throbber
CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`KONINKLIJKE KPN N.V.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`VS.
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM
`ERICSSON AND ERICSSON INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-282-JRG
`
`JURY TRIAL
`
`ERICSSON'S P.R. 3-3 INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 3-3, P.R. 3-4, and the Comt 's Docket Contrnl Order in the above(cid:173)
`
`captioned case (Dkt. 45), Ericsson Telefonaktiebolaget LM and Ericsson Inc. (collectively
`
`"Ericsson") serve their Preliminary Invalidity Contentions with respect to the claims identified
`
`by Plaintiff KPN Koninklijke KPN N .V. ("KPN") in its Disclosme of Asserted Claims and
`
`Infringement Contentions for Ericsson (January 5, 2023) ("Infringement Contentions").
`
`I.
`
`Preliminary Statement and Reservation of Rights
`
`A.
`
`The Asserted Claims
`
`According to the Infringement Contentions, KPN asse1ts the following patents, claims,
`
`and priority dates in its Infringement Contentions.
`
`Asse1ted Patent
`7,092,705
`8,660,560
`8,886,772
`9,372,098
`10,924,500
`
`Asse1ted Claims
`1-6, and 22-25
`1 and 6-8
`1-6, 10 and 11
`17 and 20
`1, 5, 7, 9 and 10
`
`Asse1ted Priority Date( s)
`October 9, 2001
`August 7, 2008 or October 28, 2008 or October 7, 2009
`March 6, 2008 or July 31, 2008 or August 5, 2008
`October 23, 2007 or October 28, 2008,
`October 11, 2011 or October 31, 2011 or November 22,
`2012
`
`The patents identified in the foregoing table are collectively refened to as the "Asserted
`
`Patents," and the claims identified in the foregoing table are collectively refe1Ted to as the
`
`1
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV - Exhibit 2008
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN NV PTAB-IPR2023-00581
`Page 1 of 78
`
`

`

`CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
`
`“Asserted Claims.” Any reference to an “asserted priority date” in these Preliminary Invalidity
`
`Contentions refers to the “Asserted Priority Dates” identified in the foregoing table, and further
`
`defined in section I.B, infra.
`
`Ericsson contends that each of the Asserted Claims is invalid under at least one or more
`
`of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, or 112. Pursuant to the Local Patent Rules, Ericsson does not
`
`provide any contentions regarding any claims not asserted by KPN. To the extent that the Court
`
`permits KPN to assert additional claims against Ericsson in the future, Ericsson reserves all
`
`rights to amend or supplement these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions or to otherwise disclose
`
`new or supplemental invalidity contentions regarding such claims. Furthermore, because
`
`discovery is ongoing, 1 Ericsson reserves the right to revise, amend, and/or supplement the
`
`information provided herein, including identifying, charting, and relying on additional
`
`references, should discovery yield additional information or references.
`
`Ericsson further reserves the right to amend these contentions in response to any claim
`
`construction rulings, as permitted by the Local Patent Rules or with permission of the Court.
`
`Ericsson incorporates by reference the invalidity contentions from any past, current, or
`
`future case involving one or more of the asserted patents, including, but not limited to the
`
`following cases: Koninklijke KPN NV v. Xiaomi Corporation et al., 1-21-cv-00041 (DDE);
`
`1 Ericsson’s ongoing efforts include but are not limited to: serving subpoenas on prior artists and
`inventors regarding prior art, seeking additional information related to the references and
`systems disclosed in these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, and seeking additional
`information related to available prior art systems, as well as KPN’s Infringement Contentions
`and the products accused of infringing therein. No depositions have been taken as of this time,
`including, without limitation, depositions of any inventors, authors, or entities listed on any
`references or systems identified in these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions. Further, Ericsson
`reserve the right to review and supplement these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions with respect
`to any additional prior art that becomes apparent as discovery proceeds.
`
`2
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV - Exhibit 2008
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN NV PTAB-IPR2023-00581
`Page 2 of 78
`
`

