Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-9 Filed 01/19/23 Page 1 of 7
`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-9 Filed 01/19/23 Page 1 of 7
`
`EXHIBIT G
`EXHIBIT G
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-9 Filed 01/19/23 Page 2 of 7
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`AIRE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-01101-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S PRELIMINARY DISCLOSURE OF ASSERTED CLAIMS AND
`INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS TO DEFENDANT APPLE INC.
`
`Aire Technology Ltd. (“Plaintiff” or “Aire”) submits the following Preliminary Disclosure
`
`of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions to Defendant Apple Inc. (“Defendant” or
`
`“Apple”). This disclosure is based on the information available to Aire as of the date of this
`
`disclosure, and Aire reserves the right to amend this disclosure to the full extent consistent with
`
`the Court’s Rules and Orders.
`
`I.
`
`Asserted Claims
`
`Aire asserts that Apple has infringed and continue to infringe at least the following claims
`
`of Aire’s patents (collectively, the “Asserted Claims”):
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 8,581,706 (“the ’706 Patent”): Claims 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 16, 18, and 20.
`
`B. U.S. Patent No. 8,205,249 (“the ’249 Patent”): Claims 1-12.
`
`C. U.S. Patent No. 8,174,360 (“the ’360 Patent”): Claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 15.
`
`Aire reserves the right to seek leave of court to add, delete, substitute, or otherwise amend
`
`this list of asserted claims should further discovery, the Court’s claim construction, or other
`
`circumstances so merit.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-9 Filed 01/19/23 Page 3 of 7
`
`II.
`
`Accused Products
`
`Aire contends that the Asserted Claims are infringed by the various apparatuses used,
`
`made, sold, offered for sale, or imported into the United States by Apple (the “Accused Products”).
`
`The Accused Products include at least the following, as well as products with reasonably similar
`
`functionality, and all varieties of these products:
`
`•
`
`’706 and ’360 Patents: iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6S, 6S Plus, SE (first and second generation),
`
`7, 7 Plus, 8, 8 Plus, X, XR, XS, XS Max, 11, 11 Pro, 11 Pro Max, 12, 12 mini, 12 Pro,
`
`12 Pro Max, 13, 13 mini, 13 Pro, 13 Pro Max, Watch Series 1, Watch Series 2, Watch
`
`Series 3, Watch Series 4, Watch Series 5, Watch SE, Watch Series 6, and Watch Series
`
`7.
`
`•
`
`’249 Patent: iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6S, 6S Plus, SE (first and second generation), 7, 7 Plus,
`
`8, 8 Plus, X, XR, XS, XS Max, 11, 11 Pro, 11 Pro Max, 12, 12 mini, 12 Pro, 12 Pro
`
`Max, 13, 13 mini, 13 Pro, and 13 Pro Max.
`
`Aire reserves the right to amend this list of accused instrumentalities, as well as other
`
`information contained in this document and the exhibits hereto, to incorporate new information
`
`learned during the course of discovery, including, but not limited to, the inclusion of newly
`
`released products, versions, or any other equivalent devices ascertained through discovery.
`
`Further, to the extent any accused infringing products have gone through or will go through name
`
`changes, but were or will be used or sold with the same accused features, earlier corresponding
`
`products under different names also are accused.
`
`III. Claim Charts
`
`Claim charts identifying a location of every element of every asserted claim of the asserted
`
`Aire Patents within accused products are attached hereto as Exhibits A-C. Aire’s analysis of the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-9 Filed 01/19/23 Page 4 of 7
`
`Accused Products is based on limited publicly available information and based on Aire’s own
`
`investigation prior to any discovery in this action. In an effort to focus the issues, Aire identifies
`
`exemplary evidence for each claim limitation. The evidence cited for a particular limitation should
`
`be considered in light of the additional evidence cited for the other claim limitations. Aire reserves
`
`the right to rely on evidence cited for any particular limitation of an asserted claim for any other
`
`limitation asserted for that claim. Unless otherwise indicated, the information provided that
`
`corresponds to each claim element is considered to indicate that each claim element is found within
`
`each of the different variations of each respective Accused Products described above.
`
`Aire reserves the right to amend these claim charts, as well as other information contained
`
`in this document and the exhibits hereto. Aire further reserves the right to amend these claim
`
`charts to incorporate new information learned during the course of discovery, including, but not
`
`limited to, information that is not publicly available or readily discernible without discovery or
`
`undue burden.
`
`IV.
`
`Literal Infringement / Doctrine of Equivalents
`
`Aire asserts that Apple infringes the asserted claims listed above under at least 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 271(a), (b), (c), and/or (f). Aire contends that Apple has directly infringed and continues to
`
`directly infringe the asserted claims by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and importing
`
`into the United States the Accused Products. Aire also contends that Apple (i) induces end users
`
`of the Accused Products to directly infringe the Asserted Claims and (ii) contributes to end users’
`
`direct infringement of the Asserted Claims. Aire asserts that, under the proper construction of the
`
`asserted claims and their claim terms, the limitations of the asserted claims of the asserted Aire
`
`patents are literally present in the accused products, as set forth in the claim charts attached hereto
`
`as Exhibits A-C. Aire contends that any and all elements found not to be literally infringed are
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-9 Filed 01/19/23 Page 5 of 7
`
`infringed under the doctrine of equivalents because the differences between the claimed inventions
`
`and the accused instrumentalities, if any, are insubstantial.
`
`Aire’s contention is that each limitation is literally met, and necessarily also would be met
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents because there are no substantial differences between the Accused
`
`Products and the claims, in function, way, or result. If Apple attempts to argue that there is no
`
`infringement literally and also no infringement under doctrine of equivalents and attempts to draw
`
`any distinction between the claimed functionality and the functionality in the Accused Products,
`
`then Aire reserves its right to rebut the alleged distinction as a matter of literal infringement and/or
`
`as to whether any such distinction is substantial under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`Aire reserves the right to amend its Infringement Contentions as to literal infringement or
`
`infringement under the doctrine of equivalents in light of new information learned during the
`
`course of discovery and the Court’s claim construction.
`
`V.
`
`Priority Dates
`
`The Asserted Claims are entitled to a priority date of at least the following:
`
`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,706: Each asserted claim of the ’706 Patent is entitled to at
`
`least a priority date of June 12, 2006.
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,205,249: Each asserted claim of the ’249 Patent is entitled to at
`
`least a priority date of October 24, 2002.
`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,174,360: Each asserted claim of the ’360 Patent is entitled to at
`
`least a priority date of July 30, 2003.
`
`VI.
`
`Identification of Instrumentalities Practicing the Claimed Inventions
`
`At this time, Aire is not relying on any assertion that any of its own instrumentalities
`
`practice the claims of the Asserted Patents.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-9 Filed 01/19/23 Page 6 of 7
`
`VII. Document Production Accompanying Disclosure
`
`Aire submits the following Document Production Accompanying Disclosure, along with
`
`an identification of the categories to which each of the documents corresponds.
`
`Aire is presently unaware of any documents sufficient to evidence any discussion with,
`
`disclosure to, or other manner of providing to a third party, or sale of or offer to sell, the inventions
`
`recited in the Asserted Claims of the asserted patents prior to the application date or priority date
`
`for the asserted patents. A diligent search continues for documents and Aire reserves the right to
`
`supplement this response.
`
`Aire is presently unaware of documents regarding the conception, reduction to practice,
`
`design, and development of each claimed invention of the asserted patents, which were created
`
`before the date of application for the asserted patents or the priority date identified above. A
`
`diligent search continues for documents and Aire reserves the right to supplement this response.
`
`Aire identifies the following documents as being the file histories for the Asserted Patents:
`
`AIRE-APPLE-00000035 - AIRE-APPLE-00001549.
`
`
`
`Dated: January 20, 2022
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Brett Cooper
`
`
`Brett E. Cooper (NY SBN 4011011)
`bcooper@raklaw.com
`Reza Mirzaie (CA SBN 246953)
`rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`Marc A. Fenster (CA SBN 181067)
`mfenster@raklaw.com
`Seth Hasenour (TX SBN 24059910)
`shasenour@raklaw.com
`Drew B. Hollander (NY SBN 5378096)
`dhollander@raklaw.com
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 73-9 Filed 01/19/23 Page 7 of 7
`
`12424 Wilshire Blvd. 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Phone: (310) 826-7474
`Facsimile: (310) 826-6991
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Aire Technology
`Limited
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that this document is being served upon counsel of record for Defendants on
`
`
`
`January 20, 2022 via electronic service.
`
`
`
`/s/ Drew Hollander
` Drew B. Hollander
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`