Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 92 Filed 04/10/18 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 36
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SLING TV, L.L.C.,
`SLING MEDIA, INC.,
`SLING MEDIA, L.L.C.,
`ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C.,
`DISH NETWORK L.L.C., and
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ
`
`LEAD CASE
`
`Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-02869-RBJ
`
`CONSOLIDATED CASE
`
`APPLE INC’S ANSWER, DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO
`REALTIME’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant, Apple Inc.
`
`(“Apple”) answers
`
`the Amended Complaint
`
`for Patent
`
`Infringement of Plaintiff Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (“Realtime”) (ECF No. 40) (the
`
`“Amended Complaint”) as follows:
`
`1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SLING TV, L.L.C.,
`SLING MEDIA, INC.,
`SLING MEDIA, L.L.C.,
`ECHOSTAR TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C.,
`DISH NETWORK L.L.C., and
`ARRIS GROUP, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`REALTIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ
`
`LEAD CASE
`
`Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-02869-RBJ
`
`CONSOLIDATED CASE
`
`APPLE INC’S ANSWER, DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO
`REALTIME’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant, Apple Inc.
`
`(“Apple”) answers
`
`the Amended Complaint
`
`for Patent
`
`Infringement of Plaintiff Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC (“Realtime”) (ECF No. 40) (the
`
`“Amended Complaint”) as follows:
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 92 Filed 04/10/18 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 36
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
`
`of the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`2.
`
`Apple admits that it is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`State of California with its principal place of business located in Cupertino, California. Apple
`
`admits that it offers consumer electronics for sale throughout the United States, including retail
`
`stores at 3000 East 1st Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80206 and 1755 29th Street, Boulder,
`
`Colorado 80301. Apple denies that it has committed any act of infringement of any valid patent.
`
`Apple admits that an agent for service of process is maintained at The Corporation Company,
`
`7700 E. Arapahoe Road, Suite 220, Centennial, Colorado 80112-1268. Apple denies the rest of
`
`paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`Apple admits that Realtime purports to allege an action for patent infringement
`
`arising under the patent laws of the United States and that this Court has subject matter
`
`jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`4.
`
`Apple admits that it sells products and offers services to consumers within the
`
`District of Colorado, including certain products and services accused of infringement in the
`
`Amended Complaint. Apple denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 4 of the Amended
`
`Complaint.
`
`5.
`
`Apple admits that it has a regular and established place of business in the District
`
`of Colorado, but denies that it has committed any act of patent infringement. Apple denies any
`
`remaining factual allegations in paragraph 5 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 92 Filed 04/10/18 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 36
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`6.
`
`Apple admits Realtime alleges causes of action arising under 35 U.S.C. § 271, but
`
`denies that they state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Apple denies that it has
`
`committed any act of patent infringement and denies any remaining factual allegations in
`
`paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`7.
`
`Apple admits that the document attached to the Amended Complaint as Exhibit A
`
`purports to be a copy of U.S. Patent No. 7,386,046 (the “‘046 Patent”), and admits that Exhibit A
`
`bears on its face an issue date of June 10, 2008 and the title “Bandwidth Sensitive Data
`
`Compression and Decompression.” Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Amended
`
`Complaint and therefore denies them.
`
`8.
`
`Apple admits that the document attached to the Amended Complaint as Exhibit B
`
`purports to be a copy of U.S. Patent No. 8,634,462 (the “‘462 Patent”), and admits that Exhibit B
`
`bears on its face an issue date of January 21, 2014 and the title “Quantization for Hybrid Video
`
`Coding.” Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Amended Complaint and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`9.
`
`Apple admits that the document attached to the Amended Complaint as Exhibit C
`
`purports to be a copy of U.S. Patent No. 8,929,442 (the “‘442 Patent”), and admits that Exhibit C
`
`bears on its face an issue date of January 6, 2015 and the title “System and Methods for Video
`
`and Audio Data Distribution.” Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 92 Filed 04/10/18 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 36
`
`about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Amended Complaint
`
`and therefore denies them.
