Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 159

RESPONSE/REPLY to 95 Affidavit, Supplemental Claim Construction Brief by Apple, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Christine Haskett, # 2 Exhibit #1- Hearing Transcript, # 3 Exhibit #2- Presentation, # 4 Exhibit #3- Contentions, # 5 Exhibit #4- EP0847654B1, # 6 Exhibit #5- Comparison, # 7 Exhibit #6- Translation, # 8 Exhibit #7- Rule 43)(Pace, Christopher)

EXHIBIT 6

Convenience Translation
Sent in advance by fax: [phone]
Mannheim Regional Court [Landgericht]
7th Civil Division
68149 Mannheim
Germany

Our ref.

02426.40234 / 20190552.1
MG/JE

Dr. Marcus Grosch, LL.M. (Yale)
[e-mail]
Dr. Jan Ebersohl
[e-mail]

11 October 2011
Reply Brief
in the matter of
Motorola Mobility Inc.
- Plaintiff File No.: 7 O 229/11
Opponent receives copies
H: 18 November 2011

versus

Apple Sales International
- Defendant –
Proc. rep.: Bardehle Pagenberg, Attorneys-at-Law, Munich

for patent infringement
we are responding to the statement of defense dated 19 August 2011 as follows:
With regard to the infringement of the Patent in Suit, the Defendant limits its defense to the
alleged lack of implementation of feature c.1), according to which “responsive to receiving the
second message, transmitting (250) a third message (255) indicative of the second status”
occurs. As we will show in detail below, the Defendant’s defense falls short because it is based

Convenience Translation
on an erroneous interpretation of the feature. If the feature is interpreted in a correct, functionoriented fashion with reference to the patent specification, there is no question that the method
described by the Defendant itself implements all of the features of claim 1 of the Patent in Suit
(Regarding the Infringement, sub A).
The proceedings should also not be suspended. Contrary to what the Defendant’s statements
suggest, Document NK5 does not even deal with the problem of synchronization of multiple
receivers in the manner discussed by the Patent in Suit. This document is therefore neither
damaging to novelty, nor does it render obvious the invention according to the Patent in Suit.
Nor are any other grounds for nullity present (Regarding the Motion to Suspend, sub B).

A.
Regarding the Infringement
I.
Status of the proceedings
1.

The Defendant defends itself by stating that the synchronization method performed and
offered for sale by the Defendant and described on page 7 et seq. of the statement of
defense does not implement feature c.1) of claim 1 of the Patent in Suit.

2.

In the (authoritative) original English, feature c.1) reads as follows:
„in the wireless messaging infrastructure, responsive to receiving the second
message, transmitting (250) a third message (255) indicative of the second status”

3.

In this context, we would like to briefly reiterate the structure of this feature:
a)

The “second message” mentioned in the feature is sent by the receiver on which
the status of a first message was changed in the context of the synchronization
method according to the claim. The purpose of this process is to inform the
wireless messaging infrastructure of the change in status of the first message.

b)

The third message is sent in turn by the wireless messaging infrastructure to at
least one additional receiver in order to inform this other receiver of the change to
the status of the first message.

02426.40234/20190552.1

Convenience Translation
4.

The Defendant now claims that an intermediate step (referred to as “queuing” until the
receipt of another message), which we deny based on a lack of knowledge, occurs in its
method before the sending of the third message and that the third message is therefore no
longer sent “responsive to” the second message. This argument is based on an abridged
and erroneous understanding of the feature “responsive to.” Under II below, we will
show why, even assuming the intermediate step alleged by the Defendant, it is indeed
true that the third message is sent “responsive to” the second message. Under III we will
show why the Defendant’s objections to individual motions by the Plaintiff as well as the
Defendant’s right of action (cf. p. 2 et seq. of the statement of defense) are not applicable.
First, however, we will respond under I to the Defendant’s statements on page 4 (section
III, “Disputed Actions”) and page 6 (item 2) regarding the Defendant’s infringement
behavior.
II.
Accused Actions / Factual Background

1.

As already discussed in the complaint, the Plaintiff is taking action against the Defendant
based on the Patent in Suit because the synchronization method offered and used by the
Defendant implements all of the features of method claim 1 of the Patent in Suit.
Moreover, the receiving devices offered by the Defendant for purposes of participating in
said service (iPhone, iPad, iPod touch) are in indirect infringement of claim 1 of the
Patent in Suit.

2.

In its complaint, the Plaintiff also showed, based on the description of the service on the
Internet page www.apple.com/de, the circumstances supporting the patent infringement.
In light of this fact, the Defendant’s assertion that it is “in the dark” regarding the specific
circumstances (page 4 of the statement of defense) is not comprehensible.

3.

The Defendant further remarks on page 6 of the statement of defense that the passages
cited by the Plaintiff in the complaint cannot be found on the web sites cited. If that is the
case, then this is solely due to such passages having been removed. We have attached
screen captures of the web site, www.apple.com/de, as

02426.40234/20190552.1

Convenience Translation
- Exhibit KP2 K 3 in which the passages cited in the complaint may be found. We assume that the
Defendant will not dispute that these screen captures were taken from the web site.

III.
Interpretation and Subsumption
As mentioned at the outset, the Defendant is of the opinion that the intermediate step of
“queuing” it asserts removes the third (synchronization) message from the teaching of the patent.
This is not the case, because a function-oriented interpretation of the Patent in Suit
unquestionably shows that delays of this type do not contradict the assumption that the delayed
action occurs “responsive to” another event. On the contrary, the Patent in Suit even discloses
such a “message queuing” in the context of a preferred embodiment.
1.

The Synchronization Method Described by the Defendant
a)

The Defendant describes the sending of the third message in its synchronization
procedure on page 8 of the statement of defense (item 8). According to this
description, the third message is allegedly not sent immediately to the other
receiving device, but rather is only sent after the receipt of a second e-mail:
“The first status is stored on the IMAP server and is not transmitted to the
second device until a second e-mail is received from the SMTP server (cf.
step 1 above).”

b)

First, the Plaintiff disputes this intermediate step of “queuing” until the receipt of
an additional e-mail based on a lack of knowledge. Ultimately, however, that is
not relevant because – as will be shown below – even a third message that has
been “on hold” is sent “responsive to” the receipt of the second message by the
wireless messaging infrastructure.

c)

The Defendant also asserts that the IMAP server, before sending the third
message to the additional receiving device, also first transmits a “tap on the
shoulder” and then sends the third message to the receiver after the receiver has

02426.40234/20190552.1

Convenience Translation
responded to the “tap on the shoulder”. This alleged – and contested – ”tap on
the shoulder” and response would, even if one assumed for the sake of the
argument that it does take place, not change anything about the implementation of
feature c.1) by the disputed method.
2.

Interpretation of the Patent in Suit
The Defendant apparently wishes the feature “responsive to” to be understood to mean
that only a third message that is sent immediately and without delay after the receipt of
the second message should be considered in accordance with the patent. This
interpretation misses the point of the teaching of the patent and moreover is even in
contradiction of a preferred embodiment of the Patent in Suit.
a)

Wording
The clear claim language merely requires that the third message is sent
“responsive to”, i.e. as a response to the second message. It does not say
“immediately after receipt of the second message” as the defendant wants to read
the claim. From the wording alone, “responsive to” merely requires a causal
connection and no time immediacy, which would be completely undefined for one
skilled in the art. This is also elucidated by the technical function of this feature.
(1)

The feature “responsive to” must be construed as is appropriate in view of
the technical function intended for the feature according to the concept of
the invention as disclosed (cf. BGH [Federal Court of Justice] GRUR
[Journal of Intellectual Property and Copyright Law] 2009, 655 –
mounting plate [Trägerplatte]).

(2)

The background and the technical problem of the Patent in Suit are
disclosed in particular in paragraphs [0003] and [0004] of the
specification, which state the following:
„[0003] […] Thus, it is feasible for a user to leave a pager on
twenty-four hours per day to assure continuous reception of

02426.40234/20190552.1

Convenience Translation
paging messaging while also maintaining an acceptable battery
life.
[0004] However, a problem arises when the user has multiple
pagers which are left continuously on. […] Thus, what is needed is
a way to have message status changes made on any of the user’s
pagers automatically made on the user’s other pagers.”
(3)

Therefore, a method for the automatic synchronization of message statuses
is to be provided particularly for cases when multiple mobile receiving
devices are switched on at the same time. However, the term “automatic”
synchronization is not a synonym for “immediate” or “undelayed”
synchronization, as the Defendant apparently wants it to be understood. As
evidenced by the specification, it is not important to the patent that the
synchronization of the various devices should occur in the most rapid
manner possible. Synchronization should be merely “automatic” and
therefore occur particularly without requiring action by the user (cf.
paragraph [0005] as well: “However, the user of several pagers would be
inconvenienced with having to change the configuration information
stored in each of the pagers.”).

(4)

This functional understanding should also be the basis for the feature of
“responsive to” in conjunction with the sending of the third message.
When the server sends a synchronization message to the other receiving
device without the user or his receiving device needing to initiate such a
synchronization message, then the sending of this third message occurs
“responsive to” the second message. In this regard, it is irrelevant whether
the third message is sent immediately after receipt of the second message
or only after receipt of an additional e-mail. The sending of the third
message is “automatic” in both cases; neither the user nor the further
terminal device needs to initiate anything in this instance.

b)

The Patent in Suit Does Not Teach Undelayed Synchronization
(1)

The fact that the Patent in Suit does not apply to undelayed
synchronization, but rather exclusively to an automatic synchronization –

02426.40234/20190552.1

Convenience Translation
in the sense discussed above – may also be seen from the exemplary
embodiment shown in Fig. 1, in which the change in status in the first
receiver is only transmitted to the messaging infrastructure after an
intentional delay.
(2)

In this context, we would like to refer again to the wording of features a.1)
and a.2), which describe the change in status of the first message and the
transmission of the second message:
„in one transceiver of the plurality of transceivers, changing the
first status of the first message to a second status responsive to an
input to the one transceiver, and transmitting a second message
indicative of the second status”

(3)

The second status of the message, which is also sent to the wireless
messaging infrastructure, consequently occurs “responsive to” the input
on the receiving device. According to the Defendant’s understanding of
the feature “responsive to,” the change in status would have to occur
immediately after the input by the user, and this status would have to be
sent directly to the messaging infrastructure.

(4)

However, quite contrary to the Defendant’s understanding, the Patent in
Suit considers it advantageous for the change in status not to be made
immediately, but rather for a certain delay to be built in. In this regard, the
description of the exemplary embodiment shown in Fig. 1 is described as
follows:
„[0018] […] During a delay 230, additional changes to message
status can occur. The duration of delay 230 is a predetermined
time period such as a typical display time out interval where the
pager enters a low power mode when message displaying is ended.
Other status changes that can occur during the delay 230 include
changes to protected or deleted status. After delay 230, the status
of the message received by pager 130 is transmitted in step 235 via
a second message, that is, message 240.
[…]
[0022] Furthermore, delay 230 has the advantage of reducing the
number status change transmissions. […]”

02426.40234/20190552.1

Convenience Translation

(5)

Consequently, the patent does not consider it necessary for the individual
steps of the synchronization to always occur immediately and without
delay. Rather, the technical purpose – namely that of automatic
synchronization – can also be achieved with delays in transmission. As
may be seen from the citation above, the patent even considers delays to
be advantageous because delays can be used to reduce the number of
status change messages.

(6)

Moreover, the citations above also explicitly show that the patent does not
understand the feature “responsive to” in the sense of an immediate and
undelayed reaction. Although the second status, which is also sent to the
messaging infrastructure in this fashion, changes “responsive to” the
input, it is possible according to the specification for multiple different
inputs to be “collected” during the delay phase. In spite of this intentional
delay, the patent considers the change in status to be “responsive to”
precisely because it occurs as a result of the user’s input, notwithstanding
any delays. In the same way, the sending of the third message in feature
c.2) is “responsive to” because it occurs as a result of the receipt of the
second message.

c)

The Patent in Suit Includes “Message Queuing” in the Preferred
Embodiment
(1)

Although the statements above are a sufficient discussion of the issue of
the interpretation of feature c.2), we would like to note that the Patent in
Suit even quite explicitly incorporates “message queuing” on the level of
communication between the wireless messaging infrastructure and the
receiver into the patent by reference.

(2)

Paragraph [0012] states as follows with regard to a preferred embodiment:
„[0012] […] The invention preferably operates with the Motorola
Re-FlexTM two-way wireless paging system infrastructure and

02426.40234/20190552.1

Convenience Translation
protocol described in detail in the following United States patents
assigned to the assignee of the present invention: U.S. Patent No.
5,475,863 entitled “Method and Apparatus for Identifying a
Transmitter in a Radio Communication System” issued December
12, 1995 to Simpson et al. […]”.
We have attached the patent referred to for the preferred embodiment as
- Exhibit KP2 K 4 -.
Column 7, line 18 et seq. and column 17, line 12 et seq. of US 5,475,863
describe how the wireless messaging infrastructure caches the messages to
the mobile receiving devices in a “message queue” until the queue is
sufficiently full that the predetermined threshold value is reached.
(3)

Therefore, it is evidenced that a caching of the third message in a
“message queue” does not stand in the way of the implementation of the
feature “responsive to” because otherwise a preferred embodiment would
not be in line with the patent’s teaching.

3.

Subsumption
On the basis of the correct interpretation discussed above, there can therefore be no doubt
that feature c.2) is implemented by the synchronization method described by the
Defendant.
a)

The IMAP server sends the synchronization message – consequently the “third
message” – as a result of the receipt of the second message that indicates the
status change. Although, assuming the Defendant’s claim is accurate that a delay
occurs until the receipt of another e-mail, the fact nonetheless remains that a
synchronization message is sent responsive to receipt of a second message.

b)

For the sake of completeness, it should be mentioned here that the Defendant’s
statement that the other receivers must query the update (page 9 of the statement
of defense) is not capable of casting doubt on the patent infringement. The fact
that a messaging protocol may provide for the prior reaction of the addressed

02426.40234/20190552.1

Convenience Translation
receiver to a “tap on the shoulder” to be a precondition for the sending of a
message by the infrastructure (i.e. the fact that the message need not necessarily
be a “blind transmission”) was self-evident and taken as read by the skilled
practitioner at the time of priority, and is today as well.
c)

All features of claim 1 of the Patent in Suit have therefore been implemented.
IV.
Regarding the Plaintiff’s Motions

1.

Right of Action
With regard to the Defendant placing the Plaintiff’s right of action in doubt, we refer to
statements made in the complaint. We are submitting a (partially redacted) excerpt from
the ”Confirmatory Patent Assignment” between the prior proprietor, Motorola Inc., and
the Plaintiff as
- Exhibit KP2 K 5 -.
In item 1.(iii) of this document, Motorola also assigns all claims for damages arising from
prior infringement behavior. The Patent in Suit is attached at the point indicated as Annex
A as an IP right covered by the agreement.

2.

Offering the Protected Method for Sale
a)

The Defendant claims that the present action is unfounded with regard to the
demand that the Defendant cease to offer the protected method for sale (page 2 of
the statement of defense). The Defendant claims that, in order for the pleading to
be well-founded, it is necessary for “the Defendant to display the willingness to
grant a usage license for the method in dispute for the Patent in Suit.”

b)

It is unclear what the Defendant’s aim is here, however. In fact, the expression of
willingness to grant the necessary consent and recognition to the performance of
the method represents offering of a method. The fact that the Defendant is
offering its synchronization method is undisputed, however.

02426.40234/20190552.1

Convenience Translation
3.

General Prohibition in Cases of Direct Infringement
a)

The Defendant claims that an obstacle to the requested general prohibition with
regard to the indirectly infringing receiving devices is the fact that said devices
may also be used in a non-infringing way.

b)

In making this argument, the Defendant ignores the fact that the Plaintiff is not
basing the general prohibition on the notion that the devices cannot be used in a
non-infringing way. Rather, the Plaintiff is claiming that it would not be necessary
to design the devices for the purpose of performing the patented method in order
for the devices to be used in the public domain.

c)

This view, which the Court has already used as a basis in many other proceedings,
corresponds to the view formulated by the Düsseldorf Regional Court in its
published decision Wall Panels [Wandpaneele] (Fifth Court of First Instance
[InstGE 5], 173, 178). According to this decision, a general prohibition may be
declared if it is possible to make deviations by means of which the disputed
embodiments are deprived solely of their suitability for patent-infringing use.
Such a deviation would be possible for the Defendant’s devices by quite simply
not performing the method of the patent.

4.

Cumulative Presentation of Evidence
a)

Finally, the Defendant asserts that the cumulative assertion of evidence presented
according to the Plaintiff’s motions B.I.2.a) and e) goes too far.

b)

Although it is argued that the demanding party generally cannot demand multiple
pieces of evidence for the same subject matter one after the other, this is not
relevant in view of the motions cited, regardless of whether one holds this
opinion. With motion B.I.2.a), the Plaintiff demands the presentation of evidence
for deliveries and, with motion B.I.2.e), the Plaintiff demands the same for
advertising. In this regard, however, the identity of the subject matter is already
not present because delivery and advertisement are quite plainly not different
stages of the same process.

02426.40234/20190552.1

Convenience Translation
The complaint is therefore valid in this regard as well, and is thus fully valid.
B.
Regarding the Motion to Suspend
The Defendant’s alternative motion to suspend the proceedings until the final decision in the
nullity proceedings initiated by Apple Retail Germany GmbH against the Patent in Suit should
be denied as well. Document NK5 cited by the Defendant/Plaintiff as vital challenge in the
nullity action is neither damaging to novelty (see sub I), nor does it render the invention
according to the patent obvious, either alone or in combination with Document NK6 (see sub II).
Nor are any other grounds for nullity discernible (see sub III).
I.
Novelty
It is in accordance with established precedent at the trial-court level and in higher courts for a
suspension of the infringement proceedings to be considered at the trial-court level only if it is
highly likely for the Patent in Suit to be nullified due to the nullity action (cf. BGH, GRUR 1987,
284 – Transport Vehicle; Düsseldorf Regional Court, BIPMZ 1995, 121). This is particularly due
to the fact that suspension represents a significant detriment to the rights of the patent proprietor,
particularly the time-limited motion for injunctive relief, due to the long duration of proceedings
in nullity actions.
1.

General scope of disclosure of NK5
a)

First, we dispute that Document NK5 even belongs to the prior art to be
considered. In particular, we dispute that the public had access to this document.
The Defendant simply remarked in this context that this document contains the
notation “Distribution of this memo is unlimited.” However, the Defendant has
not shown any facts that indicate whether and to whom this document was even
made accessible.

b)

Ultimately, however, that is not relevant here because the document, due to its
disclosure, is not able to cast doubts on the patentability of the Patent in Suit.
NK5 is based on a quite different technical problem and therefore has a

02426.40234/20190552.1

Convenience Translation
fundamentally different aim than the Patent in Suit. As discussed above, the aim
of the Patent in Suit is to provide a method for the automatic synchronization of
multiple receivers in a wireless messaging infrastructure, particularly such that are
turned on at the same time. In contrast, Document NK5 deals with a mail system
in which the users access a central repository using so-called workstations. The
repository stores a global mail status and the individual workstations have their
own local memory for the mail status. This document describes how the local
mail status of one individual workstation is synchronized with the global status of
the repository. In contrast, the document does not spend a single word discussing
an automatic synchronization of all workstations.
c)

As will be shown below, contrary to the Defendant’s assertions, there are a great
many features of the Patent in Suit that have not been anticipated.

2.

Not Damaging to Novelty
a)

No Disclosure of a Method for the Synchronization of Message Information
Among a Group of Receivers
(1)

As discussed above, NK5 does not disclose a method for the
synchronization of message information among a group of receivers;
rather, it is limited to synchronization of the mail status of a single
workstation with the that of a repository. Nothing is disclosed regarding
the synchronization of a group of receivers. This is not surprising because
NK5 is based on a system in which, although a user may have a plurality
of workstations, the user does not use them at the same time.

(2)

Rather, the document approaches the problem of synchronization in the
context of the user being able to make changes to the mail status while his
workstation is not connected to the repository and therefore not to the
central mail status. This fact becomes particularly clear from the following
citation regarding the motive for synchronization:
“5.2 Synchronization

02426.40234/20190552.1

Convenience Translation
Some workstations tend to be small and fairly portable; the
likelihood of their always being connected to a network is
relatively small. This is another reason for each client’s
maintaining a local copy of a user’s mail state. The user can then
manipulate the local mail state while not connected to the network
(and the repository). This immediately brings up the problem of
synchronization between local and global mail state. […]”
(3)

Thereafter, NK5 discusses exclusively how the local mail status on this
one workstation can be synchronized with the global mail status of the
repository. In contrast, the issue of whether and to what extent
synchronization occurs with the user’s other workstations is not discussed
in the document at all.

b)

No Disclosure of a Wireless Messaging Infrastructure
Moreover, NK5 also does not disclose a wireless messaging infrastructure in the
sense of features a), b), and c), which even the Defendant must admit.

c)

No Disclosure of Sending a Third Message Responsive to the Receipt of the
Second Message
(1)

In particular, NK5 also does not contain any disclosure in the sense of
feature c.1) that a third message indicating the second status is transmitted
to a transceiver in the messaging infrastructure responsive to the receipt of
the second message from another receiver.

(2)

The Defendant’s citations from section 6 of NK5 (cf. page 20 et seq. of the
statement of defense) are unable to elucidate where the Defendant claims
to find the disclosure of this feature in the document. In fact, NK5 does
not contain any disclosure whatsoever in this regard. Quite to the contrary,
synchronization – which in any case is described only from the viewpoint
of a single workstation – is not described as an automatic process, but
rather as a process in which the client, i.e., the workstation, is able to
access the necessary information.

02426.40234/20190552.1

Convenience Translation
(3)

NK5, Section 5.2 (Synchronization), paragraph four reads as follows:
“When a client connects to the repository, it executes a DMSP
‘fetch-changed-descriptors’ operation. This causes the repository
to return a list of all descriptors on that client’s update list.”
In other words, the client who logs into the repository accesses the
synchronization data. It is clear that there is no question of disclosure of
any sort of automatic synchronization.

(4)

The following citation from section 6 cited by the Defendant in its
statement of defense (p. 20) also cannot be used to establish disclosure
that is damaging to the novelty of feature c.2). On the contrary, despite the
use of the term “automatically” this citation clarifies even further that
NK5 does not anticipate synchronization in the sense of the teaching of the
Patent in Suit.
“Depending on the mail reader implementation, Fred will either
have to execute a ‘synchronize’ command periodically or the client
will synchronize for him automatically ever so often.”

(5)

The citation describes that in cases of an existing connection with the
server synchronization – which, it should be noted, is still being described
only with regard to the relationship of one workstation to the repository –
occurs in that the user himself regularly inputs a command to that effect or
in that the client (i.e., the workstation) regularly automatically
synchronizes for the user. However, automatic synchronization in the
sense of the teaching of the Patent in Suit has the precondition that the
messaging infrastructure – applied to NK5, the repository – sends the
synchronization messages and the receiver does not need to “go get” them.

(6)

Feature c.2) is consequently also not disclosed. The novelty of the Patent
in Suit is not damaged by NK5.

02426.40234/20190552.1

Convenience Translation
II.
Inventive Step
Because in the Court’s ruling procedure the suspension of an infringement proceeding merely
due to the possibility of a lack of inventive step is considered only in exceptional cases, any
statements on this issue are fundamentally unnecessary. Nevertheless, we will discuss briefly
below why Document NK5, neither alone nor in combination with Document NK6, renders
obvious the invention on which the Patent in Suit is based.
1.

This is true simply for the reason that the synchronization method with the existing
connection to the repository proposed in NK5 leads one away from the teaching of the
Patent in Suit and is the diametrical opposite thereof. NK5 describes synchronization
either by means of the regular input of a command by the user or by regular
synchronization by the client, i.e., the workstation. For this purpose, as shown above, the
workstation must regularly send queries to the repository. If no changes have occurred in
the global mail status between two queries, then the query was superfluous.

2.

In contrast, the superfluous query or sending of a message is precisely what is prevented
by the Patent in Suit. Only when the status of a message is changed by a receiving device
and said status change is reported to the messaging infrastructure does the infrastructure
send a third message (synchronization message) to the additional receiving device. Such
a conscious reduction in messages and queries is desirable in a wireless infrastructure
with its mobile receiving devices because, if the receiving devices were to regularly – and
ultimately superfluously – send queries to the infrastructure, this would increase power
consumption and reduce battery life. NK5 leads away from this solution and does not
render it obvious at all.
III.
No Other Grounds for Nullity

1.

For the sake of completeness, we would like to mention that the patentability of the
Patent in Suit has also not been placed in doubt in view of the other prior art cited in the
nullity action. Documents NK7 through NK 16, which are also cited in the nullity action,
represent even more distant prior art than NK5. In particular, prior art NK7 – on whose

02426.40234/20190552.1

Convenience Translation
public accessibility the plaintiff to the nullity action presented nothing, such public
accessibility being contested by way of precaution – does particularly not disclose a
synchronization of multiple “clients” nor a wireless message infrastructure; consequently
a whole range of features of the patent in suit is not anticipated. For this reason, the
Defendant has also refrained from making statements about these documents in its
statement of defense. None of these documents is damaging to the novelty, nor do they
render the patented teaching obvious.
2.

The patent in suit is without a doubt patentable. No other grounds for nullity were
asserted against claim 1 of the Patent in Suit, which is the object of the present
proceedings. Consequently, a suspension of the proceedings is out of the question.

(Dr. Jan Ebersohl)
Attorney at Law
Exhibits
KP2 K 3 to KP2 K 5

02426.40234/20190552.1