Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 267, PageID.29081 Filed 07/18/24 Page 1 of 57
`FILED UNDER SEAL – PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`IN RE NEO WIRELESS, LLC
`PATENT LITIG.
`
`Case No. 2:22-md-03034-TGB
`HON. TERRENCE G. BERG
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`PLAINTIFF NEO WIRELESS, LLC’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION
`TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 267, PageID.29082 Filed 07/18/24 Page 2 of 57
`FILED UNDER SEAL – PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`
`COUNTER-STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ........................... 1
`A.
`Participation in 3GPP or ETSI ........................................................... 1
`B.
`Infringement of the ’908 and ’302 Patents ........................................ 1
`C.
`Infringement of the ’941 Patent ......................................................... 4
`D.
`Infringement of the ’450 Patent ......................................................... 6
`E.
`Pre-Suit Damages and Willful Infringement ..................................... 7
`II. THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS INFRINGE THE ’908 & ’302
`PATENTS .................................................................................................. 12
`A.
`The Accused Products Meet the Court’s Construction of Random
`Access Signal and Probing Signal Terms in the ’908 and ’302
`Patents. ............................................................................................. 12
`1. The Court Should Reject Defendants’ Eleventh Hour Attempt
` at Claim Construction. .............................................................. 13
`2. Neo Correctly Applies the Court’s Claim Constructions. ......... 14
`3. Defendants’ Reliance on German Proceedings Is Improper
` and Should Be Disregarded. ..................................................... 21
`The Accused Products Meet the Court’s Construction of Random
`Access Signal and Probing Signal Terms in the ’908 and ’302
`Patents Under the Doctrine of Equivalents. ..................................... 23
`1. Neo’s Doctrine of Equivalents Theory Does Not Vitiate the
`Court’s Construction of Random Access Signal or Probing
`Signal. ....................................................................................... 23
`2. Neo’s Theory Satisfies the Doctrine of Equivalents Tests. ...... 25
`The Accused Products Meet the Court’s Construction of
`“Associated With” in the ’908 Patent. ............................................. 27
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 267, PageID.29083 Filed 07/18/24 Page 3 of 57
`FILED UNDER SEAL – PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`1. Defendants’ Non-Infringement Argument Contradicts the
`Court’s Claim Construction of “associated with.” ................... 27
`2. For Both Procedures in LTE Random Access, the Zadoff-
`Chu Sequences Meet the Plain Meaning of the Claim. ........... 29
`3. To be Sure, Defendants’ Motion Does Not Affect the Merits
` of Any Claim or Defense in the Case. .................................... 31
`III. THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS INFRINGE THE ’941 & ’450
`PATENTS .................................................................................................. 31
`A.
`The Accused Products Infringe the ’941 Patent. ............................. 31
`B.
`The Accused Products Infringe the ’450 Patent. ............................. 35
`IV. NEO IS ENTITLED TO PRE-SUIT DAMAGES UNDER 35 U.S.C.
`§ 287 AND CAN PROVE WILLFUL PATENT INFRINGEMENT. . 37
`A. Defendants Have Not Shown that Summary Judgment of No Pre-
`Suit Damages is Appropriate. .......................................................... 37
`1. Under the Rule of Reason Inquiry, it Would be Unreasonable
` to Expect Neo to Force its Licensees to Mark. ........................ 38
`2. At Minimum, Neo is Entitled to Pre-Suit Damages for
`Infringing Acts
` and After Actual Notice. ... 39
`Defendants Have Not Shown that Summary Judgment of No
`Willful Infringement is Appropriate. ............................................... 43
`V. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 45
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 267, PageID.29084 Filed 07/18/24 Page 4 of 57
`FILED UNDER SEAL – PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED
`1. Whether, drawing all inferences in favor of Neo, a reasonable jury could
`
`conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that an LTE random access
`
`preamble is a “random access signal” and an LTE SRS is a “probing signal”
`
`for the asserted claims of the ’908 and ’302 Patents, respectively, under the
`
`Court’s constructions, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`a. Whether the Court ought to entertain new claim interpretation
`
`arguments for the terms “probing signal” and “random access signal”
`
`that were never raised during the claim construction process.
`
`b. Whether a DSSS signal must be generated by modulating (multiplying)
`
`a sequence with information bits contrary to the embodiments of the
`
`’908 and ’302 Patents.
`
`2. Whether a sequence is “associated with” a base station under the Court’s
`
`construction if it has an association with the base station that is independent
`
`of whether it is also assigned by the base station.
`
`3. Whether, drawing all inferences in favor of Neo, a reasonable jury could
`
`conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that the bitmap contained in the
`
`LTE downlink control message is a mobile station-specific transmission
`
`parameter capable of indicating, as alternatives, both distributed subcarriers
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 267, PageID.29085 Filed 07/18/24 Page 5 of 57
`FILED UNDER SEAL – PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`and localized subcarriers as subchannel configurations in accordance with the
`
`Court’s construction of the asserted claims of the ’941 Patent.
`
`a. Whether the Court’s construction of the asserted claims of the ’941
`
`Patent allows for a mobile station-specific transmission parameter to be
`
`capable of conveying other information as long as it is also capable of
`
`indicating, as alternatives, both distributed subcarriers and localized
`
`subcarriers as subchannel configurations.
`
`4. Whether, drawing all inferences in favor of Neo, a reasonable jury could
`
`conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that the LTE PDCCH is a
`
`“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,” as recited in claim 7 of the ’450 Patent.
`
`5. Whether, drawing all inferences in favor of Neo, Neo is entitled to pre-suit
`
`damages under 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`
`a. Whether Neo complied with § 287 under the rule of reason.
`
`b. Whether Neo is entitled to pre-suit damages for infringing acts prior to
`
`licensing its patents and for infringing acts after providing notice letters
`
`to Defendants.
`
`6. Whether, drawing all inferences in favor of Neo, a reasonable jury could
`
`conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendants willfully
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 267, PageID.29086 Filed 07/18/24 Page 6 of 57
`FILED UNDER SEAL – PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`infringed the Asserted Patents based on their conduct following the filing of
`
`the original complaints.
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 267, PageID.29087 Filed 07/18/24 Page 7 of 57
`FILED UNDER SEAL – PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`MOST APPROPRIATE AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Motion for Summary Judgment on Infringement of the ’908 and ’302 Patents
`Cent. Admixture Pharmacy Servs., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiac Sols., P.C., 482
`F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Pat. Litig., 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.
`2011).
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Daig Corp., 789 F.2d 903, 907–08 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
`Brilliant Instruments, Inc. v. GuideTech, LLC, 707 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir.
`2013).
`Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`Choon’s Design Inc. v. Tristar Prod., Inc., No. 14-10848, 2017 WL 3503848
`(E.D. Mich. Aug. 15, 2017).
`Motion for Summary Judgment on Infringement of the ’941 and ’450 Patents
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197, 1204 (Fed. Cir.
`2010).
`Motion for Summary Judgment on Pre-Suit Damages Under 35 U.S.C. § 287
`and Willful Patent Infringement
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 579 U.S. 105 (2016).
`Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterps., Inc., 946 F.3d 1367
`(Fed. Cir. 2020).
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Rec. Prods., Inc., 950 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir.
`2020) (Arctic Cat II).
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Rec. Prods., Inc., 876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir.
`2017) (Arctic Cat I).
`Asia Vital Components Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S, 377 F. Supp. 3d 990
`(N.D. Cal. 2019).
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., No. 1:12-cv-01595, 2022 WL 22400977
`(D. Del. Mar. 31, 2022).
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 267, PageID.29088 Filed 07/18/24 Page 8 of 57
`FILED UNDER SEAL – PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Acceleron, LLC v. Dell, Inc.,
`No. 1:12-cv-04123, 2020 WL 10353773 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2020) ...................40
`Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`258 F. Supp. 3d 1013 (N.D. Cal. 2017) ...............................................................43
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Rec. Prods. Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................... 37, 45
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Rec. Prods. Inc.,
`950 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2020)........................................................... 38, 39, 40, 41
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 1:12-cv-01595, 2022 WL 22400977 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2022) ......................40
`Arterbury v. Odessa Separator, Inc.,
`No. 5:16-CV-00183-RWS, 2019 WL 570741 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2019) ..........14
`Asia Vital Components Co., Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S,
`377 F. Supp. 3d 990 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .................................................................38
`Bettcher Indus., Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc.,
`661 F.3d 629 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..............................................................................14
`Brilliant Instruments, Inc. v. GuideTech, LLC,
`707 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .............................................................. 23, 24, 25
`Cent. Admixture Pharmacy Servs., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiac Sols., P.C.,
` 482 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ..........................................................................13
`Choon’s Design Inc. v. Tristar Prod., Inc.,
`No. 14-10848, 2017 WL 3503848 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 15, 2017) .................. 25, 27
`Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Int’l, Inc.,
`246 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ...........................................................................36
`Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC,
`703 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...........................................................................24
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 267, PageID.29089 Filed 07/18/24 Page 9 of 57
`FILED UNDER SEAL – PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Dell Inc. v. Neo Wireless LLC,
`IPR2021-01486, 2022 WL 944277 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2022) ............................44
`Dell Inc. v. Neo Wireless LLC,
`IPR2021-01486, 2022 WL 947957 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 2022) ............................44
`Dell Inc. v. Neo Wireless, LLC,
`IPR2022-00277 (P.T.A.B. filed Dec. 14, 2021) ..................................................28
`Dell Inc. v. Neo Wireless, LLC,
`IPR2022-00277, 2022 WL 2230387 (P.T.A.B. June 21, 2022) ..........................44
`Eko Brands, LLC v. Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc.,
`946 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ...........................................................................43
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 34, 37
`Funai Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Daewoo Elecs. Corp.,
`616 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...........................................................................38
`Gart v. Logitech, Inc.,
`254 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ...........................................................................41
`Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings, Inc.,
`405 F.3d 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .................................................................37
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`579 U.S. 105 (2016) .............................................................................................43
`Holcolm v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
`No. 13-14706, 2015 WL 1530781 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2015) ................... 22, 24
`In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Pat. Litig.,
`639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ...........................................................................17
`Knight Capital Partners Corp. v. Henkel AG & Co., KGaA,
`930 F.3d 775 (6th Cir. 2019) ...............................................................................21
`Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc.,
`86 F.3d 1098 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..............................................................................38
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 267, PageID.29090 Filed 07/18/24 Page 10 of 57
`FILED UNDER SEAL – PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Daig Corp.,
`789 F.2d 903 (Fed. Cir. 1986)..............................................................................22
`Merrill Mfg. Co. v. Simmons Mfg. Co.,
`553 F. Supp. 3d 1297 (N.D. Ga. 2021) ................................................................43
`Neo Wireless LLC v. FCA US, LLC,
`No. 3:22-cv-01252 (N.D. Ohio July 15, 2022) ....................................................10
`Nike, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`138 F.3d 1437 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ...........................................................................39
`NXP USA, Inc. v. Impinj, Inc.,
`No. 2:20-cv-01503, Dkt. 568 (W.D. Wash. May 4, 2023) .......................... 40, 41
`Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp.,
`514 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ...........................................................................17
`PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus. Corp.,
`156 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ...........................................................................14
`Quad/Tech, Inc. v. Q.I. Press Controls B.V.,
`701 F. Supp. 2d 644 (E.D. Pa. 2010) ...................................................................22
`Riggio v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
`No. 20-12819, 2022 WL 604164 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 4, 2022) ....................... 22, 24
`SEVEN Networks, LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 2:17-CV-00442-JRG, 2018 WL 3472639 (E.D. Tex. July 19, 2018) ..........14
`SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Advanced Tech. Labs., Inc.,
`127 F.3d 1462 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ...........................................................................41
`RULES
`FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a) .................................................................................................31
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 267, PageID.29091 Filed 07/18/24 Page 11 of 57
`FILED UNDER SEAL – PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`I.
`
`COUNTER-STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`Participation in 3GPP or ETSI
`A.
`1.
`Neo admits that the Asserted Patents read onto the LTE standards
`
`implemented by the Accused Products. See, e.g., ECF No. 28, PageID.63–64. Neo
`
`admits that Defendants directly infringe the patents by making, using, selling,
`
`offering to sell, and importing the Accused Products. Id. at PageID.65–69.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Admitted as of the time of inventions.