`
`10.
`
`Apple admits that the document attached to the Amended Complaint as Exhibit D
`
`purports to be a copy of U.S. Patent No. 8,934,535 (the “‘535 Patent”), and admits that Exhibit D
`
`bears on its face an issue date of January 13, 2015 and the title “Systems and Methods for Video
`
`and Audio Data Storage and Distribution.” Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 10 of the
`
`Amended Complaint and therefore denies them.
`
`11.
`
`Apple admits that the document attached to the Amended Complaint as Exhibit E
`
`purports to be a copy of U.S. Patent No. 9,578,298 (the “‘298 Patent”), and admits that Exhibit E
`
`bears on its face an issuance date of February 21, 2017 and the title “Method for Decoding 2D-
`
`Compatible Stereoscopic Video Flows.” Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 11 of the
`
`Amended Complaint and therefore denies them.
`
`12.
`
`Apple denies that an Exhibit G is attached to the Amended Complaint. Apple
`
`admits a document bearing U.S. Patent No. 9,769,477 (the “‘477 Patent”) is attached to the
`
`Amended Complaint and admits that the ‘477 Patent bears on its face an issuance date of
`
`September 19, 2017and the title “Video Data Compression Systems.” Apple lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations contained in
`
`paragraph 12 of the Amended Complaint and therefore denies them.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 92 Filed 04/10/18 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 36
`
`COUNT I
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,386,046
`
`13.
`
`Apple incorporates all denials and admissions in paragraphs 1 through 12 by
`
`reference as if fully restated in this paragraph.
`
`14.
`
`Apple denies that it has committed any act of patent infringement of any valid
`
`patent. Apple admits that it offers access to the iTunes Store and Apple Music (the “Accused
`
`Services”) to consumers within the United States. Apple admits that it has sold versions of
`
`iPhones, iPads, Apple TVs, Macs, iPods and Apple Watches (the “Accused AVC Products”) to
`
`consumers within the United States. Apple denies any remaining allegations in paragraph 14 of
`
`the Amended Complaint.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`Apple denies all allegations of paragraph 15 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple admits that certain of the Accused AVC Products utilize Advanced Video
`
`Coding (“AVC,” also known as “H.264”). Apple admits that certain content is offered over the
`
`Accused Services via the HTTP Live Streaming (“HLS”) protocol. The websites cited in
`
`paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint speak for themselves. Apple admits that the websites
`
`cited in paragraph 16 of the Amended Complaint contain the quotations attributed to them, but
`
`denies that they contain a full and complete description of the Accused AVC Products or the
`
`Accused Services. Apple denies all other allegations in paragraph 16 of the Amended
`
`Complaint.
`
`17.
`
`The websites cited in paragraph 17 of the Amended Complaint speak for
`
`themselves. Apple denies that the websites cited in paragraph 17 of the Amended Complaint
`
`contain a full and complete description of the Accused AVC Products or the Accused Services.
`
`Apple admits that certain of the Accused AVC Products and the Accused Services utilize or
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 92 Filed 04/10/18 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 36
`
`support AVC. Apple denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 17 of the Amended
`
`Complaint.
`
`18.
`
`The documents and websites cited in paragraph 18 of the Amended Complaint
`
`speak for themselves. Apple denies that the documents and websites cited in paragraph 18 of the
`
`Amended Complaint contain a full, complete, and accurate description of the Accused AVC
`
`Products or the Accused Services. Apple admits that certain of the Accused AVC Products and
`
`the Accused Services utilize or support AVC. Apple admits that AVC defines certain “profiles”
`
`and “levels,” which correspond to different feature sets, resolutions and/or frame rates. Apple
`
`admits that, under certain circumstances, AVC allows for the use of either a Context-Adaptive
`
`Variable Length Coding (“CAVLC”) entropy encoder or a Context-Adaptive Binary Arithmetic
`
`Coding (“CABAC”) entropy coder. Apple denies all other the allegations of paragraph 18 of the
`
`Amended Complaint.
