Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 108, PageID.8543 Filed 12/16/22 Page 1 of 75
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 2:22-md-03034-TGB
`
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-11402-TGB
`
`Hon. Terrence G. Berg
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S AMENDED ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) amends its response to to Plaintiff Neo Wireless,
`
`LLC’s (“Neo”) First Amended Complaint (“Complaint”) as follows:
`
`GENERAL DENIAL
`
`Unless specifically admitted below, Ford denies each and every allegation contained in
`
`Paragraphs 1-108 of Neo’s Complaint, and Ford denies that Neo is entitled to any relief, including
`
`that requested in its Prayer for Relief.
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business located in Wayne, Pennsylvania.
`
`ANSWER: Ford is without 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, Ford is organized and existing under the laws of
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 108, PageID.8544 Filed 12/16/22 Page 2 of 75
`
`
`
`Delaware, with its principal place of business at 1 American Road, Dearborn, Michigan 48126.
`
`Ford may be served through its registered agent, The Corporation Company, at 120 South Central
`
`Avenue, Clayton, Missouri 63105.
`
`ANSWER: Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 2.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This action includes a claim of patent infringement arising under the patent laws of
`
`the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
`
`ANSWER: Ford 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 Ford 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: Ford 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). Ford denies
`
`there is subject matter jurisdiction for this particular action because Ford has not committed any
`
`infringing act related to any of the patents asserted in the Complaint.
`
`5.
`
`Venue is proper in the Western District of Missouri under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)
`
`because, on information and belief, Ford (1) has committed acts of infringement in the Western
`
`District of Missouri and (2) has a regular and established place of business in the Western District
`
`of Missouri.
`
`ANSWER: To the extent Paragraph 5 sets forth legal conclusions, no response is
`
`required. Ford does not contest venue in the Western District of Missouri, but reserves the right
`
`to seek transfer to a more appropriate or convenient forum. Ford denies it has committed any
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 108, PageID.8545 Filed 12/16/22 Page 3 of 75
`
`
`
`infringing act, in the Western District of Missouri or elsewhere, related to any of the patents
`
`asserted in the Complaint.
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, Ford owns and operates an assembly plant located at
`
`8121 US-69, Claycomo, Missouri 64119, which is in the Western District of Missouri. Upon
`
`information and belief, this facility manufactures infringing products, including the Ford F-150.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Ford F-Series are the best selling vehicles in the United States.
`
`Upon information and belief, Ford’s Claycomo plant is over 4 million square feet and employs
`
`over 7,000 people. Upon information and belief, Ford’s Claycomo plant manufactures more
`
`vehicles than any other facility in the United States and is the largest tax generator in Clay County,
`
`MO.
`
`ANSWER: Ford admits it owns and operates an assembly plant located at 8121 US-69,
`
`Claycomo, Missouri 64119. Ford admits that it has manufactured at least one Ford F-150 at that
`
`facility. Ford admits that Car and Driver reported Ford sold over 700,000 F-Series in the United
`
`States in 2021. Ford admits this facility’s site is 1,269 acres and employs over 7,000 people. Ford
`
`denies that the Ford F-150 infringes any of the patents asserted in the Complaint. Ford further
`
`denies it manufactures any infringing products, at this or any other facility. Ford is without
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 6, and therefore denies the same.
`
`7.
`
`Ford is subject to the Western District of Missouri’s specific personal jurisdiction
`
`due at least to Ford’s substantial business activities in the Western District of Missouri, including
`
`(1) at least a portion of the infringements alleged herein; (2) maintaining a regular and established
`
`place of business; and/or (3) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent
`
`courses of conduct, and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 108, PageID.8546 Filed 12/16/22 Page 4 of 75
`
`
`
`individuals in Missouri and in the Western District of Missouri.
`
`ANSWER:
`
` Ford admits it has done business in the Western District of Missouri. Ford
`
`denies it has committed any infringing act, in the Western District of Missouri or elsewhere, related
`
`to any of the patents asserted in the Complaint. Except as expressly admitted herein, to the extent
`
`that Paragraph 7 contains any other allegations of fact directed to Ford, they are denied. To the
`
`extent that Paragraph 7 contains conclusions of law as opposed to allegations of fact, no answer is
`
`required. To the extent an answer is deemed required, Ford denies the same.
`
`8.
`
`Ford does and intends to do business in Missouri and in the Western District of
`
`Missorui, directly or through intermediaries, and offer their products and/or services, including
`
`those accused herein of infringement, to customers and potential customers located in Missouri
`
`and in the Western District of Missouri.
`
`ANSWER: Ford admits it has done business in the Western District of Missouri, which
`
`is located in Missouri. Ford denies it has committed any infringing act, in the Western District of
`
`Missouri 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
`
`Ford, they are denied. To the extent that Paragraph 8 contains conclusions of law as opposed to
`
`allegations of fact, no answer is required. To the extent an answer is deemed required, Ford denies
`
`the same.
`
`9.
`
`Ford, both directly and through its subsidiaries or intermediaries (including
`
`distributors, retailers, and others), have purposefully and 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 the Western
`
`District of Missouri.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 108, PageID.8547 Filed 12/16/22 Page 5 of 75
`
`
`
`ANSWER: Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 9.
`
`10.
`
`These infringing products and/or services have been and continue to be made, used,
`
`sold, offered for sale, purchased, and/or imported by customers and/or consumers in the Western
`
`District of Missouri.
`
`ANSWER: Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 10.
`
`11.
`
`Defendant has placed the Accused Products into the stream of commerce by
`
`making, selling, and/or offering to sell Accused Products in the Western District of Missouri,
`
`shipping Accused Products into the Western District of Missouri, and/or shipping Accused
`
`Products knowing that those products would be shipped into the Western District of Missouri.
`
`ANSWER: Ford admits that it sells vehicles to independent dealerships, who sell their
`
`Ford vehicles to the public. Ford denies that it has committed any acts of patent infringement or
`
`that its motor vehicles and related products infringe any of the patents asserted in the Complaint.
`
`Ford denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 11.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`I.
`
`The ’366 Patent
`
`12.
`
`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 Systems.” A copy of the ’366 patent is attached
`
`as Exhibit 1.
`
`ANSWER: Ford admits that U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366 (“the ’366 patent”) is entitled
`
`“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. Ford admits that a purported copy of the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 108, PageID.8548 Filed 12/16/22 Page 6 of 75
`
`
`
`’366 patent is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Complaint. Ford denies that the ’366 patent was properly
`
`issued.
`
`13.
`
`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: Ford admits Exhibit 1 indicates it was issued from U.S. Patent Application
`
`13/205,579, filed on August 8, 2011. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form
`
`a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 13, and therefore denies them.
`
`14.
`
`The ’366 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`ANSWER: Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 14.
`
`II.
`
`The ’908 Patent
`
`15.
`
`On November 10, 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: Ford 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. Ford admits that a purported copy of the ’908 patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit 2 to the Complaint. Ford denies that the ’908 patent was properly issued.
`
`16.
`
`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.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 108, PageID.8549 Filed 12/16/22 Page 7 of 75
`
`
`
`ANSWER: Ford admits Exhibit 2 indicates it was issued from U.S. Patent Application
`
`16/902,740, filed on June 16, 2020. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form
`
`a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 16, and therefore denies them.
`
`17.
`
`The ’908 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`ANSWER: Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 17.
`
`III. The ’941 Patent
`
`18.
`
`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: Ford 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. Ford admits
`
`that a purported copy of the ’941 patent is attached as Exhibit 3 to the Complaint. Ford denies that
`
`the ’941 patent was properly issued.
`
`19.
`
`The ’941 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 15/082,878, which was 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 assigned to Neo Wireless LLC on
`
`January 23, 2020.
`
`ANSWER: Ford admits Exhibit 3 indicates it was issued from U.S. Patent Application
`
`15/082,878, filed on March 28, 2016. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form
`
`a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 19, and therefore denies them.
`
`20.
`
`The ’908 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 108, PageID.8550 Filed 12/16/22 Page 8 of 75
`
`
`
`ANSWER: Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 20.
`
`IV.
`
`The ’450 Patent
`
`21.
`
`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: Ford 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. Ford admits that a purported copy of
`
`the ’450 patent is attached as Exhibit 4 to the Complaint. Ford denies that the ’450 patent was
`
`properly issued.
`
`22.
`
`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: Ford admits Exhibit 4 indicates it was issued from U.S. Patent Application
`
`15/676,421, filed on August 14, 2017. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 22, and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`23.
`
`The ’450 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`ANSWER: Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 23.
`
`V.
`
`The ’512 Patent
`
`24.
`
`On March 30, 2021, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 108, PageID.8551 Filed 12/16/22 Page 9 of 75
`
`
`
`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 patent is attached as Exhibit 5.
`
`ANSWER: Ford 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. Ford admits that a purported copy of the ’512 patent is attached as Exhibit 5 to the
`
`Complaint. Ford denies that the ’512 patent was properly issued.
`
`25.
`
`The ’512 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 17/012,813, which was filed
`
`by Neo Wireless on September 4, 2020.
`
`ANSWER: Ford admits Exhibit 5 indicates it was issued from U.S. Patent Application
`
`17/012,813, filed on September 4, 2020. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 25, and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`26.
`
`The ’512 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`ANSWER: Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 26.
`
`VI.
`
`The ’302 Patent
`
`27.
`
`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 “Method and System for
`
`Multi-Carrier Packet Communication with Reduced Overhead.” A copy of the ’302 patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit 6.
