Professional Documents
Culture Documents
57107 Page 1 of 29
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1
2 Page(s)
3 Cases
4 Benitec Australia, Ltd. v. Nucleonics, Inc.,
5 495 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ...................................................................... 11, 15
6 Esoterix Genetic Labs. LLC v. Qiagen Inc.,
7
No. 14-cv-13228-ADB, 2016 WL 4555613 (D. Mass. Aug. 31,
2016) ................................................................................................... 11, 17, 18, 19
8
Impression Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc.,
9 137 S. Ct. 1523 (2017).......................................................................................... 14
10
Monk v. Shulkin,
11 855 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 11
12
Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
13 553 U.S. 617 (2008).............................................................................................. 13
14 Super Sack Manufacturing Corp. v. Chase Packaging Corp.,
15 57 F.3d 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1995), abrogated on other grounds by
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007) ........................... 11, 12
16
Statutes
17
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 processor chipsets that cellular devices use to communicate. In this case, Apple and
2 the CMs have challenged Qualcomm’s licensing of patents for which Apple and the
3 CMs owe Qualcomm no payment because they are exhausted, invalid, and/or not
4 infringed. For example, patent exhaustion issues arise throughout Apple’s
5 Complaint and the CMs’ Counterclaims, including in counts seeking (1) a
6 declaration of unenforceability of patents due to exhaustion (2) declaration of
7 unenforceability of the CMs’ license agreements, (3) a determination that Apple is
8 entitled to restitution of monies paid pursuant to the CMs’ license agreements for
9 patents that were exhausted, and (4) violations of the Unfair Competition Law
10 including Qualcomm’s seeking and obtaining license fees from Apple and others for
11 exhausted patents.1 Apple and the CMs also have asked the Court to order
12 disgorgement of the overpayment of license fees that they have paid for, among
13 other things, exhausted patents. See Apple’s FAC, Prayer for Relief M (“Order
14 Qualcomm to disgorge . . . royalties for exhausted patents”); CMs’ Counterclaims,
15 Prayer for Relief T (“Order Qualcomm to disgorge any . . . royalties for exhausted
16 patents . . . .”). Therefore, Qualcomm’s current demand for a license fee for
17 exhausted patents, and Apple’s and the CMs’ past payment of monies for exhausted
18 patents, remain live in the case.
19 Importantly, Apple’s and the CMs’ claims for exhaustion extend beyond just
20 the nine patents-in-suit. Apple’s and the CMs’ pleadings raise a broader case or
21 controversy “regarding the exhaustion of Qualcomm’s patent rights with respect to
22 patents substantially embodied in baseband processor chipsets sold by Qualcomm to
23 Apple’s CMs.” Apple’s FAC ¶ 590; see also CMs’ Counterclaims, 3:17-CV-01010,
24
1
Apple’s FAC at Count LIX (declaration of unenforceability due to exhaustion),
25 Count LXI (declaratory relief seeking a determination that Apple is entitled to
26 restitution of monies paid pursuant to the CMs’ license agreements for patents that
were exhausted), Count LXIII (violations of the Unfair Competition Law); CMs’
27 Counterclaims, 3:17-CV-01010, ECF No. 88 at Count XII (declaration of
28 unenforceability of the CMs’ license agreements), Count LXVII (declaration of
unenforceability due to exhaustion).
2 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57112 Page 6 of 29
1 ECF No. 88 ¶ 718. Qualcomm itself has put at issue in this case the exhaustion of
2 93 additional patents by claiming that they are essential to certain cellular standards
3 with which Apple products comply, and by using them to support its assertions
4 regarding the value of its portfolio. More specifically, in response to the claims of
5 Apple and the CMs, Qualcomm is trying to prove that Apple and the CMs owe
6 billions in royalties based on the value of its entire portfolio. Qualcomm’s Covenant
7 as to the nine patents-in-suit does nothing to moot the broader case and controversy
8 over the exhaustion of other patents in Qualcomm’s portfolio, including the 93
9 declared standard-essential patents (“SEPs”) that Qualcomm has now injected into
10 the case.
11 Because Qualcomm’s Covenant does not moot the case or controversy over
12 the exhaustion, invalidity, and noninfringement counts, the Court should deny
13 Qualcomm’s motion.
14 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
15 A. Apple and the CMs Have Claims That Implicate Exhaustion,
Invalidity, and Noninfringement
16
Qualcomm’s portfolio SULAs with the CMs: As the owner of patents that it
17
contends may be standard-essential, as well as the manufacturer of baseband
18
processor chipsets practicing various of those patents, Qualcomm has employed a
19
“no license, no chips” policy that requires any entity wishing to purchase
20
Qualcomm’s baseband processor chipsets to first sign a license for and then pay
21
royalties to Qualcomm, even where the chipsets substantially embody those patents.
22
ECF No. 601-2, Statement of Facts ¶¶ 1, 3; Apple FAC ¶¶ 91, 582; CMs’
23
Counterclaims, 3:17-CV-01010, ECF No. 88 ¶¶ 100, 155. Consistent with that
24
policy, each of the CMs has entered into licensing agreements with Qualcomm—
25
called “Subscriber Unit License Agreements,” or “SULAs”—that require them to
26
pay upfront licensing fees and quarterly royalty payments to Qualcomm in exchange
27
for rights to a patent portfolio encompassing patents that “
28
1 SULAs with Qualcomm (where the royalty was based upon the price of the devices
2 sold by the CMs to Apple) in addition to paying the purchase price for Qualcomm
3 baseband processor chipsets. CMs’ Counterclaims, 3:17-CV-01010, ECF No. 88
4 ¶¶ 155, 233; Statement of Facts, ECF No. 601-2 ¶ 3. Apple has provided the CMs
5 with funds to pay for both the chipsets and royalties with respect to the Apple
6 products being sold to Apple. Apple’s FAC, ECF No. 79 ¶¶ 74, 86.
7 Qualcomm’s license demands to Apple: Qualcomm and Apple engaged in
8 discussions about a direct license in November 2014. Apple’s FAC, ECF No. 79
9 ¶ 119. Consistent with its SULAs, Qualcomm insisted on negotiating a license for
10 all of its cellular SEPs together. Id. ¶¶ 160-66. Throughout the parties’ discussions,
11 Qualcomm has maintained that Apple owes a royalty on Qualcomm’s entire
12 portfolio of SEPs and has made portfolio-driven offers. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 120, 122.
13 When asked for the basis for its demands, Qualcomm responded that “Apple
14 products have been certified as compliant with CDMA/WCDMA (3G) and LTE
15 (4G) networks around the world” and “that Apple products that have been certified
16 as compliant with a standard necessarily practice every patent claim that is
17 essential to any mandatory portions of that standard.” Id. ¶ 137 (emphasis added).
18 Qualcomm further stated that it would provide to Apple “a (substantially) complete
19 list” of the patents that Qualcomm had unilaterally declared as essential. Id.; see
20 also ECF No. 121 at Ex. F, 84 (Feb. 17, 2016 Letter to Watrous). After disclosing
21 this list to Apple, Qualcomm alleged that the list had “provided [Qualcomm’s] basis
22 for Qualcomm’s good-faith belief that Apple’s products infringe (absent a license)
23 many Qualcomm patents, namely that Qualcomm holds a great many patents that
24 are essential to cellular standards implemented by Apple products.” Apple’s FAC,
25 ECF No. 79 ¶¶ 138-39 (emphasis added).
26 Like Qualcomm’s SULAs, its portfolio-driven offers to Apple have been non-
27 FRAND and significantly above industry rates, and have failed to adjust for patents
28 that are exhausted by Qualcomm’s separate sales of chipsets to the CMs. Id. ¶¶ 120,
1 seek a determination that they are entitled to restitution of monies paid pursuant to
2 the CMs’ license agreements for patents that were exhausted9 and ask the Court to
3 declare that Qualcomm has violated its FRAND commitments and to order
4 disgorgement of the overpayment of license fees paid for exhausted patents.10
5 B. Qualcomm’s Claims and Defenses Thereto Implicate Exhaustion,
Invalidity, and Noninfringement
6
In this litigation, Qualcomm has brought claims against Apple and the CMs,
7
and asked for relief, that depend on the threshold questions of whether the SULAs—
8
as portfolio license agreements encompassing various patents alleged by Qualcomm
9
to be SEPs, including the patents-in-suit—are enforceable. For example,
10
Qualcomm filed a Complaint against the CMs that demands, as damages for alleged
11
breach of contract, the payment of royalties that it claims are due under the CMs’
12
SULAs. Qualcomm’s Complaint for Injunctive Relief, 3:17-CV-01010, ECF No. 1
13
(“Qualcomm Compl.”), at Prayer for Relief (c)-(f). Qualcomm similarly demands
14
from Apple damages in the amounts of royalties that it claims should be paid under
15
the CMs’ SULAs, as a result of Qualcomm’s claim of Apple’s alleged tortious
16
interference. Qualcomm’s FAC, at Prayer for Relief (b).
17
These claims, and the resulting damages demands, assume and depend on the
18
CMs’ SULAs being found valid and enforceable. For example, Qualcomm alleges
19
that the CMs owe royalties under the SULAs and that Apple interfered with the
20
SULAs by, inter alia, withholding royalties from the CMs, with the intent of
21
causing the CMs to breach their contracts with Qualcomm by ceasing royalty
22
payments owed to Qualcomm under the SULAs. Qualcomm’s FAC, ECF No. 70
23
¶¶ 272-94; Qualcomm Compl., 3:17-CV-01010, ECF No. 1 ¶ 2-3, 107. If the
24
SULAs are unenforceable, as Apple and the CMs maintain, then Qualcomm cannot
25
26
9
See, e.g., Apple’s FAC, ECF No. 79 at Count LXI; CMs’ Counterclaims, 3:17-
27 CV-01010, ECF No. 88 at Count IV.
10
28 See, e.g., Apple’s FAC, ECF No. 79 at Prayer for Relief; CMs’ Counterclaims,
3:17-CV-01010, ECF No. 88 at Prayer for Relief.
7 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57117 Page 11 of 29
20
21
1 Covenant promises only that Qualcomm will not sue Apple or the CMs on “any
2 possible cause of action arising under the patent laws” with respect to the patents-in-
3 suit. Covenant, ECF No. 616-2 at Ex. 1. The Covenant is thus carefully worded to
4 promise only that Qualcomm will not formally sue Apple or the CMs for
5 infringement on the patents-in-suit, while preserving Qualcomm’s ability to argue,
6 for example, that Apple and the CMs practice these patents to support its assertions
7 regarding the value of its portfolio and its claims for royalties under the SULAs and
8 its license offers to Apple.
