IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-369
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`GREENTHREAD, LLC
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`CIRRUS LOGIC, INC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`GREENTHREAD’S SUPPLEMENTAL PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT
`CONTENTIONS
`
`Plaintiff Greenthread, LLC (“Greenthread”) provides its supplemental preliminary infringement
`
`contentions and claim charts, which are attached as Exhibits A-1 through A-6. Greenthread’s
`
`disclosures are based on publicly available materials regarding the accused infringing products of
`
`Defendant Cirrus Logic, Inc. (“Cirrus Logic” or “Defendant”). Greenthread does not yet have
`
`access to any of Defendant’s discovery materials that may be relevant to its infringement claims
`
`and thus relies on publicly available materials. In light of the absence of discovery and reliance on
`
`publicly available materials, Greenthread has procured limited physical testing to the extent
`
`practicable, of certain products believed to be representative of, and similar to, the accused
`
`infringing products in pertinent respects. Greenthread explicitly reserves the right to supplement
`
`or alter its disclosures herein, as a matter of right, as permitted by the Court, based on the Court’s
`
`claim constructions, based on additional information obtained through formal discovery or other
`
`means, and/or based on other circumstances.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Greenthread Ex 2018, p.1 of 9
`Cirrus Logic, et. al. v. Greenthread
`
`

`

`I.
`
`ASSERTED CLAIMS AND PRIORITY DATE
`
`Based on the information presently available to it, Greenthread identifies the asserted
`
`claims of each asserted patent that Greenthread alleges is infringed by Defendant, and the priority
`
`date of those claims, as set forth in the table below. Based on the information presently available
`
`to it, Greenthread alleges that all asserted claims of each particular asserted patent are entitled to
`
`the same priority date, which is the earliest priority date afforded to the asserted patents.
`
`Asserted Patents
`10,510,842
`(“the ’842 patent”)
`10,734,481
`(“the ’481 patent”)
`11,121,222
`(“the ’222 patent”)
`8,421,195
`(“the ’195 patent”)
`9,190,502
`(“the ’502 patent”)
`11,316,014
`(“the ’014 Patent”)
`
`Asserted Claims1
`1, 2, 4-10, 12-18
`
`Priority Date of Asserted Claims
`May 24, 2004
`
`1-9, 13, 15, 17, 20, 22-27, 31, 32,
`34
`1-9, 13, 15, 17, 20, 21, 23-28, 32,
`33, 35, 39-42, 44
`1-3, 5-6
`
`7, 8
`
`May 24, 2004
`
`May 24, 2004
`
`May 24, 2004
`
`May 24, 2004
`
`1-9, 13, 15, 17, 20, 21, 23-28
`
`May 24, 2004
`
`Greenthread notes that the claims identified in the table reflect the asserted claims in this
`
`case, and the absence of a claim from the list does not imply that the claim is not infringed.
`
`Greenthread explicitly reserves the right to supplement or alter its identification of asserted claims
`
`and priority dates, as a matter of right, as permitted by the Court, based on any further claim
`
`constructions, additional information obtained through formal discovery or other means, and/or
`
`based on other circumstances.
`
`
`1 To the extent Exhibits A-1 through A-6 describe infringement of additional claims, those claims
`are likewise asserted.
`
`
`
`2
`
`Greenthread Ex 2018, p.2 of 9
`Cirrus Logic, et. al. v. Greenthread
`
`

`

`II.
`
`CIRRUS LOGIC ACCUSED PRODUCTS
`
`Based upon information presently available to it, Greenthread asserts infringement by the
`
`accused products set forth below in this section. For each accused product identified below,
`
`Greenthread’s contentions apply to the accused product and any other similar past, present, or
`
`future products, as well as systems incorporating the accused products or other products with the
`
`same or substantially similar features.
`
`As described further in Exhibits A-1 through A-6, Cirrus Logic’s products infringe one or
`
`more asserted claims of each of the asserted patents.
`
`Cirrus Logic’s Accused Products include products made (in whole or in part), used, sold,
`
`offered for sale, or imported into the United States by Cirrus Logic, that comprise or consist of the
`
`same or similar structures, features, or functionalities as the Cirrus Logic CLI1793B1 power
`
`management integrated circuit shown in Exhibits A-1 through A-6. As shown in Exhibits A-1
`
`through A-6, Cirrus Logic Accused Products each infringe one or more claims of the Asserted
`
`Patents. Cirrus Logic Accused Products include products from at least the following product
`
`categories/types: amplifiers, decoder and encoder ICs, digital-to-analog converters, analog-to-
`
`digital converters, digital clocks, haptic drivers, voice processor ICs, and other ICs. The
`
`following listing of Cirrus Logic semiconductor products is derived from publicly available
`
`information at Cirrus Logic’s website, e.g., as noted in Exhibit 8 to Greenthread’s Complaint
`
`(Dkt. 1), and also from https://cirrus.com/. The exemplary charted product, Cirrus Logic
`
`CLI1793B1, was manufactured at least as early as 2021, as explained in Exhibits A-1 through A-
`
`6. At a minimum, Cirrus Logic had realized the benefits of the asserted patents in time for inclusion
`
`in products released then or later. On information and belief, the Cirrus Logic Accused Products
`
`are based on designs similar to, or later than, that used for the Cirrus Logic CLI1793B1.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Greenthread Ex 2018, p.3 of 9
`Cirrus Logic, et. al. v. Greenthread
`
`

`

`Greenthread reserves the right to seek discovery regarding earlier designed products to determine
`
`when Cirrus Logic began incorporating Greenthread’s technology into its products.
`
`Greenthread reserves the right to supplement the list of Cirrus Logic Accused Products as
`
`discovery proceeds and as permitted by the Court, the Local Patent Rules, the Federal Rules of
`
`Procedure, and any other applicable rules or law.
`
`
`
`Product or Part number
`CLI1793B1
`CS35L45
`CS35L41
`CS42L42
`CS42L92
`CS4244
`CS5302P
`CS5304P
`CS5308P
`CS5346
`CS43131
`CS43198
`CS40L25
`CS40L25B
`CS40L26
`CS40L26B
`CS48LV41F
`
`
`III.
`
`Category
`
`PMIC
`Amplifiers
`Amplifiers
`Decoder and Encoder ICs
`Decoder and Encoder ICs
`Decoder and Encoder ICs
`Analog-to-Digital Converters
`Analog-to-Digital Converters
`Analog-to-Digital Converters
`Analog-to-Digital Converters
`Digital-to-Analog Converters
`Digital-to-Analog Converters
`Haptic Drivers
`Haptic Drivers
`Haptic Drivers
`Haptic Drivers
`Voice Processor ICs
`
`INFRINGEMENT CONTENTION CLAIM CHARTS
`
`Based upon information presently available to it, Greenthread’s supplemental preliminary
`
`infringement claim charts are provided as attached Exhibits A-1 through A-6. In each claim chart,
`
`the discussion for dependent claims should be read as incorporating by reference the discussion
`
`corresponding to the claims from which they depend. In addition, the discussion for each row in
`
`the chart should be read within the context of the discussion for the entire claim to which that row
`
`pertains. Where the charts incorporate excerpts of particular documents, the reference to those
`
`
`
`4
`
`Greenthread Ex 2018, p.4 of 9
`Cirrus Logic, et. al. v. Greenthread
`
`

`

`excerpts is exemplary and not to the exclusion of any other excerpt or version of the document or
`
`any versions of related documents.
`
`These infringement claim charts are based upon Greenthread’s investigation to date. More
`
`complete information about the Cirrus Logic Accused Products is in the possession of Defendant
`
`and is expected to be obtained through discovery. Greenthread explicitly reserves the right to
`
`supplement or alter its supplemental preliminary infringement claim charts, as a matter of right, as
`
`permitted by the Court, based on the Court’s claim constructions, based on additional information
`
`obtained through formal discovery or other means, and/or based on other circumstances.
`
`IV.
`
`P.R. 3-1(d) – LITERAL INFRINGEMENT AND/OR DOCTRINE OF
`EQUIVALENTS
`
`Unless otherwise noted in the claim charts, Greenthread alleges that Defendant infringes
`
`literally all asserted claims. To the extent any differences are alleged to exist between the asserted
`
`claims and Defendant’s Accused Products, such differences are insubstantial and Defendant’s
`
`Accused Products perform substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to yield
`
`substantially the same result, and therefore Defendant infringes under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`Greenthread explicitly reserves the right to supplement or alter its disclosure concerning
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, as a matter of right, as permitted by the Court, based on the Court’s
`
`claim constructions, based on additional information obtained through formal discovery or other
`
`means, and/or based on other circumstances. In the event that a claim limitation is deemed to be
`
`missing under a literal infringement analysis, Greenthread also reserves the right to demonstrate
`
`the presence of a substantial equivalent of such limitation and to pursue infringement under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Greenthread Ex 2018, p.5 of 9
`Cirrus Logic, et. al. v. Greenthread
`
`

`

`V.
`
`PATENT FILE HISTORIES AND CONCEPTION DOCUMENTS
`
`Documents evidencing conception and reduction to practice for each claimed invention
`
`have been previously produced with Confidential – Outside Attorneys Eyes Only (“OAEO”)
`
`confidentiality designations at Bates numbers: GT-WDTX-CL-0001551–1642.
`
`A copy of the Asserted Patents and the file histories have been previously produced
`
`herewith at Bates numbers:
`
`Patent
`
`’195 Patent and file history
`
`’502 Patent and file history
`
`’842 Patent and file history
`
`’481 Patent and file history
`
`’222 Patent and file history
`
`’014 Patent and file history
`
`All patent assignments
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Production Range
`
`GT-WDTX-CL_0000001–0014
`GT-WDTX-CL_0000092–0483
`
`GT-WDTX-CL_0000015–0028
`GT-WDTX-CL_0000484–0650
`
`GT-WDTX-CL_0000029–0043
`GT-WDTX-CL_0000651–0849
`
`GT-WDTX-CL_0000044–0058
`GT-WDTX-CL_0000850–0989
`
`GT-WDTX-CL_0000059–0075
`GT-WDTX-CL_0000990–1274
`
`GT-WDTX-CL_0000076–0091
`GT-WDTX-CL_0001275–1485
`
`GT-WDTX-CL_0001486–1550
`
`6
`
`Greenthread Ex 2018, p.6 of 9
`Cirrus Logic, et. al. v. Greenthread
`
`

`

`
`Dated: October 13, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Alan L. Whitehurst
`Alan L. Whitehurst
`D.C. Bar No. 484873
`awhitehurst@mckoolsmith.com
`Nicholas T. Matich
`D.C. Bar No. 1024907
`nmatich@mckoolsmith.com
`Arvind Jairam
`D.C. Bar No. 1017133
`ajairam@mckoolsmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`1999 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: 202-370-8300
`Telecopier: 202-370-8344
`
`
`Samuel F. Baxter
`Texas Bar No. 01938000
`sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com
`Jennifer Truelove
`Texas Bar No. 24012906
`jtruelove@mckoolsmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`104 East Houston Street, Suite 300
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Telephone: 903-923-9000
`Telecopier: 903-923-9099
`
`John B. Campbell
`Texas Bar No. 24036314
`jcampbell@mckoolsmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`303 Colorado Street, Suite 2100
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Telephone: 512-692-8700
`Telecopier: 512-692-8744
`
`Archis “Neil” Ozarkar
`Texas Bar No. 24079096
`nozarkar@mckoolsmith.com
`Kaylee Hoffner
`Texas Bar No. 24127036
`khoffner@mckoolsmith.com
`
`7
`
`Greenthread Ex 2018, p.7 of 9
`Cirrus Logic, et. al. v. Greenthread
`
`

`

`
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`600 Travis Street, Suite 7000
`Houston, Texas 77002
`Telephone: 713-485-7300
`Telecopier: 713-485-7344
`
`Emily Tate
`New York Bar No. 5769153
`etate@mckoolsmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`One Manhattan West
`395 9th Avenue, 50th Floor
`New York, NY 10001
`Telephone: 212-402-9400
`Telecopier: 212-402-9444
`
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`GREENTHREAD, LLC
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Greenthread Ex 2018, p.8 of 9
`Cirrus Logic, et. al. v. Greenthread
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on the
`
`following counsel of record on October 13, 2023 via electronic mail using the following contact
`
`information.
`
`Gilbert A. Greene
`BGreene@duanemorris.com
`W. Andrew Liddell
`WALiddell@duanemorris.com
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`Las Cimas IV
`900 S. Capital of Texas Hwy, Suite 300
`Austin, TX 78746-5435
`Tel: (512) 277-2300
`Fax: (512) 277-2301
`
`Anupam Sharma
`asharma@cov.com
`Robert T. Haslam (pro hac vice)
`rhaslam@cov.com
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor
`Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
`Tel: (650) 632-4702
`Fax: (650) 632-4802
`
`Han Park
`hpark@cov.com
`COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
`850 Tenth Street, NW, One City Center
`Washington, DC 20001-4956
`Tel: (202) 662-5117
`Fax: 202-778-5117
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`CIRRUS LOGIC, INC.
`
` /s/ Alan L. Whitehurst
`Alan L. Whitehurst
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Greenthread Ex 2018, p.9 of 9
`Cirrus Logic, et. al. v. Greenthread
`
`