Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 107, PageID.8471 Filed 12/16/22 Page 1 of 45
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`Case No. 2:22-md-03034-TGB
`
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-11770-TGB
`
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`v.
`
`
`FCA US, LLC
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
`AND DEFENSES TO NEO WIRELESS, LLC’S COMPLAINT
`Defendant FCA US LLC (“FCA”), by and through the undersigned
`
`attorneys, hereby responds by way of its First Amended Answer and Defenses to
`
`the Complaint (“Complaint”) of plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC (“Neo” or
`
`“Plaintiff”), as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`FCA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`2-3. FCA admits the allegations in these paragraphs.
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`Case No. 2:22-md-03034-TGB
`
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-11770-TGB
`
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`v.
`
`
`FCA US, LLC
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`DEFENDANT FCA US LLC’S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER
`AND DEFENSES TO NEO WIRELESS, LLC’S COMPLAINT
`Defendant FCA US LLC (“FCA”), by and through the undersigned
`
`attorneys, hereby responds by way of its First Amended Answer and Defenses to
`
`the Complaint (“Complaint”) of plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC (“Neo” or
`
`“Plaintiff”), as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`FCA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`2-3. FCA admits the allegations in these paragraphs.
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 107, PageID.8472 Filed 12/16/22 Page 2 of 45
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`The allegations of this paragraph are legal conclusions that do not
`
`require a response from FCA. To the extent the allegations require a response,
`
`FCA admits that the Complaint purports to set forth an action under 35 U.S.C. § 1
`
`et seq. FCA denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint.
`
`5.
`
`The allegations of this paragraph are legal conclusions that do not
`
`require a response from FCA. To the extent the allegations require a response,
`
`FCA admits that the Northern District of Ohio Court has subject matter jurisdiction
`
`for civil actions for patent infringement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a). FCA denies any remaining allegations in this paragraph of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`6.
`
`This paragraph of the Complaint states a legal conclusion and does
`
`not require a response from FCA. To the extent a response is required, FCA
`
`admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction over FCA, and denies the remaining
`
`allegations set forth in this paragraph of the Complaint and specifically denies that
`
`venue is convenient in this jurisdiction.
`
`7.
`
`The allegations of this paragraph are legal conclusions that do not
`
`require a response from FCA. To the extent a response is required, FCA admits
`
`that this Court has personal jurisdiction over FCA, and denies the remaining
`
`allegations set forth in this paragraph of the Complaint.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 107, PageID.8473 Filed 12/16/22 Page 3 of 45
`
`
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`FCA admits that it does business in Ohio and the Northern District of
`
`Ohio. FCA denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`10. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`11. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`12. FCA admits that the Toledo Assembly Complex has 3.64 million
`
`square feet of floor space over 312 acres of land. FCA denies the remaining
`
`allegations in this paragraph.
`
`13. FCA admits that some of its vehicles are assembled in the Toledo
`
`Assembly Complex. FCA denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`14. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`I.
`
`The ’366 Patent
`
`15. FCA admits that the title appearing on the face of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,467,366 (the ’366 patent”) is “Methods and Apparatus for Random Access in
`
`Multi-Carrier Communication Systems” and that a purported copy of the ’366
`
`patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 1. FCA is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in
`
`this paragraph of the Complaint and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`16. FCA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 107, PageID.8474 Filed 12/16/22 Page 4 of 45
`
`
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`17. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`II. The ’908 Patent
`
`18. FCA admits that the title appearing on the face of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,833,908 (the ’908 patent”) is “Channel Probing Signal for a Broadband
`
`Communication System” and that a purported copy of the ’908 patent is attached to
`
`the Complaint as Exhibit 2. FCA is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the
`
`Complaint and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`19. FCA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`20. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`III. The ’941 Patent
`
`21. FCA admits that the title appearing on the face of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,075,941 (the ’941 patent”) is “Methods and Apparatus for Multi-Carrier
`
`Communications With Adaptive Transmission and Feedback” and that a purported
`
`copy of the ’941 patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 3. FCA is without
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 107, PageID.8475 Filed 12/16/22 Page 5 of 45
`
`
`
`remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint and therefore denies those
`
`allegations.
