Wireless Recognition Technologies LLC v. A9.com, Inc. et al

Filing 123

NOTICE by A9.com, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., Google, Inc.,, Nokia, Inc. re 62 Opposed MOTION to Change Venue to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)Opposed MOTION to Change Venue to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)Opposed MOTION to Change Venue to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Supplemental Brief Addressing the Impact of the Dismissal of Ricoh Entities on Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Smith, Michael)

EXHIBIT 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION

WIRELESS RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiff,
vs.
A9.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM, INC.,
GOOGLE INC., NOKIA, INC., and
RICOH INNOVATIONS, INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL NO. 2:10-CV-00364-TJW-CE

DEFENDANTS’ PRELIMINARY INVALIDITY
CONTENTIONS PURSUANT TO PATENT RULES 3-3 AND 3-4

Pursuant to Rules 3-3 and 3-4 of the Rules of Practice for Patent Cases before the Eastern
District of Texas and the Court’s March 24, 2011 Order (Dkt. No. 64), Defendants in the abovecaptioned action hereby submit the following Preliminary Invalidity Contentions (“Invalidity
Contentions”) regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,392,287 (“the ‘287 patent”).

This preliminary

disclosure is based upon information available to Defendants as of the date hereof, and
Defendants reserve the right to supplement and/or amend their contentions to the full extent
consistent with P.R. 3-6.
INTRODUCTION
In its Infringement Contentions, Plaintiff Wireless Recognition Technologies LLC’s
(“WRT”) asserts that Defendants A9.com, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., Nokia Inc., and Ricoh
Innovations, Inc. infringe, directly or indirectly, claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11, 13, 17, 19-21, 23-25, 2729, and 31-36 of the ‘287 patent. WRT asserts that Defendant Google Inc. infringes, directly or
indirectly, claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11, 13-17, 19-21, 23-25, 27-29, and 31-36 of the ‘287 patent.
Therefore, Defendant has limited its Invalidity Contentions to those claims.
Defendants reserve the right to prove the invalidity of the asserted claims on bases other
than those required to be disclosed in these Invalidity Contentions pursuant to P.R. 3-3.
Defendants’ investigation and discovery is ongoing and may uncover additional prior art and/or
additional bases of invalidity not presently known. Defendants reserve all rights to supplement
and/or modify these Invalidity Contentions based upon further discovery and/or investigation,
rulings by the Court, modified or supplemental infringement contentions by WRT, fact
discovery, expert discovery and/or third-party discovery.
The information provided in Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions shall not be deemed an
admission regarding the scope of any claims or the proper construction of those claims or any

1

terms contained therein. There has been no claim construction in the above-captioned case.
These Invalidity Contentions do not attempt to predict the Court’s claim construction, but are
based in whole or in part on Defendants’ present understanding of the asserted claims and/or
apply the apparent construction set forth or implied in WRT’s Infringement Contentions and are
based on the level of detail disclosed therein. Accordingly, Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions,
including the attached invalidity claim charts, may reflect alternative positions as to claim
construction and scope.

Defendants’ Invalidity Contentions do not represent Defendants’

agreement or view as to the meaning of any claim term contained in WRT’s Infringement
Contentions.

Furthermore, Defendants do not necessarily agree with or adopt any claim

construction used by WRT in its Infringement Contentions, and nothing in these Invalidity
Contentions is intended to endorse any particular claim construction. Defendants note that
WRT’s apparent claim construction would render the Asserted Claims broader in scope than the
written description of any purported invention in the patent-in-suit. Nothing herein should be
construed as an admission that Defendants agree with WRT’s apparent claim constructions or
that WRT has proposed any discernable constructions for claims and/or claim terms in its
Infringement Contentions. Defendants expressly reserve the right to challenge the sufficiency of
WRT’s Infringement Contentions and any claims or claim terms WRT purports to have
explicitly or implicitly construed therein. Defendants further expressly reserve the right to
propose alternative constructions to those that have been or may be advocated by WRT or that
may be applied or implied in these Invalidity Contentions or the accompanying claim charts.
Pursuant to the provisions of P.R. 3-3, the accompanying invalidity claim charts list
specific examples of prior art that included and/or disclosed, either expressly or inherently, each
limitation of certain claims and/or examples of prior art references and systems in view of which

