Case 4:23-cv-00573-ALM Document 4-1 Filed 08/04/23 Page 1 of 68 PageID #: 255
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-00573-ALM Document 4-1 Filed 08/04/23 Page 2 of 68 PageID #: 256
`
` 1526 Gilpin Avenue
`Wilmington, Delaware 19806
`United States of America
`Tel: 302-449-9010
`Fax: 302-353-4251
`www.devlinlawfirm.com
`
`
`
`
`
`DIRECT DIAL: (206) 779-4023
`
`ANDREW F. PRATT
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`
`
`VIA EDIS
`
`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton
`Secretary to the Commission
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street SW
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`
`Re:
`
`
`
`Dear Secretary Barton:
`
`
`Certain Electronic Devices and Semiconductor Devices Having Wireless
`Communication Capabilities and Components Thereof
`
`On behalf of our client, Bell Northern Research, LLC (“BNR” or “Complainant”),
`we are filing a complaint, including certain ancillary documents, pursuant to Section 337
`of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. §1337, against NXP Semiconductors,
`N.V. and NXP USA, Inc.; Laird Connectivity, LLC; Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.;
`MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek USA Inc.; and ASUSTek Computer Inc. and ASUS
`Computer International (collectively, the “Respondents”).
`
`
`BNR makes this filing under the U.S. International Trade Commission’s Temporary
`Change to Filing Procedures dated March 16, 2020, and includes the following:
`
`
`1. One (1) electronic copy of Complainant’s Verified Complaint and the Public
`Interest Statement (Commission Rules 210.8 (a)(1)(i) and 210.8(b));
`
`2. One (1) electronic copy of the non-confidential exhibits and public versions of the
`confidential exhibit (Commission Rule 210.8(a)(1)(i));
`
`3. One (1) electronic copy of the confidential exhibit (Commission Rules
`210.8(a)(1)(ii) and 201.6(c));
`
`4. One (1) electronic copy of the certified versions of the asserted United States
`Patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,564,914, RE 48,629; and 8,416,862 (collectively “the Asserted
`Patents”), cited in the Complaint as Exhibits 1-3 (Commission Rule 210.12(a)(9)(i));
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-00573-ALM Document 4-1 Filed 08/04/23 Page 3 of 68 PageID #: 257
`
`Devlin Law Firm
`
`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton
`June 21, 2023
`Page 2 of 2
`
`
`5. One (1) electronic copy of the certified versions of the prosecution histories for
`each of the Asserted Patents included as Appendices A, B, and C to the Complaint (Commission
`Rule 210.12(c)(1));
`
`6. One (1) electronic copy of the assignment records for the Asserted Patents cited in
`the Complaint as Exhibits 4-6 (Commission Rule 210.12(a)(9)(ii));
`
`7. One (1) electronic copy of the patent and technical reference documents identified
`in the prosecution histories of the Asserted Patents, included in the Complaint as Appendices D,
`E, and F (Commission Rule 210.12(c)(2)); and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`8. One (1) electronic copy of BNR’s letter and certification requesting confidential
`treatment of information appearing in Confidential Exhibit 58C to the Complaint (Commission
`Rules 210.5(d) and 201.6(b)).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 21, 2023
`
`
`Enclosures
`
`Gat
`
`
`
`
`
`DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Timothy Devlin
`Andrew Pratt
`Lowell D. Jacobson
`Srikant Cheruvu
`1526 Gilpin Avenue
`Wilmington, DE 19806
`Tel: (302) 449-9010
`tdevlin@devlinlawfirm.com
`apratt@devlinlawfirm.com
`ljacobson@devlinlawfirm.com
`scheruvu@devlinlawfirm.com
`
`Attorneys for Complainant
`Bell Northern Research, LLC
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-00573-ALM Document 4-1 Filed 08/04/23 Page 4 of 68 PageID #: 258
`
` 1526 Gilpin Avenue
`Wilmington, Delaware 19806
`United States of America
`Tel: 302-449-9010
`Fax: 302-353-4251
`www.devlinlawfirm.com
`
`
`
`
`
`DIRECT DIAL: (206) 779-4023
`
`ANDREW F. PRATT
`
`June 21, 2023
`
`
`
`VIA EDIS
`
`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton
`Secretary to the Commission
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street SW
`Washington, D.C. 20436
`
`
`Re:
`
`Certain Electronic Devices and Semiconductor Devices Having Wireless
`Communication Capabilities and Components Thereof
`
`
`
`Dear Secretary Barton:
`
`On behalf of our client, Bell Northern Research, LLC (“BNR”), attached is a complaint,
`including certain ancillary documents, pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
`amended, 19 U. S. C. § 1337 against NXP Semiconductors, N.V. and NXP USA, Inc.; Laird
`Connectivity, LLC; Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.; MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek USA Inc.; and
`ASUSTek Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International (collectively, the “Respondents”).
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(d), BNR respectfully requests confidential
`treatment of the information contained in Confidential Exhibits 47C and 58C to the Complaint.
`
`The information contained Confidential Exhibits 47C and 58C to the Complaint qualify as
`confidential information pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 201.6(a) in that they contain proprietary
`commercial information, proprietary commercial relationships, and/or proprietary business
`information that is not otherwise publicly available, and because the disclosure of such
`information would cause substantial harm to BNR and the suppliers of the information, and
`would also impair the Commission’s ability in the future to obtain such types of information in
`performance of its statutory function.
`
`If the Commission decides not to grant such confidential treatment to these Confidential
`Exhibits, we respectfully ask the Commission to contact us promptly so that we may have an
`opportunity to explain our request for confidential treatment.
`
`BNR’s filing of the confidential information should not be construed as any waiver of any right
`to confidentiality that may otherwise be available. BNR reserves the right to request the return of
`any confidential information wo which the Commission decides not to afford confidential
`treatment.
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-00573-ALM Document 4-1 Filed 08/04/23 Page 5 of 68 PageID #: 259
`
`Devlin Law Firm
`
`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton
`June 21, 2023
`Page 2 of 2
`
`
` I
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` certify that the proprietary confidential commercial information, proprietary commercial
`relationships, and/or proprietary business information present in these exhibits is not reasonably
`available to the public, and thus warrants confidential treatment.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 21, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`aft
`
`DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Timothy Devlin
`Andrew F. Pratt
`Lowell D. Jacobson
`Srikant Cheruvu
`1526 Gilpin Avenue
`Wilmington, DE 19806
`Tel: (302) 449-9010
`tdevlin@devlinlawfirm.com
`apratt@devlinlawfirm.com
`cclayton@devlinlawfirm.com
`scheruvu@devlinlawfirm.com
`
`Attorneys for Complainant
`Bell Northern Research, LLC
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-00573-ALM Document 4-1 Filed 08/04/23 Page 6 of 68 PageID #: 260
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN ELECTRONIC DEVICES AND
`SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES HAVING
`WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
`CAPABILITIES AND COMPONENTS
`THEREOF
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-___
`
`COMPLAINANT BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC’s
`STATEMENT ON THE PUBLIC INTEREST
`
`In support of its Complaint filed on June 21, 2023, Bell Northern Research, LLC (“BNR”
`
`or “Complainant”) respectfully submits this statement of public interest pursuant to 19 C.F.R.
`
`§ 210.8(b).
`
`BNR discloses at the outset that asserted U.S. Patent No. RE 48,629 (the ’629 patent) is
`
`believed to be standards-essential. With respect to each Respondent against whom the ’629 patent
`
`is asserted,1 BNR has disclosed either or both of the reissue ’629 patent and its predecessor U.S.
