1 X-PATENTS, APC JONATHAN HANGARTNER, Cal. Bar No. 196268 2 5670 La Jolla Blvd.

3 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: 858-454-4313 4 Facsimile: 858-454-4314 jon@x-patents.com 5 6 USASIA LAW, INC. JOSEPH S. WU, Cal Bar No. 149430 7 5670 La Jolla Blvd. 8 La Jolla, California 92037 Telephone: 858.454.8588 9 Facsimile: 858.454.4314 jwu@usasialaw.com 10 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff Sonix Technology Co. Ltd 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SONIX TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD, Plaintiff,

Case No.

'12CV0380 LAB POR

COMPLAINT v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

21 KENJI YOSHIDA, an individual 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1

Defendant.

Complaint

1 2 3 4

Plaintiff Sonix Technology, Co. Ltd. (Sonix) for its Complaint avers as follows:

PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Sonix is a company organized and existing under the laws of the

5 country of Taiwan, having a principal place of business in Chupei City, Hsinchu, Taiwan. 6 2. Defendant Kenji Yoshida, PhD (Yoshida), is an individual who resides in 7 Tokyo, Japan, and operates as the CEO of Gridmark, Inc., (Gridmark), a company with 8 its principal place of business at D2 Building, Kanda-Sudacho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan. 9 10 11 3. Plaintiff Sonix seeks declarations of invalidity and non-infringement of U.S. 12 Patent No. 8,031,375 (the 375 patent). 13 14 4. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Complaint pursuant to JURISDICTION AND VENUE

15 the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202, under federal 16 question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a), and as arising under the 17 Patent Laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. 18 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Yoshida pursuant to Federal Rule of 19 Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) because (1) this claim arises under federal law, (2) on information 20 and belief, Yoshida is not subject to personal jurisdiction in any court of general 21 jurisdiction in the U.S, and (3) this Courts exercise of personal jurisdiction over Yoshida 22 comports with due process. 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2Complaint

6. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(3)and 1400.

1 2 7. 3 4

BACKGROUND Established in 1996, Sonix has grown to become a leading international

design and development provider of integrated circuits and related products used in a wide range of applications including video, image, and USB controllers. 5 6 8. With the majority of its employees focused on research and development,

7 Sonix creates and applies proprietary technologies to the design of its entire range of 8 products. 9 9. 10 was issued on October 4, 2011. A true and correct copy of the 375 patent is attached as 11 Exhibit A to this Complaint. 12 13 10. Yoshida is the owner of the 375 patent, and has served as CEO of Gridmark The 375 patent on an Information Input/Output Method Using Dot Pattern

14 since its formation on or about 2009. On information and belief, Gridmark designs, 15 markets, and distributes products with dot-code patterns that it claims practice the 16 invention claimed in the 375 patent, which Yoshida commonly refers to as GRID3. 17 11. 18 technology referred to by Sonix commonly as OID2. OID2 technology divides a surface 19 such as a page of a book into small matrices of state zones. Each matrix of state zones is 20 referred to as a graphical indicator. Graphical indicators can be used to encode 21 information on the surface such that it does not interfere with any text or graphics on the 22 same surface. Sonix sells products using the OID2 technology throughout the world, and 23 these products are embedded within various consumer electronic products (mostly 24 educational devices), many of which are thereafter sold and imported into the United 25 States for resale within the United States, including the Southern District of California. 26 27 28 -3Complaint

Sonix designs and sells a range of products that use its own patented

12.

Sonixs OID2 products compete directly with Gridmarks GRID3 products

2 in various markets around the world. 3 13. 4 employees and/or agents of Gridmark provided at least one of Sonixs customers with a 5 document entitled Relation between Yoshida patent and OID2. A copy of this document 6 is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The document sets out independent claim 7 of the 375 7 patent in its entirety, then includes a figure in which Gridmark alleges that it has applied 8 the constituent features of GRID3 to OID2. According to Gridmark, [a]s shown in the 9 figure, OID2 clearly has constituent features of GRID3. Thus OID2 belongs to the 10 technical scope of GRID3. The figure referenced by Gridmark appears to be an enlarged 11 photograph of a surface bearing graphical indicators consistent with those of OID2. 12 13 14. On information and belief, the representations made by Gridmark concerning On or about late October 2011 (after the issuance of the 375 patent),

14 how OID2 belongs to the technical scope of GRID3 and [a]s shown in the figure, OID2 15 clearly has constituent features of GRID3. Thus OID2 belongs to the technical scope of 16 GRID3 were made at the instruction and the approval of Yoshida, both personally as the 17 patent owner of the 375 patent and as CEO of Gridmark. 18 15. 19 that its OID2 products infringe the 375 patent. As Sonix continues to market and sell 20 OID2 products for placement into the stream of commerce for resale into, among other 21 places, the various states within the United States, Sonix is being prejudiced and will 22 continue to suffer prejudice by similar allegations from Yoshida in this specialized 23 marketplace absent immediate declaratory relief. 24 25 26 27 28 -4Complaint

Sonix has analyzed the 375 patent and disputes the assertions by Yoshida

1 2 3 16.

