May 1, 2002, Kent, Ohio - United States Magistrate Judge James S. Gallas, United States District Court Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division denied ADS's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction on March 29, 2002. In a 12 page Order Judge Gallas wrote:

"…The evidence that ADS conspired to steal trade secrets of KDS (Kent Display Systems Inc., of Kent, Ohio) or its predecessors is sufficient to show purposeful availment…The evidence…his (Dr. Wu, then President of ADS)) secretive negotiations with Yaniv, both an officer and employee of KDS, and the removal of the prototype liquid crystal display module that was property of KDS to the offices of ADS certainly show that there was a purposeful availment in the actions in the foreign state (Ohio). They certainly were not random, fortuitous or attenuated. Secondly there is no question that the cause of action did lead from ADS's activities. Finally, there is certainly a substantial connection with Ohio to make the exercise of Jurisdiction over ADS reasonable…"

History
Disputes between ADS, and KDS began in May of 1996 when ADS filed a Complaint in United States District Court, Dallas Division, alleging that the West patent, a KSU (Kent State University) patent exclusively licensed to KDS, was invalid and that ADS did not infringe it, after which KDS sued for infringement.

A jury verdict rendered ADS in a 1997 trial was reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and a new trial ordered. In this 2000 ruling the Appeals Judges stated "… From the record below, it appears to this court that ADS's development of its LCD technology consisted of deceitful and conniving machinations that amounted to nothing short of corporate espionage of a competitor's valuable technology…"

The new patent trial began on December 3, 2001 and concluded on the 21st. An 8-person jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, United States Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan presiding, unanimously found in favor of KDS , Kent Research Corp. (KRC), and KSU. In an Order dated January 7, 2002, Judge Kaplan wrote: "….At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found that U.S. Patent No. 5,453,863 ("the West patent") is valid and enforceable in all respects, that ADS infringed Claims 1-8 and 10 of the West patent both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, that ADS and Bao Gang Wu…" (both formerly of Amarillo and presently of Dallas, Texas) "…induced infringement, and that the infringing activities of ADS and Wu were willful. The jury awarded damages in the amount of $1.5 million to compensate KDS for such infringement or inducement of infringement."

The Ohio suit alleges that ADS, either through inducement of the then President of KDS, Zvi Yaniv, or in union with Zvi Yaniv, gained access to a KDS prototype, which ADS then photographed, reverse engineered, and duplicated. Further it is alleged that ADS converted that acquired knowledge into profit by utilizing what was stolen and also by selling KDS's design, knowledge and trade secrets gained by the theft to others.