Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 273, PageID.29642 Filed 07/22/24 Page 1 of 55
`
`
`
`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' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
`
`MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON
`
`DEFENDANTS' INEQUITABLE CONDUCT AND
`UNCLEAN HANDS DEFENSES
`
`
`
`PUBLIC - REDACTED VERSION
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 273, PageID.29643 Filed 07/22/24 Page 2 of 55
`
`
`
`CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`1. Whether, when drawing all justifiable inferences in Defendants’ favor,
`
`material fact disputes remain on Defendants’ inequitable conduct claim that one or
`
`more inventors of the asserted patents intended to deceive the Patent Office during
`
`examination of those patents by failing to disclose AT&T’s Project Angel where (i)
`
`it is undisputed that the inventors were aware of Project Angel, and (ii) Project Angel
`
`was demonstrably “but for” material to the patentability of the claims of those
`
`patents.
`
`2. Whether Defendants may rely on their Project Angel disclosures
`
`produced during fact discovery to support their inequitable conduct allegations
`
`where the Court previously ruled Defendants may do so.
`
`3. Whether, when drawing all justifiable inferences in Defendants’ favor,
`
`material fact disputes remain on Defendants’ allegations of unclean hands based on
`
`(i) Defendants’ inequitable conduct claim, and (ii) Neo’s refusal to dismiss its
`
`infringement claims on the ‘908 and ‘302 patents after Neo acquiesced to a German
`
`court’s recent ruling, on a German counterpart to the ‘908 and ‘302, that the accused
`
`LTE standard does not practice a limitation recited in each of those patents.
`
`4. Whether the “Adaptix” materials that Defendants and their experts rely
`
`on from a separate litigation involving third-party are inadmissible hearsay where
`
`those materials fall within an exception or exemption of the rule against hearsay,
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 273, PageID.29644 Filed 07/22/24 Page 3 of 55
`
`
`
`where Defendants’ experts may rely on hearsay materials in forming their opinions
`
`in this case, and where the facts presented in those materials are undisputed.
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 273, PageID.29645 Filed 07/22/24 Page 4 of 55
`
`
`
`CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
`
`
`Regarding Inequitable Conduct:
`
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`
`Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 768 F.3d 1185, 1187, 1190 (Fed.
`Cir. 2014)
`
`Semiconductor Energy Lab’y Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 204 F.3d 1368, 1374 (Fed.
`Cir. 2000)
`
`Regarding Unclean Hands:
`
`Keystone Driller Co. v. Gen. Excavator Co., 290 U.S. 240, 245–46 (1933)
`
`Luv n’ Care, Ltd. v. Laurain, 98 F.4th 1081, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2024)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 273, PageID.29646 Filed 07/22/24 Page 5 of 55
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`CONCISE STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ............................................................ i
`
`CONTROLLING AUTHORITY ............................................................................. iii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... vi
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO NEO’S STATEMENTS OF
`FACTS ............................................................................................................. 3
`
`III. DEFENDANTS’ COUNTER-STATEMENT OF MATERIAL
`FACTS ............................................................................................................. 9
`
`IV. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................13
`
`A. Genuine Fact Disputes Preclude Summary Judgment of
`Inequitable Conduct ............................................................................13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Neo Advances the Wrong Legal Standard for Inequitable
`Conduct at the Summary Judgment Stage ............................... 13
`There is a Genuine Dispute as to the Materiality of
`Project Angel ............................................................................ 16
`The Court Did Not Strike Defendants’ Inequitable
`Conduct Counterclaim ............................................................. 21
`There is a Genuine Dispute Over Intent to Deceive the
`Patent Office Regarding Project Angel ................................... 22
`a.
`Evidence Shows the Inventors Were Familiar with
`the Materiality of Project Angel .................................... 23
`Evidence Shows the Inventors Deliberately
`Withheld Project Angel from the Patent Office ............ 25
`c. Materials from the Adaptix Litigation are
`Admissible at Trial ........................................................ 29
`
`b.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 273, PageID.29647 Filed 07/22/24 Page 6 of 55
`
`
`
`V.
`
`d.
