KT Imaging USA, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation

On September, 28, 2021, KT Imaging USA, LLC (“KTI” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Stafford Grigsby Helm Davis of The Stafford Davis Firm, PC, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft” or “Defendant”), seeking injunctive relief, compensatory damages, costs, expenses, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and other reliefs for alleged infringement of the United States Patents owned by the Plaintiff. This case was filed in the United States District Court in the Western District of Texas with Judge Alan D. Albright presiding.

This is an action for alleged Patent infringement by the Defendant of the United States Patent No. 6,590,269 entitled “Package Structure for a Photosensitive Chip” (“the ’269 Patent”), United States Patent No. 6,876,544 entitled “Image Sensor Module and Method for Manufacturing the Same” (“the ’544 Patent”), United States Patent No.  7,196,322 entitled “Image Sensor Package” (“the ’322 Patent”), United States Patent No. 8,004,602, entitled “Image Sensor Structure And Integrated Lens Module Thereof” (“the ’602 Patent”), United States Patent No. 8,314,481, entitled “Substrate Structure for an Image Sensor Package and Method for Manufacturing the Same” (“the ’481 Patent”) (collectively, “Patents-in-suit”).

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “On information and belief, Microsoft has infringed the ’544 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering to sell, selling in the United States or importing into the United States the Accused Products and all other products with substantially similar imaging sensors.”

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “For example, on information and belief, Microsoft has infringed and continues to infringe at least claim 1 of the ’544 Patent by including an image sensor module to be mounted to a printed circuit board in the Microsoft Surface Go 2 product. See Exs. 1 and 2 (Microsoft Surface Go 2 main front facing image sensor). The image sensor module in the Accused Products comprises a substrate having an upper surface formed with a plurality of first connection points and a lower surface formed with a plurality of second connection points, which is electrically connected to the printed circuit board.”

Further, the Plaintiff alleged that, “On information and belief, Microsoft has induced infringement of the ’544 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), by actively and knowingly inducing, directing, causing, and encouraging others, including, but not limited to, its partners, resellers, distributors, customers, and end users, to make, use, sell, and/or offer to sell in the United States, and/or import into the United States, the Accused Products by, among other things, providing the accused products and incorporated image sensor technology, specifications, instructions, manuals, advertisements, marketing materials, and technical assistance relating to the installation, set up, use, operation, and maintenance of said products.”

Similar allegations have been made by the Plaintiff with reference to the other Patents-in-suit.

There are five claims for relief laid down by the Plaintiff, one for the alleged infringement of each of the Patents-in-suit.

In the prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested the Court to pass an order for an award of permanent injunctive relief along with damages in no event less than a reasonable royalty as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 284 together with compensatory damages. Further, the Plaintiff requested the Court for pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.