Case 3:19-cv-02241 Document 1 Filed 04/25/19 Page 1 of 21
`
`
`
`Adam Alper (SBN 196834)
`adam.alper@kirkland.com
`Brandon Brown (SBN 266347)
`brandon.brown@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: +1 415 439 1400
`Facsimile: +1 415 439 1500
`
`Michael W. De Vries (SBN 211001)
`michael.devries@kirkland.com
`Christopher M. Lawless (SBN 268952)
`christopher.lawless@kirkland.com
`Allison W. Buchner (SBN 253102)
`allison.buchner@kirkland.om
`Sharre Lotfollahi (SBN 258913)
`sharre.lotfollahi@kirkland.com
`Kevin Bendix (SBN 285295)
`kevin.bendix@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`333 South Hope Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: +1 213 680 8400
`Facsimile: +1 213 680 8500
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`CASE NO. 19-CV-2241
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint for Declaratory Judgment
`and Jury Demand
`
`)))))))))))))
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`PACT XPP SCHWEIZ AG,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`INTEL - 1043
`Page 1 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02241 Document 1 Filed 04/25/19 Page 2 of 21
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Intel Corporation (“Intel”), for its Complaint against PACT XPP Schweiz AG
`(“Defendant”), hereby alleges as follows:
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`This is an action for breach of contract and declaratory judgment that 12 United States
`1.
`patents are not infringed, and are covered by a covenant not to sue and/or exhausted pursuant to the
`Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02, and the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C.
`§ 100 et seq., and for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`THE PARTIES
`Plaintiff Intel is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
`2.
`Delaware having its principal place of business at 2200 Mission College Boulevard, Santa Clara,
`California, 95054. Intel does business in this District.
`Upon information and belief, Defendant PACT XPP Schweiz AG is a Swiss
`3.
`corporation, with its principal place of business in Switzerland.
`Defendant alleges that PACT XPP Schweiz AG’s predecessor and assignor PACT XPP
`4.
`TECHNOLOGIES AG (Lichtenstein) (hereinafter, collectively with PACT XPP Schweiz AG,
`referred to as “PACT”) was founded in 1996 in Germany by Martin Vorbach.
`PACT alleges that it is the assignee and owner of the patents at issue in this action:
`5.
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,928,763, 8,301,872, 8,312,301, 8,471,593, 8,686,549, 8,819,505, 9,037,807,
`9,075,605, 9,170,812, 9,250,908, 9,436,631, and 9,552,047.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
`6.
`1338(a), 2201, and 2202, and the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et. seq. The Court
`has supplemental jurisdiction over Intel’s breach of contract claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391.
`7.
`8.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over PACT by virtue of PACT’s sufficient
`minimum contacts with this forum.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`INTEL - 1043
`Page 2 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02241 Document 1 Filed 04/25/19 Page 3 of 21
`
`
`
`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
`
`Upon information and belief, Martin Vorbach is the founder and Chief Technology
`9.
`Officer of PACT. Upon information and belief, Mr. Vorbach resides and does business in the San
`Francisco Bay Area. See Ex. 1 (LinkedIn).
`On or about October 15, 2007, PACT and Intel entered into a letter agreement
`10.
`containing a covenant not to sue (the “Covenant Not To Sue”). As described in more detail below,
`the Covenant Not To Sue precludes PACT from asserting the patents at issue in this Complaint.
`PACT’s former CEO, Peter Weber and Intel’s Kirk Skaugen executed the agreement. The Covenant
`Not To Sue lists Intel’s address as 2200 Mission College Blvd., Santa Clara, CA 95052. The Covenant
`Not To Sue lists PACT’s address as 103 Altura Vista, Los Gatos, CA 95032.
`Upon information and belief, Martin Vorbach is also the founder and Chief Technology
`11.
`Officer of Hyperion-Core, Inc. Upon information and belief, Hyperion-Core, Inc.’s headquarters is
`also currently located at 103 Altura Vista, Los Gatos, CA 95032, as stated on its website.1
`Upon information and belief, during approximately 2003-2011, PACT had meetings
`12.
`within this District with Intel regarding the Covenant Not To Sue and other agreements entered into
`between the companies, identifying PACT’s address in Los Gatos California.
`Upon information and belief, PACT has previously consented to personal jurisdiction
`13.