`
`ANSWER: Ford 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
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 108, PageID.8552 Filed 12/16/22 Page 10 of 75
`
`
`
`the issue date on the face of the patent as September 8, 2020. Ford admits that a purported copy
`
`of the ’302 patent is attached as Exhibit 6 to the Complaint. Ford denies that the ’302 patent was
`
`properly issued.
`
`28.
`
`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: Ford admits Exhibit 6 indicates it was issued from U.S. Patent Application
`
`15/953,950, filed on April 16, 2018. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form
`
`a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 28, and therefore denies them.
`
`29.
`
`The ’302 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`ANSWER: Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 29.
`
`30.
`
`Neo Wireless owns all rights, title, and interest in and to each of the ’366, ’908,
`
`’941, ’450, ’512, and ’302 patents (the “Patents-in-Suit” or “Asserted Patents”) and possesses all
`
`rights of recovery.
`
`ANSWER: Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 30, and therefore denies them.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`31.
`
`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 2004–2005 timeframe, they filed patents on the
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 108, PageID.8553 Filed 12/16/22 Page 11 of 75
`
`
`
`work.
`
`ANSWER: Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 31, and therefore denies them.
`
`32.
`
`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: Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 32, and therefore denies them.
`
`33.
`
`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 patents.
`
`ANSWER: Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 33, and therefore denies them.
`
`34.
`
`The inventions in the Patents-in-Suit 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: Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 34, and therefore denies them.
`
`35.
`
`Neo Wireless owns all substantial right, title, and interest in the Patents-in-Suit, and
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 108, PageID.8554 Filed 12/16/22 Page 12 of 75
`
`
`
`holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof.
`
`ANSWER: Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 35, and therefore denies them.
`
`36.
`
`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: Ford 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.
`
`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: Ford 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.
`
`In recent years, automakers have implemented this cellular communications
`
`technology into their vehicles. 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 after a collision. In 2007, 3G technology emerged,
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 108, PageID.8555 Filed 12/16/22 Page 13 of 75
`
`
`
`bringing greater speed and capacity to these features and allowing automakers to design more
`
`advanced functions.
`
`ANSWER: Ford 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. When the technology emerged, Ford 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 provides consumers with a variety of in-vehicle Wi-
`
`Fi hot spots and vast entertainment options. As a result, Ford could better support a variety of
`
`wireless features, including remote lock and unlock, remote start and remote start scheduling,
`
`parked vehicle location, Vehicle Health Alerts, remote fuel level checks, and Wi-Fi hotspot.
`
`ANSWER: Ford admits that it makes, uses, and sells vehicles including a 4G multimode
`
`modem that is supplied to Ford for installation on Ford vehicles. Because Ford does not
`
`manufacture those modems, Ford cannot admit or deny the extent to which those modems comply
`
`with the applicable telecommunications standards, including the LTE, 4G, 5G, and/or NR
`
`standards referenced in the Complaint. The Complaint does not analyze the modems supplied to
`
`Ford for installation on Ford vehicles. Ford admits that some Ford vehicles may be used with Ford
`
`mobile applications, such as FordPass, which provide users the ability to remotely control certain
`
`aspects of properly equipped vehicles, including remote lock and unlock, remote start and remote
`
`start scheduling, parked vehicle location, certain vehicle health alerts, remote fuel level checks,
`
`and/or a Wi-Fi hotspot. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 39, and therefore denies them.
`
`40.
`
`Ford provides 4G LTE connectivity in its various products via FordPass Connect,
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 108, PageID.8556 Filed 12/16/22 Page 14 of 75
`
`
`
`SYNC Connect, and/or Lincoln Connect (collectively referred to as “FordPass”), which are
`
`integrated into its vehicles.
`
`ANSWER: Ford admits it has sold vehicles which include a 4G multimode modem that
`
`is supplied to Ford for installation on Ford vehicles. Ford further admits it incorporates FordPass
`
`Connect, SYNC Connect, and/or Lincoln Connect into one or more of its vehicles. The wireless
`
`modem provides wireless data communication. Because Ford does not manufacture those
`
`modems, Ford lacks sufficient information to admit or deny allegations of the extent to which
`
`those modems comply with applicable telecommunication standards. Ford denies the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 40.
`
`41.
`
`Building on these 4G LTE capabilities, Ford developed and utilizes the FordPass
`
`App and the Lincoln Way App (collectively, the “FordPass App”) that enable customers to
`
`connect, control, and interact with their vehicles from their cellular devices, using the cellular
`
`connectivity of the vehicles. Features on the FordPass App include remotely starting the vehicle,
`
`remotely locking and unlocking the vehicle, providing vehicle status information such as fuel or
`
`charge level and maintenance information, and receiving Vehicle Health Alerts when the vehicle
`
`needs attention.
