Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1-5 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 55
`Case 3:20-cv-02246—DMR Document 1-5 Filed 04/02/20 Page 1 of 55
`
`EXHIBIT E
`
`EXHIBIT E
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1-5 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 55
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`Before the Honorable ALJ Sandra (Dee) Lord
`Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN WEARABLE MONITORING
`DEVICES, SYSTEMS, AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1190
`
`
`
`FITBIT’S RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT
`AND NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION
`
`Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.13, Respondent Fitbit, Inc. (“Fitbit”) files this Response to
`
`the Complaint filed by Complainants Philips North America LLC and Koninklijke Philips N.V.
`
`(collectively, “Philips”) and to the Notice of Investigation, 80 Fed. Reg. 50870. Any allegations
`
`not specifically admitted are hereby denied.
`
`RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION
`
`Fitbit acknowledges that the Commission has instituted an investigation as set forth in the
`
`Commission’s Notice of Investigation, issued on January 10, 2020 and published in the Federal
`
`Register on January 15, 2020. Fitbit denies that there has been any violation of 19 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1337. In particular, Fitbit denies that it has violated § 1337 by the importation into the United
`
`States, the sale for importation, the sale after importation, and/or the use after importation of
`
`certain wearable monitoring devices, systems and components thereof, by reason of infringement
`
`of any valid claim of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,845,228 (“the ’228 patent”), 9,820,698 (“the ’698
`
`patent”), 9,717,464 (“the ’464 patent”), and 9,961,186 (“the ’186 patent”) (collectively, the
`
`Fitbit’s Response to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation
`Inv. 337-TA-1190
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1-5 Filed 04/02/20 Page 3 of 55
`
`
`
`“Asserted Patents”). Fitbit lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to
`
`whether there exists a domestic industry as required under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2), and therefore
`
`denies those allegations. Fitbit further denies that Philips is entitled to any relief as a result of
`
`this Investigation.
`
`RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT
`
`Fitbit responds to the Complaint dated December 9, 2019 and titled COMPLAINT OF
`
`PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA, LLC AND KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. UNDER
`
`SECTION 337 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930, AS AMENDED, in like-numbered
`
`paragraphs as follows. Certain phrases from headings are reproduced below from the Complaint
`
`for the sake of convenience only and are not an admission of the content or allegations within.
`
`Because discovery has just begun, Fitbit has not had sufficient time and opportunity to
`
`collect and review all information that may be relevant to the issues raised in the Complaint.
`
`Fitbit therefore reserves the right to amend or supplement this Response, including raising
`
`additional defenses, based on additional facts or developments that become available or that arise
`
`after the filing of this Response. Except as expressly admitted below, Fitbit denies each and
`
`every allegation averred in the Complaint.
`
`I.
`
`1.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Fitbit admits that Philips filed the Complaint dated December 9, 2019 with the United
`
`States International Trade Commission. Fitbit denies that it has violated Section 337 by
`
`importing, selling for importation, selling after importation, and/or using after importation
`
`certain wearable monitoring devices, systems and components thereof that allegedly
`
`infringe one or more claims of the Asserted Patents. Fitbit further denies that its products
`
`infringe Philips’s patent rights under any of the Asserted Patents.
`
`2
`Fitbit’s Response to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation
`Inv. 337-TA-1190
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1-5 Filed 04/02/20 Page 4 of 55
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Fitbit admits that Paragraph 2 of the Complaint identifies the proposed respondents.
`
`Fitbit admits that Fitbit is involved in the design, development, sale, and importation
`
`into the United States of certain products that Philips now accuses of infringing the
`
`Asserted Patents. Fitbit admits that Maintek and Inventec are involved in the manufacture
`
`of certain Fitbit products that Philips now accuses of infringing the Asserted Patents. Fitbit
`
`lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 2.
`
`3.
`
`Fitbit admits that Philips filed the Complaint dated December 9, 2019 with the United
`
`States International Trade Commission. Fitbit admits that the lists set forth in Paragraph 3
`
`of the Complaint purport to identify the Asserted Patents and Asserted Claims. Fitbit
`
`denies that the “Fitbit Accused Products” infringe the Fitbit Asserted Claims (as defined in
`
`Paragraph 3). Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis
`
`denies, the remaining allegations in Paragraph 3.
`
`4.
`
`Fitbit denies that Philips is entitled to any relief from Fitbit in this Investigation, whether
`
`requested in Paragraph 4 or otherwise.
`
`5.
`
`Fitbit denies that Philips is entitled to any relief from Fitbit in this Investigation, whether
`
`II.
`
`6.
`
`requested in Paragraph 5 or otherwise.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 6.
`
`7.
`
`Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 7.
`
`3
`Fitbit’s Response to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation
`Inv. 337-TA-1190
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1-5 Filed 04/02/20 Page 5 of 55
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 8.
`
`9.
`
`Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 9.
`
`10. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 10.
`
`11. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 11.
`
`12. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 12.
`
`13. Fitbit denies that Philips has become a world leader in health monitoring technology and
`
`innovation and a major contributor to the United States economy and jobs. Fitbit lacks
`
`information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 13.
`
`14. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 14.
`
`15. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 15.
`
`16. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 16.
`
`17. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 17.
`
`4
`Fitbit’s Response to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation
`Inv. 337-TA-1190
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1-5 Filed 04/02/20 Page 6 of 55
`
`
`
`18. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 18.
`
`19. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 19.
`
`20. Fitbit denies that there has been any unauthorized use of Philips’ alleged inventions. Fitbit
`
`admits that some of the Fitbit Accused Products are being manufactured by Maintek or
`
`Inventec and are being imported and sold by Fitbit. Fitbit otherwise lacks information
`
`sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 20.
`
`III. COMPLAINANTS
`
`21. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 21.
`
`22. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 22.
`
`23. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 23.
`
`IV.
`
`PROPOSED RESPONDENTS
`A.
`Fitbit
`
`24. Fitbit admits that it is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in San Francisco,
`
`California.
`
`25. Fitbit admits that Paragraph 25 reproduces a quote from the cited website. Fitbit otherwise
`
`denies the allegations in Paragraph 25, including the allegations that Fitbit “leveraged
`
`Philips’ patented technology” and markets devices that “infringe the Philips patents.”
`
`5
`Fitbit’s Response to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation
`Inv. 337-TA-1190
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1-5 Filed 04/02/20 Page 7 of 55
`
`
`
`26. Fitbit admits that it offers for sale various models of fitness trackers and smartwatches and
`
`related services. Fitbit further admits Exhibits 5-7 list certain Fitbit products, among other
`
`information. Fitbit otherwise denies the allegations in Paragraph 26, including the
`
`allegation that any Fitbit product infringes the Asserted Patents.
`
`27. Fitbit admits that it is involved in development, importation, and sale of the Fitbit Accused
`
`Products. Fitbit denies that it has not obtained a license or otherwise acquired rights to the
`
`Asserted Patents, as Philips has not yet identified its licensees as required by Commission
`
`Rules and may have granted licenses or rights that inure to Fitbit. In any event, Fitbit
`
`denies that any license or rights for use of the Asserted Patents is required, as the Fitbit
`
`Accused Products do not infringe the Asserted Patents
`
`B.
`
`Ingram
`
`28. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 28.
`
`29. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 29.
`
`C. Maintek Computer (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.
`
`30. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 30.
`
`31. Fitbit admits that Maintek is involved in manufacturing certain Fitbit Accused Products.
`
`Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 31.
`
`6
`Fitbit’s Response to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation
`Inv. 337-TA-1190
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1-5 Filed 04/02/20 Page 8 of 55
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Inventec Appliances (Pudong)
`
`32. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 32.
`
`33. Fitbit admits that Inventec is involved in manufacturing certain Fitbit Accused Products.
`
`Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 33.
`
`E.
`
`Garmin Respondents
`
`34. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 34.
`
`35. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 35.
`
`36. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 36.
`
`37. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 37.
`
`38. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 38.
`
`39. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 39.
`
`40. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 40.
`
`41. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 41.
`
`7
`Fitbit’s Response to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation
`Inv. 337-TA-1190
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1-5 Filed 04/02/20 Page 9 of 55
`
`
`
`42. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 42.
`
`V.
`
`THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS-AT-ISSUE
`
`43. Fitbit admits that Paragraph 43 of the Complaint purports to identify the category of
`
`Accused Products. Fitbit otherwise denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 43.
