Case3:02-cv-05235-SI Document115 Filed09/09/02 Page1 of 8

1 Daniel Rapaport (Bar No. 67217) Laura K. Meyer (Bar No. 136431) 2 Thiele R. Dunaway (Bar No. 130953) WENDEL, ROSEN, BLACK & DEAN, LLP 3 1111 Broadway, 24th Floor Oakland, California 94607-4036 4 Telephone: (510) 834-6600 Fax: (510) 834-1928 5 Pro Hac Vice 6 Manny D. Pokotilow (PA Atty ID 13310) Mona Gupta (PA Atty ID 74332) 7 Frank M. Linguiti (PA Atty ID 39760) Bruce J. Chasan (PA Atty ID 29227) 8 CAESAR, RIVISE, BERNSTEIN, COHEN & POKOTILOW, LTD. 9 Seven Penn Center - 12th Floor 1635 Market Street 10 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2212 Telephone: (215) 567-2010 11 Fax: (215) 751-1142 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff Maurice Mitchell 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 SAN JOSE DIVISION 16 MAURICE MITCHELL, : Case No. C01-20737-JF 17 : Plaintiff, : AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 18 : PATENT INFRINGEMENT (modified) : 19 : (DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL) v. : 20 : FUJITSU LIMITED and FUJITSU : Judge: Honorable Jeremy Fogel 21 AMERICA, INC. : Special Master: Thomas F. Smegal, Esquire : 22 Defendants. : 23 Plaintiff, MAURICE MITCHELL, brings this action for patent infringement against 24 Defendants, FUJITSU LIMITED and FUJITSU AMERICA, INC. LIMITED and alleges as follows: 25 26

27 Amended Complaint For Patent Infringement 28 Case No. C01-20737JF Case3:02-cv-05235-SI Document115 Filed09/09/02 Page2 of 8

1 PARTIES 2 1. Plaintiff, MAURICE MITCHELL is a citizen of the State of California having an address 3 at 1860 Tice Creek Drive, #1322, Walnut Creek, CA 94595. 4 2. On information and belief, Defendant, FUJITSU LIMITED is a business entity organized 5 and existing under the laws of the country of Japan having its principal place of business at 6-1, 6 Marunouchi 1-chome, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-8211, Japan. 7 3. On information and belief, Defendant, FUJITSU AMERICA, INC. is a California 8 corporation organized and existing under the laws of California, having its principal place of 9 business at 3055 Orchard Drive, San Jose, California 95134. 10 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11 4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), because this case 12 arises under the patent laws of the United States of America and, more particularly, under 35 U.S.C. 13 §§ 271, 282, 283, 284 and 285. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 139a(b), 14 (c) and 1400(b). 15 VIOLATION OF 35 U.S.C. §271 16 5. On October 17, 1989, United States Letters Patent No. 4,875,154 (hereinafter “the ‘154 17 patent”), entitled MICROCOMPUTER WITH DISCONNECTED, OPEN, INDEPENDENT, 18 BIMEMORY ARCHITECTURE, ALLOWING LARGE INTERACTING, INTERCONNECTED 19 MULTI-MICROCOMPUTER PARALLEL SYSTEMS ACCOMMODATING MULTIPLE 20 LEVELS OF PROGRAMMER DEFINED HIERARCHY, was duly and lawfully issued to Plaintiff, 21 a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. Plaintiff has all right, title 22 and interest in the ‘154 patent to bring this action. 23 6. At or about the time of the issuance of the ‘154 patent, Plaintiff had discussions with 24 Defendant Fujitsu Limited’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Amdahl Corporation, about the ‘154 patent, 25 in particular with Ken Scott, Manager of Operating Systems Development at Amdahl Corporation. 26 Amdahl Corporation had actual notice and full knowledge of the claims of the ‘154 patent.

27 Amended Complaint For Patent Infringement 28 Case No. C01-20737JF 2 Case3:02-cv-05235-SI Document115 Filed09/09/02 Page3 of 8

1 7. Upon information and belief, Defendants are extensively engaged in the business of 2 manufacturing and marketing electronic merchandise, including semiconductors, computers and 3 related equipment. 4 8. Since April 24, 2000, Plaintiff has sought from Defendants information that would assist 5 Plaintiff in confirming whether the microprocessor systems found in Defendants’ electronic 6 merchandise are within the lawful scope of the ‘154 patent. To date, Defendants have not provided 7 the necessary documents and software for Plaintiff to determine whether Defendants’ product 8 infringe the ‘154 patent. 9 9. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff is not presently aware of any methods of 10 interconnecting central processing units other than the invention of the ‘154 patent, that would 11 enable Defendants to provide the results that they obtain with their electronic merchandise. 12 10. Upon further information and belief, Plaintiff is not presently aware of any analytical 13 technique which can be used to definitively establish that the microprocessor systems manufactured 14 and used by Defendants were made by use of the invention of the ‘154 patent, and for that reason 15 has sought a description of Defendants’ microprocessor architecture. In the absence of such 16 information, Plaintiff resorts to the judicial process and the aid of discovery to obtain under 17 appropriate judicial safeguards such information as is required to confirm his belief and to present 18 to the Court evidence that Defendants infringe one or more claims of the ‘154 patent. 19 11. Upon information and belief, Defendants have infringed, and still are infringing, the 20 ‘154 patent by making, using, offering for sale and selling in the United States and importing into 21 the United States embedded microprocessors, microcontrollers, chipsets and other Application 22 Specific Integrated Circuits (“ASICS”) that embody the invention of the ‘154 patent, and other 23 products incorporating them, including but not limited to Defendants’ VPP 300, VPP 700, VPP 5000 24 series of computers, MB86390A, MPEG 2 Encoder, MB86695 - MB86697A ATM device family, 25 MB91121 device, Fujitsu Graphics Processors / Graphical Display Controllers including, but not 26 limited to, MB86242, MB86290A - MB86293, MB87J2120 and MB87P2030, MB86342B device,

27 Amended Complaint For Patent Infringement 28 Case No. C01-20737JF 3 Case3:02-cv-05235-SI Document115 Filed09/09/02 Page4 of 8

1 MB87L2250 device, MB86830 - MB86836 devices, MB86676 device, F²MC series (both the 8-bit 2 and 16-bit series), FR30 series, AP 3000 series, GP700F device, SPARC64 processor, CE61, CE66, 3 CE71 and CE81 devices, and microprocessors, microcontrollers, chipsets or other ASICS that 4 incorporate the ARM7TDMI core. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the Complaint to add 5 additional products as discovery may indicate. 6 12. Upon information and belief, Defendants have also induced and contributed to the 7 infringement of the ‘154 patent by causing others to make, use, offer for sale and sell embedded 8 microprocessors, microcontrollers, chipsets and ASICS that embody the invention of the ‘154 patent 9 and other products incorporating them, including but not limited to Defendants’ VPP 300, VPP 700, 10 VPP 5000 series of computers, MB86390A MPEG 2 Encoder, MB86695 - MB86697A ATM device 11 family, MB91121 device, Fujitsu Graphics Processors / Graphical Display Controllers including, 12 but not limited to, MB86242, MB86290A - MB86293, MB87J2120 and MB87P2030, MB86342B 13 device, MB87L2250 device, MB86830 - MB86836 devices, MB86676 device, F²MC series (both 14 the 8-bit and 16-bit series), FR30 series, AP 3000 series, GP700F device, SPARC64 processor, 15 CE61, CE66, CE71 and CE81 devices, and microprocessors, microcontrollers, chipsets or other 16 ASICS that incorporate the ARM7TDMI core. 17 13. Defendants have engaged in the above-mentioned activities within this District and 18 elsewhere within the United States, without the consent of Plaintiff, and will continue to do so unless 19 enjoined by this Court. 20 14. Upon information and belief, Defendants have performed the complained of acts 21 willfully and wantonly, and with the knowledge of the infringement they would cause. 22 15. By reason of Defendants’ acts alleged herein, Plaintiff has and will suffer damage, and 23 Defendants have and will enjoy profits to which they are otherwise not entitled, for which Plaintiff 24 is entitled to relief at law. 25 16. By reason of Defendants’ acts alleged herein, Defendants threaten to continue to do the 26 acts complained of herein, and unless restrained and enjoined, will continue to do so, all to

27 Amended Complaint For Patent Infringement 28 Case No. C01-20737JF 4 Case3:02-cv-05235-SI Document115 Filed09/09/02 Page5 of 8

1 Plaintiff’s irreparable damage. It would be difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation which 2 could afford Plaintiff adequate relief for such continuing acts, and a multiplicity of judicial 3 proceedings would be required. Plaintiff’s remedy at law is not adequate to compensate Plaintiff 4 for injuries threatened. 5 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 6 WHEREFORE Plaintiff, MAURICE MITCHELL, prays for relief against Defendants as 7 follows: 8 1. Letters Patent No. 4,875,154 be adjudged to have been infringed by Defendants; 9 2. Defendants, and those in privity with or acting for, with, by, through or under them, and 10 each of them, shall be immediately and preliminarily enjoined and restrained during the pendency 11 of this action, and thereafter permanently enjoined and restrained from infringement of Letters 12 Patent No. 4,875,154 during the remainder of the term for which the patent has been granted; 13 3. Plaintiff be awarded damages adequate to compensate Plaintiff for the infringement, 14 including interest, and that such amounts be trebled because of the willful and deliberate character 15 of the infringement, as provided by law; 16 4. Defendants be required to account for and pay over to Plaintiff all profits realized by 17 Defendants by reason of their unlawful acts alleged herein; 18 5. Plaintiff be awarded attorneys fees, as provided by 35 U.S.C. ¶ 285; 19 6. Defendants be required to pay Plaintiff punitive damages as may be permitted by law or 20 in the discretion of this Court; 21 7. Plaintiff have and recover its taxable costs and disbursements herein; and 22 23 24 25 26

27 Amended Complaint For Patent Infringement 28 Case No. C01-20737JF 5 Case3:02-cv-05235-SI Document115 Filed09/09/02 Page6 of 8

1 8. Plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and equitable. 2 CAESAR, RIVISE, BERNSTEIN, 3 COHEN & POKOTILOW, LTD. 4 Dated: September 9, 2002 By s/Mona Gupta 5 Manny D. Pokotilow (PA Atty ID 13310) Mona Gupta (PA Atty ID 74332) 6 Frank M. Linguiti (PA Atty ID 39760) Bruce J. Chasan (PA Atty ID 29227) 7 and 8 9 WENDEL, ROSEN, BLACK & DEAN, LLP 10 Daniel Rapaport (Bar No. 67217) Laura K. Meyer (Bar No. 136431) 11 Thiele R. Dunaway (Bar No. 130953) 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Maurice Mitchell 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 Amended Complaint For Patent Infringement Case No. C01-20737JF 6 Case3:02-cv-05235-SI Document115 Filed09/09/02 Page7 of 8

1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I, Theresa Conolly, declare: 3 I am employed by the law firm of Caesar, Rivise, Bernstein, Cohen & Pokotilow, Ltd.; my business address is Seven Penn Center, 1635 Market Street, 12th Floor, Philadelphia, PA. I am over 4 the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action. 5 On September 9, 2002, I served the following documents: 6 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT (MODIFIED) 7 on all parties in said action, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013, 8 [ ] (by mail) by placing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope in a designated area for outgoing mail, addressed as set forth below. At Caesar, Rivise, 9 Bernstein, Cohen & Pokotilow, Ltd., mail placed in that designated area is given the correct amount of postage and is deposited that same day, in the ordinary course of business, in a 10 United States mailbox in the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 11 [ ] (by personal delivery) by personally delivering a true copy thereof to the persons(s) and at the address(es) set forth below. 12 [ ] (by facsimile transmission) by transmitting said documents from our office facsimile 13 machine 215-751-1142, to the facsimile machine shown below. Following transmission, I received a “Transmission Report” from our fax machine indicating that the document had 14 been transmitted without error. 15 [ ] (by overnight service) by depositing a true copy thereof in a sealed packet for overnight mail delivery, with charges thereon fully prepaid, in a Federal Express collection box, at 16 Seven Penn Center, 1635 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 and addressed as set forth below. 17 [X] (by electronic filing) by transmitting said documents from our office to the United States 18 District Court, Northern District of California, San Jose Division, which filing transmits said documents to: 19 20 Thomas F. Smegal, Jr., Esq. KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP 21 201 California Street – Suite 1150 San Francisco, CA 94111 22 Facsimile No.: 415-954-4111 23 Robert F. Kramer, Esq. MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP 24 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 25 Facsimile No.: 415 - 268 - 7522 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE Case No. C01-20737JF 7 Case3:02-cv-05235-SI Document115 Filed09/09/02 Page8 of 8

1 [ X] (by facsimile transmission) by transmitting said documents from our office facsimile machine 215-751-1142, to the facsimile machine shown below. Following transmission, I 2 received a “Transmission Report” from our fax machine indicating that the document had been transmitted without error. 3 Thomas F. Smegal, Jr., Esq. 4 KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP 201 California Street – Suite 1150 5 San Francisco, CA 94111 Facsimile No.: 415-954-4111 6 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and 7 the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. 8 Executed on September 9, 2002, at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 9 10 s/ Theresa Conolly Theresa Conolly 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 Amended Complaint For PROOFPatent Infringement OF SERVICE Case No. C01-20737JF 8