`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`The CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF
`TECHNOLOGY,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-CV-0446-JRG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.’S AND SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.’S ANSWER TO CALTECH’S FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00446-JRG Document 44 Filed 05/16/22 Page 2 of 31 PageID #: 478
`
`
`
`Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) and Samsung Electronics America,
`Inc. (“SEA”) (collectively, “Samsung”) hereby submit their Answer to Plaintiff The California
`Institute of Technology’s (“Caltech” or “Plaintiff”) First Amended Complaint. Caltech’s First
`Amended Complaint is improper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 without leave of the Court or consent of
`Samsung. Samsung does not object to Caltech’s withdrawal of U.S. Patent No. 7,716,552 (“the
`’552 patent) because, as Caltech now knows, Samsung is fully licensed to all of the Asserted
`Patents. The other Asserted Patents should be withdrawn against Samsung for at least this same
`reason. Samsung reserves all rights against Caltech for continuing to pursue unwarranted litigation
`on the four remaining Asserted Patents that Samsung is fully licensed to use and for which Caltech
`has already been fully compensated.
`Samsung denies all allegations in Caltech’s First Amended Complaint unless expressly
`admitted in the following paragraphs. Any admissions herein are for purposes of this matter only.
`Samsung also reserves the right to take further positions and raise additional defenses and
`counterclaims that may become apparent as a result of additional information discovered
`subsequent to filing the Answer.
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT*
`Samsung admits that Plaintiff purports to set forth an action for patent infringement
`
`1.
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 7,116,710 (the “’710 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,421,032 (the “’032 patent”),
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,916,781 (the “’781 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 8,284,833 (the “’833 patent”)
`
`(collectively, “the Asserted Patents”) against Samsung arising under the patent laws of the United
`
`States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. Samsung denies committing any acts of infringement at any time.
`
`Samsung denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 1 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`
`* Samsung restates the heading used in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, but the use of
`Plaintiff’s headings should not be construed as an admission by Samsung. For example, as set
`forth below, Samsung denies any alleged patent infringement.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00446-JRG Document 44 Filed 05/16/22 Page 3 of 31 PageID #: 479
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Samsung admits that certain public documents reflect a jury found Apple and
`
`Broadcom infringed certain claims of the ’710, ’032, and ’781 patents and awarded Caltech more
`
`than $1 billion in damages, but the litigation documents are heavily redacted and the Federal
`
`Circuit vacated the judgment of infringement for the ’781 patent and the damages award in its
`
`entirety and then remanded for a new trial. California Inst. of Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd., 25 F.4th
`
`976, 980 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Samsung denies committing any acts of infringement at any time.
`
`Samsung admits that Caltech seeks a reasonable royalty from Samsung, but Samsung denies that
`
`any is owed. Samsung denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 2 of the First Amended
`
`Complaint.
`
`THE PARTIES
`Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`3.
`
`of the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the First Amended Complaint and, on that basis, denies them.
`
`4.
`
`Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the First Amended Complaint and, on that basis, denies them.
`
`5.
`
`Samsung admits that SEC is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
`
`the Republic of Korea with a principal place of business at 129 Samsung-ro, Maetan-3dong,
`
`Yeongtong-gu Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, 16677, Korea. Samsung denies the remaining allegations
`
`in Paragraph 5 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`6.
`
`Samsung admits that SEA is a wholly owned subsidiary of SEC. Samsung admits
`
`that SEA is incorporated under the laws of New York with a principal place of business at 85
`
`Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660. Samsung admits that SEA has offices at
`
`6625 Excellence Way, Plano, Texas 75023. Samsung further admits that SEA may be served with
`
`process through its registered agent with the Texas Secretary of State, CT Corporation System,
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00446-JRG Document 44 Filed 05/16/22 Page 4 of 31 PageID #: 480
`
`
`
`1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201. Samsung denies the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 6 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`7.
`
`Samsung admits that SEA is involved in sales and distribution of certain Samsung
`
`consumer electronics products in the United States. Samsung denies that it has committed any
`
`acts of infringement as alleged by Caltech and denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 7 of
`
`the First Amended Complaint.
`
`8.
`
`Samsung admits that SEA merged with Samsung Telecommunications America
`
`LLC (“STA”) in January 2015. Samsung admits that STA was involved in the sales and
`
`distribution of certain Samsung-branded mobile electronic products in the United States. Samsung
`
`denies that STA or any other Samsung entity infringed any of the Asserted Patents. Samsung
`
`denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 8 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`9.
`
`Samsung denies that SEA or STA has committed any acts of infringement as
`
`alleged by Caltech. Samsung further denies that any alleged acts of infringement at issue in this
`
`case occurred before the merger of STA and SEA, which occurred more than six years before the
`
`First Amended Complaint was filed. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 9 of the First
`
`Amended Complaint express legal conclusions and thus no response is required. To the extent
`
`that a response is required, Samsung denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 9 of the First
`
`Amended Complaint.
`
`10.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`Samsung admits that the First Amended Complaint purports to set forth an action
`
`11.
`
`under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00446-JRG Document 44 Filed 05/16/22 Page 5 of 31 PageID #: 481
`
`
`
`12.
`
`As pled, Samsung does not deny that the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`1331 and 1338(a). Samsung denies the Court has subject matter jurisdiction in this case, and on
`
`that basis denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 12 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`13.
`
`For the purposes of this action only, Samsung does not challenge personal
`
`jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Texas. Samsung denies that it has committed any acts of
`
`infringement as alleged by Caltech. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 13 of the First
`
`Amended Complaint express legal conclusions and thus no response is required. To the extent
`
`that a response is required, Samsung denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 13 of the First
`
`Amended Complaint.
`
`14.
`
`Samsung admits that SEA has offices in the Eastern District of Texas, including at
`
`6625 Excellence Way, Plano, Texas 75023. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 14 of the First
`
`Amended Complaint express legal conclusions and thus no response is required. To the extent
`
`that a response is required, Samsung denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 14 of the First
`
`Amended Complaint.
`
`15.
`
`Samsung admits that the website cited in Paragraph 15 Footnote 1 of the First
`
`Amended Complaint, when accessed on April 5, 2022, stated that SEA’s “Mobile hub in Plano
`
`centralizes innovation and enhances cross-functional collaboration for all teams dedicated to their
`
`largest mobile product line: smartphones” and its “[d]ivisions includ[e] Networks, Mobile
`
`Marketing, Computing and Wearables, and Product Management.” Samsung further admits that
`
`the April 6, 2018 website cited in Paragraph 15 Footnote 2 of the First Amended Complaint, when
`
`accessed on April 5, 2022, stated that as of the date of that article, “Samsung Electronics America’s
`
`North Texas offices will now be located in a newly redeveloped 216,000 square foot building” and
`
`“more than 1,000 regional employees from two current locations in Richardson and Plano will be
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00446-JRG Document 44 Filed 05/16/22 Page 6 of 31 PageID #: 482
`
`
`
`relocated to the new location.” Samsung denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 15 of the
`
`First Amended Complaint.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 16 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 17 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`For the purposes of this action only, Samsung does not contest that the requirements
`
`of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)-(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1400 are satisfied, as pled. Samsung denies that venue
`
`is proper and denies that this District is the most convenient venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404.
`
`19.
`
`Samsung admits that SEC is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
`
`the Republic of Korea. Samsung further admits that SEA has offices at 6625 Excellence Way,
`
`Plano, Texas 75023. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 19 of the First Amended Complaint
`
`express legal conclusions and thus no response is required. To the extent that a response is
`
`required, Samsung denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 19 of the First Amended
`
`Complaint.
`
`ASSERTED PATENTS
`Samsung admits that what is purported to be a copy of the ’710 patent is attached
`
`20.
`
`to the First Amended Complaint as Exhibit A. Samsung admits that, on its face, the ’710 patent is
`
`titled “Serial Concatenation of Interleaved Convolutional Codes Forming Turbo-Like Codes” and
`
`states the date of the patent is October 3, 2006. The ’710 patent purports to be a continuation-in-
`
`part to U.S. Patent Application No. 09/922,852.
`
`21.