`
`Project Angel is Not Cumulative of WiMAX and
`Vijayan ........................................................................... 31
`FACT DISPUTES PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
`UNCLEAN HANDS .....................................................................................37
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................43
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 273, PageID.29648 Filed 07/22/24 Page 7 of 55
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`
`2015 WL 218932 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2015)..... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31
`
`Alcon Rsch., Ltd. v. Apotex, Inc.,
`
`2013 WL 2244338 (S.D. Ind. May 21, 2013) ...............................................15
`
`Alfred E. Mann Found. for Sci. Rsch. v. Cochlear Corp.,
`
`2014 WL 12558006 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2014) ................................................36
`
`Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc.,
`
`768 F.3d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................ 27, 28, 30
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`
`477 U.S. 242 (1986).......................................................................................14
`
`Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc.,
`
`675 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................ 14, 17, 25
`
`Baker Oil Tools, Inc. v. Geo Vann, Inc.,
`
`828 F.2d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .....................................................................20
`
`Baumel v. Barber Power L. Grp., PLLC,
`
`2023 WL 6121001 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 18, 2023) .............................................31
`
`Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. McGaw, Inc.,
`
`149 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .....................................................................28
`
`Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`
`77 F. Supp. 3d 850 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .............................................................28
`
`Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co., Ltd.,
`
`2017 WL 1101092 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2017) ................................................42
`
`Cozy, Inc. v. Dorel Juvenile Grp., Inc.,
`
`633 F. Supp. 3d 411 (D. Mass. 2022) ............................................... 14, 15, 29
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 273, PageID.29649 Filed 07/22/24 Page 8 of 55
`
`
`
`Digital Control, Inc. v. Charles Mach. Works,
`
`437 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................ 14, 32, 34
`
`Edge Sys. LLC v. Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC,
`
`571 F. Supp. 3d 13 (E.D.N.Y. 2021) .............................................................42
`
`Eggerson v. U.S.,
`
`2006 WL 1720252 (W.D. Mich. 2006) .........................................................31
`
`Gilead Scis., Inc. v. Merck & Co.,
`
`888 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................ 37, 38, 39
`
`Incase Designs, Inc. v. Mophie, Inc.,
`
`2013 WL 12173931 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2013) ...............................................42
`
`In re 650 Fifth Ave. & Related Props.,
`
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 230731 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2017) ...........................30
`
`In re Cole v. Patton,
`
`2019 WL 3413525 (M.D. Fla. July 29, 2019) ...............................................31
`
`Intamin, Ltd. v. Magnetar Tech. Corp.,
`
`623 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (C.D. Cal. 2009),
`
`aff’d, 404 Fed. App’x 496 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...................................................39
`
`Keystone Driller Co. v. Gen. Excavator Co.,
`
`290 U.S. 240 (1933)................................................................................ 37, 38
`
`Luv n' Care, Ltd. v. Laurain,
`
`98 F.4th 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2024) ......................................................................39
`
`M. Eagles Tool Warehouse, Inc. v. Fisher Tooling Co., Inc.,
`439 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .............................................................. 14, 32
`
`
`Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
`
`475 U.S. 574 (1986).......................................................................................14
`
`Paragon Podiatry Lab’y, Inc. v. KLM Lab’ys, Inc.,
`
`984 F.2d 1182 (Fed. Cir. 1993) .....................................................................22
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 273, PageID.29650 Filed 07/22/24 Page 9 of 55
`
`
`
`Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Auto Maint. Mach. Co.,
`
`324 U.S. 806 (1945).......................................................................................38
`
`Schulman v. Saloon Beverage, Inc.,
`
`2014 WL 3353254 (D. Vt. July 9, 2014) .......................................................30
`
`Semiconductor Energy Lab’y Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`
`204 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2000), amended (Apr. 5, 2000) .............................33
`
`Sprint Commc’ns Co. LP v. Charter Commc’ns, Inc.,
`
`2021 WL 982728 (D. Del. Mar. 16, 2021) ............................................. 14, 21
`
`Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc.,
`
`897 F.2d 511 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ................................................................ 13, 31
`
`Sysmex Corp. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc.,
`
`2022 WL 1503987 (D. Del. May 6, 2022) ............................................. 15, 16
`
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`
`649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................... 13, 15, 16, 22, 25, 37, 38, 42
`
`Ulead Sys., Inc. v. Lex Computer & Mgmt. Corp.,
`
`351 F.3d 1139 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .............................................................. 22, 28
`
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`
`2017 WL 1175379 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2017) ...............................................13
`
`Viskase Corp. v. Am. Nat'l Can Co.,
`
`261 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .....................................................................31
`Rules
`Fed. R. Evid. 803 .....................................................................................................30
`Fed. R. Evid. 804 .....................................................................................................30
`Fed. R. Evid. 807 .....................................................................................................31
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 273, PageID.29651 Filed 07/22/24 Page 10 of 55
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Court should deny Neo Wireless LLC’s (“Neo’s”) motion for summary
`
`judgment because genuine issues of material fact exist on Defendants’ counterclaims
`
`of inequitable conduct and unclean hands.
