UNITE
`D STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`CELLULAR SOUTH, INC.
`Plaintiff,
`v.
`GOOGLE, LLC,
`Defendants.
`Civil
` Action No. 6:24-cv-00245
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`PLA
`INTIFF CELLULAR SOUTH, INC.’S DISCLOSURE OF ASSERTED CLAIMS
`AND PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
`Plaintiff Cellular South, Inc. (“CSI” or “Plaintiff”) hereby provides its Disclosure of
`Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions relevant to U.S. Patent Nos. 9,940,972
`(“the ’972 Patent”), 10,218,954 (“the ’954 Patent”), and 11,126,853 (“the ’853 Patent”)
`(collectively, the “Asserted Patents”) to Defendant Google, LLC (“Google” or “Defendant”).
`CSI’s investigation is ongoing and discovery is in its preliminary stages. Accordingly, these
`disclosures are based on information available to CSI at this time. CSI reserves the right to
`supplement this disclosure after further discovery from Google and non-parties, particularly
`documents and other discovery regarding Google’s Accused Products. CSI also reserves the right
`to assert additional claims of the Asserted Patents, accuse different products, or find alternative
`literal and/or equivalent infringing elements in Google’s Accused Products, including if merited
`by further discovery, the Court’s claim constructions, or other circumstances. CSI incorporates by
`reference the allegations contained in CSI’s Complaint (Dkt. 1) and any amendments or
`supplements thereto.
`IPR2025-00877
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2012
`Page 1 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`I. DISCL
`OSURE OF ASSERTED CLAIMS AND APPLICABLE SUBSECTIONS OF
`35 U.S.C. § 271
`Google has infringed and continues to infringe, under one or more of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)-
`(c), at least the following Asserted Claims:
`Patent Claims
`’972 Patent 1-20
`’954 Patent 1-13
`’853 Patent 1-6, 8-11
`CS
`I reserves the right to amend or supplement this disclosure after further discovery,
`particularly documents and other discovery regarding Google’s Accused Products.
`II. ACCUSED PRODUCTS
`A. U.S. Patent No. 9,992,972
`As described in more detail in Exhibits 972-1 and 972-2, CSI asserts that the following
`Accused Products infringe the ’972 Patent:
`1. Google’s Video AI platform, including without limitation Google’s Video Intelligence
`API (“Video Intelligence”), AutoML video functionality (“AutoML Video”), and
`video understanding functionality within Vertex AI (“Vertex AI Video,” and together
`with Video Intelligence and AutoML Video, “Video AI”);
`2. Google’s YouTube video sharing platform (“YouTube”).
`The Accused Products include those specifically pictured and described in Exhibits 972-1 and 972-
`2, and the systems associated therewith, which provide contextual video analysis functionalities to
`the Accused Products. The accused functionalities within Google’s Video AI and YouTube
`products is implemented in a combination of software and hardware elements. For the avoidance
`of doubt, the Accused Products include all prior and current versions of software and/or hardware
`elements used to provide the accused video analysis functionality irrespective of differences
`between or changes to the names, monikers, codewords, or other terms used to refer to the Accused
`Products either internally within Google or externally to the general public.
`IPR2025-00877
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2012
`Page 2 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 3
`CSI reserves the right to refine the identification of the Accused Products, as well as other
`information contained in this document and Exhibits 972-1 and 972-2, to incorporate new
`information learned during the course of discovery, including, but not limited to, the inclusion of
`newly-discovered or newly-released products, versions, or any other equivalent devices
`ascertained through discovery.
`B. U.S. Patent No. 10,218,954
`As described in more detail in Exhibits 954-1 and 954-2, CSI asserts that the following
`Accused Products infringe the ’954 Patent:
`1. Video AI
`
`2. YouTube
`
`The Accused Products include those specifically pictured and described in Exhibits 954-1 and 954-
`2, and the systems associated therewith, which provide contextual video analysis functionalities to
`the Accused Products. The accused functionality within Google’s Video AI and YouTube
`products is implemented in a combination of software and hardware elements. For the avoidance
`of doubt, the Accused Products include all prior and current versions of software and/or hardware
`elements used to provide the accused video analysis functionality irrespective of differences
`between or changes to the names, monikers, codewords, or other terms used to refer to the Accused
`Products either internally within Google or externally to the general public.
`CSI reserves the right to refine the identification of the Accused Products, as well as other
`information contained in this document and Exhibits 954-1 and 954-2, to incorporate new
`information learned during the course of discovery, including, but not limited to, the inclusion of
`newly-discovered or newly-released products, versions, or any other equivalent devices
`ascertained through discovery.
`IPR2025-00877
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2012
`Page 3 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`C. U.S. Patent No. 11,126,853
`As described in more detail in Exhibits 853-1, 853-2, and 853-3, CSI asserts that the
`following Accused Products infringe the ’853 Patent:
`1. Video AI;
`
`2. YouTube;
`
`3. Google Photos photo-sharing app and storage service made and/or developed for use
`with iOS and Android devices including, without limitation, Google Pixel devices
`(“Pixel,” collectively with Google’s Photos app, “Photos”)
`
`The Accused Products include those specifically pictured and described in Exhibits 853-1, 853-2,
`and 853-3 and the systems associated therewith, which provide contextual video analysis
`functionalities to the accused products. The accused functionality within Google’s Video AI,
`YouTube, and Photos products is implemented in a combination of software and hardware
`elements. For the avoidance of doubt, the Accused Products include all prior and current versions
`of software and/or hardware elements used to provide the accused video analysis functionality
`irrespective of differences between or changes to the names, monikers, codewords, or other terms
`used to refer to the Accused Products either internally within Google or externally to the general
`public.
`CSI reserves the right to refine the identification of the Accused Products, as well as other
`information contained in this document and Exhibits 853-1, 853-2, and 853-3, to incorporate new
`information learned during the course of discovery, including, but not limited to, the inclusion of
`newly-discovered or newly-released products, versions, or any other equivalent devices
`ascertained through discovery.
`III. CLAIM CHARTS
`Claim charts identifying where in the Accused Products each element of the asserted claims
`of the ’972 Patent is found are attached hereto as Exhibits 972-1 and 972-2, respectively. Claim
`IPR2025-00877
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2012
`Page 4 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 5
`charts identifying where in the Accused Products each element of the asserted claims of the ’954
`Patent is found are attached hereto as Exhibits 954-1 and 954-2, respectively. Claim charts
`identifying where in the Accused Products each element of the asserted claims of the ’853 Patent
`is found are attached hereto as Exhibits 853-1, 853-2, and 853-3, respectively.
`CSI reserves the right to amend the claim charts, as well as other information contained in
`this document and the exhibits hereto, to incorporate new information learned during the course
`of discovery, including, but not limited to, information that is not publicly available or readily
`discernable without discovery.
`IV. PRIORITY DATE
`The ’972 Patent was filed as U.S. Patent Application No. 14/175,741, which was filed on
`February 7, 2014, and claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/866,175, filed on
`August 15, 2013. Each of the Asserted Claims of the ’972 Patent is entitled to at least the priority
`date of August 15, 2013.
`The ’954 Patent was filed as U.S. Patent Application No. 14/910,698, the national stage
`patent application of International Application No. PCT/US2015/014940, which was filed on
`February 7, 2015, and claims priority to: U.S. Patent Application No. 14/175,741, filed on
`February 7, 2014 (now the ’972 Patent); U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/021,666, filed on
`July 7, 2014; and U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/866,175, filed on August 15, 2013. Each
`of the Asserted Claims of the ’954 Patent is entitled to at least the priority date of August 15, 2013.
`The ’853 Patent was filed as U.S. Patent Application No. 16/271,773, which was filed on
`February 8, 2019, and claims priority to U.S. Patent Application No. 15/197,727, filed on June 29,
`2016 (now U.S. Patent No. 10,204,274). Each of the Asserted Claims of the ’853 Patent is entitled
`to at least the priority date of June 29, 2016.
`IPR2025-00877
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2012
`Page 5 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`V. DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING CONCEPTION AND REDUCTION TO PRACTICE
`FOR EACH CLAIMED INVENTION
`Concurrent with these Infringement Contentions, CSI is producing all documents
`evidencing the conception and reduction to practice for each Asserted Claim of the Asserted
`Patents of which CSI is presently aware and has been able to locate after a reasonable and diligent
`search. In addition, CSI is producing a copy of each of the Asserted Patents and their respective
`file histories. Discovery in this case and CSI’s investigation is ongoing, and CSI therefore reserves
`the right to supplement and amend these contentions as discovery in this matter progresses.
`VI. DIRECT INFRINGEMENT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 271(A)
`Google makes, has made, uses, has used, imports, has imported, offers to sell, has offered
`to sell, sells and/or has sold the Accused Products and has directly infringed and continues to
`directly infringe the Asserted Claims as specified in Exhibits 972-1, 972-2, 954-1, 954-2, 853-1,
`853-2, and 853-3. For example, the Asserted Claims are infringed when Google makes, uses, and
`sells Video AI to provide contextual analysis of videos on its and/or its customers’ behalf. In
`addition, the claims are infringed when Google makes and uses the accused functionalities to
`provide contextual analysis of YouTube videos to enhance Google’s YouTube, Search, and/or Ads
`capabilities. Further, the claims are infringed when Google makes, uses, sells, and offers to sell
`its Pixel devices equipped with the Google Photos app. Google directly infringes because it at
`least uses, makes, has made, sells, offers for sale, or has sold each element of the claimed
`inventions in the United States.
`To the extent it is argued that an entity other than Google, such as a provider, supplier,
`customer, or user performs or satisfies one or more elements of an Asserted Claim(s) under a “use”
`infringement theory, CSI asserts that Google is also liable for direct infringement because it either
`practices every element of the Asserted Claims by “use” (e.g., Google put the invention into service
`IPR2025-00877
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2012
`Page 6 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 7
`by controlling the system as a whole and obtaining benefit from it) or exercises direction and
`control (e.g., through an agent, contractual relationship, the conditioning of participation in an
`activity or receipt of a benefit upon performance, and establishment of the manner or timing of
`that performance, a joint enterprise, etc.) such that the system as a whole is put into service by
`using all portions of the claimed invention.
`VII. INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 271(B)
`Google has induced infringement, and will continue to induce infringement, of the Asserted
`Claims of the Asserted Patents for at least the following reasons. Direct infringement is the result
`of activities performed by third-party customers and/or users of the Accused Products as detailed
`above. Google has actual notice of the ’972, ’954, and ’853 Patents based on its involvement in
`the 2015 SPROCKIT conference, its attendance at conferences, trade shows, and/or events at
`which Vu Digital’s Video-to-Data (“V2D”) product was presented, and/or at least by way of
`receiving service of the Complaint. See Dkt. 1. Despite Google’s actual notice of infringement,
`Google continues to induce others to make, use, sell, offer to sell, and import into the United States
`the Accused Products, and/or provide installation, operational support, and instructions related to
`the Accused Products, with the knowledge or willful blindness that its conduct will induce
`infringement of the Asserted Patents. Google engages in many activities that encourage its
`customers and users to infringe the Asserted Patents, including by providing directions, designs,
`and/or instructions to customers and users to make or use the contextual video analysis capabilities
`that are involved in the Accused Products. Through at least these activities (which are also
`discussed and cited in the attached charts at Exhibits 972-1, 972-2, 954-1, 954-2, 853-1, 853-2,
`853-3 and the Complaint (Dkt. 1)), Google specifically intends that its customers and users directly
`infringe the Asserted Patents.
`IPR2025-00877
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2012
`Page 7 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 8
`VIII. INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 271(C)
`Google has contributed to infringement, and will continue to contribute to infringement, of
`the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents for at least the following reasons. Direct infringement
`is the result of activities performed by third-party customers and/or users of the Accused Products
`as detailed above. Google has actual notice of the ’972, ’954, and ’853 Patents based on its
`involvement in the 2015 SPROCKIT conference, its attendance at conferences, trade shows, and/or
`events at which Vu Digital’s Video-to-Data (“V2D”) product was presented, and/or at least by
`way of receiving service of the Complaint. See Dkt. 1. Despite Google’s actual notice of
`infringement, Google continues to offer for sale and sell within the United States or import into
`the United States the Accused Products which constitute a material part of the patented inventions,
`knowing the Accused Products are especially made or especially adapted for use in infringement
`of the Asserted Patents, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial
`noninfringing use. Further, Google continues to provide installation, operational support, and
`instructions related to the Accused Products, with the knowledge or willful blindness that its
`conduct will contribute to infringement of the Asserted Patents. Google engages in many activities
`that encourage its customers and users to infringe the Asserted Patents, including by providing
`directions, designs, and/or instructions to customers and users to make or use the contextual video
`analysis capabilities that are involved in the Accused Products. Through at least these activities
`(which are also discussed and cited in the attached charts at Exhibits 972-1, 972-2, 954-1, 954-2,
`853-1, 853-2, 853-3 and the Complaint (Dkt. 1)), Google specifically intends that its customers
`and users directly infringe the Asserted Patents.
`IX. LITERAL INFRINGEMENT AND DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS
`CSI asserts that, under the proper construction of the Asserted Claims and their claim
`terms, the limitations of the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents are literally present in the
`IPR2025-00877
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2012
`Page 8 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 9
`Accused Products, as set forth in the claim charts attached hereto as Exhibits 972-1, 972-2, 954-1,
`954-2, 853-1, 853-2, and 853-3. CSI contends that any and all elements found not to be literally
`infringed are infringed under the doctrine of equivalents because the differences between the
`claimed inventions and the Accused Produces, if any, are insubstantial.
`CSI’s contention is that each limitation is literally met, and necessarily also would be met
`under the doctrine of equivalents because there are no substantial differences at all between the
`Accused Products and the Asserted Claims, in function, way, or result. As such, CSI’s current
`description of the function, way, and result for each limitation would be the same as the claim
`language itself. If Google attempts to argue that there is no infringement literally and no
`infringement under doctrine of equivalents, and/or draws any distinction between the claimed
`feature(s) and the Accused Products, then CSI reserves its right to rebut the alleged distinction as
`a matter of literal infringement and/or as to whether any such distinction is substantial under the
`doctrine of equivalents.
`CSI reserves the right to amend its Infringement Contentions as to literal infringement or
`infringement under the doctrine of equivalents in light of new information learned during the
`course of discovery, the Court’s claim constructions, and/or as otherwise permitted by the Court.
`Dated: December 13, 2024 /s/ Robert S. Hill
`Robert S. Hill, TX Bar No. 24050764
`robert.hill@hklaw.com
`David C. Schulte, TX Bar No. 24037456
`david.schulte@hklaw.com
`Sara S. Staha, TX Bar No. 24088368
`Sara.staha@hklaw.com
`Morgan J. Delabar, TX Bar No. 24116625
`morgan.delabar@hklaw.com
`HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
`1722 Routh St., Suite 1500
`IPR2025-00877
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2012
`Page 9 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 10
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone: (214) 964-9500
`Facsimile: (214) 964-9501
`
`Robert K. Jain, TX Bar No. 24139315
`robert.jain@hklaw.com
`HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
`98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1900
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Telephone: (512) 472-1081
`Facsimile: (512) 472-7473
`
`Jacob W. S. Schneider, (pro hac vice)
`MA Bar No. 675315
`jacob.schneider@hklaw.com
`Allison M. Lucier, (pro hac vice)
`MA Bar No. 569193
`allison.lucier@hklaw.com
`HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
`10th St. James Avenue, 11th Floor
`Boston, MA 02116
`Telephone: (617) 523-2700
`Facsimile: (617) 523-6850
`
`Anthony J. Fuga, (pro hac vice)
`IL Bar No. 6301658
`anthony.fuga@hklaw.com
`Tiffany Lee, (pro hac vice)
`IL Bar No. 6342343
`tiffany.lee@hklaw.com
`HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
`150 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 2700
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: (312) 263-3600
`Facsimile: (312) 578-6666
`
`Deron R. Dacus, TX Bar No. 00790553
`ddacus@dacusfirm.com
`THE DACUS FIRM, P.C.
`821 E. SE Loop 323, Suite 430
`Tyler, TX 75701
`Telephone: (903) 705-7233
`Facsimile: (903) 581-2543
`
`
`Attorneys For Cellular South, Inc.
`IPR2025-00877
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2012
`Page 10 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 11
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule CV-5, I hereby certify
`that, on December 13, 2024, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on all
`counsel of record via electronic mail.
`
`
`/s/ Robert S. Hill
`Robert S. Hill
`
`IPR2025-00877
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2012
`Page 11 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`