Case 1:13-CV—Ol808—GMS Document 12 Filed 02/24/14 Page 1 of 14 Page|D #1 94
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`Civil Action No. l3-cv-01808-GMS
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS Co., LTD., et al.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.’S, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.’S, AND SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC’S
`ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO MEMORY INTEGRITY, LLC’S COMPLAINT
`
`Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”), Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(“SBA”), and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (“STA”) (collectively, “Samsung”)
`
`hereby answer Memory Integrity, LLC’s (“MI”) Complaint filed on November 1, 2013
`
`(“Complaint”). Samsung denies each and every allegation contained in the Complaint that it
`
`does not expressly admit below.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Samsung admits that plaintiff Memory Integrity, LLC (“MI”) purports to bring a
`
`patent infringement action and seeks damages pursuant to Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`Samsung denies that it has engaged in any acts of patent infringement. Except as expressly
`
`admitted, Samsung denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 1.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Samsung is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 2 and on that basis denies each and every allegation
`
`contained therein.
`
`Memory Integrity, LLC
`IPR.‘-!l:I15—I1II1I15B,—lJl:I15B,—l1IlJ1E3
`EXHIBIT
`lnie r"
`
`-2038
`
`Memo
`
`

`
`Case 1:l3—cv—01808—GMS Document 12 Filed 02/24/14 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 95
`
`3.
`
`Samsung admits that Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. is a corporation organized
`
`under the laws of the Republic of Korea with a principal place of business at 1320-10 Seocho 2-
`
`dong Seocho-gu, Seoul 137-857, Korea. Except as expressly admitted, Samsung denies each and
`
`every allegation in Paragraph 3.
`
`4.
`
`The Complaint erroneously names as a party a non-existent entity, Samsung
`
`Electronics America, LLC. Samsung admits that Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (not LLC)
`
`is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York with a principal place of
`
`business at 85 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660, and that Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. Except
`
`as expressly admitted, Samsung denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 4.
`
`5.
`
`Samsung admits that Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC is a limited~
`
`liability company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place of
`
`business at 1301 E. Lookout Dr., Richardson, Texas 75082, and that Samsung
`
`Telecommunications America, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc. Except as expressly admitted, Samsung denies each and every allegation in
`
`Paragraph 5.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`Samsung admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over claims made
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). Except as expressly admitted herein, Samsung
`
`denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 6.
`
`7.
`
`Samsung admits that Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC is organized
`
`under the laws of the State of Delaware. Except as expressly admitted, Samsung denies each
`
`and every allegation in Paragraph 7.
`
`

`
`Case 1:13—cv-O1808—GMS Document 12 Filed 02/24/14 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 96
`
`8.
`
`Samsung admits that venue is proper in the District of Delaware under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1391(0) and l400(b), although Samsung expressly reserves the right to contest whether the
`
`District of Delaware is a convenient forum under, among others, the doctrine offorum non
`
`conveniens. Except as expressly admitted herein, Samsung denies each and every allegation set
`
`forth in Paragraph 8.
`
`JOINDER
`
`9.
`
`Samsung admits thatjoinder is proper under 35 U.S.C. § 299. Samsung denies
`
`that it has committed any acts of infringement. Except as expressly admitted herein, Samsung
`
`denies each and every allegation set forth in Paragraph 9.
`
`THE PATENT-IN-SUIT
`
`10.
`
`Samsung admits that what appears to be a copy of the ’ 121 Patent was attached to
`
`the Complaint as Exhibit A, and that on its face, the ’ 121 Patent is entitled “Reducing Probe
`
`Traffic in Multiprocessor Systems.” Except as expressly admitted, Samsung denies each and
`
`every allegation in Paragraph 10.
`
`11.
`
`Samsung denies that MI has the right to exclude others and to enforce, sue, and
`
`recover damages for past or future infringement based on the ’ l2l Patent. Samsung is without
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any remaining allegations of Paragraph
`
`ll, and on that basis denies them.
`
`COUNT I — ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7 296 121
`
`
`
`
`
`12.
`
`Samsung incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1 through 11 herein by
`
`reference.
`
`l3.
`
`Samsung admits that the Complaint accuses the Samsung Galaxy S2, Samsung
`
`Galaxy Tab 7.0, Samsung Galaxy Note 2, Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1, and Samsung
`
`Chromebook (XE303Cl2) of infringing claim 1 of the asserted ’ 121 Patent. Except as expressly
`
`

`
`Case 1:13—cv—O1808—GMS Document 12 Filed 02/24/14 Page 4 of 14 PagelD #: 97
`
`admitted herein, Samsung denies each and every allegation in Paragraph l3.
`
`14.
`
`Samsung admits it was served with the Complaint. Except as expressly admitted,
`
`Samsung denies each and every allegation in Paragraph l4.
`
`15.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph l5.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 16.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 17.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`To the extent a response is required, Samsung admits that MI’s Complaint contains a
`
`request for a jury trial.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Samsung denies that MI is entitled, or should receive any relief, and requests that the
`
`Court deny all relief sought by M1. Samsung specifically denies all of the allegations contained
`
`in Ml’s prayer for relief.
`
`SAMSUNG’S DEFENSES
`
`Without admitting or acknowledging that Samsung bears the burden of proof as to any
`
`of them and reserving the right to amend its Answer as additional information becomes
`
`available, Samsung pleads the following defenses:
`
`FIRST DEFENSE
`
`3 NON—INFRINGEMENT [
`
`1.
`
`Samsung has not engaged in any acts that would constitute infringement of,
`
`contributory infringement of, or inducement to infringe, any Valid claim of the ’ l2l Patent, either
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, between at least 2001 and 2005, Newisys, Inc., the
`
`

`
`Case 1:13—cv—O1808—GMS Document 12 Filed 02/24/14 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 98
`
`original assignee of the ’ 121 Patent, worked with Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (“AMD”),
`
`including work to develop AMD’s “K8” server platform. See www.amd.com/us/press—
`
`releases/Pages/Press_Release_70832.aspx and wvvw.amd.com/us/press-
`
`releases/Pages/Press_Release_97039.aspx. On information and belief, the technology
`
`underlying the claims of the ’l2l Patent is based on the work related to AMD’s K8 server
`
`platform.
`
`3.
`
`All independent claims of the ’ l2l Patent, and therefore all claims of the ’ 121
`
`Patent, require a “point—to~point architecture” (as acknowledged by Paragraph l5(a) of the
`
`Complaint). The ’ 121 Patent specification describes a “point-to-point architecture” as one
`
`having point-to-point communication links providing interconnections between the processors.
`
`See, e. g., ’ l2l Patent at col. 6, ll. 36-44. On information and belief, the K8 server platform
`
`developed by AMD with Newisys’s assistance similarly included a point-to-point architecture.
`
`4.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities listed in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint all contain
`
`multicore processor devices that further include processor cores supplied by a third—party ARM
`
`Holdings. See http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones and
`
`http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab. These processor cores are referred to as ARM
`
`Coitex MP Cores. See http://www.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor
`
`/product/application/catalogue. None of these ARM Cortex MP Cores have a point—to~point
`
`architecture as that term is used in the ’ 121 Patent. Information regarding these ARM Cortex
`
`MP Cores and associated architectures, including the bus structures used to interconnect the
`
`multiple processors through a Snoop Control Unit (“SCU”), is publicly available at
`
`www.arm.com/products/processors/co1tex—a/index.php. Because none of the ARM Cortex MP
`
`Cores used by the Accused Instrumentalities has a point—to~point architecture, the Accused
`
`

`
`Case 1:13—CV-0l808—GMS Document 12 Filed 02/24/14 Page 6 of 14 Page|D #2 99
`
`Instrumentalities do not satisfy every element of the asserted claims and cannot infringe for at
`
`least this reason.
`
`SECOND DEFENSE
`
`gINVALIDITY 1
`
`5.
`
`The patent application that issued as the ’ 121 Patent, No. 10/966,161, was filed on
`
`October 15, 2004, as a continuation-in-part of Application No. 10/288,347 (issued as Patent No.
`
`7,003,633), filed on November 4, 2002. The asserted claims of the ’ 121 Patent lack Written
`
`support in the parent application, and are therefore not entitled to the November 4, 2002, priority
`
`date of the 10/288,347 application.
