Case 4:20-cv-00991-ALM Document 18 Filed 05/11/21 Page 1 of 26 PageID #: 419
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`SHERMAN DIVISION
`
`OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD.; and
`HISILICON TECHNOLOGIES CO.,
`LTD.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`No. 4:20-cv-991
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`HUAWEI’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFF’S
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Defendants Huawei Device USA, Inc. (“HDU”), Huawei Device Co., Ltd. (“Huawei
`
`Device”), and HiSilicon Technologies Co., Ltd. (“HiSilicon”) (collectively, “Huawei” or
`
`“Defendants”) hereby Answer and assert Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff Ocean Semiconductor
`
`LLC’s (“Ocean” or “Plaintiff”) Complaint (Dkt. No. 1 “Complaint”). Each of the paragraphs
`
`below corresponds to the same-numbered paragraph in the Complaint. Huawei denies all
`
`allegations in the Complaint, whether express or implied, that are not specifically admitted
`
`below. Huawei further denies that Ocean is entitled to the requested relief or any other relief.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Huawei admits that the Complaint purports to be for an action arising under the
`
`patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Huawei lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the facts
`
`alleged in this paragraph, and therefore denies any and all allegations in paragraph 2.
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00991-ALM Document 18 Filed 05/11/21 Page 2 of 26 PageID #: 420
`
`3.
`
`Huawei admits that HDU is a corporation duly organized and existing under the
`
`laws of Texas. Huawei admits HDU conducts business related to mobile devices in the United
`
`States. Huawei admits that HDU has a place of business at 5700 Tennyson Pkwy, Suite 600,
`
`Plano, TX 75024, but denies that its North American Headquarters is located at Suite 300.
`
`Huawei admits that HDU may be served with process through its registered agent, CT
`
`Corporation System, but at the address of 350 North Paul Street, Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas
`
`75201.
`
`4.
`
`Huawei admits that Huawei Device is a Chinese company. Huawei denies that
`
`Huawei Device has a principal place of business at 8 Shitou Road, North Area, Shenzhen,
`
`518129, China. Instead, Huawei Device has a place of business at No. 2 Xincheng Road,
`
`Songshan Lake Zone, Dongguan, 523808, People’s Republic of China. Huawei admits Huawei
`
`Device is involved in the design, manufacture, and sale of mobile devices. Huawei admits that
`
`Huawei Device is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Huawei Device (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.
`
`5.
`
`Huawei admits that HiSilicon is a Chinese company. Huawei admits that
`
`HiSilicon has a place of business at Huawei Electric Production Center, Bantian, Longgang
`
`District, Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China 518129. Huawei admits that HiSilicon is a
`
`wholly-owned subsidiary of Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
`
`6.
`
`Huawei denies infringing the Asserted Patents or having damaged Ocean.
`
`Huawei lacks knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`allegations of paragraph 6, and therefore denies the same.
`
`7.
`
`Huawei denies any infringement of any valid and enforceable patent asserted in
`
`this action, and further denies all allegations in paragraph 7.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00991-ALM Document 18 Filed 05/11/21 Page 3 of 26 PageID #: 421
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff’s allegations as to “Huawei” in paragraph 8 are non-specific as to which
`
`Defendant is alleged to have taken the actions alleged in this paragraph. Therefore, the
`
`allegations in paragraph 8 do not comply with (1) Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)’s requirement that each
`
`allegation must be “direct,” or (2) Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b)’s requirement that each paragraph should
`
`be “limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” In light of paragraph 8’s
`
`ambiguous reference to “Huawei,” Huawei lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief about the truth of the allegations and therefore denies the allegations.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff’s allegations as to “Huawei” in paragraph 9 are non-specific as to which
`
`Defendant is alleged to have taken the actions alleged in this paragraph. Therefore, the
`
`allegations in paragraph 8 do not comply with (1) Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)’s requirement that each
`
`allegation must be “direct,” or (2) Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b)’s requirement that each paragraph should
`
`be “limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” In light of paragraph 9’s
`
`ambiguous reference to “Huawei,” Huawei lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief about the truth of the allegations and therefore denies the allegations.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff’s allegations as to “Huawei” and to “directly or through one or more of
`
`its Foundry Partners” in paragraph 10 are non-specific as to which Defendant is alleged to have
`
`taken the actions alleged in this paragraph or as to which entity has a contractual relationship.
`
`Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 10 do not comply with (1) Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)’s
`
`requirement that each allegation must be “direct,” or (2) Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b)’s requirement that
`
`each paragraph should be “limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” In light
`
`of paragraph 10’s ambiguous references to “Huawei” and “directly or through one or more of its
`
`Foundry Partners,” Huawei lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations and therefore denies the allegations.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00991-ALM Document 18 Filed 05/11/21 Page 4 of 26 PageID #: 422
`
`11.
`
`Huawei lacks sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the facts
`
`alleged in this paragraph and therefore denies any and all allegations in paragraph 11.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff’s allegations as to “Huawei” and to “directly or through one or more of
`
`its Foundry Partners” in paragraph 12 are non-specific as to which Defendant is alleged to have
`
`taken the actions alleged in this paragraph or as to which entity has a contractual relationship.
`
`Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 12 do not comply with (1) Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)’s
`
`requirement that each allegation must be “direct,” or (2) Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b)’s requirement that
`
`each paragraph should be “limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” In light
`
`of paragraph 12’s ambiguous references to “Huawei” and “directly or through one or more of its
`
`Foundry Partners,” Huawei lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations and therefore denies the allegations.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff’s allegations as to “Huawei” and to “directly or through one or more of
`
`its Foundry Partners” in paragraph 13 are non-specific as to which Defendant is alleged to have
`
`taken the actions alleged in this paragraph or as to which entity has a contractual relationship.
`
`Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 13 do not comply with (1) Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)’s
`
`requirement that each allegation must be “direct,” or (2) Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b)’s requirement that
`
`each paragraph should be “limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” In light
`
`of paragraph 13’s ambiguous references to “Huawei” and “directly or through one or more of its
`
`Foundry Partners,” Huawei lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations and therefore denies the allegations.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff’s allegations as to “Huawei” and to “directly or through one or more of
`
`its Foundry Partners” in paragraph 14 are non-specific as to which Defendant is alleged to have
`
`taken the actions alleged in this paragraph or as to which entity has a contractual relationship.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00991-ALM Document 18 Filed 05/11/21 Page 5 of 26 PageID #: 423
`
`Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 14 do not comply with (1) Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)’s
`
`requirement that each allegation must be “direct,” or (2) Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b)’s requirement that
`
`each paragraph should be “limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” In light
`
`of paragraph 14’s ambiguous references to “Huawei” and “directly or through one or more of its
`
`Foundry Partners,” Huawei lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations and therefore denies the allegations.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`Denied.
`
`Plaintiff’s allegations as to “Huawei” and to “directly or through one or more of
`
`its Foundry Partners” in paragraph 16 are non-specific as to which Defendant is alleged to have
`
`taken the actions alleged in this paragraph or as to which entity has a contractual relationship.
`
`Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 16 do not comply with (1) Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)’s
`
`requirement that each allegation must be “direct,” or (2) Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b)’s requirement that
`
`each paragraph should be “limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” In light
`
`of paragraph 16’s ambiguous references to “Huawei” and “directly or through one or more of its
`
`Foundry Partners,” Huawei lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations and therefore denies the allegations.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff’s allegations as to “Huawei” and to “directly or through one or more of
`
`its Foundry Partners” in paragraph 17 are non-specific as to which Defendant is alleged to have
`
`taken the actions alleged in this paragraph or as to which entity has a contractual relationship.
`
`Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 17 do not comply with (1) Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)’s
`
`requirement that each allegation must be “direct,” or (2) Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b)’s requirement that
`
`each paragraph should be “limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” In light
`
`of paragraph 17’s ambiguous references to “Huawei” and “directly or through one or more of its
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00991-ALM Document 18 Filed 05/11/21 Page 6 of 26 PageID #: 424
`
`Foundry Partners,” Huawei lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations and therefore denies the allegations.
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff’s allegations as to “Huawei” and to “directly or through one or more of
`
`its Foundry Partners” in paragraph 18 are non-specific as to which Defendant is alleged to have
`
`taken the actions alleged in this paragraph or as to which entity has a contractual relationship.
`
`Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 18 do not comply with (1) Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)’s
`
`requirement that each allegation must be “direct,” or (2) Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b)’s requirement that
`
`each paragraph should be “limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” In light
`
`of paragraph 18’s ambiguous references to “Huawei” and “directly or through one or more of its
`
`Foundry Partners,” Huawei lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations and therefore denies the allegations.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff’s allegations as to “Huawei” and to “directly or through one or more of
`
`its Foundry Partners” in paragraph 19 are non-specific as to which Defendant is alleged to have
`
`taken the actions alleged in this paragraph or as to which entity has a contractual relationship.
`
`Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 19 do not comply with (1) Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)’s
`
`requirement that each allegation must be “direct,” or (2) Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b)’s requirement that
`
`each paragraph should be “limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” In light
`
`of paragraph 19’s ambiguous references to “Huawei” and “directly or through one or more of its
`
`Foundry Partners,” Huawei lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations and therefore denies the allegations.
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiff’s allegations as to “Huawei” and to “directly or through one or more of
`
`its Foundry Partners” in paragraph 20 are non-specific as to which Defendant is alleged to have
`
`taken the actions alleged in this paragraph or as to which entity has a contractual relationship.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00991-ALM Document 18 Filed 05/11/21 Page 7 of 26 PageID #: 425
`
`Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 20 do not comply with (1) Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)’s
`
`requirement that each allegation must be “direct,” or (2) Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b)’s requirement that
`
`each paragraph should be “limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” In light
`
`of paragraph 20’s ambiguous references to “Huawei” and “directly or through one or more of its
`
`Foundry Partners,” Huawei lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations and therefore denies the allegations.
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff’s allegations as to “Huawei” and to “directly or through one or more of
`
`its Foundry Partners” in paragraph 21 are non-specific as to which Defendant is alleged to have
`
`taken the actions alleged in this paragraph or as to which entity has a contractual relationship.
`
`Therefore, the allegations in paragraph 21 do not comply with (1) Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)’s
`
`requirement that each allegation must be “direct,” or (2) Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b)’s requirement that
`
`each paragraph should be “limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” In light
`
`of paragraph 21’s ambiguous references to “Huawei” and “directly or through one or more of its
`
`Foundry Partners,” Huawei lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations and therefore denies the allegations.
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff’s allegations as to “Huawei” in paragraph 22 are non-specific as to which
`
`Defendant is alleged to have taken the actions alleged in this paragraph. Therefore, the
`
`allegations in paragraph 22 do not comply with (1) Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)’s requirement that each
`
`allegation must be “direct,” or (2) Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b)’s requirement that each paragraph should
`
`be “limited as far as practicable to a single set of circumstances.” Huawei admits HDU conducts
`
`business, including sale and offer for sale of mobile phones and notebook computers, in the
`
`United States, but Huawei otherwise denies the allegations in this paragraph or lacks sufficient
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00991-ALM Document 18 Filed 05/11/21 Page 8 of 26 PageID #: 426
`
`information to form a belief as to the truth of the facts alleged in this paragraph and therefore
`
`denies all remaining allegations in paragraph 22.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`23.
`
`Huawei admits that the Complaint purports to be for an action arising under the
`
`patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq.
`
`24.
`
`Huawei admits that this Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
`
`action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`25.
`
`Huawei admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction over HDU. Without
`
`waiving any rights to object to, or otherwise challenge, jurisdiction in other actions, Huawei
`
`responds that Huawei Device and HiSilicon do not contest the Court’s jurisdiction over them for
`
`purposes of this action only. Huawei denies that Huawei is headquartered in Austin, Texas, and
`
`further denies any and all remaining allegations of paragraph 25.
`
`26.
`
`Huawei admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction over HDU. Without
`
`waiving any rights to object to, or otherwise challenge, jurisdiction in other actions, Huawei
`
`responds that Huawei Device and HiSilicon do not contest the Court’s jurisdiction over them for
`
`purposes of this action only. Huawei denies that Huawei has committed or commits acts of
`
`infringement within the Eastern District of Texas, the State of Texas, or elsewhere in the United
`
`States, and further denies any and all remaining allegations in paragraph 26.
`
`27.
`
`For the purpose of this action only, and without waiving any defense of improper
`
`venue in connection with any other cause of action or claim, Huawei does not contest that venue
`
`properly lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) with respect to HDU, a Texas
`
`corporation, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) with respect to Huawei Device and
`
`HiSilicon, each a Chinese company. Huawei denies that Huawei has committed or commits acts
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00991-ALM Document 18 Filed 05/11/21 Page 9 of 26 PageID #: 427
`
`of infringement within the Eastern District of Texas, the State of Texas, or elsewhere in the
`
`United States, and further denies any and all remaining allegations in paragraph 27.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`28.
`
`Huawei admits that, on its face, U.S. Patent No. 6,660,651 (“the ‘651 Patent”)
`
`indicates that it was issued on December 9, 2003, that it is entitled “Adjustable Wafer Stage, and
`
`a Method and System for Performing Process Operations Using Same,” and that U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 10/010,463 was filed with the USPTO on November 8, 2001. Huawei admits
`
`that Exhibit A appears to be a copy of the ‘651 Patent. Huawei lacks knowledge or information
`
`to form a belief as the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 28, and therefore denies the
`
`same.
`
`29.
`
`Huawei lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of paragraph 29, and therefore denies the same.
`
`30.
`
`Huawei lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of paragraph 30, and therefore denies the same.
`
`31.
`
`Huawei lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of paragraph 31, and therefore denies the same.
`
`32.
`
`Huawei lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of paragraph 32, and therefore denies the same.
`
`33.
`
`Huawei lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of paragraph 33, and therefore denies the same.
`
`34.
`
`Huawei admits that, on its face, U.S. Patent No. 6,907,305 (“the ‘305 Patent”)
`
`indicates that it was issued on June 14, 2005, that it is entitled “Agent Reactive Scheduling in an
`
`Automated Manufacturing Environment,” and that U.S. Patent Application No. 10/135,145 was
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00991-ALM Document 18 Filed 05/11/21 Page 10 of 26 PageID #: 428
`
`filed with the USPTO on April 30, 2002. Huawei admits that Exhibit B appears to be a copy of
`
`the ‘305 Patent. Huawei lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations of paragraph 34, and therefore denies the same.
`
`35.
`
`Huawei lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of paragraph 35, and therefore denies the same.
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Huawei admits that, on its face, U.S. Patent No. 6,725,402 (“the ‘402 Patent”)
`
`indicates that it was issued on April 20, 2004, that it is entitled “Method and Apparatus for Fault
`
`Detection of a Processing Tool and Control Thereof Using an Advanced Process Control (APC)
`
`Framework”), and that U.S. Patent Application No. 09/629,073 was filed with the USPTO on
`
`July 31, 2000. Huawei admits that Exhibit C appears to be a copy of the ‘402 Patent. Huawei
`
`lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as the truth of the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 40, and therefore denies the same.
`
`41.
`
`Huawei lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of paragraph 41, and therefore denies the same.
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00991-ALM Document 18 Filed 05/11/21 Page 11 of 26 PageID #: 429
`
`46.
`
`Huawei admits that, on its face, U.S. Patent No. 6,968,248 (“the ‘248 Patent”)
`
`indicates that it was issued on November 22, 2005, that it is entitled “Agent Reactive Scheduling
`
`in an Automated Manufacturing Environment,” and that U.S. Patent Application No. 11/151,098
`
`was filed with the USPTO on June 13, 2005. Huawei admits that Exhibit D appears to be a copy
`
`of the ‘248 Patent. Huawei lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations of paragraph 46, and therefore denies the same.
`
`47.
`
`Huawei lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of paragraph 47, and therefore denies the same.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Huawei admits that, on its face, U.S. Patent No. 7,080,330 (“the ‘330 Patent”)
`
`indicates that it was issued on July 18, 2006, that it is entitled “Concurrent Measurement of
`
`Critical Dimension and Overlay in Semiconductor Manufacturing,” and that U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 10/379,738 was filed with the USPTO on March 5, 2003. Huawei admits that
`
`Exhibit E appears to be a copy of the ‘330 Patent. Huawei lacks knowledge or information to
`
`form a belief as the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 52, and therefore denies the
`
`same.
`
`53.
`
`Huawei lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of paragraph 53, and therefore denies the same.
`
`54.
`
`55.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00991-ALM Document 18 Filed 05/11/21 Page 12 of 26 PageID #: 430
`
`56.
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Huawei admits that, on its face, U.S. Patent No. 6,836.691 (“the ‘691 Patent”)
`
`indicates that it was issued on December 28, 2004, that it is entitled “Method and Apparatus for
`
`Filtering Metrology Data Based on Collection Purpose,” and that U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`10/427,620 was filed with the USPTO on May 1, 2003. Huawei admits that Exhibit F appears to
`
`be a copy of the ‘691 Patent. Huawei lacks knowledge or information to form a belief as the
`
`truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 58, and therefore denies the same.
`
`59.
`
`Huawei lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of paragraph 59, and therefore denies the same.
`
`60.
`
`61.
`
`62.
`
`63.
`
`64.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Huawei admits that, on its face, U.S. Patent No. 8,676,538 (“the ‘538 Patent”)
`
`indicates that it was issued on March 18, 2014, that it is entitled “Adjusting Weighting of a
`
`parameter Relating to Fault Detection Based on a Detected Fault,” and that U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 10/979,309 was filed with the USPTO on November 2, 2004. Huawei admits
`
`that Exhibit G appears to be a copy of the ‘538 Patent. Huawei lacks knowledge or information
`
`to form a belief as the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 64, and therefore denies the
`
`same.
`
`65.
`
`Huawei lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of paragraph 65, and therefore denies the same.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00991-ALM Document 18 Filed 05/11/21 Page 13 of 26 PageID #: 431
`
`66.
`
`67.
`
`68.
`
`69.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT I
`(Alleged Infringement of the ‘651 Patent)
`
`70.
`
`Huawei restates and incorporates by reference all of its statements set forth above
`
`in paragraphs 1 through 69 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`71.
`
`72.
`
`73.
`
`74.
`
`75.
`
`76.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Huawei denies infringement of any valid, enforceable patent asserted in this
`
`action. The claim chart as shown in Exhibit H to the Complaint includes terms found in one or
`
`more claims of the ‘651 Patent, which are subject to construction by the Court during the
`
`Markman process—rendering paragraph 76 at least partially unanswerable at this time. Huawei
`
`denies any and all remaining allegations in paragraph 76.
`
`77.
`
`78.
`
`79.
`
`80.
`
`81.
`
`82.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00991-ALM Document 18 Filed 05/11/21 Page 14 of 26 PageID #: 432
`
`83.
`
`84.
`
`85.
`
`86.
`
`87.
`
`88.
`
`89.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`This paragraph states Ocean’s characterization of its infringement theories and
`
`legal conclusions, to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer is required, Huawei
`
`denies any and all allegations in paragraph 89.
`
`COUNT II
`(Alleged Infringement of the ‘402 Patent)
`
`90.
`
`Huawei restates and incorporates by reference all of its statements set forth above
`
`in paragraphs 1 through 89 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`91.
`
`92.
`
`93.
`
`94.
`
`95.
`
`96.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Huawei denies infringement of any valid, enforceable patent asserted in this
`
`action. The claim charts as shown in Exhibits I and J to the Complaint include terms found in
`
`one or more claims of the ‘402 Patent, which are subject to construction by the Court during the
`
`Markman process—rendering paragraph 96 at least partially unanswerable at this time. Huawei
`
`denies any and all remaining allegations in paragraph 96.
`
`97.
`
`Denied.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00991-ALM Document 18 Filed 05/11/21 Page 15 of 26 PageID #: 433
`
`98.
`
`99.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`100. Denied.
`
`101. Denied.
`
`102. Denied.
`
`103. Denied.
`
`104. Denied.
`
`105. Denied.
`
`106. Denied.
`
`107. Denied.
`
`108. Denied.
`
`109.
`
`This paragraph states Ocean’s characterization of its infringement theories and
`
`legal conclusions, to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer is required, Huawei
`
`denies any and all allegations in paragraph 109.
`
`COUNT III
`(Alleged Infringement of the ‘305 Patent)
`
`110. Huawei restates and incorporates by reference all of its statements set forth above
`
`in paragraphs 1 through 109 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`111. Denied.
`
`112. Denied.
`
`113. Denied.
`
`114. Denied.
`
`115. Denied.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00991-ALM Document 18 Filed 05/11/21 Page 16 of 26 PageID #: 434
`
`116. Huawei denies infringement of any valid, enforceable patent asserted in this
`
`action. The claim chart as shown in Exhibit K to the Complaint includes terms found in one or
`
`more claims of the ‘305 Patent, which are subject to construction by the Court during the
`
`Markman process—rendering paragraph 116 at least partially unanswerable at this time. Huawei
`
`denies any and all remaining allegations in paragraph 116.
`
`117. Denied.
`
`118. Denied.
`
`119. Denied.
`
`120. Denied.
`
`121. Denied.
`
`122. Denied.
`
`123. Denied.
`
`124. Denied.
`
`125. Denied.
`
`126. Denied.
`
`127. Denied.
`
`128. Denied.
`
`129.
`
`This paragraph states Ocean’s characterization of its infringement theories and
`
`legal conclusions, to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer is required, Huawei
`
`denies any and all allegations in paragraph 129.
`
`COUNT IV
`(Alleged Infringement of the ‘248 Patent)
`
`130. Huawei restates and incorporates by reference all of its statements set forth above
`
`in paragraphs 1 through 129 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00991-ALM Document 18 Filed 05/11/21 Page 17 of 26 PageID #: 435
`
`131. Denied.
`
`132. Denied.
`
`133. Denied.
`
`134. Denied.
`
`135. Denied.
`
`136. Huawei denies infringement of any valid, enforceable patent asserted in this
`
`action. The claim chart as shown in Exhibit L to the Complaint includes terms found in one or
`
`more claims of the ‘248 Patent, which are subject to construction by the Court during the
`
`Markman process—rendering paragraph 136 at least partially unanswerable at this time. Huawei
`
`denies any and all remaining allegations in paragraph 136.
`
`137. Denied.
`
`138. Denied.
`
`139. Denied.
`
`140. Denied.
`
`141. Denied.
`
`142. Denied.
`
`143. Denied.
`
`144. Denied.
`
`145. Denied.
`
`146. Denied.
`
`147. Denied.
`
`148. Denied.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00991-ALM Document 18 Filed 05/11/21 Page 18 of 26 PageID #: 436
`
`149.
`
`This paragraph states Ocean’s characterization of its infringement theories and
`
`legal conclusions, to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer is required, Huawei
`
`denies any and all allegations in paragraph 149.
`
`COUNT V
`(Alleged Infringement of the ‘330 Patent)
`
`150. Huawei restates and incorporates by reference all of its statements set forth above
`
`in paragraphs 1 through 149 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`151. Denied.
`
`152. Denied.
`
`153. Denied.
`
`154. Denied.
`
`155. Denied.
`
`156. Denied.
`
`157. Huawei denies infringement of any valid, enforceable patent asserted in this
`
`action. The claim chart as shown in Exhibit M to the Complaint includes terms found in one or
`
`more claims of the ‘330 Patent, which are subject to construction by the Court during the
`
`Markman process—rendering paragraph 157 at least partially unanswerable at this time. Huawei
`
`denies any and all remaining allegations in paragraph 157.
`
`158. Denied.
`
`159. Denied.
`
`160. Denied.
`
`161. Denied.
`
`162. Denied.
`
`163. Denied.
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00991-ALM Document 18 Filed 05/11/21 Page 19 of 26 PageID #: 437
`
`164. Denied.
`
`165. Denied.
`
`166. Denied.
`
`167. Denied.
`
`168. Denied.
`
`169. Denied.
`
`170.
`
`This paragraph states Ocean’s characterization of its infringement theories and
`
`legal conclusions, to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer is required, Huawei
`
`denies any and all allegations in paragraph 170.
`
`COUNT VI
`(Alleged Infringement of the ‘691 Patent)
`
`171. Huawei restates and incorporates by reference all of its statements set forth above
`
`in paragraphs 1 through 170 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`172. Denied.
`
`173. Denied.
`
`174. Denied.
`
`175. Denied.
`
`176. Denied.
`
`177. Huawei denies infringement of any valid, enforceable patent asserted in this
`
`action. The claim charts as shown in Exhibit N and O to the Complaint include terms found in
`
`one or more claims of the ‘691 Patent, which are subject to construction by the Court during the
`
`Markman process—rendering paragraph 177 at least partially unanswerable at this time. Huawei
`
`denies any and all remaining allegations in paragraph 177.
`
`178. Denied.
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00991-ALM Document 18 Filed 05/11/21 Page 20 of 26 PageID #: 438
`
`179. Denied.
`
`180. Denied.
`
`181. Denied.
`
`182. Denied.
`
`183. Denied.
`
`184. Denied.
`
`185. Denied.
`
`186. Denied.
`
`187. Denied.
`
`188. Denied.
`
`189. Denied.
`
`190.
`
`This paragraph states Ocean’s characterization of its infringement theories and
`
`legal conclusions, to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer is required, Huawei
`
`denies any and all allegations in paragraph 190.
`
`COUNT VII
`(Alleged Infringement of the ‘538 Patent)
`
`191. Huawei restates and incorporates by reference all of its statements set forth above
`
`in paragraphs 1 through 190 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`192. Denied.
`
`193. Denied.
`
`194. Denied.
`
`195. Denied.
`
`196. Denied.
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00991-ALM Document 18 Filed 05/11/21 Page 21 of 26 PageID #: 439
`
`197. Huawei denies infringement of any valid, enforceable patent asserted in this
`
`action. The claim charts as shown in Exhibits P and Q to the Complaint include terms found in
`
`one or more claims of the ‘538 Patent, which are subject to construction by the Court during the
`
`Markman process—rendering paragraph 197 at least partially unanswerable at this time. Huawei
`
`denies any and all remaining allegations in paragraph 197.
`
`198. Denied.
`
`199. Denied.
`
`200. Denied.
`
`201. Denied.
`
`202. Denied.
`
`203. Denied.
`
`204. Denied.
`
`205. Denied.
`
`206. Denied.
`
`207. Denied.
`
`208. Denied.
`
`209. Denied.
`
`210.
`
`This paragraph states Ocean’s characterization of its infringement theories and
`
`legal conclusions, to which no answer is required. To the extent an answer is required, Huawei
`
`denies any and all allegations in paragraph 210.
`
`RESPONSE TO OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR’S RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Huawei denies that Ocean is entitled to any relief sought in its Complaint.
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-00991-ALM Document 18 Filed 05/11/21 Page 22 of 26 PageID #: 440
`
`RESPONSE TO OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR’S DEMAND FOR A TRIAL BY JURY
`
`Ocean’s demand for a trial by jury for all issues triable to a jury does not state any
`
`allegation, and Huawei is not required to respond.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`Huawei alleges and asserts the following defenses in response to the allegations of the
`
`Complaint, undertaking the burden of proof only as to those defenses deemed affirmative
`
`defenses by law, regardless of how such defenses are denominated herein. Huawei reserves the
`
`right to amend its Answer, including asserting additional defenses and counterclaims once
`
`discovery progresses. For its Affirmative Defenses to the Complaint, Huawei alleges the
`
`following:
`
`First Affirmative Defense
`(No