throbber
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`AT&T MOBILITY LLC, AT&T MOBILITY II
`LLC and NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS
`SERVICES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 14-1229 (LPS)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`))))))))))))))))))
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`and
`
`ERICSSON INC. and
`TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
`
`
`
`
`
`Intervenors.
`
`
`
`
`
`ERICSSON’S ANSWER IN INTERVENTION
`
`Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (collectively, “Ericsson”) submit
`
`their Answer to plaintiff Intellectual Ventures II LLC’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint against AT&T
`
`Mobility LLC, AT&T Mobility II LLC, and New Cingular Wireless Services, Inc., (collectively,
`
`“Defendants”) filed on September 26, 2014 (D.I. No. 2, the “Complaint”).
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`2.
`
`Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`3.
`
`Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`Exhibit 2005
`IPR2015-01872
`
`

`
`4.
`
`Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`5.
`
`Ericsson admits that the Complaint purports to pursue an action for patent
`
`infringement under the provisions of the Patent Laws of the United States of America, Title 35 of
`
`the United States Code. To the extent Plaintiff’s allegations relate to products and/or services
`
`provided by Ericsson, Ericsson denies that the Complaint properly states such claims and
`
`specifically denies any wrongdoing or infringement by Ericsson and by the Defendants.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`To the extent Plaintiff has standing to assert infringement of the asserted patents,
`
`Ericsson admits that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). Ericsson denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 6 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`7.
`
`To the extent Plaintiff’s allegations relate to products and/or services provided by
`
`Ericsson, Ericsson denies that Defendants or Ericsson have committed infringing acts in this
`
`District, that Plaintiff has been injured as a result of those acts, and that Defendants or Ericsson
`
`expect or should reasonably expect its actions to have consequences within the District. Ericsson
`
`is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations of paragraph 7, and therefore denies them.
`
`8.
`
`Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`9.
`
`Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`10.
`
`Ericsson admits that venue is proper in this jurisdiction solely for the purposes of
`
`this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).
`
`THE PATENTS IN SUIT
`
`11.
`
`Ericsson incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1-10 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,370,153
`
`12.
`
`Ericsson admits that, on its face, United States Patent No. 6,370,153 (the “’153
`
`Patent”) is entitled “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR RESERVING RESOURCES OF ONE
`
`OR MORE MULTIPLE ACCESS COMMUNICATION CHANNELS” and lists an issue date of
`
`April 9, 2002. Ericsson admits that a copy of the ’153 Patent was attached as Exhibit A to the
`
`Complaint.
`
`13.
`
`Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations of paragraph 13, and therefore denies them.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 5,963,557
`
`14.
`
`Ericsson admits that, on its face, United States Patent No. 5,963,557 (the “’557
`
`Patent”) is entitled “HIGH CAPACITY RESERVATION MULTIPLE ACCESS NETWORK
`
`WITH MULTIPLE SHARED UNIDIRECTIONAL PATHS” and lists an issue date of October
`
`5, 1999. Ericsson admits that a copy of the ’557 Patent was attached as Exhibit B to the
`
`Complaint.
`
`15.
`
`Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations of paragraph 15, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,310,993
`
`16.
`
`Ericsson admits that, on its face, United States Patent No. 8,310,993 (the “’993
`
`Patent”)
`
`is entitled “ACKNOWLEDGING COMMUNICATION
`
`IN A WIRELESS
`
`NETWORK” and lists an issue date of November 13, 2012. Ericsson admits that a copy of the
`
`’993 Patent was attached as Exhibit C to the Complaint.
`
`17.
`
`Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations of paragraph 17, and therefore denies them.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,269,127
`
`18.
`
`Ericsson admits that, on its face, United States Patent No. 7,269,127 (the “’127
`
`Patent”) is entitled “PREAMBLE STRUCTURES FOR SINGLE-INPUT, SINGLE-OUTPUT
`
`(SISO) AND MULTI-INPUT MULTI-OUTPUT (MIMO) COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS”
`
`and lists an issue date of September 11, 2007. Ericsson admits that a copy of the ’127 Patent was
`
`attached as Exhibit D to the Complaint.
