Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 16 Filed 04/12/22 Page 1 of 37 PageID #: 384
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`NETLIST, INC.
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`and SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Case No. 2:21-cv-00463-JRG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`THE SAMSUNG DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER
`
`Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”), Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(“SEA”), and Samsung Electronics Semiconductor, Inc. (“SSI”) (collectively referred to herein
`
`as “Samsung” or “Defendants”) file this Answer to the Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`(“Complaint”; Dkt. No. 1) filed by Plaintiff Netlist, Inc. (“Netlist” or “Plaintiff”). Samsung
`
`denies the allegations and characterizations in Netlist’s Complaint unless expressly admitted in
`
`the following numbered paragraphs, which correspond to the numbered paragraphs in the
`
`Complaint.
`
`1.
`
`Samsung admits that Plaintiff’s pleading purports to be a Complaint against
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”), Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”), and
`
`Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (“SSI”). Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`
`
`1
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1072, p. 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 16 Filed 04/12/22 Page 2 of 37 PageID #: 385
`
`form a belief about the truth of the other allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies them.
`
`2.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 2 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung admits that purported copies of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,860,506 (the
`
`“’506 Patent,”), 10,949,339 (the “’339 Patent,”), and 11,016,918 (the “’918 Patent,”)
`
`(collectively, the “Patents-In-Suit”) are attached to the Complaint as Exhibits 1, 2, and 3,
`
`respectively. Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the other allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`THE PARTIES1
`
`3.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 3 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung admits that Netlist is a corporation organized and existing under
`
`the laws of the State of Delaware. Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the other allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies them.
`
`4.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 4 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. SEC admits it is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`Republic of Korea, with its principal place of business located at 129 Samsung-ro, Yeongtong-
`
`gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea. SEC admits that it is a parent corporation of
`
`SEA and SSI. SEC admits that the Device Solutions division has involvement in certain
`
`semiconductor products. SEC admits that it is involved in the design, manufacture, and
`
`
`1 Samsung repeats the headings set forth in the Complaint to simplify comparison of the
`Complaint and this response. In doing so, Samsung makes no admissions regarding the substance
`of the headings or any other allegations of the Complaint. Unless otherwise stated, to the extent
`that a particular heading can be construed as an allegation, Samsung specifically denies all such
`allegations.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1072, p. 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 16 Filed 04/12/22 Page 3 of 37 PageID #: 386
`
`provision of certain products sold by SEA. Samsung denies any remaining allegations of
`
`Paragraph 4.
`
`5.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 5 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. SEA admits it is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
`
`New York. SEA admits that it maintains an office at 6625 Excellence Way, Plano, Texas 75023
`
`and that its registered agent is CT Corporation System, located at 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900,
`
`Dallas, Texas 75201. SEA further admits that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of SEC. Samsung
`
`denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 5.
`
`6.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 6 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. SSI admits that it is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
`
`California. SSI admits that its registered agent is National Registered Agents, Inc., 1999 Bryan
`
`St., Ste. 900, Dallas, TX 75201. SSI further admits that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of SEA.
`
`Samsung denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 6.
`
`7.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 7 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung denies that SEC and SSI make the Accused Instrumentalities in
`
`this judicial district. Samsung denies that SEA makes or sells the Accused Instrumentalities in
`
`this judicial district. Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the other allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 8 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1338 in that this this action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35
`
`U.S.C. Title 35 § 101 et seq., but denies that Netlist’s claims are meritorious. Samsung denies
`
`all allegations of patent infringement, and further denies that Netlist is entitled to any relief for
`
`
`
`3
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1072, p. 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 16 Filed 04/12/22 Page 4 of 37 PageID #: 387
`
`its allegations of patent infringement whether by award of damages, injunction, or otherwise.
`
`Samsung denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 8.
`
`9.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 9 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Except as expressly admitted, Samsung lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 9, and
`
`therefore denies them.
`
`10.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 10 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung denies that SEC and SSI make the Accused Instrumentalities in
`
`the State of Texas or the Eastern District of Texas. Samsung denies that SEA makes or sells the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities in the State of Texas or the Eastern District of Texas. Except as
`
`expressly admitted, Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 10, and therefore denies them.
