Case 6:21-cv-00026-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/17/21 Page 1 of 40
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`NEO WIRELESS LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00026-ADA
`
`APPLE INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant Apple Inc. (“Defendant” or “Apple”) hereby submits its Answer and Defenses
`
`to Plaintiff Neo Wireless’s (“Plaintiff” or “Neo Wireless”) First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)
`
`for patent infringement. Unless specifically admitted, Apple denies each and every allegation
`
`made by Plaintiff in the FAC and states as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`FAC No. 1: Plaintiff Neo Wireless LLC is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`
`place of business located in Wayne, Pennsylvania.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 1: Apple is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 1, and therefore denies them.
`
`FAC No. 2: On information and belief, Defendant Apple is a California corporation with
`
`its principal place of business located at One Apple Park Way, Cupertino, California 95014.
`
`Apple maintains several regular and established places of business in the Western District of
`
`Texas including at 12535 Riata Vista Circle and 5501 West Parmer Lane, Austin, Texas 78727;
`
`2901 S. Capital of Texas Hwy, Austin, TX 78746; 3121 Palm Way, Austin, TX 78758; 8401
`
`Gateway Boulevard West, El Paso, TX 79925; 15900 La Cantera Parkway, San Antonio, TX
`
`WEST\294052768.4
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00026-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/17/21 Page 2 of 40
`
`78256; and 7400 San Pedro Avenue, San Antonio, TX 78216. Moreover, Apple maintains
`
`seventeen regular and established storefront Apple Stores across the state of Texas.1 Apple
`
`offers and sells its products and/or services, including those accused herein of infringement, to
`
`customers and potential customers located in Texas, including in the judicial Western District of
`
`Texas, such as at the Barton Creek Mall (2901 S. Capital of Texas Hwy) and in the Domain
`
`(3121 Palm Way) in Austin, Texas. Apple may be served with process through its registered
`
`agent for service in Texas: CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas Texas
`
`75201.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 2: Apple admits that it is a California corporation with its principal
`
`place of business located at One Apple Park Way, Cupertino, California 95014. Apple also
`
`admits that there are Apple facilities in this judicial district, but denies that these locations have
`
`any connection to this case. Apple further admits that it may be served with process through its
`
`registered agent for service in Texas, CT Corporation System, at 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900,
`
`Dallas Texas 75201. Whether Apple’s facilities or retail stores constitute “regular and
`
`established places of business in the Western District of Texas” involves a question of statutory
`
`interpretation and/or conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent there are
`
`any remaining allegations in paragraph 2 of the FAC to which a response is required, Apple
`
`denies them.
`
`FAC No. 3: On information and belief, seven of Apple’s suppliers manufacture
`
`products, including those relevant to this Complaint, in the State of Texas. Cypress
`
`Semiconductor Corporation, Flex Limited, Samsung Electronics Company Limited, and Maxim
`
`Integrated Products Incorporated are all located within this judicial district. Hon Hai Precision
`
`1 https://www.apple.com/retail/storelist/
`
`WEST\294052768.4
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00026-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/17/21 Page 3 of 40
`
`Industry Company Limited (FoxConn) is located in the Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex.2 On
`
`information and belief, Cypress Semiconductor, Apple’s supplier, produces chips for use in
`
`Apple’s Accused Instrumentalities in its Austin factory at Apple’s direction and specification.3
`
`On information and belief, Flex Limited or Flextronics, Apple’s supplier, assembles infringing
`
`products in its Austin factory at Apple’s direction and specifications.4 On information and
`
`belief, Hon Hai Precision Industry or Foxconn, Apple’s primary assembly supplier, has two
`
`plants for Apple products located in Fort Worth, Texas. At least one of these plants is a repair
`
`factory for Apple’s products, including infringing products.5 On information and belief, Maxim
`
`Integrated, Apple’s supplier, produces chips used in the Accused Instrumentalities in its San
`
`Antonio factory at Apple’s direction and specifications.6 On information and belief, Qorvo,
`
`Apple’s supplier, produces radio frequency chips used in the Accused Instrumentalities in its
`
`Richardson factory location at Apple’s direction and specifications.7 On information and belief,
`
`2 https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/pdf/Apple-Supplier-List.pdf.
