Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 78 Filed 08/02/17 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 628
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`Civil Action No. 6:17-cv-146
`
`LEAD CASE
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:17-cv-225
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`§§
`
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS
`EQUIPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.
`
`Defendant.
`CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS
`EQUIPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`AT&T MOBILITY LLC’S FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
`COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant AT&T Mobility LLC (“AT&T”), by and through its undersigned attorneys,
`
`hereby responds to the Complaint of Plaintiff Cellular Communications Equipment, LLC
`
`(“CCE”) (“Complaint”), with the following Answer and Defenses.
`
`GENERAL DENIAL
`
`Unless specifically admitted below, AT&T denies each and every allegation in the
`
`Complaint. To the extent the headings of the Complaint are construed as allegations, they are
`
`each denied.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 78 Filed 08/02/17 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 629
`
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`2.
`
`AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`3.
`
`The allegations of paragraph 3 are directed to a party no longer in the case and are
`
`therefore denied.
`
`4.
`
`AT&T admits that it is a Delaware limited liability company organized under the
`
`laws of the State of Delaware and has a principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. AT&T
`
`admits that it may be served with process through its agent. AT&T admits it has transacted
`
`business in the state of Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas, but denies any wrongdoing or
`
`infringement. AT&T denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 4.
`
`5.
`
`AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`6.
`
`AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`7.
`
`AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`8.
`
`AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 8 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`9.
`
`AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`10.
`
`AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 78 Filed 08/02/17 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 630
`
`
`11.
`
`AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`12.
`
`AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 12 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`13.
`
`AT&T 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. AT&T
`
`denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 13.
`
`14.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 14 of the Complaint set forth legal
`
`conclusions, no response is required. AT&T 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. AT&T denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 14.
`
`15.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 15 of the Complaint set forth legal
`
`conclusions, no response is required. In light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in TC
`
`Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 197 L. Ed. 2d 816, 581 U.S. __ (2017), AT&T
`
`takes no position regarding whether venue is proper in this judicial district as to AT&T Mobility.
`
`AT&T denies that it resides in this district. AT&T admits it has transacted business in this
`
`district. AT&T denies that it has committed any act of patent infringement in this district or any
`
`other judicial district. AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the
`
`same.
`
`16.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 16 of the Complaint set forth legal
`
`conclusions, no response is required. AT&T admits it has transacted business in this district.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 78 Filed 08/02/17 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 631
`
`
`AT&T denies that it has committed any act of patent infringement in this district or any other
`
`judicial district. AT&T denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 16.
`
`COUNT I—ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,892,074
`
`17.
`
`AT&T re-alleges and reincorporate its answers to Paragraphs 1–16 of the
`
`Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`18.
`
`AT&T admits that the cover page of U.S. Patent No. 6,892,074 (“’074 Patent”)
`
`states that its title is “Selective Message Service to Primary and Secondary Mobile Stations.”
`
`AT&T admits that what purports to be a copy of the ’074 Patent is attached as Exhibit A to the
`
`Complaint. AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the remaining allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`19.
`
`AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`20.
`
`AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`21.
`
`AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 21 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`22.
`
`AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 22 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`COUNT II—ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,902,770
`
`23.
`
`AT&T re-alleges and reincorporate its answers to Paragraphs 1–22 of the
`
`Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`24.
`
`AT&T admits that the cover page of U.S. Patent No. 8,902,770 (“’770 Patent”)
`
`states that its title is “Carrier Indicator Field Usage and Configuration in Carrier Aggregation.”
`
`AT&T admits that what purports to be a copy of the ’770 Patent is attached as Exhibit B to the
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 78 Filed 08/02/17 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 632
`
`
`Complaint. AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the remaining allegations of Paragraph 24 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 28 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`Denied.
`
`AT&T denies that AT&T Mobility is a 3GPP member. AT&T admits it has
`
`known about the ’770 Patent since being served with the Complaint. AT&T lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 30
`
`of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`AT&T admits that AT&T has provided Apple brand devices. AT&T denies the
`
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 35.
`
`36.
`
`AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 36 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`37.
`
`AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 37 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 78 Filed 08/02/17 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 633
`
`
`38.
`
`AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`39.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT III—ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,254,872
`
`40.
`
`AT&T re-alleges and reincorporate its answers to Paragraphs 1–39 of the
`
`Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`41.
`
`AT&T admits that the cover page of U.S. Patent No. 8,254,872 (“’872 Patent”)
`
`states that its title is “Simplified Method for IMS Registration in the Event of Emergency
`
`Calls.” AT&T admits that what purports to be a copy of the ’872 Patent is attached as Exhibit C
`
`to the Complaint. AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 41 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the
`
`same.
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 45 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`Denied.
`
`AT&T denies that AT&T Mobility is a 3GPP member. AT&T admits it has
`
`known about the ’872 Patent since being served with the Complaint. AT&T lacks knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 30
`
`of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 78 Filed 08/02/17 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 634
`
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`AT&T admits that AT&T has provided Apple brand devices. AT&T denies the
`
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 52.
`
`53.
`
`AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 53 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`54.
`
`AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 54 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`55.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT IV—ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,037,129
`
`56.
`
`AT&T re-alleges and reincorporate its answers to Paragraphs 1–55 of the
`
`Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`57.
`
`AT&T admits that the cover page of U.S. Patent No. 9,037,129 (“’129 Patent”)
`
`states that its title is “Method, Network and Device for Information Provision by Using Paging
`
`and Cell Broadcast Services.” AT&T admits that what purports to be a copy of the ’129 Patent
`
`is attached as Exhibit D to the Complaint. AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 57 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies the same.
`
`58.
`
`59.
`
`60.
`
`61.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 61 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`62.
`
`Denied.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 78 Filed 08/02/17 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 635
`
`
`63.
`
`AT&T admits it has known about the ’129 Patent since being served with the
`
`Complaint. AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the remaining allegations of Paragraph 63 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`64.
`
`65.
`
`66.
`
`67.
`
`68.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`AT&T admits that AT&T has provided Apple brand devices. AT&T denies the
`
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 68.
`
`69.
`
`AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 69 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`70.
`
`AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 70 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`71.
`
`AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 71 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`72.
`
`Denied.
`
`JOINDER OF PARTIES
`
`73.
`
`AT&T re-alleges and reincorporate its answers to Paragraphs 1–72 of the
`
`Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`74.
`
`AT&T admits that it has provided Apple brand devices. AT&T lacks knowledge
`
`or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of
`
`Paragraph 74 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`75.
`
`AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 75 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 78 Filed 08/02/17 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 636
`
`
`76.
`
`AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 76 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`77.
`
`AT&T lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations of Paragraph 77 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`78.
`
`Denied.
`
`WILLFULNESS
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff’s demand for a jury trial does not require a response.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`AT&T denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever against AT&T, either as
`
`prayed for in the Complaint or otherwise.
`
`ADDITIONAL DEFENSES
`
`AT&T alleges and asserts the following additional defenses in response to the allegations
`
`of the Complaint, undertaking the burden of proof only as to those defenses required by law,
`
`regardless of how such defenses are denominated herein. In addition to defenses pleaded herein,
`
`AT&T reserves the right to allege additional defenses that become known through the course of
`
`discovery or otherwise.
`
`FIRST DEFENSE
`
`(FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM)
`
`1.
`
`The Complaint fails to state a claim against AT&T upon which relief can be
`
`granted.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 78 Filed 08/02/17 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 637
`
`
`SECOND DEFENSE
`
`(NON-INFRINGEMENT)
`
`2.
`
`AT&T does not infringe and has not infringed, literally or by the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’770 Patent, ’872 Patent, or ’129 Patent
`
`(collectively, the “Asserted Patents”), either directly, contributorily, by inducement, jointly, or in
`
`any other manner.
`
`THIRD DEFENSE
`
`(PROSECUTION HISTORY ESTOPPEL)
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff is estopped from construing any of the claims of the Asserted Patents in
`
`such a way as may cover, encompass, and/or include AT&T’s products, services, or activities
`
`and/or has waived any right to do so by reason of amendment, cancellation, and/or abandonment
`
`of claims, and/or admissions, representations, and/or statements made by or on behalf of the
`
`applicants, in any proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`FOURTH DEFENSE
`
`(INVALIDITY)
`
`4.
`
`Each and every claim of the Asserted Patents is invalid for failure to meet the
`
`requirements of Title 35, United States Code, including but not limited to Sections 101, 102, 103,
`
`112, and/or 116 thereof, and the rules, regulations, and laws pertaining thereto.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Each and every claim of the Asserted Patents is invalid for double patenting.
`
`The Asserted Patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (f) and 35 U.S.C. § 116
`
`for failure to identify the correct inventive entity.
`
`7.
`
`The Asserted Patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (f) because the named
`
`inventors of each did not invent the subject matter sought to be patented.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 78 Filed 08/02/17 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 638
`
`
`FIFTH DEFENSE
`
`(35 U.S.C. § 286)
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims for relief and prayer for damages are limited by 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 286.
`
`SIXTH DEFENSE
`
`(35 U.S.C. § 287)
`
`9.
`
`Upon information and belief, the relief sought by Plaintiff is barred or limited in
`
`whole or in part by the failure to mark, by Plaintiff or by one or more parties licensed or
`
`otherwise authorized to practice the Asserted Patents, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`
`SEVENTH DEFENSE
`
`(28 U.S.C. § 1498)
`
`10.
`
`To the extent that any accused product has been used or manufactured by or for
`
`the United States Government, Plaintiff’s claims and demands for relief are barred by 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1498.
`
`EIGHTH DEFENSE
`
`(STANDING)
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this suit because, as shown on the face of the ’770
`
`and ’872 Patents, Plaintiff is not the assignee of those patents.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff also lacks standing to bring this suit to the extent that Plaintiff and/or its
`
`predecessors-in-interest lacked ownership of the Asserted Patents at any relevant time during this
`
`lawsuit. Plaintiff also lacks standing to bring this suit to the extent that Plaintiff and/or its
`
`predecessors-in-interest lacked ownership of the Asserted Patents at the time they attempted to
`
`assign their interest in the Asserted Patents. Plaintiff further lacks standing based on a lack of
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 78 Filed 08/02/17 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 639
`
`
`injury to the extent Plaintiff is accusing Defendants of behavior and actions that have not
`
`occurred nor will occur in the reasonable future.
`
`13.
`
`In addition, Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this suit to the extent that Plaintiff
`
`lacks any and all substantial rights to the Asserted Patents.
`
`NINTH DEFENSE
`
`(LICENSE)
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims for relief are barred in whole or in part by express or implied
`
`license.
`
`TENTH DEFENSE
`
`(PATENT EXHAUSTION)
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims for relief are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of patent
`
`exhaustion.
`
`16.
`
`Upon information and belief, to the extent that CCE’s claims against AT&T are
`
`based on the operation of Qualcomm components in the accused devices, CCE’s claims against
`
`AT&T are barred under the doctrine of patent exhaustion.
`
`ELEVENTH DEFENSE
`
`(WAIVER, ESTOPPEL, CLAIM PRECLUSION, LACHES, PATENT MISUSE,
`UNCLEAN HANDS)
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims against AT&T regarding the Asserted Patents are barred by the
`
`equitable doctrines of waiver, estoppel, claim preclusion, laches, and/or unclean hands.
`
`18.
`
`The ’770, ’872, and ’129 patents are unenforceable under the doctrines of waiver,
`
`equitable estoppel, patent misuse, unclean hands, and/or other applicable equitable doctrines
`
`based on the fact that the owners of the patent applications that led to the asserted patents,
`
`including CCE’s predecessors-in-interest to the asserted patents and the asserted patent
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 78 Filed 08/02/17 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 640
`
`
`applications, did not timely disclose them during the standard-setting process at ETSI and 3GPP.
`
`As an ETSI member participating at ETSI and 3GPP proceedings, the predecessors-in-interest
`
`were bound by ETSI’s Intellectual Property Rights Policy.
`
`19.
`
`The predecessors-in-interest did not timely disclose the ’770, ’872, and ’129
`
`patents to ETSI in accordance with Clause 4.1 of the Policy. Clause 4.1 states: “[E]ach
`
`MEMBER shall use its reasonable endeavours, in particular during the development of a
`
`STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION where it participates, to inform ETSI of
`
`ESSENTIAL IPRs in a timely fashion. In particular, a MEMBER submitting a technical proposal
`
`for a STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION shall, on a bona fide basis, draw the
`
`attention of ETSI to any of that MEMBER’s IPR which might be ESSENTIAL if that proposal is
`
`adopted.”
`
`20.
`
`The predecessors-in-interest did not disclose their patent applications that resulted
`
`in the ’770, ’872, and ’129 patents to ETSI in accordance with Clause 4.1. After the patent
`
`applications were filed, employees of the predecessors-in-interest continued to attend working
`
`group meetings and participate in the standards development process but waited months to
`
`disclose these applications to ETSI. As summarized in the chart below, nearly all of the
`
`standards sections identified by CCE in the infringement allegations of its Complaint were also
`
`already adopted long before the predecessors-in-interest’s disclosure of the patent applications
`
`that resulted in the ’770, ’872, and ’129 patents.
`
`Patent Claimed
`Priority
`
`’770
`
`09/28/11
`
`’872
`
`04/13/07
`
`Filed
`
`Published
`
`Issued
`
`09/28/11
`09/28/10
`(provisional)
`04/13/07 (PCT)
`04/27/06 (Foreign
`Appl. (DE))
`
`03/29/12
`
`12/02/14
`
`11/08/07
`(PCT)
`
`08/28/12
`
`Accused Standard
`Sections Identified
`in Complaint
`3GPP TS 36.212;
`3GPP TS 36.213;
`3GPP TS 36.331
`3GPP TS 23.003;
`3GPP TS 23.167;
`3GPP TS 23.401;
`
`Application
`Disclosed to
`ETSI
`06/30/14
`
`09/07/09
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 78 Filed 08/02/17 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 641
`
`
`02/05/15
`
`05/19/15
`
`3GPP TS 24.229;
`3GPP TS 31.102;
`3GPP TS 36.413
`3GPP TS 22.268;
`3GPP TS 36.331;
`3GPP TS 23.041
`
`12/24/10
`and
`06/21/11 for
`UMTS
`
`’129
`
`02/02/10
`
`10/21/14
`10/02/09 (but the
`Patent Office did not
`consider the filing
`complete until
`02/02/10)
`04/02/08 (PCT)
`04/02/07 (Foreign
`Application)
`
`21.
`
`The ’770, ’872, and ’129 patents are unenforceable because the predecessors-in-
`
`
`
`interest did not timely disclose these patents and their related patent applications to ETSI, in
`
`accordance with the predecessors-in-interest’s ETSI obligations.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, AT&T requests that:
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`(e)
`
`(f)
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice;
`
`The Court enter judgment that Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief
`whatsoever, whether in law or equity or otherwise, from its suit against
`AT&T;
`
`That the claims of the Asserted Patents be found invalid and/or
`unenforceable;
`
`The Court enter judgment that AT&T does not infringe and has not
`infringed any valid claim of the Asserted Patents and that Plaintiff take
`nothing by its Complaint;
`
`The Court declare this case to be exceptional and award AT&T its
`reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred in defending this action;
`and
`
`The Court grant such other and further relief as it deems to be just and
`proper
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 78 Filed 08/02/17 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 642
`
`
`Dated: July 28, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`chriskennerly@paulhastings.com
`TX Bar No. 00795077
`Paul Hastings LLP
`1117 S. California Ave.
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1106
`Telephone: (650) 320-1800
`Facsimile: (650) 320-1900
`
`Jeffrey D. Comeau
`CA Bar No. 259679 (Admitted E.D. Tex.)
`jeffreycomeau@paulhastings.com
`Paul Hastings LLP
`4747 Executive Drive
`Twelfth Floor
`San Diego, CA 92121-3114
`Telephone: (858) 458-3000
`Facsimile: (858) 458-3005
`
`COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
`AT&T MOBILITY LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-00146-KNM Document 78 Filed 08/02/17 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 643
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was filed
`
`electronically in compliance with Local Rule CV-5 on this 2nd day of August, 2017. As of this
`
`date all counsel of record have consented to electronic service and are being served with a copy
`
`of this document through the Court’s CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A).
`
`
`/s/ Christopher W. Kennerly
`Christopher W. Kennerly
`
`16
`
`