Exhibit 1028
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable Robert K. Rogers, Jr.
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`In the Matter of
`
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`CERTAIN WIRELESS DEVICES WITH
`3G AND/OR 4 G CAPABILITIES AND
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-868
`
`RESPONSE OF ZTE CORPORATION AND ZTE (USA) TO THE COMPLAINT OF
`INTERDIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS, LLC UNDER SECTION 337 OF THE
`
`TARIFF ACT OF 1930, AS AMENDED, AND NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION
`
`Pursuant to 19 CPR. § 210.13(a), Respondents ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA)
`
`(collectively “ZTE”) hereby respond to the Complaint filed by Complainants InterDigital
`
`Communications LLC, InterDigital Technology Corporation, and IPR Licensing, Inc.
`
`(“Complainants” or “InterDigital”) on January 2, 2013, in the above-captioned investigation
`
`(“this Investigation”) and to the Notice of Investigation issued by the United States International
`
`Trade Commission (“Commission”) dated January 31, 2013.
`
`The following headings and numbered paragraphs correspond to and respond to the
`
`numbered paragraphs set forth in the Complaint for ease of reference. However, to the extent
`
`that such headings themselves contain factual and legal characterizations, ZTE denies such
`
`characterizations.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.1
`
`ZTE admits that Complainant has filed the Complaint under Section 337 of the
`
`Tariff Act, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, but denies that Complainant is entitled to any relief.
`
`ZTE denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 1.1 of the Complaint.
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1028-00001
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`1.2
`
`ZTE admits the Complaint proposes the following respondents: Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc; Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC; Huawei Device USA,
`
`Inc; FutureWei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA); Nokia Corporation;
`
`Nokia Inc; ZTE Corporation; and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`
`1.3
`
`ZTE admits that purported copies of US. Patent No. 7,190,966 (“the ’966
`
`patent”); US. Patent No. 7,286,847 (“the ’847 patent”); US. Patent No. 8,009,636 (“the ’636
`
`patent”); US. Patent No. 7,706,830 (“the ’830 patent”); US. Patent No. 7,941,151 (“the ’151
`
`patent”); US. Patent No. 7,616,970 (“the ’970 patent”); and US. Patent No. 7,502,406 (“the
`
`’406 patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”) are attached as Exhibits 1-7 respectively.
`
`ZTE lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations in paragraph 1.3, and therefore denies the same.
`
`1.4
`
`ZTE admits that purported copies of the recorded assignments for the Asserted
`
`Patents are attached to the Complaint as Exhibits 8-14. ZTE lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 1.4, and
`
`therefore denies the same.
`
`1.5
`
`ZTE is without sufficient knowledge or information in this investigation to admit
`
`or deny the allegations in paragraph1.5 and Complainant fails to demonstrate that an industry as
`
`required by 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2) and (3) exists in the United States relating to InterDigital's
`
`exploitation of the Asserted Patents, therefore, the allegations in paragraph 1.5 are denied.
`
`1.6
`
`ZTE admits Complainant has requested relief, but denies that Complainant is
`
`entitled to any remedy, as it may relate to ZTE and its business. ZTE further denies that
`
`Complainant is entitled to any relief whatsoever as a result of this Investigation.
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1028-00002
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`II.
`
`C OMPLAINANTS
`
`A.
`
`2.1.
`
`InterDigital Communications, LLC
`
`ZTE is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
`
`allegations in paragraph 2.1, and they are therefore denied.
`
`B.
`
`2.2.
`
`InterDigital Holdings, Inc.
`
`ZTE is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
`
`allegations in paragraph 2.2, and they are therefore denied.
`
`C.
`
`2.3.
`
`InterDigital Technology Corporation
`
`ZTE is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
`
`allegations in paragraph 2.3, and they are therefore denied.
`
`D.
`
`2.4.
`
`IPR Licensing, Inc.
`
`ZTE is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
`
`allegations in paragraph 2.4, and they are therefore denied.
`
`E.
`
`2.5.
`
`InterDigital's History
`
`ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in
`
`paragraph 2.5, and they are therefore denied.
