Christopher Kao (SBN 237716)
` ckao@velaw.com
`Brock S. Weber (SBN 261383)
` bweber@velaw.com
`Vinson & Elkins L.L.P.
`555 Mission Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Tel: 415.979.6900
`Fax: 415.651.8786
`Christine Yang (SBN 102048)
` cyang@sjclawpc.com
`Law Office of S.J. Christine Yang
`17220 Newhope Street, Suite 101-102
`Fountain Valley, CA 92708
`Tel.: 714.641.4022
`Fax: 714.641.2082
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Kingston Technology Company, Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`POLARIS INNOVATIONS LIMITED,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY COMPANY,
`INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 8:16-cv-00300-CJC-RAO
`
`KINGSTON TECHNOLOGY
`COMPANY, INC.’S FIRST
`AMENDED ANSWER,
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES,
`AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Defendant Kingston Technology Company, Inc. (“Kingston”), by and through
`undersigned counsel, hereby files its First Amended Answer, Affirmative Defenses,
`and Counterclaims to Plaintiff Polaris Innovations Limited’s (“Polaris”) Complaint as
`follows:
`
`Kingston’s First Amended Answer, Affirmative
`Defenses, and Counterclaims
`4301900
`
`1
`
`Case No. 16-cv-00300 CJC (RAO)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`1
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2003
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`FIRST AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`JURISDICTION
`Kingston admits the Complaint purports to state a cause of action for
`1.
`patent infringement arising under Title 35 of the United States Code. Kingston denies
`it has infringed the patents-in-suit. Kingston admits that subject matter jurisdiction
`over this action exists under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1338(a). Except as expressly
`admitted, any remaining allegations of Paragraph 1 are denied.
`2.
`Paragraph 2 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.
`Kingston does not contest that personal jurisdiction exists over Kingston for purposes
`of this action only. Kingston denies it has committed acts of patent infringement,
`including making, selling, offering to sell, directly or through intermediaries,
`subsidiaries and/or agents, infringing products within this district, including to
`customers in this district. Except as expressly admitted, any remaining allegations of
`Paragraph 2 are denied.
`
`VENUE
`Paragraph 3 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.
`3.
`Kingston admits it is headquartered in Fountain Valley, California. Any remaining
`allegations of Paragraph 3 are denied.
`THE PARTIES
`Kingston is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`4.
`as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 4 and therefore denies them.
`5.
`Kingston admits it is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
`of Delaware with its principal place of business at 17600 Newhope Street, Fountain
`Valley, California 92708. Any remaining allegations of Paragraph 5 are denied.
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`Paragraph 6 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.
`6.
`Kingston denies it has committed unauthorized, willful, or infringing manufacture,
`
`Kingston’s First Amended Answer, Affirmative
`Defenses, and Counterclaims
`4301900
`
`2
`
`Case No. 16-cv-00300 CJC (RAO)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`2
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2003
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`use, sale, offering for sale, and/or importation of products and methods incorporating
`Polaris’s patented inventions. Any remaining allegations of Paragraph 6 are denied.
`7.
`Kingston is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 7 and therefore denies them.
`8.
`Paragraph 8 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.
`Kingston denies that it makes, sells, offers for sale, or imports products and methods
`that infringe the Asserted Patents. Any remaining allegations of Paragraph 8 are
`denied.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`Kingston admits that what purports to be a copy of the United States
`9.
`Patent No. 6,157,589 (“the ’589 Patent”) is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 1 and
`that the face of the ’589 Patent bears the title “Dynamic semiconductor memory
`device and method for initializing a dynamic semiconductor memory device.” Any
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 9 are denied.
`10. Kingston is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 10 and therefore denies them.
`11. Kingston admits that what purports to be a copy of the United States
`Patent No. 6,438,057 B1 (“the ’057 Patent”) is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 2
`and that the face of the ’057 Patent bears the title “DRAM refresh timing adjustment
`device, system and method.” Any remaining allegations of Paragraph 11 are denied.
`12. Kingston is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 12 and therefore denies them.
`13. Kingston admits that what purports to be a copy of the United States
`Patent No. 6,850,414 B2 (“the ’414 Patent”) is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 3
`and that the face of the ’414 Patent bears the title “Electronic printed circuit board
`having a plurality of identically designed housing-encapsulated semiconductor
`memories.” Any remaining allegations of Paragraph 13 are denied.
`
`Kingston’s First Amended Answer, Affirmative
`Defenses, and Counterclaims
`4301900
`
`3
`
`Case No. 16-cv-00300 CJC (RAO)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`3
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2003
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`14. Kingston is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 14 and therefore denies them.
`15. Kingston admits that what purports to be a copy of the United States
`Patent No. 7,206,978 B2 (“the ’978 Patent”) is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 4
`and that the face of the ’978 Patent bears the title “Error detection in a circuit
`module.” Any remaining allegations of Paragraph 15 are denied.
`16. Kingston is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 16 and therefore denies them.
`17. Kingston admits that what purports to be a copy of the United States
`Patent No. 7,315,454 B2 (“the ’454 Patent”) is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 5
`and that the face of the ’454 Patent bears the title “Semiconductor memory module.”
`Any remaining allegations of Paragraph 17 are denied.
`18. Kingston is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 18 and therefore denies them.
`19. Kingston admits that what purports to be a copy of the United States
`Patent No. 7,334,150 B2 (“the ’150 Patent”) is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 6
`and that the face of the ’150 Patent bears the title “Memory module with a clock
`signal regeneration circuit and a register circuit for temporarily storing the incoming
`command and address signals.” Any remaining allegations of Paragraph 19 are
`denied.
`20. Kingston is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
`as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 20 and therefore denies them.
`COUNT I:
`
`KINGSTON’S PURPORTED INFRINGEMENT
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,157,589
`21. Kingston incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations in
`Paragraphs 1-20 above as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Kingston’s First Amended Answer, Affirmative
`Defenses, and Counterclaims
`4301900
`
`4
`
`Case No. 16-cv-00300 CJC (RAO)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`4
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2003
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`Paragraph 22 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.
`22.
`Kingston denies that it infringes, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, the
`’589 Patent, and denies that any alleged infringement was willful. Any remaining
`allegations of Paragraph 22 are denied.
`23. Kingston admits that what purports to be an image of the front and back
`views of Kingston’s SM2280S3/120G product is shown in Paragraph 23. Any
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 23 are denied.
`24. Kingston admits that what purports to be a front image of Kingston’s
`SM2280S3/120G product is shown in Paragraph 24. Kingston admits that the
`purported SM2280S3 product shown in Paragraph 24 includes a dynamic random
`access memory (DRAM) chip (labeled Nanya NT5CC128M16FP in the photo shown
`in Paragraph 24) and a controller chip (labeled Phison PS3108 in the photo shown in
`Paragraph 24). Kingston denies that when Kingston, its customers, and other third
`parties turn on the products accused of infringing the ’589 Patent, the controller chip
`supplies, via an initialization circuit, a supply voltage stable signal once a supply
`voltage has been stabilized after the switching-on operation of the dynamic
`semiconductor memory device. Kingston denies that the identified controller chip
`also supplies, via an enable circuit of the initialization circuit, an enable signal, the
`initialization circuit receiving the supply voltage stable signal and further command
`signals externally applied to the dynamic semiconductor memory device, after an
`identification of a predetermined proper initialization sequence of the further
`command signals, the enable signal being generated and effecting an unlatching of a
`control circuit provided for a proper operation of the dynamic semiconductor memory
`device. Kingston admits that Paragraph 24 alleges that a so-called Clock Enable
`Signal (“CKE signal”) supplied by the Phison controller chip to the Nanya chips is the
`purported enable signal claimed in the ’589 Patent. Kingston admits that Paragraph
`24 also alleges that the so-called Mode Register Set (“MRS”) command and/or the ZQ
`Calibration (“ZQCL”) command is the initialization sequence of the command
`Kingston’s First Amended Answer, Affirmative
`5
`Case No. 16-cv-00300 CJC (RAO)
`Defenses, and Counterclaims
`4301900
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`5
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2003
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`signals. However, Kingston denies that the products accused of infringing the ’589
`Patent provide any initialization sequence of external commands before providing an
`enable signal, as required by the asserted claims of the ’589 Patent. In particular, the
`identified CKE signal is supplied before the MRS signal during the “Reset and
`Initialization Sequence at Power-on Ramping,” instead of after the MRS signal as
`required by the asserted claims of the ’589 Patent. See Fig. 3, 2Gb DDR3 SDRAM H-
`available
`at
`Die
`datasheet, Nanya Technology
`(“Nanya Datasheet”),
`http://www.nanya.com/NanyaAdmin/GetFiles.ashx?ID=1199 (last visited May 23,
`2016). Kingston therefore denies that it infringes the ’589 Patent for at least the
`reasons herein. All remaining allegations of Paragraph 24 are denied.