`
`19.
`
`The documents cited in paragraph 19 of the Amended Complaint speak for
`
`themselves. Apple admits that Wikipedia contains articles entitled “Group of pictures” “Video
`
`compression picture types,” and “MPEG-1,” which discuss general terminology related to video
`
`coding in general, video compression in general, and the MPEG-1 standard. Apple denies that
`
`those Wikipedia articles are a full, complete, and accurate description of the Accused AVC
`
`Products or the Accused Services. Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 19 of the Amended
`
`Complaint to the extent they are inconsistent with the AVC itself. Apple denies any remaining
`
`allegations contained in paragraph 19 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`20.
`
`The documents cited in paragraph 20 of the Amended Complaint speak for
`
`themselves. Apple admits that the documents cited in paragraph 20 of the Amended Complaint
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 92 Filed 04/10/18 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 36
`
`contain the quotations attributed to them, but denies that those quotations are a full, complete,
`
`and accurate description of the Accused Product or the Accused Services. Apple admits that
`
`AVC defines a field that may be used to reflect which entropy coder, CAVLC or CABAC, was
`
`used for certain syntax elements in a coded bitstream. Apple denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 20 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`21.
`
`The documents cited in paragraph 21 of the Amended Complaint speak for
`
`themselves. Apple admits that the documents cited in paragraph 21 of the Amended Complaint
`
`contain the quotations attributed to them, but denies that those quotations are a full, complete,
`
`and accurate description of the Accused AVC Products or the Accused Services. Apple denies
`
`the remaining allegations of paragraph 21 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`22.
`
`The websites cited in paragraph 22 of the Amended Complaint speak for
`
`themselves. Apple admits that the websites cited in paragraph 22 of the Amended Complaint
`
`contain the quotations attributed to them, but denies that those quotations are a full and complete
`
`description of the Accused AVC Products or the Accused Services. Apple denies all remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 22 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 23 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 24 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 25 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple admits that it learned of the existence of the ‘046 Patent after this action
`
`was filed. Apple denies all remaining allegations of paragraph 26 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`27.
`
`The documents cited in paragraph 27 of the Amended Complaint speak for
`
`themselves. Apple admits that the documents cited in paragraph 27 of the Amended Complaint
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 92 Filed 04/10/18 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 36
`
`contain the quotations attributed to them, but denies that Apple induces infringement of any valid
`
`patent. Apple admits that certain version of the Accused Product and the Accused Services
`
`utilize or support AVC. Apple denies all other allegations in paragraph 27 of the Amended
`
`Complaint.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 28 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 29 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 30 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`COUNT II
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,634,462
`
`31.
`
`Apple incorporates all denials and admissions in paragraphs 1 through 30 by
`
`reference as if fully restated in this paragraph.
`
`32.
`
`Apple denies that it has committed any act of patent infringement of any valid
`
`patent. Apple admits that certain versions of the iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, Mac, iPod, and Apple
`
`Watch are capable of running certain versions of iOS 11, macOS High Sierra, iMovie, or
`
`Quicktime (collectively, the “Accused HEVC Products”). Apple admits the Accused HEVC
`
`Products are offered or sold to consumers within the United States. Apple denies any remaining
`
`allegations in paragraph 32 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 33 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple admits that certain hardware and software versions of the Accused HEVC
`
`Products utilize High Efficiency Video Coding (“HEVC,” also known as “H.265”). Apple
`
`denies that every hardware and software version of the Accused HEVC Products utilize HEVC.
`
`The websites cited in paragraph 34 of the Amended Complaint speak for themselves. Apple
`
`admits that the websites cited in paragraph 34 of the Amended Complaint contain the quotations
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 92 Filed 04/10/18 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 36
`
`attributed to them, but denies that those quotations are a full and complete description of the
`
`Accused HEVC Products. Apple denies all remaining allegations in paragraph 34 of the
`
`Amended Complaint.
`
`35.
`
`Recommendation ITU-T H.265 (“HEVC Recommendation”) speaks for itself.
`
`Apple denies that the HEVC Recommendation contains a specification for HEVC encoders.
`
`Apple admits that the HEVC Recommendation defines a set of syntax elements that must be
`
`interpreted by an HEVC-compliant decoder and other syntax elements that need not be
`
`interpreted by an HEVC-compliant decoder. Apple denies any remaining allegations in
`
`paragraph 35 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`36.
`
`The documents cited in paragraph 36 of the Amended Complaint speak for
`
`themselves. Apple denies that the cited portions of the documents in paragraph 36 of the
`
`Amended Complaint are a full, complete, and accurate description of the Accused HEVC
`
`Products. Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 36 of the Amended Complaint to the extent
`
`they are inconsistent with HEVC itself. Apple denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 36
`
`of the Amended Complaint.
`
`37.
`
`The documents cited in paragraph 37 of the Amended Complaint speak for
`
`themselves. Apple denies that the cited portions of the documents in paragraph 37 of the
`
`Amended Complaint are a full, complete, and accurate description of the Accused HEVC
`
`Products. Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 37 of the Amended Complaint to the extent
`
`they are inconsistent with HEVC itself. Apple denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 37
`
`of the Amended Complaint.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 92 Filed 04/10/18 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 36
`
`38.
`
`The documents cited in paragraph 38 of the Amended Complaint speak for
`
`themselves. Apple denies that the cited portions of the documents in paragraph 38 of the
`
`Amended Complaint are a full, complete, and accurate description of the Accused HEVC
`
`Products. Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 38 of the Amended Complaint to the extent
`
`they are inconsistent with HEVC itself. Apple denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 38
`
`of the Amended Complaint.
`
`39.
`
`The documents cited in paragraph 39 of the Amended Complaint speak for
`
`themselves. Apple denies that the cited portions of the documents in paragraph 39 of the
`
`Amended Complaint are a full, complete, and accurate description of the Accused HEVC
`
`Products. Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 39 of the Amended Complaint to the extent
`
`they are inconsistent with HEVC itself. Apple denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 39
`
`of the Amended Complaint.
`
`40.
`
`The HEVC Recommendation speaks for itself. Apple admits that section 7.4.9.11
`
`of the HEVC Recommendation contains the quotation attributed to it. Apple denies that the cited
`
`portion of the HEVC Recommendation (or any other portion) requires or implies that the
`
`Accused HEVC Products perform the method alleged in paragraph 40 of the Amended
`
`Complaint. Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 40 of the Amended Complaint to the
`
`extent they are inconsistent with HEVC itself. Apple denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 40 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`41.
`
`The HEVC Recommendation speaks for itself. Apple admits that section 7.4.9.11
`
`of the HEVC Recommendation contains the quotation attributed to it. Apple admits that coding
`
`algorithms are not specified by the HEVC Recommendation. Apple denies that the cited portion
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 92 Filed 04/10/18 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 36
`
`of the HEVC Recommendation (or any other portion) requires or implies that the Accused
`
`HEVC Products perform the method alleged in paragraph 41 of the Amended Complaint. Apple
`
`denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 41 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`42.
`
`Apple denies that it has committed any act of patent infringement of any valid
`
`patent. The website cited in paragraph 42 of the Amended Complaint speaks for itself. Apple
`
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations contained in paragraph 42 of the Amended Complaint and therefore denies them.
`
`43.
`
`The website cited in paragraph 43 of the Amended Complaint speaks for itself.
`
`Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations contained in paragraph 43 of the Amended Complaint and therefore denies them.
`
`44.
`
`The website cited in paragraph 44 of the Amended Complaint speaks for itself.
`
`Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations contained in paragraph 44 of the Amended Complaint and therefore denies them.
`
`45.
`
`The website cited in paragraph 45 of the Amended Complaint speaks for itself.
`
`Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations contained in paragraph 45 of the Amended Complaint and therefore denies them.
`
`46.
`
`The website cited in paragraph 46 of the Amended Complaint speaks for itself.
`
`Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations contained in paragraph 46 of the Amended Complaint and therefore denies them.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 47 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 48 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 49 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 92 Filed 04/10/18 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 36
`
`50.
`
`Apple admits that it learned of the existence of the ‘462 Patent after this action
`
`was filed. Apple denies all remaining allegations of paragraph 50 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`53.
`
`54.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 51 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 52 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 53 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 54 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`COUNT III
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,929,442
`
`55.
`
`Apple incorporates all denials and admissions in paragraphs 1 through 54 by
`
`reference as if fully restated in this paragraph.
`
`56.
`
`Apple denies that it has committed any act of patent infringement of any valid
`
`patent. Apple admits that it has sold certain versions of the Accused AVC Products to
`
`consumers within the United States. Apple denies any remaining allegations in paragraph 56 of
`
`the Amended Complaint.
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`Apple denies all allegations of paragraph 57 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple admits that certain of the Accused AVC Products utilize AVC. Apple
`
`admits that certain content is offered over the Accused Services via the HLS protocol. The
`
`websites cited in paragraph 58 of the Amended Complaint speak for themselves. Apple admits
`
`that the websites cited in paragraph 58 of the Amended Complaint contain the quotations
`
`attributed to them, but denies that they contain a full and complete description of the Accused
`
`AVC Products or the Accused Services. Apple denies all other allegations in paragraph 58 of the
`
`Amended Complaint.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 92 Filed 04/10/18 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 36
`
`59.
`
`The websites cited in paragraph 59 of the Amended Complaint speak for
`
`themselves. Apple denies that the websites cited in paragraph 59 of the Amended Complaint
`
`contain a full and complete description of the Accused AVC Products. Apple admits that certain
`
`of the Accused AVC Products utilize or support AVC. Apple denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 59 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`60.
`
`Apple admits that the Accused AVC Products include storage media. Apple
`
`denies all other allegations of paragraph 60 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`61.
`
`The documents cited in paragraph 61 of the Amended Complaint speak for
`
`themselves. Apple admits that the documents cited in paragraph 61 of the Amended Complaint
`
`contain the quotations attributed to them, but denies that those quotations are a full and complete
`
`description of the Accused AVC Products. Apple denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 61 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`62.
`
`The documents and websites cited in paragraph 62 of the Amended Complaint
`
`speak for themselves. Apple denies that the documents and websites cited in paragraph 62 of the
`
`Amended Complaint contain a full, complete, and accurate description of the Accused AVC
`
`Products or the Accused Services. Apple admits that certain of the Accused AVC Products
`
`utilize or support the AVC. Apple admits that AVC defines certain “profiles” and “levels,”
`
`which correspond to different feature sets, resolutions and/or frame rates. Apple admits that,
`
`under certain circumstances, AVC allows for the use of either a CAVLC entropy encoder or a
`
`CABAC entropy coder. Apple denies all other the allegations of paragraph 62 of the Amended
`
`Complaint.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 92 Filed 04/10/18 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 36
`
`63.
`
`The documents cited in paragraph 63 of the Amended Complaint speak for
`
`themselves. Apple admits that Wikipedia contains articles entitled “Group of pictures” “Video
`
`compression picture types,” and “MPEG-1,” which discuss general terminology related to video
`
`coding in general, video compression in general, and the MPEG-1 standard. Apple denies that
`
`those Wikipedia articles are a full, complete, and accurate description of the Accused AVC
`
`Products. Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 63 of the Amended Complaint to the extent
`
`they are inconsistent with the AVC itself. Apple denies any remaining allegations contained in
`
`paragraph 63 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`64.
`
`The documents cited in paragraph 64 of the Amended Complaint speak for
`
`themselves. Apple admits that the documents cited in paragraph 64 of the Amended Complaint
`
`contain the quotations attributed to them, but denies that those quotations are a full, complete,
`
`and accurate description of the Accused AVC Products. Apple admits AVC defines a field that
`
`may be used to reflect which entropy coder, CAVLC or CABAC, was used for certain syntax
`
`elements in a coded bitstream. Apple denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 64 of the
`
`Amended Complaint.
`
`65.
`
`The documents cited in paragraph 65 of the Amended Complaint speak for
`
`themselves. Apple admits that the documents cited in paragraph 65 of the Amended Complaint
`
`contain the quotations attributed to them, but denies that those quotations are a full, complete,
`
`and accurate description of the Accused AVC Products. Apple denies the remaining allegations
`
`of paragraph 65 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`66.
`
`67.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 66 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 67 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 92 Filed 04/10/18 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 36
`
`68.
`
`69.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 68 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple admits that it learned of the existence of the ‘442 Patent after this action
`
`was filed. Apple denies all remaining allegations of paragraph 69 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`70.
`
`The websites cited in paragraph 70 of the Amended Complaint speak for
`
`themselves. Apple admits that the websites cited in paragraph 70 of the Amended Complaint
`
`contain the quotations attributed to them, but denies that Apple induces infringement of any valid
`
`patent. Apple admits that certain versions of the Accused AVC Products utilize or support AVC.
`
`Apple denies all other allegations in paragraph 70 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`71.
`
`72.
`
`73.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 71 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 72 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 73 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`COUNT IV
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,934,535
`
`74.
`
`Apple incorporates all denials and admissions in paragraphs 1 through 73 by
`
`reference as if fully restated in this paragraph.
`
`75.
`
`Apple denies that it has committed any act of patent infringement of any valid
`
`patent. Apple admits that it offers access to the Accused Services to consumers within the
`
`United States. Apple denies any remaining allegations in paragraph 75 of the Amended
`
`Complaint.
`
`76.
`
`77.
`
`Apple denies all allegations of paragraph 76 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple admits that certain versions of the Accused Services utilize AVC. Apple
`
`admits that certain content is offered over the Accused Services via the HLS protocol. The
`
`websites cited in paragraph 77 of the Amended Complaint speak for themselves. Apple admits
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 92 Filed 04/10/18 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 36
`
`that the websites cited in paragraph 77 of the Amended Complaint contain the quotations
`
`attributed to them, but denies that they contain a full and complete description of the Accused
`
`Services. Apple denies all other allegations in paragraph 77 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`78.
`
`The documents and websites cited in paragraph 78 of the Amended Complaint
`
`speak for themselves. Apple denies that the websites cited in paragraph 17 of the Amended
`
`Complaint contain a full, complete, and accurate description of the the Accused Services. Apple
`
`admits that AVC defines certain “profiles” and “levels,” which correspond to different feature
`
`sets, resolutions and/or frame rates. Apple denies all other the allegations of paragraph 78 of the
`
`Amended Complaint.
`
`79.
`
`The documents cited in paragraph 79 of the Amended Complaint speak for
`
`themselves. Apple admits that Wikipedia contains articles entitled “Group of pictures” “Video
`
`compression picture types,” and “MPEG-1,” which discuss general terminology related to video
`
`coding in general, video compression in general, and the MPEG-1 standard. Apple denies that
`
`those Wikipedia articles are a full, complete, and accurate description of the Accused Services.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 79 of the Amended Complaint to the extent they are
`
`inconsistent with AVC. Apple denies any remaining allegations contained in paragraph 79 of the
`
`Amended Complaint.
`
`80.
`
`The documents cited in paragraph 80 of the Amended Complaint speak for
`
`themselves. Apple admits that the documents cited in paragraph 80 of the Amended Complaint
`
`contain the quotations attributed to them, but denies that those quotations are a full, complete,
`
`and accurate description of the Accused Services. Apple admits that AVC defines a field that
`
`may be used to reflect which entropy coder, CAVLC or CABAC, was used for certain syntax
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 92 Filed 04/10/18 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 36
`
`elements in a coded bitstream. Apple denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 80 of the
`
`Amended Complaint.
`
`81.
`
`82.
`
`Apple denies all allegations of paragraph 81 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`The documents cited in paragraph 82 of the Amended Complaint speak for
`
`themselves. Apple admits that the documents cited in paragraph 82 of the Amended Complaint
`
`contain the quotations attributed to them, but denies that those quotations are a full, complete,
`
`and accurate description of the Accused Services. Apple denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 82 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`83.
`
`84.
`
`85.
`
`86.
`
`87.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 83 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 84 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 85 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 86 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple admits that it learned of the existence of the ‘535 Patent after this action
`
`was filed. Apple denies all remaining allegations of paragraph 87 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`88.
`
`The websites or documents cited in paragraph 88 of the Amended Complaint
`
`speak for themselves. Apple admits that the documents cited in paragraph 88 of the Amended
`
`Complaint contain the quotations attributed to them, but denies that Apple induces infringement
`
`of any valid patent. Apple admits that certain versions of the Accused Services utilize or support
`
`AVC. Apple denies all other allegations in paragraph 88 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`89.
`
`90.
`
`91.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 89 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 90 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 91 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 92 Filed 04/10/18 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 36
`
`COUNT V
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,578,298
`
`92.
`
`Apple incorporates all denials and admissions in paragraphs 1 through 91 by
`
`reference as if fully restated in this paragraph.
`
`93.
`
`Apple denies that it has committed any act of patent infringement of any valid
`
`patent. Apple admits the Accused HEVC Products are offered or sold to consumers within the
`
`United States. Apple denies any remaining allegations in paragraph 93 of the Amended
`
`Complaint.
`
`94.
`
`95.
`
`Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 94 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`Apple admits that certain hardware and software versions of the Accused HEVC
`
`Products utilize HEVC. Apple denies that every hardware and software version of the Accused
`
`HEVC Products utilize HEVC. The websites cited in paragraph 95 of the Amended Complaint
`
`speak for themselves. Apple admits that the websites cited in paragraph 95 of the Amended
`
`Complaint contain the quotations attributed to them, but denies that those quotations are a full
`
`and complete description of the Accused HEVC Products. Apple denies all remaining
`
`allegations in paragraph 95 of the Amended Complaint.
`
`96.
`
`The documents cited in paragraph 96 of the Amended Complaint speak for
`
`themselves. Apple denies that the cited portions of the documents in paragraph 96 of the
`
`Amended Complaint are a full, complete, and accurate description of the Accused HEVC
`
`Products. Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 96 of the Amended Complaint to the extent
`
`they are inconsistent with HEVC itself. Apple denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 96
`
`of the Amended Complaint.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 1:17-cv-02097-RBJ Document 92 Filed 04/10/18 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 36
`
`97.
`
`The documents cited in paragraph 97 of the Amended Complaint speak for
`
`themselves. Apple denies that the cited portions of the documents in paragraph 97 of the
`
`Amended Complaint are a full, complete, and accurate description of the Accused HEVC
`
`Products. Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 97 of the Amended Complaint to the extent
`
`they are inconsistent with HEVC itself. Apple denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 97
`
`of the Amended Complaint.
`
`98.
`
`The documents cited in paragraph 98 of the Amended Complaint speak for
`
`themselves. Apple denies that the cited portions of the documents in paragraph 98 of the
`
`Amended Complaint are a full, complete, and accurate description of the Accused HEVC
`
`Pr
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