`
`22. FCA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`23. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`IV. The ’450 Patent
`
`24. FCA admits that the title appearing on the face of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,447,450 (the ’450 patent”) is “Method and System for Multi-Carrier Packet
`
`Communication with Reduced Overhead” and that a purported copy of the ’450
`
`patent is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 4. FCA is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in
`
`this paragraph of the Complaint and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`25. FCA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`26. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`V. The ’512 Patent
`
`27. FCA admits that the title appearing on the face of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,965,512 (the ’512 patent”) is “Method and Apparatus Using Cell-Specific and
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 107, PageID.8476 Filed 12/16/22 Page 6 of 45
`
`
`
`Common Pilot Subcarriers in Multi-Carrier, Multi Cell Wireless Communication
`
`Networks” and that a purported copy of the ’512 patent is attached to the
`
`Complaint as Exhibit 5. FCA is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the
`
`Complaint and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`28. FCA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`29. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`VI. The ’302 Patent
`
`30. FCA admits that the title appearing on the face of U.S. Patent No.
`
`10,771,302 (the ’302 patent”) is “Channel Probing Signal for a Broadband
`
`Communication System” and that a purported copy of the ’302 patent is attached to
`
`the Complaint as Exhibit 6. FCA is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the
`
`Complaint and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`31. FCA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`32. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 107, PageID.8477 Filed 12/16/22 Page 7 of 45
`
`
`
`33. FCA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`34. FCA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`35. FCA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`36. FCA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`37. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`38. FCA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`39. FCA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 107, PageID.8478 Filed 12/16/22 Page 8 of 45
`
`
`
`40. FCA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint and therefore
`
`denies those allegations.
`
`41. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`42. FCA admits that some of its vehicles are optionally equipped with 4G
`
`LTE cellular technology. FCA further admits that some of its vehicles are
`
`optionally equipped with 4G Wi-Fi hotspot capability. FCA denies the remaining
`
`allegations in this paragraph.
`
`43. FCA admits some of its vehicles offer optional 4G LTE connectivity
`
`via Uconnect, SiriusXM Guardian, Jeep Connect, Ram connect, or Wagoneer
`
`Connect systems. FCA denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`44. FCA admits that features on some versions of the Uconnect app
`
`include remote start, unlocking and locking the vehicle, flashing the lights and
`
`sounding the horn, and finding the vehicles location via Vehicle Finder. FCA
`
`denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`45. FCA admits that certain vehicle models including the Jeep Cherokee,
`
`Compass, Wagoneer, Gladiator, Renegade, Wrangler models, and the RAM 1500,
`
`2500, 3500, Chassis Cab, and Promaster models may be optionally equipped with
`
`4G/LTE capable systems. FCA denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`46. FCA admits that certain vehicle models may be optionally equipped
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 107, PageID.8479 Filed 12/16/22 Page 9 of 45
`
`
`
`with 4G/LTE capable systems. FCA is without knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in this
`
`paragraph of the Complaint and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`47. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`48. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`49. FCA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`
`as to the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph of the Complaint and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`50. The allegations of this paragraph are legal conclusions that do not
`
`require a response from FCA. To the extent the allegations require a response,
`
`FCA is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations in this paragraph and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`51. This paragraph of the Complaint includes no allegations and,
`
`therefore, no response is required. To the extent that this paragraph requires a
`
`response, FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`FCA’S ACTS OF [ALLEGED] PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`52. FCA incorporates by reference all of the preceding paragraphs of this
`
`Answer.
`
`53. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`54. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 107, PageID.8480 Filed 12/16/22 Page 10 of 45
`
`
`
`55. FCA admits that it sells Jeep Cherokee, Compass, Wagoneer,
`
`Gladiator, Renegade, Wrangler models, and the RAM 1500, 2500, 3500, Chassis
`
`Cab, and Promaster models in the United States. FCA denies any remaining
`
`allegations in this paragraph.
`
`56. FCA admits that it sells Jeep Cherokee, Compass, Wagoneer,
`
`Gladiator, Renegade, Wrangler models, and the RAM 1500, 2500, 3500, Chassis
`
`Cab, and Promaster models in the United States. FCA further admits that FCA has
`
`at least four manufacturing facilities in the United States. FCA denies any
`
`remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`57. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`58. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`59. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`60. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`61. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`62. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`63. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`64. FCA admits that it received a letter from Neo in December 2021 that
`
`included a list of patents. FCA admits that it had actual knowledge of the Asserted
`
`Patents as of the date of service of this Complaint. FCA denies that the letter
`
`described how FCA’s vehicles infringe the Asserted Patents and denies the
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 107, PageID.8481 Filed 12/16/22 Page 11 of 45
`
`
`
`remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`65. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`66. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`COUNT ONE: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’366 PATENT
`
`67. FCA references and incorporates by reference all of the preceding
`
`paragraphs of this Answer.
`
`68. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`69. FCA denies the allegations of this paragraph.
`
`70. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`71. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`72. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`73. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`COUNT TWO: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’908 PATENT
`
`74. FCA references and incorporates by reference all of the preceding
`
`paragraphs of this Answer.
`
`75. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`76. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`77. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`78. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`79. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 107, PageID.8482 Filed 12/16/22 Page 12 of 45
`
`
`
`80. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`COUNT THREE: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’941 PATENT
`
`81. FCA references and incorporates by reference all of the preceding
`
`paragraphs of this Answer.
`
`82. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`83. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`84. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`85. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`86. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`87. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`COUNT FOUR: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’450 PATENT
`
`88. FCA references and incorporates by reference all of the preceding
`
`paragraphs of this Answer.
`
`89. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`90. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`91. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`92. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`93. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`94. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`COUNT FIVE: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’512 PATENT
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 107, PageID.8483 Filed 12/16/22 Page 13 of 45
`
`
`
`95. FCA references and incorporates by reference all of the preceding
`
`paragraphs of this Answer.
`
`96. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`97. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`98. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`99. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`100. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`101. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`COUNT SIX: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’302 PATENT
`
`102. FCA references and incorporates by reference all of the preceding
`
`paragraphs of this Answer.
`
`103. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`104. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`105. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`106. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`107. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`108. FCA denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`109. FCA denies that Neo is entitled to any of the relief requested in
`
`paragraphs (a) through (g) of its Prayer for Relief or to any relief in any form
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 107, PageID.8484 Filed 12/16/22 Page 14 of 45
`
`
`
`whatsoever from FCA.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`110. Neo’s demand for a jury trial includes no allegations and, therefore,
`
`no response is required.
`
`DEFENSES
`
`111. FCA asserts the following defenses and in asserting such defenses
`
`does not concede that it bears the burden of proof as to any of them. Discovery has
`
`not yet begun, and therefore FCA has not yet collected and reviewed all of the
`
`information and materials that may be relevant to the matters and issues raised
`
`herein. Accordingly, FCA reserves the right to amend, modify, or expand these
`
`defenses and to take further positions as discovery proceeds in this case.
`
`FIRST DEFENSE: INVALIDITY
`
`112. One or more claims of the ’366 patent, ’908 patent, ’941 patent, ’450
`
`patent, ’512 patent, and ’302 patent (collectively “asserted patents”) are invalid for
`
`failure to satisfy the requirements of patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101,
`
`102, 103 and/or 112.
`
`SECOND DEFENSE: NON-INFRINGEMENT
`
`113. FCA does not infringe and has not infringed, willfully or otherwise,
`
`any valid claim of the asserted patents under any theory of infringement, including
`
`direct infringement, induced infringement, contributory infringement, joint
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 107, PageID.8485 Filed 12/16/22 Page 15 of 45
`
`
`
`infringement, literal infringement, or infringement under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents.
`
`THIRD DEFENSE: LICENSE AND/OR PATENT EXHAUSTION
`
`114. To the extent that one or more of FCA’s suppliers hold a license or
`
`other rights to the asserted patents and supplies licensed components and/or parts
`
`for assembly of or assembly into the accused products, Neo’s claims would be
`
`barred.
`
`FOURTH DEFENSE: MARKING AND NOTICE
`
`115. To the extent that Neo and/or any licensee of the asserted patents had
`
`an obligation and failed to mark products that fall within the claims of the asserted
`
`patents, Neo’s claims against FCA would be barred, in whole or in part, in
`
`accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`
`FIFTH DEFENSE: FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`116. Neo fails to state a claim against FCA upon which relief can be
`
`granted.
`
`117. FCA cannot be liable for indirect infringement before its receipt of the
`
`December 2021 letter, at least because FCA did not have notice of the asserted
`
`patents before that time. FCA cannot be liable for indirect infringement after its
`
`receipt of the December 2021 letter and Complaint, filed on July 15, 2022, at least
`
`because the December 2021 letter and Complaint do not put FCA on sufficient
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 107, PageID.8486 Filed 12/16/22 Page 16 of 45
`
`
`
`notice of any alleged infringement.
