John P. Schnurer, Bar No. 185725
`JSchnurer@perkinscoie.com
`Joseph P. Reid, Bar No. 211082
`JReid@perkinscoie.com
`Thomas N. Millikan, Bar No. 234430
`TMillikan@perkinscoie.com
`Yun (Louise) Lu, Bar No. 253114
`LLu@perkinscoie.com
`James Young Hurt, Bar No. 312390
`JHurt@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300
`San Diego, California 92130-2080
`Telephone: 858.720.5700
`Facsimile: 858.720.5799
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Coolpad
`Technologies, Inc. and Yulong Computer
`Communications and Counterclaim Plaintiff
`Coolpad Technologies, Inc.
`
`[Counsel for co-defendants identified on
`signature page]
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`C.A. No. 3:18-cv-1783-CAB-BLM (lead
`case)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT INVALIDITY
`CONTENTIONS
`
`Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
`
`v.
`
`COOLPAD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`AND YULONG COMPUTER
`COMMUNICATIONS,
`
`Defendants.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`C.A. No. 3:18-cv-1784-CAB-BLM
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT INVALIDITY
`CONTENTIONS
`
`v.
`
`Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN)
`CO., LTD, HUAWEI DEVICE
`(SHENZHEN) CO., LTD., and
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`
`1
`
`HUAWEI 1016
`
`

`

`Defendants.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`C.A. No. 3:18-cv-1785-CAB-BLM
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT INVALIDITY
`CONTENTIONS
`
`KYOCERA CORPORATION and
`KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC.,
`
`Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
`
`Defendants.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`C.A. No. 3:18-cv-1786-CAB-BLM
`
`DEFENDANT’S JOINT INVALIDITY
`CONTENTIONS
`
`v.
`
`Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
`
`ZTE CORPORATION,
`ZTE (USA) INC., and
`ZTE (TX) INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`

`

`Pursuant to S.D. Cal. Patent Local Rules 3.3 and 3.4, and the Rules and Orders
`
`of this Court, Defendants Coolpad Technologies, Inc., Yulong Computer
`
`Communications, Huawei Device (Dongguan) Co., Ltd., Huawei Device (Shenzhen)
`
`Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc., Kyocera Corporation, Kyocera International Inc.,
`
`ZTE Corporation, ZTE (USA) Inc., and ZTE (TX) Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”)
`
`hereby serve their Joint Invalidity Contentions (“Invalidity Contentions”) on Plaintiff
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC (“BNR”) in support of their allegations of invalidity of
`
`United States Patent Nos. 7,319,889 (“’889 Patent); 8,204,554 (“’554 Patent);
`
`7,990,842 (“’842 Patent”); 8,416,862 (“’862 Patent”); 7,957,450 (“’450 Patent”);
`
`6,941,156 (“’156 Patent); 8,792,432 (“’432 Patent”); and 7,039,435 (“’435 Patent”)
`
`(collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). While all of the claims collectively asserted
`
`against the Defendants are addressed below, each Defendant hereby submits these
`
`Contentions only with respect to the patents and claims that BNR has asserted against
`
`each such Defendant.
`
`I. INTRODUCTION AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
`
`These Invalidity Contentions are based on information currently available to
`
`Defendants. Defendants’ investigation and analysis of prior art is ongoing, and they
`
`reserve the right to supplement or modify these Invalidity Contentions in a manner
`
`consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s rules.
`
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions do not constitute an admission that any
`
`current, past, or future version of the accused products infringe the Asserted Patents
`
`either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Unless otherwise stated,
`
`Defendants have relied on the broad claim constructions of the asserted claims that
`
`BNR has implicitly adopted in its Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`
`Contentions (“Infringement Contentions”), to the extent any construction can be
`
`inferred from BNR’s Infringement Contentions. Such reliance should not be taken to
`
`mean that Defendants understand, or are adopting or agreeing with, BNR’s apparent
`
`constructions. Defendants expressly do not do so and reserve their right to contest
`
`

`

`them.
`
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions are made in the alternative, and should not
`
`be interpreted to reply upon, or in any way affect, the non-infringement arguments
`
`Defendants intend to assert in this case.
`
`Although citations are made to exemplary passages in the prior art, Defendants
`
`reserve the right to rely upon additional passages that also may be applicable, or that
`
`may become applicable in light of any judicially ordered claim construction, changes
`
`in Plaintiff’s infringement contentions, and/or information obtained during remaining
`
`discovery. Where Defendants cite and rely on a U.S. patent, Defendants necessarily
`
`cite, rely upon and incorporate by reference as additional prior art each and every
`
`foreign priority patent (and the applications for those foreign priority patents) cited in
`
`the identified U.S. patent.
`
`In these Invalidity Contentions (in either this cover pleading or in the Invalidity
`
`Claim Charts attached as exhibits hereto), reference to “one of ordinary skill,” “skilled
`
`artisan” or any other similar term refers to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the alleged invention, as laid out in 35 U.S.C. § 103, for whichever particular
`
`patent-in-suit is being discussed.
`
`These Invalidity Contentions are based on information currently available to
`
`Defendants. Defendants’ investigation and analysis is ongoing, and Defendants
`
`reserve the right to supplement or modify these Invalidity Contentions in a manner
`
`consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s rules. Because
`
`Defendants’ investigation regarding the invalidity of the asserted patents is not yet
`
`complete, certain defenses, including, for example, non-patentable subject matter
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §101, knowledge or use by others under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), public
`
`use and/or on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), derivation or prior inventorship under
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102(f)/(g), inequitable conduct, unenforceability, and estoppel, etc. may
`
`only become apparent as additional information becomes available. For example,
`
`Defendants continue to investigate technological systems. More generally, some of the
`
`

`

`prior art items identified in these Invalidity Contentions relate to systems and products.
`
`Defendants are investigating these prior art systems and products, and their associated
`
`product literature and web pages, and reserve the right to modify, amend and/or
`
`supplement these contentions as information becomes available during discovery.
`
`Defendants have not yet had the opportunity to conduct sufficient fact discovery
`
`regarding their unenforceability defenses. To the extent that during discovery any
`
`evidence is produced that supports a contention that the ’889, ’554, ’842, ’862, ’450,
`
`’156, ’432, and/or ’435 patents are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during
`
`prosecution of the ’889, ’554, ’842, ’862, ’450, ’156, ’432, and/or ’435 patents or for
`
`any other reason, Defendants reserve all rights to amend and/or supplement their
`
`Invalidity Contentions to include such unenforceability contentions.
`
`In particular, and without limitation, Defendants reserve the right to identify
`
`other art or to supplement their disclosures or contentions for at least the following
`
`reasons:
`
`(i) Defendants’ position on the invalidity of particular claims will depend on
`
`any claim construction from the Court, any findings as to the priority date of the
`
`asserted claims, any findings as to the level of skill attributable to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art, and/or positions that BNR or expert witness(es) may take concerning
`
`claim construction, infringement, and/or invalidity.
`
`(ii) Defendants’ search for prior art is ongoing, and they may discover and/or
`
`analyze additional art, and additional materials relating to the art cited herein.
`
`(iii) Defendants have not yet completed discovery from Plaintiff. Depositions
`
`of the persons involved in the drafting and prosecution of the asserted patents, and of
`
`the named inventors, for instance, will likely reveal information that affects the
`
`disclosures and contentions herein.
`
`(iv) Defendants have not yet completed discovery from third parties who have
`
`information concerning the prior art cited herein, and possibly additional art. Such
`
`discovery may also reveal information that affects the disclosures and contentions
`
`

`

`herein.
`
`(v)
`
`If BNR modifies any assertion or contention in its Infringement
`
`Contentions, or presents any new assertion or contention relevant to these Invalidity
`
`Contentions, Defendants reserve the right to supplement or otherwise amend these
`
`Invalidity Contentions.
`
`Defendants’ claim charts cite to particular teachings and disclosures of the prior
`
`art as applied to features of the asserted claims. However, persons having ordinary
`
`skill in the art generally view an item of prior art in the context of other publications,
`
`literature, products, and their own experience and understanding. As such, the cited
`
`portions in Defendants’ claim charts are exemplary only. Where Defendants cite to a
`
`particular figure in a reference, the citation should be understood to encompass the
`
`caption and description of the figure and any text relating to the figure. Similarly,
`
`where Defendants cite to particular text referring to a figure, the citation should be
`
`understood to include the figure and caption as well. Furthermore, Defendants reserve
`
`the right to rely on uncited portions of the prior art references and on other publications
`
`and expert testimony as aids in understanding and interpreting the cited portions, as
`
`providing context thereto, as additional evidence that the prior art discloses a claim
`
`limitation or the invention as a whole, as evidence of the state of the art at a particular
`
`time, and/or as evidence of the obviousness factor of contemporaneous development
`
`by others. Defendants further reserve the right to rely on uncited portions of the prior
`
`art references, other publications, and testimony, including expert testimony, to
`
`establish bases for combination of prior art references that render the asserted claims
`
`obvious.
`
`The references discussed in the claim charts may disclose the elements of the
`
`asserted claims explicitly and/or inherently, and/or they may be relied upon to show
`
`the state of the art in the relevant time frame. Obviousness combinations are provided
`
`in the alternative to Defendants’ anticipation contentions and are not to be construed to
`
`suggest that any reference included in any combination is not by itself anticipatory.
`
`