`
`ANSWER: Ford admits that some Ford vehicles may be used with Ford’s FordPass or
`
`Lincoln Way mobile applications, which provide users the ability to remotely control certain
`
`aspects of properly equipped vehicles, including remote lock and unlock, remote start and remote
`
`start scheduling, parked vehicle location, certain vehicle health alerts, remote fuel level checks,
`
`and/or a Wi-Fi hotspot. The wireless modem included in certain vehicles provides wireless data
`
`communication. Because Ford does not manufacture those modems, Ford lacks sufficient
`
`information to admit or deny allegations of the extent to which those modems comply with
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 108, PageID.8557 Filed 12/16/22 Page 15 of 75
`
`
`
`applicable telecommunication standards. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 41, and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`42.
`
`Ford models that implement 4G/LTE communications—including but not limited
`
`to the Ford F-150, Explorer, Escape, EcoSport, Edge, Expedition, Super Duty, Fusion, Mustang,
`
`Transit, Ranger, Bronco, Maverick, and Lincoln Navigator, Aviator, Corsair, Nautilus, MKZ,
`
`MKC, MKS, MKX, and Continental models (and their different variants and trims)—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: Ford admits that it makes, uses, and sells vehicles having a supplied cellular
`
`modem component. Because Ford does not manufacture those modems, Ford cannot admit or
`
`deny the extent to which those modems comply with the applicable telecommunications standards,
`
`including the LTE, 4G, 5G, and/or NR standards referenced in the Complaint. The Complaint
`
`does not analyze the modems supplied to Ford for installation on Ford vehicles. Ford admits the
`
`products listed in Paragraph 42 are accused of infringing the patents-in-suit, but Ford denies any
`
`of the Accused Products listed in Paragraph 42 infringe any valid and enforceable patent asserted
`
`in the Complaint. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 42, and therefore denies them.
`
`43.
`
`Ford’s Accused Products are configured to operate within 4G/LTE and/or NR/5G
`
`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 NR/5G 3GPP standards from release 8 through at least release 17. The cellular
`
`networks, including the cell-serving base stations, are controlled by various carriers and
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 108, PageID.8558 Filed 12/16/22 Page 16 of 75
`
`
`
`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: Ford admits that it makes, uses, and sells vehicles that include a cellular
`
`modem component supplied to Ford for installation on Ford vehicles. Because Ford does not
`
`manufacture those modems, Ford cannot admit or deny the extent to which those modems comply
`
`with the applicable telecommunications standards, including the LTE, 4G, 5G, and/or NR
`
`standards referenced in the Complaint. The Complaint does not analyze the modems supplied to
`
`Ford for installation on Ford vehicles. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form
`
`a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 43, and therefore denies them.
`
`44.
`
`Additionally, the communications between Ford’s Accused Products and the
`
`serving base station include a multitude of signals back and forth 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 network
`
`parameters, etc. And Ford’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, Ford’s Accused Products are configured to operate across the various modes,
`
`formats, and schemes defined in the 4G/LTE and NR/5G 3GPP standards.
`
`ANSWER: Ford admits that it makes, uses, and sells vehicles that include a cellular
`
`modem component supplied to Ford for installation on Ford vehicles. Because Ford does not
`
`manufacture those modems, Ford cannot admit or deny the extent to which those modems comply
`
`with the applicable telecommunications standards, including the LTE, 4G, 5G, and/or NR
`
`standards referenced in the Complaint. The Complaint does not analyze the modems supplied to
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 108, PageID.8559 Filed 12/16/22 Page 17 of 75
`
`
`
`Ford for installation on Ford vehicles. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form
`
`a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 44, and therefore denies them.
`
`45.
`
`As described further below and set forth in Exhibits 7–12, the Asserted Patents read
`
`onto portions of the 4G/LTE or NR/5G standards, each of which Ford implements in its Accused
`
`Products. In particular, Ford 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 NR/5G standards in
`
`the Accused Products. Thus, on information and belief, Ford’s implementation(s) of the LTE/4G
`
`and/or NR/5G standards necessarily infringes one or more claims of the Asserted Patents.
`
`ANSWER: Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 45.
`
`46.
`
`Ford does not have any rights to the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`ANSWER: Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 46, and therefore denies them.
`
`47.
`
`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 Ford with actual notice of its
`
`infringement prior to the filing of this lawsuit, or at a minimum by the filing of this Complaint.
`
`ANSWER: Ford admits it received written communication from Neo prior to the filing
`
`of this lawsuit. However, Ford admits it received notice only as of service of the Complaint. Ford
`
`denies it has committed any infringing acts and denies any Accused Products infringe any valid
`
`and enforceable patents asserted in the Complaint. Ford is without knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 47, and therefore
`
`