`
`With respect to inequitable conduct, Neo does not dispute that each of the
`
`inventors of the Asserted Patents were aware of the technical details behind Project
`
`Angel, and that none of the inventors disclosed Project Angel to the U.S. Patent &
`
`Trademark Office (“Patent Office”) during examination of the four patents asserted
`
`in this case (“Asserted Patents”). Neo asserts that Project Angel is not “material” to
`
`the Asserted Patents because Project Angel was allegedly limited to a “fixed” system
`
`whereas the claims are directed to a “mobile” system. But the contemporaneous
`
`documents expressly state that Project Angel was directed to a “mobile” system.
`
`This evidence alone, which Neo ignored, confirms there is a genuine issue of
`
`material fact on materiality.
`
`With respect to the intent to deceive necessary to establish inequitable
`
`conduct, Neo correctly acknowledges that intent can be inferred from indirect and
`
`circumstantial evidence. As described in detail below, Defendants present sufficient
`
`evidence from which the fact finder could find one or more of the inventors – who
`
`were indisputably familiar with the relevant details of Project Angel – failed to
`
`inform the Patent Office of those details with an intent to deceive the Patent Office.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 273, PageID.29652 Filed 07/22/24 Page 11 of 55
`
`
`
`Neo’s bald assertion that Defendants’ evidence is inadmissible at trial is unsupported
`
`and incorrect.
`
`Genuine fact disputes also exist on Defendants’ unclean hands counterclaim.
`
`In addition to the inventors’ inequitable conduct for failure to disclose Project Angel
`
`to the Patent Office, Neo engaged in other misconduct in this litigation. In parallel
`
`with this litigation, Neo asserted against Defendants Tesla, Ford, FCA, Nissan, and
`
`Toyota in Germany the European counterpart to U.S. Patent 10,833,908 (“the ʼ908
`
`Patent”) asserted in this case. At the beginning of the first hearing in Germany
`
`(against Tesla), the German Court informed Neo that the patent was not infringed
`
`by the LTE standard as alleged, causing Neo to drop its German case against Tesla.
`
`Shortly thereafter, Neo dropped its German cases against Ford, FCA, Nissan, and
`
`Toyota. But despite Defendants’ request, Neo refused to drop its infringement claims
`
`under the ’908 Patent (and the related U.S. Patent 10,771,302 (“the ’302 Patent”))
`
`which recite the same claim limitation the German Court held was not practiced by
`
`LTE. This forced Defendants to move for summary judgment on the ’908 and ’302
`
`Patents, unnecessarily driving up defense costs and burdening this Court. This,
`
`together with the inventors’ inequitable conduct, creates a genuine issue of material
`
`fact regarding Defendants’ unclean hands counterclaim.
