You are on page 1of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA RF MICRO DEVICES, INC.

, a North Carolina corporation, Plaintiff, vs. PEREGRINE SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12-cv-377 ________ __________________ COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NONINFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff RF Micro Devices, Inc. (RFMD) brings this action against Defendant Peregrine Semiconductor Corporation (Peregrine) and complains as follows: THE NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. Peregrine is the purported assignee of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,910,993

(the 993 patent), 7,123,898 (the 898 patent), 7,460,852 (the 852 patent), 7,796,969 (the 969 patent), and 7,860,499 (the 499 patent) (collectively, the Peregrine patents). The 993 patent is titled Method and Apparatus for Use in Improving Linearity of MOSFETs Using an Accumulated Charge Sink and issued March 22, 2011. The 898 patent is titled Switch Circuit and Method of Switching Radio Frequency Signals and issued October 17, 2006. The 852 patent is titled Switch Circuit and Method of Switching Radio Frequency Signals and issued December 2, 2008. The 969 patent is titled Symmetrically and Asymmetrically Stacked Transistor Group RF Switch and issued September 14, 2010. The 499 patent is titled Switch Circuit and Method of Switching Radio Frequency Signals and issued December 28, 2010. 2. On February 14, 2012, Peregrine filed an action in the United States

District Court for the Central District of California against RFMD, alleging

infringement of the Peregrine patents. On April 10, 2012, RFMD filed a motion to transfer that action to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. On April 13, 2012, Peregrine filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the Central District of California action without prejudice. 3. On February 14, 2012, Peregrine filed a complaint in the United

States International Trade Commission naming RFMD as a proposed respondent and seeking institution of an investigation into an alleged violation of 19 U.S.C. 1337 with respect to the Peregrine patents. 4. Based on Peregrines actions, including the filing of another action

against RFMD in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against RFMD on the afternoon of April 13, 2012, RFMD is under reasonable apprehension of suit by Peregrine. RFMD does not infringe and has not infringed the Peregrine patents. Each claim of the Peregrine patents fails to meet one or more of the statutory requirements and/or conditions for patentability under the patent laws of the United States, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. 101 103 and 112. RFMD brings this action to obtain declaratory judgments of noninfringement and invalidity of the Peregrine patents. THE PARTIES 5. RF Micro is a North Carolina corporation with its principal place of

business at 7268 Thorndike Road, Greensboro, North Carolina 27409. 6. RFMD is informed and believes that Peregrine is a Delaware

corporation with a principal place of business at 9380 Carroll Park Drive, San Diego, California 92121. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35

U.S.C. 1 et seq. 8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to

28 U.S.C. 1331, 1338(a), 2201, and 2202.


2

9.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Peregrine. On information

and belief, Peregrine has significant contacts with this District and purposefully directs activities towards this District because Peregrine manufactures (directly or indirectly through third party manufacturers) and/or assembles products and components that are and have been offered for sale, sold, purchased, and used in this District. On information and belief, Peregrine and/or its affiliates transact business in this District, including by means of sales operations within this District. In this manner, exercise of jurisdiction over Peregrine will not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Such an exercise is consistent with the North Carolina long-arm statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. 1-75.4. 10. This Court can enter the declaratory relief sought in this Complaint

because an actual case and controversy exists between the parties within the scope of this Courts jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201. An actual case and controversy exists because, among other things: (1) on February 14, 2012, Peregrine filed an action for patent infringement against RFMD in the United States District Court for the Central District of California regarding the Peregrine patents; (2) that same day, Peregrine also filed a complaint in the United States International Trade Commission regarding the same patents, naming RFMD as a proposed respondent; (3) on April 13, 2012, Peregrine filed a notice dismissing the Central District of California action without prejudice; (4) that same day, Peregrine filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California naming RFMD as a defendant; and (5) the International Trade Commission complaint remains under consideration by the Commission. These and related actions cause RFMD to reasonably apprehend litigation of the Peregrine patents. 11. (c). Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 12. RFMD is informed and believes that Peregrine is the assignee of the

Peregrine patents. On information and belief, the documents attached to this Complaint as Exhibits A through E are true and correct copies of the Peregrine patents. 13. On February 14, 2012, Peregrine filed a complaint in the United

States District Court for the Central District of California alleging infringement of the Peregrine patents by RFMD. A true and correct copy of that complaint is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit F. 14. On February 14, 2012, Peregrine filed a complaint in the United

States International Trade Commission alleging infringement of the Peregrine patents by RFMD. A true and correct copy of a public version of that complaint is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit G. 15. On April 10, 2012, RFMD filed a motion to transfer the Central

District of California action to the Middle District of North Carolina. A true and correct copy of that motion is attached as Exhibit H. 16. On April 13, 2012, Peregrine filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of

the Central District of California action without prejudice. A true and correct copy of that notice is attached as Exhibit I. 17. On April 13, 2012, Peregrine filed another action against RFMD in

the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. RFMD has not yet been served with the complaint in this action. 18. Peregrines actions have caused RFMD reasonably to apprehend

litigation of the Peregrine patents. 19. RFMD does not infringe and has not infringed, either directly,

contributorily, or by inducement, any valid and enforceable claim of the LSI Patents, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

20.

