Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 153 Filed 11/13/15 Page 1 of 35 PageID #: 1645
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT
`LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A.,
`INC., AT&T MOBILITY LLC,
`VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., CELLCO
`PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS,
`SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION, SPRINT
`SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`SPRINT SPECTRUM LP.,
`BOOST MOBILE, LLC,
`T-MOBILE USA, INC., and T-MOBILE US, INC.,
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT
`LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS INC., SONY
`MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC., AT&T
`MOBILITY LLC,
`VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., CELLCO
`PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS,
`T-MOBILE USA, INC., and T-MOBILE US, INC.,
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-982
`
`CONSOLIDATED LEAD CASE
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-983
`
`
`
`
`ANSWER OF DEFENDANT CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS
`TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Defendant Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”), by and through the
`
`undersigned attorneys, answers the First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (“Complaint”)
`
`of Plaintiff Cellular Communications Equipment LLC as follows:
`
`1.
`company with its principal place of business in Plano, Texas.
`
`Cellular Communications Equipment LLC (“CCE”) is a Texas limited liability
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 153 Filed 11/13/15 Page 2 of 35 PageID #: 1646
`
`ANSWER: Verizon lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or
`
`falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph 1, and therefore denies those allegations.
`
`On information and belief, Sony Mobile Communications Inc. is incorporated
`2.
`under the laws of Japan with its principal place of business at 1-8-15 Konan, Minato-ku, Tokyo,
`108-0075 Japan. This Defendant may be served at its principal place of business at 1-8-15
`Konan, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 108-0075 Japan. This Defendant does business in the State of Texas
`and in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`ANSWER: The allegations in this paragraph are not directed to Verizon, so no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is required, Verizon lacks knowledge or information sufficient
`
`to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph 2, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. (with Sony
`
`Mobile Communications Inc., “Sony”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business in Atlanta, Georgia. This Defendant may be served with process through its agent,
`Capitol Services, Inc., 1675 S. State St. Suite B, Dover, Delaware 19901. This Defendant does
`business in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`ANSWER: The allegations in this paragraph are not directed to Verizon, so no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is required, Verizon lacks knowledge or information sufficient
`
`to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph 3, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`AT&T Mobility LLC (“AT&T”) is a Delaware limited liability company with its
`
`4.
`principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. This Defendant may be served with process
`through its agent, The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange
`Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. This Defendant does business in the State of Texas and in
`the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`ANSWER: The allegations in this paragraph are not directed to Verizon, so no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is required, Verizon lacks knowledge or information sufficient
`
`to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph 4, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 153 Filed 11/13/15 Page 3 of 35 PageID #: 1647
`
`Verizon Communications Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
`5.
`of business in New York, New York. This Defendant may be served with process through its
`agent, The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street,
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801. This Defendant does business in the State of Texas and in the
`Eastern District of Texas.
`
`ANSWER: Verizon Communications Inc. was dismissed from this case on April 22, 2015.
`
`Dkt. 18. Verizon admits that Verizon Communications Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business in New York, New York. Verizon denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 5.
`
`6.
`
`Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (with Verizon Communications Inc.,
`
`“Verizon”) is a Delaware general partnership with its principal place of business in Basking
`
`Ridge, New Jersey. This Defendant may be served with process through its agent, The
`Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington,
`Delaware 19801. This Defendant does business in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District
`of Texas.
`
`ANSWER: Verizon admits that it is a Delaware general partnership with its principal place of
`
`business in Basking Ridge, New Jersey. Verizon admits that it does business in the State of
`
`Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas. Verizon admits that it may be served with process
`
`through its agent, The Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange
`
`Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. Verizon admits that it has been served with process and
`
`has appeared in this action. Verizon denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 6.
`
`T-Mobile USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business
`7.
`in Bellevue, Washington. This Defendant may be served with process through its agent,
`Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road, Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware 19808.
`This Defendant does business in the State of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`ANSWER: The allegations in this paragraph are not directed to Verizon, so no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is required, Verizon lacks knowledge or information sufficient
`
`to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph 7, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 153 Filed 11/13/15 Page 4 of 35 PageID #: 1648
`
`T-Mobile US, Inc. (with T-Mobile USA, Inc., “T-Mobile”) is a Delaware
`
`8.
