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
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`v.
`
`COOLPAD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`AND YULONG COMPUTER
`COMMUNICATIONS,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
`
`
`
`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.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2013, Page 1 of 15
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`KYOCERA CORPORATION and
`KYOCERA INTERNATIONAL INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 3:18-cv-1785-CAB-BLM
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT INVALIDITY
`CONTENTIONS
`
`
`
`Judge: Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2013, Page 2 of 15
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`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”);
`
`10
`
`6,941,156 (“’156 Patent); 8,792,432 (“’432 Patent”); and 7,039,435 (“’435 Patent”)
`
`11
`
`(collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). While all of the claims collectively asserted
`
`12
`
`against the Defendants are addressed below, each Defendant hereby submits these
`
`13
`
`Contentions only with respect to the patents and claims that BNR has asserted against
`
`14
`
`each such Defendant.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`I. INTRODUCTION AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
`
`These Invalidity Contentions are based on information currently available to
`
`17
`
`Defendants. Defendants’ investigation and analysis of prior art is ongoing, and they
`
`18
`
`reserve the right to supplement or modify these Invalidity Contentions in a manner
`
`19
`
`consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s rules.
`
`20
`
`Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions do not constitute an admission that any
`
`21
`
`current, past, or future version of the accused products infringe the Asserted Patents
`
`22
`
`either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Unless otherwise stated,
`
`23
`
`Defendants have relied on the broad claim constructions of the asserted claims that
`
`24
`
`BNR has implicitly adopted in its Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`
`25
`
`Contentions (“Infringement Contentions”), to the extent any construction can be
`
`26
`
`inferred from BNR’s Infringement Contentions. Such reliance should not be taken to
`
`27
`
`mean that Defendants understand, or are adopting or agreeing with, BNR’s apparent
`
`28
`
`constructions. Defendants expressly do not do so and reserve their right to contest
`
`
`
`3
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2013, Page 3 of 15
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`229. “CR’s to TS 34.123-1 v5.3.0 Related to RRC Package 1
`and 2 Test Cases,” Technical Specification Group Terminals
`TSGT#20(03)0101, Meeting #20, Hämeenlinna, Finland, 4.
`230. Fodor et al., “Chapter 4 – Architecture and Protocol
`Support for Radio Resource Management (RRM),” Taylor &
`Framcis Group LLC
`231. Mino et al., “Identification and Definition of Cooperation
`Schemes between RANs - First Draft.”
`232. European Patent Application Publication No. EP 1 720
`373 A1 (“Jeong II”)
`233. Nokia Corporation, “Addition of Optimised RACH
`Message Types,” 3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting #71, R2-
`104524, Madrid, Spain, Aug. 23-27, 2010.
`234. Nokia Corporation, Nokia Siemens Networks, “Analysis
`on RACH Signalling,” 3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting #71
`bis, R2-105713, Xian, China, Oct. 11-15, 2010.
`235. “3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical
`Specification Group Radio Access Network; Radio Resource
`Control (RRC); Protocol specification (Release 10)”, 3GPP
`TS 25.331 V10.2.0.
`236. Nokia Corporation, “RACH Signalling Optimisation
`Considerations,” 3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting #72 bis,
`R2-110304, Dublin, Ireland, Jan. 17-21, 2011.
`
`H. Prior Art References for the ’435 Patent
`
`June 6, 2003
`
`2009
`
`2004
`
`November 8,
`2006
`August 23-27,
`2010
`
`October 11-15,
`2010
`
`December
`2010
`
`January 17-21,
`2011
`
`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
`
`’435 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 ’435 Patent.
`
`
`
`U.S. Patents or Patent Publications
`
`237. U.S. Patent No. 5,541,609 (“Stutzman”)
`238. U.S. Patent No. 6,018,646 (“Myllymaki”)
`
`
`
`
`
`28
`
`Date of Issue
`or Publication
`July 30, 1996
`January 25,
`2000 (filed
`August 22,
`1997)
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2013, Page 4 of 15
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`Other Printed Publications
`
`239. International Application Publication No. WO 95/03549
`(“Carter”)
`240. International Application Publication No. WO 02/05443
`A2 (“Irvin”)
`
`241. European Patent Application Publication No. EP 1 091
`498 A1 (“Baiker”)
`
`Date of
`Publication
`February 2,
`1995
`January 17,
`2002
`(filed June 20,
`2001,
`designating the
`U.S., claiming
`priority to U.S.
`Patent
`Application
`No.
`09/612,034
`filed July 7,
`2000)
`April 11, 2001
`
`
`Prior Art Systems or Offers for Sale
`
`242. Admitted Prior Art Devices and
`Systems of the ‘435 Patent (“’435 APA”)
`
`Using or Offering
`Party
`Various
`
`Date of Use or
`Offer for Sale
`By Sept. 28,
`2001
`
`In addition to the above prior art references, Defendants identify the following
`
`patents, printed publications, product literature, 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 knowledge of those skilled in the art, and/or
`
`evidence to support a motivation to combine or modify other prior art. Defendants
`
`reserve all rights to supplement or modify these invalidity contentions and to rely on
`
`these references to prove invalidity of the asserted claims in a manner consistent with
`
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of this Court.
`
`
`
`Additional Prior Art References
`
`Date of Issue
`or Publication
`
`
`
`29
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2013, Page 5 of 15
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`
`
`243. Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP 61-
`258550 A (“Murata”)
`244. U.S. Patent No. 4,636,741 (“Mitzlaff”)
`
`245. European Patent Application Publication No. EP 0 652
`645 A1 (“Fischer”)
`246. Mobile Station-Base Station Compatibility Standard for
`Dual-Mode Wideband Spread Spectrum Cellular System +
`Telecommunications Systems Bulletin: Support for 14.4 kbps
`Data Rate and PCS Interaction for Wideband Spread
`Spectrum Cellular Systems, TIA/EIA/IS-95-A + TSB74
`(1996).
`(“TIA/EIA/IS-95-A”)
`247. Federal Communication Commission, Guidelines for
`Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency
`Radiation, FCC 96-326 (1996).
`(“FCC 96-326”)
`248. European Patent Application Publication No. EP 0 752
`735 A1 (“Müller”)
`249. William C. Y. Lee, Mobile Communications Engineering:
`Theory and Applications (McGraw Hill 1997).
`[incorporated by reference in ‘435 patent] (“Lee”)
`250. European Patent Application Publication No. EP 0 843
`421 A2 (“Pirhonen”)
`251. International Application Publication No. WO 98/29968
`A2 (“Bradley”)
`252. U.S. Patent No. 5,805,067 (“Bradley II”)
`
`253. U.S. Patent No. 5,815,820 (“Kiem”)
`
`254. International Application Publication No. WO 99/05753
`A1 (“Gumussoy”)
`255. 3GPP2, Physical Layer Standard for cdma2000 Spread
`Spectrum Systems, C.S0002-0 v. 1 (1999).
`(“C.S0002-0 v1”)
`256. Robert F. Cleveland, Jr., Jerry L. Ulcek, Federal
`Communication Commission Office of Engineering and
`Technology, Questions and Answers about Biological Effects
`and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic
`Fields, OET Bulletin 56, Fourth Edition (1999).
`(“OET Bulletin 56”)
`
`November 15,
`1986
`January 13,
`1987
`October 4,
`1994
`February 27,
`1996
`
`August 1, 1996
`
`January 8,
`1997
`October 1,
`1997
`
`May 20, 1998
`
`July 9, 1998
`
`September 8,
`1998
`September 29,
`1998
`February 4,
`1999
`July 1999
`
`August 1999
`
`30
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2013, Page 6 of 15
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`
`
`257. U.S. Patent No. 5,949,369 (“Bradley III”)
`
`258. U.S. Patent No. 5,999,142 (“Jang”)
`
`259. U.S. Patent No. 6,002,943 (“Irvin II”)
`
`260. European Patent Application Publication No. EP 0 977
`304 A1 (“Werling”)
`261. National Radiological Protection Board Independent
`Expert Group on Mobile Phones, Report on Mobile Phones
`and Health (Chairman Sir William Stewart, 2000).
`(“Stewart”)
`262. U.S. Patent No. 6,072,784 (“Agrawal”)
`263. U.S. Patent No. 6,087,994 (“Lechter”)
`264. United Kingdom Patent Application No. GB 2 350 235 A
`(“Schemel”)
`265. Maria Blettner, Gabriele Berg, Are Mobile Phones
`Harmful?, Acta Oncologica, 2000, 39:8, at 927-930.
`(“Blettner”)
`266. U.S. Patent No. 6,195,562 (“Pirhonen II”)
`
`267. U.S. Patent No. 6,255,996 (“Wallace”)
`268. International Application Publication No. WO 01/56110
`A1 (“Jahn”)
`269. U.S. Patent No. 6,408,187 (“Merriam”)
`
`270. U.S. Patent No. 6,456,856 (“Werling II”)
`
`271. U.S. Patent No. 6,498,924 (“Vogel”)
`
`272. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0064761
`A1 (“Nevermann”)
`
`31
`
`September 7,
`1999
`December 7,
`1999
`December 14,
`1999
`February 2,
`2000
`April 28, 2000
`
`June 6, 2000
`July 11, 2000
`November 22.
`2000
`2000
`
`February 27,
`2001
`July 3, 2001
`August 2, 2001
`
`June 18, 2002
`(filed May 14,
`1999)
`September 24,
`2002 (filed
`July 26, 1999)
`October 24,
`2002 (filed
`October 27,
`1998, issued
`December 24,
`2002)
`April 3, 2003
`(filed
`September 28,
`2001)
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2013, Page 7 of 15
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`of the references disclose a complete system for providing both measurement
`
`prioritization functionality and transmission of control messages over RACH, while
`
`others focus on selected aspects of such a system. The combined teachings of these
`
`references, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the
`
`problem to be solved as a whole, would have suggested the claimed invention to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art, as well as a reasonable likelihood of success in making the
`
`above-referenced combinations.
`
`Additionally, problems to be solved in the art at the time would lead one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to make the above listed combinations. For example, Jeong
`
`10
`
`indicates that including too much measurement information in the RACH message
`
`11
`
`“caus[es] and excessive increase in the size of the RACH message.” Jeong (G4), at
`
`12
`
`¶ [0016]. This problem would lead those skilled in the art to consider methods of
`
`13
`
`decreasing or prioritizing the amount of measurement information contained in the
`
`14
`
`RACH message, as described in Jung (G1), Montgolfier (G2), and Kitazoe (G3).
`
`15
`
`16
`
`H. Invalidity Claim Charts for the ’435 Patent
`
`The table below correlates exhibit numbers to the prior art items that Defendants
`
`17
`
`presently assert anticipate and/or render obvious the asserted claims of the ’435 Patent.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Exhibit No.
`H1
`H2
`H3
`H4
`
`H5
`
`Base Prior Art Reference / Prior Art System
`
`Irvin
`Myllymaki
`Baiker
`Stutzman
`Carter
`
`Defendants assert that the items of prior art identified above in connection with
`
`Exhibits H1 to H5 anticipate one or more of the asserted claims of the ’435 Patent
`
`and/or render one or more of such asserted claims obvious in view of their own
`
`disclosures and the knowledge, skill, and experience of a person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art. Defendants assert that the claims identified below as anticipated are anticipated
`
`under at least Plaintiff’s apparent interpretation of the claims that Plaintiff appears to
`
`
`
`59
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2013, Page 8 of 15
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`have adopted to support its infringement contentions. Defendants further assert that at
`
`least the combinations of prior art identified below render obvious one or more of the
`
`asserted claims of the ’435 Patent. The identification of combinations below should
`
`not be taken to mean that the combinations are necessarily required to prove invalidity.
`
`To the contrary, certain claims may be anticipated under one claim interpretation and
`
`obvious under another. Further, if any element should be found to be missing from a
`
`particular item of prior art, Defendants assert that that item of prior art could be
`
`combined with other items of prior art that disclose that element.
`
`1. Irvin (H1) anticipates or renders obvious claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8
`under at least Plaintiff’s apparent interpretation and its apparent
`interpretation of the claims that Plaintiff appears to rely upon for its
`infringement contentions. In addition, as further explained in
`Exhibit H1, claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8 are also rendered obvious by
`Irvin in combination with:
`
`a. Myllymaki (H2);
`
`b. Baiker (H3);
`
`c. Stutzman (H4); and
`
`d. Carter (H5).
`
`2. Myllymaki (H2) anticipates or renders obvious claims 1, 2, 3, 6,
`and 8 under at least Plaintiff’s apparent interpretation and its
`apparent interpretation of the claims that Plaintiff appears to rely
`upon for its infringement contentions. In addition, as further
`explained in Exhibit H2, claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8 are also rendered
`obvious by Myllymaki in combination with:
`
`a. Irvin (H1);
`
`b. Baiker (H3);
`
`c. Stutzman (H4);
`
`d. Carter (H5); and
`
`e. ’435 APA.
`
`
`
`60
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2013, Page 9 of 15
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`
`
`3. Baiker (H3) anticipates or renders obvious claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8
`under at least Plaintiff’s apparent interpretation and its apparent
`interpretation of the claims that Plaintiff appears to rely upon for its
`infringement contentions. In addition, as further explained in
`Exhibit H3, claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8 are also rendered obvious by
`Irvin in combination with:
`
`a. Irvin (H1);
`
`b. Myllymaki (H2);
`
`c. Stutzman (H4);
`
`d. Carter (H5); and
`
`e. ’435 APA.
`
`4. Stutzman (H4) anticipates or renders obvious claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and
`8 under at least Plaintiff’s apparent interpretation and its apparent
`interpretation of the claims that Plaintiff appears to rely upon for its
`infringement contentions. In addition, as further explained in
`Exhibit H4, claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8 are also rendered obvious by
`Stutzman in combination with:
`
`a. Irvin (H1);
`
`b. Myllymaki (H2); and
`
`c. Baiker (H3).
`
`5. Carter (H5) anticipates or renders obvious claims 1, 2, 3, and 6
`under at least Plaintiff’s apparent interpretation and its apparent
`interpretation of the claims that Plaintiff appears to rely upon for its
`infringement contentions. In addition, as further explained in
`Exhibit H5, claims 1, 2, 3, 6, and 8 are also rendered obvious by
`Carter in combination with:
`
`a. Irvin (H1);
`
`b. Myllymaki (H2); and
`
`c. Baiker (H3).
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the
`
`61
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2013, Page 10 of 15
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`above-referenced combinations. Each of the references cited in an above-identified
`
`combination relates to aspects of making, using, and/or enabling the control and/or
`
`operation of, mobile telecommunications devices or portable cell phone devices that
`
`provide adjusted power functionality (including, for example, a network adjusted
`
`transmit power level) and proximity regulation functionality (including, for example, a
`
`proximity adjusted transmit power level) to a mobile telecommunication or portable
`
`cell phone device. Some of the references disclose a complete system for providing
`
`both provide adjusted power functionality and proximity regulation functionality in a
`
`mobile telecommunications devices or portable cell phone device, while others focus on
`
`10
`
`selected aspects of such a system, including, e.g., proximity regulation functionality, a
`
`11
`
`proximity adjusted transmit power level. The combined teachings of these references,
`
`12
`
`the teachings of FCC rules and regulations, the AMPS, GSM, cdmaOne, UMTS, and
`
`13
`
`GPRS standards, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the
`
`14
`
`problem to be solved as a whole, would have suggested the claimed invention to one of
`
`15
`
`ordinary skill in the art, as well as a reasonable likelihood of success in making the
`
`16
`
`above-referenced combinations.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`IV. LACK OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION, LACK OF ENABLEMENT,
`
`INDEFINITENESS, IMPROPER DEPENDENCY
`
`Subject to their reservation of rights, Defendants contend that the asserted
`
`20
`
`claims are invalid under one or more sections of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
`
`21
`
`Section 112, 35 U.S.C., first paragraph requires that “[t]he specification shall
`
`22
`
`contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of
`
`23
`
`making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any
`
`24
`
`person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected,
`
`25
`
`to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the
`
`26
`
`inventor of carrying out his invention.”
`
`27
`
`The written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph,
`
`28
`
`mandates that the “specification objectively demonstrate that the applicant actually
`
`
`
`62
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2013, Page 11 of 15
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`Dated: February 25, 2019
`
`
`
`By: /s/ James Young Hurt
`
`
`
`
`John P. Schnurer, Bar No. 185725
`Joseph P. Reid, Bar No. 211082
`Thomas N. Millikan, Bar No. 234430
`Yun Louise Lu, Bar No. 253114
`James Young Hurt, Bar No. 312390
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`
`Attorneys for Defendants COOLPAD
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AND YULONG
`COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS
`
`
`
`Dated: February 25, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Joanna Fuller
`
`
`Jason W. Wolff (SBN 215819)
`wolff@fr.com
`Joanna M. Fuller (SBN 266406)
`jfuller@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`12390 El Camino Real
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Telephone: (858) 678-5070
`Facsimile: (858) 678-5099
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants HUAWEI DEVICE
`(DONGGUAN) CO., LTD, HUAWEI DEVICE
`(SHENZHEN) CO., LTD., and HUAWEI
`DEVICE USA, INC.
`
`Dated: February 25, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Marc. S. Blackman
`
`
`
`
`M. Andrew Woodmansee, SBN 201780
`mawoodmansee@jonesday.com
`Jones Day
`
`
`
`79
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2013, Page 12 of 15
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500
`San Diego, California 92121
`Telephone: (858) 314-1200
`Facsimile: (844) 345-3178
`
`David L. Witcoff, Ill. Bar No. 6183629
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`dlwitcoff@jonesday.com
`Marc S. Blackman, Ill. Bar No. 6236719
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`msblackman@jonesday.com
`JONES DAY
`77 West Wacker, Suite 3500
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Telephone: (312) 782-3939
`Facsimile: (312) 782-8585
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`KYOCERA CORPORATION and KYOCERA
`INTERNATIONAL INC.
`
`
`
`Dated: February 25, 2019
`
`AMOL A. PARIKH
`McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`
`
`
`By:
`
` /s/ Amol A. Parikh
`Amol A. Parikh
`
`
`Timothy A. Horton (SBN 205414)
`LAW OFFICE OF TIMOTHY A. HORTON
`600 West Broadway, Suite 700
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Phone: (619) 272-7017
`Fax: (619) 374-1668
`timhorton@timhortonlaw.com
`
`Charles M. McMahon (IL Bar No. 6270255)
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`Amol A. Parikh (IL Bar No. 6285077)
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`Brian A. Jones (IL Bar No. 6306266)
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
`444 West Lake Street, Suite 4000
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Phone: (312) 372-2000
`Fax: (312) 984-7700
`cmcmahon@mwe.com
`amparikh@mwe.com
`bajones@mwe.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA) INC., and
`
`
`
`80
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2013, Page 13 of 15
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`
`
`ZTE (TX) INC.
`
`81
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2013, Page 14 of 15
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
`
`DEFENDANTS’ JOINT INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS has been served on
`
`February 25, 2019 via email to the following counsel of record for the Plaintiffs:
`
`Mieke K. Malmberg
`
`mmalmberg@skiermontderby.com
`
`Paul J. Skiermont
`
`pskiermont@skiermontderby.com
`
`Sadaf R. Abdullah
`
`sabdullah@skiermontderby.com
`
`Steven W. Hartsell
`
`shartsell@skiermontderby.com
`
`Christopher Hodge
`
`chodge@skiermontderby.com
`
`Steven J. Udick
`
`sudick@skiermontderby.com
`
`
`
`Executed on February 25, 2019.
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael Sobolev
`
`
`
`82
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2013, Page 15 of 15
`
`