Reinvents the Phone with iPhone, Apple,
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2007/01/09Apple-Reinvents-the-Phone-with-
iPhone/#:~:text=MACWORLD%20SAN%20FRANCISCO%E2%80%94January%209,one%20s
mall%20and%20lightweight%20handheld (Jan. 9, 2007) (last accessed Oct. 22, 2023).
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 11 of 35
- 12 -
as the Apple iPhone, it was a cumbersome process to transfer data files between wireless
devices. ’054 Patent at 1:30-35.9
43. For example, the mobile phones of 2008 used applications such as e-mail or MMS
to transmit data from one device to another through an Internet connection or through a cellular
communication network. ’054 Patent at 1:25-30 (“Currently, data transfers may be performed
using applications such as electronic mail, or multimedia message services (MMS) with the data
being transmitted from one device to another through suitable technologies, for example, General
Packet Radio Service (GPRS) or Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN).”). They could also use
Bluetooth and near-field communication (NFC) protocols to transfer data over shorter distances.
44. The ’054 and ’933 Patents sought to improve the “fragmented approach to access
and manipulation of files” that plagued prior art file-sharing system. Id. at 1:39-40.
45. The technology embodied in the Asserted Patents solved problems present in the
field of wireless data transfer by simplifying and making more efficient the process of wireless
file-sharing. Indeed, as the ’054 Patent’s specification explains, despite the advancements in
touchscreen technology, “file transfers may still be a cumbersome, multi-step task requiring
adaptation between multiple implementations.” Id. at 1:40-43. The invention of the ’054 Patent
improved upon prior art wireless data transfer methods by making the process of file transfer
“simplified and more intuitive” to allow for the seamless transfer of data over optimal
communication protocols with little user intervention apart from selecting the files to be
transferred and their intended recipients. See ’054 Patent at 1:40-43.
9 Although this Complaint cites to the specification of the ’054 Patent, the ’054 and ’933 Patents
share a common specification.
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 12 of 35
- 13 -
46. The claims of the Asserted Patents are directed to specific improvements in
computer and networking functionality and capabilities. For example, the claimed invention
improves upon the prior art by using two separate protocols for (1) detecting the proximity of
candidate transferee devices, and (2) transferring the selected files to said devices, in a specific
combination that was inventive and novel at the time.
47. In particular, claim 1 of the ’054 Patent requires, among other things, that the
WTRU “detect[], . . . over Bluetooth, another WTRU” after a user selects media to be transferred
using the touch display. ’054 Patent at cl. 1. As the specification explains, the device of the ’054
Patent uses “environment information” and user input “to identify a target WTRU 101c,t.” ’054
Patent at 4:42-44. The environment information is an “input[] that may be used to drive a target
discrimination algorithm 313 that uniquely identifies a target WTRU for transfer of data.” Id. at
4:66-5:1. One way that the environment information could be gathered was via a service
discovery protocol (SDP) “such as currently available in protocols such as Bluetooth®, for
example.” Id. at 5:38-40. Importantly, “[t]his protocol allows the WTRU 101 to discover the
services . . . that are supported by other WTRUs operating in the local environment.” Id. at 5:38-
43. The information from a radio dialogue established with the candidate WTRU(s) could then
be used “to determine the individual candidate WTRUs 101c or set of candidate WTRUs 101c in
a local proximity.” Id. at 5:50-54.
48. In other words, the use of Bluetooth is central to the discovery of other
compatible devices that are in close proximity to the user wishing to transfer a media file.
Conventional wireless file-sharing methods, however, used a single communication protocol
such as Bluetooth for both the detection of devices and the transfer of data to selected devices.
The Asserted Patents, for the first time, combined two disparate communication protocols, i.e.,
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 13 of 35
- 14 -
Bluetooth and WiFi (developed by two different standards-setting bodies) for a more efficient
way of sharing files wirelessly.
49. Moreover, by requiring that the WTRU receive “an acceptance to transfer the
selected media” before transferring the media over WiFi, the invention of the ’054 Patent
improved upon the security of wireless file-sharing methods. Existing methods of wireless file-
sharing, such as e-mail, were (and still are) prone to exploitation by spam accounts and human
error. The ordered combination of elements of the ’054 Patent, however, enhanced the security
of file transfer by requiring that the intended recipient accept the transfer.
50. These noted improvements over the prior art represent meaningful limitations
and/or inventive concepts based upon the state of the art over a decade ago. Further, including in
view of these specific improvements, the inventions of the asserted claims, when such claims are
viewed as a whole and in ordered combination, are not routine, well-understood, conventional,
generic, existing, commonly used, well known, previously known, typical, and the like,
including because, until inventions of the asserted claims of the ’054 and ’933 Patents, the
claimed inventions were not existing or even considered in the field.
51. Indeed, it was not until 2013—over four years after the priority date of the ’054
and ’933 Patents—that leading tech companies such as Apple began implementing the patents’
claimed wireless file-sharing functionalities in their own touchscreen devices. See, e.g., Apple
Unveils iOS 7, Apple (June 10, 2013), https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2013/06/10Apple-
Unveils-iOS-7/. In releasing its wireless file-sharing functionality, Apple touted its “entirely new
way to quickly and easily share content with people nearby. When you’ve got something you
want to share, AirDrop shows you your contacts close by. Just select who you want to share with
and AirDrop does the rest.” Id.
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 14 of 35
- 15 -
52. And the equivalent file-sharing application for Android devices was not released
until 2020. Instantly Share Files with People Around You with Nearby Share, The Keyword
(Aug. 4, 2020) https://blog.google/products/android/nearby-share/ (“The Android community
has long asked for a way to quickly share content with each other from their devices. So after
years of development, Android is launching Nearby Share . . . .”). In releasing its Nearby Share
functionality, Android explained that “[w]hen you just want to quickly share something with a
friend or someone nearby, it can be a hassle to open your messages, find a contact and then find
the file you’d like to attach. Nearby Share allows you to cut down on that time with simple taps”
using Bluetooth and/or peer-to-peer Wi-Fi. Id. The use of Bluetooth for detection of nearby
devices, and the use of WiFi to transfer selected media files to a user specified by input on a
touchscreen device as claimed by the ’054 and ’933 Patents, was neither well-known, routine, or
conventional in 2008.
53. The claims of the ’054 and ’933 Patents, including as a whole and where
applicable in ordered combination, comprise, inter alia, a non-conventional and non-generic
arrangement of communications between two WiFi- and Bluetooth-enabled mobile devices that
is a technical improvement to the communications between the devices and web services,
including those improvements noted above.
54. Specifically, the ’054 and ’933 Patents identify that the “fragmented approach to
access and manipulation of files such as attachments” hindered “the more regular use of file
transfer schemes in spontaneous situations.” ’054 Patent at 1:36-43. The use of Bluetooth for
proximity detection and WiFi for file transfer presented a “simplified and more intuitive
approach” that enabled users to quickly and easily share files with nearby users, while skipping
the steps and time involved with opening a messaging app, finding a contact or correctly entering
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 15 of 35
- 16 -
recipient information, and then finding the file they would like to attach. Specifically, the use of
Bluetooth for nearby device detection eliminates the step of entering a recipient’s contact
information. And using WiFi for file transfer after nearby devices are detected and selected
greatly improved file transfer speed compared to the use of Bluetooth.
55. The claimed inventions are necessarily rooted in computer technology, i.e.,
mobile device technology, and comprise improvement over prior technologies in order to
overcome the problems, including those noted above, specifically arising in the realm of wireless
file-sharing in mobile device networks. In particular, the ubiquity of mobile devices creates a
problem in transferring data related to the ability to quickly identify the correct destination
device from all of the devices that are capable of receiving data. The use of Bluetooth for
proximity detection and WiFi for file transfer improves upon prior technology by enabling users
to restrict the detection of nearby devices to a smaller radius than those used in other protocols
such as WiFi. Moreover, the steps of detecting devices over Bluetooth and processing an input
from the touch display to select another device claimed in the ’054 and ’933 Patents enhances the
security of wireless devices by ensuring that the selected data is sent to the intended recipient.
56. The claimed solutions amount to an inventive concept for resolving the particular
problems and inefficiencies noted above, including in connection with sharing data
spontaneously and intuitively between users of mobile devices.
ACCUSED LENOVO DEVICES
57. The Accused Products include Lenovo smartphones, computers (including both
laptop and desktop), and tablet computers.
58. On information and belief, Lenovo designs, offers, and sells smartphones,
computers, and tablet computers using the AV1 and VP9 technology covered in InterDigital’s
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 16 of 35
- 17 -
Patents. For example, the Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon Gen 10 uses the AV1 and VP9
technology covered in InterDigital’s Patents. Lenovo operates the following website in
connection with its products: https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/.
59. On information and belief, Lenovo sells the Accused Products within the United
States through major retail outlets such as Best Buy, Target, Wal Mart, Verizon, AT&T, T-
Mobile, Amazon, and numerous other online stores and resellers.
