Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 1 of 66 PageID #: 1397
`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 1 of 66 PagelD #: 1397
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 9
`EXHIBIT 9
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 2 of 66 PageID #: 1398
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14-cv-982
`CONSOLIDATED LEAD CASE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
` §
`
`
`
`
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS
`EQUIPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., ET AL.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`PLAINTIFF’S PRELIMINARY DISCLOSURE OF
`ASSERTED CLAIMS AND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 3-1 and the Court’s May 4, 2015 Order (Dkt No. 44), Plaintiff Cellular
`
`
`
`Communications Equipment LLC submits this disclosure of asserted claims and infringement
`
`contentions to Defendants Sony Mobile Communications Inc. and Sony Mobile Communications
`
`(USA) Inc. (collectively, “Sony”), AT&T Mobility LLC ( “AT&T”), Cellco Partnership d/b/a
`
`Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”), and T-Mobile USA, Inc., and T-Mobile US, Inc. (collectively, “T-
`
`Mobile”).
`
`I.
`
`P.R. 3-1 Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions
`
`(a)
`
`Defendants infringe the following claims:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1-7, 9, and 10-16 of U.S. Pat. 8,385,966;
`
`Claims 13-15, and 21-23 of U.S. Pat. 8,848,556; and
`
`Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, and 15 of U.S. Pat. 8,868,060;
`
`Defendants’ infringements are both direct and indirect, as set forth in the claim charts attached as
`
`Exhibits A through C. Plaintiff reserves the right to augment or supplement its contentions to
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 3 of 66 PageID #: 1399
`
`identify additional claims infringed by Defendants after discovery, in response to Defendants’ P.R.
`
`3-4 production, or as permitted under the Patent Rules.
`
`(b)
`
`Defendants’ direct and indirect infringements pertain to the Accused Products
`
`identified in Exhibits A through C. Plaintiff expects that this disclosure may be subject to
`
`amendment or supplementation to identify and accuse additional products released, developed, or
`
`made available by Defendants after the date on which these contentions are served, or of which
`
`Plaintiff was not aware at the time of these contentions.
`
`(c)
`
`Charts identifying where each element or step of the asserted claims is found within,
`
`or performed by, each Accused Product are attached as Exhibits A through C. The charts are based
`
`on publicly-available information currently accessible to Plaintiff.
`
`(d)
`
`Based on its current understanding of the claim language and publicly-available
`
`information pertaining to the Accused Products, and without notice of any non-infringement
`
`position from Defendants, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants literally infringe each element or step of
`
`the asserted claims. However, any claim element or step not literally present in or performed by the
`
`Accused Products is satisfied under the doctrine of equivalents because any difference between such
`
`claim element or step and the accused element or step are insubstantial. In other words, the accused
`
`element or step performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve
`
`substantially the same result.
`
`As discovery has not yet begun and the Court has not construed certain claim terms, it is not
`
`yet clear whether Plaintiff will rely on the doctrine of equivalents. Accordingly, Plaintiff reserves
`
`the right, in response to discovery, Defendants’ P.R. 3-4 production, or as permitted under the
`
`Patent Rules, to amend its infringement contentions as necessary.
`
`(e)
`
`The asserted claims of U.S. Pat. 8,385,966 claim priority to an earlier application
`
`filed May 5, 2008. The asserted claims of U.S. Pat. 8,848,556 claim priority to an earlier
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 4 of 66 PageID #: 1400
`
`application filed June 21, 2010. The asserted claims of U.S. Pat. 8,868,060 claim priority to an
`
`earlier application filed April 2, 2007. Each patent listed in this section (e) is entitled to a priority
`
`date no later than the filing date of the earliest application to which it claims priority.
`
`(f)
`
`Plaintiff is not aware of any apparatus, product, device, process, method, act, or other
`
`instrumentality of its own that practices the claimed inventions.
`
`II.
`
`P.R. 3-2 Document Production Accompanying Disclosure
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`Plaintiff is not presently aware of documents responsive to P.R. 3-2(a).
`
`Other than information included in the file histories noted below, Plaintiff is not
`
`presently aware of documents responsive to P.R. 3-2(b).
`
`(c)
`
`Documents responsive to P.R. 3-2(c) have been produced as follows:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`File History of U.S. Pat. No. 8,385,966: CCE_LG000001-0263
`
`File History of U.S. Pat. No. 8,848,556: CCE_LG000263-0824
`
`File History of U.S. Pat. No. 8,868,060: CCE_LG000825-01446
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 5 of 66 PageID #: 1401
`
`Dated: May 15, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Edward R. Nelson, III
`Edward R. Nelson, III
`enelson@nbclaw.net
`Texas State Bar No. 00797142
`S. Brannon Latimer
`blatimer@nbclaw.net
`Texas State Bar No. 24060137
`Thomas C. Cecil
`tcecil@nbclaw.net
`Texas State Bar No. 24069489
`NELSON BUMGARDNER CASTO, P.C.
`3131 West 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`Phone: (817) 377-9111
`Fax: (817) 377-3485
`
`T. John Ward, Jr.
`Texas State Bar No. 00794818
`J. Wesley Hill
`Texas State Bar No. 24032294
`Claire Abernathy Henry
`Texas State Bar No. 24053063
`WARD & SMITH LAW FIRM
`P.O. Box 1231
`1127 Judson Rd. Ste. 220
`Longview, Texas 75606-1231
`(903) 757-6400
`(903) 757-2323 (fax)
`jw@jwfirm.com
`wh@wsfirm.com
`ch@wsfirm.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS
`EQUIPMENT LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 6 of 66 PageID #: 1402
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon
`counsel of record via electronic mail, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local
`Rules for the Eastern District of Texas, on the 15th day of May, 2015.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Edward R. Nelson, III
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 7 of 66 PageID #: 1403
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc., et al.
`EXHIBIT C TO PLAINTIFF’S PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,848,556
`
`’556 SONY ACCUSED PRODUCTS1
`
`13. A non-transitory computer readable
`medium encoded with a computer
`program that, when executed in hardware,
`causes the hardware to perform a process,
`the process comprising:
`
`Sony, T-Mobile, and Verizon make, use, sell, offer to sell, and/or import the ’556
`Sony Accused Products2, each of which is a cellular device that includes and
`performs the features and capabilities described in this claim.
`Plaintiff contends that each Defendant infringes this claim because it makes, uses,
`sells, offers to sell, and/or imports the ’556 Sony Accused Products, each of
`which includes and/or practices each and every element of this claim.
`Additionally, each Defendant indirectly infringes this claim by (1) inducing, with
`knowledge of the patent (at least by virtue of disclosure to ETSI), its customers’
`(e.g., end users, carriers) use of the ’556 Sony Accused Products to practice each
`and every one of the following claim elements with knowledge that such practice
`infringes this claim and intent to cause such infringement (as evidenced for
`example, in user guides and other instructional materials provided by each
`Defendant such as instructions to operate the Accused Product within a provided
`service area), and/or (2) contributing to direct infringement by customers (e.g.,
`end users, carriers) that use the ’556 Sony Accused Products to practice each and
`every one of the following claim elements, with knowledge that the infringing
`components of the ’556 Sony Accused Products have no substantial non-
`infringing uses (by their nature as proprietary hardware components and software
`instructions that work in concert to perform specific, intended functions) and that
`the combination for which such components were made infringes this claim.
`Each ’556 Sony Accused Product is a terminal (UE) that contains the
`functionality as set forth in this claim. Specifically, each ’556 Sony Accused
`Product is a cellular device that includes hardware and software (including
`
`
`1 Discovery in this case has not begun. Accordingly, Plaintiff expects that these contentions may be subject to supplementation and/or amendment after further
`discovery and disclosure of Defendant’s non-infringement positions in order to focus the issues in this case. For example, Plaintiff may supplement these
`contentions in response to information learned during discovery to rebut allegations of non-infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Additionally,
`Plaintiff expects that these contentions may be subject to amendment or supplementation to identify and accuse additional devices released, developed, or made
`available after the date on which these contentions are served.
`2 The ’556 Sony Accused Products include the following products: Xperia Z3, Xperia Z1s, Xperia Z3v, Xperia Z3 Compact, Xperia Z1 Compact, Xperia Z1,
`Xperia Ultra. Evidence supporting the use of relevant technology contained within this chart is listed in Appendix C-1.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 8 of 66 PageID #: 1404
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc., et al.
`EXHIBIT C TO PLAINTIFF’S PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,848,556
`
`’556 SONY ACCUSED PRODUCTS1
`memory, one or more processors, radios, firmware, and drivers) configured to
`support and provide wireless communications in an LTE-A network
`environment. As such, each ’556 Sony Accused Product is compliant with and
`supports technical specifications published by 3GPP and ETSI for LTE-A
`technology, including TS 36.321 and TS 36.331.3 Indeed, the ’556 patent is
`essential to compliance with LTE-A standards.
`Each ’556 Sony Accused Product comprises a non-transitory computer readable
`medium encoded with a computer program that, when executed in hardware, such
`as a baseband processor, causes the hardware to perform a process, the process
`comprising the steps described below.
`CCE alternatively contends that this claim element is met under the doctrine of
`equivalents because above-described features of the Accused Products perform
`substantially the same function recited in this element, in substantially the same
`way to achieve substantially the same result. Any alleged differences between
`the above-described features and the recited element are insubstantial and
`immaterial to infringement.
`
`preparing a power headroom report
`control element,
`
`Each ’556 Sony Accused Product contains a computer program that, when
`executed in hardware, causes the hardware to prepare a power headroom report
`control element. This is described in TS 36.321:
`
`
`3 See, e.g., TS 36.321 V11.0.0 http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi ts/136300 136399/136321/11.00.00 60/ts 136321v110000p.pdf, TS 36.331V10.7.0
`http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi ts/136300 136399/136331/10.07.00 60/ts 136331v100700p.pdf.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 9 of 66 PageID #: 1405
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc., et al.
`EXHIBIT C TO PLAINTIFF’S PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,848,556
`
`’556 SONY ACCUSED PRODUCTS1
`
`
`
`CCE alternatively contends that this claim element is met under the doctrine of
`equivalents because above-described features of the Accused Products perform
`substantially the same function recited in this element, in substantially the same
`way to achieve substantially the same result. Any alleged differences between
`the above-described features and the recited element are insubstantial and
`immaterial to infringement.
`
`In each ’556 Sony Accused Product, the power headroom report control element
`is based on a trigger configured by a base station, as evidenced by TS 36.321 and
`TS 36.331.
`TS 36.321 states:
`
`based on a trigger configured by a base
`station,
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 10 of 66 PageID #: 1406
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc., et al.
`EXHIBIT C TO PLAINTIFF’S PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,848,556
`
`’556 SONY ACCUSED PRODUCTS1
`
`TS 36.331 states:
`
`
`
`Mac-MainConfig is further defined in TS 36.331:
`
`And Mac-MainConfig field descriptions in TS36.311 provide:
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 11 of 66 PageID #: 1407
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc., et al.
`EXHIBIT C TO PLAINTIFF’S PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,848,556
`
`’556 SONY ACCUSED PRODUCTS1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CCE alternatively contends that this claim element is met under the doctrine of
`equivalents because above-described features of the Accused Products perform
`substantially the same function recited in this element, in substantially the same
`way to achieve substantially the same result. Any alleged differences between
`the above-described features and the recited element are insubstantial and
`immaterial to infringement.
`
`the trigger determining when the power
`headroom report control element is to be
`sent in an uplink,
`
`Further, in each ’556 Sony Accused Product, the trigger determines when the
`power headroom report control element is to be sent in an uplink.
`This is described in TS 36.321:
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 12 of 66 PageID #: 1408
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc., et al.
`EXHIBIT C TO PLAINTIFF’S PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,848,556
`
`’556 SONY ACCUSED PRODUCTS1
`
`
`
`CCE alternatively contends that this claim element is met under the doctrine of
`equivalents because above-described features of the Accused Products perform
`substantially the same function recited in this element, in substantially the same
`way to achieve substantially the same result. Any alleged differences between
`the above-described features and the recited element are insubstantial and
`immaterial to infringement.
`In each ’556 Sony Accused Product, the preparing of the power headroom report
`control element includes incorporating a bitmap indicating which power
`headroom reports are being indicated.
`
`This is described in TS 36.321:
`
`
`the preparing of the power headroom
`report control element includes
`incorporating a bitmap indicating which
`power headroom reports are being
`reported,
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 13 of 66 PageID #: 1409
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc., et al.
`EXHIBIT C TO PLAINTIFF’S PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,848,556
`
`’556 SONY ACCUSED PRODUCTS1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 14 of 66 PageID #: 1410
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc., et al.
`EXHIBIT C TO PLAINTIFF’S PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,848,556
`
`’556 SONY ACCUSED PRODUCTS1
`
`the preparing of the power headroom
`report control element further includes
`preparing the bitmap to include bits for
`power headroom reports for a plurality of
`secondary cells; and sending the prepared
`power headroom report control element to
`the base station.
`
`
`CCE alternatively contends that this claim element is met under the doctrine of
`equivalents because above-described features of the Accused Products perform
`substantially the same function recited in this element, in substantially the same
`way to achieve substantially the same result. Any alleged differences between
`the above-described features and the recited element are insubstantial and
`immaterial to infringement.
`In each ’556 Sony Accused Product, the preparing of the power headroom report
`control element further includes preparing the bitmap to include bits for power
`headroom reports to a plurality of secondary cells; and sending the prepared
`power headroom report control element to the base station. This is detailed in TS
`36.321.
`In certain conditions, for example, TS 36.321 requires:
`
`Where 6.1.3.6a informs that:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 15 of 66 PageID #: 1411
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc., et al.
`EXHIBIT C TO PLAINTIFF’S PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,848,556
`
`’556 SONY ACCUSED PRODUCTS1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 16 of 66 PageID #: 1412
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc., et al.
`EXHIBIT C TO PLAINTIFF’S PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,848,556
`
`’556 SONY ACCUSED PRODUCTS1
`
`
`CCE alternatively contends that this claim element is met under the doctrine of
`equivalents because above-described features of the Accused Products perform
`substantially the same function recited in this element, in substantially the same
`way to achieve substantially the same result. Any alleged differences between
`the above-described features and the recited element are insubstantial and
`immaterial to infringement.
`
`Sony, T-Mobile, and Verizon make, use, sell, offer to sell, and/or import the ’556
`Sony Accused Products, each of which is a cellular device that includes and
`performs the features and capabilities described in this claim.
`Plaintiff contends that each Defendant infringes this claim because it makes, uses,
`sells, offers to sell, and/or imports the ’556 Sony Accused Products, each of
`which includes and/or practices each and every element of this claim.
`Additionally, each Defendant indirectly infringes this claim by (1) inducing, with
`knowledge of the patent (at least by virtue of disclosure to ETSI), its customers’
`
`14. The non-transitory computer readable
`medium of claim 13, wherein the
`preparing of the power headroom report
`control element includes preparing the
`bitmap in one of: a MAC subheader and a
`payload.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 17 of 66 PageID #: 1413
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc., et al.
`EXHIBIT C TO PLAINTIFF’S PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,848,556
`
`’556 SONY ACCUSED PRODUCTS1
`(e.g., end users, carriers) use of the ’556 Sony Accused Products to practice each
`and every one of the following claim elements with knowledge that such practice
`infringes this claim and intent to cause such infringement (as evidenced for
`example, in user guides and other instructional materials provided by each
`Defendant such as instructions to operate the Accused Product within a provided
`service area), and/or (2) contributing to direct infringement by customers (e.g.,
`end users, carriers) that use the ’556 Sony Accused Products to practice each and
`every one of the following claim elements, with knowledge that the infringing
`components of the ’556 Sony Accused Products have no substantial non-
`infringing uses (by their nature as proprietary hardware components and software
`instructions that work in concert to perform specific, intended functions) and that
`the combination for which such components were made infringes this claim.See
`analysis of claim 13, which is incorporated herein by reference.
`The non-transitory computer readable medium of each ’556 Sony Accused
`Product described in claim 13 above includes computer software that executes on
`hardware which, when executed causes the hardware to prepare the power
`headroom report control element including preparing the bitmap in one of a MAC
`subheader and a payload.
`This is detailed in TS 36.321:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 18 of 66 PageID #: 1414
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc., et al.
`EXHIBIT C TO PLAINTIFF’S PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,848,556
`
`’556 SONY ACCUSED PRODUCTS1
`
`
`
`
`
`CCE alternatively contends that this claim element is met under the doctrine of
`equivalents because above-described features of the Accused Products perform
`substantially the same function recited in this element, in substantially the same
`way to achieve substantially the same result. Any alleged differences between
`the above-described features and the recited element are insubstantial and
`immaterial to infringement.
`Sony, T-Mobile, and Verizon make, use, sell, offer to sell, and/or import the ’556
`Sony Accused Products, each of which is a cellular device that includes and
`
`15. The non-transitory computer readable
`medium of claim 13, wherein the power
`headroom report control element includes
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 19 of 66 PageID #: 1415
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc., et al.
`EXHIBIT C TO PLAINTIFF’S PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,848,556
`at least one of: a type 1 power headroom
`report for a primary serving cell and a
`type 2 power headroom report for the
`primary serving cell.
`
`’556 SONY ACCUSED PRODUCTS1
`performs the features and capabilities described in this claim.
`Plaintiff contends that each Defendant infringes this claim because it makes, uses,
`sells, offers to sell, and/or imports the ’556 Sony Accused Products, each of
`which includes and/or practices each and every element of this claim.
`Additionally, each Defendant indirectly infringes this claim by (1) inducing, with
`knowledge of the patent (at least by virtue of disclosure to ETSI), its customers’
`(e.g., end users, carriers) use of the ’556 Sony Accused Products to practice each
`and every one of the following claim elements with knowledge that such practice
`infringes this claim and intent to cause such infringement (as evidenced for
`example, in user guides and other instructional materials provided by each
`Defendant such as instructions to operate the Accused Product within a provided
`service area), and/or (2) contributing to direct infringement by customers (e.g.,
`end users, carriers) that use the ’556 Sony Accused Products to practice each and
`every one of the following claim elements, with knowledge that the infringing
`components of the ’556 Sony Accused Products have no substantial non-
`infringing uses (by their nature as proprietary hardware components and software
`instructions that work in concert to perform specific, intended functions) and that
`the combination for which such components were made infringes this claim.
`See analysis of claim 13, which is incorporated herein by reference.
`The non-transitory computer readable medium of each ’556 Sony Accused
`Product described in claim 13 above includes computer software that executes on
`hardware which, when executed causes the hardware to perform the steps of
`claim 13. Further, the power headroom report control element includes at least
`one of a type 1 power headroom report for a primary serving cell and a type 2
`power headroom report for the primary serving cell.
`This is detailed in TS 36.321:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 20 of 66 PageID #: 1416
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc., et al.
`EXHIBIT C TO PLAINTIFF’S PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,848,556
`
`’556 SONY ACCUSED PRODUCTS1
`
`And section 4.2.1 explains:
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 21 of 66 PageID #: 1417
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc., et al.
`EXHIBIT C TO PLAINTIFF’S PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,848,556
`
`’556 SONY ACCUSED PRODUCTS1
`
`21. An apparatus, comprising: at least one
`processor; and at least one memory
`including computer program code, the at
`least one memory and the computer
`program code being configured to, with
`the at least one processor, cause the
`apparatus at least to:
`
`CCE alternatively contends that this claim element is met under the doctrine of
`equivalents because above-described features of the Accused Products perform
`substantially the same function recited in this element, in substantially the same
`way to achieve substantially the same result. Any alleged differences between
`the above-described features and the recited element are insubstantial and
`immaterial to infringement.
`
`Sony, T-Mobile, and Verizon make, use, sell, offer to sell, and/or import the ’556
`Sony Accused Products, each of which is a cellular device that includes and
`performs the features and capabilities described in this claim.
`Plaintiff contends that each Defendant infringes this claim because it makes, uses,
`sells, offers to sell, and/or imports the ’556 Sony Accused Products, each of
`which includes and/or practices each and every element of this claim.
`Additionally, each Defendant indirectly infringes this claim by (1) inducing, with
`knowledge of the patent (at least by virtue of disclosure to ETSI), its customers’
`(e.g., end users, carriers) use of the ’872 Samsung Accused Products to practice
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 22 of 66 PageID #: 1418
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc., et al.
`EXHIBIT C TO PLAINTIFF’S PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,848,556
`
`’556 SONY ACCUSED PRODUCTS1
`each and every one of the following claim elements with knowledge that such
`practice infringes this claim and intent to cause such infringement (as evidenced
`for example, in user guides and other instructional materials provided by each
`Defendant such as instructions to operate the Accused Product within a provided
`service area), and/or (2) contributing to direct infringement by customers (e.g.,
`end users, carriers) that use the ’872 Samsung Accused Products to practice each
`and every one of the following claim elements, with knowledge that the
`infringing components of the ’872 Samsung Accused Products have no
`substantial non-infringing uses (by their nature as proprietary hardware
`components and software instructions that work in concert to perform specific,
`intended functions) and that the combination for which such components were
`made infringes this claim.
`Each ’556 Sony Accused Product is a terminal (UE) that contains the
`functionality as set forth in this claim. Specifically, each ’556 Sony Accused
`Product is a cellular device that includes hardware and software (including
`memory, one or more processors, radios, firmware, and drivers) configured to
`support and provide wireless communications in an LTE-A network
`environment. As such, each ’556 Sony Accused Product is compliant with and
`supports technical specifications published by 3GPP and ETSI for LTE-A
`technology, including TS 36.321 and TS 36.331. Indeed, the ’556 patent is
`essential to compliance with LTE-A standards.
`Each ’556 Sony Accused Product comprises a processor (such as a baseband
`processor) and at least one memory including computer program code, the
`memory and the computer program code being configured to, with the at least
`one processor, cause the ’556 Sony Accused Product at least to perform the steps
`below.
`
`prepare a power headroom report control
`element,
`
`Each ’556 Sony Accused Product contains a processor with software and memory
`that causes the processor to prepare a power headroom report control element.
`This is described in TS 36.321:
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 23 of 66 PageID #: 1419
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc., et al.
`EXHIBIT C TO PLAINTIFF’S PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,848,556
`
`’556 SONY ACCUSED PRODUCTS1
`
`
`
`
`CCE alternatively contends that this claim element is met under the doctrine of
`equivalents because above-described features of the Accused Products perform
`substantially the same function recited in this element, in substantially the same
`way to achieve substantially the same result. Any alleged differences between
`the above-described features and the recited element are insubstantial and
`immaterial to infringement.
`
`based on a trigger configured by a base
`
`In each ’556 Sony Accused Product, the power headroom report control element
`is based on a trigger configured by a base station, as evidenced by TS 36.321 and
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 24 of 66 PageID #: 1420
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc., et al.
`EXHIBIT C TO PLAINTIFF’S PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,848,556
`
`’556 SONY ACCUSED PRODUCTS1
`
`station,
`
`TS 36.331.
`TS 36.321 states:
`
`TS 36.331 states:
`
`Mac-MainConfig is further defined in TS 36.331:
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 25 of 66 PageID #: 1421
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc., et al.
`EXHIBIT C TO PLAINTIFF’S PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,848,556
`
`’556 SONY ACCUSED PRODUCTS1
`And Mac-MainConfig field descriptions in TS36.311 provide:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CCE alternatively contends that this claim element is met under the doctrine of
`equivalents because above-described features of the Accused Products perform
`substantially the same function recited in this element, in substantially the same
`way to achieve substantially the same result. Any alleged differences between
`the above-described features and the recited element are insubstantial and
`immaterial to infringement.
`
`the trigger determines when the power
`headroom report control element is to be
`sent in an uplink;
`
`Further, in each ’556 Sony Accused Product, the trigger determines when the
`power headroom report control element is to be sent in an uplink.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 26 of 66 PageID #: 1422
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc., et al.
`EXHIBIT C TO PLAINTIFF’S PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,848,556
`
`’556 SONY ACCUSED PRODUCTS1
`
`
`
`CCE alternatively contends that this claim element is met under the doctrine of
`equivalents because above-described features of the Accused Products perform
`substantially the same function recited in this element, in substantially the same
`way to achieve substantially the same result. Any alleged differences between
`the above-described features and the recited element are insubstantial and
`immaterial to infringement.
`In each ’556 Sony Accused Product, the preparing of the power headroom report
`control element includes incorporating a bitmap indicating which power
`headroom reports are being indicated.
`
`This is described in TS 36.321:
`
`preparation of the power headroom report
`control element includes incorporating a
`bitmap indicating which power headroom
`reports are being reported,
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 27 of 66 PageID #: 1423
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc., et al.
`EXHIBIT C TO PLAINTIFF’S PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,848,556
`
`’556 SONY ACCUSED PRODUCTS1
`
`
`
`
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 147-9 Filed 11/09/15 Page 28 of 66 PageID #: 1424
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC v. Sony Electronics Inc., et al.
`EXHIBIT C TO PLAINTIFF’S PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,848,556
`
`’556 SONY ACCUSED PRODUCTS1
`
`
`CCE alternatively contends that this claim element is met under the doctrine of
`equivalents because above-described features of the Accused Products perform
`substantially the same fu