throbber
Case 2:21-cv-00446-JRG Document 44 Filed 05/16/22 Page 1 of 31 PageID #: 477
`
`
`
`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 The other Asserted Patents should be withdrawn against Samsung for at least this same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

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


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

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

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

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

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

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

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

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

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

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

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

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

Become a Member

One Moment Please

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

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

Your document is on its way!

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

Sealed Document

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

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


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket