`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-md-03034-TGB
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-CV-11769-TGB
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`DEFENDANT MERCEDES-BENZ USA’S FIRST AMENDED PARTIAL
`ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF NEO WIRELESS LLC’S COMPLAINT FOR
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“MBUSA” or “Defendant”) answer
`
`and assert defenses to the Complaint for Infringement (“Complaint”) filed by
`
`Plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC (“Neo”) on July 15, 2022. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`12(a)(4), this Answer does not address those claims for willful patent infringement
`
`and indirect patent infringement for which MBUSA has moved to dismiss the
`
`Complaint in its Motion to Dismiss filed on September 12, 2022. (Dkt. No. 74.)
`
`GENERAL DENIAL
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 106, PageID.8357 Filed 12/16/22 Page 2 of 88
`
`Unless specifically admitted below, MBUSA denies each and every
`
`allegation contained in paragraphs 1-110 of Neo’s Complaint, and denies that Neo
`
`is entitled to any relief, including that requested in Neo’s Prayer for Relief. The
`
`number paragraphs in this Answer correspond to the numbered paragraphs of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Neo Wireless LLC is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business located in Wayne, Pennsylvania.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 1, and therefore denies the
`
`same.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is
`
`a business entity organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware
`
`with its principal place of business at 1 Mercedes Benz Dr., Sandy Springs,
`
`Georgia 30328-4312. Mercedes may be served through its registered agent, CT
`
`Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St., Ste. 900, Dallas, TX 75201-3136.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA admits the allegations in Paragraph 2.
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 106, PageID.8358 Filed 12/16/22 Page 3 of 88
`
`3.
`
`This action arises under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA admits that the Complaint purports to be an action
`
`for patent infringement under the patent laws of the United States of America,
`
`Title 35, United States Code. But MBUSA denies that it has committed any acts
`
`of patent infringement or is otherwise liable for misconduct related to allegations
`
`in the Complaint.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Subject matter jurisdiction is proper in this Court under 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA admits this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over
`
`actions arising under the patent laws of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`1331 and 1338(a). MBUSA denies there is subject matter jurisdiction for this
`
`particular action because MBUSA has not committed any infringing act related to
`
`any of the patents asserted in the Complaint.
`
`
`
`5.
`
`U.S.C.
`
`Venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and 28
`
`§ 1400(b) against Mercedes because, on information and belief, Mercedes
`
`(1) has committed acts of infringement in this District and (2) has a regular and
`
`established place of business in this District.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 106, PageID.8359 Filed 12/16/22 Page 4 of 88
`
`ANSWER: To the extent Paragraph 5 sets forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, MBUSA does not
`
`contest that venue is proper as to MBUSA in the Middle District of Florida as a
`
`general matter. MBUSA reserves, however, the right to seek transfer to a more
`
`appropriate or convenient forum. MBUSA denies it has committed any infringing
`
`act, in the Middle District of Florida or elsewhere, related to any of the patents
`
`asserted in the Complaint. Except as expressly admitted herein, denied.
`
`
`
`6.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Mercedes. Mercedes has
`
`continuous and systematic business contacts with the State of Florida. Specifically,
`
`Mercedes conducts business in, has committed acts of patent infringement in, and
`
`has induced acts of patent infringement by others in this District, the State of Florida,
`
`and elsewhere in the United States.
`
`ANSWER: To the extent Paragraph 6 sets forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, MBUSA admits that this
`
`Court has personal jurisdiction over MBUSA for purposes of this proceeding.
`
`Except as expressly admitted herein, denied.
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Mercedes, directly and through subsidiaries or intermediaries, has
`
`committed and continues to commit acts of infringement in this District by, among
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 106, PageID.8360 Filed 12/16/22 Page 5 of 88
`
`other things, designing, developing, manufacturing, importing, offering to sell, and
`
`selling products that infringe the Asserted Patents at, at least, the Southern Region
`
`MBUSA Sales Office, Parts Distribution Center, Quality Evaluation Center, and
`
`Learning & Performance Center in Jacksonville, Florida.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA denies the allegations in Paragraph 7.
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Mercedes does and intends to do business in Florida and in this
`
`District, directly or through intermediaries, and offers and intends to offer its
`
`products and/or services, including those accused herein of infringement, to
`
`customers and potential customers located in Florida and in this District.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA admits it has done business in the Middle District of
`
`Florida, which is located in Florida. MBUSA denies it has committed any
`
`infringing act, in the Middle District of Florida or elsewhere, related to any of the
`
`patents asserted in the Complaint. Except as expressly admitted herein, to the
`
`extent that Paragraph 8 contains any other allegations of fact directed to MBUSA,
`
`they are denied. To the extent that Paragraph 8 contains conclusions of law as
`
`opposed to allegations of fact, no answer is required.
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Mercedes, both directly and through its subsidiaries or
`
`intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, and others), has purposefully and
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 106, PageID.8361 Filed 12/16/22 Page 6 of 88
`
`voluntarily placed one or more infringing products and/or services, as described
`
`below, into the stream of commerce with the expectation that those products will be
`
`purchased and used by customers and/or consumers in this State and in the Middle
`
`District of Florida.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA denies the allegation in Paragraph 9.
`
`
`
`10. Mercedes further maintains facilities throughout the State of Florida,
`
`including at least the Engineering Services Quality Evaluation Center at 13470
`
`International Pkwy, Jacksonville, Florida 32218; Learning and Performance Center
`
`at 13470 International Pkwy, Jacksonville, Florida 32218; Parts Distribution Center
`
`at 13470 International Pkwy, Jacksonville, Florida 32218; and Southern Region
`
`MBUSA Sales Office 13470 International Pkwy, Jacksonville, Florida 32218.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA admits that it maintains certain facilities in
`
`Jacksonville, Florida and otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 10.
`
`
`
`11.
`
`The Jacksonville, Florida Engineering Services Quality Evaluation
`
`Center evaluates and researches vehicles and parts, including, on information and
`
`belief, research and development related to the accused instrumentalities in the
`
`Accused Products. This center is one of two operational units of its kind outside of
`
`Germany.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 106, PageID.8362 Filed 12/16/22 Page 7 of 88
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA admits that it operates an engineering facility in
`
`Jacksonville, Florida and otherwise denies the allegations of paragraph 11
`
`12.
`
`The Jacksonville, Florida Learning and Performance center is a
`
`state- of-the-art training facility for dealership and Mercedes personnel.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA admits it operates a Jacksonville, Florida training
`
`facility.
`
`13.
`
`The Jacksonville, Florida Parts Distribution Center supplies parts for
`
`over eighty Mercedes dealerships in the Southeast United States, making up about
`
`20% of Mercedes’s overall parts inventory in the United States and shipping over
`
`two million lines annually.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA admits it operates a Jacksonville, Florida facility that
`
`supplies parts to independent dealerships, otherwise denied.
`
`
`
`14.
`
`The Jacksonville, Florida Southern Region MBUSA Sales Office is
`
`responsible for fixed operations and marketing initiatives for 120 Mercedes
`
`dealerships across twelve different states.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA admits it operates offices in Jacksonville, Florida that
`
`supports various activities of independent dealerships.
`
`
`
`15. Mercedes has been and continues to make, use, sell, offer for sale,
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 106, PageID.8363 Filed 12/16/22 Page 8 of 88
`
`assemble, purchase, and import infringing products and/or services within the
`
`Middle District of Florida.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA denies the allegations in Paragraph 15.