`

`Prior art patents or publications included in these Contentions may be related
`
`(e.g., as a divisional, continuation, continuation-in-part, parent, child, or other relation
`
`or claim of priority) to earlier or later filed patents or publications, may have
`
`counterparts filed in other jurisdictions, or may incorporate (or be incorporated by)
`
`other patents or publications by reference. The listed patents or publications are
`
`intended to be representative of these other patents or publications, to the extent they
`
`exist. On information and belief, each listed publication or invention became prior art
`
`at least as early as the dates given.
`
`Moreover, as certain prior art systems and inventions are described in multiple
`
`related patents or publications with similar or identical specifications or disclosures, to
`
`the extent Defendants have identified a citation in one reference, Defendants reserve
`
`the right to rely on parallel or similar citations in related patents or publications.
`
`Persons of ordinary skill in the art would read a prior art reference and understand
`
`prior art inventions as a whole and in the context of other publications, literature, and
`
`technologies. Therefore, to understand and interpret any specific statement or
`
`disclosure of a potential prior art reference or invention, such persons would rely on
`
`other information within the reference or invention, along with other publications and
`
`their general scientific knowledge.
`
`Defendants also incorporate, in full, all prior art references cited in the Asserted
`
`Patents, all references incorporated by reference into those references, and the Asserted
`
`Patents’ prosecution history.
`
`In addition to the prior art identified below and in the accompanying invalidity
`
`claim charts, Defendants incorporate by reference any additional invalidity
`
`contentions, identified prior art, or invalidity claim charts disclosed at any date by any
`
`party to any litigation or U.S. Patent & Trademark Office proceeding involving the
`
`asserted patent or any related patent, including, without limitation, any parties’
`
`invalidity contentions (including all amendments/supplementations), and expert reports
`
`(including all amendments/supplementations), and any references identified in any
`
`

`

`OowannaunFfWYNY
`
`——_-©
`
`reexamination request or proceedingrelating to any of the Asserted Patents.
`
`Defendants may further rely on any prior art references or documentsrelating to the
`
`validity of the asserted patents, ever knownoridentified by or to Plaintiff, the named
`
`inventors of the asserted patents, assignees of the asserted patents, or any person
`
`substantively involved in the prosecution of the asserted patents, including any prior
`
`art references producedin the bates range BNR-SDCA00016026 — BNR-
`
`SDCA00033398.
`
`II. IDENTIFICATION OF PRIOR ART
`
`Pursuantto Patent L.R. 3.3, and subject to Defendants’ reservation ofrights,
`
`Defendants identify at least the following prior art now knownto Defendants to
`
`anticipate and/or render obviousthe asserted claims of the ’889 Patent, ’554 Patent,
`
`°842 Patent, 862 Patent, 450 Patent, ’156 Patent, 432 Patent, and ’435 Patent. As
`
`explainedin their reservation of rights, Defendants have, in certain instances, applied
`
`the prior art in accordance with BNR’s improperassertions of infringement and
`
`improperapplication of the asserted claims. Defendants do not agree with BNR’s
`
`application, however, and deny infringement.
`
`The below-identified references presently known to Defendants anticipate
`
`and/or render obvious one or moreof the asserted claims of the ’889 Patent, 554
`
`Patent, 842 Patent, ’862 Patent, 450 Patent, 156 Patent, °432 Patent, and ’435 Patent.
`
`A. Prior Art References for the ’889 Patent
`
`Pursuant to Patent L.R. 3.3, the tables below identify the prior art items that
`
`Defendants presently assert anticipate and/or render obviousthe asserted claims of the
`
`°889 Patent. Where applicable, this includes information aboutany alleged knowledge
`
`of use of the inventionin this country prior to the date of invention of the ’889 Patent.
`
`April 23, 1991
`
`Date of
`Publication or
`
`Issue
`
`U.S. Patents or Patent Publications
`
`1. U.S. Patent No. 5,010,566 (“Seo”
`
`

`

`2001_20, 2001
`OowannaunFfWYNY
`
`December17,
`1996
`November11,
`2004 (filed
`May 6, 2003
`
`Date of
`
`Publication
`April 11, 2000
`
`August 10,
`1999
`December 21,
`
`2. U.S. Patent No. 5,586,182 (“Miyashita”)
`
`3. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0225904
`(“Perez”)
`
`Other Printed Publications
`
`4. Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No.
`2000-106598 (“Fukiharu ’598”)
`5. Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No.
`H11-220432 (“Numazawa”
`6. World Intellectual Property Organization Publication No.
`
`smeOT
`WO 00/78012 (“Sparre”’)
`
`7. U.K. Patent Application No. 2,357,400 jarvi|June20,
`
`In addition to the aboveprior art references, Defendants identify the following
`
`patents, printed publications, productliterature, and other materials that are pertinent to
`
`invalidity of the asserted claims. Defendants mayrely on these references as
`
`invalidating prior art, evidence of the knowledge of those skilled in the art, and/or
`
`evidence to support a motivation to combine or modify other prior art. Defendants
`
`reserveall rights to supplement or modify these invalidity contentions and to rely on
`
`these references to prove invalidity of the asserted claims in a mannerconsistent with
`
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of this Court.
`
`Additional Prior Art References
`
`8. U-S. Patent No. 5,881,377 (“Giel”
`9. US. Patent No. 5,729,604 (“Van Schyndel’”)
`
`10.U.S. Patent No. 6,631,192 (“Fukiharu 192”)
`
`September22,
`
`Date of Issue
`
`or Publication
`March 9, 1999
`March 17,
`1998
`October7,
`2003 (filed
`
`

`

`11. U.S. Patent No. 6,801,794 (“Bauer”)
`
`12. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0029546
`(“Tsuchi 546”)
`
`13. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0057548
`(“Kim”)
`14. World Intellectual Property Organization Publication No.
`WO 00/195596 (“Tsuchi 596”)
`15. U.K. Patent Application No. 2256772 (“So”)
`
`16. S. Segars, “The ARM9 family̵-high performance
`microprocessors for embedded applications”, Proc. ICCD,
`pp. 230-235, 1998-Oct.
`17. Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication 2001-
`230859
`
`18. U.S. Patent No. 6,314,303 (“Phipps”)
`
`19. European Patent Application No. 1,058,465 (“Farah”)
`
`20. U.K. Patent Application No. 2,275,848 (“Champness”)
`
`21. U.S. Patent No. 5,239,673 (“Natarajan”)
`
`22. U.S. Patent No. 5,297,191 (“Gerszberg”)
`
`23. U.S. Patent No. 5,479,484 (“Mukerjee”)
`
`B. Prior Art References for the ’554 Patent
`
`September 27,
`2001
`February 12,
`2004 (filed
`June 1, 2001)
`March 17,
`2005
`December 13,
`2001
`December 16,
`1992
`October 1998
`
`August 24,
`2001 (filed
`February 18,
`2000)
`November 6,
`2001 (filed
`July 29, 1997)
`December 6,
`2000
`September 7,
`1994
`August 24,
`1993
`March 22,
`1994
`December 26,
`1995
`
`Pursuant to Patent L.R. 3.3, the tables below identify the prior art items that
`
`Defendants presently assert anticipate and/or render obvious the asserted claims of the
`
`’554 Patent. Where applicable, this includes information about any alleged knowledge
`
`of use of the invention in this country prior to the date of invention of the ’554 Patent.
`
`

`

`or Publication
`
`U.S. Patents or Patent Publications
`
`24.U.S. Patent No. 5,010,566 (“Seo”
`25.U.S. Patent No. 5,586,182 (“Miyashita”)
`
`26.U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0225904
`(“Perez”)
`
`April 23, 1991
`December17,
`1996
`November11,
`2004 (filed
`May 6, 2003
`
`27.Japanese UnexaminedPatent Application Publication No.
`2000-106598 (“Fukiharu *598”
`28.Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication No.
`H11-220432 (“Numazawa”
`29.World Intellectual Property Organization Publication No.
`WO 00/78012 (“Sparre’’)
`30.U.K. Patent Application No. 2,357,400 (“Mantyjarvi”
`
`MONONONOKNHNNNNNKNHFKFHFHFHFKFOFOEOSonDnfFWYNYKFCOUOWANDnfFWYNYOKFOS
`
`OowannaunFfWYNY
`
`
`
`Other Printed Publications
`
`Additional Prior Art References
`
`31.U.S. Patent No. 5,881,377 (“Giel”
`32. U.S. Patent No. 5,729,604 (“Van Schyndel”)
`33.U.S. Patent No. 6,631,192 (“Fukiharu 192”)
`
`34.U.S. Patent No. 6,801,794 (“Bauer”)
`
`35.U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0029546
`(“Tsuchi 546”)
`
`36.U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0057548
`“Kim”
`37.World Intellectual Property Organization Publication No.
`WO 00/195596 (“Tsuchi 596”
`38.U.K. Patent Application No. 2256772 (“So”)
`
`Date of
`Publication
`
`1999
`December 21,
`2000
`June 20, 2001
`
`or Publication
`March 9, 1999
`March 17, 1998
`October 7, 2003
`(filed
`September22,
`
`September 27,
`2001
`February 12,
`2004 (filed June
`1, 2001
`March 17, 2005
`
`December13,
`2001
`December16,
`1992
`
`

`

`39.S. Segars, “The ARM9 family-high performance
`microprocessors for embeddedapplications”, Proc. ICCD,
`pp. 230-235, 1998-Oct.
`40.Japanese Unexamined Patent Application Publication 2001-
`230859
`
`41.U:S. Patent No. 6,314,303 (“Phipps”)
`
`42.European Patent Application No. 1,058,465 (“Farah”)
`
`43.U.K. Patent Application No. 2,275,848 (“Champness’’)
`
`44.US. Patent No. 5,239,673 (“Natarajan”)
`
`45.U.S. Patent No. 5,297,191 (“Gerszberg”’)
`
`1994 46.U.S. Patent No. 5,479,484 (“Mukerjee’”)
`
`October 1998
`
`August 24,
`2001 (filed
`February 18,
`2000)
`November6,
`2001 (filed
`July 29, 1997
`
`2000
`September7,
`1994
`August 24,
`1993
`March 22,
`
`December26,
`1995
`
`C. Prior Art References for the ’842 Patent
`
`Pursuant to Patent L.R. 3.3, the tables below identify the prior art items that
`
`Defendants presently assert anticipate and/or render obviousthe asserted claims of the
`
`842 Patent. Where applicable, this includes information about any alleged knowledge
`
`of use of the invention in this country prior to the date of invention of the 842 Patent.
`
`
`
`U.S. Patents or Patent Publications
`
`47.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,318,185 (“Khandanv’”)
`
`48.
`
`US. Patent Publication 2006/0002361 (“Webster”)
`
`provisional
`
`Date of Issue
`
`or Publication
`January 8,
`2008 (filed on
`December9,
`
`2006 (filed on
`July 21, 2005
`and claims
`priority to
`
`OowannaunFfWYNY
`eeYNDAUWffWYNYKFO&O
`
`Oo©
`
`0
`
`] ] 2
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`OowannaunFfWYNY
`
`49.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,453,793 (“Jones”)
`
`50.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,742,388 (“Shearer”)
`
`filed on June
`
`applications
`filed on June
`22, 2004 and
`July 21, 2004
`November18,
`2008 (filed on
`April 12, 2004
`and claims
`priority to a
`provisional
`application
`filed on April
`10, 2003)
`June 22, 2010
`(filed on July
`20, 2005 and
`claimspriority
`toa
`provisional
`application
`filed on July
`
`March 15,
`2007 (PCT
`filed on June
`30, 2004 and
`claimspriority
`toa
`provisional
`application
`
`U.S. Patent Publication 2007/0060073 (“Boer”)
`
`Publication
`52. JEEE Std. 802.1 1a-1999 Supplement to IEEE Std. 802.11-|December30,
`1999 (“TEEE 802.11a-1999
`
`
`
`Other Printed Publications
`
`Date of
`
`1999 53. A MIMO-OFDMSystem for High-Speed Transmission
`
`“Ogawa”
`
`October9,
`2003
`
`In addition to the aboveprior art references, Defendants identify the following
`
`13
`
`13
`
`