`corporation with its principal place of business in Bellevue, Washington. This Defendant may be
`served with process through its agent, Corporation Service Company, 2711 Centerville Road,
`Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware 19808. This Defendant does business in the State of Texas and
`in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`ANSWER: The allegations in this paragraph are not directed to Verizon, so no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is required, Verizon lacks knowledge or information sufficient
`
`to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph 8, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`9.
`271, 281, and 284-285, among others.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, namely 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`ANSWER: Verizon admits that the Complaint purports to set forth a patent infringement action
`
`arising under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. Verizon
`
`denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 9.
`
`10.
`1338(a), and 1367.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`ANSWER: To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint set forth legal
`
`conclusions, no response is required. Verizon admits that this Court has subject matter
`
`jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) over actions arising under the patent laws
`
`of the United States. Verizon denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 10.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c),
`
`11.
`and 1400(b). On information and belief, each Defendant is deemed to reside in this judicial
`district, has committed acts of infringement in this judicial district, has purposely transacted
`business in this judicial district, and/or has regular and established places of business in this
`judicial district.
`
`ANSWER: To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint set forth legal
`
`conclusions, no response is required. Verizon admits it has transacted business in this district.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 153 Filed 11/13/15 Page 5 of 35 PageID #: 1649
`
`Verizon denies that it has committed any act of patent infringement in this district or any other
`
`judicial district. Verizon denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 11.
`
`On information and belief, each Defendant is subject to this Court’s specific and
`
`12.
`general personal jurisdiction pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute, due at
`least to their substantial and pervasive business in this State and judicial district, including: (i) at
`least part of their infringing activities alleged herein; and (ii) regularly doing or soliciting
`business, engaging in other persistent conduct, and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods
`sold and services provided to Texas residents.
`
`ANSWER: To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 12 of the Complaint set forth legal
`
`conclusions, no response is required. Verizon admits it has transacted business in this district.
`
`Verizon denies that it has committed any act of patent infringement in this district or any other
`
`judicial district. Verizon denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 12.
`
`13. More specifically, Defendants’ substantial contacts with the forum include, but are
`
`not limited to: (i) the manufacture, marketing, sale, distribution, and use of Sony mobile devices;
`(ii) the marketing and sale of services for mobile device communications; (iii) the ownership
`and/or operation of stores where Sony mobile devices are sold and serviced; and/or (iv) the
`provision of technical and customer support for Sony mobile devices and attendant mobile
`device communications services.
`
`ANSWER: Verizon admits that it has transacted business in this district. Verizon denies that it
`
`has committed any acts of patent infringement in this district or any other judicial district.
`
`Verizon denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 13.
`
`COUNT I
`
`(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,385,966)
`
`14.
`
`CCE incorporates paragraphs 1 through 13 herein by reference.
`
`ANSWER: To the extend an answer to this paragraph is required, Verizon repeats and
`
`incorporates by reference its Answers to paragraphs 1 through 13.
`
`CCE is the assignee of the ’966 patent, entitled “Method, Apparatus, and
`Computer Program for Power Control Related to Random Access Procedures” with ownership of
`all substantial rights in the ’966 patent, including the right to exclude others and to enforce, sue,
`and recover damages for past and future infringements. A true and correct copy of the ’966
`
`15.
`
`patent is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 153 Filed 11/13/15 Page 6 of 35 PageID #: 1650
`
`ANSWER: Verizon admits that the ’966 patent is titled “Method, Apparatus, and Computer
`
`Program for Power Control Related to Random Access Procedures.” Verizon admits that on its
`
`face, Exhibit A appears to be a copy of the ’966 patent. Verizon lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of this paragraph, and
`
`therefore denies them.
`
`16.
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`Defendants Sony, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon have and continue to directly
`17.
`and/or indirectly infringe (by inducing infringement and/or contributing to infringement) one or
`
`States, including at least claims 1-7 and 10-17, without the consent or authorization of CCE, by
`or through their making, having made, offering for sale, selling, importing, testing, and/or use of
`
`Sony Xperia T2 Ultra, Sony Xperia T3, Sony Xperia Z Ultra, Sony Xperia Z1 Compact, and
`
`The ’966 patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with
`more claims of the ’966 patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in Texas and the United
`Sony mobile devices, including, for example: the Sony Xperia TL (the “’966 AT&T Mobile
`Devices”); the Sony Xperia Z, Sony Xperia Z1s, and Sony Xperia Z3 (the “’966 T-Mobile
`Mobile Devices”); the Sony Xperia Z2 and Sony Xperia Z3v (the “’966 Verizon Mobile
`Devices”); and the Sony Xperia ZL, Sony Xperia SP, Sony Xperia Tablet Z, Sony Xperia Z1,
`Sony Xperia ZR (the “’966 Sony-distributed Mobile Devices”). These devices are collectively
`referred to as the “’966 Sony Devices.”
`Defendants directly infringe the apparatus claims of the ’966 patent by making,
`using, testing, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing the ’966 Sony Devices. Defendants also
`directly infringe the ’966 patent by making, using, testing, selling, offering for sale, and/or
`importing the ’966 Sony Devices to practice the claimed methods. Defendants are thereby liable
`Additionally, Defendants are liable for indirect infringement of the ’966 patent
`users who use the ’966 Sony Devices to practice the claimed methods.
`Each Defendant is a 3rd Generation Partnership Project (or “3GPP”) member
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`18.
`
`for direct infringement.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`19.
`because they induce and/or contribute to the direct infringement of the patent by their customers
`(including, but not limited to, cellular network providers and/or their subscribers) and other end
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`20.
`organization, or is affiliated with a 3GPP member organization. 3GPP solicits identification of
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 153 Filed 11/13/15 Page 7 of 35 PageID #: 1651
`
`standard essential patents, and, through 3GPP, Defendants received actual notice of the standard
`
`essential patents at issue here. The ’966 patent is one such patent, and Defendants have known of
`the patent application that issued as the ’966 patent at least as early as June 2011, when it was
`disclosed to 3GPP via the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (“ETSI,” an
`
`organizational member of 3GPP).
`
`ANSWER: Verizon admits that it is affiliated with a 3rd Generation Partnership Project
`
`(“3GPP”) member organization. Verizon denies that it received actual notice of the ’966 patent
`
`prior to service of the Complaint. Verizon lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`21.
`have and continue to specifically intend for persons who acquire and use such devices, including
`
`at least claims 1-7. This is evident when Defendants encourage and instruct customers and other
`
`Despite having knowledge of the ’966 patent, Defendants named in this Count
`Defendants’ customers, to use such devices in a manner that infringes the ’966 patent, including
`end users in the use and operation of the ’966 Sony Devices.
`In particular, despite having knowledge of the ’966 patent, Defendants have
`specifically teach the customers and other end users to use the ’966 Sony Devices in an
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`22.
`provided, and continue to provide, instructional materials, such as user guides, owner manuals,
`and similar online resources (available via http://support.sonymobile.com/us/ for instance) that
`
`infringing manner. By providing such instructions, Defendants know (and have known), or
`should know (and should have known), that their actions have, and continue to, actively induce
`infringement.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`23.
`
`Additionally, Defendants named in this Count know, and have known, that the
`
`in concert to perform specific, intended functions. Such specific, intended functions, carried out
`
`patent and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`24.
`memory, and a transmitter which contains functionality that is specifically programmed and/or
`configured to at least initialize a first power control adjustment state for an uplink control
`channel and a second power control adjustment state for an uplink shared channel, compute an
`initial transit power for the uplink shared channel using full path loss compensation, and send a
`message on the uplink shared channel at the initial transmit power, as recited in claims 1-7 and
`
`’966 Sony Devices include proprietary hardware components and software instructions that work
`by these hardware and software combinations, are a material part of the inventions of the ’966
`Specifically, each of the ’966 Sony Devices contain at least a baseband processor,
`10-17 of the ’966 patent.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 153 Filed 11/13/15 Page 8 of 35 PageID #: 1652
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`25.
`
`patent, Defendants named in this Count have nevertheless continued their infringing conduct and
`
`On information and belief, despite having knowledge of the ’966 patent and
`knowledge that they are directly and/or indirectly infringing one or more claims of the ’966
`disregarded an objectively high likelihood of infringement; thus, Defendants’ infringing activities
`relative to the ’966 patent have been, and continue to be, willful, wanton, and deliberate in
`disregard of CCE’s rights.
`and/or import the ’966 AT&T Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or more
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`26.
`
`On information and belief, Sony and AT&T test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,
`
`contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`devices. Accordingly, Sony and AT&T are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`ANSWER: The allegations in this paragraph are not directed to Verizon, so no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is required, Verizon lacks knowledge or information sufficient
`
`to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph 26, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`27.
`
`On information and belief, Sony and T-Mobile test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,
`
`and/or import the ’966 T-Mobile Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or
`
`more contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`devices. Accordingly, Sony and T-Mobile are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`ANSWER: The allegations in this paragraph are not directed to Verizon, so no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is required, Verizon lacks knowledge or information sufficient
`
`to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph 27, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`28.
`
`On information and belief, Sony and Verizon test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,
`
`and/or import the ’966 Verizon Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or more
`
`contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`devices. Accordingly, Sony and Verizon are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 153 Filed 11/13/15 Page 9 of 35 PageID #: 1653
`
`ANSWER: Verizon admits that it test, offers for sale, and sells certain Sony devices. Verizon
`
`denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 28.
`
`29.
`this Count. Defendants are, thus, liable to CCE in an amount that adequately compensates it for
`their infringements, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with
`
`CCE has been damaged as a result of Defendants’ infringing conduct described in
`interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COUNT II
`
`(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,848,556)
`
`30.
`
`CCE incorporates paragraphs 1 through 13 herein by reference.
`
`ANSWER: To the extend an answer to this paragraph is required, Verizon repeats and
`
`incorporates by reference its Answers to paragraphs 1 through 13.
`
`31.
`
`CCE is the assignee of the ’556 patent, entitled “Carrier Aggregation with Power
`Headroom Report,” with ownership of all substantial rights in the ’556 patent, including the right
`true and correct copy of the ’556 patent is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`to exclude others and to enforce, sue, and recover damages for past and future infringements. A
`
`ANSWER: Verizon admits that the ’556 patent is titled “Carrier Aggregation with Power
`
`Headroom Report.” Verizon admits that on its face, Exhibit B appears to be a copy of the ’556
`
`patent. Verizon lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`32.
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`The ’556 patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with
`one or more claims of the ’556 patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in Texas and the
`Z1s, (the “’556 T-Mobile Mobile Devices”); the Sony Xperia Z3v and Sony Xperia Z2 (the “’556
`Verizon Mobile Devices”); and the Sony Xperia Z3 Compact, Sony Xperia Z1 Compact, Sony
`
`33.
`
`Defendants Sony, T-Mobile, and Verizon have and continue to directly infringe
`
`United States, including at least claims 13-15 and 21-22, without the consent or authorization of
`CCE, by or through their making, having made, offering for sale, selling, importing, testing
`and/or use of Sony mobile devices, including, for example: the Sony Xperia Z3 and Sony Xperia
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 153 Filed 11/13/15 Page 10 of 35 PageID #: 1654
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`34.
`
`thereby liable for direct infringement.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`Xperia Z1, Sony Xperia M2, and Sony Xperia Z Ultra (the “’556 Sony-distributed Mobile
`Devices”). These devices are collectively referred to as the “’556 Sony Devices.”
`Defendants directly infringe the apparatus claims of the ’556 patent by making,
`using, testing, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing the ’556 Sony Devices. Defendants are
`Each Defendant is a 3rd Generation Partnership Project (or “3GPP”) member
`essential patents at issue here. The ’556 patent is one such patent, and Defendants have known of
`the patent application that issued as the ’556 patent at least as early as October 2012, when it was
`disclosed to 3GPP via the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (“ETSI,” an
`
`35.
`organization, or is affiliated with a 3GPP member organization. 3GPP solicits identification of
`standard essential patents, and, through 3GPP, Defendants received actual notice of the standard
`
`organizational member of 3GPP).
`
`ANSWER: Verizon admits that it is affiliated with a 3rd Generation Partnership Project
`
`(“3GPP”) member organization. Verizon denies that it received actual notice of the ’556 patent
`
`prior to service of the Complaint. Verizon lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`36.
`
`named in this Count have nevertheless continued their infringing conduct and disregarded an
`
`On information and belief, despite having knowledge of the ’556 patent and
`knowledge that they are directly infringing one or more claims of the ’556 patent, Defendants
`objectively high likelihood of infringement; thus, Defendants’ infringing activities relative to the
`’556 patent have been, and continue to be, willful, wanton, and deliberate in disregard of CCE’s
`and/or import the ’556 T-Mobile Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or
`
`rights.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`37.
`
`On information and belief, Sony and T-Mobile test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,
`
`more contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`devices. Accordingly, Sony and T-Mobile are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`ANSWER: The allegations in this paragraph are not directed to Verizon, so no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is required, Verizon lacks knowledge or information sufficient
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 153 Filed 11/13/15 Page 11 of 35 PageID #: 1655
`
`to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of paragraph 37, and
`
`therefore denies those allegations.
`
`38.
`
`On information and belief, Sony and Verizon test, make, use, offer for sale, sell,
`
`and/or import the ’556 Verizon Mobile Devices described in this Count, pursuant to one or more
`
`contractual agreements between them relating to, at least, the distribution and sale of such
`devices. Accordingly, Sony and Verizon are jointly, severally, or alternatively liable for
`infringements described in this Count.
`
`ANSWER: Verizon admits that it tests, offers for sale, and sells certain Sony devices. Verizon
`
`denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 38.
`
`39.
`this Count. Defendants are, thus, liable to CCE in an amount that adequately compensates it for
`their infringements, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with
`
`CCE has been damaged as a result of Defendants’ infringing conduct described in
`interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`COUNT III
`
`(INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,868,060)
`
`40.
`
`CCE incorporates paragraphs 1 through 13 herein by reference.
`
`ANSWER: To the extend an answer to this paragraph is required, Verizon repeats and
`
`incorporates by reference its Answers to paragraphs 1 through 13.
`
`41.
`
`attached as Exhibit C.
`
`CCE is the assignee of the ’060 patent, entitled “Method, Network and Device for
`Information Provision by Using Paging and Cell Broadcast Services,” with ownership of all
`substantial rights in the ’060 patent, including the right to exclude others and to enforce, sue, and
`recover damages for past and future infringements. A true and correct copy of the ’060 patent is
`
`ANSWER: Verizon admits that the ’060 patent is titled “Method, Network and Device for
`
`Information Provision by Using Paging and Cell Broadcast Services.” Verizon admits that on its
`
`face, Exhibit C appears to be a copy of the ’060 patent. Verizon lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of this paragraph, and
`
`therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 153 Filed 11/13/15 Page 12 of 35 PageID #: 1656
`
`42.
`Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`Defendants Sony, T-Mobile, and Verizon have and continue to directly and/or
`43.
`indirectly infringe (by inducing infringement and/or contributing to infringement) one or more
`
`including at least claims 1, 3, 7, 9, and 15, without the consent or authorization of CCE, by or
`through their making, having made, offering for sale, selling, importing, testing, and/or use of
`Sony mobile devices, including, for example: the Sony Xperia Z1s and Sony Zperia Z3 (the
`
`Xperia T2 Ultra, Sony Xperia T3, Sony Xperia Z1 Compact, Sony Xperia Z1, and Sony Xperia
`
`The ’060 patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly issued in full compliance with
`claims of the ’060 patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in Texas and the United States,
`“’060 T-Mobile Mobile Devices”); the Sony Xperia Z2 and Sony Xperia Z3v (the “’060 Verizon
`Mobile Devices”); and the Sony Xperia M dual, Sony Xperia M2 dual, Sony Xperia M2, Sony
`Z3 Compact (the “’060 Sony-distributed Mobile Devices”). These devices are collectively
`referred to as the “’060 Sony Devices.”
`Defendants directly infringe the apparatus claims of the ’060 patent by making,
`using, testing, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing the ’060 Sony Devices. Defendants also
`directly infringe the ’060 patent by making, using, testing, selling, offering for sale, and/or
`importing the ’060 Sony Devices to practice the claimed methods. Defendants are thereby liable
`Additionally, Defendants are liable for indirect infringement of the ’060 patent
`users who use the ’060 Sony Devices to practice the claimed methods.
`Each Defendant is a 3rd Generation Partnership Project (or “3GPP”) member
`essential patents at issue here. The ’060 patent is one such patent, and Defendants have known of
`the patent application that issued as the ’060 patent at least as early as December 14, 2010, when
`it was disclosed to 3GPP via the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (“ETSI,” an
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`44.
`
`for direct infringement.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`45.
`because they induce and/or contribute to the direct infringement of the patent by their customers
`(including, but not limited to, cellular network providers and/or their subscribers) and other end
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`46.
`organization, or is affiliated with a 3GPP member organization. 3GPP solicits identification of
`standard essential patents, and, through 3GPP, Defendants received actual notice of the standard
`
`organizational member of 3GPP).
`
`ANSWER: Verizon admits that it is affiliated with a 3rd Generation Partnership Project
`
`member organization. Verizon denies that it received actual notice of the ’060 patent prior to
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:14-cv-00982-KNM Document 153 Filed 11/13/15 Page 13 of 35 PageID #: 1657
`
`service of the Complaint. Verizon lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
`
`to the truth of the remaining allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`47.
`have and continue to specifically intend for persons who acquire and use such devices, including
`
`at least claims 1 and 3. This is evident when Defendants encourage and instruct customers and
`
`Despite having knowledge of the ’060 patent, Defendants named in this Count
`Defendants’ customers, to use such devices in a manner that infringes the ’060 patent, including
`other end users in the use and operation of the ’060 Sony Devices.
`In particular, despite having knowledge of the ’060 patent, Defendants have
`specifically teach the customers and other end users to use the ’060 Sony Devices in an
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`48.
`provided, and continue to provide, instructional materials, such as user guides, owner manuals,
`and similar online resources (available via http://support.sonymobile.com/us/, for instance) that
`
`infringing manner. By providing such instructions, Defendants know (and have known), or
`should know (and should have known), that their actions have, and continue to, actively induce
`infringement.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`49.
`
`Additionally, Defendants named in this Count know, and have known, that the
`
`in concert to perform specific, intended functions. Such specific, intended functions, carried out
`
`patent and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`’060 Sony Devices include proprietary hardware components and software instructions that work
`by these hardware and software combinations, are a material part of the inventions of the ’060
`Specifically, each of the ’060 Sony Devices contain at least a baseband processor
`
`50.
`and memory which contains functionality that is specifically programmed and/or configured to at
`least store a group of specific identifiers common to a plurality of terminals supporting an
`emergency warning, check whether a paging message received from a base station includes at
`least one specific identifier of the group of the specific identifiers, switch to a broadcast mode for
`receiving broadcast content on a broadcast channel only if the received paging message includes
`the at least one specific identifier, and establish at least one of a physical channel and a logical
`channel only if the received paging message includes a temporary mobile subscriber identity
`
`allocated to the terminal, as recited in claims 1, 3, 7, 9, and 15 of the ’060 patent.
`On information and belief, despite having knowledge of the ’060 patent and
`knowledge that they are directly and/or indirectly infringing one or more claims of the ’060
`disregarded an objectively high likelihood of infringement; thus, Defendants’ infringing activities
`
`ANSWER: Denied.
`
`51.
`
`patent, Defendants named in this Count have nevertheless continued thei