Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 283, PageID.30952 Filed 08/06/24 Page 1 of 21
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 283, PageID.30953 Filed 08/06/24 Page 2 of 21
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`NO INFRINGEMENT OF THE ʼ908 AND ʼ302 PATENTS ............................................ 1
`
`A.
`
`The Accused Products Do Not Literally Infringe. .................................................. 1
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The ordinary meaning of a DSSS signal is well-known in the art
`and confirmed in the patents. ...................................................................... 1
`
`The patents’ specification does not deviate from the known
`meaning of a DSSS signal........................................................................... 3
`
`There is no infringement because the accused signals are not DSSS
`signals. ........................................................................................................ 4
`
`The Accused Products Do Not Infringe under the DOE......................................... 5
`
`No Infringement of the ʼ908 Patent ........................................................................ 6
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`NO INFRINGEMENT OF THE ʼ941 PATENT ................................................................ 8
`
`NO INFRINGEMENT OF THE ʼ450 PATENT .............................................................. 10
`
`NO PRE-SUIT DAMAGES OR WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT ..................................... 12
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 15
`
`I.
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 283, PageID.30954 Filed 08/06/24 Page 3 of 21
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc.,
`
`239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001) .....................................................................12
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc.,
`314 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................12
`
`Asia Vital Components Co, Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S,
`337 F. Supp. 3d 990 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ...........................................................13
`
`
`Contour IP Holding, LLC v. GoPro, Inc.,
`
`2020 WL 5106845 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2020) ..............................................13
`
`Decisioning.com, Inc. v. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc.,
`
`527 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ....................................................................... 5
`
`E-Vision Optics, LLC et al v. Luxottica Grp. S.p.A. et al,
`
`2024 WL 3468839 (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2024) ...............................................15
`
`Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`
`2020 WL 8269548 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 11, 2020) ..............................................15
`
`Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc.,
`
`86 F.3d 1098 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .......................................................................14
`
`Network Com., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`
`422 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ....................................................................... 3
`
`Team Worldwide Corp. v. Academy,
`
`2021 WL 1854302 (E.D. Tex. May 10, 2021) ..............................................14
`
`Trutek Corp. v. BlueWillow Biologics, Inc.,
`
`2024 WL 180851 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 17, 2024) ...............................................13
`
`TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc.,
`
`851 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .....................................................................12
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 283, PageID.30955 Filed 08/06/24 Page 4 of 21
`
`
`NO INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘908 AND ‘302 PATENTS
`I.
`The Court construed the terms “random access signal” and “probing signal”
`
`to require a “direct sequence spread spectrum signal” (“DSSS signal”). Neo tries to
`
`side-step the construction by pointing to signals that are not DSSS signals and by
`
`invoking the Doctrine of Equivalents (“DOE”). Neo goes so far as to accuse
`
`Defendants of engaging in “subtle claim construction,” ECF No. 265-1,
`
`PageID.28490, even
`
`though Defendants are simply applying
`
`the Court’s
`
`construction. Neo cannot avoid summary judgment as discussed below.
`
`A.
`
`The Accused Products Do Not Literally Infringe.
`
`1.
`
`The ordinary meaning of a DSSS signal is well-known in the art
`and confirmed in the patents.
`Defendants’ motion simply applies the well-accepted understanding of a
`
`DSSS signal: a signal generated by modulating (i.e., multiplying) information bits
`
`with a spreading sequence. The patents themselves and contemporaneous technical
`
`literature, including the article authored by Neo’s expert, confirm this understanding.
`
`Indeed, the ‘908 and ‘302 Patents state that, “[i]n the spread spectrum transmitter,
`
`the DSSS sequence is modulated by the information bits[.]” ECF No. 28-3,
`
`PageID.131 at 5:7-9. Consistent with the patents’ specification, eight different
`
`definitions from contemporaneous technical literature confirm this defining
`
`characteristic of DSSS signals. See, e.g., Ex. 42 at ¶¶ 257-262, 353-359 (citing and
`
`quoting five definitions which explain that DSSS signals are formed by
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 283, PageID.30956 Filed 08/06/24 Page 5 of 21
`
`
`“multiplication” of information bits and spreading sequences); ECF 247-7 at ¶¶ 39-
`
`55 (citing and quoting four definitions for same). Neo does not provide any contrary
`
`descriptions of a DSSS signal.
`
`Even the article authored by Neo’s own expert, Dr. Mahon, describes a
`
`“spread-spectrum signal” as being generated through a “multiplication.” ECF No.
`
`246-37, PageID.13027 (“The spread-spectrum signal is then obtained by
`
`multiplication of the maximal length sequence with the sinusoidal carrier.”). Neo
`
`tries to downplay this article by casting it as being “from 27 years ago, completely
`
`divorced from [Dr. Mahon’s] analysis of the Asserted Patents.” ECF No. 265-1,
`
`PageID.28498. But Dr. Mahon admitted that the definition of a DSSS signal has not
`
`changed over the years. See, e.g., Ex. 43 at 543:8-18 (“Q. I’m just trying to figure
`
`out whether the meaning of ‘DSSS’ has changed over time. A. No, it hasn’t changed.
`
`Q. So the meaning of “DSSS” today is the same as back in the 1990s, for example;
`
`correct? A. Yes.”). Nor can Neo distinguish this article as being related to acoustics,
`
`because Dr. Mahon testified that “the concept of spread spectrum can apply in any
`
`frequency range … whether it’s acoustic or RF [i.e., cellular communication].” Id.
`
`at 471:16-25.
`
`While Neo “does not agree that the Court’s ‘random access signal’ or ‘probing
`
`signal’ constructions require
`
`this
`
`type of modulating,” ECF No. 265-1,
`
`PageID.28481, there is no support for deviating from the known meaning of a DSSS
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 283, PageID.30957 Filed 08/06/24 Page 6 of 21
`
`
`signal which requires modulating information bits with a spreading sequence. See
`
`Network Com., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 422 F.3d 1353, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(affirming the district court’s summary judgment of noninfringement and stating that
`
`“[the plaintiff’s expert] does not support his conclusion with any references to
`
`industry publications or other independent sources,” and that “expert testimony at
`
`odds with the intrinsic evidence must be disregarded.”).
`
`2.
`
`The patents’ specification does not deviate from the known
`meaning of a DSSS signal.
`Neo argues that the patents’ DSSS signal need not be generated by modulation
`
`based on two statements in the patents. Those statements do not support Neo.
`
`First, the statement, ECF No. 28-3, PageID.130 at 4:61-62 (“the modulation
`
`symbol on the DSSS sequence is one and the sequence is unmodulated”) does not
`
`depart from the known meaning of a DSSS signal. Rather, the statement discusses a
`
`DSSS sequence, not a DSSS signal. Because a DSSS sequence is not the same as a
`
`DSSS signal, Ex. 42 at ¶ 272.A, whether a DSSS sequence is unmodulated is
`
`irrelevant to whether a DSSS signal is modulated. This is apparent from the
`
`surrounding language which states that, even though the sequence is unmodulated,
`
`“the DSSS signal is modulated”:
`
`In another embodiment, the MC signal is modulated on subcarriers in
`the frequency domain while the DSSS signal is modulated in either the
`time domain or the frequency domain. In one embodiment the
`modulation symbol on the DSSS sequence is one and the sequence is
`unmodulated.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 283, PageID.30958 Filed 08/06/24 Page 7 of 21
`
`
`ECF No. 28-3, PageID.130 at 4:58–62 (emphasis added).
`
`Second, the specification statement at ECF No. 28-3, PageID.129-130 at 2:65-
`
`3:3 (“In some cases the information bits modulating the DSSS sequence are always
`
`one”) confirms the known meaning of DSSS signal by expressly stating that
`
`“information bits modulating the DSSS sequence.” Although it acknowledges the
`
`modulation, Neo dismisses this disclosure as a “pointless modulation” because, in
`
`its expert’s view, “there is no difference between transmitting or receiving an
`
`unmodulated DSSS sequence and a DSSS sequence modulated with information bits
`
`of one.” ECF No. 265-1, PageID.28494 (citing Ex. B at 538:9–539:14; Ex. A
`
`at ¶ 11.) But even if the modulation is “pointless,” it still occurs, as it must for it to
`
`be a DSSS signal.
`
`Not only are Neo’s citations to the specification inapposite, so too are its cited
`
`cases. Neo cited Katz and Oatey, where a claim construction was held to be incorrect
`
`by excluding a disclosed embodiment. ECF No. 265-1, PageID.28495. No such
`
`exclusion applies here, because there is no disclosed embodiment of a DSSS signal
`
`generated with anything other than information bits modulated by a spreading
`
`sequence. Defendants are simply applying the common understanding of a DSSS
`
`signal as disclosed in the patents.
`
`3.
`
`There is no infringement because the accused signals are not
`DSSS signals.
`As Neo expressly admits, the accused signals in 4G LTE are not modulated:
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 283, PageID.30959 Filed 08/06/24 Page 8 of 21
`
`
`“Neo admits that the LTE random access preamble and the SRS are generated
`
`without modulation (multiplication) of information bits.” ECF No. 265-1,
`
`PageID.28481. Without modulation (multiplication), the accused LTE signals
`
`1
`cannot be DSSS signals, and thus do not satisfy the asserted claims as construed.0F
`
`B.
`
`The Accused Products Do Not Infringe under the DOE.
`
`Neo’s DOE infringement theory vitiates the claims because the Court’s
`
`construction required the claims to use a specific type of signal—a DSSS signal—
`
`and Neo’s DOE infringement theory eliminates this requirement entirely by using a
`
`different type of signal. This elimination violates the vitiation doctrine. See, e.g.,
`
`Decisioning.com, Inc. v. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc., 527 F.3d 1300, 1315 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2008) (having construed “remote interface” to encompass only publicly-
`
`accessible computer equipment that is remote from a server, the court found that the
`
`plaintiff could not assert DOE to capture personal computers “as doing so would
`
`vitiate an element of the claims--i.e., ‘remote interface’ as construed”).
`
`Neo’s DOE infringement theory also fails because Neo cannot satisfy the
`
`
`1 Neo criticizes Defendants’ reference to Neo’s German litigation. ECF No. 265-1,
`PageID.28499-28500. While Neo raises procedural arguments, it does not and
`cannot dispute that the German Court found the LTE standard cannot infringe a
`claim requiring the “random access signal is a spread spectrum signal.” Although
`the German proceeding does not control the decision here, it shows that Defendants’
`arguments are proper, as shown by another forum’s rejection of Neo’s similar
`arguments.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 283, PageID.30960 Filed 08/06/24 Page 9 of 21
`
`
`“substantially the same” DOE test. As discussed in ECF No. 246, PageID.12762-
`
`12765, the accused LTE signals use Zadoff-Chu sequences without multiplying
`
`them with information bits. This lack of modulation is substantially different from
`
`the way in which spreading sequences are multiplied with information bits to
`
`generate DSSS signals. Although Neo relies on Dr. Mahon’s opinions that there is
`
`no difference between an unmodulated DSSS sequence and a signal formed from
`
`modulating a DSSS sequence by information bits, this opinion at most compares the
`
`result of the two different techniques without disputing that the signals are generated
`
`2; see also ECF No. 247-
`in substantially different ways. See ECF No. 247-12 at ¶ 231F
`
`11 at ¶ 23. As such, there is no genuine issue of material fact that the accused signals
`
`are generated in a substantially different way than DSSS signals.
`
`C.
`
`No Infringement of the ‘908 Patent
`In construing the “associated with” limitation of the ‘908 Patent, the Court
`
`found that this limitation cannot mean “assigned by.” ECF No. 198, PageID.11593.
`
`To circumvent this ruling, Neo asserts that “the Court did not state that
`
`sequences ‘associated with’ the base station cannot be both ‘associated with’ the
`
`base station and also assigned by the base station.” ECF No. 267, PageID.29118.
`
`
`2 In instances where ECF-stamped copies of sealed documents were not provided by
`the Court, the sealed filing’s ECF number and page, paragraph, column, and/or line
`number(s) are cited.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 283, PageID.30961 Filed 08/06/24 Page 10 of 21
`
`
`But this assertion conflates the two types of random access procedures in 4G LTE:
`
`contention-based and contention-free. Id., PageID.29119-29120. In a contention-
`
`based procedure, “the Accused Product randomly selects a preamble from a set of
`
`available preambles for a specific base station.” Ex. 44 at ¶ 76. In contrast, in a
`
`contention-free procedure, the base station assigns the preamble (containing the
`
`Zadoff-Chu sequence) to the UE. Id. (“In a non-contention based procedure, the
`
`Accused Product is assigned a preamble selected by the base station.”); ECF No.
`
`247-6 at 496:8-21. Thus, the UE makes the assignment in a contention-based
`
`procedure, while the base station makes it in a contention-free procedure.
`
`Defendants’ motion on this issue is specific to the contention-free procedure,
`
`because Neo’s expert conceded that, if “associated with” excludes “assigned by,”
`
`the 4G LTE’s contention-free procedure cannot infringe the ‘908 Patent. ECF No.
`
`247-6 at 496:8-21, 501:3-25. Neo does not dispute its expert’s clear admission. ECF
`
`No. 267, PageID.29117-29121. Nor does Neo dispute that the 4G LTE specification
`
`on which Dr. Mahon relies dictates that the contention-free preamble, which
`
`contains a Zadoff-Chu sequence, is assigned by the eNB (the base station). Compare
`
`id., with Ex. 45.
`
`To avoid summary judgment, Neo advances an ex post attorney argument that
`
`a Zadoff-Chu sequence can be “associated with” the base station without being
`
`assigned. ECF No. 267, PageID.29119-29120. Neo does not cite this contention in
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 283, PageID.30962 Filed 08/06/24 Page 11 of 21
`
`
`the record because it is new and should be disregarded. See ECF No. 238 (excluding
`
`invalidity theory finding it was disclosed after contention deadline). Neo’s untimely
`
`argument ignores that its expert viewed the base station’s assignment and association
`
`as one and the same for his infringement opinion against the contention-free
`
`procedure. ECF No. 247-6 at 496:8-21 (“The UE receives information from the
`
`target base station of which a Zadoff-Chu sequence, it should use to connect to it
`
`during handover . . . In that context, it’s certainly assigned and associated with that
`
`base station.”). Otherwise, he would not have conceded noninfringement for the
`
`contention-free procedure when faced with the likelihood that the construction of
`
`“associated with” excludes “assigned by.” Ex. 42 at 501:3-502:2. If he had split hairs
`
`as Neo now does, he would not have made this concession.
`
`Finally, Neo incorrectly argues that Defendants’ motion does not affect the
`
`merits of any claim or defense. Should the Court grant summary judgment of
`
`noninfringement by the contention-free procedure, Neo can no longer accuse the
`
`contention-free procedure of infringement and must proceed to trial, if at all, solely
`
`against the contention-based procedure. As a result, trial on this patent will be
`
`narrower and more streamlined for the jury.
`
`NO INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘941 PATENT
`II.
`Neo’s opposition fails to identify a specific parameter that affirmatively
`
`indicates whether a subchannel is distributed or localized, and instead re-argues the
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 283, PageID.30963 Filed 08/06/24 Page 12 of 21
`
`
`same claim interpretation position that the Court already addressed during Markman.
`
`Back then, Neo accused Defendants of importing “an indicator flag” requirement
`
`and argued that “a subchannel configuration … need not announce that it is localized
`
`or distributed to nevertheless be characterized by localized or distributed
`
`subcarriers.” ECF No. 127, PageID.9030 (emphasis in original). The Court rejected
`
`Neo’s broadening construction through the phrase “characterized by” based on
`
`Neo’s “binding disclaimer.” ECF No. 198, PageID.11619-20. Thus, the Court
`
`“agreed with Defendants,” finding that the claims require an “affirmative indication”
`
`of the two alternatives. ECF No. 198, PageID.116120-21.