`
`For these reasons, and as explained in greater detail below, the Court should
`
`deny Neo’s motion for summary judgment.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 273, PageID.29653 Filed 07/22/24 Page 12 of 55
`
`
`
`II. DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO NEO’S STATEMENTS OF FACTS
`
`Neo’s “Statement of Material Facts” does not accurately reflect the pertinent
`
`facts as it misrepresents the relevant allegations, draws legal conclusions, and omits
`
`disputed facts germane to Defendants’ inequitable conduct and unclean hands
`
`defenses. Defendants dispute the facts characterized by Neo as material without
`
`conceding their materiality:
`
`1–4. Disputed. While Defendants do not dispute that that the ’908, ’941,
`
`’302, and ’450 Patents list Xiaodong Li (“Alex Li”), Titus Lo (“Lo”), Kemin Li
`
`(“Kemin Li”), Haiming Huang (“Huang”), and Ruifeng Wang (“Wang”) as
`
`inventors, Defendants dispute that “they are the true inventors” because they
`
`patented prior art subject matter. (See generally Exs. 1-4, Invalidity Charts for the
`
`1 at ¶¶ 292–327, 528–593;
`Asserted Patents; ECF No. 254-25, pp.147-181, 309-3530F
`
`ECF No. 254-24, pp. 140-176, 233-262 at ¶¶ 355–411, 544–587; Ex. 5, Opening
`
`Report of Dr. Buehrer at ¶¶ 388–467, 629–682, 755–804, 1053–1138.)
`
`5.
`
`Disputed. While Defendants do not dispute that U.S. Prov. Pat. App.
`
`Nos. 60/544,521, 60/540,032, and 60/540,586 were filed in 2004 by Walbell
`
`Technologies, Inc. (“Walbell”), Defendants dispute that U.S. Prov. Pat. App.
`
`
`1 In instances where ECF-stamped copies of sealed documents were not provided by
`the Court, the sealed filing’s ECF number and page number(s) are cited.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 273, PageID.29654 Filed 07/22/24 Page 13 of 55
`
`
`
`No. 60/721,451 was filed by Walbell in 2005. (See ECF No. 259-6, PageID.20075
`
`(listing Waltical Solution, Inc.).)
`
`6.
`
`Undisputed. AT&T’s Project Angel, is prior art to the Asserted Patents
`
`and “should have been disclosed to the Patent Office during the prosecution of the
`
`Asserted Patents.”
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Disputed. While Defendants have withdrawn their defense of
`
`derivation, there exists a wealth of evidence that demonstrates AT&T’s Project
`
`Angel was material to the patentability of the asserted claims because, as
`
`Defendants’ experts have explained, Project Angel met each and every claim
`
`element of the asserted claims. (See generally Exs. 1-4, ECF No. 254-25, pp.147-
`
`181, 309-353 at ¶¶ 292–327, 528–593; ECF No. 254-24, pp. 140-176, 233-262 at
`
`¶¶ 355–411, 544–587; Ex. 5, at ¶¶ 388–467, 629–682, 755–804, 1053–1138.)
`
`9.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`10. Disputed. While Defendants do not dispute that Alex Li worked at
`
`AT&T during the summer of 1996, they dispute Neo’s characterization of his work
`
`as “general research.” Alex Li testified that
`
`
`
`
`
`, and is relevant to functionalities claimed in the Asserted Patents. (Ex.
`
`6, Alex Li Dep. Tr. at 74:16–76:14; Ex. 7, Lo Dep. Tr. at 88:11–18
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 273, PageID.29655 Filed 07/22/24 Page 14 of 55
`
`
`
`pp. 13–14
`
`of the ’450, p. 42
`
`; see e.g., Ex. 3, Invalidity Chart for the ’908 Patent,
`
`; Ex. 2, Invalidity Chart
`
`
`
`.) Defendants do not dispute the timing of the filing of the patent
`
`applications that led to the Asserted Patents.
`
`11–14.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`15. Disputed. The fact that Project Angel by itself or in combination with
`
`other references met every limitation of the asserted claims, combined with the
`
`inventors’ undisputed familiarity with Project Angel, and their history of exploiting
`
`Project Angel information to monetize misappropriated technology, collectively
`
`support the inference that the inventors deliberately withheld Project Angel from the
`
`Patent Office during examination of the Asserted Patents. (See generally Exs.1-4;
`
`ECF No. 254-25, pp.147-181, 309-353 at ¶¶ 292–327, 528–593; ECF No. 254-24,
`
`pp. 140-176, 233-262 at ¶¶ 355–411, 544–587; Ex. 5 at ¶¶ 388–467, 629–682, 755–
`
`804, 1053–1138; Ex. 7 at 88:15–18; Ex. 6 at 74:16–75:10; ECF No. 255-9,
`
`PageID.19364-19365 ; ECF No. 255-10, PageID19369
`
`(employment at
`
`Broadstorm).); see also Adaptix, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 5:13-cv-01776-PSG, 2015
`
`WL 218932, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2015) (finding “the record [] largely
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 273, PageID.29656 Filed 07/22/24 Page 15 of 55
`
`
`
`undisputed that … Adaptix obtained AT & T confidential information related from
`
`
`
`those engineers about early iterations of Project Angel”) (“Adaptix Order”).1F2
`
`16. Disputed. As explained in detail by Defendants’ experts, Drs. Wells,
`
`Bims, and Buehrer, Project Angel alone or in combination with other references
`
`satisfies every limitation of the asserted claims and is thus “but-for” material because
`
`disclosure of Project Angel to the Patent Office would have blocked the issuance of
`
`the Asserted Patents. (See generally Exs. 1-4; ECF No. 254-25, pp.147-181, 309-
`
`353 at ¶¶ 292–327, 528–593; ECF No. 254-24, pp. 140-176, 233-262 at ¶¶ 355–411,
`
`544–587; Ex. 5 at ¶¶ 388–467, 629–682, 755–804, 1053–1138.)
`
`17. Disputed. As explained by Drs. Wells, Bims, and Buehrer “none of the
`
`cited prior art [during prosecution of the Asserted Patents] disclose [all of the
`
`relevant features], as included in Project Angel.” (See ECF No. 254-24, pp. 297, 299
`
`at ¶ 634 (’941 Patent) & ¶ 639 (’450 Patent); see also ECF No. 254-25, pp. 392–394
`
`at ¶ 668 (’302 Patent) & ¶ 673 (’908 Patent); see also Ex. 5 at ¶ 1197 (’941 Patent),
`
`¶ 1200 (’450 Patent), ¶ 1203 (’302 Patent), and ¶ 1206 (’908 Patent).
`
`18–20.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`21. Disputed. The inventors’ intimate knowledge of Project Angel, the
`
`substantial similarities between Project Angel and the asserted claims, all inventors’
`
`
`2 Broadstorm—a company co-founded by Alex Li—is Adaptix’s predecessor, and
`the Adaptix Order refers to both Broadstorm and Adaptix as Adaptix. Adaptix, 2015
`WL 218932, at *1 n.11.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 273, PageID.29657 Filed 07/22/24 Page 16 of 55
`
`
`
`collective failure to disclose Project Angel, as well as Alex Li’s plans to exploit
`
`Project Angel technology, demonstrate that the inventors deliberately withheld
`
`Project Angel. See generally Exs. 1-4; ECF No. 254-25, pp.147-181, 309-353 at
`
`¶¶ 292–327, 528–593; ECF No. 254-24, pp. 140-176, 233-262 at ¶¶ 355–411, 544–
`
`587; Ex. 5 at ¶¶ 388–467, 629–682, 755–804, 1053–1138; Ex. 7 at 68:20–22; Ex. 6
`
`at 74:16–75:10; ECF No. 259-13, PageID.20238-20239, ECF No. 255-10,
`
`PageID.19369 (employment at Broadstorm).); see also Adaptix, 2015 WL 218932,
`
`at *2.
`
`22. Disputed. Contemporaneous documentary evidence and expert
`
`testimony demonstrate that Project Angel was both fixed and mobile. (Ex. 8,
`
`ATT_NEO_P1_019096–19108 at 19102; Ex. 9, ATT_NEO_P1_018919–18923 at
`
`18919, 18922.) Indeed, AT&T’s documents show that
`
`
`
`
`
`. (Id.; ECF No. 254-24, pp. 148–149 at ¶¶ 366–367.); Ex. 5, ¶¶ 146,
`
`1157–1158.)