`
`6.
`
`The ’ 121 Patent is invalid for failure to satisfy the conditions of patentability set
`
`forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., including at least sections 102, 103, 112, and/or 116. For
`
`, example, the ’ 121 Patent is invalid as either anticipated or rendered obvious by at least one or
`
`more of the following prior art references: the prior art references cited by the examiner during
`
`prosecution of the ’ 121 Patent and related applications; prior art references disclosed by the
`
`applicant during the prosecution of those applications; prior art pertaining to AMD and/or
`
`Newisys’s development of K8 servers; prior art that will be disclosed in the invalidity
`
`contentions of Samsung and/or other accused infringers of the ’ 121 Patent; and at least the prior
`
`art references U.S. Patent Nos. 7,698,509, July 13, 2004; 7,213,106, filed Aug. 9, 2004;
`
`6,868,485, filed Sept. 27, 2002; 6,810,467, filed Aug. 21, 2000; 6,014,690, filed Oct. 24, 1997;
`
`5,950,226, filed July 1, 1996; 5,859,975, filed Aug. 9, 1996; U.S. Patent Application Publication
`
`Nos. 2006/0053258, filed Sept. 8, 2004; 2002/0053004, filed Nov. 19, 1999; International Patent
`
`Application Nos. W0 04/029776, priority date Sept. 27, 2002; W0 02/013945, priority date
`
`Aug. 16, 2000; W0 02/013020, priority date Aug. 4, 2000; W0 99/26144, priority date Nov. 17,
`
`1997; AMD Press Release, AMD Announces 8th Generation Architecture for Microprocessors
`
`

`
`Case 1:13—cv—O1808-GMS Document 12 Filed 02/24/14 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 100
`
`(2001), WWW.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/Press_Release_10742.aspx (last visited Feb. 21,
`
`2014); AMD Press Release, Broadcom, Cisco, Nvidia, Sun Among FirstAa’opters ofAma’ ’s [sic]
`
`New Hypertransport® Technology (2001), WwW.amd.com/us/press-
`
`releases/Pages/Press_Release_637.aspx (last Visited Feb. 21, 2014); AMD White Paper,
`
`HyperTransport® Technology I/0 Link, AMD (2001); AMD Press Release, AMD Discloses New
`
`Technologies at Microprocessor Forum (1999), www.amd.com/us/press~
`
`releases/Pages/Press_Release_751.aspX (last Visited Feb. 21, 2014); AMD Press Release, AMD
`
`Discloses Next-Generation AMD—K8TM Processor Microarchitecture at Alicroprocessor Forum
`
`(1998), wWW.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/Press_Re1ease_883.aspx (last Visited Feb. 21,
`
`2014); Joon—Ho Ha and Timothy Mark Pinkston, SPEED DMON: Cache Coherence on an
`
`Optical Multichannel Interconnect Architecture, J. of Parallel & Distributed Computing 41, 78-
`
`91 (1997); David Chaiken et al., Directory-Based Cache Coherence in Large-Scale
`
`Multiprocessors, Computer 23 :6, 49-58 (1990); Hermann Hellwagner and Alexander Reinefeld,
`
`SCI: Scalable Coherent Interface, Springer (1999); D. A. Patterson and J.
`
`Hennessy, Computer Organization and Design:
`
`The Hardware Software, Interface, Morgan Kaufman (1994); Milo Tomasevic and Veljko
`
`Milutinovic, The Cache-Coherence Problem in Shared-Memory Multiprocessors: Hardware
`
`Solutions, IEEE Computer Society Press (1993); or combinations thereof.
`
`THIRD DEFENSE
`
`[PROSECUTION HISTORY ESTOPPEL)
`
`7.
`
`MI is barred or limited from recovery in whole or in part by the doctrine of
`
`prosecution history estoppel based at least on statements and amendments made to overcome an
`
`obviousness rejection based on U.S. Patent No. 6,499,252 to Bauman in the prosecution history
`
`of the parent application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,003,633.