`
`
`
`16. Mercedes has placed the Accused Products into the stream of
`
`commerce by selling and/or offering to sell the Accused Products in the Middle
`
`District of Florida, shipping Accused Products into the Middle District of Florida,
`
`and/or shipping Accused Products knowing that those products would be shipped
`
`into the Middle District of Florida.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA admits that it distributes vehicles to independent, third-
`
`party dealerships, who sell Mercedes vehicles to the public. MBUSA denies that it
`
`has committed any acts of patent infringement or that its vehicles and related
`
`products infringe any of the patents asserted in the Complaint. MBUSA denies the
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 16.
`
`
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`I.
`
`The ’366 Patent
`
`17.
`
`On June 18, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366 (“the ’366 patent”), entitled
`
`“Methods and Apparatus for Random Access in Multi-Carrier Communication
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 106, PageID.8364 Filed 12/16/22 Page 9 of 88
`
`Systems.” A copy of the ’366 patent is attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA admits that U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366 (“the ’366
`
`patent”) is titled “Methods and Apparatus for Random Access in Multi-Carrier
`
`Communication Systems” and lists the issue date on the face of the patent as June
`
`18, 2013. MBUSA admits that a purported copy of the ’366 patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit 1 to the Complaint. MBUSA denies that the ’366 patent was properly
`
`issued.
`
`
`
`18.
`
`The ’366 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 13/205,579,
`
`which was filed by Neocific Inc. on August 8, 2011 on behalf of the inventors. The
`
`now- issued ’366 patent was assigned from Neocific, Inc. to CFIP NCF LLC on
`
`November 22, 2019 before it was assigned to Neo Wireless LLC on January 23,
`
`2020.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA admits Exhibit 1 indicates it was issued from U.S.
`
`Patent Application 13/205,579, filed on August 8, 2011. MBUSA denies that the
`
`’366 patent was properly issued. MBUSA is without knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph
`
`18, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`19.
`
`The ’366 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 106, PageID.8365 Filed 12/16/22 Page 10 of 88
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA denies the allegations in Paragraph 19.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`20.
`
`The ’908 Patent
`
`On November 11, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 10,833,908 (“the ’908 patent”),
`
`entitled “Channel Probing Signal for a Broadband Communication System.” A
`
`copy of the ’908 patent is attached as Exhibit 2.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA admits that U.S. Patent No. 10,833,908 (“the ’908
`
`patent”) is entitled “Channel Probing Signal for a Broadband Communication
`
`System” and lists the issue date on the face of the patent as November 10, 2020.
`
`MBUSA admits that a purported copy of the ’908 patent is attached as Exhibit 2 to
`
`the Complaint. MBUSA denies that the ’908 patent was properly issued.
`
`
`
`21.
`
`The ’908 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 16/902,740,
`
`which was filed on June 16, 2020 by Neo Wireless LLC on behalf of the inventors.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA admits Exhibit 2 indicates it was issued from U.S.
`
`Patent Application 16/902,740, filed on June 16, 2020. MBUSA denies that the
`
`’908 patent was properly issued. MBUSA is without knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph
`
`21, and therefore denies them.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 106, PageID.8366 Filed 12/16/22 Page 11 of 88
`
`
`
`22.
`
`The ’908 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA denies the allegations in Paragraph 22.
`
`
`
`III.
`
`The ’941 Patent
`
`23.
`
`On September 11, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 10,075,941 (“the ’941 patent”),
`
`entitled “Methods and Apparatus for Multi-Carrier Communications With
`
`Adaptive Transmission and Feedback.” A copy of the ’941 patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit 3.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA admits that U.S. Patent No. 10,075,941 (“the ’941
`
`patent”) is entitled “Methods and Apparatus for Multi-Carrier Communication
`
`Systems with Adaptive Transmission and Feedback” and lists the issue date on the
`
`face of the patent as September 11, 2018. MBUSA admits that a purported copy of
`
`the ’941 patent is attached as Exhibit 3 to the Complaint. MBUSA denies that the
`
`’941 patent was properly issued.
`
`
`
`24.
`
`The ’941 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 15/082,878,
`
`which filed by Neocific, Inc. on March 28, 2016. The now-issued ’941 patent was
`
`assigned from Neocific, Inc. to CFIP NCF LLC on November 22, 2019 before it was
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 106, PageID.8367 Filed 12/16/22 Page 12 of 88
`
`assigned to Neo Wireless LLC on January 23, 2020.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA admits Exhibit 3 indicates it was issued from U.S.
`
`Patent Application 15/082,878, filed on March 28, 2016. MBUSA denies that the
`
`’941 patent was properly issued. MBUSA is without knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph
`
`24, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`25.
`
`The ’941 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA denies the allegations in Paragraph 25.
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`The ’450 Patent
`
`26.
`
`On October 15, 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 10,447,450 (“the ’450 patent”),
`
`entitled “Method and System for Multi-Carrier Packet Communication with
`
`Reduced Overhead.” A copy of the ’450 patent is attached as Exhibit 4.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA admits that U.S. Patent No. 10,447,450 (“the ’450
`
`patent”) is entitled “Method and System for Multi-Carrier Packet Communication
`
`with Reduced Overhead” and lists the issue date on the face of the patent as
`
`October 15, 2019. MBUSA admits that a purported copy of the ’450 patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit 4 to the Complaint. MBUSA denies that the ’450 patent was
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 106, PageID.8368 Filed 12/16/22 Page 13 of 88
`
`properly issued.
`
`
`
`27.
`
`The ’450 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 15/676,421,
`
`which was filed by Neocific, Inc. on August 14, 2017. The now-issued ’450 patent
`
`was later assigned from Neocific, Inc. to CFIP NCF LLC on November 22, 2019
`
`before it was assigned to Neo Wireless LLC on January 23, 2020.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA admits Exhibit 4 indicates it was issued from U.S.
`
`Patent Application 15/676,421, filed on August 14, 2017. MBUSA denies that the
`
`’450 patent was properly issued. MBUSA is without knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph
`
`27, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`28.
`
`The ’450 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA denies the allegations in Paragraph 28.
`
`
`
`V.
`
`29.
`
`The ’512 Patent
`
`On March 30, 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512 (“the ’512 patent”), entitled
`
`“Method and Apparatus Using Cell-Specific and Common Pilot Subcarriers in
`
`multi-Carrier, Multi Cell Wireless Communication Networks.” A copy of the ’512
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 106, PageID.8369 Filed 12/16/22 Page 14 of 88
`
`patent is attached as Exhibit 5.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA admits that U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512 (“the ’512
`
`patent”) is entitled “Method and Apparatus Using Cell-Specific and Common Pilot
`
`Subcarriers in multi-Carrier, Multi Cell Wireless Communication Networks” and
`
`lists the issue date on the face of the patent as March 30, 2021. MBUSA admits
`
`that a purported copy of the ’512 patent is attached as Exhibit 5 to the Complaint.
`
`MBUSA denies that the ’512 patent was properly issued.
`
`
`
`30.
`
`The ’512 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 17/012,813,
`
`which was filed by Neo Wireless on September 4, 2020.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA admits Exhibit 5 indicates it was issued from U.S.
`
`Patent Application 17/012,813, filed on September 4, 2020. MBUSA denies that
`
`the ’512 patent was properly issued. MBUSA is without knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph
`
`30, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`31.
`
`The ’512 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA denies the allegations in Paragraph 31.
`
`
`
`VI.
`
`The ’302 Patent
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 106, PageID.8370 Filed 12/16/22 Page 15 of 88
`
`32.
`
`On September 8, 2020, the United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 10,771,302 (“the ’302 patent”),
`
`entitled “Channel Probing Signal for a Broadband Communication System.” A
`
`copy of the ‘302 patent is attached as Exhibit 6.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA admits that U.S. Patent No. 10,771,302 (“the ’302
`
`patent”) is entitled “Method and System for Multi-Carrier Packet Communication
`
`with Reduced Overhead” and lists the issue date on the face of the patent as
`
`September 8, 2020. MBUSA admits that a purported copy of the ’302 patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit 6 to the Complaint. MBUSA denies that the ’302 patent was
`
`properly issued.