`
`11.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 11 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung denies that SEC maintains a regular and established place of
`
`business at 6625 Excellence Way, Plano, Texas 75023. Samsung admits that SEA maintains an
`
`office at 6625 Excellence Way, Plano, Texas 75023. Samsung denies that is has committed acts
`
`of infringement in this District or elsewhere, or that it has committed any act, directly or
`
`indirectly, that would give rise to any cause of action under the Complaint. Samsung denies that
`
`venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and/or 1400(b), in part,
`
`because the Patents-In-Suit are properly part of a declaratory judgment action in the District of
`
`Delaware, which was filed over two months before this action. See Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`Ltd., et al. v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01453, D.I. 1 (D. Del.) (the “Delaware Declaratory
`
`Judgment Action”) (filed on October 15, 2021). Because Samsung filed the Delaware
`
`
`
`4
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1072, p. 4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 16 Filed 04/12/22 Page 5 of 37 PageID #: 388
`
`Declaratory Judgment Action before this action, the claims should proceed in Delaware under
`
`the first-to-file rule. See Merial Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., 681 F.3d 1283, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2012). This
`
`rule applies in cases of duplicative infringement and declaratory judgment actions filed in
`
`separate district courts. See, e.g., id.; see also Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle, 394 F.3d 1341,
`
`1345–46 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The Delaware Declaratory Judgment Action is the first-filed action
`
`with respect to the claims concerning the Patents-In-Suit because these claims relate back to the
`
`claims in Samsung’s complaint in the Delaware Declaratory Judgment Action. See Merial, 681
`
`F.3d at 1299 (“[W]hat matters is the initiation of suit.”); see also Anza Tech., Inc. v. Mushkin,
`
`Inc. 934 F.3d 1359, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[N]ewly alleged claims, based on separate
`
`patents, relate back to the date of the original complaint” where “the general factual situation or
`
`the aggregate of operative facts underlying the original claim for relief [gives] notice to [the
`
`other party] of the nature of the allegations it was being called upon to answer.”). Samsung
`
`denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 11
`
`12.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 12 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung admits that it did not contest proper venue in Arbor or Acorn
`
`solely for the purposes of those actions. See Arbor Global Strategies LLC v. Samsung Elecs.
`
`Co., Ltd., No. 2:19-cv-333, Dkt. 43 at ¶ 10 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2020) (“The Samsung
`
`Defendants, however, do not contest, solely for purposes of the present action, whether venue
`
`over them properly lies in this District, but the Samsung Defendants deny that venue in this
`
`District is convenient.”) (emphasis added); see also Acorn Semi, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`
`Ltd., No. 2:19-cv-347, Dkt. 14 at ¶ 29 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 12, 2020) (“Samsung does not contest at
`
`this time, and solely for the purpose of the present litigation, whether venue over it properly lies
`
`in this District, but SEC, SSI and SAS deny that venue in this District is convenient and SEC,
`
`
`
`5
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1072, p. 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 16 Filed 04/12/22 Page 6 of 37 PageID #: 389
`
`SSI and SAS reserve the right to seek transfer to a more appropriate or convenient forum have
`
`not contested proper venue in this District.”) (emphasis added). Except as expressly admitted,
`
`the Samsung Defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 12, and therefore deny them.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`Background
`
`13.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 13 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the other allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`14.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 14 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the other allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`15.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 15 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung denies that the allegations in paragraph 15 of the Complaint are
`
`complete or accurate, and on that basis denies them.
`
`16.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 16 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung admits that the JEDEC Solid State Technology Association
`
`(“JEDEC”) is a standardization body that develops open standards and publications for a broad
`
`range of semiconductor technologies, including memory modules. Samsung denies that the
`
`remaining allegations in paragraph 16 of the Complaint are complete or accurate, and on that
`
`basis denies them.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1072, p. 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 16 Filed 04/12/22 Page 7 of 37 PageID #: 390
`
`The ’506 Patent
`
`The Asserted Netlist Patents
`
`17.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 17 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung admits that the ’506 Patent states, on its face, that it is entitled
`
`“Memory Module With Timing-Controlled Data Buffering” and that it lists Hyun Lee and Jayesh
`
`R. Bhakta as inventors. Samsung further admits that the ’506 Patent states, on its face, that it
`
`was filed as Application No. 16/391,151 on April 22, 2019, issued as a patent on December 8,
`
`2020, and purports to claim priority to, among others, a utility application filed on July 27, 2013
`
`(No. 13/952,599) and a provisional application filed on July 27, 2012 (No. 61/676,883).
`
`Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the other
`
`allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`18.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 18 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint.
`
`19.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 19 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung admits that the ’506 Patent includes the language “distribution of
`
`control signals and a control clock signal in the memory module is subject to strict constraints.”
`
`’506 Patent at 2:17-19. Samsung admits that the ’506 Patent includes the language “control
`
`wires are routed so there is an equal length to each memory component, in order to eliminate
`
`variation of the timing of the control signals and the control clock signal between different
`
`memory devices in the memory modules.” ’506 Patent at 2:19-23. Samsung admits that the
`
`’506 Patent includes the language “[t]he balancing of the length of the wires to each memory
`
`devices compromises system performance, limits the number of memory devices, and
`
`complicates their connections.” ’506 Patent at 2:23-26. Samsung admits that the ’506 Patent
`
`includes the language “such leveling mechanisms are also insufficient to insure proper timing of
`
`
`
`7
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1072, p. 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 16 Filed 04/12/22 Page 8 of 37 PageID #: 391
`
`the control and/or data signals received and/or transmitted by the memory modules.” ’506 Patent
`
`at 2:32-34. Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the other allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`20.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 20 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung admits that the ’506 Patent includes the language “[e]ach
`
`respective buffer circuit is configured to receive the module control signals and the module clock
`
`signal, and to buffer a respective set of data signals in response to the module control signals and
`
`the module clock signal. Each respective buffer circuit includes a delay circuit configured to
`
`delay the respective set of data signals by an amount determined based on at least one of the
`
`module control signals.” ’506 Patent at Abstract. Samsung lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the other allegations in Paragraph 20 of the
`
`Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`21.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 21 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung admits that the ’506 Patent includes Figure 2A (modified in
`
`Paragraph 21 of the Complaint with Netlist annotations). Samsung admits that the ’506 Patent
`
`includes the language “[b]ecause the isolation devices 118 are distributed across the memory
`
`module 110, during high speed operations, it may take more than one clock cycle time of the
`
`system clock MCK for the module control signals to travel along the module control signals
`
`lines 230 from the module control device 116 to the farthest positioned isolation devices 118,
`
`such as isolation device ID-1 and isolation device ID-(n−1) in the exemplary configuration
`
`shown in FIG. 2.” ’506 Patent at 9:52-59. Samsung admits that the ’506 Patent includes the
`
`language “each isolation devices includes signal alignment circuits that determine, during a write
`
`operation, a time interval between a time when one or more module control signals are received
`
`
`
`8
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1072, p. 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 16 Filed 04/12/22 Page 9 of 37 PageID #: 392
`
`from the module control circuit 116 and a time when a write strobe or write data signal is
`
`received from the MCH 101. This time interval is used during a subsequent read operation to
`
`time the transmission of read data to the MCH 101, such that the read data follows a read
`
`command by a read latency value associated with the system 100 . . .” ’506 Patent at 10:11-20.
`
`Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the other
`
`allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`The ’339 Patent
`
`22.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 22 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung admits that the ’339 Patent states, on its face, that it is entitled
`
`“Memory Module With Controlled Byte-Wise Buffers” and that it lists Hyun Lee and Jayesh R.
`
`Bhakta as inventors. Samsung further admits that the ’339 Patent states, on its face, that it was
`
`filed as Application No. 15/470,856 on March 27, 2017, issued as a patent on March 16, 2021,
`
`and purports to claim priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 12/504,131 filed on July 16, 2009,
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 12/761,179 filed on April 15, 2010, and U.S. Application No.
`
`13/970,606 filed on August 20, 2013. Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the other allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies them.
`
`23.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 23 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint.
`
`24.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 24 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung admits that the ’339 Patent includes the language “consideration
`
`is always given to memory density, power dissipation (or thermal dissipation), speed, and cost.”
`
`’339 Patent at 2:5-7. Samsung admits that the ’339 Patent includes the language “[g]enerally,
`
`these attributes are not orthogonal to each other, meaning that optimizing one attribute may
`
`
`
`9
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1072, p. 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 16 Filed 04/12/22 Page 10 of 37 PageID #: 393
`
`detrimentally affect another attribute. For example, increasing memory density typically causes
`
`higher power dissipation, slower operational speed, and higher costs.” ’339 Patent at 2:7-12.
`
`Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the other
`
`allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`25.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 25 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung admits that the ’339 Patent includes the language “[t]he
`
`registered address and control signals selects one of the multiple ranks to perform the read or
`
`write operation. The module controller further outputs a set of module control signals in
`
`response to the input address and control signals. The memory module further comprises a
`
`plurality of byte-wise buffers controlled by the set of module control signals to actively drive
`
`respective byte-wise sections of each data signal associated with the read or write operation
`
`between the memory controller and the selected rank.” ’339 Patent at Abstract. Samsung lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the other allegations in
`
`Paragraph 25 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`26.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 26 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung admits that the ’339 Patent includes Figure 3A (modified in
`
`Paragraph 26 of the Complaint with Netlist annotations). Samsung admits that the ’339 Patent
`
`includes the language “[r]eferring again to FIG. 3A, when the memory controller 420 executes
`
`read or write operations, each specific operation is targeted to a specific one of the ranks A, B, C,
`
`and D of a specific memory module 402. The data transmission circuit 416 on the specifically
`
`targeted one of the memory modules 402 functions as a bidirectional repeater/multiplexor, such
`
`that it drives the data signal when connecting from the system memory controller 420 to the
`
`memory devices 412. The other data transmission circuits 416 on the remaining memory
`
`
`
`10
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1072, p. 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 16 Filed 04/12/22 Page 11 of 37 PageID #: 394
`
`modules 402 are disabled for the specific operation. . . . Thus, the memory controller 420, when
`
`there are four four-rank memory modules, sees four load-reducing switching circuit loads,
`
`instead of sixteen memory device loads. The reduced load on the memory
`
`controller 420 enhances the performance and reduces the power requirements of the memory
`
`system . . .” ’339 Patent at 17:14-42. Samsung admits that the ’339 Patent includes the language
`
`“the data transmission circuit 416 comprises or functions as a byte-wise buffer. In certain such
`
`embodiments, each of the one or more transmission circuits 416 has the same bit width as does
`
`the associated memory devices 412 per rank to which the data transmission circuit 416 is
`
`operatively coupled.” ’339 Patent at 13:31-36. Samsung lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the other allegations in Paragraph 26 of the
`
`Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`The ’918 Patent
`
`27.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 27 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung admits that the ’918 Patent states, on its face, that it is entitled
`
`“Flash-DRAM Hybrid Memory Module” and that it lists Chi-She Chen, Jeffrey C. Solomon,
`
`Scott H. Milton, and Jayesh Bhakta as inventors. Samsung further admits that the ’918 Patent
`
`states, on its face, that it was filed as Application No. 17/138,766 on December 30, 2020, issued
`
`as a patent on May 25, 2021, and purports to claim priority to U.S. Application No. 15/934,416
`
`filed on March 23, 2018, U.S. Application No. 14/840,865 filed on August 31, 2015, U.S.
`
`Application No. 14/489,269 filed on September 17, 2014, U.S. Application No. 13/559,476 filed
`
`on July 26, 2012, U.S. Application No. 12/240,916 filed on September 29, 2008, and U.S.
`
`Application No. 12/131,873 filed on June 2, 2008 as well as to two provisional applications, filed
`
`on June 1, 2007 (No. 60/941,586) and July 28, 2011 (No. 61/512,871). Samsung lacks
`
`
`
`11
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1072, p. 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 16 Filed 04/12/22 Page 12 of 37 PageID #: 395
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the other allegations in
`
`Paragraph 27 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`28.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 28 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint.
`
`29.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 29 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung admits that the ’918 Patent includes the language “[f]irst, second,
`
`and third buck converters receive a pre-regulated input voltage and produce first, second and
`
`third regulated voltages. A converter circuit reduces the pre-regulated input voltage to provide a
`
`fourth regulated voltage. Synchronous dynamic random access memory (SDRAM) devices are
`
`coupled to one or more regulated voltages of the first, second, third and fourth regulated
`
`voltages, and a voltage monitor circuit monitors an input voltage and produces a signal in
`
`response to the input voltage having a voltage amplitude that is greater than a threshold voltage.”
`
`’918 Patent at Abstract. Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
`
`to the truth of the other allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`30.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 30 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung admits that the ’918 Patent includes Figure 16. Samsung lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the other allegations in
`
`Paragraph 30 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`31.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 31 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung admits that the ’918 Patent includes the language “[t]he power
`
`module 1100 provides a plurality of voltages to the memory system 1010 comprising non-
`
`volatile and volatile memory subsystems 1030, 1040. The plurality of voltages comprises at
`
`least a first voltage 1102 and a second voltage 1104. The power module 1100 comprises an
`
`
`
`12
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1072, p. 12
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 16 Filed 04/12/22 Page 13 of 37 PageID #: 396
`
`input 1106 providing a third voltage 1108 to the power module 1100 and a voltage conversion
`
`element 1120 configured to provide the second voltage 1104 to the memory system 1010. The
`
`power module 1100 further comprises a first power element 1130 configured to selectively
`
`provide a fourth voltage 1110 to the conversion element 1120. In certain embodiments, the first
`
`power element 1130 comprises a pulse-width modulation power controller.” ’918 Patent at 28:3-
`
`15. Samsung admits that the ’918 Patent includes the language “[t]he conversion
`
`element 1120 can comprise one or more buck converters and/or one or more buck-boost
`
`converters.” ’918 Patent at 29:18-19. Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the other allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies them.
`
`32.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 32 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung admits that a purported copy of a Notice of Allowance issued on
`
`December 10, 2021 for pending claims of Application No. 17/138,019, a continuation of the ’918
`
`Patent, is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 4. Samsung lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the other allegations in Paragraph 32 of the
`
`Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`33.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 33 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung admits that a purported copy of a Samsung webpage is attached
`
`to the Complaint as Exhibit 12 and includes the language “on-DIMM PMIC further boosts power
`
`management efficiency and power supply stability,” but Samsung denies that the language from
`
`the webpage that Netlist cites is complete, and on that basis denies the allegation. Samsung lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the other allegations in
`
`Paragraph 33 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1072, p. 13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 16 Filed 04/12/22 Page 14 of 37 PageID #: 397
`
`Samsung’s Activities2
`
`34.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 34 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung admits certain subsidiaries of SEC manufacture semiconductor
`
`memory products such as DRAM, NAND Flash and MCP (Multi-Chip Package). Samsung
`
`admits that certain Samsung entities make memory components and memory modules designed
`
`for, among other things, use in servers such as those supporting cloud-based computing and other
`
`applications. Samsung denies that SEC and SSI make the Accused Instrumentalities in the State
`
`of Texas or the Eastern District of Texas. Samsung denies that SEA makes or sells the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities in the States of Texas or the Eastern District of Texas. Samsung lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the trust of the other allegations in
`
`Paragraph 34 on the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`35.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 35 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung admits that Samsung filed a declaratory judgment action in the
`
`District of Delaware and that Netlist moved to dismiss each count of Samsung’s original
`
`complaint in Delaware. However, Netlist’s motion to dismiss each count of Samsung’s original
`
`complaint was dismissed as moot because Samsung’s original complaint is no longer operative.
`
`See Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01453, D.I. 17 (D.
`
`Del.). This is because Samsung filed its First Amended Complaint on January 18, 2022. See
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01453, D.I. 14 (D. Del.).
`
`Netlist moved to dismiss each count of Samsung’s First Amended Complaint on February 16,
`
`2022. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. v. Netlist, Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-01453, D.I. 25 at 5
`
`(D. Del.). Samsung further admits that Samsung was a licensee of Netlist until at least July 15,
`
`
`2 Samsung denies the allegation contained in the header preceding Paragraph 34.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1072, p. 14
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 16 Filed 04/12/22 Page 15 of 37 PageID #: 398
`
`2020. Samsung denies that the remaining allegations in Paragraph 35 are complete or accurate,
`
`and on that basis denies them.
`
`36.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 36 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung admits that certain Samsung entities make DDR4 LRDIMMs,
`
`DDR5 RDIMMs, DDR5 SODIMMs, and DDR5 UDIMMs. Samsung denies that SEC and SSI
`
`make the Accused Instrumentalities in the State of Texas or the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`Samsung denies that SEA makes or sells the Accused Instrumentalities. Samsung lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the other allegations in
`
`Paragraph 36 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`37.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 37 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung admits that certain Samsung entities make certain DDR4
`
`products. Samsung further admits that Samsung lists DDR4 LRDIMM products on its website.
`
`Samsung denies that SEC and SSI make the Accused Instrumentalities in the State of Texas or
`
`the Eastern District of Texas. Samsung denies that SEA makes or sells the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities. Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the other allegations in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`38.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 38 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung admits that a purported copy of a Samsung press release
`
`publicized on October 12, 2021 is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 5 and purports to show
`
`certain DDR5 products. Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
`
`to the truth of the other allegations in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF – ’506 PATENT
`
`39.
`
`Samsung incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1-38 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`Ex. 1072, p. 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00463-JRG Document 16 Filed 04/12/22 Page 16 of 37 PageID #: 399
`
`40.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 40 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint.
`
`41.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 41 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint.
`
`42.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 42 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is