60. On information and belief, Lenovo also performs several services to support the
sale of the Accused Products, including marketing the Accused Products, developing, and
distributing software, repairing the Accused Products, and other after-sale services, such as
supporting and configuring the Accused Products, as well as providing technical support to U.S.-
based customers and distributors to conform the Accused Products to purchaser requests. See,
e.g., Ex. 6 at 6 (Lenovo offering repair and IT support for Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Carbon Gen 10);
Ex. 7 (Description of Lenovo Premium Care services).
COUNT I
INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’877 PATENT
61. InterDigital incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
forth herein.
62. The ’877 Patent generally relates to a method for reconstructing a current block of
a current image from at least one block of a reconstructed reference image that is a different size
from the size of the current image. A decoder can reconstruct a compressed video frame using
information from a previously reconstructed reference image. But when this process results in a
reference image and a current image to be reconstructed having different sizes, the reference
image is resized by resampling to match the size of the current image before being motion
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 17 of 35
- 18 -
compensated. This may include storing the reconstructed reference images and resized reference
images of various sizes in the decoded picture buffer (DPB) memory, which may require more
memory space. The method of the ’877 Patent, unlike previous methods for reconstructing image
blocks, does not require the storage of resized, i.e., upsampled and/or subsampled, versions of
the reference image in the DPB memory.
63. Lenovo has infringed, contributed to the infringement of, and/or induced
infringement of the ’877 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing into the
United States, or by intending that others make, use, import into, offer for sale, or sell in the
United States, products using methods covered by one or more claims of the ’877 Patent
including, but not limited to, smartphones, laptops, and tablet computers that support the AV1
and VP9 video coding protocols.
64. By way of example only, Lenovo’s ThinkPad X1 Carbon Gen. 10, infringes
Claim 1 of the ’877 Patent as set forth in the claim chart attached as Exhibit 8.
65. Lenovo has been aware of the ’877 Patent since at least the filing date of this
Complaint.
66. Lenovo’s customers and end-users of the Accused Products directly infringe
Claim 1 of the ’877 Patent, at least by using the Accused Products.
67. On information and belief, Lenovo has actively induced infringement of at least
Claim 1 of the ’877 Patent since at least the filing date of this Complaint, in violation of 35
U.S.C. § 271(b). Lenovo knowingly and intentionally induces users of one or more of the
Accused Products to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’877 Patent by encouraging,
instructing, and aiding one or more persons in the United States, including Lenovo employees
who test and operate Accused Products at the direction of Lenovo, to make, use (including
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 18 of 35
- 19 -
testing those devices and methods), sell, or offer to sell one or more of the Accused Products in a
manner that infringes the ’877 Patent. See, e.g., Exs. 9–13 (Lenovo advertising products for sale
and their capabilities); Exs. 14, 15 (Lenovo advertising use of its products for video streaming).
68. Lenovo provides its customers and end-users with additional instructions that
direct the customers and end-users to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner. Lenovo
has done so by acta including but not limited to (1) selling the Accused Products including
features that—when used or resold—infringe the ’877 Patent; (2) marketing the infringing
capabilities of such products; and (3) providing instructions, user guides, technical support
services, customer support services, product sheets, technical specifications, and other support
and encouragement for the infringing use of the Accused Products. Lenovo has performed and
continues to perform these affirmative acts with knowledge of the ’877 Patent and with
knowledge that such actions would induct infringement of the ’877 Patent by Lenovo’s direct
and indirect customers.
69. On information and belief, by continuing to make, use, sell, offer to sell and/or
import the Accused Products on or after Lenovo first had notice of InterDigital’s allegations of
infringement, Lenovo contributorily infringes and continues to contributorily infringe at least
claim 1 of the ’877 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Current’s affirmative acts of
manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing the Accused Products and components
thereof, including video processors within the Accused Products, in this District and elsewhere in
the United States, contribute to Lenovo’s customers and end-users directly infringing the ’877
Patent. The Accused Products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce, have no
substantial non-infringing uses, and are known by Lenovo to be especially made or especially
adapted for use in infringement of the ’877 Patent.
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 19 of 35
- 20 -
70. On information and belief, Lenovo has performed and continues to perform the
above-identified acts of infringement with knowledge of the ’877 Patent and with intent, or
willful blindness, that they cause the direct and indirect infringement of the ’877 Patent.
Accordingly, Lenovo’s continued infringement of the ’877 Patent is willful and deliberate,
entitling InterDigital to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
71. On information and belief, InterDigital has suffered and continues to suffer
damages as a result of Lenovo’s infringement of the ’877 Patent in an amount to be determined
at trial.
72. On information and belief, Lenovo’s infringement of the ’877 Patent is causing
irreparable harm for which InterDigital has no adequate remedy at law unless Lenovo is enjoined
by this Court. Under 35 U.S.C. § 283, InterDigital is entitled to a permanent injunction against
further infringement of the ’877 Patent.
73. On information and belief, and in light of the allegations above, including
Lenovo’s willful infringement of the ’877 Patent, this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285,
entitling InterDigital to costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting this action.
COUNT II
INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’859 PATENT
74. InterDigital incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
forth herein.
75. The ’859 Patent generally describes a device and method for arithmetic encoding
and decoding of symbols in a stream. The arithmetic coding method of the ’859 Patent enables
symbols to be coded more efficiently and at a lower cost by allowing the real probability to be
approached more rapidly than other coding methods.
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 20 of 35
- 21 -
76. Lenovo has infringed, contributed to the infringement of, and/or induced
infringement of the ’859 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing into the
United States, or by intending that others make, use, import into, offer for sale, or sell in the
United States, products and/or methods covered by one or more claims of the ’859 Patent
including, but not limited to, smartphones, laptops, and tablet computers that support the AV1
and VP9 video coding protocols.
77. By way of example only, Lenovo’s ThinkPad X1 Carbon Gen. 10, infringes
Claim 10 of the ’859 Patent as set forth in the claim chart attached as Exhibit 16.
78. Lenovo has been aware of the ’859 Patent since at least the filing date of this
Complaint.
79. Lenovo’s customers and end-users of the Accused Products directly infringe
Claim 10 of the ’859 Patent, at least by using the Accused Products.
80. On information and belief, Lenovo has actively induced infringement of at least
Claim 10 of the ’859 Patent since at least the filing date of this Complaint, in violation of 35
U.S.C. § 271(b). Lenovo knowingly and intentionally induces users of one or more of the
Accused Products to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’859 Patent by encouraging,
instructing, and aiding one or more persons in the United States, including Lenovo employees
who test and operate Accused Products at the direction of Lenovo, to make, use (including
testing those devices and methods), sell, or offer to sell one or more of the Accused Products in a
manner that infringes the ’859 Patent. See, e.g., Exs. 9–13 (Lenovo advertising products for sale
and their capabilities); Exs. 14, 15 (Lenovo advertising use of its products for video streaming).
81. Lenovo provides its customers and end-users with additional instructions that
direct the customers and end-users to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner. Lenovo
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 21 of 35
- 22 -
has done so by acta including but not limited to (1) selling the Accused Products including
features that—when used or resold—infringe the ’859 Patent; (2) marketing the infringing
capabilities of such products; and (3) providing instructions, user guides, technical support
services, customer support services, product sheets, technical specifications, and other support
and encouragement for the infringing use of the Accused Products. Lenovo has performed and
continues to perform these affirmative acts with knowledge of the ’859 Patent and with
knowledge that such actions would induce infringement of the ’859 Patent by Lenovo’s direct
and indirect customers.
82. On information and belief, by continuing to make, use, sell, offer to sell and/or
import the Accused Products on or after Lenovo first had notice of InterDigital’s allegations of
infringement, Lenovo contributorily infringes and continues to contributorily infringe at least
claim 10 of the ’859 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Current’s affirmative acts of
manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing the Accused Products and components
thereof, including video processors within the Accused Products, in this District and elsewhere in
the United States, contribute to Lenovo’s customers and end-users directly infringing the ’859
Patent. The Accused Products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce, have no
substantial non-infringing uses, and are known by Lenovo to be especially made or especially
adapted for use in infringement of the ’859 Patent.
83. On information and belief, Lenovo has performed and continues to perform the
above-identified acts of infringement with knowledge of the ’859 Patent and with intent, or
willful blindness, that they cause the direct and indirect infringement of the ’859 Patent.
Accordingly, Lenovo’s continued infringement of the ’859 Patent is willful and deliberate,
entitling InterDigital to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 22 of 35
- 23 -
84. On information and belief, InterDigital has suffered and continues to suffer
damages as a result of Lenovo’s infringement of the ’859 Patent in an amount to be determined
at trial.
85. On information and belief, Lenovo’s infringement of the ’859 Patent is causing
irreparable harm for which InterDigital has no adequate remedy at law unless Lenovo is enjoined
by this Court. Under 35 U.S.C. § 283, InterDigital is entitled to a permanent injunction against
further infringement of the ’859 Patent.
86. On information and belief, and in light of the allegations above, including
Lenovo’s willful infringement of the ’859 Patent, this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285,
entitling InterDigital to costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting this action.
COUNT III
INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’556 PATENT
87. InterDigital incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
forth herein.