`
`Patent No. 7,990,842 and has offered to license them on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory
`
`terms, and will continue to do so. However, each Respondent has responded to BNR’s efforts by
`
`engaging in a holdout pattern, refusing to substantively engage with BNR despite BNR’s
`
`substantial efforts and many overtures. BNR expects that the Commission will delegate fact
`
`finding on the public interest factors to the Administrative Law Judge where the ’629 patent is
`
`standards essential, and BNR does not oppose delegation on that basis.
`
`1 The ’629 patent is not asserted against Respondent Laird Connectivity, LLC.
`1
`
`

`

`
`Case 4:23-cv-00573-ALM Document 4-1 Filed 08/04/23 Page 7 of 68 PageID #: 261
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Issuance of the requested remedial orders is necessary to provide effective relief in the face
`
`of ongoing infringement of the BNR Patents in the United States by Respondents NXP
`
`Semiconductors, N.V. and NXP USA, Inc.;2 Laird Connectivity, LLC;3 Qualcomm Technologies,
`
`Inc.;4 MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek USA Inc.;5 and ASUSTek Computer Inc. and ASUS
`
`Computer International.6 The requested remedial orders will not have an adverse effect on public
`
`health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the
`
`production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
`
`On the other hand, protecting BNR’s intellectual property rights and investment in the domestic
`
`industry in the United States will serve the public interest while having little or no adverse effect
`
`on the public interest.
`
`I.
`
`THE REQUESTED REMEDIAL ORDERS ARE IN ACCORD WITH
`THE PUBLIC INTEREST
`
`The Commission has recognized the strong public interest in enforcing intellectual
`
`property rights. See Certain Baseband Processor Chips and Chipsets, Transmitter and Receiver
`
`(Radio) Chips, Power Control Chips, and Products Containing Same, Including Cellular
`
`Telephone Handsets, Inv. No. 337-TA-543, USITC Pub. 4258, at 136–37 (Oct. 2011). BNR’s
`
`requested remedial orders are in accord with the public interest because exclusion of the accused
`
`products, which in total comprise a relatively small share of the relevant market segments, will not
`
`have an adverse effect on the public health or welfare. At the same time, the Respondents’
`
`competitors (including BNR’s licensees) can fulfill the market for the accused products within a
`
`
`2 Collectively, “NXP” or the “NXP Respondents”.
`3 “Laird”.
`4 “Qualcomm”.
`5 Collectively, “MediaTek” or the “MediaTek Respondents”.
`6 Collectively, “ASUS” or the “ASUS Respondents”.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`Case 4:23-cv-00573-ALM Document 4-1 Filed 08/04/23 Page 8 of 68 PageID #: 262
`
`commercially reasonable amount of time. Thus, the requested remedial orders will not adversely
`
`affect United States consumers.
`
`1. Rule 210.8(b)(l): Explanation of how the articles potentially subject to the
`requested remedial orders are used in the United States.
`
`The accused Wi-Fi chips and chipsets identified in the Complaint are known to be used in
`
`routers, computers, and also modules that can be deployed within a larger assembly to provide
`
`Wi-Fi capabilities. The accused devices are believed to comprise only a small subset of Wi-Fi
`
`chipsets, modules containing same, and end products such as computers, access points, and
`
`routers. These devices are marketed and used primarily for communication, entertainment, and
`
`professional applications.
`
`2. Rule 210.8(b)(2): Identification of any public health, safety, or welfare
`concerns relating to the requested remedial orders.
`
`There are no health, safety, or welfare concerns at issue in this investigation with respect to
`
`the exclusion of the Respondents’ products from the United States. Indeed, the Commission has
`
`previously found that personal computers and other devices having Wi-Fi capabilities generally
`
`analogous to those accused here do not themselves give rise to public interest bars to remedial
`
`orders. See, e.g., Certain Mobile Devices, Associated Software, and Components Thereof, Inv.
`
`No. 337-TA-744, Comm’n Op. at 30 (June 5, 2012). Moreover, ordinary consumer devices like
`
`personal computers and networking devices accused in this action do not implicate health and
`
`welfare issues in any way similar to the rare instances that the Commission has found such issues
`
`to exist. See, e.g., Certain Fluidized Supporting Apparatus, Inv. Nos. 337-TA-182/188 (Oct.
`
`1984) (denying relief where supply of hospital burn beds would be unduly curtailed). As to the
`
`Wi-Fi chips themselves (whether in wafer form, diced, or attached to printed circuit boards or in
`
`modules), BNR is unaware of any facts giving rise to public interest concerns, particularly where
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`Case 4:23-cv-00573-ALM Document 4-1 Filed 08/04/23 Page 9 of 68 PageID #: 263
`
`those products are commoditized, and replacements can be supplied by BNR’s licensees and
`
`others.
`
`3. Rule 210.8(b)(3): Identification of like or directly competitive articles that
`Complainant’s or third parties make that would replace the subject
`articles if they were to be excluded.
`
`Personal and tablet computers and networking devices (e.g., routers and gateways) are
`
`offered by numerous brands having substantially and comparatively large market shares compared
`
`to the Respondents.
`
`In the personal and tablet computer space, BNR licensees Samsung and others are among
`
`the largest sellers in the United States and comprise a substantial share of the market. ASUSTek
`
`is not in the top 10. Moreover, many of Respondent ASUSTek’s personal computer offerings are
`
`generic Chromebook laptops that effectively may be substituted by any other Chromebook,
`
`including those of BNR’s licensees.
`
`In the router, gateway, and networking device space, BNR licensees include well-known
`
`market leaders in networking devices, including routers, gateways, and comprise a substantial
`
`share of the market. ASUSTek is not in the top 20.
`
`With respect to Wi-Fi chips, BNR licensees Broadcom and Samsung comprise a
`
`substantial share of the U.S. market for such devices. It is expected that at least Broadcom and
`
`Samsung can supply the market for any Respondent chips subject to remedial orders.
`
`It is also notable that Respondents’ products subject to the remedial orders are believed to
`
`be less than all products offered by Respondents in each category, and just those devices with
`
`specific types of Wi-Fi capability. Accordingly, other market participants can replace the accused
`
`devices, and Respondents may also license the Asserted Patents from BNR.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`Case 4:23-cv-00573-ALM Document 4-1 Filed 08/04/23 Page 10 of 68 PageID #: 264
`
`4. Rule 210.8(b)(4): Identification of whether the Complainants have the
`capacity to replace the volume of articles subject to the requested remedial
`orders in a commercially reasonable time in the United States.
`
`BNR does not itself manufacture the accused products. However, BNR’s licensees and
`
`other market participants are believed to have the capacity to quickly replace the accused products
`
`given that the accused products are believed to comprise only a small share of the market in each
`
`relevant market segment. A list of licensees to the Asserted Patents is attached to the Complaint as
`
`Exhibit 59.7
`
`5. Rule 210.8(b)(5): The requested remedial orders will not adversely impact U.S.
`consumers.
`
`Since there will be no unfilled demand for the accused products due to the presence of
`
`competing devices from market competitors, there will be little if any impact to the public interest
`
`by the exclusion of Respondents’ infringing products. Moreover, any public interest concerns on
`
`the part of the Respondents may be addressed by licensing the asserted patents from BNR.
`
`II. CONCLUSION
`
`Where the Commission has recognized the public’s interest in protecting intellectual
`
`property rights, the removal of the accused products will create no genuine public interest issues
`
`weighing against issuance of the requested remedial orders.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7 Additional licensees will be disclosed in an updated Exhibit 59 after the notice period to those
`entities has concluded.
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`Case 4:23-cv-00573-ALM Document 4-1 Filed 08/04/23 Page 11 of 68 PageID #: 265
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dated: June 21, 2023
`
`
`
`DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
`
`
`
`Gett
`
`
`
`
`Timothy Devlin
`Andrew Pratt
`Lowell Jacobson
`Srikant Cheruvu
`1526 Gilpin Avenue
`Wilmington, DE 19806
`Tel: (302) 449-9010
`tdevlin@devlinlawfirm.com
`apratt@devlinlawfirm.com
`ljacobson@devlinlawfirm.com
`scheruvu@devlinlawfirm.com
`
`Attorneys for Complainant
`Bell Northern Research, LLC
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-00573-ALM Document 4-1 Filed 08/04/23 Page 12 of 68 PageID #: 266
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN ELECTRONIC DEVICES AND
`SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES HAVING
`WIRELESS COMMUNICATION
`CAPABILITIES AND COMPONENTS
`THEREOF
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-___
`
`COMPLAINT OF BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC
`UNDER SECTION 337 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930, AS AMENDED
`
`
`
`COMPLAINANT
`Bell Northern Research, LLC
`401 North Michigan Avenue
`Chicago, Illinois 60611
`(312) 982-8179
`
`COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT
`Timothy Devlin
`Andrew Pratt
`Lowell Jacobson
`Srikant Cheruvu
`1526 Gilpin Avenue
`Wilmington, DE 19806
`Tel: (302) 449-9010
`
`Attorneys for Complainant
`Bell Northern Research, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`RESPONDENTS
`NXP Semiconductors, N.V.
`60 High Tech Campus,
`Eindhoven, Netherlands, 5656
`Tel. +31 40 272 9999
`
`NXP USA, Inc.
`6501 William Cannon Drive West
`Austin, TX 78735
`Tel. (512) 933-8214
`
`Laird Connectivity, LLC
`50 Main Street
`Akron OH 44308
`Tel. (330) 434-7929
`
`Qualcomm Technologies, Inc.
`5775 Morehouse Drive
`San Diego, CA 92121
`Tel. (858) 587-1121
`
`MediaTek Inc.
`No. 1, Dusing 1st Road
`Hsinchu Science Park
`Hsinchu 30078
`Taiwan
`Tel. +886-3-567-0766
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-00573-ALM Document 4-1 Filed 08/04/23 Page 13 of 68 PageID #: 267
`
`MediaTek USA Inc.
`2840 Junction Ave.
`San Jose, CA 95134
`Tel. (408) 526-1899
`
`ASUSTek Computer Inc.
`No. 15, Li-Te Rd.
`Beitou Dist., Taipei 112, Taiwan
`Tel. (866) 2-2894-3447
`
`ASUS Computer International
`48720 Kato Rd.
`Fremont, CA 94538
`Tel. (510) 739-377
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-00573-ALM Document 4-1 Filed 08/04/23 Page 14 of 68 PageID #: 268
`
`
`
`Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`THE PARTIES.....................................................................................................................5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Complainant BNR ....................................................................................................5
`
`Respondents .............................................................................................................5
`
`NXP and Laird Respondents ....................................................................................5
`
`Qualcomm ................................................................................................................6
`
`MediaTek .................................................................................................................6
`
`ASUS .......................................................................................................................7
`
`III.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS, TECHNOLOGY, AND PRODUCTS AT
`ISSUE ..................................................................................................................................8
`
`A.
`
`Non-Technical Descriptions of the Asserted Patents...............................................8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Non-Technical Descriptions of the ’914 Patent .......................................................8
`
`Non-Technical Description of the ’629 Patent ........................................................9
`
`Non-Technical Description of the ’862 Patent ........................................................9
`
`Identification of the Patents and Ownership of the Asserted Patents ....................10
`
`Foreign Counterparts to the Asserted Patents ........................................................11
`
`Licensees Under the Asserted Patents ...................................................................11
`
`IV.
`
`SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF IMPORTATION AND SALE ............................................12
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`NXP and Laird Respondents ..................................................................................12
`
`Qualcomm and the ASUS Respondents ................................................................14
`
`MediaTek and the ASUS Respondents ..................................................................16
`
`V.
`
`UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR ACTS COMMITTED BY THE
`RESPONDENTS ...............................................................................................................18
`
`A.
`
`NXP Respondents and Laird ..................................................................................18
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-00573-ALM Document 4-1 Filed 08/04/23 Page 15 of 68 PageID #: 269
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`C.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`D.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Direct Infringement of the Asserted Patents by NXP and Laird ...........................18
`
`Indirect Infringement of the Asserted Patents by NXP .........................................19
`
`Qualcomm ..............................................................................................................23
`
`Direct Infringement of the Asserted Patents by Qualcomm ..................................23
`
`Indirect Infringement of the Asserted Patents by Qualcomm ................................24
`
`MediaTek Respondents ..........................................................................................28
`
`Direct Infringement of the Asserted Patents by MediaTek ...................................28
`
`Indirect Infringement of the Asserted Patents by MediaTek .................................29
`
`ASUS Respondents ................................................................................................33
`
`Direct Infringement of the Asserted Patents by ASUS ..........................................33
`
`Indirect Infringement of the Asserted Patents by ASUS .......................................35
`
`VI.
`
`THE DOMESTIC INDUSTRY .........................................................................................39
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Samsung’s Practice of the Asserted Patents ..........................................................39
`
`Samsung’s Domestic Investments Related to Articles that Practice the
`Asserted Patents .....................................................................................................40
`
`VII. RELATED LITIGATIONS ...............................................................................................43
`
`VIII. STATEMENT REGARDING THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS .........................................46
`
`IX.
`
`HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE NUMBERS ........................................................47
`
`X.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED ......................................................................................................47
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-00573-ALM Document 4-1 Filed 08/04/23 Page 16 of 68 PageID #: 270
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Designation
`
`Description
`
`Public
`Public
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Public
`Public
`Public
`Public
`Public
`Public
`Public
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Public
`Public
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Public
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Public
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Certified Copy of U.S. Patent No. 7,564,914
`Certified Copy of U.S. Patent No. RE 48,629
`Certified Copy of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862
`Certified Copy of Assignments of United States Patent No.
`7,564,914
`Certified Copy of Assignments of United States Patent No. RE
`48,629
`Certified Copy of Assignments of United States Patent No.
`8,416,862
`NXP N.V. Company Information
`NXP Corporate Structure
`Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. Company Information
`MediaTek Inc. Company Information
`Mediatek Company Profile
`MediaTek USA Inc. Company Information
`ASUSTek Computer Inc. Company Information
`ASUS Computer International Company Information
`Evidence of Foreign Manufacture - Laird 60-2230C Series Bluetooth
`and WiFi Module
`NXP NXP 88W8997 2.4/5 GHz Dual-Band 2x2 Wi-Fi 5 (802.11ac)
`+ Bluetooth 5.3 System-on-Chip Product Image
`Domestic Purchase of ST60-2230C-UU Dual Band 2x2 802.11ac
`WLAN Plus Bluetooth 5.1 Dual Mode Adapter Device
`Laird Connectivity - Partner Profile - NXP Semiconductors Inc.
`Laird - NXP Gold Partner
`Laird Buy Now - 60-2230C Series Bluetooth and WiFi Module
`Domestic Purchase of ASUS AX600 WiFi 6 Gaming Router (RT-
`AX89X) Device
`ASUS AX6000 WiFi 6 Gaming Routher (RT-AX89X) Box Image
`Qualcomm Accused Product Image
`ASUS RT-AX89X Mesh Wi-Fi Router with a Networking Pro 1200
`Platform - Qualcomm
`ASUS RT-AX89X Mesh Wi-Fi Router product listing -
`Amazon.com
`RT-AX89X - Search - Search product page - ASUS USA.pdf
`Domestic Purchase of ASUS ExpertCenter PN52 Device
`Evidence of Foreign Manufacture - ASUS ExpertCenter PN52
`Device
`
`v
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1
`2
`3
`
`4
`
`6
`
`7
`
`9
`10
`11
`12
`16
`16
`17
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`21
`22
`
`23
`
`23A
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`28
`
`29
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-00573-ALM Document 4-1 Filed 08/04/23 Page 17 of 68 PageID #: 271
`
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Public
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Confidential
`
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Public
`Public
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Public
`Public
`Public
`
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`33
`34
`
`35
`
`36
`
`37
`
`38
`
`39
`
`40
`
`41
`
`42
`
`43
`
`44
`
`45
`
`46
`
`47
`
`48
`
`49
`
`50
`51
`52
`
`53
`
`54
`55
`56
`
`
`
`
`Image of MediaTek Filogic 330 (MT7922) Device Within ASUS
`ExpertCenter PN52 Device
`MediaTek Filogic 330 (MT7922) Product Image
`March 17, 2021 - "MediaTek Wi-Fi 6 Chipset Powers New ASUS
`Gaming Notebooks"
`ASUS ExpertCenter PN52 Device product listing - Amazon.com
`ASUS ExpertCenter PN52 Device product listing - ASUS.com
`Claim Chart of Infringement of United States Patent No. 7,564,914
`by NXP and Laird
`Claim Chart of Infringement of United States Patent No. RE 48,629
`by NXP and Laird
`Claim Chart of Infringement of United States Patent No. 8,416,862
`by NXP and Laird
`Claim Chart of Infringement of United States Patent No. 7,564,914
`by Qualcomm and ASUS
`Claim Chart of Infringement of United States Patent No. RE 48,629
`by Qualcomm and ASUS
`Claim Chart of Infringement of United States Patent No. 8,416,862
`by Qualcomm and ASUS
`Claim Chart of Infringement of United States Patent No. 7,564,914
`by MediaTek and ASUS
`Claim Chart of Infringement of United States Patent No. RE 48,629
`by MediaTek and ASUS
`Claim Chart of Infringement of United States Patent No. 8,416,862
`by MediaTek and ASUS
`Domestic Industry Claim Chart of United States Patent No.
`7,564,914
`Domestic Industry Claim Chart of United States Patent No. RE
`48,629
`Domestic Industry Claim Chart of United States Patent No.
`8,416,862
`Samsung - Bell Northern Research Patent License Agreement
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1010: October 13, 2017 Comments of Non-
`Respondent Samsung on Remedy, Bonding, and the Public Interest
`June 30, 2022 - Interim Consolidated Financial Statements of
`Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. and Its Subsidiaries
`Property record for the SEA’s Headquarters in Ridgefield, NJ
`Property record for the SEA’s Plano, TX facility
`Property record for SEA’s Mountain View, CA facility
`April 6, 2018 - Samsung Electronics America to Open Flagship
`North Texas Campus
`Samsung Electronics America - Employee Count
`Samsung Research Locations
`Samsung Research America - Employee Count
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-00573-ALM Document 4-1 Filed 08/04/23 Page 18 of 68 PageID #: 272
`
`57
`58
`59
`
`60
`
`61
`
`Public
`Confidential
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Samsung Research America - Mobile Platform Research
`Samsung Sales and Allocations Data
`List of Licensees to Each Asserted Patent
`List of foreign patents or patent applications related to the Asserted
`Patents that have been filed, granted, denied, abandoned, or
`withdrawn regarding the ’914 Patent
`List of foreign patents or patent applications related to the Asserted
`Patents that have been filed, granted, denied, abandoned, or
`withdrawn regarding the ’862 Patent
`
`APPENDICES LIST
`
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Public
`
`A
`
`B
`
`C
`
`D
`
`E
`
`F
`
`Appendix No. Designation Description
`Certified Copy of United States Patent No. 7,564,914
`Prosecution History*
`Certified Copy of United States Patent No. RE 48,629
`Prosecution History
`Certified Copy of United States Patent No. 8,416,862
`Prosecution History
`References Cited in United States Patent No. 7,564,914
`Prosecution History*
`References Cited in United States Patent No. RE 48,629
`Prosecution History
`References Cited in United States Patent No. 8,416,862
`Prosecution History
`
`Public
`
`Public
`
`Public
`
`
`*A certified copy of the 914 prosecution history and references cited therein will be filed upon
`receipt from the USPTO.
