22-04-04 ITC-1301 Apple Answer To Complaint

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Before the Honorable Cameron R. Elliot

Administrative Law Judge
In the Matter of
CERTAIN MOBILE PHONES AND

TABLET COMPUTERS, ALL WITH Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
SWITCHABLE CONNECTIVITY
RESPONDENT APPLE INC.’S RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT OF

ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON UNDER
SECTION 337 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930, AS AMENDED,
AND NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION
RESPONDENT COUNSEL FOR APPLE INC.
Apple Inc. Benjamin C. Elacqua

Fish & Richardson P.C.
One Apple Park Way 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2800
Cupertino, CA 95014 Houston, TX 77010
Tel: 408-996-1010 Telephone: (713) 654-5300
Facsimile: (713) 652-0109
Betty Chen
500 Arguello Street
Suite 500
Redwood, CA 94063
Telephone: (650) 839-5070
Facsimile: (650) 839-5071
Ruffin B. Cordell
Richard A. Sterba
1000 Maine Avenue, S.W., Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20024
Telephone: (202) 783-5070
Facsimile: (202) 783-2331
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301

Apple Inc.’s Response to Complaint and Notice
Aamir Kazi
Benjamin Thompson
Jacqueline Tio
Katherine Reardon
1180 Peachtree St SE, Suite 2100
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 892-5005
Facsimile: (404) 892-5002
Andrew Pearson
Whitney Reichel
One Marina Park Drive
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 542-5070
2
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
PREAMBLE
Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.13, Respondent Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Respondent”) by
and through its attorneys, hereby responds to the Complaint Under Section 337 of the Tariff Act
of 1930 as Amended (the “Complaint”), filed by Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM
Ericsson (“Ericsson” or “Complainants”) on January 18, 2022, and to the Notice of Institution of
Investigation (the “Notice”) published in the Federal Register on February 24, 2022 (87 Fed.
Reg. 10386).
Apple denies that it has engaged in acts of unfair competition in violation of Section 337
by importing, selling for importation, and/or selling after importation into the United States any
product that infringes, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, directly, indirectly, by
contribution and/or by inducement, any valid Asserted Claim of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,792,454 (“the
’454 patent”); 10,880,794 (“the ’794 patent”); and 8,472,999 (“the ’999 patent”) (collectively
“the Asserted Patents”). Apple denies that the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents are valid
and enforceable. Except as specifically admitted herein, Apple denies all of the allegations of
the Complaint. To the extent that any allegations of the Complaint refer to or rely upon
information not previously supplied to Apple, Apple is without information sufficient to admit or
deny such allegations, and therefore denies the same. In responding to the Complaint and the
Notice, Apple has understood “Accused Products” to mean the products accused of infringement
in the Complaint. Apple reserves the right to take further positions and raise additional defenses
as may become apparent as a result of additional information discovered subsequent to filing this
Response, or to the extent Ericsson modifies its Complaint or contentions.
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301

RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT
In answer to the allegations set forth in the Complaint, Apple responds as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION1
To the extent that Paragraph 1 contains conclusions of law, no response is
necessary. Apple denies that it has engaged in unlawful importation into the United States, sale
for importation into the United States, offer for sale for importation into the United States, and/or
sale within the United States after importation of the Accused Products. Apple further denies that
the Accused Products infringe any valid Asserted Claim of the ’454 patent, the ’794 patent, or the
’999 patent.
necessary. Apple admits that Exhibits 1-3 to the Complaint purport to be certified and uncertified
copies of the Asserted Patents, Exhibits 4-6 to the Complaint purport to be certified and uncertified
copies of the recorded assignments for the Asserted Patents, and Appendices Nos. A-C to the
Complaint purport to be certified and uncertified copies of the prosecution histories of the Asserted
Patents. Apple lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of any
remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 2 and, on that basis, denies them.
Apple admits that Apple is the Proposed Respondent in the Complaint. Apple
admits that certain mobile phones and tablet computers are manufactured and assembled overseas,
and are sold for importation into the United States, imported into the United States, or sold within
the United States after importation by or on behalf of Apple. Apple denies the remaining
allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 3.
1
Apple has adopted headings in the Complaint for ease of reference. However, to the extent that
such headings themselves contain factual and legal characterizations, Apple denies such
characterizations.
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
necessary. Apple lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraph 4 and, on that basis, denies them.
necessary. Apple admits that Ericsson seeks relief in the Complaint, including a permanent
exclusion order, a cease and desist order, and the imposition of a bond during the Presidential
review period. Apple denies that any of its Accused Products infringe any valid and enforceable
Asserted Claim of the Asserted Patents. Apple denies that it has violated Section 337 in any
manner. Apple denies that Ericsson is entitled to any relief whatsoever, including without
limitation, the relief requested in Paragraph 5.
II. COMPLAINANTS
Apple admits that Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson are the
Complainants in this investigation.
On information and belief, Apple admits that Ericsson Inc. is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, having its principal place of
business at 6300 Legacy Drive, Plano, Texas 75024.
On information and belief, Apple admits that LM Ericsson is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the Kingdom of Sweden, having its principal place of
business at Torshamnsgatan 21, Kista, SE-164 83 Stockholm, Sweden. Apple lacks sufficient
knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in
Paragraph 8 and, on that basis, denies them.
Apple lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 and, on that basis, denies them.
2
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 12 and, on that basis, denies them.
III. PROPOSED RESPONDENT APPLE
Apple admits that it is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
California. Apple admits that its headquarters and principal place of business is at One Apple Park
Way, Cupertino, CA 95014.
necessary. Apple admits that it designs, develops, imports, and sells after importation certain
iPhones and iPads. Apple admits that certain iPhones and iPads are manufactured on behalf of
Apple. Apple admits that certain Accused Products are sold within the United States through retail
and online stores, direct sales, and third-party resellers. Apple admits that it performs services to
support the sale of certain Accused Products into and within the United States, including marketing
certain Accused Products, developing and distributing software, and certain after-sale services. To
the extent not specifically and expressly admitted, Apple denies all other allegations and
characterizations in Paragraph 14.
IV. THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS AND TECHNOLOGY AT ISSUE
Apple admits that Complainants have described the Accused Products as “mobile
phones and tablet computers, all with switchable connectivity, and products containing same,”
pursuant to Commission Rule 210.12(a)(12). Apple admits that Complainants have further
3
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
described the Accused Products to “include but are not limited to the Apple iPhone mobile phones,
Apple iPad tablet computers, and products containing same.” To the extent not specifically and
expressly admitted, Apple denies all other allegations and characterizations in Paragraph 15.
necessary. Apple denies that the allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 16
constitute a complete and accurate description of the ’454, ’794, or ’999 patent. Apple lacks
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth of the statements and
characterizations contained in Paragraph 16 and, on that basis, denies them.
V. THE ASSERTED PATENTS AND NON-TECHNICAL DESCRIPTIONS
A. U.S. Patent 8,792,454
Identification and Ownership of the ’454 Patent
Apple admits that the ’454 patent states on its face that it is titled “Secure and
Seamless WAN-LAN Roaming,” issued on January 29, 2014. Apple admits that the ’454 patent
on its face lists Kenichi Taniuchi, Tao Zhang, Prathima Agrawal, Ashutosh Dutta, Sunil Madhani,
Shinichi Baba, Kensaku Fujimoto, Yasuhiro Katsube, Toshikazu Kodama, and Yoshihiro Ohba as
the inventors. Apple admits that the ’454 patent states on its face that it issued from Application
No. 13/554,711, filed on July 20, 2012. Apple admits that Exhibit 1 to the Complaint purports to
be a copy of the ’454 Patent. Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
regarding the truth of the remaining statements contained in Paragraph 17 and, on that basis, denies
them.
Apple admits that the ’454 patent on its face shows that it has 2 independent claims
and 7 dependent claims. Apple denies that any of its Accused Products infringe any valid and
enforceable Asserted Claim of the ’454 patent. Apple denies that it has violated Section 337 in
4
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
any manner. Apple admits that Exhibit 1 to the Complaint purports to be a copy of the ’454 Patent.
Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth of the
remaining statements and characterizations contained in Paragraph 18 and, on that basis, denies
them.
necessary. Apple denies that the Asserted Claims of the ’454 patent are valid, enforceable, or
currently in full force and effect until July 21, 2024.
necessary. Apple lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the
allegations contained in Paragraph 20 and, on that basis, denies them.
Apple admits that Appendix A purports to be an electronic version of a copy of the
prosecution history of the ’454 patent. Apple admits that Appendix D purports to include
electronic copies of technical references identified in the prosecution history of the ’454 patent.
To the extent not specifically and expressly admitted, Apple denies all other allegations and
characterizations in Paragraph 21.
Non-Technical Description of the ’454 Patent
constitute a complete and accurate description of the ’454 patent. Apple denies the allegations
contained in Paragraph 22 as they relate in any way to a proposed construction of any Asserted
Claim of the ’454 patent. Apple further denies that the ’454 patent discloses anything novel,
inventive, or nonobvious. Apple is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
5
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 22 and, on that basis, denies
them.
them.
Foreign Counterparts
necessary. Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth of
the statements and allegations in Paragraph 24 and, on that basis, denies them.
Licenses
Apple admits that Confidential Exhibit 16C purports to contain a list of entities with
a current license involving the ’454 patent. Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief regarding the truth of the remaining statements and allegations in Paragraph 26 and,
on that basis, denies them.
B. U.S. Patent No. 10,880,794
6
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
Apple admits that the ’794 patent states on its face that it is titled “Inter-Band
Handover of the Same Physical Frequency,” issued on December 29, 2020. Apple admits that the
’794 patent on its face lists Peter Alriksson and Maria Ulander as the inventors. Apple admits that
the ’794 patent states on its face that it issued from Application No. 16/328,390, filed as
Application No. PCT/EP/2016/070609 on September 1, 2016. Apple admits that Exhibit 2 to the
Complaint purports to be a copy of the ’794 patent. Apple lacks knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth of the remaining statements contained in
Paragraph 27 and, on that basis, denies them.
necessary. Apple admits that the ’794 patent on its face shows that it has 4 independent claims
any manner. Apple admits that Exhibit 2 to the Complaint purports to be a copy of the ’794 Patent.
Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth of the
remaining statements and characterizations contained in Paragraph 28 and, on that basis, denies
them.
currently in full force and effect until September 1, 2036.
necessary. Apple admits that Exhibit 5 to the Complaint is a document that purports to reflect an
assignment of U.S. Application No. 16/328,390. Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient
7
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
to form a belief regarding the truth of the remaining statements and allegations in Paragraph 30
and, on that basis, denies them.
Apple admits that Appendix B purports to be an electronic version of a certified
copy of the prosecution history of the ’794 patent. Apple admits that Appendix E purports to
include electronic copies of technical references identified in the prosecution history of the ’794
patent. To the extent not specifically and expressly admitted, Apple denies all other allegations
and characterizations in Paragraph 31.
them.
8
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
them.
Licenses
C. U.S. Patent No. 8,472,999
Apple admits that the ’999 patent states on its face that it is titled “Method and
System for Enabling Dual Standby State in a Wireless Communication System,” issued on June
25, 2013. Apple admits that the ’999 patent on its face lists Xuejun Zhang as the inventor. Apple
admits that the ’999 patent states on its face that it issued from Application No. 12/261,752, filed
on October 30, 2008. Apple admits that Exhibit 3 to the Complaint purports to be a copy of the
’999 Patent. Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth
of the remaining statements contained in Paragraph 37 and, on that basis, denies them.
9
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
necessary. Apple admits that the ’999 patent on its face shows that it has 3 independent claims
any manner. Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth
of the remaining statements and characterizations contained in Paragraph 38 and, on that basis,
denies them.
currently in full force and effect until June 12, 2030.
necessary. Apple admits that Exhibit 6 to the Complaint is a document purports to reflect an
assignment of U.S. Application No. 12/261,752. Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief regarding the truth of the remaining statements and allegations in Paragraph 40
and, on that basis, denies them.
Apple admits that Appendix C purports to be an electronic version of a copy of the
prosecution history of the ’999 patent. Apple admits that Appendix F purports to include electronic
copies of technical references identified in the prosecution history of the ’999 patent. To the extent
not specifically and expressly admitted, Apple denies all other allegations and characterizations in
Paragraph 41.
10
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
them.
constitute a complete and accurate description of the’999 patent. Apple denies the allegations
them.
them.
11
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
Licenses
VI. SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF UNFAIR IMPORTATION AND SALE
Apple admits that certain Accused Products are manufactured and assembled at
facilities outside the United States. Apple admits that certain Accused Products are sold for
importation into the United States, imported into the United States, and/or sold within the United
States after importation by or on behalf of Apple. To the extent not specifically and expressly
admitted, Apple denies all other allegations and characterizations in Paragraph 48.
Apple admits that certain models of the Accused Products are sold in the United
States. Apple admits that it has over 270 retail stores in the United States where certain models of
the Accused Products may be purchased. To the extent not specifically and expressly admitted,
Apple denies all other allegations and characterizations in Paragraph 49.
Apple admits that certain Apple iPhone Models 12 and 13 are assembled in China,
then imported and sold within the United States by or on behalf of Apple. Apple admits that
12
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
Exhibit 19 to the Complaint purports to be a copy of purchasing documents and photographs of an
Apple iPhone 13 Pro. Apple admits that Exhibit 19 to the Complaint purports to show that an
iPhone 13 Pro was purchased from an Apple Store in Georgetown, Washington, D.C., on January
15, 2022, and was assembled in China. To the extent not specifically and expressly admitted,
Apple denies all other allegations and characterizations in Paragraph 50.
Apple admits that certain Apple iPads are assembled in China, then imported and
sold within the United States by or on behalf of Apple. Apple admits that Exhibit 20 to the
Complaint purports to be a copy of purchasing documents and photographs of an Apple iPad Pro
Wi-Fi + Cellular. Apple admits that Exhibit 20 to the Complaint purports to show that an iPad Pro
Wi-Fi + Cellular was purchased from an Apple Store in Georgetown, Washington, D.C., on
January 15, 2022, and was assembled in China. To the extent not specifically and expressly
admitted, Apple denies all other allegations and characterizations in Paragraph 51.
the statements and allegations in Paragraph 52 and, on that basis, denies them. Apple denies that
any of the Accused Products infringe any valid and enforceable Asserted Claim of the Asserted
Patents, or that Apple has violated Section 337 in any manner.
VII. UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR ACTS OF RESPONDENT – PATENT

