throbber
Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 106, PageID.8356 Filed 12/16/22 Page 1 of 88
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket