Case 3:16-cv-02787-SK Document 1 Filed 05/24/16 Page 1 of 47
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1008, Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-SK Document 1 Filed 05/24/16 Page 2 of 47
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (“Huawei”), Huawei Device USA, Inc. (“Huawei Device”),
`
`and Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. (“Huawei Tech. USA”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege as
`
`follows against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”), Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(“SEA”), and Samsung Research America (“SRA”) (collectively, “Defendants”):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`In addition, because Defendants have persisted in importing, selling, and offering for
`
`sale a substantial volume of standard-compliant products that use Huawei’s SEP technology
`
`without a license, Huawei also brings claims for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq.
`
`HUAWEI’S COMPLAINT FOR
`
`2
`
` AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1008, Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-SK Document 1 Filed 05/24/16 Page 3 of 47
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`THE PARTIES
`Plaintiff Huawei is a Chinese company with its principal place of business in
`
`3.
`
`Bantian, Longgang District, Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China. Huawei is involved in the
`
`design, manufacture, and sale of mobile devices, including smartphones that operate on cellular
`
`networks. Huawei’s subsidiaries in the United States include Huawei Device and Huawei Tech.
`
`USA.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff Huawei Device is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in
`
`Plano, Texas. Huawei Device distributes, markets, and sells mobile devices, including smartphones
`
`that operate on cellular networks in the United States. Huawei Device operates in the United States
`
`through various facilities, including offices at 10180 Telesis Ct., San Diego, California, and 2330
`
`Central Expressway, Santa Clara, California (depicted below) where Huawei Device employees
`
`conduct research and development (“R&D”) activities. The R&D teams focus on antenna/radio
`
`frequency, power conservation, product testing, compatibility testing, and Android interoperability.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Huawei Tech. USA is a Texas corporation with its principal place of
`
`5.
`
`
`
`business in Plano, Texas. Huawei Tech. USA distributes, markets, and sells mobile
`
`telecommunications infrastructure equipment to carriers in the United States.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Samsung is a Korean company with its principal place of business in
`
`Suwon, South Korea. Samsung is comprised of three business divisions, including (1) Consumer
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`HUAWEI’S COMPLAINT FOR
`
`3
`
` AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1008, Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-SK Document 1 Filed 05/24/16 Page 4 of 47
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`Electronics (“CE”); (2) Information Technology & Mobile Communications (“IM”); and (3) Device
`
`Solutions (“DS”). The IM division is responsible for the design, manufacture, and sale of mobile
`
`devices, including smartphones that operate on cellular networks in the United States. According to
`
`Samsung, it “is one of the largest manufacturers of wireless communications devices in the world
`and has long focused on the United States as a critical market for its products.”1
`7.
`On information and belief, Samsung operates its IM business division in the United
`
`States through a variety of wholly-owned subsidiaries, including defendants SEA and SRA.
`
`8.
`
`On information and belief, defendant SEA is a New York corporation with its
`
`principal place of business in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, and it is a direct or indirect wholly-
`
`owned subsidiary of Samsung. On information and belief, within Samsung’s IM business division,
`
`SEA operates an office in Mountain View, California, located at 665 Clyde Avenue, as depicted
`
`below. On information and belief, within the IM business division, SEA imports into the United
`
`States, and distributes, markets, and sells mobile devices in the United States, including
`
`smartphones that operate on cellular networks in the United States.
`
`
`
`
`1 See In the Matter of Certain Wireless Communications Equipment and Articles Therein, USITC
`Inv. No. 337-TA-866, Complaint at ¶ 9 (Dec. 21, 2012).
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`HUAWEI’S COMPLAINT FOR
`
`4
`
` AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1008, Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-SK Document 1 Filed 05/24/16 Page 5 of 47
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`9.
`
`On information and belief, defendant SRA is a California corporation with its
`
`principal place of business in Mountain View, California, and is a direct or indirect wholly-owned
`
`subsidiary of Samsung. SRA is located at 665 Clyde Avenue in Mountain View, California,
`
`depicted above. On information and belief, within Samsung’s IM business division, SRA operates
`
`a variety of laboratories, including the Mobile Platform and Solutions Lab and the Advanced
`
`Processor Lab, both located at Mountain View, California, at 665 Clyde Avenue. On information
`
`and belief, SRA’s Mobile Platform and Solutions Lab develops “power, usability, and performance
`
`solutions” for “the family of Samsung Android smartphones and tablet devices,” including devices
`that operate on cellular networks in the United States.2 On information and belief, SRA’s
`Advanced Processor Lab “focuses on the exploration and design of low energy circuits” and “the
`
`R&D of processor and system-level design solutions for traditional and emerging mobile computing
`applications,” including for smartphones that operate on cellular networks in the United States.3
`10.
`Defendants SEA and SRA regularly appear before the United States Federal
`
`Communications Commission (“FCC”) in Washington, DC, on issues involving
`
`telecommunications standards. For example, in 2015 and 2016, SEA and SRA submitted
`
`comments to the FCC in GN Docket No. 14-177, regarding the provision of 5G mobile services in
`spectrum bands above 24GHz.4
`
`JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`This is a civil action for
`
`11.
`
`
`
` and patent infringement under the patent laws of the United
`
`States, 35 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1331, 1332, 1338(a), and 1367.
`
`12.
`
`
`
`
`2 “Mobile Platform and Solutions,” http://www.sra.samsung.com/research/mobile-platform-and-
`solutions (last visited May 19, 2016).
`3 “Advanced Processor,” http://www.sra.samsung.com/research/advanced-processor (last visited
`May 19, 2016).
`4 See In the Matter of Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio Services, GN Dkt.
`No. 14-177, Reply Comments of Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Research
`America (Feb. 18, 2015 and Feb. 26, 2016).
`
`HUAWEI’S COMPLAINT FOR
`
`5
`
` AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1008, Page 5
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:16-cv-02787-SK Document 1 Filed 05/24/16 Page 6 of 47
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`
`
`
`
`14.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the patent infringement claims under
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). The patents-at-issue in this action are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,369,278
`
`(“the ’278 patent”); 8,416,892 (“the ’892 patent”); 8,483,166 (“the ’166 patent”); 8,812,848 (“the
`
`’848 patent”); 8,644,239 (“the ’239 patent”); 8,885,587 (“the ’587 patent”); 8,885,583 (“the ’583
`
`patent”); 8,639,246 (“the ’246 patent”); 8,412,197 (“the ’197 patent”); 8,996,003 (“the ’003
`
`patent”); and 8,724,613 (“the ’613 patent”) (collectively, “Asserted Patents”).
`
`15.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants Samsung, SEA, and SRA for at
`
`least the following reasons: (1) Samsung’s wholly-owned subsidiary SRA is a California
`
`corporation with its principal place of business in California; (2) Samsung’s wholly-owned
`
`subsidiary SEA maintains offices in California; (3) Samsung, SEA and SRA have designated an
`agent for service of process in California;5 and (4) Samsung, SEA and SRA regularly do business or
`solicit business, engage in other persistent courses of conduct, and/or derive substantial revenue
`
`from products and/or services provided to individuals in California.
`
`16.
`
`Venue is proper in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)-
`
`(c) and 1400(b) for at least the following reasons: (1) Samsung’s wholly-owned subsidiary SRA is
`
`5 SEA’s and SRA’s designated agents for service of process are located at 818 West Seventh Street,
`Ste. 930, Los Angeles CA 90017.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`HUAWEI’S COMPLAINT FOR
`
`6
`
` AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1008, Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-SK Document 1 Filed 05/24/16 Page 7 of 47
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`headquartered in this District; (2) Samsung’s wholly-owned subsidiary SEA maintains an office in
`
`this District; and (3) Samsung, SEA, and SRA regularly do business or solicit business, engage in
`
`other persistent courses of conduct, and/or derive substantial revenue from products and/or services
`
`provided to individuals in this District. Pursuant to Local Rule 3-2(c), Intellectual Property Actions
`
`are assigned on a district-wide basis.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Huawei’s Innovation and Patented Technology
`17.
`Founded in 1987 in Shenzhen, China, Huawei has become a Fortune 500 company
`
`and a global leader in the telecommunications industry. Huawei operates in more than 170
`
`countries across the world, providing information and communications technology solutions to over
`
`one-third of the world’s population. Huawei and its affiliates develop, manufacture, and sell a
`
`diverse range of products, including cellular network infrastructure equipment, mobile phones and
`
`tablets, home internet and media devices, and data and cloud storage devices. Huawei is one of the
`
`world’s two largest manufacturers of cellular network infrastructure equipment, and ranked among
`
`the top three mobile device vendors worldwide in 2015.
`
`18.
`
`Huawei is also a leader in research, innovation, and the development of
`
`telecommunications technology and standards. Huawei devotes significant resources to R&D and
`
`maintains multiple R&D centers around the world, including in the United States through Huawei
`
`Device and other affiliates. About 45% of Huawei’s global workforce—over 79,000 employees in
`
`2015—work in R&D. Huawei’s R&D expenditures totaled over $9.18 billion USD in 2015,
`
`accounting for 15.1% of its annual revenue. Much of Huawei’s and Huawei Device’s R&D
`
`activities are devoted to improving cellular network technology and mobile devices.
`
`19.
`
`As a result of its investments in innovation and contributions to the industry, Huawei
`
`and its affiliates have developed a substantial patent portfolio comprising over 50,300 issued
`
`patents across the world. In 2015, Huawei and its affiliates obtained 1,268 patents issued by the
`
`U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, the 23rd most of any company. The same year, Huawei obtained
`
`503 issued patents from the European Patent Office, the 9th most of any company. For the past two
`
`years, Huawei and its affiliates have filed the most international (PCT) patent applications of any
`
`HUAWEI’S COMPLAINT FOR
`
`7
`
` AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1008, Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-SK Document 1 Filed 05/24/16 Page 8 of 47
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`company in the world. In total, Huawei and its affiliates hold over 12,000 issued patents and
`
`pending applications in the United States.
`
`20.
`
`As detailed in Counts III-XIII below, Defendants have used and continue to use
`
`Huawei’s patented technology without license.
`
`B.
`
`Cellular Standards and the FRAND Commitment
`21.
` Many of Huawei’s patents, including the Asserted Patents, cover various aspects of
`
`industry standards developed by 3GPP through a collaborative process in which ETSI and other
`
`international standard-setting organizations (“SSOs”) collaborate to create and improve global
`
`standards for the telecommunications industry. 3GPP operates as an umbrella SSO that produces
`
`and maintains the UMTS and LTE cellular standards (also known as “3GPP standards”), which
`
`generally cover the “third” and “fourth” generations of wireless telecommunications technology
`
`(“3G” and “4G”, respectively). LTE technology, which evolved from UMTS, aims to increase
`
`capacity and speed. In particular, the LTE standard represents the latest advances in wireless
`
`telecommunications technology and is credited with many technical innovations that have greatly
`
`enhanced user experience, including a dramatic increase in data throughput and system performance
`
`compared to UMTS technology. LTE mobile devices and infrastructure equipment are commonly
`
`“multi-mode,” i.e., backwards compatible with older technologies.
`
`22.
`
`Cellular standards enable interoperability, i.e., the ability of devices and equipment
`
`made by different manufacturers to communicate and work together in a cellular network. In order
`
`for mobile devices and telecommunications infrastructure equipment to be commercially viable in
`
`the United States and most of the world, it is essential that such devices and equipment comply with
`
`3GPP standards.
`
`23.
`
`3GPP maintains and approves standards through a collaborative process in which its
`
`members submit technical proposals for establishing or improving aspects of a standard. These
`
`proposals are evaluated, refined, tested, and ultimately approved or rejected by technical
`
`committees of 3GPP. The resulting 3GPP technical specifications are incorporated by ETSI and
`
`other SSOs into relevant standards.
`
`24.
`
`Once a particular technology is incorporated into a standard, manufacturers of
`
`HUAWEI’S COMPLAINT FOR
`
`8
`
` AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1008, Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-SK Document 1 Filed 05/24/16 Page 9 of 47
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`telecommunications devices and equipment must integrate the technology into their products to
`
`comply with the standard. Because it is common for SSO members to own patents covering the
`
`technology they contribute to standards, organizations like ETSI have created policies that seek to
`
`ensure those patents will be available for manufacturers to license on FRAND terms and conditions.
`
`For example, ETSI’s IPR Policy requires members to disclose patents they believe are or may
`
`become “essential” to complying with a standard and declare whether they are prepared to grant
`
`irrevocable licenses on FRAND terms and conditions.
`
`25.
`
`ETSI’s IPR Policy defines “essential” as follows:
`
`“ESSENTIAL” as applied to IPR [intellectual property right] means that it is not
`possible on technical (but not commercial) grounds, taking into account normal
`technical practice and the state of the art generally available at the time of
`standardization, to make, sell, lease, otherwise dispose of, repair, use or operate
`EQUIPMENT or METHODS which comply with a STANDARD without infringing
`that IPR. For the avoidance of doubt in exceptional cases where a STANDARD can
`only be implemented by technical solutions, all of which are infringements of IPRs,
`all such IPRs shall be considered ESSENTIAL.
`Exhibit 1 at 42, § 15(6).
`
`26.
`
`ETSI members who disclose their SEPs are thus invited to declare whether they are
`
`ready to license them, upon request, to implementers of the 3GPP standards on FRAND terms and
`
`conditions. The declaration forms ETSI members may use to disclose SEPs state:
`
`To the extent that the IPR(s) disclosed in the attached IPR Information Statement
`Annex are or become, and remain ESSENTIAL in respect of the ETSI Work Item,
`STANDARD and/or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION identified in the attached IPR
`Information Statement Annex, the Declarant and/or its AFFILIATES are (1) prepared
`to grant irrevocable licenses under this/these IPR(s) on terms and conditions which
`are in accordance with Clause 6.1 of the ETSI IPR Policy; and (2) will comply with
`Clause 6.1 of the ETSI IPR Policy.
`E.g., id. at 45. Many other SSOs require similar commitments from members who disclose patents
`
`that are or may become essential to practicing relevant standards.
`
`27.
`
`The ETSI IPR Policy permits ETSI members, as licensors, to condition the grant of
`
`FRAND licenses on prospective licensees’ agreement to reciprocate, i.e., to be willing to license
`
`their own SEPs on what would be FRAND terms and conditions for those SEPs. Because the value
`
`of portfolios may differ, reciprocity does not necessarily require identical or similar royalty rates for
`
`two SEP portfolios involved in a cross-license.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`HUAWEI’S COMPLAINT FOR
`
`9
`
` AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1008, Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-SK Document 1 Filed 05/24/16 Page 10 of 47
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`28.
`
`The construction, validity, and performance of ETSI declarations are governed by
`
`the laws of France. Such declarations create binding contractual commitments with ETSI as to
`
`which other ETSI members and implementers of the 3GPP standards are third-party beneficiaries.
`
`29.
`
`ETSI members who make a FRAND commitment may not refuse to enter into
`
`negotiations with any person requesting a patent license or refuse to enter into a license on terms
`
`and conditions that are fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory. The FRAND requirement is
`
`intended to ensure that SEP owners receive appropriate compensation for their intellectual property
`
`rights while preventing attempts to extract from implementers more favorable license terms than
`
`SEP owners would have obtained had their patents not been declared essential.
`
`30.
`
`Under French law, an ETSI member that has made a FRAND commitment also has a
`
`duty to negotiate in good faith to try to reach an agreement for a license.
`
`31.
`
`If an ETSI member who declares SEPs refuses to commit to be prepared to grant
`
`licenses on FRAND terms and conditions, ETSI may suspend work on relevant parts of the standard
`
`or redesign the standard to render the patents non-essential.
`
`32.
`
`Huawei and its affiliates are members of over 300 SSOs and have forged many
`
`industry alliances to promote the development of information and communications technology. In
`
`2015, Huawei and its affiliates submitted more than 5,400 technical proposals to various standards
`
`organizations, with the total number exceeding 43,000. Huawei and its affiliates have been active
`
`participating members of ETSI since 1999 and have made thousands of contributions to 3GPP
`
`standards, particularly the latest LTE standard. Indeed, Huawei has been rising as a leader in terms
`
`of approved contributions to the 3GPP standards. Since 2013, Huawei has had more contributions
`
`to 3GPP’s LTE standard-setting efforts approved than any other company in the world.
`
`33.
`
`Huawei, on its behalf and on behalf of its affiliates, has disclosed to ETSI over 1,200
`
`patent families that are or may become essential to practicing one or more 3GPP standards, ranking
`
`Huawei among the top SEP holders in the world.
`
`
`
` Huawei, on its behalf and on behalf of its affiliates, has committed to
`
`license, and has licensed to multiple companies, its standard-essential patents and those of its
`
`affiliates (“Huawei’s SEP portfolio”) on FRAND terms and conditions according to ETSI’s IPR
`
`HUAWEI’S COMPLAINT FOR
`
`10
`
` AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1008, Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-SK Document 1 Filed 05/24/16 Page 11 of 47
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1008, Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-SK Document 1 Filed 05/24/16 Page 12 of 47
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1008, Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-SK Document 1 Filed 05/24/16 Page 13 of 47
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`HUAWEI’S COMPLAINT FOR
`
`13
`
` AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1008, Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-SK Document 1 Filed 05/24/16 Page 14 of 47
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Defendants’ Sales of 3GPP Standard-Compliant Products
`
`49.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Samsung and its affiliates
`
`have earned billions of dollars by selling UMTS and LTE-compliant products that use Huawei’s
`
`technology. Those sales have propelled Samsung to be a market leader in the smartphone and
`
`tablet markets. In its 2014 Annual Report, Samsung stated that it “continued to rank No. 1 in the
`world across all mobile and smartphone markets” with a 24.7% global smartphone market share.6
`50.
`For example, Defendants use, sell, offer to sell, and import numerous smartphones
`
`compatible with the LTE standard, as well as tablets and related devices, in(to) the Northern
`
`District of California and throughout the United States without a license from Huawei. Samsung’s
`
`official website accessible in the Northern District of California and throughout the United States
`lists over 100 “Cell Phones” that are “Enabled for 4G LTE” as of May 19, 2016.7 Defendants’
`
`
`6 2014 Samsung Electronics Annual Report, available at
`http://www.samsung.com/common/aboutsamsung/download/companyreports/2014_E.pdf (last
`visited May 19, 2016).
`7 “Cell Phones – Samsung US,” http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/cell-phones/all-products
`(search criteria: “Enabled for 4G LTE”) (last visited May 19, 2016).
`
`HUAWEI’S COMPLAINT FOR
`
`14
`
` AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1008, Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-SK Document 1 Filed 05/24/16 Page 15 of 47
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`LTE-enabled products are designed to operate on U.S. cellular networks with LTE capabilities.
`
`Defendants market LTE-capability as a key feature of their products.
`
`51.
`
`Huawei is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants’ devices
`
`designed to operate on LTE networks and which are compliant with all mandatory LTE standards
`
`include, but are not limited to, the following models: Samsung Galaxy S II, S III, S4, S5, S5 mini,
`
`S6, S6 edge, S6 edge+, S7, S7 edge, Core Prime, Grand Prime; Samsung Galaxy Note, Note II,
`
`Note 3, Note 4, Note 5 and Note Edge; and Samsung Galaxy Tab 2, Tab 3, Tab 4, Tab 7, Tab 8,
`
`Tab A, Tab E, Tab S and Tab S2 (hereinafter, “the Accused Products”).
`
`52.
`
`As detailed further below, Defendants’ Accused Products use technology protected
`
`by Huawei’s Asserted Patents.
`
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`HUAWEI’S COMPLAINT FOR
`
`
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1008, Page 15
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-SK Document 1 Filed 05/24/16 Page 16 of 47
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HUAWEI’S COMPLAINT FOR
`
`16
`
` AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1008, Page 16
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-SK Document 1 Filed 05/24/16 Page 17 of 47
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`HUAWEI’S COMPLAINT FOR
`
`17
`
` AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1008, Page 17
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-SK Document 1 Filed 05/24/16 Page 18 of 47
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,369,278)
`
`69.
`
`Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the
`
`foregoing paragraphs.
`
`70.
`
`On February 5, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and
`
`legally issued the ’278 patent, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Sending Control Signaling.”
`
`Huawei has owned the ’278 patent since it was issued. A true and correct copy of the ’278 patent is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
`
`71.
`
`The ’278 patent improves the downlink receiving rate of mobile devices and
`
`enhances system downlink capacity, by reducing the amount of information needed to transmit two
`
`necessary parameters (redundancy version and payload size) between a base station and the mobile
`
`device.
`
`72.
`
`The use of mandatory portions of the LTE standard infringes the ’278 patent. For
`
`example, the LTE standard 3GPP TS 36.213 (including v8.3.0, and all subsequent releases and
`
`versions) requires use of control signaling comprising a 5-bit “modulation and coding scheme and
`
`redundancy version” field, which indicates transport block size (payload size) when such field is in
`
`the range 0 to 28, and which indicates redundancy version when such field is in the range 29 to 31,
`
`for example, as specified in the 3GPP TS 36.213 v8.5.0 standard Table 8.6.1-1. Furthermore, the
`
`LTE standard requires that the mobile device send a packet according to the received control
`
`signaling to the base station, as shown, for example, in the 3GPP TS 36.213 v8.5.0 standard,
`
`Section 8.6 and the 3GPP TS 36.212 standard (including v2.0.0, and all subsequent releases and
`
`versions), e.g., v8.8.0, Section 5.3.
`
`73.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants’ Accused Products use the mandatory
`
`portions of the LTE standard covered by the ’278 patent, and, therefore, infringe the ’278 patent.
`
`For example, the claims of the ’278 patent, including but not limited to claims 1 and 7, read on the
`
`LTE standard as shown on Exhibit 5 attached hereto.
`
`74.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants have directly infringed and continue to
`
`directly infringe at least claim 7 of the ’278 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), literally or under
`
`HUAWEI’S COMPLAINT FOR
`
`18
`
` AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1008, Page 18
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-SK Document 1 Filed 05/24/16 Page 19 of 47
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, by using, selling, offering to sell, and importing in(to) the United States
`
`the Accused Products, on or after the issuance date of the patent.
`
`75.
`
`On or about July 19, 2013, Huawei notified Samsung that Defendants infringed the
`
`’278 patent by providing a list of patents essential to practicing the LTE standards including the
`
`’278 patent, and an infringement claim chart for the patent.
`
`76.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants also induce infringement of at least claims 1
`
`and 7 of the ’278 patent. Defendants’ Accused Products as sold are specifically configured to
`
`infringe Huawei’s ’278 patent as described above. Defendants actively instruct their customers on
`
`how to use their products, including through product manuals and advertising. When used as
`
`instructed, Defendants’ customers use their products to practice the methods and use the apparatus
`
`of the ’278 patent. Defendants’ customers thereby directly infringe, either literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, the ’278 patent. For example, the Accused Products practice the ’278
`
`patent when an end user uses his or her device in an ordinary manner, such as to browse the web, to
`
`utilize applications that transmit or receive data over the network, to transmit uplink data (photos,
`
`documents, etc.), or to receive downlink data (movies, pictures, etc.). The Samsung Galaxy S7
`
`User Manual, for instance, instructs users how to access and browse the internet, send and receive
`
`email, share and back up documents and photos, view and upload videos, send and receive
`
`messages, and otherwise engage in activities that require transmission or receipt of data over the
`
`network. See, e.g., Exhibit 6 at 34-41, 48, 55-64. Defendants knew of the ’278 patent and knew or
`
`should have known that their products infringed the ’278 patent during their ordinary and intended
`
`use no later than July 19, 2013.
`
`77.
`
`Defendants’ infringement of the ’278 patent has been and continues to be willful,
`
`and Defendants’ conduct renders this case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`HUAWEI’S COMPLAINT FOR
`
`19
`
` AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Samsung Exhibit 1008, Page 19
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-SK Document 1 Filed 05/24/16 Page 20 of 47
`REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` while selling billions of dollars of infringing products, falls well
`
`below the standards of conduct expected of a reasonable company in the industry and renders this
`
`case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`78.
`
`By their actions, Defendants have injured Huawei and are liable to Huawei for
`
`infringement of the ’278 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,416,892)
`
`79.
`
`Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the
`
`foregoing paragraphs.
`
`80.
`
`On April 9, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally
`
`issued the ’892 patent, entitled “Method and Apparatus of Transmitting a Random Access
`
`Preamble.” Huawei has owned the ’892 patent since it was issued. A true and correct copy of the
`
`’892 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
`
`81.
`
`A mobile device must synchronize itself with an LTE network to transmit data to the
`
`network and to avoid interfering with data transmitted by other mobile devices. The ’892 patent
`
`discloses an improved synchronization process that involves transmitting “random access
`
`preambles” with desirable properties. Mobile devices also use these random access preambles for
`
`other important purposes, such as requesting uplink transmission resources.
`
`82.
`
`The use of mandatory portions of the LTE standard infringe the ’892 patent. For
`
`example, the LTE standard 3GPP TS 36.213 (including v1.2.0, and all subsequent releases and
`
`versions) requires that a mobile device select and transmit a random access preamble from a defined
`
`set. See, e.g., 3GPP TS 36.213 v8.5.0, Section 6 (“Random access procedure”). For example, the
`
`LTE standard 3GPP 36.211 (including v8.1.1, and all subsequent releases and versions) explains
`
`HUAWEI’S COMPLAINT FOR
`
`20
`
` AND PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`