`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00579-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED PRELIMINARY DISCLOSURE OF ASSERTED
`CLAIMS AND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS TO APPLE INC.
`
`Scramoge Technology Limited (“Plaintiff” or “Scramoge”) submits the following
`
`Amended Preliminary Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions to Apple Inc.
`
`(“Defendant” or “Apple”). This disclosure is based on the information available to Scramoge as
`
`of the date of this disclosure, and Scramoge reserves the right to amend this disclosure to the full
`
`extent consistent with the Court’s Rules and Orders.
`
`I.
`
`Asserted Claims
`
`Scramoge asserts that Apple has infringed and continue to infringe at least the following
`
`claims of Scramoge’s patents (collectively, the “Asserted Claims”):
`
`a. U.S. Patent No. 10,622,842 (“the ’842 Patent”): Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 19,
`
`and 20.
`
`b. U.S. Patent No. 9,806,565 (“the ’565 Patent”): Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
`
`13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20.
`
`c. U.S. Patent No. 10,804,740 (“the ’740 Patent”): Claims 6, 7, 16, 17, 19, and 20.
`
`Scramoge Technology Ltd.
`Ex. 2010 - Page 1
`
`
`
`d. U.S. Patent No. 9,843,215 (“the ’215 Patent”): Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17,
`
`18, 19, 20, 21, and 22.
`
`e. U.S. Patent No. 10,424,941 (“the ’941 Patent”): Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7.
`
`f. U.S. Patent No. 9,997,962 (“the ’962 Patent”): Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 18 and 19.
`
`Scramoge reserves the right to seek leave of court to add, delete, substitute, or otherwise
`
`amend this list of asserted claims should further discovery, the Court’s claim construction, or other
`
`circumstances so merit.
`
`II.
`
`Accused Products
`
`Scramoge contends that the Asserted Claims are infringed by the various apparatuses used,
`
`made, sold, offered for sale, or imported into the United States by Apple (the “Accused Products”).
`
`The Accused Products include at least the following, as well as products with reasonably similar
`
`functionality:
`
`• The Asserted Claims of the ’842, ’215, and ’962 Patents: iPhone 8, 8 Plus, X, XR, XS,
`
`XS Max, 11, 11 Pro, 11 Pro Max, SE (second generation), 12, 12 Mini, 12 Pro, 12 Pro
`
`Max, 13, 13 Mini, 13 Pro, and 13 Pro Max.
`
`• The Asserted Claims of the ’565 Patent: iPhone 12, 12 Mini, 12 Pro, 12 Pro Max, 13,
`
`13 Mini, 13 Pro, and 13 Pro Max.
`
`• The Asserted Claims of the ’740 Patent: iPhone 8, 8 Plus, X, XR, XS, XS Max, 11, 11
`
`Pro, 11 Pro Max, SE (second generation), 12, 12 Mini, 12 Pro, 12 Pro Max, 13, 13 Mini,
`
`13 Pro, 13 Pro Max, AirPods (second generation), and AirPods Pro.
`
`• The Asserted Claims of the ’941 Patent: Apple Watch, Watch Series 1, Watch Series 2,
`
`Watch Series 3, Watch Series 4, Watch Series 5, Watch Series 6, Watch Series SE, and
`
`Watch Series 7.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Scramoge Technology Ltd.
`Ex. 2010 - Page 2
`
`
`
`Scramoge reserves the right to amend this list of accused instrumentalities, as well as other
`
`information contained in this document and the exhibits hereto, to incorporate new information
`
`learned during the course of discovery, including, but not limited to, the inclusion of newly
`
`released products, versions, or any other equivalent devices ascertained through discovery.
`
`Further, to the extent any accused infringing products have gone through or will go through name
`
`changes, but were or will be used or sold with the same accused features, earlier corresponding
`
`products under different names also are accused.
`
`III. Claim Charts
`
`Claim charts identifying a location of every element of every asserted claim of the asserted
`
`Scramoge Patents within accused products are attached hereto as Exhibits A–H. Scramoge’s
`
`analysis of the Accused Products is based on limited publicly available information and based on
`
`Scramoge’s own investigation prior to any discovery in this action. In an effort to focus the issues,
`
`Scramoge identifies exemplary evidence for each claim limitation. The evidence cited for a
`
`particular limitation should be considered in light of the additional evidence cited for the other
`
`claim limitations. Scramoge reserves the right to rely on evidence cited for any particular
`
`limitation of an asserted claim for any other limitation asserted for that claim. Unless otherwise
`
`indicated, the information provided that corresponds to each claim element is considered to
`
`indicate that each claim element is found within each of the different variations of each respective
`
`Accused Products described above.
`
`Scramoge reserves the right to amend these claim charts, as well as other information
`
`contained in this document and the exhibits hereto. Scramoge further reserves the right to amend
`
`these claim charts to incorporate new information learned during the course of discovery,
`
`
`
`3
`
`Scramoge Technology Ltd.
`Ex. 2010 - Page 3
`
`
`
`including, but not limited to, information that is not publicly available or readily discernible
`
`without discovery or undue burden.
`
`IV.
`
`Literal Infringement / Doctrine of Equivalents
`
`Scramoge contends that Apple has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe the
`
`asserted claims by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and importing into the United States
`
`the Accused Products. Scramoge asserts that, under the proper construction of the asserted claims
`
`and their claim terms, the limitations of the asserted claims of the asserted Scramoge patents are
`
`literally present in the accused products, as set forth in the claim charts attached hereto as Exhibits
`
`A–H. Scramoge contends that any and all elements found not to be literally infringed are infringed
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents because the differences between the claimed inventions and the
`
`accused instrumentalities, if any, are insubstantial.
`
`Scramoge’s contention is that each limitation is literally met, and necessarily also would
`
`be met under the doctrine of equivalents because there are no substantial differences between the
`
`Accused Products and the claims, in function, way, or result. If Apple attempts to argue that there
`
`is no infringement literally and also no infringement under doctrine of equivalents and attempts to
`
`draw any distinction between the claimed functionality and the functionality in the Accused
`
`Products, then Scramoge reserves its right to rebut the alleged distinction as a matter of literal
`
`infringement and/or as to whether any such distinction is substantial under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents.
`
`Scramoge reserves the right to amend its Infringement Contentions as to literal
`
`infringement or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents in light of new information learned
`
`during the course of discovery and the Court’s claim construction.
`
`V.
`
`Priority Dates
`
`
`
`4
`
`Scramoge Technology Ltd.
`Ex. 2010 - Page 4
`
`
`
`The Asserted Claims are entitled to a priority date of at least the following:
`
`a.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,622,842: Each asserted claim of the ’842 Patent is entitled to
`
`at least a priority date of November 4, 2011.
`
`b.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,806,565: Each asserted claim of the ’565 Patent is entitled to at
`
`least a priority date of March 23, 2012.
`
`c.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,804,740: Each asserted claim of the ’740 Patent is entitled to
`
`at least a priority date of March 23, 2012.
`
`d.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,843,215: Each asserted claim of the ’215 Patent is entitled to at
`
`least a priority date of March 4, 2014.
`
`e.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,424,941: Each asserted claim of the ’941 Patent is entitled to
`
`at least a priority date of January 28, 2014.
`
`f.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,997,962: Each asserted claim of the ’962 Patent is entitled to at
`
`least a priority date of June 27, 2013.
`
`VI.
`
`Identification of Instrumentalities Practicing the Claimed Inventions
`
`At this time, Scramoge is not relying on any assertion that any of its own instrumentalities
`
`practice the claims of the Asserted Patents.
`
`VII. Document Production Accompanying Disclosure
`
`Scramoge submits the following Document Production Accompanying Disclosure, along
`
`with an identification of the categories to which each of the documents corresponds.
`
`Scramoge is presently unaware of any documents sufficient to evidence any discussion
`
`with, disclosure to, or other manner of providing to a third party, or sale of or offer to sell, the
`
`inventions recited in the Asserted Claims of the asserted patents prior to the application date or
`
`
`
`5
`
`Scramoge Technology Ltd.
`Ex. 2010 - Page 5
`
`
`
`priority date for the asserted patents. A diligent search continues for documents and Scramoge
`
`reserves the right to supplement this response.
`
`Scramoge is presently unaware of documents regarding the conception, reduction to
`
`practice, design, and development of each claimed invention of the asserted patents, which were
`
`created before the date of application for the asserted patent or the priority date identified above.
`
`A diligent search continues for documents and Scramoge reserves the right to supplement this
`
`response.
`
`Scramoge identifies the following documents as being the file histories for the Asserted
`
`Patents: SCRAMOGE-APPLE-00000068 - SCRAMOGE-APPLE-00004186.
`
`
`
`Dated: October 22, 2021
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Seth Hasenour
`
`
`Reza Mirzaie (CA SBN 246953)
`rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`Brett E. Cooper (NY SBN 4011011)
`bcooper@raklaw.com
`Marc A. Fenster (CA SBN 181067)
`mfenster@raklaw.com
`Brian D. Ledahl (CA SBN 186579)
`bledahl@raklaw.com
`Seth Hasenour (TX SBN 24059910)
`shasenour@raklaw.com
`James A. Milkey (CA SBN 281213)
`jmilkey@raklaw.com
`Drew B. Hollander (NY SBN 5378096)
`dhollander@raklaw.com
`Christian W. Conkle (CA SBN 306374)
`cconkle@raklaw.com
`Jonathan Ma (CA SBN 312773)
`jma@raklaw.com
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`
`
`
`6
`
`Scramoge Technology Ltd.
`Ex. 2010 - Page 6
`
`
`
`Telephone: (310) 826-7474
`Facsimile: (310) 826-6991
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Scramoge Technology
`Ltd.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that this document is being served upon counsel of record for Defendant on
`
`October 22, 2021 via electronic service.
`
`/s/ Drew Hollander
` Drew Hollander
`
`7
`
`Scramoge Technology Ltd.
`Ex. 2010 - Page 7
`
`