`
`
`
`33.
`
`The ’302 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 15/953,950,
`
`which was filed on April 16, 2018 and was assigned from Neocific, Inc. to CFIP
`
`NCF LLC on November 22, 2019 before it was assigned to Neo Wireless LLC on
`
`January 23, 2020.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA admits Exhibit 6 indicates it was issued from U.S.
`
`Patent Application 15/953,950, filed on April 16, 2018. MBUSA denies that the
`
`’302 patent was properly issued. MBUSA is without knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph
`
`33, and therefore denies them.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 106, PageID.8371 Filed 12/16/22 Page 16 of 88
`
`
`
`34.
`
`The ’302 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA denies the allegations in Paragraph 34.
`
`
`
`35.
`
`Neo Wireless owns all rights, title, and interest in and to each of the
`
`’366, ’908, ’941, ’450, ’512, and ’302 patents (the “Asserted Patents”) and possesses
`
`all rights of recovery.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form
`
`a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 35, and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`36.
`
`Inventor Xiaodong (Alex) Li, Ph.D. founded Neocific Inc. in the
`
`early 2000s to design, develop, and implement a new wireless communication
`
`system. He and his co-inventors had extensive experience with wireless
`
`communications systems, including the development of the Wi-Max standards, and
`
`a deep understanding of the flaws in existing systems at the time. The inventors
`
`saw an opportunity to create a new wireless communication system meant to
`
`address those flaws while incorporating cutting-edge Orthogonal Frequency-
`
`Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) based technologies, and, starting in the 2004-
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 106, PageID.8372 Filed 12/16/22 Page 17 of 88
`
`2005 timeframe, they filed patents on the work.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form
`
`a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 36, and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`
`
`37.
`
`Dr. Li served as the President and Founder of Neocific. Dr. Li
`
`obtained his Ph.D. in electrical engineering from the University of Washington, his
`
`M.S. from Shanghai Jiao Tong University, and his B.S. from Tsinghua University.
`
`Dr. Li has authored more than 30 journal and conference papers in wireless
`
`communications, video coding, and networking. He has been granted more than
`
`100 U.S. and foreign patents.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form
`
`a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 37, and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`
`
`38.
`
`Dr. Titus Lo, Ph.D. is a founding employee of Neocific. Dr. Lo
`
`obtained his Ph.D. in electrical engineering from McMaster University and his B.S.
`
`from the University of British Columbia. Dr. Lo has authored more than 30
`
`technical papers in international peer-reviewed journals and presented more than 50
`
`times at industry events. He has been granted more than 100 U.S. and foreign
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 106, PageID.8373 Filed 12/16/22 Page 18 of 88
`
`patents.
`
`ANSWER: : MBUSA is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 38, and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`
`
`39.
`
`The inventions in the Asserted Patents relate to various
`
`improvements in OFDMA networks and corresponding user equipment, and those
`
`improvements have since been incorporated into the 3GPP standards for 4G/LTE
`
`and 5G/NR networks.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form
`
`a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 39, and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`
`
`40.
`
`Neo Wireless owns all substantial right, title, and interest in the
`
`Asserted Patents, and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement
`
`thereof.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form
`
`a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 40, and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 106, PageID.8374 Filed 12/16/22 Page 19 of 88
`
`41.
`
`David Loo is the CEO of Plaintiff Neo Wireless. Mr. Loo works and
`
`resides in Wayne, Pennsylvania. Mr. Loo has over a decade of experience as a
`
`licensing executive and patent attorney with a well-established track record of
`
`assisting companies, inventors and patent holders to ensure they are fairly
`
`compensated for their inventions.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form
`
`a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 41, and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`
`
`42.
