Kelly Hunsaker, Bar No. 168307
`Email: hunsaker@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`500 Arguello Street, Suite 500
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Tel: (650) 839-5070
`Fax: (650) 839-5071
`
`Michael J. McKeon (pro hac vice)
`Email: mckeon@fr.com
`Christian Chu, Bar No. 218336
`Email: chu@fr.com
`Richard A. Sterba (pro hac vice)
`Email: sterba@fr.com
`Steven A. Bowers, Bar No. 226968
`Email: bowers@fr.com
`R. Andrew Schwentker (pro hac vice)
`Email: schwentker@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1425 K Street, N.W., 11th Floor
`Washington, DC 20005
`Tel: (202) 783-5070
`Fax: (202) 783-2331
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants-Counterclaimants
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., Inc., and
`LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. AND
`ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC,
`
`Case No. 3:14-cv-1012-SI
`
`DEFENDANTS-COUNTERCLAIMANTS
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LG
`ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., AND LG
`ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A.,
`INC.’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
`PURSUANT TO PATENT LOCAL RULES
`3-3 AND 3-4
`
`
`
` Plaintiffs-Counterdefendants,
`
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LG ELECTRONICS
`U.S.A., Inc., AND LG ELECTRONICS
`MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
` Defendants-Counterclaimants.
`
`
`
`
`
`ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC.
`Exh. 2001
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC.
`IPR2015-01620
`
`

`
`Pursuant to the Court’s July 21, 2014 Order (D.I. 55) (the “Scheduling Order”) and the
`
`Northern District of California Patent Local Rules (“Patent Rules” or “Patent L.R.”) 3-3 and 3-4,
`
`Defendants LG Electronics, Inc. (“LGE”), LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (“LGEUS”), and LG
`
`Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. (“LGEMU”) (collectively and individually “LG”) hereby
`
`disclose their Invalidity Contentions. LG contends that each of the claims asserted by Plaintiffs
`
`Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and ATI Technologies ULC (collectively and individually “AMD”)
`
`is invalid under at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`I.
`
`GENERAL STATEMENT AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
`
`A.
`
`Asserted Claims
`
`On August 1, 2014, AMD served LG with Infringement Contentions (“Infringement
`
`Contentions”) alleging infringement of United States Patents No. 6,889,332 (“the ’332 patent”),
`
`6,895,520 (“the ’520 patent”), 6,897,871 (“the ’871 patent”), 7,327,369 (“the ’369 patent”),
`
`7,742,053 (“the ’053 patent”), 5,898,849 (“the ’849 patent”); 6,266,715 (“the ’715 patent”);
`
`6,784,879 (“the ’879 patent”), and 7,095,945 (“the ’945 patent”) (collectively, “the Patents-In-
`
`Suit”). Specifically, AMD has alleged that LG infringes the following claims of the Patents-In-Suit
`
`(collectively, the “Asserted Claims”):1
`
` Claims 9, 10, and 13-17 of the ’332 patent;
`
` Claims 16-18 and 20-23 of the ’520 patent;
`
` Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-11, 13, 15, and 17-20 of the ’871 patent;
`
` Claims 1 and 2 of the ’369 patent;
`
` Claims 1, 2, and 5-7 of the ’053 patent;
`
` Claims 1 and 14 of the ’849 patent;
`
` Claims 11, 10, 13, 22, 24, and 25 of the ’715 patent;
`
`1 LG notes that AMD’s Infringement Contentions originally identified 58 claims. However, AMD
`has subsequently represented that it is no longer asserting claims 11 and 12 of the ’332 patent,
`claim 19 of the ’520 patent, and ’claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 12, and 21 of the ’871 patent. See 9/17/2014
`Lttr from Drew to McKeon, Sterba, May re AMD Asserted Claims. The Asserted Claims as
`identified herein are accordingly based on AMD’s representation and LG reserves the right to
`disclose new or supplemental invalidity contentions to the extent AMD attempts to assert claims
`that have been dropped.
`
`ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC.
`Exh. 2001
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC.
`IPR2015-01620
`
`

`
` Claims 1, 17, 20, 21, and 24 of the ’879 patent;
`
` Claims 18 and 21 of the ’945 patent
`
`AMD asserts a total of 49 claims against LG. LG does not provide any contentions regarding
`
`any claims not asserted in AMD’s Infringement Contentions. To the extent that the Court permits
`
`AMD to assert additional claims against LG in the future, LG reserves the right to disclose new or
`
`supplemental invalidity contentions.
`
`LG provides these disclosures consistent with the schedule currently in place, but does so
`
`without waiving any right to receive from AMD such full and complete specific infringement
`
`disclosures as should have been provided from the outset. AMD’s Infringement Contentions
`
`generally and comprehensibly lack the specificity required under the Patent Local Rules as would
`
`be necessary to fairly inform LG of the specifics of AMD’s infringement claims. LG’s compliance
`
`with the current schedule should not be viewed as a waiver of any right to seek relief regarding the
`
`deficiencies in AMD’s Infringement Contentions.
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Claim construction proceedings for this action have not yet occurred and AMD has not
`
`expressly provided its constructions of the Asserted Claims. LG thus reserves the right to modify,
`
`amend, and/or supplement its Invalidity Contentions following the claim construction rulings in
`
`accordance with P.L.R. 3-6. LG also reserves the right to modify, amend, and/or supplement its
`
`Invalidity Contentions upon AMD’s alteration/clarification of its asserted claim constructions.
`
`LG’s Invalidity Contentions are based in part on its present understanding of AMD’s
`
`Infringement Contentions. In some instances, AMD’s Infringement Contentions contradict the
`
`teachings of the Patents-In-Suit, contradict the understanding of the claim terms by a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, are internally inconsistent, and are vague and conclusory concerning how
`
`the claim limitations supposedly read on the accused products or activities. As a result, LG is
`
`currently unable to fully discern AMD’s position regarding the construction of these claim
`
`limitations. To the extent that AMD supplements its Infringement Contentions, LG reserves the
`
`ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC.
`Exh. 2001
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC.
`IPR2015-01620
`
`

`
`right to modify, amend, and/or supplement its Invalidity Contentions, including, without limitation,
`
`pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-6.
`
`LG’s Invalidity Contentions do not represent LG’s agreement or view as to the meaning of
`
`any claim term contained therein. To the extent that LG asserts that prior art is anticipatory or
`
`renders obvious claims based on the construction apparently applied by AMD to the Asserted
`
`Claims, LG’s Invalidity Contentions are not—and should not be interpreted as—adoptions or
`
`admissions as to the accuracy of that scope or construction. Thus, LG’s contentions herein are not,
`
`and should in no way be seen as admissions or adoptions as to any particular claim scope or
`
`construction, any priority date, any admission that any claims have been properly asserted in this
`
`case, or as any admission that any aspect of any accused products or systems meets any particular
`
`claim element in any particular way. LG objects to any attempt to imply claim construction from
`
`the attached charts. These invalidity contentions are made under a variety of alternatives and do not
`
`represent LG’s agreement or view as to the meaning, definiteness, written description support for,
`
`or enablement of any claim contained therein.
`
`LG therefore takes no position on any matter of claim construction in these Invalidity
`
`Contentions. LG reserves the right to propose any claim construction it considers appropriate and
`
`to contest any claim construction it considers inappropriate. LG also reserves the right to argue that
`
`certain claim terms, phrases, and elements are indefinite, lack written description, are not enabled,
`
`are not patentable, are not novel and/or are otherwise invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or § 112.
`
`Because of the uncertainty of claim construction, LG reserves the right to further supplement
`
`or modify the positions and information in these Invalidity Contentions, including, without
`
`limitation, the prior art and grounds of invalidity set forth herein, after the Asserted Claims have
`
`been construed, in accordance with the Patent Local Rules and the Court’s Orders.
`
`C.
`
`Doctrine of Equivalents
`
`AMD has provided insufficient contentions regarding its allegations of infringement under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents. AMD has not sufficiently provided any contentions that identify the
`
`basis for AMD’s position regarding each limitation allegedly infringed under the doctrine of
`
`ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC.
`Exh. 2001
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC.
`IPR2015-01620
`
`

`
`equivalents and its alleged equivalent element in the accused products. Should leave to amend be
`
`granted to AMD to add to its contentions any specific allegations of infringement under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents, LG reserves the right to amend or supplement these Invalidity Contentions as
`
`appropriate.
`
`D.
`
`Ongoing Discovery and Disclosures
`
`Discovery and LG’s investigation, including LG’s search for prior art, are ongoing. In
`
`particular, discovery has just started and LG is still investigating possible sources of prior art in the
`
`possession of AMD and third parties. LG has or will issue appropriate subpoenas to third parties
`
`requesting information relating to prior art and invalidity of the Asserted Claims. Also, AMD has
`
`not yet provided any documentation regarding prior art in its possession, custody, or control.
`
`Accordingly, LG reserves the right to supplement, amend, and/or alter the positions taken
`
`and information disclosed in these Invalidity Contentions after review of the documents produced
`
`in response to requests for production. To the extent AMD’s document production is incomplete
`
`with respect to documents relating to the invalidity of the Asserted Claims, LG further reserves the
`
`right to supplement, amend, or alter the positions taken and information disclosed in these Invalidity
`
`Contentions, if and when AMD or a third party produces additional relevant documents.
`
`LG further reserves the right to supplement, amend, and/or alter the positions taken and
`
`information disclosed in these Invalidity Contentions including, without limitation, the prior art and
`
`grounds of invalidity set forth herein, to take into account information or defenses that may come to
`
`light as a result of LG’s discovery efforts. LG further reserves the right to supplement, amend, and/or
`
`alter the positions taken and information disclosed in these Invalidity Contentions, pursuant to Patent
`
`L.R. 3-6. LG hereby incorporates by reference the relevant testimony of any fact witnesses who are
`
`deposed, provide declarations, or otherwise testify in this lawsuit. LG also hereby incorporates by
`
`reference the reports and testimony of any expert witnesses who opine on LG’s behalf regarding
`
`invalidity of the Patents-In-Suit.
`
`ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC.
`Exh. 2001
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC.
`IPR2015-01620
`
`

`
`E.
`
`Alleged Priority Dates
`
`LG disputes that any of the Asserted Claims are entitled to the priority dates asserted by
`
`AMD. LG reserves the right to amend this section after any claim construction ruling or after
`
`discovery reveals priority dates inconsistent with those alleged by AMD.2
`
`F.
`
`Additional Reservations of Rights
`
`The citations to the prior art provided in these contentions are intended to be exemplary, not
`
`exhaustive. LG has endeavored to cite to the most relevant portions of the identified prior art. Other
`
`portions of the identified prior art may additionally disclose, either expressly or inherently, and/or
`
`render obvious one or more elements or limitations of the asserted claims. LG reserves the right to
`
`rely on uncited portions of the identified prior art to establish invalidity. Moreover, LG reserves the
`
`right to rely on uncited portions of the identified prior art, other art, or expert testimony to provide
`
`context to or aid in understanding the cited portions of the identified prior art. LG also reserves the
`
`right to rely upon treatises, published industry standards and similar documents to demonstrate the
`
`knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the relevant art.
`
`Subject to the foregoing statements and qualifications, LG provides the following:
`
`II.
`
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,889,332
`
`1.
`
`General State of the Art at the Time of the Alleged Invention
`
`The prior art identified below (including the “References Cited” on the face of the ’332
`
`patent) may provide background and context pertinent to the teachings, and interpretation of, the
`
`prior art referenced by the claim charts. This prior art is exemplary only, and is not in any way
`
`intended to limit the scope of what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood at the time
`
`of the alleged invention. LG reserves the right to rely upon additional prior art, information, and/or
`
`2 Moreover, LG reserves the right to amend or supplement its Invalidity Contentions in view of
`AMD’s late disclosure of conception dates for the ’871, ’369, and ’053 Patents. See 9/23/2014
`Plaintiffs’ First Amended Responses to LG’s Interrogatories, Set 1 (No. 1). Such late
`disclosure is improper under Local Patent L.R. 3-1 and is highly prejudicial to LG.
`
`ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC.
`Exh. 2001
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC.
`IPR2015-01620
`
`

`
`knowledge to demonstrate what one of ordinary skill would have understood prior to the date of
`
`alleged invention of the asserted claims of the ’332 patent.
`
`The following prior art, as well as the “References Cited” on the face of the ’332 patent
`
`(which are incorporated herein by reference), are illustrative of the general state of the art to which
`
`the ’332 patent pertains (i.e., what one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood) at a time
`
`prior to the date of alleged invention of the asserted claims of the ’332 patent: References produced
`
`with Bates Range LG_AMD_PA_0000001 - LG_AMD_PA_0002418.
`
`2.
`
`Disclosure of Prior Art References (Patent L.R. 3-3(a))
`
`LG asserts that the asserted claims of the ’332 patent are anticipated or rendered obvious by
`
`each of the following references on its own and/or in combination with the knowledge of one skilled
`
`in the art or with one or more references as set forth in the attached charts:
`
`(a)
`
` Prior Art Patents and Patent Applications
`
`The following patents and patent applications are prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b),
`
`and/or (e).3 The specific provision(s) of section 102 for each such prior art reference is identified in
`
`the accompanying claim charts.
`
`
`
`Patent or Patent
`Application No.
`5,451,892
`5,490,059
`5,713,030
`5,798,667
`5,832,284
`5,838,578
`5,974,557
`5,978,864
`6,047,248
`6,105,142
`2001/0003206
`
`Country of Origin
`
`United States
`United States
`United States
`United States
`United States
`United States
`United States
`United States
`United States
`United States
`United States
`
`Exhibit
`
`Date of Issue (if
`Issued Patent)
`September 19, 1995
`February 6, 1996
`January 27, 1998
`August 25, 1998
`November 3, 1998
`November 17, 1998
`October 26, 1999
`November 2, 1999
`April 4, 2000
`August 15, 2000
`June 7, 2001
`
`A-01
`A-02
`
`A-03
`A-04
`A-05
`A-06
`A-07
`A-08
`A-09
`
`
`3 Under the recently enacted America Invents Act (“AIA”), invalidating prior art is defined in 35
`U.S.C. § 102(a). However, AIA Section 102(a) was not effective until March 17, 2013. The Patent-
`in-Suit predates March 17, 2013, and therefore pre-AIA Section 102 (including sub-sections 102(a),
`(b), (e) and (g)) apply to the prior art identified in these Invalidity Contentions and the attached
`exhibits.
`
`ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC.
`Exh. 2001
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC.
`IPR2015-01620
`
`

`
`6,311,287
`6,363,490
`6,442,700
`6,470,290
`6,510,400
`6,535,798
`6,789,037
`6,928,559
`
`
`United States
`United States
`United States
`United States
`United States
`United States
`United States
`United States
`
`October 30, 2001
`March 26, 2002
`August 27, 2002
`October 22, 2002
`January 21, 2003
`March 18, 2003
`September 7, 2004
`August 9, 2005
`
`A-10
`
`A-11
`A-12
`A-13
`A-14
`A-15
`A-16
`
`(b)
`
`Prior Art Publications
`
`The following publications are prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and/or (b). The specific
`
`provision(s) of section 102 for each such prior art reference is identified in the accompanying claim
`
`charts.
`
`
`
`Title
`Advanced
`Configuration and
`Power
`Interface
`Specification,
`Revision 1.0b
`Advanced
`Configuration and
`Power Interface
`Specification,
`Revision 2.0
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`
`
`
`
`Date of Publication
`February 2, 1999
`
`Author/Publisher
`Intel Corporation
`Microsoft Corporation
`Toshiba Corporation
`
`July 27, 2000
`
`Compaq Computer
`Corporation
`Intel Corporation
`Microsoft Corporation
`Phoenix Technologies
`Ltd.
`Toshiba Corporation
`
`(c)
`
`Prior Art Systems
`
`The asserted claims of the ’332 Patent are invalid for public use or knowledge or sales or
`
`offers for sale of products and services that anticipate such claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) or (b),
`
`or the purported invention of the claims was made in this country by another inventor who had not
`
`abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g).
`
`
`
`System Name
`
`Use/Knowledge/Offer
`Date
`
`Person/Entity
`
`Exhibit
`
`ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC.
`Exh. 2001
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC.
`IPR2015-01620
`
`

`
`At least as early as
`February 24, 1999
`
`Intel Corporation
`
`A-17
`
`At least as early as
`January 19, 2000
`
`Transmeta
`Corporation
`
`A-18
`
`At least as early as April
`18, 2000
`
`AMD Corporation A-19
`
`Intel
`SpeedStep/Geyserville
`technology, embodied
`in Pentium II, Pentium
`III, XScale, and
`Itanium4
`LongRun Dynamic
`Power Management
`technology, embodied
`in TM5400 and
`associated DDR
`SDRAM5
`AMD PowerNow!
`technology embodied
`in AMD-K6-2E+,
`AMD-K6-IIIE+,
`AMD-K6-2+, AMD-
`K6-III+6
`
`
`The following description and events are provided on information and belief and are
`
`supported by the information and documents that are being produced concomitant with these
`
`Invalidity Contentions and/or are subject to a third party subpoena that LG has issued or expects to
`
`issue.
`
`4 See, e.g., Intel Demonstrates “Geyserville” Technology – Bringing Near Desktop Performance to
`Mobile PCs, February 24, 1999,
`https://web.archive.org/web/20010208160810/http://developer.intel.com/pressroom/archive/rel
`eases/mp022499.htm; Intel Announces New Microarchitecture For Wireless And Internet
`Infrastructure Applications Intel® XScale™ Microarchitecture Provides Flexibility, August
`23, 2000,
`https://web.archive.org/web/20001208135800/http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/release
`s/em082300.htm; Next Generation Itanium Processor Overview, Intel Developer’s Forum,
`August 27-30, 2001
`5 See, e.g., Crusoe – A New World of Mobility from Transmeta, January 19, 2000,
`https://web.archive.org/web/20000817082320/http://www.transmeta.com/press/011900-
`1.html; Notebooks with Transmeta chip arrive in U.S. - CNET News, October 25, 2000; EE
`Times, Notebook try on Crusoe processor at PC Expo, June 30, 2000.
`http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1141693&print=yes
`6 See, e.g., AMD News Release #20083, April 18, 2000,
`https://web.archive.org/web/20000617082528/http://www.amd.com/news/prodpr/20083.html;
`AMD News Release #20119, June 26, 2000,
`https://web.archive.org/web/20000815210041/http://www.amd.com/news/prodpr/20119.html;
`AMD News Release #20138, September 25, 2000,
`https://web.archive.org/web/20001017162155/http://www.amd.com/news/prodpr/20138.html.
`
`ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC.
`Exh. 2001
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC.