88. The ’556 Patent describes, among other things, a method and apparatus for
decoding an image region using at least two in-loop filters in succession. In block-based video
coding frameworks such as those described in the AV1 protocol, visual distortions or artifacts
may result from the lossy nature of video compression. The ’556 Patent describes a two-pass
method to help reduce the amount of coding artifacts by using a succession of filters on coded
pictures. In the first pass, an adaptive deblocking filter is applied to remove blocking artifacts
(e.g., discontinuities at the boundaries of coding blocks). In the second pass, an adaptive sparse
de-noising filter is applied to reduce quantization noise due to the scaling of the output (i.e., the
change in the number of possible output values for a given set of input values after performing
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 23 of 35
- 24 -
transform on the residue values). The method and apparatus of the ’556 Patent results in
enhanced decoded video quality because different types of artifacts and quantization errors are
handled by different filters and successively applied.
89. Lenovo has infringed, contributed to the infringement of, and/or induced
infringement of the ’556 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing into the
United States, or by intending that others make, use, import into, offer for sale, or sell in the
United States, products and/or methods covered by one or more claims of the ’556 Patent
including, but not limited to, smartphones, laptops, and tablet computers that support the AV1
video coding protocol.
90. By way of example only, Lenovo’s ThinkPad X1 Carbon Gen. 10, infringes
Claim 1 of the ’556 Patent as set forth in the claim chart attached as Exhibit 17.
91. Lenovo has been aware of the ’556 Patent since at least the filing date of this
Complaint.
92. Lenovo’s customers and end-users of the Accused Products directly infringe
Claim 1 of the ’556 Patent, at least by using the Accused Products.
93. On information and belief, Lenovo has actively induced infringement of at least
Claim 1 of the ’556 Patent since at least the filing date of this Complaint, in violation of 35
U.S.C. § 271(b). Lenovo knowingly and intentionally induces users of one or more of the
Accused Products to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’556 Patent by encouraging,
instructing, and aiding one or more persons in the United States, including Lenovo employees
who test and operate Accused Products at the direction of Lenovo, to make, use (including
testing those devices and methods), sell, or offer to sell one or more of the Accused Products in a
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 24 of 35
- 25 -
manner that infringes the ’556 Patent. See, e.g., Exs. 9–13 (Lenovo advertising products for sale
and their capabilities); Exs. 14, 15 (Lenovo advertising use of its products for video streaming).
94. Lenovo provides its customers and end-users with additional instructions that
direct the customers and end-users to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner. Lenovo
has done so by acta including but not limited to (1) selling the Accused Products including
features that—when used or resold—infringe the ’556 Patent; (2) marketing the infringing
capabilities of such products; and (3) providing instructions, user guides, technical support
services, customer support services, product sheets, technical specifications, and other support
and encouragement for the infringing use of the Accused Products. Lenovo has performed and
continues to perform these affirmative acts with knowledge of the ’556 Patent and with
knowledge that such actions would induct infringement of the ’556 Patent by Lenovo’s direct
and indirect customers.
95. On information and belief, by continuing to make, use, sell, offer to sell and/or
import the Accused Products on or after Lenovo first had notice of InterDigital’s allegations of
infringement, Lenovo contributorily infringes and continues to contributorily infringe at least
claim 1 of the ’556 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Current’s affirmative acts of
manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing the Accused Products and components
thereof, including video processors within the Accused Products, in this District and elsewhere in
the United States, contribute to Lenovo’s customers and end-users directly infringing the ’556
Patent. The Accused Products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce, have no
substantial non-infringing uses, and are known by Lenovo to be especially made or especially
adapted for use in infringement of the ’556 Patent.
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 25 of 35
- 26 -
96. On information and belief, Lenovo has performed and continues to perform the
above-identified acts of infringement with knowledge of the ’556 Patent and with intent, or
willful blindness, that they cause the direct and indirect infringement of the ’556 Patent.
Accordingly, Lenovo’s continued infringement of the ’556 Patent is willful and deliberate,
entitling InterDigital to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
97. On information and belief, InterDigital has suffered and continues to suffer
damages as a result of Lenovo’s infringement of the ’556 Patent in an amount to be determined
at trial.
98. On information and belief, Lenovo’s infringement of the ’556 Patent is causing
irreparable harm for which InterDigital has no adequate remedy at law unless Lenovo is enjoined
by this Court. Under 35 U.S.C. § 283, InterDigital is entitled to a permanent injunction against
further infringement of the ’556 Patent.
99. On information and belief, and in light of the allegations above, including
Lenovo’s willful infringement of the ’556 Patent, this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285,
entitling InterDigital to costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting this action.
