BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC,
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-286-JRG
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ P.R. 3-3 INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`Pursuant to the Docket Control Order in this case (Dkt. 29) and Local Patent Rule 3-3,
`
`Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(“SEA”) (collectively, “Samsung” or “Defendants”) hereby provide their invalidity contentions
`
`to Plaintiff Bell Northern Research, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “BNR”) in support of Samsung’s
`
`allegations of invalidity of United States Patent Nos. 7,319,889 (“the ’889 patent”); 8,204,554
`
`(“the ’554 patent”); 8,416,862 (“the ’862 Patent”); 7,957,450 (“the ’450 Patent”); 8,792,432
`
`(“the ’432 Patent”); 7,039,435 (“the ’435 Patent”); 6,549,792 (“the ’792 Patent”); and 7,945,285
`
`(“the ’285 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`As disclosed in its respective P. R. 3-1 Infringement Contentions served on Defendants,
`
`Plaintiff asserts the following patents and claims:
`
`
`
`1
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 1 of 256
`
`

`

`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 2 of 256
`
`

`

`such newly asserted claims.
`
`These Invalidity Contentions are based on Defendants’ current understanding of the
`
`Asserted Claims and Plaintiff’s apparent view of the scope of those claims as shown, for
`
`example, in Plaintiff’s Infringement Contentions. A Markman Order in this case has not yet been
`
`issued, and in no way shall these Invalidity Contentions be taken as any admission or
`
`acquiescence by Defendants as to the proper scope of the Asserted Claims and/or proper claim
`
`constructions of terms and phrases recited in those claims. By identifying prior art that
`
`anticipates and/or renders obvious the Asserted Claims, Defendants do not admit that the claim
`
`limitations are capable of construction, do not admit that any claim limitations are supported
`
`with an appropriate written description and enabling disclosure in the applicable patent
`
`specifications, and do not adopt Plaintiff’s apparent claim constructions or admit the accuracy of
`
`any particular claim construction.3 Defendants reserve all rights to later challenge or oppose any
`
`claim constructions advanced by Plaintiff and to present their own claim construction positions.
`
`Defendants further reserve the right to revise these Invalidity Contentions in view of the
`
`Court’s construction of terms and phrases recited in one or more of the Asserted Claims,
`
`additional information obtained during discovery, additional infringement theories put forth by
`
`Plaintiff during fact and/or expert discovery, any findings as to the priority date(s) of the
`
`Asserted Claims, and/or positions that Plaintiff, its fact witnesses, or its expert witness(es) may
`
`
`
`3 Defendants do not concede that Plaintiff’s constructions are correct, but rather assert the well-
`established principle that whatever infringes a claim if later in time anticipates if earlier in time.
`Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Labs., Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Thus,
`where Plaintiff for purposes of its infringement case alleges that a feature of an accused product
`meets a particular limitation recited in one or more of the Asserted Claims, then that feature,
`should it be found in the prior art, would also cause that limitation to be met for invalidity
`purposes.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 3 of 256
`
`

`

`take concerning claim construction, infringement, and/or invalidity issues.
`
`Defendants further reserve the right to supplement their accompanying P.R. 3-4(b)
`
`document production should they later discover additional prior art documents, information,
`
`testimony, prior art systems and related documentation, and/or software or hardware code,
`
`including but not limited to information provided by third parties after the date of service of
`
`these Invalidity Contentions.
`
`Defendants may further rely on inventor admissions concerning the scope or state of the
`
`prior art relevant to the Asserted Claims, the patent prosecution histories of the Asserted Patents,
`
`related patents and/or patent applications, any deposition or trial testimony of a named inventor
`
`on the Asserted Patents, and the papers filed and any evidence produced or submitted by Plaintiff
`
`in connection with this case or other related litigation. Defendants reserve the right to contend
`
`that one or more of the Asserted Claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f) in the event
`
`Defendants obtain evidence that any of the named inventors did not invent the subject matter in
`
`the Asserted Claims with which they are associated on the face of the Asserted Patents.
`
`Prior art not included in these Invalidity Contentions, whether known or not known to
`
`Defendants, may become relevant. In particular, Defendants are currently unaware of the extent,
`
`if any, to which Plaintiff will contend that limitations of the Asserted Claims are not disclosed in
`
`the prior art identified in these Invalidity Contentions. Accordingly, Defendants reserve the right
`
`to identify other references that would disclose the allegedly missing limitation(s) of the claimed
`
`method, device, or system.
`
`The references identified in these Invalidity Contentions, which include the attached
`
`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. References
`
`
`
`4
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 4 of 256
`
`

`

`identified in these Invalidity Contentions, as well as the “References Cited” on the faces of the
`
`Asserted Patents and the patents cited within the bodies of the Asserted Patents, may be used to
`
`illustrate, but not limit the scope of, the state of the art to which the Asserted Patents pertain (i.e.,
`
`at a time prior to the date of alleged inventions of the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents).
`
`Moreover, Defendants reserve the right to rely on later identified sources of information,
`
`including but not limited to witness testimony and other discovery, to establish the state of the art
`
`in the relevant time frame pertaining to the Asserted Patents.
`
`Because discovery has just recently begun, Defendants anticipate that additional prior art
`
`and invalidity bases may be found. Defendants’ investigation and analysis of the prior art is
`
`continuing, and thus Defendants reserve the right to supplement, amend, and/or revise the
`
`information provided herein as Defendants conduct further investigation and/or analysis,
`
`including identifying, charting, and relying on additional references.
`
`Additionally, in view of likely third-party discovery that will be taken, Defendants
`
`reserve the right to present additional items of prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), (e),
`
`and/or (g) and/or § 103 located during discovery or further investigation, and to assert
`
`contentions of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(c), (d), or (f). For example, Defendants may
`
`issue subpoenas to third parties believed to have knowledge, documents, and/or other evidence
`
`concerning invalidity of one or more of the Asserted Claims.
`
`In addition to the positions and prior art identified in these Invalidity Contentions
`
`(including the accompanying invalidity claim charts), Defendants also incorporate by reference
`
`all invalidity contentions, prior art,4 and invalidity claim charts (including, without limitation, all
`
`
`
`4 Prior art appearing in the file histories of the Asserted Patents is not required to be separately
`produced by Defendants under P. R. 3-4(b).
`
`
`
`5
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 5 of 256
`
`

`

`anticipation positions, obviousness positions (including all prior art combinations and
`
`motivations to combine), indefiniteness positions, written description positions, and non-
`
`enablement positions) concerning one or more of the Asserted Patents, as disclosed at any time.
`
`This includes without limitation disclosures in previous or related litigation, in United States
`
`Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) proceedings, by the Plaintiff, by any other parties
`
`accused of patent infringement by the Plaintiff, or by the named inventors or any individuals
`
`associated with the prosecution and/or post-grant review of the Asserted Patents.
`
`For example, Defendants identify, as prior art upon which they may rely to show the
`
`invalidity of the Asserted Claims, the prior art references disclosed by parties in any other
`
`litigation involving one or more of the Asserted Patents, including but not limited to:
`
` BNR v. ZTE Corporation et al, No. 3:18-cv-01786 (S.D. Cal.)
` BNR v. Huawei Device Co., Ltd. et al, No. 3:18-cv-01784 (S.D. Cal.)
` BNR v Coolpad Technologies, Inc. et al, No. 3:18-cv-01783 (S.D. Cal.)
` BNR v. Kyocera Corporation et al, No. 3:18-cv-01785 (S.D. Cal.)
` BNR v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al, No. 3:18-cv-02864 (S.D. Cal.)
` ZTE Corp. et al v. BNR, IPR2019-01320 (P.T.A.B. filed July 18, 2019)
` ZTE Corp. et al v. BNR, IPR2019-01319 (P.T.A.B. filed July 18, 2019)
` Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. et al v. BNR, IPR2019-01175 (P.T.A.B. filed June 12,
`2019)
` ZTE Corp. et al v. BNR, IPR2019-01365 (P.T.A.B. filed July 24, 2019)
` Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. et al v. BNR, IPR2019-01172 (P.T.A.B. filed June 12,
`2019)
` Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. et al v. BNR, IPR2019-01186 (P.T.A.B. filed June 11,
`2019)
` ZTE Corp. et al v. BNR, IPR2019-01437 (P.T.A.B. filed August 5, 2019)
` ZTE Corp. et al v. BNR, IPR2019-01345 (P.T.A.B. filed July 18, 2019)
` ZTE Corp. et al v. BNR, IPR2019-01346 (P.T.A.B. filed July 18, 2019)
` ZTE Corp. et al v. BNR, IPR2019-01438 (P.T.A.B. filed August 2, 2019)
` LG Electronics, Inc. et al v. BNR, IPR2020-00108 (P.T.A.B. filed November 12, 2019)
` Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. et al v. BNR, IPR2019-01174 (P.T.A.B. filed June 12,
`2019)
` Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. et al v. BNR, IPR2019-01185 (P.T.A.B. filed June 13,
`2019)
` Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. et al v. BNR, IPR2019-01439 (P.T.A.B. filed August 2,
`2019)
`
`
`
`6
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 6 of 256
`
`