INFRINGEMENT
Apple denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 53.
A. Infringement of the ’454 Patent
13
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
Apple admits that that Ericsson provided a copy of this Complaint to Apple in
advance of filing. Apple admits that this Complaint is accompanied by a claim chart where
Ericsson purports to allege that the Accused Products infringe the asserted independent claims of
the ’454 patent. Apple denies each and every remaining allegation of Paragraph 56.
Apple admits that Exhibit 7 to this Complaint purports to be a claim chart of the
’454 patent. Apple denies that any of the Accused Products infringe any valid and enforceable
Asserted Claim of the ’454 patent. Apple denies each and every remaining allegation of Paragraph
57.
B. Infringement of the ’794 Patent
Apple denies each and every allegation of Paragraph 58.
Apple admits that Ericsson provided a copy of this Complaint to Apple in advance
of filing. Apple admits that this Complaint is accompanied by a claim chart where Ericsson
purports to allege that the Accused Products infringe the asserted independent claims of the ’794
patent. Apple denies each and every remaining allegation of Paragraph 60.
Apple admits that Exhibit 8A to this Complaint purports to be a claim chart of the
61.
C. Infringement of the ’999 Patent
14
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
Apple admits that Exhibit 9A to this Complaint purports to be a claim chart of the
66.
VIII. HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE ITEM NUMBERS
Apple admits that the Harmonized Tariff Schedule item numbers for the Accused
Products imported into the United States are 8517.13 and 8471.30.01.
IX. RELATED LITIGATION
A. Litigation Related to the Asserted Patents
Apple admits that Ericsson filed an action for patent infringement against Apple in
the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on January 17, 2022, Civil Action
No. 6:22-cv-61, asserting the Asserted Patents. Apple denies that it has infringed in any way any
claim of the Asserted Patents and denies that Ericsson is entitled to any relief. To the extent not
specifically and expressly admitted, Apple denies all other allegations and characterizations in
Paragraph 68.
15
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
Apple is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
of the allegations of Paragraph 69, and, on that basis, denies them.
B. Other Litigation Between the Parties
Apple admits that on January 17, 2022, Ericsson filed an action for patent
infringement against Apple in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas,
Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-60. Apple denies that it has infringed in any way any claim of any patents
asserted in that action, and denies that Ericsson is entitled to any relief.
Apple admits that on January 17, 2022, Ericsson filed a patent infringement
complaint against Apple in Certain Mobile Telephones, Tablet Computers with Cellular
Connectivity, and Smart Watches with Cellular Connectivity, Components Thereof, and Products
Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1299. Apple admits that additional cases were filed by
Ericsson outside the United States. Apple denies that it has infringed any claim of any patents
asserted in these actions. Apple denies that Ericsson is entitled to any relief.
Apple admits that on February 26, 2015, Ericsson filed a patent infringement
complaint against Apple in Certain Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication
Devices, Computers, Tablet Computers, Digital Media Players, and Cameras, Inv. No. 337-TA-
952, which was instituted on March 30, 2015. Apple admits that that investigation was terminated
based on settlement between the parties. Apple denies that it has infringed any claim of any patents
asserted in that investigation. Apple denies that Ericsson is entitled to any relief.
Apple admits that on February 26, 2015, Ericsson filed a patent infringement
complaint against Apple in Certain Wireless Standard Compliant Electronic Devices, Including
Communication Devices and Tablet Computers, Inv. No. 337-TA-953, which was instituted on
March 30, 2015. Apple admits that that investigation was terminated based on settlement between
16
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
the parties. Apple denies that it has infringed any claim of any patents asserted in that
investigation. Apple denies that Ericsson is entitled to any relief.
Apple admits that on October 4, 2021, Ericsson filed a complaint against Apple in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-376,
where Ericsson does not assert patent infringement of the Asserted Patents.
Apple admits that on December 17, 2012, it brought suit against Ericsson in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-460.
Apple admits that Ericsson and Apple have been opposing parties in the following
Patent and Trademark Appeals Board proceedings:
i) Apple Inc. v. Ericsson Inc., IPR2015-01905
ii) Apple Inc. v. Ericsson Inc., IPR2015-01904
iii) Apple Inc. v. Ericsson Inc., IPR2015-01919
iv) Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2016-00004
v) Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2016-00050
vi) Apple Inc. v. Ericsson Inc., IPR2016-00108
vii) Apple Inc. v. Ericsson Inc., IPR2016-00107
viii) Apple Inc. v. Ericsson Inc., IPR2016-00106
ix) Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2016-00110
x) Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2016-00109
xi) Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, IPR2016-00154
xii) Apple Inc. v. Ericsson Inc., IPR2016-00152
Apple admits that Ericsson and Apple have been opposing parties in the following
district court proceedings:
17
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
i) Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al., 3-15-cv-00154 (NDCA)
ii) Ericsson Inc. et al. v. Apple Inc., 2:15-cv-00293 (EDTX)
iii) Ericsson Inc. et al. v. Apple Inc., 2:15-cv-00292 (EDTX)
iv) Ericsson Inc. et al. v. Apple Inc., 2:15-cv-00291 (EDTX)
v) Ericsson Inc. et al. v. Apple Inc., 2:15-cv-00290 (EDTX)
vi) Ericsson Inc. et al. v. Apple Inc., 2:15-cv-00289 (EDTX)
vii) Ericsson Inc. et al. v. Apple Inc., 2:15-cv-00287 (EDTX)
Apple admits that Ericsson and Apple have been opposing parties in the foreign
proceedings listed in Paragraph 78.
The allegations of Paragraph 79 are too vague and ambiguous to admit or deny.
Apple admits that Ericsson and Apple are opposing parties in the foreign action
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Apple Retail Netherlands BV, Apple Benelux BV, Apple Inc.,
Apple Distribution International and Apple Sales International, C/09/500495/HA ZA 15/1321.
X. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY
the allegations and characterizations in Paragraph 80 and, on that basis, denies them.
A. Ericsson’s Domestic Industry
18
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
19
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
B. Samsung’s Domestic Industry
20
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth
of the allegations and characterizations in Paragraph 96 and, on that basis, denies them.
necessary. Apple states that the Initial Determination in Certain Electronic Devices, Including
Wireless Communications Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet
Computers, Inv. No. 337-TA-794 (Sept. 14, 2012) speaks for itself and denies the allegations in
Paragraph 101 to the extent they purport to attribute to the Initial Determination anything not stated
therein. Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth of
21
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
C. Ericsson’s Domestic Licensing
Licensing Activities
22
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
23
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
XI. RELIEF REQUESTED
necessary. To the extent that any response to Paragraph 119 is required, Apple denies that Ericsson
has any valid cause of action pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended. Apple
further denies that it has violated 19 U.S.C. § 1337 and specifically denies all of Ericsson’s
allegations of violation. Apple further denies that Ericsson is entitled to any relief whatsoever by
way of its Complaint. Apple denies any remaining allegations of Paragraph 119.
24
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
APPLE’S RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION
1. Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.13(b), Apple hereby responds to the Notice of
Institution of Investigation (the “Notice”) issued by the Commission on February 17, 2022, and
published in the Federal Register on February 24, 2022. Without admitting any of the specific or
general allegations set forth in the Complaint, as referenced in the Notice, Apple provides the
following response:
2. Apple acknowledges that the Commission has instituted an Investigation as set
forth in the Notice.
3. Apple denies that there has been any violation of Section 337 by reason of the
alleged infringement of any valid Asserted Claim of any Asserted Patent. Apple further
contends that the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents are invalid and/or unenforceable and
cannot support any remedy for the alleged infringement.
4. Apple denies that a protectable domestic industry, as required by 19 U.S.C.
§1337(a)(2)-(3), exists with respect to any of the Asserted Patents. Apple further denies that it is
in the public interest to grant any relief to Ericsson in connection with this Investigation.
5. Apple denies that Ericsson is entitled to any relief in this Investigation.
25
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT OF COMPLAINANTS
Apple hereby incorporates by reference the entirely of its “Public Interest Statement of
Proposed Respondent Apple Inc.,” submitted to the Commission on February 1, 2022.
26
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
APPLE’S STATEMENT UNDER 19.C.F.R. § 210.13(B)
1. Pursuant to Rule 210.13(b), Apple provides the following additional information.
By providing such information, Apple intends only to supply data required by 19 C.F.R.
§ 210.13(b). Apple specifically denies that any of the supplied data refers to any unlawful act
under Section 337 or otherwise, and Apple specifically denies that it infringes any Asserted
Claim of the Asserted Patents based on the Accused Products. Discovery has only recently
begun, and is ongoing. Apple reserves the right to amend and/or supplement the information
provided below and in Confidential Exhibit A.
2. Attached as Confidential Exhibit A to this Response is the approximate statistical
data related to quantity of and revenue associated with imports of iPhone and iPad for fiscal year
2021.
3. The Harmonized Tariff Schedule item numbers for the Accused Products
imported into the United States are as follows:
Product Category Harmonized Tariff Schedule Item Number

iPhone 8517.13
iPad 8471.30.01
4. Apple has relied on and currently relies on third parties to manufacture the
Accused Products. The names and addresses of Apple’s suppliers of Accused Products are set
forth in Confidential Exhibit A attached hereto.
5. Apple believes that the United States is a significant market for the Accused
Products and is important to Apple’s overall operations. Apple’s statement as to the relative
significance of the United States market regarding the Accused Products to its operations is
further set forth in Confidential Exhibit A attached hereto.
27
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
ADDITIONAL DEFENSES
1. Apple asserts the following defenses in response to the allegations set forth in the
Complaint. Apple’s inclusion of these additional defenses in this Response is not a concession
that Apple bears the burden of proof with respect to any of them. Discovery has recently begun
and Apple has not yet had sufficient time or opportunity to collect and review all the information
that may be relevant to the matters and issues raised herein. Thus, pursuant to 19 U.S.C.
§§ 210.14(b) and 210.14(c), Apple reserves the right to seek to amend, modify, and/or expand
these defenses and to take further positions as discovery proceeds in this Investigation.
FIRST ADDITIONAL DEFENSE (NONINFRINGEMENT)
2. Although Apple does not bear the burden of proof on this issue, Apple has not,
and does not, directly infringe, indirectly infringe, induce infringement, or contribute to
infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of the Asserted Patents, either literally or under
the doctrine of equivalents, and has not otherwise committed any acts in violation of 35 U.S.C.
§ 271 and/or 19 U.S.C. § 1337.
3. Ericsson has failed to identify its contentions with respect to what articles are
accused of infringement and how the Accused Products practice each limitation of the Asserted
Claims of the Asserted Patents.
SECOND ADDITIONAL DEFENSE (INVALIDITY)
4. On information and belief, one or more claims of the Asserted Patents are invalid
for failing to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, 112 and/or any other
applicable statutory provisions of Title 35 of the United States Code.
5. Apple provides an identification of prior art that supports this defense in Exhibit
B to this Response. The prior art provided in Exhibit B is exemplary only and should not be
28
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
construed as limiting in any way the defenses that Apple will present in this Investigation.
Apple’s investigation is ongoing. Further, nothing herein should be construed as an admission
that Apple agrees with any of Ericsson’s express or implied claim constructions.
6. Depending on the scope of the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents or
Complainants’ contentions in connection therewith, the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents
may be invalid for failure to provide an adequate written description or enabling disclosure, or
for failure to disclosure the best mode under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, or for
indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (LACK OF DOMESTIC INDUSTRY)
7. Although Apple does not bear the burden of proof on this issue, on information
and belief, Complainants have not adequately alleged and cannot prove the existence of a
domestic industry as required under 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2)-(3), in connection with the Asserted
Patents. For example, on information and belief, Ericsson does not maintain a presence in the
domestic mobile phone and tablet computer market. Ericsson is therefore a non-practicing entity
in the mobile phone and tablet computer market.
FOURTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE (LACK OF UNFAIR ACT)
8. Although Apple does not bear the burden of proof on this issue, on information
and belief, Apple has committed no unfair act that constitutes a violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337.
FIFTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE

(REQUESTED REMEDY IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST)
9. Ericsson’s demand for relief is not in the public interest under Section 337(d)(1).
As explained further in “Public Interest Statement of Proposed Respondent Apple Inc.,”
submitted to the Commission on February 1, 2022, any exclusion order(s) or cease-and-desist
order(s) would adversely affect the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the
29
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United
States, and/or United States consumers.
10. In addition, Ericsson’s demand for an exclusion order and a cease and desist order
based on the Asserted Patents is not in the public interest because it is an attempt to coerce Apple
into taking a license to thousands of Ericsson standard essential patents (“SEP”) at rates that are
not fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”). As Ericsson pled in its Complaint
filed in Inv. No. 337-TA-1300, “[i]n instances where companies use Ericsson’s patent
technology, but after appropriate notice, negotiations, and opportunities, are unwilling to enter
into a license agreement, Ericsson invests in patent enforcement litigation. In those patent
enforcement proceedings, Ericsson asserts representative patents from the applicable portfolios.”
Certain Mobile Phones, Tablet Computers, Smart Watches, Smart Speakers, and Digital Media
Players, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1300, Complaint, at ¶ 140 (emphasis
added); see also Compl., Ex. 13C. Ericsson thus admits that it is using the coercive threat of an
exclusion order of “representative” patents to force a license of a “portfolio” of patents.
Moreover, Ericsson never gave Apple any “notice, negotiation, or opportunity” to take a license
to just the Asserted Patents. Ericsson’s demand for relief adversely affects the competitive
conditions in the United States economy for at least two reasons. First, when Ericsson demands
that Apple take a license to its SEPs to avoid an exclusion order on the Asserted Patents,
Ericsson is impermissibly abrogating its FRAND obligations. Ericsson promised to license its
declared SEPs under fair and reasonable terms, and using the threat of injunctive relief in this
Investigation to coerce Apple into taking an SEP license is a breach of that agreement. Second,
when Ericsson demands that Apple take a license to all of Ericsson’s patents to avoid an
30
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
exclusion order on the Asserted Patents as “representative,” Ericsson is illegally tying the broad
SEP portfolio license to the non-essential Asserted Patents.
11. The public interest, therefore, precludes issuance of the requested remedial orders
in accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d)(1) and (f)(1).
SIXTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE (ESTOPPEL)
12. On information and belief, and subject to further discovery, Ericsson is estopped
from asserting and construing any Asserted Claim to have been infringed by any Apple product
and asserting infringement by any Apple product under the doctrine of equivalents, in whole or
in part, by argument-based estoppel, prosecution history estoppel, and collateral, administrative,
and judicial estoppel, by virtue of the cancellations, amendments, arguments, representations,
and concessions made to the Patent and Trademark Office during the pendency of the
applications for the Asserted Patents and for related patents and patent applications, post-grant
proceedings, pending or prior litigation, and prior investigations by the International Trade
Commission.
SEVENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE

(EXPRESS/IMPLIED LICENSE AND/OR PATENT EXHAUSTION)
13. On information and belief, Ericsson’s claims are barred as a result of patent
exhaustion and/or a license to the Asserted Patents. Apple and/or its customer cannot be held
liable for infringement because the Accused Products were manufactured, sold, offered for sale,
used, and/or imported into the United States under an express and/or implied license from
Ericsson and/or its affiliates, and/or another licensed third party. For example, Apple is licensed
to the extent any agreement between Ericsson and an Apple contract manufacturer extends to
Apple or any Accused Products. Further, to the extent the claims of one or more of the Asserted
Patents are licensed by an Apple contract manufacturer and/or substantially embodied in an end
31
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
product or component purchased by Apple from a seller authorized by Ericsson, Ericsson’s
patent rights are exhausted.
14. Apple has a license (express or implied) to practice one or more of the Asserted
Patents, and/or Apple has authority to practice the patents, or the patents are unenforceable
against Apple, on one or more of the following grounds: estoppel, laches, waiver, unclean hands,
and/or other applicable equitable doctrines.
EIGHTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE (GOVERNMENT SALES)
15. Apple’s importations for, and sales to, the United States government are not
subject to the relief requested by Ericsson.
NINTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE (UNCLEAN HANDS)
16. On information and belief, Ericsson’s claims as they relate to the Asserted Patents
are barred in whole or in part by reason of equitable doctrine of unclean hands. Ericsson comes
to the Investigation with unclean hands because it has engaged in a continuing anticompetitive
scheme, evidenced by Ericsson improperly seeking to invoke the Commission’s authority to
exclude the allegedly infringing Apple products from the United States.
TENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE (INEQUITABLE CONDUCT)
17. On information and belief, and subject to further discovery, the Asserted Patents
are unenforceable due to the inequitable conduct of the named inventors and/or the prosecuting
attorneys for the Asserted Patents.
ELEVENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE (ENSNAREMENT)
18. On information and belief, and subject to further discovery, Ericsson’s
infringement claims are barred by the doctrine of ensnarement. Ericsson is foreclosed from
asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents to the extent the scope of such
equivalent would ensnare prior art.

32
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
TWELFTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE (PATENT MISUSE)
19. Ericsson is and has committed patent misuse by using the threat of exclusion
order based on the Asserted Patents to coerce Apple into taking a license to thousands of
Ericsson SEP at rates that are not FRAND. As Ericsson pled in its Complaint filed in Inv. No.
337-TA-1300, “[i]n instances where companies use Ericsson’s patent technology, but after
appropriate notice, negotiations, and opportunities, are unwilling to enter into a license
agreement, Ericsson invests in patent enforcement litigation. In those patent enforcement
proceedings, Ericsson asserts representative patents from the applicable portfolios.” Certain
Mobile Phones, Tablet Computers, Smart Watches, Smart Speakers, and Digital Media Players,
and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1300, Complaint, at ¶ 140 (emphasis added);
see also Compl., Ex. 13C. Ericsson thus admits that it is using the coercive threat of an
exclusion order of “representative” patents to force a license of a “portfolio” of patents.
Moreover, Ericsson never gave Apple any “notice, negotiation, or opportunity” to take a license
to just the Asserted Patents. Ericsson’s actions constitute misuse in two forms. First, when
Ericsson demands that Apple take a license to its SEPs to avoid an exclusion order on the
Asserted Patents, Ericsson is impermissibly abrogating its FRAND obligations. Ericsson
promised to license its declared SEPs under fair and reasonable terms, and using the threat of
injunctive relief in this Investigation to coerce Apple into taking an SEP license is a breach of
that agreement. Second, when Ericsson demands that Apple take a license to all of Ericsson’s
patents to avoid an exclusion order on the Asserted Patents as “representative,” Ericsson is
illegally tying the broad SEP portfolio license to the non-essential Asserted Patents.
THIRTEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE (INVENTORSHIP)
33
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
20. Upon information and belief, and subject to the further discovery, Ericsson’s
Asserted Claims are unenforceable to the extent that the alleged inventors did not invent the
purported inventions, or to the extent that the actual inventors are not named as inventors.
FOURTEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE (NO IMPORT VIOLATION)
21. Ericsson has failed to and will not be able to demonstrate that Apple has
imported, sold for importation, or sold after importation into the United States any product that
infringes any valid and enforceable Asserted Claim of the Asserted Patents at the time of
importation.
FIFTEENTH ADDITIONAL DEFENSE (OTHER DEFENSES)
22. Apple further reserves the right to amend its Response to include other affirmative
defenses that Apple may learn of during the course of this Investigation.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Apple requests that the Commission issue an order:
1. Denying all relief requested in the Complaint;
2. Finding that Apple has not violated Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337;
3. Finding that Apple does not directly infringe or induce infringement of any valid
and enforceable claim of the Asserted Patents, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
and has not otherwise committed any acts in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 or 19 U.S.C. § 1337;
4. Finding that the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents are invalid;
5. Finding that there is no domestic industry for the Asserted Patents;
6. Complainants’ demands for relief are barred because of the relief’s effect upon
the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the
34
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States
consumers;
7. Finding that Complainants’ claims as they relate to the Asserted Patents are
barred by reason of equitable doctrines, including equitable estoppel, acquiescence, unclean
hands, prosecution laches, and/or waiver;
8. Awarding Apple its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in responding to the
Complaint and defending this Investigation;
9. Dismissing the present Complaint and terminating the present Investigation;
10. Finding that it is not in the public interest to grant any relief to Complainants; and
11. Awarding such other and further relief as the Commission deems just and proper.
35
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
Respectfully submitted,
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
Dated: April 4, 2022 By: /s/ Betty Chen

Benjamin C. Elacqua
1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2800
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: (713) 654-5300
Facsimile: (713) 652-0109
Betty Chen
500 Arguello Street
Suite 500
Redwood, CA 94063
Telephone: (650) 839-5070
Facsimile: (650) 839-5071
Ruffin B. Cordell
Richard A. Sterba
1000 Maine Avenue, S.W., Suite 1000
Telephone: (202) 783-5070
Facsimile: (202) 783-2331
Aamir Kazi
Benjamin Thompson
Jacqueline Tio
Katherine Reardon
1180 Peachtree St SE, Suite 2100
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 892-5005
Facsimile: (404) 892-5002
Andrew Pearson
Whitney Reichel
One Marina Park Drive
Boston, MA 02210
Telephone: (617) 542-5070
Counsel for Respondent Apple Inc.
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301

VERIFICATION
I, Mark Rollins, am a Finance Manager at Apple Inc. I am authorized to make this
verification on behalf of Apple Inc. I have read RESPONDENT APPLE INC.’S RESPONSE
TO THE COMPLAINT OF ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM
ERICSSON UNDER SECTION 337 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930, AS AMENDED, AND
NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION and know its contents.
To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, formed after a reasonable inquiry,
I verify that the facts set forth in this Response (excluding facts related to Ericsson’s confidential
business information, which I am not permitted to see) and accompanying Exhibit A are true and
correct as of the date indicated below. My information and belief may be based on statements,
reports, and records of other Apple employees upon whom I customarily rely.
Dated: April 3, 2022 _____________________
Mark Rollins
Confidential
Exhibit A
Filed Under Seal
EXHIBIT B
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Before the Honorable Cameron R. Elliot

Administrative Law Judge
In the Matter of
CERTAIN MOBILE PHONES AND

TABLET COMPUTERS, ALL WITH Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
SWITCHABLE CONNECTIVITY
EXHIBIT B: IDENTIFICATION OF EXEMPLARY PRIOR ART TO THE

ASSERTED PATENTS
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301

Exhibit B to Apple’s Response to the Complaint and Notice
I. Identification of Exemplary Prior Art to U.S. Patent No. 8,792,454
A. U.S. Patent Publications
1. U.S. Patent No. 7,599,323 (“Chandramenon”)
2. U.S. Patent No. 7,324,478 (“Park”)
3. U.S. Patent No. 7,161,914 (“Shoaib”)
4. U.S. Patent No. 7,751,818 (“Chaskar”)
5. U.S. Patent No. 6,965,948 (“Eneborg”)
6. U.S. Patent No. 6,842,621 (“Labun”)
7. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0120328 Al (“Adrangi”)
8. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0224788 Al (“Leung”)
B. Foreign Patent Publications
1. EP 1381202
2. JP 11-355322
3. JP 2002-044141
4. JP 2002-199426
5. WO 01/31472
C. Non-Patent Publications
1. Hui Luo et. al., “Internet Roaming: A WLAN/3G Integration System for
Enterprise,” Wireless and Mobile Communications, AT&T labs Vol. 4911
2002.
2. M. Buddihikot et al., “Integration of 802.11 and Third-Generation

Wireless Data Network,” Bell Labs, Lucent Technologies, 2003, pg 503-
12.
3. P M Feder, “A Seamless Mobile VPN Data Solution for UMTS and

WLAN Users,” Bell Laboratories, Mobility Solutions, Lucent
Technologies, 2003, Pg. 210-16.
1
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
4. Tsuguo Kato, "Leading-edge Technology Capable of Realizing Secure,
Safe and Comfortable Ubiquitous Information Society," Research and
Development, Fujitsu Limited, vol. 54, No. 4, Jul. 10, 2003.
5. "Guidebook of Product: Notable VPN Solution," Computer & Net-work

LAN, Ohmsha, Ltd., Japan, Jun. 24, 2003, vol. 21, No. 7.
6. Hiroyuki Taniguchi, Secure Seamless Roaming System based on IP