`
`Neo admits that the inventors of the Asserted Patents did not participate
`
`in 3GPP or ETSI or submit a declaration thereto. However, they developed and
`
`patented technology, including the Asserted Patents, that was incorporated into the
`
`4G LTE standard, and the inventors had no obligation to participate in 3GPP or
`
`ETSI.
`
`B.
`4.
`
`Infringement of the ’908 and ’302 Patents
`Neo admits that the ’302 and ’908 Patents include the language cited,
`
`but Neo denies that their claims’ scopes are limited to Defendants’ cited language.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Neo admits that claim 1 recites, in part, the cited language.
`
`Admitted.
`
`Neo admits that claim 23 recites, in part, the cited language.
`
`Admitted.
`
`10. Neo denies that the constructions of “random access signal” or “probing
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 267, PageID.29092 Filed 07/18/24 Page 12 of 57
`FILED UNDER SEAL – PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`signal” require generation by modulating a spreading sequence with information
`
`bits. No such requirement was discussed in the Court’s claim construction order or
`
`advocated for by Defendants during the claim construction proceedings. See
`
`generally ECF No. 198; ECF No. 131. The ’908 Patent and ’302 Patent describe
`
`embodiments of DSSS signals generated from unmodulated DSSS sequences. ECF
`
`No. 28-3, PageID.129–30 at 2:65–3:3, 4:58–62; Ex. A (Appx. D to Op. Mahon Rpt.)
`
`at ¶ 11; Ex. B (Mahon Dep.) at 538:9–539:20.
`
`11. Neo agrees that DSSS signals can be modulated by multiplying a
`
`spreading sequence by information bits, but does not agree that the Court’s “random
`
`access signal” or “probing signal” constructions require this type of modulating.
`
`12. Neo disagrees that a DSSS signal generated from a sequence modulated
`
`by information bits that are always one requires multiplication (modulation). There
`
`is no difference between an unmodulated DSSS sequence and a DSSS sequence
`
`modulated with information bits of one. ECF No. 246 at *20; ECF No. 28-3,
`
`PageID.129–30 at 2:65–3:3, 4:58–62; Ex. A at ¶ 11; Ex. B at 538:9–539:20.
`
`13. Admitted.
`
`14. Neo admits that the LTE SRS is a direct sequence spread spectrum
`
`signal used as a probing signal, as required by the Court’s construction of probing
`
`signal in the ’302 Patent. ECF No. 246-12 (Mahon Op. Rpt., Appx. M) at ¶¶ 20–22.
`
`15. Neo admits that the LTE random access preamble and SRS are
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 267, PageID.29093 Filed 07/18/24 Page 13 of 57
`FILED UNDER SEAL – PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`generated using Zadoff-Chu sequences.
`
`16. Neo admits that Zadoff-Chu sequences are DSSS sequences. See Ex. A
`
`at ¶¶ 4–23. They possess qualities of DSSS sequences, such as good cross-
`
`correlation properties that avoid high Peak to Average (PAR) ratios. Id. at ¶¶ 17–23.
`
`17. Neo admits that the LTE random access preamble and the SRS are
`
`generated without modulation (multiplication) of information bits.
`
`18. Neo admits that claim 1 recites, in part, the cited language.
`
`19. Admitted.
`
`20. Neo admits that the Court’s claim construction order stated, in part, the
`
`quoted language. Neo denies that the Court construed “associated with” to be
`
`mutually exclusive of “assigned by.” Neo denies Defendants’ equivalency between:
`
`(1) a term not meaning “assigned by,” and (2) a term meaning “not assigned by.”
`
`21. Admitted, with the same caveats as above.
`
`22. Neo admits that Dr. Mahon accuses the LTE random access procedure
`
`of the Accused Products with respect to infringement of the ’908 Patent.
`
`23. Admitted.
`
`24. Neo admits that Dr. Mahon accuses the contention-based and
`
`contention-free random access procedures of the Accused Products with respect to
`
`infringement of the ’908 Patent. Both contention-based and non-contention-based
`
`random access use Zadoff-Chu sequences that are associated with an LTE base
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 267, PageID.29094 Filed 07/18/24 Page 14 of 57
`FILED UNDER SEAL – PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`station through their relationship to the RootSequenceIndex and Root Sequence of
`
`an LTE base station. See ECF No. 246-11 at ¶ 21; Ex. D at ¶ 76; Ex. E at ¶¶ 20–24.
`
`25. Neo admits that Dr. Mahon stated the cited deposition testimony, but
`
`observes that such statements are not applicable to the contention-based random
`
`access procedure performed by all Accused Products.
`
`26. Neo admits that, at his deposition, Dr. Mahon stated: “The Court says
`
`it does not mean ‘assigned by,’ but that doesn’t exclude the possibility of being
`
`‘assigned by’ as long as it’s ‘associated with.’”
`
`27. Neo admits that the cited deposition testimony was said by Dr. Mahon.
`
`Neo denies that the Court construed “associated with” to categorically exclude
`
`anything that was “assigned by” a base station.
`
`Infringement of the ’941 Patent
`C.
`28. Neo admits that the specification of the ’941 Patent includes the
`
`language cited. ECF No. 28-4, PageID.146 at 2:33–38. But Neo denies that the ’941
`
`Patent’s claims’ scopes are limited to Defendants’ cited language.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
` Neo admits it is asserting claims 8, 13, and 14 of the ’941 Patent.
`
` Neo admits that the Court construed the phrase “the mobile station-
`
`specific transmission parameters indicate . . . a corresponding subchannel
`
`configuration . . . the corresponding subchannel configuration characterized by
`
`distributed subcarriers or localized subcarriers in the frequency domain” as the
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 267, PageID.29095 Filed 07/18/24 Page 15 of 57
`FILED UNDER SEAL – PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`quoted language. ECF No. 198, PageID.11622.
`
`31.
`
` Neo admits that the Court’s claim construction order recites:
`
`“Defendants argue 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. The Court agrees with Defendants.” Id. at
`
`PageID.11620 (citations omitted). However, the Court’s subsequent analysis focuses
`
`on a capability to indicate distributed versus localized subcarriers. The Court’s claim
`
`construction did not adopt Defendants’ proposal, does not require a “flag” or
`
`“indicator,” and does not require that the mobile station-specific transmission
`
`parameters be “separate.” Id.
`
`32. Neo admits that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`33. Denied. Defendants’ non-infringement position is not a “material fact.”
`
`The “bitmap” is a “mobile specific transmission parameter” recited in the asserted
`
`claims (Ex. C at ¶¶ 19–29; Ex. D at ¶¶ 98–99) and is “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. See
`
`Ex. C (Appx. K Op. Mahon Rpt.) at ¶¶ 24–26; Ex. D (Appx. R Op. Mahon Rpt.) at
`
`¶¶ 101–105; Ex. E (Appx. A Op. Mahon Rpt.) at ¶ 69. By moving the ‘1’s and ‘0’s,
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 267, PageID.29096 Filed 07/18/24 Page 16 of 57
`FILED UNDER SEAL – PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`the bitmap indicates, as alternatives, both distributed subcarriers and localized
`
`subcarriers as subchannel configurations. See Ex. E at ¶ 69; Ex. B at 264:25–268:18.
`
`Claim 1 does not require an actual indicator or bit that specifies whether the
`
`subchannel configuration is distributed or localized. See Ex. G at 103:14–105:19.
`
`Infringement of the ’450 Patent
`D.
`34. Neo admits that the specification of the ’450 Patent includes the
`
`language cited. ECF No. 28-5, PageID.167 at 1:27–29, 2:45–47. Neo denies that the
`
`’450 Patent’s claims’ scopes are limited to Defendants’ cited language.
`
`35. Neo admits that it presently asserts claim 7 of the ’450 Patent.
`
`36. Neo admits that claim 7 of the ’450 Patent recites the quoted language
`
`without any bold lettering or italicization. ECF No. 28-5, PageID.173 at cl. 7.
`
`37. Neo admits that Dr. Mahon testified that “this claim element means that
`
`when there’s a plurality of units, then you’re restricted to 2, 4, or 8.” Ex. B at 222:3–
`
`10. Dr. Mahon explicitly states that claim 7 “relates to configurations where there
`
`are multiple time-frequency resource units” and is agnostic to whether a system can
`
`also use N = 1. Ex. D at ¶ 120.
`
`38.
`
` Neo admits that Dr. Mahon maps claim 7 of the ’450 Patent to the LTE
`
`standard, but denies that Dr. Mahon’s analysis is limited to the LTE standard.
`
`39.
`
` Neo admits that, in Dr. Mahon’s analysis of the Accused Products, he
`
`points to the LTE PDCCH as meeting the element “segment comprising N time-
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 267, PageID.29097 Filed 07/18/24 Page 17 of 57
`FILED UNDER SEAL – PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`frequency resource units.” Ex. B at 285:8–12.
`
`40.
`
` Neo admits
`
`
`
` Id. at 288:15–290:24.
`
`41.
`
` Neo admits that an LTE PDCCH can be formed by a single CCE or
`
`multiple CCEs, but where the PDCCH is formed by multiple CCEs, it is limited to
`
`aggregations of 2, 4, or 8 CCEs. Id. at 136:24–137:1.
`
`Pre-Suit Damages and Willful Infringement
`E.
`42. Admitted;
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 267, PageID.29098 Filed 07/18/24 Page 18 of 57
`FILED UNDER SEAL – PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`45. Neo admits that its complaints allege that the Accused Products must
`
`practice one or more claims of the Asserted Patents to implement the LTE standard.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`46. Neo admits that its corporate witnesses testified to Neo’s belief that the
`
`LTE standards require the use of the Asserted Patents and that products operating in
`
`accordance with the LTE standards would presumably practice the Asserted Patents.
`
`ECF No. 246-5 at 147:11–15; ECF No. 246-26 at 190:24–191:6.
`
`47.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 267, PageID.29099 Filed 07/18/24 Page 19 of 57
`FILED UNDER SEAL – PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`48. Neo admits that
`
`49. Neo admits that it has not taken steps to require
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`50. Neo admits that it sent letters to each Defendant except GM; each letter
`
`was sent and delivered to a place of business operated by a named Defendant. See
`
`generally ECF No. 246-28; ECF No. 246-29; ECF No. 246-30; ECF No. 246-31;
`
`ECF No. 246-32; and ECF No. 246-33.
`
`51. Admitted; however, Neo notes that its pre-suit letters were sufficiently
`
`detailed to provide actual awareness of Neo’s patents,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 267, PageID.29100 Filed 07/18/24 Page 20 of 57
`FILED UNDER SEAL – PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`52. Neo admits that the letters do not use the word “infringement;”
`
`however, Neo’s notice letter informed Defendants that its patent portfolio, including
`
`the Asserted Patents, covered LTE (Series 36, Releases 8–14), LTE-5G Non-
`
`Standalone (Series 36, Release 15), and 5G (NR) Standalone (Series 38, Release
`
`15+). See ECF No. 246-28, PageID.12919–20; ECF No. 246-29, PageID.12933–34;
`
`ECF No. 246-30, PageID.12947–48, ECF No. 246-31, PageID.12961–62; ECF No.
`
`246-32, PageID.12975–76; and ECF No. 246-33, PageID.12989–90. The same
`
`letters also informed Defendants that Neo had successfully licensed its patent
`
`portfolio to the tune of $65M at that point. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ford responded to Neo’s notice
`
`letter on February 10, 2022 declining licensing negotiations while recognizing it
`
`purchases “standard-compliant modem technology” for Ford’s vehicles. Ex. I.
`
`53. Admitted; however, Neo’s original and amended complaints served on
`
`Defendants included exemplary claim charts showing how the LTE standards
`
`practiced by the Accused Products require use of the Asserted Patents. See, e.g., Neo
`
`Wireless LLC v. FCA US, LLC, No. 3:22-cv-01252 (N.D. Ohio July 15, 2022), ECF
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 267, PageID.29101 Filed 07/18/24 Page 21 of 57
`FILED UNDER SEAL – PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`No. 1-8; ECF No. 1-9; ECF No. 1-10; ECF No. 1-12.1 Despite receiving not only
`
`actual knowledge of the Asserted Patents but of the specific reasons that the Accused
`
`Products infringe, Defendants have continued to commit acts of infringement.
`
`54. Neo admits that its letter had an attachment listing assets in its portfolio,
`
`including about 66 issued US patents and 17 pending US patent applications. See
`
`ECF No. 246-28, PageID.12921–31; ECF No. 246-29, PageID.12935–45; ECF No.
`
`246-30, PageID.12949–59; ECF No. 246-31, PageID.12963–73; ECF No. 246-32,
`
`PageID.12977–87; and ECF No. 246-33, PageID.12991–3001.
`
`55.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`56. Neo admits that it did not respond to Defendants’ letter by showing
`
`evidence that the licensed products did not practice the Asserted Patents or were
`
`marked with Neo’s patents;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Neo filed separate, but largely overlapping complaints for Defendants including
`identical charts.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 267, PageID.29102 Filed 07/18/24 Page 22 of 57
`FILED UNDER SEAL – PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`II. THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS INFRINGE THE ’908 & ’302 PATENTS
`A. The Accused Products Meet the Court’s Construction of Random
`Access Signal and Probing Signal Terms in the ’908 and ’302 Patents.
`The LTE random access preamble in the Accused Products is a DSSS signal
`
`
`
`used as a random access signal, and the LTE sounding reference signal (SRS) is a
`
`DSSS signal used as a probing signal. Neo set forth these infringement theories,
`
`consistent with the Court’s claim construction rulings, in its amended contentions
`
`served promptly after the Markman Order was issued about eight months ago.
`
`
`
`Defendants might disagree with Neo’s infringement theories. But Defendants’
`
`summary judgment motion hinges entirely on a form of subtle claim construction—
`
`reframing the scope of the claim to fixate on whether every embodiment of a DSSS
`
`signal in the context of the patents must necessarily be generated from multiplication
`
`or modulation. ECF No. 246 at *14–18. Worse still, Defendants wrongly pretend
`
`that the parties somehow agree on this requirement. Neo has never agreed to this
`
`requirement, and Neo’s infringement expert likewise expressly disagrees.
`
`Moreover, Defendants’ new modulation requirement cannot be found in the
`
`Court’s Markman order or Defendants’ claim construction briefing. And it cannot
`
`be justified based on the prosecution history or the Asserted Patents. Defendants’
`
`motion for summary judgment thus implicitly requests that the Court revisit claim
`
`construction to read in an additional requirement into the Court’s construction—
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 267, PageID.29103 Filed 07/18/24 Page 23 of 57
`FILED UNDER SEAL – PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`essentially asking to construe the construction. But claim construction is long over,
`
`and the Court need not entertain arguments that could have been raised long ago.
`
`
`
`Furthermore, Defendants’ new multiplication requirement goes against
`
`express teachings of the specification. And it is based entirely on extrinsic evidence
`
`never before raised during the nearly year-long claim construction process. Should
`
`the Court entertain belated claim construction at this stage, Defendants’ attempt at
`
`importing a new multiplication requirement should be rejected. And in any event,
`
`the parties’ disputes over infringement are not amenable to summary judgment.
`
`The Court Should Reject Defendants’ Eleventh Hour
`1.
`Attempt at Claim Construction.
`Defendants did not identify any multiplication requirement for the terms
`
`
`
`“random access signal” or “probing signal” or cite any of the extrinsic evidence they
`
`now rely on during the parties’ Court-ordered claim construction disclosures, during
`
`claim construction briefing, or during oral argument at the Markman hearing.
`
`
`
`Although it is the Court’s role to resolve properly presented disputes regarding
`
`claim scope, the Court is not required to re-open claim construction for belated claim
`
`scope arguments. In fact, courts regularly find waiver where, as here, a party fails to
`
`raise a claim construction issue at the claim construction stage. See, e.g., Cent.
`
`Admixture Pharmacy Servs., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiac Sols., P.C., 482 F.3d 1347,
`
`1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (affirming that party “waived any argument with respect to
`
`this term by failing to raise it during the claim construction phase”); Bettcher Indus.,
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 267, PageID.29104 Filed 07/18/24 Page 24 of 57
`FILED UNDER SEAL – PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 640 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (affirming decision not
`
`to perform supplemental claim construction where court “issued a Markman order
`
`premised on the express belief that there were no other claim construction disputes”);
`
`Arterbury v. Odessa Separator, Inc., No. 5:16-CV-00183-RWS, 2019 WL 570741,
`
`at *1 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2019) (refusing