You are on page 1of 103

Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.

57107 Page 1 of 29

1 Juanita R. Brooks, SBN 75934, brooks@fr.com


1
2 Seth M. Sproul, SBN 217711, sproul@fr.com
2 Fish & Richardson P.C.
3 12390 El Camino Real
3 San Diego, CA 92130
4 Phone: 619-678-5070 / Fax: 619-678-5099
4
5
5 Ruffin B. Cordell, DC Bar No. 445801, pro hac vice, cordell@fr.com
6 Lauren A. Degnan, DC Bar No. 452421, pro hac vice, degnan@fr.com
6 Fish & Richardson P.C.
7 1000 Maine Ave. SW
7
Washington, D.C. 20024
8 Phone: 202-783-5070 / Fax: 202-783-2331
8
9
9 William A. Isaacson, DC Bar No. 414788, pro hac vice, wisaacson@bsfllp.com
10 Karen L. Dunn, DC Bar No. 1002520, pro hac vice, kdunn@bsfllp.com
10 Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
11 1401 New York Avenue, N.W.
11
12 Washington, DC 20005
12 Phone: 202-237-2727 / Fax: 202-237-6131
13
13 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Apple Inc.
14
14
[Additional counsel identified on signature page]
15
15
16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
17 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17
18 IN RE: Case No. 3:17-CV-0108-GPC-MDD
18
19
19 QUALCOMM LITIGATION. [Consolidated with
20 Case No. 3:17-CV-01010-GPC-MDD]
20
21 APPLE INC. AND THE CONTRACT
21
MANUFACTURERS’ MEMORANDUM IN
22 OPPOSITION TO QUALCOMM’S MOTION FOR
22
23 PARTIAL DISMISSAL OF APPLE’S FIRST
23 AMENDED COMPLAINT AND THE CMS’
24 COUNTERCLAIMS
24
25
25
26
26 Date: October 26, 2018
27 Time: 1:30 p.m.
27 Judge: Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
28 Courtroom: 2D
28
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57108 Page 2 of 29

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2

3 I.  INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 


II.  FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................... 3 
4
A.  Apple and the CMs Have Claims That Implicate Exhaustion, Invalidity,
5 and Noninfringement ......................................................................................... 3 
6 B.  Qualcomm’s Claims and Defenses Thereto Implicate Exhaustion,
7 Invalidity, and Noninfringement ....................................................................... 7 
C.  Qualcomm’s Covenant Not To Sue ........................................................ 9 
8
III.  ARGUMENT................................................................................................... 11 
9
A.  Legal Standard....................................................................................... 11 
10
B.  Qualcomm’s Covenant Does Not Moot Apple or the CMs’ Exhaustion
11 Counts .............................................................................................................. 12 
12 C.  Qualcomm’s Covenant Does Not Moot Apple/CMs’ Invalidity
Counts .............................................................................................................. 18 
13
D.  Qualcomm’s Covenant Does Not Moot Apple/CMs’ Noninfringement
14 Counts .............................................................................................................. 20 
15 E.  Apple/CMs Do Not Oppose Dismissal of Their FRAND Counts ........ 21 
16 IV.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 22 
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

i Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD


Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57109 Page 3 of 29

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

18 35 U.S.C. § 284 .......................................................................................................... 21

19 Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1598-99 ........................................................................................ 16


20 California Unfair Competition Laws, Business and Professions Code
21 § 17200 ....................................................................................... 2, 6, 12, 14, 15, 16

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ii Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD


Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57110 Page 4 of 29

1 Plaintiff Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and contract manufacturers Compal


2 Electronics, Inc., FIH Mobile Ltd., Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd., Pegatron
3 Corporation and Wistron Corporation (collectively, the “CMs”) hereby submit the
4 following memorandum in opposition to Qualcomm’s partial motion to dismiss
5 Plaintiff Apple Inc.’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 79, hereinafter Apple’s
6 “FAC”) and the CMs’ Counterclaims (3:17-CV-01010, ECF No. 88).
7 I. INTRODUCTION
8 As Qualcomm’s pattern of conduct should now make clear, Qualcomm is
9 desperately seeking to make this case about the value of its “immense portfolio of
10 patents” in the abstract, ECF No. 616-1 (Qualcomm Mot.) at 1, while avoiding any
11 discussion of the actual merits of any of the patents that Qualcomm claims are
12 valuable. The Court should deny Qualcomm’s latest attempt to avoid putting its
13 patents to the test.
14 Qualcomm’s narrow covenant not to sue (“Covenant”) does nothing to moot
15 the exhaustion, invalidity, and noninfringement counts that Qualcomm seeks to
16 dismiss. Qualcomm’s Covenant is carefully worded to promise only that Qualcomm
17 will not sue Apple or the CMs for infringement of the nine patents-in-suit “under the
18 patent laws.” Covenant, ECF No. 616-2 at Ex. 1. Yet, nothing in Qualcomm’s
19 Covenant prevents it from making claims about these patents to support its
20 demands. Despite the Covenant, Qualcomm contends that Apple and the CMs owe
21 billions in royalties and that these patents assist in demonstrating the value of the
22 Qualcomm patent portfolio being licensed. As a result, questions of whether the
23 patents-in-suit are exhausted, invalid, or not infringed remains highly relevant and
24 subject to the Court’s jurisdiction.
25 The claims that Qualcomm seeks to dismiss are similarly material to the
26 “broader licensing dispute.” Qualcomm Mot. at 1. For years, Qualcomm has
27 pursued illegal and abusive business practices aimed at extracting exorbitant
28 royalties from companies, like Apple and the CMs, in the market for baseband

1 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD


Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57111 Page 5 of 29

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

3 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD


Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57113 Page 7 of 29

1 ].” 3:17-CV-01010, ECF No. 72,


2 Declaration of Ashley Wu, Ex. 1 at 7 (emphasis added); see also id. at Declaration
3 of Brenda Liu, Ex. 2 at 14; Declaration of Brian Chong, Ex. 2 at 10; Declaration of
4 Joe Lam, Ex. 4 at 9; CMs’ Counterclaims, 3:17-CV-01010, ECF No. 88 ¶¶ 103, 111,
5 116, 122.2
6 The CMs were unable to materially negotiate the terms of their SULAs, all of
7 which are portfolio licenses generally and for which Qualcomm has never identified
8 to any of the CMs the specific patents that are licensed. See CMs’ Counterclaims,
9 3:17-CV-01010, ECF No. 88 ¶¶ 11, 149-51, 218. Pursuant to the SULAs,
10 Qualcomm demands that the CMs pay royalties as a percentage of the net selling
11 price of each “Subscriber Unit” they manufacture,3 which could be a handset, tablet,
12 or other mobile device. Id. ¶¶ 84-88. The SULAs require payment for entire
13 portfolios and do not adjust for patents that are exhausted by Qualcomm’s separate
14 sales of chipsets to the CMs. Id. ¶ 401. In addition, these royalties are significantly
15 higher than the royalties charged by other cellular SEP licensors in the industry, id.
16 ¶ 89, and are being challenged as non-FRAND. See, e.g., CMs’ Counterclaims,
17 3:17-CV-01010, ECF No. 88 ¶¶ 352-66, 374-77. In addition to and separate from
18 these royalties, Qualcomm also charges the CMs for the baseband processor chipsets
19 they purchase from Qualcomm. ECF No. 601-2, Statement of Facts, at ¶¶ 9-13;
20 CMs’ Counterclaims, 3:17-CV-01010, ECF No. 88 ¶¶ 107, 114, 119. 124.
21 Qualcomm’s royalty demands for Apple devices: Since Apple released the
22 first iPhone in 2007, Qualcomm has demanded a royalty for every baseband
23 processor chipset used in every iPhone and every cellular-enabled iPad sold. The
24 CMs, who manufactured these devices, have paid these royalties pursuant to their
25
2
26 Compal, Foxconn, Pegatron, and Wistron entered into SULAs with Qualcomm in
2000, 2005, 2010, and 2007, respectively. CMs’ Counterclaims, 3:17-CV-01010,
27 ECF No. 88 ¶¶ 102, 108, 115, 122.
3
28 Qualcomm has historically offered 5% base royalty rates for the net selling price
of subscriber units. CMs’ Counterclaims, 3:17-CV-01010, ECF No. 88 ¶ 84.
4 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57114 Page 8 of 29

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,

5 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD


Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57115 Page 9 of 29

1 122-23.4 In fact, in addition to demanding payment for exhausted patents,


2 Qualcomm has actively sought to block Apple’s ability to obtain relief from having
3 to pay for exhausted patents. Id. ¶¶ 106-07, 185, 596. See generally id. at Count
4 LX.
5 Apple and the CMs’ Claims and Counterclaims: Apple and the CMs pled
6 numerous causes of action under state and federal law based on Qualcomm’s illegal
7 and abusive licensing practices, including violations of the Sherman Act5 and unfair
8 competition under California law.6 In defense of these claims, Qualcomm has
9 alleged that the value of its portfolio justifies its licensing demands and behavior,
10 stating that it has “declared thousands of patents as potentially essential to cellular
11 standards” and that its portfolio of patents are “central” to the system of cellular
12 communications. QC Answer to FAC, ECF No. 97 ¶ 11.7
13 In addition, both Apple and the CMs assert counts that seek a declaration of
14 unenforceability due to exhaustion of the nine patents-in-suit as well as those patents
15 for which Qualcomm purports to demand a royalty under its license agreements, but
16 are substantially embodied in Qualcomm modem chips.8 Apple and the CMs also
17
4
18 Qualcomm in this action seeks a declaration that its offer in its negotiations with
Apple was FRAND and that Apple’s offers were unreasonable. Qualcomm’s First
19 Amended Counterclaims, ECF No. 70 (“Qualcomm’s FAC”) ¶ 330 (Count IV);
20 Prayer for Relief (i). Apple has brought a separate motion for summary judgment
arguing that these claims should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Apple’s
21
Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 593-1.
5
22 See, e.g., Apple’s FAC, ECF No. 79 ¶¶ 616-18, 623, 630, 635, 641, 647; CMs’
Counterclaims, 3:17-CV-01010, ECF No. 88 ¶¶ 299, 301-03, 306, 318, 322, 326,
23
330, 333.
6
24 See, e.g., Apple’s FAC, ECF No. 79 ¶¶ 657-60; CMs’ Counterclaims, 3:17-CV-
01010, ECF No. 88 ¶¶ 346-50.
25 7
Qualcomm’s experts also rely on the asserted value of Qualcomm’s portfolio in
26 defense against Apple’s and the CMs’ antitrust claims. See Ex. A (Opinions of
Qualcomm’s damages experts Putnam, Nevo, Stasik).
27 8
Apple’s FAC, ECF No. 79, Count LIX; CMs’ Counterclaims, 3:17-CV-01010,
28 ECF No. 88, Count LXVII.

6 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD


Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57116 Page 10 of 29

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

1 prevail on its claims. This threshold inquiry of enforceability is directly addressed


2 in Apple’s and the CMs’ claims and counterclaims, including those alleging that the
3 SULAs are unenforceable for requiring royalties on exhausted patents. See Apple’s
4 FAC Count LIX; CMs’ Counterclaims, 3:17-CV-01010, ECF No. 88, Count LXVII.
5 Apple and the CMs advance defenses to Qualcomm’s counterclaims and claims on
6 the same grounds. See, e.g., Apple Answer, ECF No. 84 at 17th, 20th, and 23rd
7 Defenses; CMs’ Answer, 3:17-CV-01010, ECF No. 88 at 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 12th, and
8 16th Defenses.
9 Qualcomm also asked for declarations that the SULAs are FRAND and that
10 Qualcomm’s offers to Apple were FRAND. Qualcomm’s FAC ¶ 313 (asking the
11 Court to declare that “Qualcomm’s license agreements with Compal, Foxconn,
12 Wistron, and Pegatron do not violate Qualcomm’s FRAND commitments to ETSI”);
13 id. ¶ 345 (alleging that Qualcomm’s June 2016 Chinese 3G and 4G SEP licensing
14 offer and July 2016 “Rest of World” licensing offer satisfied Qualcomm’s duty to
15 offer FRAND licenses to Apple).
16 See Ex B
17 ; Ex. C
18 .
19

20

21

22 See, e.g., Ex. B (


23 ; Ex. E .
24 Qualcomm’s requests for declarations that it has complied with its FRAND
25 obligations implicate exhaustion of Qualcomm’s patents, including the 93 declared
26 SEPs and the nine patents-in-suit, as well as the invalidity and noninfringement of
27 the patents-in-suit.
28 Specifically, to support its claims concerning the SULAs and its license

8 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD


Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57118 Page 12 of 29

1 demands, Qualcomm attempted to add last-minute infringement allegations to this


2 case by serving opening expert reports claiming (for the first time) that Apple and
3 the CMs infringe eight of the patents-in-suit. The Court struck these infringement
4 opinions, finding that Qualcomm should be “held accountable for the consequences
5 of its tactical decisions” not to disclose infringement allegations during the course of
6 discovery. Order on MTS, ECF No. 603 at 4. However, the Court did not strike the
7 opinions alleging that the patents-in-suit are essential to certain cellular standards
8 and that Apple products comply with those standards. Id. at 4-5.
9 Concurrently with advancing its infringement and essentiality allegations for
10 the patents-in-suit, Qualcomm put scores of other new declared SEPs at issue in its
11 expert reports in an attempt support the value of its portfolio. Qualcomm served
12 opening technical expert reports opining that 93 new patents are essential to 3G, 4G,
13 and 5G standards11 and that Apple products comply with the 3G and 4G standards.12
14 Qualcomm is using these allegations to support its assertions regarding the value of
15 its portfolio and, thus, its claims that that the SULAs and Qualcomm’s license offers
16 to Apple were FRAND. See, e.g., Qualcomm MTS Opp., ECF No. 587, at 17
17 (claims the new SEPs are necessary “[t]o defend the value of its portfolio” and “are
18 crucial aspects of its defenses to Apple’s claims regarding the value of Qualcomm’s
19 portfolio”); see also Ex. A (opinions of Qualcomm’s damages experts Putnam,
20 Nevo, Stasik). Apple and the CMs can owe Qualcomm no payment for these 93
21 new patents, however, if they are exhausted, invalid, or not infringed.
22 C. Qualcomm’s Covenant Not To Sue
23 After the Court struck Qualcomm’s expert reports regarding infringement of
24 the patents-in-suit, Qualcomm served Apple and the CMs with its Covenant not to
25 sue on the nine patents-in-suit. Covenant, ECF No. 616-2 at Ex. 1. Qualcomm’s
26
11
See ECF No. 553-2 at Ex. 15 (SEPs Chart); ECF No. 562-6 (Andrews); ECF No.
27 562-7 (Gitlin); ECF No. 562-8 (Jayant).
12
28 ECF No. 553-2, Ex. 15 (SEPs Chart); see also ECF No. 555-13 (Jones) ¶ 14;
ECF No. 555-7 (Villasenor) ¶ 251; ECF No. 555-9 (Min) ¶¶ 3, 5.
9 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57119 Page 13 of 29

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 patents-in-suit—claims that could be relevant only if Qualcomm intends to argue


2 that payment is owed to Qualcomm for the patents-in-suit.
3 III. ARGUMENT
4 A. Legal Standard
5 “The case-or-controversy requirement ensures that federal court adjudication
6 is limited to actual and concrete disputes, the resolutions of which have a direct
7 consequence on the parties.” Monk v. Shulkin, 855 F.3d 1312, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
8 (citations omitted). “A case is said to lack an actual or concrete dispute where the
9 relief sought by a plaintiff is satisfied or otherwise rendered moot.” Id. (citing
10 DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 317 (1974) (“The controversy between the
11 parties has thus clearly ceased to be ‘definite and concrete’ and no longer ‘touch(es)
12 the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests.’”). “A case is moot
13 when it no longer presents live issues or ‘the parties lack a legally cognizable
14 interest in the outcome.’” Id. (quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496
15 (1969)).
16 A broad, unconditional covenant not to sue can sometimes moot disputes
17 between parties about the infringement, validity, and enforceability of patent rights.
18 See Super Sack Manufacturing Corp. v. Chase Packaging Corp., 57 F.3d 1054,
19 1058–59 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (finding that patentee’s unconditional promise not to
20 assert its patents against alleged infringer resolved declaratory judgment
21 counterclaims seeking declaration of noninfringement and invalidity), abrogated on
22 other grounds by MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007); see
23 also Benitec Australia, Ltd. v. Nucleonics, Inc., 495 F.3d 1340, 1345–48 (Fed. Cir.
24 2007). But, that is not always so. Where resolving patent issues remains relevant to
25 live disputes between the parties, such as whether one party owes another payment
26 under a license agreement, dismissal is not warranted. See Esoterix Genetic Labs.
27 LLC v. Qiagen Inc., No. 14-cv-13228-ADB, 2016 WL 4555613, at *5 (D. Mass.
28 Aug. 31, 2016) (“[T]he resolution of Qiagen’s contract-based Counterclaim

11 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD


Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57121 Page 15 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

1 royalties on exhausted patents all depend on whether Qualcomm’s patents, including


2 the patents-in-suit, are exhausted. Qualcomm’s Covenant does not moot this issue.
3 1. Patent Exhaustion Is Implicated in Numerous Claims,
4
Counterclaims, and Defenses
First, by making specific and concrete allegations that the patents-in-suit and
5
the additional 93 declared SEPs are essential to a standard with which Apple
6
products allegedly comply, and supporting those allegations with a limitation-by-
7
limitation analysis,15 Qualcomm has put the issue of whether payment would be
8
owed on these patents in connection with Apple devices directly at issue in this case.
9
See Order on Joint Motion, ECF No. 603 at 4-5 (Sept. 4, 2018) (finding that
10
Qualcomm’s expert opinions as to the new 93 declared SEPs “relate to issues of
11
essentiality and valuation” and declining to strike them).16 Each of the nine patents-
12
in-suit was on the list of patents Qualcomm declared as SEPs, to which Qualcomm
13
referred as providing the basis for its “good-faith belief that Apple’s products
14
infringe (absent a license) many Qualcomm patents, namely that Qualcomm holds a
15
great many patents that are essential to cellular standards implemented by Apple
16
products.” Apple’s FAC, ECF No. 79 ¶¶ 138-40. Qualcomm even provided Apple
17
with infringement claim charts for some of these patents as exemplars to why its
18
portfolio is allegedly valuable. Id. at ¶ 140.
19
Under the doctrine of patent exhaustion, Qualcomm’s sales of chipsets to the
20
CMs exhausts Qualcomm’s patent rights with respect to all patents that are
21
substantially embodied in Qualcomm’s chipsets. Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG
22

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

16 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD


Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57126 Page 20 of 29

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

C. Qualcomm’s Covenant Does Not Moot Apple/CMs’ Invalidity


1 Counts
2 Apple’s and the CMs’ invalidity claims remain live controversies
3 notwithstanding Qualcomm’s Covenant. In particular, Qualcomm’s SULAs with
4 the CMs and licensing demands to Apple seek royalties for its entire portfolio,
5 which includes invalid patents, for which neither the CMs nor Apple would owe a
6 royalty. See, e.g., MedImmune, 549 U.S. at 123-25 (rejecting argument that a
7 contract could “call[] for royalties on an infringing product whether or not the
8 underlying patent is valid” and finding a live contract dispute where validity of the
9 underlying patent was challenged).
10 Qualcomm’s arguments presume that the patents-in-suit were included in the
11 SULAs and/or Qualcomm’s licensing demands to Apple that sought royalties for
12 Qualcomm’s 3G and 4G SEPs. As discussed above, Qualcomm intends to rely on
13 the alleged value of its portfolio to support its argument that the SULAs and its
14 offers to Apple were FRAND. Therefore, despite Qualcomm’s Covenant, the
15 validity of the patents-in-suit remains a live dispute because, even if Qualcomm
16 cannot now bring a patent infringement lawsuit “under the patent laws,” the validity
17 of the patents remains relevant to other claims and requests for relief that are still
18 pending.
19 The district court’s ruling in Esoterix is instructive. There, the patent owner
20 (Esoterix) sued the defendant (Qiagen) for exceeding the scope of a license
21 agreement, which “only allowed Qiagen to sell certain types of products at certain
22 times.” 2016 WL 4555613, at *2. Qiagen asserted counterclaims seeking
23 declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity, id. at *1, 3, 5, as well as “a
24 declaration of rights under the License Agreement,” id. at *5. Esoterix provided
25 Qiagen with a covenant not to sue and moved to dismiss, arguing that the covenant
26 “eliminated any case or controversy between the parties regarding the validity of the
27 remaining patents-in-suit.” Id. at *4. The court disagreed, finding that despite the
28 covenant not to sue Qiagen for infringement, the validity of the patents-in-suit

18 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD


Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57128 Page 22 of 29

1 remained relevant to the parties’ contract dispute:


2 The Court does not find this argument persuasive, because the
covenant did not eliminate the primary dispute raised by Qiagen’s
3 Counterclaims–namely, whether Qiagen is obligated to pay royalties
4
to Esoterix and LabCorp under the parties’ License Agreement. In
fact, the covenant expressly preserves LabCorp’s contract rights
5 under the License Agreement, presumably because Esoterix and
LabCorp intended to pursue their own claims for breach of contract
6 against Qiagen in this action. Further, the resolution of Qiagen’s
contract-based Counterclaim regarding its obligation to pay royalties
7 under the License Agreement depends on whether the underlying
8 patents are valid or invalid. In light of this dispute, which is still very
much alive, LabCorp and Esoterix’s promise not to sue Qiagen for
9 infringement does not moot the case.
10 Id. at *5. Accordingly, the court refused to dismiss Qiagen’s invalidity declaratory
11 judgment counterclaims. Id. at *6.
12 As in Esoterix, Qualcomm’s Covenant does not reach substantive disputes
13 between the parties that depend on the validity of the patents-in-suit, including those
14 listed in the Table below. See MedImmune, 549 U.S. at 123-25 (rejecting argument
15 that a contract could “call[] for royalties on an infringing product whether or not the
16 underlying patent is valid” and finding a live contract dispute where validity of the
17 underlying patent was challenged).
18
Live Claims/Counterclaims
19 Tied to Determination of Patent Invalidity
Qualcomm defenses to Breach of Contract (FRAND Commitments)
20
CMs’ Counterclaims:
21 Count V
Qualcomm defenses to Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair
22 CMs’ Counterclaims: Dealing (FRAND Commitments)
Count VI
23 Qualcomm’s Declaration That Qualcomm’s License Agreements
24 Counterclaims: Count II with the Contract Manufacturers Do Not Violate
Qualcomm’s FRAND Commitments to ETSI
25 Qualcomm’s Declaration That Qualcomm Has Satisfied and
Counterclaims: Count Discharged Its FRAND Commitments to ETSI with
26 IV Respect to Apple
27 Therefore, Qualcomm’s Covenant does not moot Apple’s and the CMs’
28 invalidity counts.

19 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD


Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57129 Page 23 of 29

D. Qualcomm’s Covenant Does Not Moot Apple/CMs’


1 Noninfringement Counts
2 Qualcomm’s Covenant also does not moot Apple’s and the CMs’ claims for a
3 declaratory judgment that they do not infringe the nine patents-in-suit. The
4 Covenant merely promises that Qualcomm will not sue Apple and the CMs for
5 claims “arising under the patent laws.” Covenant, ECF No. 616-2 at Ex. 1.
6 Importantly, the Covenant does not agree that Apple and the CMs do not infringe
7 the patents-in-suit or that these patents are not essential to the standards to which
8 Qualcomm declared them. Accordingly, the Covenant does not require Qualcomm
9 to refrain from alleging that Apple and the CMs infringe the patents-in-suit to
10 support related claims that depend upon infringement but do not themselves “aris[e]
11 under the patent laws.” In fact, Qualcomm continues in substance to argue
12 infringement under the transitive property—i.e., that the nine patents-in-suit patents
13 are essential to standards with which Apple products comply and, therefore, use.
14 Despite providing the Covenant, Qualcomm still alleges that Apple and the CMs
15 require a license to the nine patents-in-suit, and is using that allegation to support
16 its position on the value of its portfolio, which in turn is said to support Qualcomm’s
17 argument that the SULAs and its offers to Apple were FRAND. See Section II.B,
18 supra.
19 By alleging that the patents-in-suit are essential to standards that Apple
20 products practice and that Apple and the CMs owe money on them, Qualcomm
21 continues to put the substantive issue of whether Apple and the CMs infringe these
22 patents squarely at issue. Indeed, the patents-in-suit are not even considered
23 “essential” under the applicable standard setting organization’s definition unless
24 they are necessarily infringed by products that comply with their relevant
25 provisions:
26 “ESSENTIAL” as applied to IPR means that it is not possible on
technical (but not commercial) grounds, taking into account normal
27 technical practice and the state of the art generally available at the
28
time of standardization, to make, sell, lease, otherwise dispose of,
repair, use or operate EQUIPMENT or METHODS which comply
20 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57130 Page 24 of 29

1
with a STANDARD without infringing that IPR. . . .

2 Ex. J (ETSI Intellectual Property Rights Policy) at 42-43 (emphases added).


3 Consistently, under the CMs’ SULAs, Qualcomm licensed those patents that
4

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

15 Dated: October 5, 2018 Respectfully submitted,


16
By: /s/ Lauren A. Degnan
17 Juanita R. Brooks, SBN 75934, brooks@fr.com
Seth M. Sproul, SBN 217711, sproul@fr.com
18
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
19 12390 El Camino Real San Diego, CA 92130
Phone: 619-678-5070; Fax: 619-678-5099
20

21 Ruffin B. Cordell (DC Bar No. 445801;


pro hac vice), cordell@fr.com
22
Lauren A. Degnan (DC Bar No. 452421;
23 pro hac vice), degnan@fr.com
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
24
1000 Maine Ave. SW
25 Washington, DC 20024
26
Phone: 202-783-5070; Fax: 202-783-2331

27 William A. Isaacson (DC Bar No. 414788;


28
pro hac vice) wisaacson@bsfllp.com
Karen L. Dunn (DC Bar No. 1002520;
22 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57132 Page 26 of 29

1 pro hac vice) kdunn@bsfllp.com


BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
2 1401 New York Avenue
3 Washington, DC 20005
Phone: 202-237-2727; Fax: 202-237-6131
4

5 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant


Apple Inc.
6

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

18 CYNTHIA RICHMAN (DC Bar No. 492089,


19 Pro Hac Vice)
crichman@gibsondunn.com
20 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
21 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
22 Tel: (202) 955-8500; Fax: (202) 467-0539
23
Attorneys for Defendants, Counterclaimants, and
24 Third-Party Plaintiffs Compal Electronics, Inc., FIH
25 Mobile Ltd., Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd.,
Pegatron Corporation, and Wistron Corporation
26

27

28

23 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD


Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57133 Page 27 of 29

HUGH F. BANGASSER (Pro Hac Vice)


1 hugh.bangasser@klgates.com
CHRISTOPHER M. WYANT (Pro Hac Vice)
2 chris.wyant@klgates.com
J. TIMOTHY HOBBS (Pro Hac Vice)
3 tim.hobbs@klgates.com
K&L GATES LLP
4 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900
Seattle, Washington 98104
5 Telephone: +1 206 623 7580
Facsimile: +1 206 370 6371
6
CAITLIN C. BLANCHE (SBN 254109)
7 caitlin.blanche@klgates.com
K&L GATES LLP
8 1 Park Plaza Twelfth Floor
Irvine, CA 92614
9 Telephone: +1 949 253 0900
10 Facsimile: +1 949 253 0902

11 Attorneys for Defendant, Counterclaimant, and Third-


12 Party Plaintiff Wistron Corporation

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD


Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57134 Page 28 of 29

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

25 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD


Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57135 Page 29 of 29

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

9 /s/ Lauren A. Degnan


Lauren A. Degnan
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

26 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD


Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-1 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57136 Page 1 of 5

1 Juanita R. Brooks, SBN 75934, brooks@fr.com


Seth M. Sproul, SBN 217711, sproul@fr.com
2 Fish & Richardson P.C.
3 12390 El Camino Real
San Diego, CA 92130
4 Phone: 858-678-5070 / Fax: 858-678-5099
5 Ruffin B. Cordell, DC Bar No. 445801, pro hac vice, cordell@fr.com
6
Lauren A. Degnan, DC Bar No. 452421, pro hac vice, degnan@fr.com
Fish & Richardson P.C.
7 1000 Maine Ave. SW
Washington, D.C. 20024
8 Phone: 202-783-5070 / Fax: 202-783-2331
9 William A. Isaacson, DC Bar No. 414788, pro hac vice, wisaacson@bsfllp.com
10 Karen L. Dunn, DC Bar No. 1002520, pro hac vice, kdunn@bsfllp.com
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
11 1401 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
12 Phone: 202-237-2727 / Fax: 202-237-6131
13
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Apple Inc.
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
IN RE: Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD
17

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

26 Date: October 26, 2018


Time: 1:30 p.m.
27 Judge: Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
Courtroom: 2D
28

Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD


Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-1 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57137 Page 2 of 5

1 I, Lauren A. Degnan, declare as follows:


2 1. I am a member of Fish & Richardson P.C., counsel of record in this
3 action for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Apple Inc. This Court has admitted
4 me to appear pro hac vice in this case and I am a member of the Bar of the District
5 of Columbia. I have personal knowledge of the matters stated in this declaration
6 and would testify truthfully to them if called upon to do so.
7 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a chart of
8 excerpts from the rebuttal expert reports of Jonathan D. Putnam and Aviv Nevo,
9 dated October 2, 2018, and the opening expert reports of Aviv Nevo and Eric Stasik,
10 dated June 29, 2018.
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of a letter from


24 William Devitt to Seth Sproul RE Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., dated September
25 17, 2018.
26 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of excerpts from
27 the opening expert report of Jeffrey Andrews, Appendix A, dated June 29, 2018.
28 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of excerpts from
1 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-1 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57138 Page 3 of 5

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

2 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD


Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-1 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57139 Page 4 of 5

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

3 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD


Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-1 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57140 Page 5 of 5

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

4 Case No. 3:17-CV-00108-GPC-MDD


Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-2 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57141 Page 1 of 1

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

77 WEST WACKER • CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60601.1692

TELEPHONE: +1.312.782.3939 • FACSIMILE: +1.312.782.8585

Direct Number: (312) 269-4240


wdevitt@jonesday.com

September 17, 2018

VIA E-MAIL

Seth M. Sproul, Esq.


Fish & Richardson P.C.
12390 El Camino Real
San Diego, CA 92130

Re: Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC-MDD (S.D. Cal.)


and consolidated Case No. 3:17-cv-01010-GPC-MDD)

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

September 17, 2018


Page 2

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

$V\VWHPIRU 6SUHDGLQJLVDSSOLHGWRWKHSK\VLFDOFKDQQHOV,WFRQVLVWVRIWZRRSHUDWLRQV7KHILUVWLVWKH ³$V\VWHPIRUPRGXODWLQJDQ


PRGXODWLQJDQ FKDQQHOL]DWLRQRSHUDWLRQZKLFKWUDQVIRUPVHYHU\GDWDV\PEROLQWRDQXPEHURIFKLSVWKXV LQIRUPDWLRQVLJQDOLQDVSUHDGVSHFWUXP
LQIRUPDWLRQVLJQDOLQD LQFUHDVLQJWKHEDQGZLGWKRIWKHVLJQDO7KHQXPEHURIFKLSVSHUGDWDV\PEROLVFDOOHGWKH FRPPXQLFDWLRQV\VWHP´LVPDSSHGWRD
VSUHDGVSHFWUXP 6SUHDGLQJ)DFWRU 6) 7KHVHFRQGRSHUDWLRQLVWKHVFUDPEOLQJRSHUDWLRQZKHUHDVFUDPEOLQJ V\VWHPIRUSHUIRUPLQJXSOLQNVSUHDGLQJ
FRPPXQLFDWLRQV\VWHP FRGHLVDSSOLHGWRWKHVSUHDGVLJQDO DQGPRGXODWLRQ
FRPSULVLQJ
:LWKWKHFKDQQHOL]DWLRQGDWDV\PEROVRQVRFDOOHG,DQG4EUDQFKHVDUHLQGHSHQGHQWO\
PXOWLSOLHGZLWKDQ296)FRGH:LWKWKHVFUDPEOLQJRSHUDWLRQWKHUHVXOWDQWVLJQDOVRQWKH,
DQG4EUDQFKHVDUHIXUWKHUPXOWLSOLHGE\FRPSOH[YDOXHGVFUDPEOLQJFRGHZKHUH,DQG4
GHQRWHUHDODQGLPDJLQDU\SDUWVUHVSHFWLYHO\

769DW†

PHDQVIRUVHOHFWLQJDQ )LJXUHLOOXVWUDWHVWKHSULQFLSOHRIWKHXSOLQNVSUHDGLQJRI'3&&+DQG'3'&+V7KHELQDU\ ³VHOHFWLQJDQRUWKRJRQDOIXQFWLRQIURP


RUWKRJRQDOIXQFWLRQIURP '3&&+DQG'3'&+VWREHVSUHDGDUHUHSUHVHQWHGE\UHDOYDOXHGVHTXHQFHVLHWKHELQDU\ DVHWRIIXQFWLRQVVDLGVHWRIIXQFWLRQV
DVHWRIIXQFWLRQVVDLGVHW YDOXHLVPDSSHGWRWKHUHDOYDOXHZKLOHWKHELQDU\YDOXHLVPDSSHGWRWKHUHDOYDOXH LQFOXGLQJDSOXUDOLW\RIRUWKRJRQDO
RIIXQFWLRQVLQFOXGLQJD ±7KH'3&&+LVVSUHDGWRWKHFKLSUDWHE\WKHFKDQQHOL]DWLRQFRGHFFZKLOHWKHnWK IXQFWLRQV´LVPDSSHGWRVHOHFWLQJ
SOXUDOLW\RIRUWKRJRQDO '3'&+FDOOHG'3'&+QLVVSUHDGWRWKHFKLSUDWHE\WKHFKDQQHOL]DWLRQFRGHFGQ2QH DPRQJ296)FKDQQHOL]DWLRQFRGHV
IXQFWLRQVLQDFFRUGDQFH '3&&+DQGXSWRVL[SDUDOOHO'3'&+VFDQEHWUDQVPLWWHGVLPXOWDQHRXVO\LHdn d
ZLWKDSUHGHILQHG ³VHOHFWLQJ«LQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKD
FKDUDFWHULVWLFRIVDLG SUHGHILQHGFKDUDFWHULVWLFRIVDLG
LQIRUPDWLRQVLJQDO LQIRUPDWLRQVLJQDO´LVPDSSHGWR
VHOHFWLQJDQ296)FKDQQHOL]DWLRQFRGH
ZLWKDVSUHDGLQJIDFWRUWKDWPDWFKHVWKH
LQIRUPDWLRQUDWHQHHGHGWRWUDQVPLWWKH
&RGHG&RPSRVLWH7UDQVSRUW&KDQQHO
&&7U&+ 



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†

7KHFKDQQHOL]DWLRQFRGHVRIILJXUHDUH2UWKRJRQDO9DULDEOH6SUHDGLQJ)DFWRU 296) FRGHV


WKDWSUHVHUYHWKHRUWKRJRQDOLW\EHWZHHQDXVHU¶VGLIIHUHQWSK\VLFDOFKDQQHOV7KH296)FRGHV



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)DFWRU 296) 
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&+ V LVOLPLWHGE\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†

PHDQVIRUJHQHUDWLQJDQ 7KHFKDQQHOL]DWLRQFRGHVRIILJXUHDUH2UWKRJRQDO9DULDEOH6SUHDGLQJ)DFWRU 296) FRGHV ³JHQHUDWLQJDQRUWKRJRQDOIXQFWLRQ


RUWKRJRQDOIXQFWLRQVLJQDO WKDWSUHVHUYHWKHRUWKRJRQDOLW\EHWZHHQDXVHU¶VGLIIHUHQWSK\VLFDOFKDQQHOV7KH296)FRGHV VLJQDOUHSUHVHQWDWLYHRIVDLGVHOHFWHG
UHSUHVHQWDWLYHRIVDLG FDQEHGHILQHGXVLQJWKHFRGHWUHHRIILJXUH RUWKRJRQDOIXQFWLRQ´LVPDSSHGWR
VHOHFWHGRUWKRJRQDO JHQHUDWLQJFRGHFGWRVSUHDGWKH
IXQFWLRQ & FK        '3'&+

& FK       
& FK        
& FK     
& FK        
& FK      
& FK        

6 )   6 )   6 )  

)LJXUH&RGHWUHHIRUJHQHUDWLRQRI2UWKRJRQDO9DULDEOH6SUHDGLQJ)DFWRU 296) 
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†

PHDQVIRUJHQHUDWLQJD $OOXSOLQNSK\VLFDOFKDQQHOVDUHVXEMHFWHGWRVFUDPEOLQJZLWKDFRPSOH[YDOXHGVFUDPEOLQJ ³JHQHUDWLQJDSVHXGRUDQGRPQRLVH


SVHXGRUDQGRPQRLVH 31  FRGH7KH'3&&+'3'&+PD\EHVFUDPEOHGE\HLWKHUORQJRUVKRUWVFUDPEOLQJFRGHV 31 VLJQDORIDSUHGHWHUPLQHG31
VLJQDORIDSUHGHWHUPLQHG GHILQHGLQVHFWLRQ FRGH´LVPDSSHGWRJHQHUDWLQJD
31FRGHDQG FRPSOH[YDOXHGVFUDPEOLQJFRGH
769DW†

7KHFRGHXVHGIRUVFUDPEOLQJRIWKHXSOLQN'3&&+'3'&+PD\EHRIHLWKHUORQJRUVKRUW
W\SH:KHQWKHVFUDPEOLQJFRGHLVIRUPHGGLIIHUHQWFRQVLWXHQWFRGHVDUHXVHGIRUWKHORQJDQG
VKRUWW\SHDVGHILQHGEHORZ

7KHnWKXSOLQNVFUDPEOLQJFRGHIRU'3&&+'3'&+GHQRWHG6GSFKQLVGHILQHGDV

 6GSFKQ i  &ORQJQ i i «ZKHQXVLQJORQJVFUDPEOLQJFRGHV

ZKHUHWKHORZHVWLQGH[FRUUHVSRQGVWRWKHFKLSWUDQVPLWWHGILUVWLQWLPHDQG&ORQJQLVGHILQHGLQ
VHFWLRQ

7KHnWKXSOLQNVFUDPEOLQJFRGHIRU'3&&+'3'&+GHQRWHG6GSFKQLVGHILQHGDV

 6GSFKQ i  &VKRUWQ i i «ZKHQXVLQJVKRUWVFUDPEOLQJFRGHV

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
VHTXHQFHLVFRQVWUXFWHGXVLQJWKHSULPLWLYH RYHU*)  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

 [Q  Q[Q  Q« [Q  Q[Q  Q[Q  

 \  \  « \  \  

5HFXUVLYHGHILQLWLRQRIVXEVHTXHQWV\PEROV

 [Q L  [Q L [Q L PRGXORL «

 \ L  \ L \ L \ L \ L PRGXORL «

'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

- zn i = xn i + y i PRGXOR, i «

7KHUHDOYDOXHG*ROGVHTXHQFHZnLVGHILQHGE\

­  if z n i 
Z n i ® for i     
 ¯  if z n i  
1RZWKHUHDOYDOXHGORQJVFUDPEOLQJVHTXHQFHVFORQJQDQGFORQJQDUHGHILQHGDVIROORZV

 FORQJQ i = Zn i i =«±DQG

 FORQJQ i = Zn i +  PRGXOR ± i =«±

)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†

7KHVKRUWVFUDPEOLQJVHTXHQFHVcVKRUWn i DQGcVKRUWn i DUHGHILQHGIURPDVHTXHQFHIURPWKH


IDPLO\RISHULRGLFDOO\H[WHQGHG6  FRGHV

/HWnn«nEHWKHELWELQDU\UHSUHVHQWDWLRQRIWKHFRGHQXPEHUn

7KHnWKTXDWHUQDU\6  VHTXHQFHzn i dn dLVREWDLQHGE\PRGXORDGGLWLRQRI


WKUHHVHTXHQFHVDTXDWHUQDU\VHTXHQFHa i DQGWZRELQDU\VHTXHQFHVb i DQGd i ZKHUHWKH
LQLWLDOORDGLQJRIWKHWKUHHVHTXHQFHVLVGHWHUPLQHGIURPWKHFRGHQXPEHUn7KHVHTXHQFHzn i 
RIOHQJWKLVJHQHUDWHGDFFRUGLQJWRWKHIROORZLQJUHODWLRQ

- zn i  a i b i d i PRGXORi «

ZKHUHWKHTXDWHUQDU\VHTXHQFHa i LVJHQHUDWHGUHFXUVLYHO\E\WKHSRO\QRPLDOg x 
x8+x5+3x3+x2+2x+1DV

- a 0  n0 PRGXOR

- a i  ni PRGXORi «

- a i) a i a i a i a i a i PRGXORi «

DQGWKHELQDU\VHTXHQFHb i LVJHQHUDWHGUHFXUVLYHO\E\WKHSRO\QRPLDOg x x8+x7+x5+x+1


DV

b i  niPRGXORi «

b i  b i-1 + b i-3  b i-7  b i-8 PRGXORi «

DQGWKHELQDU\VHTXHQFHd i LVJHQHUDWHGUHFXUVLYHO\E\WKHSRO\QRPLDOg x x8+x7+x5+x4+1


DV



Exhibit G
31
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-8 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57159 Page 11 of
15

d i  niPRGXORi «

d i  d i-1  d i-3  d i-4  d i-8 PRGXORi «

7KHVHTXHQFHzn i LVH[WHQGHGWROHQJWKFKLSVE\VHWWLQJzn   zn  

7KHPDSSLQJIURPzn i WRWKHUHDOYDOXHGELQDU\VHTXHQFHVcVKRUWn i DQGcVKRUWn i i 


«LVGHILQHGLQ7DEOH

7DEOH0DSSLQJIURPzn i WRcshort,1,n i DQGcshort,2,n i i «

zn i cshort,1,n i  cshort,2,n i
  
  
  
  


)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

       
G L

PRG

   

 PRGQDGGLWLRQ
]Q L
FVKRUWQ L

       
E L
 0DSSHU
FVKRUWQ L
PXOWLSOLFDWLRQ PRG
PRG

  

       
D L

 


PRG
   

)LJXUH8SOLQNVKRUWVFUDPEOLQJVHTXHQFHJHQHUDWRUIRUFKLSVHTXHQFH

769DW†

PHDQVIRUFRPELQLQJVDLG 6SUHDGLQJLVDSSOLHGWRWKHSK\VLFDOFKDQQHOV,WFRQVLVWVRIWZRRSHUDWLRQV7KHILUVWLVWKH ³FRPELQLQJVDLGRUWKRJRQDOIXQFWLRQ


RUWKRJRQDOIXQFWLRQ FKDQQHOL]DWLRQRSHUDWLRQZKLFKWUDQVIRUPVHYHU\GDWDV\PEROLQWRDQXPEHURIFKLSVWKXV VLJQDOVDLG31VLJQDODQGVDLG
VLJQDOVDLG31VLJQDODQG LQFUHDVLQJWKHEDQGZLGWKRIWKHVLJQDO7KHQXPEHURIFKLSVSHUGDWDV\PEROLVFDOOHGWKH LQIRUPDWLRQVLJQDODQGIRUSURYLGLQJD
VDLGLQIRUPDWLRQVLJQDO 6SUHDGLQJ)DFWRU 6) 7KHVHFRQGRSHUDWLRQLVWKHVFUDPEOLQJRSHUDWLRQZKHUHDVFUDPEOLQJ UHVXOWDQWILUVWPRGXODWLRQVLJQDO´LV
DQGIRUSURYLGLQJD FRGHLVDSSOLHGWRWKHVSUHDGVLJQDO PDSSHGWRSHUIRUPLQJVSUHDGLQJDQG
UHVXOWDQWILUVWPRGXODWLRQ VFUDPEOLQJRQWKH'3'&+
VLJQDO :LWKWKHFKDQQHOL]DWLRQGDWDV\PEROVRQVRFDOOHG,DQG4EUDQFKHVDUHLQGHSHQGHQWO\
PXOWLSOLHGZLWKDQ296)FRGH:LWKWKHVFUDPEOLQJRSHUDWLRQWKHUHVXOWDQWVLJQDOVRQWKH,
DQG4EUDQFKHVDUHIXUWKHUPXOWLSOLHGE\FRPSOH[YDOXHGVFUDPEOLQJFRGHZKHUH,DQG4
GHQRWHUHDODQGLPDJLQDU\SDUWVUHVSHFWLYHO\

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†

7KHV\VWHPRIFODLP 7KHFKDQQHOL]DWLRQFRGHVRIILJXUHDUH2UWKRJRQDO9DULDEOH6SUHDGLQJ)DFWRU 296) FRGHV ³GHULYLQJVDLGVHWRIIXQFWLRQVE\


ZKHUHLQVDLGPHDQVIRU WKDWSUHVHUYHWKHRUWKRJRQDOLW\EHWZHHQDXVHU¶VGLIIHUHQWSK\VLFDOFKDQQHOV7KH296)FRGHV FRPSLOLQJDVHWRI:DOVKVHTXHQFHVRI
VHOHFWLQJDQRUWKRJRQDO FDQEHGHILQHGXVLQJWKHFRGHWUHHRIILJXUH YDULDEOHOHQJWK´LVPDSSHGWRGHULYLQJ
IXQFWLRQLQFOXGHVPHDQV 296)FRGHVRIYDULDEOHOHQJWKV
IRUGHULYLQJVDLGVHWRI & FK       
IXQFWLRQVE\FRPSLOLQJD
VHWRI:DOVKVHTXHQFHVRI & FK      
YDULDEOHOHQJWK
& FK        
& FK     
& FK        
& FK      
& FK        

6 )   6 )   6 )  

)LJXUH&RGHWUHHIRUJHQHUDWLRQRI2UWKRJRQDO9DULDEOH6SUHDGLQJ)DFWRU 296) 
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†

7KHV\VWHPRIFODLP ,QXSOLQNSXQFWXULQJFDQEHDSSOLHGWRPDWFKWKH&&7U&+ELWUDWHWRWKH3K&+ELWUDWH7KH ³ZKHUHLQVDLGSUHGHILQHGFKDUDFWHULVWLF


ZKHUHLQVDLGSUHGHILQHG ELWUDWHRIWKH3K&+ V LVOLPLWHGE\WKH8(FDSDELOLW\DQGUHVWULFWLRQVLPSRVHGE\875$1 FRUUHVSRQGVWRDGDWDUDWHRIVDLG
FKDUDFWHULVWLFFRUUHVSRQGV WKURXJKOLPLWDWLRQVRQWKH3K&+VSUHDGLQJIDFWRU7KHPD[LPXPDPRXQWRISXQFWXULQJWKDW LQIRUPDWLRQVLJQDO´LVPDSSHGWR
WRDGDWDUDWHRIVDLG FDQEHDSSOLHGLV3/3/LVVLJQDOOHGIURPKLJKHUOD\HUV7KHQXPEHURIDYDLODEOHELWVLQWKH VHOHFWLQJDQ296)FKDQQHOL]DWLRQFRGH
LQIRUPDWLRQVLJQDO UDGLRIUDPHVRIRQH3K&+IRUDOOSRVVLEOHVSUHDGLQJIDFWRUVLVJLYHQLQ>@'HQRWHWKHVH ZLWKDVSUHDGLQJIDFWRUWKDWPDWFKHVWKH
YDOXHVE\N256, N128, N64, N32, N16, N8, DQG N4,ZKHUHWKHLQGH[UHIHUVWRWKHVSUHDGLQJIDFWRU LQIRUPDWLRQUDWHQHHGHGWRWUDQVPLWWKH
7KHSRVVLEOHQXPEHURIELWVDYDLODEOHWRWKH&&7U&+RQDOO3K&+VNdataWKHQDUH^ N &RGHG&RPSRVLWH7UDQVSRUW&KDQQHO
N N N N N N uN uN uN uN, uN`. &&7U&+ 

769DW†

VDLGPHDQVIRUVHOHFWLQJ )RUWKH'3&&+DQG'3'&+VWKHIROORZLQJDSSOLHV ³LGHQWLI\LQJDVDYDLODEOHDVXEVHWRI


IXUWKHULQFOXGLQJPHDQV VDLGVHWRI:DOVKVHTXHQFHVRQWKH
IRULGHQWLI\LQJDV  7KH'3&&+LVDOZD\VVSUHDGE\FRGHFF &FK EDVLVRIVDLGGDWDUDWH´LVPDSSHGWR
DYDLODEOHDVXEVHWRIVDLG LGHQWLI\LQJWKH296)FKDQQHOL]DWLRQ
VHWRI:DOVKVHTXHQFHVRQ  :KHQRQO\RQH'3'&+LVWREHWUDQVPLWWHG'3'&+LVVSUHDGE\FRGHFG  FRGHVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHVHOHFWHG
WKHEDVLVRIVDLGGDWDUDWH &FK6)NZKHUH6)LVWKHVSUHDGLQJIDFWRURI'3'&+DQGN 6) 6SUHDGLQJ)DFWRU
 :KHQPRUHWKDQRQH'3'&+LVWREHWUDQVPLWWHGDOO'3'&+VKDYHVSUHDGLQJ
IDFWRUVHTXDOWR'3'&+QLVVSUHDGE\WKHWKHFRGHFGQ &FKNZKHUHk LIn 
^`k LIn ^`DQGk LIn ^`

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

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

863DWHQW1RWR80765HO


863DW1R 863DWHQW1RWR80765HO 0DSSLQJ

$PHWKRGIRU 2QFRPPDQGIURPWKH875$1D8(VKDOOPRQLWRUFHOOVRQRWKHU)''IUHTXHQFLHVDQGRQ ³$PHWKRGIRUFRRUGLQDWLQJWLPHVDW


FRRUGLQDWLQJWLPHVDWZKLFK RWKHUPRGHVDQGUDGLRDFFHVVWHFKQRORJLHVWKDWDUHVXSSRUWHGE\WKH8( LH7''*60 7R ZKLFKDPRELOHVWDWLRQPRQLWRUV
DPRELOHVWDWLRQPRQLWRUV DOORZWKH8(WRSHUIRUPPHDVXUHPHQWV875$1VKDOOFRPPDQGWKDWWKH8(HQWHUVLQ DOWHUQDWLYHIUHTXHQFLHVZLWKWLPHVDW
DOWHUQDWLYHIUHTXHQFLHVZLWK FRPSUHVVHGPRGHGHSHQGLQJRQWKH8(FDSDELOLWLHV ZKLFKDQRULJLQDWLRQEDVHVWDWLRQ
WLPHVDWZKLFKDQ WUDQVPLWVVKRUWPHVVDJHV´LVPDSSHGWR
RULJLQDWLRQEDVHVWDWLRQ 7KH8(FDSDELOLWLHVGHILQHZKHWKHUD8(UHTXLUHVFRPSUHVVHGPRGHLQRUGHUWRPRQLWRUFHOOV XVHUHTXLSPHQWWXQLQJWRDQRWKHU1RGH%
WUDQVPLWVVKRUWPHVVDJHV RQRWKHU)''IUHTXHQFLHVDQGRQRWKHUPRGHVDQGUDGLRDFFHVVWHFKQRORJLHV8(FDSDELOLWLHV IUHTXHQF\WRIDFLOLWDWHKDUGKDQGRII
FRPSULVLQJ LQGLFDWHWKHQHHGIRUFRPSUHVVHGPRGHVHSDUDWHO\IRUWKHXSOLQNDQGGRZQOLQNDQGIRUHDFK GXULQJDWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSRID
PRGHUDGLRDFFHVVWHFKQRORJ\DQGIUHTXHQF\EDQG FRPSUHVVHGPRGHIUDPH
$8(VKDOOVXSSRUWFRPSUHVVHGPRGHIRUDOOFDVHVIRUZKLFKWKH8(LQGLFDWHVWKDWFRPSUHVVHG

PRGHLVUHTXLUHG
$8(GRHVQRWQHHGWRVXSSRUWFRPSUHVVHGPRGHIRUFDVHVIRUZKLFKWKH8(LQGLFDWHVWKDW
FRPSUHVVHGPRGHLVQRWUHTXLUHG)RUWKHVHFDVHVWKH8(VKDOOVXSSRUWDQDOWHUQDWLYHPHDQVRI
PDNLQJWKHPHDVXUHPHQWV
7KH8(VKDOOVXSSRUWRQHVLQJOHPHDVXUHPHQWSXUSRVHIRURQHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQ
VHTXHQFH7KHPHDVXUHPHQWSXUSRVHRIWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQVHTXHQFHLVVLJQDOOHGE\
KLJKHUOD\HUV
7KHIROORZLQJVXEFODXVHSURYLGHVUXOHVWRSDUDPHWHULVHWKHFRPSUHVVHGPRGH
769DW†

UHFHLYLQJFRPPDQGVIURP 2QFRPPDQGIURPWKH875$1D8(VKDOOPRQLWRUFHOOVRQRWKHU)''IUHTXHQFLHVDQGRQ ³UHFHLYLQJFRPPDQGVIURPWKH


WKHRULJLQDWLRQEDVHVWDWLRQ RWKHUPRGHVDQGUDGLRDFFHVVWHFKQRORJLHVWKDWDUHVXSSRUWHGE\WKH8( LH7''*60 7R RULJLQDWLRQEDVHVWDWLRQLQGLFDWLQJZKHQ
LQGLFDWLQJZKHQWKHPRELOH DOORZWKH8(WRSHUIRUPPHDVXUHPHQWV875$1VKDOOFRPPDQGWKDWWKH8(HQWHUVLQ WKHPRELOHVWDWLRQFDQEHWXQHGWRUHFHLYH
VWDWLRQFDQEHWXQHGWR FRPSUHVVHGPRGHGHSHQGLQJRQWKH8(FDSDELOLWLHV IUHTXHQFLHVRWKHUWKDQDQRULJLQDWLRQ
UHFHLYHIUHTXHQFLHVRWKHU IUHTXHQF\´LVPDSSHGWRWKH8(UHFHLYLQJ
IURPWKH1RGH%LQIRUPDWLRQLQGLFDWLQJ



Exhibit H
38
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-9 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57167 Page 4 of 14

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

863DW1R 863DWHQW1RWR80765HO 0DSSLQJ

WKDQDQRULJLQDWLRQ 7KH8(FDSDELOLWLHVGHILQHZKHWKHUD8(UHTXLUHVFRPSUHVVHGPRGHLQRUGHUWRPRQLWRUFHOOV ZKHQWKH8(VKRXOGHQWHULQWR


IUHTXHQF\ RQRWKHU)''IUHTXHQFLHVDQGRQRWKHUPRGHVDQGUDGLRDFFHVVWHFKQRORJLHV8(FDSDELOLWLHV FRPSUHVVHGPRGHDQGWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQ
LQGLFDWHWKHQHHGIRUFRPSUHVVHGPRGHVHSDUDWHO\IRUWKHXSOLQNDQGGRZQOLQNDQGIRUHDFK JDSSDWWHUQVHTXHQFH
PRGHUDGLRDFFHVVWHFKQRORJ\DQGIUHTXHQF\EDQG

$8(VKDOOVXSSRUWFRPSUHVVHGPRGHIRUDOOFDVHVIRUZKLFKWKH8(LQGLFDWHVWKDWFRPSUHVVHG
PRGHLVUHTXLUHG
$8(GRHVQRWQHHGWRVXSSRUWFRPSUHVVHGPRGHIRUFDVHVIRUZKLFKWKH8(LQGLFDWHVWKDW
FRPSUHVVHGPRGHLVQRWUHTXLUHG)RUWKHVHFDVHVWKH8(VKDOOVXSSRUWDQDOWHUQDWLYHPHDQVRI
PDNLQJWKHPHDVXUHPHQWV
7KH8(VKDOOVXSSRUWRQHVLQJOHPHDVXUHPHQWSXUSRVHIRURQHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQ
VHTXHQFH7KHPHDVXUHPHQWSXUSRVHRIWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQVHTXHQFHLVVLJQDOOHGE\
KLJKHUOD\HUV
7KHIROORZLQJVXEFODXVHSURYLGHVUXOHVWRSDUDPHWHULVHWKHFRPSUHVVHGPRGH
769DW†

VHOHFWLQJDWOHDVWRQHWLPH 2QFRPPDQGIURPWKH875$1D8(VKDOOPRQLWRUFHOOVRQRWKHU)''IUHTXHQFLHVDQGRQ ³VHOHFWLQJDWOHDVWRQHWLPHSHULRGGXULQJ


SHULRGGXULQJZKLFKWKH RWKHUPRGHVDQGUDGLRDFFHVVWHFKQRORJLHVWKDWDUHVXSSRUWHGE\WKH8( LH7''*60 7R ZKLFKWKHPRELOHVWDWLRQZLOOEHWXQHGWR
PRELOHVWDWLRQZLOOEHWXQHG DOORZWKH8(WRSHUIRUPPHDVXUHPHQWV875$1VKDOOFRPPDQGWKDWWKH8(HQWHUVLQ IUHTXHQFLHVRWKHUWKDQWKHRULJLQDWLRQ
WRIUHTXHQFLHVRWKHUWKDQ FRPSUHVVHGPRGHGHSHQGLQJRQWKH8(FDSDELOLWLHV IUHTXHQF\EDVHGXSRQWKHFRPPDQGV
WKHRULJLQDWLRQIUHTXHQF\ UHFHLYHGIURPWKHRULJLQDWLRQEDVH
EDVHGXSRQWKHFRPPDQGV 7KH8(FDSDELOLWLHVGHILQHZKHWKHUD8(UHTXLUHVFRPSUHVVHGPRGHLQRUGHUWRPRQLWRUFHOOV VWDWLRQ´LVPDSSHGWRWKH8(VHOHFWLQJD
UHFHLYHGIURPWKH RQRWKHU)''IUHTXHQFLHVDQGRQRWKHUPRGHVDQGUDGLRDFFHVVWHFKQRORJLHV8(FDSDELOLWLHV WUDQVPLVVLRQJDSLQFRPSUHVVLRQPRGHWR
RULJLQDWLRQEDVHVWDWLRQ LQGLFDWHWKHQHHGIRUFRPSUHVVHGPRGHVHSDUDWHO\IRUWKHXSOLQNDQGGRZQOLQNDQGIRUHDFK PRQLWRUFHOOVRQRWKHU)''IUHTXHQFLHV
DQG PRGHUDGLRDFFHVVWHFKQRORJ\DQGIUHTXHQF\EDQG IRUKDUGKDQGRII
$8(VKDOOVXSSRUWFRPSUHVVHGPRGHIRUDOOFDVHVIRUZKLFKWKH8(LQGLFDWHVWKDWFRPSUHVVHG
PRGHLVUHTXLUHG 



Exhibit H
39
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-9 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57168 Page 5 of 14

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

863DW1R 863DWHQW1RWR80765HO 0DSSLQJ

$8(GRHVQRWQHHGWRVXSSRUWFRPSUHVVHGPRGHIRUFDVHVIRUZKLFKWKH8(LQGLFDWHVWKDW
FRPSUHVVHGPRGHLVQRWUHTXLUHG)RUWKHVHFDVHVWKH8(VKDOOVXSSRUWDQDOWHUQDWLYHPHDQVRI
PDNLQJWKHPHDVXUHPHQWV
7KH8(VKDOOVXSSRUWRQHVLQJOHPHDVXUHPHQWSXUSRVHIRURQHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQ
VHTXHQFH7KHPHDVXUHPHQWSXUSRVHRIWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQVHTXHQFHLVVLJQDOOHGE\
KLJKHUOD\HUV
7KHIROORZLQJVXEFODXVHSURYLGHVUXOHVWRSDUDPHWHULVHWKHFRPSUHVVHGPRGH

,QUHVSRQVHWRDUHTXHVWIURPKLJKHUOD\HUVWKH875$1VKDOOVLJQDOWRWKH8(WKHFRPSUHVVHG
PRGHSDUDPHWHUV
$WUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQVHTXHQFHFRQVLVWVRIDOWHUQDWLQJWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQVDQG
HDFKRIWKHVHSDWWHUQVLQWXUQFRQVLVWVRIRQHRUWZRWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSV6HHILJXUH
7KHIROORZLQJSDUDPHWHUVFKDUDFWHULVHDWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQ
 7*61 7UDQVPLVVLRQ*DS6WDUWLQJ6ORW1XPEHU $WUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQEHJLQVLQD
UDGLRIUDPHKHQFHIRUZDUGFDOOHGILUVWUDGLRIUDPHRIWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQ
FRQWDLQLQJDWOHDVWRQHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSVORW7*61LVWKHVORWQXPEHURIWKHILUVW
WUDQVPLVVLRQJDSVORWZLWKLQWKHILUVWUDGLRIUDPHRIWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQ
 7*/ 7UDQVPLVVLRQ*DS/HQJWK 7KLVLVWKHGXUDWLRQRIWKHILUVWWUDQVPLVVLRQJDS
ZLWKLQWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQH[SUHVVHGLQQXPEHURIVORWV
 7*/ 7UDQVPLVVLRQ*DS/HQJWK 7KLVLVWKHGXUDWLRQRIWKHVHFRQGWUDQVPLVVLRQJDS
ZLWKLQWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQH[SUHVVHGLQQXPEHURIVORWV,IWKLVSDUDPHWHULVQRW
H[SOLFLWO\VHWE\KLJKHUOD\HUVWKHQ7*/ 7*/
 7*' 7UDQVPLVVLRQ*DSVWDUW'LVWDQFH 7KLVLVWKHGXUDWLRQEHWZHHQWKHVWDUWLQJVORWV
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

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

863DW1R 863DWHQW1RWR80765HO 0DSSLQJ

IUDPH V VKDOOFRPSO\ZLWKWKHOLPLWDWLRQVRI>@,IWKLVSDUDPHWHULVQRWVHWE\KLJKHU
OD\HUVWKHQWKHUHLVRQO\RQHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSLQWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQ
 7*3/ 7UDQVPLVVLRQ*DS3DWWHUQ/HQJWK 7KLVLVWKHGXUDWLRQRIWUDQVPLVVLRQJDS
SDWWHUQH[SUHVVHGLQQXPEHURIIUDPHV
 7*3/ 7UDQVPLVVLRQ*DS3DWWHUQ/HQJWK 7KLVLVWKHGXUDWLRQRIWUDQVPLVVLRQJDS
SDWWHUQH[SUHVVHGLQQXPEHURIIUDPHV,IWKLVSDUDPHWHULVQRWH[SOLFLWO\VHWE\KLJKHU
OD\HUVWKHQ7*3/ 7*3/
7KHIROORZLQJSDUDPHWHUVFRQWUROWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQVHTXHQFHVWDUWDQGUHSHWLWLRQ
 7*35& 7UDQVPLVVLRQ*DS3DWWHUQ5HSHWLWLRQ&RXQW 7KLVLVWKHQXPEHURI
WUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQVZLWKLQWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQVHTXHQFH
 7*&)1 7UDQVPLVVLRQ*DS&RQQHFWLRQ)UDPH1XPEHU 7KLVLVWKH&)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

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

863DW1R 863DWHQW1RWR80765HO 0DSSLQJ

 VFUDPEOLQJFRGHFKDQJH7KLVSDUDPHWHULQGLFDWHVZKHWKHUWKHDOWHUQDWLYHVFUDPEOLQJ
FRGHLVXVHGIRUFRPSUHVVHGPRGHPHWKRG
6)
$OWHUQDWLYHVFUDPEOLQJFRGHVDUH
GHVFULEHGLQ>@
 5335HFRYHU\3HULRG3RZHUFRQWUROPRGHVSHFLILHVWKHXSOLQNSRZHUFRQWURODOJRULWKP
DSSOLHGGXULQJUHFRYHU\SHULRGDIWHUHDFKWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSLQFRPSUHVVHGPRGH533
FDQWDNHYDOXHV RU 7KHGLIIHUHQWSRZHUFRQWUROPRGHVDUHGHVFULEHGLQ>@
 ,73,QLWLDO7UDQVPLW3RZHUPRGHVHOHFWVWKHXSOLQNSRZHUFRQWUROPHWKRGWRFDOFXODWH
WKHLQLWLDOWUDQVPLWSRZHUDIWHUWKHJDS,73FDQWDNHWZRYDOXHV RU DQGLVGHVFULEHG
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

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

863DW1R 863DWHQW1RWR80765HO 0DSSLQJ

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

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

863DW1R 863DWHQW1RWR80765HO 0DSSLQJ

     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*/ 7*/

7*' 7*'

7*3/ 7*3/

)LJXUH,OOXVWUDWLRQRIFRPSUHVVHGPRGHSDWWHUQSDUDPHWHUV

769DW†

UHWXQLQJWRWKHRULJLQDWLRQ 2QFRPPDQGIURPWKH875$1D8(VKDOOPRQLWRUFHOOVRQRWKHU)''IUHTXHQFLHVDQGRQ ³UHWXQLQJWRWKHRULJLQDWLRQIUHTXHQF\


IUHTXHQF\ZKHQVDLGWLPH RWKHUPRGHVDQGUDGLRDFFHVVWHFKQRORJLHVWKDWDUHVXSSRUWHGE\WKH8( LH7''*60 7R ZKHQVDLGWLPHSHULRGLVFRPSOHWHG´LV
SHULRGLVFRPSOHWHG DOORZWKH8(WRSHUIRUPPHDVXUHPHQWV875$1VKDOOFRPPDQGWKDWWKH8(HQWHUVLQ PDSSHGWRWKH8(WXQLQJEDFNWRWKH
FRPSUHVVHGPRGHGHSHQGLQJRQWKH8(FDSDELOLWLHV VHUYLQJ1RGH%ZKHQWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQ
JDSLVFRPSOHWH
7KH8(FDSDELOLWLHVGHILQHZKHWKHUD8(UHTXLUHVFRPSUHVVHGPRGHLQRUGHUWRPRQLWRUFHOOV
RQRWKHU)''IUHTXHQFLHVDQGRQRWKHUPRGHVDQGUDGLRDFFHVVWHFKQRORJLHV8(FDSDELOLWLHV



Exhibit H
44
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-9 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57173 Page 10 of
14

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

863DW1R 863DWHQW1RWR80765HO 0DSSLQJ

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*61 7UDQVPLVVLRQ*DS6WDUWLQJ6ORW1XPEHU $WUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQEHJLQVLQD
UDGLRIUDPHKHQFHIRUZDUGFDOOHGILUVWUDGLRIUDPHRIWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQ
FRQWDLQLQJDWOHDVWRQHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSVORW7*61LVWKHVORWQXPEHURIWKHILUVW
WUDQVPLVVLRQJDSVORWZLWKLQWKHILUVWUDGLRIUDPHRIWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQ
 7*/ 7UDQVPLVVLRQ*DS/HQJWK 7KLVLVWKHGXUDWLRQRIWKHILUVWWUDQVPLVVLRQJDS
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

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

863DW1R 863DWHQW1RWR80765HO 0DSSLQJ

 7*/ 7UDQVPLVVLRQ*DS/HQJWK 7KLVLVWKHGXUDWLRQRIWKHVHFRQGWUDQVPLVVLRQJDS


ZLWKLQWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQH[SUHVVHGLQQXPEHURIVORWV,IWKLVSDUDPHWHULVQRW
H[SOLFLWO\VHWE\KLJKHUOD\HUVWKHQ7*/ 7*/
 7*' 7UDQVPLVVLRQ*DSVWDUW'LVWDQFH 7KLVLVWKHGXUDWLRQEHWZHHQWKHVWDUWLQJVORWV
RIWZRFRQVHFXWLYHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSVZLWKLQDWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQH[SUHVVHGLQ
QXPEHURIVORWV7KHUHVXOWLQJSRVLWLRQRIWKHVHFRQGWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSZLWKLQLWVUDGLR
IUDPH V VKDOOFRPSO\ZLWKWKHOLPLWDWLRQVRI>@,IWKLVSDUDPHWHULVQRWVHWE\KLJKHU
OD\HUVWKHQWKHUHLVRQO\RQHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSLQWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQ
 7*3/ 7UDQVPLVVLRQ*DS3DWWHUQ/HQJWK 7KLVLVWKHGXUDWLRQRIWUDQVPLVVLRQJDS
SDWWHUQH[SUHVVHGLQQXPEHURIIUDPHV
 7*3/ 7UDQVPLVVLRQ*DS3DWWHUQ/HQJWK 7KLVLVWKHGXUDWLRQRIWUDQVPLVVLRQJDS
SDWWHUQH[SUHVVHGLQQXPEHURIIUDPHV,IWKLVSDUDPHWHULVQRWH[SOLFLWO\VHWE\KLJKHU
OD\HUVWKHQ7*3/ 7*3/
7KHIROORZLQJSDUDPHWHUVFRQWUROWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQVHTXHQFHVWDUWDQGUHSHWLWLRQ
 7*35& 7UDQVPLVVLRQ*DS3DWWHUQ5HSHWLWLRQ&RXQW 7KLVLVWKHQXPEHURI
WUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQVZLWKLQWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQVHTXHQFH
 7*&)1 7UDQVPLVVLRQ*DS&RQQHFWLRQ)UDPH1XPEHU 7KLVLVWKH&)1RIWKHILUVW
UDGLRIUDPHRIWKHILUVWSDWWHUQZLWKLQWKHWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSSDWWHUQVHTXHQFH
,QDGGLWLRQWRWKHSDUDPHWHUVGHILQLQJWKHSRVLWLRQVRIWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSVHDFKWUDQVPLVVLRQ
JDSSDWWHUQVHTXHQFHLVFKDUDFWHULVHGE\
 8/'/FRPSUHVVHGPRGHVHOHFWLRQ7KLVSDUDPHWHUVSHFLILHVZKHWKHUFRPSUHVVHGPRGH
LVXVHGLQ8/RQO\'/RQO\RUERWK8/DQG'/
 8/FRPSUHVVHGPRGHPHWKRG7KHPHWKRGVIRUJHQHUDWLQJWKHXSOLQNFRPSUHVVHGPRGH
JDSDUHVSUHDGLQJIDFWRUGLYLVLRQE\WZRRUKLJKHUOD\HUVFKHGXOLQJDQGDUHGHVFULEHGLQ
>@



Exhibit H
46
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-9 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57175 Page 12 of
14

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

863DW1R 863DWHQW1RWR80765HO 0DSSLQJ

 '/FRPSUHVVHGPRGHPHWKRG7KHPHWKRGVIRUJHQHUDWLQJWKHGRZQOLQNFRPSUHVVHG
PRGHJDSDUHSXQFWXULQJVSUHDGLQJIDFWRUGLYLVLRQE\WZRRUKLJKHUOD\HUVFKHGXOLQJ
DQGDUHGHVFULEHGLQ>@
 GRZQOLQNIUDPHW\SH7KLVSDUDPHWHUGHILQHVLIIUDPHVWUXFWXUHW\SH
$
RU
%
VKDOOEH
XVHGLQGRZQOLQNFRPSUHVVHGPRGH7KHIUDPHVWUXFWXUHVDUHGHILQHGLQ>@
 VFUDPEOLQJFRGHFKDQJH7KLVSDUDPHWHULQGLFDWHVZKHWKHUWKHDOWHUQDWLYHVFUDPEOLQJ
FRGHLVXVHGIRUFRPSUHVVHGPRGHPHWKRG
6)
$OWHUQDWLYHVFUDPEOLQJFRGHVDUH
GHVFULEHGLQ>@
 5335HFRYHU\3HULRG3RZHUFRQWUROPRGHVSHFLILHVWKHXSOLQNSRZHUFRQWURODOJRULWKP
DSSOLHGGXULQJUHFRYHU\SHULRGDIWHUHDFKWUDQVPLVVLRQJDSLQFRPSUHVVHGPRGH533
FDQWDNHYDOXHV RU 7KHGLIIHUHQWSRZHUFRQWUROPRGHVDUHGHVFULEHGLQ>@
 ,73,QLWLDO7UDQVPLW3RZHUPRGHVHOHFWVWKHXSOLQNSRZHUFRQWUROPHWKRGWRFDOFXODWH
WKHLQLWLDOWUDQVPLWSRZHUDIWHUWKHJDS,73FDQWDNHWZRYDOXHV RU DQGLVGHVFULEHG
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

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

863DW1R 863DWHQW1RWR80765HO 0DSSLQJ

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

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

863DW1R 863DWHQW1RWR80765HO 0DSSLQJ

     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*/ 7*/

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

ANNEX 6: ETSI Intellectual Property Rights Policy

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.

5 Procedures for Committees

ETSI shall establish guidelines for the chairmen of COMMITTEES with respect to ESSENTIAL IPRs.

6 Availability of Licences

6.1 When an ESSENTIAL IPR relating to a particular STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION


is brought to the attention of ETSI, the Director-General of ETSI shall immediately request the
owner to give within three months an irrevocable undertaking in writing that it is prepared to grant

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.

6.1bis Transfer of ownership of ESSENTIAL IPR

FRAND licensing undertakings made pursuant to Clause 6 shall be interpreted as encumbrances


that bind all successors-in-interest. Recognizing that this interpretation may not apply in all legal
jurisdictions, any Declarant who has submitted a FRAND undertaking according to the POLICY
who transfers ownership of ESSENTIAL IPR that is subject to such undertaking shall include
appropriate provisions in the relevant transfer documents to ensure that the undertaking is binding
on the transferee and that the transferee will similarly include appropriate provisions in the event
of future transfers with the goal of binding all successors-in-interest. The undertaking shall be
interpreted as binding on successors-in-interest regardless of whether such provisions are
included in the relevant transfer documents.

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.

6bis Use of the IPR Licensing Declaration Forms

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 Information on IPR by ETSI

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

8.1 Non-availability of licences prior to the publication of a STANDARD or a TECHNICAL


SPECIFICATION

8.1.1 Existence of a viable alternative technology

Where prior to the publication of a STANDARD or a TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION an IPR


owner informs ETSI that it is not prepared to license an IPR in respect of a STANDARD or
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION in accordance with Clause 6.1 above, the General Assembly
shall review the requirement for that STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION and satisfy
itself that a viable alternative technology is available for the STANDARD or TECHNICAL
SPECIFICATION which:

- is not blocked by that IPR; and


- satisfies ETSI's requirements.

8.1.2 Non-existence of a viable alternative technology

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:

a) If the IPR owner is a MEMBER,

i) the Director-General of ETSI shall request that MEMBER to reconsider its


position.

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.

b) If the IPR owner is a third party,

i) the Director-General of ETSI shall, wherever appropriate, request full supporting


details from any MEMBER who has complained that licences are not available in
accordance with Clause 6.1 above and/or request appropriate MEMBERS to use
their good offices to find a solution to the problem.

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

8.2 Non-availability of licences after the publication of a STANDARD or a TECHNICAL


SPECIFICATION

Where, in respect of a published STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION, ETSI becomes


aware that licences are not available from an IPR owner in accordance with Clause 6.1 above,
that STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION shall be referred to the Director-General of
ETSI for further consideration in accordance with the following procedure:

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 ETSI ownership of IPRs

9.1 The ownership of the copyright in STANDARDS and TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS


documentation and reports created by ETSI or any of its COMMITTEES shall vest in ETSI but
due acknowledgement shall be given to copyrights owned by third parties that are identifiable in
ETSI copyrighted works.

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

b) to ETSI to publish the SOFTWARE in that STANDARD or TECHNICAL


SPECIFICATION; and
c) to any implementer of that STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION to evaluate
the SOFTWARE and any derivative works thereof for inclusion in its implementation of
that STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION, and to determine whether its
implementation conforms with that STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION.

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.

9.2.3 Any MEMBER contributing SOFTWARE for inclusion in a STANDARD or TECHNICAL


SPECIFICATION represents and warrants that to the best of its knowledge, it has the
necessary copyright rights to license that contribution under Clause 9.2.1 and 9.2.2 to ETSI,
MEMBERS and implementers of the STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION.

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

The proceedings of a COMMITTEE shall be regarded as non-confidential except as expressly provided


below and all information submitted to a COMMITTEE shall be treated as if non-confidential and shall
be available for public inspection unless:

- the information is in written or other tangible form; and


- the information is identified in writing, when submitted, as confidential; and
- the information is first submitted to, and accepted by, the chairman of the COMMITTEE as
confidential.

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION incorporated in a STANDARD or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION shall


be regarded as non-confidential by ETSI and its MEMBERS, from the date on which the STANDARD or
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION is published.

11 Reproduction of Standards Documentation

MEMBERS may make copies of STANDARDS and TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS documentation


produced by ETSI for their own use free of charge but may not distribute such copies to others.

Exhibit J
73
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-11 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57204 Page 7 of
12

12 Law and Regulation

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

1 "AFFILIATE" of a first legal entity means any other legal entity:

- directly or indirectly owning or controlling the first legal entity; or


- under the same direct or indirect ownership or control as the first legal entity; or
- directly or indirectly owned or controlled by the first legal entity;

for so long as such ownership or control lasts.

Ownership or control shall exist through the direct or indirect:

- 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.

3 "CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION" shall mean all information deemed to be confidential pursuant


to Clause 10 of the POLICY disclosed directly or indirectly to the MEMBER.

4 "EQUIPMENT" shall mean any system, or device fully conforming to a STANDARD.

5 "METHODS" shall mean any method or operation fully conforming to a STANDARD.

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.

8 "MANUFACTURE", shall mean production of EQUIPMENT.

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.

10 "POLICY" shall mean ETSI's Intellectual Property Rights Policy.

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.

14 For the purpose of this IPR Policy, “SOFTWARE” shall mean:

- 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

ANNEX 6 - Appendix A: IPR Licensing Declaration forms

IPR HOLDER / ORGANISATION (“Declarant”)

Legal Name:

CONTACT DETAILS FOR LICENSING INFORMATION:

Name and Title:


Department:
Address:

Telephone: Fax:
Email: URL:

GENERAL IPR LICENSING DECLARATION


In accordance with Clause 6.1 of the ETSI IPR Policy the Declarant and/or its AFFILIATES hereby informs
ETSI that (check one box only):
with reference to ETSI STANDARD(S) or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION(S) No.:
, or
with reference to ETSI Project(s): , or
with reference to all ETSI STANDARDS AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

and with reference to (check one box only):


IPR(s) contained within technical contributions made by the Declarant and/or its AFFILIATES, or
any IPRs

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:

Please return this form duly signed to: Director-General


ETSI - 650, route des Lucioles - F-06921 Sophia Antipolis Cedex – France / Fax. +33 (0) 4 93 65 47 16

Exhibit J
76
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-11 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57207 Page 10 of
12

IPR INFORMATION STATEMENT AND LICENSING DECLARATION


IPR HOLDER / ORGANISATION (“Declarant”)

Legal Name:

CONTACT DETAILS FOR LICENSING INFORMATION:


Name and Title:
Department:
Address:

Telephone: Fax:
Email: URL:

IPR INFORMATION STATEMENT


In accordance with Clause 4.1 of the ETSI IPR Policy the Declarant and/or its AFFILIATES hereby informs
ETSI that it is the Declarant’s and/or its AFFILIATES’ present belief that the IPR(s) disclosed in the attached
IPR Information Statement Annex may be or may become ESSENTIAL in relation to at least the ETSI Work
Item(s), STANDARD(S) and/or TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION(S) identified in the attached IPR Information
Statement Annex.
The Declarant and/or its AFFILIATES (check one box only):
are the proprietor of the IPR(s) disclosed in the attached IPR Information Statement Annex.
are not the proprietor of the IPR(s) disclosed in the attached IPR Information Statement Annex.

IPR LICENSING DECLARATION


In accordance with Clause 6.1 of the ETSI IPR Policy the Declarant and/or its AFFILIATES hereby irrevocably
declares the following (check one box only, and subordinate box, where applicable):
To the extent that the IPR(s) disclosed in the attached IPR Information Statement Annex are or become,
and remain ESSENTIAL in respect of the ETSI Work Item, STANDARD and/or TECHNICAL
SPECIFICATION identified in the attached IPR Information Statement Annex, the Declarant and/or its
AFFILIATES are (1) prepared to grant irrevocable licences under this/these IPR(s) on terms and
conditions which are in accordance with Clause 6.1 of the ETSI IPR Policy; and (2) will comply with
Clause 6.1bis of the ETSI IPR Policy.
This irrevocable undertaking is made subject to the condition that those who seek licences agree
to reciprocate (check box if applicable).
The Declarant and/or its AFFILIATES are not prepared to make the above IPR Licensing Declaration
(reasons may be explained in writing in the attached IPR Licensing Declaration Annex).
The construction, validity and performance of this IPR information statement and 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 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:

Please return this form duly signed to: Director-General


ETSI - 650, route des Lucioles - F-06921 Sophia Antipolis Cedex – France / Fax. +33 (0) 4 93 65 47 16

Exhibit J
77
Case 3:17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD Document 644-11 Filed 10/05/18 PageID.57208 Page 11 of
12

IPR Information Statement Annex


FURTHER INFORMATION
STANDARD, TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION or
ETSI Work Item Country of Other members of this PATENT FAMILY, if any *
Application Publication registration
Proprietor Patent/Application
Work Item Illustrative No. No. Title
Project or
or Specific part of Version
Standard Application No. Publication No. Country of registration
Standard the standard (V.X.X.X)
name
No. (e.g. section)
AU 12740/00 Australia
Scheduling of EPC CN 99813100.8 China P.R.
ETSI TS
e.g. UMTS 6.1.1.2 V.3.5.0 Abcd EP 1131972 slotted-mode related CONTRACTING FI 108270 Finland
125 215
measurements STATES ( JP 11-318161 Japan
US 6532226 USA

* 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

IPR Licensing Declaration Annex

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:

Other reasons (please specify):

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