COUNT IV
INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’054 PATENT
100. InterDigital incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
forth herein.
101. The ’054 Patent describes, among other things, a device and method for
wirelessly transferring data from a touchscreen device. According to the method of the patent, a
user may select a file to transfer from a touchscreen device. The circuitry of the touchscreen
device uses Bluetooth to detect nearby devices, from which the user can select a target device.
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 26 of 35
- 27 -
After sending a message to the target device to transfer the selected file, and receiving an
acceptance, the touchscreen device transfers the file to the target device using Wi-Fi.
Specifically, the type of Wi-Fi used in the method and device of the ’054 Patent may include
peer-to-peer communication.
102. Lenovo has infringed, contributed to the infringement of, and/or induced
infringement of the ’054 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing into the
United States, or by intending that others make, use, import into, offer for sale, or sell in the
United States, products and/or methods covered by one or more claims of the ’054 Patent
including, but not limited to, smartphones, laptops, and tablet computers that support wireless
file sharing.
103. By way of example only, Lenovo’s ThinkPad X1 Carbon Gen. 10, infringes
Claim 1 of the ’054 Patent as set forth in the claim chart attached as Exhibit 18.
104. Lenovo has been aware of the ’054 Patent since at least the filing date of this
Complaint.
105. Lenovo’s customers and end-users of the Accused Products directly infringe
Claim 1 of the ’054 Patent, at least by using the Accused Products.
106. On information and belief, Lenovo has actively induced infringement of at least
Claim 1 of the ’054 Patent since at least the filing date of this Complaint, in violation of 35
U.S.C. § 271(b). Lenovo knowingly and intentionally induces users of one or more of the
Accused Products to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’054 Patent by encouraging,
instructing, and aiding one or more persons in the United States, including Lenovo employees
who test and operate Accused Products at the direction of Lenovo, to make, use (including
testing those devices and methods), sell, or offer to sell one or more of the Accused Products in a
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 27 of 35
- 28 -
manner that infringes the ’054 Patent. See, e.g., Exs. 9–13 (Lenovo advertising products for sale
and their capabilities); Exs. 19, 20 (Lenovo instructions on using Nearby Share); Exs. 21–25
(Websites describing Nearby Share feature).
107. Lenovo provides its customers and end users with additional instructions that
direct the customers and end-users to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner. Lenovo
has done so by acta including but not limited to (1) selling the Accused Products including
features that—when used or resold—infringe the ’054 Patent; (2) marketing the infringing
capabilities of such products; and (3) providing instructions, user guides, technical support
services, customer support services, product sheets, technical specifications, and other support
and encouragement for the infringing use of the Accused Products. Lenovo has performed and
continues to perform these affirmative acts with knowledge of the ’054 Patent and with
knowledge that such actions would induct infringement of the ’054 Patent by Lenovo’s direct
and indirect customers.
108. On information and belief, by continuing to make, use, sell, offer to sell and/or
import the Accused Products on or after Lenovo first had notice of InterDigital’s allegations of
infringement, Lenovo contributorily infringes and continues to contributorily infringe at least
claim 1 of the ’054 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Current’s affirmative acts of
manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing the Accused Products and components
thereof within the Accused Products, in this District and elsewhere in the United States,
contribute to Lenovo’s customers and end-users directly infringing the ’054 Patent. The
Accused Products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce, have no substantial non-
infringing uses, and are known by Lenovo to be especially made or especially adapted for use in
infringement of the ’054 Patent.
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 28 of 35
- 29 -
109. On information and belief, Lenovo has performed and continues to perform the
above-identified acts of infringement with knowledge of the ’054 Patent and with intent, or
willful blindness, that they cause the direct and indirect infringement of the ’054 Patent.
Accordingly, Lenovo’s continued infringement of the ’054 Patent is willful and deliberate,
entitling InterDigital to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
110. On information and belief, InterDigital has suffered and continues to suffer
damages as a result of Lenovo’s infringement of the ’054 Patent in an amount to be determined
at trial.
111. On information and belief, Lenovo’s infringement of the ’054 Patent is causing
irreparable harm for which InterDigital has no adequate remedy at law unless Lenovo is enjoined
by this Court. Under 35 U.S.C. § 283, InterDigital is entitled to a permanent injunction against
further infringement of the ’054 Patent.
112. On information and belief, and in light of the allegations above, including
Lenovo’s willful infringement of the ’054 Patent, this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285,
entitling InterDigital to costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting this action.
COUNT V
INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’933 PATENT
113. InterDigital incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set
forth herein.
114. Like the’054 Patent, the ’933 Patent describes a device and method for wirelessly
transferring data from a touchscreen device. According to the method of the patent, a user may
select a file to transfer from a touchscreen device. The processor of the touchscreen device uses
Bluetooth to detect nearby devices, from which the user can select a target device. After sending
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 29 of 35
- 30 -
a message to the target device to transfer the selected file, and receiving an acceptance, the
touchscreen device transfers the file to the target device using Wi-Fi.
115. Lenovo has infringed, contributed to the infringement of, and/or induced
infringement of the ’933 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing into the
United States, or by intending that others make, use, import into, offer for sale, or sell in the
United States, products and/or methods covered by one or more claims of the ’933 Patent
including, but not limited to, smartphones, laptops, and tablet computers that support wireless
file sharing.
116. By way of example only, Lenovo’s ThinkPad X1 Carbon Gen. 10, infringes
Claim 1 of the ’933 Patent as set forth in the claim chart attached as Exhibit 26.
117. Lenovo has been aware of the ’933 Patent since at least the filing date of this
Complaint.
118. Lenovo’s customers and end-users of the Accused Products directly infringe
Claim 1 of the ’933 Patent, at least by using the Accused Products.
119. On information and belief, Lenovo has actively induced infringement of at least
Claim 1 of the ’933 Patent since at least the filing date of this Complaint, in violation of 35
U.S.C. § 271(b). Lenovo knowingly and intentionally induces users of one or more of the
Accused Products to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’933 Patent by encouraging,
instructing, and aiding one or more persons in the United States, including Lenovo employees
who test and operate Accused Products at the direction of Lenovo, to make, use (including
testing those devices and methods), sell, or offer to sell one or more of the Accused Products in a
manner that infringes the ’933 Patent. See, e.g., Exs. 9–13 (Lenovo advertising products for sale
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 30 of 35
- 31 -
and their capabilities); Exs. 19, 20 (Lenovo instructions on using Nearby Share); Exs. 21–25
(Websites describing Nearby Share feature).
120. Lenovo provides its customers and end-users with additional instructions that
direct the customers and end-users to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner. Lenovo
has done so by acta including but not limited to (1) selling the Accused Products including
features that—when used or resold—infringe the ’933 Patent; (2) marketing the infringing
capabilities of such products; and (3) providing instructions, user guides, technical support
services, customer support services, product sheets, technical specifications, and other support
and encouragement for the infringing use of the Accused Products. Lenovo has performed and
continues to perform these affirmative acts with knowledge of the ’933 Patent and with
knowledge that such actions would induct infringement of the ’933 Patent by Lenovo’s direct
and indirect customers.
121. On information and belief, by continuing to make, use, sell, offer to sell and/or
import the Accused Products on or after Lenovo first had notice of InterDigital’s allegations of
infringement, Lenovo contributorily infringes and continues to contributorily infringe at least
claim 1 of the ’933 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Current’s affirmative acts of
manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing the Accused Products and components
thereof within the Accused Products, in this District and elsewhere in the United States,
contribute to Lenovo’s customers and end-users directly infringing the ’933 Patent. The
Accused Products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce, have no substantial non-
infringing uses, and are known by Lenovo to be especially made or especially adapted for use in
infringement of the ’933 Patent.
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 31 of 35
- 32 -
122. On information and belief, Lenovo has performed and continues to perform the
above-identified acts of infringement with knowledge of the ’933 Patent and with intent, or
willful blindness, that they cause the direct and indirect infringement of the ’933 Patent.
Accordingly, Lenovo’s continued infringement of the ’933 Patent is willful and deliberate,
entitling InterDigital to increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
123. On information and belief, InterDigital has suffered and continues to suffer
damages as a result of Lenovo’s infringement of the ’933 Patent in an amount to be determined
at trial.
124. On information and belief, Lenovo’s infringement of the ’933 Patent is causing
irreparable harm for which InterDigital has no adequate remedy at law unless Lenovo is enjoined
by this Court. Under 35 U.S.C. § 283, InterDigital is entitled to a permanent injunction against
further infringement of the ’933 Patent.
125. On information and belief, and in light of the allegations above, including
Lenovo’s willful infringement of the ’933 Patent, this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285,
entitling InterDigital to costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in prosecuting this action.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
126. WHEREFORE, InterDigital respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment
in favor of InterDigital as follows:
(a) That Lenovo is liable for infringement, contributing to the infringement, and/or
inducing the infringement of one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit;
(b) An award of damages adequate to compensate InterDigital for the infringement that
has occurred, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, including prejudgment and post-judgment interest;
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 32 of 35
- 33 -
(c) An award of enhanced damages including, without limitation, treble damages for
willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
(d) An accounting and/or supplemental damages for all damages occurring after any
discovery cutoff and through the Court’s decision regarding the imposition of a permanent
injunction;
(e) An award of attorneys’ fees based on this being an exceptional case pursuant to 35
U.S.C. § 285, including prejudgment interest on such fees;
(f) Enter a permanent injunction against all Lenovo products found to infringe the
Patents-in-Suit;
(g) Award, in lieu of an injunction, a compulsory forward royalty;
(h) Costs and expenses in this action; and
(i) An award of any further relief that this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: October 31, 2023 Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ M. Scott Stevens
M. Scott Stevens
NC State Bar No. 37828
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
Vantage South End
1120 South Tryon Street, Suite 300
Charlotte, NC 28203
Telephone: 704-444-1025
Fax: 704-444-1935
scott.stevens@alston.com
Philip C. Ducker
CA State Bar No. 262644
Katherine G. Rubschlager
CA State Bar No. 328100
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
560 Mission Street, Suite 2100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 33 of 35
- 34 -
Telephone: 415-243-1000
Fax: 415-243-1001
phil.ducker@alston.com
katherine.rubschlager@alston.com
Special Appearance Pursuant to L.R. 83.1
Forthcoming
Ryan W. Koppelman
CA State Bar No. 290704
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
333 S. Hope St., 16th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 576-1000
Facsimile: (213) 576-1100
ryan.koppelman@alston.com
Special Appearance Pursuant to L.R. 83.1
Forthcoming
Neal A. Larson
GA State Bar No. 599069
TX State Bar No. 24106190
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 881-7000
Facsimile: (404) 881-7777
neal.larson@alston.com
Special Appearance Pursuant to L.R. 83.1
Forthcoming
Jenny J. Wang
NC State Bar No. 61255
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 600
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone: (919) 862-2200
Facsimile: (919) 862-2260
jenny.wang@alston.com
Special Appearance Pursuant to L.R. 83.1
Forthcoming
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
InterDigital, Inc. InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.,
InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., and
InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 34 of 35
- 35 -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has
been served on all counsel of record via the CM/ECF system on October 31, 2023.
/s/ M. Scott Stevens
M. Scott Stevens
Case 5:23-cv-00493-FL Document 20 Filed 10/31/23 Page 35
You would have thunk da shortz could have done better on a blah Monday with avg volume...c'mon you guys...put up a fight at the line of scrimmage.....J E T S....jets jets jets...first place on the line!!!!
So, today judge ruled against Lenova and Motorola attempt to have the case dismissed, because an amended complaint was filed.
If anyone wants a copy of the amended complaint you can write me at vigaits@aol.com
Followers
|
880
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
1
|
Posts (Total)
|
433140
|
Created
|
01/05/02
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
The principle objective of the iHub message boards is to maintain a high signal-to-noise ratio while encouraging the exchange of all points of view. Moderators are an important part of making our message boards beneficial to all participants and readers. Moderating a stock-specific board, particularly those which are controversial due to many divergent perspectives or newsworthy events, can be a challenging and time consuming role. The time and effort expended by our Members who volunteer their time to fulfill this valuable role is greatly appreciated and our Moderators should be treated with the respect they deserve for donating their time and efforts to the collective benefit of our community. Company-specific boards are the lifeblood of iHub. The Moderators' role is simple to define for company-specific boards:
To promote the civil exchange of on-topic dialog that complies with the Investors Hub Terms of Service. |
It is no accident that neither the above definition nor the Terms of Service makes mention of investment sentiment, shareholder interests, or considerations such as "the good of the company." That is because the TOS are blind to investment sentiment. In order to be a successful Moderator and conduct a board within the scope of iHub's TOS, it is critical that Moderators distinguish their role and privileges as Moderator from their role and privileges as a posting Member. That is often easier said than done, particularly on active boards with both the typical and atypical controversy.
If a post does not fit into any of these categories the post must not be removed.
Some posts fall into a "gray" area and are borderline depending upon the way they are read. As inclusion is favored over exclusion, please err or the side of not removing posts if they are not clear violations. Please use the "Report TOS Violation" button at the bottom of the post with your comments if the post is not egregious in nature and Site Admins will review the message.
Bottom line: Please use your best judgment in removing posts based on the above guidelines and let us know if you have any questions or need any help. And keep in mind that post removal and non-removal have to be given the same emphasis. It is not permissible, for example, to remove a post that calls someone a "pumper" while not also removing a post that calls someone a "basher". Investor sentiment, including your own, can NOT be part of the removal/non-removal decision.
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |