Case 6:11-cv-00173-LED Document 131 Filed 05/24/12 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 3119
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
MOSAID TECHNOLOGIES INC., § § Plaintiff, § § Civil Action No. 6:11-cv-00173-LED LSI Corporation, § § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Involuntary Plaintiff, § § And § § Agere Systems Inc., § § Involuntary Plaintiff, § § v. § § FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., § INTERPHASE CORPORATION, and § NVIDIA CORPORATION, § § Defendants. §
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff MOSAID Technologies Inc. (“MOSAID”), and Involuntary Plaintiffs LSI
Corporation (“LSI”) and Agere Systems Inc. (“Agere”) file this Second Amended Complaint.
For its claims and causes of action, MOSAID asserts the following:
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff MOSAID is a Canadian corporation, with its principal place of business
at 11 Hines Road, Suite 203, Ottawa, Ontario K2K 2X1, Canada. Plaintiff MOSAID’s United
States principal place of business is located at 5700 Granite Parkway, Suite 960, Plano, Texas
75024.
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – Page 1 Case 6:11-cv-00173-LED Document 131 Filed 05/24/12 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 3120
2. Involuntary Plaintiff LSI is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of
business at 1621 Barber Lane, Milpitas, CA 95035. LSI appears involuntarily pursuant to an
Order of this Court dated May 14, 2012 (Doc. 128). LSI and its subsidiaries, including Agere,
entered into an exclusive Patent License Agreement with MOSAID assigning, transferring, and
conveying to MOSAID all right, title, and interest in and to all causes of action and enforcement
rights during the term of the Agreement in certain LSI patents, including, without limitation, all
rights to pursue damages, injunctive relief, or other remedies for past, current, and future
infringement of certain LSI patents. The LSI patents include: United States Patent No.
5,577,230; United States Patent No. 5,724,505; United States Patent No. 5,958,036; United
States Patent No. 6,141,762; and United States Patent No. 6,256,725 (the “Agere/LSI Patents”).
Neither LSI nor its subsidiaries currently possesses any rights to enforce the Agere/LSI Patents,
including claims or causes of action for infringement.
3. Involuntary Plaintiff Agere is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of
business at 1621 Barber Lane, Milpitas, CA 95035. LSI’s subsidiary Agere, as the current owner
of the Agere/LSI Patents, appears involuntarily pursuant to an Order of this Court dated May 14,
2012 (Doc. 128).
4. Defendant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (“Freescale”) is a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business at 6501 William Cannon Drive West, Austin, Texas 78735.
5. Defendant Interphase Corporation (“Interphase”) is a Texas corporation with its
principal place of business at 2901 North Dallas Parkway, Suite 200, Plano, Texas 75093.
6. Defendant NVIDIA Corporation (“NVIDIA”) is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 2701 San Tomas Expressway, Santa Clara, California 95050.
JURISDICTION
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – Page 2 Case 6:11-cv-00173-LED Document 131 Filed 05/24/12 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 3121
7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute under 28 U.S.C. §§
1331 and 1338(a).
8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants Freescale, Interphase, and
NVIDIA, which have conducted and continue to conduct business in the State of Texas and in
this Judicial District. Defendants Freescale, Interphase, and NVIDIA directly and/or through
intermediaries make, offer for sale, sell, and/or advertise (including through a website) products
and services in the State of Texas and in this Judicial District. Defendants Freescale, Interphase,
and NVIDIA committed acts of patent infringement alleged herein within the State of Texas and,
more particularly, within this Judicial District. Defendants Freescale, Interphase, and NVIDIA
purposefully and voluntarily placed their infringing products into the stream of commerce with
the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the State of Texas and in this
Judicial District. These infringing products have been and continue to be purchased by
consumers in the State of Texas and in this Judicial District.
VENUE
9. Venue is proper in this Judicial District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1400(b)
because acts and transactions constituting at least a subset of the violations alleged herein
occurred in this Judicial District and/or because one or more of Defendants Freescale, Interphase,
and NVIDIA transact business in this Judicial District. Venue is also proper in this Judicial
District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) because Defendants Freescale, Interphase, and NVIDIA are
subject to personal jurisdiction in this District.
ASSERTED PATENTS
10. On May 23, 2006, United States Patent No. 7,051,306 (the “‘306 Patent,” entitled
“Managing Power on Integrated Circuits Using Power Islands”) duly and legally issued. The
‘306 Patent relates to, among other things, power consumption management in integrated
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – Page 3 Case 6:11-cv-00173-LED Document 131 Filed 05/24/12 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 3122
circuits. MOSAID is the owner of the ‘306 Patent and has all rights to enforce the ‘306 Patent
with respect to the Defendants. A copy of the ‘306 Patent is attached as Exhibit A.
11. On August 19, 2008, United States Patent No. 7,415,680 (the “‘680 Patent,”
entitled “Power Managers for an Integrated Circuit”) duly and legally issued. The ‘680 Patent
relates to, among other things, power consumption management in integrated circuits. MOSAID
is the owner of the ‘680 Patent and has all rights to enforce the ‘680 Patent with respect to the
Defendants. A copy of the ‘680 Patent is attached as Exhibit B.
12. On May 17, 2011, United States Patent No. 7,945,885 (the “‘885 Patent,” entitled
“Power Managers for an Integrated Circuit”) duly and legally issued. The ‘885 Patent relates to,
among other things, power consumption management in integated circuits. MOSAID is the
owner of the ‘885 Patent and has all rights to enforce the ‘885 Patent with respect to the
Defendants. A copy of the ‘885 Patent is attached as Exhibit C.
13. On August 9, 2011, United States Patent No. 7,996,811 (the “‘811 Patent,”
entitled “Power Managers for an Integrated Circuit”) duly and legally issued. The ‘811 Patent
relates to, among other things, power consumption management in integrated circuits. MOSAID
is the owner of the ‘811 Patent and has all rights to enforce the ‘811 Patent with respect to the
Defendants. A copy of the ‘811 Patent is attached as Exhibit D.
14. On November 19, 1996, United States Patent No. 5,577,230 (the “‘230 Patent,”
entitled “Apparatus and Method for Computer Processing Using an Enhanced Harvard
Architecture Utilizing Dual Memory Buses and the Arbitration for Data/Instruction Fetch”) duly
and legally issued. The ‘230 Patent relates to, among other things, computer processors and
memory architectures. MOSAID is the exclusive licensee of the ‘230 Patent and is the current
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – Page 4 Case 6:11-cv-00173-LED Document 131 Filed 05/24/12 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 3123
owner of all rights to enforce the ‘230 Patent with respect to the Defendants. A copy of the ‘230
Patent is attached as Exhibit E.
15. On March 3, 1998, United States Patent No. 5,724,505 (the “‘505 Patent,” entitled
“Apparatus and Method for Real-Time Program Monitoring via a Serial Interface”) duly and
legally issued. The ‘505 Patent relates to, among other things, monitoring computer program
execution in microprocessor devices. MOSAID is the exclusive licensee of the ‘505 Patent and
is the current owner of all rights to enforce the ‘505 Patent with respect to the Defendants. A
copy of the ‘505 Patent is attached as Exhibit F.
16. On September 28, 1999, United States Patent No. 5,958,036 (the “‘036 Patent,”
entitled “Circuit for Arbitrating Interrupts with Programmable Priority Levels”) duly and legally
issued. The ‘036 Patent relates to, among other things, interrupt priority arbitration in computer
devices. MOSAID is the exclusive licensee of the ‘036 Patent and is the current owner of all
rights to enforce the ‘036 Patent with respect to the Defendants. A copy of the ‘036 Patent is
attached as Exhibit G.
17. On October 31, 2000, United States Patent No. 6,141,762 (the “‘762 Patent,”
entitled “Power Reduction in a Multiprocessor Digital Signal Processor based on Processor
Load”) duly and legally issued. The ‘762 Patent relates to, among other things, power
consumption within electronic circuits. MOSAID is the exclusive licensee of the ‘762 Patent
and is the current owner of all rights to enforce the ‘762 Patent with respect to the Defendants. A
copy of the ‘762 Patent is attached as Exhibit H.
18. On July 3, 2001, United States Patent No. 6,256,725 (the “‘725 Patent,” entitled
“Shared Datapath Processor Utilizing Stack-Based and Register-Based Storage Spaces”) duly
and legally issued. The ‘725 Patent relates to, among other things, computer processor
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – Page 5 Case 6:11-cv-00173-LED Document 131 Filed 05/24/12 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 3124
architectures. MOSAID is the exclusive licensee of the ‘725 Patent and is the current owner of
all rights to enforce the ‘725 Patent with respect to the Defendants. A copy of the ‘725 Patent is
attached as Exhibit I. The ‘306 Patent, ‘680 Patent, ‘885 Patent, ‘811 Patent, ‘230 Patent, ‘505
Patent, ‘036 Patent, ‘762 Patent, and ‘725 Patent are collectively referred to as the “Asserted
Patents.”
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
19. Defendants Freescale, Interphase, and NVIDIA have directly infringed and
continue to directly infringe one or more of the Asserted Patents by making, using, offering to
sell, selling, or importing devices within the scope of one or more of the claims of the Asserted
Patents. The infringing devices include, but are not limited to, processors, mobile products,
microcontrollers, communications equipment, and system-on-chip devices.
20. Defendants Freescale, Interphase, and NVIDIA have indirectly infringed and
continue to indirectly infringe one or more of the Asserted Patents by contributing to and
actively inducing infringement of one or more of the claims of the Asserted Patents. Defendants
Freescale, Interphase, and NVIDIA have notice of the Asserted Patents. The infringing devices
are known by Defendants Freescale, Interphase, and NVIDIA to be especially made or especially
adapted for use in an infringement of one or more of the Asserted Patents, and are not staple
articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing uses. Defendants
Freescale, Interphase, and NVIDIA contribute to the infringement of one or more of the Asserted
Patents by selling or importing the infringing devices to third parties, such as end-users, resellers,
partners, and distributors who incorporate the infringing devices into their products and/or
practice one or more claims of the Asserted Patents. Defendants Freescale, Interphase, and
NVIDIA actively induce infringement by encouraging the use of the infringing devices by the
third parties in ways that infringe one or more of the claims of the Asserted Patents. Defendants
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – Page 6 Case 6:11-cv-00173-LED Document 131 Filed 05/24/12 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 3125
Freescale, Interphase, and NVIDIA knew or should have known that such encouragement would
induce infringement. Such induced and/or contributory infringement has occurred at least since
Defendants Freescale, Interphase, and NVIDIA became aware of the Asserted Patents.
21. As a result, Defendants Freescale, Interphase, and NVIDIA have been and still are
infringing one or more of the claims of the Asserted Patents as defined by 35 U.S.C. § 271.
MOSAID has suffered damage by reason of such infringement and will continue to suffer
additional damage until this Court enjoins the infringing conduct.
22. Defendants Freescale, Interphase, and NVIDIA have continued their infringing
activities after receiving notice of the Asserted Patents and, therefore, such infringement is
willful, entitling MOSAID to the recovery of increased damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
23. Infringement of one or more of the Asserted Patents by Defendants Freescale,
Interphase, and NVIDIA is an “exceptional case” justifying an award of attorneys’ fees and costs
to MOSAID under 35 U.SC. § 285.
24. MOSAID believes that Defendants Freescale, Interphase, and NVIDIA will
continue to infringe one or more of the Asserted Patents unless enjoined by this Court. Such
infringing activity causes MOSAID irreparable harm and will continue to cause such harm
without the issuance of an injunction.
COUNT ONE Freescale’s Infringement of the ‘306 Patent
25. MOSAID incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
26. Defendant Freescale has been and is still directly infringing one or more of the
claims of the ‘306 Patent. Defendant Freescale’s infringing acts include, but are not limited to,
making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing devices within the scope of one or more of
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – Page 7 Case 6:11-cv-00173-LED Document 131 Filed 05/24/12 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 3126
the claims of the ‘306 Patent, such as processors and microcontrollers, including but not limited
to one or more of the i.MX series of processors and the MPC560xx series of microcontrollers,
including the i.MX37 Multimedia Applications Processor and the MPC5606S Microcontroller.
Defendant Freescale has been and is still contributing to the infringement of and/or actively
inducing third parties, such as end users, that directly infringe one or more of the claims of the
‘306 Patent. Defendant Freescale’s actions are in violation of one or more of the provisions of
35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c), (f), and (g).
COUNT TWO Freescale’s Infringement of the ‘885 Patent
27. MOSAID incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
28. Defendant Freescale has been and is still directly infringing one or more of the
claims of the ‘885 Patent. Defendant Freescale’s infringing acts include, but are not limited to,
making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing devices within the scope of one or more of
the claims of the ‘885 Patent, such as processors and microcontrollers, including but not limited
to one or more of the i.MX series of processors, including the i.MX37 Multimedia Applications
Processor. Defendant Freescale has been and is still contributing to the infringement of and/or
actively inducing third parties, such as end users, that directly infringe one or more of the claims
of the ‘885 Patent. Defendant Freescale’s actions are in violation of one or more of the
provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c), (f), and (g).
COUNT THREE Freescale’s Infringement of the ‘811 Patent
29. MOSAID incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – Page 8 Case 6:11-cv-00173-LED Document 131 Filed 05/24/12 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 3127
30. Defendant Freescale has been and is still directly infringing one or more of the
claims of the ‘811 Patent. Defendant Freescale’s infringing acts include, but are not limited to,
making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing devices within the scope of one or more of
the claims of the ‘811 Patent, such as processors and microcontrollers, including but not limited
to one or more of the i.MX series of processors, including the i.MX37 Multimedia Applications
Processor. Defendant Freescale has been and is still contributing to the infringement of and/or
actively inducing third parties, such as end users, that directly infringe one or more of the claims
of the ‘811 Patent. Defendant Freescale’s actions are in violation of one or more of the
provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c), (f), and (g).
COUNT FOUR Freescale’s Infringement of the ‘230 Patent
31. MOSAID incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
32. Defendant Freescale has been and is still directly infringing one or more of the
claims of the ‘230 Patent. Defendant Freescale’s infringing acts include, but are not limited to,
making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing devices within the scope of one or more of
the claims of the ‘230 Patent, such as processors, mobile products, and microcontrollers,
including but not limited to one or more of the i.MX series of processors, the MXC series of
mobile products, and the MPC551x series of microcontrollers, including the i.MX31 Multimedia
Applications Processor, the i.MX31L Multimedia Applications Processor, the MXC300-30
Mobile Extreme Convergence product, and the MPC5510 Microcontroller. Defendant Freescale
has been and is still contributing to the infringement of and/or actively inducing third parties,
such as end users, that directly infringe one or more of the claims of the ‘230 Patent. Defendant
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – Page 9 Case 6:11-cv-00173-LED Document 131 Filed 05/24/12 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 3128
Freescale’s actions are in violation of one or more of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b),
(c), (f), and (g).
COUNT FIVE Freescale’s Infringement of the ‘505 Patent
33. MOSAID incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
34. Defendant Freescale has been and is still directly infringing one or more of the
claims of the ‘505 Patent. Defendant Freescale’s infringing acts include, but are not limited to,
making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing devices within the scope of one or more of
the claims of the ‘505 Patent, such as processors, mobile products, and microcontrollers,
including but not limited to one or more of the i.MX series of processors, the MXC series of
mobile products, the MPC551x series of microcontrollers, and the Kinetis series of
microcontrollers, including the i.MX31 Multimedia Applications Processor, the i.MX31L
Multimedia Applications Processor, the i.MX 6 Multimedia Applications Processor, the
MXC300-30 Mobile Extreme Convergence product, the MPC5510 Microcontroller, and the
Kinetis K10, K20, K30, K40, and K60 Microcontrollers. Defendant Freescale has been and is
still contributing to the infringement of and/or actively inducing third parties, such as end users,
that directly infringe one or more of the claims of the ‘505 Patent. Defendant Freescale’s actions
are in violation of one or more of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c), (f), and (g).
COUNT SIX Freescale’s Infringement of the ‘036 Patent
35. MOSAID incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
36. Defendant Freescale has been and is still directly infringing one or more of the
claims of the ‘036 Patent. Defendant Freescale’s infringing acts include, but are not limited to,
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – Page 10 Case 6:11-cv-00173-LED Document 131 Filed 05/24/12 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 3129
making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing devices within the scope of one or more of
the claims of the ‘036 Patent, such as processors and microcontrollers, including but not limited
to one or more of the MPC8xxx series of processors, the MPC56xxx series of microcontrollers,
the i.MX series of processors, and the Kinetis series of microcontrollers, including the MPC8260
Processor, the MPC5606S Microcontroller, the i.MX 6 Multimedia Applications Processor, and
the Kinetis K10, K20, K30, K40, and K60 Microcontrollers. Defendant Freescale has been and
is still contributing to the infringement of and/or actively inducing third parties, such as end
users, that directly infringe one or more of the claims of the ‘036 Patent. Defendant Freescale’s
actions are in violation of one or more of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c), (f), and
(g).
COUNT SEVEN Freescale’s Infringement of the ‘762 Patent
37. MOSAID incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
38. Defendant Freescale has been and is still directly infringing one or more of the
claims of the ‘762 Patent. Defendant Freescale’s infringing acts include, but are not limited to,
making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing devices within the scope of one or more of
the claims of the ‘762 Patent, such as processors, including but not limited to one or more of the
i.MX series of processors, including the i.MX31 Multimedia Applications Processor, the
i.MX31L Multimedia Applications Processor, the i.MX35 Multimedia Applications Processor,
and the i.MX37 Multimedia Applications Processor. Defendant Freescale has been and is still
contributing to the infringement of and/or actively inducing third parties, such as end users, that
directly infringe one or more of the claims of the ‘762 Patent. Defendant Freescale’s actions are
in violation of one or more of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c), (f), and (g).
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – Page 11 Case 6:11-cv-00173-LED Document 131 Filed 05/24/12 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 3130
COUNT EIGHT Freescale’s Infringement of the ‘725 Patent
39. MOSAID incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
40. Defendant Freescale has been and is still directly infringing one or more of the
claims of the ‘725 Patent. Defendant Freescale’s infringing acts include, but are not limited to,
making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing devices within the scope of one or more of
the claims of the ‘725 Patent, such as processors and system-on-chip devices, including but not
limited to one or more of the i.MX series of processors and the STMP37xx series of system-on-
chip devices, including the i.MX21 Multimedia Applications Processor, the i.MX21S
Multimedia Applications Processor, the i.MX27 Multimedia Applications Processor, the
i.MX27L Multimedia Applications Processor, the i.MX31 Multimedia Applications Processor,
the i.MX31L Multimedia Applications Processor, the i.MX37 Multimedia Applications
Processor, the STMP3700 System-on-Chip, and the STMP3738 System-on-Chip. Defendant
Freescale has been and is still contributing to the infringement of and/or actively inducing third
parties, such as end users, that directly infringe one or more of the claims of the ‘725 Patent.
Defendant Freescale’s actions are in violation of one or more of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. §
271(a), (b), (c), (f), and (g).
COUNT NINE NVIDIA’s Infringement of the ‘306 Patent
41. MOSAID incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
42. Defendant NVIDIA has been and is still directly infringing one or more of the
claims of the ‘306 Patent. Defendant NVIDIA’s infringing acts include, but are not limited to,
making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing devices within the scope of one or more of
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – Page 12 Case 6:11-cv-00173-LED Document 131 Filed 05/24/12 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 3131
the claims of the ‘306 Patent, such as processors, including but not limited to one or more of the
GeForce series of processors, including the GeForce 9400MG processor. Defendant NVIDIA
has been and is still contributing to the infringement of and/or actively inducing third parties,
such as end users, that directly infringe one or more of the claims of the ‘306 Patent. Defendant
NVIDIA’s actions are in violation of one or more of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b),
(c), (f), and (g).
COUNT TEN NVIDIA’s Infringement of the ‘680 Patent
43. MOSAID incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
44. Defendant NVIDIA has been and is still directly infringing one or more of the
claims of the ‘680 Patent. Defendant NVIDIA’s infringing acts include, but are not limited to,
making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing devices within the scope of one or more of
the claims of the ‘680 Patent, such as processors, including but not limited to one or more of the
GeForce series of processors, including the GeForce GT240 processor and the GeForce GT330M
processor. Defendant NVIDIA has been and is still contributing to the infringement of and/or
actively inducing third parties, such as end users, that directly infringe one or more of the claims
of the ‘680 Patent. Defendant NVIDIA’s actions are in violation of one or more of the
provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c), (f), and (g).
COUNT ELEVEN NVIDIA’s Infringement of the ‘885 Patent
45. MOSAID incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
46. Defendant NVIDIA has been and is still directly infringing one or more of the
claims of the ‘885 Patent. Defendant NVIDIA’s infringing acts include, but are not limited to,
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – Page 13 Case 6:11-cv-00173-LED Document 131 Filed 05/24/12 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 3132
making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing devices within the scope of one or more of
the claims of the ‘885 Patent, such as processors, including but not limited to one or more of the
GeForce series of processors, including the GeForce GT240 processor and the GeForce GT330M
processor. Defendant NVIDIA has been and is still contributing to the infringement of and/or
actively inducing third parties, such as end users, that directly infringe one or more of the claims
of the ‘885 Patent. Defendant NVIDIA’s actions are in violation of one or more of the
provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c), (f), and (g).
COUNT TWELVE NVIDIA’s Infringement of the ‘811 Patent
47. MOSAID incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
48. Defendant NVIDIA has been and is still directly infringing one or more of the
claims of the ‘811 Patent. Defendant NVIDIA’s infringing acts include, but are not limited to,
making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing devices within the scope of one or more of
the claims of the ‘811 Patent, such as processors, including but not limited to one or more of the
Tegra series of processors, including the Tegra 2 processor. Defendant NVIDIA has been and is
still contributing to the infringement of and/or actively inducing third parties, such as end users,
that directly infringe one or more of the claims of the ‘811 Patent. Defendant NVIDIA’s actions
are in violation of one or more of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c), (f), and (g).
COUNT THIRTEEN NVIDIA’s Infringement of the ‘230 Patent
49. MOSAID incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
50. Defendant NVIDIA has been and is still directly infringing one or more of the
claims of the ‘230 Patent. Defendant NVIDIA’s infringing acts include, but are not limited to,
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – Page 14 Case 6:11-cv-00173-LED Document 131 Filed 05/24/12 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 3133
making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing devices within the scope of one or more of
the claims of the ‘230 Patent, such as processors, including but not limited to one or more of the
GoForce and Tegra series of processors, including the GoForce 6100 and Tegra APX processors.
Defendant NVIDIA has been and is still contributing to the infringement of and/or actively
inducing third parties, such as end users, that directly infringe one or more of the claims of the
‘230 Patent. Defendant NVIDIA’s actions are in violation of one or more of the provisions of 35
U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c), (f), and (g).
COUNT FOURTEEN NVIDIA’s Infringement of the ‘505 Patent
51. MOSAID incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
52. Defendant NVIDIA has been and is still directly infringing one or more of the
claims of the ‘505 Patent. Defendant NVIDIA’s infringing acts include, but are not limited to,
making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing devices within the scope of one or more of
the claims of the ‘505 Patent, such as processors, including but not limited to one or more of the
Tegra series of processors, including the Tegra 2 processor. Defendant NVIDIA has been and is
still contributing to the infringement of and/or actively inducing third parties, such as end users,
that directly infringe one or more of the claims of the ‘505 Patent. Defendant NVIDIA’s actions
are in violation of one or more of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c), (f), and (g).
COUNT FIFTEEN NVIDIA’s Infringement of the ‘036 Patent
53. MOSAID incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
54. Defendant NVIDIA has been and is still directly infringing one or more of the
claims of the ‘036 Patent. Defendant NVIDIA’s infringing acts include, but are not limited to,
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – Page 15 Case 6:11-cv-00173-LED Document 131 Filed 05/24/12 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 3134
making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing devices within the scope of one or more of
the claims of the ‘036 Patent, such as processors, including but not limited to one or more of the
Tegra series of processors, including the Tegra 2 processor. Defendant NVIDIA has been and is
still contributing to the infringement of and/or actively inducing third parties, such as end users,
that directly infringe one or more of the claims of the ‘036 Patent. Defendant NVIDIA’s actions
are in violation of one or more of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c), (f), and (g).
COUNT SIXTEEN NVIDIA’s Infringement of the ‘762 Patent
55. MOSAID incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
56. Defendant NVIDIA has been and is still directly infringing one or more of the
claims of the ‘762 Patent. Defendant NVIDIA’s infringing acts include, but are not limited to,
making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing devices within the scope of one or more of
the claims of the ‘762 Patent, such as processors, including but not limited to one or more of the
GeForce series of processors, including the GeForce 8M processor, the GeForce GT240
processor, and the GeForce GT330M processor. Defendant NVIDIA has been and is still
contributing to the infringement of and/or actively inducing third parties, such as end users, that
directly infringe one or more of the claims of the ‘762 Patent. Defendant NVIDIA’s actions are
in violation of one or more of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c), (f), and (g).
COUNT SEVENTEEN NVIDIA’s Infringement of the ‘725 Patent
57. MOSAID incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
58. Defendant NVIDIA has been and is still directly infringing one or more of the
claims of the ‘725 Patent. Defendant NVIDIA’s infringing acts include, but are not limited to,
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – Page 16 Case 6:11-cv-00173-LED Document 131 Filed 05/24/12 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 3135
making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing devices within the scope of one or more of
the claims of the ‘725 Patent, such as processors, including but not limited to one or more of the
GoForce series of processors, including the GoForce 6100 processor. Defendant NVIDIA has
been and is still contributing to the infringement of and/or actively inducing third parties, such as
end users, that directly infringe one or more of the claims of the ‘725 Patent. Defendant
NVIDIA’s actions are in violation of one or more of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b),
(c), (f), and (g).
COUNT EIGHTEEN Interphase’s Infringement of the ‘036 Patent
59. MOSAID incorporates by reference each of the foregoing paragraphs of this
Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
60. Defendant Interphase has been and is still directly infringing one or more of the
claims of the ‘036 Patent. Defendant Interphase’s infringing acts include, but are not limited to,
making, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing devices within the scope of one or more of
the claims of the ‘036 Patent, such as communications equipment, including but not limited to
one or more of the iSPAN series of communications controllers, including the iSPAN 5639 PCI
Express Communications Controller. Defendant Interphase has been and is still contributing to
the infringement of and/or actively inducing third parties, such as end users, that directly infringe
one or more of the claims of the ‘036 Patent. Defendant Interphase’s actions are in violation of
one or more of the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), (b), (c), (f), and (g).
JURY DEMAND
61. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), MOSAID demands a jury trial on all issues
triable by a jury raised in this Complaint.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – Page 17 Case 6:11-cv-00173-LED Document 131 Filed 05/24/12 Page 18 of 20 PageID #: 3136
MOSAID requests that the Court find in its favor and against Defendants Freescale,
Interphase, and NVIDIA and that the Court grant the following relief:
A. Judgment that one or more of the claims of the Asserted Patents have been
infringed, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by Defendants Freescale,
Interphase, and NVIDIA;
B. Judgment in favor of MOSAID for the full amount of its actual damages caused
by infringing activities of Defendants Freescale, Interphase, and NVIDIA, including an
assessment of interest and costs;
C. Judgment for increased damages for willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
D. Judgment that this is an “exceptional case” and awarding MOSAID its reasonable
attorneys’ fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285;
E. Judgment that Defendants Freescale, Interphase, and NVIDIA be permanently
enjoined from further activity or conduct that infringes the claims of the MOSAID Patents; and
F. Judgment that the Court award MOSAID any and all other relief as is just and
proper under the circumstances.
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – Page 18 Case 6:11-cv-00173-LED Document 131 Filed 05/24/12 Page 19 of 20 PageID #: 3137
Dated: May 24, 2012
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Kurt M. Pankratz
David M. Schlitz, Lead Attorney District of Columbia Bar No. 333369 E-mail: [email protected] BAKER BOTTS, L.L.P. The Warner 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 639-7700 Facsimile: (202) 639-7890
Kurt M. Pankratz Texas State Bar No. 24013291 E-Mail: [email protected] Chad C. Walters Texas State Bar No. 24034730 E-Mail: [email protected] Matthew D. Colagrosso Texas State Bar No. 24065060 E-Mail: [email protected] BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 2001 Ross Avenue Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 953-6500 Facsimile: (214) 953-6503
S. Calvin Capshaw Texas State Bar No. 03783900 E-Mail: [email protected] Elizabeth L. DeRieux Texas State Bar No. 05770585 E-Mail: [email protected] CAPSHAW DERIEUX, LLP 114 E. Commerce Ave. Gladewater, Texas 75647 Telephone: (903) 236-9800 Facsimile: (903) 236-8787
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF MOSAID TECHNOLOGIES INC.
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – Page 19 Case 6:11-cv-00173-LED Document 131 Filed 05/24/12 Page 20 of 20 PageID #: 3138
/s/ Bruce S. Sostek (w/permission) Bruce S. Sostek State Bar No. 18855700 [email protected] Jane Politz Brandt State Bar No. 02882090 [email protected]
THOMPSON & KNIGHT LLP 1722 Routh St., Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Tel: (214) 969-1700 Fax: (214) 969-1751
ATTORNEYS FOR LSI CORPORATION AND AGERE SYSTEMS INC.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that May 24, 2012, all counsel who are deemed to have consented to electronic
service are being served with a copy of this document by the Court’s Electronic Filing System,
pursuant to Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A).
/s/ Kurt M. Pankratz Kurt M. Pankratz
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT – Page 20