`
`

`
`Case 1:13—cv-01808-GMS Document 12 Filed 02/24/14 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 101
`
`FOURTH DEFENSE
`
`(LIMITATIONS ON DAMAGES!
`
`8.
`
`MP5 right to seek damages is limited by statute, including without limitation, by
`
`35 U.S.C. § 286 and/or § 287.
`
`RESERVATION OF ADDITIONAL DEFENSES
`
`9.
`
`Samsung reserves the right to assert additional defenses that may be developed
`
`through discovery in this action.
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`Without admitting any of the allegations of the Complaint other than those expressly
`
`admitted herein, and without prejudice to either Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.’s, Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc.’s, or Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC’s right to plead
`
`additional counterclaims as additional information becomes available, Counterclaim Plaintiffs
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”), Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”), and
`
`Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (“STA”) (collectively, “Samsung”) allege as
`
`follows against Counterclaim Defendant Memory Integrity, LLC (“MI”):
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`1.
`
`According to the allegations set forth in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, MI
`
`purports to be the owner of all right, title, and interest to U.S. Patent No. 7,296,121 (“the ’ l2l
`
`Patent”).
`
`2.
`
`MI has accused Samsung of infringing the ’ l2l Patent. Samsung denies that any
`
`of its products infringe any valid or enforceable claim in any of the ’ 121 Patent.
`
`3.
`
`An actual case and controversy exists between Samsung and MI concerning the
`
`infringement, validity, and/or enforceability of one or more claims of the ’ 121 Patent, and that
`
`

`
`Case 1:13-cv—O1808—GMS Document 12 Filed 02/24/14 Page 9 of 14 PagelD #: 102
`
`controversy is ripe for adjudication by this Court.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`Counterclaim-Plaintiff SEC is a business entity organized under the laws of the
`
`Republic of Korea with a principal place of business at Samsung Electronics Building, 1320-10
`
`Seocho 2-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Korea.
`
`5.
`
`Counterclaim-Plaintiff SEA is a corporation organized under the laws of the State
`
`of New York with a principal place of business at 85 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, New
`
`Jersey 07660.
`
`6.
`
`Counterclaim-Plaintiff STA is a company organized under the laws of the State of
`
`Delaware with a principal place of business at 1301 E. Lookout Drive, Richardson, Texas
`
`75082.
`
`7.
`
`According to the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, Counterclaim-
`
`Defendant MI is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware
`
`with a place of business at 1220 N. Market Street, Suite 806, Wilmington, Delaware 19801.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`This is an action for declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these Counterclaims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
`
`and 1338(a). These counterclaims arise under the patent laws of the United States.
`
`9.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over MI, at least because by initiating the
`
`instant lawsuit, MI has submitted to the jurisdiction of this judicial district.
`
`10.
`
`Venue for these Counterclaims is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1367 and 1391.
`
`

`
`Case 1:13—cv—O1808—GMS Document 12 Filed 02/24/14 Page 10 of 14 Page|D #: 103
`
`gDECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’121 PATENT)
`
`COUNTERCLAIM I
`
`11.
`
`Samsung incorporates by reference the admissions, denials, and allegations set
`
`forth in paragraphs 1 through 10 of its Counterclaims, in its responses to paragraphs 1-17 of the
`
`Complaint, and in paragraphs 1-9 of its defenses as if fully set forth herein.
`
`12.
`
`Samsung is not infringing and has not infringed any valid claim of the ’ 121
`
`Patent, by direct infringement, contributory infringement, or inducement of infringement, either
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`13.
`
`On information and belief, between at least 2001 and 2005, Newisys, 1110., the
`
`original assignee of the ’ 121 Patent, worked with Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (“AMD”),
`
`including work to develop AMD’s “K8” server platform. See wvvw.amd.com/us/press-
`
`releases[Pages/Press_Release_70832.aspx and www.amd.com/us/press-
`
`releases/Pages/Press_Release_97039.aspX. On information and belief, the technology
`
`underlying the claims of the ’ 121 Patent is based on the work related to AMD’s K8 server
`
`platform.
