Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 246, PageID.12736 Filed 06/20/24 Page 1 of 57
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN RE: NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`PATENT LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 246, PageID.12737 Filed 06/20/24 Page 2 of 57
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, Ford Motor Company (“Ford”), General
`
`Motors Company and General Motors LLC (collectively “GM”), Tesla, Inc.
`
`(“Tesla”), Nissan North America Inc. and Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation
`
`a/k/a Nissan Motor Acceptance Company LLC (collectively “Nissan”), FCA US
`
`LLC (“FCA”), Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor North America, Inc.,
`
`Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. and Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing
`
`North America, Inc. and Toyota Motor Credit Corporation (collectively “Toyota”),
`
`and American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and Honda Development & Manufacturing of
`
`America, LLC (collectively “Honda”) (together the “Defendants”) hereby move for
`
`summary judgment against Neo Wireless LLC (“Neo”) on the following grounds:
`
`(1) No infringement of Neo’s asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 10,075,941,
`
`10,447,450, 10,771,302 and 10,833,908 (the “Asserted Patents”);
`
`(2) No damages prior to commencement of suit for failure to mark patented
`
`products pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287 (a); and
`
`(3) No willful patent infringement.
`
`Defendants rely on the accompanying Brief in Support of this motion for
`
`summary judgment.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 246, PageID.12738 Filed 06/20/24 Page 3 of 57
`
`CONCURRENCE PURSUANT TO L.R. 7.1(a)
`
`Pursuant to L.R. 7.1(a), the parties met-and-conferred telephonically on
`
`June 14, 2024 regarding the relief sought in this Motion. Neo did not concur on any
`
`of the relief requested herein.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 246, PageID.12739 Filed 06/20/24 Page 4 of 57
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN RE: NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`PATENT LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-MD-03034-TGB
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`
`
`
`
`
`BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 246, PageID.12740 Filed 06/20/24 Page 5 of 57
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The Inventors Did Not Participate in the Development of the 4G LTE
`Standard that Neo Accuses of Infringement ......................................... 3
`
`Non-Infringement of the ’908 and ’302 Patents ................................... 3
`
`Non-Infringement of the ’941 Patent .................................................... 8
`
`D. Non-Infringement of the ’450 Patent .................................................... 9
`
`E.
`
`No Pre-Suit Damages and No Willful Infringement ...........................11
`
`A.
`
`The Accused Products Do Not Infringe the ’302 and ’908 Patents ....14
`
`1.
`
`The Accused Products Do Not Practice the Court’s “DSSS”
`Construction for the ’908 and ’302 Patents ..............................14
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`DSSS Signals Are Generated by Multiplying Information
`Bits and a Spreading Sequence .......................................15
`
`The accused 4G/LTE signals are not DSSS signals .......18
`
`The Accused Products Do Not Meet the DSSS
`Construction Under the Doctrine of Equivalents ...........22
`
`2.
`
`The Accused Products Do Not Meet the “assigned by”
`Limitation of the ’908 Patent ....................................................24
`
`The Accused Products Do Not Infringe the ’941 Patent .....................28
`
`The Accused Products Do Not Infringe the ’450 Patent .....................32
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D. Neo Is Not Entitled to Pre-Suit Damages Under 35 U.S.C. § 287(A) 34
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The Marking Requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 287 .........................34
`
`Neo Is Not Entitled to Pre-Suit Damages .................................35
`
`a.
`
`The Arctic Cat Letter Identified the Unmarked, Licensed
`Products ..........................................................................36
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 246, PageID.12741 Filed 06/20/24 Page 6 of 57
`
`
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Neo Failed to Show Compliance with § 287(a) .............36
`
`Neo’s Failure to Comply with the Marking Statute
`Precludes It from Recovering Any Damages Prior to
`Providing Actual Notice .................................................38
`
`Neo Failed to Provide Defendants with Actual Pre-Suit
`Notice of Alleged Infringement ......................................39
`
`E.
`
`Neo Cannot Prove Willful Patent Infringement ..................................41
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Legal Standard for Willful Patent Infringement .......................41
`
`Neo Cannot Prove Pre-Suit Willful Infringement ....................41
`
`Neo Cannot Prove Post-Suit Intentional Infringement .............44
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 246, PageID.12742 Filed 06/20/24 Page 7 of 57
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`
`Adrea, LLC v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.,
`
`2015 WL 4610465 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2015) ................................................................... 38
`
`Amsted Indus. v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co.,
`
`24 F.3d 178 (Fed. Cir. 1994)....................................................................................... 35, 39
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Rec. Prods. Inc.,
`
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017)....................................................................... 13, 34, 35, 36
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreations Prods. Inc.
`
`950 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ...................................................................................... 35, 38
`
`Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Baxalta Inc.,
`
`989 F.3d 964 (Fed. Cir. 2021)..................................................................................... 43, 45
`
`Brilliant Instruments, Inc. v. GuideTech, LLC,
`
`707 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013)......................................................................................... 22
`
`Clancy Sys. Int’l v. Symbol Techs., Inc.,
`
`953 F. Supp. 1170 (D. Colo. 1997) ................................................................................... 36
`
`Decisioning.com, Inc. v. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc.,
`
`527 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2008)......................................................................................... 22
`
`Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enters., Inc.,
`
`946 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................... 41, 45
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Sys. Inc.,
`
`2017 WL 2462423 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2017) .................................................................... 42
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`
`579 U.S. 93 (2016) ............................................................................................................ 41
`
`IMRA Am., Inc. v. IPG Photonics Corp.,
`
`2011 WL 13174666 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 14, 2011) ............................................................. 40
`
`Kasit IP US LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`
`2018 WL 10498197 (E.D. Tex. May 22, 2018) ................................................................ 36
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 246, PageID.12743 Filed 06/20/24 Page 8 of 57
`
`
`
`K-TEC, Inc. v. Vita-Mix Corp.,
`
`696 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2012)......................................................................................... 34
`
`Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc.,
`
`86 F.3d 1098 (Fed. Cir. 1996)........................................................................................... 37
`
`Michigan Motor Techs. v. Volkswagen AKG,
`
`472 F. Supp. 3d 377 (E.D. Mich. 2020) ...................................................................... 42, 43
`
`Netlist, Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc.,
`
`2024 WL 402182 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 11, 2024) ............................................................... 37, 38
`
`Nike, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`
`138 F.3d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1998)......................................................................................... 34
`
`Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc.,
`
`843 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................... 23
`
`Schwendimann v. Stahls', Inc.,
`
`510 F. Supp. 3d 503 (E.D. Mich. 2021) ...................................................................... 41, 43
`
`Team Worldwide Corp. v. Academy, Ltd.,
`
`2021 WL 1854302 (E.D. Tex. May 10, 2021) .................................................................. 38
`
`Trutek Corp. v. BlueWillow Biologics, Inc.,
`
`2024 WL 180851 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 17, 2024) .................................................... 37, 41, 44
`
`U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Acer, Inc.,
`
`2013 WL 4456161 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 16, 2013) .................................................................. 37
`
`Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co.,
`
`520 U.S. 17 (1997) ............................................................................................................ 22
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287 ................................................................................2, 12, 13, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40
`
`Other Authorities
`
`
`133rd Mtg. of the Acoustical Society of Am., Vol. 30 (1997) ....................................................... 17
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 246, PageID.12744 Filed 06/20/24 Page 9 of 57
`
`
`
`CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`1.
`
`Should the Court enter summary judgment of no infringement where
`
`there is no genuine dispute that the 4G LTE cellular communication standard that
`
`Neo accuses of infringing its four patents lacks limitations, as the Court has
`
`construed them, of each asserted patent claim?
`
`Defendants Answer: Yes.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Should the Court enter summary judgment of no pre-suit damages
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) where there is no genuine dispute that (i)
`
`
`
`
`
` (ii) Neo’s licensees did not mark their infringing products with those patent
`
`numbers, and (iii) Neo did not accuse the Defendants of infringing the Asserted
`
`Patents before the filing of Neo’s respective complaints against those Defendants?
`
`Defendants Answer: Yes.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Should the Court enter summary judgment of no willful patent
`
`infringement because there is no genuine dispute that, before and after Neo filed its
`
`complaints, the Defendants lacked the required intent to infringe those patents?
`
`Defendants Answer: Yes.
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 246, PageID.12745 Filed 06/20/24 Page 10 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`There is no genuine dispute that the cellular modem components of the MDL
`
`Defendants’ vehicles (the “Accused Products”) do not infringe Neo Wireless LLC’s
`
`(“Neo’s”) U.S. Patent Nos. 10,075,941 (“the ’941 Patent”), 10,447,450 (“the ’450
`
`Patent”), 10,771,302 (“the ’302 Patent”) and 10,833,908 (“the ’908 Patent”)
`
`(collectively the “Asserted Patents”). There is no infringement because:
`
`• for the ’302 and ’908 Patents, the 4G LTE Zadoff-Chu sequences on which
`
`Neo relies for the “random access signal” and the “probing signal”
`
`limitations of the asserted claims do not meet the Court’s “direct sequence
`
`spread spectrum signal” claim construction.
`
`• for the ’941 Patent, the 4G LTE “bitmap” on which Neo relies for the
`
`“mobile specific transmission parameter” limitation of the asserted claims
`
`is not “capable of indicating, as alternatives, both distributed subcarriers
`
`and localized subcarriers in the frequency domain as subchannel
`
`configurations” as required by the Court’s construction of that claim
`
`limitation.
`
`• for the ’450 Patent, Neo’s expert admitted that the 4G LTE control channel
`
`elements (“CCEs”) of the physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) do
`
`not satisfy the “N=2, 4, or 8” limitation.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 246, PageID.12746 Filed 06/20/24 Page 11 of 57
`
`
`
`The fact that the 4G LTE standard Neo points to does not infringe the Asserted
`
`Patents is unsurprising given the fact that—
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Because there is no genuine dispute that the Accused Products lack at least
`
`one limitation of each asserted claim of each Asserted Patent, the Court should enter
`
`summary judgment of no infringement.
`
`The Court should also enter summary judgment of no pre-suit damages under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287(a) because there is no genuine dispute that (i)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`, and (iii) Neo did not accuse the Defendants of infringing the Asserted
`
`Patents before the filing of Neo’s respective complaints against those Defendants.
`
`Finally, the Court should enter summary judgment of no willful patent
`
`infringement because there is no genuine dispute that, before Neo filed its
`
`complaints, the Defendants lacked knowledge of the Asserted Patents, and thus
`
`lacked the required intent to infringe those patents. Following the complaints, the
`
`Defendants advanced numerous and meritorious non-infringement and invalidity
`
`defenses confirming a complete lack of any knowing infringement.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 246, PageID.12747 Filed 06/20/24 Page 12 of 57
`
`
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`A. The Inventors Did Not Participate in the Development of the 4G LTE
`Standard that Neo Accuses of Infringement
`
`1.
`
`Neo alleged in its respective complaints against the MDL Defendants
`
`that their compliance with the 4G LTE standard in their cellular-connected vehicles
`
`infringes the Asserted Patents.
`
`2.
`
`
`
` Ex. 1,
`
`Li Dep. Tr., at 135:17-136:4, Ex. 2, Lo Dep., Tr. at 181:2-13; 183:1-12, Ex. 3, Wang
`
`Dep. Tr., at 59:17-19; Ex. 4, Marino Dep. Tr., at 148:14-20.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Id.
`
`B. Non-Infringement of the ’908 and ’302 Patents
`
`4.
`
`The ’302 and ’908 Patents relate
`
`to a “broadband wireless
`
`communication system where both the Multi-Carrier (“MC”) and Direct Sequence
`
`Spread Spectrum (“DSSS”) signals are intentionally overlaid together in both time
`
`and frequency domains.” ECF No. 28-7, PageID.218 at 2:39–42; ECF No. 28-3,
`
`PageID.129 at 2:42-45.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 246, PageID.12748 Filed 06/20/24 Page 13 of 57
`
`
`
`5.
`
`The ’908 Patent is a continuation of the ’302 Patent with common title,
`
`inventorship, and specifications.
`
`6.
`
`Asserted claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9 of the ’908 Patent require “a transmitter
`
`configured to transmit . . . a random access signal.” ECF No. 28-3, PageID.134 at
`
`cl. 1.
`
`7.
`
`The Court construed “random access signal” as “a direct sequence
`
`spread spectrum signal used as a random access signal.” ECF No. 198,
`
`PageID.11595.
`
`8.
`
`Asserted claim 23 of the ’302 Patent requires “a transmitter configured
`
`to form and transmit . . . the probing signal.” ECF No. 28-7, PageID.223 at cl. 23.
`
`9.
`
`The Court construed “probing signal” as “a direct sequence spread
`
`spectrum signal used as a probing signal.” ECF No. 198, PageID.11630
`
`10. A DSSS signal, as required by the Court’s constructions, is generated
`
`by modulating a spreading sequence with information bits. Ex. 5, Mahon Dep. Tr.
`
`at 571:3-6, 560:9-561:23, 564:8-23, 581:23-582:4; ECF No. 28-3, PageID.129-131
`
`at 2:67-3:3, 5:7-11.
`
`11. Such modulation is typically performed by multiplying a spreading
`
`sequence by information bits. Ex. 5 at 335:10-337:8, 559:3-10, 561:17-23, 564:8-
`
`23, 596:21-597:1; Ex. 6, Buehrer Reb. Rpt. at ¶ 40; Ex. 7, Bims Reb. Rpt. at ¶ 256.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 246, PageID.12749 Filed 06/20/24 Page 14 of 57
`
`
`
`12.
`
`In multiplying a spreading sequence by information bits, even if the
`
`information bits are all ones (“1s”), the spreading sequence is still multiplied
`
`(modulated) by the information bits. Ex. 5. at 572:15-573:5; Ex. 8, Bims Dep. Tr.
`
`at 149:5-6; Ex. 9, Buehrer Dep. Tr. at 141:16-22.
`
`13. Neo accuses LTE’s “random access preamble” to be the “random
`
`access signal” in the ’908 Patent. Ex. 10, Mahon Op. Rpt., Appx. J1 at ¶¶ 20-22.
`
`14. Neo accuses LTE’s Sounding Reference Signal (“SRS”) to be the
`
`“probing signal” in the ’302 Patent. Id., Ex., 11, Mahon Op. Rpt., Appx. M at ¶¶ 20-
`
`22.
`
`15. The accused random access preamble and the SRS are generated using
`
`Zadoff-Chu sequences. Ex. 10 at ¶¶ 20-22; Ex. 11 at ¶¶ 20-22; Ex. 12, 3GPP TS
`
`36.300 V8.12.0 at 21-22, 27–29, 40.
`
`16. Neo identifies only Zadoff-Chu sequences as the alleged DSSS
`
`sequences. Ex. 5 at 536:10-537:7.
`
`17. The Zadoff-Chu sequences used as the random access preamble and the
`
`SRS are not multiplied by information bits. Ex. 5 at 540:2-12.
`
`18. Claim 1 of the ’908 Patent requires a transmitter in a mobile station
`
`
`
`1 Dr. Mahon’s infringement opinions are similar for each Defendant and arise
`from the same 4G LTE standard. Defendants thus attach Dr. Mahon’s infringement
`opinions with respect to Ford, which are representative of his opinions with respect
`to other Defendants.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 246, PageID.12750 Filed 06/20/24 Page 15 of 57
`
`
`
`configured to “transmit, to the base station, a random access signal . . . , wherein the
`
`random access signal includes a sequence associated with the base station.”2 ECF
`
`No. 28-3, PageID.134 at cl. 1.
`
`19. The Court construed “associated with” as having its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning. ECF No. 198, PageID.11595.
`
`20. The Court also explained that, during a prior IPR proceeding involving
`
`the ’908 Patent, Neo “clearly and unmistakably told the PTO that ‘associated with’
`
`does not mean ‘assigned by.’” ECF No. 198, PageID.11592; see also id. at
`
`PageID.11593 (“Plaintiff’s arguments clearly and unmistakably indicate that
`
`‘associated with’ does not mean ‘assigned by.’ It would be ‘illogical to suggest’
`
`otherwise . . . to the extent that Plaintiff argues ‘associated with’ means ‘assigned
`
`by,’ the Court rejects that argument.”).
