`
`
`
`
`
`July 2, 2025
`
`
`
`VIA EDIS
`
`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton
`Secretary to the Commission
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW, Room 112-A
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`
`
`
`Mayer Brown LLP
`1999 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006-1101
`
`Main Tel +1 202 263 3000
`Main Fax +1 202 263 3300
`www.mayerbrown.co m
`
`James A. Fussell, III
`Direct Tel +1 202 263 3222
`Direct Fax +1 202 830 0357
`JFussell@mayerbrown.com
`
`Re:
`
`In the Matter of Certain Mobile Cellular Communications Devices, Inv. No. 337-
`TA-___
`
`
`Dear Secretary Barton:
`
`
`Enclosed for filing, please find documents in support of a request by Pantech Corporation
`(“Complainant”) that the U.S. International Trade Commission institute an investigation pursuant
`to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, concerning certain wireless communication
`equipment. We have included a separate letter requesting confidential treatment of the Complaint
`and certain exhibits included with this filing. We have enclosed a public version of the Complaint.
`
`In accordance with the Commission’s filing requirements, 90 Fed. Reg. 225 (Jan. 3, 2025)
`and, Complainant’s submission via EDIS includes the following documents:
`
`1. One (1) electronic copy of Complainant’s Verified Complaint, pursuant to
`Commission Rule 210.8(a)(1)(i);
`
`2. One (1) electronic copy of Complainant’s letter and certification requesting
`confidential treatment of the Complaint and several confidential exhibits, pursuant
`to Commission Rules 210.5(d) and 201.6(b);
`
`3. One (1) electronic copy of a statement on the Public Interest, pursuant to
`Commission Rules 210.8(b);
`
`4. One (1) electronic copy of all exhibits to the Complaint, pursuant to Commission
`Rule 210.8(a)(1)(i), Commission Rule 210.12(a)(9), and Commission Rule
`210.12(c), including:
`
`Mayer Brown is a global services provider comprising an association of legal practices that are separate entities including
`Mayer Brown LLP (Illinois, USA), Mayer Brown International LLP (England & Wales), Mayer Brown Hong Kong LLP (a Hong Kong limi ted liability
`partnership which operates in temporary association with Hong Kong partnership Johnson Stokes & Master)
`and Tauil & Chequer Advogados (a Brazilian law partnership).
`
`

`

`Mayer Brown LLP
`
`
`
`July 2, 2025
`Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a. One (1) electronic copy of certified versions of each of U.S. Patent Nos.
`9,548,839; 11,659,503; 11,051,344; and 12,267,876 (collectively, the
`“Asserted Patents”);
`
`b. One (1) electronic copy of certified versions of each recorded assignment
`for U.S. Patent Nos. 9,548,839; 11,659,503; 11,051,344; and 12,267,876;1
`
`c. One (1) electronic copy of certified versions of the U.S. Patent and
`Trademark Office prosecution history for each Asserted Patent; and
`
`d. One (1) copy of the prosecution histories of any priority applications for
`each Asserted Patent.
`
`Complainant confirms that it will serve upon the Secretary by close of business the next
`business day following official receipt of the complaint, for each proposed respondent, one (1) true
`paper copy of the nonconfidential version of the complaint, one (1) true paper copy of the
`confidential version of the complaint, if any, and one (1) true paper copy of any supplements or
`amendments under § 210.14(a), along with one (1) true copy of the nonconfidential exhibits and
`one (1) true copy of the confidential exhibits in electronic form, along with one (1) true paper copy
`of the nonconfidential version of the complaint for the government of the foreign country in which
`each proposed respondent is located as indicated in the complaint.
`
`Complainant confirms that it will serve copies of the non -confidential versions of the
`Complaint and all associated exhibits and appendices upon the institution of this investigation on
`the proposed Respondents consistent with 19 C.F.R. part 201 (including 19 C.F.R.§ 201.16).