`
`The wireless communication industry has been developing rapidly
`
`since Bell Labs developed the First Generation of modern commercial cellular
`
`technology in 1984. Multiple wireless communication technologies designated by
`
`generations emerged and brought new capacities to people all over the world. In
`
`2008, 3GPP created and finalized the LTE standards as an upgrade to 3G. The
`
`cellular industry recognized its major benefits, and virtually all cellular device
`
`manufacturers have embraced LTE as the next generation of commercial cellular
`
`technology and developed phones, hotspots, and other cellular-connectivity
`
`devices to utilize the 4G LTE technology.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form
`
`a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 42, and therefore denies
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 106, PageID.8375 Filed 12/16/22 Page 20 of 88
`
`them.
`
`
`
`43.
`
`In recent years, automakers have implemented this cellular
`
`communications technology into their vehicles. For example, telematics systems
`
`first debuted in 1996 through OnStar using analog cell networks, which allowed
`
`consumers to receive remote diagnostics, remotely unlock vehicles, and receive
`
`emergency services including aid after a collision. In 2007, 3G technology emerged
`
`bringing greater speed and capacity to these features, allowing automakers to design
`
`more advanced functions.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form
`
`a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 43, and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`
`
`44. When the technology emerged, Mercedes began implementing the
`
`newest 4G LTE cellular technology into many of its products. 4G LTE technology
`
`provided for 10 times faster data speeds, increased responsiveness, and the ability to
`
`support voice and data connections simultaneously. 4G LTE connection further
`
`provided consumers with a variety of in-vehicle Wi-Fi hotspots and vast
`
`entertainment options. As a result, Mercedes could better support a variety of
`
`wireless features including remote start, remote lock and unlock, vehicle location
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 106, PageID.8376 Filed 12/16/22 Page 21 of 88
`
`services, vehicle data diagnostics, navigation, In-Car Wi-Fi, etc.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA admits that it distributes vehicles that may include
`
`what is purported to be “4G LTE technology.” MBUSA denies that it makes such
`
`vehicles. MBUSA does not design or manufacture said “4G LTE technology,” and
`
`therefore is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 44. MBUSA therefore denies the
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 44.
`
`
`
`45. Mercedes provides 4G LTE connectivity in its various products via
`
`the Mercedes Me Connect system integrated into the Accused Products.8
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA admits that it distributes vehicles that may include or
`
`use the Mercedes Me Connect System. MBUSA denies that it makes such
`
`vehicles. MBUSA does not design or manufacture any “4G LTE technology,” and
`
`therefore is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 45. MBUSA therefore denies the
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 45.
`
`
`
`46.
`
`Building on these 4G LTE capabilities, Mercedes developed and
`
`currently utilizes the Mercedes Me Connect app that enables its customers to interact
`
`with their vehicles from their cellular devices, using the cellular connectivity of the
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 106, PageID.8377 Filed 12/16/22 Page 22 of 88
`
`vehicles. Features on the Mercedes Me Connect app include remote start, unlocking
`
`and locking the vehicle, vehicle location finder, and vehicle data diagnostics.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA admits that it provides a Mercedes Me Connect app.
`
`MBUSA does not design or manufacture any “4G LTE technology” included in its
`
`products, and therefore is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 46. MBUSA
`
`therefore denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 46.
`
`
`
`47. Mercedes models that implement 4G/LTE communications—
`
`including but not limited to the GLA, GLC, GLE, GLS, G-Class, C-Class, A-Class,
`
`E-Class, EQS, S-Class, CLA, and GT models —as well as those that may in the
`
`future implement 4G/LTE or 5G/NR capabilities, are collectively referred to herein
`
`as the “Accused Products.”
