`
`M. ELIZABETH DAY (SBN 177125)
`eday@feinday.com
`DAVID ALBERTI (SBN 220265)
`dalberti@feinday.com
`SAL LIM (SBN 211836)
`slim@feinday.com
`MARC BELLOLI (SBN 244290)
`mbelloli@feinday.com
`FEINBERG DAY ALBERTI LIM &
`BELLOLI LLP
`1600 El Camino Real, Suite 280
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Tel: 650.618.4360
`Fax: 650.618.4368
`Attorneys for Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`CASE NO. 8:18-cv-02053
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`Plaintiff,
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 8:18-CV-02053
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1013, Page 0001
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`

`

`
`
`Plaintiff Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Uniloc”), by and through the undersigned
`counsel, hereby files this Complaint and makes the following allegations of patent
`infringement relating to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,016,676, 7,075,917, 8,706,636 and
`8,606,856 against Defendant Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”), and alleges as
`follows upon actual knowledge with respect to itself and its own acts and upon
`information and belief as to all other matters:
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`1.
`This is an action for patent infringement. Uniloc alleges that
`Microsoft infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 7,016,676 (the “’676 patent”), 7,075,917 (the
`“’917 patent”), 8,706,636 (the “’636 patent”) and 8,606,856 (the “’856 patent”),
`copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits A-D (collectively, “the Asserted
`Patents”).
`2.
`Uniloc alleges that Microsoft directly and indirectly infringes the
`Asserted Patents by making, using, offering for sale, selling and importing devices
`and providing applications that: (1) include semiconductor chips with integrated
`Bluetooth and Wi-Fi functionality such as the Microsoft Surface products, (2)
`operate in compliance with HSUPA/HSUPA+ standardized in UMTS 3 GPP
`Release 6 and above, such as the Microsoft Surface Pro with LTE devices, and (3)
`uniquely identify digital assets such as Microsoft Office 365. Uniloc further alleges
`that Microsoft induces and contributes to the infringement of others. Uniloc seeks
`damages and other relief for Microsoft’s infringement of the Asserted Patents.
`THE PARTIES
`3.
`Uniloc 2017 LLC is a Delaware corporation having places of business
`at 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801 and 620 Newport Center
`Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660.
`4.
`Uniloc holds all substantial rights, title and interest in and to the
`Asserted Patents.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 8:18-CV-02053
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1013, Page 0002
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`5.
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Microsoft Corporation is a
`corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington, with
`at least the following places of business in this District: 3 Park Plaza, Suite 1600,
`Irvine, CA 92614; 3333 Bristol Street, Suite 1249, Costa Mesa, CA 92626; 578 The
`Shops at Mission Viejo, Mission Viejo, CA 92691; 331 Los Cerritos Center,
`Cerritos, CA 90703; 13031 West Jefferson Blvd., Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA
`90094; 2140 Glendale Galleria, JCPenney Court, Glendale, CA 91210; 10250 Santa
`Monica Blvd., Space #1045, Los Angeles, CA 90067; 6600 Topanga Canyon Blvd,
`Canoga Park, CA 91303. Microsoft can be served with process by serving its
`registered agent for service of process in California: Corporation Service Company
`which Will Do Business in California as CSC - Lawyers Incorporating Service,
`2710 Gateway Oaks Dr., Ste. 150, Sacramento, CA 95833.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`6.
`This action for patent infringement arises under the Patent Laws of the
`United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et. seq. This Court has original jurisdiction under 28
`U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.
`7.
`This Court has both general and specific jurisdiction over Microsoft
`because Microsoft has committed acts within the Central District of California
`giving rise to this action and has established minimum contacts with this forum
`such that the exercise of jurisdiction over Microsoft would not offend traditional
`notions of fair play and substantial justice. Defendant Microsoft, directly and
`through subsidiaries, intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, franchisees
`and others), has committed and continues to commit acts of patent infringement in
`this District, by, among other things, making, using, testing, selling, licensing,
`importing and/or offering for sale/license products and services that infringe the
`Asserted Patents.
`8.
`Venue is proper in this district and division under 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 8:18-CV-02053
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1013, Page 0003
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`1391(b)-(d) and 1400(b) because Microsoft has committed acts of infringement in
`the Central District of California and has multiple regular and established places of
`business in the Central District of California.
`COUNT I – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,016,676
`9.
