Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 105, PageID.8272 Filed 12/16/22 Page 1 of 57
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`
`
`
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`
`
`2:22-CV-11407-TGB
`
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY &
`GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`THE GENERAL MOTORS DEFENDANTS
`FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`Defendants General Motors Company (“GMC”) & General Motors LLC
`
`
`
`(“GM LLC”) (together, “GM”) file this First Amended Answer to Plaintiff Neo
`
`Wireless, LLC’s (“Neo” or “Plaintiff”) Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`(“Complaint”). Any factual allegation admitted below is admitted only as to the
`
`specific admitted facts, and not as to any purported conclusions, characterizations,
`
`implications, or speculations that might follow from the admitted facts. GM
`
`responds to the numbered paragraphs of the Complaint as follows:
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`
`
`
`
`2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`
`
`2:22-CV-11407-TGB
`
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY &
`GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`THE GENERAL MOTORS DEFENDANTS
`FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`Defendants General Motors Company (“GMC”) & General Motors LLC
`
`
`
`(“GM LLC”) (together, “GM”) file this First Amended Answer to Plaintiff Neo
`
`Wireless, LLC’s (“Neo” or “Plaintiff”) Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`(“Complaint”). Any factual allegation admitted below is admitted only as to the
`
`specific admitted facts, and not as to any purported conclusions, characterizations,
`
`implications, or speculations that might follow from the admitted facts. GM
`
`responds to the numbered paragraphs of the Complaint as follows:
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 105, PageID.8273 Filed 12/16/22 Page 2 of 57
`
`THE PARTIES1
`
`1.
`
`GM lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and on that
`
`basis denies them.
`
`2.
`
`GM admits that GMC is a corporation organized and existing under
`
`the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 300
`
`Renaissance Center in Detroit, Michigan. GM further admits that GMC may be
`
`served through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company, 251 Little Falls
`
`Drive, Wilmington, DE 19808.
`
`3.
`
`GM admits that GM LLC is a corporation organized and existing
`
`under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 300
`
`Renaissance Center in Detroit, Michigan. GM admits that GM LLC may be served
`
`through its registered agent, Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC-Lawyers
`
`Incorporating Service Company at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701-
`
`4234.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 GM repeats the headings set forth in the Complaint to simplify comparison of the Complaint
`and this response. In doing so, GM makes no admissions regarding the substance of the
`headings or any other allegations of the Complaint. Unless otherwise stated, to the extent that a
`particular heading can be construed as an allegation, GM specifically denies all such allegations.
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 105, PageID.8274 Filed 12/16/22 Page 3 of 57
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`GM admits that the Complaint purports to state a cause of action for
`
`patent infringement under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et
`
`seq., but GM denies that it has committed any acts of patent infringement.
`
`5.
`
`GM admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over actions
`
`for alleged patent infringement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`6.
`
`GM denies that venue in the Eastern District of Texas is proper.
`
`Moreover, venue in the Eastern District of Texas is not convenient under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1404. Indeed, on June 14, 2022, a panel of the U.S. Judicial Panel Multidistrict
`
`Litigation in In Re Neo Wireless, LLC Patent Litigation (MDL No. 3034) ordered
`
`that this case be adjudicated in the Eastern District of Michigan in light of the
`
`conveniences of the of the parties and witnesses and to promote just efficient
`
`conduct of the litigation. Any remaining allegations in Paragraph 6 of the
`
`Complaint state only legal conclusions that require no response. To the extent a
`
`response is required, denied.
`
`7.
`
`GM does not contest, solely for the purposes of the present action,
`
`whether personal jurisdiction properly lies in the Eastern District of Texas. GM
`
`denies that it has committed, induced, or contributed to acts of patent infringement
`
`in the Eastern District of Texas, the State of Texas, or elsewhere. GM denies all
`
`other allegations made in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 105, PageID.8275 Filed 12/16/22 Page 4 of 57
`
`8.