2

a person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered each limitation and the claimed
combination of such limitations obvious. In an effort to focus the issues, Defendants endeavored
to identify specific relevant portions and/or features of the identified prior art that disclose the
elements of the asserted claims. Although Defendants have identified at least one citation per
element for each reference, the identified prior art may contain additional descriptions of or
alternative support for the claim limitations and each and every disclosure of the same element in
the reference is not necessarily identified. In addition, where Defendants cite to a particular
figure in a reference, the citation should be understood to encompass the caption and description
of the figure and any text relating to the figure. Similarly, where Defendants cite to particular
text referring to a figure, the citation should be understood to include the figure and caption as
well.
It also should be recognized that persons of ordinary skill in the art generally read a prior
art reference as a whole and in the context of other publications and literature. Thus, Defendants
may rely on uncited portions or features of the identified prior art, other documents, and expert
testimony to provide context or to aid in understanding the identified prior art. To understand
and interpret a specific statement or disclosure within a prior art reference, such persons would
rely on other information within the reference, along with other publications and their general
scientific or engineering knowledge. Defendants consequently reserve the right to rely upon
other unidentified portions of the prior art references and on other publications and expert
testimony to provide context, and as aids to understanding and interpreting the portions that are
identified. Defendants also reserve the right to rely on other portions of the prior art references,
other publications, and the testimony of experts to establish that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would have been motivated to modify or combine certain of the cited references so as to

3

render the claims obvious. Furthermore, the production of documents that have been identified
in these Invalidity Contentions shall not be deemed an admission that such documents are
admissible or that Defendants have waived any objections regarding the admissibility of such
documents.
WRT also has not identified which elements of the asserted claims or combinations
thereof it alleges were not known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged
invention. For any claim limitation that WRT alleges is not disclosed in a particular prior art
reference disclosed herein, Defendants reserve the right to assert that such limitation is either
inherent in the reference or obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, in light of the
same, or that the limitation is disclosed in one or more other prior art references and in
combination would have rendered the asserted claims obvious. The obviousness combinations
of references provided below under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are merely exemplary and are not intended
to be exhaustive. Additional obviousness combinations of the references identified below are
possible, and Defendants reserve the right to use any such combination(s) in this litigation.
I.

INVALIDATING PRIOR ART (35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103)
Defendants contend that the following prior art references ether anticipate and/or render

obvious each asserted claim of the ‘287 patent. For the reasons set forth above, Defendants
reserve the right to modify and/or amend this list of prior art.
A.

Patents and Applications

Defendants identify the following invalidating prior art patents and applications:
Patent or
Application Number

Country of
Origin

Filing Date

Issue Date

Exhibit No. of
Claim Chart

4,780,599

U.S.

6/28/85

10/25/88

Multiple charts

4

Patent or
Application Number

Country of
Origin

Filing Date

Issue Date

Exhibit No. of
Claim Chart

5,392,447

U.S.

1/10/92

2/21/95

Multiple charts

5,465,353

U.S.

4/1/94

11/7/95

Ex. 11

5,640,193

U.S.

8/15/94

6/17/97

Ex. 2

5,754,308

U.S.

6/27/95

5/19/98

Ex. 3

5,867,597

U.S.

9/5/95

2/2/99

Ex. 4

5,970,484

U.S.

1/28/94

10/19/99

Ex. 5

5,971,277

U.S.

8/12/98

10/26/99

Multiple charts

6,081,629

U.S.

9/17/97

6/27/00

Multiple charts

6,104,834

U.S.

8/1/96

8/15/00

Ex. 6

6,229,139

U.S.

7/23/98

5/8/01

Multiple charts

6,253,201

U.S.

6/23/98

6/26/01

Ex. 7

6,397,213

U.S.

5/12/99

5/28/02

Ex. 8

6,515,988

U.S.

7/17/98

2/4/03

Ex. 9

6,522,889

U.S.

12/23/99

2/18/03

Ex. 10

6,707,581

U.S.

6/27/00

3/16/04

Multiple charts

6,671,684

U.S.

9/1/00

12/30/03

Ex. 11

6,766,363

U.S.

8/31/00

6/20/04

Ex. 12

6,865,284

U.S.

12/20/99

3/8/05

Ex. 13

6,880,124

U.S.

6/4/99

4/12/05

Ex. 14

6,964,374

U.S.

10/2/98

11/15/05

Ex. 15

1

While the Exhibit numbers listed in these table identify the primary claim chart addressing
each reference, the references may also be cited in other claim charts.

5

Patent or
Application Number

Country of
Origin

Filing Date

Issue Date

Exhibit No. of
Claim Chart

7,065,559

U.S.

6/16/00

6/20/06

Ex. 16

7,444,353

U.S.

5/9/00

10/28/08

Ex. 17

2002/0102966A1

U.S.
application

11/6/00
(provisional
filing date)

8/1/02
(published)

Ex. 18

0 893 759 A2

E.P.

7/21/97

1/27/99
(published)

Ex. 19

WO 99/17230

W.O.

6/23/98

4/8/99
(published)

Ex. 27

B.

Publications

Defendants identify the following invalidating publications:
Title

Author

Publication

Date

Exhibit No. of
Claim Chart

“Why e-read?
Finding
Opportunities in the
Merger of Paper and
Computers”

Schilit

Future of Print
Media Journal

April 1999

Ex. 20

“As We May Read:
The Reading
Appliance
Revolution”

Schilit

Computer

January 1999

Ex. 21

Article: “Document
Image Matching
Techniques”

Hull, et al.

Symposium on
Document Image
Understanding
Technology,
Annapolis, MD

April 1997

Ex. 22

6

C.

Products and Implementations

Defendants identify the following invalidating products and implementations:
Product or Implementation

Approximate
Implementation Date

Exhibit No. of Claim Chart

Amazon.com

Functionality in 1999

Ex. 23

Gutenberg.net

Functionality on March 2,
2000

Ex. 24

Nokia 9000

1996

Ex. 25

Nokia 9210

November 2000

Ex. 25

PALM VII

April 1999

Ex. 25

Wired.com

Functionality in 1999

Ex. 25

NYTimes.com

Functionality in 1999

Ex. 25

BarnesandNoble.com

Functionality in 1999

Ex. 25

Hull prior invention

Work occurred between 1993
and 1996

Ex. 26

*

*

*

The prior art identified herein and/or produced by Defendants herewith is also relevant
for its disclosure of the state of the art and reasons and motivations for making improvements,
additions, and combinations.
For the purpose of complying with P.R. 3-3(c), attached hereto are charts comparing the
above prior art patents, publications, and implementations to the elements of the asserted claims
of the ‘287 patent. (See Exhibits 1 to 27.) In view of Defendants’ current understanding of the
claims and/or the claim constructions WRT suggests in alleging infringement, Defendants
contend that each of the references listed above anticipate the asserted claims as indicated in the
attached charts under 35 U.S.C. § 102. To the extent that any claim element is not anticipated

7

pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102, Defendants assert nevertheless that the claimed combination would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in view of the knowledge that was possessed by one
of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, to the extent that any claim element is not anticipated,
Defendants also assert that the claimed combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art in view of the combination of prior art references. One of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the references, as set forth in the
attached charts or through additional combination of the references cited above.
In general, motivation to modify or combine the prior art references as set forth herein are
present in the references themselves, the common knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art,
the prior art as a whole, or the nature of the problems allegedly addressed by the ‘287 patent.
The references identified by Defendants address the same technical issues and suggest similar
solutions to those issued discussed in the ‘287 patent and generally known at the time of the
purported invention. If, and to the extent, WRT challenges the correspondence of any of these
references with respect to particular elements of the asserted claims of the ‘287 patent,
Defendants reserve the right to supplement these Invalidity Contentions to identify motivation to
modify or combine particular references with additional particularity.
In particular, those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the
‘287 patent would have been motivated to modify or combine the prior art references set forth
herein because, inter alia, (a) the references in general deal with the same or related subject
matter, including the identification of documents, the transmission of electronic version of
documents, and the use of handheld devices to capture or convey information regarding
documents; (b) one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the problem that
the inventor was attempting to solve, or with other problems that would have been faced in

8

reaching a solution, including how to transmit the contents of a copy of a paper document to a
third party without scanning the entire document, and would have looked to references that
concerned similar issues or taught how to overcome the problems faced; (c) the combinations
were obvious to try and would have operated in their known and expected way; (d) the
combinations were within the skill and understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art; (e)
the combinations would have been motivated by the developments in technology, including the
increased availability and processing power of handheld devices, the increased availability of
functionality, such as cameras and scanners on handheld devices, increases in communication
bandwidths, and the proliferation of electronically available information; (f) the combinations
reflect various design choices that would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art and
within that person’s technical capability to implement; and (g) the combinations would enhance
commercial opportunities and make the product more desirable, for example, by extending the
document scanning, recognition, and retrieval capabilities to handheld devices, thus accessing a
larger commercial market.
In general, a claimed invention is unpatentable if the differences between it and the prior
art “are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.” 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); Graham v.
John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1966). The ultimate determination of whether an invention
is or is not obvious is a legal conclusion based on underlying factual inquiries including: “(1) the
scope and content of the prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art; (3) the differences
between the claimed invention and the prior art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness.”
Miles Labs., Inc. v. Shandon, Inc., 997 F.2d 870, 877 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also Graham, 383
U.S. at 17-18.

9

The U.S. Supreme Court decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct.
1727, 1739 (2007) (“KSR”) reaffirmed Graham, but at the same time held that a claimed
invention can be obvious even if there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for combining
the prior art to produce that invention. In summary, KSR holds that patents which are based on
new combinations of elements or components already known in a technical field may be found to
be obvious. See, generally, KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1727. Specifically, the Court in KSR rejected a
rigid application of the “teaching, suggestion, or motivation [to combine]” test. Id. at 1741. “In
determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular
motivation or the avowed purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is the objective reach
of the claim.” Id. at 1741-42. “Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the
field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for
combining the elements in the manner claimed.” Id. at 1742.
In addition, in KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized the principle that “[t]he combination
of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.”

KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739.

A key inquiry is whether the

“improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.” Id. at 1740. In view of the Supreme Court’s KSR decision, the PTO
issued a set of new Examination Guidelines. See Examination Guidelines for Determining
Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR
International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 72 Fed. Reg. 57526 (October 10, 2007). Those Guidelines
summarized the KSR decision, and identified various rationales for finding a claim obvious,
including those based on other precedents. Those rationales include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
predictable results;

10

(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in
the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready
for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable
solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in
either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market
forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the
art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led
one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art
reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Id. at 57529. Defendants contend that one or more of these rationales apply in considering the
obviousness of the Asserted Claims of the ‘287 patent.
The various motivations described above provide a basis for combining or modifying
references, as detailed below, to render each of the asserted claims obvious. In addition, the
Court can consider the inferences and creative steps a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ in making such combinations. See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741 (“a court can take account of
the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”).
II.

INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS BASED ON 35 U.S.C. § 112
Defendants contend that various asserted claims of the ‘287 patent are invalid for failure

to satisfy the enablement, indefiniteness, and/or written description requirements of 35 U.S.C. §
112. A more detailed basis for Defendants’ written description, enablement, and indefiniteness
defenses will be set forth in Defendants’ expert report(s) on invalidity, to be served in
accordance with the Court’s Scheduling Order. Defendants’ contentions are based in whole or in
part on their present understanding of the asserted claims and WRT’s apparent construction of

11

those claims in its Infringement Contentions. Accordingly, Defendants’ invalidity contentions
based upon 35 U.S.C. § 112 may reflect alternative positions as to claim construction and scope.
Further, by asserting grounds for invalidity based on WRT’s apparent claim construction or any
other particular claim construction, Defendants are not adopting WRT’s claim construction, nor
admitting to the accuracy of any particular claim construction.
A.

Indefiniteness

Defendants contend that all of the asserted claims of the ‘287 patent are invalid for failing
to comply with the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 2. Defendants’
grounds for this contention include, without limitation, the following claim limitations (or claim
limitations similar thereto):


“reference data”



“scanning data”



“extracted”

Defendants further assert that claim 11 is indefinite and inoperative because it recites
receiving the scanning information at the handheld device before the scanning data is extracted
from the captured information.
B.

Enablement and Written Description

Defendants contend that the claims of the ‘287 patent are invalid for failing to comply
with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 1. Specifically, the claims are not enabled
and lack adequate written description for the full scope of the claims due to at least the following
claim limitations (or claim limitation similar thereto):


“sharing with a recipient” – The patent does not disclose sending the document back
to the user that submitted the scanned information, though WRT asserts in its
Infringement Contentions that such action is covered by the claims. The patent also

12

does not disclose sending links to a document, though WRT asserts in its
Infringement Contentions that such action is covered by the claims.


“each reference document having reference data stored in a memory” – The patent
does not disclose and did not teach one of ordinary skill in the art how to generate the
reference data.



“extracting at least a portion of the received document data as scanning data” – The
patent does not disclose and did not teach one of ordinary skill in the art how to
perform the claimed extraction.



“comparing the scanning data with the reference data” – The patent does not disclose
and did not teach one of ordinary skill in the art how to perform the comparison
between the scanning data and the reference data.



“selecting, when the scanning data matches at least a portion of the reference data of
one of the reference documents, the one reference document as the identified
document” – The patent does not disclose and did not teach one of ordinary skill in
the art how to select when the scanning data matches at least a portion of the
reference data.



“information captured from a source document by the handheld device” – The patent
does not disclose capturing the data as broadly as WRT asserts in its Infringement
Contentions, such as taking a photograph with the handheld device.



“capturing the information from the document using the handheld device” – The
patent does not disclose capturing the data as broadly as WRT asserts in its
Infringement Contentions, such as taking a photograph with the handheld device.



“receiving, by the data processing apparatus, the captured information as scanning
data; information from the handheld device” – The patent does not disclose extracting
the scanning data on the handheld device, and therefore it did not disclose receiving
the scanning data by the data processing apparatus.



“a memory in which a plurality of instructions are stored” – The patent does not
disclose any instructions or algorithm would be stored in memory and it did not
enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make the instructions that would carry out
the claimed invention.



“execution of the instructions causing a plurality of steps to be performed including
...” – The patent does not disclose any instructions or algorithm would be stored in
memory and it did not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make the instructions
that would carry out the claimed invention.



“the execution of the instructions by the processor causes further steps to be
performed” – The patent does not disclose any instructions or algorithm would be

13

stored in memory and it did not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make the
instructions that would carry out the claimed invention.




“each reference item having associated reference data stored in a memory” – The
patent did not disclose how to create the reference data and did not enable one of
ordinary skill in the art to create the reference data.



II.

“processor readable program code such that when executed by a processor in a data
processing apparatus, performs a method for . . .” – The patent does not disclose any
program code that would be stored in memory and it did not enable one of ordinary
skill in the art to make the program code that would carry out the claimed invention.

“information captured from an item by the handheld device” – The patent does not
disclose capturing the data as broadly as WRT asserts in its Infringement
Contentions, such as taking a photograph with the handheld device. The patent also
does not disclose or enable one of ordinary in the art to capture from, process the data
from, and identify any item other than a document, and therefore does not disclose or
enable the full scope of the claims.

DEFENDANTS’ P.R. 3-4 DISCLOSURES
A.

P.R. 3-4(a)

Concurrent with the service of these Invalidity Contentions and to the extent that
Defendants can determine the “aspects or elements of an Accused Instrumentality” that WRT has
identified in its Infringement Contentions, each Defendant individually will produce to WRT or
make available for inspection material sufficient to show the operation of any such aspects or
elements, including documentation relating to the products identified in WRT’s Infringement
Contentions, to the extent such materials exist. Defendants are willing to make such documents
and/or source code available for inspection, but Defendants will need to confer with WRT
regarding the pending patent prosecution bar and protective order disputes.
B.

P.R. 3-4(b)

Concurrent with the service of these Invalidity Contentions, Defendants collectively will
produce to Plaintiff all of the items of prior art identified in sections I(A) and I(B) above to the
extent that such art does not already appear in the file history of the ‘287 patent.

14

Dated: September 23, 2011

By:

/s/ Daniel T. Shvodian
James F. Valentine (admitted pro hac vice)
California State Bar No. 149269
Daniel T. Shvodian (admitted pro hac vice)
California State Bar No. 184576
PERKINS COIE LLP
3150 Porter Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 650.838.4350
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Michael C. Smith
Texas State Bar No. 18650410
SIEBMAN, BURG, PHILLIPS & SMITH, LLP
P.O. Box 1556
Marshall, TX 75671-1556
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 972.767.4620
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimants
A9.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM, INC., and
GOOGLE INC.

By:

/s/ Michael C. Smith
Michael C. Smith
Texas State Bar No. 18650410
SIEBMAN, BURG, PHILLIPS & SMITH, LLP
P.O. Box 1556
Marshall, TX 75671-1556
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 972.767.4620
E-mail: [e-mail]

15

Robert F. Perry (admitted pro hac vice)
Allison H. Altersohn (admitted pro hac vice)
KING & SPALDING LLP
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 212.556.2222
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant
NOKIA INC.

By:

/s/ Michael E. Jones
Michael E. Jones
Texas State Bar No. 18650410
Allen Franklin Gardner
POTTER MINTON P.C.
110 N. College, Suite 500
P.O. Box 359
Tyler, TX 75710-0359
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 903.593.0846
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Mark D. Rowland (admitted pro hac vice)
ROPES & GRAY LLP
1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 650.566.4144
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant
RICOH INNOVATIONS, INC.

16

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document, Defendants’ Preliminary
Invalidity Contentions Pursuant to Patent Rules 3-3 and 3-4, was served on the following counsel
via e-mail on this 23rd day of September, 2011.

/s/ Daniel T. Shvodian
Daniel T. Shvodian

William E. Davis, III
Texas State Bar No. 24047416
THE DAVIS FIRM, P.C.
111 W. Tyler Street
Longview, TX 75601
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 903.230.9661
E-mail: [e-mail]

Michael C. Smith
Texas State Bar No. 18650410
SIEBMAN, BURG, PHILLIPS & SMITH, LLP
P.O. Box 1556
Marshall, TX 75671-1556
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 972.767.4620
E-mail: [e-mail]

Attorneys for Plaintiff
WIRELESS RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGIES LLC

Attorneys for Defendant
NOKIA INC.

Cameron H. Tousi (admitted pro hac vice)
David M. Farnum (admitted pro hac vice)
Ralph P. Albrecht (admitted pro hac vice)
ALBRECHT TOUSI & FARNUM, PLLC
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 202.318.8788
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Robert F. Perry (admitted pro hac vice)
Allison H. Altersohn (admitted pro hac vice)
KING & SPALDING LLP
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 212.556.2222
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Attorneys for Plaintiff
WIRELESS RECOGNITION
TECHNOLOGIES LLC

09234-0001/LEGAL21787301.1

Attorneys for Defendant
NOKIA INC.

Mark D. Rowland (admitted pro hac vice)
ROPES & GRAY LLP
1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 650.566.4144
Email: [e-mail]

Michael E. Jones
Texas State Bar No. 18650410
Allen Franklin Gardner
POTTER MINTON P.C.
110 N. College, Suite 500
P.O. Box 359
Tyler, TX 75710-0359
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 903.593.0846
E-mail: [e-mail]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant
RICOH INNOVATIONS, INC.

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant
RICOH INNOVATIONS, INC.

2