`
`21. Neo’s infringement expert, Dr. Mahon, confirmed his understanding
`
`that “the Court has found that ‘associated with’ does not mean ‘assigned by.’” Ex.
`
`37, Mahon Op. Rpt., Appx. R at ¶ 75.
`
`22. For the ’908 Patent, Dr. Mahon accuses the random access procedure
`
`in the 4G LTE standard. Ex. 10, Mahon Op. Rpt., Appx. J ¶¶ 18-23.
`
`23. Dr. Mahon explains, “[t]he LTE random access procedure comes in two
`
`
`
`2 All emphases in this brief have been added, unless otherwise indicated.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 246, PageID.12751 Filed 06/20/24 Page 16 of 57
`
`
`
`forms, i.e., either contention based random access or non-contention based random
`
`access.” Ex. 14, Mahon Op. Rpt. Appx. A ¶ 19.
`
`24. Dr. Mahon accuses both forms of random access procedures of
`
`infringing the ’908 Patent’s asserted claims. Ex. 5, at 495:24-496:6.
`
`25. For the non-contention based (also known as “contention free”) form
`
`of the 4G LTE standard’s random access procedure, Dr. Mahon admits that the
`
`accused sequence in the 4G LTE standard is assigned by the base station:
`
`Q Isn’t it true that in contention-free random access, the Zadoff-Chu
`sequence is assigned by the base station to the UE?
`
`THE WITNESS: The UE receives information from the target base
`station of which a Zadoff-Chu sequence, it should use to connect to
`it during handover.
`
`BY MR. CHU: Q Wasn’t that assigned?
`
`THE WITNESS: In that context, it’s certainly assigned and associated with
`that base station.
`
`Ex. 5, 496:8-21 (objections omitted).
`
`26. During deposition, Dr. Mahon explained: “[t]he Court says [‘associated
`
`with’] does not mean ‘assigned by,’ but that doesn’t exclude the possibility of being
`
`‘assigned by’ so long as it’s ‘associated with.’” Id. at 496:23-497:11.
`
`27. Dr. Mahon conceded that, if the Court’s construction excludes
`
`“assigned by,” then the non-contention based random access procedure in 4G LTE
`
`would not infringe any asserted claim of the ’908 Patent:
`
`Q. But if the construction actually excludes “assigned by,” would that
`-- would the contention-free random access procedure still meet
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 246, PageID.12752 Filed 06/20/24 Page 17 of 57
`
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’908 patent?
`
`THE WITNESS: Well, if the Court construed the term to say that even
`though it’s assigned by the target base station, it cannot be
`interpreted as “associated with,” then I’d have to accept that
`construction from the Court. I don’t see that.
`
`BY MR. CHU: Q. And if you accept that construction from the Court,
`then the contention-free random access procedure would not
`infringe the ’908 patent; correct?
`
`THE WITNESS: Well, under those tight constraints that the Court
`hasn’t issued, then I would have to reevaluate that, and most likely
`I would say that it wouldn’t be able to be associated with.
`
`Id. at 501:3-502:2 (objections omitted).
`
`C. Non-Infringement of the ’941 Patent
`
`28. The ’941 Patent relates to methods and apparatus for “adaptive
`
`transmission of wireless communication signals … where MCS (modulation and
`
`coding scheme), coding rates, training pilot patterns, TPC (transmission power
`
`control) levels, and subchannel configurations are jointly adjusted to adapt to the
`
`channel conditions.” ECF No. 28-4, PageID.146 at 2:33-38.
`
`29. Neo asserts claims 8, 13, and 14 of the ’941 Patent. Ex. 13, Mahon Op.
`
`Rpt. at ¶ 1.
`
`30. The Court construed the ’941 Patent claims to require “at a minimum,
`
`the mobile-specific transmission parameters are capable of indicating, as
`
`alternatives, both distributed subcarriers and localized subcarriers in the frequency
`
`domain as subchannel configurations.” ECF No. 198, PageID.11622.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 246, PageID.12753 Filed 06/20/24 Page 18 of 57
`
`
`
`31. The Court’s claim construction order states that the Court “agrees” that
`
`“the PTAB considered and expressly rejected Plaintiff’s argument based on the
`
`claim term ‘characterized’ to avoid a separate parameter that indicates these two
`
`alternatives.” Id. at PageID.11620.