`

`OowannaunFfWYNY
`
`patents, printed publications, productliterature, and other materials that are pertinent to
`
`invalidity of the asserted claims. Defendants mayrely on these references as
`
`invalidating prior art, evidence of the knowledge of those skilled in the art, and/or
`
`evidence to support a motivation to combine or modify other prior art. Defendants
`
`reserveall rights to supplement or modify these invalidity contentions and to rely on
`
`these references to prove invalidity of the asserted claims in a mannerconsistent with
`
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of this Court.
`
`Additional Prior Art References
`
`U.S. Patent Publication 2005/0233709 (“Gardner’’)
`
`26, 2004 and
`
`Publication
`October20,
`2005 (filed on
`April 5, 2004
`and claims
`priority to a
`provisional
`application filed
`on April 10,
`
`April 8, 2004
`(international
`filing date of
`September25,
`2003 claiming
`priority to Great
`Britain
`Application
`GB20020022410
`filed on
`September26,
`2002)
`December26,
`1995
`August 20, 2002
`January 29, 2008
`(filed on March
`
`International Application Publication No. WO
`2004/030265 Al (“Sandell”)
`
`56. US. Patent No. 5,479,444 (“Malkamaki’”)
`
`57. US. Patent No. 6,438,173 (“Stantchev”
`58. US. Patent No. 7,324,605 (“Maltsev I’)
`
`

`

`59. U.S. Patent No. 7,349,436 (“Maltsev II”)
`
`60. U.S. Patent No. 7,433,418 (“Dogan”)
`
`61. U.S. Patent No. 7,444,134 (“Hansen”)
`
`62. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2003/0043887 A1
`(“Hudson”)
`
`63. U.S. Patent No. 7,599,332 (“van Zelst”)
`
`claims priority to
`a provisional
`application filed
`on January 12,
`2004)
`March 25, 2008
`(filed on
`September 30,
`2003)
`October 7, 2008
`(filed on
`September 28,
`2001)
`October 28,
`2008 (filed on
`February 14,
`2005 and claims
`priority to
`provisional
`applications
`filed on June 17,
`2004, May 7,
`2004, February
`19, 2004, and
`February 13,
`2004)
`March 6, 2003
`(filed on March
`29, 2002 and is a
`continuation in
`part of an
`application filed
`on April 3,
`2001)
`October 6, 2009
`(filed on May
`27, 2005 and is a
`continuation in
`part to an
`application filed
`on April 5, 2004
`
`

`

`OowannaunFfWYNY
`
`MONONONOKNHNNNNNKNHFKFHFHFHFKFOFOEOSonDnfFWYNYKFCOUOWANDnfFWYNYOKFOS
`
`March 3, 2003
`
`64. US. Patent No. 7,392,015 (“Farlow”)
`
`65. U.S. Patent No. 5,914,933 (“Ciminv’)
`66.
`Frequency Scaled Time Domain Equalization for
`OFDMin Broadband Fixed Wireless Access Channels
`“Abhayawardhana”
`67. Modifications to OFDM FFT-256 mode for supporting
`mobile operation (“Liebetreu’”’)
`
`that claims
`priority to a
`provisional
`application filed
`on May27,
`2004)
`June 24, 2008
`(filed on January
`7, 2004 and
`claimspriority to
`a provisional
`application filed
`on February 14,
`
`June 22, 1999
`March 21, 2002
`
`D. Prior Art References for the ’862 Patent
`
`Pursuantto Patent L.R. 3.3, the tables below identify the prior art items that
`
`Defendants presently assert anticipate and/or render obviousthe asserted claims of the
`
`°862 Patent. Where applicable, this includes information aboutany alleged knowledge
`
`of use of the invention in this country prior to the date of invention of the ’862 Patent.
`
`Oct. 9, 2007 Aug. 4, 2009
`
`U.S. Patents or Patent Publications
`
`68. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0068718 (“Li 718”
`69. U.S. Patent No. 7,710,925 (“Poon 925”
`70. U.S. Patent No. 7,570,696 (“Maltsev 696”)
`71. U.S. Patent No. 7,236,748 (“Li 748”
`72. U.S. Patent No. 7,492,829 (“Lin 829”
`73. U.S. Patent No. 7,280,625 (“Ketchum 625”)
`
`Date of Issue
`or Publication
`Mar. 30, 2006
`May 4, 2010
`
`June 26, 2007
`Feb. 17, 2009
`
`Other Printed Publications
`
`Date of
`
`Publication
`
`16
`
`16
`
`

`

`OowannaunFfWYNY
`eeYNDAUWffWYNYKFO&O
`NYNYNYNYNYNYNYNYNKYKFonDnfFWwWNYOKFCOOOCw
`
`74. June Chul Roh and Bhaskar D. Rao, An Efficient Feedback
`Methodfor MIMO Systems with Slowly Time-Varying
`Channels, Roh and Rao, 2004 IEEE Wireless
`Communications and Networking Conference (IEEE Cat.
`No.04TH8733) (“Roh”).
`75. B. Yang and J. F. Bohme, Reducing The Computations Of
`The Singular Value Decomposition Array Given By Brent
`
`And Luk, Vol. 12, No. 4, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl., 713-
`
`Mar. 2004
`
`Oct. 1991
`
`In addition to the above prior art references, Defendants identify the following
`
`patents, printed publications, productliterature, and other materials that are pertinent to
`
`invalidity of the asserted claims. Defendants may rely on these references as
`
`invalidating prior art, evidence of the knowledgeofthose skilled in the art, and/or
`
`evidence to support a motivation to combine or modify other prior art. Defendants
`
`reserveall rights to supplement or modify these invalidity contentions and to rely on
`
`these references to prove invalidity of the asserted claims in a mannerconsistent with
`
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of this Court.
`
`2nd ed., Academic Press
`
`Additional Prior Art References
`
`76.U.S. Patent No. 7,450,532 (“Chae”)
`
`Date of Issue
`or Publication
`Nov. 11, 2008
`
`89.GILBERT STRANG, LINEAR ALGEBRA AND ITS APPLICATIONS,
`
`1980
`
`

`

`90. IEEE 802.11a-1999 - IEEE Standard for
`Telecommunications and Information Exchange Between
`Systems - LAN/MAN Specific Requirements - Part 11:
`Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and physical layer
`(PHY) specifications: High Speed Physical Layer in the 5
`GHz band
`91. Cavallaro et al., “A CORDIC Processor Array for the SVD of
`a Complex Matrix,” SVD and Signal Processing, II,
`Algorithms, Analysis and Applications, Elsevier Science
`Publishers
`92. Dickson et al., “QRD and SVD Processor Design Based on a
`Approximate Rotations Algorithm,” IEEE Workshop on
`Signal Processing Systems (SIPS 2004).
`93. Liu et al., “CORDIC Based Application Specific Instruction
`Set Processor for QRD/SVD,” The Thirty-Seventh Asilomar
`Conference on Signals, Systems & Computers
`94. M. Rim, “Multi-User Downlink Beamforming with Multiple
`Transmit and Receive Antennas,” Electronic Letters, Vol. 38,
`No. 25.
`95. Mehdi Ansari Sadrabadi et al., A New Method of Channel
`Feedback Quantization for High Data Rate MIMO Systems,
`IEEE
`96. Speiser et al., “Signal Processing Computations Using the
`Generalized Singular Value Decomposition”
`97. Vanpoucke et al., "Numerically Stable Jacobi Array for
`Parallel Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) Updating,"
`Proceedings of the SPIE 2296, Advanced Signal Processing:
`Algorithms, Architectures, and Implementations V
`98. Windpassinger, “Detection and Precoding for Multiple Input
`Multiple Output Channels”
`99. Sadrabadi et al., “A New Method of Channel Feedback
`Quantization for High Data Rate MIMO Systems,” IEEE
`Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM '04),
`100. Boyd Bangerter, et al., High-Throughput Wireless LAN
`Air Interface, Intel Technology Journal
`101. André Bourdoux, et al. Preambles for MIMO channel
`estimation (r1), IMEC, Wireless Research
`102. Enhance the Beamforming Feature of the Multiple
`Antenna Tx Diversity, TSG-RAN Working Group 1 meeting
`No. 15, TSGR1#15(00)-1065
`103. Dhananjay A. Gore, Selecting an Optimal Set of Transmit
`
`1999
`
`1991
`
`Oct. 13, 2004
`
`Nov. 9, 2003
`
`Dec. 5, 2002
`
`2004
`
`Oct. 1984
`
`Oct. 28, 1994
`
`2004
`
`Nov. 29, 2004.
`
`Aug. 2003
`
`July 2004
`
`Aug. 22, 2000
`
`2000
`
`

`

`Antennas for a Low Rank Matrix Channel, IEEE
`104. Christopher J. Hansen, Preambles, Beamforming, and the
`WWiSE Proposal (r1), IEEE
`105. Yingbo Hua, et al., Optimal Reduced-Rank Estimation
`and Filtering, IEEE
`106. Taehyun Jeon,et al., Adaptive Modulation for MIMO-
`OFDM Systems, IEEE
`107.
`John Ketchum, et al., PHY Design for Spatial
`Multiplexing MIMO WLAN, IEEE
`108.
`John Ketchum, et al., System Description and Operating
`Principles for High Throughput Enhancements to 802.11,
`IEEE
`109.
`John Ketchum, et al., 802.11 TGn High Throughput
`Proposal Compliance Statement, IEEE
`110. Syed Aon Mujtaba, TGn Sync Proposal Technical
`Specification, IEEE
`111. Daniel Nassani (Nissensohn), A Novel MIMO
`Transmission Method proposed herein as 802.11 TGn
`PHYsical Layer Element
`112. Gregory G. Raleigh, et al., Spatio-Temporal Coding for
`Wireless Communication, IEEE
`113.
`John S. Sadowsky, et al., WWiSE Preambles and MIMO
`Beamforming? (r1)
`114. Hemanth Sampath, Linear Precoding and Decoding for
`Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) Wireless Channels,
`A Dissertation Submitted To the Dept. Of Electrical
`Engineering, Stanford University
`115. Hilde Skjevling, Simulation and design of MIMO
`algorithms for correlated wireless channels, University of
`Oslo, Dept. of Informatics
`116. Gordon L Stüber, et al., Broadband MIMO-OFDM
`Wireless Communications, IEEE
`117. Christopher J. Hansen, et al., Preambles, Beamforming,
`and the WWiSE Proposal, IEEE 802.11-05/1645r2
`118. M.P.Fitton, et al., Reconfigurable Antenna Processing
`with Matrix Decomposition Using FPGA Based Application
`Specific Integrated Processors, Proceeding of the SDR 04
`Technical Conference and Product Exposition, SDR Forum
`
`E. Prior Art References for the ’450 Patent
`
`Jan. 17, 2005
`
`Mar. 2001
`
`Mar. 2004
`
`Jul. 2004
`
`Aug. 2004
`
`Aug. 2004
`
`Aug. 2004
`
`Nov. 2003
`
`Mar. 1998
`
`Jan. 15, 2005
`
`Apr. 2001
`
`Jul. 25, 2003
`
`Feb. 2004
`
`Jan. 17, 2005
`
`2004
`
`Pursuant to Patent L.R. 3.3, the tables below identify the prior art items that
`
`

`

`°450 Patent. Where applicable, this includes information about any alleged knowledge
`
`of use of the invention in this country prior to the date of invention of the ’450 Patent.
`
`U.S. Patents or Patent Publications
`
`119. U.S. Patent No. 7,742,546 (“Ketchum 546”
`120. U.S. Patent No. 7,450,532 (“Chae”
`121. US. Patent No. 7,236,748 (“Li 748”)
`122. US. Patent No. 7,492,829 (“Lin 829”
`123. U.S. Patent No. 7,570,696 (“Maltsev 696”
`
`OowannaunFfWYNY Defendants presently assert anticipate and/or render obviousthe asserted claims of the
`
`Oct. 7,2004
`
`Date of Issue
`
`or Publication
`June 22, 2010
`Nov.11, 2008
`June 26, 2007
`Feb. 17, 2009
`Aug. 4, 2009
`
`Date of
`
`Publication
`May6, 2004
`
`Other Printed Publications
`
`124. WO 2004/038984 A2 (“Walton 984”)
`125. WO 2004/086712 A2 (“Walton 712”
`
`In addition to the aboveprior art references, Defendants identify the following
`
`patents, printed publications, productliterature, and other materials that are pertinent to
`
`invalidity of the asserted clams. Defendants mayrely on these references as
`
`invalidating prior art, evidence of the knowledge of those skilled in the art, and/or
`
`evidence to support a motivation to combine or modify other prior art. Defendants
`
`reserveall rights to supplement or modify these invalidity contentions and to rely on
`
`these references to prove invalidity of the asserted claims in a mannerconsistent with
`
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of this Court.
`
`Aug. 21, 2007
`
`or Publication
`
`Sep. 19, 2006
`Apr. 17, 2007
`
`128. U.S. Pat. No. 7,110,378
`129. U.S. Pat. No. 7,206,354
`130. U.S. Pat. No. 7,260,153
`
`20 20
`
`

`

`131. U.S. Pat. No. 7,346,115
`132. U.S. Pat. No. 7,376,428
`133. U.S. Pat. No. 7,443,925
`134. U.S. Pat. No. 7,447,270
`135. U.S. Pat. No. 7,460,494
`136. U.S. Pat. No. 7,486,470
`137. U.S. Pat. No. 7,529,310
`138. U.S. Pat. No. 7,649,861
`139. U.S. Pat. No. 7,978,649
`140. U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0068718 (“Li 718”)U.S. Patent
`No. (“”)
`141. U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2004/0152458
`142. U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0063378
`143. U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0078762
`144. U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 200