`
`Neo’s opposition reargues its rejected proposed construction by asserting that
`
`the “Court’s claim construction . . . does not require that the mobile station-specific
`
`transmission parameters be ‘separate.’” ECF No. 265-1, PageID.28483. To the
`
`contrary, the Court “agree[d]” that the PTAB proceedings foreclosed a construction
`
`that “avoid[ed] a separate parameter”:
`
`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. ECF 131,
`PageID.9123 (citing 131-18 (IPR2021-01468)). The Court agrees with
`Defendants.
`ECF No. 198, PageID.116120. Thus, a separate parameter is required.
`
`Neo reargues the construction here because it cannot show the required
`
`separate parameter. For instance, Neo argues that a bitmap (for example
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 283, PageID.30964 Filed 08/06/24 Page 13 of 21
`
`
`“0011010000000”) indicates a distributed subchannel configuration “because the
`
`‘1’s are non-adjacent.” ECF No. 365-1, PageID.28513. But this is its “characterized
`
`by” argument again. Even if a bitmap provides a configuration which could be
`
`characterized as distributed or localized, it does not provide an “affirmative
`
`indication” of the subchannel configuration as either distributed or localized. See
`
`3 Neo has no evidence of any “separate” or
`ECF No. 198, PageID.11620-21.2F
`
`“affirmative” indication.
`
`In support of its reargued interpretation, Neo now cites Dr. Valenti’s
`
`testimony about the claim’s plain language in a related IPR, ECF No. 265-1,
`
`PageID.28510-11, because the PTAB has not yet adopted a claim construction in the
`
`IPR. Here, there is a final construction based on Neo’s disclaimer (not the plain
`
`language). And, in the IPR proceeding, Dr. Valenti also concluded the claims were
`
`invalid if they required a “separate indication.” Ex. 46 at ¶56.
`
`NO INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘450 PATENT
`III.
`Neo does not dispute that “an LTE PDCCH can be formed by a single CCE”
`
`and that Dr. Mahon points to the 4G LTE standard’s CCEs as the “time-frequency
`
`resource units.” ECF No. 267, PageID.29097. To avoid summary judgment, Neo
`
`
`3 It is not clear whether “11000011” should be characterized as distributed or
`localized, since all 1’s are adjacent another and not distributed throughout. The
`standard provides no “affirmative indication” of which this is.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 283, PageID.30965 Filed 08/06/24 Page 14 of 21
`
`
`argues that “the presence of an unrecited element in an accused product does not
`
`negate infringement.” Id., PageID.29126. This argument, however, fails because its
`
`expert expressly restricted the ’450 Patent’s number of time-frequency resource
`
`units “N” to only 2, 4, and 8:
`
`Q. So if a system disclosed N equals 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, would that
`be within the scope of the claims or not?
`MR. HAMAD: Objection; form.
`THE WITNESS: That would be outside the scope of the claim.
`
`ECF No. 247-6 at 222:12-17; see also id. at 223:24-224:5 (testifying that a system
`
`including another N value in addition to N=2, 4, or 8 does not satisfy the claim),
`
`229:17-230:4 (testifying Claim 7’s time-frequency resource units are “restricted to
`
`2, 4, and 8”); ECF No. 246, PageID.12777 (citing testimony).
`
`Dr. Mahon took this very narrow read of the ’450 Patent to avoid Defendants’
`
`prior art. For example, he opined that the Park reference did not read on Claim 7
`
`because it disclosed “N = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8”—rather than just 2, 4, and 8:
`
`Dr. Wells also states that in Park “when, for example, Nau = 3, the
`number N can be any 3-bit value, or any integer value from 1 to 8 (for
`example, N = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8).” This disclosure in Park
`undermines Dr. Wells’ assertion that Park discloses this element. The
`claim requires that N=2, 4, or 8.
`
`Ex. 47 at ¶ 13 (emphasis added, internal image removed). Because a claim must have
`
`the same meaning for validity and infringement, any system failing to restrict the
`
`number of time-frequency resource units N only to 2, 4, and 8 cannot practice Claim
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 283, PageID.30966 Filed 08/06/24 Page 15 of 21
`
`
`7—the only still-asserted claim of the ’450 Patent—for purposes of infringement.
`
`See TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc., 851 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Claim
`
`terms must be construed the same way for the purpose of determining invalidity and
`
`infringement.”); Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1330
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2003) (“It is axiomatic that claims are construed the same way for both
`
`invalidity and infringement.”); Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239
`
`F.3d 1343, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“A patent may not, like a nose of wax, be twisted
`
`one way to avoid anticipation and another to find infringement.” (citations and
`
`internal quotation marks omitted)).
`
`Just as Claim 7 fails to recite N=3, 5, 6, or 7, it also fails to recite N=1. ECF
`
`No. 28-5, PageID.173. Because the 4G LTE standard permits the number of CCEs
`
`to be equal to 1 and because 1 is not part of Dr. Mahon’s restricted set of N=2, 4,
`
`and 8, the standard and the Accused Products do not—and cannot—infringe Claim
`
`7 of the ’450 Patent. See Ex. 47 at ¶ 13 (opining that an “N=1” disclosure undermines
`
`any assertion that the system practices Claim 7).
`
`NO PRE-SUIT DAMAGES OR WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
`IV.
`Neo does not dispute the material facts that entitle Defendants to summary
`
`judgment: (a) its licensees sold unmarked, patented products; and (b) Neo and the
`
`licensees made no reasonable effort to ensure compliance with the marking
`
`requirements.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 283, PageID.30967 Filed 08/06/24 Page 16 of 21
`
`
` ECF No. 247-19; ECF No.
`
`247-20; ECF No. 247-21. Neo admits that the licensed products practice the
`
`Asserted Patents. ECF No. 247-5 at 282:23-283:5; ECF No. 247-26 at 190:13-18.
`
`That Neo’s agreements are confidential or do not contain a concession to
`
`infringement is immaterial. Trutek Corp. v. BlueWillow Biologics, Inc., No. 21-
`
`10312, 2024 WL 180851, at *3-4 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 17, 2024).
`
`Neo suggests there is no obligation to mark because the licensed cellular
`
`products are not marked with other patents. Neo offers no factual support for its
`
`assertion, and it is incorrect. At least Samsung and LG virtually mark their products
`
`with patent numbers.3F
`
`4 Neo’s assertion is also irrelevant. See Contour IP Holding,
`
`LLC v. GoPro, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-04738-WHO, 2020 WL 5106845, at *7 (N.D. Cal.
`
`Aug. 31, 2020) (Failure to mark not excused where patentee argued without
`
`evidentiary support that “marking the camera itself was not possible.”).
`
`Neo’s only cited case, Asia Vital Components Co, Ltd. v. Asetek Danmark A/S,
`
`337 F. Supp. 3d 990, 1026 (N.D. Cal. 2019), is inapposite. Asia Vital involved a
`
`covenant not to sue between a patentee and licensee entered during active litigation,
`
`and “lasted only as long as [the question of which products were ‘patented articles’]
`
`remained unsettled.” 377 F. Supp. 3d at 1024. In contrast, Neo’s licenses ended
`
`
`4 https://www.samsungdisplay.com/eng/patents; https://www.lg.com/us/patent
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 283, PageID.30968 Filed 08/06/24 Page 17 of 21
`
`
`active or threatened litigation. ECF No. 247-19, ECF No. 247-20, ECF No. 247-21.
`
`Even under a “rule of reason” inquiry, no reasonable juror could find that Neo
`
`“made reasonable efforts to ensure compliance with the marking requirements.”
`
`Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc., 86 F.3d 1098, 1112 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Neo made zero effort
`
`to comply with the marking requirements. The consequence of this failure is that if
`
`unmarked licensed products enter the market, all pre-suit damages are precluded
`
`unless and until (a) marking began; or (b) actual notice. See Team Worldwide Corp.
`
`v. Academy, No. 2:19-CV-00092-JRG-RSP, 2021 WL 1854302, at *1 (E.D. Tex.
`
`May 10, 2021). Allowing Neo to “recover damages without undertaking any
`
`corrective action” would “run afoul of the Federal Circuit’s policy objectives.” Id.
`
`at *2.
`
`
`
`Moreover, there is also no genuine or material dispute that Neo’s pre-suit
`
`letters fail to provide actual notice as a matter of law. Neo’s withdrawal of its pre-
`
`suit willful infringement claims is telling of the fact that its pre-suit letters fail to
`
`provide Defendants legally effective notice. Neo concedes the letters merely
`
`“inform[ed] Defendants” that its entire “patent portfolio” covered “certain
`
`technology practiced by the 3GPP wireless standards.” ECF No. 265-1,
`
`PageID.28520. The 3GPP standards are extensive, and the releases identified in
`
`Neo’s letter allow for devices to function in many different ways and still be
`
`standard-compliant. Neo’s informational letters failed to convey even a “mere
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 283, PageID.30969 Filed 08/06/24 Page 18 of 21
`
`
`‘suspicion of infringement’” nor identify which of Defendants’ products “may
`
`incorporate” the technologies covered by “fourteen US patent families, sixty-six US
`
`patents and seventeen pending applications.” ECF No. 246-28; ECF No. 246-29;
`
`ECF No. 246-30; ECF No. 246-31; ECF No. 246-32; Maxell, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No.
`
`5:19-CV-00036-RWS, 2020 WL 8269548, at *13 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 11, 2020).
`
`
`
`No reasonable jury could find that Defendants are liable for post-suit willful
`
`infringement, either. Neo says only that Defendants’ readings of the claims and prior
`
`art are “strained.” But as detailed previously, Defendants secured a non-infringement
`
`ruling and voluntary dismissal on the European counterpart to the ‘908 Patent
`
`premised on the same claim construction Defendants advance here. ECF No. 239,
`
`PageID.12305-12306. Defendants’ actions are “consistent with a defendant who
`
`subjectively believes the plaintiff’s infringement action has no merit,” and post-suit
`
`willfulness claims are precluded as a matter of law. E-Vision Optics, LLC et al v.
`
`Luxottica Grp. S.p.A. et al, No. CV-23-02013-AB (SHKx), 2024 WL 3468839, at
`
`*5 (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2024).
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court
`
`grants summary judgment of non-infringement.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 283, PageID.30970 Filed 08/06/24 Page 19 of 21
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`Date: August 1, 2024
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Joseph A. Herriges
`Joseph A. Herriges, MN Bar No. 390350
`Conrad A. Gosen, MN Bar No. 0395381
`James Huguenin-Love, MN Bar No. 0398706
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: 612-335-5070/Fax: 612-288-9696
`herriges@fr.com, gosen@fr.com, huguein-
`love@fr.com
`
`Michael J. McKeon, DC Bar No. 459780
`Christian Chu, DC Bar No. 483948
`Jared Hartzman, DC Bar No. 1034255
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue SW, Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20024
`Tel: 202-783-5070/Fax: 202-783-2331
`mckeon@fr.com,
`chu@fr.com,
`hartzman@fr.com
`
`J. Michael Huget (P39150)
`Sarah E. Waidelich (P80225)
`HONIGMAN LLP
`315 East Eisenhower Pkwy, Suite 100
`Ann Arbor, MI 48108
`Tel: 734-418-4254/Fax: 734-418-4255
`mhuget@honigman.com,
`swaidelich@honigman.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants General Motors
`Company and General Motors LLC
`
` /s/ Thomas H. Reger II
`Thomas H. Reger II
`Texas Bar No. 24032992
`reger@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1717 Main Street, Suite 5000
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Tel: 214-747-5070
`
`Lawrence Jarvis
`Georgia Bar No. 102116
`jarvis@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1180 Peachtree Street NE, 21st Floor
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`Tel: 404-892-5005/Fax: 404-892-5002
`
`Elizabeth G.H. Ranks
`Massachusetts Bar No. 693679
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1 Marina Park Drive
`Boston, Massachusetts 02210
`Tel: 617-542-5070/Fax: 617-542-8906
`ranks@fr.com
`
`J. Michael Huget (P39150)
`Sarah E. Waidelich (P80225)
`HONIGMAN LLP
`315 East Eisenhower Pkwy, Suite 100
`Ann Arbor, MI 48108
`Tel: (734) 418-4254
`mhuget@honigman.com
`swaidelich@honigman.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant Tesla, Inc.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 283, PageID.30971 Filed 08/06/24 Page 20 of 21
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Frank C. Cimino, Jr.
`Frank C. Cimino, Jr.
`Megan S. Woodworth
`Jonathan L. Falkler
`Robert C. Tapparo
`VENABLE LLP
`600 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Tel: 202-344-4569
`FCCimino@Venable.com
`MSWoodworth@Venable.com
`JLFalkler@Venable.com
`RCTapparo@Venable.com
`
`Patrick G. Seyferth (P47575)
`Susan M. McKeever (P73533)
`BUSH SEYFERTH PLLC
`100 W. Big Beaver Road, Suite 400
`Troy, MI 48084
`Tel: 248-822-7800
`seyferth@bsplaw.com
`mckeever@bsplaw.com
`Attorneys for FCA US LLC
`
`
`
`/s/ Peter J. Brennan
`Reginald J. Hill (IL Bar #6225173)
`Peter J. Brennan (IL Bar #6190873)
`JENNER & BLOCK LLP
`353 N. Clark St.
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Tel: 312-222-9350
`rhill@jenner.com
`pbrennan@jenner.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Nissan North
`America
`Inc.
`and Nissan Motor
`Acceptance Corporation a/k/a Nissan
`Motor Acceptance Company LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ John T. Johnson
`
`
`John T. Johnson (NY Bar No.2589182)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`7 Times Square, 20th Floor
`New York, NY 10036
`Tel: 212-765-5070/Fax: 212-258-2291
`E-mail: jjohnson@fr.com
`
`Ruffin B. Cordell (DC Bar #445801)
`Benjamin J Christoff (DC Bar #1025635)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1000 Maine Avenue, S.W.
`Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20024
`Tel: 2020-783-5070/Fax: 202-783-2331
`E-mail: cordell@fr.com; christoff@fr.com
`
`Thomas Branigan (P41774)
`Matin Fallahi (P84524)
`Bowman and Brooke LLP
`41000 Woodard Avenue, 200 East
`Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
`Tel: 248-205-3300/Fax: 248-205-3399
`thomas.branigan@bowmanandbrooke.com
`matin.fallahi@browmanandbrook.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and Honda
`Development & Manufacturing Of America,
`LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 283, PageID.30972 Filed 08/06/24 Page 21 of 21
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Paul R. Steadman
`Paul R. Steadman (Illinois Bar No.
`6238160)
`Matthew Satchwell (Illinois Bar No.
`6290672)
`Shuzo Maruyama (Illinois Bar No.
`6313434)
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`444 West Lake Street, Suite 900
`Chicago, IL 60606-0089
`Tel: 312-368-2135/Fax: 312-251-2850
`paul.steadman@us.dlapiper.com
`matthew.satchwell@us.dlapiper.com
`shuzo.maruyama@us.dlapiper.com
`
`Brian Erickson (TX Bar No. 24012594)
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`303 Colorado Street, Suite 3000
`Austin, Texas 78701-4653
`Tel: 512.457.7059/Fax: 512.721.2263
`brian.erickson@us.dlapiper.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ John S. LeRoy
`John S. LeRoy (P61964)
`Christopher C. Smith (P73936)
`BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`Tel: 248-358-4400/Fax: 248-358-3351
`jleroy@brookskushman.com
`csmith@brook
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