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-00573-ALM Document 4-1 Filed 08/04/23 Page 19 of 68 PageID #: 273
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Complainant Bell Northern Research, LLC1 requests that the United States
`
`International Trade Commission institute an investigation into violations of Section 337 of the
`
`Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, against proposed Respondents NXP
`
`Semiconductors, N.V. and NXP USA, Inc.;2 Laird Connectivity, LLC;3 Qualcomm
`
`Technologies, Inc.; 4 MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek USA Inc.;5 and ASUSTek Computer Inc. and
`
`ASUS Computer International6 (collectively, “Respondents”).
`
`2.
`
`This Complaint is based on Respondents’ unlawful and unauthorized importation
`
`into the United States, sale for importation into the United States, and/or sale within the United
`
`States after importation articles and components thereof that infringe, either literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, directly or indirectly, at least one or more claims of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,564,914,7 at least one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. RE 48,6298 (reissue of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,990,842), and at least one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,862.9 A certified copy of
`
`each of the ’914 patent, the ’629 patent and the ’862 patent (collectively “Asserted Patents”) are
`
`attached as Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 respectively.
`
`3.
`
`Respondents directly and/or indirectly infringe one or more claims of the Asserted
`
`Patents identified below and as further detailed below, with the independent claims bolded. The
`
`asserted claims are:
`
`
`
`1 “BNR”.
`2 Collectively, “NXP” or the “NXP Respondents”.
`3 “Laird”.
`4 “Qualcomm”.
`5 Collectively, “MediaTek” or the “MediaTek Respondents”.
`6 Collectively, “ASUS” or the “ASUS Respondents”.
`7 The “’914 patent”.
`8 The “’629 patent”.
`9 The “’862 patent”.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-00573-ALM Document 4-1 Filed 08/04/23 Page 20 of 68 PageID #: 274
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`7,564,914
`RE 48,62910
`8,416,862
`
`Asserted Claims
`13, 14, 17, 21, 22
`1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 19, 20, 27
`1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12
`
`4.
`
`BNR was formed mainly by alumni from legacy Bell companies, including Nortel
`
`Networks, to administer and license patents developed by the Bell Systems companies, as well as
`
`from other technology companies, to administer and license patents developed by the Bell
`
`Systems companies, as well as from other technology companies.
`
`5.
`
`BNR’s lineage extends back to a collection of companies in the 1800’s, referred
`
`to as the Bell System, that sprang to life from the ideas and patented technologies created by
`
`Alexander Graham Bell. Two technical development streams arose from this collective: Western
`
`Electric (the R&D stream) and Northern Electric (the manufacturing stream).
`
`6.
`
`The R&D portion of the Bell System (Western Electric) operated as a laboratory,
`
`creating designs for telephones, switches, and other electrical equipment. In 1925, AT&T and
`
`Western Electric combined their engineering departments to form Bell Labs. Bell Labs is one of
`
`America’s greatest technology incubators, and paved the way for many technological advances
`
`we know and use today, including the transistor, several kinds of lasers, the UNIX operating
`
`system, and computer languages such as C++. In total, Bell Labs received nine Nobel Prizes for
`
`its work over the years.
`
`7.
`
`The manufacturing portion of the Bell System (Northern Electric) came out of
`
`National Bell Telephone of Boston’s commission to Charles Fleetford Sise to create Bell
`
`Telephone Company of Canada. Bell Canada originally made telephones and other equipment
`
`
`10 The ’629 patent is not asserted against Responde