Case 6:21-cv-00263-ADA Document 20 Filed 06/01/21 Page 1 of 18
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`FUTURE LINK SYSTEMS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00263-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S ANSWER TO
`FUTURE LINK SYSTEMS, LLC’S COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”), by and through its attorneys, files its Answer to Plaintiff
`
`Future Link Systems, LLC’s (“Future Link”) Complaint for Patent Infringement (Dkt. No. 1).
`
`ANSWER
`
`Apple responds to the allegations contained in the numbered paragraphs of Future Link’s
`
`Complaint in the corresponding numbered paragraphs below. Unless expressly admitted, Apple
`
`denies all allegations and characterizations in Future Link’s Complaint.
`
`INTRODUCTION1
`
`1.
`
`Apple admits that the Complaint purports to assert infringement by Apple of U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 6,317,804 (the “’804 patent”); 6,622,108 (the “’108 patent”); 6,807,505 (the “’505
`
`patent”); and 7,917,680 (the “’680 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). To the extent
`
`that Paragraph 1 of the Complaint implicates legal conclusions, no response is required. Apple
`
`
`1 Apple repeats the headings set forth in the Complaint to simplify comparison of the Complaint
`and this response. In doing so, Apple makes no admissions regarding the substance of the
`headings or any other allegations of the Complaint. Unless otherwise stated, to the extent that a
`particular heading can be construed as an allegation, Apple specifically denies all such
`allegations. Where necessary, Apple makes amendments to Future Link’s headings in brackets.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00263-ADA Document 20 Filed 06/01/21 Page 2 of 18
`
`denies that its conduct has been unlawful or that it has infringed any claims of the Asserted
`
`Patents. Apple admits that the Asserted Patents relate to electronic circuitry in computing
`
`devices and processors, but denies that they recite improvements over the prior art. To the extent
`
`that this paragraph purports to describe matters within Future Link’s knowledge and control,
`
`such as its ownership of the Asserted Patents, Apple is without knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any remaining allegations and characterizations in
`
`Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them. Except as specifically admitted, and to
`
`the extent that a response is required, Apple denies the allegations and characterizations
`
`contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint.
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations and characterizations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`3.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 3 of the Complaint set forth legal
`
`conclusions, no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Apple admits that
`
`it is a publicly traded corporation, that it is organized under the laws of California, and that its
`
`principal place of business is at One Apple Park Way, Cupertino, California 95014. Apple also
`
`admits that CT Corporation Systems, which operates an office at 818 West Seventh Street, Suite
`
`930, Los Angeles, California 90017, is Apple’s agent for service of process. Except as
`
`specifically admitted, and to the extent that a response is required, Apple denies the allegations
`
`and characterizations contained in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`Apple admits that this is a purported action for patent infringement arising under
`
`the Patent Laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. Apple further admits
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00263-ADA Document 20 Filed 06/01/21 Page 3 of 18
`
`that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over actions for alleged patent infringement
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`5.
`
`Apple does not contest that specific personal jurisdiction is proper in this Court,
`
`solely for purposes of this action. Apple denies that it infringes or has infringed any claim of the
`
`Asserted Patents, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Except as
`
`specifically admitted, and to the extent that a response is required, Apple denies the allegations
`
`and characterizations contained in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint.
`
`6.
`
`Future Link’s venue allegation calls for a legal conclusion and therefore no
`
`answer is required. Apple admits that it has an office at 12545 Riata Vista Circle, Austin, Texas
`
`78727. Apple admits that it has a retail location at 3121 Palm Way, Austin, Texas 78758. Apple
`
`admits that it has conducted and continues to conduct business in this District. Apple denies that
`
`it infringes or has infringed any claim of the Asserted Patents, directly or indirectly, literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents. Except as specifically admitted, and to the extent that a
`
`response is required, Apple denies the allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 6
`
`of the Complaint.2
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`7.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 7 of the Complaint set forth legal
`
`conclusions, no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Apple admits that
`
`on or around April 3, 2018, Apple received a letter from Future Link. Apple admits the letter,
`
`dated April 3, 2018, asserts infringement of certain patents, including the ’804 patent, the ’108
`
`patent, and the ’505 patent. Except as specifically admitted, and to the extent that a response is
`
`
`2 Footnote one to paragraph 6 of the Complaint does not contain allegations for Apple to admit
`or deny and so no response is required.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00263-ADA Document 20 Filed 06/01/21 Page 4 of 18
`
`required, Apple denies that it infringes any Future Link patents, and denies the allegations and
`
`characterizations contained in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint.
`
`8.
`
`Apple admits that representatives from Apple met with representatives from
`
`Future Link on or around May 15, 2018, that the parties viewed presentations during that
`
`meeting, and that the presentations identified the ’804 patent, the ’108 patent, the ’505 patent,
`
`and the ’680 patent and included information on an element-by-element basis for some claims in
`
`chart form. Except as specifically admitted, and to the extent that a response is required, Apple
`
`denies the allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint.
`
`9.
`
`Apple admits that representatives from Apple met with representatives from
`
`Future Link on or around August 1, 2018, that the parties viewed a presentation identifying the
`
`’804 patent, the ’108 patent, the ’505 patent, and the ’680 patent, and that Apple presented
`
`noninfringement positions pertaining to these patents. Except as specifically admitted, and to the
`
`extent that a response is required, Apple denies the allegations and characterizations contained in
`
`Paragraph 9 of the Complaint.
`
`10.
`
`Apple admits that representatives from Apple met with representatives from
`
`Future Link on or around October 4, 2018 and that the parties viewed a presentation during that
`
`meeting. Apple admits the presentation contained purported infringement allegations for certain
`
`patents, including the ’804 patent, the ’108 patent, the ’505 patent, and the ’680 patent. Except
`
`as specifically admitted, and to the extent that a response is required, Apple denies the
`
`allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
`
`11.
`
`Apple admits that representatives from Apple met with representatives from
`
`Future Link on or around November 29, 2018, that the parties viewed a presentation during that
`
`meeting, and that Apple presented, inter alia, invalidity positions pertaining to the ’804 patent,
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00263-ADA Document 20 Filed 06/01/21 Page 5 of 18
`
`the ’108 patent, the ’505 patent, and the ’680 patent. Except as specifically admitted, and to the
`
`extent that a response is required, Apple denies the allegations and characterizations contained in
`
`Paragraph 11 of the Complaint.
`
`12.
`
`Apple admits that representatives from Apple received a presentation from
`
`representatives from Future Link on or around March 14, 2019 that identified patents including
`
`the Asserted Patents. Apple admits the presentation contained purported responses to Apple’s
`
`invalidity positions relating to certain patents, including the ’804 patent, the ’108 patent, the ’505
`
`patent, and the ’680 patent. Except as specifically admitted, and to the extent that a response is
`
`required, Apple denies the allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 12 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`13.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT I
`
`[ALLEGED] INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,317,804
`
`14.
`
`Apple incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1–13 of the
`
`Complaint as set forth fully herein. Paragraph 14 of the Complaint does not contain allegations
`
`for Apple to either admit or deny and so no response is required.
`
`15.
`
`Apple admits that what appears to be a copy of the ’804 patent, entitled
`
`“Concurrent Serial Interconnect for Integrating Functional Blocks in an Integrated Circuit
`
`Device,” bearing an issue date of November 13, 2001, is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 1.
`
`Apple denies that the ’804 patent was duly and legally issued. Apple is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations and
`
`characterizations in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`16.
`
`Denied.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00263-ADA Document 20 Filed 06/01/21 Page 6 of 18
`
`17.
`
`To the extent that Paragraph 17 of the Complaint implicates legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Apple denies that it infringes or
`
`has infringed any claim of the ’804 patent, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents. Apple incorporates by reference herein its responses to Paragraphs 7–12 of the
`
`Complaint. Except as specifically admitted and to the extent that a response is required, Apple
`
`denies the allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint.
`
`18.
`
`To the extent that Paragraph 18 of the Complaint implicates legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Apple denies that it infringes or
`
`has infringed any claim of the ’804 patent, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents. Except as specifically admitted and to the extent that a response is required, Apple
`
`denies the allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint.
`
`19.
`
`To the extent that Paragraph 19 of the Complaint implicates legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Apple admits that attached to the
`
`Complaint as Exhibit 2 is what appears to be a claim chart comparing claim 1 of the ’804 patent
`
`to certain products. Apple denies that it infringes or has infringed any claim of the ’804 patent,
`
`directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Except as specifically
`
`admitted and to the extent that a response is required, Apple denies the allegations and
`
`characterizations contained in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint.
`
`20.
`
`Denied.
`
`21.
`
`Denied.
`
`22.
`
`Denied.
`
`23.
`
`To the extent that Paragraph 23 of the Complaint implicates legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Apple incorporates by reference herein its responses to Paragraphs 7–12 of
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00263-ADA Document 20 Filed 06/01/21 Page 7 of 18
`
`the Complaint. Except as specifically admitted and to the extent that a response is required,
`
`Apple denies the allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint.
`
`COUNT II
`
`[ALLEGED] INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,622,108
`
`24.
`
`Apple incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1–23 of the
`
`Complaint as set forth fully herein. Paragraph 24 of the Complaint does not contain allegations
`
`for Apple to either admit or deny and so no response is required.
`
`25.
`
`Apple admits that what appears to be a copy of the ’108 patent, entitled “Circuit
`
`with Interconnect Test Unit and a Method of Testing Interconnects Between a First and a Second
`
`Electronic Circuit,” bearing an issue date of September 16, 2003, is attached to the Complaint as
`
`Exhibit 3. Apple denies that the ’108 patent was duly and legally issued. Apple is without
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`and characterizations in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`26.
`
`Denied.
`
`27.
`
`To the extent that Paragraph 27 of the Complaint implicates legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Apple denies that it infringes or
`
`has infringed any claim of the ’108 patent, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents. Apple incorporates by reference herein its responses to Paragraphs 7–12 of the
`
`Complaint. Except as specifically admitted and to the extent that a response is required, Apple
`
`denies the allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint.
`
`28.
`
`To the extent that Paragraph 28 of the Complaint implicates legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Apple denies that it infringes or
`
`has infringed any claim of the ’108 patent, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00263-ADA Document 20 Filed 06/01/21 Page 8 of 18
`
`equivalents. Except as specifically admitted and to the extent that a response is required, Apple
`
`denies the allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint.
`
`29.
`
`To the extent that Paragraph 29 of the Complaint implicates legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Apple admits that attached to the
`
`Complaint as Exhibit 4 is what appears to be a claim chart comparing claim 11 of the ’108 patent
`
`to certain products. Apple denies that it infringes or has infringed any claim of the ’108 patent,
`
`directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Except as specifically
`
`admitted and to the extent that a response is required, Apple denies the allegations and
`
`characterizations contained in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint.
`
`30.
`
`Denied.
`
`31.
`
`Denied.
`
`32.
`
`Denied.
`
`33.
`
`To the extent that Paragraph 33 of the Complaint implicates legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Apple incorporates by reference herein its responses to Paragraphs 7–12 of
`
`the Complaint. Except as specifically admitted and to the extent that a response is required,
`
`Apple denies the allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint.
`
`34.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT III
`
`[ALLEGED] INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,807,505
`
`35.
`
`Apple incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1–34 of the
`
`Complaint as set forth fully herein. Paragraph 35 of the Complaint does not contain allegations
`
`for Apple to either admit or deny and so no response is required.
`
`36.
`
`Apple admits that what appears to be a copy of the ’505 patent, entitled “Circuit
`
`with Interconnect Test Unit,” bearing an issue date of October 19, 2004, is attached to the
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00263-ADA Document 20 Filed 06/01/21 Page 9 of 18
`
`Complaint as Exhibit 5. Apple denies that the ’505 patent was duly and legally issued. Apple is
`
`without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations and characterizations in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`37.
`
`Denied.
`
`38.
`
`To the extent that Paragraph 38 of the Complaint implicates legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Apple denies that it infringes or
`
`has infringed any claim of the ’505 patent, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents. Apple incorporates by reference herein its responses to Paragraphs 7–12 of the
`
`Complaint. Except as specifically admitted and to the extent that a response is required, Apple
`
`denies the allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint.
`
`39.
`
`To the extent that Paragraph 39 of the Complaint implicates legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Apple denies that it infringes or
`
`has infringed any claim of the ’505 patent, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents. Except as specifically admitted and to the extent that a response is required, Apple
`
`denies the allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint.
`
`40.
`
`To the extent that Paragraph 40 of the Complaint implicates legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Apple admits that attached to the
`
`Complaint as Exhibit 6 is what appears to be a claim chart comparing claim 1 of the ’505 patent
`
`to certain products. Apple denies that it infringes or has infringed any claim of the ’505 patent,
`
`directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Except as specifically
`
`admitted and to the extent that a response is required, Apple denies the allegations and
`
`characterizations contained in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint.
`
`41.
`
`Denied.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00263-ADA Document 20 Filed 06/01/21 Page 10 of 18
`
`42.
`
`Denied.
`
`43.
`
`Denied.
`
`44.
`
`To the extent that Paragraph 44 of the Complaint implicates legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Apple incorporates by reference herein its responses to Paragraphs 7–12 of
`
`the Complaint. Except as specifically admitted and to the extent that a response is required,
`
`Apple denies the allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint.
`
`45.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`[ALLEGED] INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,917,680
`
`46.
`
`Apple incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1–45 of the
`
`Complaint as set forth fully herein. Paragraph 46 of the Complaint does not contain allegations
`
`for Apple to either admit or deny and so no response is required.
`
`47.
`
`Apple admits that what appears to be a copy of the ’680 patent, entitled
`
`“Performance Based Packet Ordering in a PCI Express Bus,” bearing an issue date of March 29,
`
`2011, is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 7. Apple denies that the ’680 patent was duly and
`
`legally issued. Apple is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remaining allegations and characterizations in Paragraph 47 of the Complaint, and
`
`therefore denies them.
`
`48.
`
`Denied.
`
`49.
`
`To the extent that Paragraph 49 of the Complaint implicates legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Apple denies that it infringes or
`
`has infringed any claim of the ’680 patent, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents. Apple incorporates by reference herein its responses to Paragraphs 7–12 of the
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00263-ADA Document 20 Filed 06/01/21 Page 11 of 18
`
`Complaint. Except as specifically admitted and to the extent that a response is required, Apple
`
`denies the allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 49 of the Complaint.
`
`50.
`
`To the extent that Paragraph 50 of the Complaint implicates legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Apple denies that it infringes or
`
`has infringed any claim of the ’680 patent, directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents. Except as specifically admitted and to the extent that a response is required, Apple
`
`denies the allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 50 of the Complaint.
`
`51.
`
`To the extent that Paragraph 51 of the Complaint implicates legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Apple admits that attached to the
`
`Complaint as Exhibit 8 is what appears to be a claim chart comparing claim 1 of the ’680 patent
`
`to certain products. Apple denies that it infringes or has infringed any claim of the ’680 patent,
`
`directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. Except as specifically
`
`admitted and to the extent that a response is required, Apple denies the allegations and
`
`characterizations contained in Paragraph 51 of the Complaint.
`
`52.
`
`Denied.
`
`53.
`
`Denied.
`
`54.
`
`Denied.
`
`55.
`
`To the extent that Paragraph 55 of the Complaint implicates legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Apple incorporates by reference herein its responses to Paragraphs 7–12 of
`
`the Complaint. Except as specifically admitted and to the extent that a response is required,
`
`Apple denies the allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint.
`
`56.
`
`Denied.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00263-ADA Document 20 Filed 06/01/21 Page 12 of 18
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`This section of the Complaint sets forth Future Link’s requested relief to which no
`
`response is required. Apple denies that Future Link is entitled to any relief sought in its Prayer
`
`for Relief or otherwise.
`
`DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL
`
`This paragraph sets forth Future Link’s demand for jury trial to which no response is
`
`required.
`
`ADDITIONAL DEFENSES
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c), Apple, without waiver, limitation, or
`
`prejudice, hereby asserts the following defenses:
`
`FIRST DEFENSE
`Noninfringement
`
`1.
`
`Future Link’s claims are barred in whole or in part because Apple has not directly
`
`infringed, induced infringement, or contributed to infringement, and does not directly infringe,
`
`induce infringement, or contribute to infringement, of any valid and enforceable claim of the
`
`Asserted Patents, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and has not otherwise
`
`committed any acts in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`SECOND DEFENSE
`Invalidity
`
`2.
`
`Future Link’s claims are barred in whole or in part because each asserted claim of
`
`the Asserted Patents is invalid for failure to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101,
`
`102, 103, 112, and/or any other applicable statutory provisions of Title 35 of the United States
`
`Code. For example, the ʼ804 patent is invalid in view of at least U.S. Patent No. 6,065,077, the
`
`ʼ680 patent is invalid in view of at least U.S. Patent No. 6,327,636, the ʼ108 patent is invalid in
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00263-ADA Document 20 Filed 06/01/21 Page 13 of 18
`
`view of at least U.S. Patent No. 5,442,643, and the ʼ505 patent is invalid in view of at least U.S.
`
`Patent No. 5,442,301.
`
`THIRD DEFENSE
`No Irreparable Harm
`
`3.
`
`Future Link is not entitled to injunctive relief because any injury to it is not
`
`irreparable and can be adequately compensated by monetary damages, and it has an adequate
`
`remedy at law for any claims it can prove, the balance of hardships do not tip in its favor, and the
`
`public interest would be disserved by an injunction. Further, the ʼ804, ʼ108, and ʼ705 patents are
`
`expired, rendering any potential injunctive relief moot.
`
`FOURTH DEFENSE
`Limitation of Remedies
`
`4.
`
`Future Link’s remedies are limited under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a). Apple is not liable
`
`to the extent the accused devices were used or manufactured by or for the United States, or to the
`
`extent accused activities were undertaken on behalf of the United States, according to at least
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1498.
`
`FIFTH DEFENSE
`Limitation on Damages
`
`5.
`
`To the extent that Future Link and/or any predecessors in interest or any licensees
`
`to the Asserted Patents failed to properly mark any of their relevant products or materials as
`
`required by 35 U.S.C. § 287, or otherwise failed to give proper notice that Apple’s actions
`
`allegedly infringe the Asserted Patents, Apple is not liable to Future Link for the acts alleged to
`
`have been performed before Apple received actual notice that the accused devices were allegedly
`
`infringing the Asserted Patents.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00263-ADA Document 20 Filed 06/01/21 Page 14 of 18
`
`6.
`
`Future Link’s recovery is limited under 35 U.S.C. § 286. Future Link may not
`
`recover for any alleged infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`SIXTH DEFENSE
`Estoppel, Unclean Hands, Misuse, Implied License
`
`7.
`
`Future Link’s claims are barred in whole or in part by reason of estoppel. For
`
`example, Future Link is estopped from construing any valid claim of the Asserted Patents to be
`
`infringed or to have been infringed, either literally or by application of the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, by any product made, used, imported, sold, or offered for sale by Apple in view of
`
`prior art and/or because of admissions, representations, and/or statements made to the Patent
`
`Office during prosecution of any application leading to the issuance of the Asserted Patents or
`
`any related patent, because of disclosures or language in the specifications of the Asserted
`
`Patents, and/or because of limitations in the claims of the Asserted Patents.
`
`8.
`
`Future Link’s claims and prayer for relief are also barred and/or limited, in whole
`
`or in part, under the doctrines of estoppel, unclean hands, misuse, and/or implied license as a
`
`result of binding obligations by Future Link’s predecessor(s)-in-interest to license any alleged
`
`standard essential patents on reasonable and non-discriminatory (“RAND”) terms. Apple denies
`
`that any of the Asserted Patents are essential to any relevant standards. But, to the extent that
`
`liability is found, Future Link’s claims for relief are limited by its obligations to license one or
`
`more of the Asserted Patents on RAND terms, Future Link is precluded from seeking injunctive
`
`relief or enhanced damages with respect to one or more of the Asserted Patents, and/or Future
`
`Link’s Asserted Patents are unenforceable.
`
`9.
`
`By way of example, on information and belief, these defenses arise from one or
`
`more former owners of the Asserted Patents, including for example NXP and/or Philips, being a
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00263-ADA Document 20 Filed 06/01/21 Page 15 of 18
`
`member of PCI-SIG (Peripheral Component Interconnect Special Interest Group) before, during,
`
`and after the adoption of the PCI and PCI Express standards, and while they owned one or more
`
`of the Asserted Patents, including the ’680 patent. Under PCI-SIG bylaws, members agree to
`
`grant licenses to other members (including Apple) under RAND terms to practice any
`
`“Necessary Claims” of their patents and patent applications. During Apple’s discussions with
`
`Future Link, Future Link failed to offer to license the ’680 patent on RAND terms.
`
`10.
`
`By way of further example, on information and belief, these defenses arise from
`
`one or more former owners of the Asserted Patents, including for example NXP and/or Philips,
`
`being a member of the JEDEC Solid State Technology Association, before, during, and after the
`
`adoption of, for example, the JEDEC JESD79-4 DDR4 SDRAM and/or JESD212 GDDR5
`
`SGRAM standards, and while they owned one or more of the Asserted Patents, including the
`
`’505 and ’108 patents. Under JEDEC’s Patent Policy, members agree to offer to license on
`
`RAND terms all “Essential Patent Claims” to all potential licensees. During Apple’s discussions
`
`with Future Link, Future Link failed to offer to license the ’505 patent and the ’108 patent on
`
`RAND terms.
`
`SEVENTH DEFENSE
`Exhaustion, License
`
`11.
`
`Future Link’s claims for patent infringement are precluded, in whole or in part, by
`
`the doctrines of express license, implied license, and/or exhaustion. For example, upon
`
`information and belief, one or more of Apple’s suppliers of components implicated by Future
`
`Link’s infringement allegations are licensed and/or authorized to practice the Asserted
`
`Patents. Accordingly, to the extent that any agreement between Future Link and any such Apple
`
`supplier extends rights to Apple and/or any accused products, the doctrines of express license
`
`and/or implied license preclude Future Link’s claims for patent infringement. Further, to the
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00263-ADA Document 20 Filed 06/01/21 Page 16 of 18
`
`extent the claims of one or more of the Asserted Patents are substantially embodied by a
`
`component purchased by or for Apple from a seller authorized by Future Link, Future Link’s
`
`patent rights are exhausted.
`
`RESERVATION OF ALL DEFENSES
`
`Apple hereby gives notice that it intends to rely upon any other matter constituting an
`
`avoidance or defense as set forth in Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that it
`
`reserves the right to seek leave to amend this Answer to add to, amend, withdraw, or modify
`
`these defenses as its investigation continues and as discovery may require.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Apple demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Apple prays for relief, as follows:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Judgment against Future Link in favor of Apple in all respects;
`
`Dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice;
`
`An order barring Future Link and its officers, agents, servants, employees,
`
`attorneys, and others in active concert or participation with them from asserting infringement or
`
`instituting or continuing any legal action for infringement of the ’804, ’108, ’505, and ’680
`
`patents against Apple or its suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, resellers of its products,
`
`customers, or end users of its products;
`
`D.
`
`An award of expenses, costs, and disbursement in this action, including
`
`prejudgment interest;
`
`E.
`
`An order declaring that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and
`
`awarding Apple its expenses, costs, attorneys’ fees, and expert witness fees, in accordance with
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00263-ADA Document 20 Filed 06/01/21 Page 17 of 18
`
`35 U.S.C. § 285, Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and all other applicable
`
`statutes, rules, and common law; and
`
`F.
`
`Such other and additional relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: June 1, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`J. Stephen Ravel
`Texas Bar No. 16584975
`steve.ravel@kellyhart.com
`KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP
`303 Colorado, Ste. 2000
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Telephone No.: (512) 495-6400
`Facsimile No.: (512) 495-6401
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Benjamin C. Elacqua
`
`
`
`Lauren A. Degnan (pro hac vice)
`lad@fr.com
`Raj Utreja (pro hac vice)
`utreja@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1000 Main Avenue, S.W.
`Suite 1000
`Washington, D.C. 20024
`Telephone No.: (202) 783-5070
`
`Benjamin C. Elacqua
`Texas Bar No. 24055443
`elaqua@fr.com
`John P. Brinkmann
`Texas Bar No. 24068091
`brinkmann@fr.com
`Tony Nguyen
`Texas Bar No. 24083565
`nguyen@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1221 McKinney Street
`Suite 2800
`Houston, Texas 77010
`Telephone No.: (713) 654-5300
`
`Noah C. Graubart
`graubart@fr.com
`Eda Stark (pro hac vice)
`stark@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1180 Peachtree Street NE
`21st Floor
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`Telephone No.: (404) 892-5005
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00263-ADA Document 20 Filed 06/01/21 Page 18 of 18
`
`Scott M. Flanz (pro hac vice)
`flanz@fr.com
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`7 Times Square
`20th Floor
`New York, New York 10036
`Telephone No.: (212) 765-5070
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has
`
`been served on June 1, 2021 to all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to
`
`electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(b)(1).
`
`
`
`/s/ Benjamin C. Elacqua
`Benjamin C. Elacqua
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`