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA admits that it distributes vehicles that may include
`
`what is purported to be “4G LTE technology.” MBUSA denies that it makes such
`
`vehicles. MBUSA admits that the Complaint accuses the products listed in
`
`Paragraph 47 of infringing the patents-in-suit, but denies that any of those products
`
`infringe any of those patents. MBUSA does not design or manufacture said “4G
`
`LTE technology” or “5G/NR technology,” and therefore is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 106, PageID.8378 Filed 12/16/22 Page 23 of 88
`
`Paragraph 47. MBUSA therefore denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 47.
`
`
`
`48. Mercedes’s Accused Products are configured to operate within
`
`4G/LTE and/or 5G/NR cellular networks and in communication with base stations
`
`and other network access points. The cellular networks and base stations are
`
`interoperable and implement the one or more releases of the 4G/LTE and 5G/NR
`
`standards from release 8 through at least release 17. The cellular networks, including
`
`the cell-serving base stations, are controlled and configured by various carriers and
`
`implemented using a variety of hardware and/or software. Additionally, each
`
`base station may operate differently based on the wireless conditions, location,
`
`and/or network configuration.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA admits that it distributes vehicles that may include
`
`what is purported to be “4G LTE technology.” MBUSA denies that it makes such
`
`vehicles. MBUSA does not design or manufacture said “4G LTE technology” or
`
`“5G/NR technology,” and therefore is without knowledge or information sufficient
`
`to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 48.
`
`MBUSA therefore denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 48.
`
`
`
`49.
`
`Additionally, the communications between MBUSA’s Accused
`
`Products and the serving base station include a multitude of signals back and forth
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 106, PageID.8379 Filed 12/16/22 Page 24 of 88
`
`in normal operation, such as when establishing connections, sending and receiving
`
`control information, sending and receiving reference signaling, communicating data
`
`in the uplink and downlink, obtaining networks parameters, etc. And Mercedes’s
`
`Accused Products do this across a potentially large range of time and locations,
`
`including across a variety of base station equipment and configurations and/or
`
`wireless conditions. As such, Mercedes’s Accused Products are configured to
`
`operate across the various modes, formats, and schemes defined in the 4G/LTE and
`
`5G/NR 3GPP standards.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA admits that it distributes vehicles that may include
`
`what is purported to be “4G LTE technology.” MBUSA denies that it makes such
`
`vehicles. MBUSA does not design or manufacture said “4G LTE technology” or
`
`”5G/NR technology,” and therefore is without knowledge or information sufficient
`
`to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 49.
`
`MBUSA therefore denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 49.
`
`
`
`50.
`
`As described further below and set forth in Exhibits 7–12, the
`
`Asserted Patents read onto portions of the 4G/LTE or 5G/NR standards, each of
`
`which Mercedes implements in its Accused Products. In particular, Mercedes
`
`and/or its customers and end users must practice one or more claims from each of
`
`the Asserted Patents in order to implement the 4G/LTE and/or 5G/NR standards in
`
`24
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 106, PageID.8380 Filed 12/16/22 Page 25 of 88
`
`the Accused Products. Thus, on information and belief, Mercedes’s
`
`implementation(s) of the 4G/LTE and/or 5G/NR standards necessarily infringes
`
`one or more claims of the Asserted Patents.
`
`ANSWER: MBUSA denies the allegations in Paragraph 50.
`
`
`
`51. Mercedes does not have any rights to the Asserted Patents.
`
`ANSWER: Paragraph 51 states a legal conclusion, to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is required, MBUSA is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph
`
`51, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`52.
`
`Neo Wireless has complied with 35 U.S.C. § 287. Neo Wireless
`
`does not make, offer for sale, or sell within the United States any patented article
`
`under the Asserted Patents. Additionally, to the extent it was necessary, Neo
`
`Wireless provided Mercedes with actual notice of its infringement prior to the
`
`filing of this lawsuit, or at a minimum by the filing of this Complaint.
`
`ANSWER: Paragraph 52 states a legal conclusion, to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is required, MBUSA admits that