Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 44 Filed 10/06/14 Page 1 of 67 Page ID #:454
`
`
`Ryan K. Yagura (SBN 197619)
`ryagura@omm.com
`Kevin Murray (SBN 275186)
`kmurray2@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`400 South Hope Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 430-6189
`Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
`
`Michael J. Lennon (pro hac vice)
`mlennon@kenyon.com
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004
`Telephone: (212) 425-7200
`Facsimile: (212) 425-5288
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Volkswagen
`Group of America, Inc. and Bentley Motors, Inc.
`
`
`SIGNAL IP, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`WESTERN DIVISION – LOS ANGELES
`
`
`Case No. CV 14-03113 JAK(JEMx)
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`THE HONORABLE JOHN A.
`KRONSTADT
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`v.
`
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF
`AMERICA, INC., d/b/a. AUDI OF
`AMERICA, INC., and BENTLEY
`MOTORS, INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. CV 14-03113 JAK(JEMX)
`
`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
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 44 Filed 10/06/14 Page 2 of 67 Page ID #:455
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Defendants Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Bentley Motors, Inc.
`(“VWGoA” and “Bentley”) through their attorneys, answer the First Amended
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement (D.E. 34, the “First Amended Complaint”) of
`plaintiff Signal IP, Inc. (“Signal”) as follows:
`
`
`PARTIES
`1.
`Plaintiff Signal IP is a California corporation with its principal place of
`business at 11100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 380, Los Angeles, CA 90025.
`Response to Paragraph 1:
`
`Admitted.
`
`2.
`On information and belief, Defendant Volkswagen Group of America,
`Inc., d/b/a Audi of America, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with its principal
`place of business at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, VA 20171.
`Response to Paragraph 2:
`
`Admitted that Audi of America, Inc. is a registered trade name of
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., which is a New Jersey corporation having its
`principal place of business at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive, Herndon, Virginia
`20171.
`
`3.
`On information and belief, Defendant Bentley Motors, Inc. is a
`Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 2200 Ferdinand
`Porsche Drive, Herndon, VA 20171.
`Response to Paragraph 3:
`
`Admitted.
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`CASE NO. CV 14-03113 JAK(JEMX)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 44 Filed 10/06/14 Page 3 of 67 Page ID #:456
`
`
`
`
`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.
`On information and belief, Defendants are part of an integrated
`automotive group that manufactures and distributes cars under brand names
`
`including “Audi”, “Volkswagen”, and “Bentley.”
`Response to Paragraph 4:
`
`Admitted that VWGoA and Bentley, respectively, import Volkswagen
`and Audi, and Bentley, brand automobiles into the United States, and respectively
`sell Volkswagen and Audi, and Bentley, brand automobiles to dealers in the United
`States; otherwise denied.
`
`
`JURISDICTION VENUE AND JOINDER
`5.
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35
`of the United States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28
`U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`Response to Paragraph 5:
`Admitted.
`
`
`6.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Defendants
`have conducted extensive commercial activities and continue to conduct extensive
`commercial activities within the State of California. Defendants are registered to
`do business in California. Additionally, on information and belief, Defendants,
`directly and/or through intermediaries (including Defendants’ entities, subsidiaries,
`distributors, sales agents, partners and others), distribute, offer for sale, sell, and/or
`advertise their products (including but not limited to the products and services that
`are accused of infringement in this lawsuit) in the United States, in the State of
`California, and in this judicial district, under the “Audi”, “Volkswagen”, and
`“Bentley” brand names. Defendants have purposefully and voluntarily placed one
`or more of their infringing products and services into the stream of commerce with
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`CASE NO. CV 14-03113 JAK(JEMX)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 44 Filed 10/06/14 Page 4 of 67 Page ID #:457
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`the expectation that the products and services will be purchased or used by
`customers in California and within this judicial district. Accordingly, Defendants
`
`have infringed Signal IP’s patents within the State of California and in this judicial
`district as alleged in more detail below.
`Response to Paragraph 6:
`Denied.
`
`
`7.
`Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).
`Response to Paragraph 7:
`
`Denied.
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`8.
`Signal IP, Inc. is a California corporation with a principal place of
`business at 11100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 380, Los Angeles, CA 90025. It is the
`owner of the entire right, title and interest in and to U.S. Patent Nos. 5,714,927;
`5,732,375; 5,954,775; 6,012,007; 6,434,486; and 6,775,601 (the “Patents-in-Suit”),
`including the right to recover for past, present and future infringement.
`Response to Paragraph 8:
`
`Admitted that plaintiff Signal IP, Inc. is a California corporation with a
`principal place of business at 11100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 380, Los Angeles,
`CA 90025; otherwise denied.
`
`9.
`indirect
`information and belief, Defendants are direct or
`On
`subsidiaries of global car manufacturer and distributor Volkswagen AG, which is
`headquartered in Germany. Volkswagen AG manufactures and distributes cars
`under brand names including “Audi”, “Volkswagen”, and “Bentley.”
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`CASE NO. CV 14-03113 JAK(JEMX)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 44 Filed 10/06/14 Page 5 of 67 Page ID #:458
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Response to Paragraph 9:
`
`Admitted that VWGoA is a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG of
`
`Wolfsburg, Germany, that Bentley is a subsidiary of VWGoA, and that subsidiaries
`of Volkswagen AG manufacture and distribute Volkswagen, Audi, and Bentley
`brand vehicles; otherwise denied.
`
`10. Defendants have knowledge of each of the Patents-in-Suit, and have
`had the specific knowledge that their products and services described below
`infringe the Patents-in-Suit, since at least the filing of the complaint in this action
`on April 23, 2014, which was served on Defendants on April 30, 2014. Signal IP
`gives and has given Defendants notice of its infringement of the Patents-in-Suit.
`Response to Paragraph 10:
`
`Admitted that Signal filed a Complaint for infringement of the Patents-
`in-Suit against VWGoA and Bentley on April 23, 2014, which was served on
`VWGoA and Bentley on April 30, 2014; otherwise denied.
`
`11. Signal IP has also already served Defendants with its Asserted Claims
`and Infringement Contentions pursuant to Standing Patent Rule §§ 2.1 and 2.2 (the
`“Infringement Contentions”), on July 8, 2014. The Infringement Contentions
`provide Defendants with notice of each claim of each patent in suit that is
`infringing [sic], and separately for each asserted claim, identify each accused
`instrumantality [sic] in a manner that is as specific as is reasonably possible. The
`Infringement Contentions also identify specifically where each limitation of each
`asserted claim is found within each accused instrumentality, and identify the basis
`for Signal IP’s allegations of willful infringement. The Infringement Contentions
`set forth Signal IP’s allegations of infringement in this matter.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`CASE NO. CV 14-03113 JAK(JEMX)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 44 Filed 10/06/14 Page 6 of 67 Page ID #:459
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Response to Paragraph 11:
`
`Admitted
`that Signal served Plaintiff’s Asserted Claims and
`
`Infringement Contentions (S.P.R. §§ 2.1 and 2.2) on July 7, 2014; otherwise
`denied.
`
`
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’927 PATENT)
`12. Plaintiff incorporates all previous paragraphs of this complaint as if set
`forth in full herein.
`Response to Paragraph 12:
`
`VWGoA and Bentley re-allege and incorporate by reference their
`responses to all previous paragraphs of the First Amended Complaint, as if fully set
`forth herein.
`
`13. Signal IP is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to
`U.S. Patent No. 5,714,927 (the ’927 Patent), entitled “Method of Improving Zone
`of Coverage Response of Automotive Radar.” The ’927 Patent was duly and
`legally issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on February 3, 1998. A
`true and correct copy of the ’927 Patent is attached as Exhibit A.
`Response to Paragraph 13:
`
`Admitted that United States Patent No. 5,714,927 (the “’927 Patent”)
`is entitled “Method of Improving Zone of Coverage Response of Automotive
`Radar,” that the ’927 Patent states on its face that it was issued by the United States
`Patent and Trademark Office on February 3, 1998, and that a copy of the ’927
`Patent is attached as Exhibit A to the First Amended Complaint; otherwise denied.
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`CASE NO. CV 14-03113 JAK(JEMX)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 44 Filed 10/06/14 Page 7 of 67 Page ID #:460
`
`
`
`
`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. On information and belief, Defendants have been and are directly
`infringing, inducing others to infringe, and/or contributorily infringing, literally,
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, and/or jointly, one or more claims of the ’927
`Patent, including, but not limited to, claims 1, 2 and 6 (“the ’927 Patent Asserted
`Claims”), in the State of California, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the
`United States by, among other things, importing, making, using, offering for sale,
`and/or selling in the United States certain methods or systems disclosed and
`claimed in the ’927 Patent, including, but not limited to, the Active Blind Spot
`Assist system, used in products including, but not limited to, to the Audi A3, A4,
`A4 Allroad, A4 Sedan/Avant, A5, A6, A7, A8, Q3, Q5, Q7, Q5 Hybrid, S4, S5, S5
`Cabriolet, S6, S7, S8, SQ5, RS5, and RS7, and the Volkswagen CC, Touareg,
`Phaeton, and Touareg Hybrid (collectively, the accused products and features are
`referred to herein as “the ’927 Patent Accused Instrumentalities,” although the
`accused instrumentalities and asserted claims have been formally identified in
`Signal IP’s Infringement Contentions).
`Response to Paragraph 14:
`
`Denied.
`
`15. The ’927 Patent Accused Instrumentalities are described or have been
`described at least in part online at:
`http://www.audiusanews.com/newsrelease.do?&id=2757&allImage=1&tease
`r=driver-assistance-systems∣ and
`http://en.volkswagen.com/en/innovation-and-
`technology/technicalglossary/spurwechselassistentsideassist.html.
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`CASE NO. CV 14-03113 JAK(JEMX)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 44 Filed 10/06/14 Page 8 of 67 Page ID #:461
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Response to Paragraph 15:
`
`Admitted that the accused methods and systems of Volkswagen, Audi,
`
`and Bentley brand vehicles are described in documents produced in this litigation;
`otherwise denied.
`
`16. As described below
`the Infringement Contentions,
`in
`in and
`Volkswagen includes a radar system where a host vehicle uses radar to detect a
`target vehicle in a blind spot of the host vehicle driver which improves the
`perceived zone of coverage response of automotive radar. Volkswagen determines
`the relative speed of the host and target vehicles and selects a variable sustain time
`as a function of relative vehicle speed. Volkswagen detects target vehicle presence
`and produces an alert command. Volkswagen activates an alert signal in response
`to the alert command. At the end of the alert command, Volkswagen determines
`whether the alert signal was active for a threshold time and if the alert signal was
`active for the threshold time, Volkswagen sustains the alert signal for the variable
`sustain time; where the zone of coverage appears to increase according to the
`variable sustain time.
`Response to Paragraph 16:
`
`Denied.
`
`17. According to Defendants’ website or documentation, Defendants’ Side
`Assist system “monitors traffic behind the vehicle and warns the driver of critical
`lane changes as necessary” through the use of “[t]wo radar systems at the rear
`[which] scan the areas up to around 50 metres behind the vehicle and in the blind
`spots to the sides.”
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`CASE NO. CV 14-03113 JAK(JEMX)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 44 Filed 10/06/14 Page 9 of 67 Page ID #:462
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Response to Paragraph 17:
`
`Admitted that the accused methods and systems of Volkswagen, Audi,
`
`and Bentley brand vehicles are described in documents produced in this litigation;
`otherwise denied.
`
`18. According to Defendants’ website or documentation, “[t]he Side
`Assist] system begins to operate at a speed of about 30 km/h (18.64 mph).” At that
`speed, a computer evaluates the data from the rear radar sensors. If the sensors
`“detect another vehicle that is in the critical zone – that is, traveling in the blind
`spot or quickly approaching from behind – the information stage is activated.”
`Response to Paragraph 18:
`
`Admitted that the accused methods and systems of Volkswagen, Audi,
`and Bentley brand vehicles are described in documents produced in this litigation;
`otherwise denied.
`
`19. According to Defendants’ website or documentation, “Side Assist
`signals any vehicle which is in the critical zone for a lane change, regardless of
`whether a lane change is in progress or not. (¶ ) The system draws the driver’s
`attention to the potential danger with a light that comes on in the exterior mirror on
`the side in question. (¶ ) If the driver nevertheless signals to change lane, the same
`LED light starts to flash more brightly and draws attention to the danger.”
`Response to Paragraph 19:
`
`Admitted that the accused methods and systems of Volkswagen, Audi,
`and Bentley brand vehicles are described in documents produced in this litigation;
`otherwise denied.
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`CASE NO. CV 14-03113 JAK(JEMX)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 44 Filed 10/06/14 Page 10 of 67 Page ID #:463
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`20. According to Defendants’ website or documentation, “[i]nstead of
`distracting the driver with unnecessary warnings, allowance is always made for the
`
`relative difference in vehicle speeds. Side Assist only gives a warning for vehicles
`that could actually be a risk if the driver were to make a lane change.”
`Response to Paragraph 20:
`
`Admitted that the accused methods and systems of Volkswagen, Audi,
`and Bentley brand vehicles are described in documents produced in this litigation;
`otherwise denied.
`
`In addition to their own direct infringement, Defendants have also
`21.
`been and are inducing and/or contributing to the direct infringement of the ’927
`Patent by at least, but not limited to, customers of Defendants, partners of
`Defendants, and/or end-users of Defendants’ products, including, but not limited to,
`the ’927 Patent Accused Instrumentalities (“the ’927 Patent Third Party
`Infringers”), who directly implement, use or otherwise participate in the use of the
`’927 Patent Accused Instrumentalities, which have no substantial non-infringing
`uses, by at least the following affirmative acts: (1) advertising in public and
`marketing the features, benefits and availability of the ’927 Patent Accused
`Instrumentalities; (2) promoting the adoption and use of the ’927 Accused
`Instrumentalities; and (3) providing instructions on how to use the ’927 Patent
`Accused Instrumentalities.
`Response to Paragraph 21:
`
`Denied.
`
`infringe by actively, knowingly, and/or
`indirectly
` Defendants
`22.
`intentionally inducing or contributing to infringement of one or more of the claims
`of the ’927 Patent, including, but not limited to, the ’927 Patent Asserted Claims,
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`CASE NO. CV 14-03113 JAK(JEMX)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 44 Filed 10/06/14 Page 11 of 67 Page ID #:464
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`by a third party, including, but not limited to, the ’927 Patent Third Party Infringers,
`who directly implement, use or otherwise participate in the use of the ’927 Patent
`
`Accused Instrumentalities. On information and belief, Defendants actively,
`knowingly, and/or intentionally induce the use of the ’927 Patent Accused
`Instrumentalities by the ’927 Patent Third Party Infringers, and provide or
`otherwise implement material components of one or more claims of the ’927 Patent,
`including, but not limited to, the ’927 Patent Asserted Claims, which were
`especially made or adapted for use in the infringement of the ’927 Patent claims,
`including, but not limited to, the ’927 Patent Asserted Claims, and are not a staple
`article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing uses.
`Defendants know and have known that the combination for which their infringing
`components,
`including, but not
`limited
`to,
`the
`’927 Patent Accused
`Instrumentalities, were especially made or adapted are both patented and infringing.
`Response to Paragraph 22:
`
`Denied.
`
`23. Defendants’ infringement of the ’927 Patent has been and continues to
`be willful, rendering this case exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`With knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit, as described above, Defendants have
`continued their infringing actions, as described above, despite an objectively high
`likelihood (and affirmative allegations) that these actions constitute infringement of
`the Patents-in-Suit. This objectively defined risk was known to Defendants, and so
`obvious that it should have been known to Defendants.
`Response to Paragraph 23:
`
`No response required. The claims for willful infringement in the First
`Amended Complaint have been dismissed for failing to state a claim for relief.
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`CASE NO. CV 14-03113 JAK(JEMX)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 44 Filed 10/06/14 Page 12 of 67 Page ID #:465
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`24. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff
`has suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury for which it has no
`
`adequate remedy at law. Plaintiff also has been damaged and, until an injunction
`issues, will continue to be damaged in an amount yet to be determined.
`Response to Paragraph 24:
`
`Denied.
`
`
`SECCOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’375 PATENT)
`25. Plaintiff incorporates all previous paragraphs of this complaint as if set
`forth in full herein.
`Response to Paragraph 25:
`
`VWGoA and Bentley re-allege and incorporate by reference their
`responses to all previous paragraphs of the First Amended Complaint, as if fully set
`forth herein.
`
`26. Signal IP is the owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to
`U.S. Patent No. 5,732,375 (the ’375 Patent), entitled “Method of Inhibiting or
`Allowing Airbag Deployment.” The ’375 Patent was duly and legally issued by the
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on March 24, 1998. A true and correct copy of
`the ’375 Patent is attached as Exhibit B.