`
`19.
`
`Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations of paragraph 19, and therefore denies them.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,848,353
`
`20.
`
`Ericsson admits that, on its face, United States Patent No. 7,848,353 (the “’353
`
`Patent”) is entitled “METHOD, COMMUNICATION SYSTEM AND COMMUNICATION
`
`UNIT FOR SYNCHRONISATION FOR MULTI-RATE COMMUNICATION” and lists an
`
`issue date of December 7, 2010. Ericsson admits that a copy of the ’353 Patent was attached as
`
`Exhibit E to the Complaint.
`
`21.
`
`Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations of paragraph 21, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,396,079
`
`22.
`
`Ericsson admits that, on its face, United States Patent No. 8,396,079 (the “’079
`
`Patent”)
`
`is entitled “COMMUNICATION UNITS OPERATING WITH VARIOUS
`
`BANDWIDTHS” and lists an issue date of March 12, 2013. Ericsson admits that a copy of the
`
`’079 Patent was attached as Exhibit F to the Complaint.
`
`23.
`
`Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations of paragraph 23, and therefore denies them.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,787,431
`
`24.
`
`Ericsson admits that, on its face, United States Patent No. 7,787,431 (the “’431
`
`Patent”)
`
`is
`
`entitled
`
`“METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR MULTI-CARRIER
`
`COMMUNICATIONS WITH VARIABLE CHANNEL BANDWIDTH” and lists an issue date
`
`of August 31, 2010. Ericsson admits that a copy of the ’431 Patent was attached as Exhibit G to
`
`the Complaint.
`
`25.
`
`Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations of paragraph 25, and therefore denies them.
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,385,994
`
`26.
`
`Ericsson admits that, on its face, United States Patent No. 7,385,994 (the “’994
`
`Patent”) is entitled “PACKET DATA QUEUING AND PROCESSING” and lists an issue date
`
`of June 10, 2008. Ericsson admits that a copy of the ’994 Patent was attached as Exhibit H to the
`
`Complaint.
`
`27.
`
`Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations of paragraph 27, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Intellectual Ventures
`
`28.
`
`Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations of paragraph 28, and therefore denies them.
`
`29.
`
`Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations of paragraph 29, and therefore denies them.
`
`30.
`
`Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations of paragraph 30, and therefore denies them.
`
`31.
`
`Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations of paragraph 31, and therefore denies them.
`
`AT&T Telecommunications Network
`
`32.
`
`Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations of paragraph 32, and therefore denies them.
`
`33.
`
`Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations of paragraph 33, and therefore denies them.
`
`34.
`
`Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations of paragraph 34, and therefore denies them.
`
`35.
`
`Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations of paragraph 35, and therefore denies them.
`
`36.
`
`To the extent Plaintiff’s allegations relate to products and/or services provided by
`
`Ericsson, Ericsson denies that Defendants or Ericsson have committed infringing acts or that
`
`Plaintiff has been injured as a result of those acts. Ericsson is without knowledge or information
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 36, and
`
`therefore denies them.
`
`37.
`
`To the extent Plaintiff’s allegations relate to products and/or services provided by
`
`Ericsson, Ericsson denies that Defendants or Ericsson have committed infringing acts or that
`
`Plaintiff has been injured as a result of those acts. Ericsson is without knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 37, and
`
`therefore denies them.
`
`38.
`
`To the extent Plaintiff’s allegations relate to products and/or services provided by
`
`Ericsson, Ericsson denies that Defendants or Ericsson have committed infringing acts or that
`
`Plaintiff has been injured as a result of those acts. Ericsson is without knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph 38, and
`
`therefore denies them.
`
`COUNT I
`(Defendants’ Alleged Infringement of the ’153 Patent)
`
`39.
`
`Ericsson incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1-38 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`40.
`
`To the extent Plaintiff’s allegations relate to products and/or services provided by
`
`Ericsson, Ericsson denies the allegations of paragraph 40. Ericsson is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph
`
`40, and therefore denies them.
`
`41.
`
`To the extent Plaintiff’s allegations relate to products and/or services provided by
`
`Ericsson, Ericsson denies the allegations of paragraph 41. Ericsson is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph
`
`41, and therefore denies them. Further, Ericsson denies that the allegations asserted in paragraph
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`41 of the Complaint are sufficient to support a claim of willful infringement, even if taken as
`
`true, and therefore denies them.
`
`42.
`
`To the extent Plaintiff’s allegations relate to products and/or services provided by
`
`Ericsson, Ericsson denies the allegations of paragraph 42. Ericsson is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph
`
`42, and therefore denies them.
`
`COUNT II
`(Defendants’ Alleged Infringement of the ’557 Patent)
`
`43.
`
`Ericsson incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1-42 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`44.
`
`To the extent Plaintiff’s allegations relate to products and/or services provided by
`
`Ericsson, Ericsson denies the allegations of paragraph 44. Ericsson is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph
`
`44, and therefore denies them.
`
`45.
`
`To the extent Plaintiff’s allegations relate to products and/or services provided by
`
`Ericsson, Ericsson denies the allegations of paragraph 45. Ericsson is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph
`
`45, and therefore denies them. Further, Ericsson denies that the allegations asserted in paragraph
`
`45 of the Complaint are sufficient to support a claim of willful infringement, even if taken as
`
`true, and therefore denies them.
`
`46.
`
`To the extent Plaintiff’s allegations relate to products and/or services provided by
`
`Ericsson, Ericsson denies the allegations of paragraph 46. Ericsson is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph
`
`46, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`COUNT III
`(Defendants’ Alleged Infringement of the ’993 Patent)
`
`47.
`
`Ericsson incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1-46 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`48.
`
`To the extent Plaintiff’s allegations relate to products and/or services provided by
`
`Ericsson, Ericsson denies the allegations of paragraph 48. Ericsson is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph
`
`48, and therefore denies them.
`
`49.
`
`To the extent Plaintiff’s allegations relate to products and/or services provided by
`
`Ericsson, Ericsson denies the allegations of paragraph 49. Ericsson is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph
`
`49, and therefore denies them.
`
`COUNT IV
`(Defendants’ Alleged Infringement of the ’127 Patent)
`
`50.
`
`Ericsson incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1-49 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`51.
`
`To the extent Plaintiff’s allegations relate to products and/or services provided by
`
`Ericsson, Ericsson denies the allegations of paragraph 51. Ericsson is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph
`
`51, and therefore denies them.
`
`52.
`
`To the extent Plaintiff’s allegations relate to products and/or services provided by
`
`Ericsson, Ericsson denies the allegations of paragraph 52. Ericsson is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph
`
`52, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`COUNT V
`(Defendants’ Alleged Infringement of the ’353 Patent)
`
`53.
`
`Ericsson incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1-52 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`54.
`
`To the extent Plaintiff’s allegations relate to products and/or services provided by
`
`Ericsson, Ericsson denies the allegations of paragraph 54. Ericsson is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph
`
`54, and therefore denies them.
`
`55.
`
`To the extent Plaintiff’s allegations relate to products and/or services provided by
`
`Ericsson, Ericsson denies the allegations of paragraph 55. Ericsson is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph
`
`55, and therefore denies them.
`
`COUNT VI
`(Defendants’ Alleged Infringement of the ’079 Patent)
`
`56.
`
`Ericsson incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1-55 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`57.
`
`To the extent Plaintiff’s allegations relate to products and/or services provided by
`
`Ericsson, Ericsson denies the allegations of paragraph 57. Ericsson is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph
`
`57, and therefore denies them.
`
`58.
`
`To the extent Plaintiff’s allegations relate to products and/or services provided by
`
`Ericsson, Ericsson denies the allegations of paragraph 58. Ericsson is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph
`
`58, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`COUNT VII
`(Defendants’ Alleged Infringement of the ’431 Patent)
`
`59.
`
`Ericsson incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1-58 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`60.
`
`To the extent Plaintiff’s allegations relate to products and/or services provided by
`
`Ericsson, Ericsson denies the allegations of paragraph 60. Ericsson is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph
`
`60, and therefore denies them.
`
`61.
`
`To the extent Plaintiff’s allegations relate to products and/or services provided by
`
`Ericsson, Ericsson denies the allegations of paragraph 61. Ericsson is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph
`
`61, and therefore denies them.
`
`COUNT VIII
`(Defendants’ Alleged Infringement of the ’994 Patent)
`
`62.
`
`Ericsson incorporates by reference its responses to paragraphs 1-61 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`63.
`
`To the extent Plaintiff’s allegations relate to products and/or services provided by
`
`Ericsson, Ericsson denies the allegations of paragraph 63. Ericsson is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph
`
`63, and therefore denies them.
`
`64.
`
`To the extent Plaintiff’s allegations relate to products and/or services provided by
`
`Ericsson, Ericsson denies the allegations of paragraph 64. Ericsson is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations of paragraph
`
`64, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`65.
`
`Ericsson denies each and every allegation directed at the Defendants contained in
`
`the Prayer for Relief, to the extent those allegations may relate to Ericsson. Ericsson denies any
`
`wrongdoing or infringement and denies that any conduct on its part entitles Plaintiff to an
`
`injunction, damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, or any other relief. Ericsson further denies each and
`
`every allegation in the Complaint to which it has not specifically responded.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`66.
`
`Ericsson admits that Plaintiff has requested a trial by jury.
`
`ADDITIONAL DEFENSES
`
`67.
`
`In addition to the defenses set forth below, Ericsson expressly reserves the right to
`
`allege additional defenses, including, without limitation, unclean hands, unenforceability and/or
`
`inequitable conduct as they become known throughout the course of discovery.
`
`First Defense: Non-Infringement
`
`68.
`
`Ericsson does not infringe and has not infringed, literally or by the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, and the Defendants have not infringed by using or selling any Ericsson product or
`
`service, with respect to any valid claim of the ’153, ’557, ’993, ’127, ’353, ’079, ’431 or ’994
`
`Patents.
`
`Second Defense: Invalidity
`
`69.
`
`The claims of the of the ’153, ’557, ’993, ’127, ’353, ’079, ’431 and ’994 Patents
`
`are invalid for failure to comply with the requirements of Title 35 of the United States Code,
`
`including, without limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Third Defense: Estoppel/Waiver
`
`70.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims for relief are barred in whole or in part by estoppel and/or
`
`waiver.
`
`71.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims for relief are barred in whole or in part by prosecution history
`
`estoppel and/or prosecution history disclaimer based on amendments, statements, admissions,
`
`omissions, representations, disclaimers and/or disavowals made by the applicants for the ’153,
`
`’557, ’993, ’127, ’353, ’079, ’431 and/or ’994 Patents.
`
`Fourth Defense: Limitations on Damages
`
`72.
`
`Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s claims for damages for alleged
`
`infringement are limited by 35 U.S.C. §§ 286 and 287. For example, under section 287, Plaintiff
`
`is prohibited from recovering damages for activities alleged to have occurred before Plaintiff
`
`provided actual notice of activities alleged to infringe with respect to Ericsson products or
`
`services.
`
`Fifth Defense: Injunctive Relief Unavailable
`
`73.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief with respect to the Defendants’ use of
`
`Ericsson products or services are barred because Plaintiff has failed to meet the requirements for
`
`injunctive relief.
`
`Sixth Defense: Failure to State A Claim
`
`74.
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
`
`Seventh Defense: Laches
`
`75.
`
`Plaintiff’s relief is limited under the doctrines of laches, estoppel, and/or implied
`
`license.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Eighth Defense: FRAND or RAND Obligations
`
`76.