`
`2.6.
`
`ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in
`
`paragraph 2.6, and they are therefore denied.
`
`2.7.
`
`ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in
`
`paragraph 2.7, and they are therefore denied.
`
`2.8.
`
`ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in
`
`paragraph 2.8, and they are therefore denied.
`
`2.9.
`
`ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in
`
`paragraph 2.9, and they are therefore denied.
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1028-00003
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`2.10
`
`ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in
`
`paragraph 2.10, and they are therefore denied.
`
`III.
`
`PROPOSED RESPONDENTS
`
`A.
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
`Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC
`
`3. l.
`
`ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in
`
`paragraph 3.1, and they are therefore denied.
`
`3.2.
`
`ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in
`
`paragraph 3.2, and they are therefore denied.
`
`3.3.
`
`ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in
`
`paragraph 3.3, and they are therefore denied.
`
`B.
`
`Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc.
`
`3.4.
`
`ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in
`
`paragraph 3.4, and they are therefore denied.
`
`3.5
`
`ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in
`
`paragraph 3.5, and they are therefore denied.
`
`C.
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`
`3.6
`
`ZTE admits that ZTE Corporation is a Chinese corporation located at ZTE Plaza,
`
`No. 55 Hi-Tech Road South, Hi-Tech Industrial Park, Nanshan District, Shenzhen, Guangdong
`
`Province 518057, China. ZTE admits that ZTE Corporation is involved in the design,
`
`development, manufacture, importation, and sale of wireless devices with 3G and/or
`
`4Gcapabilities and components thereof.
`
`3.7
`
`ZTE admits that ZTE (USA) is a New Jersey corporation located at 2425 N.
`
`Central EXpy., Ste. 323, Richardson, TX 75080. ZTE admits that ZTE (USA) Inc. is involved in
`
`4
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1028-00004
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`the importation, sale, and distribution of ZTE Corporation's wireless devices with 3G and/or 4G
`
`capabilities in the United States. ZTE admits that ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc. are
`
`collectively referred to as “ZTE” in the Complaint.
`
`D.
`
`Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Future Wei Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Huawei
`Technologies (USA) and Huawei Device USA, Inc.
`
`3.8.
`
`ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in
`
`paragraph 3.8, and they are therefore denied.
`
`3.9
`
`ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in
`
`paragraph 3.9, and they are therefore denied.
`
`3.10
`
`ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in
`
`paragraph 3.10, and they are therefore denied.
`
`IV.
`
`THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE PRODUCTS AT ISSUE
`
`4. l.
`
`ZTE denies the statements and allegations of paragraph 4.1 and the accompanying
`
`footnote to the extent that they contain opinions and legal arguments rather than factual
`
`assertions, and, therefore, require no response. ZTE denies the statements and allegations
`
`contained in paragraph 4.1 to the extent that they relate in any way to a proposed construction of
`
`any of the terms of any of the claims of the Asserted Patents or relate to the validity and
`
`enforceability of the claims. Subject to the preceding denials, ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or
`
`information to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 4.1 and accompanying footnote, and
`
`they are therefore denied.
`
`4.2.
`
`ZTE denies the statements and allegations of paragraph 4.2 to the extent that they
`
`contain opinions and legal arguments rather than factual assertions, and, therefore, require no
`
`response. ZTE denies the statements and allegations contained in paragraph 4.2 to the extent that
`
`they relate in any way to a proposed construction of any of the terms of any of the claims of the
`
`5
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1028-00005
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`Asserted Patents or relate to the validity and enforceability of the claims. Subject to the
`
`preceding denials, ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
`
`allegations in paragraph 4.2, and they are therefore denied.
`
`4.3.
`
`ZTE denies the statements and allegations of paragraph 4.3 to the extent that they
`
`contain opinions and legal arguments rather than factual assertions, and, therefore, require no
`
`response. ZTE denies the statements and allegations contained in paragraph 4.3 to the extent that
`
`they relate in any way to a proposed construction of any of the terms of any of the claims of the
`
`Asserted Patents or relate to the validity and enforceability of the claims. Subject to the
`
`preceding denials, ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
`
`allegations in paragraph 4.3, and they are therefore denied.
