UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C.

Similar documents
UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Washington, D.C.

September 21, Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-853

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C Before the Honorable Robert K. Rogers, Jr. Administrative Law Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

PUBLIC VERSION. UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. Order No. 21

Case3:12-cv VC Document32 Filed02/11/15 Page1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C Before The Commission

May 17, Vikie Bailey-Goggins Oregon Public Utility Commission 550 Capitol St., NE Suite 215 Salem, OR Re: IC. Dear Ms.

NASD REGULATION, INC. OFFICE OF HEARING OFFICERS

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CRIMINAL DIVISION FELONY BRANCH

November 8, Lisa R. Barton Secretary International Trade Commission 500 E Street, SW Room 112A Washington, DC 20436

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. DEVICES AND RADIO FREQUENCY Docket No AND PROCESSING COMPONENTS THEREOF

Board Meeting Notice and Agenda. July 12, :00 a.m.

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. THIRD PARTY SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P. S STATEMENT REGARDING THE PUBLIC INTEREST

File No. SR-NASD-00-70

Paper Date Entered: September 9, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PREHEARING CONFERENCE STATEMENT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E)

Case 2:03-cv DN Document 1179 Filed 02/16/18 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio (Cincinnati) CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:16-cr MRB-1

March 18, Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, LLC PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. Docket Nos. ER ER Refund Report

Case 1:15-cv JMS-MJD Document 185 Filed 02/17/16 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 2095

File No. SR-NASD Random Selection of Arbitrators by the Neutral List Selection System; Accelerated Effectiveness Requested

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CIVIL CASE NO. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT

Next Generation 911; Text-to-911; Next Generation 911 Applications. SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission)

STATE OF ILLINOIS ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION ORDER

P. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Patent and Trademark Office. [Docket No. PTO-P ]

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Privacy Policy... 1 EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Policy... 2

June 17, SR-NASD Policy to Conduct Fingerprint-based Background Checks of NASD Employees and Independent Contractors

PUBLIC VERSION UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C.

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) )

The South Dakota Unified Certification Program Agreement. 700 Broadway Ave. Pierre, SD

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF DOCUMENT REQUESTS TO THE DEFENDANT. Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs ArrivalStar S.A.

February 18, The Honorable Kimberly D. Bose Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426

Case5:12-cv LHK Document302 Filed11/15/12 Page1 of 12

VONAGE HOLDINGS CORP

January 30, Docket Nos. ER and ER Interconnection Queue Quarterly Progress Report, Q4 2014

Paper Entered: June 23, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

August 19, Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 Twelfth Street, S.W. Washington, D.C

Case 1:99-mc Document 298 Filed 04/13/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION AGREEMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Congratulations Silver Boeing Performance Excellence Award recipient!

Re: File No. SR-NASD Amendments to NASD Rules 1013 and 1140

To complain about the registration of a.nz domain name you need to fill out this online form.

亞洲域名爭議解決中心 ASIAN DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTRE (HONG KONG OFFICE)

PUBLIC VERSION UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. Before the Honorable E. James Gildea Administrative Law Judge

Oracle Binary Code License Agreement for the Java SE Platform Products and JavaFX

You may use the Service to either access, establish or change the following:

Case3:08-cv WHA Document237 Filed11/30/09 Page1 of 6

April 10, 2014 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING

Freedom of Information Act Appeal (FOIA and FOIA )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (Beijing Office)

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ALPA ) hereby answers the Counterclaim (hereinafter CC ) filed by Defendant EMERY

LOGO LICENSE AGREEMENT(S) CERTIPORT AND IC³

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL NO. 3:16-cv-00285

FOIA Request - EEOC-DIG Investigations that are closed. (202) (phone) (202) (fax)

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC 20554

Electric Sample Form No Agreement for Unmetered Low Wattage Equipment Connected to Customer-Owned Street Light Facilities

Case No , -1307, -1309, -1310, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

May 20, Cheryl Walker Oregon Public Utility Commission 550 Capitol St., NE Suite 215 Salem, OR Re: UCB 34 Preferred Choice Insurance

Mr. David Greene, Esq. Electronic Frontier Foundation 815 Eddy St. San Francisco, CA Re: OLA/ (F)

Case 5:17-cv EJD Document 105 Filed 11/07/17 Page 1 of 7

CALSTRS ONLINE AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Defendants Wowza Media Systems, LLC and Coffee Cup Partners, Inc.

Case 9:06-cv RHC Document 113 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION

Case 1:05-cv SLR Document 160 Filed 01/04/2006 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

COMPLAINT FINANC1AL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY OFFICE OF HEARING OFFICERS. Disciplinary Proceeding SUMMARY

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, DC ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMMENTS OF T-MOBILE USA, INC.

