`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`ZOPHONOS INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 2:25-cv-00752
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Exhibits A-18, B-18 and C-18 Contain
`Information Designated Confidential by a
`Third Party
`
`DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.’S AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.’S INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`Pursuant to the Local Patent Rules and the Court’s First Amended Docket Control Order
`(Dkt. 39) , Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`(collectively, “Samsung” or “Defendants”) provide these Invalidity Contentions with respect to
`the Asserted Claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,656,906 (the “’906 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 11,204,736
`(the “’736 Patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 11,900,016 (the “’016 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted
`Patents”) identified by Plaintiffs Zophonos Inc. (“Zophonos”).
`The Asserted Claims, as reflected in Plaintiff’s Infringement Contentions, are as follows:
`Asserted Patent No. Asserted Claims
`10,656,906 1-3, 6, 8-12, 13, 15, and 17-20
`11,204,736 1, 3, 8, 9, 11, 13, 17-19, 21, 23, 27, and 28
`11,900,016 39, 40, and 43
`
`Zophonos EX2002
`Samsung v. Zophonos
`IPR2026-00083
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`As detailed further below, the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents are anticipated by,
`or obvious in view of, one or more of the prior art references produced at
`SAMSUNG_ZOPHONOS_00021010-24074. The Asserted Claims are invalid pursuant to 35
`U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103, as well as invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and/or 112.1
`I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`These Invalidity Contentions are based on Defendants’ current knowledge, understanding,
`and belief regarding the Asserted Patent and prior art, Plaintiff’s infringement theories (inasmuch
`as they can be inferred from its Infringement Contentions), and the facts and other information
`available as of the date of these Invalidity Contentions. Defendants’ investigation, discovery, and
`analysis of information related to this action is ongoing.
`Additional discovery, including from the named inventor, third parties, or other persons
`with knowledge, from elucidation of Plaintiff’s Infringement Contentions, and/or from orders of
`the Court may require Defendants to amend or supplement these Invalidit y Contentions, and
`Defendants expressly reserve the right to do so as the case proceeds. These Invalidity Contentions
`represent Defendants’ good-faith effort to provide a comprehensive identification of relevant prior
`art, but Defendants reserve the right to modify or supplement their prior art list and Invalidity
`Contentions at a later time with, or based on, pertinent information that may be later discovered.
`Prior art not currently included in this disclosure may become relevant, and it may be
`necessary for Samsung to supplement and/or amend these Invalidity Contentions, and/or rely on
`this information at trial. Defendants are currently unaware of the extent, if any, to which Plaintiff
`
`1 As the earliest application in the purported priority chain of the Asserted Patents was filed on
`September 23, 2014, the Asserted Patents are subject to the provisions of the America Invents
`Act (“AIA”). All references to sections of Title 35 of the United States Code are to the AIA
`version unless noted otherwise.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`will contend that limitations of the Asserted Claims are not disclosed in the prior art identified by
`Defendants. Defendants reserve the right to identify other references and/or systems that would
`have made the addition of the allegedly missing limitation to the disclosed references and/or
`systems obvious or show that the allegedly missing limitation would have been known or readily
`apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in light of the disclosure of
`the prior art at issue. Defendants also reserve the right to rely on any of the references produced at
`SAMSUNG_ZOPHONOS_00021010-24074 to demonstrate the state of the art at the alleged time
`of invention and as evidence of the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art
`(“POSITA”) in support of any motivations to modify or combine the charted prior art references
`with other references or knowledge.
`Plaintiff may also be aware of additional prior art that is not known to Defendants. If
`Plaintiff produces additional prior art pursuant to its discovery obligations under the local rules or
`responsive to Defendants’ discovery requests after these contenti ons are served, Defendants may
`supplement their Invalidity Contentions with prior art contained in such production once they have
`had a fair opportunity to review, analyze, and chart such prior art. Defendants reserve the right to
`amend their Invalidity Contentions with any additional potential prior art known by Plaintiff but
`not yet disclosed to Defendants.
`A. Limitations Arising From Zophonos’s Deficient Infringement Contentions
`Zophonos’s Infringement Contentions are deficient in multiple respects and do not provide
`Samsung with sufficient information to understand the bases for numerous of Zophonos’s
`infringement allegations or the alleged scope of the claims as Zophonos is applying them in making
`such allegations. Plaintiff’s Infringement Contentions are in most places too general and vague to
`discern Plaintiff’s infringement theories and how exactly Plaintiff contends each Accused Product
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`meets or practices each element of the Asserted Claims. For example, Zophonos failed to
`adequately identify each of the Accused Products and features, demonstrate that any Accused
`Products and/or features are representative of other Accused Products and/or features, and map all
`the Accused Products and features it does discuss to each of the limitations of the Asserted Claims.
`In addition, Plaintiff’s Infringement Contentions, in many cases, continue to fail to put
`Defendants on notice of Plaintiff’s interpretation of the Asserted Claims, further prejudicing
`Defendants’ ability to identify relevant prior art.
`Separately, Zophonos’s production is deficient, and Samsung has not yet had the benefit of
`discovery into the merits of Zophonos’s claims for priority. As such, Samsung reserves the right
`to amend these Invalidity Contentions when and if such documents are produced by Zophonos,
`the inventor of the Asserted Patents, or a third party.
`Consequently, Samsung is hindered from completely identifying prior art to meet
`Zophonos’s Infringement Contentions. To the extent that Zophonos’s Infringement Contentions
`are understandable, Samsung’s Invalidity Contentions are based, at least in part, on Zophonos’s
`apparent constructions of the Asserted Claims and Zophonos’s application of those claims.
`To the extent that Plaintiff is later permitted by the Court to amend its Infringement
`Contentions to cure the deficiencies of its current contentions or to pursue any currently
`undisclosed infringement or doctrine of equivalents theories, Samsung expressly reserves the right
`to supplement or amend these Invalidity Contentions to account for such amendments.
`B. No Waiver or Admission of Infringement
`Nothing in these Invalidity Contentions is intended, nor should be construed, as a waiver
`of any noninfringement position, or invalidity position under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 and/or
`112. Defendants’ statements herein (including the accompanying claim charts) reflect Defendants’
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`present understanding of the purported scope of the Asserted Claim as alleged by Plaintiff in its
`Infringement Contentions (as best those contentions can be understood).
`These Invalidity Contentions are made in the alternative, and should not be interpreted to
`rely on, or in any way affect, the non-infringement arguments Defendants may assert in this case.
`Nothing disclosed herein is an admission or acknowledgement that an y product accused of
`infringement by Plaintiff in its Infringement Contentions (“Accused Products”), or any of
`Defendants’ other products or services, infringes the Asserted Claims.
`If any of the prior art references disclose the same functionality or feature of any of the
`Accused Products, Defendants reserve the right to argue that said feature or functionality does not
`practice any element of the Asserted Claims, and to argue, in the alternative, that if said feature or
`functionality is found to practice any element of the Asserted Claim s, then the prior art reference
`demonstrates that the element is not novel, is obvious, and/or is otherwise not patentable.
`C. Claim Construction
`The Asserted Claims have yet to be construed by the Court. As a result, Defendants have
`based these Invalidity Contentions upon their knowledge and understanding of the potential scope
`of the Asserted Claims at this time, and, in part, upon the apparent interpretations of the Asserted
`Claims advanced by Plaintiff in its Infringement Contentions. Defendants may disagree with
`Plaintiff’s interpretation of the meaning of many terms and phrases in the Asserted Claims.
`Defendants have provided these Invalidity C ontentions based in part on their present
`understanding of Plaintiff’s apparent constructions and interpretations of the Asserted Claim.