`3 https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/pdf/Apple-Supplier-List.pdf;
`https://www.investopedia.com/4-stocks-poised-to-gain-as-new-iphone-sales-beat-expectations-
`4769942; https://www.austinhomeseeker.com/cypress-semiconductor.php;
`https://9to5mac.com/2020/02/26/iphone-fixed-broadcom-chip-flaw/.
`4 https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/pdf/Apple-Supplier-List.pdf;
`https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-04/apple-supplier-targets-production-of-30-
`000-ventilators-a-month; https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/apple-ceo-tim-cook-and-preident-
`trump-tour-texas-computer-factory.html.
`5 https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/pdf/Apple-Supplier-List.pdf;
`https://focustaiwan.tw/sci-tech/201903090004; https://dallasinnovates.com/uta-teams-with-
`foxconn-to-help-reduce-iphone-fraudulent-claims1423/.
`6 https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/pdf/Apple-Supplier-List.pdf;
`https://appleinsider.com/articles/12/07/19/made_in_america_apples_supply_chain_increasing_us
`_production; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxim_Integrated;
`https://pdfserv.maximintegrated.com/en/pr/SanAntonio.pdf.
`7 https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/pdf/Apple-Supplier-List.pdf;
`https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2020/05/29/qualcomm-qorvo--jabil-apple-
`suppliers-have-been-left-behind-from-the-rally-time-to-buy/#677ea6942257;
`
`WEST\294052768.4
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00026-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/17/21 Page 4 of 40
`
`Samsung, Apple’s supplier, designs and produces chips used in the Accused Instrumentalities in
`
`its Austin factory (as discussed in greater detail below) at Apple’s direction and specifications.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 3: Apple admits that certain of Apple’s third-party suppliers have
`
`facilities located in this District, but denies that the location of Apple’s third-party suppliers is
`
`sufficient to confer jurisdiction or venue. Apple also denies that the third-party suppliers
`
`referenced in paragraph 3 manufacture the core components needed to enable the accused
`
`functionalities. To the extent a response is required for the remaining allegations of paragraph 3
`
`of the FAC, Apple denies them.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`FAC No. 4: This action includes a claim of patent infringement arising under the patent
`
`laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. This Court has jurisdiction over this action
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`Answer to FAC No. 4: Apple admits that this action purports to arise under the United
`
`States patent laws. Apple admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over patent law
`
`claims. Apple denies infringement and any and all relief Plaintiff is seeking.
`
`FAC No. 5: This Court has personal jurisdiction over Apple. As indicated above, Apple
`
`conducts business and has committed acts of patent infringement and has induced and
`
`contributed to acts of patent infringement by others in this District, the State of Texas, and
`
`elsewhere in the United States.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 5: Apple does not contest at this time, and solely for the purpose of
`
`the present litigation, whether Apple is subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction. The
`
`https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/03/03/apple-supplier-qorvo-cuts-guidance-
`coronavirus.aspx.
`
`WEST\294052768.4
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00026-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/17/21 Page 5 of 40
`
`remaining allegations in paragraph 5 of the FAC constitute conclusions of law, and no response
`
`of Apple is required; to the extent an answer is required, Apple denies the allegations.
`
`FAC No. 6: Venue is proper in this judicial district per 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).
`
`Answer to FAC No. 6: Apple does not contest at this time, and solely for the purpose of
`
`the present litigation, the propriety of venue in this District, but Apple denies that venue in this
`
`District is convenient. Apple reserves the right to seek transfer to a more appropriate or
`
`convenient forum. To the extent there remain any other allegations in paragraph 6 of the FAC
`
`which do not constitute conclusions of law and to which a response is required, Apple denies the
`
`allegations.
`
`FAC No. 7: Apple has committed acts of infringement in this judicial district and
`
`maintains regular and established places of business in this district, as set forth above. Apple has
`
`continuous and systematic business contacts with the State of Texas. Apple, directly or through
`
`subsidiaries or intermediaries (including distributors, retailers, contract manufacturers, and
`
`others), conducts its business extensively throughout Texas, by shipping, manufacturing,
`
`distributing, offering for sale, selling, and advertising (including the provision of interactive web
`
`pages) its products and services in the State of Texas and the Western District of Texas.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 7: Apple admits that it sells and offers for sale certain products,
`
`including those accused in the FAC, to customers and potential customers in Texas, including in
`
`this District. Apple denies that venue in this District is convenient, and Apple reserves the right
`
`to seek transfer to a more appropriate or convenient forum. The remaining allegations in
`
`paragraph 7 constitute conclusions of law, and no response of Apple is required; to the extent an
`
`answer is required, Apple denies the allegations.
`
`WEST\294052768.4
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00026-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/17/21 Page 6 of 40
`
`FAC No. 8: Apple, directly or through subsidiaries or intermediaries (including
`
`distributors, retailers, contract manufacturers, and others), has purposefully and voluntarily
`
`placed its infringing products and services into this District and into the stream of commerce
`
`with the intention and expectation that they will be purchased and used by consumers in this
`
`District. Apple has offered and sold and continues to offer and sell these infringing products and
`
`services in this District, including at its seventeen physical Apple stores located within the state
`
`and more specifically those stores located in this District such as at 5501 West Parmer Lane,
`
`Austin, Texas, 2901 S. Capital of Texas Hwy, Austin, TX 78746; 3121 Palm Way, Austin, TX
`
`78758; 8401 Gateway Boulevard West, El Paso, TX 79925; 15900 La Cantera Parkway, San
`
`Antonio, TX 78256; and 7400 San Pedro Avenue, San Antonio, TX 78216.8 Moreover, Apple
`
`has authorized its infringing products to be sold by numerous third-party sellers. For example,
`
`Apple’s website indicates at least 99 stores sell infringing iPhones in Austin,9 at least 99 stores
`
`sell infringing iPhones in the Waco area,10 and at least 99 stores sell infringing iPhones in San
`
`Antonio.11 Put simply, Apple has authorized hundreds of stores located in the Western District
`
`of Texas to sell infringing products to customers and other end-users.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 8: Apple admits that it sells and offers for sale certain products,
`
`including those accused in the FAC, to customers and potential customers in Texas, including in
`
`this District. Apple also admits that there are Apple facilities in this judicial district, but denies
`
`that these facilities have any connection to this case. Apple denies that venue in this District is
`
`8 https://www.apple.com/retail/storelist/.
`9 https://locate.apple.com/sales/?pt=3&lat=30.2642643&lon=-97.7475016&address=Austin.
`10 https://locate.apple.com/sales/?pt=3&lat=31.558389&lon=-97.129989&address=Waco.
`11 https://locate.apple.com/sales/?pt=3&lat=29.424586&lon=-
`98.49464&address=San%20antonio.
`
`WEST\294052768.4
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00026-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/17/21 Page 7 of 40
`
`convenient, and Apple reserves the right to seek transfer to a more appropriate or convenient
`
`forum. The remaining allegations in paragraph 8 constitute conclusions of law, and no response
`
`of Apple is required; to the extent an answer is required, Apple denies the allegations.
`
`FAC No. 9: Apple has committed acts of infringement in this judicial district and has a
`
`regular and established place of business in this judicial district. Apple declared in September
`
`2019 a “newly redesigned Mac Pro” would be manufactured in a factory in Austin, where Mac
`
`Pro has been made since 2013. According to supply chain sources, Apple is going to launch a
`
`5G Mac Pro in the second half of 2020 that will be manufactured in its Austin manufacturing
`
`plant.12 In 2018, Apple announced an expansion of its operations in Austin, including an
`
`investment of $1 billion to build a new campus. To date, Apple’s campus houses over 8,000
`
`employees with the capacity to grow to upwards of 15,000 employees, some of which have
`
`relevant knowledge of the accused technology. For example, Apple recently published an Austin
`
`job posting for a Baseband HW Design Engineer to be a part of their design team responsible for
`
`“architecture, design, implementation, and integration of the baseband systems for all Apple
`
`products.”13 This expansion has made Apple the largest private employer in the city of Austin
`
`and contributed to the significant increase of Apple engineers located in Austin. The campus’s
`
`functions include engineering, R&D, operations, finance, sales and customer support.14 Apple’s
`
`12 https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/09/apples-new-mac-pro-to-be-made-in-texas/;
`https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/11/apple-expands-in-austin/;
`https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20190802PD207.html;
`https://www.macrumors.com/2019/08/02/apple-to-launch-macbooks-with-5g-2h-2020/;
`13 https://jobs.apple.com/en-us/details/200163864/baseband-hw-design-engineer.
`14 https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/12/apple-to-build-new-campus-in-austin-and-add-
`jobs-across-the-us/; https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/11/apple-expands-in-austin/;
`https://communityimpact.com/austin/northwest-austin/technology/2020/05/21/revised-apple-
`campus-site-plan-in-northwest-austin-includes-new-6-story-hotel/
`
`WEST\294052768.4
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00026-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/17/21 Page 8 of 40
`
`Austin campus is the company’s second largest physical campus and will include a 192-room
`
`hotel to house Apple employees who travel to Austin for work; three million square feet
`
`including two million square feet of office space (making it one of the world’s largest office
`
`buildings); and a significant tax break from Williamson County for building this campus. This
`
`Austin location is a continuation of Apple’s partnership with the Austin area that has existed for
`
`30 years.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 9: Apple admits that Apple press releases from 2018 and 2019 state
`
`that Apple would begin constructing a new campus in Austin, Texas, and that a “newly
`
`redesigned Mac Pro” would be manufactured in a factory in Austin. Apple admits that there are
`
`Apple facilities in this judicial district, but denies that these facilities have any connection to this
`
`case. Apple denies that the accused functionalities are developed in this District or that
`
`witnesses with relevant knowledge of the accused functionalities are located in this District.
`
`Apple further denies that venue in this District is convenient, and Apple reserves the right to seek
`
`transfer to a more appropriate or convenient forum. To the extent a response is required for the
`
`remaining allegations of paragraph 9 of the FAC, Apple denies them.
`
`FAC No. 10: Apple additionally operates a research lab in Austin trying to figure out
`
`ways to recycle iPhones.15
`
`Answer to FAC No. 10: Apple admits that it operates a facility in Austin, which among
`
`other things, is dedicated to discovering future recycling processes. Apple denies that the
`
`accused functionalities are developed in this District or that witnesses with relevant knowledge
`
`of the accused functionalities are located in this District. Apple further denies that venue in this
`
`15 https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-is-opening-up-its-world-of-iphone-recycling/;
`https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/04/18/apple-increases-recycling-program-efforts-ahead-of-
`earth-day
`
`WEST\294052768.4
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00026-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/17/21 Page 9 of 40
`
`District is convenient, and Apple reserves the right to seek transfer to a more appropriate or
`
`convenient forum. Apple denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 10 of the FAC.
`
`ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`FAC No. 11: On June 18, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366 (“the ’366 patent”), entitled “Methods and Apparatus
`
`for Random Access in Multi-Carrier Communication Systems.” A copy of the ’366 patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit A.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 11: Apple admits that U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366 is titled “Methods
`
`and Apparatus for Random Access in Multi-Carrier Communication Systems” and lists the issue
`
`date on the face of the patent as June 18, 2013. Apple denies that the ’366 patent was properly
`
`issued. Apple admits that what appears on its face to be a copy of the ’366 patent is attached to
`
`the FAC as Exhibit A.
`
`FAC No. 12: The ’366 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 13/205,579, which
`
`was assigned from the inventors to Waltical Solutions, Inc. on April 8, 2005. The application
`
`was later assigned from Waltical Solutions, Inc. to Neocific, Inc. on December 14, 2005. The
`
`now-issued ’366 patent was assigned from Neocific, Inc. to CFIP NCF LLC on November 22,
`
`2019 before it was assigned to Neo Wireless LLC on January 23, 2020.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 12: Apple is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 12, and therefore denies them.
`
`FAC No. 13: The ’366 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 13: Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 13 of the FAC.
`
`FAC No. 14: On August 7, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly
`
`and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 10,044,517 (“the ’517 patent”), entitled “Method and
`
`WEST\294052768.4
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00026-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/17/21 Page 10 of 40
`
`Apparatus for Cellular Broadcasting and Communication System.” A copy of the ’517 patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit B.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 14: Apple admits that U.S. Patent No. 10,044,517 is titled
`
`“Methods and Apparatus for Cellular Broadcasting and Communication System” and lists the
`
`issue date on the face of the patent as August 7, 2018. Apple denies that the ’517 patent was
`
`properly issued. Apple admits that what appears on its face to be a copy of the ’517 patent is
`
`attached to the FAC as Exhibit B.
`
`FAC No. 15: The ’517 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 14/160,420, which
`
`was filed by Neocific, Inc. on January 21, 2014. The now-issued ’517 patent was assigned from
`
`Neocific, Inc. to CFIP NCF LLC on November 22, 2019 before it was assigned to Neo Wireless
`
`LLC on January 23, 2020.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 15: Apple is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 15, and therefore denies them.
`
`FAC No. 16: The ’517 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 16: Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 16 of the FAC.
`
`FAC No. 17: On April 17, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly
`
`and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 10,833,908 (“the ’908 patent”), entitled “Channel Probing
`
`Signal for a Broadband Communication System.” A copy of the ’908 patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit C.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 17: Apple admits that U.S. Patent No. 10,833,908 is titled
`
`“Channel Probing Signal for a Broadband Communication System.” Apple denies the remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 17 of the FAC, and denies that the ’908 patent was properly issued.
`
`WEST\294052768.4
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00026-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/17/21 Page 11 of 40
`
`Apple admits that what appears on its face to be a copy of the ’908 patent is attached to the FAC
`
`as Exhibit C.
`
`FAC No. 18: The ’908 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 16/902,740, which
`
`was filed by Neo Wireless LLC on behalf of the inventors.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 18: Apple is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 18, and therefore denies them.
`
`FAC No. 19: The ’908 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 19: Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 19 of the FAC.
`
`FAC No. 20: On September 11, 2018, the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 10,075,941 (“the ’941 patent”), entitled “Methods and
`
`Apparatus for Multi-Carrier Communications With Adaptive Transmission and Feedback.” A
`
`copy of the ’941 patent is attached as Exhibit D.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 20: Apple admits that U.S. Patent No. 10,075,941 lists the issue
`
`date on the face of the patent as September 11, 2018. Apple denies the remaining allegations of
`
`paragraph 20 of the FAC, and denies that the ’941 patent was properly issued. Apple admits that
`
`what appears on its face to be a copy of the ’941 patent is attached to the FAC as Exhibit D.
`
`FAC No. 21: The ’941 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 15/082,878, which
`
`filed by Neocific, Inc. on March 28, 2016. The now-issued ’941 patent was assigned from
`
`Neocific, Inc. to CFIP NCF LLC on November 22, 2019 before it was assigned to Neo Wireless
`
`LLC on January 23, 2020.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 21: Apple is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 21, and therefore denies them.
`
`FAC No. 22: The ’941 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`WEST\294052768.4
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00026-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/17/21 Page 12 of 40
`
`Answer to FAC No. 22: Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 22 of the FAC.
`
`FAC No. 23: On October 15, 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly
`
`and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 10,447,450 (“the ’450 patent”), entitled “Method and System
`
`for Multi-Carrier Packet Communication with Reduced Overhead.” A copy of the ’450 patent is
`
`attached as Exhibit E.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 23: Apple admits that U.S. Patent No. 10,447,450 is titled “Method
`
`and System for Multi-Carrier Packet Communication with Reduced Overhead” and lists the issue
`
`date on the face of the patent as October 15, 2019. Apple denies that the ’450 patent was
`
`properly issued. Apple admits that what appears on its face to be a copy of the ’450 patent is
`
`attached to the FAC as Exhibit E.
`
`FAC No. 24: The ’450 patent issued from U.S. Patent Application 15/676,421, which
`
`was filed by Neocific, Inc. on August 14, 2017. The now-issued ’450 patent was later assigned
`
`from Neocific, Inc. to CFIP NCF LLC on November 22, 2019 before it was assigned to Neo
`
`Wireless LLC on January 23, 2020.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 24: Apple is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 24, and therefore denies them.
`
`FAC No. 25: The ’450 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 25: Apple denies the allegations of paragraph 25 of the FAC.
`
`FAC No. 26: Neo Wireless owns all rights, title, and interest in and to each of the ’366,
`
`’517, ’908, ’941, and ’450 patents (the “patents-in-suit”) and possesses all rights of recovery.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 26: Apple is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 26, and therefore denies them.
`
`WEST\294052768.4
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00026-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/17/21 Page 13 of 40
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`FAC No. 27: Inventor Xiaodong (Alex) Li, Ph.D. founded Neocific Inc. in the early
`
`2000s to design, develop, and implement a new wireless communication system. He and his co-
`
`inventors had extensive experience with wireless communications systems, including the
`
`development of the Wi-Max standards, and a deep understanding of the flaws in existing systems
`
`at the time. The inventors saw an opportunity to create a new wireless communication system
`
`meant to address those flaws while incorporating cutting-edge Orthogonal Frequency-Division
`
`Multiple Access (OFDMA) based technologies, and, starting in the 2004-2005 timeframe, they
`
`filed patents on the work.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 27: Apple denies the statements and allegations of paragraph 27
`
`insofar as they contain opinions rather than factual assertions, and therefore, require no response.
`
`Apple is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 27, and therefore denies them.
`
`FAC No. 28: Dr. Li served as the President and Founder of Neocific. Dr. Li obtained
`
`his Ph. D. in electrical engineering from the University of Washington, his M.S. from Shanghai
`
`Jiao Tong University, and his B.S. from Tsinghua University. Dr. Li has authored more than 30
`
`journal and conference papers in wireless communications, video coding, and networking. He
`
`has been granted more than 100 U.S. and foreign patents.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 28: Apple is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 28, and therefore denies them.
`
`FAC No. 29: Dr. Titus Lo, Ph.D. is a founding employee of Neocific. Dr. Lo obtained
`
`his Ph.D. in electrical engineering from McMaster University and his B.S. from the University of
`
`British Columbia. Dr. Lo has authored more than 30 technical papers in international peer-
`
`WEST\294052768.4
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00026-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/17/21 Page 14 of 40
`
`reviewed journals and presented more than 50 time at industry events. He has been granted more
`
`than 100 U.S. and foreign patents.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 29: Apple is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 29, and therefore denies them.
`
`FAC No. 30: Neo Wireless owns all substantial right, title, and interest in the patents-in-
`
`suit, and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 30: Apple is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 30, and therefore denies them.
`
`FAC No. 31: David Loo is the CEO of Plaintiff Neo Wireless. Mr. Loo works and
`
`resides in Wayne, Pennsylvania. Mr. Loo has over a decade of experience as a licensing
`
`executive and patent attorney with a well-established track record of assisting companies,
`
`inventors and patent holders to ensure they are fairly compensated for their inventions.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 31: Apple denies the statements and allegations of paragraph 31
`
`insofar as they contain opinions rather than factual assertions, and therefore, require no response.
`
`Apple is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
`
`remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 31, and therefore denies them.
`
`FAC No. 32: The wireless communication industry has been developing rapidly since
`
`Bell Labs developed the First Generation of modern commercial cellular technology in 1984.
`
`Multiple wireless communication technologies designated by generations emerged and brought
`
`new capacities to people all over the world. In 2008, The 3rd Generation Partnership Project
`
`(“3GPP”) created and finalized the LTE standards as an upgrade to 3G. The cellular industry
`
`recognized its major benefits, and virtually all cellular device manufacturers, including Apple,
`
`WEST\294052768.4
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00026-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/17/21 Page 15 of 40
`
`have embraced LTE as the next generation of commercial cellular technology and developed
`
`phones and other cellular devices to utilize the 4G LTE technology.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 32: Apple denies the statements and allegations of paragraph 32
`
`insofar as they contain opinions rather than factual assertions, and therefore, require no response.
`
`To the extent any remaining allegations set forth in paragraph 32 require a response, Apple
`
`denies them.
`
`FAC No. 33: Defendant Apple is a multinational company that is noted for its flagship
`
`product, the iPhone, which is designed in sold throughout the United States. The iPhone has
`
`brought great success to Apple. In 2019 alone, Apple reported a $167 billion revenue from the
`
`sales of iPhone.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 33: Apple admits that it is a multinational company and that it sells
`
`a product known as the iPhone from which it generates revenue, which is designed in and sold in
`
`the United States. To the extent any remaining allegations in paragraph 33 of the FAC require a
`
`response, Apple denies them.
`
`FAC No. 34: The iPhone is set up to use multiple cellular networks, such as LTE or 4G
`
`and New Radio (“NR”) or 5G. In 2012, Apple announced the iPhone 5, which was its first
`
`smartphone to support 4G LTE connectivity. Over five million units of iPhone 5 were sold
`
`within three days after its launch. Thereafter, Apple announced iPhone 5C, iPhone 5S, iPhone
`
`SE, iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6S, iPhone 6S Plus, iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8,
`
`iPhone 8 Plus, iPhone X, iPhone XS, iPhone XR, iPhone 11, iPhone 11 Pro, and iPhone 11 Max,
`
`all with 4G LTE capabilities.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 34: Apple admits that it introduced the iPhone 5 in 2012, that the
`
`iPhone 5 is capable of supporting a connection that is compatible with a 4G LTE network, and
`
`WEST\294052768.4
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00026-ADA Document 25 Filed 06/17/21 Page 16 of 40
`
`that since 2012, Apple has released various additional versions of the iPhone that are capable of
`
`supporting a connection that is compatible with a 4G LTE network. To the extent the remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 34 of the FAC require a response, Apple denies them and denies that
`
`any version of the iPhone infringes any valid claim of the Asserted Patents.
`
`FAC No. 35: To utilize LTE or 4G and NR or 5G networks, the iPhone is manufactured
`
`to comply with wireless standards, such as the 3GPP standards, that ensure compatibility of
`
`wireless devices and wireless networks. Other cellular-capable devices of Apple, such as the
`
`iPad, iPad Air, iPad mini, iPad Pro, and Apple Watch, are designed to ensure compliance with
`
`the 3GPP standards as well.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 35: Apple admits that some of Apple’s cellular-capable devices are
`
`configured to operate in wireless networks that support certain portions of the 3GPP standards, in
`
`addition to other communications standards and protocols. To the extent any remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 35 of the FAC require a response, Apple denies them and denies that
`
`any of its products infringe any valid claim of the Asserted Patents.
`
`FAC No. 36: Apple has been on notice of the asserted patents since at least the filing
`
`and/or service of this Complaint. Apple has known that the acts complained of below constituted
`
`infringement of the asserted patents, or at least subjectively believed there was a high probability
`
`of infringement of the asserted patents but took deliberate steps to avoid confirming the same.
`
`Answer to FAC No. 36: Apple admits that it has been served with the original
`
`Complaint in Case No. 6:21-cv-00026 asserting infringement of the ’366, ’908, ’941, and ’451
`
`patents. Apple admits that it was served with the First Amended Complaint on April 28, 2021
`
`asserting infringement of the ’517 patent. Apple denies the remaining allegations of paragraph
`
`WEST\294052768.4
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-