Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 49-2 Filed 07/15/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID 486
`Case 2:12—cv—O2825—JPM—tmp Document 49-2 Filed 07/15/13 Page 1 of 3 Page|D 486
`
`Freitas Tseng Kaufman
`
`JAMES LIN
`(650) 730-5568
`jL1N@FTKLAW.coM
`
`January 30, 2013
`
`Jonathan E. Nelson
`
`Bass, Berry Sims PLC
`100 Peabody Place, Suite 900
`Memphis, TN 38103
`
`Re:
`
`B.E. Technology, Inc. v. Samsung,
`USDC WD TN Case Nos. 12-cv-2824 JPM, 12-cv-2825 JPM
`
`Dear Jonathan:
`
`I write in response to your letter dated January 18, 2013 regarding B.E. Technology,
`Inc.’s (“B.E.”), Initial Infringement Contentions against Samsung Electronics America,
`Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (together, “Samsung”). In sum,
`we disagree with your assertion that B.E.’s Initial Infringement Contentions fail to satisfy
`the requirements of Local Patent Rule 3.1.
`
`Samsung asserts that B.E.’s infringement claim charts fail to identify specifically where
`each limitation of each asserted claim is found within each accused Samsung product. In
`particular, Samsung asserts that B.E.’s infringement claim charts fail to explain where
`claim elements (a), (c) and (d) of claim 2 of the ’290 patent are found the Samsung
`Acclaim product. We disagree. As explained below, our infringement contentions are
`sufficiently detailed.
`
`With respect to claim element (a), the vast majority of B.E.’s infringement claim charts
`identify the internal memory, flash memory, hard drive, internal SD card, or ROM of the
`accused Samsung products as the “non-volatile data storage device.” For the accused
`Samsung Acclaim product, B.E. only included screenshots in its claim chart because
`Samsung’s website does not provide any information regarding the type of memory used
`in the Samsung Acclaim product. Nonetheless, the screenshots show that the Samsung
`Acclaim product has the Google Play (Android Market), YouTube, Samsung Apps,
`Media Hub or Music Hub program. Inherently, if these programs are found in the
`Samsung Acclaim product, the Samsung Acclaim product must have an internal memory
`to store these programs, flash memory, hard drive, internal SD card or ROM.
`
`100 I‘~«’i;r1~im~-l";arl<v.mgf
`l«t?’:5il:l~":§‘;,‘l3~(:i.illi’l'
`
`§
`
`1 300 v
`l.~«{i5€3~5‘.73«{7.3Ql.
`
`l3~’.m.lm’ms:l iéilu
`§Lt':~;
`lI.3.i:’if’s£.g’
`
`;:
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 49-2 Filed 07/15/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID 487
`Case 2:12—cv—O2825—JPM—tmp Document 49-2 Filed 07/15/13 Page 2 of 3 Page|D 487
`F TK
`
`Jonathan E. Nelson
`
`January 30, 2013
`Page 2
`
`Contrary to your assertion, the screenshots with respect to claim element (c) specifically
`show that each accused Samsung product has “a number of user-selectable items
`displayed in [the graphical user interface],” “a link to an information resource accessible
`via the network,” and a program “operable upon execution and in response to selection
`by a user of one of said items to access the associated information resource over the
`network.” For example, the screenshots for the Google Play program shows that there
`are a number of user-selectable items such as books, apps, magazines, music, and videos
`with associated links, which when selected by a user, allows the user to access the
`associated information resource over a network. B.E. ’s infringement claim charts also
`specifically identify how the programs access the associated information resource over a
`network, such as by using Wi-Fi, cellular, or Ethernet connection.
`
`Similarly, with respect to claim element (d), the screenshots in B.E.’s infringement claim
`charts specifically show that the programs are operable “to display a user-selectable item
`for user links contained within the user profile” and “in response to selection by a user of
`one of the user links to access the file associated with the selected user link from the user
`library associated with the received user profile.” Using the Samsung Acclaim product as
`an example, B.E.’s infringement claim chart explains that “[t]he Google Play, YouTube,
`Android Market, Samsung Apps, Media Hub or Music Hub is operable upon execution to
`receive from server one of the user profiles (e.g., Google Account or Samsung Account
`user profile) and to display a user-selectable item for user links contained within the user
`profile.” The screenshots support this explanation by specifically showing the user
`profiles displayed in each of the programs along with user-selectable items for user links
`contained within the user profiles. B.E.’s infringement claim chart for the Samsung
`Acclaim product further explains that “[t]he Google Play, YouTube, Android Market,
`Samsung Apps, Media Hub or Music Hub is operable in response to selection by a user
`of one of the user links to access the file (e.g., apps, books, magazines, music files, TV
`shows, movies, games, etc.) associated with the selected user link from the user library
`associated with the received user profile.” The screenshots support this explanation by
`specifically showing that a user may access a file, such as app, book, magazine, music,
`TV, movie or game, associated with the selected user link from his or her user library.
`The information provided in B.E.’s infringement claim charts more than satisfies the
`requirements of Local Patent Rule 3.1.
`
`Samsung further objects to B.E.’s assertion of infringement under the doctrine of
`equivalents. Samsung argues that B.E. must provide an explanation as to what feature(s)
`of each accused Samsung product constitutes an equivalent. Local Patent Rule 3.l(e),
`however, only requires B.E. to state “[w]hether each limitation of each asserted claim is
`alleged to be literally present or present under the doctrine of equivalents in the Accused
`Instrumentality.” B.E. did so in its infringement contentions and the associated claim
`charts, and no further explanation is necessary under the Local Patent Rules. At the
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 49-2 Filed 07/15/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID 488
`Case 2:12—cv—O2825—JPM—tmp Document 49-2 Filed 07/15/13 Page 3 of 3 Page|D 488
`FTK
`
`Jonathan E. Nelson
`
`January 30, 2013
`Page 3
`
`present time, We believe that all claim limitations are literally met. However, the parties
`have not exchanged claim constructions, and the Court has not construed the claims.
`After the conclusion of the claim construction proceeding, in accordance with the local
`patent rules, B.E. will provide its detailed positions regarding Samsung’s infringement
`under the doctrine of equivalents to the extent the claim construction makes that
`necessary.
`
`Finally, Samsung asserts that its Galaxy Ace, Galaxy Fit, Galaxy Gio, Galaxy Mini,
`Galaxy Pocket Duos, Galaxy Pocket and Galaxy S Advance products are not sold in the
`United States and thus cannot infringe the ’290 patent. Publicly available information,
`including Samsung’s Website, indicates that Samsung imports, offers for sale, and sells
`these products in the United States. Obviously, BB is not seeking to recover damages for
`sales of products outside the United States. But it is reasonable for BB to rely on the
`representations that Samsung makes about its products on its website, particularly since
`no discovery has yet occurred. Once discovery identifies the products that are not sold in
`the United States, B.E. will no longer pursue an infringement claim against those
`products. At the present time, however, we have seen nothing that warrants amending
`the infringement contentions to eliminate products.
`
`In conclusion, there is no reason for B.E. to supplement its infringement contentions or
`an extension of time for Samsung to comply with the requirements of Local Patent Rules
`3.3 and 3.4. Nonetheless, B.E. is agreeable to a two-week extension for Samsung to
`comply with Local Patent Rules 3.3 and 3.4 as previously offered.
`
`Very truly yours,
`
`/M :7 -
`
`”",w"“’gf:£;‘”“M '"“"""”"“‘
`
`James Lin
`
`‘M film:
`
`4;:-’5’T~* "W ““”’“‘*~w
`
`.