9 Indeed, Qualcomm continues to assert that the nine patents-in-suit are
10 essential to certain cellular standards and that Apple products comply with those
11 applicable standards. See ECF No. 585-1 (unsealed MPA on Mtn To Strike) at 1, 7-
12 8, 14-15; ECF No. 555-6 (Patents-in-Suit Chart). Qualcomm maintains that the
13 Court did not strike sections of its expert reports relating to alleged essentiality of
14 the patents-in-suit, including Section V.A.1 of the Expert Report of Dr. Laneman
15 because, in Qualcomm’s view, that section “provides [Dr. Laneman’s] opinion that
16 certain claims of the ’469 Patent are essential to the standards.” Ex. F (9/17/18 Ltr
17 fr Devitt to Sproul).13 Qualcomm further maintains that Dr. Laneman’s opinion that
18 “it is not possible to comply with [certain] releases and versions without infringing
19 claims 1-3, 9-11, 17, 19, 21, and 23 of the ’494 Patent” was not stricken. Id.;
20 Laneman, ECF No. 555-8 at 29:25-30:2 (pdf page numbers). Qualcomm thus
21 advances infringement under the transitive property—i.e., the nine patents-in-suit
22 are essential to standards which Apple products practice; therefore, Apple products
23 practice those patents. By making such allegations, Qualcomm has confirmed its
24 intent to continue to pursue claims in this case that Apple and the CMs use the
25
13
26 See also Mitra, ECF No. 555-10 ¶¶ 88-102 (containing infringement opinions
that Apple uses the preamble, first limitation, and second limitation of claim 1 of the
27 ’549 patent); Min, ECF No. 555-9 ¶¶ 11, 19, 27 (concluding that the ’021, ’725, and
28 ’819 patents are essential to standards and that “a person [who] chooses to
implement a part of the standard . . . necessarily infringes [the] IPR”).
10 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57120 Page 14 of 29
1 regarding its obligation to pay royalties under the License Agreement depends on
2 whether the underlying patents are valid or invalid. In light of this dispute, which is
3 still very much alive, LabCorp and Esoterix’s promise not to sue Qiagen for
4 infringement does not moot the case.”).
5 Here, where Qualcomm has provided a narrow, carefully-worded Covenant
6 while simultaneously continuing to argue that the patents remain at issue in the case
7 because royalty payments are owed for the patents-in-suit and asserting
8 infringement of the patents under the transitive property, the Super Sack line of
9 cases simply does not apply.
10 B. Qualcomm’s Covenant Does Not Moot Apple or the CMs’
Exhaustion Counts
11
Qualcomm’s Covenant does not moot the live controversy between the parties
12
as to whether Qualcomm’s patents—including the nine patents-in-suit and the
13
additional 93 declared SEPs that Qualcomm injected into this case—are exhausted.
14
Apple’s and the CMs’ exhaustion counts raise a case or controversy over the
15
exhaustion of not only each patent-in-suit, but also “Qualcomm’s patent rights with
16
respect to patents substantially embodied in baseband processor chipsets sold by
17
Qualcomm to Apple’s CMs,” such as patents within the set of the 93 declared SEPs
18
that Qualcomm selected to put at issue in this case. Apple’s FAC, ECF No. 79
19
¶ 590; see also id. at ¶ 592.14 The parties’ broader disputes over (1) the value of
20
Qualcomm’s portfolio (which Qualcomm asserts as a defense to Apple’s and the
21
CMs’ antitrust claims), (2) whether the SULAs are enforceable, (3) whether Apple
22
tortiously interfered with those SULAs, (4) whether Qualcomm’s charging of
23
royalties for exhausted patents violates the Unfair Competition Law, and (5)
24
whether Qualcomm owes restitution to Apple and the CMs for their past payment of
25
26
14
Qualcomm’s Motion states that it is seeking dismissal of those patent exhaustion
27 counts as to only the nine patents-in-suit. See, e.g., Mot. at 7 (“Qualcomm’s
28 covenant not to sue also moots Apple’s and the CMs’ claims for a declaration of
exhaustion of Qualcomm’s patent rights in the nine patents-in-suit.”).
12 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57122 Page 16 of 29
23 15
See, e.g., ECF No. 555-6 (Patents-in-Suit Chart); ECF No. 553-2, Ex. 15 (SEPs
24 Chart); Ex. G (Appendix A Essentiality Chart from Andrews); Ex. H (Appendix A
Essentiality Chart from Gitlin); Ex. I (Appendix A Essentiality Chart from Jayant).
25 16
For these 93 patents, Qualcomm has done precisely the kind of activity this
26 Court noted would be necessary to create a case or controversy. See D167 (Order re
Partial Dismissal) at 29-30 (dismissing nine patents on which Apple and the CMs
27 had sought declaratory judgment, in part, because “Qualcomm has not stated that the
28 Additional Patents-in-Suit are ‘actually essential’ to a standard practiced by
Apple”).
13 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57123 Page 17 of 29
1 Elecs., Inc., 553 U.S. 617, 638 (2008) (“[A]uthorized sale of an article that
2 substantially embodies a patent exhausts the patent holder’s rights and prevents the
3 patent holder from invoking patent law to control postsale use of the article.”); see
4 also Apple-CMs MPA ISO MSJ, ECF No. 600-1 (explaining why Qualcomm’s
5 patent rights are exhausted). Neither the CMs nor Apple should owe any license fee
6 on exhausted patents because Qualcomm is entitled to receive only one reward for
7 such patents, either the sale of the chipsets or the licensing royalty.17 See
8 Impression Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1523, 1537 (2017) (“[T]he
9 Patent Act[’s] . . . right to exclude just ensures that the patentee receives one
10 reward—of whatever amount the patentee deems to be ‘satisfactory
11 compensation,’—for every item that passes outside the scope of the patent
12 monopoly.” (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
13 There is a live controversy between the parties over whether Qualcomm’s
14 patents are exhausted. All of the nine patents-in-suit were part of Qualcomm’s
15 licensing demands to Apple.18 Qualcomm is squarely putting at issue whether
16 monies for a license to all of these patents should be paid (and should have been
17 paid for many years). And Apple has claims and a prayer for relief for repayment of
18 these past overpaid royalties under Count LXI (Declaratory Relief: Qualcomm’s
19 Agreements with Apple’s Contract Manufacturers) and Count LXIII (Violations of
20 the Unfair Competition Law), which the covenant does not touch.19 Furthermore, if
21 these patents are exhausted, then Qualcomm cannot use them to show the purported
22 value of its patent portfolio to Apple or the CMs, as Qualcomm has said it plans to
23
17
24 Apple’s FAC, ECF No. 79 ¶¶ 582-83; CMs’ Counterclaims, 3:17-CV-01010,
ECF No. 88 ¶¶ 712-13.
25 18
The nine patents-in-suit were included in Qualcomm’s July 2016 “Rest of
26 World” licensing offer because that offer extended to all of Qualcomm’s declared
SEPs outside of China. See Apple’s FAC, ECF No. 79 ¶¶ 120, 122; see also ECF
27 Nos. 555-25, 555-26 (Qualcomm’s Supp. Resp. to Rog 35) (listing patents licensed
28 in the CM SULAs).
19
Apple’s FAC, ECF No. 79 ¶¶ 613, 658, 661; Prayer for Relief M.
14 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57124 Page 18 of 29
1 do. See Qualcomm MTS Opp., ECF No. 587, at 17 (claiming that the new SEPs are
2 necessary “[t]o defend the value of its portfolio” and “are crucial aspects of its
3 defenses to Apple’s claims regarding the value of Qualcomm’s portfolio”).
4 In addition, the CMs’ defense to Qualcomm’s breach of contract claims and
5 Apple’s defense to Qualcomm’s claim for tortious interference with those contracts
6 are also tied to a determination that the patents-in-suit and the additional 93 declared
7 SEPs are exhausted. See Benitec, 495 F.3d at 1344 (“A useful question to ask in
8 determining whether an actual case or controversy exists is what, if any, cause of
9 action the declaratory judgment defendant [Qualcomm] may have against the
10 declaratory judgment plaintiff [Apple and the CMs].”). If the SULAs are
11 unenforceable because they require license fees on exhausted patents, Apple could
12 not have tortiously interfered with these contracts. See, e.g., Apple Answer, ECF
13 No. 84 at 17th, 20th, and 23rd Defenses; CMs’ Answer, 3:17-CV-01010, ECF No. 88
14 at 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 12th, and 16th Defenses. Furthermore, both Apple and the CMs
15 seek to recover from Qualcomm their overpayment of royalties, including for
16 exhausted patents. See, e.g., Apple’s FAC, ECF No. 79 at Count LXIII (Violations
17 of the California Unfair Competition Law), Prayer for Relief; CMs’ Counterclaims,
18 3:17-CV-01010, ECF No. 88 at Prayer. These counts plainly depend on the
19 resolution of the live controversy over the exhaustion of Qualcomm’s patents,
20 including the patents-in-suit.
21 In short, whether the nine patents-in-suit and additional 93 declared SEPs are
22 exhausted is a live dispute between the parties that is tied to numerous claims,
23 counterclaims, and defenses the parties have made, including at least those shown in
24 the table below:
25
Live Claims/Counterclaims/Defenses
26 Tied to Determination of Patent Exhaustion
Apple’s FAC Count LIX Declaration of Unenforceability Due to Exhaustion
27 & CMs’ Counterclaims:
28 Count LXVII
Apple’s FAC: Count Declaratory Relief: Qualcomm’s Agreements with
15 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57125 Page 19 of 29
1 Live Claims/Counterclaims/Defenses
Tied to Determination of Patent Exhaustion
2 LXI Apple’s Contract Manufacturers
Qualcomm’s Complaint: Breach of the Contract Manufacturers’ Subscriber Unit
3 Counts I, III, V, VII License Agreements (SULAs)
4
Qualcomm’s Tortious Interference with Qualcomm’s License
Counterclaims: Count I Agreements with the Contract Manufacturers
5 CMs Counterclaims: Declaration of Unenforceability under Cal. Civ. Code
Count XII §§ 1598-99
6 Apple’s FAC Count Violations of the California Unfair Competition Law
LXIII & CMs’
7
Counterclaims: Count
8 IV
Apple’s Answer: 17th, Qualcomm’s Counterclaims Are Barred as a Result of
9 Affirmative Defense Patent Exhaustion
th
Apple’s Answer: 20 , Qualcomm’s Counterclaims Are Barred Because
10 Affirmative Defense Contracts Allegedly Interfered with Were Not
11 Breached or Disrupted
Apple’s Answer: 23rd, Qualcomm’s Counterclaims Are Barred Under
12 Affirmative Defense Doctrines of Unenforceability and/or Illegality
th
CMs’ Answer: 6 Qualcomm Is Not Entitled to Relief Because Contracts
13 Affirmative Defense Are Illegal and Voidable
th
14 CMs’ Answer: 8 Qualcomm Cannot Enforce the Contracts Because
Affirmative Defense They Are Unconscionable
th
15 CMs’ Answer: 9 Qualcomm Is Not Entitled to Relief Because Contracts
Affirmative Defense Are Unenforceable Under California Unfair
16 Competition Laws, Business and Professions Code
17
§ 17200, as Against Public Policy, as Exhausted, and
for Violating FRAND Promise
18 CMs’ Answer: 12th The CMs Are Excused from Performance on Contracts
Affirmative Defense Because Royalty Rates Are Illegal and/or in Violation
19 of FRAND Commitment, and/or Qualcomm’s Right to
Licensing Fees for Its Patents Is Exhausted
20 th
CMs’ Answer: 16 Qualcomm Is Not Entitled to Relief Because
21 Affirmative Defense Qualcomm’s Right to Licensing Fees for Its Patents Is
Exhausted
22 Qualcomm defenses to Breach of Contract (FRAND Commitments)
CMs’ Counterclaims:
23 Count V
24 Qualcomm defenses to Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair
CMs’ Counterclaims: Dealing (FRAND Commitments)
25 Count VI
26 2. Qualcomm’s Covenant Does Not Moot Apple’s and the CMs’
Exhaustion Counts
27
Qualcomm’s Covenant does not moot the exhaustion counts. First,
28
1 Qualcomm’s Covenant does not make any promises with respect to patents other
2 than the nine patents-in-suit and does not moot the controversy over Qualcomm’s
3 defenses based on the value of exhausted patents in its portfolio. Because
4 Qualcomm’s Covenant does not make any promises with respect to the 93 declared
5 SEPs that Qualcomm added to this case, it could not possibly moot the controversy
6 over whether these 93 patents are exhausted. Second, as described above, there are
7 live claims for restitution of past payments of royalties on Qualcomm patents,
8 including the nine patents-in-suit, due to their exhaustion.20 Qualcomm’s Covenant
9 does not promise to provide such restitution. Third, Qualcomm’s Covenant
10 promises only that Qualcomm will not bring an action “arising under the patent
11 laws.” Covenant, ECF No. 616-2 at Ex. 1. This carefully-worded language does
12 not preclude Qualcomm from arguing that such patents support the value of its
13 portfolio to Apple and the CMs, which Qualcomm contends supports its argument
14 that the SULAs are enforceable. See, e.g., Qualcomm MTS Opp., ECF No. 587, at
15 17 (claiming that the new SEPs are necessary “[t]o defend the value of its portfolio”
16 and “are crucial aspects of its defenses to Apple’s claims regarding the value of
17 Qualcomm’s portfolio”).
18 Whether Qualcomm’s patents, including the nine patents-in-suit and
19 additional 93 declared SEPs, are exhausted is directly relevant to live issues that
20 remain in the case. Therefore, Apple’s and the CMs’ exhaustion counts should not
21 be dismissed as moot. See Esoterix, 2016 WL 4555613, at *5 (“[T]he resolution of
22 Qiagen’s contract-based Counterclaim regarding its obligation to pay royalties under
23 the License Agreement depends on whether the underlying patents are valid or
24 invalid. In light of this dispute, which is still very much alive, LabCorp and
25 Esoterix’s promise not to sue Qiagen for infringement does not moot the case.”).
26
27
28
20
Apple’s FAC, ECF No. 79, ¶¶ 613, 658, 661; Prayer for Relief at M.
17 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57127 Page 21 of 29
1
with a STANDARD without infringing that IPR. . . .
6 3:17-
7 CV-01010, ECF No. 72, Decl. of Ashley Wu, Ex. 1 at 7; Decl. of Brenda Liu, Ex. 2
8 at 14; Decl. of Brian Chong, Ex. 2 at 10; Decl. of Joe Lam, Ex. 4 at 9. Furthermore,
9 Apple and the CMs would not need a license to the patents-in-suit if they do not
10 infringe them. See 35 U.S.C. § 284 (requiring infringement as a prerequisite for
11 patent owner to obtain compensation).
12 Apple’s and the CMs’ declaratory judgment of noninfringement claims are
13 not mooted by Qualcomm’s Covenant because an affirmative declaration that
14 Apple and the CMs do not infringe (as opposed to a promise not to sue for
15 infringement) directly refutes Qualcomm’s allegations that the patents-in-suit are
16 essential to standards that Apple products practice—an allegation Qualcomm uses to
17 support its licensing demands. The case or controversy of whether Qualcomm’s
18 patent portfolio has been licensed on FRAND terms to the CMs or offered to be
19 licensed to Apple on FRAND terms is still live. Whether Apple products infringe
20 the patents-in-suit is directly relevant to that dispute and, therefore, a case or
21 controversy as to Apple’s and the CMs’ declaratory judgment of noninfringement
22 claims and counterclaims still exists despite Qualcomm’s Covenant.
23 E. Apple/CMs Do Not Oppose Dismissal of Their FRAND Counts
24 To narrow the issues in dispute, Apple and the CMs do not oppose dismissal
25 of their FRAND counts. In view of Qualcomm’s withdrawal of its request for the
26 Court to set a portfolio-wide FRAND royalty,21 Apple and the CMs agree to
27
21
28 See ECF No. 465 (Qualcomm Incorporated’s Second Amended Counterclaims);
ECF No. 469-3 at Prayer for Relief at (i).
21 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57131 Page 25 of 29
1 likewise narrow the remaining issues in dispute and withdraw their requests that the
2 Court set a per-patent FRAND royalty. Accordingly, Apple does not oppose the
3 dismissal of Counts VII, X, XIII, XVI, XIX, XXII, XXV, XXVIII, XXXI of
4 Apple’s FAC, and the CMs do not oppose the dismissal of Counts XV, XVIII, XXI,
5 XXIV, XXVII, XXX, XXXIII, XXXVI, XXXIX of the CMs’ counterclaims.
6 IV. CONCLUSION
7 For the foregoing reasons, Apple and the CMs respectfully request that the
8 Court deny Qualcomm’s partial motion to dismiss, as to their Counts of
9 unenforceability due to exhaustion (Apple Count LIX; CM Count LXVII); invalidity
10 (Apple Counts VI, IX, XII, XV, XVIII, XXI, XXIV, XXVII, XXX; CM Counts
11 XIV, XVII, XX, XXIII, XXVI, XXIX, XXXII, XXXV, XXXVIII); and
12 noninfringement (Apple Counts V, VIII, XI, XIV, XVII, XX, XXIII, XXVI, XXIX;
13 CM Counts XIII, XVI, XIX, XXII, XXV, XXVIII, XXXI, XXXIV, XXXVII).
14
7
By: /s/ Jennifer J. Rho
8 THEODORE J. BOUTROUS, JR. (SBN 132099)
9 tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
DANIEL G. SWANSON (SBN 116556)
10 dswanson@gibsondunn.com
11 JASON C. LO (SBN 219030)
jlo@gibsondunn.com
12 JENNIFER J. RHO (SBN 254312)
13 jrho@gibsondunn.com
MELISSA PHAN (SBN 266880)
14 mphan@gibsondunn.com
15 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
16 Los Angeles, CA 90071
17 Tel: (213) 229-7000; Fax: (213) 229-7520
27
28
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 FILER’S ATTESTATION
2
Pursuant to Section 2(f)(4) of the Electronic Case Filing Administrative
3
Policies and Procedures of the United States District Court of the Southern District
4
of California, I certify that authorization for the filing of this document has been
5
obtained from each of the other signatories shown above and that all signatories
6
have authorized placement of their electronic signature on this document.
7
Dated: October 5, 2018
By: /s/ Lauren A. Degnan
8 Lauren A. Degnan
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and
3 foregoing document has been served on October 5, 2018, to all counsel of record
4 who are deemed to have consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF
5 system per Civil Local Rule 5.4. Any other counsel of record will be served by
6 electronic mail, facsimile and/or overnight delivery.
7 Executed on October 5, 2018, at McLean, Virginia.
8
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18
QUALCOMM LITIGATION, [Consolidated with
Case No. 3:17-CV-01010-GPC-MDD]
19
DECLARATION OF LAUREN A. DEGNAN IN
20 SUPPORT OF APPLE INC. AND THE
CONTRACT MANUFACTURERS’
21 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
22 QUALCOMM’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
DISMISSAL OF APPLE’S FIRST AMENDED
23 COMPLAINT AND THE CMS’
COUNTERCLAIMS
24
25
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1 the opening expert report of Richard Gitlin, Appendix A, dated June 29, 2018.
2 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of excerpts from
3 the opening expert report of Nikil Jayant, Appendix A, dated June 29, 2018.
4 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of ETSI’s Rules
5 of Procedure Annex 6: ETSI Intellectual Property Rights, dated November 29, 2017.
6
7 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States
8 that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 5th day of October, 2018.
9
/s/ Lauren A. Degnan
10
Lauren A. Degnan
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and
3 foregoing document has been served on October 5, 2018 to all counsel of record
4 who are deemed to have consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF
5 system per Civil Local Rule 5.4. Any other counsel of record will be served by
6 electronic mail, facsimile and/or overnight delivery.
7 Executed on October 5, 2018, at McLean, Virginia.
8
/s/ Lauren A. Degnan
9
Lauren A. Degnan
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF EXHIBITS
1
Exhibit No. Page Nos.
2
A (Filed Under Seal) 1-6
3 B (Filed Under Seal) 7-8
C (Filed Under Seal) 9-11
4 D (Filed Under Seal) 12-14
5 E (Filed Under Seal) 15-20
F 21-22
6 G 23-36
7 H 37-49
I 50-68
8 J 69-79
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT A
FILED UNDER SEAL
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-3 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57142 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT B
FILED UNDER SEAL
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-4 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57143 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT C
FILED UNDER SEAL
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-5 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57144 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT D
FILED UNDER SEAL
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-6 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57145 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT E
FILED UNDER SEAL
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-7 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57146 Page 1 of 3
EXHIBIT F
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-7 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57147 Page 2 of 3
VIA E-MAIL
Dear Seth:
We write in response to your letter dated September 13, 2018 regarding the Court’s order
striking certain expert opinions on infringement (Dkt. No. 603).
As an initial matter, we agree that the citations in the Court’s Order appear to reference
the PDF page numbers of the ECF versions of the expert reports.
With respect to Dr. Laneman’s report, we disagree that the Court should have struck the
last paragraph of Section V.A.1. The Court did not strike any portion of Section V.A.1 because
that section does not include opinions on infringement. Rather, in Section V.A.1, Dr. Laneman
provides his opinion that certain claims of the ’469 Patent are essential to the standards. The
Court’s order to strike is directed only to opinions “assert[ing] that Plaintiffs are infringing
patents-in-suit,” not opinions that a patent is essential to practice a standard. (Dkt. No. 603 at 4;
see also id. at 4–5 (declining to strike opinions relating to “issues of essentiality and valuation,
rather than suggesting infringement”)). Furthermore, Section VII.A. of Dr. Laneman’s report is
directed to his opinions on the ‘494 Patent, a patent for which Dr. Laneman offered no opinion
on infringement in his report. Thus, contrary to your suggestion, the Court’s Order should not be
interpreted to strike any portion of Section VII.A of Dr. Laneman’s report.
With respect to Dr. Min’s report, the Court did not strike paragraphs 11, 19, or 27. We
disagree with your statement that these paragraphs should be considered struck. These three
paragraphs relate to essentiality to the standard, not infringement.
Finally, with respect to Dr. Mitra’s report, we agree that in its Order the Court did not
expressly strike paragraphs 88–102, which paragraphs include portions of Dr. Mitra’s opinions
on infringement by Apple of the ‘549 patent.
NAI-1504675543v1
ALKHOBAR • A MS TERDAM • ATL ANTA • BEIJ ING • B OS TON • BRISBANE • BRUSSEL S • CHICAGO • CLEVEL AND • COLU MBUS • DALL AS
DETROIT • DUBAI • DÜSSELDORF • FRANKFUR T • HONG KONG • HOUS TON • IRVINE • JEDDAH • LONDON • LOS ANGELES • MADRID
MEXICO CIT Y • MIAMI • MIL AN • MINNEAPOLIS • MOSCOW • MUNICH • NEW YORK • PAR IS • PER TH • PITTSB URGH • RIYADH
SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO • SÃO PAULO • SHANGHAI • SILICON VALLEY • SINGAPORE • S YDNEY • TAIPEI • TOKYO • WASHINGTON
Exhibit F
21
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-7 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57148 Page 3 of 3
Let us know if you would like to schedule a call to discuss these issues further.
Regards,
William E. Devitt
NAI-1504675543v1
Exhibit F
22
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-8 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57149 Page 1 of 15
EXHIBIT G
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-8 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57150 Page 2 of 15
APPENDIX A
Exhibit G
23
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-8 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57151 Page 3 of 15
863DWHQW1RWR80765HO
863DW1R 863DWHQW1RWR80765HO 0DSSLQJ
769DW
Exhibit G
24
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-8 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57152 Page 4 of 15
FG EG
'3'&+
FG EG
6
'3'&+ ,
FG EG
'3'&+
6GSFKQ
,M4
FG EG
6
'3'&+
FG EG
'3'&+
6
FG EG 4
'3'&+
M
FF EF
'3&&+
)LJXUH6SUHDGLQJIRUXSOLQN'3&&+DQG'3'&+V
769DW
Exhibit G
25
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-8 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57153 Page 5 of 15
FDQEHGHILQHGXVLQJWKHFRGHWUHHRIILJXUH
& FK
& FK
& FK
& FK
& FK
& FK
& FK
6 ) 6 ) 6 )
)LJXUH&RGHWUHHIRUJHQHUDWLRQRI2UWKRJRQDO9DULDEOH6SUHDGLQJ)DFWRU296)
FRGHV
,QILJXUHWKHFKDQQHOL]DWLRQFRGHVDUHXQLTXHO\GHVFULEHGDV&FK6)NZKHUH6)LVWKH
VSUHDGLQJIDFWRURIWKHFRGHDQGkLVWKHFRGHQXPEHUdk d6)
(DFKOHYHOLQWKHFRGHWUHHGHILQHVFKDQQHOL]DWLRQFRGHVRIOHQJWK6)FRUUHVSRQGLQJWRD
VSUHDGLQJIDFWRURI6)LQILJXUH
769DW
:KHQRQO\RQH'3'&+LVWREHWUDQVPLWWHG'3'&+LVVSUHDGE\FRGHFG &FK6)N
ZKHUH6)LVWKHVSUHDGLQJIDFWRURI'3'&+DQGN 6)
769DW
Exhibit G
26
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-8 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57154 Page 6 of 15
,QXSOLQNSXQFWXULQJFDQEHDSSOLHGWRPDWFKWKH&&7U&+ELWUDWHWRWKH3K&+ELWUDWH7KH
ELWUDWHRIWKH3K&+VLVOLPLWHGE\WKH8(FDSDELOLW\DQGUHVWULFWLRQVLPSRVHGE\875$1
WKURXJKOLPLWDWLRQVRQWKH3K&+VSUHDGLQJIDFWRU7KHPD[LPXPDPRXQWRISXQFWXULQJWKDW
FDQEHDSSOLHGLV3/3/LVVLJQDOOHGIURPKLJKHUOD\HUV7KHQXPEHURIDYDLODEOHELWVLQWKH
UDGLRIUDPHVRIRQH3K&+IRUDOOSRVVLEOHVSUHDGLQJIDFWRUVLVJLYHQLQ>@'HQRWHWKHVH
YDOXHVE\N256, N128, N64, N32, N16, N8, DQG N4,ZKHUHWKHLQGH[UHIHUVWRWKHVSUHDGLQJIDFWRU
7KHSRVVLEOHQXPEHURIELWVDYDLODEOHWRWKH&&7U&+RQDOO3K&+VNdataWKHQDUH^ N
N N N N N N uN uN uN uN, uN`.
769DW
& FK
& FK
& FK
& FK
& FK
& FK
6 ) 6 ) 6 )
)LJXUH&RGHWUHHIRUJHQHUDWLRQRI2UWKRJRQDO9DULDEOH6SUHDGLQJ)DFWRU296)
FRGHV
Exhibit G
27
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-8 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57155 Page 7 of 15
,QILJXUHWKHFKDQQHOL]DWLRQFRGHVDUHXQLTXHO\GHVFULEHGDV&FK6)NZKHUH6)LVWKH
VSUHDGLQJIDFWRURIWKHFRGHDQGkLVWKHFRGHQXPEHUdk d6)
(DFKOHYHOLQWKHFRGHWUHHGHILQHVFKDQQHOL]DWLRQFRGHVRIOHQJWK6)FRUUHVSRQGLQJWRD
VSUHDGLQJIDFWRURI6)LQILJXUH
769DW
:KHQRQO\RQH'3'&+LVWREHWUDQVPLWWHG'3'&+LVVSUHDGE\FRGHFG &FK6)N
ZKHUH6)LVWKHVSUHDGLQJIDFWRURI'3'&+DQGN 6)
769DW
7KHFRGHXVHGIRUVFUDPEOLQJRIWKHXSOLQN'3&&+'3'&+PD\EHRIHLWKHUORQJRUVKRUW
W\SH:KHQWKHVFUDPEOLQJFRGHLVIRUPHGGLIIHUHQWFRQVLWXHQWFRGHVDUHXVHGIRUWKHORQJDQG
VKRUWW\SHDVGHILQHGEHORZ
7KHnWKXSOLQNVFUDPEOLQJFRGHIRU'3&&+'3'&+GHQRWHG6GSFKQLVGHILQHGDV
ZKHUHWKHORZHVWLQGH[FRUUHVSRQGVWRWKHFKLSWUDQVPLWWHGILUVWLQWLPHDQG&ORQJQLVGHILQHGLQ
VHFWLRQ
7KHnWKXSOLQNVFUDPEOLQJFRGHIRU'3&&+'3'&+GHQRWHG6GSFKQLVGHILQHGDV
ZKHUHWKHORZHVWLQGH[FRUUHVSRQGVWRWKHFKLSWUDQVPLWWHGILUVWLQWLPHDQG&VKRUWQLVGHILQHG
Exhibit G
28
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-8 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57156 Page 8 of 15
LQVHFWLRQ
769DW
7KHORQJVFUDPEOLQJVHTXHQFHVFORQJQDQGFORQJQDUHFRQVWUXFWHGIURPSRVLWLRQZLVHPRGXOR
VXPRIFKLSVHJPHQWVRIWZRELQDU\mVHTXHQFHVJHQHUDWHGE\PHDQVRIWZR
JHQHUDWRUSRO\QRPLDOVRIGHJUHH/HWxDQGy EHWKHWZRmVHTXHQFHVUHVSHFWLYHO\7KHx
VHTXHQFHLVFRQVWUXFWHGXVLQJWKHSULPLWLYHRYHU*)SRO\QRPLDO X25+X3+1. 7KHy
VHTXHQFHLVFRQVWUXFWHGXVLQJWKHSRO\QRPLDO X25+X3+X2+X+1. 7KHUHVXOWLQJVHTXHQFHVWKXV
FRQVWLWXWHVHJPHQWVRIDVHWRI*ROGVHTXHQFHV
7KHVHTXHQFHFORQJQLVDFKLSVKLIWHGYHUVLRQRIWKHVHTXHQFHFORQJQ
/HWn23 … n0 EHWKHELWELQDU\UHSUHVHQWDWLRQRIWKHVFUDPEOLQJVHTXHQFHQXPEHUnZLWKn0
EHLQJWKHOHDVWVLJQLILFDQWELW7KHx VHTXHQFHGHSHQGVRQWKHFKRVHQVFUDPEOLQJVHTXHQFH
QXPEHUnDQGLVGHQRWHGxnLQWKHVHTXHO)XUWKHUPRUHOHWxn(i) DQG y(i)GHQRWHWKHi:WKV\PERO
RIWKHVHTXHQFHxn DQGy,UHVSHFWLYHO\
7KHmVHTXHQFHVxnDQGyDUHFRQVWUXFWHGDV
,QLWLDOFRQGLWLRQV
\ \ « \ \
5HFXUVLYHGHILQLWLRQRIVXEVHTXHQWV\PEROV
'HILQHWKHELQDU\*ROGVHTXHQFHznE\
Exhibit G
29
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-8 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57157 Page 9 of 15
- zni = xni+ yiPRGXOR, i «
7KHUHDOYDOXHG*ROGVHTXHQFHZnLVGHILQHGE\
if z n i
Z n i ® for i
¯ if z n i
1RZWKHUHDOYDOXHGORQJVFUDPEOLQJVHTXHQFHVFORQJQDQGFORQJQDUHGHILQHGDVIROORZV
)LQDOO\WKHFRPSOH[YDOXHGORQJVFUDPEOLQJVHTXHQFH&ORQJQLVGHILQHGDV
C long n i i
clong n i j clong n ¬i ¼
ZKHUHi «±DQG¬¼GHQRWHVURXQGLQJWRQHDUHVWORZHULQWHJHU
FORQJQ
06% /6%
FORQJQ
Exhibit G
30
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-8 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57158 Page 10 of
15
)LJXUH&RQILJXUDWLRQRIXSOLQNVFUDPEOLQJVHTXHQFHJHQHUDWRU
769DW
/HWnn«nEHWKHELWELQDU\UHSUHVHQWDWLRQRIWKHFRGHQXPEHUn
ZKHUHWKHTXDWHUQDU\VHTXHQFHaiLVJHQHUDWHGUHFXUVLYHO\E\WKHSRO\QRPLDOgx
x8+x5+3x3+x2+2x+1DV
- a0 n0 PRGXOR
- ai) aiaiaiaiaiPRGXORi «
bi niPRGXORi «
Exhibit G
31
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-8 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57159 Page 11 of
15
di niPRGXORi «
zni cshort,1,ni cshort,2,ni
)LQDOO\WKHFRPSOH[YDOXHGVKRUWVFUDPEOLQJVHTXHQFH&VKRUWQLVGHILQHGDV
C short n i i
c short n i PRG j c short n ¬i PRG ¼
ZKHUHi «DQG¬¼GHQRWHVURXQGLQJWRQHDUHVWORZHULQWHJHU
$QLPSOHPHQWDWLRQRIWKHVKRUWVFUDPEOLQJVHTXHQFHJHQHUDWRUIRUWKHFKLSVHTXHQFHWREH
H[WHQGHGE\RQHFKLSLVVKRZQLQ)LJXUH
Exhibit G
32
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-8 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57160 Page 12 of
15
GL
PRG
PRGQDGGLWLRQ
]QL
FVKRUWQL
EL
0DSSHU
FVKRUWQL
PXOWLSOLFDWLRQ PRG
PRG
DL
PRG
)LJXUH8SOLQNVKRUWVFUDPEOLQJVHTXHQFHJHQHUDWRUIRUFKLSVHTXHQFH
769DW
769DW
)LJXUHLOOXVWUDWHVWKHSULQFLSOHRIWKHXSOLQNVSUHDGLQJRI'3&&+DQG'3'&+V7KHELQDU\
Exhibit G
33
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-8 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57161 Page 13 of
15
'3&&+DQG'3'&+VWREHVSUHDGDUHUHSUHVHQWHGE\UHDOYDOXHGVHTXHQFHVLHWKHELQDU\
YDOXHLVPDSSHGWRWKHUHDOYDOXHZKLOHWKHELQDU\YDOXHLVPDSSHGWRWKHUHDOYDOXH
±7KH'3&&+LVVSUHDGWRWKHFKLSUDWHE\WKHFKDQQHOL]DWLRQFRGHFFZKLOHWKHnWK
'3'&+FDOOHG'3'&+QLVVSUHDGWRWKHFKLSUDWHE\WKHFKDQQHOL]DWLRQFRGHFGQ2QH
'3&&+DQGXSWRVL[SDUDOOHO'3'&+VFDQEHWUDQVPLWWHGVLPXOWDQHRXVO\LHdn d
FG EG
'3'&+
FG EG
6
'3'&+ ,
FG EG
'3'&+
6GSFKQ
,M4
FG EG
6
'3'&+
FG EG
'3'&+
6
FG EG 4
'3'&+
M
FF EF
'3&&+
Exhibit G
34
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-8 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57162 Page 14 of
15
)LJXUH6SUHDGLQJIRUXSOLQN'3&&+DQG'3'&+V
769DW
$OOXSOLQNSK\VLFDOFKDQQHOVDUHVXEMHFWHGWRVFUDPEOLQJZLWKDFRPSOH[YDOXHGVFUDPEOLQJ
FRGH7KH'3&&+'3'&+PD\EHVFUDPEOHGE\HLWKHUORQJRUVKRUWVFUDPEOLQJFRGHV
GHILQHGLQVHFWLRQ
769DW
6 ) 6 ) 6 )
)LJXUH&RGHWUHHIRUJHQHUDWLRQRI2UWKRJRQDO9DULDEOH6SUHDGLQJ)DFWRU296)
FRGHV
,QILJXUHWKHFKDQQHOL]DWLRQFRGHVDUHXQLTXHO\GHVFULEHGDV&FK6)NZKHUH6)LVWKH
Exhibit G
35
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-8 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57163 Page 15 of
15
VSUHDGLQJIDFWRURIWKHFRGHDQGkLVWKHFRGHQXPEHUdk d6)
(DFKOHYHOLQWKHFRGHWUHHGHILQHVFKDQQHOL]DWLRQFRGHVRIOHQJWK6)FRUUHVSRQGLQJWRD
VSUHDGLQJIDFWRURI6)LQILJXUH
769DW
769DW
769DW
Exhibit G
36
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-9 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57164 Page 1 of 14
EXHIBIT H
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-9 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57165 Page 2 of 14
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
APPENDIX A
Exhibit H
37
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-9 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57166 Page 3 of 14
863DWHQW1RWR80765HO
863DW1R 863DWHQW1RWR80765HO 0DSSLQJ
Exhibit H
38
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-9 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57167 Page 4 of 14
Exhibit H
39
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-9 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57168 Page 5 of 14
$8(GRHVQRWQHHGWRVXSSRUWFRPSUHVVHGPRGHIRUFDVHVIRUZKLFKWKH8(LQGLFDWHVWKDW
FRPSUHVVHGPRGHLVQRWUHTXLUHG)RUWKHVHFDVHVWKH8(VKDOOVXSSRUWDQDOWHUQDWLYHPHDQVRI
PDNLQJWKHPHDVXUHPHQWV
7KH8(VKDOOVXSSRUWRQHVLQJOHPHDVXUHPHQWSXUSRVHIRURQHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQ
VHTXHQFH7KHPHDVXUHPHQWSXUSRVHRIWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQVHTXHQFHLVVLJQDOOHGE\
KLJKHUOD\HUV
7KHIROORZLQJVXEFODXVHSURYLGHVUXOHVWRSDUDPHWHULVHWKHFRPSUHVVHGPRGH
,QUHVSRQVHWRDUHTXHVWIURPKLJKHUOD\HUVWKH875$1VKDOOVLJQDOWRWKH8(WKHFRPSUHVVHG
PRGHSDUDPHWHUV
$WUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQVHTXHQFHFRQVLVWVRIDOWHUQDWLQJWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQVDQG
HDFKRIWKHVHSDWWHUQVLQWXUQFRQVLVWVRIRQHRUWZRWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSV6HHILJXUH
7KHIROORZLQJSDUDPHWHUVFKDUDFWHULVHDWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQ
7*617UDQVPLVVLRQ*DS6WDUWLQJ6ORW1XPEHU$WUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQEHJLQVLQD
UDGLRIUDPHKHQFHIRUZDUGFDOOHGILUVWUDGLRIUDPHRIWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQ
FRQWDLQLQJDWOHDVWRQHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSVORW7*61LVWKHVORWQXPEHURIWKHILUVW
WUDQVPLVVLRQJDSVORWZLWKLQWKHILUVWUDGLRIUDPHRIWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQ
7*/7UDQVPLVVLRQ*DS/HQJWK7KLVLVWKHGXUDWLRQRIWKHILUVWWUDQVPLVVLRQJDS
ZLWKLQWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQH[SUHVVHGLQQXPEHURIVORWV
7*/7UDQVPLVVLRQ*DS/HQJWK7KLVLVWKHGXUDWLRQRIWKHVHFRQGWUDQVPLVVLRQJDS
ZLWKLQWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQH[SUHVVHGLQQXPEHURIVORWV,IWKLVSDUDPHWHULVQRW
H[SOLFLWO\VHWE\KLJKHUOD\HUVWKHQ7*/ 7*/
7*'7UDQVPLVVLRQ*DSVWDUW'LVWDQFH7KLVLVWKHGXUDWLRQEHWZHHQWKHVWDUWLQJVORWV
RIWZRFRQVHFXWLYHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSVZLWKLQDWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQH[SUHVVHGLQ
QXPEHURIVORWV7KHUHVXOWLQJSRVLWLRQRIWKHVHFRQGWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSZLWKLQLWVUDGLR
Exhibit H
40
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-9 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57169 Page 6 of 14
IUDPHVVKDOOFRPSO\ZLWKWKHOLPLWDWLRQVRI>@,IWKLVSDUDPHWHULVQRWVHWE\KLJKHU
OD\HUVWKHQWKHUHLVRQO\RQHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSLQWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQ
7*3/7UDQVPLVVLRQ*DS3DWWHUQ/HQJWK7KLVLVWKHGXUDWLRQRIWUDQVPLVVLRQJDS
SDWWHUQH[SUHVVHGLQQXPEHURIIUDPHV
7*3/7UDQVPLVVLRQ*DS3DWWHUQ/HQJWK7KLVLVWKHGXUDWLRQRIWUDQVPLVVLRQJDS
SDWWHUQH[SUHVVHGLQQXPEHURIIUDPHV,IWKLVSDUDPHWHULVQRWH[SOLFLWO\VHWE\KLJKHU
OD\HUVWKHQ7*3/ 7*3/
7KHIROORZLQJSDUDPHWHUVFRQWUROWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQVHTXHQFHVWDUWDQGUHSHWLWLRQ
7*35&7UDQVPLVVLRQ*DS3DWWHUQ5HSHWLWLRQ&RXQW7KLVLVWKHQXPEHURI
WUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQVZLWKLQWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQVHTXHQFH
7*&)17UDQVPLVVLRQ*DS&RQQHFWLRQ)UDPH1XPEHU7KLVLVWKH&)1RIWKHILUVW
UDGLRIUDPHRIWKHILUVWSDWWHUQZLWKLQWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQVHTXHQFH
,QDGGLWLRQWRWKHSDUDPHWHUVGHILQLQJWKHSRVLWLRQVRIWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSVHDFKWUDQVPLVVLRQ
JDSSDWWHUQVHTXHQFHLVFKDUDFWHULVHGE\
8/'/FRPSUHVVHGPRGHVHOHFWLRQ7KLVSDUDPHWHUVSHFLILHVZKHWKHUFRPSUHVVHGPRGH
LVXVHGLQ8/RQO\'/RQO\RUERWK8/DQG'/
8/FRPSUHVVHGPRGHPHWKRG7KHPHWKRGVIRUJHQHUDWLQJWKHXSOLQNFRPSUHVVHGPRGH
JDSDUHVSUHDGLQJIDFWRUGLYLVLRQE\WZRRUKLJKHUOD\HUVFKHGXOLQJDQGDUHGHVFULEHGLQ
>@
'/FRPSUHVVHGPRGHPHWKRG7KHPHWKRGVIRUJHQHUDWLQJWKHGRZQOLQNFRPSUHVVHG
PRGHJDSDUHSXQFWXULQJVSUHDGLQJIDFWRUGLYLVLRQE\WZRRUKLJKHUOD\HUVFKHGXOLQJ
DQGDUHGHVFULEHGLQ>@
GRZQOLQNIUDPHW\SH7KLVSDUDPHWHUGHILQHVLIIUDPHVWUXFWXUHW\SH
$
RU
%
VKDOOEH
XVHGLQGRZQOLQNFRPSUHVVHGPRGH7KHIUDPHVWUXFWXUHVDUHGHILQHGLQ>@
Exhibit H
41
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-9 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57170 Page 7 of 14
VFUDPEOLQJFRGHFKDQJH7KLVSDUDPHWHULQGLFDWHVZKHWKHUWKHDOWHUQDWLYHVFUDPEOLQJ
FRGHLVXVHGIRUFRPSUHVVHGPRGHPHWKRG
6)
$OWHUQDWLYHVFUDPEOLQJFRGHVDUH
GHVFULEHGLQ>@
5335HFRYHU\3HULRG3RZHUFRQWUROPRGHVSHFLILHVWKHXSOLQNSRZHUFRQWURODOJRULWKP
DSSOLHGGXULQJUHFRYHU\SHULRGDIWHUHDFKWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSLQFRPSUHVVHGPRGH533
FDQWDNHYDOXHVRU7KHGLIIHUHQWSRZHUFRQWUROPRGHVDUHGHVFULEHGLQ>@
,73,QLWLDO7UDQVPLW3RZHUPRGHVHOHFWVWKHXSOLQNSRZHUFRQWUROPHWKRGWRFDOFXODWH
WKHLQLWLDOWUDQVPLWSRZHUDIWHUWKHJDS,73FDQWDNHWZRYDOXHVRUDQGLVGHVFULEHG
LQ>@
7KH8(VKDOOVXSSRUWVLPXOWDQHRXVFRPSUHVVHGPRGHSDWWHUQVHTXHQFHVZKLFKFDQEHXVHGIRU
GLIIHUHQWPHDVXUHPHQWV7KHIROORZLQJPHDVXUHPHQWSXUSRVHVFDQEHVLJQDOOHGIURPKLJKHU
OD\HUV
)''
7''
*60FDUULHU566,PHDVXUHPHQW
,QLWLDO%6,&LGHQWLILFDWLRQ
%6,&UHFRQILUPDWLRQ
7KH8(VKDOOVXSSRUWRQHFRPSUHVVHGPRGHSDWWHUQVHTXHQFHIRUHDFKPHDVXUHPHQWSXUSRVH
ZKLOHRSHUDWLQJLQ)''PRGHDVVXPLQJWKH8(QHHGVFRPSUHVVHGPRGHWRSHUIRUPWKH
UHVSHFWLYHPHDVXUHPHQW,QFDVHWKH8(VXSSRUWVVHYHUDORIWKHPHDVXUHPHQWSXUSRVHVLWVKDOO
VXSSRUWLQSDUDOOHORQHFRPSUHVVHGPRGHSDWWHUQVHTXHQFHIRUHDFKVXSSRUWHGPHDVXUHPHQW
SXUSRVHZKHUHWKH8(QHHGVFRPSUHVVHGPRGHWRSHUIRUPWKHPHDVXUHPHQW7KHFDSDELOLW\RI
WKH8(WRRSHUDWHLQFRPSUHVVHGPRGHLQXSOLQNDQGGRZQOLQNLVJLYHQIURPWKH8(
FDSDELOLWLHV
Exhibit H
42
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-9 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57171 Page 8 of 14
7KH*60PHDVXUHPHQWV,QLWLDO%6,&LGHQWLILFDWLRQDQG%6,&UHFRQILUPDWLRQDUHGHILQHGLQ
>@
+LJKHUOD\HUVZLOOHQVXUHWKDWWKHFRPSUHVVHGPRGHJDSVGRQRWRYHUODSDQGDUHQRWVFKHGXOHG
WRRYHUODSWKHVDPHIUDPH7KHEHKDYLRXUZKHQDQRYHUODSRFFXUVLVGHVFULEHGLQ>@
,QDOOFDVHVKLJKHUOD\HUVKDYHFRQWURORILQGLYLGXDO8(SDUDPHWHUV$Q\SDWWHUQVHTXHQFHFDQ
EHVWRSSHGRQKLJKHUOD\HUV
FRPPDQG
7KHSDUDPHWHUV7*617*/7*/7*'7*3/7*3/7*35&DQG7*&)1VKDOODOOEH
LQWHJHUV
Exhibit H
43
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-9 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57172 Page 9 of 14
7*35&
7*SDWWHUQ 7*SDWWHUQ 7*SDWWHUQ 7*SDWWHUQ 7*SDWWHUQ 7*SDWWHUQ
7*SDWWHUQ 7*SDWWHUQ
7UDQVPLVVLRQ
7UDQVPLVVLRQ 7UDQVPLVVLRQ 7UDQVPLVVLRQ JDS
JDS JDS JDS
7*61 7*61
7*' 7*'
7*3/ 7*3/
)LJXUH,OOXVWUDWLRQRIFRPSUHVVHGPRGHSDWWHUQSDUDPHWHUV
769DW
Exhibit H
44
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-9 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57173 Page 10 of
14
LQGLFDWHWKHQHHGIRUFRPSUHVVHGPRGHVHSDUDWHO\IRUWKHXSOLQNDQGGRZQOLQNDQGIRUHDFK
PRGHUDGLRDFFHVVWHFKQRORJ\DQGIUHTXHQF\EDQG
$8(VKDOOVXSSRUWFRPSUHVVHGPRGHIRUDOOFDVHVIRUZKLFKWKH8(LQGLFDWHVWKDWFRPSUHVVHG
PRGHLVUHTXLUHG
$8(GRHVQRWQHHGWRVXSSRUWFRPSUHVVHGPRGHIRUFDVHVIRUZKLFKWKH8(LQGLFDWHVWKDW
FRPSUHVVHGPRGHLVQRWUHTXLUHG)RUWKHVHFDVHVWKH8(VKDOOVXSSRUWDQDOWHUQDWLYHPHDQVRI
PDNLQJWKHPHDVXUHPHQWV
7KH8(VKDOOVXSSRUWRQHVLQJOHPHDVXUHPHQWSXUSRVHIRURQHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQ
VHTXHQFH7KHPHDVXUHPHQWSXUSRVHRIWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQVHTXHQFHLVVLJQDOOHGE\
KLJKHUOD\HUV
7KHIROORZLQJVXEFODXVHSURYLGHVUXOHVWRSDUDPHWHULVHWKHFRPSUHVVHGPRGH
,QUHVSRQVHWRDUHTXHVWIURPKLJKHUOD\HUVWKH875$1VKDOOVLJQDOWRWKH8(WKHFRPSUHVVHG
PRGHSDUDPHWHUV
$WUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQVHTXHQFHFRQVLVWVRIDOWHUQDWLQJWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQVDQG
HDFKRIWKHVHSDWWHUQVLQWXUQFRQVLVWVRIRQHRUWZRWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSV6HHILJXUH
7KHIROORZLQJSDUDPHWHUVFKDUDFWHULVHDWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQ
7*617UDQVPLVVLRQ*DS6WDUWLQJ6ORW1XPEHU$WUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQEHJLQVLQD
UDGLRIUDPHKHQFHIRUZDUGFDOOHGILUVWUDGLRIUDPHRIWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQ
FRQWDLQLQJDWOHDVWRQHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSVORW7*61LVWKHVORWQXPEHURIWKHILUVW
WUDQVPLVVLRQJDSVORWZLWKLQWKHILUVWUDGLRIUDPHRIWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQ
7*/7UDQVPLVVLRQ*DS/HQJWK7KLVLVWKHGXUDWLRQRIWKHILUVWWUDQVPLVVLRQJDS
ZLWKLQWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQH[SUHVVHGLQQXPEHURIVORWV
Exhibit H
45
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-9 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57174 Page 11 of
14
Exhibit H
46
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-9 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57175 Page 12 of
14
'/FRPSUHVVHGPRGHPHWKRG7KHPHWKRGVIRUJHQHUDWLQJWKHGRZQOLQNFRPSUHVVHG
PRGHJDSDUHSXQFWXULQJVSUHDGLQJIDFWRUGLYLVLRQE\WZRRUKLJKHUOD\HUVFKHGXOLQJ
DQGDUHGHVFULEHGLQ>@
GRZQOLQNIUDPHW\SH7KLVSDUDPHWHUGHILQHVLIIUDPHVWUXFWXUHW\SH
$
RU
%
VKDOOEH
XVHGLQGRZQOLQNFRPSUHVVHGPRGH7KHIUDPHVWUXFWXUHVDUHGHILQHGLQ>@
VFUDPEOLQJFRGHFKDQJH7KLVSDUDPHWHULQGLFDWHVZKHWKHUWKHDOWHUQDWLYHVFUDPEOLQJ
FRGHLVXVHGIRUFRPSUHVVHGPRGHPHWKRG
6)
$OWHUQDWLYHVFUDPEOLQJFRGHVDUH
GHVFULEHGLQ>@
5335HFRYHU\3HULRG3RZHUFRQWUROPRGHVSHFLILHVWKHXSOLQNSRZHUFRQWURODOJRULWKP
DSSOLHGGXULQJUHFRYHU\SHULRGDIWHUHDFKWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSLQFRPSUHVVHGPRGH533
FDQWDNHYDOXHVRU7KHGLIIHUHQWSRZHUFRQWUROPRGHVDUHGHVFULEHGLQ>@
,73,QLWLDO7UDQVPLW3RZHUPRGHVHOHFWVWKHXSOLQNSRZHUFRQWUROPHWKRGWRFDOFXODWH
WKHLQLWLDOWUDQVPLWSRZHUDIWHUWKHJDS,73FDQWDNHWZRYDOXHVRUDQGLVGHVFULEHG
LQ>@
7KH8(VKDOOVXSSRUWVLPXOWDQHRXVFRPSUHVVHGPRGHSDWWHUQVHTXHQFHVZKLFKFDQEHXVHGIRU
GLIIHUHQWPHDVXUHPHQWV7KHIROORZLQJPHDVXUHPHQWSXUSRVHVFDQEHVLJQDOOHGIURPKLJKHU
OD\HUV
)''
7''
*60FDUULHU566,PHDVXUHPHQW
,QLWLDO%6,&LGHQWLILFDWLRQ
%6,&UHFRQILUPDWLRQ
7KH8(VKDOOVXSSRUWRQHFRPSUHVVHGPRGHSDWWHUQVHTXHQFHIRUHDFKPHDVXUHPHQWSXUSRVH
ZKLOHRSHUDWLQJLQ)''PRGHDVVXPLQJWKH8(QHHGVFRPSUHVVHGPRGHWRSHUIRUPWKH
Exhibit H
47
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-9 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57176 Page 13 of
14
UHVSHFWLYHPHDVXUHPHQW,QFDVHWKH8(VXSSRUWVVHYHUDORIWKHPHDVXUHPHQWSXUSRVHVLWVKDOO
VXSSRUWLQSDUDOOHORQHFRPSUHVVHGPRGHSDWWHUQVHTXHQFHIRUHDFKVXSSRUWHGPHDVXUHPHQW
SXUSRVHZKHUHWKH8(QHHGVFRPSUHVVHGPRGHWRSHUIRUPWKHPHDVXUHPHQW7KHFDSDELOLW\RI
WKH8(WRRSHUDWHLQFRPSUHVVHGPRGHLQXSOLQNDQGGRZQOLQNLVJLYHQIURPWKH8(
FDSDELOLWLHV
7KH*60PHDVXUHPHQWV,QLWLDO%6,&LGHQWLILFDWLRQDQG%6,&UHFRQILUPDWLRQDUHGHILQHGLQ
>@
+LJKHUOD\HUVZLOOHQVXUHWKDWWKHFRPSUHVVHGPRGHJDSVGRQRWRYHUODSDQGDUHQRWVFKHGXOHG
WRRYHUODSWKHVDPHIUDPH7KHEHKDYLRXUZKHQDQRYHUODSRFFXUVLVGHVFULEHGLQ>@
,QDOOFDVHVKLJKHUOD\HUVKDYHFRQWURORILQGLYLGXDO8(SDUDPHWHUV$Q\SDWWHUQVHTXHQFHFDQ
EHVWRSSHGRQKLJKHUOD\HUV
FRPPDQG
7KHSDUDPHWHUV7*617*/7*/7*'7*3/7*3/7*35&DQG7*&)1VKDOODOOEH
LQWHJHUV
Exhibit H
48
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-9 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57177 Page 14 of
14
7*35&
7*SDWWHUQ 7*SDWWHUQ 7*SDWWHUQ 7*SDWWHUQ 7*SDWWHUQ 7*SDWWHUQ
7*SDWWHUQ 7*SDWWHUQ
7UDQVPLVVLRQ
7UDQVPLVVLRQ 7UDQVPLVVLRQ 7UDQVPLVVLRQ JDS
JDS JDS JDS
7*61 7*61
7*' 7*'
7*3/ 7*3/
)LJXUH,OOXVWUDWLRQRIFRPSUHVVHGPRGHSDWWHUQSDUDPHWHUV
769DW
Exhibit H
49
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-10 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57178 Page 1 of
20
EXHIBIT I
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-10 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57179 Page 2 of
20
Exhibit I
50
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-10 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57180 Page 3 of
20
Exhibit I
51
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-10 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57181 Page 4 of
20
Exhibit I
52
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-10 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57182 Page 5 of
20
Exhibit I
53
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-10 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57183 Page 6 of
20
Exhibit I
54
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-10 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57184 Page 7 of
20
Exhibit I
55
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-10 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57185 Page 8 of
20
Exhibit I
56
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-10 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57186 Page 9 of
20
Exhibit I
57
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-10 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57187 Page 10 of
20
Exhibit I
58
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-10 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57188 Page 11 of
20
Exhibit I
59
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-10 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57189 Page 12 of
20
Exhibit I
60
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-10 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57190 Page 13 of
20
Exhibit I
61
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-10 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57191 Page 14 of
20
Exhibit I
62
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-10 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57192 Page 15 of
20
Exhibit I
63
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-10 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57193 Page 16 of
20
Exhibit I
64
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-10 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57194 Page 17 of
20
Exhibit I
65
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-10 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57195 Page 18 of
20
Exhibit I
66
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-10 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57196 Page 19 of
20
Exhibit I
67
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-10 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57197 Page 20 of
20
Exhibit I
68
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-11 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57198 Page 1 of
12
EXHIBIT J
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-11 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57199 Page 2 of
12
1 Introduction
The General Assembly of ETSI has established the following Intellectual Property Rights POLICY.
2 Definitions
Terms in the POLICY which are written in capital letters shall have the meaning set forth in Clause 15
entitled DEFINITIONS.
3 Policy Objectives
3.1 It is ETSI's objective to create STANDARDS and TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS that are based
on solutions which best meet the technical objectives of the European telecommunications sector,
as defined by the General Assembly. In order to further this objective the ETSI IPR POLICY seeks
to reduce the risk to ETSI, MEMBERS, and others applying ETSI STANDARDS and TECHNICAL
SPECIFICATIONS, that investment in the preparation, adoption and application of STANDARDS
could be wasted as a result of an ESSENTIAL IPR for a STANDARD or TECHNICAL
SPECIFICATION being unavailable. In achieving this objective, the ETSI IPR POLICY seeks a
balance between the needs of standardization for public use in the field of telecommunications
and the rights of the owners of IPRs.
3.2 IPR holders whether members of ETSI and their AFFILIATES or third parties, should be
adequately and fairly rewarded for the use of their IPRs in the implementation of STANDARDS
and TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS.
3.3 ETSI shall take reasonable measures to ensure, as far as possible, that its activities which relate
to the preparation, adoption and application of STANDARDS and TECHNICAL
SPECIFICATIONS, enable STANDARDS and TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS to be available to
potential users in accordance with the general principles of standardization.
4 Disclosure of IPRs
4.1 Subject to Clause 4.2 below, each MEMBER shall use its reasonable endeavours, in particular
during the development of a STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION where it participates,
to inform ETSI of ESSENTIAL IPRs in a timely fashion. In particular, a MEMBER submitting a
technical proposal for a STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION shall, on a bona fide basis,
draw the attention of ETSI to any of that MEMBER's IPR which might be ESSENTIAL if that
proposal is adopted.
4.2 The obligations pursuant to Clause 4.1 above do however not imply any obligation on MEMBERS
to conduct IPR searches.
4.3 The obligations pursuant to Clause 4.1 above are deemed to be fulfilled in respect of all existing
and future members of a PATENT FAMILY if ETSI has been informed of a member of this
PATENT FAMILY in a timely fashion. Information on other members of this PATENT FAMILY, if
any, may be voluntarily provided.
ETSI shall establish guidelines for the chairmen of COMMITTEES with respect to ESSENTIAL IPRs.
6 Availability of Licences
Exhibit J
69
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-11 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57200 Page 3 of
12
irrevocable licences on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms and conditions
under such IPR to at least the following extent:
- MANUFACTURE, including the right to make or have made customized components and
sub-systems to the licensee's own design for use in MANUFACTURE;
- sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of EQUIPMENT so MANUFACTURED;
- repair, use, or operate EQUIPMENT; and
- use METHODS.
The above undertaking may be made subject to the condition that those who seek licences agree
to reciprocate.
6.2 An undertaking pursuant to Clause 6.1 with regard to a specified member of a PATENT FAMILY
shall apply to all existing and future ESSENTIAL IPRs of that PATENT FAMILY unless there is
an explicit written exclusion of specified IPRs at the time the undertaking is made. The extent of
any such exclusion shall be limited to those explicitly specified IPRs.
6.3 As long as the requested undertaking of the IPR owner is not granted, the COMMITTEE Chairmen
should, if appropriate, in consultation with the ETSI Secretariat use their judgment as to whether
or not the COMMITTEE should suspend work on the relevant parts of the STANDARD or
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION until the matter has been resolved and/or submit for approval any
relevant STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION.
6.4 At the request of the European Commission and/or EFTA, initially for a specific STANDARD or
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION or a class of STANDARDS/TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS, ETSI
shall arrange to have carried out in a competent and timely manner an investigation including an
IPR search, with the objective of ascertaining whether IPRs exist or are likely to exist which may
be or may become ESSENTIAL to a proposed STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
and the possible terms and conditions of licences for such IPRs. This shall be subject to the
European Commission and/or EFTA meeting all reasonable expenses of such an investigation,
in accordance with detailed arrangements to be worked out with the European Commission and/or
EFTA prior to the investigation being undertaken.
MEMBERS shall use one of the ETSI IPR Licensing Declaration forms at the Appendix to this ETSI IPR
Policy to make their IPR licensing declarations.
7.1 Any published STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION shall include information pertaining
to ESSENTIAL IPRs which are brought to the attention of ETSI prior to such publication.
7.2 ETSI shall establish appropriate procedures to allow access to information at any time with
respect to ESSENTIAL IPRs which have been brought to the attention of ETSI.
Exhibit J
70
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-11 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57201 Page 4 of
12
8 Non-availability of Licences
Where, in the opinion of the General Assembly, no such viable alternative technology exists,
work on the STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION shall cease, and the
Director-General of ETSI shall observe the following procedure:
ii) If that MEMBER however decides not to withdraw its refusal to license the IPR, it
shall then inform the Director-General of ETSI of its decision and provide a written
explanation of its reasons for refusing to license that IPR, within three months of
its receipt of the Director-General's request.
iii) The Director-General of ETSI shall then send the MEMBER's explanation together
with relevant extracts from the minutes of the General Assembly to the ETSI
Counsellors for their consideration.
ii) Where this does not lead to a solution the Director-General of ETSI shall write to
the IPR owner concerned for an explanation and request ultimately that licences
be granted according to Clause 6.1 above.
iii) Where the IPR owner refuses the Director-General's request and decides not to
withdraw its refusal to license the IPR or does not answer the letter within three
months after the receipt of the Director-General's request, the Director-General
shall then send the IPR owner's explanation, if any, together with relevant extracts
from the minutes of the General Assembly to the ETSI Counsellors for their
consideration.
8.1.3 Prior to any decision by the General Assembly, the COMMITTEE should in consultation with
the ETSI Secretariat use their judgment as to whether or not the COMMITTEE should pursue
development of the concerned parts of the STANDARD or a TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION
based on the non-available technology and should look for alternative solutions.
Exhibit J
71
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-11 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57202 Page 5 of
12
i) The Director-General shall request full supporting details from any MEMBER or third party
who has complained that licences are not available in accordance with Clause 6.1 above.
ii) The Director-General shall write to the IPR owner concerned for an explanation and request
that licences be granted according to Clause 6.1 above. Where the concerned IPR owner
is a MEMBER, it shall inform the Director-General of ETSI of its decision and provide a
written explanation of its reasons in case of continuing refusal to license that IPR.
iii) Where the IPR owner refuses the Director-General's request or does not answer the letter
within three months, the Director-General shall inform the General Assembly and, if
available, provide the General Assembly with the IPR owner's explanation for
consideration. A vote shall be taken in the General Assembly on an individual weighted
basis to immediately refer the STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION to the
relevant COMMITTEE to modify it so that the IPR is no longer ESSENTIAL.
iv) Where the vote in the General Assembly does not succeed, then the General Assembly
shall, where appropriate, consult the ETSI Counsellors with a view to finding a solution to
the problem. In parallel, the General Assembly may request appropriate MEMBERS to use
their good offices to find a solution to the problem.
v) Where (iv) does not lead to a solution, then the General Assembly shall request the
European Commission to see what further action may be appropriate, including non-
recognition of the STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION in question.
In carrying out the foregoing procedure due account shall be taken of the interest of the
enterprises that have invested in the implementation of the STANDARD or TECHNICAL
SPECIFICATION in question.
9.2 In general, in the absence of any exceptional circumstances, where SOFTWARE is included in
any element of a STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION there shall be no requirement to
use that SOFTWARE for any purpose in order for an implementation to conform to the
STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION.
9.2.1 Without prejudice to Clause 9.1, any MEMBER contributing SOFTWARE for inclusion in a
STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION hereby grants, without monetary compensation
or any restriction other than as set out in this Clause 9.2.1, an irrevocable, non-exclusive,
worldwide, royalty-free, sub-licensable copyright licence to prepare derivative works of
(including translations, adaptations, alterations) the contributed SOFTWARE and reproduce,
display, distribute and execute the contributed SOFTWARE and derivative works for the
following limited purposes:
a) to ETSI and MEMBERS to evaluate the SOFTWARE and any derivative works thereof
for determining whether to support the inclusion of the SOFTWARE in that STANDARD
or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION;
Exhibit J
72
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-11 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57203 Page 6 of
12
9.2.2 (i) The copyright licence granted in Clause 9.2.1 shall also extend to any implementer of that
STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION for the purpose of using the SOFTWARE in any
compliant implementation unless (ii) the contributing MEMBER gives an irrevocable
undertaking in writing at the time of contribution that it is prepared to grant an irrevocable
copyright licence on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions for the
purpose of using the SOFTWARE in any compliant implementation.
Other than as expressly provided in this Clause 9.2.3: (1) SOFTWARE contributed for inclusion
in a STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION is provided “AS IS” with no warranties,
express or implied, including but not limited to, the warranties of merchantability, fitness for a
particular purpose and non infringement of intellectual property rights and (2) neither the
MEMBER contributing SOFTWARE nor ETSI shall be held liable in any event for any damages
whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of profits, business interruption, loss
of information, or any other pecuniary loss) arising out of or related to the use of or inability to
use the SOFTWARE.
9.2.4 With respect to the copyright licenses set out in Clause 9.2.1 and 9.2.2 , no patent licence is
granted by implication, estoppel or otherwise.
9.3 In respect of IPRs other than copyright in STANDARDS and TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
documentation and reports, ETSI shall only seek ownership of IPRs generated either by its
employees or by secondees to ETSI from organizations who are not MEMBERS.
9.4 ETSI shall, on request by a non-member, grant licences to that non-member on fair and
reasonable terms and conditions in respect of any IPRs, other than those referred to in Clause
9.1 above, owned by ETSI. MEMBERS shall be allowed to use IPRs owned by ETSI free of
charge.
10 Confidentiality
Exhibit J
73
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-11 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57204 Page 7 of
12
The POLICY shall be governed by the laws of France. However, no MEMBER shall be obliged by the
POLICY to commit a breach of the laws or regulations of its country or to act against supranational laws
or regulations applicable to its country insofar as derogation by agreement between parties is not
permitted by such laws.
Any right granted to, and any obligation imposed on, a MEMBER which derives from French law and
which are not already contained in the national or supranational law applicable to that MEMBER is to
be understood as being of solely a contractual nature.
13 Policy Decisions
Without prejudice to ETSI's Statutes and Rules of Procedure, no decisions shall be taken by ETSI in
relation to implementation of the POLICY unless supported by a 71 % majority of the weighted individual
votes cast by MEMBERS.
14 Violation of Policy
Any violation of the POLICY by a MEMBER shall be deemed to be a breach, by that MEMBER, of its
obligations to ETSI. The ETSI General Assembly shall have the authority to decide the action to be
taken, if any, against the MEMBER in breach, in accordance with the ETSI Statutes.
15 Definitions
- ownership of more than 50 % of the nominal value of the issued equity share capital or of
more than 50 % of the shares entitling the holders to vote for the election of directors or
persons performing similar functions; or
- right by any other means to elect or appoint directors, or persons who collectively can
exercise such control. A state, a division of a state or other public entity operating under
public law, or any legal entity, linked to the first legal entity solely through a state or any
division of a state or other public entity operating under public law, shall be deemed to fall
outside the definition of an AFFILIATE.
2 "COMMITTEE" shall mean any Technical Body of ETSI and shall include ETSI Projects, Technical
Committees, ETSI Partnership Projects, and their Working Groups.
6 "ESSENTIAL" as applied to IPR means that it is not possible on technical (but not commercial)
grounds, taking into account normal technical practice and the state of the art generally available
at the time of standardization, to make, sell, lease, otherwise dispose of, repair, use or operate
EQUIPMENT or METHODS which comply with a STANDARD without infringing that IPR. For the
avoidance of doubt in exceptional cases where a STANDARD can only be implemented by
Exhibit J
74
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-11 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57205 Page 8 of
12
technical solutions, all of which are infringements of IPRs, all such IPRs shall be considered
ESSENTIAL.
7 "IPR" shall mean any intellectual property right conferred by statute law including applications
therefor other than trademarks. For the avoidance of doubt rights relating to get-up, confidential
information, trade secrets or the like are excluded from the definition of IPR.
9 "MEMBER" shall mean a member or Associate member of ETSI. References to a MEMBER shall
wherever the context permits be interpreted as references to that MEMBER and its AFFILIATES.
11 "STANDARD" shall mean any standard adopted by ETSI including options therein or amended
versions and shall include European Standards (ENs), ETSI Standards (ESs), Common
Technical Regulations (CTRs) which are taken from ENs and including drafts of any of the
foregoing, and documents made under the previous nomenclature, including ETSs, I-ETSs, parts
of NETs and TBRs, the technical specifications of which are available to all MEMBERS, but not
including any standards, or parts thereof, not made by ETSI.
The date on which a STANDARD is considered to be adopted by ETSI for the purposes of this
POLICY shall be the date on which the technical content of that STANDARD was available to all
MEMBERS.
12 "TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION" shall mean any Technical Specification (TS) adopted by ETSI
including options therein or amended version including drafts, the Technical Specifications of
which are available to all MEMBERS, but not including any technical specifications, or parts
thereof, not made by ETSI.
The date on which a TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION is considered to be adopted by ETSI for the
purposes of this POLICY shall be the date on which the technical content of that TECHNICAL
SPECIFICATION was available to all MEMBERS.
13 “PATENT FAMILY” shall mean all the documents having at least one priority in common,
including the priority document(s) themselves. For the avoidance of doubt, “documents” refers to
patents, utility models, and applications therefor.
- a set of instructions written in any programming language that either directly, or when
further compiled, performs a function when executed by hardware that processes data
according to instructions, such as an audio or video CODEC; but also
- data and stream structure definitions, such as ASN.1, TTCN, or XML data representations;
and
- schema examples, such as SDL diagrams and data flow charts;
which can be transformed, either directly, or when further compiled, into usable/implementable
code.
Exhibit J
75
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-11 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57206 Page 9 of
12
Legal Name:
Telephone: Fax:
Email: URL:
the Declarant hereby irrevocably declares that (1) it and its AFFILIATES are prepared to grant irrevocable
licenses under its/their IPR(s) on terms and conditions which are in accordance with Clause 6.1 of the ETSI
IPR Policy, in respect of the STANDARD(S), TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION(S), or the ETSI Project(s), as
identified above, to the extent that the IPR(s) are or become, and remain ESSENTIAL to practice that/those
STANDARD(S) or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION(S) or, as applicable, any STANDARD or TECHNICAL
SPECIFICATION resulting from proposals or Work Items within the current scope of the above identified ETSI
Project(s), for the field of use of practice of such STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION; and (2) it will
comply with Clause 6.1bis of the ETSI IPR Policy with respect to such ESSENTIAL IPR(s).
This irrevocable undertaking is made subject to the condition that those who seek licences agree to
reciprocate (check box if applicable).
The construction, validity and performance of this General IPR licensing declaration shall be governed by the
laws of France.
Terms in ALL CAPS on this form have the meaning provided in Clause 15 of the ETSI IPR Policy.
SIGNATURE
By signing this General IPR Licensing Declaration form, you represent that you have the authority to bind the
Declarant and/or its AFFILIATES to the representations and commitments provided in this form.
Name of authorized person:
Title of authorized person:
Place, Date:
Signature:
Exhibit J
76
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-11 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57207 Page 10 of
12
Legal Name:
Telephone: Fax:
Email: URL:
SIGNATURE
By signing this IPR Information Statement and Licensing Declaration form, you represent that you have the
authority to bind the Declarant and/or its AFFILIATES to the representations and commitments provided in
this form.
Name of authorized person:
Title of authorized person:
Place, Date:
Signature:
Exhibit J
77
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-11 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57208 Page 11 of
12
* Information on other members of a PATENT FAMILY is provided voluntarily (Clause 4.3 of the ETSI IPR Policy).
Please return this form together with the “IPR Information Statement and Licensing Declaration form” to:
Director-General - ETSI - 650, route des Lucioles - F-06921 Sophia Antipolis Cedex – France / Fax. +33 (0) 4 93 65 47 16
Exhibit J
78
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-11 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57209 Page 12 of
12
Optional written explanation of reasons for not making the IPR Licensing Declaration
The Declarant and/or its AFFILIATES are unwilling to grant irrevocable licences under the IPR(s)
disclosed in the attached IPR Information Statement Annex on terms and conditions which are in
accordance with Clause 6.1 of the ETSI IPR Policy.
The Declarant and/or its AFFILIATES are unable to grant irrevocable licences under the IPR(s)
disclosed in the attached IPR Information Statement Annex on terms and conditions which are in
accordance with Clause 6.1 of the ETSI IPR Policy, because
the Declarant and/or its AFFILIATES are not the proprietor of the IPR(s) disclosed in the attached
IPR Information Statement Annex,
the Declarant and/or its AFFILIATES do not have the ability to licence the IPR(s) disclosed in the
attached IPR Information Statement Annex on terms and conditions which are in accordance
with Clause 6.1 of the ETSI IPR Policy. In this case, please provide Contact information of those
who may have this ability:
Legal Name:
Name and Title:
Department:
Address:
Telephone: Fax:
Email:
Please return this form together with the “IPR Information Statement and Licensing Declaration form” to:
Director-General
ETSI - 650, route des Lucioles - F-06921 Sophia Antipolis Cedex – France / Fax. +33 (0) 4 93 65 47 16
Exhibit J
79