`
`118. To the extent Neo alleges that FCA has indirectly infringed and/or
`
`continues to indirectly infringe the Asserted Patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) or
`
`(c), Neo has failed to plead any facts that, if true, could render FCA liable for
`
`indirect patent infringement.
`
`SIXTH DEFENSE: PROSECUTION HISTORY ESTOPPEL
`
`119. Neo’s claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, by prosecution
`
`history estoppel based on statements, representations, and admissions made during
`
`the prosecution before the U.S. Patent Office of the patent applications that led to
`
`the asserted patents.
`
`SEVENTH DEFENSE: WAIVER, ESTOPPEL, AND UNCLEAN HANDS
`
`120. Neo’s claims against FCA are barred, in whole or in part, by one or
`
`more of the equitable doctrines of waiver, estoppel, and unclean hands because of
`
`Neo’s unreasonable and inexcusable delay in filing this litigation and/or its
`
`intervening actions both during prosecution of the asserted patents and between
`
`issuance of the asserted patents and the date of the filing of the Complaint.
`
`121. Despite that FCA and its predecessors have sold and publicly
`
`marketed the accused functionality for several years, Neo made no assertion of any
`
`claim against FCA until, at the earliest, FCA received the Complaint.
`
`122. FCA has been materially prejudiced by Neo’s delay in bringing its
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 107, PageID.8487 Filed 12/16/22 Page 17 of 45
`
`
`
`claim at least because the passage of so much time has potentially led to the loss of
`
`evidence that FCA could use in defending itself against Neo’s claims.
`
`EIGHTH DEFENSE: LIMIT ON DAMAGES
`
`123. Neo’s claims for damages, if any, against FCA for alleged
`
`infringement of the asserted patents are limited by 35 U.S.C. §§ 286 and/or 288.
`
`NINTH DEFENSE: UNCLEAN HANDS
`
`I. Named Inventors
`
`124. Upon information and belief, the named inventors of the Asserted
`
`Patents (Xiaodong Li, Titus Lo, Ruifeng Wang, Kemin Li, and Haiming Huang)
`
`were formerly employed by AT&T (or a subsidiary of AT&T) and/or Broadstorm
`
`Telecommunications, Inc. (“Broadstorm”).
`
`125. As discussed further below, upon information and belief, one or more
`
`of the named inventors incorporated into the Asserted Patents information
`
`misappropriated from Project Angel, AT&T, and/or Broadstorm.
`
`126. Xiaodong Li (also known as Xiaodong (Alex) Li) is listed as a co-
`
`inventor of each Asserted Patent. Upon information and belief, in 1996, Xiaodong
`
`Li was employed by a subsidiary of AT&T in the Wireless Systems Research
`
`Department. See Ex. A at 1257.1 As discussed further below, by 2000, Xiaodong Li
`
`
`
`1 Xiaodong Li was employed by Lucent Technologies from 1998 to 2000 in the
`Wireless Technology Research Department. Lucent Technologies was formerly
`17
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 107, PageID.8488 Filed 12/16/22 Page 18 of 45
`
`
`
`was a founding employee of Broadstorm. In 2002-2003, while employed by
`
`Broadstorm, or shortly thereafter, Xiaodong Li and another named inventor, Titus
`
`Lo, founded Walbell Technologies, Inc. (“Walbell”), a predecessor-in-interest to
`
`Neo Wireless.
`
`127. Titus Lo (also known as Titus Kwok-Yeung Lo) is listed as a co-
`
`inventor of each Asserted Patent. Upon information and belief, Titus Lo was
`
`employed by an AT&T subsidiary from 1997 to 2001 “developing OFDMA
`
`wireless system.”2 In 2002-2003, Titus Lo co-founded Walbell, a predecessor-in-
`
`interest to Neo Wireless along with Xiaodong Li.
`
`128. Ruifeng Wang is listed as a co-inventor of the ’450 patent. Ruifeng
`
`Wang was employed by an AT&T subsidiary from at least July 2000 to January
`
`2003, working on “[s]ystem design and technology innovation for broadband
`
`wireless systems (AT&T Angel Project).” See Ex. B (Ruifeng Wang LinkedIn
`
`Profile). Upon information and belief, Ruifeng Wang worked at a predecessor-in-
`
`interest to Neo Wireless from at least June 2004 to August 2008.
`
`129. Kemin Li is listed as a co-inventor of the asserted ’941 patent, ’302
`
`patent, ’908 patent, ’512 patent, and the ’366 patent (five of the six Asserted
`
`
`
`owned by AT&T. See https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bell-Laboratories (Nov.
`18, 2019).
`2 See “Seattle Communications (COM-19) Society Chapter,”
`https://labs.ece.uw.edu/ieee-comm/event_sep_30_2010.htm.
`18
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 107, PageID.8489 Filed 12/16/22 Page 19 of 45
`
`
`
`Patents). Upon information and belief, Kemin Li worked as a system engineer at
`
`Broadstorm from at least August 2000 to June 2003 and then a predecessor-in-
`
`interest to Neo Wireless from January 2004 to July 2005. See Ex. C (Kemin Li
`
`LinkedIn Profile).
`
`130. Haiming Huang is listed as a co-inventor of each Asserted Patent.
`
`Upon information and belief, Haiming Huang worked at Broadstorm from at least
`
`December 2000 to June 2003 and began working for a predecessor-in-interest to
`
`Neo Wireless in 2003.
`
`II. AT&T’s Project Angel
`
`131. Upon information and belief, McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc.
`
`(“McCaw”) began developing a wireless system project called “Project Angel” in
`
`the 1990s.3 AT&T purchased McCaw in 1994, including Project Angel. In the mid
`
`to late 1990s, AT&T further developed Project Angel—a wireless system
`
`incorporating orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (“OFDMA”)
`
`technology that used a base station and remote units to communicate data through
`
`the wireless system.4
`
`
`
`3 See https://www.rcrwireless.com/19970303/carriers/mccaws-project-angel-given-
`life-by-at-t-wireless-services.
`4 See “First Amended Answer, Defenses & Counterclaims of Cellco Partnership
`d/b/a Verizon Wireless,” Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Civ. No. 5:13-cv-01776-PSG,
`Docket No. 229-2 at 5-6 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2014).
`19
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 107, PageID.8490 Filed 12/16/22 Page 20 of 45
`
`
`
`132. Upon information and belief, during AT&T’s work on Project Angel,
`
`AT&T created a number of confidential documents, data, and source code related
`
`to Project Angel and OFDMA wireless communication systems.5 Upon
`
`information and belief, AT&T took measures to ensure the confidentiality of
`
`Project Angel and to prevent its disclosure, including, upon information and belief,
`
`marking related documents, data, and source code “proprietary” and/or
`
`“confidential,” covering windows in buildings with metalized film to prevent non-
`
`authorized personnel from electronically eavesdropping on AT&T personnel
`
`associated with Project Angel, and requiring employees working on Project Angel
`
`to sign a non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”).6 AT&T also applied for and obtained
`
`several patents related to Project Angel and OFDMA technology.7 AT&T offered
`
`Project Angel for sale as early as August 1999.8
`
`133. Upon information and belief, several named inventors of the Asserted
`
`Patents, including at least Xiaodong Li, Titus Lo, and Ruifeng Wang, were
`
`employed by AT&T or one of its subsidiaries, worked on Project Angel, and/or
`
`had access to AT&T’s wireless technology research and documentation.
`
`
`
`5 Id. at 6.
`6 Id.
`7 Id.
`8 See “Defendants’ Opposition to Adaptix, Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary
`Judgment Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f),” Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Civ. No. 5:13-
`cv-01776-PSG, Docket No. 394 at 10 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2014).
`20
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 107, PageID.8491 Filed 12/16/22 Page 21 of 45
`
`
`
`III. Broadstorm
`
`134. Upon information and belief, named inventor Xiaodong Li was
`
`employed by or interned with AT&T, and worked on Project Angel and/or
`
`OFDMA wireless communication systems. In the early 2000s, Xiaodong Li co-
`
`founded Broadstorm and later formed Walbell, a predecessor-in-interest to Neo
`
`Wireless, in 2002-2003.
`
`135. Upon information and belief, Xiaodong Li “proposed to strategically
`
`hire key Project Angel engineers from AT&T.” See Order Denying Summary
`
`Judgment, Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. et al, Civ. No. 5:13-cv-01776-PSG, Docket
`
`No. 404 at 4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2015).
`
`136. Other patents listing Xiaodong Li as a co-inventor have been litigated
`
`in federal cases. Fact discovery in these cases established a record that Broadstorm
`
`had “pretty much . . . everything . . . on [AT&T’s] engineering side” and “several
`
`AT&T technical documents related to Project Angel.” Id.
`
`137. Upon information and belief, several named inventors of the Asserted
`
`Patents, including at least Xiaodong Li and two additional named inventors
`
`(Kemin Li and Haiming Huang), were employed by Broadstorm and had access to
`
`or knowledge of AT&T’s wireless technology research and documentation,
`
`including Project Angel.
`
`IV. Neo Wireless
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 107, PageID.8492 Filed 12/16/22 Page 22 of 45
`
`
`
`138. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff Neo Wireless has previously
`
`operated under several names and/or identifiers, including without limitation
`
`Walbell Technologies, Inc. (“Walbell”), Waltical Solutions, Inc. (“Waltical”),
`
`CFIP NCF Holdings LLC (“CFIP), and Neocific, Inc. (“Neocific”).
`
`139. Upon information and belief, named inventors Xiaodong Li and Titus
`
`Lo founded Walbell in 2002-2003. Upon information and belief, Xiaodong Li,
`
`Kemin Li, and Haiming Huang possessed and continued to use AT&T
`
`documentation, information, and research that Broadstorm improperly obtained
`
`from former AT&T employees.
`
`140. Upon information and belief, Titus Lo and Ruifeng Wang possessed
`
`and continued to use AT&T documentation, information, and research from their
`
`former employment at AT&T.
`
`141. Upon information and belief, one or more of the named inventors
`
`incorporated into the Asserted Patents misappropriated information from AT&T’s
`
`wireless technology research, including Project Angel.
`
`V. Failure to Disclose
`
`142. Upon information and belief, the claimed inventions of the Asserted
`
`Patents were developed fully or in part while one or more of the named inventors
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 107, PageID.8493 Filed 12/16/22 Page 23 of 45
`
`
`
`was employed by AT&T and/or were developed using information illegally gained
`
`from former AT&T employees.
`
`143. Upon information and belief, Neo Wireless and/or its predecessors-in-
`
`interest did not identify AT&T, as an owner-in-interest, or Project Angel in
`
`connection with prosecution of the Asserted Patents.
`
`144. Upon information and belief, each named inventor failed to disclose
`
`AT&T, as an owner-in-interest, Project Angel, and other related wireless research
`
`they misappropriated from AT&T and Project Angel to the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) while prosecuting the Asserted Patents.
`
`145. Upon information and belief, one or more of the named inventors,
`
`including at least Xiaodong Li, Titus Lo, and Ruifeng Wang, were aware that
`
`Project Angel and AT&T’s wireless communication research was material to the
`
`patentability of the claims of the Asserted Patents.
`
`146. The ’366 patent. Upon information and belief, Xiaodong Li, Titus Lo,
`
`Haiming Huang, and Kemin Li signed an assignment agreement on April 8, 2005
`
`warranting that “Assignors own the Rights, and that the Rights are unencumbered”
`
`to US05/08169, a related predecessor application of the ’366 patent.
`
`147. Upon information and belief, at least Xiaodong Li and Titus Lo knew
`
`that materials filed in the ’366 patent were derived wholly or in part from AT&T’s
`
`Project Angel and/or AT&T’s proprietary and confidential materials without
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 107, PageID.8494 Filed 12/16/22 Page 24 of 45
`
`
`
`permission and that their ownership and right to assign such ideas, information, or
`
`materials were absent or questionable. Upon information and belief, Xiaodong Li
`
`and Titus Lo were aware of this at the time of the April 8, 2005 assignment and no
`
`later than December 5, 2014.9
`
`148. Upon information and belief, Neo Wireless and/or one of its
`
`predecessors-in-interest recorded the April 8, 2005 assignment on December 12,
`
`2019 as Reel/Frame 051258/0162. This document purported to convey ownership
`
`to Waltical, who then purported to convey ownership to Neo Wireless through a
`
`series of other assignments. Recordation of this document was an intentional act.
`
`Upon information and belief, this act intended to deceive the public of the true
`
`ownership of the ’366 patent.
`
`149. The ’941 patent. Upon information and belief, Xiaodong Li, Titus Lo,
`
`Haiming Huang, and Kemin Li signed an assignment agreement on April 8, 2005
`
`warranting that “Assignors own the Rights, and that the Rights are unencumbered”
`
`to US05/04601, a related application of the ’941 patent.
`
`
`
`9 See, e.g., Amended Answer and Counterclaims of ZTE (USA) Inc., Adaptix, Inc.
`v. ZTE Corporation, Civ. No. 6:13-cv-00443, Docket No. 111 at 15 (E.D. Tex.
`Dec. 5, 2014) (asserting that patents naming Dr. Li as co-inventor we
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