`25. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 25 of the Complaint.
`26.
`Paragraph 26 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.
`Kingston denies that it has induced or continues to induce infringement of the ’589
`Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Any remaining allegations of Paragraph 26 are
`denied.
`Paragraph 27 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.
`27.
`Kingston denies that it has induced or continues to induce infringement of the ’589
`Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Kingston admits that it received a letter from
`Polaris regarding the potential licensing of the ’589 Patent on February 1, 2016, but
`Kingston denies that this communication constituted actual notice of infringement of
`this patent. Kingston denies that it infringes or has induced infringement of the ’589
`Patent and denies that any alleged infringement was willful. All remaining allegations
`of Paragraph 27 are denied.
`28.
`Paragraph 28 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.
`Kingston denies that it has contributed to or continues to contribute to infringement of
`the ’589 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Any remaining allegations of
`Paragraph 28 are denied.
`29. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 29 of the Complaint.
`Kingston’s First Amended Answer, Affirmative
`6
`Case No. 16-cv-00300 CJC (RAO)
`Defenses, and Counterclaims
`4301900
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`6
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2003
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`Paragraph 30 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.
`30.
`Kingston admits that it received a letter from Polaris regarding the potential licensing
`of the ’589 Patent on February 1, 2016, but Kingston denies that this communication
`constituted actual notice of infringement of this patent. Kingston denies that it
`infringes the ’589 Patent and denies that any alleged infringement was willful. All
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 30 are denied.
`COUNT II:
`
`KINGSTON’S PURPORTED INFRINGEMENT
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,438,057
`31. Kingston incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations in
`Paragraphs 1-30 above as if fully set forth herein.
`32.
`Paragraph 32 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.
`Kingston denies that it infringes the ’057 Patent, literally or under the doctrine of
`equivalents, and denies that any alleged infringement was willful. Any remaining
`allegations of Paragraph 32 are denied.
`33. Kingston admits that what purports to be an image of the front and back
`views of Kingston’s KVR16R11D4/16 product is shown in Paragraph 33. Any
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 33 are denied.
`34. Kingston admits that what purports to be a schematic diagram of
`Kingston’s KVR16R11D4/16 product is shown in Paragraph 34. Kingston denies that
`the products accused of infringing the ’057 Patent support the Extended Temperature
`Range feature as required by the asserted claims of the ’057 Patent. Kingston denies
`that the products accused of infringing the ’057 Patent comprise at least one
`temperature sensor in thermal communication with a DRAM array, operable to
`produce a signal indicative of a temperature of the DRAM array or the equivalent, and
`coupled to at least one connection pin such that the signal may be provided to external
`circuitry. Kingston admits that the diagram of the purported KVR16R11D4/16
`product appears to show an Atmel AT30TSE002B temperature sensor. Kingston
`Kingston’s First Amended Answer, Affirmative
`7
`Case No. 16-cv-00300 CJC (RAO)
`Defenses, and Counterclaims
`4301900
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`7
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2003
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`denies, however, that this AT30TSE002B temperature sensor is in thermal
`communication with any DRAM array, is operable to produce a signal indicative of a
`temperature of the DRAM array or the equivalent, or is coupled to at least one
`connection pin, such that the signal may be provided to external circuitry. Kingston
`denies that the DRAM array on the KVR16R11D4/16 product depicted in the diagram
`is refreshed at a rate that decreases as the temperature of the DRAM array decreases
`and that increases as the temperature of the DRAM array increases. Kingston
`therefore denies that it infringes the ’057 Patent for at least the reasons herein. All
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 34 are denied.
`35. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 35 of the Complaint.
`36.
`Paragraph 36 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.
`Kingston denies that it has induced or continues to induce infringement of the ’057
`Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Any remaining allegations of Paragraph 36 are
`denied.
`37. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 37 of the Complaint.
`38. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 38 of the Complaint.
`39. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 39 of the Complaint.
`40. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 40 of the Complaint.
`41. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 41 of the Complaint.
`42. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 42 of the Complaint.
`43. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 43 of the Complaint.
`44. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 44 of the Complaint.
`45. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 45 of the Complaint.
`46. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 46 of the Complaint.
`47. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 47 of the Complaint.
`48.
`Paragraph 48 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.
`Kingston denies that it has actively induced its customers or other third parties to
`
`Kingston’s First Amended Answer, Affirmative
`Defenses, and Counterclaims
`4301900
`
`8
`
`Case No. 16-cv-00300 CJC (RAO)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`8
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2003
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`directly infringe the ’057 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Any remaining
`allegations of Paragraph 48 are denied.
`49. Kingston denies that it has actively induced its customers or other third
`parties to directly infringe the ’057 Patent. Kingston admits that it received a letter
`from Polaris regarding the potential licensing of the ’057 Patent on February 1, 2016,
`but Kingston denies that this communication constituted actual notice of infringement
`of this patent. Kingston denies that it infringes or has induced infringement of the
`’057 Patent and denies that any alleged infringement was willful. Any remaining
`allegations of Paragraph 49 are denied.
`50.
`Paragraph 50 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.
`Kingston denies that it has contributed to or continues to contribute to infringement of
`the ’057 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Any remaining allegations of
`Paragraph 50 are denied.
`51. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 51 of the Complaint.
`52.
`Paragraph 52 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.
`Kingston admits that it received a letter from Polaris regarding the potential licensing
`of the ’057 Patent on February 1, 2016, but Kingston denies that this communication
`constituted actual notice of infringement of this patent. Kingston denies that it
`infringes the ’057 Patent and denies that any alleged infringement was willful. All
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 52 are denied.
`COUNT III:
`
`KINGSTON’S PURPORTED INFRINGEMENT
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,850,414
`53. Kingston incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations in
`Paragraphs 1-52 above as if fully set forth herein.
`54.
`Paragraph 54 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.
`Kingston denies that it infringes the ’414 Patent, literally or under the doctrine of
`
`Kingston’s First Amended Answer, Affirmative
`Defenses, and Counterclaims
`4301900
`
`9
`
`Case No. 16-cv-00300 CJC (RAO)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`9
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2003
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`equivalents, and denies that any alleged infringement was willful. Any remaining
`allegations of Paragraph 54 are denied.
`55. Kingston admits that what purports to be an image of the front and back
`views of Kingston’s KVR16R11D4/16 product is shown in Paragraph 55. Any
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 55 are denied.
`56. Kingston admits that what purports to be a schematic diagram of
`Kingston’s KVR16R11D4/16 product is shown in Paragraph 56. Any remaining
`allegations of Paragraph 56 are denied.
`57. Kingston admits that the identified KVR15R11D4/16 product has at least
`nine semiconductor memories that are shown in red in the diagram in Paragraph 56.
`Kingston admits that the memory modules in the identified KVR15R11D4/16 product
`are encapsulated in rectangular housing with a shorter dimension and a longer
`dimension. Kingston denies, however, that “said longer dimension of said housing of
`each one of said semiconductor memories, other than said error correction chip” is
`“oriented parallel with said contact strip” as required by the asserted claims of the
`’414 Patent. Kingston therefore denies that it infringes the ’414 Patent for at least the
`reasons herein. All remaining allegations of Paragraph 57 are denied.
`58. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 58 of the Complaint.
`59. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 59 of the Complaint.
`60.
`Paragraph 60 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.
`Kingston denies that it has actively induced its customers or other third parties to
`directly infringe the ’414 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Any remaining
`allegations of Paragraph 60 are denied.
`61. Kingston denies that it has actively induced its customers or other third
`parties to directly infringe the ’414 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Kingston
`admits that it received a letter from Polaris regarding the potential licensing of the
`’414 Patent on February 1, 2016, but Kingston denies that this communication
`constituted actual notice of infringement of this patent. Kingston denies that it
`Kingston’s First Amended Answer, Affirmative
`10
`Case No. 16-cv-00300 CJC (RAO)
`Defenses, and Counterclaims
`4301900
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`10
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2003
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`infringes or has induced infringement of the ’414 Patent and denies that any alleged
`infringement was willful. Any remaining allegations of Paragraph 61 are denied.
`62. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 62 of the Complaint.
`63.
`Paragraph 63 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.
`Kingston admits that it received a letter from Polaris regarding the potential licensing
`of the ’414 Patent on February 1, 2016, but Kingston denies that this communication
`constituted actual notice of infringement of this patent. Kingston denies that it
`infringes the ’414 Patent and denies that any alleged infringement was willful. All
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 63 are denied.
`COUNT IV:
`
`KINGSTON’S PURPORTED INFRINGEMENT
`OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,206,978
`64. Kingston incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations in
`Paragraphs 1-63 above as if fully set forth herein.
`65.
`Paragraph 65 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.
`Kingston denies that it infringes the ’978 Patent, literally or under the doctrine of
`equivalents, and denies that any alleged infringement was willful. Any remaining
`allegations of Paragraph 65 are denied.
`66. Kingston admits that what purports to be an image of the front and back
`views of Kingston’s KVR21R15D4/16 product is shown in Paragraph 66. Any
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 66 are denied.
`67. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 67 of the Complaint.
`68. Kingston denies that one or more the products accused of infringing the
`’978 Patent comprises means for providing a check signal to each of the circuit units,
`the structure of which is the same as or equivalent to that disclosed in the patent
`specification. Kingston denies that a so-called PAR (command and address parity)
`input on each dynamic random access memory chip in the products accused of
`
`Kingston’s First Amended Answer, Affirmative
`Defenses, and Counterclaims
`4301900
`
`11
`
`Case No. 16-cv-00300 CJC (RAO)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`11
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2003
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`infringing the ’978 Patent provides the so-called means for providing a check signal to
`each of the circuit units as claimed in the ’978 Patent. Specifically, each dynamic
`random access memory chip in the products accused of infringing the ’978 Patent has
`a register (MR5) that enables or disables the command/address parity check for that
`chip, but the “default state of the C/A Parity bits is disabled.” See JESD79-4A at
`p. 68. Kingston therefore denies that it infringes the ’978 Patent for at least the
`reasons herein. All remaining allegations in Paragraph 68 are denied.
`69. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 69 of the Complaint.
`70. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 70 of the Complaint.
`71. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 71 of the Complaint.
`72. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 72 of the Complaint.
`73. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 73 of the Complaint.
`74.
`Paragraph 74 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.
`Kingston denies that it has actively induced its customers or other third parties to
`directly infringe the ’978 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Any remaining
`allegations of Paragraph 74 are denied.
`75. Kingston denies that it has actively induced its customers or other third
`parties to directly infringe the ’978 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Kingston
`admits that it received a letter from Polaris regarding the potential licensing of the
`’978 Patent on February 1, 2016, but Kingston denies that this communication
`constituted actual notice of infringement of this patent. Kingston denies that it
`infringes or has induced infringement of the ’978 Patent and denies that any alleged
`infringement was willful. Any remaining allegations of Paragraph 75 are denied.
`76. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 76 of the Complaint.
`77.
`Paragraph 77 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.
`Kingston admits that it received a letter from Polaris regarding the potential licensing
`of the ’978 Patent on February 1, 2016, but Kingston denies that this communication
`constituted actual notice of infringement of this patent. Kingston denies that it
`Kingston’s First Amended Answer, Affirmative
`12
`Case No. 16-cv-00300 CJC (RAO)
`Defenses, and Counterclaims
`4301900
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`12
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2003
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`infringes the ’978 Patent and denies that any alleged infringement was willful. All
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 77 are denied.
`COUNT V:
`
`KINGSTON’S PURPORTED INFRINGEMENT
` OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,315,454
`78. Kingston incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations in
`Paragraphs 1-77 above as if fully set forth herein.
`79.
`Paragraph 79 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.
`Kingston denies that it infringes the ’454 Patent, literally or under the doctrine of
`equivalents, and denies that any alleged infringement was willful. Any remaining
`allegations of Paragraph 79 are denied.
`80. Kingston admits that what purports to be an image of the front and back
`views of Kingston’s KVR16R11D4/16 product is shown in Paragraph 80. Any
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 80 are denied.
`81. Kingston admits that what purports to be a schematic diagram of
`Kingston’s KVR16R11D4/16 product is shown in Paragraph 81. Kingston denies that
`the electronic printed circuit board shown in Paragraph 80 has a contact strip that
`extends at a first edge of the printed circuit board along with a first lateral direction
`and a plurality of electrical contacts disposed along the first lateral direction between
`two second edges that extend in a second lateral direction that is perpendicular to the
`first lateral direction. Kingston denies that the products accused of infringing the ’454
`Patent comprise a plurality of semiconductor memory chips of substantially identical
`type mounted on at least one external area of the printed circuit board and having a
`rectangular form with a shorter dimension and a longer dimension in a direction
`perpendicular to the shorter dimension. Kingston denies that the memory chips are
`arranged in at least two rows, each row extending in the first lateral direction between
`a center of the printed circuit board and the left or right edge, wherein the memory
`chips in each row are arranged in an alternating sequence of opposite orientation with
`Kingston’s First Amended Answer, Affirmative
`13
`Case No. 16-cv-00300 CJC (RAO)
`Defenses, and Counterclaims
`4301900
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`13
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2003
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`the longer dimension of each memory chip being parallel with the shorter dimension
`of adjacent memory chips in the same row. Kingston denies that the memory chips
`aligned in the second lateral direction and lying in respective adjacent rows have
`opposite orientations. Kingston therefore denies that it infringes the ’454 Patent for at
`least the reasons herein. All remaining allegations of Paragraph 81 are denied.
`82. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 82 of the Complaint.
`83. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 83 of the Complaint.
`84. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 84 of the Complaint.
`85. Kingston admits that its KVR16R11D4/16 product complies with certain
`portions of certain JEDEC standards. Any remaining allegations of Paragraph 85 are
`denied.
`Paragraph 86 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.
`86.
`Kingston denies that it has actively induced its customers or other third parties to
`directly infringe the ’454 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Any remaining
`allegations of Paragraph 86 are denied.
`87. Kingston denies that it has actively induced its customers or other third
`parties to directly infringe the ’454 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Kingston
`admits that it received a letter from Polaris regarding the potential licensing of the
`’454 Patent on February 1, 2016, but Kingston denies that this communication
`constituted actual notice of infringement of this patent. Kingston denies that it
`infringes or has induced infringement of the ’454 Patent and denies that any alleged
`infringement was willful. Any remaining allegations of Paragraph 87 are denied.
`88. Kingston denies the allegations of Paragraph 88 of the Complaint.
`89.
`Paragraph 89 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.
`Kingston admits that it received a letter from Polaris regarding the potential licensing
`of the ’454 Patent on February 1, 2016, but Kingston denies that this communication
`constituted actual notice of infringement of this patent. Kingston denies that it
`
`Kingston’s First Amended Answer, Affirmative
`Defenses, and Counterclaims
`4301900
`
`14
`
`Case No. 16-cv-00300 CJC (RAO)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`14
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. Exhibit 2003
`Kingston v. Polaris, IPR2017-00974
`
`

`

`infringes the ’454 Patent and denies that any alleged infringement was willful. All
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 89 are denied.
`COUNT VI:
`
`KINGSTON’S PURPORTED INFRINGEMENT
` OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,334,150
`90. Kingston incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations in
`Paragraphs 1-89 above as if fully set forth herein.
`91.
`Paragraph 91 states legal conclusions to which no response is required.
`Kingston denies that it infringes the ’150 Patent, literally or under the doctrine of
`equivalents, and denies that any alleged infringement was willful. Any remaining
`allegations of Paragraph 91 are denied.
`92. Kingston admits that what purports to be an image of the front and back
`views of Kingston’s KVR13LR9D4/16 product is shown in Paragraph 92. Any
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 92 are denied.
`93. Kingston denies that the products accused of infringing the ’150 Patent
`comprise a plurality of bus signal lines operable to supply an incoming clock signal
`and incoming command and address signal to at least the memory chips. Kingston
`denies that the products accused of infringing the ’150 Patent comprise a clock signal
`regeneration circuit configured to generate a plurality of copies of the incoming clock
`signal and to supply