July 30, Q2 Quarterly Report on Progress in Processing Interconnection Requests; Docket No. ER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

U.S. v. Weaver, 636 F.Supp.2d 769 (C.D. Ill., 2009)

BCN Telecom, Inc. Customer Proprietary Network Information Certification Accompanying Statement

March 15, 2011 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

FCC Form 555 Annual Lifeline Eligible Telecommunications Carrier Certification Form Case No T-GI

Oracle Binary Code License Agreement for Java Secure Sockets Extension for Connected Device Configuration 1.0.2

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation ( NERC ) hereby submits

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM CITY OF SHORELINE, WASHINGTON

TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT TO PROVIDE ACCESSIBILITY CONSULTING SERVICES BY A CERTIFIED ACCESS SPECIALIST (CASp)

STATE OF MINNESOTA BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) )

Examination Guidelines for Design (Provisional translation)

Privacy Shield Policy

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C In the Matter of ) ) Telephone Number Portability ) CC Docket No.

Funding University Inc. Terms of Service

rvic November

STATE OF MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

Case 1:99-mc Document 341 Filed 07/21/11 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE.

June 2, If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (517) Sincerely,


FN1. The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

Burrell v. Atty Gen USA

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. APPLE INC. Petitioner,

Transcription:

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. In the Matter of CERTAIN WIRELESS DEVICES WITH 3G CAPABILITIES AND COMPONENTS THEREOF Investigation No. 337-TA-800 COMPLAINANT INTERDIGITAL S MOTION TO TERMINATE THIS INVESTIGATION AS TO THE LG RESPONDENTS BY WITHDRAWAL OF THE COMPLAINT Pursuant to Commission Rule 19 C.F.R. 210.21(a)(1) and 210.15(a)(2), Complainants InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, and IPR Licensing, Inc. (collectively InterDigital ) respectfully move to terminate this Investigation based on withdrawal of the complaint as to the remaining respondents, LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics USA, Inc., and LG Electronics Mobilecomm USA, Inc. (collectively LG ). No initial determination on violation of section 337 has issued as to LG due to LG s prior and erroneous termination from the investigation based on its wholly groundless assertion of arbitration, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that would prevent termination of this Investigation as to LG based on the withdrawal of the complaint. Further, termination as to LG will conserve the resources of the Commission and the parties. InterDigital hereby represents that there are no agreements, written or oral, express or implied, between the parties concerning the subject matter of this Investigation. For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities submitted herewith, InterDigital respectfully requests that the Commission issue a Determination granting

this Motion to Terminate the above captioned Investigation as to LG in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 210.21(a)(1) based on the withdrawal of the complaint. Respectfully Submitted, Dated: January 13, 2014 /s/ Bert C. Reiser Maximilian A. Grant Bert C. Reiser Matthew J. Moore 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-2200 Facsimile: (202) 637-2201 Ron E. Shulman 140 Scott Drive Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: (650) 328-4600 Facsimile: (650) 463-2600 Julie M. Holloway 505 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 David S. Steuer Michael B. Levin Maura L. Rees WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 Larry L. Shatzer WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 1700 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3817 Telephone: (202) 973-8800 Counsel for Complainants InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, and IPR Licensing, Inc. 2

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. In the Matter of CERTAIN WIRELESS DEVICES WITH 3G CAPABILITIES AND COMPONENTS THEREOF Investigation No. 337-TA-800 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINANT INTERDIGITAL S MOTION TO TERMINATE THIS INVESTIGATION AS TO THE LG RESPONDENTS BY WITHDRAWAL OF THE COMPLAINT Pursuant to Commission Rule 19 C.F.R. 210.21(a)(1) and 210.15(a)(2), Complainants InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, and IPR Licensing, Inc. (collectively InterDigital ) respectfully move to terminate this Investigation based on withdrawal of the complaint as to the remaining respondents, LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics USA, Inc., and LG Electronics Mobilecomm USA, Inc. (collectively LG ). 1 I. BACKGROUND The Commission instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-800 (the Investigation ) in August 2011, naming Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. (collectively Nokia ), Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., FutureWei Technologies, Inc., and Huawei Device USA (collectively Huawei ), and ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) (collectively ZTE ) as respondents. In October 2011, InterDigital moved (i) to amend the complaint to add U.S. Patent No. 8,009,636 1 On December 20, 2013, InterDigital filed a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, seeking an appeal of the Commission s Final Determination in this Investigation as to Nokia, Huawei, and ZTE. InterDigital will continue to pursue that appeal. 1