`

` ZTE Corp. et al v. BNR, IPR2019-01495 (P.T.A.B. filed October 9, 2019)
` LG Electronics, Inc. et al v. BNR, IPR2020-00319 (P.T.A.B. filed December 19, 2019)
` LG Electronics, Inc. et al v. BNR, IPR2020-00330 (P.T.A.B. filed December 20, 2019)
` LG Electronics, Inc. et al v. BNR, IPR2020-00318 (P.T.A.B. filed December 19, 2019)
` LG Electronics, Inc. et al v. BNR, IPR2020-00332 (P.T.A.B. filed December 20, 2019)
` Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. BNR, IPR2020-00611 (P.T.A.B. filed March 2, 2020)
` Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. BNR, IPR2020-00613 (P.T.A.B. filed March 2, 2020)
` Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. BNR, IPR2020-00675 (P.T.A.B. filed March 2, 2020)
` Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. BNR, IPR2020-00676 (P.T.A.B. filed March 2, 2020)
`
`Plaintiff has a duty to produce to Defendants all relevant documents from these
`
`proceedings including but not limited to all prior art, invalidity contentions, and expert
`
`declarations or reports on invalidity (among other relevant items).
`
`Defendants reserve the right to supplement or otherwise amend these Invalidity
`
`Contentions in response to any relevant discovery provided by third parties, Plaintiff, opening or
`
`rebuttal expert reports, fact or expert depositions, or in response to any claim construction
`
`ruling(s) issued by this Court (regardless of how and when such ruling is made). Defendants also
`
`reserve the right to supplement or otherwise amend these Invalidity Contentions in response to
`
`any rebuttal evidence disclosed by Plaintiff or as otherwise may be necessary or appropriate
`
`under the circumstances.
`
`III.
`
`P. R. 3-3(A) – IDENTIFICATION OF PRIOR ART
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 3-3, and subject to Defendants’ reservation of rights, Defendants identify
`
`at least the following prior art now known to Defendants to anticipate and/or render obvious the
`
`Asserted Claims of the ’889 Patent, the ’554 Patent, the ’862 Patent, the ’450 Patent, the ’432
`
`
`
`7
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 7 of 256
`
`

`

`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 8 of 256
`
`

`

`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 9 of 256
`
`

`

`International Pub. No. WO
`00/195596 (“Tsuchi 596”)
`U.K. Patent Publication No.
`2256772 (“So”)
`Japanese Patent Pub. No. 2001-
`230859
`U.S. Patent No. 6,314,303
`(“Phipps”)
`European Patent Publication No.
`1,058,465 (“Farah”)
`U.K. Patent Publication No.
`2,275,848 (“Champness”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,239,673
`(“Natarajan”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,297,191
`(“Gerszberg”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,479,484
`(“Mukerjee”)
`International Pub. No. WO
`00/78012 (“Sparre”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,530,736
`(“Comer”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,518,957
`(“Lehtinen”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,982,424
`(“Saito”)
`U.S. Patent Pub. No.
`2002/0173344 (“Cupps”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,426,736
`(“Ishihara”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,396,443
`(“Mese”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,418,536
`(“Park”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,224,151
`(“Bowen”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,175,759
`(“Metroka”)
`Korean Patent Publication No.
`2002-49705 (“Joo”)
`Japanese Patent Publication No.
`2000-332861A (“Yoshimura”)
`Korean Patent Publication No.
`2003-0073956 (“Suh”)
`Korean Patent Publication No.
`
`
`
`WIPO
`
`U.K.
`
`Japan
`
`U.S.
`
`Europe
`
`U.K.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`WIPO
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`Korea
`
`Japan
`
`Korea
`
`Korea
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`November 6, 2001
`
`
`
`
`
`August 24, 1993
`
`March 22, 1994
`
`December 26, 1995
`
`
`
`June 25, 1996
`
`February 11, 2003
`
`January 1, 1991
`
`
`
`July 30, 2002
`
`March 7, 1995
`
`July 9, 2002
`
`June 29, 1993
`
`December 29, 1992
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 10 of 256
`
`

`

`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 11 of 256
`
`

`

`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 12 of 256
`
`

`

`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 13 of 256
`
`

`

`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 14 of 256
`
`

`

`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 15 of 256
`
`

`

`2004/081131 A1
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2004/165684 A1
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2004/120411 A1
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2003/181170 A1
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2004/047426 A1
`European Patent Application No.
`EP1359684 A1
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2004/100928 A1
`DE10254384 A1
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2004/085939 A1
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2003/186650 A1
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2004/209579 A1
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2003/031264 A1
`WO2004008671 A1
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,007
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2004/0085939
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2006/0193298
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2002/0187753
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2003/0139196
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2004/0042558
`U.S. Patent No. 7,663,431
`U.S. Patent No. 6,091,963
`U.S. Patent No. 6,839,544
`U.S. Patent No. 6,118,984
`U.S. Patent No. 7,480,349
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2005/0078762
`WO2004/086712
`
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`Europe
`
`U.S.
`
`Germany
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`WIPO
`U.S.
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`U.S.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`March 9, 2010
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`February 16, 2010
`July 18, 2000
`January 4, 2005
`September 12, 2000
`January 20, 2009
`
`
`WIPO
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 16 of 256
`
`

`

`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 17 of 256
`
`

`

`1912
`
`Hermann Weyl
`
`1998
`
`Comino
`
`1991
`
`2004
`
`Joseph R. Cavallaro
`
`K. Dickson
`
`2003
`
`Z. Liu
`
`July 1998
`
`Jacob Sheinvald
`
`October 1984
`
`J.M. Speiser
`
`1994
`
`Vanpoucke
`
`Das asymptotische
`Verteilungsgesetz der Eigenwert
`linearer partieller
`Differentialgleichungen (miteiner
`Anwendung aufder Theorie der
`Hohlraumstrahlung), Math. Ann.
`A Baseband Integrated Circuit
`for Homodyne Cordless Phones,
`IEEE 1998 Custom Integrated
`Circuits Conference, Vittorio
`Comino, Dima Shulman, Susan J.
`Walker, Sanjay Kasturia, Michael
`Prise
`A CORDIC Processor Array for
`the SVD of a Complex Matrix,
`Joseph Cavallaro and Anne Elster
`QRD and SVD Processor Design
`Based on an Approximate
`Rotations Algorithm, IEEE
`Workshop onSignal Processing
`Systems, 2004. SIPS 2004.
`Date of Conference: 13-15 Oct.
`2004, K. Dickson, Z. Liu, and J.
`McCanny
`CORDIC Based Application
`Specific Instruction Set Processor
`for QRD/SVD, Z. Liu, K.
`Dickson, and J. V. McCanny
`On Blind Beamforming for
`Multiple Non-Gaussian Signals
`and the Constant-Modulus
`Algorithm, IEEE Transactions on
`Signal Processing, Vol. 46, No. 7,
`July 1998
`Signal Processing Computations
`Using the Generalized Singular
`Value Decomposition, J. M.
`Speiser and C. Van Loan
`Numerically Stable Jacobi Array
`for Parallel Singular Value
`Decomposition (SVD) Updating,
`SPIE's 1994 International
`Symposium on Optics, Imaging,
`and Instrumentation, Filiep
`Vanpoucke, Marc Moonen, Ed F.
`A. Deprettere
`
`
`
`18
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 18 of 256
`
`

`

`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 19 of 256
`
`

`

`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 20 of 256
`
`

`

`2004/203473 A1
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2004/042427 A1
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2004/219899 A1
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2004/081131 A1
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2004/165684 A1
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2004/120411 A1
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2003/181170 A1
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2004/047426 A1
`European Patent Application No.
`EP1359684 A1
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2004/100928 A1
`DE10254384 A1
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2004/085939 A1
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2003/186650 A1
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2004/209579 A1
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2003/031264 A1
`WO2004008671 A1
`U.S. Patent No. 7,676,007
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2004/0085939
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2006/0193298
`U.S. Patent No. 5,541,607
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2002/0187753
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2003/0139196
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2004/0042558
`U.S. Patent No. 6,377,631
`WO 2004/086712
`U.S. Patent Application No.
`2003/0185310
`
`
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`Europe
`
`U.S.
`
`Germany
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`WIPO
`U.S.
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`WIPO
`U.S.
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`March 9, 2010
`
`
`
`
`July 30, 1996
`
`
`
`
`
`
`April 23, 2002
`
`
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 21 of 256
`
`

`

`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 22 of 256
`
`

`

`double
`orthogonal substitution,
`Messenger of Mathematics
`Sur la reduction biorthogonale
`d’une forme lineo-lineaire d sa
`forme cannonique, Comptes
`Rendus
`de l’Academie Sciences
`Zur Theorie der linearen und
`nichtlinearen
`Integralgleichungen. I Teil.
`Entwicklung willkiirlichen
`Funktionen nach System
`vorgeschriebener, Math. Ann.
`Estimation of Performance Loss
`Due to Delay in Channel
`Feedback in MIMO Systems,
`Jianxuan Du, Ye (Geoffrey) LI,
`Daing Gu, Andreas Molisch,
`Zinyun Zhang
`MIMO Transmission over a
`Time-Varying Channel Using
`SVD, Global Telecommunications
`Conference, 2002. GLOBECOM
`'02. IEEE Date of Conference:
`17-21 Nov. 2002, G. Lebrun, T.
`Ying, M. Faulkner
`Broadband MIMO-OFDM
`Wireless Communications,
`Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 92,
`No. 2, February 2004, Gordon
`Stuber, John Barry, Steve
`McLaughlin, Ye Li, Mary Ann
`Ingram, Thomas Pratt
`
`
`1889
`
`James Joseph Sylvester
`
`1907
`
`Erhard Schmidt
`
`2004
`
`Jianxuan Du
`
`2002
`
`G. Lebrun
`
`2004
`
`Stuber
`
` Prior Art References for the ’432 Patent
`
`Pursuant to P. 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 ’432 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 ’432 Patent.
`
`
`
`23
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 23 of 256
`
`

`

`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 24 of 256
`
`

`

`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 25 of 256
`
`

`

`R2-105547, Xian, China, October
`11-15, 2010
`Alcatel-Lucent, Alcatel-Lucent
`Shanghai Bell, “On the size
`limitation of the RACH
`signalling,” 3GPP TSG-RAN
`WG2 Meeting #72bis, R2-
`110103, Dublin, Ireland, January
`17-21, 2011
`Israel Martin-Escalona and
`Francisco Barcelo, “Middleware-
`Controlled Resource consumption
`for
`Location Traffic in Cellular
`Networks,” JOURNAL OF
`COMMUNICATIONS
`SOFTWARE AND SYSTEMS,
`VOL. 2, NO. 4, DECEMBER
`2006
`Deutsche Telekom, “Enabling
`detected Set feature for inter-
`frequency measurements,” 3GPP
`TSG-RAN WG2 Meeting #70,
`R2-102895, Montreal, Canada,
`May 10-14, 2010
`ZTE, “Considerations of Inter-
`frequency Detected Set
`measurements,” 3GPP TSG RAN
`WG2 Meeting #71 bis, R2-
`105423, Xian, China, October 11-
`15, 2010
`ZTE, “Specification Impact
`Analysis of Inter-frequency
`Detected Set Measurements,”
`3GPP TSG RAN WG2 Meeting
`#71 bis, R2-105424, Xian, China,
`October 11-15, 2010
`Nokia Corp., Nokia Siemens
`Networks, “RACH signaling
`optimisation,” 3GPP TSG-RAN
`WG2 Meeting #72, R2-106482,
`Jacksonville, USA, November
`15-19, 2010
`
`
`January 17-21, 2011
`
`Alcatel-Lucent
`
`December 2006
`
`Israel Martin-Escalona and
`Francisco Barcelo
`
`May 10-14, 2010
`
`Deutsche Telekom
`
`October 11-15, 2010
`
`ZTE
`
`October 11-15, 2010
`
`ZTE
`
`November 15-19, 2010
`
`Nokia
`
`
`
`26
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 26 of 256
`
`

`

`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 27 of 256
`
`

`

`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 28 of 256
`
`

`

`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 29 of 256
`
`

`

`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 30 of 256
`
`

`

`Japanese Patent Publication No.
`JPH06291827 (“Nishimura”)
`Japanese Patent Publication No.
`JPH 10154955 (“Utsuki”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,401,847
`(“Schneider”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,504,701
`(“Luchessi”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,809,123
`(“Reynolds”)
`Canadian Patent Publication No.
`CA2301159A1 (“Koshima”)
`Japanese Patent Publication No.
`JPH11118506A (“Nakamura”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,003,585
`(“Richer”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,835,578
`(“Reyes”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,872,838
`(“Huang”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,987,199
`(“Lee”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,084,949
`(“Yun”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,923,731
`(“McClure”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,333,173
`(“Seazholtz”)
`Japanese Patent Application
`Publication No. JPH02277351
`(“Tomohiro”)
`Japanese Patent Application
`Publication No. JPS623546
`(“Yukio”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,249,219
`(“Morganstein”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,329,577
`(“Norimatsu”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,533,118
`(“Cesaro”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,703,881
`(“Kay”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,815,285
`(“Mony”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,978,470
`
`
`
`Japan
`
`Japan
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`Canada
`
`Japan
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`Japan
`
`Japan
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`31
`
`
`
`
`
`August 30, 1983
`
`March 12, 1985
`
`September 15, 1998
`
`
`
`
`
`March 26, 1991
`
`November 10, 1998
`
`February 16, 1999
`
`November 16, 1999
`
`July 4, 2000
`
`July 13, 1999
`
`July 26, 1994
`
`
`
`
`
`September 28, 1993
`
`July 12, 1994
`
`July 2, 1996
`
`December 30, 1997
`
`September 29, 1998
`
`November 2, 1999
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 31 of 256
`
`

`

`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 32 of 256
`
`

`

`U.S Patent No. 6,192,340
`(“Abecassis”)
`U.S. Patent No. 5,724,091
`(“Freeman”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,123,936
`(“Rydbeck ’936”)
`International Application
`Publication No. WO 97/20297
`(“Enomoto”)
`Korean Patent Publication KR
`1999-0033726 (“Kim”)
`U.S. Patent No. 4,993,061
`(“Hsieh”)
`Korean Patent Publication KR
`1999-024210 (“Kim 2”)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,845,398
`(“Galensky”)
`Korean Patent Publication KR
`1999-0035403 (“Yu”)
`U.S. Patent Publication No.
`2005/0054379 (“Cao”)6
`
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`U.S.
`
`WIPO
`
`Korea
`
`U.S.
`
`Korea
`
`U.S.
`
`Korea
`
`U.S.
`
`February 20, 2001
`
`March 3, 1998
`
`October 17, 2006
`
`
`
`
`
`February 12, 1991
`
`
`
`January 18, 2005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6 In the event the claims of the ’285 patent (including the terms “RF telephone handset” and “RF
`unit connected to a network”) are construed or applied to include devices beyond cordless
`telephones, the earliest possible priority date for the ’285 patent would be the application filing
`date of February 16, 2010. See, e.g., Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,945,285, Feb. 16,
`2010 Transmittal of New Application, at 16-17 (adding claims requiring, inter alia, an “RF
`telephone handset” and an “RF unit connected to a network”); id., Oct. 21, 2010 Amendment, at
`2-4 (amending the specification to add language that generally parrots the language of the
`claims). While Samsung maintains that, even as amended, the disclosures and claims in the ’285
`patent are directed exclusively to cordless telephones, BNR appears to contend (Samsung
`believes incorrectly) that the claims (which appeared for the first time in 2010) are broader than
`cordless telephones. Even BNR cannot dispute, however, that prior to February 16, 2010, the
`only disclosures and claims in the related parent applications were directed to cordless
`telephones. Compare id. with Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,945,284 (distinguishing
`the purported invention from other devices such as cellular phones) and Prosecution History of
`U.S. Patent No. 7,702,363 (same) and Prosecution History of Canadian Patent No. 2325244
`(same) and Prosecution History of European Patent No. 1104150 (same). Therefore, to the
`extent any disclosures or claims in the ’285 patent are construed or applied to be broader than
`cordless telephones, it must constitute new matter added in 2010 or later, and the ’285 patent
`would not be entitled to claim priority to any of the earlier dates of its related parent applications.
`In that case, Cao is prior art to the ’285 patent.
`
`
`
`33
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 33 of 256
`
`

`

`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 34 of 256
`
`

`

`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 35 of 256
`
`

`

`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 36 of 256
`
`

`

`Defendants assert that the items of prior art identified above in connection with Exhibits
`
`A1 to A7 and A11 to A14 anticipate one or more of the Asserted Claims of the ’889 Patent under
`
`at least Plaintiff’s apparent interpretation of the claims that Plaintiff appears to rely upon for its
`
`infringement contentions:
`
`1. Fukiharu 598 (A1) anticipates claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12.
`
`2. Numazawa (A2) anticipates claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12.
`
`3. Seo (A3) anticipates claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12.
`
`4. Perez (A4) anticipates claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12.
`
`5. Mantyjarvi (A5) anticipates claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12.
`
`6. Giel (A6) anticipates claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12.
`
`7. Koo (A7) anticipates claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12.
`
`8. Yasushi (A11) anticipates claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12.
`
`9. Noh (A12) anticipates claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12.
`
`10. Suzuki (A13) anticipates claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12.
`
`11. Hiroya (A14) anticipates claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12.
`
`Defendants further assert that the items of prior art identified above in connection with
`
`Exhibits A1 to A14 render obvious one or more of the Asserted Claims of the ’889 Patent in
`
`view of their own disclosures and the knowledge, skill, and experience of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art. Defendants assert that at least the combinations of prior art identified below
`
`render obvious one or more of the Asserted Claims of the ’889 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
`
`
`
`37
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 37 of 256
`
`

`

`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. Fukiharu 598 (A1) renders obvious claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12, either alone
`
`or in combination with:
`
`a. Numazawa (A2)
`
`b. Seo (A3)
`
`c. Perez (A4)
`
`d. Mantyjarvi (A5)
`
`e. Giel (A6)
`
`f. Koo (A7)
`
`g. Bradley (A9)
`
`h. Yasushi (A11)
`
`i. Suzuki (A13)
`
`j. Hiroya (A14)
`
`2. Numazawa (A2) renders obvious claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12, either alone or
`
`in combination with:
`
`a. Fukiharu 598 (A1)
`
`b. Seo (A3)
`
`c. Perez (A4)
`
`d. Giel (A6)
`
`e. Grivas (A8)
`
`f. Bradley (A9)
`
`g. Miyashita (A10)
`
`
`
`38
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 38 of 256
`
`

`

`h. Yasushi (A11)
`
`3. Seo (A3) renders obvious claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12, either alone or in
`
`combination with:
`
`a. Fukiharu 598 (A1)
`
`b. Numazawa (A2)
`
`c. Giel (A6)
`
`d. Miyashita (A10)
`
`e. Yasushi (A11)
`
`4. Perez (A4) renders obvious claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12, either alone or in
`
`combination with:
`
`a. Fukiharu 598 (A1)
`
`b. Numazawa (A2)
`
`c. Giel (A6)
`
`d. Miyashita (A10)
`
`5. Mantyjarvi (A5) renders obvious claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12, either alone or
`
`in combination with:
`
`a. Fukiharu 598 (A1)
`
`b. Giel (A6)
`
`c. Yasushi (A11)
`
`6. Giel (A6) renders obvious claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12, either alone or in
`
`combination with:
`
`a. Fukiharu 598 (A1)
`
`b. Numazawa (A2)
`
`
`
`39
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 39 of 256
`
`

`

`c. Seo (A3)
`
`d. Perez (A4)
`
`e. Mantyjarvi (A5)
`
`7. Koo (A7) renders obvious claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12, either alone or in
`
`combination with:
`
`a. Fukiharu 598 (A1)
`
`b. Yasushi (A11)
`
`c. Noh (A12)
`
`d. Hiroya (A14)
`
`8. Grivas (A8) renders obvious claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12, either alone or in
`
`combination with:
`
`a. Numazawa (A2)
`
`b. Noh (A12)
`
`9. Bradley (A9) renders obvious claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12, either alone or in
`
`combination with:
`
`a. Fukiharu 598 (A1)
`
`b. Numazawa (A2)
`
`10. Miyashita (A10) renders obvious claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12, either alone or
`
`in combination with:
`
`a. Numazawa (A2)
`
`b. Seo (A3)
`
`c. Perez (A4)
`
`11. Yasushi (A11) renders obvious claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12, either alone or
`
`
`
`40
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 40 of 256
`
`

`

`in combination with:
`
`a. Fukiharu 598 (A1)
`
`b. Numazawa (A2)
`
`c. Seo (A3)
`
`d. Mantyjarvi (A5)
`
`e. Koo (A7)
`
`f. Noh (A12)
`
`12. Noh (A12) renders obvious claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12, either alone or in
`
`combination with:
`
`a. Koo (A7)
`
`b. Grivas (A8)
`
`c. Yasushi (A11)
`
`13. Suzuki (A13) renders obvious claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12, either alone or in
`
`combination with:
`
`a. Fukiharu 598 (A1)
`
`14. Hiroya (A14) renders obvious claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 12, either alone or in
`
`combination with:
`
`a. Fukiharu 598 (A1)
`
`b. Koo (A7)
`
`A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the 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, stations or portable
`
`cell phones that utilize proximity sensing to reduce power to a display during an active telephone
`
`
`
`41
`
`Bell Northern Research, LLC, Exhibit 2010, Page 41 of 256
`
`

`

`call. Many of these references are also directed at improving the conservations of battery power
`
`in mobile devices, such as cell phones.
`
`The combined teachings of these references, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the
`
`art at the time of the alleged invention, and the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole,
`
`would have suggested the alleged invention to one of ordinary skill in the art, as well as a
`
`reasonable likelihood of success in making the above-referenced combinations. The
`
`combinations would constitute, at least, combining prior art elements according to known
`
`methods to yield predictable results, a simple substitution of one known element for another to
`
`obtain predictable results, the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same
`
`way, the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yi