`
`Samsung admits that what is purported to be a copy of the ’032 patent is attached
`
`to the First Amended Complaint as Exhibit B. Samsung admits that, on its face, the ’032 patent is
`
`titled “Serial Concatenation of Interleaved Convolutional Codes Forming Turbo-Like Codes” and
`
`states the date of the patent is September 2, 2008. Samsung admits that the ’032 patent states that
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00446-JRG Document 44 Filed 05/16/22 Page 7 of 31 PageID #: 483
`
`
`
`it is a continuation of the application that led to the ’710 patent and purports to be a continuation-
`
`in-part to U.S. Patent Application No. 09/922,852.
`
`22.
`
`Samsung admits that what is purported to be a copy of the ’781 patent is attached
`
`to the First Amended Complaint as Exhibit D1. Samsung admits that, on its face, the ’781 patent
`
`is titled “Serial Concatenation of Interleaved Convolutional Codes Forming Turbo-Like Codes”
`
`and states the date of the patent is March 29, 2011. Samsung admits that the ’781 patent states
`
`that it is a continuation of the application that led to the ’032 patent, which is a continuation of the
`
`application that led to the ’710 patent and purports to be a continuation-in-part to U.S. Patent
`
`Application No. 09/922,852.
`
`23.
`
`Samsung admits that what is purported to be a copy of the ’833 patent is attached
`
`to the First Amended Complaint as Exhibit E. Samsung admits that, on its face, the ’833 patent is
`
`titled “Serial Concatenation of Interleaved Convolutional Codes Forming Turbo-Like Codes” and
`
`states the date of the patent is October 9, 2012. Samsung admits that the ’833 patent states that it
`
`is a continuation of the application that led to the ’781 patent, which is a continuation of the
`
`application that led to the ’032 patent, which is a continuation of the application that led to the
`
`’710 patent and purports to be a continuation-in-part to U.S. Patent Application No. 09/922,852.
`
`24.
`
`Samsung admits that, on its face, each of the ’710, ’032, ’781, and ’833 patents
`
`purports to identify Hui Jin, Aamod Khandekar, and Robert J. McEliece as inventors.
`
`
`1 Samsung notes that in view of Caltech’s recognition that the ’552 patent must be withdrawn,
`Caltech has removed, but not replaced, Exhibit C. To that end, Samsung understands that there is
`no Exhibit C to Caltech’s First Amended Complaint.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00446-JRG Document 44 Filed 05/16/22 Page 8 of 31 PageID #: 484
`
`
`
`25. Samsung admits that the ’710, ’032, ’781, and ’833 patents expired on or before
`
`August 18, 2020. Samsung denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 25 of the First
`
`Amended Complaint.
`
`26.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`BACKGROUND
`Samsung denies that the Asserted Patents “disclose a seminal improvement to
`
`27.
`
`coding systems and methods.” Samsung further denies that the ’710, ’032, ’781, and ’833 patents
`
`(“IRA Patents”) “introduce another new class of error correction codes.” Samsung disagrees with
`
`Caltech’s characterization of the technology, and therefore denies the allegations of Paragraph 27.
`
`To the extent Paragraph 27 makes allegations regarding the alleged invention and scope of the
`
`claims, Samsung denies such allegations. Samsung’s responses are not intended to interpret the
`
`meaning or scope of the claims of the Asserted Patents. The remaining allegations in Paragraph
`
`27 of the First Amended Complaint express legal conclusions about the alleged invention and
`
`scope of the claims and thus no response is required. To the extent that a response is required,
`
`Samsung denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 27 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`28.
`
`Samsung disagrees with Caltech’s characterization of the technology, and therefore
`
`denies the allegations of Paragraph 28. Samsung denies that “the IRA Patents enable a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to implement IRA codes using simple circuitry, providing improved
`
`performance over prior art encoders and decoders.” To the extent Paragraph 28 makes allegations
`
`regarding the alleged invention and scope of the claims, Samsung denies such allegations.
`
`Samsung’s responses are not intended to interpret the meaning or scope of the claims of the
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent Paragraph 28 purports to contain any other or different allegations,
`
`Samsung denies them.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00446-JRG Document 44 Filed 05/16/22 Page 9 of 31 PageID #: 485
`
`
`
`29.
`
`Samsung admits that what is purported to be a copy of a paper titled “Irregular
`
`Repeat-Accumulate Codes” is attached to the First Amended Complaint as Exhibit F. Samsung
`
`admits that, on its face, Exhibit F identifies Hui Jin, Aamod Khandekar, and Robert McEliece as
`
`authors. Samsung admits that Exhibit F states that “[t]his paper is to be presented at the Second
`
`International Conference on Turbo Codes, Brest, France, September 2000.” Samsung denies the
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 29 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`30.
`
`Samsung admits that what is purported to be a copy of a paper titled “Design
`
`Methods for Irregular Repeat-Accumulate Codes” is attached to the First Amended Complaint as
`
`Exhibit G. Samsung admits the paper identifies Aline Roumy, Souad Guemghar, Giuseppe Caire,
`
`and Sergio Verdú and includes the quote “IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Vol. 50, No.
`
`8, August 2004.” Samsung further admits Exhibit G includes the block quoted language in
`
`Paragraph 30 of the First Amended Complaint. Samsung denies the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 30 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`31.
`
`Samsung admits the IEEE has developed standards for wireless communications
`
`over local area networks and that certain of those standards are sometimes referred to as “Wi-Fi.”
`
`Samsung further admits certain modern electronic products, including certain smartphones,
`
`laptops, routers, televisions, cameras, cars, and other devices that have wireless connections use
`
`Wi-Fi. Samsung disagrees with Caltech’s characterization of the technology, and therefore denies
`
`the remaining allegations of Paragraph 31.
`
`32.
`
`Samsung admits the 802.11 standardization process began in the 1990s and the first
`
`version of 802.11 was referred to as IEEE 802.11-1997 and that in the following years, subsequent
`
`versions of the 802.11 standard were adopted. Samsung disagrees with Caltech’s characterization
`
`of the technology, and therefore denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 32.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00446-JRG Document 44 Filed 05/16/22 Page 10 of 31 PageID #: 486
`
`
`
`33.
`
`Samsung disagrees with Caltech’s characterization of the technology, and therefore
`
`denies the allegations of Paragraph 33. To the extent Paragraph 33 makes allegations regarding
`
`the alleged invention and scope of the claims, Samsung denies such allegations. Samsung’s
`
`responses are not intended to interpret the meaning or scope of the claims of the Asserted Patents.
`
`To the extent Paragraph 33 purports to contain any other or different allegations, Samsung denies
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 33 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`Samsung admits that in May 2016, Caltech filed a patent infringement action
`34.
`against Apple and Broadcom in the Central District of California involving the ’710, ’032, ’781,
`and ’833 patents. Samsung admits that the document in Caltech v. Broadcom Ltd., et al., No. 16-
`cv-3714-GW, Dkt. No. 2114 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2020) purports to be a Verdict Form. Samsung
`admits that a jury found Apple and Broadcom infringed certain claims of the ’710, ’032, and ’781
`patents and awarded Caltech more than $1 billion in damages, but the Federal Circuit vacated the
`judgment of infringement for the ’781 patent and the damages award in its entirety and then
`remanded for a new trial. California Inst. of Tech. v. Broadcom Ltd., 25 F.4th 976, 980 (Fed. Cir.
`2022). Samsung denies committing any acts of infringement at any time, including at least because
`Samsung products do not infringe the Asserted Patents and Samsung is licensed to the Asserted
`Patents. Samsung denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 34 of the First Amended
`Complaint.
`Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`35.
`of the allegations in Paragraph 35 of the First Amended Complaint and, on that basis, denies them.
`Samsung admits Apple filed ten IPR petitions with the United States Patent and
`36.
`Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) seeking to invalidate the ’710, ’032,
`’781, and ’833 patents. Samsung admits the PTAB denied institution of three of those petitions.
`Samsung denies that the PTAB upheld the patentability for all claims, at least because the PTAB
`did not consider all claims of the ’710, ’032, ’781, and ’833 patents and because it held claims 19-
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00446-JRG Document 44 Filed 05/16/22 Page 11 of 31 PageID #: 487
`
`
`
`21 of the ’781 patent were unpatentable. Samsung denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph
`36 of the First Amended Complaint.
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 37 of the First Amended Complaint.
`37.
`
`38.
`
`Samsung admits that at least some documents for at least some of the models of the
`
`products identified in Paragraph 37 of the First Amended Complaint reference the 802.11n,
`
`802.11ac, and/or 802.11ax standards, but denies that Caltech has asserted any of the Asserted
`
`Patents are essential to practicing these standards. Samsung further admits that at least some third-
`
`party documents for at least some of the models of the products identified in Paragraph 37 of the
`
`First Amended Complaint reference LDPC codes. Samsung denies the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 38 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`39.
`
`Samsung admits that at least some third-party documents for at least some of the
`
`models of the products identified in Paragraph 37 of the First Amended Complaint reference LDPC
`
`codes. Samsung denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 39 of the First Amended
`
`Complaint.
`
`40.
`
`Samsung admits that the third-party website cited in Paragraph 40 Footnote 3 of
`
`the First Amended Complaint, when accessed on April 5, 2022, purported to describe
`
`specifications for QCA6174A, and included the quoted language “2x2 dual-band 802.11ac Wi-Fi
`
`with MU-MIMO.” Samsung admits that the third-party website cited in Paragraph 40 Footnote 3
`
`of the First Amended Complaint, when accessed on April 5, 2022, included the quoted language
`
`“Standards: 802.11ac Wave 2, 802.11a/b/g, 802.11n” under “Specifications” for “Wi-Fi,” and
`
`“Maximal Likelihood (ML) decoding, lowdensity parity check (LDPC), maximum ratio
`
`combining (MRC) for robust link connection” under “Features.” Samsung denies that the third-
`
`party website cited in Paragraph 40 Footnote 3 of the First Amended Complaint, when accessed
`
`on April 5, 2022, referred to the Samsung Galaxy Tab S3 or included the language “QCA6174A
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00446-JRG Document 44 Filed 05/16/22 Page 12 of 31 PageID #: 488
`
`
`
`2x2 MU-MIMO 11ac Wi-Fi technology.” Samsung denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph
`
`40 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`41.
`
`Samsung admits that the third-party website cited in Paragraph 41 Footnote 4 of
`
`the First Amended Complaint, when accessed on April 5, 2022, purported to be a teardown report
`
`of a Samsung Galaxy S4 product on or before April 27, 2013, which is more than six years before
`
`the First Amended Complaint was filed. Samsung admits that the third-party website cited in
`
`Paragraph 41 Footnote 4 of the First Amended Complaint, when accessed on April 5, 2022,
`
`purported to show “Broadcom BCM4335 Single-Chip 5G Wi-Fi MAC/Baseband/Radio.” The
`
`third-party website cited in Paragraph 41 Footnote 5 of the First Amended Complaint, when
`
`accessed on April 5, 2022, did not refer to BCM4335, and on that basis, Samsung denies
`
`allegations regarding what the third-party website cited in Paragraph 41 Footnote 5 of the First
`
`Amended Complaint, when accessed on April 5, 2022, shows. Samsung denies the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 41 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`42.
`
`Samsung admits that the third-party website cited in Paragraph 42 Footnote 6 of
`
`the First Amended Complaint, when accessed on April 5, 2022, purported to be a review of the
`
`Samsung Galaxy S5 LTE-A on or before August 5, 2014, which is more than six years before the
`
`First Amended Complaint was filed, and included the term “a Qualcomm Atheros QCA6174
`
`solution.” Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the remaining allegations in Paragraph 42 of the First Amended Complaint and, on that basis,
`
`denies them.
`
`43.
`
`Samsung admits that the third-party website cited in Paragraph 43 Footnote 7 of
`
`the First Amended Complaint, when accessed on April 5, 2022, purported to be a teardown report
`
`for a Samsung SM-G930FD Galaxy S7 smartphone on or before August 6, 2016 and purported to
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00446-JRG Document 44 Filed 05/16/22 Page 13 of 31 PageID #: 489
`
`
`
`show a “Broadcom BCM4359 (Die) 5G Wi-Fi Combo Chip” purportedly found inside the
`
`Samsung 4541S7 components extracted from the Samsung SM-G930FD Galaxy S7 smartphone.
`
`Samsung admits that the third-party website cited in Paragraph 43 Footnote 8 of the First Amended
`
`Complaint dated March 2, 2015, when accessed on April 5, 2022, stated: “The BCM4359 is
`
`Broadcom’s 2x2 MIMO 5G WiFi combo chip with Bluetooth 4.1 and FM radio featuring:” “2x2
`
`HT80 802.11ac” and “Transmit beamforming and Low Density Parity Check (LDPC).” Samsung
`
`denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 43 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`44.
`
`Samsung denies the third-party website cited in Paragraph 44 Footnote 9 of the
`
`First Amended Complaint, when accessed on April 5, 2022, is a teardown report for the Samsung
`
`Galaxy S10 that shows a Broadcom BCM4375 Wi-Fi module inside a smartphone. Samsung
`
`admits that the third-party website cited in Paragraph 44 Footnote 10 of the First Amended
`
`Complaint, when accessed on April 5, 2022, included under “Features” of the chip, stated “Support
`
`for two streams of 802.11ax” and “1024 QAM modulation.” Samsung admits IEEE 802.11ax-
`
`2021 at § 27.1.1 included the quoted language “LDPC coding (transmit and receive) in all
`
`supported HE PPDU types, RU sizes, and number of spatial streams if the STA declares support
`
`for HE-MCSs 10 and 11 (transmit and receive).” Samsung disagrees with Caltech’s
`
`characterization of the technology, and therefore denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 44.
`
`45.
`
`Samsung admits that at least some certifications for some of the models of the
`
`products identified in Paragraph 37 of the First Amended Complaint state those specific products
`
`comply with the 802.11ac and/or 802.11ax standards. Samsung admits that at least some of the
`
`models of the products identified in Paragraph 37 of the First Amended Complaint have received
`
`a “Wi-Fi CERTIFIED” designation from the Wi-Fi Alliance. Samsung admits that quotes in this
`
`paragraph that are alleged to be found on cited Wi-Fi Alliance webpages were found on those
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00446-JRG Document 44 Filed 05/16/22 Page 14 of 31 PageID #: 490
`
`
`
`webpages at least as of April 5, 2022. Samsung admits that the third-party website cited in
`
`Paragraph 45 Footnote 12, when accessed on April 5, 2022, stated on its face the principal office
`
`of the Wi-Fi Alliance was 10900-A Stonelake Boulevard Suite 195, Austin, TX 78759 USA and
`
`that it included the quoted language “the specific purpose of the corporation is to promote multi-
`
`vendor interoperability for markets including the enterprise, small office, and home and in
`
`particular the development, adoption and use of Wi-Fi technology and products and services
`
`relating thereto.” Samsung admits SEC became a Sponsor member of the Wi-Fi Alliance in 2011.
`
`Samsung admits that, as one of the sponsor members, it is permitted to designate a director and an
`
`alternate director to serve on the Board. Samsung admits that the third-party website cited in
`
`Paragraph 45, Footnote 14, when accessed on April 5, 2022, stated on its face that “Wi-Fi
`
`CERTIFIEDTM” “indicat[es] that they have met industry-agreed standards for interoperability,
`
`security, and a range of application specific protocols.” Samsung admits that the third-party
`
`website cited in Paragraph 45, Footnote 15, when accessed on April 5, 2022, on its face, stated that
`
`“Wi-Fi CERTIFIED 6” is a “certification program based on the IEEE 802.1lax standard.”
`
`Samsung admits that the third-party website cited in Paragraph 45 Footnote 16, when accessed on
`
`April 5, 2022, on its face, stated that “Wi-Fi CERTIFIED ac” is “[b]ased on IEEE 802.11ac.”
`
`Samsung admits that a certification issued under the “Wi-Fi CERTIFIED 6” and “Wi-Fi
`
`CERTIFIED ac” programs may include information regarding LDPC codes. To the extent there
`
`are any remaining allegations, Samsung denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 45 of the
`
`First Amended Complaint.
`
`46.
`
`Samsung admits that the third-party website cited in Paragraph 46 Footnote 17 of
`
`the First Amended Complaint, when accessed on April 5, 2022, purported to be a certification
`
`identifying a date of June 16, 2020 for the SM-F707U product. Samsung admits the third-party
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00446-JRG Document 44 Filed 05/16/22 Page 15 of 31 PageID #: 491
`
`
`
`website when accessed on April 5, 2022 included the terms “Wi-Fi CERTIFIED 6™” and “Wi-Fi
`
`CERTIFIED™ ac.” Samsung further admits the third-party website when accessed on April 5,
`
`2022 included the language “LDPC Rx” and “LDPC Tx” under the “Wi-Fi CERTIFIED 6™” and
`
`“Wi-Fi CERTIFIED™ ac” headings on the final page. To the extent there are any remaining
`
`allegations, Samsung denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 46 of the First Amended
`
`Complaint.
`
`47.
`
`Samsung admits that the third-party website cited in Paragraph 47 Footnote 18 of
`
`the First Amended Complaint, when accessed on April 5, 2022 purported to be a certification
`
`identifying a date of September 4, 2019 for the SM-N976U product. Samsung admits the third-
`
`party website cited in Paragraph 47 Footnote 18 of the First Amended Complaint, when accessed
`
`on April 5, 2022, included the terms “Wi-Fi CERTIFIED 6™” and “Wi-Fi CERTIFIED™ ac.”
`
`Samsung further admits the third-party website cited in Paragraph 47 Footnote 18 of the First
`
`Amended Complaint, when accessed on April 5, 2022, included the language “LDPC Rx” and
`
`“LDPC Tx” under the “Wi-Fi CERTIFIED 6™” and “Wi-Fi CERTIFIED™ ac” headings on the
`
`fourth page. To the extent there are any remaining allegations, Samsung denies the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 47 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`COUNT ONE
`Paragraph 48 of the First Amended Complaint does not require an answer. To the
`
`48.
`
`extent any response is required, Samsung repeats and incorporates by reference the responses to
`
`Paragraphs 1–47 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 49 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`Samsung admits that at least some documents for at least some of the models of the
`
`products identified in Paragraph 37 of the First Amended Complaint reference the 802.11n,
`
`802.11ac, and/or 802.11ax standards. Samsung further admits that at least some third-party
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00446-JRG Document 44 Filed 05/16/22 Page 16 of 31 PageID #: 492
`
`
`
`documents for at least some of the models of the products identified in Paragraph 37 of the First
`
`Amended Complaint reference LDPC codes. Samsung denies that it has committed any acts of
`
`infringement as alleged by Caltech, including because Samsung products do not infringe the
`
`Asserted Patents and because Samsung has a license to the ’710 patent. Samsung disagrees with
`
`Caltech’s characterization of the technology, and therefore denies the allegations of Paragraph 50.
`
`To the extent Paragraph 50 makes allegations regarding the alleged invention and scope of the
`
`claims, Samsung denies such allegations. Samsung’s responses are not intended to interpret the
`
`meaning or scope of the claims of the Asserted Patents. Samsung denies any remaining allegations
`
`in Paragraph 50 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`51.
`
`Samsung admits that the image of a table shown in Paragraph 51 can be found in
`
`IEEE 802.11n-2009 at § 20.3.11.6.2, IEEE 802.11-2012 at § 20.3.11.7.2; IEEE 802.11-2016 at §
`
`19.3.11.7.2; and IEEE 802.11-2020 at § 19.3.11.7.2. To the extent Paragraph 51 makes allegations
`
`regarding the alleged invention and scope of the claims, Samsung denies such allegations.
`
`Samsung’s responses are not intended to interpret the meaning or scope of the claims of the
`
`Asserted Patents. Samsung denies the remaining allegations or characterizations in Paragraph 51
`
`of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`52.
`
`Samsung admits that the image included in Paragraph 52 of the First Amended
`
`Complaint can be found in IEEE 802.11n-2009 at § 20.3.11.6.3. Samsung admits that at least
`
`some third-party documents for at least some models of the products identified in Paragraph 37 of
`
`the First Amended Complaint reference LDPC codes. To the extent Paragraph 52 makes
`
`allegations regarding the alleged invention and scope of the claims, Samsung denies such
`
`allegations. Samsung’s responses are not intended to interpret the meaning or scope of the claims
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00446-JRG Document 44 Filed 05/16/22 Page 17 of 31 PageID #: 493
`
`
`
`of the Asserted Patents. Samsung denies the remaining allegations or characterizations in
`
`Paragraph 52 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`53.
`
`Samsung admits that the image shown in Paragraph 53 is an excerpt of a larger
`
`table that can be found in IEEE 802.11n-2009 at Annex R, Table R.1, but denies that the red line
`
`embedded in the table appears in IEEE 802.11n-2009 at Annex R, Table R.1. To the extent
`
`Paragraph 53 makes allegations regarding the