Você está na página 1de 53

Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 1 of 53

1 RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT


Marc A. Fenster, State Bar No. 181067
2 mfenster@raklaw.com
Benjamin T. Wang, State Bar No. 228712
3 bwang@raklaw.com
Neil A. Rubin, State Bar No. 250761
4 nrubin@raklaw.com
James S. Tsuei (CA Bar No. 285530)
5 jtsuei@raklaw.com
12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
6 Los Angeles, California 90025
Telephone: (310) 826-7474
7 Facsimile: (310) 826-6991

8 Attorneys for Plaintiff


COREPHOTONICS, LTD.
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12
13
COREPHOTONICS, LTD.
14
Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-4809
15
vs.
16 COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
INFRINGEMENT
17 APPLE INC.

18 Defendant. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 2 of 53

1 COMPLAINT

2 1. Plaintiff Corephotonics, Ltd. (“Corephotonics”) hereby submits its Complaint


3 against Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and alleges as follows:

4 NATURE OF THE ACTION


5 2. This is a civil action for infringement under the patent laws of the United States, 35
6 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
7 3. The United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent
8 9,661,233 (the “’233 patent”), entitled “Dual Aperture Zoom Digital Camera,” on May 23, 2017.
9 Corephotonics is the legal owner of the ’233 patent by assignment. A true and correct copy of the
10 ’233 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
11 4. The United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 10,230,898 (the “’898 patent”), entitled “Dual Aperture Zoom Camera With Video Support And
13 Switching / Non-Switching Dynamic Control,” on March 12, 2019. Corephotonics is the legal
14 owner of the ’898 patent by assignment. A true and correct copy of the ’898 patent is attached
15 hereto as Exhibit B.
16 5. The United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent
17 10,288,840 (the “’840 patent”), entitled “Miniature Telephoto Lens Module And A Camera
18 Utilizing Such A Lens Module,” on May 14, 2019. Corephotonics is the legal owner of the ’840
19 patent by assignment. A true and correct copy of the ’840 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
20 6. The United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent
21 10,317,647 (the “’647 patent”), entitled “Miniature Telephoto Lens Assembly,” on June 11, 2019.
22 Corephotonics is the legal owner of the ’647 patent by assignment. A true and correct copy of the
23 ’647 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
24 7. The United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent
25 10,324,277 (the “’277 patent”), entitled “Miniature Telephoto Lens Assembly,” on June 18, 2019.
26 Corephotonics is the legal owner of the ’277 patent by assignment. A true and correct copy of the
27 ’277 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
28

1
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 3 of 53

1 8. The United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent

2 10,330,897 (the “’897 patent”), entitled “Miniature Telephoto Lens Assembly,” on June 25, 2019.
3 Corephotonics is the legal owner of the ’897 patent by assignment. A true and correct copy of the

4 ’897 patent as-issued, together with a certificate of correction dated July 23, 2019, is attached
5 hereto as Exhibit F.
6 9. The United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent
7 10,225,479 (the “’479 patent”), entitled “Dual Aperture Zoom Digital Camera,” on March 5, 2019.
8 Corephotonics is the legal owner of the ’479 patent by assignment. A true and correct copy of the
9 ’479 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
10 10. The United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent
11 10,015,408 (the “’408 patent”), entitled “Dual Aperture Zoom Digital Camera,” on July 3, 2018.
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 Corephotonics is the legal owner of the ’408 patent by assignment. A true and correct copy of the
13 ’408 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit H.
14 11. The United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent
15 10,356,332 (the “’332 patent”), entitled “Dual Aperture Zoom Camera With Video Support And
16 Switching / Non-Switching Dynamic Control,” on July 16, 2019. Corephotonics is the legal owner
17 of the ’332 patent by assignment. A true and correct copy of the ’332 patent is attached hereto as
18 Exhibit I.
19 12. The United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent
20 10,326,942 (the “’942 patent”), entitled “Dual Aperture Zoom Digital Camera,” on June 18, 2019.
21 Corephotonics is the legal owner of the ’942 patent by assignment. A true and correct copy of the
22 ’942 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit J.
23 13. Apple has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of each of the
24 ’233 patent, the ’898 patent, the ’840 patent, the ’647 patent, the ’277 patent, the ’897 patent, the
25 ’479 patent, the ’408 patent, the ’332 patent, and the ’942 patent (collectively the “Asserted
26 Patents”), at least by importing, using, selling, and/or offering to sell the iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8
27 Plus, iPhone X, iPhone Xs, and/or iPhone Xs Max (the “Accused Products”), as set forth in detail
28 below. Corephotonics seeks, among other things, monetary damages and injunctive relief.

2
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 4 of 53

1 THE PARTIES

2 14. Plaintiff Corephotonics is a company organized and existing under the laws of the
3 State of Israel with its principal place of business at 25 HaBarzel St., Tel Aviv 6971035, Israel.

4 15. Defendant Apple is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State
5 of California with its principal place of business at 1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California.
6 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7 16. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Corephotonics’ claims for patent
8 infringement pursuant to the 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
9 17. Apple is subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction because Apple resides and has
10 its primary place of business within this District. This Court also has personal jurisdiction over
11 Apple because Apple has committed and induced acts of patent infringement and has regularly
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 and systematically conducted and solicited business in this District by and through at least its sales
13 and offers for sale of Apple products and services, and other contractual arrangements with Apple
14 customers and third parties using such Apple products and services located in and/or doing
15 business in this District.
16 18. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1400(b) because
17 Apple resides in this District, has a regular and established place of business in this District, and
18 has committed acts of infringement in this District.
19 INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
20 19. This action for patent infringement is assigned on a district-wide basis under Civil
21 L.R. 3-2(c).
22 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
23 A. Corephotonics’ Dual Camera Technology Innovations
24 20. Corephotonics is a pioneer in the development of dual camera technologies for
25 mobile devices. Corephotonics was founded in 2012 to develop the next generation of mobile
26 phone cameras. Its founders brought with them decades of experience in the fields of optics and
27 miniature digital cameras and were led by Dr. David Mendlovic, a Professor at Tel Aviv University
28 and former Chief Scientist of the Israeli Ministry of Science.

3
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 5 of 53

1 21. Corephotonics’ dual-aperture camera technology changes the way smartphones

2 take pictures by using advanced lens design and sophisticated computational optics. The advanced
3 lens design is used to create a miniature telephoto lens that can fit within the confines of a modern,

4 thin smartphone but still provide the superior image quality and light sensitivity demanded by
5 smartphone consumers.
6 22. Corephotonics’ innovative dual-aperture camera technology uses two fixed-focal
7 length lenses, a wide-angle lens as typically found in smartphones with single-aperture cameras,
8 and a miniature telephoto lens. Traditional optical zoom is accomplished by using a variable focal
9 length lens assembly. At the small formats required for smartphones, however, it is difficult to
10 reliably include movable components, so smartphones were stuck with small, fixed lenses. This
11 means that in a typical single-aperture smartphone camera, all zoom functionality is provided with
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 digital zoom, i.e., a processor digitally modifies the image to create a magnified but poorer
13 resolution image. With Corephotonics’ dual-aperture camera technology, by contrast, the second
14 camera with telephoto lens provides much higher optical resolution than the wide-angle camera.
15 Images from both of these cameras can also be processed by computational algorithms to create
16 an effectively greater level of zoom without degrading image quality by combining digital and
17 optical zoom.
18 23. For video, which captures thirty or more frames per second, Corephotonics
19 discovered that implementing image fusion for each frame demands higher than normal processing
20 resources and power. At the same time, the beneficial pixel finesse achieved by image fusion is
21 less observable at the rapid frame rate of HD video due to human perception limits. Corephotonics
22 thus developed technology for dual-aperture cameras where image fusion is only used when taking
23 still pictures, but not for video. In video, when zooming in, digital zoom is used first on the image
24 from the wide-angle camera only and then switched to the image from the telephoto camera only.
25 When zooming back out, a similar transition happens from using the telephoto camera only,
26 switching back to the wide-angle camera only. This approach conserves resources and power.
27 Because the two lenses are different and necessarily view the subject from different points of view,
28
4
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 6 of 53

1 Corephotonics also developed special processing that can ensure that the transition from the wide

2 lens to the telephoto lens and back would be smooth.


3 24. Corephotonics has filed for and received patents on its advanced telephoto lens

4 designs, multi-aperture camera technologies, and optical processing technologies, including the
5 patents-in-suit. Corephotonics is continuing to develop multi-aperture camera technologies, and it
6 has filed and obtained patents on these technologies as well.
7 25. The press recognized Corephotonics’ pioneering advances in dual-aperture camera
8 technology for smartphones. For example, Corephotonics demonstrated its dual-aperture camera
9 technology at Mobile World Congress (MWC) 2014 and received very positive reviews from the
10 tech media, including headlines such as “Corephotonics’ dual-camera tech will change smartphone
11 imaging”1 and statements like “We think [the Corephotonics dual camera technology] has the
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 potential to change the direction of smartphone photography.”2


13 26. Corephotonics now employs over 60 staff, the majority of whom are engineers,
14 scientists, and technologists. Corephotonics depends on its patents to protect its business and
15 continue to develop its innovative miniaturized multi-camera technologies, for mobile devices and
16 new applications. The customers of Corephotonics’ technology offerings include leading camera
17 module and mobile device manufacturers.
18 27. Corephotonics spent years demonstrating its technologies to Apple and discussing
19 potential collaborations and business arrangements. Apple, however, refused. Instead, Apple has
20 gone ahead and marketed its newest generations of iPhones with dual cameras that employ
21 Corephotonics’ innovative designs – without any regard to Corephotonics’ intellectual property
22 rights.
23
24
25
26 1
“Corephotonics’ dual-camera tech will change smartphone imaging,” C|Net,
https://www.cnet.com/news/corephotonics-dual-camera-tech-will-change-smartphone-imaging/
27
2
“Best of Mobile World Congress: Samsung Galaxy S5, Mozilla $25 phone, smart glove and
28 more,” C|Net, ”https://www.cnet.com/news/best-of-mobile-world-congress-samsung-galaxy-s5-
mozilla-25-phone-smart-glove-and-more/
5
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 7 of 53

B. Apple’s Interest in Corephotonics’ Technology and Intellectual


1 Property
2
28. As one of its first acts as a company, Corephotonics reached out to Apple in the
3
hopes of establishing a strategic partnership. The founding team contacted someone they knew
4
from their previous work in digital camera technology, Graham Townsend, then Senior Director
5
Camera Hardware at Apple, highlighting some of the innovations Corephotonics was working on
6
related to a high-end compact camera module (“CCM”) solution. Throughout 2012, Corephotonics
7
and Apple had meetings regarding the early technologies that Corephotonics was developing
8
during that time. At an early meeting in June 2012, Corephotonics told Apple of its intention to
9
protect its current and future developments in multi-camera technology with patents.
10
29. In May 2013, an Apple engineer emailed Corephotonics communicating Apple’s
11
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

interest in learning more about Corephotonics’ other technology offerings and intellectual
12
property, in particular a telephoto lens that for a dual-aperture camera that included a telephoto
13
lens and associated software algorithms, and expressed interest in learning more about that
14
invention. Corephotonics provided a brief description of its telephoto lens architecture that was
15
part of its intellectual property and referenced other pending patents.
16
30. In June 2013, a meeting was held at Corephotonics’ headquarters in Tel Aviv, Israel
17
with Mr. Townsend and other Apple camera engineers. At this meeting Corephotonics described
18
its intellectual property and technology plans, which included a detailed presentation and
19
discussion of computational algorithms for dual-aperture cameras and numerous system
20
architecture and design details for a dual system. These design details closely resembled what was
21
eventually deployed in the market by Apple. At the same time, Corephotonics also engaged in
22
engineering discussions of its telephoto lens design, and sent a file describing the lens design and
23
including key design details. Corephotonics provided Apple with a full set of technology
24
descriptions covering what was discussed. At the meeting, Corephotonics provided Mr. Townsend
25
with a USB drive containing presentation files, which included a Corephotonics’ five element
26
telephoto lens design layout, information about Corephotonics’ algorithm, and a slide describing
27
Corephotonics’ pending patent applications and patent plans, including filing of applications
28
underlying the Asserted Patents. Corephotonics followed up with further correspondence, which
6
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 8 of 53

1 included technical descriptions and responses to Apple’s technical inquiries. Later, in October

2 2013, a larger team, this time including members of Apple’s image processing and system groups,
3 visited Corephotonics’ Tel Aviv office again for more in-depth discussions, which included dual

4 camera processing methods.


5 31. During this period through late 2014, Corephotonics personnel visited Apple’s
6 facilities in California on numerous occasions, meeting with key members of Apple’s camera team,
7 including the leaders of Apple’s hardware and software efforts. Corephotonics personnel set up
8 numerous simulations and demonstrations of its technology for Apple. Apple further evaluated
9 Corephotonics’ test boards, lens modules, and simulation files at its own facilities, in the absence
10 of Corephotonics personnel.
11 32. During this period in 2014, Corephotonics learned from the contractor who was
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 manufacturing Corephotonics’ prototype telephoto lens modules that Apple had sought
13 Corephotonics’ samples from them without notifying Corephotonics, and the contractor had
14 rejected that request. Corephotonics then contacted Apple and agreed to provide Apple with
15 physical samples of Corephotonics’ lens and camera modules, which embody the claimed designs
16 of Corephotonics ’647, ’277, and ‘897 patents.
17 33. Apple also received “black box” simulation files for Corephotonics’ lens designs
18 and a software simulator for the computational algorithms for image processing, and also was
19 provided access to Corephotonics’ system prototypes, which simulated embodiments of U.S.
20 Patent Nos. 9,185,291 (“’291 patent”) and 9,538,152 (“’152 patent) (as well as continuations
21 therefrom, such as the ’233, ‘479, and ’408 patents asserted in this Complaint).
22 34. In May 2014, Corephotonics was told by Apple that high-level technical staff and
23 executives in Apple’s camera engineering group had observed a demonstration of Corephotonics’
24 technology and had reacted very positively. Corephotonics understood that Apple’s management
25 had determined to move forward and engage with Corephotonics.
26 35. In June 2014, Apple expressed interest in licensing Corephotonics’ dual camera
27 algorithms and software for commercial use in its devices, and a meeting was arranged for July
28 30, 2014. Apple provided a business proposal prior to that meeting. Corephotonics provided

7
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 9 of 53

1 Apple’s business team with a description of its range of technology offerings and provided Apple

2 with a description of its (then) over ten patent families, including low-profile telephoto lens designs
3 for mobile cameras and algorithms for improving dual-aperture cameras with telephoto lenses.

4 During this meeting, in response to Corephotonics claim about the commercial value of its patents,
5 Apple’s lead negotiator responded that even if Apple infringed, it would take years and millions
6 of dollars in litigation before Apple might have to pay something.
7 36. After the meeting, Apple asked Corephotonics to provide a sample of its telephoto
8 lens. Apple indicated that it intended to evaluate Corephotonics’ lens design and that it could
9 potentially engage with Corephotonics on lens design technology depending on the outcome of
10 that evaluation.
11 37. By late August, business negotiations were halted by Apple. Technical discussions
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 between Apple and Corephotonics continued until later that year, while Corephotonics was waiting
13 to hear from Apple’s business team.
14 38. On November 18, 2014, an article appeared in the media reporting that Apple would
15 potentially adopt dual-aperture camera technology, suggesting that it would be similar to the dual
16 camera technology that Corephotonics had developed and presented earlier that year, and which
17 Corephotonics had been discussing over this period with Apple.3 Apple did not engage in further
18 efforts to obtain a license to Corephotonics’ intellectual property.
19 39. In January 2016, after sporadic contacts with Apple personnel through 2015,
20 Corephotonics again reached out to Apple. Corephotonics’ CEO, Dr. Mendlovic, emailed a high-
21 level hardware executive suggesting continued collaboration. Corephotonics pointed out,
22 “Corephotonics had the privilege to be the first to invent, implement and demonstrate dual cameras
23 which outperform the best single compact cameras. Thus, our IP portfolio is the widest and, in our
24 opinion, has the best defensive value for such applications.” Corephotonics offered to discuss
25 collaboration and joint projects with Apple. The Apple executive wrote back that he was looking
26 into it, and that another Apple engineer would be in touch. That engineer and a colleague from
27
28 3
See “Apple May Introduce ‘Biggest Camera Jump Ever’ in Next-Generation iPhone,”
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/11/18/apple-biggest-camera-jump-ever/.
8
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 10 of 53

1 Apple visited Corephotonics’ facility in Israel for an in-person meeting, at which Corephotonics

2 presented some of its most recent technology offerings.


3 40. At that meeting and in subsequent meetings and communications, Apple expressed

4 interest in learning more about Corephotonics’ technologies. Corephotonics indicated a desire to


5 formalize a business arrangement, and in June 2016, Mr. Townsend emailed Corephotonics
6 introducing them to Apple personnel on its business side to engage in setting up a deal that would
7 govern the technology collaboration. Corephotonics sent Apple a proposal, and in August 2016,
8 Apple followed up and asked Corephotonics to provide a proposal for licensing its intellectual
9 property to Apple. Corephotonics informed Apple that its intellectual property included over 25
10 patent families, and discussions continued to proceed.
11 41. On September 7, 2016, Apple announced the iPhone 7 Plus, which included, for
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 the first time for Apple, a rear dual camera assembly including a telephoto camera for enhanced
13 zoom – one of Corephotonics’ core innovative concepts. Apple specifically touted the telephoto
14 camera on iPhone 7 Plus as a key feature. The hardware specifications and important software
15 functionalities were similar to what Corephotonics had shown and demonstrated to Apple
16 throughout the aforementioned exchanges starting in 2013.
17 42. By October 2016, negotiations between Corephotonics had stopped progressing,
18 and Corephotonics arranged a face-to-face meeting with Apple. Two meetings were set up, which
19 included technical and business personnel from Apple. During these meetings, Corephotonics
20 offered to negotiate an agreement with Apple for access to Corephotonics’ technology offerings
21 and patents. Corephotonics offered to share its patents with Apple employees at both meetings. At
22 the second meeting, Mr. Townsend stated that he was not permitted by his company to look at the
23 patents, and he asked Corephotonics instead to send it to Apple’s business personnel instead. One
24 of Apple’s business personnel followed up immediately thereafter with an unsolicited email
25 stating, “Please do not send any patents to us until further notice. Legal counsel might reach out
26 with any questions.”
27 43. Corephotonics did not hear from Apple’s legal counsel after receiving that email.
28 In an attempt to continue efforts to develop a business relationship, during 2017 Corephotonics

9
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 11 of 53

1 again met with and communicated with individuals from Apple’s camera team on several

2 occasions, but Apple no longer expressed interest in continuing to discuss a collaboration with
3 Corephotonics.

4 44. On October 31, 2017, Corephotonics wrote to Apple informing it that after
5 examining Apple’s iPhone 7 Plus and 8 Plus cameras and zoom functionality, it believed that these
6 products infringed certain of Corephotonics’ patents. Apple did not respond.
7 45. On November 6, 2017, Corephotonics filed a complaint alleging and describing the
8 infringement by Apple’s iPhone 7 Plus product of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,402,032 (“’032 patent”),
9 9,568,712 (“’712 patent”), the ’291 patent”, and the ’152 patent. That case is pending in this
10 District before the Honorable Judge Lucy Koh, Case No. 5:17-cv-06457-LHK, and is
11 administratively stayed pending resolution of inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings initiated by
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 Apple against Corephotonics’ patents.


13 46. On April 16, 2018, Corephotonics wrote to Apple informing it that it had examined
14 Apple’s iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8 Plus, and iPhone X products and concluded those products
15 infringed U.S. Patent No. 9,857,568 (“the ’568 patent”) as well as recently allowed claims in U.S.
16 Patent Application 15/424,853 (’853 application), the latter of which is a continuation of the ’291
17 patent.
18 47. On April 25, 2018, Apple responded to Corephotonics’ April 18, 2018
19 correspondence with a letter of its own, wherein Apple stated that Corephotonics had not
20 “articulate[d] any detail for its claim” relating to the ’568 patent and’853 application but suggested
21 that it had begun an “investigation into [Corephotonics’] allegations.”
22 48. On April 30, 2018, Corephotonics filed a second complaint alleging and describing
23 infringement by Apple’s iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8 Plus, and iPhone X products of the ’712 patent
24 and U.S. Patent No. 9,568,712 and the ’568 patent. That case is pending in this District before
25 Judge Koh, Case No. 5:18-cv-02555-LHK, and is administratively stayed pending the resolution
26 of related IPR proceedings.
27
28
10
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 12 of 53

1 49. On July 26, 2018, Corephotonics wrote to Apple to informing it that the ’853

2 application had been issued as the ’408 patent, and reiterated Corephotonics’ belief that the iPhone
3 X infringed the issued claims of the ’408 patent.

4 50. On August 8, 2018, Apple responded to Corephotonics’ July 26, 2018 letter,
5 contending again that Corephotonics had provided insufficient information regarding the ’408
6 patent and that such fact “impede[d] Apple’s investigation into [the] allegations.”
7 51. On November 30, 2018, Corephotonics wrote to Apple to inform it that Apple
8 infringed claims that would soon issue in U.S. Patent Application Nos. 15/540,676 (“the ’676
9 application”), 15/817,235 (“the ’235 application”), 15/976,391 (“the ’391 application”), and
10 15/976,422 (“the ’422 application”). Attached to that letter were charts, prepared by
11 Corephotonics, describing Apple’s infringement of certain recently-allowed claims of the ’408
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 patent, the ’391 application, the ’422 application; the ’235 application, and U.S. Patent Application
13 15/324,720 (“the ’720 application”).
14 52. Of the patent applications identified by Corephotonics in its November 30, 2018
15 letter, all subsequently matured into issued patents now asserted in this Complaint:
16 • the ’676 application issued as the ’840 patent;
17 • the ’235 application issued as the ’277 patent;
18 • the ’391 application issued as the ’897 patent;
19 • the ’422 application issued as the ’647 patent; and
20 • the ’720 application issued as the ’898 patent.
21 53. During the relevant time period, Corephotonics continued to prosecute and obtain
22 continuation patents on the patents it had already specifically identified and/or asserted against
23 Apple in its pending litigations. This included U.S. Application No. 16/048,242, which is a
24 continuation of the ’291 patent (and the ’408 patent, as well) and later issued as the ’479 patent.
25 C. Apple’s Analysis of Corephotonics’ Patents and Patent Applications
During Apple’s Pursuit of its Own Patents
26
27 54. During the period that Apple was in discussions with Corephotonics, and
28 investigating and evaluating Corephotonics’ technology, Apple was filing its own patent

11
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 13 of 53

1 applications on small-format camera designs, including telephoto cameras that could be used in a

2 mobile device. During this time, Corephotonics’ patents and related patent applications were
3 significant in the art. Apple was well aware of Corephotonics’ patents and related patent

4 applications, including the patents in suit and applications that issued as the patents in suit, as it
5 sought to obtain its own patents over Corephotonics’ prior art.
6 55. For instance, Apple filed U.S. Patent Application No. 14/069,027 (the “’027
7 application”), which later issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,223,118. On February 18, 2015, the U.S.
8 Patent & Trademark Office issued an Office Action in the prosecution of the ’027 application. The
9 examiner cited published application U.S. Pub. App. No. 2015/0029601A1 to Dror, et al. (the
10 “Dror Application”), as anticipating, or rendering obviousness in combination with other
11 references, all the pending claims of the ’027 application. The Dror Application is a family member
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 of certain of the patents asserted by Corephotonics in this action and its two previously-filed
13 actions (referred to herein nonexclusively as “Dror family” patents and applications). Amendments
14 and arguments associated with those amendments were filed on May 15, 2015, which extensively
15 discussed Corephotonics’ patent application and analyzed purported differences between its
16 disclosures and the claims of Apple’s ’027 application. The inventor of Apple’s ’027 application,
17 Roman Mercado continued to work for Apple through the introduction of the iPhone 7 Plus.
18 56. Apple was familiar with and had analyzed the extent of Corephotonics’ patent
19 portfolio throughout its pursuit of Apple’s own patents. By way of example, the earliest IDS that
20 Apple filed for the ’720 application, filed on September 30, 2015, included four references, of
21 which two of the four were Corephotonics patent applications. Other examples of Apple’s actual
22 knowledge and familiarity with Corephotonics’ patent portfolio include:
23 • Apple also disclosed the Dror Application as prior art to its ’720 application, submitted in
24 Apple’s March 24, 2016 IDS filing. Apple further disclosed the Dror Application as prior
25 art to its ’716 application and its ’136 application.
26 • The ’291 patent to Shabtay et al. (of which multiple patents asserted in this Complaint are
27 continuations, such as the ’233 patent, ’408 patent, and ‘479 patent) is cited on the face of
28
12
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 14 of 53

1 numerous patents assigned to Apple, such as U.S. Patent Nos. 9,769,389; 9,774,787;

2 9,781,345; 10,063,783; 10,122,931; 10,136,048; and 10,264,188.


3 • Published patent applications within the same family as the ’291 patent (nonexclusively

4 referred to herein as “Shabtay family” patents and applications), including U.S. Patent
5 Application Nos. 2015/02449420 and 2015/0085174, have been cited by numerous
6 recently-issued patents assigned to Apple.
7 57. Apple also asked Corephotonics to provide three samples of telephoto lens elements
8 similar to the embodiments disclosed in the Dror family patents and patent applications.
9 Corephotonics provided those samples, and Apple has not returned them to Corephotonics as of
10 the date of this Complaint.
11
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION


13 Infringement of Patent No. 9,661,233
14 58. Corephotonics incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth
15 herein.
16 59. Apple has directly infringed, and continues to directly infringe, at least claim 1 of
17 the ’233 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271, by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or
18 importing within the United States, without authority, the iPhone 7 Plus.
19 60. Set forth below (with claim language in italics) is an exemplary and non-limiting
20 description of infringement of claim 1 of the ’233 patent in connection with the iPhone 7 Plus.
21 Corephotonics reserves the right to modify this description, including, for example, on the basis
22 of information it obtains during discovery:
23 Claim 1
24 [1.] A multiple aperture zoom digital camera, comprising: To the extent the preamble is
25 limiting, the rear-facing dual camera assembly of the iPhone 7 Plus is a multiple aperture zoom
26 digital camera.
27 [1a] a Wide imaging section that includes a Wide sensor and a fixed focal length Wide lens
28 with a Wide field of view (POV), the Wide imaging section operative to output a Wide image: the

13
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 15 of 53

1 iPhone 7 Plus has a dual camera that includes a wide-angle camera, which Apple has described as

2 being a 28 mm equivalent and with a field of view of approximately 75°.