`IPR2015-01620
`
`

`
`The Pentium II and Pentium III chips were publicly used or known, on sale or offered for
`
`sale on or before February 24, 1999 and are thus prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See,
`
`e.g., Intel Demonstrates “Geyserville” Technology – Bringing Near Desktop Performance to Mobile
`
`PCs,
`
`February
`
`24,
`
`1999,
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20010208160810/http://developer.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releas
`
`es/mp022499.htm. The mobile Pentium II chips are a “higher performance, more power efficient
`
`processor that are ideally suited for mobile PCs.” Id. Similarly, the Pentium III processor are mobile
`
`PC based processors that are “enabled with Geyserville technology.” Id.
`
`Similarly, the XScale chips were publicly used or known, on sale or offered for sale on or
`
`before August 23, 2000 and thus prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See, e.g., Intel
`
`Announces New Microarchitecture For Wireless And Internet Infrastructure Applications Intel®
`
`XScale™
`
`Microarchitecture
`
`Provides
`
`Flexibility,
`
`August
`
`23,
`
`2000,
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20001208135800/http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/e
`
`m082300.htm. The XScale architecture is designed for “for both ultra-low power and high
`
`performance in devices ranging from Internet-ready cell phones to Internet infrastructure
`
`equipment.” Id.
`
`Likewise, the Itanium chips were publicly used or known, on sale or offered for sale on or
`
`before February 27, 2001 and thus prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(a). See, e.g., Next
`
`Generation Itanium Processor Overview, Intel Developer’s Forum, August 27-30, 2001. The
`
`Itanium chips have a “programmable fail-safe thermal trip” to reduce power consumption. Id. On
`
`information and belief, the Pentium II, Pentium III, XScale, and Itanium chips include, among other
`
`things, the invention embodied in the ’332 Patent. See Ex. A-17.
`
`Separately, the alleged invention of the asserted claims was conceived at least as early as
`
`2001 and diligently reduced to practice no later than August 27-30, 2001 by Intel Corporation. Upon
`
`information and belief, the prior invention is embodied in Itanium chips that implement the Intel
`
`Speedstep technology. Accordingly, LG’s contentions are set forth in the claim chart(s) associated
`
`with Intel Speedstep. See Ex. A-17.
`
`ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC.
`Exh. 2001
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC.
`IPR2015-01620
`
`

`
`On information and belief, AMD PowerNow! Technology, embodied in AMD-K6-2E+,
`
`AMD-K6-IIIE+, AMD-K6-2+, AMD-K6-III+, was publicly used or known, on sale or offered for
`
`sale on or before April 18, 2000 and is thus prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See AMD
`
`News
`
`Release
`
`#20083,
`
`April
`
`18,
`
`2000,
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20000617082528/http://www.amd.com/news/prodpr/20083.html;
`
`AMD
`
`News
`
`Release
`
`#20119,
`
`June
`
`26,
`
`2000,
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20000815210041/http://www.amd.com/news/prodpr/20119.html;
`
`AMD
`
`News
`
`Release
`
`#20138,
`
`September
`
`25,
`
`2000,
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20001017162155/http://www.amd.com/news/prodpr/20138.html.
`
`AMD’s PowerNow technology “supports up to 32 different core voltage settings ranging from 0.925
`
`to 2.00V with voltage steps as small as 25 or 50mV” and “allow[s] steps of 33 or 50Mhz from an
`
`absolute low of 133 or 200MHz” See AMD PowerNow! Technology – Dynamically Manages
`
`Power and Performance, Publication #24404, Rev. A, November 2000, Page 2. Furthermore,
`
`AMD’s PowerNow technology can “dynamically drop into a lower power state” as “demand for
`
`performance subsides.” See AMD-K6-IIIE+ Embedded Processor Data Sheet, Publication #23543,
`
`Rev. A, September 2000, Page 6. On information and belief, AMD PowerNow! Technology,
`
`embodied in AMD-K6-2E+, AMD-K6-IIIE+, AMD-K6-2+, AMD-K6-III+, include, among other
`
`things, the invention embodied in the ’332 Patent. Accordingly, LG’s contentions are set forth in the
`
`claim chart(s) associated with AMD PowerNow! Technology. See Ex. A-19.
`
`LG will seek discovery of AMD PowerNow! Technology, embodied in AMD-K6-2E+,
`
`AMD-K6-IIIE+, AMD-K6-2+, AMD-K6-III+, from AMD.
`
`On information and belief, Transmeta’s LongRun Dynamic Power Management technology,
`
`embodied in TM5400 and associated DDR SDRAM, was publicly used or known, on sale or offered
`
`for sale on or before January 19, 2000 and is thus prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See,
`
`e.g., Crusoe – A New World of Mobility
`
`from Transmeta, January 19, 2000,
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20000817082320/http://www.transmeta.com/press/011900-1.html;
`
`Notebooks with Transmeta chip arrive in U.S. - CNET News, October 25, 2000; EE Times,
`
`ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC.
`Exh. 2001
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC.
`IPR2015-01620
`
`

`
`Notebook try on Crusoe processor at PC Expo, June 30, 2000. The TM5400 “operate[d] at 500-
`
`700MHz” and the DDR SDRAM memory controller had a “100-133MHz, 2.5V interface.” See
`
`Crusoe Processor Model TM5400, January 18, 2000, Page 1. The Transmeta LongRun Dynamic
`
`Power Management technology changed frequency “in steps of 33MHz” and it changed voltage “in
`
`steps of 25mV.” See Crusoe LongRun Power Management – Dynamic Power Management for
`
`Crusoe Processors, Marc Fleischmann, January 17, 2001, Pages 6. LongRun’s “power management
`
`algorithm tracks when it is advantageous to dynamically shift frequency/voltage levels and when it
`
`is best to use conventional power management techniques.” See id. at 7. And, the LongRun Power
`
`Management Thermal Extension “delivers higher performance at the same die temperature, or the
`
`same performance at a lower die temperature” in comparison to thermal throttling. See id. at 12.
`
`On information and belief, Transmeta’s LongRun Dynamic Power Management technology,
`
`embodied in TM5400 and associated DDR SDRAM include, among other things, the invention
`
`embodied in the ’332 Patent. See Ex. A-18.
`
`A claim chart comparing each claim to the references identified above, on its own and/or in
`
`a combination, is attached to these contentions as further discussed below. To the extent LG is
`
`seeking discovery on such references, LG will revise, amend, and/or supplement these contentions
`
`after such additional information becomes available.
`
`3.
`
`Anticipation Under Patent L.R. 3-3(a) and (c)
`
`Each of the asserted claims of the ’332 patent is anticipated and/or rendered obvious by prior
`
`art. Pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-3(a), LG identifies the prior art references that anticipate or render
`
`obvious an Asserted Claim in the claim charts of Exhibits A-01 thru A-19 (collectively “Appendix
`
`A”) which are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
`
`The claim charts of Appendix A provide an explanation showing how these prior art
`
`references teach or suggest each and every element of the asserted claims of the ’332 patent. For
`
`each reference or combination of references suggested by each chart, LG indicates whether the prior
`
`art renders the claim anticipated and/or obvious pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-3(b).
`
`ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC.
`Exh. 2001
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC.
`IPR2015-01620
`
`

`
`In addition to contending that the Asserted Claims are invalid in view of the prior art
`
`references cited in the claim charts of Appendix A, LG further contends that the Asserted Claims
`
`are invalid as anticipated and/or obvious under U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and/or (b) in view of public
`
`knowledge and uses and/or offers for sale of products and services related to the subject matter of
`
`the cited references. As discovery is ongoing, LG continues to investigate these items and to reserve
`
`the right to amend or supplement these contentions to include additional information or documents
`
`regarding such products and/or systems.
`
`LG’s reference to a particular circuitry, software program, device or product in the claim
`
`charts of Appendix A should be interpreted as a reference to the product itself and any corresponding
`
`patents, publications, or product literature cited in Appendix A that relates to the cited circuitry,
`
`software program, device, or product. In addition, LG may rely on other documents or things that
`
`have not yet been located to support its contentions regarding such prior art circuit(s), software
`
`program(s), device(s) or product(s) that are referenced in the charts.
`
`LG incorporates by reference, as if set forth fully herein, all prior art cited during the
`
`prosecution of the ’332 patent. In addition, LG identifies and hereby incorporates by reference as if
`
`set forth fully herein the prior art references that anticipate or render obvious an asserted claim as
`
`described in a future reexaminations or inter partes reviews of the ’332 patent, if any, that a requestor
`
`may file or the PTO may grant.
`
`LG further identifies and hereby incorporates by reference as if set forth fully herein the prior
`
`art references and invalidity contentions as described in any other lawsuits wherein invalidity
`
`contentions have been, or will be, provided regarding the ’332 patent, its foreign counterparts, or
`
`any parent or child patent of the ’332 patent. LG reserves the right to use any and all portions of the
`
`publication, related publications, commercial embodiments of the publication, and other evidence
`
`that is discovered in these lawsuits to demonstrate and/or evidence the components, functionality,
`
`and capabilities of the devices and systems disclosed in the references charted.
`
`Where LG identifies a particular figure in a prior art reference, the identification should be
`
`understood to encompass the caption and description of the figure, as well as any text relating to the
`
`ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC.
`Exh. 2001
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC.
`IPR2015-01620
`
`

`
`figure in addition to the figure itself. Similarly, where an identified portion of text refers to a figure
`
`or other material, the identification should be understood to include the referenced figure or other
`
`material as well. It should be recognized that a person of ordinary skill in the art would generally
`
`read a prior art reference as a whole and in the context of other publications, literature, and general
`
`knowledge in the field. To understand and interpret any specific statement or disclosure in a prior
`
`art reference, a person of ordinary skill in the art would rely upon other information, including other
`
`publications and general scientific or engineering knowledge. LG therefore reserves the right to rely
`
`upon other unidentified portions of the prior art references and on other publications and expert
`
`testimony to provide context and to aid understanding and interpretation of the identified portions.
`
`LG also reserves the right to rely upon other portions of the prior art references, other
`
`publications, and the testimony of experts to establish that the alleged inventions would have been
`
`obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, including the basis of modifying or combining certain
`
`cited references. To the extent any limitation is deemed not to be exactly met by an item of prior
`
`art, then any purported differences are such that the claimed subject matter as a whole would have
`
`been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the alleged invention, in view of the state of the
`
`art and knowledge of those skilled in the art. To the extent that an element of an Asserted Claim is
`
`not anticipated, the claim is rendered obvious by combination with one or more other prior art
`
`references identified in Appendix A.
`
`4.
`
`Obviousness Under Patent L.R. 3-3(a) and (b)
`
`(a)
`
`Prior Art Rendering Asserted Claims Obvious
`
`Pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-3(a) and (b), LG identifies in Appendix A the prior art references
`
`that render obvious the asserted claims of the ’332 patent and includes an identification of
`
`combinations showing the obviousness of the Asserted Claims in view of the prior art. Moreover,
`
`to the extent AMD contends that an element is not disclosed in any one of the anticipatory references
`
`described in Appendix A, such reference may be combined with any other references listed in
`
`Appendix A for such element, thereby rendering the claim invalid for obviousness.
`
`ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC.
`Exh. 2001
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC. v. ATI TECHNOLOGIES ULC.
`IPR2015-01620
`
`

`
`To the extent a finder of fact determines that a limitation of any of the asserted claims of the
`
`’332 patent is not disclosed by one of the references identified above pursuant to Patent L.R. 3-3(a),
`
`the claims are nevertheless unpatentable as obvious because they contain nothing that constitutes
`
`patentable innovation. To the extent a finder of fact determines that a limitation of any of the
`
`asserted claims of the ’332 patent is no