`The allegations of paragraphs 1-8 of this Complaint are incorporated
`by reference as though fully set forth herein.
`10.
`The ’676 patent, titled “Method, Network and Control Station For The
`Two-Way Alternate Control of Radio Systems Of Different Standards In the Same
`Frequency Band,” issued on March 21, 2006. A copy of the ’676 patent is attached
`as Exhibit A.
`11.
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 282, the ’676 patent is presumed valid.
`12.
`Invented by Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V., the inventions of
`the ’676 patent were not well-understood, routine or conventional at the time of the
`invention. At the time of invention of the ’676 patent, a national regulation
`authority determined on what frequencies, with what transmission power and in
`accordance with what radio interface standard a radio system was allowed to
`transmit. ‘676 patent at 1:12-15. There was provided so-called ISM frequency
`bands (Industrial Scientific Medical) where radio systems can transmit in the same
`frequency band in accordance with different radio interface standards. Id. at 1:15-
`18. One example of this is the US radio system IEEE 802.11a and the European
`ETSI BRAN HiperLAN/2. Id. at 1:18-20. The two radio systems transmit in the
`same frequency bands between 5.5 GHz and 5.875 GHz with approximately the
`same radio transmission method, but different transmission protocols. Id. at 1:20-
`23. In the event of interference, prior art systems were implemented for active
`switching to another frequency within the permitted frequency band, for controlling
`transmission power and for adaptive coding and modulation to reduce interference.
`Id. at 1:23-28. These prior art systems suffered from drawbacks. Id. at 1:65-2:10.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 8:18-CV-02053
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1013, Page 0004
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`For example, prior art systems and methods did not make optimum use and
`spreading possible of the radio channels over the stations which transmit in
`accordance with different standards. Id. The guarantee of the service quality
`necessary for the multimedia applications is impossible in the case of interference
`caused by their own stations or stations of outside systems. Id. at 2:5-8. In the case
`of alternating interference, the prior art systems did not work efficiently and occupy
`a frequency channel even at low transmission rates. Id. at 2:8-10.
`13. The inventive solution of the claimed inventions of the ’676 patent
`provides an interface control protocol method that overcomes one or more problems
`of the prior art and makes efficient use of radio transmission channels. Id. at 2:11-
`22. For example, the invention provides a method that controls alternate use of the
`common frequency band to provide certain predefined time intervals for the use of
`the first and second radio interface standard and allocate the frequency band
`alternately to the first radio interface standard and then to the second radio interface
`standard in a type of time-division multiplex mode. Id. at 2:51-57. According to
`the claimed invention, a control station controls the access to the common
`frequency band for stations working in accordance with the first radio interface
`standard and—renders the frequency band available for access by the stations
`working in accordance with the second radio interface standard if stations working
`in accordance with the first radio interface standard do not request access to the
`frequency band. Id. at 6:29-36. This allows the common frequency band to be
`utilized more effectively particularly when the demand for transmission capacity in
`accordance with the first and the second radio interface standard varies. Id. at 2:58-
`62.
`
`14. A person of ordinary skill in the art reading the ’676 patent and its
`claims would understand that the patent’s disclosure and claim are drawn to solving
`a specific, technical problem arising from the evolution of radio communications
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 8:18-CV-02053
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1013, Page 0005
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`standards that are designed to operate over the same frequency band. Moreover, a
`person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the claimed subject matter
`of the ’676 patent presents advancements in the field of radio communications
`standards, such as 802.11 (“Wi-Fi”), and, more particularly, alternate control of
`radio systems of different standards in the same frequency band. Indeed, the time
`of invention is approximately four years after the 802.11 standard was first released
`in June of 1997. And, as detailed by the specification, the prior art interference
`control systems suffered drawbacks such that a new and novel interface-control
`protocol method was required. The inventions of the ’676 patent do not and cannot
`apply to human behavior and are indigenous to the then nascent field of alternate
`control of radio systems of different standards in the same frequency band.
`15.
`In light of the foregoing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand that claim 1 of the ’676 patent is directed to an interference control
`protocol method for a radio system that uses a common frequency band
`alternatively for multiple interface standards. Moreover, a person of ordinary skill
`in the art would understand that claim 1 of the ’676 patent contains the inventive
`concept of an interference control protocol method for a radio system that uses
`common frequency band alternatively for multiple interface standards.
`16.
` On information and belief, Microsoft makes, uses, offers for sale, and
`sells in the United States and imports into the United States Microsoft Surface
`products containing a combined Bluetooth/Wi-Fi chip solution, such as the Marvell
`Avastar 88W8897 (collectively the “Accused Infringing Devices”).
`17.
`Upon information and belief, the Accused Infringing Devices infringe
`at least claim 1 in the exemplary manner described below.
`18.
`The Accused Infringing Devices practice an interface-control protocol
`method for a radio system with at least one common frequency band that is
`provided for alternate use by a first and a second radio interface standard. For
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 8:18-CV-02053
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1013, Page 0006
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`example, Microsoft Surface products include chips with integrated Bluetooth and
`Wi-Fi functionality, such as the chips from the Marvell Avastar Family of products.
`Source: https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Microsoft+Surface+Pro+4+Teardown/51568
`19.
` The Microsoft Surface products perform an interface control method
`
`that provides for alternate use of the 2.4 GHz frequency band, which is used by a
`first (e.g., “Bluetooth”) and second (e.g., “Wi-Fi”) interface standard.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 8:18-CV-02053
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1013, Page 0007
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Source: Ronak Choski, Yes ! Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Can Coexist in Handheld Devices, Marvell
`Semiconductor (March 2010)
`
`
`20.
` The Accused Infringing Devices operate in accordance with a first
`radio interface standard and/or a second radio interface standard. For example,
`Microsoft Surface products with integrated Bluetooth / Wi-Fi chips communicate
`with stations that operate using a first interface standard (e.g., Bluetooth) and/or
`second (e.g., Wi-Fi) interface standard. Examples of Bluetooth stations include
`Bluetooth peripherals such as mice, pens, keyboards, dials and others. Examples of
`Wi-Fi stations include Wi-Fi modems, routers, access points (APs) and the like.
`
`
`
`Source: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/surface-precision-
`mouse/8qc5p0d8ddjt?activetab=pivot:techspecstab
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 8:18-CV-02053
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1013, Page 0008
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`Source: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/surface
`pen/8zl5c82qmg6b/7X3T?activetab=pivot:techspecstab
`
`
`
`
`
`Source: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/surface-arc-
`mouse/8p5sv2rx3rn5/GGLX?activetab=pivot:techspecstab
`8
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 8:18-CV-02053
`
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1013, Page 0009
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Source: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/surface-
`dial/925r551sktgn/d5ft?cid=msft_web_collection&activetab=pivot:techspecstab
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 8:18-CV-02053
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1013, Page 0010
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Source: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4023494/surface-connect-surface-to-a-wireless-
`network
`
`
`21.
`The Accused Infringing Devices include a control station which
`controls the alternate use of the frequency band. Microsoft Surface products with
`integrated Bluetooth / Wi-Fi chips include a control station (e.g., circuitry within
`the Marvell Avastar family radio and related software) that controls the alternate
`use of the 2.4 GHz frequency band.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 8:18-CV-02053
`
`
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1013, Page 0011
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 8:18-CV-02053
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1013, Page 0012
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Source: Ronak Choski, Yes! Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Can Coexist in Handheld Devices, Marvell
`Semiconductor (March 2010)
`
`
`
`
`22.
`The Accused Infringing Devices include a control station that controls
`the access to the common frequency band for stations working in accordance with
`the first radio interface standard and renders the frequency band available for access
`by the stations working in accordance with the second radio interface standard if
`stations working in accordance with the first radio interface standard do not request
`access to the frequency band.
`23.
` For example, Microsoft Surface products with integrated Bluetooth /
`Wi-Fi chips include a control station (e.g., circuitry in the Marvell Avastar family
`radio and related software) that controls the access to the common 2.4 GHz
`frequency band for stations working in accordance with the first radio interface
`standard (Bluetooth). The controller in the Marvell Avastar family radio renders
`the frequency band available for access by the stations working in accordance with
`the second radio interface standard (e.g., Wi-Fi) when stations working in
`accordance with the first radio interface standard (e.g., Bluetooth) do not request
`access to the frequency band. The Marvell Avastar radio employs a coexistence
`strategy that makes the shared 2.4 GHz frequency band available to Wi-Fi stations
`communicating with Microsoft Surface only when Bluetooth stations are not
`requesting access to the frequency band. For example, the control station provides
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 8:18-CV-02053
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1013, Page 0013
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`access to the frequency band during times that the Bluetooth stations are not
`requesting access.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Source: Ronak Choski, Yes! Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Can Coexist in Handheld Devices, Marvell
`Semiconductor (March 2010)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 8:18-CV-02053
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1013, Page 0014
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`24. Microsoft has infringed, and continues to infringe, at least claim 1 of
`the ’676 patent in the United States, by making, using, offering for sale, selling
`and/or importing the Accused Infringing Devices in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).
`25. Microsoft also has infringed, and continues to infringe, at least claim 1
`of the ’676 patent by actively inducing others to use, offer for sale, and sell the
`Accused Infringing Devices. Microsoft’s users, customers, agents or other third
`parties who use those devices in accordance with Microsoft’s instructions infringe
`claim 1 of the ’676 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Microsoft
`intentionally instructs its customers to infringe through training videos,
`demonstrations, brochures and user guides, such as those located at:
`www.microsoft.com and https://support.microsoft.com. Microsoft is thereby liable
`for infringement of the ’676 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`26. Microsoft also has infringed, and continues to infringe, at least claim 1
`of the ’676 patent by offering to commercially distribute, commercially
`distributing, and/or importing the Accused Infringing Devices which devices are
`used in practicing the processes, or using the systems, of the ’676 patent, and
`constitute a material part of the invention. Microsoft knows portions of the
`Accused Infringing Devices to be especially made or especially adapted for use in
`infringement of the ’676 patent, not a staple article, and not a commodity of
`commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. Microsoft is thereby liable for
`infringement of the ’676 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`27. Microsoft is on notice of its infringement of the ’676 patent by virtue
`of a letter from Uniloc to Microsoft dated July 24, 2018. By the time of trial,
`Microsoft will have known and intended (since receiving such notice) that its
`continued actions would actively induce and contribute to the infringement of at
`least claim 1 of the ’676 patent.
`28.
`Upon information and belief, Microsoft may have infringed and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 8:18-CV-02053
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1013, Page 0015
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`continues to infringe the ’676 patent through other software and devices utilizing
`the same or reasonably similar functionality, including other versions of the
`Accused Infringing Devices.
`29. Microsoft’s acts of direct and indirect infringement have caused and
`continue to cause damage to Uniloc and Uniloc is entitled to recover damages
`sustained as a result of Microsoft’s wrongful acts in an amount subject to proof at
`trial.
`
`COUNT II – INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,075,917
`30.
`The allegations of paragraphs 1-8 of this Complaint are incorporated
`by reference as though fully set forth herein.
`31.
`The ’917 patent, titled “Wireless Network With A Data Exchange
`According to the ARQ Method,” issued on July 11, 2006. A copy of the ’917
`patent is attached as Exhibit B.
`32.
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 282, the ’917 patent is presumed valid.
`33.
`Invented by Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N.V., the inventions of
`the ’917 patent were not well-understood, routine or conventional at the time of the
`invention. At the time of invention of the ’917 patent, wireless communications
`systems that implemented a hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (ARQ) suffered from
`drawbacks. ’917 patent at 1:10-67. According to hybrid ARQ methods, data sent
`in Packet Data Units (PDU) by the Radio Link Control layer (RLC layer) are
`additionally provided for the error correcting coding with an error control through
`repetition of transmission. Id. at 1:18-21. This means that in the case of an error-
`affected reception of a packet data unit packed in a transport block coded by one of
`the assigned physical layers, a received packet data unit affected by error is sent
`anew. Id. at 1:21-25. In certain hybrid ARQ methods (e.g., types II and III), the
`affected packet data unit will be buffered over long time spaces until an incremental
`redundancy is requested and then, after a successful decoding, the reception may be
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 8:18-CV-02053
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1013, Page 0016
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`acknowledged as correct, especially when the receiving side is the network side,
`while the physical layer and the RLC layer are usually located on different
`hardware components. Id. at 1:44-50. At the time of the invention, it was desirable
`to reduce these periods of time that the error-affected data would be buffered to
`improve overall communication rates in the network. Id. at 1:64-67.
`34. The inventive solution of the claimed inventions of the ’917 patent
`provides a radio network controller and a terminal in a wireless network that
`exchange data according to a hybrid ARQ method. The specific radio terminals and
`controller of the ’917 invention overcome one or more problems of the prior art. Id.
`at 2:1-24. The wireless network components of the ’917 patent transmit an
`acknowledge command over a back channel (previously unknown) between a
`physical layer of a transmitting side (for example, a radio network controller) and
`the physical layer of a receiving side (for example, a terminal), which allows a
`correct or error-affected transmission of a transport block to be announced to the
`transmitting side much more rapidly than prior art systems. Id. at 2:28-36. As a
`result, a repetition of transmission with incremental redundancy may be performed
`rapidly. Id. at 2:36-38. This enables the receiving side to buffer the received coded
`transport block affected by error more briefly because the additional redundancy
`necessary for the correct decoding is available at an earlier instant. Id. at 2:39-42.
`In this manner, the memory capacity or memory area needed on average for
`buffering blocks affected by error is also reduced. Id. at 2:42-44.
`35. A person of ordinary skill in the art reading the ’917 patent and its
`claims would understand that the patent’s disclosure and claims are drawn to
`solving a specific, technical problem arising in radio communication systems using
`a hybrid ARQ data transmission method. Moreover, a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would understand that the claimed subject matter of the ’917 patent presents
`advancements in the field of wireless networking and, more particularly, wireless
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 8:18-CV-02053
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1013, Page 0017
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`networks implementing hybrid ARQ data transmission methods. Indeed, the time
`of invention was less than two months after the release of the document entitled,
`“3rd Generation Partnership Project, Technical Specification Group Radio Access
`Network, Report on Hybrid ARQ Type II/III (Release 2000), 3G TR 25.835 V0.0.2,
`TSG-RAN Working Group 2 (Radio L2 and Radio L3), Sophia Antipolis, France,
`21–15 August 2000,” which described the specific types of hybrid ARQ network on
`which the invention improves. And, as detailed by the specification, the prior
`hybrid ARQ data transmission methods suffered drawbacks such that a new and
`novel method was required. The inventions of the ’917 patent are also indigenous
`to the then nascent field of wireless networks implementing hybrid ARQ data
`transmission methods.
`36.
`In light of the foregoing, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`understand that claim 10 of the ’917 patent is directed to a specific improvement on
`wireless networks implementing hybrid ARQ data transmission methods.
`Moreover, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that claim 10 of
`the ’917 patent contains the inventive concept of using abbreviated sequence
`numbers and a back channel between a physical layer of a transmitting side (for
`example, a radio network controller) and the physical layer of a receiving side (for
`example, a terminal), which allows a correct or error-affected transmission of a
`transport block to be announced to the transmitting side much more rapidly than
`prior art systems.
`37.
`On information and belief, Microsoft makes, uses, offers for sale, and
`sells in the United States and imports into the United States user equipment that
`operates in compliance with HSUPA/HSUPA+ standardized in UMTS 3 GPP
`Release 6 and above, such as the Microsoft Surface Pro with LTE devices
`(collectively the “Accused Infringing Devices”).
`38.
`Upon information and belief, the Accused Infringing Devices infringe
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 8:18-CV-02053
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1013, Page 0018
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`at least claim 10 of the ’917 patent in the exemplary manner described below.
`39.
`The Accused Infringing Devices operate in a WCDMA network
`having a radio network controller and other user equipment (other UEs or further
`terminals). The Accused Infringing Devices have a physical layer for the
`transmission and reception of data. Section 6 shows that the UMTS terrestrial
`radio access network (UTRAN) includes a radio network controller.
`
`
`Source: (3GPP TS 25.401 V6.9.0 (2006-12), pages 13-14)
`40.
`The Accused Infringing Devices include a Qualcomm Snapdragon
`X16 LTE modem, which supports WCDMA/HSUPA functionality.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 8:18-CV-02053
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1013, Page 0019
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Source: https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsofts-new-surface-pro-with-lte-and-450mbps-
`downloads-out-in-december/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Source: https://www.qualcomm.com/products/snapdragon/modems/4g-lte/x16
`
`
`41.