3 [1b] a Tele imaging section that includes a Tele sensor and a fixed focal length Tele lens

4 with a Tele POV that is narrower than the Wide POV, the Tele imaging section operative to output
5 a Tele image; and: the iPhone 7 Plus has a dual camera that includes a telephoto camera, which,
6 e.g., Apple has described as being a 56 mm equivalent lens, i.e., with a field of view that will be
7 narrower than the field of view of the wide-angle lens (which is equivalent to 28 mm) given a
8 similar image sensor size.
9 [1c] a camera controller operatively coupled to the Wide and Tele imaging sections and
10 configured to reduce an image jump effect seen in video output images and to provide continuous
11 zoom video output images by executing registration between the Wide and Tele images for
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 performing position matching to the video output images when switching from an output of the
13 Tele imaging section to an output of the Wide imaging section or vice versa: Apple has configured
14 the iPhone 7 Plus dual-aperture camera to provide a continuous zoom in video mode with a reduced

15 image jump effect using registration between the wide-angle and telephoto cameras. According to

16 Apple “[t]he Dual camera’s defining feature is its ability to smoothly transition between wide and tele

17 cameras, acting like a single lens camera with optical zoom at 2x.”

18 https://forums.developer.apple.com/thread/63347. Samples of the iPhone 7 Plus’ smooth transition in

19 video mode are available at http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/09/23/apples-iphone-7-camera-

20 delivers-nice-slice-of-enhancements-but-iphone-7-plus-takes-the-cake. The camera controller

21 responsible for the reduction in image jump effect is the Apple A10 system-on-a-chip (SoC),

22 specifically the A10 Fusion APL1W24 SoC + Samsung 3 GB LPDDR4 RAM. See, e.g.,
23 https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+7+Plus+Teardown/67384 (indicating the Apple A10
24 processor).
25 61. As set forth in its Factual Allegations of this Complaint, Apple’s infringement of
26 the ’233 patent has been and continues to be wanton, deliberate, egregious, and willful. Prior to
27 the introduction of the Accused Products, Apple was engaged in five years of technical and
28 business discussions surrounding a potential collaboration. Apple repeatedly expressed interest in

14
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 16 of 53

1 learning more about and ultimately obtaining the right to use Corephotonics’ technology and

2 intellectual property in the software and hardware associated with small-format multi-aperture
3 cameras for use in mobile devices. Corephotonics disclosed a telephoto lens assembly design to

4 Apple and told Apple that it was seeking patent protection on its small photo telephoto lens
5 assembly designs as early as June 2013. Apple later sought and obtained samples of lens
6 assemblies like those disclosed in the ’233 patent. Corephotonics continued to inform Apple that
7 it had a substantial and growing portfolio of patents and patent applications in that space, which
8 included the lens design that could be used for a small-format telephoto camera suitable for use in
9 mobile devices, the subject matter of the ’233 patent. Apple further learned of and had to analyze
10 the features claimed in the ’233 patent in its own patenting efforts. Even while the ’233 patent
11 was pending and after its underlying and related application had published, Apple knew that
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 patents on a small format telephoto design that claimed the design features of the embodiments,
13 like the ’233 patent and its related applications, were potentially going to issue. Shortly after Apple
14 announced the iPhone 7 Plus, Corephotonics tried to inform Apple of its specific patents and patent
15 applications in the context of a business negotiations. Apple’s employees, however, refused to
16 receive the patents in the context of business and technical discussions. Despite this, Apple has
17 continued to cite Corephotonics’ patents and patent applications in the Dror family and Shabtay
18 family in prosecuting its own patents.
19 62. In its pending litigations in this District against Apple, Corephotonics has asserted
20 infringement of numerous patents from both the Dror family and Shabtay family of patents. The
21 ’233 patent is a member of the Shabtay family.
22 63. Accordingly, by the date the ’233 patent issued or thereafter Apple should have
23 known of the patent’s existence. Accordingly, Apple has had knowledge of or been willfully blind
24 to its infringement of the ’233 patent.
25 64. For at least the foregoing and other reasons set forth herein, Corephotonics is
26 entitled to enhanced damages for Apple’s infringement of the ’233 patent in accordance with 35
27 U.S.C. § 284.
28
15
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 17 of 53

1 65. As described in the Factual Allegations in this Complaint, Apple has also had

2 knowledge of or been willfully blind to its infringement of the ’233 patent such that based on that
3 knowledge or willful blindness, it has also indirectly infringed the ’233 patent since at least as

4 early as the date of issuance of the ’233 patent.


5 66. Apple has also had actual knowledge of Corephotonics’ rights in the ’233 patent
6 and details of Apple’s infringement of the ’233 patent based on at least the filing of this Complaint
7 and, based on that knowledge, is also indirectly infringing the ’233 patent.
8 67. Apple manufactures, uses, imports, offers for sale, and/or sells the Accused
9 Products with knowledge of or willful blindness to the fact that its actions will induce Apple’s
10 customers and end users to infringe the ’233 patent by using the telephoto lens on the iPhone 7
11 Plus.
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 68. Apple actively and knowingly induces its customers and end users to infringe the
13 ’233 patent by publishing information promoting the dual-aperture camera of the Accused
14 Products, and by providing its customers and end users with instructions for using that camera.
15 For example, Apple highlighted the benefits of the dual-aperture camera when it introduced the
16 iPhone 7 Plus. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS0txu_Kzl8 at 1:08:22,
17 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6dsRpVyyWs at 1:05.
18 69. As the direct and proximate result of Apple’s conduct, Corephotonics has suffered
19 and, if Apple’s conduct is not stopped, will continue to suffer, severe competitive harm, irreparable
20 injury, and significant damages, in an amount to be proven at trial. Because Corephotonics’ remedy
21 at law is inadequate, Corephotonics seeks, in addition to damages, permanent injunctive relief.
22 Corephotonics’ business operates in a competitive market and will continue suffering irreparable
23 harm absent injunctive relief.
24 70. Corephotonics is entitled to injunctive relief and damages of no less than a
25 reasonable royalty in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 154, 271, 281, 283, and 284.
26 71. Apple’s infringement of the ’233 patent is exceptional and entitles Corephotonics
27 to attorneys’ fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
28
16
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 18 of 53

1 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

2 Infringement of Patent No. 10,230,898


3 72. Corephotonics incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth

4 herein.
5 73. Apple has directly infringed, and continues to directly infringe, at least claim 1 of
6 the ’898 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271, by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or
7 importing within the United States, without authority, the iPhone 7 Plus, the iPhone 8 Plus, the
8 iPhone X, iPhone Xs, and iPhone Xs Max.
9 74. As just one non-limiting example, set forth below (with claim language in italics)
10 is a description of infringement of exemplary claim 1 of the ’898 patent in connection with the
11 iPhone X, which applies similarly to the other Accused Products. Corephotonics reserves the right
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 to modify this description, including, for example, on the basis of information about the Accused
13 Products that it obtains during discovery:
14 Claim 1 of the ’898 patent
15 1. A zoom digital camera comprising: To the extent the preamble is limiting, the dual
16 camera assembly of the iPhone X is a zoom digital camera.
17 [1a] a) a Wide imaging section that includes a fixed focal length Wide lens with a Wide
18 field of view (FOV) and a Wide sensor, the Wide imaging section operative to provide Wide image
19 data of an object or scene. The iPhone X has a dual camera that includes a wide-angle camera
20 with a wide field of view.
21 [1b] b) a Tele imaging section that includes a fixed focal length Tele lens with a Tele FOV
22 that is narrower than the Wide FOV and a Tele sensor, the Tele imaging section operative to
23 provide Tele image data of the object or scene; and. The iPhone X has a dual camera that includes
24 a telephone camera with a field of view narrower than that of the wide-angle camera in the dual
25 camera assembly.
26 [1c] c) a camera controller operatively coupled to the Wide and Tele imaging sections and.
27 The iPhone X’s A12 Bionic system-on-a-chip (SoC) is a camera controller coupled to and for
28 processing data from the rear dual camera assembly.

17
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 19 of 53

1 [1d] configured to evaluate if a no-switching criterion is fulfilled or not fulfilled, wherein

2 if the no-switching criterion is fulfilled in a zoom-in operation between a lower zoom factor (ZF)
3 value and a higher ZF value at a zoom factor (ZF) higher than an up-transfer ZF, the camera

4 controller is further configured to output a zoom video output image that includes only Wide image
5 data, and. The iPhone X provides a zoom video output image that includes only image data
6 captured from the wide angle lens under certain conditions, e.g., when there are a low light
7 conditions or the user is focused on objects or a part of the scene that is close to the lens and the
8 telephoto lens cannot focus. See, e.g., “Dual Lens Switching on iPhone X,” Studio Neat,
9 https://www.studioneat.com/blogs/main/dual-lens-switching-on-the-iphone-x; see also, e.g.,
10 “Blow up: iPhone 7 Plus uses digital zoom instead of optical more often than you'd expect,”
11 https://www.macworld.com/article/3121661/apple-phone/blow-up.
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 [1e] wherein if the no-switching criterion is not fulfilled, the camera controller is further
13 configured to output a zoom video output image that includes only transformed, digitally zoomed
14 Tele image data. Under conditions other than those in which digital zoom is used instead of optical
15 zoom at 2X magnification, see, e.g., claim element 1.[d], increasing zoom beyond 2X uses the
16 telephoto lens image.
17 75. As set forth in its Factual Allegations of this Complaint, Apple’s infringement of
18 the ’898 patent has been and continues to be wanton, deliberate, egregious, and willful. Prior to
19 the introduction of the Accused Products, Apple was engaged in five years of technical and
20 business discussions surrounding a potential collaboration. Apple repeatedly expressed interest in
21 learning more about and ultimately obtaining the right to use Corephotonics’ technology and
22 intellectual property in the software and hardware associated with small-format multi-aperture
23 cameras for use in mobile devices. Corephotonics disclosed a telephoto lens assembly design to
24 Apple and told Apple that it was seeking patent protection on its small photo telephoto lens
25 assembly designs as early as June 2013. Apple later sought and obtained samples of lens
26 assemblies like those disclosed in the ’898 patent. Corephotonics continued to inform Apple that
27 it had a substantial and growing portfolio of patents and patent applications in that space, which
28 included the lens design that could be used for a small-format telephoto camera suitable for use in

18
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 20 of 53

1 mobile devices, the subject matter of the ’898 patent. Apple further learned of and had to analyze

2 the features claimed in the ’898 patent in its own patenting efforts. Even while the ’898 patent was
3 pending and after its underlying and related application had published, Apple knew that patents on

4 a small format telephoto design that claimed the design features of the embodiments, like the ’898
5 patent and its related applications, were potentially going to issue. Shortly after Apple announced
6 the iPhone 7 Plus, Corephotonics tried to inform Apple of its specific patents and patent
7 applications in the context of a business negotiations. Apple’s employees, however, refused to
8 receive the patents in the context of business and technical discussions. Despite this, Apple has
9 continued to cite Corephotonics’ patents and patent applications in prosecuting its own patents.
10 76. In its pending litigations in this District against Apple, Corephotonics has asserted
11 infringement of numerous patents from different patent families. And, in its November 30, 2018
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 correspondence to Apple, Corephotonics described Apple’s infringement of allowed claims of the


13 ’720 application, which later issued as the ’898 patent.
14 77. Accordingly, by the date the ’898 patent issued or thereafter Apple should have
15 known of the patent’s existence. Accordingly, Apple has had knowledge of or been willfully blind
16 to its infringement of the ’898 patent.
17 78. Apple further compounded its infringement, either with knowledge or willful
18 blindness and in wanton disregard to Corephotonics’ rights under the ’898 patent, with Apple’s
19 introduction of the iPhone X and the other Accused Products to the marketplace. Corephotonics
20 has filed two Complaints alleging Apple’s infringement of Corephotonics’ patents, which are now
21 pending in this District. Even in spite of those Complaints being filed, and Apple having already
22 had extensive knowledge of and recognizing Corephotonics’ inventive contributions in the ’898
23 patent, Apple has continued to infringe the ’898 patent since it issued earlier this year.
24 Notwithstanding, Apple has refused to alter its conduct. Apple’s conduct, and its past and
25 continued willful infringement of the ’898 patent, has been egregious.
26 79. For at least the foregoing and other reasons set forth herein, Corephotonics is
27 entitled to enhanced damages for Apple’s infringement of the ’898 patent in accordance with 35
28 U.S.C. § 284.

19
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 21 of 53

1 80. As described in the Factual Allegations in this Complaint, Apple has also had

2 knowledge of or been willfully blind to its infringement of the ’898 patent such that based on that
3 knowledge or willful blindness, it has also indirectly infringed the ’898 patent since at least as

4 early as the date of issuance of the ’898 patent.


5 81. Apple has also had actual knowledge of Corephotonics’ rights in the ’898 patent
6 and details of Apple’s infringement of the ’898 patent based on at least the filing of this Complaint
7 and, based on that knowledge, is also indirectly infringing the ’898 patent.
8 82. Apple manufactures, uses, imports, offers for sale, and/or sells the Accused
9 Products with knowledge of or willful blindness to the fact that its actions will induce Apple’s
10 customers and end users to infringe the ’898 patent by using the telephoto lens on the iPhone X.
11 83. Apple actively and knowingly induces its customers and end users to infringe the
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 ’898 patent by publishing information promoting the zoom features of the Accused Products, and
13 by providing its customers and end users with instructions for using those features. For example,
14 Apple touts its telephoto lens in the product description for the Accused Products. See, e.g.,
15 https://www.apple.com/iphone-x/, https://www.apple.com/iphone-7/specs/, and https://-
16 www.apple.com/iphone-8/specs/. As another example, Apple provides how-to video tutorials on
17 photography, which include one on “How to compose with telephoto camera” using the “iPhone
18 7+, iPhone 8+, and the iPhone X.” See https://www.apple.com/iphone/photography-how-to/. As a
19 further example, Apple highlighted the benefits of the telephoto lens when it introduced the iPhone
20 7 Plus. See, e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS0txu_Kzl8 at 1:08:22, and
21 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6dsRpVyyWs at 1:05.
22 84. As the direct and proximate result of Apple’s conduct, Corephotonics has suffered
23 and, if Apple’s conduct is not stopped, will continue to suffer, severe competitive harm, irreparable
24 injury, and significant damages, in an amount to be proven at trial. Because Corephotonics’ remedy
25 at law is inadequate, Corephotonics seeks, in addition to damages, permanent injunctive relief.
26 Corephotonics’ business operates in a competitive market and will continue suffering irreparable
27 harm absent injunctive relief.
28
20
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 22 of 53

1 85. Corephotonics is entitled to injunctive relief and damages of no less than a

2 reasonable royalty in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 154, 271, 281, 283, and 284.
3 86. Apple’s infringement of the ’898 patent is exceptional and entitles Corephotonics

4 to attorneys’ fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285.


5 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
6 Infringement of Patent No. 10,288,840
7 87. Corephotonics incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth
8 herein.
9 88. Apple has directly infringed, and continues to directly infringe, at least claim 1 of
10 the ’840 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271, by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or
11 importing within the United States, without authority, the iPhone X, iPhone Xs, and iPhone Xs
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 Max.
13 89. As just one non-limiting example, set forth below (with claim language in italics)
14 is a description of infringement of exemplary claim 1 of the ’840 patent in connection with the
15 iPhone X, which applies similarly to the iPhone Xs and iPhone Xs Max. Corephotonics reserves
16 the right to modify this description, including, for example, on the basis of information about the
17 Accused Products that it obtains during discovery:
18 Claim 1 of the ’840 patent
19 1. A mobile electronic device comprising an integrated camera. To the extent the preamble
20 is limiting, the iPhone X is a mobile device comprising an integrated camera.
21 [1a] wherein the camera comprises a Wide camera unit comprising a Wide lens unit and a
22 Telephoto camera unit comprising a Telephoto lens unit. The iPhone X has a dual camera that
23 includes a wide-angle camera (Wide lens unit) and a telephoto camera (Telephoto lens unit). See,
24 e.g., Apple iPhone X Specifications, https://www.apple.com/iphone-x/specs/.
25 [1b] the Telephoto lens unit and the Wide lens unit having, respectively, total track length
26 (TTL)/effective focal length (EFL) ratios smaller and larger than 1 and defining separate
27 Telephoto and Wide optical paths. Both the telephoto camera and wide-angle camera of the iPhone
28 X are disposed along separate but substantially parallel optical paths. Both cameras have TTL and

21
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 23 of 53

1 EFL values. For the telephoto camera, the TTL is approximately 5.7 mm and the EFL is

2 approximately 6.0 mm, resulting in a TTL/EFL ratio of less than one. For the wide angle camera,
3 the TTL is approximately 4.5mm and the EFL is approximately 4.0 mm, resulting in a TTL/EFL

4 ratio of larger than one.


5 [1c] wherein the Telephoto lens unit comprises multiple lens elements made of at least two
6 different polymer materials having different Abbe numbers. The telephoto camera of the iPhone
7 X has multiple lens elements made from different polymer materials which have Abbe numbers of
8 either greater than 50 or less than 30.
9 [1d] wherein the multiple lens elements comprise a first group of at least three lens
10 elements configured to form a telephoto lens assembly and a second group of at least two lens
11 elements. The iPhone X’s telephoto camera has a first group of at least three lens elements.
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 [1e] the second group of at least two lens elements spaced apart from the first group of at
13 least three lens elements by a predetermined effective gap equal to or larger than ⅕ of the TTL of
14 the Telephoto lens unit. The iPhone X telephoto camera has a second group of lens elements,
15 wherein the gap between the first group and second group of lens elements is greater than TTL/5
16 for the telephoto camera (which is approximately 1.2mm).
17 [1f] wherein the first group of at least three lens elements comprises, in order from an
18 object plane to an image plane along an optical axis of the Telephoto lens unit. The first group of
19 at least three lens elements are situated along the optical axis of the assembly.
20 [1g] a first lens element having positive optical power and a pair of second and third lens
21 elements having together negative optical power such that the Telephoto lens assembly provides
22 a Telephoto optical effect of the Telephoto lens unit and such that the second and third lens
23 elements are each made of one of the at least two different polymer materials having a different
24 Abbe number for reducing chromatic aberrations of the Telephoto lens. Of the first group of at
25 least three lens elements, in order from the image-side along the optical axis, the first lens element
26 has a positive refractive power (e.g., a focal length of between 3.1 and 3.2, which is greater than
27 zero and indicates a positive refractive power). The pair of second and third lens elements have
28 together a negative optical power, which together with L1 provide a telephoto optical effect. The

22
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 24 of 53

1 second and third lenses are each made from two different polymer materials and have different

2 Abbe numbers. In particular, the second lens has an Abbe number of less than 30, and the third
3 lens has an Abbe number of greater than 50. This configuration reduces chromatic aberrations in

4 the lens assembly.


5 [1h] wherein the second group of lens elements includes a fourth lens element and a fifth
6 lens element made of the different polymer materials having different Abbe numbers and is
7 configured to correct a field curvature and to compensate for residual chromatic aberrations of
8 the Telephoto lens assembly dispersed during light passage through the effective gap between the
9 Telephoto lens assembly and the second group of at least two lens elements, and wherein the first,
10 third and fifth lens elements have each an Abbe number greater than 50 and the second and fourth
11 lens elements have each an Abbe number smaller than 30. The fourth and fifth lenses of the second
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 group of lens elements are each made from different polymer materials, and are configured to
13 correct a field curvature to compensate for chromatic aberrations of the lens assembly. Between
14 the first and second groups of lens elements, the first, third, and fifth lenses have Abbe numbers
15 greater than 50, and the second and fourth lenses have Abbe numbers of less than 30.
16 90. As set forth in its Factual Allegations of this Complaint, Apple’s infringement of
17 the ’840 patent has been and continues to be wanton, deliberate, egregious, and willful. Prior to
18 the introduction of the Accused Products, Apple was engaged in five years of technical and
19 business discussions surrounding a potential collaboration. Apple repeatedly expressed interest in
20 learning more about and ultimately obtaining the right to use Corephotonics’ technology and
21 intellectual property in the software and hardware associated with small-format multi-aperture
22 cameras for use in mobile devices. Corephotonics disclosed a telephoto lens assembly design to
23 Apple and told Apple that it was seeking patent protection on its small photo telephoto lens
24 assembly designs as early as June 2013. Apple later sought and obtained samples of lens
25 assemblies like those disclosed in the ’840 patent. Corephotonics continued to inform Apple that
26 it had a substantial and growing portfolio of patents and patent applications in that space, which
27 included the lens design that could be used for a small-format telephoto camera suitable for use in
28 mobile devices, the subject matter of the ’840 patent. Apple further learned of and had to analyze

23
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 25 of 53

1 the features claimed in the ’840 patent in its own patenting efforts. Even while the ’840 patent was

2 pending and after its underlying and related application had published, Apple knew that patents on
3 a small format telephoto design that claimed the design features of the embodiments, like the ’840

4 patent and its related applications, were potentially going to issue. Shortly after Apple announced
5 the iPhone 7 Plus, Corephotonics tried to inform Apple of its specific patents and patent
6 applications in the context of a business negotiations. Apple’s employees, however, refused to
7 receive the patents in the context of business and technical discussions. Despite this, Apple has
8 continued to cite Corephotonics’ patents and patent applications in prosecuting its own patents.
9 91. In its pending litigations in this District against Apple, Corephotonics has asserted
10 infringement of numerous patents from different patent families. And, in its November 30, 2018
11 correspondence to Apple, Corephotonics informed Apple that allowed claims of the ‘676
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 application were infringed by Apple. The ’676 application later issued as the ’840 patent.
13 92. Accordingly, by the date the ’840 patent issued or thereafter Apple should have
14 known of the patent’s existence. Accordingly, Apple has had knowledge of or been willfully blind
15 to its infringement of the ’840 patent.
16 93. Apple further compounded its infringement, either with knowledge or willful
17 blindness and in wanton disregard to Corephotonics’ rights under the ’840 patent, with Apple’s
18 introduction of the iPhone X and the other Accused Products to the marketplace. Corephotonics
19 has filed two Complaints alleging Apple’s infringement of Corephotonics’ patents, which are now
20 pending in this District. Even in spite of those Complaints being filed, and Apple having already
21 had extensive knowledge of and recognizing Corephotonics’ inventive contributions in the ’840
22 patent, Apple has continued to infringe the ’840 patent since it issued earlier this year.
23 Notwithstanding, Apple has refused to alter its conduct. Apple’s conduct, and its past and
24 continued willful infringement of the ’840 patent, has been egregious.
25 94. For at least the foregoing and other reasons set forth herein, Corephotonics is
26 entitled to enhanced damages for Apple’s infringement of the ’840 patent in accordance with 35
27 U.S.C. § 284.
28
24
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 26 of 53

1 95. As the direct and proximate result of Apple’s conduct, Corephotonics has suffered

2 and, if Apple’s conduct is not stopped, will continue to suffer, severe competitive harm, irreparable
3 injury, and significant damages, in an amount to be proven at trial. Because Corephotonics’ remedy

4 at law is inadequate, Corephotonics seeks, in addition to damages, permanent injunctive relief.


5 Corephotonics’ business operates in a competitive market and will continue suffering irreparable
6 harm absent injunctive relief.
7 96. Corephotonics is entitled to injunctive relief and damages of no less than a
8 reasonable royalty in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 154, 271, 281, 283, and 284.
9 97. Apple’s infringement of the ’840 patent is exceptional and entitles Corephotonics
10 to attorneys’ fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
11 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 Infringement of Patent No. 10,317,647


13 98. Corephotonics incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth
14 herein.
15 99. Apple has directly infringed, and continues to directly infringe, at least claim 1 of
16 the ’647 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271, by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or
17 importing within the United States, without authority, the iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8 Plus, iPhone X,
18 iPhone Xs, and iPhone Xs Max.
19 100. As just one non-limiting example, set forth below (with claim language in italics)
20 is a description of infringement of exemplary claim 1 of the ’647 patent in connection with the
21 iPhone X, which applies similarly to the iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8 Plus, iPhone Xs and iPhone Xs
22 Max. Corephotonics reserves the right to modify this description, including, for example, on the
23 basis of information about the Accused Products that it obtains during discovery:
24 Claim 1 of the ’647 patent
25 1. An optical lens assembly comprising. To the extent the preamble is limiting, the
26 telephoto camera of the iPhone X comprises an optical lens assembly.
27 [1a] in order from an object side to an image side: a) a first lens element L1 with positive
28 refractive power, a focal length f1. The telephoto camera of the iPhone X comprises a lens

25
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 27 of 53

1 assembly with, in order from the object side to an image side, a first lens element with a positive

2 refractive power and a focal length of between 3.1 and 3.2.


3 [1b] b) a second lens element L2 with negative refractive power and a focal length f2 and

4 having a meniscus shape with convex object-side surface. The second lens element has a focal
5 length of between approximately -8.2 and -8.4, and hence the refractive power is negative. The
6 second lens is also meniscus shaped with the convex portion on the object-side.
7 [1c] c) a third lens element L3 with negative refractive power and a focal length f3. The
8 third lens element has a negative refractive power and a focal length of approximately -50.
9 [1d] d) a fourth lens element L4. The telephoto camera of the iPhone X comprises a lens
10 assembly with a fourth lens element.
11 [1e] e) a fifth lens element L5. The telephoto camera of the iPhone X comprises a lens
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 assembly with a fifth lens element.


13 [1f] wherein 1.2×|f3|>|f2|>1.5×f1, wherein the lens assembly has an effective focal length
14 (EFL), wherein a lens system that includes the lens assembly plus a window positioned between
15 the fifth lens element and an image plane has a total track length (TTL) of 6.5 millimeters or less
16 and wherein the lens assembly has a ratio TTL/EFL<1.0. The first, second, and third lens elements
17 have focal lengths of approximately f1 = between 3.1 to 3.2, f2 = -8.2 to -8.4, and f3 < -50. The
18 condition is thus satisfied, e.g., 1.2×|f3|>|f2|>1.5×f1 is approximately 60 > 8.35 > 4.7. The TTL of
19 the telephoto lens camera assembly, e.g., distance from surface of top-most lens in the above
20 diagram to the sensor surface, is approximately 5.7 mm, and the EFL is approximately 6 mm;
21 hence the ratio of TTL to EFL is approximately. 5.7 / 6 < 1. The lens assembly is separated from
22 the sensor surface by a window (“cover glass”).
23 101. As set forth in its Factual Allegations of this Complaint, Apple’s infringement of
24 the ’647 patent has been and continues to be wanton, deliberate, egregious, and willful. Prior to
25 the introduction of the Accused Products, Apple was engaged in five years of technical and
26 business discussions surrounding a potential collaboration. Apple repeatedly expressed interest in
27 learning more about and ultimately obtaining the right to use Corephotonics’ technology and
28 intellectual property in the software and hardware associated with small-format multi-aperture

26
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 28 of 53

1 cameras for use in mobile devices. Corephotonics disclosed a telephoto lens assembly design to

2 Apple and told Apple that it was seeking patent protection on its small photo telephoto lens
3 assembly designs as early as June 2013. Apple later sought and obtained samples of lens

4 assemblies like those disclosed in the ’647 patent. Corephotonics continued to inform Apple that
5 it had a substantial and growing portfolio of patents and patent applications in that space, which
6 included the lens design that could be used for a small-format telephoto camera suitable for use in
7 mobile devices, the subject matter of the ’647 patent. Apple further learned of and had to analyze
8 the features claimed in the ’647 patent in its own patenting efforts. Even while the ’647 patent was
9 pending and after its underlying and related application had published, Apple knew that patents on
10 a small format telephoto design that claimed the design features of the embodiments, like the ’647
11 patent and its related applications, were potentially going to issue. Shortly after Apple announced
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 the iPhone 7 Plus, Corephotonics tried to inform Apple of its specific patents and patent
13 applications in the context of a business negotiations. Apple’s employees, however, refused to
14 receive the patents in the context of business and technical discussions. Despite this, Apple has
15 continued to cite Corephotonics’ patents and patent applications in prosecuting its own patents.
16 102. In its pending litigations in this District against Apple, Corephotonics has asserted
17 infringement of numerous patents from both the Dror family and Shabtay family of patents. The
18 ’647 patent is a member of the Dror family. And, in its November 30, 2018 correspondence to
19 Apple, Corephotonics explained that allowed claims of the ’422 application were infringed by
20 Apple. The ’422 application later issued as the ’647 patent.
21 103. Accordingly, by the date the ’647 patent issued or thereafter Apple should have
22 known of the patent’s existence. Accordingly, Apple has had knowledge of or been willfully blind
23 to its infringement of the ’647 patent.
24 104. Apple further compounded its infringement, either with knowledge or willful
25 blindness and in wanton disregard to Corephotonics’ rights under the ’647 patent, with Apple’s
26 introduction of the iPhone X and the other Accused Products to the marketplace. Corephotonics
27 has filed two Complaints alleging Apple’s infringement of Corephotonics’ patents, which are now
28 pending in this District. Even in spite of those Complaints being filed, and Apple having already

27
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 29 of 53

1 had extensive knowledge of and recognizing Corephotonics’ inventive contributions in the ’647

2 patent, Apple has continued to infringe the ’647 patent since it issued earlier this year.
3 Notwithstanding, Apple has refused to alter its conduct. Apple’s conduct, and its past and

4 continued willful infringement of the ’647 patent, has been egregious.


5 105. For at least the foregoing and other reasons set forth herein, Corephotonics is
6 entitled to enhanced damages for Apple’s infringement of the ’647 patent in accordance with 35
7 U.S.C. § 284.
8 106. As the direct and proximate result of Apple’s conduct, Corephotonics has suffered
9 and, if Apple’s conduct is not stopped, will continue to suffer, severe competitive harm, irreparable
10 injury, and significant damages, in an amount to be proven at trial. Because Corephotonics’ remedy
11 at law is inadequate, Corephotonics seeks, in addition to damages, permanent injunctive relief.
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 Corephotonics’ business operates in a competitive market and will continue suffering irreparable
13 harm absent injunctive relief.
14 107. Corephotonics is entitled to injunctive relief and damages of no less than a
15 reasonable royalty in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 154, 271, 281, 283, and 284.
16 108. Apple’s infringement of the ’647 patent is exceptional and entitles Corephotonics
17 to attorneys’ fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
18 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19 Infringement of Patent No. 10,324,277
20 109. Corephotonics incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth
21 herein.
22 110. Apple has directly infringed, and continues to directly infringe, claims of the ’277
23 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271, by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing
24 within the United States, without authority, the iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8 Plus, iPhone X, iPhone
25 Xs, and iPhone Xs Max.
26 111. As just one non-limiting example, set forth below (with claim language in italics)
27 is a description of infringement of exemplary claim 1 of the ’277 patent in connection with the
28 iPhone 7 Plus, which applies similarly to the iPhone 8 Plus. Corephotonics reserves the right to

28
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 30 of 53

1 modify this description, including, for example, on the basis of information about the Accused

2 Products that it obtains during discovery:


3 Claim 1 of the ’277 patent

4 1. A lens assembly, comprising. To the extent the preamble is limiting, the telephoto
5 camera of the iPhone 7 Plus comprises a lens assembly.
6 [1a] a plurality of refractive lens elements arranged along an optical axis. The telephoto
7 camera of the iPhone 7 Plus has a lens assembly with five lenses arranged along an optical axis.
8 [1b] wherein at least one surface of at least one of the plurality of lens elements is aspheric.
9 The first lens element on the object-side of the iPhone 7 Plus’s telephoto lens assembly is aspheric.
10 [1c] wherein the lens assembly has an effective focal length (EFL). The EFL of the
11 telephoto lens assembly in the iPhone 7 Plus is approximately 6.5mm
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 [1d] wherein a lens system that includes the lens assembly plus a window positioned
13 between the plurality of lens elements and an image plane has a total track length (TTL) of 6.5
14 millimeters or less, wherein a ratio TTL/EFL is less than 1.0. The telephoto camera of the iPhone
15 7 Plus has an electronic image sensor surface that is separated from the lens assembly by a glass
16 window. The TTL is approximately 5.9mm, and EFL is approximately 6.5mm. The ratio of
17 TTL/EFL is therefore less than 1.0.
18 [1e] wherein the plurality of lens elements comprises, in order from an object side to an
19 image side, a first lens element with positive refractive power, a second lens element with negative
20 refractive power, and a third lens element, wherein a focal length f1 of the first lens element is
21 smaller than TTL/2 and. The iPhone 7 Plus’s telephoto lens assembly has a plurality of lens
22 elements comprising, from object side, a first lens element with positive refractive power (which
23 has a positive focal length), a second lens with negative refractive power (which has a negative
24 focal length), and a third lens element. The focal length of the first lens is approximately 2.6mm,
25 which is smaller than TTL/2 (which is approximately 5.9 / 2 = 2.95mm).
26 [1f] wherein a lens assembly F # is smaller than 2.9. The f-number of the telephoto
27 camera’s lens assembly is approximately 2.8.
28
29
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 31 of 53

1 112. As set forth in its Factual Allegations of this Complaint, Apple’s infringement of

2 the ’277 patent has been and continues to be wanton, deliberate, egregious, and willful. Prior to
3 the introduction of the Accused Products, Apple was engaged in five years of technical and

4 business discussions surrounding a potential collaboration. Apple repeatedly expressed interest in


5 learning more about and ultimately obtaining the right to use Corephotonics’ technology and
6 intellectual property in the software and hardware associated with small-format multi-aperture
7 cameras for use in mobile devices. Corephotonics disclosed a telephoto lens assembly design to
8 Apple and told Apple that it was seeking patent protection on its small photo telephoto lens
9 assembly designs as early as June 2013. Apple later sought and obtained samples of lens
10 assemblies like those disclosed in the ’277 patent. Corephotonics continued to inform Apple that
11 it had a substantial and growing portfolio of patents and patent applications in that space, which
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 included the lens design that could be used for a small-format telephoto camera suitable for use in
13 mobile devices, the subject matter of the ’277 patent. Apple further learned of and had to analyze
14 the features claimed in the ’277 patent in its own patenting efforts. Even while the ’277 patent was
15 pending and after its underlying and related application had published, Apple knew that patents on
16 a small format telephoto design that claimed the design features of the embodiments, like the ’277
17 patent and its related applications, were potentially going to issue. Shortly after Apple announced
18 the iPhone 7 Plus, Corephotonics tried to inform Apple of its specific patents and patent
19 applications in the context of a business negotiations. Apple’s employees, however, refused to
20 receive the patents in the context of business and technical discussions. Despite this, Apple has
21 continued to cite Corephotonics’ patents and patent applications in prosecuting its own patents.
22 113. In its pending litigations in this District against Apple, Corephotonics has asserted
23 infringement of numerous patents from both the Dror family and Shabtay family of patents. The
24 ’277 patent is a member of the Dror family. And, in its November 30, 2018 correspondence to
25 Apple, Corephotonics explained that allowed claims of the ‘235 application were infringed by
26 Apple. The ’235 application later issued as the ’277 patent.
27
28
30
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 32 of 53

1 114. Accordingly, by the date the ’277 patent issued or thereafter Apple should have

2 known of the patent’s existence. Accordingly, Apple has had knowledge of or been willfully blind
3 to its infringement of the ’277 patent.

4 115. Apple further compounded its infringement, either with knowledge or willful
5 blindness and in wanton disregard to Corephotonics’ rights under the ’277 patent, with Apple’s
6 introduction the Accused Products to the marketplace. Corephotonics has filed two Complaints
7 alleging Apple’s infringement of Corephotonics’ patents, which are now pending in this District.
8 Even in spite of those Complaints being filed, and Apple having already had extensive knowledge
9 of and recognizing Corephotonics’ inventive contributions in the ’277 patent, Apple has continued
10 to infringe the ’277 patent since it issued earlier this year. Notwithstanding, Apple has refused to
11 alter its conduct. Apple’s conduct, and its past and continued willful infringement of the ’277
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 patent, has been egregious.


13 116. For at least the foregoing and other reasons set forth herein, Corephotonics is
14 entitled to enhanced damages for Apple’s infringement of the ’277 patent in accordance with 35
15 U.S.C. § 284.
16 117. As the direct and proximate result of Apple’s conduct, Corephotonics has suffered
17 and, if Apple’s conduct is not stopped, will continue to suffer, severe competitive harm, irreparable
18 injury, and significant damages, in an amount to be proven at trial. Because Corephotonics’ remedy
19 at law is inadequate, Corephotonics seeks, in addition to damages, permanent injunctive relief.
20 Corephotonics’ business operates in a competitive market and will continue suffering irreparable
21 harm absent injunctive relief.
22 118. Corephotonics is entitled to injunctive relief and damages of no less than a
23 reasonable royalty in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 154, 271, 281, 283, and 284.
24 119. Apple’s infringement of the ’277 patent is exceptional and entitles Corephotonics
25 to attorneys’ fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
26
27
28
31
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 33 of 53

1 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2 Infringement of Patent No. 10,330,897


3 120. Corephotonics incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth

4 herein.
5 121. Apple has directly infringed, and continues to directly infringe, claims of the ’897
6 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271, by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing
7 within the United States, without authority, the iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8 Plus, iPhone X, iPhone
8 Xs, and iPhone Xs Max.
9 122. As just one non-limiting example, set forth below (with claim language in italics)
10 is a description of infringement of exemplary claim 1 of the ’897 patent in connection with the
11 iPhone X, which applies similarly to the iPhone X and iPhone Xs Max. Corephotonics reserves
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 the right to modify this description, including, for example, on the basis of information about the
13 Accused Products that it obtains during discovery:
14 Claim 1 of the ’897 patent
15 1. A lens assembly, comprising. To the extent the preamble is limiting, the telephoto
16 camera of the iPhone X comprises a lens assembly.
17 [1a] a plurality of lens elements arranged along an optical axis and spaced apart by
18 respective spaces. The telephoto camera of the iPhone X has a lens assembly a plurality of lenses
19 arranged along an optical axis, with the lens spaced apart from one another.
20 [1b] wherein the lens assembly has an effective focal length (EFL), a total track length
21 (TTL) of 6.5 millimeters or less and a ratio TTL/EFL<1.0. The TTL of the telephoto lens camera
22 assembly of the iPhone X, e.g., distance from surface of top-most lens in the above diagram to the
23 sensor surface, is approximately 5.7 mm, and the EFL is approximately 6 mm; hence the ratio of
24 TTL to EFL is approximately. 5.7 / 6 < 1.
25 [1c] wherein the plurality of lens elements includes, in order from an object side to an
26 image side, a first group comprising lens elements L1_1, L1_2 and L1_3 with respective focal lengths
27 f1_1, f1_2 and f1_3 and a second group comprising lens elements L2_1 and L2_2, wherein the first and
28 second groups of lens elements are separated by a gap that is larger than twice any other gap

32
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 34 of 53

1 between lens elements. The plurality of lens elements includes two groups of lens elements, in

2 order from object side to image side, L1 _ 1, L1 _ 2 and L1 _ 3 and L2 _ 1, L2 _ 2. The first and
3 second groups of lens elements are separated by an air gap that is greater than twice any other gap

4 between lens elements.


5 [1d] wherein lens element L1_1 has positive refractive power and. The first lens element,
6 L1_1, has a positive refractive power, e.g., has a focal length of approximately between 3.1 and
7 3.2, which is greater than zero; hence, the refractive power is positive.
8 [1e] L1_2 has negative refractive power and wherein lens elements L2_1 and L2_2 have
9 opposite refractive powers. The second lens element, L1_2 in claim element [1c], has a negative
10 refractive power, e.g., has a focal length of approximately -9, which is less than zero, i.e., negative.
11 The lens elements L 2_1 and L 2_2 have, respectively, positive and negative focal lengths and thus
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 opposite refractive powers.


13 123. As set forth in its Factual Allegations of this Complaint, Apple’s infringement of
14 the ’897 patent has been and continues to be wanton, deliberate, egregious, and willful. Prior to
15 the introduction of the Accused Products, Apple was engaged in five years of technical and
16 business discussions surrounding a potential collaboration. Apple repeatedly expressed interest in
17 learning more about and ultimately obtaining the right to use Corephotonics’ technology and
18 intellectual property in the software and hardware associated with small-format multi-aperture
19 cameras for use in mobile devices. Corephotonics disclosed a telephoto lens assembly design to
20 Apple and told Apple that it was seeking patent protection on its small photo telephoto lens
21 assembly designs as early as June 2013. Apple later sought and obtained samples of lens
22 assemblies like those disclosed in the ’897 patent. Corephotonics continued to inform Apple that
23 it had a substantial and growing portfolio of patents and patent applications in that space, which
24 included the lens design that could be used for a small-format telephoto camera suitable for use in
25 mobile devices, the subject matter of the ’897 patent. Apple further learned of and had to analyze
26 the features claimed in the ’897 patent in its own patenting efforts. Even while the ’897 patent was
27 pending and after its underlying and related application had published, Apple knew that patents on
28 a small format telephoto design that claimed the design features of the embodiments, like the ’897

33
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 35 of 53

1 patent and its related applications, were potentially going to issue. Shortly after Apple announced

2 the iPhone 7 Plus, Corephotonics tried to inform Apple of its specific patents and patent
3 applications in the context of a business negotiations. Apple’s employees, however, refused to

4 receive the patents in the context of business and technical discussions. Despite this, Apple has
5 continued to cite Corephotonics’ patents and patent applications in prosecuting its own patents.
6 124. In its pending litigations in this District against Apple, Corephotonics has asserted
7 infringement of numerous patents from both the Dror family and Shabtay family of patents. The
8 ’897 patent is a member of the Dror family. And, in its November 30, 2018 correspondence to
9 Apple, Corephotonics explained that allowed claims of the ’391 application were infringed by
10 Apple. The ’391 application later issued as the ’897 patent.
11 125. Accordingly, by the date the ’897 patent issued or thereafter Apple should have
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 known of the patent’s existence. Accordingly, Apple has had knowledge of or been willfully blind
13 to its infringement of the ’897 patent.
14 126. Apple further compounded its infringement, either with knowledge or willful
15 blindness and in wanton disregard to Corephotonics’ rights under the ’897 patent, with Apple’s
16 introduction the Accused Products to the marketplace. Corephotonics has filed two Complaints
17 alleging Apple’s infringement of Corephotonics’ patents, which are now pending in this District.
18 Even in spite of those Complaints being filed, and Apple having already had extensive knowledge
19 of and recognizing Corephotonics’ inventive contributions in the ’897 patent, Apple has continued
20 to infringe the ’897 patent since it issued earlier this year. Notwithstanding, Apple has refused to
21 alter its conduct. Apple’s conduct, and its past and continued willful infringement of the ’897
22 patent, has been egregious.
23 127. For at least the foregoing and other reasons set forth herein, Corephotonics is
24 entitled to enhanced damages for Apple’s infringement of the ’897 patent in accordance with 35
25 U.S.C. § 284.
26 128. As the direct and proximate result of Apple’s conduct, Corephotonics has suffered
27 and, if Apple’s conduct is not stopped, will continue to suffer, severe competitive harm, irreparable
28 injury, and significant damages, in an amount to be proven at trial. Because Corephotonics’ remedy

34
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 36 of 53

1 at law is inadequate, Corephotonics seeks, in addition to damages, permanent injunctive relief.

2 Corephotonics’ business operates in a competitive market and will continue suffering irreparable
3 harm absent injunctive relief.

4 129. Corephotonics is entitled to injunctive relief and damages of no less than a


5 reasonable royalty in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 154, 271, 281, 283, and 284.
6 130. Apple’s infringement of the ’897 patent is exceptional and entitles Corephotonics
7 to attorneys’ fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
8 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
9 Infringement of Patent No. 10,225,479
10 131. Corephotonics incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth
11 herein.
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 132. Apple has directly infringed, and continues to directly infringe, at least claim 1 of
13 the ’479 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271, by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or
14 importing within the United States, without authority, the iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8 Plus, iPhone X,
15 iPhone Xs, and iPhone Xs Max.
16 133. As just one non-limiting example, set forth below (with claim language in italics)
17 is a description of infringement of exemplary claim 19 of the ’479 patent in connection with the
18 iPhone X, which applies similarly to the other Accused Products. Corephotonics reserves the right
19 to modify this description, including, for example, on the basis of information about the Accused
20 Products that it obtains during discovery:
21 Claim 19 of the ’479 patent
22 19. A dual-aperture digital camera for imaging an object or scene, comprising. To the
23 extent the preamble is limiting, rear-facing dual camera system of the iPhone X is a dual-aperture
24 digital camera for imaging an object or scene.
25 [19a] a) a Wide camera comprising a Wide lens and a Wide image sensor, the Wide camera
26 having a respective field of view FOVW and being operative to provide a Wide image of the object
27 or scene. The iPhone X’s rear-facing dual camera has a wide angle camera comprising a wide
28
35
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 37 of 53

1 angle lens and an image sensor, where the wide angle lens has a field of view FOVW of

2 approximately 75°.
3 [19b] b) a Tele camera comprising a Tele lens and a Tele image sensor, the Tele camera

4 having a respective field of view FOVT narrower than FOVW and being operative to provide a Tele
5 image of the object or scene, wherein the Tele lens has a respective effective focal length EFLT and
6 total track length TTLT fulfilling the condition EFLT/TTLT>1. The iPhone X’s rear-facing dual
7 camera has a telephoto camera comprising a telephoto lens and an image sensor, where the
8 telephoto lens has a field of view FOVT of approximately 36°. The TTL of the telephoto lens
9 camera assembly of the iPhone X, e.g., distance from surface of top-most lens in the above diagram
10 to the sensor surface, is approximately 5.7 mm, and the EFL is approximately 6 mm; hence, the
11 ratio of EFL to TTL is approximately. 6 / 5.7 > 1.
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 [19c] c) a first autofocus (AF) mechanism coupled mechanically to, and used to perform
13 an AF action on the Wide lens. The wide angle camera on the iPhone X has a first autofocus (AF)
14 mechanism that performs an AF action on the wide angle lens. See, e.g., the “Technical
15 Specifications” for the iPhone X, at, https://support.apple.com/kb/sp770?locale=en_US:
16
17
18
19
20
21 [19d] d) a second AF mechanism coupled mechanically to, and used to perform an AF

22 action on the Tele lens, wherein the Wide and Tele lenses have different F numbers F#Wide and

23 F#Tele, wherein the Wide and Tele image sensors have pixels with respective pixel sizes Pixel

24 sizeWide and Pixel sizeTele wherein Pixel sizeWide is not equal to Pixel sizeTele, and wherein the Tele

25 camera has a Tele camera depth of field (DOFT) shallower than a DOF of the Wide camera

26 (DOFW); and. Both the wide angle and telephoto cameras of the iPhone X’s rear-facing dual

27 camera are coupled to auto-focus mechanisms for performing autofocus actions. The telephoto

28
36
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 38 of 53

1 camera has a depth of field that is shallower than the depth of field of the wide angle camera. The

2 f-numbers and pixel sizes of the iPhone X are as follows:


3 Accused F#Wide F#Tele Pixel sizeWide Pixel sizeTele
Product
4 iPhone X 1.8 2.4 1.22 1.0
5
6
[19e1] e) a camera controller operatively coupled to the first and second AF mechanisms
7
and to the Wide and Tele image sensors and configured to control the AF mechanisms. The iPhone
8
X comprises a A11 Bionic SOC, which is a camera controller coupled to and configured to control
9
the first and second auto-focus mechanisms of the wide angle and telephoto cameras, respectively.
10
See, e.g., iFixit, “iPhone X Teardown,”
11
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+X+Teardown/98975.
12
[19e2] to process the Wide and Tele images to find translations between matching points
13
in the images to calculate depth information and to create a fused image suited for portrait photos,
14
the fused image having a DOF shallower than DOFT and having a blurred background. When the
15
camera application of the iPhone X is set to “Portrait Mode,” the iPhone X is capable of generating
16
images with blurred backgrounds by fusing data from Wide and Tele sensors and matching points
17
in the images to calculate depth information, where the fused image has a depth of field shallower
18
than DOFT. See, e.g., iPhone X Technical Specifications, https://support.apple.com/kb/
19
sp770?locale=en_US; see also https://petapixel.com/2017/12/11/portrait-mode-works-compares-
20
8000-camera/:
21 As Brownlee says, the iPhone X and Note 8 use depth mapping to figure out what
22 is in the foreground of the image. These smartphones use data from the wide angle
and telephoto lenses to create a depth map, and then artificially blur objects
23 depending on how far they are from the in-focus subject.

24
134. As set forth in its Factual Allegations of this Complaint, Apple’s infringement of
25
the ’479 patent has been and continues to be wanton, deliberate, egregious, and willful. Prior to
26
the introduction of the Accused Products, Apple was engaged in five years of technical and
27
business discussions surrounding a potential collaboration. Apple repeatedly expressed interest in
28
37
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 39 of 53

1 learning more about and ultimately obtaining the right to use Corephotonics’ technology and

2 intellectual property in the software and hardware associated with small-format multi-aperture
3 cameras for use in mobile devices. Corephotonics disclosed a telephoto lens assembly design to

4 Apple and told Apple that it was seeking patent protection on its small photo telephoto lens
5 assembly designs as early as June 2013. Apple later sought and obtained samples of lens
6 assemblies like those disclosed in the ’479 patent. Corephotonics continued to inform Apple that
7 it had a substantial and growing portfolio of patents and patent applications in that space, which
8 included the lens design that could be used for a small-format telephoto camera suitable for use in
9 mobile devices, the subject matter of the ’479 patent. Apple further learned of and had to analyze
10 the features claimed in the ’479 patent in its own patenting efforts. Even while the ’479 patent was
11 pending and after its underlying and related application had published, Apple knew that patents on
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 a small format telephoto design that claimed the design features of the embodiments, like the ’479
13 patent and its related applications, were potentially going to issue. Shortly after Apple announced
14 the iPhone 7 Plus, Corephotonics tried to inform Apple of its specific patents and patent
15 applications in the context of a business negotiations. Apple’s employees, however, refused to
16 receive the patents in the context of business and technical discussions. Despite this, Apple has
17 continued to cite Corephotonics’ patents and patent applications in prosecuting its own patents,
18 including multiple patents and published patent applications in the Shabtay family
19 135. In its pending litigations in this District against Apple, Corephotonics has asserted
20 infringement of numerous patents from different patent families, including patents in the Shabtay
21 family. The ’479 patent is a member of the Shabtay family.
22 136. Accordingly, by the date the ’479 patent issued or thereafter Apple should have
23 known of the patent’s existence. Accordingly, Apple has had knowledge of or been willfully blind
24 to its infringement of the ’497 patent.
25 137. Apple further compounded its infringement, either with knowledge or willful
26 blindness and in wanton disregard to Corephotonics’ rights under the ’479 patent, with Apple’s
27 introduction the Accused Products to the marketplace. Corephotonics has filed two Complaints
28 alleging Apple’s infringement of Corephotonics’ patents, which are now pending in this District.

38
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 40 of 53

1 Even in spite of those Complaints being filed, and Apple having already had extensive knowledge

2 of and recognizing Corephotonics’ inventive contributions in the ’479 patent, Apple has continued
3 to infringe the ’479 patent since it issued earlier this year. Notwithstanding, Apple has refused to

4 alter its conduct. Apple’s conduct, and its past and continued willful infringement of the ’479
5 patent, has been egregious.
6 138. For at least the foregoing and other reasons set forth herein, Corephotonics is
7 entitled to enhanced damages for Apple’s infringement of the ’479 patent in accordance with 35
8 U.S.C. § 284.
9 139. As the direct and proximate result of Apple’s conduct, Corephotonics has suffered
10 and, if Apple’s conduct is not stopped, will continue to suffer, severe competitive harm, irreparable
11 injury, and significant damages, in an amount to be proven at trial. Because Corephotonics’ remedy
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 at law is inadequate, Corephotonics seeks, in addition to damages, permanent injunctive relief.


13 Corephotonics’ business operates in a competitive market and will continue suffering irreparable
14 harm absent injunctive relief.
15 140. Corephotonics is entitled to injunctive relief and damages of no less than a
16 reasonable royalty in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 154, 271, 281, 283, and 284.
17 141. Apple’s infringement of the ’479 patent is exceptional and entitles Corephotonics
18 to attorneys’ fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
19 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
20 Infringement of Patent No. 10,015,408
21 142. Corephotonics incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth
22 herein.
23 143. Apple has directly infringed, and continues to directly infringe, at least claim 1 of
24 the ’408 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271, by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or
25 importing within the United States, without authority, the iPhone X, iPhone Xs, and iPhone Xs
26 Max.
27 144. As just one non-limiting example, set forth below (with claim language in italics)
28 is a description of infringement of exemplary claim 5 of the ’408 patent in connection with the

39
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 41 of 53

1 iPhone X, which applies similarly to the iPhone Xs and iPhone Xs Max. Corephotonics reserves

2 the right to modify this description, including, for example, on the basis of information about the
3 Accused Products that it obtains during discovery:

4 Claim 5 of the ’408 patent


5 5. A zoom digital camera comprising. To the extent the preamble is limiting, the rear-
6 facing dual camera of the iPhone X is a zoom digital camera.
7 [5a] a) a first imaging section that includes a fixed focal length first lens with a first field
8 of view (FOV1) and a first image sensor; and. The rear-facing dual camera of the iPhone X
9 comprises a wide angle camera, or first imaging section, with a fixed focal length first lens with a
10 field of view of approximately 75°. The wide angle camera comprises a Sony Exmor RS image
11 sensor.
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 [5b1] b) a second imaging section that includes a fixed focal length second lens with a
13 second FOV (FOV2) that is narrower than FOV, and a second image sensor. The rear-facing dual
14 camera of the iPhone X comprises a telephoto camera with a telephoto lens assembly with a field
15 of view of approximately 36°, which is more narrow than the approximately 75° of the wide angle
16 camera. The telephoto camera comprises a Sony Exmor RS image sensor.
17 [5b2] wherein the second lens includes five lens elements along an optical axis starting
18 from an object starting with a first lens element with positive power, wherein the five lens elements
19 further include a second lens element with negative power, a fourth lens element with negative
20 power and a fifth lens element. The lens assembly of the telephoto camera includes five lens
21 elements: a first lens element with a positive power (which has a positive focal length), a second
22 lens element with a negative power (which has a negative focal length), a fourth element with a
23 negative power (which has a negative focal length), and fifth lens element.
24 [5b3] wherein a largest distance between consecutive lens elements along the optical axis
25 is a distance between the fourth lens element and the fifth lens element. The largest distance
26 between consecutive lenses in the telephoto lens assembly of the iPhone X is the distance between
27 the fourth lens element and fifth lens element.
28
40
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 42 of 53

1 [5b4] and wherein a ratio of a total track length (TTL) to effective focal length (EFL) of

2 the second lens is smaller than 1. The TTL of the telephoto lens camera assembly, e.g., distance
3 from surface of top-most lens in the above diagram to the sensor surface, is approximately 5.7 mm,

4 and the EFL is approximately 6 mm; hence the ratio of TTL to EFL is approximately. 5.7 / 6 < 1.
5 145. As set forth in its Factual Allegations of this Complaint, Apple’s infringement of
6 the ’408 patent has been and continues to be wanton, deliberate, egregious, and willful. Prior to
7 the introduction of the Accused Products, Apple was engaged in five years of technical and
8 business discussions surrounding a potential collaboration. Apple repeatedly expressed interest in
9 learning more about and ultimately obtaining the right to use Corephotonics’ technology and
10 intellectual property in the software and hardware associated with small-format multi-aperture
11 cameras for use in mobile devices. Corephotonics disclosed a telephoto lens assembly design to
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 Apple and told Apple that it was seeking patent protection on its small photo telephoto lens
13 assembly designs as early as June 2013. Apple later sought and obtained samples of lens
14 assemblies like those disclosed in the ’408 patent. Corephotonics continued to inform Apple that
15 it had a substantial and growing portfolio of patents and patent applications in that space, which
16 included the lens design that could be used for a small-format telephoto camera suitable for use in
17 mobile devices, the subject matter of the ’408 patent. Apple further learned of and had to analyze
18 the features claimed in the ’408 patent in its own patenting efforts. Even while the ’408 patent was
19 pending and after its underlying and related application had published, Apple knew that patents on
20 a small format telephoto design that claimed the design features of the embodiments, like the ’408
21 patent and its related applications, were potentially going to issue. Shortly after Apple announced
22 the iPhone 7 Plus, Corephotonics tried to inform Apple of its specific patents and patent
23 applications in the context of a business negotiations. Apple’s employees, however, refused to
24 receive the patents in the context of business and technical discussions. Despite this, Apple has
25 continued to cite Corephotonics’ patents and patent applications in prosecuting its own patents,
26 including patents and applications in the Shabtay family.
27 146. In its pending litigations in this District against Apple, Corephotonics has asserted
28 infringement of numerous patents from both the Dror family and Shabtay family of patents. The

41
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 43 of 53

1 ’408 patent is a member of the Shabtay family. And, in its April 25, 2018 correspondence to

2 Apple, Corephotonics explained that allowed claims of the ’853 application were infringed by
3 Apple. The ’853 application later issued as the ’408 patent, a fact of which Corephotonics

4 informed Apple in correspondence dated July 26, 2018.


5 147. Accordingly, by the date the ’408 patent issued or thereafter Apple should have
6 known of the patent’s existence. Accordingly, Apple has had knowledge of or been willfully blind
7 to its infringement of the ’408 patent.
8 148. Apple further compounded its infringement, either with knowledge or willful
9 blindness and in wanton disregard to Corephotonics’ rights under the ’408 patent, with Apple’s
10 introduction the Accused Products to the marketplace. Corephotonics has filed two Complaints
11 alleging Apple’s infringement of Corephotonics’ patents, which are now pending in this District.
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 Even in spite of those Complaints being filed, and Apple having already had extensive knowledge
13 of and recognizing Corephotonics’ inventive contributions in the ’408 patent, Apple has continued
14 to infringe the ’408 patent since it issued in 2018. Notwithstanding, Apple has refused to alter its
15 conduct. Apple’s conduct, and its past and continued willful infringement of the ’408 patent, has
16 been egregious.
17 149. For at least the foregoing and other reasons set forth herein, Corephotonics is
18 entitled to enhanced damages for Apple’s infringement of the ’408 patent in accordance with 35
19 U.S.C. § 284.
20 150. As the direct and proximate result of Apple’s conduct, Corephotonics has suffered
21 and, if Apple’s conduct is not stopped, will continue to suffer, severe competitive harm, irreparable
22 injury, and significant damages, in an amount to be proven at trial. Because Corephotonics’ remedy
23 at law is inadequate, Corephotonics seeks, in addition to damages, permanent injunctive relief.
24 Corephotonics’ business operates in a competitive market and will continue suffering irreparable
25 harm absent injunctive relief.
26 151. Corephotonics is entitled to injunctive relief and damages of no less than a
27 reasonable royalty in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 154, 271, 281, 283, and 284.
28
42
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 44 of 53

1 152. Apple’s infringement of the ’408 patent is exceptional and entitles Corephotonics

2 to attorneys’ fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285.


3 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

4 Infringement of Patent No. 10,356,332


5 153. Corephotonics incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth
6 herein.
7 154. Apple has directly infringed, and continues to directly infringe, claims of the ’332
8 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271, by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing
9 within the United States, without authority, the iPhone 7 Plus, the iPhone 8 Plus, the iPhone X,
10 iPhone Xs, and iPhone Xs Max.
11 155. As just one non-limiting example, set forth below (with claim language in italics)
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 is a description of infringement of exemplary claim 1 of the ’332 patent in connection with the
13 iPhone X, which applies similarly to the other Accused Products. Corephotonics reserves the right
14 to modify this description, including, for example, on the basis of information about the Accused
15 Products that it obtains during discovery:
16 Claim 1 of the ’332 patent
17 1. A dual-aperture zoom digital camera comprising: To the extent the preamble is
18 limiting, the dual camera assembly of the iPhone X is a dual-aperture zoom digital camera.
19 [1a] a) a Wide imaging section that includes a fixed focal length Wide lens with a Wide
20 field of view FOVW and a Wide sensor, the Wide imaging section operative to provide Wide image
21 data of an object or scene. The iPhone X has a dual camera that includes a wide-angle camera
22 with a wide field of view.
23 [1b] b) a Tele imaging section that includes a fixed focal length Tele lens with a Tele field
24 of view FOVT that is narrower than FOVW and a Tele sensor, the Tele imaging section operative
25 to provide Tele image data of the object or scene; and. The iPhone X has a dual camera that
26 includes a telephone camera with a field of view narrower than that of the wide-angle camera in
27 the dual camera assembly. The telephoto camera is operative to provide image data of an object
28 or scene.

43
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 45 of 53

1 [1c] c) a camera controller operatively coupled to the Wide and Tele imaging sections and.

2 The iPhone X’s A12 Bionic system-on-a-chip (SoC) is a camera controller coupled to and for
3 processing data from the rear dual camera assembly.

4 [1d] configured to evaluate if a no-switching criterion is fulfilled or not fulfilled, wherein


5 at a zoom factor (ZF) value greater than a zoom factor ZFT=tangent (FOVWide)/tangent (FOVTele),
6 if the no-switching criterion is fulfilled the camera controller is further configured to output a
7 zoom video output image that includes only digitally-zoomed Wide image data, and. The iPhone
8 X provides a zoom video output image that includes only image data captured from the wide angle
9 lens under certain conditions, e.g., when there are a low light conditions or the user is focused on
10 objects or a part of the scene that is close to the lens and the telephoto lens cannot focus. See, e.g.,
11 “Dual Lens Switching on iPhone X,” Studio Neat, https://www.studioneat.com/blogs/main/dual-
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 lens-switching-on-the-iphone-x; see also, e.g., “Blow up: iPhone 7 Plus uses digital zoom instead
13 of optical more often than you'd expect,” https://www.macworld.com/article/3121661/apple-
14 phone/blow-up.
15 [1e] if the no-switching criterion is not fulfilled, the camera controller is further configured
16 to output a zoom video output image that includes only transformed, digitally zoomed Tele image
17 data. Under conditions other than those in which digital zoom is used instead of optical zoom at
18 higher magnification, see, e.g., claim element 1[d], increasing zoom uses the telephoto lens image.
19 156. As set forth in its Factual Allegations of this Complaint, Apple’s infringement of
20 the ’332 patent has been and continues to be wanton, deliberate, egregious, and willful. Prior to
21 the introduction of the Accused Products, Apple was engaged in five years of technical and
22 business discussions surrounding a potential collaboration. Apple repeatedly expressed interest in
23 learning more about and ultimately obtaining the right to use Corephotonics’ technology and
24 intellectual property in the software and hardware associated with small-format multi-aperture
25 cameras for use in mobile devices. Corephotonics disclosed a telephoto lens assembly design to
26 Apple and told Apple that it was seeking patent protection on its small photo telephoto lens
27 assembly designs as early as June 2013. Apple later sought and obtained samples of lens
28 assemblies like those disclosed in the ’332 patent. Corephotonics continued to inform Apple that

44
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 46 of 53

1 it had a substantial and growing portfolio of patents and patent applications in that space, which

2 included the lens design that could be used for a small-format telephoto camera suitable for use in
3 mobile devices, the subject matter of the ’332 patent. Apple further learned of and had to analyze

4 the features claimed in the ’332 patent in its own patenting efforts. Even while the ’332 patent was
5 pending and after its underlying and related application had published, Apple knew that patents on
6 a small format telephoto design that claimed the design features of the embodiments, like the ’332
7 patent and its related applications, were potentially going to issue. Shortly after Apple announced
8 the iPhone 7 Plus, Corephotonics tried to inform Apple of its specific patents and patent
9 applications in the context of a business negotiations. Apple’s employees, however, refused to
10 receive the patents in the context of business and technical discussions. Despite this, Apple has
11 continued to cite Corephotonics’ patents and patent applications in prosecuting its own patents.
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 157. In its pending litigations in this District against Apple, Corephotonics has asserted
13 infringement of numerous patents from different patent families, including those in the Shabtay
14 family. The ’332 patent is a member of the Shabtay family.
15 158. Accordingly, by the date the ’332 patent issued or thereafter Apple should have
16 known of the patent’s existence. Accordingly, Apple has had knowledge of or been willfully blind
17 to its infringement of the ’332 patent.
18 159. Apple further compounded its infringement, either with knowledge or willful
19 blindness and in wanton disregard to Corephotonics’ rights under the ’332 patent, with Apple’s
20 introduction of the iPhone X and the other Accused Products to the marketplace. Corephotonics
21 has filed two Complaints alleging Apple’s infringement of Corephotonics’ patents, which are now
22 pending in this District. Even in spite of those Complaints being filed, and Apple having already
23 had extensive knowledge of and recognizing Corephotonics’ inventive contributions in the ’332
24 patent, Apple has continued to infringe the ’332 patent since it issued earlier this year.
25 Notwithstanding, Apple has refused to alter its conduct. Apple’s conduct, and its past and
26 continued willful infringement of the ’332 patent, has been egregious.
27
28
45
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 47 of 53

1 160. For at least the foregoing and other reasons set forth herein, Corephotonics is

2 entitled to enhanced damages for Apple’s infringement of the ’332 patent in accordance with 35
3 U.S.C. § 284.

4 161. As described in the Factual Allegations in this Complaint, Apple has also had
5 knowledge of or been willfully blind to its infringement of the ’332 patent such that based on that
6 knowledge or willful blindness, it has also indirectly infringed the ’332 patent since at least as
7 early as the date of issuance of the ’332 patent.
8 162. Apple has also had actual knowledge of Corephotonics’ rights in the ’332 patent
9 and details of Apple’s infringement of the ’332 patent based on at least the filing of this Complaint
10 and, based on that knowledge, is also indirectly infringing the ’332 patent.
11 163. Apple manufactures, uses, imports, offers for sale, and/or sells the Accused
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 Products with knowledge of or willful blindness to the fact that its actions will induce Apple’s
13 customers and end users to infringe the ’332 patent by using the telephoto lens on the Accused
14 Products.
15 164. Apple actively and knowingly induces its customers and end users to infringe the
16 ’332 patent by publishing information promoting the zoom features of the Accused Products, and
17 by providing its customers and end users with instructions for using those features. For example,
18 Apple touts its telephoto lens in the product description for the Accused Products. See, e.g.,
19 https://www.apple.com/iphone-x/, https://www.apple.com/iphone-7/specs/, and https://-
20 www.apple.com/iphone-8/specs/. As another example, Apple provides how-to video tutorials on
21 photography, which include one on “How to compose with telephoto camera” using the “iPhone
22 7+, iPhone 8+, and the iPhone X.” See https://www.apple.com/iphone/photography-how-to/. As a
23 further example, Apple highlighted the benefits of the telephoto lens when it introduced the iPhone
24 7 Plus. See, e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS0txu_Kzl8 at 1:08:22, and
25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6dsRpVyyWs at 1:05.
26 165. As the direct and proximate result of Apple’s conduct, Corephotonics has suffered
27 and, if Apple’s conduct is not stopped, will continue to suffer, severe competitive harm, irreparable
28 injury, and significant damages, in an amount to be proven at trial. Because Corephotonics’ remedy

46
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 48 of 53

1 at law is inadequate, Corephotonics seeks, in addition to damages, permanent injunctive relief.

2 Corephotonics’ business operates in a competitive market and will continue suffering irreparable
3 harm absent injunctive relief.

4 166. Corephotonics is entitled to injunctive relief and damages of no less than a


5 reasonable royalty in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 154, 271, 281, 283, and 284.
6 167. Apple’s infringement of the ’332 patent is exceptional and entitles Corephotonics
7 to attorneys’ fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
8 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
9 Infringement of Patent No. 10,326,942
10 168. Corephotonics incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth
11 herein.
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 169. Apple has directly infringed, and continues to directly infringe, at least claim 1 of
13 the ’942 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271, by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or
14 importing within the United States, without authority, the iPhone 7 Plus.
15 170. Set forth below (with claim language in italics) is an exemplary and non-limiting
16 description of infringement of claim 1 of the ‘942 patent in connection with the iPhone 7 Plus.
17 Corephotonics reserves the right to modify this description, including, for example, on the basis
18 of information it obtains during discovery:
19 Claim 1
20 1. A multiple aperture zoom digital camera, comprising: To the extent the preamble is
21 limiting, the rear-facing dual camera assembly of the iPhone 7 Plus is a multiple aperture zoom
22 digital camera.
23 [1a] a) a Wide imaging section that includes a Wide sensor and a fixed focal length Wide
24 lens with a Wide field of view (FOV), the Wide imaging section operative to output a Wide image;:
25 the iPhone 7 Plus has a dual camera that includes a wide-angle camera, which Apple has described
26 as being a 28 mm equivalent and with a field of view of approximately 75°.
27 [1b] b) a Tele imaging section that includes a Tele sensor and a fixed focal length Tele lens
28 with a Tele FOV that is narrower than the Wide FOV, the Tele imaging section operative to output

47
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 49 of 53

1 a Tele image; and: the iPhone 7 Plus has a dual camera that includes a telephoto camera, which,

2 e.g., Apple has described as being a 56 mm equivalent lens, i.e., with a field of view that will be
3 narrower than the field of view of the wide-angle lens (which is equivalent to 28 mm) given a

4 similar image sensor size.


5 [1c] c) a camera controller operatively coupled to the Wide and Tele imaging sections and
6 configured, when providing video output images, to: The camera controller coupled to the wide
7 angle and telephoto cameras is the Apple A10 system-on-a-chip (SoC), specifically the A10 Fusion

8 APL1W24 SoC + Samsung 3 GB LPDDR4 RAM. See, e.g.,


9 https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+7+Plus+Teardown/67384 (indicating the Apple A10
10 processor).
11 [1d] reduce an image jump effect seen in the video output images when switching from a
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 Wide image to a Tele image by shifting the Tele image relative to the Wide image according to a
13 distance of an object in a Tele image region of interest (ROI), and/or reduce an image jump effect
14 seen in the video output images when switching from a Tele image to a Wide image by shifting the
15 Wide image relative to the Tele image according to a distance of an object in a Wide image ROI.:
16 Apple has configured the iPhone 7 Plus dual-aperture camera to provide a continuous zoom in video

17 mode with a reduced image jump effect using registration between the wide-angle and telephoto

18 cameras. Apple has also configured its software to reduce the jump effect by shifting the image of

19 one camera relative to the image of the other camera based on the distance of an object in a region
20 of interest using at least the focus mechanisms of the cameras. According to Apple “[t]he Dual
21 camera’s defining feature is its ability to smoothly transition between wide and tele cameras, acting
22 like a single lens camera with optical zoom at 2x.”
23 https://forums.developer.apple.com/thread/63347. Samples of the iPhone 7 Plus’ smooth transition
24 in video mode are available at http://appleinsider.com/articles/16/09/23/apples-iphone-7-camera-
25 delivers-nice-slice-of-enhancements-but-iphone-7-plus-takes-the-cake. The camera controller
26 responsible for the reduction in image jump effect is the Apple A10 system-on-a-chip (SoC),
27 specifically the A10 Fusion APL1W24 SoC + Samsung 3 GB LPDDR4 RAM. See, e.g.,
28
48
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 50 of 53

1 https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+7+Plus+Teardown/67384 (indicating the Apple A10

2 processor).
3 171. As set forth in its Factual Allegations of this Complaint, Apple’s infringement of

4 the ’942 patent has been and continues to be wanton, deliberate, egregious, and willful. Prior to
5 the introduction of the Accused Products, Apple was engaged in five years of technical and
6 business discussions surrounding a potential collaboration. Apple repeatedly expressed interest in
7 learning more about and ultimately obtaining the right to use Corephotonics’ technology and
8 intellectual property in the software and hardware associated with small-format multi-aperture
9 cameras for use in mobile devices. Corephotonics disclosed a telephoto lens assembly design to
10 Apple and told Apple that it was seeking patent protection on its small photo telephoto lens
11 assembly designs as early as June 2013. Apple later sought and obtained samples of lens
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 assemblies like those disclosed in the ’942 patent. Corephotonics continued to inform Apple that
13 it had a substantial and growing portfolio of patents and patent applications in that space, which
14 included the lens design that could be used for a small-format telephoto camera suitable for use in
15 mobile devices, the subject matter of the ’942 patent. Apple further learned of and had to analyze
16 the features claimed in the ’942 patent in its own patenting efforts. Even while the ’942 patent
17 was pending and after its underlying and related application had published, Apple knew that
18 patents on a small format telephoto design that claimed the design features of the embodiments,
19 like the ’942 patent and its related applications, were potentially going to issue. Shortly after Apple
20 announced the iPhone 7 Plus, Corephotonics tried to inform Apple of its specific patents and patent
21 applications in the context of a business negotiations. Apple’s employees, however, refused to
22 receive the patents in the context of business and technical discussions. Despite this, Apple has
23 continued to cite Corephotonics’ patents and patent applications in the Dror family and Shabtay
24 family in prosecuting its own patents.
25 172. In its pending litigations in this District against Apple, Corephotonics has asserted
26 infringement of numerous patents from both the Dror family and Shabtay family of patents. The
27 ’942 patent is a member of the Shabtay family.
28
49
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 51 of 53

1 173. Accordingly, by the date the ’942 patent issued or thereafter Apple should have

2 known of the patent’s existence. Accordingly, Apple has had knowledge of or been willfully blind
3 to its infringement of the ’942 patent.

4 174. For at least the foregoing and other reasons set forth herein, Corephotonics is
5 entitled to enhanced damages for Apple’s infringement of the ’942 patent in accordance with 35
6 U.S.C. § 284.
7 175. As described in the Factual Allegations in this Complaint, Apple has also had
8 knowledge of or been willfully blind to its infringement of the ’942 patent such that based on that
9 knowledge or willful blindness, it has also indirectly infringed the ’942 patent since at least as
10 early as the date of issuance of the ’942 patent.
11 176. Apple has also had actual knowledge of Corephotonics’ rights in the ’942 patent
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 and details of Apple’s infringement of the ’942 patent based on at least the filing of this Complaint
13 and, based on that knowledge, is also indirectly infringing the ’942 patent.
14 177. Apple manufactures, uses, imports, offers for sale, and/or sells the Accused
15 Products with knowledge of or willful blindness to the fact that its actions will induce Apple’s
16 customers and end users to infringe the ’942 patent by using the telephoto lens on the iPhone 7
17 Plus.
18 178. Apple actively and knowingly induces its customers and end users to infringe the
19 ’942 patent by publishing information promoting the dual-aperture camera of the Accused
20 Products, and by providing its customers and end users with instructions for using that camera.
21 For example, Apple highlighted the benefits of the dual-aperture camera when it introduced the
22 iPhone 7 Plus. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS0txu_Kzl8 at 1:08:22,
23 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6dsRpVyyWs at 1:05.
24 179. As the direct and proximate result of Apple’s conduct, Corephotonics has suffered
25 and, if Apple’s conduct is not stopped, will continue to suffer, severe competitive harm, irreparable
26 injury, and significant damages, in an amount to be proven at trial. Because Corephotonics’ remedy
27 at law is inadequate, Corephotonics seeks, in addition to damages, permanent injunctive relief.
28
50
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 52 of 53

1 Corephotonics’ business operates in a competitive market and will continue suffering irreparable

2 harm absent injunctive relief.


3 180. Corephotonics is entitled to injunctive relief and damages of no less than a

4 reasonable royalty in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 154, 271, 281, 283, and 284.
5 181. Apple’s infringement of the ’942 patent is exceptional and entitles Corephotonics
6 to attorneys’ fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
7 DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
8 182. Corephotonics hereby demands a jury trial for all causes of action, claims, or issues
9 in this action that are triable as a matter of right to a jury.
10 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
11 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Corephotonics respectfully requests the following relief:
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12 A. Judgment in Corephotonics’ favor and against Apple on all causes of action alleged
13 herein;
14 B. An award of damages to Corephotonics in an amount to be further proven at trial;
15 C. Permanent injunctive relief against Apple;
16 D. A finding that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and that Corephotonics
17 be awarded its attorneys’ fees;
18 E. An award of enhanced damages to Corephotonics as a result of Apple’s willful
19 infringement;
20 F. An award of prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and other expenses; and
21 Such other and further relief as the Court may deem to be just and proper.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
51
COMPLAINT
Case 3:19-cv-04809 Document 1 Filed 08/14/19 Page 53 of 53

DATED: August 14, 2019 Respectfully submitted,


1
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT
2
3
By: /s/ Marc A. Fenster _____________________
4 Marc A. Fenster (CA Bar No. 181067)
Benjamin T. Wang (CA Bar No. 228712)
5 Neil A. Rubin (CA Bar No. 250761)
James S. Tsuei (CA Bar No. 285530)
6 RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
7 Los Angeles, California 90025
Telephone: (310) 826-7474
8 Facsimile: (310) 826-6991
mfenster@raklaw.com
9 bwang@raklaw.com
nrubin@raklaw.com
10
Attorneys for Plaintiff
11 Corephotonics, Ltd.
RUSS, AUGUST & KABAT

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
52
COMPLAINT