COUNT I (Declaratory Judgment Of Non-Infringement Of The 375 Patent) Sonix realleges and incorporates by reference all of the previous allegations

4 set forth herein. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 18. Sonix realleges and incorporates by reference all of the previous allegations set forth herein. 19. As a result of the charges of infringement of the 375 patent by Gridmark, 17. As a result of the charges of infringement of the 375 patent by Yoshida, an actual controversy exists as to infringement of the 375 patent by Sonix. COUNT II (Declaratory Judgment Of Invalidity Of The 375 Patent)

14 an actual controversy exists as to the validity of the 375 patent. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WHEREFORE, Sonix prays that judgment be entered by this Court in its favor and against defendants as follows: A. B. C. Declaring that Sonix has not infringed the 375 patent; Declaring that the 375 patent and all claims thereof are invalid; Declaring that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. Section 285 and 20. The 752 patent is invalid for failure to comply with one or more of the requirements of title 35 of the United States Code including, but not limited to, 101, 102, 103, and 112. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

26 awarding attorneys fees, costs and expenses to Sonix; 27 28 -5Complaint

D.

For such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

1 2 3 4 5 Dated: February 13, 2012 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -6Complaint

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff Sonix hereby demands a jury trial as to all issues that are so triable.

Jonathan Hangartner X-PATENTS, APC and Joseph S. Wu USASIA LAW, INC.

By:

/s/Jonathan Hangartner JONATHAN HANGARTNER Attorneys for Plaintiff Sonix Technology Co. Inc.

2JS 44 (Rev. 12/07)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS SONIX TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD. (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

DEFENDANTS

KENJI YOSHIDA N/A

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE LAND INVOLVED.

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

Attorneys (If Known)

X-Patents, APC, 5670 La Jolla Blvd., La Jolla, CA 92037

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION
u 1
U.S. Government Plaintiff (Place an X in One Box Only)

'12CV0380 LAB POR

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) PTF u 1 Citizen of This State Citizen of Another State DEF u 1 and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF Incorporated or Principal Place u 4 u 4 of Business In This State Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State Foreign Nation

u 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party) u 4 Diversity

(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

u 2

U.S. Government Defendant

u 2 u 3

u u

u 5 u 6

u 5 u 6

Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT

CONTRACT

(Place an X in One Box Only) TORTS PERSONAL INJURY 310 Airplane 315 Airplane Product Liability 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 330 Federal Employers Liability 340 Marine 345 Marine Product Liability 350 Motor Vehicle 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability 360 Other Personal Injury CIVIL RIGHTS 441 Voting 442 Employment 443 Housing/ Accommodations 444 Welfare 445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment 446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other 440 Other Civil Rights PERSONAL INJURY u 362 Personal Injury Med. Malpractice u 365 Personal Injury Product Liability u 368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY u 370 Other Fraud u 371 Truth in Lending u 380 Other Personal Property Damage u 385 Property Damage Product Liability PRISONER PETITIONS u 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence Habeas Corpus: u 530 General u 535 Death Penalty u 540 Mandamus & Other u 550 Civil Rights u 555 Prison Condition

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

BANKRUPTCY

OTHER STATUTES

u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u

110 Insurance 120 Marine 130 Miller Act 140 Negotiable Instrument 150 Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment 151 Medicare Act 152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans (Excl. Veterans) 153 Recovery of Overpayment of Veterans Benefits 160 Stockholders Suits 190 Other Contract 195 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise REAL PROPERTY 210 Land Condemnation 220 Foreclosure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 240 Torts to Land 245 Tort Product Liability 290 All Other Real Property

u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u

u 610 Agriculture u 620 Other Food & Drug u 625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC 881 u 630 Liquor Laws u 640 R.R. & Truck u 650 Airline Regs. u 660 Occupational Safety/Health u 690 Other LABOR u 710 Fair Labor Standards Act u 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations u 730 Labor/Mgmt.Reporting & Disclosure Act u 740 Railway Labor Act u 790 Other Labor Litigation u 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. Security Act
IMMIGRATION u 462 Naturalization Application u 463 Habeas Corpus Alien Detainee u 465 Other Immigration Actions

u 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 u 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157

PROPERTY RIGHTS u 820 Copyrights u 830 Patent u 840 Trademark

u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u

SOCIAL SECURITY 861 HIA (1395ff) 862 Black Lung (923) 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 864 SSID Title XVI 865 RSI (405(g)) FEDERAL TAX SUITS u 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant) u 871 IRSThird Party 26 USC 7609

u u u u u

400 State Reapportionment 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce 460 Deportation 470 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 480 Consumer Credit 490 Cable/Sat TV 810 Selective Service 850 Securities/Commodities/ Exchange 875 Customer Challenge 12 USC 3410 890 Other Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 892 Economic Stabilization Act 893 Environmental Matters 894 Energy Allocation Act 895 Freedom of Information Act 900Appeal of Fee Determination Under Equal Access to Justice 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes

V. ORIGIN

u 1 Original Proceeding

u 2 Removed from
State Court

(Place an X in One Box Only)

Appeal to District Appellate Court

u 3 Remanded from

u 4 Reinstated or u 5 Transferred from u 6 Multidistrict another district Reopened Litigation (specify)

u 7 Judge from Magistrate

Judgment

28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202; 35 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq. 35:145 yeb VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause: Declaratory judgment action for non-infringement and invalidity of patent CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: DEMAND $ u CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION VII. REQUESTED IN UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 Yes u u No JURY DEMAND: COMPLAINT: VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See instructions): JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER IF ANY
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

02/13/2012
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY RECEIPT # AMOUNT

/s/Jonathan Hangartner

APPLYING IFP

JUDGE

MAG. JUDGE