`
`GM does not contest, solely for the purposes of the present action,
`
`whether personal jurisdiction properly lies in the Eastern District of Texas. GM
`
`denies that it has committed, induced, or contributed to acts of patent infringement
`
`in the Eastern District of Texas, the State of Texas, or elsewhere. GM denies all
`
`other allegations made in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint.
`
`9.
`
`GM does not contest, solely for the purposes of the present action,
`
`whether personal jurisdiction properly lies in the Eastern District of Texas. GM
`
`denies that it has committed, induced, or contributed to acts of patent infringement
`
`in the Eastern District of Texas, the State of Texas, or elsewhere. GM denies all
`
`other allegations made in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint.
`
`10. GM admits it has physical locations in Austin, Arlington, Irving, Fort
`
`Worth, San Antonio, and Roanoke, Texas. GM denies that it has committed any
`
`acts of infringement within the Eastern District of Texas or elsewhere.
`
`11. GM admits that it has employees in Austin, TX at the Austin IT
`
`Innovation Center. GM denies all other allegations made in Paragraph 11 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`12. GM admits that GM employs various software developers and
`
`engineers working on various GM products in the United States. GM further
`
`admits that GM has had or does have job postings for software developers,
`
`including in Austin, Texas. Paragraph 12 of the Complaint cites to various
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 105, PageID.8276 Filed 12/16/22 Page 5 of 57
`
`documents which speak for themselves and GM denies the allegations of
`
`Paragraph 12 to the extent they are inconsistent with those documents.
`
`13. GM admits that GM has a location in Roanoke, Texas. GM denies
`
`that it has committed any acts of infringement within the Eastern District of Texas
`
`or elsewhere.
`
`14. Denied.
`
`15. GM does not contest personal jurisdiction in the Eastern District of
`
`Texas solely for the purpose of this action. GM denies that it has committed any
`
`acts of infringement within the Eastern District of Texas or elsewhere.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`I. The ʼ366 Patent
`
`16. GM admits that the face of United States Patent No. 8,467,366 (“the
`
`’366 patent”) lists the title as “Methods and Apparatus for Random Access in
`
`Multi-Carrier Communication Systems,” and lists the issue date as June 18, 2013.
`
`GM admits that a copy of what purports to be the ’366 patent is attached to the
`
`Complaint as Exhibit 2. GM lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of the
`
`Complaint, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`17. GM admits that the face of the ʼ366 patent indicates that it was
`
`initially filed on August 8, 2011 as U.S. Patent Application 13/205,579, with the
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 105, PageID.8277 Filed 12/16/22 Page 6 of 57
`
`assignee listed as Neocific Inc. GM lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 17
`
`of the Complaint, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`18. Paragraph 18 of the Complaint states only legal contentions or
`
`conclusions that require no response. To the extent a response is required, GM
`
`denies the allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint.
`
`II. The ʼ908 Patent
`
`19. GM admits that the face of United States Patent No. 10,833,908 (“the
`
`’908 patent”) lists the title as “Channel Probing Signal for a Broadband
`
`Communication System,” and lists the issue date as November 10, 2020. GM
`
`admits that a copy of what purports to be the ’908 patent is attached to the
`
`Complaint as Exhibit 3. GM lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 19 of the
`
`Complaint, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`20. GM admits that the face of the ʼ908 patent indicates that it was
`
`initially filed on June 16, 2020 as U.S. Patent Application 16/902,740, with the
`
`applicant listed as NEO WIRELESS LLC. GM lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in
`
`Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`21. Paragraph 21 of the Complaint states only legal contentions or
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 105, PageID.8278 Filed 12/16/22 Page 7 of 57
`
`conclusions that require no response. To the extent a response is required, GM
`
`denies the allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint.