Network Service control Architecture (EaseN et), Technical Report of the
Institute of Electronics, Information and Communication Engi-neers,
Japan, Feb. 27, 2003, vol. 102, No. 693.
II. Identification of Exemplary Prior Art to U.S. Patent No. 10,880,794
1. U.S. Patent No. 9,585,035
2. U.S. Patent No. 9,722,761
3. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0237202
5. U.S. Patent No. 9,014,141
1. CN 105704720
2. CN 105790907
3. EP 2343946
4. EP 2341730
5. JP 2011239387
6. JP 2012182795
7. JP 2015231152
8. JP 2016111510
9. WO 2014064616
C. Non-Patent Publications
2
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
1. 3GPP Tdoc R2-131511
2. 3GPP Tdoc R2-130999
3. 3GPP Tdoc R2-131421
4. 3GPP TS 36.331 V130.0
5. ETSI TS 136 331 V130.0
6. 3GPP TS 36.331 V13.2.0
7. 3GPP TS 36.101 V13.2.1
8. 3GPP TS 36.101 V13.4.0
9. ETSI TS 136 101 V13.2.1
III. Identification of Exemplary Prior Art to U.S. Patent No. 8,472,999
1. U.S. Patent No. 7,079,841
2. U.S. Patent No. 7,940,727
3. U.S. Patent No. 8,180,400
3
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
1. CN101001431
2. CN1276680C
3. CN1434621A
4
Inv. No. 337-TA-1301
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the foregoing document
RESPONDENT APPLE INC.’S RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT OF

ERICSSON INC. AND TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON UNDER
SECTION 337 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930, AS AMENDED,
AND NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION
has been filed and served on this 4th day of April 2022, on the following:
Lisa R. Barton Via First Class Mail

Secretary to the Commission Via Hand Delivery
U.S. International Trade Commission Via Federal Express
500 E Street, S.W. Via Electronic Filing
The Honorable Cameron R. Elliot Via First Class Mail

Administrative Law Judge Via Hand Delivery
U.S. International Trade Commission Via Federal Express
500 E Street, S.W. Via Electronic Mail
Attorney Advisor: Michael Turner
Email: [email protected]
Andrew Beverina, Esq Via First Class Mail

Sarah Sladic, Esq. Via Hand Delivery
Investigative Attorney Via Federal Express
Office of Unfair Import Investigations Via Electronic Mail
U.S. International Trade Commission Via USITC Box Platform
500 E Street, S.W.
Thomas L. Jarvis Via First Class Mail

WINSTON & STRAWN, LLP Via Hand Delivery
1901 L Street, NW Via Federal Express
Washington, DC 20036 Via Electronic Mail
Complainants Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM
Ericsson
Steven M. Anzalone Via First Class Mail

Paul C. Goulet Via Hand Delivery
James Pohl
FISHERBROYLES, LLP Via Federal Express
1200 G Street, N.W., Suite 800 Via Electronic Mail
Michael M. Murray
FISHERBROYLES, LLP
445 Park Avenue, Ninth Floor
New York, NY 10022
Kevin Jablonski
FISHERBROYLES, LLP
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200
Seattle, WA 98104
Complainants Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM

Ericsson
/s/ Tracy Haynes

Tracy Haynes

22-04-04 ITC-1301 Apple Answer To Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

22-04-04 ITC-1301 Apple Answer To Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

22-04-04 ITC-1301 Apple Answer To Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Before the Honorable Cameron R. Elliot

CERTAIN MOBILE PHONES AND

RESPONDENT APPLE INC.’S RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT OF

RESPONDENT COUNSEL FOR APPLE INC.

Apple Inc. Benjamin C. Elacqua

Inv. No. 337-TA-1301

Pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 210.13, Respondent Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Respondent”) by

of 1930 as Amended (the “Complaint”), filed by Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM

Response, or to the extent Ericsson modifies its Complaint or contentions.

Inv. No. 337-TA-1301

To the extent that Paragraph 1 contains conclusions of law, no response is

To the extent that Paragraph 2 contains conclusions of law, no response is

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 2 and, on that basis, denies them.

allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 3.

allegations contained in Paragraph 4 and, on that basis, denies them.

To the extent that Paragraph 5 contains conclusions of law, no response is

limitation, the relief requested in Paragraph 5.

Complainants in this investigation.

On information and belief, Apple admits that Ericsson Inc. is a corporation

business at 6300 Legacy Drive, Plano, Texas 75024.

On information and belief, Apple admits that LM Ericsson is a corporation

Paragraph 8 and, on that basis, denies them.

Apple lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 and, on that basis, denies them.

the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 and, on that basis, denies them.

Apple lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations contained in Paragraph 11 and, on that basis, denies them.

Apple lacks sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of

III. PROPOSED RESPONDENT APPLE

Way, Cupertino, CA 95014.

To the extent that Paragraph 14 contains conclusions of law, no response is

characterizations in Paragraph 14.

IV. THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS AND TECHNOLOGY AT ISSUE

To the extent that Paragraph 16 contains conclusions of law, no response is

characterizations contained in Paragraph 16 and, on that basis, denies them.

V. THE ASSERTED PATENTS AND NON-TECHNICAL DESCRIPTIONS

A. U.S. Patent 8,792,454

Identification and Ownership of the ’454 Patent

To the extent that Paragraph 19 contains conclusions of law, no response is

currently in full force and effect until July 21, 2024.

To the extent that Paragraph 20 contains conclusions of law, no response is

allegations contained in Paragraph 20 and, on that basis, denies them.

Apple admits that Appendix A purports to be an electronic version of a copy of the

characterizations in Paragraph 21.

Non-Technical Description of the ’454 Patent

To the extent that Paragraph 22 contains conclusions of law, no response is

inventive, or nonobvious. Apple is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

To the extent that Paragraph 23 contains conclusions of law, no response is

inventive, or nonobvious. Apple is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief

To the extent that Paragraph 24 contains conclusions of law, no response is

To the extent that Paragraph 25 contains conclusions of law, no response is

on that basis, denies them.

B. U.S. Patent No. 10,880,794

Paragraph 27 and, on that basis, denies them.

To the extent that Paragraph 28 contains conclusions of law, no response is

To the extent that Paragraph 29 contains conclusions of law, no response is

currently in full force and effect until September 1, 2036.