Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 220 Filed 01/28/22 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 10339
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00040-JRG
`(Lead Case)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00041-JRG
`(Member Case)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
` §
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY
`PARTNERS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`GESTURE TECHNOLOGY
`PARTNERS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF GESTURE
`TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS, LLC’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(“SEA”) (collectively, “Samsung”), by and through the undersigned attorneys hereby respond to
`
`the Complaint for Patent Infringement (“Complaint”) filed February 4, 2021 by Plaintiff Gesture
`
`Technology Partners, LLC (“GTP” or “Plaintiff”). Samsung denies all allegations set forth in the
`
`Complaint unless expressly admitted in the following paragraphs. In so doing, Samsung denies
`
`any allegations contained in Plaintiff’s headings.
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 220 Filed 01/28/22 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 10340
`
`Samsung’s specific responses to the numbered allegations of the Complaint are in the
`
`below numbered paragraphs as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of Paragraph 1, and therefore denies them.
`
`2.
`
`Samsung admits that SEC is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
`
`South Korea. It has its principal place of business at 129 Samsung- Ro, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-si,
`
`Gyeonggi-do, 443-742, South Korea. Samsung admits that SEC manufactures products that are
`
`available for purchase in the United States, including within this district. The remaining
`
`allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint are legal conclusions which do not require a response
`
`by Samsung. To the extent a response is required, Samsung is without knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 2. Except as
`
`expressly admitted, Samsung denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 2.
`
`3.
`
`Samsung admits that SEA is a New York corporation with its principal place of
`
`business at 85 Challenger Rd., Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660. Samsung admits that SEA is
`
`a wholly-owned subsidiary of SEC. Samsung admits that SEA markets, sells, commercializes,
`
`and distributes Samsung’s consumer electronic products in the United States. Except as expressly
`
`admitted, Samsung denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 3.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`Samsung incorporates by reference its responses contained in the foregoing
`
`paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`5.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 5 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Samsung admits the Complaint purports to set forth a patent infringement
`
`action arising under the patent laws of the United States. Samsung admits that this Court has
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 220 Filed 01/28/22 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 10341
`
`subject matter jurisdiction over actions arising under the patent laws of the United States pursuant
`
`to 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 284–285; and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`6.
`
`Samsung admits, for the purposes of this action only, that venue is proper for SEC
`
`and SEA. Samsung denies that this venue is convenient or in the interests of justice under 20
`
`U.S.C. § 1404(a). Except as expressly admitted, Samsung denies the remaining allegations of
`
`Paragraph 6.
`
`7.
`
`Samsung admits it has transacted business in the state of Texas and in this district.
`
`Samsung, for purposes of this case only, will not challenge personal jurisdiction in this Court.
`
`Samsung denies committing any acts of infringement. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 7
`
`regard jurisdiction, which is an issue of law for which no response is required. To the extent a
`
`response is required, Samsung is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
`
`to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 7. Except as expressly admitted, Samsung
`
`denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 7.
`
`8.
`
`Samsung admits that SEA is registered to conduct business in Texas. Samsung
`
`admits that Samsung devices are sold in the state of Texas, including the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`Samsung denies committing any acts of infringement and further denies inducing others to commit
`
`any acts of infringement. Except as expressly admitted, Samsung denies the remaining allegations
`
`of Paragraph 8.
`
`9.
`
`Samsung admits that it has an office and/or facilities located at 1000 Klein Road,
`
`Plano, Texas. Samsung admits CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryant Street, Suite 900, Dallas,
`
`Texas 75201 is a registered agent of SEA for certain purposes. To the extent the allegations of
`
`Paragraph 9 set forth legal conclusions, no response is required. Except as expressly admitted,
`
`Samsung denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 9.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 220 Filed 01/28/22 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 10342
`
`10.
`
`Samsung admits that it did not dispute that this Court had personal jurisdiction in
`
`the four cases GTP cites, but only for purposes of those cases. See, e.g., Answer ¶ 10, Barkan
`
`Wireless v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:18-cv-00028-JRG, Dkt. 25 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2018)
`
`(“ Samsung does not contest, solely for the purpose of the present litigation, whether personal
`
`jurisdiction over it properly lies in this District.”); Answer ¶ 9, Immersion Corp. v. Samsung Elecs.
`
`Am., Inc., No. 2:17-cv-572 (E.D. Tex. Oct 24, 2017) (“Samsung does not contest, solely for the
`
`purpose of the present litigation, whether personal jurisdiction over them properly lies in this
`
`District.”); Answer ¶ 10, Richardson v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 6:17-cv-428 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 20,
`
`2017) (“Samsung does not dispute personal jurisdiction over SEC and SEA for purposes of this
`
`action.”); Answer ¶ 8, Spacetime3D, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. & Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.,
`
`No. 2:19-cv-00372 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2020) (“Samsung does not contest, solely for the purpose
`
`of the present litigation, whether personal jurisdiction over it properly lies in this District.”)
`
`(emphases added).
`
`11.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 11 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Except as expressly admitted, Samsung denies the remaining allegations of
`
`Paragraph 11.
`
`12.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 12 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Except as expressly admitted, Samsung denies the remaining allegations of
`
`Paragraph 12.
`
`13.
`
`Samsung admits that it did not dispute that venue was proper in this Court in the
`
`four cases GTP cites, but only for the purposes of those cases. See, e.g., Answer ¶ 14 Richardson
`
`v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 6:17-cv-428 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 20, 2017) (“Samsung admits venue is
`
`proper in this judicial district for this case.”); Answer ¶ 10, Immersion Corp. v. Samsung Elecs.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 220 Filed 01/28/22 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 10343
`
`Am., Inc., No. 2:17-cv-572 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 24, 2017) (“Samsung does not contest, solely for
`
`purposes of the present action, whether venue over them properly lies in this District, but Samsung
`
`denies that venue in this District is convenient.”); Answer ¶ 12, Barkan Wireless v. Samsung Elecs.
`
`Co., No. 2:18-cv-00028-JRG (E.D. Tex., Apr. 23, 2018) (“Samsung does not contest, solely for the
`
`purpose of the present litigation, whether venue over it properly lies in this District, but Samsung
`
`denies that venue in this District is convenient.”); Answer ¶¶ 9–10 Spacetime3D, Inc. v. Samsung
`
`Elecs. Co. & Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00372 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 16, 2020) (“SEC 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 denies that venue in this District is convenient and SEC
`
`reserves the right to seek transfer to a more appropriate or convenient forum.”) (emphases added).
`
`14.
`
`Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of Paragraph 14, the website https://planotexas.org/765/Samsung-moving-1000-
`
`jobs-to-Legacy-Centr is no longer available, and Samsung therefore denies them.
`
`15.
`
`Samsung admits that the website https://www.dallasnews.com/business/real-estate/
`
`2020/03/20/samsung-plans-for-plano-office-expansion/ is titled “Samsung plans for Plano office
`
`expansion.” Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the remaining allegations of Paragraph 15, and therefore denies them.
`
`THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`16.
`
`Samsung incorporates by reference its responses contained in the foregoing
`
`paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`17.
`
`Samsung admits Dr. Pryor is the sole named inventor on the four Patents-in-Suit.
`
`Samsung denies that Dr. Pryor is the sole inventor of the four Patents-in-Suit. Samsung lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of
`
`Paragraph 17, and therefore denies them.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 220 Filed 01/28/22 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 10344
`
`18.
`
`Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of Paragraph 18, and therefore denies them.
`
`19.
`
`Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of Paragraph 19, and therefore denies them.
`
`20.
`
`Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of Paragraph 20, and therefore denies them.
`
`21.
`
`Samsung admits the Patents-in-Suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,194,924 (the “’924
`
`patent”), 7,933,431 (the “’431 patent”), 8,878,949 (the “’949 patent”), and 8,553,079 (the “’079
`
`patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”). Except as expressly admitted, Samsung denies the
`
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 21.
`
`22.
`
`Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of Paragraph 22, and therefore denies them.
`
`THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS
`
`23.
`
`Samsung incorporates by reference its responses contained in the foregoing
`
`paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`24.
`
`Samsung denies committing any acts of infringement and denies inducing others to
`
`commit any acts of infringement. Samsung admits that SEC has manufactured smartphones and
`
`tablets including the Samsung Galaxy Note Series, S Series, Z Series, A Series, M Series, Galaxy
`
`Tab S7/7+, S6, S5, and S4. Samsung admits that SEA has marketed, sold, commercialized, and
`
`distributed such products in the United States. Samsung denies that all such products are Accused
`
`Products in this case. Except as expressly admitted, Samsung denies the remaining allegations of
`
`Paragraph 24.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 220 Filed 01/28/22 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 10345
`
`EXAMPLES OF SAMSUNG’S MARKETING OF THE ACCUSED FEATURES
`
`25.
`
`Samsung admits certain Accused Products have features including but not limited
`
`to Air Gestures, Palm Solution, AR Emoji, Iris Scan Unlock, Face ID Unlock, Intelligent Scan
`
`Unlock, and Smart Stay. Except as expressly admitted, Samsung denies the remaining allegations
`
`of Paragraph 25.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`Denied.
`
`Samsung admits that the website https://www.samsung.com/global/galaxy/what-
`
`is/iris-scanning/ states “Iris scanning is a way of securely keeping the contents of your phone from
`
`prying eyes, first introduced on the Galaxy S8 and S8+. It uses the biometric information of your
`
`irises to identify you. And because virtually no two irises are alike as well as being almost
`
`impossible to replicate, scanning your irises is a fool-proof method of mobile security. To set up
`
`iris scanning, go to Settings > Lock screen and security > Iris Scanner and enter your PIN, pattern,
`
`or password. Hold your phone up and align your eyes with the highlighted area. Once set up, you
`
`can use iris scanning to securely access the private files and apps you have on your Secure Folder
`
`as well as use Samsung Pass to log in to your accounts quickly and safely.” Except as expressly
`
`admitted, Samsung denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 27.
`
`28.
`
`Samsung admits the website https://www.samsung.com/us/samsung-pay/ states,
`
`“Get an extra layer of security. With Samsung Pay, each transaction is covered by your bank’s
`
`fraud protection and authenticated by your fingerprint, PIN or iris scan. Plus, Samsung Knox and
`
`tokenization add extra layers of security.” Except as expressly admitted, Samsung denies the
`
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 28.
`
`29.
`
`Samsung admits that the website https://www.samsung.com/us/support/answer/
`
`ANS00086302/ states, “Use Motions and gestures to control your Galaxy phone – Motions and
`
`gestures are here to make life simpler. With a few hand movements, you can tell your phone to
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 220 Filed 01/28/22 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 10346
`
`turn on, mute your alerts, or take a screenshot. You can even make your phone vibrate when you
`
`pick it up after receiving a message, so you'll be reminded to reply right away. Play around with
`
`the different features until you find the ones you're comfortable with, and turn them off or on to
`
`have more control over your phone. Note: Available motions and gestures may vary by model.”
`
`Except as expressly admitted, Samsung denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 29.
`
`30.
`
`Samsung admits that the website https://www.samsung.com/za/support/mobile-
`
`devices/what-is-the-smart-stay-feature-on-my-samsung-galaxy-note2/ states, “The Smart stay
`
`feature uses the front camera to sense when you are looking at your device, and it keeps the screen
`
`from turning off regardless of the screen timeout setting.” Except as expressly admitted, Samsung
`
`denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 30.
`
`COUNT I
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,194,924
`
`31.
`
`Samsung incorporates by reference its responses contained in the foregoing
`
`paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`32.
`
`Samsung admits what purports to be a copy of the ’924 Patent is attached to the
`
`Complaint. Except as expressly admitted, Samsung denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`Samsung admits that the ’924 Patent is titled “Camera Based Sensing in Handheld,
`
`Mobile, Gaming or Other Devices.” Except as expressly admitted, Samsung denies the remaining
`
`allegations of Paragraph 33, including all characterizations beyond the text of the patent.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 220 Filed 01/28/22 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 10347
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Samsung admits the Accused Products include at least two cameras with fields of
`
`view that do not completely overlap. Except as expressly admitted, Samsung denies the remaining
`
`allegations of Paragraph 40.
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of Paragraph 44, and therefore denies them.
`
`45.
`
`Samsung admits that it had knowledge of the ’924 Patent after receiving Plaintiff’s
`
`Complaint. Samsung denies that it had knowledge of the ’924 Patent at any time before receiving
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint. Except as expressly admitted, Samsung denies the remaining allegations of
`
`Paragraph 45.
`
`46.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT II
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,933,431
`
`47.
`
`Samsung incorporates by reference its responses contained in the foregoing
`
`paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`48.
`
`Samsung admits what purports to be a copy of the ’431 Patent is attached to the
`
`Complaint. Except as expressly admitted, Samsung denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`Samsung admits the ’431 Patent is titled “Camera Based Sensing in Handheld,
`
`Mobile, Gaming, or Other Devices.” Except as expressly admitted, Samsung denies the remaining
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 220 Filed 01/28/22 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:
`10348
`
`allegations of Paragraph 49, including all characterizations of the claims beyond the text of the
`
`patent.
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`53.
`
`54.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Samsung admits the Accused Products have a housing.
`
`Samsung admits the Accused Products have one or more cameras that can obtain
`
`images of objects using reflected light.
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`59.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of Paragraph 59, and therefore denies them.
`
`60.
`
`Samsung admits that it had knowledge of the ’431 Patent after receiving Plaintiff’s
`
`Complaint. Samsung denies that it had knowledge of the ’431 Patent at any time before receiving
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint. Except as expressly admitted, Samsung denies the remaining allegations of
`
`Paragraph 60.
`
`61.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT III
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,878,949
`
`62.
`
`Samsung incorporates by reference its responses contained in the foregoing
`
`paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 220 Filed 01/28/22 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:
`10349
`
`63.
`
`Samsung admits what purports to be a copy of the ’949 Patent is attached to the
`
`Complaint. Except as expressly admitted, Samsung denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph
`
`63.
`
`64.
`
`Samsung admits the ’949 Patent is titled “Camera Based Interaction and
`
`Instruction.” Except as expressly admitted, Samsung denies the remaining allegations of
`
`Paragraph 64, including all characterizations of the claims beyond the text of the patent.
`
`65.
`
`66.
`
`67.
`
`68.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Samsung admits the Accused Products are portable devices.
`
`Samsung admits the Accused Products have a housing. Except as expressly
`
`admitted, Samsung denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 68.
`
`69.
`
`Samsung admits that within the housing is a processing unit with at least one
`
`System on Chip. Except as expressly admitted, Samsung denies the remaining allegations of
`
`Paragraph 69.
`
`70.
`
`71.
`
`72.
`
`73.
`
`74.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of Paragraph 74, and therefore denies them.
`
`75.
`
`Samsung admits that it had knowledge of the ’949 Patent after receiving Plaintiff’s
`
`Complaint. Samsung denies that it had knowledge of the ’949 Patent at any time before receiving
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 220 Filed 01/28/22 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:
`10350
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint. Except as expressly admitted, Samsung denies the remaining allegations of
`
`Paragraph 75.
`
`76.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,553,079
`
`77.
`
`Samsung incorporates by reference its responses contained in the foregoing
`
`paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`78.
`
`Samsung admits what purports to be a copy of the ’079 Patent is attached to the
`
`Complaint. Except as expressly admitted, Samsung denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph
`
`78.
`
`79.
`
`Samsung admits the ’079 patent is titled “More Useful Man Machine Interfaces and
`
`Applications.” Except as expressly admitted, Samsung denies the remaining allegations of
`
`Paragraph 64, including all characterizations of the claims beyond the text of the patent.
`
`80.
`
`81.
`
`82.
`
`83.
`
`84.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Samsung admits that the Accused Products have one or more cameras. Except as
`
`expressly admitted, Samsung denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 84.
`
`85.
`
`86.
`
`87.
`
`88.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 220 Filed 01/28/22 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:
`10351
`
`89.
`
`Samsung admits that it had knowledge of the ’079 Patent after receiving Plaintiff’s
`
`Complaint. Samsung denies that it had knowledge of the ’079 Patent at any time before receiving
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint. Except as expressly admitted, Samsung denies the remaining allegations of
`
`Paragraph 89.
`
`90.
`
`Samsung denies committing any acts of infringement and denies inducing others to
`
`commit acts of infringement. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 90 set forth legal
`
`conclusions, no response is required. Except as expressly admitted, Samsung denies the remaining
`
`allegations of Paragraph 90.
`
`91.
`
`Denied.
`
`RESPONSE TO GTP’S JURY DEMAND
`
`To the extent a response is required Samsung admits that the Complaint contains a request
`
`for a jury trial.
`
`RESPONSE TO GTP’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`To the extent a response is required, Samsung denies that GTP is entitled to any relief
`
`sought in its Prayer for Relief and denies that GTP is entitled to any relief whatsoever.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`Without admitting or acknowledging that Samsung bears the burden of proof as to any of
`
`them and reserving the right to amend its answer as additional information becomes available,
`
`Samsung please the following defenses:
`
`FIRST DEFENSE
`(Non-Infringement)
`
`Samsung has not engaged in any acts that would constitute willful, direct or indirect
`
`infringement of any valid claim of the ’924 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 220 Filed 01/28/22 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:
`10352
`
`Samsung has not engaged in any acts that would constitute willful, direct or indirect
`
`infringement of any valid claim of the ’431 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents.
`
`Samsung has not engaged in any acts that would constitute willful, direct or indirect
`
`infringement of any valid claim of the ’949 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents.
`
`Samsung has not engaged in any acts that would constitute willful, direct or indirect
`
`infringement of any valid claim of the ’079 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents.
`
`SECOND DEFENSE
`(Invalidity)
`
`The ’924 Patent is invalid for failure to satisfy the conditions of patentability set forth in
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., including at least sections 101, 102, 103, 112, pre-AIA 112(f), and 264.
`
`The ’431 Patent is invalid for failure to satisfy the conditions of patentability set forth in
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., including at least sections 101, 102, 103, 112, pre-AIA 112(f), and 264.
`
`The ’949 Patent is invalid for failure to satisfy the conditions of patentability set forth in
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., including at least sections 101, 102, 103, 112, pre-AIA 112(f), and 264.
`
`The ’079 Patent is invalid for failure to satisfy the conditions of patentability set forth in
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., including at least sections 101, 102, 103, 112, pre-AIA 112(f), and 264.
`
`THIRD DEFENSE
`(Not an Exceptional Case)
`
`GTP is not entitled to a finding that this case is exceptional warranting attorneys’ fees under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 285, or pursuant to the Court’s inherent power. GTP’s claims for enhanced damages,
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 220 Filed 01/28/22 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:
`10353
`
`if any, and an award of fees and costs against Samsung have no basis in fact or law and should be
`
`denied.
`
`FOURTH DEFENSE
`(Limitation on Damages)
`
`GTP’s right to seek damages, if any, is limited by 35 U.S.C. §§ 286 and 288.
`
`FIFTH DEFENSE
` (Territoriality)
`
`To the extent GTP’s claims are direct to acts occurring outside the United States, those
`
`claims for relief are barred or limited by the doctrine of territoriality by 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq.
`
`including but not limited to § 271(a) and (c).
`
`SIXTH DEFENSE
` (No Attorneys’ Fees)
`
`GTP is not entitled to recover attorneys’ fees associated with this action under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 285 or costs associated with this action under 35 U.S.C. § 288.
`
`SEVENTH DEFENSE
` (Failure to State a Claim)
`
`GTP has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`EIGHTH DEFENSE
` (Obvious-Type Double Patenting)
`
`One or more of the asserted claims is invalid because of the judicially–created doctrine of
`
`obviousness-type double patenting.
`
`NINTH DEFENSE
` (Statutory Double Patenting)
`
`One or more of the asserted claims is invalid under the doctrine of statutory double
`
`patenting.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 220 Filed 01/28/22 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:
`10354
`
`TENTH DEFENSE
`(Lack of Standing)
`
`To the extent GTP lacks all substantive right to bring suit and to exclude others from
`
`practicing the claims of one or more the Patents-in-Suit, GTP’s claims are barred by a lack of
`
`standing.
`
`
`
`DATED: January 28, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`(TX Bar No. 00795077)
`chriskennerly@paulhastings.com
`Radhesh Devendran (pro hac vice)
`radheshdevendran@paulhastings.com
`Boris S. Lubarsky (pro hac vice)
`borislubarsky@paulhastings.com
`David M. Fox (pro hac vice)
`davidfox@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`1117 S. California Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 320-1800
`Facsimile: (650) 320-1900
`
`Allan M. Soobert
`allansoobert@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`2050 M Street NW
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`Telephone: 202-551-1700
`Facsimile: 202-551-1705
`
`Elizabeth L. Brann
`elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`4747 Executive Drive, 12th Floor
`San Diego, CA 92121
`Telephone: (858) 458-3000
`Facsimile: (858) 458-3005
`
`Robert Laurenzi
`robertlaurenzi@paulhastings.com
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG-RSP Document 220 Filed 01/28/22 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:
`10355
`
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Telephone: (212) 318-6000
`Facsimile: (212) 319-4090
`
`Harry Lee Gillam, Jr. (TX Bar No. 07921800)
`gil@gillamsmithlaw.com
`Melissa R. Smith (TX Bar No. 24001351)
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`James Travis Underwood (TX Bar No. 24102587)
`travis@gillamsmithlaw.com
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 S. Washington Ave.
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Samsung Electronics
`Co., Ltd and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was filed
`
`electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5 on January 28, 2022. As of this date, all
`
`counsel of record had consented to electronic service and are being served with a copy of this
`
`document through the Court’s CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A).
`
`/s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`
`17
`
`