`
`44. Fitbit admits that Paragraph 44 of the Complaint purports to identify the Charge 3, Versa 2,
`
`Versa Lite Edition, Inspire, Inspire HR, Ionic, and Ace 2 as exemplary Fitbit Accused
`
`Products. Except as expressly admitted, Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 44.
`
`45. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 45.
`
`46. Fitbit denies that Philips is entitled to any relief from Fitbit in this Investigation, whether
`
`requested in Paragraph 46 or otherwise. Fitbit otherwise lacks information sufficient to
`
`either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the remaining allegations in Paragraph 46.
`
`VI.
`
`THE PATENTS-AT-ISSUE
`1.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,845,228
`
`47. Fitbit admits that the face of U.S. Patent No. 7,845,228 states that the patent is titled
`
`“Activity Monitoring,” that it was issued on December 7, 2010, and that it names Joannes
`
`Gregorius Bremer, Paraskeva Dunias, Gillian Antionette Mimnagh-Kelleher, Adrianus
`
`Petrus Johanna Maria Rommers, and Wilhelmus Lambertus Marinus Cornelius Verhoeven
`
`as inventors. Fitbit further admits that the face of the ’228 Patent states that it issued from
`
`United States Patent Application No. 10/537,878 and that the patent states that it claims
`
`priority to EP2002080215, though Fitbit denies that this claim is valid. Fitbit further
`
`admits that the ’228 patent states that “[s]ubject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is
`
`8
`Fitbit’s Response to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation
`Inv. 337-TA-1190
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1-5 Filed 04/02/20 Page 10 of 55
`
`
`
`extended or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by 1053 days.” Fitbit lacks information
`
`sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 47.
`
`48. Fitbit admits that what purports to be a certified copy of the recorded assignment of the
`
`‘228 Patent to Koninklijke Philips N.V. is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 13. Fitbit
`
`otherwise lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 48.
`
`49. Fitbit admits that the face of the ’228 Patent states that the patent claims priority to
`
`EP2002080215, though Fitbit denies that this claim is valid. Fitbit otherwise lacks
`
`information sufficient to admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the remaining allegations
`
`in Paragraph 49.
`
`50. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 50.
`
`51. Fitbit admits that what purports to be a certified copy and three additional copies of the
`
`prosecution history of the ’228 Patent is attached to the Complaint as Appendix A. Fitbit
`
`further admits that what purports to be four copies of the technical references cited in the
`
`prosecution history of the ’228 Patent are attached to the Complaint in Appendix E.
`
`2.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,820,698
`
`52. Fitbit admits that the face of U.S. Patent No. 9,820,698 states that the patent is titled
`
`“Actigraphy Methods and Apparatuses,” that it was issued on November 21, 2017, and that
`
`it names Pedro Miguel Fonseca, Reinder Haakma, Ronaldus Maria Aarts, and Xi Long as
`
`inventors. Fitbit further admits that the face of the ’698 Patent states that the patent issued
`
`from United States Patent Application No. 14/934,255 and states that the patent claims
`
`priority to Provisional Application No. 62/076,693 and Provisional Application No.
`
`9
`Fitbit’s Response to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation
`Inv. 337-TA-1190
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1-5 Filed 04/02/20 Page 11 of 55
`
`
`
`62/101,408, though Fitbit denies that these claims are valid. Fitbit further admits that the
`
`’698 patent states that “[s]ubject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended or
`
`adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by 0 days.” Fitbit otherwise lacks information sufficient
`
`to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the remaining allegations in Paragraph 52.
`
`53. Fitbit admits that what purports to be a certified copy of the recorded assignment of the
`
`‘698 Patent to Koninklijke Philips N.V. is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 14. Fitbit
`
`otherwise lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 53.
`
`54. Fitbit admits that the face of the ’698 Patent states that the patent claims priority to
`
`Provisional Application No. 62/076,693 and Provisional Application No. 62/101,408,
`
`though Fitbit denies that these claims are valid. Fitbit otherwise lacks knowledge and
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of
`
`Paragraph 54 and, on that basis, denies the same.
`
`55. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 55.
`
`56. Fitbit admits that what purports to be a certified copy and three additional copies of the
`
`prosecution history of the ’698 Patent is attached to the Complaint in Appendix C. Fitbit
`
`admits that what purports to be four copies of the technical references cited in the
`
`prosecution history of the ’698 Patent are attached to the Complaint in Appendix G.
`
`3.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,717,464
`
`57. Fitbit admits that the face of U.S. Patent No. 9,717,464 states that the patent is titled
`
`“Continuous Transdermal Monitoring System and Method,” states that it was issued on
`
`August 1, 2017, and states that it names James Tyler Frix, Andrew Johnson, James
`
`Mitchell Frix, and Robert Andrew Taylor as inventors. Fitbit further admits that the face of
`
`10
`Fitbit’s Response to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation
`Inv. 337-TA-1190
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1-5 Filed 04/02/20 Page 12 of 55
`
`
`
`the ’464 patent states that it issued from United States Patent Application 15/131,130.
`
`Fitbit further admits that the face of the ’464 patent states that “[s]ubject to any disclaimer,
`
`the term of this patent is extended or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by 0 days. This
`
`patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer.” Fitbit otherwise lacks information sufficient to
`
`either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the remaining allegations in Paragraph 57.
`
`58. Fitbit admits that what purports to be a certified copy of the recorded assignment of the
`
`’464 Patent to Koninklijke Philips N.V. is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 15. Fitbit
`
`otherwise lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 58.
`
`59. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 59.
`
`60. Fitbit admits that what purports to be a certified copy and three additional copies of the
`
`prosecution history of the ’464 Patent is attached to the Complaint in Appendix D. Fitbit
`
`admits that what purports to be four copies of the technical references cited in the
`
`prosecution history of the ’464 Patent are attached to the Complaint in Appendix H.
`
`4.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,961,186
`
`61. Fitbit admits that the face of U.S. Patent No. 9,961,186 states that the patent is titled
`
`“Alarm Reporting Fail Over Mechanism,” states that it was issued on May 1, 2018, and
`
`states that it names Jeff Li, Pavan Reddy, Tomas Russ, Paul Baril, Alan Brav, and Bin Wu
`
`as inventors. Fitbit further admits that the face of the ’186 patent states that it issued from
`
`United States Patent Application No. 14/862,494. Fitbit further admits that the face of the
`
`’186 Patent states that “[s]ubject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended or
`
`adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by 0 days.” Fitbit otherwise lacks information sufficient
`
`to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the remaining allegations in Paragraph 61.
`
`11
`Fitbit’s Response to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation
`Inv. 337-TA-1190
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1-5 Filed 04/02/20 Page 13 of 55
`
`
`
`62. Fitbit admits that what purports to be a certified copy of the recorded assignment of the
`
`‘186 Patent to Koninklijke Philips N.V. is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 16. Fitbit
`
`otherwise lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 62.
`
`63. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 63.
`
`64. Fitbit admits that what purports to be a certified copy and three additional copies of the
`
`prosecution history of the ’186 Patent is attached to the Complaint in Appendix B. Fitbit
`
`admits that what purports to be four copies of the technical references cited in the
`
`prosecution history of the ’186 Patent are attached to the Complaint in Appendix F.
`
`VII. ALLEGED UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR ACTS – PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`A.
`Fitbit
`1.
`
`Alleged Representative Involved Article (Fitbit)
`
`65. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 65.
`
`66. Fitbit denies the allegation in Paragraph 66.
`
`67. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 67.
`
`68. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 68.
`
`69. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 69.
`
`70. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 70.
`
`71. Fitbit admits that the (1) Ace 2, (2) Charge 3, (3) Inspire, (4) Inspired HR, (5) Ionic, (6)
`
`Versa 2, and (7) Versa Lite Edition are Fitbit Products. Fitbit otherwise denies the
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 71.
`
`12
`Fitbit’s Response to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation
`Inv. 337-TA-1190
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1-5 Filed 04/02/20 Page 14 of 55
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Alleged Infringement of the ’228 Patent (Fitbit)
`
`72. Fitbit admits that Exhibit 5 purports to compare certain claims of the ‘228 Patent with the
`
`functionality of certain Fitbit devices. Fitbit denies that Exhibit 5 shows any infringement,
`
`and otherwise denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 72.
`
`73. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 73.
`
`74. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 74.
`
`75. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 75.
`
`76. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 76.
`
`3.
`
`Alleged Infringement of the ’698 Patent (Fitbit)
`
`77. Fitbit admits that Exhibit 6 purports to compare certain claims of the ‘698 Patent with the
`
`functionality of certain Fitbit devices. Fitbit denies that Exhibit 6 shows any infringement,
`
`and otherwise denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 77.
`
`78. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 78.
`
`79. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 79.
`
`80. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 80.
`
`81. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 81.
`
`4.
`
`Alleged Infringement of the ’464 Patent (Fitbit)
`
`82. Fitbit admits that Exhibit 7 purports to compare certain claims of the ‘464 Patent with the
`
`functionality of certain Fitbit devices. Fitbit denies that Exhibit 7 shows any infringement,
`
`and otherwise denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 82.
`
`83. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 83.
`
`84. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 84.
`
`85. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 85.
`
`13
`Fitbit’s Response to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation
`Inv. 337-TA-1190
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1-5 Filed 04/02/20 Page 15 of 55
`
`
`
`86. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 86.
`
`5.
`
`Alleged Specific Instances of Sale, Use and Importation (Fitbit)
`
`87. Fitbit admits that it imports, sells, and markets the Fitbit Accused Products. Fitbit admits
`
`that the exemplary Fitbit Products are manufactured by third parties located outside of the
`
`United States. Fitbit further admits that Exhibits 22-26 and 32 purport to contain
`
`photographs of certain Fitbit products. Fitbit otherwise denies the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 87.
`
`88. Fitbit admits that certain of its products are imported into and sold within the United States
`
`by or for Fitbit. Fitbit further admits that Exhibit 8 purports to represent a list of shipments
`
`of Fitbit products into the United States and that Exhibits 22-26 and 32 purport to contain
`
`photographs of certain Fitbit products. Fitbit otherwise denies the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 88.
`
`B.
`
`Ingram
`1.
`Alleged Representative Involved Article (Ingram)
`
`89. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 89.
`
`90. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 90.
`
`2.
`
`Alleged Infringement of the ’228 Patent (Ingram)
`
`91. Fitbit admits that Exhibit 5 purports to compare certain claims of the ’228 Patent with the
`
`functionality of certain Fitbit devices. Fitbit denies that Exhibit 5 shows any infringement,
`
`and otherwise denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 91.
`
`92. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 92.
`
`93. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 93.
`
`94. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 94.
`
`14
`Fitbit’s Response to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation
`Inv. 337-TA-1190
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1-5 Filed 04/02/20 Page 16 of 55
`
`
`
`95. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 95.
`
`3.
`
`Alleged Infringement of the ’698 Patent (Ingram)
`
`96. Fitbit admits that Exhibit 6 purports to compare certain claims of the ’698 Patent with the
`
`functionality of certain Fitbit devices. Fitbit denies that Exhibit 6 shows any infringement,
`
`and otherwise denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 96.
`
`97. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 97.
`
`98. Fitbit denies the allegation of infringement in Paragraph 98.
`
`99. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 99.
`
`100. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 100.
`
`4.
`
`Alleged Infringement of the ’464 Patent (Ingram)
`
`101. Fitbit admits that Exhibit 7 purports to compare certain claims of the ’464 Patent with the
`
`functionality of certain Fitbit devices. Fitbit denies that Exhibit 7 shows any infringement,
`
`and otherwise denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 101.
`
`102. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 102.
`
`103. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 103.
`
`104. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 104.
`
`105. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 105.
`
`5.
`
`Alleged Specific Instances of Sale, Use and Importation (Ingram)
`
`106. Fitbit admits that the Fitbit Accused Products are manufactured outside the United States.
`
`Fitbit further admits that Exhibit 8 purports to contain customs data relating to the Fitbit
`
`Accused Products. Fitbit otherwise lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny,
`
`and on that basis denies, the allegations in Paragraph 106.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`Fitbit’s Response to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation
`Inv. 337-TA-1190
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1-5 Filed 04/02/20 Page 17 of 55
`
`
`
`C. Maintek
`1.
`Alleged Representative Involved Article (Maintek)
`
`107. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 107.
`
`108. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 108.
`
`2.
`
`Alleged Infringement of the ’228 Patent (Maintek)
`
`109. Fitbit admits that Exhibit 5 purports to compare certain claims of the ’228 Patent with the
`
`functionality of certain Fitbit devices. Fitbit denies that Exhibit 5 shows any infringement,
`
`and otherwise denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 109.
`
`110. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 110.
`
`111. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 111.
`
`112. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 112.
`
`113. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 113.
`
`3.
`
`Alleged Infringement of the ’698 Patent (Maintek)
`
`114. Fitbit admits that Exhibit 6 purports to compare certain claims of the ’698 Patent with the
`
`functionality of certain Fitbit devices. Fitbit denies that Exhibit 6 shows any infringement,
`
`and otherwise denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 114.
`
`115. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 115.
`
`116. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 116.
`
`117. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 117.
`
`4.
`
`Alleged Infringement of the ’464 Patent (Maintek)
`
`118. Fitbit admits that Exhibit 7 purports to compare certain claims of the ’464 Patent with the
`
`functionality of certain Fitbit devices. Fitbit denies that Exhibit 7 shows any infringement,
`
`and otherwise denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 118.
`
`16
`Fitbit’s Response to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation
`Inv. 337-TA-1190
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1-5 Filed 04/02/20 Page 18 of 55
`
`
`
`119. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 119.
`
`120. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 120.
`
`121. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 121.
`
`122. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 122.
`
`5.
`
`Alleged Specific Instances of Sale, Use and Importation (Maintek)
`
`123. Fitbit admits that the Fitbit Accused Products are manufactured outside the United States.
`
`Fitbit further admits that Exhibit 8 purports to contain customs data relating to the Fitbit
`
`Accused Products. Fitbit otherwise lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny,
`
`and on that basis denies, the allegations in Paragraph 123.
`
`D.
`
`Inventec
`1.
`Alleged Representative Involved Article (Inventec)
`
`124. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 124.
`
`125. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 125.
`
`2.
`
`Alleged Infringement of the ’228 Patent (Inventec)
`
`126. Fitbit admits that Exhibit 5 purports to compare certain claims of the ’228 Patent with the
`
`functionality of certain Fitbit devices. Fitbit denies that Exhibit 5 shows any infringement,
`
`and otherwise denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 126.
`
`127. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 127.
`
`128. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 128.
`
`129. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 129.
`
`130. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 130.
`
`17
`Fitbit’s Response to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation
`Inv. 337-TA-1190
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1-5 Filed 04/02/20 Page 19 of 55
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Alleged Infringement of the ’698 Patent (Inventec)
`
`131. Fitbit admits that Exhibit 6 purports to compare certain claims of the ’698 Patent with the
`
`functionality of certain Fitbit devices. Fitbit denies that Exhibit 6 shows any infringement,
`
`and otherwise denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 131.
`
`132. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 132.
`
`133. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 133.
`
`134. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 134.
`
`135. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 135.
`
`4.
`
`Alleged Infringement of the ’464 Patent (Inventec)
`
`136. Fitbit admits that Exhibit 7 purports to compare certain claims of the ’464 Patent with the
`
`functionality of certain Fitbit devices. Fitbit denies that Exhibit 7 shows any infringement,
`
`otherwise denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 136.
`
`137. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 137.
`
`138. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 138.
`
`139. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 139.
`
`140. Fitbit denies the allegations in Paragraph 140.
`
`5.
`
`Alleged Specific Instances of Sale, Use and Importation (Inventec)
`
`141. Fitbit admits that the Fitbit Accused Products are manufactured outside the United States.
`
`Fitbit further admits that Exhibit 8 purports to contain customs data relating to the Fitbit
`
`Accused Products. Fitbit otherwise lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny,
`
`and on that basis denies, the allegations in Paragraph 141.
`
`18
`Fitbit’s Response to the Complaint and Notice of Investigation
`Inv. 337-TA-1190
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-02246-DMR Document 1-5 Filed 04/02/20 Page 20 of 55
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Garmin International, Inc.
`1.
`Alleged Representative Involved Article (Garmin Int’l)
`
`142. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 142.
`
`143. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to either admit or deny, and on that basis denies, the
`
`allegations in Paragraph 143.
`
`144. Fitbit lacks information sufficient to e