`in this District. More specifically, upon information and belief. Altera Corporation filed a declaratory
`judgment action against PACT in this district on or around June 20, 2014. See Altera Corp. v. PACT
`XPP Technologies, AG, Case No. 3:14-cv-02868-JD. Upon information and belief, PACT consented
`to personal jurisdiction in that case. See Ex. 2 at ¶ 5 (“PACT consents to the personal jurisdiction in
`this Court.”)
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action based on a real and
`14.
`immediate controversy between PACT and Intel regarding whether various of Intel’s processors
`(“CPUs”) infringe certain PACT patents, and further whether those PACT patents are covered by a
`covenant not to sue and/or exhausted. As described in more detail below, this controversy arises out
`of PACT’s and Mr. Vorbach’s infringement allegations and licensing demands to Intel in which PACT
`
`1 http://hyperion-core.com/contact-us;
`http://hyperion-core.com/products/availability/martin-vorbach
`
`
`
`
`
`INTEL - 1043
`Page 3 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02241 Document 1 Filed 04/25/19 Page 4 of 21
`
`
`broadly alleges its patents cover technologies implemented by Intel Core and Xeon processors with
`Sandy Bridge and above microarchitectures, including allegedly infringing ring bus architecture,
`Turbo Boost, and Foveros technologies. See Ex. 3 (Complaint, Case No. 1:19-cv-00267-RGA).
`PACT purports to be the owner of a portfolio of patents that, according to PACT,
`15.
`allegedly relate to “multi-core processing systems including how to handle more complex algorithms
`with large amounts of data involving multiple processors on a single chip.” Ex. 3 at ¶ 8. According
`to PACT, its alleged portfolio includes U.S. Patent Nos. 7,928,763 (“the ’763 Patent”), 8,301,872 (“the
`’872 Patent”), 8,312,301 (“the ’301 Patent”), 8,471,593 (“the ’593 Patent”), 8,686,549 (“the ’549
`Patent”), 8,819,505 (“the ’505 Patent”), 9,037,807 (“the ’807 Patent”), 9,075,605 (“the ’605 Patent”),
`9,170,812 (“the ’812 Patent”), 9,250,908 (“the ’908 Patent”), 9,436,631 (“the ’631 Patent”), and
`9,552,047 (“the ’047 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”), as well as other U.S. Patents.
`Intel has been a pioneer in the semiconductor industry since the 1970s. Intel has
`16.
`introduced generation after generation of cutting-edge microprocessors, memory products and related
`chips that have been the benchmark for high performance computers. Intel is currently the world’s
`leading supplier of computer processors, and is one of the largest investors and employers in high-tech
`manufacturing in the U.S. The processors that PACT accuses of infringement are foundational for the
`U.S. economy. They are designed and made by Intel in the U.S., packaged and tested abroad, and sold
`to customers worldwide. These Intel processors are used in computers across every major sector of
`U.S. industry and in defense, government, healthcare, banking, and education. The accused processors
`also power advanced systems, including servers supporting the Internet and the Cloud, MRIs, military
`platforms, and supercomputers. Intel supplies over 90% of the CPUs used in personal computers and
`servers.
`
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`On February 7, 2019, PACT filed a complaint against Intel in the United States District
`17.
`Court for the District of Delaware (“First Filed Delaware Case”), alleging infringement of the same
`12 patents at issue here: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,928,763 (“the ’763 Patent”), 8,301,872 (“the ’872 Patent”),
`8,312,301 (“the ’301 Patent”), 8,471,593 (“the ’593 Patent”), 8,686,549 (“the ’549 Patent”), 8,819,505
`(“the ’505 Patent”), 9,037,807 (“the ’807 Patent”), 9,075,605 (“the ’605 Patent”), 9,170,812 (“the ’812
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`INTEL - 1043
`Page 4 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02241 Document 1 Filed 04/25/19 Page 5 of 21
`
`
`Patent”), 9,250,908 (“the ’908 Patent”), 9,436,631 (“the ’631 Patent”), and 9,552,047 (“the ’047
`Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”). PACT alleged that Intel infringed the Patent-in-Suit
`based on its “manufactur[ing], use (including testing), sale, offer for sale, advertisement, importation,
`shipment and distribution, service, installation, and/or maintenance of Intel Core processors with
`Sandy Bridge and above microarchitectures…and Intel Xeon processors with Sandy Bridge and above
`microarchitectures . . . .” Ex. 3 at ¶ 32.
`On February 11, 2019, PACT filed its Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement in the First Filed
`18.
`Delaware Case.
`On February 20, 2019, PACT and Intel filed a stipulation to extend Intel’s time “to
`19.
`answer, move or otherwise respond to the Complaint [to] April 15, 2019” in the First Filed Delaware
`Case.
`
`On March 26, 2019, PACT attempted to serve its First Set of Requests for Production
`20.
`(Nos. 1-48) on Intel ahead of any meet and confer of the parties under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26 in the
`First Filed Delaware Case.
`On April 9, 2019, Intel’s counsel met and conferred with PACT’s counsel regarding an
`21.
`extension to Intel’s deadline to respond to PACT’s complaint in the First Filed Delaware Case.
`PACT’s counsel agreed to stipulate that Intel be given two additional weeks to answer PACT’s
`Complaint, given Intel’s agreement to answer the Complaint and not move to dismiss: “this email
`confirms our agreement to stipulate to an additional 2 weeks to answer the complaint. Michael and
`Brian [PACT’s Delaware counsel], I [PACT’s national counsel] authorized Jack [Intel’s Delaware
`counsel] to so represent to the Court since Intel will be answering not moving in response to the
`Complaint.” See Ex. 4 (4/9/19 Email F. Lorig to J. Blumenfeld). Intel agreed, and a stipulation was
`entered, extending Intel’s time to answer PACT’s Complaint to April 29, 2019.
`On April 23, 2019, as required by local rules prior to filing a motion to transfer, Intel’s
`22.
`counsel met and conferred again with PACT’s counsel. Intel’s counsel expressed its intent to file a
`motion to transfer the First Filed Delaware Case based on 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). PACT’s counsel
`responded: “Jack [Intel’s Delaware counsel], on behalf of [I]ntel you said there would be an answer
`filed not a motion to transfer in return for last stipulation.” See Ex. 5 (4/23/19 Email F. Lorig to J.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`INTEL - 1043
`Page 5 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02241 Document 1 Filed 04/25/19 Page 6 of 21
`
`
`Blumenfeld). Intel responded that it would indeed file an answer, and that “[t]he motion to transfer
`will not be in lieu of an answer.” Id.
`The same day, PACT filed a second complaint against Intel in W.D. Texas (Second
`23.
`Filed Texas Case), while the First Filed Delaware Case was still pending, alleging infringement of the
`same 12 Patents-in-Suit. PACT’s Complaint in the Second Filed Texas Case is substantively identical
`to its Complaint in the First Filed Delaware Case, except that PACT also includes allegations about
`Intel’s business in Austin, Texas in an attempt to establish personal jurisdiction. See Ex. 6 (W.D. Tex.
`Complaint) at ¶ 2.
`The next day, on April 24, 2019, PACT filed a Notice of Dismissal Without Prejudice
`24.
`in the First Filed Delaware Case. See Ex. 7 (Notice of Dismissal).
`Upon information and belief, PACT’s filing of the Second Filed Texas Case while the
`25.
`First Filed Case was still pending and subsequent dismissal of the First Filed Delaware Case was based
`solely on Intel’s communicated intent to file a motion to transfer from Delaware and constitutes an
`attempt to improperly forum shop.
`By virtue of these acts, an actual and justiciable controversy exists between the parties
`26.
`concerning Intel’s liability for the alleged infringement of the disputed claims of the patents-in-suit.
`Intel now seeks a declaratory judgment of noninfringement of the disputed claims of the PACT
`Patents-in-Suit.
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`The United States Patent Office (“USPTO”) issued the ʼ763 Patent, entitled “Multi-
`27.
`Core Processing System,” on April 19, 2011. A copy of the ’763 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`The USPTO issued the ʼ872 Patent, entitled “Pipeline Configuration Protocol and
`28.
`Configuration Unit Communication,” on April 19, 2011. A copy of the ’872 Patent is attached hereto
`as Exhibit B.
`The USPTO issued the ʼ301 Patent, entitled “Methods and Devices for Treating and
`29.
`Processing Data,” on November 13, 2012. A copy of the ’301 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`The USPTO issued the ʼ593 Patent, entitled “Logic Cell Array and Bus System,” on
`30.
`June 25, 2013. A copy of the ’593 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`INTEL - 1043
`Page 6 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02241 Document 1 Filed 04/25/19 Page 7 of 21
`
`
`
`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
`
`The USPTO issued the ʼ549 Patent, entitled “Reconfigurable Elements,” on April 1,
`31.
`2014. A copy of the ’549 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
`The USPTO issued the ʼ505 Patent, entitled “Data Processor Having Disable Cores,”
`32.
`on August 26, 2014. A copy of the ’505 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit F.
`The USPTO issued the ʼ807 Patent, entitled “Processor Arrangement on a Chip
`33.
`Including Data Processing, Memory, and Interface Elements,” on May 19, 2015. A copy of the ’807
`Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit G.
`The USPTO issued the ʼ605 Patent, entitled “Methods and Devices for Treating and
`34.
`Processing data,” on July 7, 2015. A copy of the ’605 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit H.
`The USPTO issued the ʼ812 Patent, entitled “Data Processing System Having
`35.
`Integrated Pipelined Array Data Processor,” on October 27, 2015. A copy of the ’812 Patent is
`attached hereto as Exhibit I.
`The USPTO issued the ʼ908 Patent, entitled “Multi-Processor Bus and ache
`36.
`Interconnection System,” on February 2, 2016. A copy of the ’908 Patent is attached hereto as
`Exhibit J.
`The USPTO issued the ʼ631 Patent, entitled “Chip Including Memory Element Storing
`37.
`Higher Level Memory Data on a Page by Page Basis,” on September 6, 2016. A copy of the ’631
`Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit K.
`The USPTO issued the ʼ047 Patent, entitled “Multiprocessor Having Runtime
`38.
`Adjustable Clock and Clock Dependent Power Supply,” on January 24, 2017. A copy of the ’047
`Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit L.
`
`ACCUSED INTEL INSTRUMENTALITIES
`PACT has accused Intel of infringing the Patents-in-Suit through the manufacture, use
`39.
`(including testing), sale, offer for sale, advertisement, importation, shipment and distribution, service,
`installation, and/or maintenance of Intel Core processors with Sandy Bridge and above
`microarchitectures (the “Accused Core Instrumentalities”) and Intel Xeon processors with Sandy
`Bridge and above microarchitectures (the “Accused Xeon Instrumentalities”) and on information and
`belief other processors incorporating ring bus architecture or equivalents. See Ex. 3 at ¶ 32.
`
`
`
`
`
`INTEL - 1043
`Page 7 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02241 Document 1 Filed 04/25/19 Page 8 of 21
`
`
`
`According to PACT, Intel’s “Accused Core Instrumentalities,” including Intel Core
`40.
`processors with Sandy Bridge and above microarchitectures, including, but not limited to, Core i3,
`Core i5, Core i7, Core i9, and other core processors with the microarchitectures of Sandy Bridge, Ivy
`Bridge, Haswell, Broadwell, Skylake, Kaby Lake, Coffee Lake, Cannon Lake, Ice Lake, and above,
`allegedly infringe the Patents-in-Suit. See Ex. 3 at ¶ 33. Intel denies such alleged infringement.
`According to PACT, Intel’s “Accused Xeon Instrumentalities,” including Intel Xeon
`41.
`processors with Sandy Bridge and above microarchitectures, including, but not limited to, E3, E5, E7,
`and other Xeon processors with the microarchitectures of Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, Haswell,
`Broadwell, Skylake, Kaby Lake, and above, allegedly infringe the Patents-in-Suit. See Ex. 3 at ¶ 34.
`Intel denies such alleged infringement.
`According to PACT, Intel’s “Accused Turbo Boost Instrumentalities,” including Intel
`42.
`processors with a GPU with the Turbo Boost feature, allegedly infringe the Patents-in-Suit. See Ex. 3
`at ¶¶ 35, 207. Intel denies such alleged infringement.
`According to PACT, Intel’s “Accused Turbo Boost 3.0 Instrumentalities” including
`43.
`Intel processors with Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0, allegedly infringe the Patents-in-Suit. See
`Ex. 3 at ¶¶ 35, 88. Intel denies such alleged infringement.
`According to PACT, Intel’s “Accused Stacking Instrumentalities,” including Intel
`44.
`chips and/or chipsets implementing Foveros technology, such as Lakefield, allegedly infringe the
`Patents-in-Suit. See Ex. 3 at ¶¶ 35, 135. Intel denies such alleged infringement.
`According to PACT, Intel’s “Accused ’505 Instrumentalities,” including the Accused
`45.
`Xeon instrumentalities with nine or more core, allegedly infringe the Patents-in-Suit. See Ex. 3 at ¶¶
`35, 160. Intel denies such alleged infringement.
`COUNT I
`BREACH OF CONTRACT
`
`46.
`
`Intel repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1–45 as though fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`INTEL - 1043
`Page 8 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02241 Document 1 Filed 04/25/19 Page 9 of 21
`
`
`
`On or about October 15, 2007, PACT XPP Technologies Inc. and Intel Corporation
`47.
`entered into a letter agreement containing a covenant not to sue (the “Covenant Not To Sue”). PACT
`XPP Technologies Inc.’s former CEO, Peter Weber and Intel’s Kirk Skaugen executed the agreement.
`The Covenant Not To Sue precludes PACT from asserting at least the following claims
`48.
`of the following United States Patents against Intel: claim 1 of 7,928,763 (“the ’763 Patent”); claim 2
`of 8,301,872 (“the ’872 Patent”); claim 10 of 8,312,301 (“the ’301 Patent”); claim 1 of 8,471,593 (“the
`’593 Patent”); claim 39 of 8,686,549 (“the ’549 Patent”); claim 27 of 8,819,505 (“the ’505 Patent”);
`claim 1 of 9,037,807 (“the ’807 Patent”); claim 1 of 9,075,605 (“the ’605 Patent”); claim 12 of
`9,170,812 (“the ’812 Patent”); claim 4 of 9,250,908 (“the ’908 Patent”); claim 1 of 9,436,631 (“the
`’631 Patent”); and claim 1 of 9,552,047 (“the ’047 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Claims of the
`Patents-in-Suit”).
`The preamble of the Covenant Not To Sue provides that, “[i]n consideration of Intel
`49.
`providing PACT XPP Technologies Inc., its parent(s), subsidiaries and affiliates (collectively,
`“Company”) ongoing access to and use of Intel confidential, proprietary and trade secret information
`relating to the Front Side Bus (as defined below), pursuant to the applicable nondisclosure agreement
`(such as a Restricted Secret Non-Disclosure Agreement (“RSNDA”)) in effect between Intel and
`Company, Intel and Company hereby agree to the terms and obligations of this letter agreement . . . .”
`Under paragraph 2.1 of the Covenant Not To Sue, PACT agreed not to assert any “FSB
`50.
`Patent Rights” (defined at ¶¶ 1.4 and 1.6 of the agreement) “against Intel, its subsidiaries or affiliates,
`or their customers (direct or indirect), distributors (direct or indirect), agents (direct or indirect) and
`contractors (direct or indirect) for the manufacture, use, import, offer for sale or sale of any of Intel’s
`Products or any process or method employed in the manufacture, testing, distribution or use
`thereof . . . .”
`“Intel’s Products” as defined at ¶ 1.5 of the Covenant Not To Sue means “all products
`51.
`made by or for Intel,” and accordingly all of the Accused Products (as defined in PACT’s Complaint)
`qualify as “Intel’s Products” as used in paragraph 2.1 of the Covenant Not To Sue.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`INTEL - 1043
`Page 9 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02241 Document 1 Filed 04/25/19 Page 10 of 21
`
`
`
`The Covenant Not To Sue “survive[s] any termination or expiration of this Agreement
`52.
`and shall remain in full force and effect until mutually agreed otherwise by [Intel and PACT].” There
`has been no agreement to terminate the Covenant Not To Sue and it remains in full force and effect.
`Pursuant to ¶ 2.2 of the Covenant Not To Sue, if PACT claims that it is not obligated
`53.
`under the agreement based on assignment of any of the Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit that are
`FSB Patent Rights, then “Intel shall have a nonexclusive, nontransferable license . . . under such
`assigned FSB Patent Rights to make, use, sell, offer for sale and import Intel’s Products” which
`“conditional license shall survive any termination or expiration of [the Covenant Not To Sue] and shall
`remain in full force and effect until mutually agreed otherwise by the parties.”
`PACT’s infringement claims against Intel respecting at least the Asserted Claims of the
`54.