`
`4.4.
`
`ZTE denies the statements and allegations of paragraph 4.4 to the extent that they
`
`contain opinions and legal arguments rather than factual assertions, and, therefore, require no
`
`response. ZTE denies the statements and allegations contained in paragraph 4.4 to the extent that
`
`they relate in any way to a proposed construction of any of the terms of any of the claims of the
`
`Asserted Patents or relate to the validity and enforceability of the claims. Subject to the
`
`preceding denials, ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
`
`allegations in paragraph 4.4, and they are therefore denied.
`
`4.5.
`
`ZTE denies the statements and allegations of paragraph 4.5 to the extent that they
`
`contain opinions and legal arguments rather than factual assertions, and, therefore, require no
`
`response. ZTE denies the statements and allegations contained in paragraph 4.5 to the extent that
`
`they relate in any way to a proposed construction of any of the terms of any of the claims of the
`
`Asserted Patents or relate to the validity and enforceability of the claims. Subject to the
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1028-00006
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`preceding denials, ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
`
`allegations in paragraph 4.5, and they are therefore denied.
`
`4.6.
`
`ZTE denies the statements and allegations of paragraph 4.6 to the extent that they
`
`contain opinions and legal arguments rather than factual assertions, and, therefore, require no
`
`response. ZTE denies the statements and allegations contained in paragraph 4.6 to the extent that
`
`they relate in any way to a proposed construction of any of the terms of any of the claims of the
`
`Asserted Patents or relate to the validity and enforceability of the claims. Subject to the
`
`preceding denials, ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
`
`allegations in paragraph 4.6, and they are therefore denied.
`
`4.7.
`
`ZTE denies the statements and allegations of paragraph 4.7 to the extent that they
`
`contain opinions and legal arguments rather than factual assertions, and, therefore, require no
`
`response. ZTE denies the statements and allegations contained in paragraph 4.7 to the extent that
`
`they relate in any way to a proposed construction of any of the terms of any of the claims of the
`
`Asserted Patents or relate to the validity and enforceability of the claims. Subject to the
`
`preceding denials, ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
`
`allegations in paragraph 4.7, and they are therefore denied.
`
`V.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS AND NON-TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE
`
`INVENTIONS
`
`5.1.
`
`ZTE admits that there are seven patents asserted in this Complaint: US. Patent
`
`No. 7,190,966; US. Patent No. 7,286,847; US. Patent No. 8,009,636; US. Patent No.
`
`7,706,830; US. Patent No. 7,941,151; US. Patent No. 7,616,970; and US. Patent No.
`
`7,502,406.
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1028-00007
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,190,966
`
`1.
`
`Identification of the Patent and Ownership by InterDigital
`
`5.2.
`
`ZTE admits that the ’966 patent is on its face entitled “Method and Apparatus for
`
`Performing an Access Procedure,” and that it states on its face that it issued on March 13, 2007,
`
`to inventors Fatih Ozluturk and Gary R. Lomp. ZTE admits that the ’966 patent on its face states
`
`that it is based on Patent Application No. 11/169,490, filed on June 29, 2005, and claims priority
`
`to, inter alia, Application No. 08/670,162, filed on June 27, 1996, now U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,841,768.
`
`5.3.
`
`ZTE admits that the ’966 patent appears to have one independent claim and
`
`eleven dependent claims. ZTE admits that claims 1, 3, and 6-12 are being asserted in the
`
`Complaint against Samsung, Huawei, and ZTE and are not being asserted against Nokia. ZTE
`
`lacks sufficient knowledge or information in the present investigation to admit or deny the
`
`remaining allegations in paragraph 5.3, and they are therefore denied.
`
`5.4
`
`ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information in the present investigation to
`
`admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 5.4, and they are therefore denied.
`
`5.5.
`
`ZTE admits that the Complaint purports to be accompanied by copies of the
`
`prosecution history of the ’966 patent, and copies of all cited references.
`
`2.
`
`Non-Technical Description of the Patent
`
`5.6.
`
`ZTE denies the statements and allegations of paragraph 5.6 to the extent that they
`
`contain opinions and legal arguments rather than factual assertions, and, therefore, require no
`
`response. ZTE denies the statements and allegations contained in paragraph 5.6 to the extent that
`
`they relate in any way to a proposed construction of any of the terms of any of the claims of the
`
`Asserted Patents or relate to the validity and enforceability of the claims. Subject to the
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1028-00008
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`preceding denials, ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information in the present investigation to
`
`admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 5.6, and they are therefore denied.
`
`5.7.
`
`ZTE denies the statements and allegations of paragraph 5.7 to the extent that they
`
`contain opinions and legal arguments rather than factual assertions, and, therefore, require no
`
`response. ZTE denies the statements and allegations contained in paragraph 5.7 to the extent that
`
`they relate in any way to a proposed construction of any of the terms of any of the claims of the
`
`Asserted Patents or relate to the validity and enforceability of the claims. Subject to the
`
`preceding denials, ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information in the present investigation to
`
`admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 5.7, and they are therefore denied.
`
`5.8.
`
`ZTE denies the statements and allegations of paragraph 5.8 to the extent that they
`
`contain opinions and legal arguments rather than factual assertions, and, therefore, require no
`
`response. ZTE denies the statements and allegations contained in paragraph 5.8 to the extent that
`
`they relate in any way to a proposed construction of any of the terms of any of the claims of the
`
`Asserted Patents or relate to the validity and enforceability of the claims. Subject to the
`
`preceding denials, ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information in the present investigation to
`
`admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 5.8, and they are therefore denied.
`
`3.
`
`Foreign Counterparts to the Patent
`
`5.9.
`
`ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information in the present investigation to
`
`admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 5.9, and they are therefore denied.
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,286,847
`
`1.
`
`Identification of the Patent and Ownership by InterDigital
`
`5.10. ZTE admits that the ’847 patent is on its face entitled “Method and Apparatus for
`
`Performing an Access Procedure,” and that it states on its face that it issued on October 23, 2007,
`
`to inventors Fatih Ozluturk and Gary Lomp. ZTE admits that the ’847 patent on its face states
`
`9
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1028-00009
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`that it is based on Patent Application No. 11/169,425, filed on June 29, 2005, and claims priority
`
`to, inter alia, the same application filed June 27, 1996, to which the ’966 patent claims priority.
`
`5.11. ZTE admits that the ’847 patent appears to have eleven independent claims and
`
`no dependent claims. ZTE admits that claims 1-3 and 5-11 are being asserted in this Complaint
`
`against Samsung, Huawei, and ZTE and are not being asserted against Nokia. ZTE lacks
`
`sufficient knowledge or information in the present investigation to admit or deny the remaining
`
`allegations in paragraph 5.11, and they are therefore denied.
`
`5.12. ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information in the present investigation to
`
`admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 5.12, and they are therefore denied.
`
`5.13. ZTE admits that the Complaint purports to be accompanied copies of the
`
`prosecution history of the ’847 patent, and copies of all cited references.
`
`2.
`
`Non-Technical Description of the Patent
`
`5.14. ZTE denies the statements and allegations of paragraph 5.14 to the extent that
`
`they contain opinions and legal arguments rather than factual assertions, and, therefore, require
`
`no response. ZTE denies the statements and allegations contained in paragraph 5.14 to the extent
`
`that they relate in any way to a proposed construction of any of the terms of any of the claims of
`
`the Asserted Patents or relate to the validity and enforceability of the claims. Subject to the
`
`preceding denials, ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information in the present investigation to
`
`admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 5.14, and they are therefore denied.
`
`5.15. ZTE denies the statements and allegations of paragraph 5.15 to the extent that
`
`they contain opinions and legal arguments rather than factual assertions, and, therefore, require
`
`no response. ZTE denies the statements and allegations contained in paragraph 5.15 to the extent
`
`that they relate in any way to a proposed construction of any of the terms of any of the claims of
`
`the Asserted Patents or relate to the validity and enforceability of the claims. Subject to the
`
`10
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1028-00010
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`preceding denials, ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information in the present investigation to
`
`admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 5.15, and they are therefore denied.
`
`5.16. ZTE denies the statements and allegations of paragraph 5.16 to the extent that
`
`they contain opinions and legal arguments rather than factual assertions, and, therefore, require
`
`no response. ZTE denies the statements and allegations contained in paragraph 5.16 to the extent
`
`that they relate in any way to a proposed construction of any of the terms of any of the claims of
`
`the Asserted Patents or relate to the validity and enforceability of the claims. Subject to the
`
`preceding denials, ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information in the present investigation to
`
`admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 5.16, and they are therefore denied.
`
`3.
`
`Foreign Counterparts to the Patent
`
`5.17. ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in
`
`paragraph 5.17, and they are therefore denied.
`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,616,970
`
`1.
`
`Identification of the Patent and Ownership by InterDigital
`
`5.18. ZTE admits that the ’970 patent on its face is entitled “Dual Mode Unit for Short
`
`Range, High Rate and Long Range, Lower Rate Data Communications,” and that it states on its
`
`face that it issued on November 10, 2009, to inventor Thomas E. Gorsuch. ZTE admits that the
`
`’970 patent states on its face that it is based on Patent Application No. 11/326,809, filed on
`
`January 6, 2006, and claims priority to, inter alia, Utility Application No. 09/400,136, filed on
`
`September 21, 1999, and now issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,526,034.
`
`5.19. ZTE admits that the ’970 patent appears to have two independent claims and
`
`sixteen dependent claims. ZTE admits that claims 1-18 are being asserted in this Complaint
`
`against Samsung and are not asserted against Nokia, Huawei, and ZTE. ZTE admits that
`
`Complainant asserted the ’970 patent against ZTE in a previous investigation. ZTE lacks
`
`11
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1028-00011
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`sufficient knowledge or information in the present investigation to admit or deny the remaining
`
`allegations in paragraph 5.19, and they are therefore denied.
`
`5.20. ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information in the present investigation to
`
`admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 5.20, and they are therefore denied.
`
`5.21. ZTE admits that the Complaint purports to be accompanied by copies of the
`
`prosecution history of the ’970 patent, and copies of all cited references.
`
`2.
`
`Non-Technical Description of the Patent
`
`5.22. ZTE denies the statements and allegations of paragraph 5.22 to the extent that
`
`they contain opinions and legal arguments rather than factual assertions, and, therefore, require
`
`no response. ZTE denies the statements and allegations contained in paragraph 5.22 to the extent
`
`that they relate in any way to a proposed construction of any of the terms of any of the claims of
`
`the Asserted Patents or relate to the validity and enforceability of the claims. Subject to the
`
`preceding denials, ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information in the present investigation to
`
`admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 5.22, and they are therefore denied.
`
`3.
`
`Foreign Counterparts to the Patent
`
`5.23. ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information in the present investigation to
`
`admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 5.23, and they are therefore denied.
`
`D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,941,151
`
`1.
`
`Identification of the Patent and Ownership by InterDigital
`
`5.24. ZTE admits that the ’151 patent on its face is entitled “Method and System for
`
`Providing Channel Assignment Information Used to Support Uplink and Downlink Channels,”
`
`and that it states on its face that it issued on May 10, 2011, to inventors Marian Rudolf, Stephen
`
`G. Dick, and Phillip J. Pietraski. ZTE admits that the ’151 patent states on its face that it claims
`
`priority to, inter alia, Provisional Application No. 60/523,049, filed November 18, 2003.
`
`12
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1028-00012
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`5.25. ZTE admits that the ’151 patent appears to have four independent claims and
`
`fifty-four dependent claims. ZTE admits that claims l-6, 8, 9, l6-2l, 23, and 24 are being
`
`asserted in this Complaint against all proposed respondents.
`
`5.26. ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information in the present investigation to
`
`admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 5.26, and they are therefore denied.
`
`5.27. ZTE admits that the Complaint purports to be accompanied by copies of the
`
`prosecution history of the ’151 patent and copies of all cited references.