Each claim of the Peregrine patents fail to meet one or more of the

statutory requirements and/or conditions for patentability under the patent laws of the United States, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. 101103 and 112. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,910,993) 21. RFMD realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through

19, inclusive, as though fully set forth in this paragraph. 22. RFMD does not make, use, offer for sale, sell, import, or export, and

has never made, used, offered to sell, sold, imported, or exported, a method, device, or apparatus that infringes, either directly, contributorily, or by inducement, any valid and enforceable claim of the 993 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 23. There is an actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.

2201 and 2202, between RFMD and Peregrine concerning the non-infringement of the 993 patent. 24. RFMD is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe,

either directly, contributorily, or by inducement, any valid and enforceable claim of the 993 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,910,993) 25. RFMD realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through

23, inclusive, as though fully set forth in this paragraph. 26. An actual controversy exists between RFMD and Peregrine with

respect to the validity of the 993 patent. 27. Each claim of the 993 patent fails to meet one or more of the

statutory requirements and/or conditions for patentability under the patent laws of the United States, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. 101103 and 112.

28.

Each claim of the 993 patent is invalid because it is anticipated by

the pertinent prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102, and/or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the pertinent prior art at the time of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 103. 29. The claims of the 993 patent are also invalid for lack of enablement,

insufficient written description, indefiniteness and/or failure to disclose the best mode of the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112. The claims of the 993 patent are vague and indefinite and incorporate limitations that are neither disclosed, described, explained, nor enabled by the specification of the 993 patent. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,123,898) 30. RFMD realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through

28, inclusive, as though fully set forth in this paragraph. 31. RFMD does not make, use, offer for sale, sell, import, or export, and

has never made, used, offered to sell, sold, imported, or exported, a method, device, or apparatus that infringes, either directly, contributorily, or by inducement, any valid and enforceable claim of the 898 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 32. There is an actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.

2201 and 2202, between RFMD and Peregrine concerning the non-infringement of the 898 patent. 33. RFMD is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe,

either directly, contributorily, or by inducement, any valid and enforceable claim of the 898 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,123,898) 34. RFMD realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through

32, inclusive, as though fully set forth in this paragraph.


6

35.

An actual controversy exists between RFMD and Peregrine with

respect to the validity of the 993 patent. 36. Each claim of the 898 patent fails to meet one or more of the

statutory requirements and/or conditions for patentability under the patent laws of the United States, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. 101103 and 112. 37. Each claim of the 898 patent is invalid because it is anticipated by

the pertinent prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102, and/or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the pertinent prior art at the time of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 103. 38. The claims of the 898 patent are also invalid for lack of enablement,

insufficient written description, indefiniteness and/or failure to disclose the best mode of the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112. The claims of the 898 patent are vague and indefinite and incorporate limitations that are neither disclosed, described, explained, nor enabled by the specification of the 898 patent. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,460,852) 39. RFMD realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through

37, inclusive, as though fully set forth in this paragraph. 40. RFMD does not make, use, offer for sale, sell, import, or export, and

has never made, used, offered to sell, sold, imported, or exported, a method, device, or apparatus that infringes, either directly, contributorily, or by inducement, any valid and enforceable claim of the 852 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 41. There is an actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.

2201 and 2202, between RFMD and Peregrine concerning the non-infringement of the 852 patent.

42.

RFMD is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe,

either directly, contributorily, or by inducement, any valid and enforceable claim of the 852 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,460,852) 43. RFMD realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through

41, inclusive, as though fully set forth in this paragraph. 44. An actual controversy exists between RFMD and Peregrine with

respect to the validity of the 852 patent. 45. Each claim of the 852 patent fails to meet one or more of the

statutory requirements and/or conditions for patentability under the patent laws of the United States, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. 101103 and 112. 46. Each claim of the 852 patent is invalid because it is anticipated by

the pertinent prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102, and/or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the pertinent prior art at the time of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 103. 47. The claims of the 852 patent are also invalid for lack of enablement,

insufficient written description, indefiniteness and/or failure to disclose the best mode of the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112. The claims of the 852 patent are vague and indefinite and incorporate limitations that are neither disclosed, described, explained, nor enabled by the specification of the 852 patent. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,796,969) 48. RFMD realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through

46, inclusive, as though fully set forth in this paragraph. 49. RFMD does not make, use, offer for sale, sell, import, or export, and

has never made, used, offered to sell, sold, imported, or exported, a method, device, or apparatus that infringes, either directly, contributorily, or by inducement,
8

any valid and enforceable claim of the 969 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 50. There is an actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.

2201 and 2202, between RFMD and Peregrine concerning the non-infringement of the 969 patent. 51. RFMD is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe,

either directly, contributorily, or by inducement, any valid and enforceable claim of the 969 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,796,969) 52. RFMD realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through

50, inclusive, as though fully set forth in this paragraph. 53. An actual controversy exists between RFMD and Peregrine with

respect to the validity of the 969 patent. 54. Each claim of the 969 patent fails to meet one or more of the

statutory requirements and/or conditions for patentability under the patent laws of the United States, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. 101103 and 112. 55. Each claim of the 969 patent is invalid because it is anticipated by

the pertinent prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102, and/or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the pertinent prior art at the time of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 103. 56. The claims of the 969 patent are also invalid for lack of enablement,

insufficient written description, indefiniteness and/or failure to disclose the best mode of the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112. The claims of the 969 patent are vague and indefinite and incorporate limitations that are neither disclosed, described, explained, nor enabled by the specification of the 969 patent.

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,860,499) 57. RFMD realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through

55, inclusive, as though fully set forth in this paragraph. 58. RFMD does not make, use, offer for sale, sell, import, or export, and

has never made, used, offered to sell, sold, imported, or exported, a method, device, or apparatus that infringes, either directly, contributorily, or by inducement, any valid and enforceable claim of the 499 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 59. There is an actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.

2201 and 2202, between RFMD and Peregrine concerning the non-infringement of the 499 patent. 60. RFMD is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe,

either directly, contributorily, or by inducement, any valid and enforceable claim of the 499 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,860,499) 61. RFMD realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through

59, inclusive, as though fully set forth in this paragraph. 62. An actual controversy exists between RFMD and Peregrine with

respect to the validity of the 499 patent. 63. Each claim of the 499 patent fails to meet one or more of the

statutory requirements and/or conditions for patentability under the patent laws of the United States, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. 101103 and 112. 64. Each claim of the 499 patent is invalid because it is anticipated by

the pertinent prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102, and/or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the pertinent prior art at the time of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 103.
10

65.

The claims of the 499 patent are also invalid for lack of enablement,

insufficient written description, indefiniteness and/or failure to disclose the best mode of the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112. The claims of the 499 patent are vague and indefinite and incorporate limitations that are neither disclosed, described, explained, nor enabled by the specification of the 499 patent. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, RFMD respectfully requests that: (a) Judgment be entered declaring that RFMD has not infringed, induced

the infringement of, or contributed to the infringement of, and is not infringing, inducing the infringement of, or contributing to the infringement of any valid, enforceable claim of any of the Peregrine patents; (b) Judgment be entered declaring that one or more claims of each of the

Peregrine patents are invalid; (c) Judgment be entered finding that this is an exceptional case entitling

RFMD to an award of its attorneys fees for bringing and prosecuting this action, together with interest, and costs of the action under 35 U.S.C. 285; and (d) Judgment be entered awarding RFMD such other and further relief as

this Court may deem just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff RFMD demands a trial by jury on all issues triable by jury.

11

Respectfully submitted this 16th day of April, 2012. By: /s/ John F. Morrow, Jr. John F. Morrow, Jr. (N.C. Bar No. 23382) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP One West Fourth Street Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Telephone: (336) 721-3584 Fascimile: (336) 733-8429 JMorrow@wcsr.com Of Counsel: QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP Frederick A. Lorig (CA Bar 057645) Christopher A. Mathews (CA Bar 144021) Brian J. Dunne (CA Bar 275689) 865 S. Figueroa St. 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Fascimile: (213) 443-3100 fredericklorig@quinnemanuel.com chrismathews@quinnemanuel.com briandunne@quinnemanuel.com QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP Paul F. Brinkman (VA Bar 35950) 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 825 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 538-8000 Fascimile: (202) 538-8100 paulbrinkman@quinnemanuel.com Attorneys for Plaintiff RF MICRO DEVICES, INC.

12