1 Olga I. May (SBN 232012), [email protected] 2 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 12390 El Camino Real 3 San Diego, California 92130 4 Telephone: (858) 678-4745 Facsimile: (858) 678-5099 5 6 Kurt L. Glitzenstein (Pro Hac Vice to be filed), [email protected] FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 7 One Marina Park Drive 8 Boston, MA 02210-1878 Telephone: (617) 542-5070 9 Facsimile: (617) 542-8906 10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11 CARL ZEISS AG and ASML NETHERLANDS B.V. 12 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 15 16 CARL ZEISS AG and ASML Case No. 2:17-cv-03225 NETHERLANDS B.V., 17 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT 18 Plaintiffs, INFRINGEMENT v. 19 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 20 NIKON CORPORATION, SENDAI NIKON CORPORATION, and NIKON 21 INC., 22 Defendants. 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 2 Plaintiffs, Carl Zeiss AG (“Zeiss”) and ASML Netherlands B.V. (“ASML”) 3 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys, for their Complaint against 4 Nikon Corporation, Sendai Nikon Corporation, and Nikon Inc. (collectively, 5 “Defendants” or “Nikon”), hereby allege as follows: 6 NATURE OF ACTION 7 1. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of 8 the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., specifically including 35 U.S.C. § 271. 9 THE PARTIES 10 2. Plaintiff Zeiss is a German corporation with its principal place of 11 business located at Carl-Zeiss-Straße 22, Oberkochen, Germany 73447. 12 3. Plaintiff ASML is a Dutch entity with a principal place of business at De 13 Run 6501, 5504 DR, Veldhoven, Netherlands. 14 4. On information and belief, Defendant Nikon Corporation is a 15 corporation organized under the laws of Japan and having a principal place of 16 business at Shinagawa Intercity Tower C, 2-15-3, Konan, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108- 17 6290, Japan. 18 5. On information and belief, Defendant Sendai Nikon Corporation is a 19 corporation organized under the laws of Japan and having a principal place of 20 business at 277, Aza-hara, Tako, Natori, Miyagi 981-1221, Japan. 21 6. On information and belief, Defendant Nikon Inc. is a corporation 22 organized under the laws of New York, having a principal place of business at 1300 23 Walt Whitman Road, Melville, NY 11747-3064. Nikon Inc. is a subsidiary of 24 Defendant Nikon Corporation. 25 7. On information and belief, Nikon conducts business operations 26 throughout the United States, including in the State of California. 27 28 1 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 1 JURISDICTION 2 8. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 3 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 4 PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5 9. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Nikon because, inter alia, 6 Nikon has conducted and continues to conduct business in this judicial district, either 7 directly, or through its subsidiaries, agents, and/or affiliates including, upon 8 information and belief, by marketing, selling, offering for sale, and servicing digital 9 camera products in the Central District of California. 10 10. On information and belief, Defendants Nikon Corporation and Sendai 11 Nikon Corporation produce digital cameras and related software outside the United 12 States that they offer for sale and sell either directly to customers in the United States, 13 including the State of California, or provide directly and/or indirectly to Defendant 14 Nikon Inc., for importation into the United States. The Court has personal 15 jurisdiction over Nikon because Nikon has placed products that practice or embody 16 the claimed inventions of the Patents-in-Suit into the stream of commerce in the 17 United States, including this district, with the reasonable expectation and/or 18 knowledge that purchasers of such products were located within this district. 19 Additionally, Nikon derives substantial revenue from the sale of infringing products 20 distributed within the district, and/or expect or should reasonably expect their actions 21 to have consequences within the district, and derive substantial revenue from 22 interstate and international commerce. Furthermore, Defendant Nikon Inc. has a 23 factory service facility located in the Central District of California, which, upon 24 information and belief, provides factory repair, photo, promotional, parts sales, and 25 other services for Nikon digital cameras and parts that practice or embody the 26 claimed inventions of the Patents-in-Suit. Additionally, upon information and belief, 27 Defendant Nikon Inc. has at least thirty authorized Nikon dealers in California, 28 including Nikon Professional Dealers and Nikon Imaging Dealers that sell, offer to 2 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 1 sell, and/or service Nikon digital cameras that practice or embody the claimed 2 inventions of the Patents-in-Suit. This Court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over 3 Nikon would therefore comport with due process. 4 11. This Court has jurisdiction over this action against the Nikon defendants 5 because the subject matter of the action satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 6 299(a) in that (1) it arises, at least in part, out of the same transaction, occurrence, or 7 series of transactions or occurrences relating to the making, using, importing into the 8 United States, offering for sale, and/or selling of the same digital camera products 9 that practice or embody the claimed inventions of the Patents-in-suit, and (2) 10 questions of fact common to the Nikon defendants will arise in the action. 11 12. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 12 and 1400. Upon information and belief, Defendant Nikon Inc. makes, uses, offers to 13 sell, sells, and/or imports into this judicial district digital cameras that practice or 14 embody the claimed inventions of the Patents-in-Suit either directly or through one or 15 more Nikon Professional Dealers and/or Nikon Imaging Dealers, and has a regular 16 and established place of business including a factory service and repair center located 17 at 6420 Wilshire Blvd. #100, Los Angeles, CA 90048. 18 PATENTS-IN-SUIT 19 13. On October 9, 2001, United States Patent No. 6,301,440 (“the ’440 20 Patent”), entitled “System and Method for Automatically Setting Image Acquisition 21 Controls,” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark 22 Office (“PTO”). A true and correct copy of the ’440 Patent is attached as Exhibit A 23 to this Complaint. 24 14. On October 8, 2002, United States Patent No. 6,463,163 (“the ’163 25 Patent”), entitled “System and Method for Face Detection Using Candidate Image 26 Region Selection,” was duly and legally issued by the PTO. A true and correct copy 27 of the ’163 Patent is attached as Exhibit B to this Complaint. 28 3 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 1 15. On March 30, 2004, United States Patent No. 6,714,241 (“the ’241 2 Patent”), entitled “Efficient Dark Current Subtraction in an Image Sensor,” was duly 3 and legally issued by the PTO. A true and correct copy of the ’241 Patent is attached 4 as Exhibit C to this Complaint. 5 16. On May 4, 2004, United States Patent No. 6,731,335 (“the ’335 Patent”), 6 entitled “CMOS Image Sensor Having Common Outputting Transistors and Method 7 for Driving the Same,” was duly and legally issued by the PTO. A true and correct 8 copy of the ’335 Patent is attached as Exhibit D to this Complaint. 9 17. On December 21, 2004, United States Patent No. 6,834,128 (“the ’128 10 Patent”), entitled “Image Mosaicing System and Method Adapted to Mass-Market 11 Hand-Held Digital Cameras,” was duly and legally issued by the PTO. A true and 12 correct copy of the ’128 Patent is attached as Exhibit E to this Complaint. 13 18. On November 20, 2007, United States Patent No. 7,297,916 (“the ’916 14 Patent”), entitled “Optically Improved CMOS Imaging Sensor Structure to Lower 15 Imaging Lens Requirements,” was duly and legally issued by the PTO. A true and 16 correct copy of the ’916 Patent is attached as Exhibit F to this Complaint. 17 19. On April 26, 2011, United States Patent No. 7,933,454 (“the ’454 18 Patent”), entitled “Class-based Image Enhancement System,” was duly and legally 19 issued by the PTO. A true and correct copy of the ’454 Patent is attached as Exhibit 20 G to this Complaint. 21 20. The ’440, ’163, ’241, ’335, ’128, ’916, and ’454 Patents are collectively 22 referred to herein as the “Patents-in-Suit.” By assignment, Zeiss and ASML own all 23 right, title, and interest in and to the Patents-in-Suit. Plaintiffs have the right to sue 24 and recover damages for the infringement of the Patents-in-Suit. 25 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 26 21. Plaintiff Zeiss began operations in Jena, Germany, in 1846, originally 27 specializing in the customized production of scientific tools and instruments. By the 28 4 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 1 early 1850s Zeiss began developing observation instruments, including microscopes, 2 for the broader scientific community. 3 22. Over the past 165 years, Zeiss has expanded into nearly every major area 4 of optics, with a diverse product lineup of industrial, research, medical, and consumer 5 products. Today, Zeiss sells products ranging from microscopes, binoculars, rifle 6 scopes, and eye glass lenses to ophthalmology instruments and lithography optics. 7 23. Zeiss’s broad portfolio of optics-based products includes a diverse array 8 of camera products.