`
`2.
`
`Non-Technical Description of the Patent
`
`5.28. ZTE denies the statements and allegations of paragraph 5.28 to the extent that
`
`they contain opinions and legal arguments rather than factual assertions, and, therefore, require
`
`no response. ZTE denies the statements and allegations contained in paragraph 5.28 to the extent
`
`that they relate in any way to a proposed construction of any of the terms of any of the claims of
`
`the Asserted Patents or relate to the validity and enforceability of the claims. Subject to the
`
`preceding denials, ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information in the present investigation to
`
`admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 5.28, and they are therefore denied.
`
`3.
`
`Foreign Counterparts to the Patent
`
`5.29. ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in
`
`paragraph 5.29, and they are therefore denied.
`
`E.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,706,830
`
`1.
`
`Identification of the Patent and Ownership by InterDigital
`
`5.30. ZTE admits that the ’830 patent on its face is entitled “Method and Subscriber
`
`Unit for Performing an Access Procedure,” and that it states on its face that it issued on April 27,
`
`2010, to inventors Fatih Ozluturk and Gary Lomp. ZTE admits that the ’830 patent states on its
`
`face that it is based on Patent Application No. 12/116,263, filed on May 7, 2008, and claims
`
`13
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1028-00013
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`priority to, inter alia, Utility Application No. 08/670,162, now US. Patent No. 5,841,768, filed
`
`on June 27, 1996.
`
`5.31. ZTE admits that the ’830 patent appears to have six independent claims and
`
`twenty-four dependent claims. ZTE admits that claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 16-18, 20-23, and 25 are
`
`being asserted in this Complaint against Samsung and are not being asserted against Nokia,
`
`Huawei, and ZTE. ZTE admits that Complainant asserted the ’830 patent against ZTE in a
`
`previous investigation. ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information in the present
`
`investigation to admit or deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 5.31, and they are therefore
`
`denied.
`
`5.32. ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information in the present investigation to
`
`admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 5.32, and they are therefore denied.
`
`5.33. ZTE admits that the Complaint purports to be accompanied by copies of the
`
`prosecution history of the’830 patent and copies of all cited references.
`
`2.
`
`Non-Technical Description of the Patent
`
`5.34. ZTE denies the statements and allegations of paragraph 5.34 to the extent that
`
`they contain opinions and legal arguments rather than factual assertions, and, therefore, require
`
`no response. ZTE denies the statements and allegations contained in paragraph 5.34 to the extent
`
`that they relate in any way to a proposed construction of any of the terms of any of the claims of
`
`the Asserted Patents or relate to the validity and enforceability of the claims. Subject to the
`
`preceding denials, ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information in the present investigation to
`
`admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 5.34, and they are therefore denied.
`
`5.35. ZTE denies the statements and allegations of paragraph 5.35 to the extent that
`
`they contain opinions and legal arguments rather than factual assertions, and, therefore, require
`
`no response. ZTE denies the statements and allegations contained in paragraph 5.35 to the extent
`
`14
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1028-00014
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`that they relate in any way to a proposed construction of any of the terms of any of the claims of
`
`the Asserted Patents or relate to the validity and enforceability of the claims. Subject to the
`
`preceding denials, ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information in the present investigation to
`
`admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 5.35, and they are therefore denied.
`
`3.
`
`Foreign Counterparts to the Patent
`
`5.36. ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information in the present investigation to
`
`admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 5.36, and they are therefore denied.
`
`F.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,009,636
`
`1.
`
`Identification of the Patent and Ownership by InterDigital
`
`5.37. ZTE admits that the ’636 patent on its face is entitled “Method and Apparatus for
`
`Performing an Access Procedure,” and that it states on its face that it issued on August 30, 2011,
`
`to inventors Fatih Ozluturk and Gary Lomp. ZTE admits that the ’636 patent states on its face
`
`that it is based on Patent Application No. 11/169,488, filed on June 29, 2005, and claims priority
`
`to, inter alia, Utility Application No. 08/670,162, now U.S. Patent No. 5,841,768, filed on June
`
`27, 1996.
`
`5.38. ZTE admits that the ’636 patent appears to have siX independent claims and
`
`thirty-three dependent claims. ZTE admits that claims 1-4, 6-9, and 29-31 are being asserted in
`
`this Complaint against Samsung and are not being asserted against Nokia, Huawei, and ZTE.
`
`ZTE admits that Complainant asserted the ’636 patent against ZTE in a previous investigation.
`
`ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information in the present investigation to admit or deny the
`
`remaining allegations in paragraph 5.38, and they are therefore denied.
`
`5.39. ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information in the present investigation to
`
`admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 5.39, and they are therefore denied.
`
`15
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1028-00015
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`5.40. ZTE admits that the Complaint purports to be accompanied by a certified copy
`
`and three copies of the prosecution history of the ’636 patent and four copies of all cited
`
`references.
`
`2.
`
`Non-Technical Description of the Patent
`
`5.41. ZTE denies the statements and allegations of paragraph 5.41 to the extent that
`
`they contain opinions and legal arguments rather than factual assertions, and, therefore, require
`
`no response. ZTE denies the statements and allegations contained in paragraph 541 to the extent
`
`that they relate in any way to a proposed construction of any of the terms of any of the claims of
`
`the Asserted Patents or relate to the validity and enforceability of the claims. Subject to the
`
`preceding denials, ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information in the present investigation to
`
`admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 541, and they are therefore denied.
`
`5.42
`
`ZTE denies the statements and allegations of paragraph 5.42 to the extent that
`
`they contain opinions and legal arguments rather than factual assertions, and, therefore, require
`
`no response. ZTE denies the statements and allegations contained in paragraph 5.42 to the extent
`
`that they relate in any way to a proposed construction of any of the terms of any of the claims of
`
`the Asserted Patents or relate to the validity and enforceability of the claims. Subject to the
`
`preceding denials, ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information in the present investigation to
`
`admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 5.42, and they are therefore denied.
`
`3.
`
`Foreign Counterparts to the Patent
`
`5.43. ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information in the present investigation to
`
`admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 5.43, and they are therefore denied.
`
`16
`
`ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Inc.
`Exhibit 1028-00016
`
`

`

`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`G.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,502,406
`
`1.
`
`Identification of the Patent and Ownership by InterDigital
`
`5.44. ZTE admits that the ’406 patent on its face is entitled “Automatic Power Control
`
`System for a Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) Communications System,” and that it
`
`states on its face that it issued on March 10, 2009, to inventors John Kowalski, Gary Lomp, and
`
`Fatih Ozluturk. ZTE admits that the ’406 patent states on its face that it is based on Patent
`
`Application No. 10/084,007, filed on February 27, 2002, and claims priority to, inter alia,
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/000,775, filed on June 30, 1995.
`
`5.45. ZTE admits that the ’406 patent appears to have siX independent claims and
`
`thirty-four dependent claims. ZTE admits that claims l-2, 6-9, 13, 15-16, 20-22, 26, 28-30, 34-
`
`36 and 40 are being asserted in this Complaint against Samsung and are not being asserted
`
`against Nokia, Huawei, and ZTE. ZTE admits that Complainant asserted the ’406 patent against
`
`ZTE in a previous investigation. ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information in the present
`
`investigation to admit or deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 5.45, and they are therefore
`
`denied.
`
`5.46. ZTE lacks sufficient knowledge or information in the present investigation to
`
`admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 5.46, and they are therefore denied.
`
`5.47. ZTE admits that the Complaint purports to be accompanied copies of the
`
`prosecution history of the ’406 patent and copies of all cited references.
`
`2.
`
`Non-Technical Description of the Patent
`
`5.48. ZTE denies the statements and allegations of paragraph 5.48 to the extent that
`
`they contain opinions and legal arguments rather than factual assertions, and, therefore, require
`
`no response. ZTE denies the statements and allegations contained in paragraph 5.48 to the extent
`
`that they relate in any way to a proposed construction of any of the terms of any of the claims of
`
`17
`
`ZTE Corp