Free Amended Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 1 of 27

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) Plaintiff , ) ) vs. ) ) INTERDIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS, ) LLC, INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY ) CORPORATION, and ) TANTIVY COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) INTERDIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS, LLC and INTERDIGITAL TECHNOLOGY ) ) CORPORATION, ) ) Counterclaim and ) Third-Party Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., ) ) Counterclaim Defendant, ) ) ) and ) SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, ) ) INC. and SAMSUNG ) TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, ) LLC, ) ) Third Party Defendants. ) SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,

C.A. No. 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANTS' AMENDED ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 2 of 27

Defendants

InterDigital

Communications,

LLC,

InterDigital

Technology

Corporation, and Tantivy Communications, Inc. (collectively, "InterDigital") hereby respectfully submit this Amended Answer to the First Amended Complaint ("Amended Complaint") filed by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. ("Samsung Electronics"), Amended Counterclaims and Third Party Complaint: 1. InterDigital admits that Samsung Electronics has filed the Amended

Complaint, purporting to assert claims for relief against InterDigital. Otherwise, the allegations of Paragraph 1 are denied. More specifically, InterDigital denies that

Samsung Electronics' claims have been properly pled and further denies that Samsung Electronics' claims have any merit. 2. On information and belief, InterDigital admits that Samsung Electronics is On information and belief,

a Korean corporation with offices in Seoul, Korea.

InterDigital further admits that Samsung Electronics markets various electronic consumer devices, including wireless phones, under the brand name "SAMSUNG." InterDigital lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of the allegations of Paragraph 2 and on that basis denies those allegations. 3. InterDigital admits that InterDigital Communications, LLC ("IDC LLC")

is organized as a limited liability company under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and has its principal place of business at 781 Third Avenue, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406. InterDigital also admits that IDC LLC develops circuitry designs, software, and other technology that is compliant with wireless communications standards. InterDigital further admits that IDC LLC develops semiconductors and

software to enable voice and data transmissions in mobile phones and portable computing devices. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of

Paragraph 3.

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 3 of 27

4.

InterDigital admits that InterDigital Technology Corporation ("ITC") is

incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, and has its principal place of business at 3411 Silverside Road, Concord Plaza, Suite 105 Hagley Building, Wilmington, Delaware 19810. InterDigital further admits that ITC is a wholly owned subsidiary of InterDigital, Inc., and licenses technology developed by InterDigital. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 4. 5. InterDigital admits that Tantivy Communications, Inc. ("Tantivy") is

incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, with offices at 3411 Silverside Road, Concord Plaza, Suite 105 Hagley Building, Wilmington, Delaware 19810. InterDigital further admits that Tantivy is a subsidiary of InterDigital Advanced Technologies, Inc., which is a subsidiary of InterDigital, Inc. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 5. 6. Because Paragraph 6 consists solely of Samsung Electronics' legal

conclusion regarding jurisdiction, no answer is required. To the extent that any answer is required, InterDigital lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations and on that basis denies them. 7. 8. InterDigital admits the allegations of Paragraph 7. Because Paragraph 8 consists solely of Samsung Electronics' legal

conclusion regarding venue, no answer is required. To the extent that any answer is required, InterDigital lacks knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations and on that basis denies them. 9. 10. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 9. InterDigital admits that Samsung Electronics and InterDigital entered into

a license agreement that covered second-generation ("2G") technology in 1995. InterDigital further admits that Samsung Electronics and InterDigital are presently arbitrating the effect of royalty terms provided under Samsung Electronics' mostfavored-licensee clause in that agreement. InterDigital also admits that Samsung

-2-

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 4 of 27

Electronics has purported to assert claims in this action that relate exclusively to thirdgeneration wireless ("3G") technology. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 10. 11. InterDigital admits that certain standards development organizations

("SDO") develop standards for use in the wireless telecommunications industry. InterDigital also admits that first generation ("1G") technology used analog signals. InterDigital further admits that second generation ("2G") standards are digital in nature and include GSM and CDMA. InterDigital also admits that most wireless service

providers operate on either the GSM or CDMA platforms. InterDigital admits that AT&T (formerly Cingular) and T-Mobile operate on the GSM network, while Verizon Wireless and Sprint/Nextel use CDMA. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 11. 12. On information and belief, InterDigital admits that 3G technology has

been anticipated by some persons or entities for anticipated capabilities to deliver multimedia and internet connectivity to cellular handsets. On information and belief, InterDigital further admits that 3G technology has held the potential promise of being a convergent standard that could resolve the incompatibility between certain 2G technology platforms. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of

Paragraph 12. 13. InterDigital admits that Samsung Electronics has purported to assert InterDigital denies that

claims relating to SDOs and rules promulgated by SDOs.

Samsung Electronics' claims have any merit. InterDigital admits that certain SDOs evaluate technology and generate standards. InterDigital lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 13 and on that basis denies those allegations. 14. InterDigital lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 14 and on that basis denies those allegations.

-3-

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 5 of 27

15.

InterDigital admits that certain SDOs refrain from setting any commercial

license terms or attempting to articulate what terms would satisfy the FRAND standard. InterDigital lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that SDOs so refrain in order to avoid antitrust scrutiny. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 15. 16. InterDigital admits that it has participated in certain SDOs and has

disclosed this fact on InterDigital's Web site. InterDigital further admits that it has made the statement quoted in Paragraph 16. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 16. 17. InterDigital admits that it has disclosed the fact that it has participated in

certain SDOs. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 17. 18. InterDigital admits that ETSI, ATIS, TIA, ARIB, and ITU each have one InterDigital denies that the allegations of

or more policies for handling IPR.

Paragraph 18 fairly and accurately describe these policies. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 18. 19. InterDigital admits that ITC has notified ETSI that ITC is the proprietor of

IPRs that ITC believes may be considered essential to the UMTS standard. InterDigital also admits that ITC and/or its affiliates have declared to ETSI that they are prepared to grant irrevocable licenses under the IPRs on terms and conditions which are in accordance with Clause 6.1 of the ETSI IPR policy, in respect of the UMTS standard, to the extent that the IPRs remain essential. InterDigital further admits that ITC has

declared to ITU that, in case part(s) or all of any proposals contained in contributions submitted by ITC are included in ITU-R Recommendation(s) and the included part(s) contain items that have been patented or for which patent applications have been filed and whose use would be required to implement ITU-R Recommendation(s), ITC is prepared to grant a license to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide, non-

-4-

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 6 of 27

discriminatory basis and on reasonable terms and conditions in accordance with the Statement on ITU-R Patent Policy (Resolution 1-2, Annex 1). Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 19. 20. InterDigital admits that InterDigital and Samsung Electronics have

engaged in negotiations regarding a potential license under InterDigital's 3G technology. InterDigital further admits that Samsung Electronics has claimed that it desires a license on FRAND terms; however, Samsung Electronics repeatedly has failed to accept offers from InterDigital for a license on FRAND terms. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 20. 21. InterDigital admits that Samsung Electronics has claimed that it desires a

license from InterDigital on FRAND terms; however, Samsung Electronics repeatedly has failed to accept offers from InterDigital for a license on FRAND terms. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 21. 22. InterDigital admits that it believes that Samsung Electronics' unlicensed

production of certain 3G-compatible products would infringe InterDigital patents. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 23. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 24. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 25. On information and belief, InterDigital admits that Samsung Electronics,

together with Samsung Telecommunications America LLP, filed a complaint in this action on March 23, 2007. InterDigital also admits that on March 23, 2007, IDC LLC and ITC asserted against Samsung Electronics and certain of its affiliates certain IPRs, of which ITC is the proprietor and that ITC believes may be considered essential to the UMTS standard, in a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 07-165-JJF, InterDigital Communications Corp. et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al.) and in a complaint filed in the United States International

-5-

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 7 of 27

Trade Commission (Inv. No. 337-TA-601, In the Matter of Certain 3G Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA) Handsets and Components Thereof). Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 26. COUNT I (Breach of Contract (the ETSI IPR Policy)) 27. In response to Paragraph 27, InterDigital repeats the denials and answers

contained in each of the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 28. InterDigital admits that ETSI is an SDO. InterDigital lacks knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of the allegations of Paragraph 28 and on that basis denies those allegations. 29. InterDigital admits that InterDigital Communications Corporation is a InterDigital denies that ITC or Tantivy are members of ETSI.

member of ETSI.

InterDigital lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Samsung Electronics is a member of ETSI, and on that basis InterDigital denies that allegation. InterDigital denies that the allegations of

Paragraph 29 fairly and accurately describe the obligations of members of ETSI. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 29. 30. InterDigital denies that the allegations of Paragraph 30 fairly and

accurately describe the ETSI IPR policy. 31. InterDigital admits that ITC has notified ETSI that ITC is the proprietor of

IPRs that ITC believes may be considered essential to the UMTS standard. InterDigital also admits that ITC and/or its affiliates have declared to ETSI that they are prepared to grant irrevocable licenses under the IPRs on terms and conditions which are in accordance with Clause 6.1 of the ETSI IPR policy, in respect of the UMTS standard, to the extent that the IPRs remain essential. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 31. 32. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 32.

-6-

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 8 of 27

33. 34.

InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 33. InterDigital admits that Samsung Electronics purports to seek damages in

this action; however, InterDigital denies that Samsung Electronics has been damaged or is entitled to recover any damages. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 34. 35. InterDigital admits that Samsung Electronics purports to seek specific

performance in this action; however, InterDigital denies that Samsung Electronics is entitled to any such relief. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 35. COUNT II (Breach of Contract (the ETSI IPR Policy), with Samsung Electronics as an Intended, Third-Party Beneficiary) 36. In response to Paragraph 36, InterDigital repeats the denials and answers

contained in each of the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 37. InterDigital denies that the allegations of Paragraph 37 fairly and

accurately describe the obligations of members of ETSI. InterDigital further denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 37. 38. 39. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 38. InterDigital denies that the allegations of Paragraph 39 fairly and

accurately describe the ETSI IPR policy. 40. InterDigital admits that ITC has notified ETSI that ITC is the proprietor of

IPRs that ITC believes may be considered essential to the UMTS standard. InterDigital also admits that ITC and/or its affiliates have declared to ETSI that they are prepared to grant irrevocable licenses under the IPRs on terms and conditions which are in accordance with Clause 6.1 of the ETSI IPR policy, in respect of the UMTS standard, to the extent that the IPRs remain essential. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 40. 41. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 41.

-7-

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 9 of 27

42. 43.

InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 42. InterDigital admits that Samsung Electronics purports to seek damages in

this action; however, InterDigital denies that Samsung Electronics has been damaged or is entitled to recover any damages. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 43. 44. InterDigital admits that Samsung Electronics purports to seek specific

performance in this action; however, InterDigital denies that Samsung Electronics is entitled to any such relief. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 44. COUNT III (Breach of Contract (the ATIS IPR Policy)) 45. In response to Paragraph 45, InterDigital repeats the denials and answers

contained in each of the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 46. InterDigital admits that ATIS is an SDO. InterDigital lacks knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of the allegations of Paragraph 46 and on that basis denies those allegations. 47. InterDigital admits that InterDigital Communications Corporation is a InterDigital denies that ITC or Tantivy are members of ATIS.

member of ATIS.

InterDigital lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Samsung Electronics is a member of ATIS, and on that basis InterDigital denies that allegation. InterDigital denies that the allegations of

Paragraph 47 fairly and accurately describe the obligations of members of ATIS. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 47. 48. InterDigital denies that the allegations of Paragraph 48 fairly and

accurately describe the ATIS IPR policy. 49. 50. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 49. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 50.

-8-

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 10 of 27

51. 52.

InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 51. InterDigital admits that Samsung Electronics purports to seek damages in

this action; however, InterDigital denies that Samsung Electronics has been damaged or is entitled to recover any damages. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 52. 53. InterDigital admits that Samsung Electronics purports to seek specific

performance in this action; however, InterDigital denies that Samsung Electronics is entitled to any such relief. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 53. COUNT IV (Breach of Contract (the ATIS IPR Policy), with Samsung Electronics as an Intended, Third-Party Beneficiary) 54. In response to Paragraph 54, InterDigital repeats the denials and answers

contained in each of the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 55. InterDigital denies that the allegations of Paragraph 55 fairly and

accurately describe the obligations of members of ATIS. InterDigital further denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 55. 56. 57. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 56. InterDigital denies that the allegations of Paragraph 57 fairly and

accurately describe the ATIS IPR policy. 58. 59. 60. 61. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 58. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 59. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 60. InterDigital admits that Samsung Electronics purports to seek damages in

this action; however, InterDigital denies that Samsung Electronics has been damaged or is entitled to recover any damages. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 61.

-9-

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 11 of 27

62.

InterDigital admits that Samsung Electronics purports to seek specific

performance in this action; however, InterDigital denies that Samsung Electronics is entitled to any such relief. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 62. COUNT V (Breach of Contract (the TIA IPR Policy)) 63. In response to Paragraph 63, InterDigital repeats the denials and answers

contained in each of the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 64. InterDigital admits that TIA is an SDO. InterDigital lacks knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of the allegations of Paragraph 64 and on that basis denies those allegations. 65. InterDigital admits that InterDigital Communications Corporation is a InterDigital denies that ITC or Tantivy are members of TIA.

member of TIA.

InterDigital lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Samsung Electronics is a member of TIA, and on that basis InterDigital denies that allegation. InterDigital denies that the allegations of

Paragraph 65 fairly and accurately describe the obligations of members of TIA. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 65. 66. InterDigital denies that the allegations of Paragraph 66 fairly and

accurately describe the TIA IPR policy and "Engineering Manual." 67. 68. 69. 70. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 67. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 68. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 69. InterDigital admits that Samsung Electronics purports to seek damages in

this action; however, InterDigital denies that Samsung Electronics has been damaged or is entitled to recover any damages. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 70.

-10-

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 12 of 27

71.

InterDigital admits that Samsung Electronics purports to seek specific

performance in this action; however, InterDigital denies that Samsung Electronics is entitled to any such relief. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 71. COUNT VI (Breach of Contract (the TIA IPR Policy), with Samsung Electronics as an Intended, Third-Party Beneficiary) 72. In response to Paragraph 72, InterDigital repeats the denials and answers

contained in each of the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 73. InterDigital denies that the allegations of Paragraph 73 fairly and

accurately describe the obligations of members of TIA. InterDigital further denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 73. 74. 75. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 74. InterDigital denies that the allegations of Paragraph 75 fairly and

accurately describe the TIA IPR policy and "Engineering Manual." 76. 77. 78. 79. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 76. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 77. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 78. InterDigital admits that Samsung Electronics purports to seek damages in

this action; however, InterDigital denies that Samsung Electronics has been damaged or is entitled to recover any damages. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 79. 80. InterDigital admits that Samsung Electronics purports to seek specific

performance in this action; however, InterDigital denies that Samsung Electronics is entitled to any such relief. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 80.

-11-

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 13 of 27

COUNT VII (Breach of Contract (the ARIB IPR Policy)) 81. In response to Paragraph 81, InterDigital repeats the denials and answers

contained in each of the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 82. InterDigital admits that ARIB is an SDO. InterDigital lacks knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of the allegations of Paragraph 82 and on that basis denies those allegations. 83. InterDigital admits that InterDigital Communications Corporation is a InterDigital denies that ITC or Tantivy are members of ARIB.

member of ARIB.

InterDigital lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Samsung Electronics is a member of ARIB, and on that basis InterDigital denies that allegation. InterDigital denies that the allegations of

Paragraph 83 fairly and accurately describe the obligations of members of ARIB. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 83. 84. InterDigital denies that the allegations of Paragraph 84 fairly and

accurately describe the ARIB IPR policy. 85. 86. 87. 88. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 85. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 86. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 87. InterDigital admits that Samsung Electronics purports to seek damages in

this action; however, InterDigital denies that Samsung Electronics has been damaged or is entitled to recover any damages. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 88. 89. InterDigital admits that Samsung Electronics purports to seek specific

performance in this action; however, InterDigital denies that Samsung Electronics is entitled to any such relief. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 89.

-12-

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 14 of 27

COUNT VIII (Breach of Contract (the ARIB IPR Policy), with Samsung Electronics as an Intended, Third-Party Beneficiary) 90. In response to Paragraph 90, InterDigital repeats the denials and answers

contained in each of the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 91. InterDigital denies that the allegations of Paragraph 91 fairly and

accurately describe the obligations of members of ARIB. InterDigital further denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 91. 92. 93. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 92. InterDigital denies that the allegations of Paragraph 93 fairly and

accurately describe the ARIB IPR policy. 94. 95. 96. 97. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 94. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 95. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 96. InterDigital admits that Samsung Electronics purports to seek damages in

this action; however, InterDigital denies that Samsung Electronics has been damaged or is entitled to recover any damages. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 97. 98. InterDigital admits that Samsung Electronics purports to seek specific

performance in this action; however, InterDigital denies that Samsung Electronics is entitled to any such relief. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 98. COUNT IX (Breach of Contract (the ITU IPR Policy)) 99. In response to Paragraph 99, InterDigital repeats the denials and answers

contained in each of the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 100. InterDigital admits that ITU is an SDO. InterDigital lacks knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remainder of the allegations of Paragraph 100 and on that basis denies those allegations.

-13-

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 15 of 27

101.

InterDigital admits that InterDigital Communications Corporation is a InterDigital denies that ITC or Tantivy are members of ITU.

member of ITU.

InterDigital lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Samsung Electronics is a member of ITU, and on that basis InterDigital denies that allegation. InterDigital denies that the allegations of

Paragraph 101 fairly and accurately describe the obligations of members of ITU. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 101. 102. InterDigital denies that the allegations of Paragraph 102 fairly and

accurately describe the ITU IPR policy. 103. InterDigital also admits that ITC has declared to ITU that, in case part(s)

or all of any proposals contained in contributions submitted by ITC are included in ITUR Recommendation(s) and the included part(s) contain items that have been patented or for which patent applications have been filed and whose use would be required to implement ITU-R Recommendation(s), ITC is prepared to grant a license to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide, non-discriminatory basis and on reasonable terms and conditions in accordance with the Statement on ITU-R Patent Policy (Resolution 1-2, Annex 1). Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 103. 104. 105. 106. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 104. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 105. InterDigital admits that Samsung Electronics purports to seek damages in

this action; however, InterDigital denies that Samsung Electronics has been damaged or is entitled to recover any damages. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 106. 107. InterDigital admits that Samsung Electronics purports to seek specific

performance in this action; however, InterDigital denies that Samsung Electronics is

-14-

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 16 of 27

entitled to any such relief. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 107. COUNT X (Breach of Contract (the ITU IPR Policy), with Samsung Electronics as an Intended, Third-Party Beneficiary) 108. In response to Paragraph 108, InterDigital repeats the denials and answers

contained in each of the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 109. InterDigital denies that the allegations of Paragraph 109 fairly and

accurately describe the obligations of members of ITU. InterDigital further denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 109. 110. 111. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 110. InterDigital denies that the allegations of Paragraph 111 fairly and

accurately describe the ITU IPR policy. 112. InterDigital also admits that ITC has declared to ITU that, in case part(s)

or all of any proposals contained in contributions submitted by ITC are included in ITUR Recommendation(s) and the included part(s) contain items that have been patented or for which patent applications have been filed and whose use would be required to implement ITU-R Recommendation(s), ITC is prepared to grant a license to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide, non-discriminatory basis and on reasonable terms and conditions in accordance with the Statement on ITU-R Patent Policy (Resolution 1-2, Annex 1). Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 112. 113. 114. 115. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 113. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 114. InterDigital admits that Samsung Electronics purports to seek damages in

this action; however, InterDigital denies that Samsung Electronics has been damaged or is entitled to recover any damages. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 115.

-15-

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 17 of 27

116.

InterDigital admits that Samsung Electronics purports to seek specific

performance in this action; however, InterDigital denies that Samsung Electronics is entitled to any such relief. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 116. COUNT XI (Promissory Estoppel) 117. In response to Paragraph 117, InterDigital repeats the denials and answers

contained in each of the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 118. InterDigital admits that ITC has notified ETSI that ITC is the proprietor of

IPRs that ITC believes may be considered essential to the UMTS standard. InterDigital also admits that ITC and/or its affiliates have declared to ETSI that they are prepared to grant irrevocable licenses under the IPRs on terms and conditions which are in accordance with Clause 6.1 of the ETSI IPR policy, in respect of the UMTS standard, to the extent that the IPRs remain essential. InterDigital further admits that ITC has

declared to ITU that, in case part(s) or all of any proposals contained in contributions submitted by ITC are included in ITU-R Recommendation(s) and the included part(s) contain items that have been patented or for which patent applications have been filed and whose use would be required to implement ITU-R Recommendation(s), ITC is prepared to grant a license to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide, nondiscriminatory basis and on reasonable terms and conditions in accordance with the Statement on ITU-R Patent Policy (Resolution 1-2, Annex 1). Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 119. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 120. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 121. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 122. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 123.

-16-

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 18 of 27

124.

InterDigital admits that Samsung Electronics purports to seek specific

performance in this action; however, InterDigital denies that Samsung Electronics is entitled to any such relief. Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 124. COUNT XII (Unfair Business Practices) 125. In response to Paragraph 125, InterDigital repeats the denials and answers

contained in each of the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 126. 127. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 126. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 127. COUNT XIII (Declaration of Unenforceability) 128. In response to Paragraph 128, InterDigital repeats the denials and answers

contained in each of the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 129. InterDigital admits that ITC has notified ETSI that ITC is the proprietor of

IPRs that ITC believes may be considered essential to the UMTS standard. InterDigital also admits that ITC and/or its affiliates have declared to ETSI that they are prepared to grant irrevocable licenses under the IPRs on terms and conditions which are in accordance with Clause 6.1 of the ETSI IPR policy, in respect of the UMTS standard, to the extent that the IPRs remain essential. InterDigital further admits that ITC has

declared to ITU that, in case part(s) or all of any proposals contained in contributions submitted by ITC are included in ITU-R Recommendation(s) and the included part(s) contain items that have been patented or for which patent applications have been filed and whose use would be required to implement ITU-R Recommendation(s), ITC is prepared to grant a license to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide, nondiscriminatory basis and on reasonable terms and conditions in accordance with the Statement on ITU-R Patent Policy (Resolution 1-2, Annex 1). Except as thus expressly admitted, InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 129.

-17-

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 19 of 27

130. 131.

InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 130. Paragraph 131 merely recites the relief that Samsung Electronics

purportedly requests through this action and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent any response is required, InterDigital denies that Samsung Electronics is entitled to any relief. COUNT XIV (Declaration of Express License, Patent Exhaustion and/or Implied License Under Qualcomm-IDC Agreement) 132. In response to Paragraph 132, InterDigital repeats the denials and answers

contained in each of the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 133. In response to Paragraph 133, InterDigital admits that it entered into an

agreement with Qualcomm Incorporated ("Qualcomm"), a nonparty to this action. Due to the confidential nature of this agreement, no further response can be made absent an appropriate protective order. 134. InterDigital lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as

to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 134 and on that basis denies those allegations. 135. 136. InterDigital denies the allegations of Paragraph 135. Paragraph 136 merely recites the relief that Samsung Electronics

purportedly requests through this action and, therefore, no response is required. To the extent that any response is required, InterDigital denies that Samsung Electronics is entitled to any relief. Except as expressly admitted above, InterDigital denies the allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES First Affirmative Defense Samsung Electronics has failed to state any claim upon which relief can be granted.

-18-

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 20 of 27

Second Affirmative Defense Samsung Electronics' claims fail, in whole or in part, for lack of consideration. Third Affirmative Defense Samsung Electronics' claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the statute of frauds. Fourth Affirmative Defense Samsung Electronics' claims are barred because there is no legally cognizable injury. Fifth Affirmative Defense Samsung Electronics lacks standing. Sixth Affirmative Defense Samsung Electronics' claim under California state law is barred in whole or in part to the extent that it purports to apply to alleged conduct and/or injury occurring outside of California. Seventh Affirmative Defense Samsung Electronics' claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of unclean hands. Eighth Affirmative Defense Samsung Electronics' claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of laches. Ninth Affirmative Defense Samsung Electronics' claims are barred, in whole or in part, by Samsung Electronics' failure and refusal to negotiate any license in good faith. In this regard, InterDigital has repeatedly made offers to license its 3G patents to Samsung Electronics on what InterDigital believes to be FRAND terms and conditions, and has repeatedly invited Samsung Electronics to advise InterDigital what it considers to be FRAND terms. Samsung Electronics has failed and refused to do so. Based on the foregoing, Samsung Electronics has breached its obligation as a putative licensee of 3G patents to negotiate in

-19-

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 21 of 27

good faith and consequently is barred from asserting the claims or obtaining the relief set forth in the First Amended Complaint. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Defendants InterDigital Communications, LLC, InterDigital Technology Corporation, and Tantivy Communications, Inc. ( collectively "InterDigital") pray judgment as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. proper. That Samsung Electronics take nothing by reason of its complaint; That judgment be rendered in favor of InterDigital; That InterDigital be awarded its costs of suit incurred in this action; That InterDigital be awarded any further relief that this Court deems

AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS AND THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT InterDigital Communications, LLC and InterDigital Technology Corporation (hereinafter collectively, "InterDigital"), for their Amended Counterclaims and Third Party Complaint, assert the following against Counterclaim Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Third Party Defendants Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, "Samsung Defendants"): 1. InterDigital repeats and incorporates by reference its responses and

allegations as set forth herein in Paragraphs 1-136, above. 2. Counterclaim and Third Party Plaintiff InterDigital Communications, LLC

("IDC LLC") is a Pennsylvania limited liability corporation having its principal place of business at 781 Third Avenue, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19406. InterDigital

Communications, LLC is a subsidiary of InterDigital, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation. 3. Counterclaim and Third Party Plaintiff InterDigital Technology

Corporation ("ITC") is a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business at

-20-

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 22 of 27

3411 Silverside Road, Concord Plaza, Suite 105 Hagley Building, Wilmington, Delaware 19810. ITC is a subsidiary of InterDigital, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation. 4. Counterclaim Defendant, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. ("Samsung

Electronics"), is a Korean corporation with its principal place of business at 250, 2-Ka, Taepying-Ro, Chung-ku, Seoul, Korea. 5. Third Party Defendant, Samsung Electronics America, Inc. ("SEA"), is a

New York corporation, having its principal place of business at 105 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660. SEA is a wholly owned subsidiary of Samsung Electronics. 6. Third Party Defendant, Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC

("STA"), is a Delaware corporation, having its principal place of business at 1301 Lookout Drive, Richardson, Texas 75082. Samsung Electronics. STA is a wholly owned subsidiary of

Upon information and belief, Samsung Telecommunications

America LLP converted to Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC on December 27, 2006. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these Amended

Counterclaims and Third Party Complaint for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), and 1367(a), under the Patent Laws of the United States (35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.). 8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Counterclaim Defendant This Court also has personal jurisdiction over Third Party

Samsung Electronics.

Defendants Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, "Third Party Samsung Defendants"). 9. 1400(b). Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c)-(d) and

-21-

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 23 of 27

BACKGROUND 10. United States Patent No. 5,799,010 ("the '010 patent"), entitled "Code

Division Multiple Access (CDMA) Communication System," issued on August 25, 1998, to inventors Gary Lomp, John Kowalski, Fatih Ozluturk, Avi Silverberg, Robert Regis, Michael Luddy, Alexander Marra, and Alexander Jacques. ITC owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest in and to the '010 patent. A true and correct copy of the '010 patent is attached to this Amended Answer, Amended Counterclaims and Third Party Complaint as Exhibit A. 11. United States Patent No. 6,215,778 ("the '778 patent"), entitled "Bearer

Channel Modification System for a Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) Communication System," issued on April 10, 2001, to inventors Gary Lomp, John Kowalski, Fatih Ozluturk, Avi Silverberg, Robert Regis, Michael Luddy, Alexander Marra, and Alexander Jacques. ITC owns by assignment the entire right, title, and interest in and to the '778 patent. A true and correct copy of the '778 patent is attached to this Amended Answer, Amended Counterclaims and Third Party Complaint as Exhibit B. COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 5,799,010 12. InterDigital repeats and incorporates each and every allegation of

paragraphs 1 through 11 of these Amended Counterclaims and Third Party Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 13. The '010 patent is presumed to be valid under 35 U.S.C. § 282, and

remains enforceable. 14. On information and belief, Samsung Electronics, SEA, and STA

(collectively "the Samsung Defendants") manufacture, use, import, offer for sale, and/or sell products that infringe the '010 patent, and will continue to do so unless enjoined by the Court. 15. On information and belief, Samsung Defendants manufacture, import,

offer for sale, and/or sell in the United States Third Generation ("3G") CDMA2000

-22-

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 24 of 27

handsets and components thereof that infringe the '010 patent. Samsung Defendants' past and present infringing handsets include, but are not limited to, the following models: SCH-a303 Heat; SCH-a570; SCH-a630; SCH-a645; SCH-a850; SCH-a870; SCH-a930; SCH-a950; SCH-a970; SCH-a990; SCH-i730; SCH-i760; SCH-i830 (sometimes referred to as the "IP-830w"); SCH-r200; SCH-r400; SCH-r500 Hue; SCH-r510 Wafer; SCHu410; SCH-u420; SCH-u470 (sometimes referred to as the "Juke"); SCH-u520; SCHu540; SCH-u620; SCH-u700 (sometimes referred to as the "Gleam"); SCH-u740; SPHa513 (sometimes referred to as the "Fin"); SPH-a640; SPH-a900; SPH-a920 (sometimes referred to as the "MM-A920"); SPH-m500; SPH-m510; SPH-m520; SPH-m610; and SPH-m620 (sometimes referred to as the "UpStage" or "B'Phone"). The identification of these models is not intended to limit the scope of this counterclaim, and remedy should extend to all past and present infringing models. 16. Samsung Defendants know or should have known of InterDigital's rights

in the '010 patent, and their infringement of the '010 patent has been willful and deliberate. 17. As a result of Samsung Defendants' past and continuing infringement of

the '010 patent, InterDigital has suffered and is continuing to suffer irreparable damages in an amount to be determined at trial. COUNT II INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,215,778 18. InterDigital repeats and incorporates each and every allegation of

paragraphs 1 through 17 of these Amended Counterclaims and Third Party Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 19. The '778 patent is presumed to be valid under 35 U.S.C. § 282, and

remains enforceable.

-23-

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 25 of 27

20.

On information and belief, Samsung Defendants manufacture, use, import,

offer for sale, and/or sell products that infringe the '778 patent, and will continue to do so unless enjoined by the Court. 21. On information and belief, Samsung Defendants manufacture, import,

offer for sale, and/or sell in the United States the 3G Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA) and CDMA2000 handsets and components thereof that infringe the '778 patent. Samsung Defendants' past and present infringing handsets include, but are not limited to, the following models: SGH-a707 (sometimes referred to as the "Sync"); SGH-a717; SGH-a727; SGH-a737; SGH-i607 (sometimes referred to as the "Blackjack"); SGH-zx10; SGH-zx20; SCH-a303 Heat; SCH-a570; SCH-a630; SCHa645; SCH-a850; SCH-a870; SCH-a930; SCH-a950; SCH-a970; SCH-a990; SCH-i730; SCH-i760; SCH-i830 (sometimes referred to as the "IP-830w"); SCH-r200; SCH-r400; SCH-r500 Hue; SCH-r510 Wafer; SCH-u410; SCH-u420; SCH-u470 (sometimes referred to as the "Juke"); SCH-u520; SCH-u540; SCH-u620; SCH-u700 (sometimes referred to as the "Gleam"); SCH-u740; SPH-a513 (sometimes referred to as the "Fin"); SPH-a640; SPH-a900; SPH-a920 (sometimes referred to as the "MM-A920"); SPHm500; SPH-m510; SPH-m520; SPH-m610; and SPH-m620 (sometimes referred to as the "UpStage" or "B'Phone"). The identification of these models is not intended to limit the scope of this counterclaim, and remedy should extend to all past and present infringing models. 22. Samsung Defendants know or should have known of InterDigital's rights

in the '778 patent, and their infringement of the '778 patent has been willful and deliberate. 23. As a result of Samsung Defendants' past and continuing infringement of

the '778 patent, InterDigital has suffered and is continuing to suffer irreparable damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

-24-

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 26 of 27

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Counterclaim and Third Party Plaintiffs InterDigital

Communications, LLC and InterDigital Technology Corporation ("InterDigital") pray judgment as follows: 1. 2. 3. That judgment be rendered in favor of InterDigital; That InterDigital be awarded its costs of suit incurred in this action; and That, for the reasons set forth in InterDigital's Amended Counterclaims

and Third Party Complaint, this Court enter judgment in its favor and against Samsung Defendants as follows: (a) Find that Samsung Defendants have infringed one or more claims

of the '010 patent and the '778 patent; (b) (c) Find that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285; Enter an injunction and permanently enjoin Samsung Defendants

from infringing the claims of the '010 patent and the '778 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 283; (d) Award InterDigital an amount to be determined as compensatory

damages for Samsung Defendants' infringement of the '010 patent and the '778 patent and the costs of this action as determined by the Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284; (e) Treble the damages as a result of Samsung Defendants' willful

infringement of the '010 patent and the '778 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 284; (f) Award InterDigital its costs, including expenses and reasonable

attorney fees incurred in litigating this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285; (g) Award InterDigital pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all

amounts awarded; and (h) Award InterDigital any further relief that this Court deems proper.

-25-

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 27 of 27

JURY DEMAND InterDigital demands a jury trial as to all issues that are triable by a jury in this action. OF COUNSEL: Mark D. Flanagan Nathan Walker WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 1117 California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Telecopier: (650) 858-6100 [email protected] [email protected]

By:

/s/ Richard K. Herrmann _ Richard K. Herrmann#405 MORRIS JAMES LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801-1494 Telephone: (302) 888-6800 Telecopier: (302) 571-1750 [email protected]

OF COUNSEL: Patrick J. Coyne Christopher P. Isaac FINNEGAN HENDERSON FARABOW GARRETT & DUNNER LLP 901 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001-4413 Telephone: (202) 408.4000 Telecopier: (202) 408.4400 Attorneys for Defendants InterDigital Communications, LLC, InterDigital Technology Corporation, and Tantivy Communications, Inc.

Ron E. Shulman Michael B. Levin WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH AND ROSATI LLP 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 Telecopier: (650) 493-6811 [email protected] [email protected]

Dated: November 30, 2007

-26-

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 1 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 2 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 3 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 4 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 5 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 6 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 7 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 8 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 9 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 10 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 11 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 12 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 13 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 14 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 15 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 16 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 17 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 18 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 19 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 20 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 21 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 22 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 23 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 24 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 25 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 26 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 27 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 28 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 29 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 30 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 31 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 32 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 33 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 34 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 35 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 36 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 37 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 38 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 39 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 40 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 41 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 42 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 43 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 44 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 45 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 46 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 47 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 48 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 49 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-2

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 50 of 50

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 1 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 2 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 3 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 4 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 5 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 6 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 7 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 8 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 9 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 10 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 11 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 12 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 13 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 14 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 15 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 16 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 17 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 18 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 19 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 20 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 21 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 22 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 23 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 24 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 25 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 26 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 27 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 28 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 29 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 30 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 31 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 32 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-3

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 33 of 33

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 1 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 2 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 3 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 4 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 5 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 6 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 7 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 8 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 9 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 10 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 11 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 12 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 13 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 14 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 15 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 16 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 17 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 18 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 19 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 20 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 21 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 22 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 23 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 24 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 25 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 26 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 27 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 28 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 29 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 30 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 31 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 32 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 33 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 34 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 35 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 36 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 37 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 38 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 39 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 40 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 41 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 42 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 43 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 44 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 45 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 46 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-4

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 47 of 47

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 1 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 2 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 3 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 4 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 5 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 6 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 7 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 8 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 9 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 10 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 11 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 12 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 13 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 14 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 15 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 16 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 17 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 18 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 19 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 20 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 21 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 22 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 23 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 24 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 25 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 26 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 27 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 28 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 29 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 30 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 31 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 32 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 33 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 34 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 35 of 36

Case 1:07-cv-00167-JJF

Document 21-5

Filed 11/30/2007

Page 36 of 36