`

`CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV v. u-blox AG et al., 1-21-cv-00046 (DDE); Koninklijke KPN NV v. Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. et al., 2-14-cv-01165 (EDTX).
`
`The Infringement Contentions are deficient in multiple respects and do not provide
`
`Ericsson with sufficient information to understand the specific accused features and components
`
`and the alleged factual and evidentiary bases for KPN’s infringement allegations. Among other
`
`things, the Infringement Contentions lack the specificity required by P.R. 3-1, fail to properly
`
`identify accused instrumentalities, and fail to explain adequately KPN’s infringement theories for
`
`numerous limitations. KPN has prejudiced Ericsson’s ability to understand, for purposes of
`
`preparing these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, what KPN alleges to be the scope of the
`
`Asserted Claims. If KPN modifies any assertion or contention in its Infringement Contentions, or
`
`presents any new assertion or contention relevant to these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions to
`
`the extent allowed by the Local Patent Rules or the Court, Ericsson reserves the right to
`
`supplement or otherwise amend these initial Invalidity Contentions.
`
`B.
`
`Priority Date Of The Asserted Patents
`
`KPN’s Infringement Contentions contain allegations regarding the priority date to which
`
`KPN alleges it is entitled for each of the Asserted Claims. Ericsson does not agree that KPN is
`
`entitled to the Asserted Priority Dates for each of the Asserted Claims, as KPN has failed to
`
`prove it is entitled to its Asserted Priority Dates.
`
`Any reference to an “asserted priority date” in these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions
`
`refers to the priority dates identified in KPN’s Infringement Contentions. Reference to a “priority
`
`date” or an “asserted priority date” should not be construed to mean that Ericsson agrees that any
`
`of the Asserted Patents are in fact entitled to such priority date, or that KPN has provided proper
`
`3
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV - Exhibit 2008
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN NV PTAB-IPR2023-00581
`Page 3 of 78
`
`

`

`CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
`
`notice as to its contentions for a priority date. 2 To the extent KPN alleges that any prior art relied
`
`on in these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions does not actually qualify as prior art to an
`
`Asserted Patent, Ericsson reserves the right to rebut those allegations (e.g., by demonstrating an
`
`earlier critical date for the challenged prior art and/or a later priority date for a particular
`
`Asserted Patent and/or Asserted Claim). 3 Likewise, to the extent KPN successfully establishes
`
`an invention date before any of the prior-art references relied on by Ericsson, then those
`
`references serve as evidence of obviousness, particularly, contemporaneous invention by others.
`
`C.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`Ericsson’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions are based on (1) Ericsson’s present
`
`understanding of the Asserted Claims, (2) the claim constructions KPN appears to be proposing
`
`based on the Infringement Contentions, all without regard to whether Ericsson agrees with
`
`KPN’s apparent or expressed claim constructions, (3) the Court’s Markman Order in Koninklijke
`
`KPN NV v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al., 2-14-cv-01165-JRG (E.D. Tex.), and (4)
`
`KPN’s positions taken in the Joint Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. No. 57) filed in KPN v.
`
`Xiaomi, 21-cv-00041-GBW-CJB (D. Del. June 10, 2022). Ericsson reserves the right to
`
`supplement or otherwise amend these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions in response to any
`
`proposed claim constructions or alleged supporting evidence offered by KPN, any report from
`
`any expert witness for KPN regarding claim construction issues, any claim construction briefing
`
`filed by KPN, and any position taken by KPN concerning claim construction, infringement, or
`
`invalidity.
`
`2 Ericsson reserves the right to rely on additional documents and evidence, including without
`limitation the documents cited in KPN’s Infringement Contentions, in the event that KPN fails to
`establish that any Asserted Claim of any Asserted Patent is entitled to its Asserted Priority Date.
`3 Ericsson reserves the right to rely on additional documents and evidence to rebut any efforts by
`KPN to allege any reference was not publicly available or otherwise available as prior art.
`
`4
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV - Exhibit 2008
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN NV PTAB-IPR2023-00581
`Page 4 of 78
`
`

`

`CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
`
`Ericsson takes no position on any matter of claim construction in these Preliminary
`
`Invalidity Contentions. If Ericsson’s apparent claim constructions herein are consistent with any
`
`explicit, apparent, or implied claim constructions in the Infringement Contentions, no inference
`
`is intended and no inference should be drawn that Ericsson agrees with any of KPN’s claim
`
`constructions. Any statement herein describing or tending to describe any claim element is
`
`provided solely for the purpose of understanding and/or applying the cited prior art. Ericsson
`
`expressly reserves the right (1) to propose any claim construction Ericsson considers appropriate,
`
`(2) to contest any claim construction proposed by KPN that Ericsson considers inappropriate or
`
`inaccurate, and/or (3) to take positions with respect to claim construction issues that are
`
`inconsistent with, or even contradictory to, claim construction positions expressed or implied in
`
`these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions.
`
`Prior art not included in these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, whether now known to
`
`Ericsson, might become relevant depending on the claim constructions proposed by Ericsson
`
`and/or the Court’s claim construction rulings. Ericsson reserves all rights to supplement or
`
`modify the positions and information in these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, including
`
`without limitation the prior art and grounds of invalidity set forth herein, pursuant to P.R. 3-6
`
`after the Court has construed the Asserted Claims.
`
`D.
`
`Ongoing Discovery and Supplementation
`
`Ericsson’s investigation, including its investigation of prior art and grounds for invalidity,
`
`is ongoing. Furthermore, Ericsson’s invalidity positions will be the subject of expert testimony.
`
`Ericsson bases these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions on their current knowledge and
`
`understanding of the Asserted Claims, KPN’s Infringement Contentions, the prior art, systems,
`
`and other facts and information available as of the date of these contentions.
`
`5
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV - Exhibit 2008
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN NV PTAB-IPR2023-00581
`Page 5 of 78
`
`

`

`CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
`
`Ericsson reserves the right to supplement these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions,
`
`including, without limitation, by adding additional prior art and grounds of invalidity in
`
`accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules, the Local Patent Rules,
`
`the Docket Control Order, any Order issued by this Court, or otherwise.
`
`E.
`
`Prior Art Identification and Citations Thereto
`
`In these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, Ericsson identifies specific portions of prior
`
`art references that disclose the elements of the Asserted Claims. While Ericsson has identified
`
`exemplary prior art references for each element, they do not necessarily identify every disclosure
`
`of the same element in each prior art reference. A person of ordinary skill in the art would read a
`
`prior art reference as a whole and in the context of other publications, literature, and general
`
`knowledge in the field and would rely upon other information including other publications and
`
`general scientific or engineering knowledge. Ericsson therefore reserves the right to rely upon
`
`other unidentified portions of the prior art references and on other publications and prior art
`
`products and expert testimony to provide context and to aid understanding and interpretation of
`
`the identified portions of the prior art.
`
`Ericsson also reserves the right to rely upon (1) other portions of the cited prior art
`
`references, other publications, prior art products, and the testimony of experts to establish that
`
`the alleged inventions would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, including
`
`on the basis of modifying or combining certain cited references; (2) all versions of a cited prior
`
`art publication (e.g., citations to 3GPP technical specifications and/or reports include all
`
`versions of such technical specifications and/or reports that qualify as prior art, citations to an
`
`issued patent include the published patent application, etc.); (3) admissions relating to prior art in
`
`the Asserted Patents or related patents, the prosecution history of the Asserted Patents or related
`
`6
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV - Exhibit 2008
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN NV PTAB-IPR2023-00581
`Page 6 of 78
`
`

`

`CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
`
`patents, or other admissions obtained during discovery; and (4) foreign counterparts of any U.S.
`
`patents identified in Ericsson’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions.
`
`Where Ericsson identifies a particular figure in a prior art reference, the identification
`
`should be understood to encompass the caption and description of the figure as well as any text
`
`relating to the figure in the remainder of the prior art reference (e.g., for patent references, text in
`
`the specification and prosecution history). Similarly, where an identified portion of text refers to
`
`a figure or other material, the identification of the text should be understood to include the
`
`referenced figure or other material.
`
`All related prior art references that are themselves subparts or related documents of a
`
`broader set of documents, such as all references that form part of a single Release of an industry
`
`standard, should be considered a single prior art reference, as that is how a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would consider such related references.
`
`F.
`
`Invalidity, Unenforceability and/or Ineligibility Based On Non-Required
`Disclosure(s)
`
`Ericsson reserves the right to prove the invalidity, unenforceability and/or ineligibility of
`
`one or more of the Asserted Claims on bases other than those required to be disclosed in these
`
`disclosures pursuant to P.R. 3-3.
`
`G.
`
`No Patentable Weight
`
`Ericsson reserves the right to argue that various portions of the Asserted Claims, such as
`
`an intended use or result, non-functional descriptive material, and certain preamble language, are
`
`entitled to no patentable weight. Mapping of a portion of an Asserted Claim to a prior art
`
`reference does not represent that such portion of the claim is entitled to patentable weight when
`
`comparing the claimed subject matter to the prior art.
`
`II.
`
`Invalidity Contentions
`
`7
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV - Exhibit 2008
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN NV PTAB-IPR2023-00581
`Page 7 of 78
`
`

`

`CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
`
`As explained herein and in Exhibits A to E, Ericsson contends that each of the Asserted
`
`Claims is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`A.
`
`P.R. 3-3(a) – Identification Of Prior Art
`
`Pursuant to P. R. 3-3(a), and subject to Ericsson’s reservation of rights as stated herein,
`
`Ericsson identifies the prior art that anticipates or renders obvious the Asserted Claims in the
`
`tables set forth below. 4 On information and belief, each listed reference qualifies as prior art to
`
`the Asserted Patents.
`
`To the extent that any of the following are prior art, Ericsson reserves the right to rely
`
`upon foreign counterparts of the U.S. patents identified herein; U.S. counterparts of foreign
`
`patents and foreign patent applications identified herein; and U.S. and foreign patents and patent
`
`applications corresponding to articles and publications identified herein. Ericsson also reserves
`
`the right to rely upon parent or provisional patents or ancestor patents or patent applications from
`
`which any of the patents or patent applications identified herein claim priority to as continuation,
`
`divisional, or continuation-in-part applications. Identifications of dates of publication are made
`
`based on currently available information and Ericsson reserves the right to rely upon an earlier
`
`date should evidence supporting an earlier date be discovered.
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
` Ericsson also hereby identifies any systems or products that embody the technology described
`in any patent or publication identified in these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions. Ericsson
`reserve the right to rely on any documents or other evidence regarding any such systems.
`
`8
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV - Exhibit 2008
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN NV PTAB-IPR2023-00581
`Page 8 of 78
`
`

`

`CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
`
`1.
`
`Identification Of Prior Art
`
`a)
`
`The '705 Patent
`
`Patent/Publication No ./Document Name
`
`US6901580 ("Iwanojko")
`US6877051 ("Iwanojoko 051 ")
`US6801571 ("Hyziak")
`US6760761 (Sciacca)
`US6581095 ("Kim")
`US6389281 ("Lee")
`US6098098 ("Sandahl")
`KR20000037612 (''Yu")
`GB2324440 ("Matthews")
`EP1366578 ("Scherzer")
`TSGR3#8(99)F33 13.05 - Node B O&M
`Functional Description v 0.2. ("13")
`Tdoc S5-99130 ("S5-99130")
`DE19813754 ("Hirsch")
`US6978301 ("Tindal")
`US5434798 ("Madebrink")
`US6141565 ("Feuerstein")
`US6085335 ("Dioko")
`US6725032 ("Sheridan")
`US6611500 ("Clarkson")
`GB0022743.9 ("Shipman GB")
`WO02/23806 ("Shipman WO")
`EP1221786 ("Shipman EP")
`US7096173 ("Rappapo1t")
`
`Date of
`Issue/Publication/Priority 5
`May 31, 2005
`April 5, 2005
`October 5, 2004
`July 6, 2004
`June 17, 2003
`May 14, 2002
`August 1, 2000
`July 5, 2000
`October 21, 1998
`Febm ary 6, 2001
`
`October 1999
`
`June 1996
`April 6, 2000
`December 20, 2005
`July 18, 1995
`October 31, 2000
`July 4, 2000
`October 8, 1999
`November 4, 1999
`September 15, 2000
`March 21, 2002
`January 9, 2001
`June 22, 2006
`
`5 For any patent that claims the benefit of a provisional application(s), Ericsson may rely on the
`provisional application(s) for purposes of establishing invalidity. Ericsson may also rely upon
`the date of filing of any issued patent or patent application to show the priority date of that
`reference.
`
`9
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV - Exhibit 2008
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN NV PTAB-IPR2023-00581
`Page 9 of 78
`
`

`

`CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
`
`b)
`
`The '772 Patent
`
`Patent/Publication No./Doclllllent Name
`
`13.05 -Node B O&M Functional Description v
`0.2.2 TSG-RAN Working Group 3 meeting #8
`TSGR3#8(99)F33 ("TSGR#8(99)")
`EP1928186B1
`https://www. broadband-
`f01um. org/technical/ download/TR-
`069 Amendment-2. pdf ("TR-069")
`US8019846 ("Rolens")
`https://www.ietf org/rfc/rfc3489. txt ("RFC3489")
`RFC 2131
`RFC 2132
`Kaminow (Selected Chapters)
`US7152117 ("Stapp")
`IP Routers McKeown
`EP1667359 ("van den Bosch")
`EP2053790 ("Wu")
`EP2515480 ("Wu")
`US8089953 ("Angelot P")
`US20040015572 ("Kang")
`US20030061315 ("Jin")
`US20090201830 ("Angelot")
`EP2124404B1 ("Ge")
`EP2106079 ("Ding")
`US20070268514 ("Freund 1 ")
`US20070268515 ("Freund 2")
`US20070268516 ("Freund 3")
`US20090150526 ("Wu")
`US8111631 ("Acke")
`US8125894 ("Jozef')
`US8150982 ("Zhang")
`EP2012502 ("Geng")
`US20040230965 (Okkonen")
`US20090086688 ("K vache")
`US6366780 ("Obhan")
`
`Date of
`Issue/Publication/Priority 6
`
`October 1999
`
`June 4, 2008
`
`December 2007
`
`September 13, 2011
`March 2003
`March 1997
`March 1997
`2008
`December 19, 2006
`2000
`June 7, 2006
`Aug 14, 2007
`Aug 14, 2007
`Jan 3, 2012
`Jan 22, 2004
`March 27, 2003
`August 13, 2009
`November 25, 2009
`September 30, 2009
`November 22, 2007
`November 22, 2007
`November 22, 2007
`June 11, 2009
`Febmarv 28, 2008
`Febmary 28, 2012
`March 4, 2010
`December 29, 2006
`November 18, 2004
`April 2, 2009
`April 2, 2002
`
`6 For any patent that claims the benefit of a provisional application(s), Ericsson may rely on the
`provisional application(s) for purposes of establishing invalidity. Ericsson may also rely upon
`the date of filing of any issued patent or patent application to show the priority date of that
`reference.
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV - Exhibit 2008
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN NV PTAB-IPR2023-00581
`Page 10 of 78
`
`

`

`CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
`
`October 6, 2005
`December 25, 2007
`January 22, 2004
`June 7, 2006
`
`December 2005
`
`US 20050223374 (Wishart)
`US 7313606 (Donahue")
`US 20040015572 ("Kang")
`EP 1667359 (Van Den Bosch)
`Bathrick, G. (2005) applying TR-069 to Remote
`Management of Home Networking Devices. DSL
`Fornm TR-111.
`Nikolaidis, A. E., Papastefanos, S. S.,
`Stassinopoulos, G. I., Drakos, M . P., & Doumenis, May2006
`G . A. (2006).
`US 8060623 (VogeL Jr.)
`US20050060361 ("Chatrath")
`US20020073182 ("Zakurdaev")
`An Introduction to Packet Switching ("McKeown")
`
`December 1, 2005
`March 17, 2005
`July 12, 2002
`2000
`
`c)
`
`The '560 Patent
`
`Patent/Publication No./Document Name
`
`US2009/0191862Al ("Amiriioo")
`US8,175,601 ("Engstrom")
`WO2009/075620 Al ("Engstrom")
`US8165 590 ("Gunnarsson")
`US6188904 ("Marsan")
`US2007 /0097938Al ("Nylander")
`TSG-SA5 (Telecom Management)
`Repo1t of Meeting SA5#54, 25 - 29 June 2007,
`Orlando, FL USA ("S5-071401 ")
`S5-
`3GPP TSG-SA5 (Telecom Management)
`071254 Meeting SA5#54, 25 - 29 June 2007,
`Orlando, FL USA ("S5-071254")
`S5-
`3GPP TSG-SA5 (Telecom Management)
`070974 Meeting SA5#53, 07 - 11 May 2007,
`Sophia Antipolis, FRANCE ("S5-070974")
`3GPP TR 32.816 V0.2.0 ("S5-070862")
`3GPP TR 32.816 V0.3.0 ("S5-071060")
`3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 #58 R2-072044
`Kobe, Japan, May 7-11, 2007 ("R2-072044")
`3GPP TR 32.816 V l.0.0
`
`Date of
`Issue/Publication/Priority 7
`July 30, 2009
`May 8, 2012
`June 18, 2009
`April 24, 2012
`Febrnary 13, 2001
`May 3, 2007
`
`July 29, 2007
`
`June 18, 2007
`
`May 4, 2007
`
`May 7, 2007
`May 15, 2007
`
`May 4, 2007
`
`May2007
`
`7 For any patent that claims the benefit of a provisional application(s), Ericsson may rely on the
`provisional application(s) for purposes of establishing invalidity. Ericsson may also rely upon
`the date of filing of any issued patent or patent application to show the priority date of that
`reference.
`
`11
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV - Exhibit 2008
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN NV PTAB-IPR2023-00581
`Page 11 of 78
`
`

`

`CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
`
`3GPP TR 32.816 Vl.3. 1
`3GPP TS 36.300 V8.7.0
`3GPP TS 36.300 V8.0.0
`3GPP TS 36.331 V8.7.0
`d)
`
`The '500 Patent
`
`Patent/Publication No ./Document Name
`
`WO 2011/072719 Al ("Eisl")
`US5999814 ("Cuffaro")
`us 2014/0109223 ("Jin 223")
`US6073010 ("Dufour")
`US9219744 ("Baliga")
`US 2004/0166857 ("Shim")
`US 2004/0166861 ("Trossen")
`US 2006/0230450 ("Bu")
`3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 #58bis R2-072411
`Orlando, USA ("R2-072411 ")
`3GPP TSG-RAN WG2 #77bis R2-121536
`Jeju, South Korea ("R2-121536")
`SAE and the Evolved Packet Core, Magnus
`0 ls son et al., Elsevier Academic Press, 2009
`("Olsson")
`Network Security Principles and Practices,
`Saadat Malik, Cisco Press, 2003 ("Malik")
`US5623535 ("Leung")
`
`e)
`
`The '098 Patent
`
`Patent/Publication No ./Document Name
`
`US5915225 ("Mills")
`US5546444 ("BellSouth")
`US2002/0125998 ("Petite")
`US9191774 ("Krco")
`
`November 2007
`January 5, 2009
`April 6, 2007
`September 29, 2009
`
`Date of
`Issue/Publication/Priority 8
`June 23, 2011
`December 7, 1999
`April 7, 2014
`June 6, 2000
`December 22, 2015
`Amrnst 26, 2004
`August 26, 2004
`October 12, 2006
`
`June 2007
`
`March 2012
`
`2009
`
`2003
`
`April 22, 1997
`
`Date of
`Issue/Publication/Priority 9
`June 22, 1999
`August 13, 1996
`September 12, 2002
`November 17, 2015
`
`8 For any patent that claims the benefit of a provisional application(s), Ericsson may rely on the
`provisional application(s) for purposes of establishing invalidity. Ericsson may also rely upon
`the date of filing of any issued patent or patent application to show the priority date of that
`reference.
`9 For any patent that claims the benefit of a provisional application(s), Ericsson may rely on the
`provisional application(s) for purposes of establishing invalidity. Ericsson may also rely upon
`the date of filing of any issued patent or patent application to show the priority date of that
`reference.
`
`12
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV - Exhibit 2008
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN NV PTAB-IPR2023-00581
`Page 12 of 78
`
`

`

`CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
`
`US7774008 ("Benaouda")
`ITU-T Recommendation 1.257.1
`ITU-T Recommendation Q.700
`ITU-T Recommendation Q.737.1
`ITU-T Recommendation Q.93 1
`ITU-T Recommendation Q.957.1
`3GPP TR 33.812
`3GPP TR 22.868
`3GPP TS 29.007
`3GPP TS 43.045
`
`Amrnst 10, 2010
`June 30, 1996
`May 16, 1994
`December 17, 1996
`May 11, 1999
`July 8, 1997
`September 2008
`March 2007
`June 2006
`December 2004
`
`2.
`
`Identification Of Prior Art Sales/Public Uses
`
`Item Offered for Sale and/or
`Publicly Used
`
`Date of Offer/Public
`Use
`
`Any product that utilizes the TR- Prior to the priority
`date of the '772 Patent
`069 standard.
`
`Ericsson 's Neighboming Cell
`Suooo1t (NCS) Applicat ion
`Any product having at least one
`of a Network Parameter
`Optimization Application and an
`expe1t system
`Automatic Neighbor Relation
`Technology Contributed to
`3GPP
`
`Prior to August 7,
`2008
`Prior to the priority
`date of the '705 Patent
`
`By June 25, 2007 to
`June 29, 2007
`
`MSC Products
`
`Prior to October 23,
`2007
`
`Person or Entity
`Who Made and
`Received Offer,
`Made Public Use, or
`Made Information Known
`Exemplar y companies may
`include N okia, Apple, Verizon,
`AT & T, and Ring Central
`Ericsson
`
`At least Ericsson and N okia
`
`Ericsson, T-Mobile, Alcatel-
`Lucent, AT &T, ORANGE SA,
`Nokia Siemens N etworks, N oitel
`Networks, HP, Huawei, China
`Mobile, Vodafone, Motorola,
`ZTE, ETSI
`At least Ericsson
`
`B.
`
`P.R. 3-3(b) - Anticipation And Obviousness
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 3-3(b), and subject to Ericsson 's reservation o frights, Ericsson attaches
`
`claim charts hereto that are directed to the prior rut references that anticipate each of the Asse1ted
`
`Claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), (e), and/or (g), either expressly or inherently, and/or the
`
`prior rut references that, in the alternative, would have rendered the Asserted Claims obvious
`
`13
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV - Exhibit 2008
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN NV PTAB-IPR2023-00581
`Page 13 of 78
`
`

`

`CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See Exhibits A to E. Some claim charts also contain explanations about
`
`the motivation to combine the references. The combinations contained in Ericsson’s claim charts
`
`are exemplary. Any prior art reference cited herein may be combined with any other reference to
`
`demonstrate the invalidity of any of the Asserted Claims, as set forth below and in Exhibits A to
`
`E.
`
`To the extent any claim limitation is construed to have a similar meaning, or to
`
`encompass similar feature(s) and/or function(s), as any other claim limitation, the citations to
`
`prior art references for each of those claim limitations in Ericsson’s claim charts are incorporated
`
`by reference with respect to each other.
`
`Ericsson’s claim charts provide exemplary citations to the prior art references that teach
`
`or suggest every element of the Asserted Claims. To the extent that an element of an Asserted
`
`Claim is not shown in a chart, the Asserted Claims would have been obvious based on a
`
`combination of one or more other prior art references, as set forth below and in Exhibits A to E.
`
`Much of the art cited in these Preliminary Invalidity Contentions reflects common
`
`knowledge and the state of the art at the time of the earliest filing date of the Asserted Patents.
`
`Ericsson may rely on additional citations, references, expert testimony, and other material to
`
`provide context or to aid in understanding the cited portions of the references and/or cited
`
`features of the systems. Ericsson also may rely on expert testimony explaining relevant portions
`
`of references, relevant hardware or software products or systems, and other discovery regarding
`
`these subject matters. Additionally, Ericsson may rely on other portions of any prior art reference
`
`or other references relied on by the same authors or describing the same systems for purposes of
`
`explaining the background and general technical subject area of the reference.
`
`14
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV - Exhibit 2008
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN NV PTAB-IPR2023-00581
`Page 14 of 78
`
`

`

`CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
`
`Where an individual reference is cited with respect to all elements of an Asserted Claim,
`
`Ericsson contends that the reference anticipates the claim under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), (e),
`
`and/or (g) and also renders obvious the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103, both by itself in view of the
`
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art and in combination with the other cited
`
`references to the extent the reference is not found to disclose one or more claim elements. A
`
`single prior art reference, for example, can establish obviousness where the differences between
`
`the disclosures within the reference and the claimed invention would have been obvious to one
`
`of ordinary skill in the art. For example, “[c]ombining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to
`
`each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness.” Boston Scientific
`
`Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009). To the extent KPN contends
`
`that an embodiment within a particular item of prior art does not fully disclose all limitations of a
`
`claim, Ericsson accordingly reserves its rights to rely on other embodiments in that prior art
`
`reference, or other information, to show single reference obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
`
`Where an individual reference is cited with respect to fewer than all elements of an
`
`Asserted Claim, Ericsson contends that the reference renders obvious the claim under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 103(a) in view of each other reference and combination of references that discloses the
`
`remaining claim element(s), as indicated in the claim charts submitted herewith. “Under § 103,
`
`the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and
`
`the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
`
`resolved. Against this background, the obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is
`
`determined.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007) (quoting Graham v. John
`
`Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966)).
`
`15
`
`Koninklijke KPN NV - Exhibit 2008
`Ericsson Inc. v. Koninklijke KPN NV PTAB-IPR2023-00581
`Page 15 of 78
`
`

`

`CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
`
`Exemplary motivations to combine references are discussed below and in the
`
`accompanying charts. Ericsson reserves the right to rely upon any references or assertions
`
`identified herein in connection with Ericsson’s contentions that each Asserted Claim is invalid
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and to rely upon expert testimony addressing such references and
`
`assertions. The fact that prior art is identified to anticipate the Asserted Claims presents no
`
`obstacle in also relying on that reference as a basis for invalidity based on obviousness. It is
`
`established that “a rejection for obviousness under § 103 can be based on a reference which
`
`happens to anticipate the claimed subject matter.” In re Meyer, 599 F.2d 1026, 1031 (C.C.P.A.
`
`1979). To the extent any cited prior art item may not fully disclose a limitation of an Asserted
`
`Claim or is alleged by KPN to lack disclosure of the limitation, such limitation is present and
`
`identified in another prior art item as shown in the attached claim charts.
`
`Many of the cited references cite or relate to additional references and/or products,
`
`services, or projects. Many of the cited references also cite software, hardware, or systems.
`
`Ericsson might rely upon such cited additional references and/or products and copies or
`
`exemplars of such software, hardware, or systems. Ericsson will produce or make available for
`
`inspection any such cited references, products, software, hardware, or systems that it intends to
`
`rely upon. Ericsson may also rely upon the disclosures of the references cited and/or discussed
`
`during the prosecution of the Asserted Patents and/or the assertions presented regarding those
`
`references.
`
`Ericsson reserves the right to further streamline and reduce the number of anticipation or
`
`obviousness references relied upon with respec

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket