Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document 224 Filed 10/09/15 Page 1 of 14 PageID 8646

Transcription

1 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document 224 Filed 10/09/15 Page 1 of 14 PageID 8646 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION PARKERVISION, INC., Plaintiff, QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, QUALCOMM ATHEROS, INC., HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, v. Case No. 6:14-cv-687-PGB-KRS Defendants. DEFENDANTS OPPOSITION TO PARKERVISION S MOTION TO SEVER AND STAY THE RECEIVER PATENTS AND CLAIMS PENDING APPEAL

2 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document 224 Filed 10/09/15 Page 2 of 14 PageID 8647 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION...1 II. ARGUMENT...2 A. ParkerVision Provides No Substantive Basis for Severing and Staying the Receiver Patents and Claims...2 B. Severing and Staying the Case Cannot Avoid the Enormous Wastage of Resources ParkerVision Has Already Caused...5 III. CONCLUSION...9 i.

3 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document 224 Filed 10/09/15 Page 3 of 14 PageID 8648 Cases TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Automatic Mfg. Sys. v. Primera Tech., No. 6:12-cv-1727, 2013 WL (M.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2013)...5, 6 Essex Ins. v. Kart Constr., No. 8:14-cv-356, 2015 WL (M.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2015)...8 ii.

4 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document 224 Filed 10/09/15 Page 4 of 14 PageID 8649 I. INTRODUCTION. The ParkerVision I case showed that Qualcomm s receiver products take a fundamentally different approach to direct downconversion than ParkerVision s supposed energy transfer sampling concept. ParkerVision s own expert, Dr. Paul Prucnal, admitted as much during the trial, and Judge Dalton granted JMOL of noninfringement because no evidence supported ParkerVision s theories. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment in July and recently rejected ParkerVision s petition for rehearing, which continued ParkerVision s practice of serially raising and dropping new theories again, without any supporting evidence. Rather than dismissing the receiver patents and claims against all Defendants in this case, ParkerVision II, ParkerVision now asks the Court to sever the receiver patents and claims into a new case, ParkerVision III, and then stay it. ParkerVision s proposal is a novel and unprecedented effort to create litigation inefficiency and cost. A ParkerVision III case would only exacerbate the waste caused by ParkerVision s continued litigation over the receiver claims. ParkerVision confirms that it intends to pursue the receiver patents and claims against newly accused ParkerVision II Accused Products even after the Supreme Court rejects its certiorari petition. ParkerVision s proposal would be inefficient, because all ParkerVision II Accused Products and Samsung products are accused of infringing not only the receiver claims but also the transmitter claims, the protocol conversion claims, or both. Thus, each product addressed in ParkerVision s proposed ParkerVision III would still be at issue in its proposed ParkerVision II. ParkerVision s proposal to duplicate the litigation would even split claims from the same 940 patent into two different cases, litigating 1.

5 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document 224 Filed 10/09/15 Page 5 of 14 PageID 8650 independent claim 22 in ParkerVision II and its dependent claims 24 and 331 in ParkerVision III. The receiver litigation started in Adding a ParkerVision III would create two branches of meritless receiver litigation and further delay and expense. Qualcomm spent many millions litigating ParkerVision I. Qualcomm, Samsung and HTC, the latter two added in ParkerVision II have already spent many millions more litigating ParkerVision II and should not have to endure the cost and burden of a new ParkerVision III case. The Court should deny ParkerVision s motion. II. ARGUMENT A. ParkerVision Provides No Substantive Basis for Severing and Staying the Receiver Patents and Claims. ParkerVision states that it intends to seek further review of the ParkerVision I judgment but provides no argument suggesting that it has any likelihood of prevailing, because there is none. (Mot., Dkt. 218 at 7; Notice, Dkt. 220 at 1.) ParkerVision s motion focused on its petition for rehearing, but the Federal Circuit has now rejected that petition. In doing so, the Federal Circuit reiterated that, [i]n the panel opinion, we agreed with the district court that Dr. Prucnal s admission that the baseband signal is created at the output of the mixer and before the storage capacitor is fatal to ParkerVision s infringement case. (ParkerVision v. Qualcomm, Nos , -1655, slip op. denying rehearing petition at 2 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 2, 2015) (Dkt ).) The Federal Circuit then summarized ParkerVision s post-trial conduct: This is ParkerVision s third attempt to explain away the inconsistencies in Dr. Prucnal s testimony. In response to Qualcomm s motion for judgment as a matter of law, ParkerVision raised the two baseband signals theory before the district court, as we noted in the panel opinion. On appeal, ParkerVision disclaimed that theory and replaced it with the one and the same point argument, 2.

6 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document 224 Filed 10/09/15 Page 6 of 14 PageID 8651 which we rejected in the panel opinion. ParkerVision now concedes that it no longer relies on the one and the same point argument. (Id. at 2-3 n.1 (internal citations omitted).) 1 Finally, the Federal Circuit rejected each of ParkerVision s other rehearing arguments, finding the first two arguments newly raised and unsupported by the factual record, the third argument irrelevant, and the fourth contrary to the law. (Id. at 2-7.) ParkerVision states that it currently anticipates petitioning the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari in ParkerVision I, but does not attempt to describe any issue that might warrant Supreme Court review. (Notice, Dkt. 220 at 1; Mot., Dkt. 218 at 3.) According to recent statistics, the Supreme Court grants review in a very small number of cases each year. 2 Here, the Federal Circuit s ParkerVision I opinions were unanimous, non-precedential, and tied closely to the facts of the case. No important issue broadly affecting patent law exists. ParkerVision appeared to recognize as much, as it did not seek rehearing before the full, en banc Federal Circuit on any issues. Moreover, as the Federal Circuit found, ParkerVision has repeatedly changed its post-trial theory of infringement. ParkerVision cannot present a compelling case for Supreme Court review when it cannot even decide why the District Court was allegedly wrong. Nothing in ParkerVision I indicates that ParkerVision has any basis for a petition 1 ParkerVision s rehearing petition did not dispute the Federal Circuit s noninfringement finding for the 50% duty-cycle products or its invalidity ruling for 10 asserted claims. 2 A release from the Supreme Court showed that for the 2011 term, the Court docketed 7,713 cases. Of those cases, the Supreme Court granted 63 petitions for certiorari. (at II.) According to the Chief Justice s year-end report for 2014, the Court docketed 7,509 filings in 2012 and 7,376 filings in The Supreme Court disposed of 76 cases in 2012 and 77 in (at ) 3.

7 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document 224 Filed 10/09/15 Page 7 of 14 PageID 8652 for a writ of certiorari. 3 ParkerVision lost for the most basic reason it was wrong, built its jury presentation on irrelevant corporate character attacks, and had no basis for pursuing the claims in the first place. (See ParkerVision I, JMOL Mot., Dkt. 501 at 1-7.) ParkerVision next argues that the Court should sever and stay because it has accused products in this case that were not at issue in ParkerVision I. (Mot., Dkt. 218 at 7-8.) ParkerVision concedes that, if the Supreme Court rejects its certiorari petition, all receiver patents and claims in the proposed ParkerVision III should be dismissed as to all products that were at issue in ParkerVision I. 4 Although ParkerVision seeks to continue litigating against the Samsung transceiver products and new ParkerVision II Accused Products, it does not describe any issues raised by those products that would be different from the issues already resolved by ParkerVision I. (Mot., Dkt. 218 at 7-8.) To the contrary, ParkerVision s infringement contentions against all Defendants in this case focus on Qualcomm s Magellan design the main design addressed during the trial, JMOL, and appeal in ParkerVision I and do not purport to disclose any alternative theory for any other products, including the Samsung transceiver products. ParkerVision itself confirmed the limited scope of its infringement theory in opposing 3 Having failed to identify any issue warranting Supreme Court review, ParkerVision s claim that the Court might waste judicial resources considering the impact of ParkerVision I on ParkerVision II is no basis to launch a ParkerVision III. Examining the impact of ParkerVision I on ParkerVision II would be unnecessary only in the extremely unlikely event that ParkerVision succeeds in obtaining reversal of the Federal Circuit. 4 Mot., Dkt. 218 at 7 ( [I]f the non-infringement holding survives the appeals (i.e., the Panel Opinion remains in its current form), then ParkerVision is amenable to dropping its infringement claims with respect to the Receiver Patents and Claims and the subset of accused products that were also at issue in ParkerVision I... ). 4.

8 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document 224 Filed 10/09/15 Page 8 of 14 PageID 8653 Samsung s motion to strike. 5 (Opp. to Strike Mot., Dkt. 122 at 1 ( ParkerVision contends that the Qualcomm chips in its [infringement contentions] are representative of the operation of each of the Defendants accused products including non-qualcomm chips... ).) In essence, ParkerVision s infringement contentions in this case, with respect to all receiver products, are a declaration of stubbornness it will continue to litigate the same positions regardless of the prior decisions and the demonstrated lack of merit. Accordingly, ParkerVision has provided no evidence that either its appellate filings in ParkerVision I or its infringement allegations in ParkerVision II merit severing and staying the receiver patents and claims. Automatic Mfg. Sys. v. Primera Tech., No. 6:12-cv-1727, 2013 WL , at *1 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2013) ( The party seeking a stay bears the burden of showing that such a course is appropriate. ). B. Severing and Staying the Case Cannot Avoid the Enormous Wastage of Resources ParkerVision Has Already Caused. ParkerVision also argues that an enormous wastage of resources and complete waste of judicial resources would occur without severing and staying the receiver 5 While it is true that Samsung was not a defendant in ParkerVision I, ParkerVision s statement that ParkerVision I has no impact on Samsung transceivers accused in ParkerVision II is incorrect because ParkerVision has not provided any claim chart pertaining to any Samsung transceiver. Instead, ParkerVision has relied on infringement charts directed to Qualcomm transceivers in its allegations as to Samsung transceivers and argues that the Samsung transceivers infringe in the same manner. As such, ParkerVision s only infringement allegations against any Samsung transceiver are currently the same as its allegations against the Qualcomm transceivers. As the Court may recall from its Order regarding Samsung s Motion to Strike, it allowed ParkerVision to include certain Samsung products in the case despite having no specific infringement contentions against those products, holding that ParkerVision will ultimately live or die by its infringement contentions and [s]hould ParkerVision be incorrect or impermissibly vague in its theories of infringement, those are issues Samsung can pursue on summary judgment or at trial. (Dkt. 194 at 6.) 5.

9 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document 224 Filed 10/09/15 Page 9 of 14 PageID 8654 patents and claims because discovery is still in progress. (Mot., Dkt. 218 at 8-10.) While discovery is still in progress, the parties have already litigated the receiver patents and claims for more than a year, and a trial date was set long ago. The parties prepared contentions, have produced documents, have responded to written discovery, and the Court has even held a tutorial and Markman hearing involving the receiver patents and claims. Automatic Mfg. Sys., 2013 WL , at *1 (progress of litigation is relevant consideration in deciding motion to stay). ParkerVision s argument also ignores the fact that ParkerVision s pursuit of the receiver patents and claims in ParkerVision II has already resulted in an enormous wastage of resources. Two years ago, in the October 2013 trial in ParkerVision I, ParkerVision s expert admitted the facts requiring judgment of noninfringement. 6 (ParkerVision I, JMOL Order, Dkt. 545 at ) Then, at the May 2014 JMOL hearing, the Court asked ParkerVision s counsel why ParkerVision s expert admissions were not the end of the case. (ParkerVision I, May 1, 2014 Hearing Tr. 92:23-93:1 (Dkt. 537).) That same day, despite providing no substantive response to the Court, ParkerVision filed the first pleading in this new infringement action asserting two receiver patents. Shortly thereafter, the Court issued its JMOL order and entered judgment, making clear that Dr. Prucnal s concessions during cross-examination as well as his direct testimony are fatal to ParkerVision s infringement case. (ParkerVision I, 6 At the outset of ParkerVision I, ParkerVision alleged that more than 70 Qualcomm RF receiver products infringed 86 claims from 7 receiver patents. After the parties engaged in substantial discovery, prepared expert reports, and filed dispositive motions, ParkerVision abandoned its infringement claim as to all but 11 claims from 4 patents less than a month before trial and dropped its allegations against whole categories of products. (ParkerVision I, JMOL Order, Dkt. 545 at 3, n.2 and 5, n.6.) 6.

10 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document 224 Filed 10/09/15 Page 10 of 14 PageID 8655 JMOL order, Dkt. 545 at 27.) Rather than dropping the two asserted receiver patents immediately, ParkerVision amended its complaint to add four more receiver patents, asserting scores of receiver claims in its contentions. (Dkt. 26.) ParkerVision argues that the receiver patents in ParkerVision II are somehow different but has never presented any basis for that position to the contrary, the ParkerVision II receiver patents all claim immaterial variations of the same energy sampling concept that Defendants do not practice. ParkerVision s meritless assertions have already inflicted huge, unnecessary expenses on all Defendants in producing documents, responding to interrogatories, preparing responsive contentions, and otherwise defending themselves. Thousands of hours and millions of dollars have been wasted. ParkerVision asserts that severing and staying would benefit the parties by preventing duplicative litigation and redundant discovery. (Mot., Dkt. 218 at 10.) But creating two ongoing branches of litigation by severing and staying would only add to the waste already caused by ParkerVision, injecting delay, duplicating issues, and requiring separate discovery. For example, each of the ParkerVision II Asserted Products that ParkerVision seeks to sever into its proposed ParkerVision III action is accused of infringing not only the receiver patents and claims but also the transmitter patents, the protocol conversion patent, or both. (Exhibit A, List of Accused Products.) Thus, both proposed cases would base their infringement allegations on the same sales of the same products, would involve discovery into and evidence of the operation of the same products, and would involve discovery into and evidence of the value to Defendants of the alleged use of 7.

11 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document 224 Filed 10/09/15 Page 11 of 14 PageID 8656 ParkerVision s patents. Essex Ins. v. Kart Constr., No. 8:14-cv-356, 2015 WL , at *5 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 12, 2015) (holding that whether the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and whether they require the same or different witness and documentary proof are relevant considerations). ParkerVision has shown no reason for multiple, overlapping litigations. ParkerVision s plan to split its claims from the 940 patent into two different cases is a uniquely wasteful idea. Specifically, ParkerVision seeks to litigate independent claim 22 of the 940 patent in ParkerVision II but to litigate two claims that depend from claim 22, claims 24 and 331, in ParkerVision III. As a result, the parties will have to address all elements of claim 22 in both ParkerVision II and ParkerVision III for many of the same accused products and prior art references. Trying an independent claim and two of its dependent claims in separate cases will not conserve Court or party resources it will lead to duplicative litigation and impermissible claim splitting. Finally, ParkerVision argues that the receiver patents and claims raise different issues of law and fact, and require different documentary proof than what would be required for the other patents and claims which relate to different technologies (i.e. protocol conversion and transmitters). (Mot., Dkt. 218 at 7-8.) That s just not true. As demonstrated immediately above, ParkerVision s argument ignores the overlapping issues and discovery materials related to litigating the same accused products in both ParkerVision II and ParkerVision III. It was ParkerVision, not Defendants, that brought a single case raising receiver, transmitter, and protocol converter patents. It was ParkerVision, not Defendants, that added Qualcomm s customers, Samsung and HTC, to ParkerVision II. ParkerVision has 8.

12 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document 224 Filed 10/09/15 Page 12 of 14 PageID 8657 been expanding and complicating the litigation for some time now, which obviously increases the burden and expense on the defending parties. Severing the patents at this stage would merely increase that burden and expense, not the other way around. III. CONCLUSION. ParkerVision s proposal will not conserve judicial and party resources it will do the opposite. It will prolong the life of meritless claims that ParkerVision should not have pursued in the first place. There should not be any ParkerVision III; ParkerVision is not entitled to burden Defendants with endless litigation on obsolete and unused patents. The Court should not require Defendants to endure substantial delay and separate discovery tracks in two new, duplicative branches of litigation. The Court should deny ParkerVision s motion. 9.

13 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document 224 Filed 10/09/15 Page 13 of 14 PageID 8658 Dated: October 9, 2015 COOLEY LLP /s/ Timothy S. Teter Stephen C. Neal (Co-Trial Counsel, pro hac vice) Timothy S. Teter (Co-Trial Counsel, pro hac vice) Jeffrey Karr (pro hac vice) Matthew Brigham (pro hac vice) Benjamin G. Damstedt (pro hac vice) Eamonn Gardner (pro hac vice) Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA Phone: (650) Fax: (650) BEDELL, DITTMAR, DEVAULT, PILLANS & COXE, P.A. John A. DeVault, III Florida Bar No Courtney K. Grimm Florida Bar No The Bedell Building 101 East Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida Telephone: (904) Facsimile: (904) ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, QUALCOMM ATHEROS, INC., HTC CORPORATION, AND HTC AMERICA, INC. DLA PIPER LLP (US) /s/ Jeremy T. Elman Jeremy T. Elman, Esq. Florida Bar No South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2500 Miami, Florida Telephone: (305) Telecopier: (305) Angela J. Crawford, Esq. Florida Bar No North Tampa, Suite 2200 Tampa, FL Telephone: (813) Telecopier: (813) Mark Fowler, Esq. (Trial Counsel, pro hac vice) Erik R. Fuehrer (pro hac vice) University Avenue East Palo Alto, CA Telephone: (650) Telecopier: (650) Sean Cunningham, Esq. (pro hac vice) Ed Sikorski, Esq. (pro hac vice) Kevin Hamilton, Esq. (pro hac vice) B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA Tel: (619) Fax: (619) ATTORNEYS FOR SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC 10.

14 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document 224 Filed 10/09/15 Page 14 of 14 PageID 8659 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 9, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system. I further certify that I mailed the foregoing document and the notice of electronic filing by first-class mail to the following non-cm/ecf participants: none. /s/ Timothy S. Teter Timothy S. Teter (admitted pro hac vice) teterts@cooley.com Cooley LLP 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA Phone: (650) Fax: (650) Attorney for Defendants Qualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Atheros, Inc., HTC Corporation, and HTC America, Inc

15 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document Filed 10/09/15 Page 1 of 14 PageID 8660 EXHIBIT A

16 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document Filed 10/09/15 Page 2 of 14 PageID 8661 Exhibit A Accused Products List Qualcomm Accused Products Qualcomm Receiver Patents Accused Products Qualcomm Transmitter Patents Accused Products 602A 602A 602A APQ8055 APQ8055 APQ8055 APQ8060 APQ8060 APQ8060 APQ8060A APQ8060A APQ8060A APQ8064 APQ8064 APQ8064 ESC6240 AR1022 AR1022 ESC6270 AR1311 AR1311 FTR8700 AR1321 AR1321 Gobi9x15 AR1540 AR1540 Gobi9x30 AR3001 AR3001 Gobi9x35 AR3002 AR3002 MBP1600 AR3011 AR3011 MBP1610 AR3012 AR3012 MBP2600 AR3944 AR3944 MBP2700 AR3950 AR3950 MDM6085 AR4100 AR4100 MDM6200 AR4100P AR4100P MDM6270 AR6002 AR6002 MDM6600 AR6003 AR6003 MDM6610 AR6004 AR6004 MDM8200 AR6005 AR6005 MDM8200A AR6013 AR6013 MDM8215 AR6014 AR6014 MDM8220 AR6102 AR6102 MDM8225 AR6103 AR6103 MDM8615 AR6122 AR6122 MDM8655 AR7400 AR7400 MDM9200 AR7420 AR7420 MDM9215 AR8236 AR8236 MDM9225 AR8327 AR8327 MDM9230 AR9002 AR9002 MDM9235 AR9002U-2NG AR9002U-2NG MDM9245 AR9002UB-1NGB AR9002UB-1NGB MDM9600 AR9002WB-1NGCD AR9002WB-1NGCD MDM9615 AR9002WB-2NG AR9002WB-2NG MDM9615M AR9004WB-1NG AR9004WB-1NG MDM9625 AR9220 AR9220 MDM9630 AR9223 AR Qualcomm Protocol Converter Patent Accused Products McKool v3

17 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document Filed 10/09/15 Page 3 of 14 PageID 8662 McKool v3 Qualcomm Accused Products Qualcomm Receiver Patents Accused Products Qualcomm Transmitter Patents Accused Products MDM9635 AR9227 AR9227 MDM9645 AR9271 AR9271 MDM9x00 AR9280 AR9280 MDM9x15 AR9281 AR9281 MDM9x25 AR9282 AR9282 MSM7225 AR9283 AR9283 MSM7225A AR9285 AR9285 MSM7227 AR9287 AR9287 MSM7227A AR9331 AR9331 MSM7230 AR9341 AR9341 MSM7625 AR9342 AR9342 MSM7625A AR9344 AR9344 MSM7627 AR9350 AR9350 MSM7627A AR9374 AR9374 MSM7630 AR9392 AR9392 MSM8225 AR9462 AR9462 MSM8225Q AR9463 AR9463 MSM8226 AR9485 AR9485 MSM8227 AR9580 AR9580 MSM8230 AR9582 AR9582 MSM8255 AR9590 AR9590 MSM8260 AR9592 AR9592 MSM8260A BTS4020 BTS4020 MSM8270 BTS4021 BTS4021 MSM8625 BTS4025 BTS4025 MSM8625Q BTS4050 BTS4050 MSM8626 BTS4051 BTS4051 MSM8627 BTS4052 BTS4052 MSM8630 BTS4054 BTS4054 MSM8655 BTS5045 BTS5045 MSM8660 EDIMAX WV-A900APN EDIMAX WV-A900APN MSM8660A ESC6240 ESC6240 MSM8930 ESC6270 ESC6270 MSM8960 FTR8700 FSM90xx MSM8960T Gobi9x15 FTR86XX MSM8x30 Gobi9x30 FTR8700 MXC6369 Gobi9x35 Gobi9x15 MXU6219 MBP1600 Gobi9x30 QFE1100 MBP1610 Gobi9x35 QFE15xx MBP2600 MBP1600 QFE23xx/QFE3320 MBP2700 MBP1610 QFE25xx MDM6085 MBP Qualcomm Protocol Converter Patent Accused Products

18 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document Filed 10/09/15 Page 4 of 14 PageID 8663 McKool v3 Qualcomm Accused Products Qualcomm Receiver Patents Accused Products Qualcomm Transmitter Patents Accused Products QFE3100 MDM6200 MBP2700 QFE33xx/QFE10xx MDM6270 MDM6085 QRD8226 MDM6600 MDM6200 QRD8626 MDM6610 MDM6270 QSC1100 MDM8200 MDM6600 QSC1105 MDM8200A MDM8200A QSC1110 MDM8215 MDM8215 QSC1115 MDM8220 MDM8220 QSC6010 MDM8225 MDM8225 QSC6020 MDM8615 MDM9200 QSC6055 MDM8655 MDM9215 QSC6065 MDM9200 MDM9225 QSC6075 MDM9215 MDM9230 QSC6085 MDM9225 MDM9235 QSC6130 MDM9230 MDM9245 QSC6145 MDM9235 MDM9600 QSC6155 MDM9245 MDM9615 QSC6165 MDM9600 MDM9615M QSC6175 MDM9615 MDM9625 QSC6185 MDM9615M MDM9630 QSC6195 MDM9625 MDM9635 QSC6240 MDM9630 MDM9645 QSC6270 MDM9635 MDM9x00 QSC6295 MDM9645 MDM9x15 QSC6695 MDM9x00 MDM9x25 QSD8250 MDM9x15 MSM7225 QSD8650 MDM9x25 MSM7225A QTR8200 MSM7225 MSM7227 QTR8600 MSM7225A MSM7227A QTR8600L MSM7227 MSM7230 QTR8601 MSM7227A MSM7625 QTR8615 MSM7230 MSM7625A QTR8615L MSM7625 MSM7627 QTR9215 MSM7625A MSM7627A RFR6120 MSM7627 MSM7630 RFR6122 MSM7627A MSM8225 RFR6125 MSM7630 MSM8225Q RFR6135 MSM8225 MSM8226 RFR6155 MSM8225Q MSM8227 RFR6170 MSM8227 MSM8230 RFR6175 MSM8230 MSM8255 RFR6185 MSM8255 MSM Qualcomm Protocol Converter Patent Accused Products

19 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document Filed 10/09/15 Page 5 of 14 PageID 8664 McKool v3 Qualcomm Accused Products Qualcomm Receiver Patents Accused Products Qualcomm Transmitter Patents Accused Products RFR6500 MSM8260 MSM8260A RFR6525 MSM8260A MSM8270 RTR6236 MSM8270 MSM8625 RTR6237 MSM8625 MSM8625Q RTR6275 MSM8625Q MSM8626 RTR6280 MSM8626 MSM8627 RTR6285 MSM8627 MSM8630 RTR6285A MSM8630 MSM8655 RTR6350 MSM8655 MSM8660 RTR6500 MSM8660 MSM8660A RTR8600 MSM8660A MSM8930 RTR8600L MSM8930 MSM8960 RTR8601 MSM8960 MSM8960T RTR8605 MSM8960T MSM8x30 RTR8700 MSM8x30 MXC6369 RTR9605 MXC6369 MXU6219 Snapdragon 200 Series MXU6219 N 1103 (Killer Wireless) Snapdragon Part Number: 8110 QFE1100 N 1202 (Killer Wireless) Snapdragon Part Number: 8210 QFE15xx QCA1990 Snapdragon Part Number: 8610 QFE23xx/QFE3320 QCA2282 Snapdragon Part Number: 8112 QFE25xx QCA3680 Snapdragon Part Number: 8212 QFE3100 QCA4002 Snapdragon Part Number: 8612 QFE33xx/QFE10xx QCA4004 Snapdragon Part Number: 8225Q QRD8226 QCA4530 Snapdragon Part Number: 8625Q QRD8626 QCA6164 Snapdragon 208 Series QSC1100 QCA6174 Snapdragon 210 Series QSC1105 QCA6174A Snapdragon 400 Series QSC1110 QCA6234 Snapdragon Part Number: 8026 QSC1115 QCA6234XH Snapdragon Part Number: 8028 QSC6010 QCA6410 Snapdragon Part Number: 8228 QSC6020 QCA6574 Snapdragon Part Number: 8628 QSC6055 QCA7000 Snapdragon Part Number: 8928 QSC6065 QCA7000-AL3B Snapdragon Part Number: 8926 QSC6075 QCA7400 Snapdragon Part Number: 8030AB QSC6085 QCA7420 Snapdragon Part Number: 8226 QSC6130 QCA7450 Snapdragon Part Number: 8230 QSC6145 QCA7500 Snapdragon Part Number: 8230AB QSC6155 QCA8000 Snapdragon Part Number: 8626 QSC6165 QCA8171 Snapdragon Part Number: 8630 QSC6175 QCA851x Snapdragon Part Number: 8630AB QSC6185 QCA871x Snapdragon Part Number: 8930 QSC6195 QCA Qualcomm Protocol Converter Patent Accused Products

20 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document Filed 10/09/15 Page 6 of 14 PageID 8665 McKool v3 Qualcomm Accused Products Qualcomm Receiver Patents Accused Products Qualcomm Transmitter Patents Accused Products Snapdragon Part Number: 8930AB QSC6240 QCA9005AP Snapdragon 410 Series QSC6270 QCA9006NFC Snapdragon Part Number: 8916 QSC6295 QCA9006WBD Snapdragon 600 Series QSC6695 QCA9375 Snapdragon Part Number: 8064T QSD8250 QCA9377 Snapdragon Part Number: 8064M QSD8650 QCA9378 Snapdragon 602A Series QTR8200 QCA9531 Snapdragon Part Number: 8064-AU QTR8600 QCA9533 Snapdragon 610 Series QTR8600L QCA9550 Snapdragon Part Number: 8936 QTR8601 QCA9557 Snapdragon 615 Series QTR8615 QCA9558 Snapdragon Part Number: 8939 QTR8615L QCA9561 Snapdragon 800 Series QTR9215 QCA9565 Snapdragon Part Number: 8074 RFR6120 QCA9860 Snapdragon Part Number: 8274 RFR6122 QCA9862 Snapdragon Part Number: 8674 RFR6125 QCA9880 Snapdragon Part Number: 8974 RFR6135 QCA9882 Snapdragon 801 Series RFR6155 QCA9890 Snapdragon Part Number: 8974 v3 RFR6170 QCA9892 Snapdragon 805 Series RFR6175 QCA Qualcomm Protocol Converter Patent Accused Products Snapdragon Part Number: 8084 RFR6185 QCA9982 Fusion 4 Snapdragon Part Number: 8084 RFR6500 QCA9990 Fusion 4.5 Snapdragon 808 Series RFR6525 QCA9992 Snapdragon 810 Series RTR6236 QCABHB1202 WCD9304 RTR6237 QFE1100 WCD9310 RTR6275 QFE15xx WCD9320 RTR6280 QFE23xx/QFE3320 WCN1310 RTR6285 QFE25xx WCN1312 RTR6285A QFE3100 WCN1320 RTR6350 QFE33xx/QFE10xx WFR1620 RTR6500 QRD8226 WTR1605 RTR8600 QRD8626 WTR1605L RTR8600L QSC1100 WTR1615L RTR8601 QSC1105 WTR1625 RTR8605 QSC1110 WTR1625L RTR8700 QSC1115 WTR2605 RTR9605 QSC6055 WTR2955 Snapdragon 200 Series QSC6065 WTR3905 Snapdragon Part Number: 8110 QSC6075 WTR3925 Snapdragon Part Number: 8210 QSC6085

21 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document Filed 10/09/15 Page 7 of 14 PageID 8666 Qualcomm Accused Products Qualcomm Transmitter Qualcomm Receiver Patents Qualcomm Protocol Converter Patents Accused Products Accused Products Patent Accused Products WTR4905 Snapdragon Part Number: 8610 QSC6155 Snapdragon Part Number: 8112 QSC6165 Snapdragon Part Number: 8212 QSC6175 Snapdragon Part Number: 8612 QSC6185 Snapdragon Part Number: 8225Q QSC6195 Snapdragon Part Number: 8625Q QSC6240 Snapdragon 208 Series QSC6270 Snapdragon 210 Series QSC6295 Snapdragon 400 Series QSC6695 Snapdragon Part Number: 8026 QSD8250 Snapdragon Part Number: 8028 QSD8650 Snapdragon Part Number: 8228 QTR8200 Snapdragon Part Number: 8628 QTR8600 Snapdragon Part Number: 8928 QTR8600L Snapdragon Part Number: 8926 QTR8601 Snapdragon Part Number: 8030AB QTR8615 Snapdragon Part Number: 8226 QTR8615L Snapdragon Part Number: 8230 QTR9215 Snapdragon Part Number: 8230AB RGR6240 Snapdragon Part Number: 8626 RGR7640 (Izat) Snapdragon Part Number: 8630 RGR7640 AU Snapdragon Part Number: 8630AB RGR7640 GNSS Snapdragon Part Number: 8930 RTR6236 Snapdragon Part Number: 8930AB RTR6237 Snapdragon 410 Series RTR6275 Snapdragon Part Number: 8916 RTR6280 Snapdragon 600 Series RTR6285 Snapdragon Part Number: 8064T RTR6285A Snapdragon Part Number: 8064M RTR6500 Snapdragon 602A Series RTR8600 Snapdragon Part Number: 8064-AU RTR8601 Snapdragon 610 Series RTR8605 Snapdragon Part Number: 8936 RTR8700 Snapdragon 615 Series RTR9605 Snapdragon Part Number: 8939 Series 10 (Gimbal) Snapdragon 800 Series Series 20 (Gimbal) Snapdragon Part Number: 8074 Snapdragon 200 Series Snapdragon Part Number: 8274 Snapdragon Part Number: 8110 Snapdragon Part Number: 8674 Snapdragon Part Number: 8210 Snapdragon Part Number: 8974 Snapdragon Part Number: 8610 Snapdragon 801 Series Snapdragon Part Number: 8112 Snapdragon Part Number: 8974 v3 Snapdragon Part Number: McKool v3

22 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document Filed 10/09/15 Page 8 of 14 PageID 8667 Qualcomm Transmitter Patents Accused Products Qualcomm Accused Products Qualcomm Receiver Patents Qualcomm Protocol Converter Accused Products Patent Accused Products Snapdragon 805 Series Snapdragon Part Number: 8612 Snapdragon Part Number: 8084 Snapdragon Part Number: 8225Q Fusion 4 Snapdragon Part Number: 8084 Snapdragon Part Number: 8625Q Fusion 4.5 Snapdragon 808 Series Snapdragon 208 Series Snapdragon 810 Series Snapdragon 210 Series WCD9304 Snapdragon 400 Series WCD9310 Snapdragon Part Number: 8026 WCD9320 Snapdragon Part Number: 8028 WCN1310 Snapdragon Part Number: 8228 WCN1312 Snapdragon Part Number: 8628 WCN1320 Snapdragon Part Number: 8928 WFR1620 Snapdragon Part Number: 8926 WTR1605 Snapdragon Part Number: 8030AB WTR1605L Snapdragon Part Number: 8226 WTR1615L Snapdragon Part Number: 8230 WTR1625 Snapdragon Part Number: 8230AB WTR1625L Snapdragon Part Number: 8626 WTR2605 Snapdragon Part Number: 8630 WTR2955 Snapdragon Part Number: 8630AB WTR3905 Snapdragon Part Number: 8930 WTR3925 Snapdragon Part Number: 8930AB WTR4905 Snapdragon 410 Series Snapdragon Part Number: 8916 Snapdragon 600 Series Snapdragon Part Number: 8064T Snapdragon Part Number: 8064M Snapdragon 602A Series Snapdragon Part Number: 8064-AU Snapdragon 610 Series Snapdragon Part Number: 8936 Snapdragon 615 Series Snapdragon Part Number: 8939 Snapdragon 800 Series Snapdragon Part Number: 8074 Snapdragon Part Number: 8274 Snapdragon Part Number: 8674 Snapdragon Part Number: 8974 Snapdragon 801 Series Snapdragon Part Number: 8974 v3 Snapdragon 805 Series 7 McKool v3

23 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document Filed 10/09/15 Page 9 of 14 PageID 8668 Qualcomm Transmitter Patents Accused Products Qualcomm Accused Products Qualcomm Receiver Patents Accused Products Qualcomm Protocol Converter Patent Accused Products Snapdragon Part Number: 8084 Fusion 4 Snapdragon Part Number: 8084 Fusion 4.5 Snapdragon 808 Series Snapdragon 810 Series TP9343 WB225 WCN1310 WCN1314 WCN3680 WCN3680B WFR1620 Wil6100 Wil6110 Wil6120 Wil6200 Wil6210 Wil6220 Wil6225 Wil6300 WTR1605 WTR1605L WTR1615L WTR1625 WTR1625L WTR2605 WTR2955 WTR3905 WTR3925 WTR McKool v3

24 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document Filed 10/09/15 Page 10 of 14 PageID 8669 McKool v3 HTC Accused Products DROID DNA by HTC DROID INCREDIBLE 2 by HTC DROID INCREDIBLE 4G LTE by HTC DROID INCREDIBLE by HTC Evo Design 4G by HTC HTC 7 Pro HTC 8XT HTC Amaze 4G HTC Desire 510 HTC Desire 601 HTC Desire 610 HTC Desire 612 HTC Desire 816 HTC Desire EYE HTC Dot View HTC EVO 4G LTE HTC EVO V 4G HTC Fetch HTC First HTC Flyer HTC Inspire 4G HTC Jetstream HTC One HTC One (E8) HTC One (M8) HTC One (M8) for Windows HTC One max HTC One mini HTC One remix HTC One S HTC One SV HTC One V HTC One VX HTC One X HTC One X+ HTC Radar 4G HTC Rezound HTC Rhyme HTC Sensation HTC Sensation 4G HTC Status HTC ThunderBolt HTC TITAN 9

25 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document Filed 10/09/15 Page 11 of 14 PageID 8670 HTC Accused Products HTC TITAN II HTC Vivid HTC Wildfire S Windows Phone 8X by HTC 10 McKool v3

26 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document Filed 10/09/15 Page 12 of 14 PageID 8671 McKool v3 Samsung Accused Products Samsung a157 Samsung Array Samsung ATIV Odyssey Samsung Ativ S Neo Samsung ATIV SE Samsung Brightside Samsung Caliber Samsung Chrono 2 Samsung Continuum i400 Samsung Contour Samsung Convoy 3 Samsung DoubleTake Samsung Entro Samsung Focus 2 Samsung Freeform Samsung Freeform 4 Samsung Freeform 5 Samsung Freeform M Samsung Galaxy Ace Style Samsung Galaxy Admire 2 Samsung Galaxy Admire 4G Samsung Galaxy Alpha Samsung Galaxy Amp Samsung Galaxy Appeal Samsung Galaxy ATIV SE Samsung Galaxy Avant Samsung Galaxy Axiom Samsung Galaxy Centura Samsung Galaxy Discover Samsung Galaxy Exhibit Samsung Galaxy Exhilarate Samsung Galaxy Express Samsung Galaxy Legend Samsung Galaxy Light Samsung Galaxy Mega Samsung Galaxy Mega 2 Samsung Galaxy Metrix 4G Samsung Galaxy Nexus Samsung Galaxy Note Edition Samsung Galaxy Note 3 Samsung Galaxy Note 4 Samsung Galaxy Note 8.0 Samsung Galaxy Note Edge Samsung Galaxy Note II Samsung Galaxy Note Pro 11

27 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document Filed 10/09/15 Page 13 of 14 PageID 8672 McKool v3 Samsung Accused Products Samsung Galaxy Note Pro 12.2 Samsung Galaxy Prevail 2 Samsung Galaxy Reverb Samsung Galaxy Ring Samsung Galaxy Rugby Pro Samsung Galaxy Rush Samsung Galaxy S Blaze 4G Samsung Galaxy S II Samsung Galaxy S II 4G Samsung Galaxy S III Samsung Galaxy S III 4G LTE Samsung Galaxy S III Mini Samsung Galaxy S Lightray 4G Samsung Galaxy S Relay 4G Samsung Galaxy S4 Samsung Galaxy S4 Active Samsung Galaxy S4 Mini Samsung Galaxy S4 zoom Samsung Galaxy S5 Samsung Galaxy S5 4G LTE Samsung Galaxy S5 Active Samsung Galaxy S5 Mini Samsung Galaxy S5 Sport Samsung Galaxy Stellar Samsung Galaxy Stratosphere II Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 Samsung Galaxy Tab Samsung Galaxy Tab Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 Samsung Galaxy Tab Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 Samsung Galaxy Tab Samsung Galaxy Tab Samsung Galaxy Tab Samsung Galaxy Tab S Samsung Galaxy Tab S 10.5 Samsung Galaxy Tab S 8.4 Samsung Galaxy Victory 4G LTE Samsung Gear 2 Samsung Gear 2 Neo Samsung Gear Fit Samsung Gear Live Samsung Gear S Samsung Gravity Q Samsung Gravity Touch 12

28 Case 6:14-cv PGB-KRS Document Filed 10/09/15 Page 14 of 14 PageID 8673 Samsung Accused Products Samsung Gusto Samsung Gusto 2 Samsung Gusto 3 Samsung Haven Samsung Intensity II Samsung Intensity III Samsung Jitterbug Plus Samsung m370 Samsung M400 Samsung Messager Touch Samsung Mondi Samsung Montage Samsung Prevail 2 Samsung R375c Samsung R455 Samsung R455C Samsung Reality Touchscreen Samsung Replenish Samsung Rugby Samsung Rugby 4 Samsung Rugby III Samsung Rugby ll Samsung S125G Samsung S150G Samsung S275G Samsung S336C Samsung S380C Samsung S390G Samsung S425G Samsung SGH-T199 Samsung SM-B311V Samsung Smiley :) Samsung Smooth Samsung T101G Samsung T105G Samsung T155G Samsung T159 Samsung T245G Samsung T301G Samsung T330G Samsung T404 Samsung T404G Samsung T528G 13 McKool v3