and (ii) to add LG as respondents, asserting the same patents against LG as it asserted against Nokia, Huawei, and ZTE. (Mot. Dkt. 800-006.) The ALJ granted InterDigital s motion by an Initial Determination dated December 5, 2011 (Order No. 5) that became final on December 21, 2011. In January 2012, LG moved to terminate the Commission proceedings against it, asserting that InterDigital s infringement claim raises an arbitrable dispute under a 2006 license agreement. (Mot. Dkt. 800-040.) In June 2012, the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) granted LG s motion to terminate the investigation in favor of arbitration. (Order No. 30.) The Commission declined to review the Order and it became final on July 6, 2012. InterDigital appealed the termination of LG from the investigation and on June 7, 2013, the Federal Circuit reversed. The Court found that [i]t was legal error for the ALJ to terminate the investigation without assessing whether LG s license defense was at least plausible. InterDigital Commc ns, LLC v. Int l Trade Comm n, 718 F.3d 1336, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In reversing termination of LG from the investigation, the Court found that the license at issue is unambiguous and that LG s assertions of arbitrability and license were wholly groundless. Id. Even the dissent, which was directed solely to whether the Court had jurisdiction over InterDigital s appeal, went out of its way to note that there is no plausible argument that LG could prevail under its patent license agreement, and hence [] LG s position is wholly groundless. Id. at 1347-48. On October 3, 2013, nearly fifteen months after the Commission terminated LG from the investigation, and nearly four months after the Court issued its opinion reversing that termination, the Federal Circuit denied LG s petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc and remanded LG to the Commission for further proceedings. Meanwhile, the 800 Investigation proceeded on InterDigital s claims against Nokia, Huawei, and ZTE. Fact and expert discovery was completed, an evidentiary hearing was 2

held, and in June 2013, ALJ Shaw issued an Initial Determination on InterDigital s claims against Nokia, Huawei, and ZTE. The Commission issued its notice with respect to the Nokia, Huawei, and ZTE respondents on December 19, 2013, and its accompanying opinion on December 20, 2013. The ALJ s initial determination and the Commission s final determination addressed infringement and invalidity issues related to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,502,406; 7,706,332; 7,706,830; 8,009,636; 7,536,013; 7,970,127; and 7,616,970 as they relate to the Nokia, Huawei, and ZTE accused products. Notably, neither the ALJ nor the Commission addressed any LG accused products, due to LG s wholly groundless assertion of arbitration and subsequent termination. This Investigation, as it pertains to the LG respondents, remains before the Commission and is still in its early, prehearing stage. As LG itself noted in its January 10, 2014 Additional Comments Regarding Further Proceedings, fact discovery had not yet closed, depositions had just commenced, and expert discovery had not yet started when the ALJ granted LG's motion to terminate. Further, LG did not participate in the evidentiary hearing in February 2013, did not present witnesses, did cross-examine adverse witnesses, and did not submit posthearing briefs. InterDigital agrees with LG that this Investigation, with respect to the dispute between InterDigital and LG, is still in the prehearing discovery stage. II. LEGAL STANDARD Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1), which governs termination of an investigation based upon withdrawal of a complaint or certain allegations contained therein, states: Any party may move at any time prior to the issuance of an initial determination on violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 to terminate an investigation in whole or in part as to any or all respondents, on the basis of withdrawal of the complaint or certain allegations contained therein A motion for termination of 3

an investigation based on withdrawal of the complaint, or for good cause, shall contain a statement that there are no agreements, written or oral, express or implied between the parties concerning the subject matter of the investigation, or if there are any agreements concerning the subject matter of the investigation, all such agreements shall be identified, and if written, a copy shall be filed with the Commission along with the motion 19 C.F.R. 210.21(a)(1). Termination of an investigation will be readily granted to a complainant during the prehearing stage of an investigation in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. E.g., Certain Ultrafiltration Membrane Sys. and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-107, Commission Action and Order, at 2 (Mar. 11, 1982). The Commission routinely recognizes that a complainant can seek termination of an investigation as to certain respondents by withdrawing the complaint pursuant to Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1). See Certain Consumer Electronics With Display And Processing Capabilities, Inv. No. 337-TA-884, Notice of Commission Determination (Dec. 20, 2013); Certain Consumer Electronics With Display And Processing Capabilities, Inv. No. 337-TA-884, Notice of Commission Determination (Aug. 16, 2013); Certain Sintered Rare Earth Magnets, Method Of Making Same And Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-855, Notice of Commission Determination (Jul. 12, 2013); Certain Blu-Ray Disc Players, Components Thereof and Products Containing The Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-824, Notice of Commission Determination (Jan. 14, 2013); Certain Kinesiotherapy Devices And Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA- 823, Notice of Commission Determination (Oct. 31, 2012). III. ARGUMENT Because of the delay in the disposition of InterDigital s claims against LG caused by LG s wholly groundless assertion of arbitration, and in light of the December 20, 2013 Commission Determination as to the other respondents, InterDigital hereby withdraws its 4