`Patents-in-Suit are based at least in part on, and on their face encompass, the alleged making, using,
`selling, offering to sell, and importing into the United States the following respective Accused
`Products (as defined in PACT’s Complaint), and PACT’s claims are accordingly barred by the
`Covenant Not To Sue: claim 1 of the ’763 Patent and the Accused Core Instrumentalities and the
`Accused Xeon Instrumentalities; claim 2 of the ’872 Patent and the Accused Core Instrumentalities
`and the Accused Xeon Instrumentalities; claim 10 of the ’301 Patent and the Accused Turbo Boost 3.0
`Instrumentalities; claim 1 of the ’593 Patent and the Accused Core Instrumentalities and the Accused
`Xeon Instrumentalities; claim 39 of the ’549 Patent and the Accused Stacking Instrumentalities; claim
`27 of the ’505 Patent and the Accused ʼ505 Instrumentalities; claim 1 of the ’807 Patent and the
`Accused Core Instrumentalities and the Accused Xeon Instrumentalities; claim 1 of the ’605 Patent
`and the Accused Turbo Boost Instrumentalities; claim 12 of the ’812 Patent and the Accused Core
`Instrumentalities; claim 4 of the ’908 Patent and the Accused Core Instrumentalities and the Accused
`Xeon Instrumentalities; claim 1 of the ’631 Patent and the Accused Core Instrumentalities and the
`Accused Xeon Instrumentalities; and claim 1 of the ’047 Patent and the Accused Turbo Boost
`Instrumentalities.
`As a result of the acts described above, there exists a substantial controversy of
`55.
`sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment, and a judicial
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`INTEL - 1043
`Page 10 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02241 Document 1 Filed 04/25/19 Page 11 of 21
`
`
`declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Intel may ascertain its rights with respect to the
`Patents-in-Suit.
`Intel is entitled to a judicial declaration that PACT may not assert at least any of the
`56.
`Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit against Intel and a finding that PACT is in breach of the
`Covenant Not To Sue.
`Intel is entitled to all remedies provided under law, including monetary damages and
`57.
`specific performance by PACT to dismiss any claims of patent infringement by PACT concerning the
`Asserted Claims of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`COUNT II
`DECLARATION OF NONINFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,928,763
`
`Intel repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1–57 of its Complaint.
`58.
`PACT alleges that Intel Products including the Accused Core Instrumentalities and the
`59.
`Accused Xeon Instrumentalities infringe one or more claims of the ’763 Patent. For example, PACT
`alleges that the Accused Core Instrumentalities and the Accused Xeon Instrumentalities embody every
`limitation of claim 1 of the ’763 Patent, literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents. See Ex. 3 at ¶¶
`36-59.
`
`Intel has not infringed and does not infringe, either directly or indirectly, any valid and
`60.
`enforceable claim of the ’763 Patent, either literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents. For
`example, the accused Intel Core and Xeon processors with Sandy Bridge and above microarchitectures
`do not infringe, directly or indirectly, any asserted claim of the ’763 Patent at least because the accused
`processors do not include a bus system “adapted for programmably interconnecting at runtime at least
`one of data processing cells and memory cells with at least one of memory cells and one or more of
`the at least one interface unit,” as required by the asserted claims of the ’763 Patent.
`As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists a substantial
`61.
`controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.
`A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Intel may ascertain its rights
`62.
`regarding the ’763 Patent.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`INTEL - 1043
`Page 11 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02241 Document 1 Filed 04/25/19 Page 12 of 21
`
`
`
`Intel is entitled to a judicial declaration that it has not infringed and does not infringe
`63.
`the ’763 Patent.
`
`COUNT III
`DECLARATION OF NONINFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,301,872
`
`Intel repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1–63 of its Complaint.
`64.
`PACT alleges that Intel Products including the Accused Core Instrumentalities and the
`65.
`Accused Xeon Instrumentalities infringe one or more claims of the ’872 Patent. For example, PACT
`alleges that the Accused Core Instrumentalities and the Accused Xeon Instrumentalities embody every
`limitation of claim 2 of the ’872 Patent, literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents. See Ex. 3 at ¶¶
`60-86.
`
`Intel has not infringed and does not infringe, either directly or indirectly, any valid and
`66.
`enforceable claim of the ’872 Patent, either literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents. For
`example, the accused Intel Core and Xeon processors with Sandy Bridge and above microarchitectures
`do not infringe, directly or indirectly, any asserted claim of the ’872 Patent at least because the accused
`processors do not include “at least one superior cache level including a plurality of same level cache
`nodes each including an internal cache memory” as required by the asserted claims of the ’872 Patent.
`As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists a substantial
`67.
`controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.
`A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Intel may ascertain its rights
`68.
`regarding the ’872 Patent.
`Intel is entitled to a judicial declaration that it has not infringed and does not infringe
`69.
`the ’872 Patent.
`
`COUNT IV
`DECLARATION OF NONINFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,312,301
`
`Intel repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1–69 of its Complaint.
`70.
`PACT alleges that Intel Products including the Accused Turbo Boost 3.0
`71.
`Instrumentalities infringe one or more claims of the ’301 Patent. For example, PACT alleges that the
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`INTEL - 1043
`Page 12 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02241 Document 1 Filed 04/25/19 Page 13 of 21
`
`
`Accused Turbo Boost 3.0 Instrumentalities embody every limitation of claim 10 of the ’301 Patent,
`literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents. See Ex. 3 at ¶¶ 87-109.
`Intel has not infringed and does not infringe, either directly or indirectly, any valid and
`72.
`enforceable claim of the ’301 Patent, either literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents. For
`example, the accused Intel processors with Turbo Boost Max Technology 3.0 do not infringe, directly
`or indirectly, any asserted claim of the ’301 Patent at least because the accused processors do not have
`“a software adapted to be executed to . . . assign to each of the code sections a respective clock
`frequency,” as required by the asserted claims of the ’301 Patent.
`As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists a substantial
`73.
`controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.
`A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Intel may ascertain its rights
`74.
`regarding the ’301 Patent.
`Intel is entitled to a judicial declaration that it has not infringed and does not infringe
`75.
`the ’301 Patent.
`
`COUNT V
`DECLARATION OF NONINFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,471,593
`
`Intel repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1–75 of its Complaint.
`76.
`PACT alleges that Intel Products including the Accused Core Instrumentalities and the
`77.
`Accused Xeon Instrumentalities infringe one or more claims of the ’593 Patent. For example, PACT
`alleges that the Accused Core Instrumentalities and the Accused Xeon Instrumentalities embody every
`limitation of claim 1 of the ’593 Patent, literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents. See Ex. 3 at ¶¶
`110-133.
`Intel has not infringed and does not infringe, either directly or indirectly, any valid and
`78.
`enforceable claim of the ’593 Patent, either literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents. For
`example, the accused Intel Core and Xeon processors with Sandy Bridge and above microarchitectures
`do not infringe, directly or indirectly, any asserted claim of the ’593 Patent at least because the accused
`processors do not include a bus system wherein “at least some of the data processing cores includes a
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`INTEL - 1043
`Page 13 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-02241 Document 1 Filed 04/25/19 Page 14 of 21
`
`
`physically dedicated connection to at least one physically assigned one of the plurality of memory
`units” as required by the asserted claims of the ’593 Patent.
`As a result of the acts described in the foregoing paragraphs, there exists a substantial
`79.
`controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.
`A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate so that Intel may ascertain its rights
`80.
`regarding the ’593 Patent.
`Intel is entitled to a judicial declaration that it has not infringed and does not infringe
`81.
`the ’593 Patent.
`
`COUNT VI
`DECLARATION OF NONINFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,686,549
`
`Intel repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraphs 1–81 of its Complaint.
`82.
`PACT alleges that Intel Products including the Accused Core Instrumentalities, the
`83.
`Accused Xeon Instrumentalities, Atom processors, and/or the Accused Stacking Instrumentalities
`infringe one or more claims of the ’549 Patent. For example, PACT alleges that these instrumentalities
`embody every limitation of claim 39 of the ’549 Patent, literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents.
`See Ex. 3 at ¶¶ 134-158.
`Intel has not infringed and does not infringe, either directly or indirectly, any valid and
`84.
`enforceable claim of the ’549 Patent, either literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents. For
`example, the Accused Stacking Instrumentalities (as this term is used by PACT) do not infringe,
`directly or indirectly, any