`
`14. All independent claims of the ’ 121 Patent, and therefore all claims of the ’ 121
`
`Patent, require a “point—to—point architecture” (as acknowledged by Paragraph 15(a) of the
`
`Complaint). The ’ 121 Patent specification describes a “point—to-point architecture” as one
`
`having point—to-point communication links providing interconnections between the processors.
`
`See, e. g., ’ 121 Patent at col. 6, 11. 36-44. On information and belief, the K8 server platform
`
`developed by AMD with Newisys’s assistance similarly included a point~to—point architecture.
`
`15.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities listed in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint all contain
`
`multicore processor devices that further include processor cores supplied by a third—party ARM
`
`Holdings. See http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones and
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 1:13—cv—O1808—GMS Document 12 Filed 02/24/14 Page 11 of 14 PageID #2 104
`
`http://WWW.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab. These processor cores are referred to as ARM
`
`Cortex MP Cores. See http://www.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor
`
`/product/application/catalogue. None of these ARM Cortex MP Cores have a point-to-point
`
`architecture as that term is used in the ’ 121 Patent. Information regarding these ARM Cortex
`
`MP Cores and associated architectures, including the bus structures used to interconnect the
`
`multiple processors through a Snoop Control Unit (“SCU”), is publicly available at
`
`WWW.arm.corn/products/processors/cortex-a/indeX.php. Because none of the ARM Cortex MP
`
`Cores used by the Accused Instrumentalities has a point—to-point architecture, the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities do not satisfy every element of the asserted claims and cannot infringe for at
`
`least this reason.
`
`16.
`
`To resolve the legal and factual questions raised by M1, and to afford relief from
`
`the uncertainty and controversy that MI’s accusations have caused, Samsung is entitled to
`
`declaratory judgment that Samsung is not infringing and has not infringed any valid claim of the
`
`’121 Patent, by direct infringement, contributory infringement, or inducement of infringement,
`
`either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`gDECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF THE ’121 PATENT!
`
`COUNTERCLAIM II
`
`17.
`
`Samsung incorporates by reference the admissions, denials, and allegations set
`
`forth in paragraphs 1 through 16 of its Counterclaims, in its responses to paragraphs 1-17 of the
`
`Complaint, and in paragraphs 1-9 of its defenses as if fully set forth herein.
`
`18.
`
`The patent application that issued as the ’ 121 Patent, No. 10/966,161, was filed on
`
`October 15, 2004, as a continuation-in-part of Application No. 10/288,347 (issued as Patent No.
`
`7,003,633), filed on November 4, 2002. The asserted claims of the ’121 Patent lack Written
`
`support in the parent application, and are therefore not entitled to the November 4, 2002,
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 1:13—cv—O1808—GMS Document 12 Filed 02/24/14 Page 12 of 14 Page|D #: 105
`
`priority date of the 10/288,347 application.
`
`19.
`
`The ’ 121 Patent is invalid for failure to satisfy the conditions of patentability set
`
`forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., including at least sections 102, 103, 112, and/or 116. For
`
`example, the ’ 121 Patent is invalid as either anticipated or rendered obvious by at least one or
`
`more of the following prior art references: the prior art references cited by the examiner during
`
`prosecution of the ’ 121 Patent and related applications; prior art references disclosed by the
`
`applicant during the prosecution of those applications; prior art pertaining to AMD and/or
`
`Newisys’s development of K8 servers; prior art that will be disclosed in the invalidity
`
`contentions of Samsung and/or other accused infringers of the ’ 121 Patent; and at least the prior
`
`art references U.S. Patent Nos. 7,698,509, July 13, 2004; 7,213,106, filed Aug. 9, 2004;
`
`6,868,485, filed Sept. 27, 2002; 6,810,467, filed Aug. 21, 2000; 6,014,690, filed Oct. 24, 1997;
`
`5,950,226, filed July 1, 1996; 5,859,975, filed Aug. 9, 1996; U.S. Patent Application
`