complaint as to LG, and respectfully requests the Commission terminate the investigation pursuant to Commission Rule 201.21(a)(1). 2 As noted above, this Investigation, as to the LG respondents, is still in its early, prehearing stages. LG recognized as much in its January 10, 2014 Additional Comments Regarding Further Proceedings, that fact discovery had not yet closed, depositions had just commenced, and expert discovery had not yet started when the ALJ granted LG's motion to terminate. Further, LG did not participate in the evidentiary hearing in February 2013, did not present witnesses, did cross-examine adverse witnesses, and did not submit post-hearing briefs. Because this Investigation is still in the prehearing stage as to LG, and because there are no extraordinary circumstances that prevent termination of this Investigation as to LG, termination of this Investigation as to LG should be readily granted. E.g., Certain Ultrafiltration Membrane Sys. and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-107, Commission Action and Order, at 2 (Mar. 11, 1982). Such a termination as to LG will conserve the resources of the Commission and the parties. In addition, termination of this Investigation as to LG will not adversely affect the public interest because such termination will not affect the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or U.S. consumers. As required under Commission Rule 210.21(a)(1), InterDigital hereby represents that there are no agreements, written or oral, express or implied, between the parties concerning the subject matter of this Investigation. 2 As noted above, InterDigital is pursuing its appeal of the Commission s determination in the 800 Investigation and reserves all rights, should the Federal Circuit reverse the Commission s determination or any portion thereof, to pursue any and all claims against LG in a subsequent investigation. 5

For the reasons set forth above, InterDigital respectfully requests that the Commission issue a Determination granting this Motion to Terminate the above captioned Investigation in accordance with 19 C.F.R. 210.21(a)(1) based on the withdrawal of the complaint as to the last remaining respondents. Respectfully Submitted, Dated: January 13, 2014 /s/ Bert C. Reiser Maximilian A. Grant Bert C. Reiser Matthew J. Moore 555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-2200 Facsimile: (202) 637-2201 Ron E. Shulman 140 Scott Drive Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: (650) 328-4600 Facsimile: (650) 463-2600 Julie M. Holloway 505 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-0600 David S. Steuer Michael B. Levin Maura L. Rees WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 Larry L. Shatzer WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 6

1700 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3817 Telephone: (202) 973-8800 Counsel for Complainants InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, and IPR Licensing, Inc. 7

337-TA-800 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE It is hereby certified that copies of COMPLAINANT INTERDIGITAL S MOTION TO TERMINATE THIS INVESTIGATION AS TO THE LG RESPONDENTS BY WITHDRAWAL OF THE COMPLAINT were served on January 13, 2014 as follows: Lisa R. Barton Acting Secretary to the Commission U.S. International Trade Commission 500 E Street, S.W., Room 112A Washington, DC 20436 By EDIS The Honorable David P. Shaw Administrative Law Judge U.S. International Trade Commission 500 E Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20436 Brian Koo, Esq. Office of Unfair Import Investigations U.S. International Trade Commission 500 E Street, S.W., Room 401 Washington, D.C. 20436 Jamie D. Underwood ALSTON & BIRD The Atlantic Building 950 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Attorneys for Respondents Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. By Hand Delivery (1 copy) and email: Patricia.Chow@usitc.gov By Email e-mail: Brian.Koo@usitc.gov By: e-mail: Nokia.IDC.800@alston.com Sturgis M. Sobin Covington & Burling LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Attorneys for Respondents Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., FutureWei Technologies, Inc. and Huawei Device USA By e-mail: Huawei337@cov.com 1

337-TA-800 Jay H. Reiziss BRINKS GILSON & LIONE 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 Attorneys for Respondents ZTE Corporation and ZTE (USA) Richard A. Sterba FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 1425 K Street, N.W., 11th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Attorneys for Respondents LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics USA, Inc. and LG Electronics Mobilecomm USA, Inc. By e-mail: ZTE337@brinksgilson.com By e-mail: LGE-InterDigitalITCService@fr.com /s/ Erika J. Weinstein Erika J. Weinstein Litigation Analyst 555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004-1304 2