`
`23. Disputed. Contemporaneous documentary evidence and expert analysis
`
`again demonstrate that AT&T’s Project Angel, like the Walbell system, included the
`
`packet switching technique. (Ex. 10, ATT_NEO_P1_005965 at 005990
`
`
`
`at 019447
`
`; Ex. 11, ATT_NEO_P1_019346
`
`; Ex. 12,
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 273, PageID.29658 Filed 07/22/24 Page 17 of 55
`
`
`
`ATT_NEO_0000001-185 at 21, 29; Ex. 13, ATT_NEO_0000342-811 at 376–377;
`
`ECF No. 254-24, pp. 168–171 at ¶¶ 395–398.)
`
`24–25.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`26. Disputed. Alex Li’s email filed in connection with the same Adaptix
`
`summary judgment ruling that Neo cites (¶¶ 27–29), states that “[w]e have the design
`
`for both mobile and fixed systems, but will address the fixed market first.” (Ex. 14,
`
`Adaptix, No. 5:13-cv-01776-PSG, Dkt. 394-7.)
`
`27. Disputed. The same Adaptix Order Neo cites (¶¶ 27–29), states that
`
`Alex Li—an inventor on every Asserted Patent—along with Liu sought to
`
`“strategically hire key Project Angel engineers from AT&T,” the same engineers
`
`that misappropriated AT&T confidential information to further their own R&D
`
`efforts. Adaptix, 2015 WL 218932, at *2 (“Along with Xiandong Li, another one of
`
`Adaptix’s co-founders, Liu proposed to strategically hire key Project Angel
`
`engineers from AT&T. Adaptix was able to recruit three engineers: Pal Meiyappan,
`
`Liang Hong and James Hite.”).
`
`28. Disputed. What Neo characterizes as a “recruitment pitch” was found
`
`to be a “strategic” scheme to “hire key Project Angel engineers,” causing them to
`
`divulge confidential AT&T information, and to file patent applications on exploited
`
`technology. See Id. (“It was only after Adaptix began working with these three
`
`engineers that it proceeded to file applications for the patents-in-suit.”).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 273, PageID.29659 Filed 07/22/24 Page 18 of 55
`
`
`
`29. Disputed. While Defendants do not dispute that the Adaptix court found
`
`the asserted patents invalid, they dispute Neo’s statement that “[n]o determinations
`
`were made with respect to the allegations of misappropriation …, and there was no
`
`finding by the Court that Dr. Alex Li was culpable of any wrongdoing in connection
`
`with the allegations.” (ECF No. 259, PageID.19923.) The Adaptix court determined
`
`that “the record is largely undisputed that (1) Adaptix hired AT&T engineers who
`
`were employed at AT&T during the conception of Project Angel; (2) Adaptix
`
`obtained AT&T confidential information related from those engineers about early
`
`iterations of Project Angel; (3) Adaptix received this confidential information prior
`
`to filing the patents-in-suit; and (4) the confidential information bears a certain
`
`resemblance to the specifications and ultimately the patents-in-suit.” Adaptix,
`
`
`
`2015 WL 218932, at *2 (emphasis added).2F3
`
`III. DEFENDANTS’ COUNTER-STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`30.
`
`
`
`
`
`. (Ex. 6, Alex Li Dep. Tr. at 84:21–85:7.) Alex Li and Liu conspired to
`
`“strategically hire key Project Angel engineers from AT&T . . . [and] recruit[ed]
`
`
`3 See also Amended Answer and Counterclaims of ZTE (USA) Inc., Adaptix, Inc.
`v. ZTE Corporation, Civ. No. 6:13-cv-00443, Doc. No. 111 at 15 (E.D. Tex. Dec.
`5, 2014) (asserting that patents naming Dr. Li as co-inventor were substantially
`derived from AT&T which was not disclosed to the USPTO).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 273, PageID.29660 Filed 07/22/24 Page 19 of 55
`
`
`
`three engineers ….” Adaptix, 2015 WL 218932, at *2. At least one of those engineers
`
`consulted with Broadstorm “for months before leaving AT&T.” Id.
`
`31. Through targeting key Project Angel engineers, Broadstorm acquired
`
`“many internal AT&T email communications … as well as several AT&T technical
`
`documents related to Project Angel” such that “Adaptix had—as Liu put it—‘pretty
`
`much ... everything ... on [AT&T’s] engineering side.’” Id.; (See also Ex. 15,
`
`Adaptix, No. 5:13-cv-01776-PSG, Dkt. 394-3.)
`
`32.
`
`“[J]ust over two months” after hiring the AT&T engineers, Broadstorm
`
`began filing for patents with “resemblance” to the exploited AT&T confidential
`
`information. Adaptix, 2015 WL 218932, at *2.
`
`33. Co-inventors Kemin Li and Huang both worked at Broadstorm. (ECF
`
`No. 255-9, PageID.19364-19365; ECF No. 255-10, PageID.19369.) By way of their
`
`employment at Broadstorm, co-inventors Alex Li, Kemin Li, and Huang learned
`
`much about the intricacies of Project Angel.
`
`34. Co-inventor Lo worked at AT&T for four years. (ECF No.255-11,
`
`PageID.19374.)
`
` (Ex. 7 at 91:6–8.)
`
` (Ex. 7 at 73:22–74:6; 77:4–12.)
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 273, PageID.29661 Filed 07/22/24 Page 20 of 55
`
`
`
`35.
`
`at 69:13–15.)
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`
`
`
`
` (Ex. 16, Wang Dep. Tr.
`
` (Ex. 7 at 74:20–75:1.)
`
` (Ex. 6 at 118:22–119:2; Ex. 7 at 126:20–127:13.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (Ex. 7 at 128:3–129:10.)
`
`38.
`
`Just one month after Lo began working for Walbell, Walbell began
`
`filing patent applications that Neo now points to for priority of some of the Asserted
`
`Patents—naming Lo as a co-inventor. (ECF No.255-11, PageID.19373 (Dec. 2003);
`
`ECF No. 255-7, PageID.19304 (Jan. 28, 2004); ECF No. 255-8, PageID.19330 (Jan.
`
`30, 2004)). Within the next month after that, Walbell filed still more patent
`
`applications related to the Asserted Patents. (ECF No.255-5, PageID.19254
`
`(Feb. 13, 2004).)
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 273, PageID.29662 Filed 07/22/24 Page 21 of 55
`
`
`
`39. Project Angel practices every element of the asserted claims of the
`
`Asserted Patents or renders them obvious. (See generally Exs. 1-4; ECF No. 254-25,
`
`pp.147-181, 309-353 at ¶¶ 292–327, 528–593; ECF No. 254-24, pp. 140-176, 233-
`
`262 at ¶¶ 355–411, 544–587; Ex. 5 at ¶¶ 388–467, 629–682, 755–804, 1053–1138.)
`
`Given these substantial similarities, had the inventors disclosed Project Angel to the
`
`Patent Office, the Patent Office would not have allowed the Asserted Patents. (Id.)
`
`40. While other prior art before the Patent Office, like the WiMAX system,
`
`also disclose the technology claimed by the Asserted Patents, Project Angel
`
`discloses a more complete combination of relevant features than other art cited and
`
`before the Patent Office. (ECF No. 254-25, pp. 392, 393–394 at ¶ 668 & ¶ 673 (“And
`
`of course, none of the prior art cited during prosecution of the ’908 Patent and its
`
`related patents disclose a system with all of the relevant features described above, as
`
`combined.”); ECF No. 254-24, pp. 297, 299 at ¶ 634 & ¶ 639.)
`
`41. While all co-inventors of the Asserted Patents knew about the
`
`significance of Project Angel, they all chose to deliberately not disclose it to the
`
`Patent Office. (See generally ECF No. 255-1, PageID.19154-19182; ECF No. 255-
`
`2, PageID.19184-19199; ECF No. 255-3, PageID.19201-19228; ECF No. 255-4,
`
`PageID.19230-19251.)
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 273, PageID.29663 Filed 07/22/24 Page 22 of 55
`
`
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Genuine Fact Disputes Preclude Summary Judgment of
`Inequitable Conduct
`
`1.
`
`Neo Advances the Wrong Legal Standard for
`Inequitable Conduct at the Summary Judgment Stage
`
`To prove inequitable conduct at trial, “the accused infringer must prove that
`
`the applicant misrepresented or omitted material information with the specific intent
`
`to deceive the PTO.” Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276,
`
`1287 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 13-cv-
`
`04134-VC, 2017 WL 1175379, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2017) (explaining that “for
`
`the purpose of getting past a motion for summary judgment against the defense of
`
`[inequitable conduct], the test is necessarily somewhat less demanding” than proving
`
`that specific intent to deceive is the single most reasonable inference able to be
`
`drawn from the evidence). Proving specific intent requires “clear and convincing
`
`evidence that the applicant knew of the reference, knew that it was material, and
`
`made a deliberate decision to withhold it.” Id. at 1290. But “[b]ecause direct
`
`evidence of deceptive intent is rare, a district court may infer intent from indirect
`
`and circumstantial evidence.” Id.
`
`“Given the need to evaluate the facts and circumstances of each case in order
`
`to draw the requisite inference, the issue of deceptive intent is rarely appropriate
`
`even for summary judgment proceedings.” Cozy, Inc. v. Dorel Juvenile Grp., Inc.,
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 273, PageID.29664 Filed 07/22/24 Page 23 of 55
`
`
`
`633 F. Supp. 3d 411, 424 (D. Mass. 2022). And like intent, “[m]ateriality is a
`
`question of fact.” Sprint Commc’ns Co. LP v. Charter Commc’ns, Inc., No. CV 17-
`
`1734-RGA, 2021 WL 982728, at *2 (D. Del. Mar. 16, 2021) (citation omitted).
`
`“[E]stablishing but-for materiality in the inequitable conduct context only requires a
`
`preponderance of the evidence, ‘giv[ing] claims their broadest reasonable
`
`construction.”’ Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324, 1334 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012) (quoting Therasense, 649 F.3d at 1291–1292). Accordingly, “even if the
`
`withheld reference is not sufficient to invalidate the claim in district court, “‘the
`
`reference may be material if it would have blocked patent issuance under the PTO’s
`
`different evidentiary standards.” Id.
`
`Due to the fact-intensive nature of intent and materiality—and because all
`
`inferences drawn from the factual record must be viewed in the light most favorable
`
`
`
`to the non-moving party3F4—“a grant of summary judgment on the issue of inequitable
`
`conduct is permissible, but uncommon.” Digital Control, Inc. v. Charles Mach.
`
`Works, 437 F.3d 1309, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2006); M. Eagles Tool Warehouse, Inc. v.
`
`Fisher Tooling Co., Inc., 439 F.3d 1335, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (urging courts to
`
`
`4 Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986);
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) (“The evidence of the
`non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his
`favor.”).
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 273, PageID.29665 Filed 07/22/24 Page 24 of 55
`
`
`
`exercise “caution in making an inequitable conduct determination at the summary
`
`judgment stage.”); Cozy, Inc., 633 F. Supp. 3d at 424.
`
`Neo misapplies Therasense to assert that “the specific intent to deceive must
`
`be “the single most reasonable inference able to be drawn from the evidence” at the
`
`summary judgment stage. (ECF No. 259, PageID.19930–19933.) Therasense arose
`
`after trial and did not apply the summary judgment standard for claims of inequitable
`
`conduct. See Alcon Rsch., Ltd. v. Apotex, Inc., No. 1:09-cv-102-RLY-TAB, 2013
`
`WL 2244338, at *8 (S.D. Ind. May 21, 2013) (noting that Therasense “was an appeal
`
`from a bench trial, and sets forth the standard for proving inequitable conduct at trial.
`
`Indeed, the opinion is replete with references to ‘the evidence,’ to ‘the burden of
`
`proof,’ and to what is necessary to ‘prevail on a claim’”) (emphasis in original).
`
`Here, as in Alcon Rsch., “[i]n marked contrast, this case is before the court on [Neo’s]
`
`motion for summary