`These Invalidity Contentions do not represent Defendants’ agreement or view on the proper
`interpretation of any claim term. Any similarity between any apparent claim interpretation in any
`of Defendants’ charts of prior art reference(s) and Plaintiff’s Infr ingement Contentions is not an
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`admission or agreement with Plaintiff about the meaning of any claim term, but a reflection of the
`fact that the subject matter Plaintiff believes is claimed is present in the prior art, or that the claim
`is otherwise invalid.
`Defendants reserve the right to amend, revise, or change their invalidity positions based
`upon the Court’s claim construction. This includes relying on new or different art or arguments,
`including what a POSITA would understand from the claims, as interpre ted by the Court for any
`grounds of invalidity, including Sections 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
`D. Application of Local Patent Rules
`Samsung provides the information below and in the attached charts and document
`production in order to comply with Patent Rules 3-3 and 3-4. Samsung reserves the right to prove
`the invalidity of the Asserted Claims on bases other than those required to be disclosed in these
`Invalidity Contentions pursuant to Patent Rule 3-3.
`Pursuant to the provisions of Patent Rule 3-3, Samsung identifies specific portions of prior
`art references that disclose the elements of the Asserted Claims. Although Samsung has identified
`exemplary disclosures for each reference, each and every disclosu re in the reference is not
`necessarily identified. The lack of a citation for an element should not be deemed an admission
`that the element is not disclosed in (whether explicitly or inherently) or rendered obvious by the
`reference. In an effort to focus the issues, Samsung has identified only exemplary portions of cited
`references. It should be recognized that POSITAs generally read a prior art reference as a whole
`and in the context of other publications, literature, and in light of the knowledge of one of ordinary
`skill in the art. To understand and interpret any specific statement or disclosure within a prior art
`reference, such persons would rely on other information within the reference, along with other
`publications and their scientific or engineering knowledge.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Samsung consequently reserves the right to rely upon other unidentified portions of the
`prior art references, other publications, and expert testimony as to the knowledge of a POSITA to
`provide context, and as aids to understanding and interpreting the por tions that art identified.
`Samsung also reserves the right to rely on other portions of other prior art references, other
`publications, and the testimony of experts to establish that a POSITA would have been motivated
`to modify or combine certain of the cited references so as to render the Asserted Claims obvious.
`Further, where Samsung identified a particular figure in a prior art reference, the identification
`should be understood to encompass the caption and description of the figure, as well as any text
`relating to the figure in addition to the figure itself. Sim ilarly, where an identified portion of text
`refers to a figure, the identification should be understood to include the figure as well.
`E. Impact of Co-Pending IPRs
`Samsung reserves the right to rely upon any applicable industry standards and prior art
`cited in the file histories, reexamination file histories, and any IPR of the Asserted Patents and all
`related U.S. and foreign patent applications as invalidating references or to show the state of the
`art. Defendants herein incorporate by reference all evidence and arguments made in any IPR
`petitions challenging the Asserted Patents, including but not limited to IPR2026-00083,
`IPR2026-00084, and IPR2026-00085.
`Further, Samsung has charted certain references used in IPRs of the Asserted Patents and
`that are referenced in stipulations between Samsung and Zophonos. See Park Ltrs. to Healy dated
`December 17, 2025 re Pending IPRs. Samsung’s stipulations state that:
`[I]f the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office (“Director”) permits Samsung
`to file this stipulation as an exhibit in the IPR proceeding prior to issuing his
`decision on institution and, thereafter, institutes this IPR petition on the grounds
`presented therein, then Samsung will not pursue in the above -captioned litigation
`(i) any grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR,
`and (ii) combinations of the prior art asserted in this IPR with unpublished system
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`prior art. See Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020- 01019, Paper 12
`(PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential as to § II.A); Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Stellar,
`LLC, IPR2024-01205, Paper 19 (PTAB March 28, 2025).
`For the sake of clarity and to avoid any doubt, if the Director does not permit
`Samsung to file this stipulation as an exhibit in the IPR proceeding prior to his
`decision on institution, declines institution, or later vacates institution of this IPR,
`Samsung reserves the right to pursue in this litigation (i) any ground that was raised
`or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR, and/or (ii) combinations of the
`prior art asserted in this IPR with unpublished system prior art. This stipulation is
`not int ended, and should not be construed, to limit Samsung’s ability to assert
`invalidity of the asserted claims of the ’016 patent on any other ground, regardless
`of whether IPR is instituted.
`Id.
`II. PRIORITY DATES OF THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`At the outset, Samsung has had little to no discovery concerning the claimed priority dates
`for the Asserted Patents. It is Plaintiff’s burden , however, to prove entitlement to its asserted
`“priority date to which each asserted claim allegedly is entitled.” (P.R. 3-1(e)).
`Zophonos failed to set forth any evidence in its Infringement Contentions to meet that
`burden. See Zophonos’s Contentions Cover Pleading at 3- 4. Zophonos asserts, without any
`support, that the ’906 Patent is entitled to a priority date of no later than July 15, 2013 (and in the
`alternative, a priority date of no later than September 23, 2014, September 23, 2015, October 10,
`2018, and May 23, 2019), the ’736 Patent is entitled to a priority date of no later than July 15, 2013
`(and in the alternative, a prior ity date of no later than September 23, 2014, September 23, 2015,
`October 10, 2018, and May 23, 2019), and the ’016 Patent is entitled to a priority date of no later
`than July 15, 2013 (and in the alternative, a priority date of no later than September 23, 2014,
`September 23, 2015, October 10, 2018, May 23, 2019, and October 17, 2019) . Samsung disputes
`that the disclosures in the provisional and non- provisional filings cited in the Asserted Patents in
`fact support the purported full scope of the Asserted Cl aims. Samsung reserves the right to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`supplement and/or amend these Invalidity Contentions and the identification and production of
`prior art accordingly.
`Zophonos’s further contention that the Asserted Patents are entitled to a priority date as
`early as July 15, 2013 is frivolous because the Asserted Patents are subject to the AIA and,
`therefore, legally are not entitled to claim priority earlier than September 23, 2014.
`III. THE ASSERTED PATENTS ARE INVALID OVER PRIOR ART
`A. Identification of Prior Art
`Pursuant to P.R. 3- 3(a), (b) and subject to Samsung’s reservation of rights, Samsung
`identifies at least the following prior art that anticipates and/or renders obvious the Asserted
`Claims. Samsung reserves the right to assert any of the references or systems listed below for one
`Asserted Patent against other Asserted Patents, regardless of whether such reference or system is
`or is not identified in these Invalidity Contentions as asserted against such other Asserted Patents.
`Samsung further incorporates by reference all prior art, publications, and other references
`identified or asserted in any current or future post-grant proceedings filed by Samsung or any other
`party challenging the validity of the Asserted Patents, including IPR2026-00083, IPR2026-00084,
`and IPR2026-00085.
`1. Prior Art Patents and Publications
`The following patents and publications are prior art to the Asserted Patents under at least
`35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. § 103. In addition to the patents and publications listed in the
`tables below, Samsung incorporates by reference all related patents and patent applications and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`foreign counterparts, as well as all patents and applications and other materials they incorporated
`by reference.2
`Samsung reserves the right to rely on one or more of the following references as
`anticipatory references under 35 U.S.C. § 102, as further evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103, as background references demonstrating the state of the art, as a limitation upon the doctrine
`of equivalents, or for any other purpose. Based on further investigation and discovery, based on
`positions that Plaintiff may take regarding the scope of the asserted claims, and/or based on the
`Court’s claim construction, Samsung reserves the right to revise these contentions and to rely on
`these references to prove the invalidity of the Asserted Patents in a manner consistent with the
`Court’s Rules and with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`Country Patent/Publication No. Filing Date Date of
`Issue/Pub. Short Name
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2015/0195641 January 6, 2014 July 9, 2015 DiCenso641
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2008/0137873 November 19, 2007 June 12, 2008 Goldstein873
`JP JP Patent App. Pub. No.
`2012-074976 September 29, 2010 April 12, 2012 Zheng
`US U.S. Patent No.
`10,455,342 June 5, 2014 October 22, 2019 Kim
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2008/0267416 February 22, 2008 October 30, 2008 Goldstein416
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2014/0044269 August 9, 2012 February 13, 2014 Anderson
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2015/0170645 December 13, 2013 June 18, 2015 DiCenso645
`
`2 To the extent available, Samsung has produced certified translations of foreign references and
`otherwise relied on machine translations. Samsung reserve right to produce certified translations
`for any reference for which only machine translations are currently provided.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Country Patent/Publication No. Filing Date Date of
`Issue/Pub. Short Name
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2014/0254842 March 7, 2013 September 11,
`2014 Smith
`US U.S. Patent No. 6,754,355 December 7, 2000 June 22, 2004 Stetzler
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2014/0270200 March 13, 2014 September 18,
`2014 Usher200
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2007/0275670 April 21, 2006 November 29,
`2007 Chen
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2009/0076804 September 13, 2007 March 19, 2009 Bradford
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2008/0240458 January 6, 2014 October 2, 2008 Goldstein458
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2008/0015463 January 6, 2014 January 17, 2008 Goldstein463
`KR KR Patent App. Pub. No.
`10-1032521 January 6, 2014 April 25, 2011 Park521
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2012/0215519 February 21, 2012 August 23, 2012 Park519
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2014/0126748 January 6, 2014 May 8, 2014 Usher748
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2008/0031481 January 6, 2014 February 7, 2008 Warren
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2013/0316642 January 6, 2014 November 28,
`2013 Newham
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2014/0337902 January 6, 2014 November 13,
`2014 Holland
`US U.S. Patent No. 8,194,864 January 6, 2014 June 5, 2012 Goldstein864
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2008/0187149 January 6, 2014 August 7, 2008 Jung
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2015/0208188 January 20, 2014 July 23, 2015 Carlsson
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Country Patent/Publication No. Filing Date Date of
`Issue/Pub. Short Name
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2015/0095459 September 30, 2013 April 2, 2015 Schulert
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2010/0022283 July 25, 2008 January 28, 2010 Terlizzi283
`US U.S. Patent No. 7,961,869 February 13, 2006 June 14, 2011 Zhang
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2015/0289298 April 2, 2014 October 8, 2015 Widner
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2012/0224710 May 14, 2012 September 6, 2012 Terlizzi710
`US U.S. Patent No. 9,590,680 August 22, 2007 March 7, 2017 Reuss
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2009/0061837 September 4, 2007 March 5, 2009 Chaudhri
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2003/0002688 June 27, 2001 January 2, 2003 Kanevsky
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2007/0127734 July 11, 2006 June 7, 2007 Brulle
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2005/0058181 August 28, 2003 March 17, 2005 Lyle
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2011/0058056 September 9, 2009 March 10, 2011 Lindahl
`US U.S. Patent 7,991,171 April 13, 2007 August 2, 2011 Snow
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2013/0003998 February 26, 2010 January 3, 2013 Kirkeby
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2015/0371643 April 18, 2012 December 24,
`2015 Ramo
`US U.S. Patent 8,767,970 June 1, 2011 July 1, 2014 Eppolito
`US U.S. Patent 7,970,144 December 17, 2003 June 28, 2011 Avendano
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2015/0012826 May 22, 2014 January 8, 2015 Tengstrand
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Country Patent/Publication No. Filing Date Date of
`Issue/Pub. Short Name
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2013/0064385 July 27, 2012 March 14, 2013 Jeong
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2009/0238377 March 16, 2009 September 24,
`2009 Ramakrishnan
`US U.S. Patent 7,197,148 September 9, 2002 March 27, 2007 Nourse
`US U.S. Patent 7,315,244 July 14, 2004 January 1, 2008 Carmichel
`US U.S. Patent 5,778,077 September 10, 1996 July 7, 1998 Davidson
`US U.S. Patent 4,836,328 April 27, 1987 June 6, 1989 Ferralli
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2002/0118115 February 28, 2001 August 29, 2002 Schendel
`US U.S. Patent 4,580,251 November 9, 1983 April 1, 1986 Koukovinis
`US U.S. Patent 6,614,910 November 3, 1997 September 2, 2003 Clemow
`US U.S. Patent 8,213,629 February 27, 2009 July 3, 2012 Goldstein629
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2002/0040254 October 3, 2001 April 4, 2002 Neoh
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2005/0037823 May 28, 2004 February 17, 2005 Seshadri
`US U.S. Patent 6,466,832 August 24, 1998 October 15, 2002 Zuqert
`US U.S. Patent 6,944,474 September 20, 2001 September 13,
`2005 Rader
`US U.S. Patent 6,424,820 April 2, 1999 July 23, 2002 Burdick
`US U.S. Patent 6,694,034 December 28, 2000 February 17, 2004 Julstrom
`US U.S. Patent 5,615,270 June 6, 1995 July 25, 1997 Miller
`WO WO Patent App. Pub. No.
`2000/021194 October 5, 1999 April 13, 2000 Puthuff
`WO WO Patent App. Pub. No.
`2003/056790 January 4, 2002 July 10, 2003 Goh790
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Country Patent/Publication No. Filing Date Date of
`Issue/Pub. Short Name
`WO WO Patent App. Pub. No.
`2002/039600 November 6, 2001 May 16, 2002 Griffin
`JP JP Patent 2,638,563 May 16, 1995 August 6, 1996 Tamafuni
`US U.S. Patent 7,295,809 July 19, 2002 November 13,
`2007 Moore
`US U.S. Patent 9,172,345 July 26, 2011 October 27, 2015 Kok
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2010/0272285 April 22, 2009 October 28, 2010 Loud
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2008/0226098 October 26, 2007 September 18,
`2008 Haulick
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2002/0145521 April 4, 2004 October 10, 2002 Chou
`US U.S. Patent 7,013,301 September 23, 2003 March 14, 2006 Holm
`US U.S. Patent 7,146,015 December 12, 2001 December 5, 2006 Ramsden
`US U.S. Patent 7,791,499 January 15, 2008 September 7, 2010 Mohan
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2005/0281423 June 22, 2005 December 22,
`2005 Armstrong
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2010/0142735 September 2, 2009 June 10, 2010 Yoon
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2015/0179181 December 20, 2013 June 25, 2015 Morris
`US U.S. Patent 4,904,992 March 28, 1989 February 27, 1990 Grothause
`CN CN Patent 1,897,054 July 14, 2005 January 17, 2007 Qiu
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2015/0358717 June 6, 2014 December 10,
`2015 Johnston
`US U.S. Patent 7,024,229 June 28, 2002 April 4, 2006 Nishimura
`US U.S. Patent 8,183,997 November 14, 2011 May 22, 2012 Wong
`US U.S. Patent 8,325,964 March 19, 2007 December 4, 2012 Weisman
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Country Patent/Publication No. Filing Date Date of
`Issue/Pub. Short Name
`US U.S. Patent 9,135,797 December 28, 2006 September 15,
`2015 Couper
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2006/0140416 December 23, 2004 June 29, 2006 Berg
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2011/0176697 January 17, 2011 July 21, 2011 Apfel
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2014/0003625 June 28, 2012 January 2, 2014 Sheen
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2002/0057746 February 27, 2001 May 16, 2002 Chen746
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2012/0140936 February 1, 2012 June 7, 2012 Bonnick
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2011/0116642 November 16, 2009 May 19, 2011 Hall
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2006/0104452 June 23, 2005 May 18, 2006 Park452
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2012/0275613 July 9, 2012 November 1, 2012 Soulodre
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2014/0119561 November 1, 2012 May 1, 2014 Banks
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2014/0161265 November 4, 2013 June 12, 2014 Chaikin
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2012/0204213 March 2, 2011 August 9, 2012 Lau
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2013/0028301 September 28, 2011 January 31, 2013 Sashittal
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2011/0103605 October 28, 2010 May 5, 2011 Killion
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2015/0347399 February 11, 2015 December 3, 2015 Aue
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Country Patent/Publication No. Filing Date Date of
`Issue/Pub. Short Name
`US U.S. Patent App. Pub. No.
`2014/0358516 July 5, 2012 December 4, 2014 Lin
`US U.S. Patent No. 8,891,786 April 6, 2011 November 18,
`2014 Wang
` C. Wiernicki and W.
`Karoly, “Ultrasound:
`Biological Effects and
`Industrial Hygiene
`Concerns,” Am. Ind. Hyg.
`Assoc. J., 46:488-496
` 1985 Wiernicki
` H.G. Leventhall, “Low
`Frequency Noise and
`Annoyance,” Noise and
`Health, 6(23):59-72
` April 2004 Leventhall
` Excerpts from Microsoft
`Computer Dictionary (5th
`ed. 2002)
` 2002 Computer
`Dictionary
` Excerpts from Robert
`Oshana, “DSP Software
`Development Techniques
`Embedded and Real-Time
`Systems” (2006)
` 2006 Oshana
` Excerpts from Thomas D.
`Rossing, Richard F.
`Moore, and Paul A.
`Wheeler, “The Science of
`Sound” (3rd ed. 2002)
` 2002 Rossing
` Berger EH. Protection
`From infrasonic and
`ultrasonic noise exposure.
`E-A-RLOG 14, Aearo
`Company (Cabot Safety
`Corporation), (1984)
` 1984 Berger
` Duck FA. Medical and
`non-medical protection
`standards for ultrasound
`and infrasound. Prog
` 2007 Duck
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`Country Patent/Publication No. Filing Date Date of
`Issue/Pub. Short Name
`Biophys Mol Biol. 2007
`Jan-Apr;93(1-3):176-191.
` Ziaran, S. (2014). The
`assessment and evaluation
`of low-frequency noise
`near the region of
`infrasound. Noise &
`Health, 16(68), 10-7
` 2014 Ziaran
`
`2. Prior Art Systems
`On information and belief, the systems identified below were in public use, on sale, or
`otherwise available to the public before the priority date to which the Asserted Claims of the
`Asserted Patents are entitled. Defendants’ further investigation and/or subsequent discovery from
`Plaintiff or third parties with knowledge regarding prior art systems may reveal additional relevant
`prior art systems and/or further information regarding the systems identified below, or other
`relevant prior art systems. Defendants reserve the right to supplement these Invalidity Contentions,
`based on subsequent investigation and discovery, including from third parties . Defendants
`expressly incorporate by reference any document s produced to Samsung by third parties relating
`to these or other prior art systems, and reserve the right to supplement, amend, or change the
`exemplary evidence in the table below as well as in Exhibits A-18 to A-26, B-18 to B-26, and C-
`18 to C-26.
`Instrument, Device,
`or System
`Date Known, Used,
`On Sale, or Made
`by Another in the
`U.S.
`Currently Known Exemplary
`Supporting Evidence
`Harman HALOsonic
`System
`At least by 2013 https://gglotus.org/ggrace/engineering/le-issue50.pdf
`SAMSUNG_ZOPHONOS_00023399-460.
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20160813103720/http://
`news.harman.com:80/releases/industry-first:-harman-
`quiets-the-car-by-minimizing-road-noise
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Instrument, Device,
`or System
`Date Known, Used,
`On Sale, or Made
`by Another in the
`U.S.
`Currently Known Exemplary
`Supporting Evidence
`SAMSUNG_ZOPHONOS_00023461-463.
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20151017120146/https://
`news.harman.com/releases/harman-quiets-the-road-
`with-rnc
`SAMSUNG_ZOPHONOS_00023464-466.
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20200929021217/https://
`news.harman.com/releases/harman-unleashes-new-
`potential-for-in-car-listening-experiences-and-sound-
`management
`SAMSUNG_ZOPHONOS_00023467-470.
`
`https://www.edn.com/audio-synthesis-and-noise-
`reduction-in-modern-vehicles/
`SAMSUNG_ZOPHONOS_00023471-478.
`
`HARMAN000001-436.3
`Sonarworks systems
`and devices
`including the Sound
`ID 510, PSS-
`Soundflavors, PSS-
`SoundMate, Sound
`ID SoundFlavors
`Bluetooth headset,
`and Sound ID
`SM100 (collectively
`“Sonarworks
`Devices”)
`At least by
`November 11, 2006
`https://web.archive.org/web/20201030231038/https://
`www.phonearena.com/news/Hands-on-with-the-
`Sound-ID-510_id12498
`SAMSUNG_ZOPHONOS_00023987-994.
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20140830005206/https://
`the-gadgeteer.com/2010/08/03/sound-id-510-
`bluetooth-headset-review/
`SAMSUNG_ZOPHONOS_00023995-4000.
`
`https://www.cultofmac.com/reviews/sound-id-510-
`bluetooth-headset-the-genius-review-primo-headset-
`week
`SAMSUNG_ZOPHONOS_00024001-008.
`
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKd-JKZR7JE
`SAMSUNG_ZOPHONOS_00024009-014.
`
`https://www.audiologyonline.com/releases/choose-
`your-flavor-sound-id-4568
`
`3 Some of these documents have been marked by Harman as CONFIDENTIAL under the
`Protective Order, including information appearing in Exhibits A-18, B-18, and C-18. Samsung
`has marked those Exhibits as CONFIDENTIAL as a result.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`Instrument, Device,
`or System
`Date Known, Used,
`On Sale, or Made
`by Another in the
`U.S.
`Currently Known Exemplary
`Supporting Evidence
`SAMSUNG_ZOPHONOS_00024015-018.
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20201126081851/https://
`www.cnet.com/reviews/soundid-soundflavors-
`bluetooth-headset-review/
`SAMSUNG_ZOPHONOS_00024019-023.
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20130430053855/https://
`techcrunch.com/2007/06/28/sound-id-sm100-
`bluetooth-headset-review/
`SAMSUNG_ZOPHONOS_00024024-027.
`
`https://www.manualslib.com/manual/1212665/Sound
`-Id-Sm100-Earmodule.html#product-
`SM100%20EarModule
`SAMSUNG_ZOPHONOS_00024028-049.
`Plantronics systems
`and devices
`including the
`Discovery 655 and
`the Discovery 975
`Bluetooth headsets
`(collectively
`“Plantronics
`Devices”)
`At least by 2006
`https://pocketnow.com/plantronics-discovery-655-
`bluetooth-headset/
`SAMSUNG_ZOPHONOS_00023897-904.
`
`https://web.archive.org/web/20140219145611/https://
`www.siliconpopculture.com/articles/review/plantroni
`cs_discovery_655/
`SAMSUNG_ZOPHONOS_00023905-909.
`
`https://www.headsetexperts.com/documents/pdf/ug_d
`iscovery_655.pdf?srsltid=AfmBOoqlcb-
`Tfxs1pM6M22wMFvKvZdb3FOnrqMzL6xTMQ1V
`4Qxo6iRRZ
`SAMSUNG_ZOPHONOS_