Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 54-4 Filed 07/14/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 797
`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 54-4 Filed 07/14/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 797
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 4
`
`EXHIBIT 4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 54-4 Filed 07/14/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 798
`
`Fred I. Williams
`Williams Simons & Landis PLLC
`Direct: 512.543.1356
`fwilliams@wsltrial.com
`
`May 25, 2021
`
`Chris Kennerly
`Paul Hastings LLP
`1117 S. California Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`
`Re: Gesture Technology Partners LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. LTD., et al., Plaintiff’s
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions
`
`Dear Mr. Kennerly,
`
`On behalf of Gesture Technology Partners LLC (“GTP”), we write in response to Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.’s (collectively, “Samsung”) letter
`dated May 7, 2021 regarding GTP’s infringement contentions with respect to U.S. Patents
`8,194,924 (“’924 Patent”); 7,933,431 (“’431 Patent”); 8,878,949 (“’949 Patent”); and
`8,553,079(“’079 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”) and follow-up letter dated May 19,
`2021.
`
`We disagree with your assertion that GTP has failed to comply with local Patent Rule 3-
`1(b) regarding GTP’s infringement contentions. GTP has not accused representative products, but
`rather has provided detailed charts listing the products accused of infringing the Asserted Patents
`based on publicly available information.
`
`Nothing in GTP’s infringement contentions is labeled “Accused Feature.” GTP has
`described how each of the asserted claims is met by Samsung’s products, the specific component
`of the products that meet the claim elements, and the applications used in conjunction with that
`hardware. GTP provided a 19-page chart detailing the hardware portion for each product.
`Samsung seeks disclosure of GTP’s infringement case, which is not required at this stage.
`Samsung is on sufficient notice of GTP’s allegations under any proper reading of the local patent
`rules.
`
`After reviewing the products and applications cited in GTP’s preliminary infringement
`contentions, we agree that the Motion Sense and Smile Shutter features, and the Galaxy M Series
`product, should not have been included and should no longer be considered part of GTP’s operative
`infringement contentions. Additionally, only the ’924 Patent expressly requires two cameras.
`Therefore, GTP agrees that the Samsung Metro 360 and Samsung Xcover 550 should not have
`
`327 Congress Avenue, Suite 490, Austin, Texas 78701
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00040-JRG Document 54-4 Filed 07/14/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 799
`
`May 25, 2021 Page 2
`
`been included in the infringement contentions for the ’924 Patent and that they are no longer part
`of the operative infringement contentions. As for the ’079 Patent and ’924 Patent infringement
`contentions, GTP believes it would be premature to remove the Samsung Metro 360 and Samsung
`Xcover 550 before claim construction.
`
`Regarding claims 1, 11, and 21 of the ’079 Patent and claims 1, 8, and 13 of the ’949 Patent,
`GTP has identified all cameras and sensors used to identify gestures. GTP has also identified in
`claim element 1[a] of the ’079 Patent and claim element of 1[c] of the ’949 Patent the applications
`that are believed to use gestures as part of their operations with such use being in conjunction with
`the associated hardware as the infringement contentions set out in great detail. Furthermore, for
`both the ’079 Patent and the ’949 Patent, GTP has identified limitations that may implicate source
`code, which Samsung has not yet produced.
`
`Regarding claim 1 of the ’924 Patent, GTP has identified the features responsible for
`controlling functions on the Samsung devices. GTP has also identified that source code may be
`implicated in meeting the limitations of the infringed claims. Regarding the remaining dependent
`claims 4-6, 8, 9, and 14, GTP has identified the hardware and associated software that infringe.
`
`Regarding claim 1 of the ’431 Patent and similar claims 7 and 13, GTP has identified the
`features and the corresponding controls that meet the claims' limitations. As with the other
`Asserted Patents, GTP has identified that source code, which Samsung has not produced, may be
`implicated in meeting the limitations of the claims, including the “transmitting of data” in claim
`25.
`
`Accordingly, GTP has adequately identified the Samsung products accused of
`infringement along with the mechanisms by which they infringe. This satisfies the local patent
`rules. GTP is not under an obligation to marshal its infringement case at this stage.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`Fred I. Williams
`
`