`
`III. The ʼ941 Patent
`
`22. GM admits that the face of United States Patent No. 10,075,941 (“the
`
`’941 patent”) lists the title as “Methods and Apparatus for Multi-Carrier
`
`Communications with Adaptive Transmission and Feedback,” and lists the issue
`
`date as September 11, 2018. GM admits that a copy of what purports to be the
`
`’941 patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 4. GM lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`contained in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`23. GM admits that the face of the ʼ941 patent indicates that it was
`
`initially filed on March 28, 2016 as U.S. Patent Application 15/082,878, with the
`
`applicant listed as Neocific, Inc. GM lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 23
`
`of the Complaint, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`24. Paragraph 24 of the Complaint states only legal contentions or
`
`conclusions that require no response. To the extent a response is required, GM
`
`denies the allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint.
`
`IV. The ʼ450 Patent
`
`25. GM admits that the face of United States Patent No. 10,447,450 (“the
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 105, PageID.8279 Filed 12/16/22 Page 8 of 57
`
`’450 patent”) lists the title as “Method and System for Multi-Carrier Packet
`
`Communication with Reduced Overhead,” and lists the issue date as October 15,
`
`2019. GM admits that a copy of what purports to be the ’450 patent is attached to
`
`the Complaint as Exhibit 5. GM lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form
`
`a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 25 of the
`
`Complaint, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`26. GM admits that the face of the ʼ450 patent indicates that it was
`
`initially filed on August 14, 2017 as U.S. Patent Application 15/676,421, with the
`
`applicant listed as Neocific, Inc. GM lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 26
`
`of the Complaint, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`27. Paragraph 27 of the Complaint states only legal contentions or
`
`conclusions that require no response. To the extent a response is required, GM
`
`denies the allegations in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint.
`
`V. The ʼ512 Patent
`
`28. GM admits that the face of United States Patent No. 10,965,512 (“the
`
`’512 patent”) lists the title as “Method and Apparatus Using Cell-Specific and
`
`Common Pilot Subcarriers in Multi-Carrier, Multi Cell Wireless Communication
`
`Networks,” and lists the issue date as March 30, 2021. GM admits that a copy of
`
`what purports to be the ’512 patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 6. GM
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 105, PageID.8280 Filed 12/16/22 Page 9 of 57
`
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`29. GM admits that the face of the ʼ512 patent indicates that it was
`
`initially filed on September 4, 2020 as U.S. Patent Application 17/012,813, with
`
`the applicant listed as Neo Wireless LLC. GM lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in
`
`Paragraph 29 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`30. Paragraph 30 of the Complaint states only legal contentions or
`
`conclusions that require no response. To the extent a response is required, GM
`
`denies the allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint.
`
`VI. The ʼ302 Patent
`
`31. GM admits that the face of United States Patent No. 10,771,302 (“the
`
`’302 patent”) lists the title as “Channel Probing Signal for a Broadband
`
`Communication System,” and lists the issue date as September 8, 2020. GM
`
`admits that a copy of what purports to be the ’302 patent is attached to the
`
`Complaint as Exhibit 7. GM lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 31 of the
`
`Complaint, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`32. GM admits that the face of the ʼ302 patent indicates that it was
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 105, PageID.8281 Filed 12/16/22 Page 10 of 57
`
`initially filed on April 16, 2018 as U.S. Patent Application 15/953,950, with the
`
`applicant listed as Neo Wireless LLC. GM lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in
`
`Paragraph 32 of the Complaint, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`33. Paragraph 33 of the Complaint states only legal contentions or
`
`conclusions that require no response. To the extent a response is required, GM
`
`denies the allegations in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint.
`
`34. GM lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`35. Plaintiff’s allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint are vague and
`
`indefinite, and GM is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`36. GM lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`37. GM lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 105, PageID.8282 Filed 12/16/22 Page 11 of 57
`
`38. Paragraph 38 of the Complaint states only legal contentions or
`
`conclusions that require no response. To the extent a response is required, GM
`
`denies the allegations in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint.
`
`39. Paragraph 39 of the Complaint states legal contentions or conclusions
`
`that require no response. To the extent a response is required, GM denies the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint.
`
`40. Plaintiff’s allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint are vague and
`
`indefinite, and GM is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`41. GM admits LTE was collaboratively developed by many companies
`
`through 3GPP. Plaintiff’s remaining allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint
`
`are vague and indefinite, and GM is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`42. GM admits it has implemented certain communications technology
`
`into its vehicles. Plaintiff’s remaining allegations in Paragraph 42 of the
`
`Complaint are vague and indefinite, and GM is without knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore denies
`
`those allegations.
`
`43. GM admits it has implemented certain communications technology
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 105, PageID.8283 Filed 12/16/22 Page 12 of 57
`
`into certain products. Plaintiff’s remaining allegations in Paragraph 43 of the
`
`Complaint are vague and indefinite, and GM is without knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and therefore denies
`
`those allegations.
`
`44. GM admits that GM provides certain wireless and cellular
`
`connectivity functions through the OnStar system included in certain GM products.
`
`Plaintiff’s remaining allegations in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint are vague and
`
`indefinite, and GM denies those remaining allegations.
`
`45. GM admits that GM’s myGMC App allows for wireless and cellular
`
`connectivity between the App and certain products, and the App provides access of
`
`certain features within certain products. Plaintiff’s remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 45 of the Complaint are vague and indefinite, and GM is without
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`46. GM admits Plaintiff refers to certain GM vehicle models as “Accused
`
`Products,” but GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement.
`
`47. GM admits that it provides certain wireless and cellular connectivity
`
`functions in certain GM products. GM is without knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph
`
`47 of the Complaint and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 105, PageID.8284 Filed 12/16/22 Page 13 of 57
`
`48. GM admits that it provides certain wireless and cellular connectivity
`
`functions in certain GM products. GM is without knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph
`
`48 of the Complaint and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`49. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement. Paragraph
`
`49 of the Complaint states only legal contentions or conclusions that require no
`
`response. To the extent a response is required, GM denies the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 49 of the Complaint.
`
`50. Paragraph 50 of the Complaint states only legal contentions or
`
`conclusions that require no response. To the extent a response is required, GM
`
`denies the allegations in Paragraph 50 of the Complaint.
`
`51. Paragraph 51 of the Complaint states legal contentions or conclusions
`
`that require no response. To the extent a response is required, GM denies the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 51 of the Complaint.
`
`52. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement. Paragraph
`
`52 of the Complaint states only legal contentions or conclusions that require no
`
`response. To the extent a response is required, GM denies the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 52 of the Complaint.
`
`GM’S [ALLEGED] ACTS OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`53. GM incorporates by reference the preceding Paragraphs 1 to 52.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 105, PageID.8285 Filed 12/16/22 Page 14 of 57
`
`54. Paragraph 54 of the Complaint states only legal contentions or
`
`conclusions that require no response. To the extent a response is required, GM
`
`denies the allegations in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint. For example, GM denies
`
`that it has committed any acts of infringement, and therefore further denies
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to any relief.
`
`55. Paragraph 55 of the Complaint states only legal contentions or
`
`conclusions that require no response. To the extent a response is required, GM
`
`denies the allegations in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint. For example, GM denies
`
`that it has committed any acts of infringement, and therefore further denies
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to any relief.
`
`56. GM admits that it makes, sells, offers for sale, uses, and/or imports
`
`certain vehicles in the United States. GM denies that it has committed any acts of
`
`infringement.
`
`57. GM admits that it designs, develops, tests, and/or manufactures
`
`certain vehicles in the United States. GM denies that it has committed any acts of
`
`infringement.
`
`58. Denied.
`
`59. GM admits that it owns and operates facilities in the United States for
`
`the design, development, testing, manufacture, sale, and/or offer for sale of certain
`
`vehicles. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 105, PageID.8286 Filed 12/16/22 Page 15 of 57
`
`60. Denied.
`
`61. Denied.
`
`62. Paragraph 62 of the Complaint states only legal contentions or
`
`conclusions that require no response. To the extent a response is required, GM
`
`denies the allegations in Paragraph 62 of the Complaint. For example, GM denies
`
`that it has committed any acts of infringement, and therefore further denies
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to any relief.
`
`63. Paragraph 63 of the Complaint states only legal contentions or
`
`conclusions that require no response. To the extent a response is required, GM
`
`denies the allegations in Paragraph 63 of the Complaint. For example, GM denies
`
`that it has committed any acts of infringement, and therefore further denies
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to any relief.
`
`64. Paragraph 64 of the Complaint states only legal contentions or
`
`conclusions that require no response. To the extent a response is required, GM
`
`denies the allegations in Paragraph 64 of the Complaint. For example, GM denies
`
`that it has committed any acts of infringement, and therefore further denies
`
`Plaintiff is entitled to any relief.
`
`65. GM admits that it advertises on its websites certain wireless and/or
`
`cellular technology available in certain vehicles. The remainder of Paragraph 65
`
`states only legal contentions or conclusions that require no response. To the extent
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 105, PageID.8287 Filed 12/16/22 Page 16 of 57
`
`a response is required, GM denies the allegations in Paragraph 65 of the
`
`Complaint. For example, GM denies that it has committed any acts of
`
`infringement, therefore further denies Plaintiff is entitled to any relief.
`
`66. GM admits that it advertises and provides users and customers with
`
`documentation about the use of wireless and/or cellular communications in certain
`
`GM products. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement.
`
`67. Denied.
`
`68. GM admits that it became aware of Plaintiff’s allegations of
`
`infringement upon service of the Complaint. GM denies that it has committed any
`
`acts of infringement or any acts with the intent to cause infringing acts by others.
`
`Paragraph 68 of the Complaint further states legal contentions or conclusions that
`
`require no response. To the extent further response is required, GM denies the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 68 of the Complaint.
`
`69. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement or any acts
`
`with the intent to cause infringing acts by others. Paragraph 69 of the Complaint
`
`further states legal contentions or conclusions that require no response. To the
`
`extent a response is required, GM denies the allegations in Paragraph 69 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`70. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement, willful or
`
`otherwise. Paragraph 70 of the Complaint further states legal contentions or
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 105, PageID.8288 Filed 12/16/22 Page 17 of 57
`
`conclusions that require no response. To the extent a response is required, GM
`
`denies the allegations in Paragraph 70 of the Complaint.
`
`71. GM denies that it has committed any wrongful acts. Therefore
`
`Plaintiff was not damaged and is not entitled to recover any damages.
`
`COUNT ONE
`(Defendants’ [Alleged] Infringement of the ʼ366 Patent)
`
`72. GM incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs 1 to 71.
`
`73. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement. Paragraph
`
`73 of the Complaint states legal contentions or conclusions that require no
`
`response. To the extent a response is required, GM denies the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 73 of the Complaint.
`
`74. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement. Paragraph
`
`74 of the Complaint states legal contentions or conclusions that require no
`
`response. GM lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 74 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`75. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement. Paragraph
`
`75 of the Complaint states legal contentions or conclusions that require no
`
`response. GM lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 75 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 105, PageID.8289 Filed 12/16/22 Page 18 of 57
`
`76. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement. Paragraph
`
`76 of the Complaint states only legal contentions or conclusions that require no
`
`response. To the extent a response is required, GM denies the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 76 of the Complaint.
`
`77. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement. Paragraph
`
`77 of the Complaint states only legal contentions or conclusions that require no
`
`response. To the extent a response is required, GM denies the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 77 of the Complaint.
`
`78. GM denies that it has committed any wrongful acts. Therefore,
`
`Plaintiff is not entitled to recover any damages or to other relief.
`
`
`
`COUNT TWO
`(Defendants’ [Alleged] Infringement of the ʼ908 Patent)
`
`79. GM incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs 1 to 78.
`
`80. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement. Paragraph
`
`80 of the Complaint states legal contentions or conclusions that require no
`
`response. To the extent a response is required, GM denies the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 80 of the Complaint.
`
`81. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement. Paragraph
`
`81 of the Complaint states legal contentions or conclusions that require no
`
`response. GM lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 81 of the Complaint, and
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 105, PageID.8290 Filed 12/16/22 Page 19 of 57
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`82. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement. Paragraph
`
`82 of the Complaint states legal contentions or conclusions that require no
`
`response. GM lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 82 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`83. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement. Paragraph
`
`83 of the Complaint states only legal contentions or conclusions that require no
`
`response. To the extent a response is required, GM denies the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 83 of the Complaint.
`
`84. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement within the
`
`Eastern District of Texas or elsewhere. Paragraph 77 of the Complaint states only
`
`legal contentions or conclusions that require no response. To the extent a response
`
`is required, GM denies the allegations in Paragraph 77 of the Complaint.
`
`85. GM denies that it has committed any wrongful acts. Therefore,
`
`Plaintiff is not entitled to recover any damages or to other relief.
`
`
`
`COUNT THREE
`(Defendants’ [Alleged] Infringement of the ʼ941 Patent)
`
`86. GM incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs 1 to 85.
`
`87. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement. Paragraph
`
`87 of the Complaint states legal contentions or conclusions that require no
`19
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 105, PageID.8291 Filed 12/16/22 Page 20 of 57
`
`response. To the extent a response is required, GM denies the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 87 of the Complaint.
`
`88. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement. Paragraph
`
`88 of the Complaint states legal contentions or conclusions that require no
`
`response. GM lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 88 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`89. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement. Paragraph
`
`89 of the Complaint states legal contentions or conclusions that require no
`
`response. GM lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 89 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`90. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement. Paragraph
`
`90 of the Complaint states only legal contentions or conclusions that require no
`
`response. To the extent a response is required, GM denies the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 90 of the Complaint.
`
`91. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement. Paragraph
`
`91 of the Complaint states only legal contentions or conclusions that require no
`
`response. To the extent a response is required, GM denies the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 91 of the Complaint.
`
`20
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 105, PageID.8292 Filed 12/16/22 Page 21 of 57
`
`92. GM denies that it has committed any wrongful acts. Therefore,
`
`Plaintiff is not entitled to recover any damages or to other relief.
`
`COUNT FOUR
`(Defendants’ [Alleged] Infringement of the ʼ450 Patent)
`
`93. GM incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs 1 to 94.
`
`94. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement. Paragraph
`
`94 of the Complaint states legal contentions or conclusions that require no
`
`response. To the extent a response is required, GM denies the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 94 of the Complaint.
`
`95. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement. Paragraph
`
`95 of the Complaint states legal contentions or conclusions that require no
`
`response. GM lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 95 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`96. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement. Paragraph
`
`96 of the Complaint states legal contentions or conclusions that require no
`
`response. GM lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 96 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`97. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement. Paragraph
`
`97 of the Complaint states only legal contentions or conclusions that require no
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 105, PageID.8293 Filed 12/16/22 Page 22 of 57
`
`response. To the extent a response is required, GM denies the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 97 of the Complaint.
`
`98. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement. Paragraph
`
`98 of the Complaint states only legal contentions or conclusions that require no
`
`response. To the extent a response is required, GM denies the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 98 of the Complaint.
`
`99. GM denies that it has committed any wrongful acts. Therefore,
`
`Plaintiff is not entitled to recover any damages or to other relief.
`
`
`
`COUNT FIVE
`(Defendants’ [Alleged] Infringement of the ʼ512 Patent)
`
`100. GM incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs 1 to 99.
`
`101. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement. Paragraph
`
`101 of the Complaint states legal contentions or conclusions that require no
`
`response. To the extent a response is required, GM denies the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 101 of the Complaint.
`
`102. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement. Paragraph
`
`102 of the Complaint states legal contentions or conclusions that require no
`
`response. GM lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 102 of the Complaint,
`
`and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`103. GM denies that it has committed any acts of infringement. Paragraph
`22
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 105, PageID.8294 Filed 12/16/22 Page 23 of 57
`
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