`
`32. Neo alleges that the “mobile specific transmission parameter”
`
`limitation is met by “a bitmap indicating the resource blocks that are assigned to the
`
`UE.” Ex. 14, Mahon Op. Rpt., Appx. A at ¶69.
`
`33. The Accused Products do not infringe the asserted claims of the ’941
`
`Patent because the “bitmap” on which Neo relies for the “mobile specific
`
`transmission parameter” recited in the asserted claims is not “capable of indicating,
`
`as alternatives, both distributed subcarriers and localized subcarriers in the
`
`frequency domain as subchannel configurations” as required by the Court’s
`
`construction. Ex. 15, NEO-MDL_NI003955 (annotated); Ex. 16, Wells Reb. Rpt., at
`
`¶¶295-297.
`
`D. Non-Infringement of the ’450 Patent
`
`34. The ’450 Patent generally relates “to wireless communication and, in
`
`particular, to multi-carrier packet communication networks.” ECF No. 28-5,
`
`PageID.167 at 1:27–29. The ’450 Patent discloses “[a] system and method for
`
`minimizing the control overhead in a multi-carrier wireless communication network
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 246, PageID.12754 Filed 06/20/24 Page 19 of 57
`
`
`
`that utilizes a time-frequency resource.” Id., 2:45–47; Ex. 17, Wells Op. Rpt., at ¶¶
`
`100-107.
`
`35. Neo asserts claim 7 of the ’450 Patent. Ex. 13 at ¶ 1.
`
`36. Claim 7 of the ’450 Patent recites in relevant part, with emphasis added
`
`to the pertinent language, “the segment comprising N time-frequency resource units
`
`within a time interval, each unit containing a set of frequency subcarriers in a group
`
`of OFDM symbols, where N=2, 4, or 8; . . . .” ECF No. 28-5, PageID.173 at cl. 7.
`
`37. During his deposition, Neo’s expert, Dr. Mahon, testified that claim 7’s
`
`number of time-frequency resource units is limited to only 2, 4, and 8. Ex. 5 at
`
`220:23-225:11, 226:19-25, 227:22-231:4.)
`
`38. Dr. Mahon maps claim 7 of the ’450 Patent to the LTE standard. Ex. 5
`
`at 234:9-13.
`
`39. Dr. Mahon maps claim 7’s “segment comprising N time-frequency
`
`resource units” to the 4G LTE standard’s physical downlink control channel
`
`(PDCCH). Id. at 285:8-12.
`
`40. Dr. Mahon maps the claimed “time-frequency resource units” to the 4G
`
`LTE standard’s control channel elements (“CCEs”). Id. at 288:15-290:24.
`
`41.
`
`In the 4G LTE standard, the time-frequency resource units are not
`
`limited to 2, 4, and 8; rather, a PDCCH is formed by an aggregation of 1, 2, 4, or 8
`
`CCEs. Id. at 136:24-137:1; Ex. 14 at ¶¶ 60, 64.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 246, PageID.12755 Filed 06/20/24 Page 20 of 57
`
`
`
`E. No Pre-Suit Damages and No Willful Infringement
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 21, Neo v. Apple Complaint; Ex. 22, Neo v.
`
`LG Complaint. Neo never sued Samsung. Ex. 4 at 73:11-20.
`
`44.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 18 at
`
`NEO-AUTO_ 0092635-636; Ex. 23 NEO-AUTO_0092918 at 092919-20; Ex. 24
`
`NEO-AUTO_0094028 at 029.
`
`45. Neo alleges that Defendants practice the Asserted Patents based on their
`
`manufacture and sale of components complying with the 4G LTE standard, and
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 246, PageID.12756 Filed 06/20/24 Page 21 of 57
`
`
`
`concedes that the Cellphone Makers practice the same patents based on their
`
`manufacture and sale of products complying with the same standard. Toyota FAC
`
`¶¶ 49-50; Ford FAC ¶¶ 42-43; Honda FAC ¶¶ 45-46; Nissan FAC ¶¶ 45-46; GM
`
`FAC ¶¶ 46-47; Tesla FAC ¶¶ 44-45; FCA Compl. ¶¶ 45-46; Ex. 4 at 282:23-283:5.
`
`46.
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 4 at 147:11-15; 282:23-283:5; Ex. 25, Loo Dep. Tr., at 190:13-
`
`18; 191:25-192:3.
`
`47.
`
` Ex. 26, Neo’s Response to Common
`
`
`
`Interrogatory No. 9; Ex 4 at 283:11-17.
`
`48.
`
`
`
` Ex. 18 at NEO-
`
`AUTO_0092635; Ex. 19 at 0093055; Ex. 20 at 0094085; Ex. 4 at 282:16-19.
`
`49.
`
`
`
` Ex. 4 at 282:16-283-17.
`
`50. Before filing its complaints, Neo sent, or attempted to send, letters to
`
`each of the Defendants, except for GM. Ex. 27 (Neo’s November 29, 2021 letter to
`
`Honda); Ex. 28; Ex. 29; Ex. 30; Ex. 31; Ex. 32 (letters to each of Toyota, FCA,
`
`Nissan, Tesla, Ford).
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 246, PageID.12757 Filed 06/20/24 Page 22 of 57
`
`
`
`51. The stated purpose of Neo’s pre-suit letters was to “gauge [each
`
`automaker’s] interest in commercial discussions with Neo-Wireless, regarding
`
`Neo’s portfolio of standard essential patents.” Ex. 4. at 286:16-288:20 (discussing
`
`the letter to Honda), 288:4-289:6 (to other defendants).
`
`52. Neo’s pre-suit letters do not specifically allege infringement of the
`
`Asserted Patents, and do not demand that Defendants cease and desist use of any
`
`allegedly patented technology. Id. at 286:21-287:1.
`
`53. Neo’s letters do not identify any claims of any Asserted Patents
`
`practiced by any Defendant’s products. Ex. 4 at 286:25-288:20.
`
`54. Neo’s pre-suit letters attached a list of the approximately 180 patents in
`
`Neo’s portfolio. Id.
`
`55. On May 4, 2023, Defendants sent Neo a letter invoking the Federal
`
`Circuit’s decision in Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Rec. Prods. Inc., 876 F.3d 1350
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Arctic Cat I”). Ex. 33, 2023-05-04 Letter from Defendants to Neo.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Id. at 2-3.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 246, PageID.12758 Filed 06/20/24 Page 23 of 57
`
`
`
`56. Neo did not respond with any evidence that the Cellphone Makers’
`
`licensed products do not practice the Asserted Patents’ claims or they were marked
`
`with any Asserted Patents.
`
` ARGUMENT
`
`A. The Accused Products Do Not Infringe the ’302 and ’908 Patents
`
`1.
`
`The Accused Products Do Not Practice the Court’s “DSSS”
`Construction for the ’908 and ’302 Patents
`
`The Court held—over Neo’s objection—that each asserted claim of the ’908
`
`and ’302 Patents require “a direct sequence spread spectrum signal.” Specifically,
`
`the Court construed the ’908 Patent’s claim term “random access signal” as “a direct
`
`sequence spread spectrum signal used as a random access signal.” ECF No. 198,
`
`PageID.11595. And the Court construed the ’302 Patent’s claim term “probing
`
`signal” as “a direct sequence spread spectrum signal used as a probing signal.” Id. at
`
`PageID.11603.
`
`As all experts on both sides agree, DSSS signals are a particular type of spread
`
`spectrum signal generated by multiplying (modulating) information bits and a
`
`spreading sequence. Ex. 7, Bims Reb. Rpt., at ¶¶ 256-262, 353-359 (quoting
`
`numerous textbook descriptions of DSSS signals); Ex. 6 at ¶¶ 39-55 (same); Ex. 34,
`
`Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, Vol. 30 at 5 (similar description in Neo’s
`
`expert’s thesis). But DSSS signals are not used in the 4G/LTE standard. Ex. 7 at ¶¶
`
`263, 360 (“The working group that developed 4G/LTE chose not to include DSSS
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 246, PageID.12759 Filed 06/20/24 Page 24 of 57
`
`
`
`in 4G/LTE.”); Ex. 8 at 141:4-5 (“[I]n an LTE system, there are no DSSS signals to
`
`begin with.”).
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. 35, Mayo Rpt., at ¶¶ 56, 100.
`
`Rather than dropping its infringement allegations after the Court’s claim
`
`construction, Neo instead argued that the 4G LTE standard’s use of Zadoff-Chu
`
`sequences somehow satisfies the patents’ claim requirement of a DSSS signal. Ex.
`
`5 at 535:20-21 (“In my infringement analysis, I’m pointing to a Zadoff-Chu
`
`sequence.”). But Zadoff-Chu sequences are not DSSS signals.
`
`a.
`
`DSSS Signals Are Generated by Multiplying Information
`Bits and a Spreading Sequence
`
`In its Markman Order, the Court recognized that “[t]he fundamental aspect of
`
`the invention is the concept of overlaying or overlapping a Multi-Carrier (MC) signal
`
`with a Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum (DSSS) signal in both the time and
`
`frequency domains.” ECF No. 198, PageID.11596, 11623. As the Court noted,
`
`the ’908 and ’302 Patents first provide an overview of the advantages and
`
`disadvantages of the MC and DSSS signals, and then disclose the invention as “a
`
`broadband wireless communication system where both the MC and DSSS signals
`
`are intentionally overlaid together in both time and frequency domains” to take
`
`advantage of both techniques by “mitigat[ing] their weaknesses.” ECF No. 198,
`
`PageID.11596-11597, 11624-11625. (quoting ’908 Patent at 2:42–47). After an
`
`extensive review of
`
`the patents’ common specification, ECF No. 198,
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 246, PageID.12760 Filed 06/20/24 Page 25 of 57
`
`
`
`PageID.11597-11603, 11625-11630, the Court held that the ’908 Patent’s claimed
`
`“random access signal” and the ’302 Patent’s “probing signal” must be “DSSS
`
`signals.”
`
`DSSS signals are a type of signal well-known in this field that are generated
`
`by multiplying (modulating) a spreading sequence (sometimes called a “DSSS
`
`sequence”) by information bits. The patents themselves confirm that “the DSSS
`
`sequence is modulated by the information bits.” ECF No. 28-3, PageID.131 at 5:8-
`
`9. This multiplication of information bits with a spreading sequence is shown in
`
`annotated Figure 8 of these Patents illustrating spread spectrum transmitter signal
`
`processing:
`
`ECF No. 28-3, PageID.118 at Fig. 8 (annotated); Ex. 5 at 552:12-557:24 (discussing
`
`Figure 8’s “Multi-Carrier Transmitter Signal Processing” block), 559:3-566:12
`
`(discussing Figure 8’s “Spread Spectrum Transmitter Signal Processing” block,
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 246, PageID.12761 Filed 06/20/24 Page 26 of 57
`
`
`
`including its multiplication operation to generate a DSSS signal); see also id. at
`
`335:10-336:8 (“[I]n general, when you modulate something, you are multiplying or
`
`applying a mathematical operation of some sort, or shifting a frequency of a
`
`signal.”).
`
`The technical literature reflects this common understanding of a DSSS signal
`
`as being generated through the multiplication of a spreading sequence with
`
`information bits. See, e.g., Ex. 7 at ¶¶ 257-262, 353-359 (citing and quoting five
`
`definitions, including three textbooks, each explaining DSSS signals are formed by
`
`“multiplication” of information bits and spreading sequences); Ex. 6 at ¶¶ 39-55
`
`(citing and quoting four definitions for same). Neo’s own expert’s thesis, as
`
`published, describes a DSSS signal as obtained by this “multiplication.” Ex. 36,
`
`Mark P. Mahon et al., “Atmospheric Multipath Resolution Using Spread Spectrum
`
`Acoustic Signals,” 133rd Mtg. of the Acoustical Society of Am., Vol. 30 (1997) at 5
`
`(“The spread-spectrum signal is then obtained by multiplication of the maximal
`
`length sequence with the sinusoidal carrier.”).
`
`All the experts therefore agree on what a DSSS s