`
`Plaintiff’s demand for damages is limited because one or more of the asserted
`
`patents is subject to a FRAND or RAND obligation.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`77.
`
`Ericsson requests a trial by jury of all issues in this action triable by a jury.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Ericsson prays for judgment as follows:
`
`A.
`
`To the extent Plaintiff’s allegations relate to products and/or services provided by
`
`Ericsson, that this Court fully and finally dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants and
`
`Ericsson and order that Plaintiff take nothing from Defendants or Ericsson;
`
`B.
`
`That this Court find that the manufacture, use, sale, and/or offer for sale of
`
`Ericsson’s systems, products, methods, and services does not infringe any valid claim of the
`
`’153, ’557, ’993, ’127, ’353, ’079, ’431 or ’994 Patents;
`
`C.
`
`That this Court find that the ’153, ’557, ’993, ’127, ’353, ’079, ’431 and ’994
`
`Patents are invalid pursuant to Title 35 of the United States Code;
`
`D.
`
`That this Court award permanent injunctive relief enjoining Plaintiff from taking
`
`any actions or making any statements based upon the ’153, ’557, ’993, ’127, ’353, ’079, ’431 or
`
`’994 Patents that is inconsistent with Ericsson’s right to make, use, offer to sell, and/or sell any
`
`of its systems, products, methods, and services;
`
`E.
`
`That this Court find that this is an exceptional case and award Ericsson their
`
`attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285 or otherwise; and
`
`F.
`
`That this Court grants Ericsson such other and further relief as the Court may
`
`deem just and proper.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld
`
`
`
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Intervenors Ericsson Inc. and
`Telefonaktiebolaget Ericsson LM
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Douglas M. Kubehl
`Ross Culpepper
`Johnson Kuncheria
`Jeff Becker
`Osman Siddiq
`Steven Jugle
`Megan LaDrier
`Harrison Rich
`BAKER BOTTS
`2001 Ross Avenue
`Dallas, TX 75201-2980
`(214) 953-6500
`
`October 27, 2014
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on October 27, 2014, I caused the foregoing to be
`
`
`
`electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of
`
`such filing to all registered participants.
`
`
`
`
`
`I further certify that I caused copies of the foregoing document to be served on
`
`October 27. 2014, upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`Brian E. Farnan, Esquire
`Michael J. Farnan, Esquire
`FARNAN LLP
`919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Intellectual Ventures I LLC and
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`
`Martin J. Black, Esquire
`DECHERT LLP
`Cira Centre, 2929 Arch Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19104
`Attorneys for Intellectual Ventures I LLC and
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`
`Stephen J. Akerley, Esquire
`Justin F. Boyce, Esquire
`Philip C. Ducker, Esquire
`DECHERT LLP
`2440 W. El Camino Real, Suite 700
`Mountain View, CA 94040-1499
`Attorneys for Intellectual Ventures I LLC and
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`
`Jeffrey T. Fisher, Esquire
`DECHERT LLP
`1095 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036-6797
`Attorneys for Intellectual Ventures I LLC and
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC
`
`
`
`
`

`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`/s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Karen Jacobs, Esquire
`Jennifer Ying, Esquire
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`Attorneys for AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T
`Mobility II LLC and New Cingular Wireless
`Services
`
`Josh Krevitt, Esquire
`Benjamin Hershkowitz, Esquire
`Eric T. Syu, Esquire
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Attorneys for AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T
`Mobility II LLC and New Cingular Wireless
`Services
`
`Brian M. Buroker, Esquire
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036
`Attorneys for AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T
`Mobility II LLC and New Cingular Wireless
`Services
`
`Alison R. Watkins, Esquire
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`1881 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Attorneys for AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T
`Mobility II LLC and New Cingular Wireless
`Services
`
`Spencer W. Ririe, Esquire
`GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
`3161 Michelson Drive
`Irvine, CA 92612
`Attorneys for AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T
`Mobility II LLC and New Cingular Wireless
`Services
`
`
`
`
`2

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket