IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

MONDIS TECHNOLOGY LTD.

Plaintiff, v. HON HAI PRECISION INDUSTRY CO. LTD.

Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Case No.

2:12-cv-00309

JURY

COMPLAINT Plaintiff Mondis Technology Ltd. (Mondis or Plaintiff) by way of this Complaint against Defendant Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. Ltd. (Hon Hai or Defendant) hereby alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the

United States, 35 U.S.C. 101, et seq. THE PARTIES 2. Plaintiff Mondis Technology Ltd. is a corporation organized under the laws of

England with its principal place of business at 19 Perrins Lane, Hampstead, London NW3 1QY, England. 3. Defendants Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. Ltd. is a corporation organized under

the laws of Taiwan with its principal place of business at 2 Tzu Yu St., Tu-Cheng City, Taiwan,

Republic of China. Hon Hai maintains offices in the United States, including one at 468 E. Lambert Road, Fullerton, California. Hon Hai has a registered agent located at 8801 Fallbrook Dr., Houston, Texas. Hon Hai (a/k/a Foxconn) also maintains offices in Austin, Texas and Houston, Texas. 4. Hon Hai operates under the trade name Foxconn. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the

United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. In this lawsuit, Mondis alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,247,090; 7,089,342; 7,475,180; 6,057,812; and 6,639,588 (the Patents-inSuit). This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a). Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), (c), (d) and 1400(b). 6. Hon Hai acts as an original equipment manufacturer (OEM), an original design

manufacturer (ODM), and/or a contract manufacturer in which Hon Hai designs, assembles, and manufactures computer monitors for various corporate customers. Hon Hai imports, offers to sell, and sells these computer monitors in the United States, including in the State of Texas and this district, wherein Hon Hais customers resell the computer monitors under their own brand and trade names. The computer monitors made by Hon Hai and imported and sold by Hon Hai are distributed and resold throughout the United States by Hon Hais customers, including in this district. Hon Hai knows and expects that by importing and selling computer monitors in the United States that some of those computer monitors will be sold in the State of Texas, including this judicial district.

-2-

PRIOR LITIGATION 7. On December 31, 2007, Mondis filed a patent infringement suit in this District

against Hon Hai alleging that Hon Hais computer monitors infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,247,090; 6,057,812; and 6,639,588. Case No. 2:07-cv-565. On May 14, 2008, Mondis filed a First Amended Complaint alleging that Hon Hais computer monitors also infringed U.S. Patent No.7,089,342. On March 9, 2009, Mondis filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging that Hon Hais computer monitors also infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,475,180. On January 15, 2010, Mondis filed a Third Amended Complaint alleging that Hon Hai televisions also infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,247,090; 7,089,342; and 7,475,180. Hon Hai answered Mondiss complaints by asserting counterclaims for declaratory judgment of invalidity and unenforceability against all the Patents-in-Suit. Mondiss complaints also accused computer monitors and televisions imported and sold by Innolux Display Corp. and InnoLux Corp. (collectively Innolux) of infringing the same patents. 8. The accused Hon Hai computer monitors at issue in Case No. 2:07-cv-565 were

manufactured by companies other than Hon Hai, bundled by Hon Hai with computers or other equipment, and delivered to customers. The Court determined that these accused computer monitors were licensed because they were manufactured by companies who possessed a license to the Patents-in-Suit. As a result, only Hon Hai televisions were litigated on the merits of infringement and accused at trial by Mondis. 9. Trial of Case No. 2:07-cv-565 commenced on June 17, 2011, the presentation of

evidence was concluded on June 23, 2011, and the case submitted to the jury. On June 25, 2011, prior to the jury returning a verdict, Mondis and Hon Hai entered into a settlement agreement.

-3-

The parties settlement agreement was expressly limited to televisions and did not include computer monitors. On July 19, 2012, the Court dismissed with prejudice all claims, defenses and counterclaims, with respect to Hon Hai while also expressly referencing and retaining jurisdiction to enforce the parties Settlement Agreement. 10. The jury returned a verdict finding that Innolux had infringed claim 15 of the 090

Patent, claim 15 of the 342 Patent, claims 14 and 23 of the 180 Patent, claims 1 and 11 of the 812 Patent, and claim 1 of the 588 Patent. The Court entered Final Judgment on August 30, 2011, determining that the foregoing claims were valid, enforceable and infringed by Innoluxs computer monitors and/or televisions. INNOLUX TRANSFERS MONITOR BUSINESS TO HON HAI 11. On information and belief, after the Courts dismissal of Hon Hai from Case No.

2:07-cv-565, Innolux sold or otherwise transferred its computer monitor business to Hon Hai and/or Hon Hai has otherwise developed a computer monitor manufacturing capability of its own. 12. Since the transfer of the monitor business to Hon Hai from Innolux, Hon Hai has

manufactured computer monitors and imported, offered to sell, and/or sell them in the United States to various corporate customers, who resell them under their own brand or trade names. 13. These Hon Hai-made computer monitors are unlicensed. COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,247,090 14. forth herein. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if set

-4-

15.

On June 12, 2001, U.S. Patent No. 6,247,090 (the 090 Patent) entitled

DISPLAY APPARATUS ENABLED TO CONTROL COMMUNICATABILITY WITH AN EXTERNAL COMPUTE RUSING IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION, was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On July 20, 2010, a reexamination certificate was granted for the 090 Patent, which confirmed original claims 1-4 and included new claims 5-26. A true and correct copy of the 090 Patent is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint. 16. Mondis is the assignee and owner of the right, title, and interest in and to the 090

Patent, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patent, the right to recover damages for past, present, or future infringement of the patent, and the right to any other remedies for infringement of the patent. 17. Hon Hai has been directly infringing and continues to directly infringe, either

literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, the 090 Patent by importing, offering to sell, and selling computer monitors in the United States. Further, end users in the United States directly infringe the 090 Patent by using their Hon Hai-manufactured computer monitors. Hon Hai, with knowledge of the 090 Patent, has and does possess the specific intent to encourage end users to directly infringe the 090 Patent. Hon Hai is therefore liable to Mondis under at least 35 U.S.C. 271(a) and (b). 18. Hon Hai has infringed and continues to infringe the 090 Patent despite being on

notice of the patent since April 1, 2005, and being on notice of the reexamination certificate since July 23, 2010. Hon Hais acts of infringement have been and continue to be deliberate, willful, and in reckless disregard of Mondiss patent rights.

-5-

19.

Mondis has been damaged by Hon Hais infringing activities. On information

and belief, Hon Hai will continue its infringing activities, and thus continue to damage Mondis, unless enjoined by this Court. Mondis has no adequate remedy at law. COUNT II INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,089,342 20. forth herein. 21. On August 8, 2006, U.S. Patent No. 7,089,342 (the 342 Patent) entitled Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if set

METHOD ENABLING UNIT TO BIDIRECTIONALY COMMUNICATE WITH VIDEO SOURCE, was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the 342 Patent is attached as Exhibit B to this Complaint. 22. Mondis is the assignee and owner of the right, title, and interest in and to the 342

Patent, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patent, the right to recover damages for past, present, or future infringement of the patent, and the right to any other remedies for infringement of the patent. 23. End users in the United States directly infringe the 342 Patent by using their Hon

Hai-manufactured computer monitors to perform the claimed methods. Hon Hai, with knowledge of the 342 Patent, has and does possess the specific intent to encourage and induce end users to directly infringe the 342 Patent. Hon Hai is therefore liable to Mondis for indirect infringement under at least 35 U.S.C. 271(b) for importing and selling computer monitors in the United States which are used by end users to infringe.

-6-

24.

Hon Hai has infringed and continues to infringe the 342 Patent despite being on

notice of the patent since May 14, 2008. Hon Hais acts of infringement have been and continue to be deliberate, willful, and in reckless disregard of Mondiss patent rights. 25. Mondis has been damaged by Hon Hais infringing activities. On information

and belief, Hon Hai will continue its infringing activities, and thus continue to damage Mondis, unless enjoined by this Court. Mondis has no adequate remedy at law. COUNT III INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,475,180 26. forth herein. 27. On January 6, 2009, U.S. Patent No. 7,475,180 (the 180 Patent) entitled Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if set

DISPLAY UNIT WITH COMMUNICATION CONTROLLER AND MEMORY FOR STORING IDENTIFICATION NUMBER FOR IDENTIFYING DISPLAY UNIT, was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the 180 Patent is attached as Exhibit C to this Complaint. 28. Mondis is the assignee and owner of the right, title, and interest in and to the 180

Patent, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patent, the right to recover damages for past, present, or future infringement of the patent, and the right to any other remedies for infringement of the patent. 29. Hon Hai has been directly infringing and continues to directly infringe, either

literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, the 180 Patent by importing, offering to sell, and selling computer monitors in the United States. Further, end users in the United States directly infringe the 180 Patent by using their Hon Hai-manufactured computer monitors. Hon Hai, with

-7-

knowledge of the 180 Patent, has and does possess the specific intent to encourage end users to directly infringe the 180 Patent. Hon Hai is therefore liable to Mondis under at least 35 U.S.C. 271(a) and (b). 30. Hon Hai has infringed and continues to infringe the 180 Patent despite being on

notice of the patent since March 9, 2009. Hon Hais acts of infringement have been and continue to be deliberate, willful, and in reckless disregard of Mondiss patent rights. 31. Mondis has been damaged by Hon Hais infringing activities. On information

and belief, Hon Hai will continue its infringing activities, and thus continue to damage Mondis, unless enjoined by this Court. Mondis has no adequate remedy at law. COUNT IV INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,057,812 32. forth herein. 33. On May 2, 2000, U.S. Patent No. 6,057,812 (the 812 Patent) entitled IMAGE Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if set

DISPLAY APPARATUS WHICH BOTH RECEIVES VIDEO INFORMATION AND OUTPUTS INFORMATION ABOUT ITSELF, was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On May 2, 2010, a first reexamination certificate was issued for the 812 Patent, which confirmed all the original claims. On December 7, 2010, a second reexamination certificate was issued, which again confirmed all the claims. A true and correct copy of the 812 Patent is attached as Exhibit D to this Complaint. 34. Mondis is the assignee and owner of the right, title, and interest in and to the 812

Patent, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patent, the right to

-8-

recover damages for past, present, or future infringement of the patent, and the right to any other remedies for infringement of the patent. 35. Hon Hai has been directly infringing and continues to directly infringe, either

literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, the 812 Patent by importing, offering to sell, and selling computer monitors in the United States. Further, end users in the United States directly infringe the 812 Patent by using their Hon Hai-manufactured computer monitors and combining them with computers. Hon Hai, with knowledge of the 812 Patent, has and does possess the specific intent to encourage end users to directly infringe the 812 Patent. There is no substantial non-infringing use for the accused Hon-Hai computer monitors, which are not staple items of commerce, other than to combine them with computers. Hon Hai is therefore liable to Mondis under at least 35 U.S.C. 271(a), (b), and (c). 36. Hon Hai has infringed and continues to infringe the 812 Patent despite being on

notice of the patent since December 31, 2007. Hon Hais acts of infringement have been and continue to be deliberate, willful, and in reckless disregard of Mondiss patent rights. 37. Mondis has been damaged by Hon Hais infringing activities. On information

and belief, Hon Hai will continue its infringing activities, and thus continue to damage Mondis, unless enjoined by this Court. Mondis has no adequate remedy at law. COUNT V INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,639,588 38. forth herein. 39. On October 28, 2003, U.S. Patent No. 6,639,588 (the 588 Patent) entitled Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations of the preceding paragraphs as if set

IMAGE DISPLAY APPARATUS, was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and

-9-

Trademark Office. A true and correct copy of the 588 Patent is attached as Exhibit E to this Complaint. 40. Mondis is the assignee and owner of the right, title, and interest in and to the 588

Patent, including the right to assert all causes of action arising under said patent, the right to recover damages for past, present, or future infringement of the patent, and the right to any other remedies for infringement of the patent. 41. Hon Hai has been directly infringing and continues to directly infringe, either

literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, the 588 Patent by importing, offering to sell, and selling computer monitors in the United States. Further, end users in the United States directly infringe the 588 Patent by using their Hon Hai-manufactured computer monitors. Hon Hai, with knowledge of the 588 Patent, has and does possess the specific intent to encourage end users to directly infringe the 588 Patent. Hon Hai is therefore liable to Mondis under at least 35 U.S.C. 271(a) and (b). 42. Hon Hai has infringed and continues to infringe the 588 Patent despite being on

notice of the patent since December 31, 2007. Hon Hais acts of infringement have been and continue to be deliberate, willful, and in reckless disregard of Mondiss patent rights. 43. Mondis has been damaged by Hon Hais infringing activities. On information

and belief, Hon Hai will continue its infringing activities, and thus continue to damage Mondis, unless enjoined by this Court. Mondis has no adequate remedy at law.

- 10 -

CLAIM PRECLUSION & ISSUE PRECLUSION 44. Hon Hai is barred under the doctrines of claim preclusion (res judicata) and/or

issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) from challenging or otherwise re-litigating its infringement of the Patents-in-Suit. 45. Hon Hai is barred under the doctrines of claim preclusion (res judicata) and/or

issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) from challenging or otherwise re-litigating the validity and enforceability of the Patents-in-Suit. JURY DEMAND 46. Plaintiff Mondis demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 47. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Mondis respectfully demands judgment against

Defendant Hon Hai as follows: 48. That this Court adjudge that Hon Hai has infringed each of the 090, 342, 180,

812, and 588 Patents; 49. That this Court adjudge that Hon Hais infringement of the 090, 342, 180, 812,

and 588 Patents has been willful; 50. That this Court issue an injunction, enjoining Hon Hai and its officers, agents,

servants and employees, privies, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from further infringement of said patents; 51. That this Court ascertain and award Plaintiff damages sufficient to compensate

them for the above infringement, including but not limited to infringement occurring before the

- 11 -

filing of this lawsuit, and that the damages so ascertained be trebled as appropriate and awarded to Plaintiff with any applicable pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; 52. That this Court find this case to be exceptional and award Plaintiff its attorneys

fees, costs and expenses in this action; and 53. proper. That this Court award Plaintiff such other relief as the Court may deem just and

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: May 24, 2012

/s/ Jeffrey B. Plies Jeffrey B. Plies (State Bar No. 24027621) jeffrey.plies@dechert.com LEAD ATTORNEY DECHERT LLP 300 W. 6th Street Suite 2010 Austin, TX 78701 (512) 394-3000 Attorneys for Plaintiff Mondis Technology Limited

OF COUNSEL: Otis W. Carroll Texas Bar No. 03895700 Patrick Kelley Texas Bar No. 11202500 IRELAND, CARROLL & KELLEY, P.C. 6101 South Broadway, Suite 500 Tyler, TX 75703 (903) 561-1600 (903) 581-1071 (fax) nancy@icklaw.com patkelley@icklaw.com
14454429.LITIGATION

- 12 -