`
`Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me with any questions regarding
`this submission.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`James A. Fussell, III
`
`Counsel for Pantech Corporation
`
`
`1 Complainant is still waiting to receive certified versions of the assignments from the files of
`U.S. Patent Nos. 11,659,503 and 12,267,876 from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, so is
`attaching versions that are not certified. Complainant will submit certif ied versions as soon as
`Complainant receives them.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`July 2, 2025
`
`
`
`VIA EDIS
`
`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton
`Secretary to the Commission
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW, Room 112-A
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`
`
`
`Mayer Brown LLP
`1999 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006-1101
`
`Main Tel +1 202 263 3000
`Main Fax +1 202 263 3300
`www.mayerbrown.co m
`
`James A. Fussell, III
`Direct Tel +1 202 263 3222
`Direct Fax +1 202 830 0357
`JFussell@mayerbrown.com
`
`Re:
`
`In the Matter of Certain Mobile Cellular Communications Devices, Inv. No. 337-
`TA-___
`
`
`Dear Secretary Barton:
`
`
`I am counsel for Complainant Pantech Corporation (“Pantech” or “Complainant”). In
`accordance with the requirements of 19 C.F.R. §§ 201.6(b), 201.8(g), and 210.5 concerning
`confidential business information, Pantech respectfully requests confidential treatment of the
`business information contained in Complainant’s Confidential Complaint and Confidential
`Exhibits 24, 27, 83, and 146 filed concurrently herewith.
`
`The information contained in the Complaint and exhibits for which Pantech seeks
`confidential treatment consists of proprietary commercial, including Pantech’s business
`operations, including confidential licensing information: Confidential Exhibits 24 (list of Pantech
`licensees of Asserted Patents); 27 (declaration of Pantech corporate representative including
`Respondent information subject to non-disclosure agreement); and 39 and 146 (confidential
`licenses between Pantech and third parties).
`
`I certify that the proprietary information described herein qualifies as confidential
`information pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 201.6 at least because:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`substantially identical information is not available to the public;
`
`the unauthorized disclosure of such information could cause substantial
`competitive harm to Complainant, Respondents, and third parties; and
`
`the disclosure could impair the Commission’s ability to obtain information
`necessary to perform its statutory function.
`
`Mayer Brown is a global services provider comprising an association of legal practices that are separate entities including
`Mayer Brown LLP (Illinois, USA), Mayer Brown International LLP (England & Wales), Mayer Brown Hong Kong LLP (a Hong Kong limited liability
`partnership which operates in temporary association with Hong Kong partnership Johnson Stokes & Master)
`and Tauil & Chequer Advogados (a Brazilian law partnership).
`
`

`

`Mayer Brown LLP
`
`
`
`July 2, 2025
`Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A non-confidential version of the Complaint is provided, and a non-confidential version of
`Exhibit 27 is provided in the public exhibits being filed concurrently. Exhibits 24, 39, and 146
`require redaction in their entirety.
`
`Please contact me with any questions regarding this request for confidential treatment.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`James A. Fussell, III
`
`Counsel for Pantech Corporation
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`July 2, 2025
`
`VIA EDIS
`
`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton
`Secretary to the Commission
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW, Room 112-A
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`
`
`
`Mayer Brown LLP
`1999 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20006-1101
`
`Main Tel +1 202 263 3000
`Main Fax +1 202 263 3300
`www.mayerbrown.co m
`
`James A. Fussell, III
`Direct Tel +1 202 263 3222
`Direct Fax +1 202 830 0357
`JFussell@mayerbrown.com
`
`Re:
`
`In the Matter of Certain Mobile Cellular Communications Devices, Inv. No. 337-
`TA-___, Submission of ITC Complaint and Assignment Documents
`
`
`To Whom It May Concern:
`
`
`Enclosed with the complaint filed pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, along
`with supporting documents, we have included certain assignment documents. We note that the
`attached assignment documents at Exhibits 6 and 8 contain a footer indicating that they include
`confidential business information. However, we wish to clarify that these assignment documents
`have been recorded at the United States Patent and Trademark Office and are publicly available.
`
`Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding this submission.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`James A. Fussell, III
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Pantech Corporation
`
`Mayer Brown is a global services provider comprising an association of legal practices that are separate entities including
`Mayer Brown LLP (Illinois, USA), Mayer Brown International LLP (England & Wales), Mayer Brown Hong Kong LLP (a Hong Kong limi ted liability
`partnership which operates in temporary association with Hong Kong partnership Johnson Stokes & Master)
`and Tauil & Chequer Advogados (a Brazilian law partnership).
`
`

`

`
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of:
`
`
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE CELLULAR
`COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-___
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINANT PANTECH CORPORATION’S STATEMENT
`REGARDING THE PUBLIC INTEREST UNDER 19 C.F.R. § 210.8(b)
`
`Complainant Pantech Corporation (“Pantech”) hereby submits this Statement Regarding
`
`the Public Interest pursuant to Commission Rule 210.8(b) regarding the remedial orders requested
`
`in Pantech’s Complaint against proposed respondents OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.,
`
`OnePlus USA Corp., Lenovo Group Ltd., Lenovo (United States) Inc., Motorola Mobility LLC,
`
`TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd., TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd., TCL Communication Ltd.,
`
`TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Mobile International Ltd., Huizhou TCL
`
`Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., TCL Mobile Communication (HK) Company Ltd., Tinno USA,
`
`Inc., Shenzhen Tinno Mobile Technology Corp., HMD Global, HMD Global OY, HMD America,
`
`Inc. (together, “Respondents”).
`
`Pantech seeks a permanent limited exclusion order to preclude Respondents from
`
`importing into the United States certain mobile cellular communications devices that infringe one
`
`or more claims of United States Patent Nos. 9,548,839 (the “’839 Patent”); 11,659,503 (the “’503
`
`Patent”); 11,051,344 (the “’344 Patent”); and 12,267,876 (the “’876 Patent”) (collectively, the
`
`“Asserted Patents”).
`
`Pantech also seeks a permanent cease and desist order prohibiting Respondents, their
`
`subsidiaries, related companies, and agents from engaging in the importation, sale for importation,
`
`marketing and/or advertising, distribution, offering for sale, sale, use after importation, sale after
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`
`
`importation, or other transfer within the United States of certain mobile cellular communications
`
`devices that infringe one or more claims of the Asserted Patents.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The requested relief serves the public interest by enforcing U.S. intellectual property rights.
`
`The Commission has recognized that remedial orders should only be withheld in rare
`
`circumstances where public interest concerns outweigh the enforcement of IP rights. Such
`
`circumstances are not present here, as the products at issue are standard consumer electronics.
`
`Numerous alternative products are available from Pantech’s licensees and other suppliers,
`
`ensuring no shortage of competitive devices for U.S. consumers.
`
`II.
`
`USE OF THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES
`
`The Accused Products are smartphones, tablets, and laptop computers, that are
`
`manufactured abroad and imported and sold in the United States by or on behalf of Respondents
`
`under the OnePlus, Lenovo, Motorola, TCL, WIKO, HMD, and Nokia brand names, as well as
`
`certain United States cellular network providers’ brand names.
`
`III. THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS DO NOT PRESENT ANY PUBLIC HEALTH,
`SAFETY, OR WELFARE CONCERNS RELATING TO THE REQUESTED
`REMEDIAL ORDERS
`
`Consumer electronic devices such as the Accused Products do not implicate public health,
`
`safety, or welfare concerns. The Commission has repeatedly held this to be true. See, e.g., Certain
`
`Mobile Devices, Associated Software, & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-744, Comm’n
`
`Op., 2012 WL 3715788, at *18 (June 5, 2012) (holding that the exclusion of infringing mobile
`
`devices “will not have a significant adverse impact on the public health, safety, or welfare”).
`
`Public health, safety, or welfare concerns generally arise only in investigations involving
`
`pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, green technology products, or other products that have the
`
`potential to affect people’s health, safety, and welfare. The Accused Products do not fall within
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`any of these categories. To the contrary, they are used primarily for personal communications,
`
`internet browsing, and entertainment.
`
`Further, like and competing products that perform similar functions as Respondents’
`
`mobile devices are readily available to consumers in the United States. Thus, the requested relief
`
`would not implicate any public health, safety, or welfare concern. See, e.g., Minnesota Min. &
`
`Mfg. Co. v. Carapace Inc., No. CIV. 4-93-392, 1993 WL 528166, at *6 (D. Minn. Oct. 29, 1993).
`
`IV. NUMEROUS LIKE OR DIRECTLY COMPETITIVE ARTICLES ARE
`AVAILABLE TO SATISFY DEMAND FOR THE EXCLUDED PRODUCTS
`
`No public interest concerns exist where the market contains an adequate supply of
`
`competitive or substitute products for those subject to a remedial order. See, e.g., Certain Lens
`
`Fitted Film Packages, Inv. No. 337-TA-406, Comm’n Op. at 18 (June 28, 1999).
`
`Here, the accused mobile devices represent only a portion of Respondents’ products, and
`
`Respondents represent only a portion of a competitive market for the manufacture and sale of
`
`mobile electronic devices. Respondents collectively hold less than 15% of the U.S. smartphone
`
`market, while Apple, Samsung, and Google account for over 85%. For tablets, Apple, Samsung,
`
`and Amazon account for over 87% of sales. Thus, third parties can readily replace any excluded
`
`products, and the remedial orders would not impact U.S. production, as the accused products are
`
`manufactured abroad.
`
`Further, remedial orders would not have an adverse impact on competitive production in
`
`the United States, because the Accused Products are made overseas as explained in Pantech’s
`
`Complaint. Pantech’s licensees and other third parties have the capacity to replace Respondents’
`
`volume of infringing products without delay. Non -accused products will remain available from
`
`Respondents and others, ensuring sufficient supply for consumers.
`
`.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`V.
`
`REMEDIAL ORDERS WOULD NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT U.S.
`CONSUMERS
`
`Exclusion of the accused products will not materially impact U.S. consumers, who will
`
`continue to have numerous options from Pantech’s licensees and other suppliers. Any reduction in
`
`consumer choice is not a sufficient basis to deny a remedy. Certain Digital Televisions, Comm’n
`
`Op. at 16.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`Issuing the requested remedies supports the strong public interest in protecting patent
`
`rights, which is not outweighed by any hypothetical adverse impact, given the availability of
`
`competitive products.
`
`An important public interest served by ITC jurisdiction is the deterrence of “holdout”
`
`behavior by potential infringers. Holdout occurs when parties using patented technology delay or
`
`refuse to take a license, relying on the slow and costly nature of district court litigation, where
`
`damages are difficult to calculate. The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”), in its recent
`
`Statement of Interest submitted in Radian Memory Systems LLC. V. Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`Ltd., No. 2:24-cv-1073 (E.D. Tex.), Dkt. 52, provided substantial support for this position.
`
`The DOJ explains that the difficulty and expense of calculating patent damages can itself
`
`cause irreparable harm. As the DOJ notes, “calculating patent damages can be very difficult and
`
`expensive,” and the hypothetical negotiation methodology used to determine reasonable royalties
`
`is often “‘a difficult judicial chore, seeming often to involve more the talents of a conjurer than
`
`those of a judge,’ or, more succinctly, as a ‘fantasy.’” Id. at 16 (citing Fromson v. W. Litho Plate
`
`& Supply Co., 853 F.2d 1568, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). This complexity is compounded “when the
`
`damages must be apportioned—for example, where a patent … is part of an industry standard (i.e.,
`
`a standard essential patent (SEP)),” as are the patents here. Id.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`The DOJ further highlights that these challenges create incentives for potential licensees
`
`to engage in holdout, as practicing parties are incentivized “not to pay now when the worse -case
`
`scenario … is having to pay later. [ ] Then, once the litigation begins, the chances any company
`
`will take a license are significantly reduced until a court renders a final verdict, thereby reducing
`
`incentives to settle and increasing the number and durations of cases, while also inflicting
`
`additional cost on the patent owner simply to get to that result.” Id. at 14 (citing Kristen Jakobsen
`
`Osenga, “Efficient” Infringement and Other Lies, 52 SETON HALL L. REV. 1085, 1087, 1090-
`
`91 (2022)). This problem is particularly acute for patents subject FRAND obligations, where
`
`damages are effectively capped, further encouraging holdout behavior.
`
`The ITC’s ability to issue exclusion orders—barring the importation of infringing
`
`products—provides a swift and effective remedy that fundamentally alters the incentives for
`
`potential infringers. The threat of losing access to the U.S. market compels parties to negotiate
`
`licenses in good faith and on reasonable terms, thereby reducing the incentive for holdout. As the
`
`DOJ’s Statement makes clear, effective enforcement mechanisms are necessary to prevent holdout,
`
`protect the integrity of the patent system, and promote innovation . Id. at 14-16.
`
`The ITC is uniquely positioned to address this public interest concern because its exclusive
`
`focus on injunctive relief —rather than monetary damages—eliminates the tension that often arises
`
`in district court. See id. at 12-13. Thus, the remedies sought in Pantech’s Complaint, filed
`
`concurrently herewith, will not adversely affect the public interest, and will in fact further the
`
`public interest in protecting patent rights, deterring holdout behavior, and fostering innovation, as
`
`recognized and supported by the United States Department of Justice’s recent Statement of
`
`Interest.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Dated: July 2, 2025 Respectfully submitted,
`
`
` /s/ James A. Fussell, III___
`James A. Fussell, III
`Tiffany A. Miller
`Clark Bakewell
`Courtney Krawice
`Wm. Brady Nash
`Mayer Brown LLP
`1999 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006-1101
`Tel.: +1 202.263.3000
`
`Graham (Gray) Buccigross
`Mayer Brown LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`2 Palo Alto Square, Ste. 300
`Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
`Tel.: +1 650.331.2000
`
`Counsel for Complainant Pantech Corp.
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of:
`
`CERTAIN MOBILE CELLULAR
`COMMUNICATIONS DEVICES
`
`
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-___
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT OF PANTECH CORPORATION
`UNDER SECTION 337 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930, AS AMENDED
`
`
`Complainant:
`Pantech Corporation
`13 Saimdang-ro 8-gil, Suite 402-J420
`Seocho-gu,
`Seoul 06640, Republic of Korea
`Tel: +82-70-7784-4200
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Complainant:
`James A. Fussell, III
`Tiffany A. Miller
`Clark Bakewell
`Courtney Krawice
`Wm. Brady Nash
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`1999 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006-1101
`Tel.: +1 202.263.3000
`
`Graham (Gray) M. Buccigross
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`Two Palo Alto Square, Ste. 300
`Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
`Tel: +1 650.331.2000
`
`
`
`Proposed Respondents:
`OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.
`18F, Tairan Building, Block C,
`Tairan 8th Road, Chegongmiao,
`Futian District,
`Shenzhen, Guangdong,
`518040, China
`Phone: +86-755 61882366
`
`OnePlus USA Corp.
`5000 Riverside Drive, Ste. 300
`Irving, TX 75039
`Tel: +1 (833) 777-3633
`
`Lenovo Group Ltd.
`No. 6 Chuang Ye Road, Haidan District
`Shangdi Information Industry Base
`Bejing 100085, China
`Tel: +86 (10) 5886-8888
`
`Lenovo (United States) Inc.
`1009 Think Place
`Morrisville, NC 27650
`Tel: +1 (866) 968-4465
`
`Motorola Mobility LLC
`600 N. U.S. Highway 45
`Libertyville, IL 60048
`Tel.: +1 (847) 918-6670
`
`TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd.
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22/F, TCL Technology Building, No. 17,
`Huifeng Third Road,
`Zhongkai Hi-Tech Development District,
`Huizhou City,
`Guangdong, China, 516006
`Tel: +86 0752 3270017
`
`TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd.
`5th Floor, Building 22E
`22 Science Park East Avenue
`Hong Kong Science Park, Shatin,
`New Territories, Hong Kong
`Tel: +852 2437 7300
`
`TCL Communication Ltd.
`5/F, Building 22E,
`22 Science Park East Avenue,
`Hong Kong Science Park, Shatin,
`New Territories, Hong Kong
`Tel: +852 2437 7300
`
`TCL Communication Technology Holdings
`Ltd.
`22/F, TCL Technology Building, No. 17,
`Huifeng Third Road,
`Zhongkai Hi-Tech Development District,
`Huizhou City,
`Guangdong, China, 516006
`Tel: +86 755 3331 3000
`
`TCL Mobile International Ltd.
`5/F, Building 22E,
`22 Science Park East Avenue,
`Hong Kong Science Park, Shatin,
`New Territories, Hong Kong
`Tel: +852 2437 7300
`
`Huizhou TCL Mobile Communication Co.,
`Ltd.
`86 Hechang 7th West Road,
`Zhongkai Hi-Tech Development Zone,
`Huizhou,
`Guangdong, China, 516006
`Tel: +86-13251905752
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TCL Mobile Communication (HK)
`Company Ltd.
`5/F, Building 22E,
`22 Science Park East Avenue,
`Hong Kong Science Park, Shatin,
`New Territories, Hong Kong
`Tel: +852-24377300
`
`Tinno USA, Inc.
`2301 W Plano Pkwy #102
`Plano, TX 75075
`Phone: (855) 945-6872
`
`Shenzhen Tinno Mobile Technology Corp.
`27-001 South Side of Tianlong Mobile
`Headquarters Building
`Tongfa South Road
`Xili Community, Xili Street
`Nanshan District
`Shenzhen, Guangdong, P.R. China 518000
`Phone: +86-75586095550
`
`HMD Global
`Karaportti 2, FIN-02610
`Espoo, Finland
`
`HMD Global OY
`Bertel Jungin aukio 9, 02600
`Espoo, Finland
`
`HMD America, Inc.
`1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 510
`Miami, FL 33131
`
`
`
`
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1
`
`THE PARTIES ............................................................................................................ 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Complainant ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`Proposed OnePlus Respondents ......................................................................... 7
`
`Proposed Lenovo Respondents .......................................................................... 8
`
`Proposed TCL Respondents............................................................................... 9
`
`Proposed Tinno Respondents........................................................................... 12
`
`Proposed HMD Respondents ........................................................................... 14
`
`III.
`
`THE TECHNOLOGY AND PRODUCTS AT ISSUE ................................................. 15
`
`IV.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS ..................................................................................... 15
`
`A.
`
`The ’839 Patent............................................................................................... 16
`
`1.
`
`Identification and Ownership of the ’839 Patent ........................................ 16
`
`2. Non-Technical Description of the ’839 Patent ........................................... 16
`
`3. Unissued U.S. Counterpart Applications ................................................... 17
`
`4. Foreign Counterparts to the ’839 Patent .................................................... 18
`
`B.
`
`The ’503 Patent............................................................................................... 19
`
`1.
`
`Identification and Ownership of the ’503 Patent ........................................ 19
`
`2. Non-Technical Description of the ’503 Patent ........................................... 19
`
`3. Unissued U.S. Counterpart Applications ................................................... 22
`
`4. Foreign Counterparts to the ’503 Patent .................................................... 22
`
`C.
`
`The ’344 Patent............................................................................................... 23
`
`1.
`
`Identification and Ownership of the ’344 Patent ........................................ 23
`
`2. Non-Technical Description of the ’344 Patent ........................................... 23
`
`3. Unissued U.S. Counterpart Applications ................................................... 24
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`4. Foreign Counterparts to the ’344 Patent .................................................... 24
`
`D.
`
`The ’876 Patent............................................................................................... 25
`
`1.
`
`Identification and Ownership of the ’876 Patent ........................................ 25
`
`2. Non-Technical Description of the ’876 Patent ........................................... 26
`
`3. Unissued U.S. Counterpart Applications ................................................... 26
`
`4. Foreign Counterparts to the ’876 Patent .................................................... 26
`
`E.
`
`Licensees ........................................................................................................ 27
`
`V.
`
`RESPONDENTS’ UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR ACTS.............................................. 27
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`The 3GPP and LTE/5G Standardization Process .............................................. 27
`
`Pantech’s Compliance with ETSI FRAND Licensing Obligations,
`and Respondents’ Hold-Out............................................................................. 30
`
`OnePlus’s Prior Dealings with Pantech and Awareness of the
`Asserted Patents.............................................................................................. 33
`
`Lenovo’s Prior Dealings with Pantech and Awareness of the
`Asserted Patents.............................................................................................. 36
`
`TCL’s Prior Dealings with Pantech and Awareness of the Asserted
`Patents ............................................................................................................ 38
`
`Tinno’s Prior Dealings with Pantech and Awareness of the
`Asserted Patents.............................................................................................. 40
`
`HMD’s Prior Dealings with Pantech and Awareness of the
`Asserted Patents.............................................................................................. 42
`
`H.
`
`Instances of Infringement ................................................................................ 43
`
`1. OnePlus’s Instances of Infringement......................................................... 43
`
`2. Lenovo’s Instances of Infringement .......................................................... 49
`
`3. TCL’s Instances of Infringement .............................................................. 55
`
`4. Tinno’s Instances of Infringement ............................................................ 60
`
`5. HMD’s Instances of Infringement............................................................. 66
`
`VI.
`
`SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF IMPORTATION ............................................................ 71
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`OnePlus’s Specific Instances of Importation .................................................... 72
`
`Lenovo’s Specific Instances of Importation...................................................... 75
`
`TCL’s Specific Instances of Importation .......................................................... 82
`
`Tinno’s Specific Instances of Importation ........................................................ 86
`
`HMD’s Specific Instances of Importation ........................................................ 92
`
`VII. CLASSIFICATION OF THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS UNDER THE
`HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE ...................................................................... 96
`
`VIII. RELATED LITIGATION .......................................................................................... 96
`
`IX. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY ........................................................................................... 96
`
`A.
`
`BLU’s Domestic Industry Products.................................................................. 97
`
`1. Technical Prong ....................................................................................... 99
`
`2. Economic Prong..................................................................................... 100
`
`B.
`
`LGE’s Domestic Industry Products ................................................................ 105
`
`1. Technical Prong ..................................................................................... 109
`
`2. Economic Prong..................................................................................... 111
`
`3. LGE Also Employs Workers in the US to Obtain US Regulatory and Other
`Clearances for the DI Products ............................................................... 122
`
`X.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED ............................................................................................ 123
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`Certified Copy of U.S. Patent No. 9,548,839
`
`Certified Copy of U.S. Patent No. 11,659,503
`
`Certified Copy of U.S. Patent No. 11,051,344
`
`Certified Copy of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,876
`
`Certified Copy of USPTO Assignment Records for the ’839 Patent
`
`Copy of USPTO Assignment Records for the ’503 Patent
`
`Certified Copy of USPTO Assignment Records for the ’344 Patent
`
`Copy of USPTO Assignment Records for the ’876 Patent
`
`Pantech website, “‘IP Umbrella’ Services,”
`https://www.pantech.com/page/IP?ckattempt=1
`
`OnePlus US website, https://www.oneplus.com/us/store
`
`Lenovo Group Ltd. 2024/25 Interim Report
`
`Lenovo US website, https://www.lenovo.com/us/en/tablets/
`
`Motorola US website, https://www.motorola.com/us/smartphones
`
`TCL Electronics US website, http://electronics.tcl.com
`
`TCL Electronics 2023 Annual Report
`
`TCL Electronics FCC Report
`
`TCL Electronics US website, smartphone page,
`https://www.tcl.com/us/en/products/mobile/Smartphones
`
`Tinno US website, https://www.tinno.us
`
`Boost Mobile website, Celero 5G, https://www.boostmobile.com/shop/celero5g-
`001426.html
`
`Cricket Wireless website, Debut Flex,
`https://www.cricketwireless.com/shop/smartphones/cricket-debut-flex-graphite-
`gray
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`

`

`
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`
`
`Description
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`29
`
`30
`
`31
`
`32
`
`33
`
`34
`
`35
`
`36
`
`37
`
`38
`
`AT&T website, AT&T Motivate Max specifications,
`https://www.att.com/device-
`support/article/wireless/KM1510558/ATT/ATTU668AA/
`
`Walmart website, AT&T Calypso, https://www.walmart.com/ip/AT-T-Calypso-
`16GB-Chameleon-Blue-Prepaid-Smartphone/763076279
`
`HMD US website, https://www.hmd.com/en_us/smartphones
`
`CONFIDENTIAL List of Pantech Licensees to Asserted Patents
`
`ETSI IPR Policy, https://www.etsi.org/images/files/IPR/etsi-ipr-policy.pdf
`
`D&B Financial Analytics Report for LG Electronics Vehicle Components
`U.S.A., LLC
`
`CONFIDENTIAL Declaration of Dr. Yang-Won Jung
`
`Pantech’s Complaint from Pantech Corp. v. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen)
`Co., Ltd., No. 5:22-cv-00069 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Jury verdict form from first trial in Pantech Corp. v. OnePlus Technology
`(Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., No. 5:22-cv-00069 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Jury verdict from from second trial in Pantech Corp. v. OnePlus Technology
`(Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., No. 5:22-cv-00069 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Judgment against OnePlus from Pantech Corp. v. OnePlus Technology
`(Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., No. 5:22-cv-00069 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Pantech’s Complaint from Pantech Corp. v. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen)
`Co., Ltd., No. 5:24