`Response to Paragraph 26:
`
`Admitted that United States Patent No. 5,732,375 (the “’375 Patent”)
`is entitled “Method of Inhibiting or Allowing Airbag Deployment,” that the ’375
`Patent states on its face that it was issued by the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office on March 24, 1998, and that a copy of the ’375 Patent is attached
`as Exhibit B to the First Amended Complaint; otherwise denied.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`CASE NO. CV 14-03113 JAK(JEMX)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 44 Filed 10/06/14 Page 13 of 67 Page ID #:466
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27. On information and belief, Defendants have been and are directly
`
`infringing, inducing others to infringe, and/or contributorily infringing, literally,
`under the doctrine of equivalents, and/or jointly, one or more claims of the ’375
`Patent, including, but not limited to, claims 1 and 7 (“the ’375 Patent Asserted
`Claims”), in the State of California, in this judicial district, and elsewhere in the
`United States by, among other things, importing, making, using, offering for sale,
`and/or selling in the United States certain methods or systems disclosed and
`claimed in the ’375 Patent, including, but not limited to, the Seat Occupancy
`Sensor, used in products including but not limited to the Audi A6 and S6
`(collectively, the accused products and features are referred to herein as “the ’375
`Patent Accused Instrumentalities,” although the accused instrumentalities and
`asserted claims have been formally identified in Signal IP’s Infringement
`Contentions).
`Response to Paragraph 27:
`
`Denied.
`
`28. The ’375 Patent Accused Instrumentalities are described or have been
`described at least in part online at:
`http://www.volkspage.net/technik/ssp/ssp/SSP_361.pdf; and
`http://parts.audiusa.com/parts/2011/Audi/A6%20Quattro/Avant?siteid=16&v
`ehicleid=314382&diagram=1352455&diagramCallOut=25
`Response to Paragraph 28:
`
`Admitted that the accused methods and systems of Volkswagen, Audi,
`and Bentley brand vehicles are described in documents produced in this litigation;
`otherwise denied.
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`CASE NO. CV 14-03113 JAK(JEMX)
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 44 Filed 10/06/14 Page 14 of 67 Page ID #:467
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
` As described below and in the Infringement Contentions, the Audi
`29.
`Seat Occupancy Sensor (“SOS”) provides airbag control in a vehicle having an
`
`array of force sensors on the passenger seat coupled to a controller for determining
`whether to allow airbag deployment based on sensed force. SOS measures the
`force detected by each sensor and calculates the total force of the sensor array.
`SOS allows deployment if the total force is above a total threshold force. SOS
`defines a plurality of seat areas, and has at least one sensor located in each seat
`area. SOS determines the existence of a local pressure area when the calculated
`total force is concentrated in one of said seat areas. SOS calculates a local force as
`the sum of forces sensed by each sensor located in the seat area in which the total
`force is concentrated. SOS allows deployment if the local force is greater than a
`predefined seat area threshold force.
`Response to Paragraph 29:
`
`Denied.
`
`30. According to Defendants’ website or documentation, “[t]he front
`passenger side seat occupied sensor consists of a plastic film incorporating several
`individual pressure sensors. The front passenger side seat occupied sensor is
`located in the front passenger seat, between the seat cover and padding. The seat
`occupied sensor extends across the rear part of the front passenger seat and is
`positioned such that the relevant area of the seat surface is monitored.”
`Response to Paragraph 30:
`
`Admitted that the accused methods and systems of Volkswagen, Audi,
`and Bentley brand vehicles are described in documents produced in this litigation;
`otherwise denied.
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`CASE NO. CV 14-03113 JAK(JEMX)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 44 Filed 10/06/14 Page 15 of 67 Page ID #:468
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
` According to Defendants’ website or documentation, “[t]he seat
`31.
`occupied recognition control unit J706 evaluates the signals from the pressure
`
`sensor for seat occupied recognition G452. . . . Based on the signal from the
`pressure sensor for seat occupied recognition, the seat occupied recognition control
`unit determines the load on the front passenger seat.”
`Response to Paragraph 31:
`
`Admitted that the accused methods and systems of Volkswagen, Audi,
`and Bentley brand vehicles are described in documents produced in this litigation;
`otherwise denied.
`
`32. According to Defendants’ website or documentation, “[d]epending on
`the load, the resistance value of the front passenger side seat occupied sensor is
`modified. When the front passenger seat is not occupied, the resistance value of the
`front passenger side seat occupied sensor G128 is high. As the load increases, the
`resistance value falls. Above a load of approx. 5 kg, the airbag control unit detects
`‘seat occupied’.”
`Response to Paragraph 32:
`
`Admitted that the accused methods and systems of Volkswagen, Audi,
`and Bentley brand vehicles are described in documents produced in this litigation;
`otherwise denied.
`
`33. According to Defendants’ website or documentation, for the “[f]ront
`passenger side seat occupied sensor”, “[i]f the airbag control unit J234 receives the
`information that the front passenger seat is not occupied or that a child seat is
`installed, the airbag control unit switches off the front passenger airbag.”
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`CASE NO. CV 14-03113 JAK(JEMX)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 44 Filed 10/06/14 Page 16 of 67 Page ID #:469
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Response to Paragraph 33:
`
`Admitted that the accused methods and systems of Volkswagen, Audi,
`
`and Bentley brand vehicles are described in documents produced in this litigation;
`otherwise denied.
`
`In addition to their own direct infringement, Defendants have also
`34.
`been and are inducing and/or contributing to the direct infringement of the ’375
`Patent by at least, but not limited to, customers of Defendants, partners of
`Defendants, and/or end-users of Defendants’ products, including, but not limited to,
`the ’375 Patent by at least, but not limited to, customers of Defendants, partners of
`Defendants, and/or end-users of Defendants’ products, including, but not limited to,
`the ’375 Patent Accused Instrumentalities (“the ’375 Patent Third Party
`Infringers”), who directly implement, use or otherwise participate in the use of the
`’375 Patent Accused Instrumentalities, which have no substantial non-infringing
`uses, by at least the following affirmative acts: (1) advertising in public and
`marketing the features, benefits and availability of the ’375 Patent Accused
`Instrumentalities; (2) promoting the adoption and use of the ’375 Accused
`Instrumentalities; and (3) providing instructions on how to use the ’375 Patent
`Accused Instrumentalities.
`Response to Paragraph 34:
`
`Denied.
`
`infringe by actively, knowingly, and/or
`indirectly
`35. Defendants
`intentionally inducing or contributing to infringement of one or more of the claims
`of the ’375 Patent, including, but not limited to, the ’375 Patent Asserted Claims,
`by a third party, including, but not limited to, the ’375 Patent Third Party Infringers,
`who directly implement, use or otherwise participate in the use of the ’375 Patent
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`CASE NO. CV 14-03113 JAK(JEMX)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 44 Filed 10/06/14 Page 17 of 67 Page ID #:470
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Accused Instrumentalities. On information and belief, Defendants actively,
`knowingly, and/or intentionally induce the use of the ’375 Patent Accused
`
`Instrumentalities by the ’375 Patent Third Party Infringers, and provide or
`otherwise implement material components of one or more claims of the ’375 Patent,
`including, but not limited to, the ’375 Patent Asserted Claims, which were
`especially made or adapted for use in the infringement of the ’375 Patent claims,
`including, but not limited to, the ’375 Patent Asserted Claims, and are not a staple
`article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing uses.
`Defendants know and have known that the combination for which their infringing
`components,
`including, but not
`limited
`to,
`the
`’375 Patent Accused
`Instrumentalities, were especially made or adapted are both patented and infringing.
`Response to Paragraph 35:
`
`Denied.
`
`36. Defendants’ infringement of the ’375 Patent has been and continues to
`be willful, rendering this case exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`With knowledge of the Patents-in-Suit, as described above, Defendants have
`continued their infringing actions, as described above, despite an objectively high
`likelihood (and affirmative allegations) that these actions constitute infringement of
`the Patents-in-Suit. This objectively defined risk was known to Defendants, and so
`obvious that it should have been known to Defendants.
`Response to Paragraph 36:
`
`No response required. The claims for willful infringement in the First
`Amended Complaint have been dismissed for failing to state a claim for relief.
`
`37. Unless enjoined by this Court, Defendants will continue to infringe the
`’375 Patent.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`CASE NO. CV 14-03113 JAK(JEMX)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-03113-JAK-JEM Document 44 Filed 10/06/14 Page 18 of 67 Page ID #:471
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Response to Paragraph 37:
`
`Denied.
`
`38. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff
`has suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury for which it has no
`adequate remedy at law. Plaintiff also has been damaged and, until