`Figure 1 shows that the Accused Infringing Devices are part of a
`network and that the Accused Infringing Devices have a physical layer/ L1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 8:18-CV-02053
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1013, Page 0020
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`4
`Assumed UMTS Architecture
`Fi:urc I ,bol\> lht usumNI UMT artlu1ccnirt a. outhnNI 1n (II. TIit ficurc sho•• •ht UMT 1rchnw11rc III l<'mb or
`1h tnlot~• llotr rqu,pmcnt tUfJ. t:TRAS 111d C-0tt Se1•orl. The tt•p«to,c- reftre11ct point, Uu Clllkloo lnlmactJ and
`lu C('S•UTRAI\ 1nlerl«tl 1n, ,t,o,.n Tb• 1t1un tllu•Luln furthem1orr th• b1£h•lu•l lun<L101ul sroupons into the
`A«c.s Sn111111 and ,lie :-.on-Acee., 111111m
`
`Non-Access Sttatum (NA$)
`
`Access Suatum (AS)
`
`end AS ecit1ty
`
`ue
`·------~Rad~--t--~~~~---
`
`- - - - - - - (Uu)
`
`I
`
`UTRAN
`
`lu
`Stratum
`
`lu
`
`Core Network
`
`Flgu,. 1: A11umed UMTS Architecture
`
`Source: 3GPP TS 25.301 V6.6.0 (2008-03), pages 8-9
`
`42.
`
`Section 5 .1 shows that the radio interface in the Accused Infringing
`
`Devices has a physical layer.
`
`20
`COMPLAINT-CASE NO. 8:18-CV-02053
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1013, Page 0021
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`5.1
`
`Overall protocol structure
`The ™'o ,n~rfxc" l~)crcd onto three protocol l~)ers
`
`· i the ph)'°CII ~)cr(LI>, ,
`
`·
`
`the d•l~ lonl IJ)cr (UI;
`
`~)er l ._. iph1 11110 rollov. 111s s.ibla)m \tcd,wa AcccJ (:ofttro1 CMAC). bdoo Lualo. t'CM11rol 1Rll'I. P1d,t1 0111
`C'on.c,smcc ho1ocol lPDC'PI and Qowdcl\t \t uh,nu C'on1n,I CR\IC')
`
`LI
`
`~
`Bonn
`
`U/POCP
`
`U /U I C
`
`I.Z/Rl,C
`
`1 .. , .. ~,
`t"h.,,,n.l,
`
`1,l/\ 1,\C"
`r ... pon
`Clana<l,
`
`I. I
`
`\l;\C'
`
`,m
`
`Flo ur• 2: R1dlo lnt•rf•ce protocol 1rcllltectur• (Servlc• Accu, Point• marked by clrclH)
`
`Source: (3GPP TS 25.301 V6.6.0 (2008-03), pages 9-11)
`
`43.
`
`The Accused Infringing Devices store in a physical layer buffer
`
`("stored in memory") medium access control-es (MAC-es) protocol data units
`
`(PDUs) ("transport blocks") after being hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ)
`
`coded ("coded transport blocks"). Each MAC-es PDU ("transport block") includes
`
`at least one acknowledged mode data radio (AMD) radio link control (RLC) PDU
`
`("a packet data unit which is delivered by an assigned radio link control layer").
`
`Each AMD RLC PDU has a unique 12-bit sequence number ("identified by a
`
`packet data unit sequence number"). Section 4.8 shows that the enhanced uplink
`
`21
`COMPLAINT-CASE NO. 8:18-CV-02053
`
`Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. - Ex. 1013, Page 0022
`IPR2019-01350 (Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC)
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`data is HARQ codes in the physical layer for transmission.
`
`4.8
`
`Coding for E-DCH
`
`• Add C RC to LI>< tr.il\.lport blocl
`
`· C'o« bl«~ oc1mcntit1on
`
`- Ch.lnnC'I cad,111
`
`lntcrlnvan1
`
`~ UTRA u-ch11tc1ure 1s .lllo,u, 111 fic11re .c
`C' c(>dm1 <tcp< for r -DCll tnn•r<>rt chnn<I att it,o,.11 ,nth< ftJlltt bC'low.
`
`·~· ........ ------~-... '--~
`
`CRC -
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`o,.
`
`C. C. C
`
`.c~
`
`....... ••
`
`a..,w,~
`
`'
`I 1~~-=1
`'
`
`'
`
`'
`
`~CNMlll•I
`
`Fl9ure 21 : Tt1n1port channel processing for E,OCH
`
`Source: 3GPP TS 25.212 V6.10.0 (2006-12), pages 65-66
`
`44.
`
`Section 4.2.1.3.1 shoes that the AMD RLC PDUs ("a packet data unit
`
`which is delivere