`Publication Nos. 2006/0053258, filed Sept. 8, 2004; 2002/0053004, filed Nov. 19, 1999;-
`
`International Patent Application Nos. WO 04/029776, priority date Sept. 27, 2002; WO
`
`02/013945, priority date Aug. 16, 2000; WO 02/013020, priority date Aug. 4, 2000; WO
`
`99/26144, priority date Nov. 17, 1997; Al\/1D Press Release, AMD Announces 8th Generation
`
`Architecture for Microprocessors (2001), www.amd.com/us/press-
`
`releases/Pages/Press_Release_10742.aspX (last visited Feb. 21, 2014); AMD Press Release,
`
`Broadcom, Cisco, Nvidia, Sun Among First Adapters ofAmd ’s [sic] New Hypertransport®
`
`Technology (2001), WwW.amd.com/us/press~releases/Pages/Press_Re1ease_637.aspx (last
`
`visited Feb. 21, 2014); AMD White Paper, HyperTransport® Technology I/0 Link, AMD
`
`(2001); A1\1D Press Release, AMD Discloses New Technologies at Microprocessor Forum
`
`(1999), www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/Press_Release_751.aspX (last visited Feb. 21,
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 1:13—cv—01808—GMS Document 12 Filed 02/24/14 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 106
`
`2014); AMD Press Release, AMD Discloses Next—Generation AMD-K8 TM Processor
`
`Microarchitecture at Illicroprocessor Forum (1998), WvVW.amd.com/us/press-
`
`releases/Pages/Press_Re1ease_883.aspx (last visited Feb. 21, 2014); Joon~Ho Ha and Timothy
`
`Mark Pinkston, SPEED DMON: Cache Coherence on an Optical Multichannel Interconnect
`
`Architecture, J. of Parallel & Distributed Computing 41, 78-91 (1997); David Chaiken et al.,
`
`Directory-Based Cache Coherence in Large-Scale Illultiprocessors, Computer 23 :6, 49-58
`
`(1990); Hermann Hellwagner and Alexander Reinefeld, SCI.‘ Scalable Coherent Interface,
`
`Springer (1999); D. A. Patterson and J. Hennessy, Computer Organization and Design.‘
`
`The Hardware Software, Interface, Morgan Kaufman (1994); Milo Tomasevic and Veljko
`
`Milutinovic, The Cache-Coherence Problem in Shared-Memory Multiprocessors: Hardware
`
`Solutions, TEEE Computer Society Press (1993); or combinations thereof.
`
`20.
`
`To resolve the legal and factual questions raised by M1, and to afford relief from
`
`the uncertainty and controversy that MI’s accusations have caused, Samsung is entitled to a
`
`declaratory judgment that the ’ 121 Patent is invalid.
`
`SAMSUNG’S DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Samsung hereby demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.
`
`SAMSUNG’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendant Samsung respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment
`
`in Samsung’s favor on the foregoing and enter a judgment granting the following relief:
`
`That the Court dismiss MI’s Complaint;
`
`That the Court dismiss Ml’s claims against Samsung in their entirety, with
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`prejudice;
`
`C.
`
`That the Court find that MI is not entitled to any of its requested relief, or any
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 1:13—cv—O1808—GMS Document 12 Filed 02/24/14 Page 14 of 14 Page|D #: 107
`
`relief whatsoever;
`
`D.
`
`That the Court find and declare that Samsung has not infringed, and is not now
`
`infringing, contributing to the infringement of, or inducing the infringement of any Valid claim of
`
`the ’ 121 Patent, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, under any
`
`subsection of 35 U.S.C. § 271;
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`That the Court find that the claims of the ’ 121 Patent are invalid;
`
`That the Court find this to be an exceptional case entitling Samsung to an award
`
`of attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, at least for MP5 failure to
`
`conduct a reasonable pre-suit investigation as to infringement of the point-to-point architecture
`
`limitation, and/or on other grounds; and
`
`G.
`
`That the Court award Samsung such other and further relief as the Court deems
`
`just and appropriate.
`
`Dated: February 24, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Francis DiGi0vanni
`
`Francis DiGioVanni (#3 1 89)
`Novak Dmce Connolly Bove + Quigg LLP
`The Nemours Building
`1007 North Orange Street
`P.O. Box 2207
`
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9141
`frank.digiovanni@noVakd1uce.com
`
`Attorneyfor Samsung Electronics C0,, Ltd.,
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc,
`and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC
`
`14