nokia's may 23 complaint against htc sent to the us itc

CBI lgALSTON8BH{D LLP 1

The Atlantic Building950 F Street, NW

Washington, DC 20004-1404

202-239-3300Fax: 202~239-3333www. alston.com

MSc0flStevens Di1'ectDial: Z12-B9-3075 Email: -- ~ 1-?- -~;--_---

Nclliii

@958TheHonorableLisaR. Barton """""" """"" "Acting Secretary _ I SwemyU.S. lntemational Trade Commission |m-I"am,€0mn“Ss|on500 E Street, S.W., Room 112Washington, DC 20436

May 23, 2013

VIAHAND DELIVERY

Re: Certain Portable Electronic Communications Devices, including Mobile Phonesand Components Thereof Docket No. 337-TA

Dear Acting Secretary Barton:

Enclosed for filing please find documents in support of a request by NokiaCorporation and Nokia Inc. (collectively “Nokia”) that the U.S. International TradeCommission institute an investigation pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930,as amended, concerning certain portable electronic communications devices, includingmobile phones and components thereof. A separate letter requesting confidentialtreatment of confidential exhibits 15, 17, 22, 23, 26, 42, 44, 47, 53, 61, and 63 is includedWiththis filing. There is no confidential business information contained in the complaintitself. Nokia’s submission includes the following documents:

0 One (1) original and eight (8) true paper copies of Complainants’ Complaint,pursuant to Commission Rule 210.8(a)(l)(i).

I One (1) electronic copy of the non-confidential exhibits to the Complaint,pursuant to Commission Rules 2l0.8(a)(l)(i) and 210.12(a)(9), including:

o One (1) electronic certified copy each of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,035,189 (“l 89patent”), 6,373,345 (“345 patent”), 6,71 1,211 (“2ll patent”), 7,187,945(“945 patent”), 8,140,650 (“650 patent”), 8,363,824 (“824 patent”) asExhibits 1-6 to the Verified Complaint, respectively, pursuant toCommission Rule 2l0.l2(a)(9)(i); and

Atlanta ~ Brussels I Charlotte ' Dallas ~ Los Angeles I New York I Research Triangle v Silicon Valley ' Ventura County ' Washington, D.C.

o One (1) electronic certified copy of the assignment records for each of the189, 345, 211, 945, 650, and 824 patents as Exhibits 7-12 to the VerifiedComplaint, respectively, pursuant to Commission Rule 2lO.l2(a)(9)(ii).

One (1) electronic copy of the confidential exhibits to the Verified Complaint,pursuant to Commission Rule and 210.8(a)(1)(ii).

One (1) additional copy each —two (2) additional copies total —of the Complaintand accompanying electronic copies of the non-confidential exhibits, for serviceupon Proposed Respondents HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc., pursuantto Commission Rule 210.8(a)(1)(iii); and two (2) additional copies of theconfidential exhibits for service upon Proposed Respondents’ counsel after theyhave subscribed to the Protective Order.

One (1) additional copy of the Complaint for the government of Taiwan, pursuantto Commission Rule 210.8(a)(l)(iv).

One (1) physical sample of a domestic article protected by the asserted patents, asExhibit PX1 to the Complaint, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.12(b).

Three (3) physical samples of the imported articles that are the subject of thecomplaint, as Exhibits PX2 to PX4 to the Complaint, pursuant to CommissionRule 210.12(b).

One (1) electronic certified copy and three (3) additional electronic copies each ofthe prosecution histories of the 189, 345, 211, 945, 650, and 824 patents asAppendices A, C, E, G, l, and K to the Complaint, pursuant to Commission Rule210.12(¢)(1).

Four (4) electronic copies each of each patent and applicable pages of eachtechnical reference mentioned in the prosecution histories of the 189, 345, 211,945, 650, and 824 patents as Appendices B, D, F, H, and J to the Complaint,pursuant to Commission Rule 210.12(c)(2).

A letter and certification requesting confidential treatment for the informationcontained in Confidential Exhibits 15, 17, 22, 23, 26, 42, 44, 47, 53, 61, and 63 tothe Complaint, pursuant to Commission Rules 201.6(b) and 2l0.5(d).

A Statement on the Public Interest regarding the remedial orders sought by Nokiain the Complaint, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.8(b).

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me with any questionspertaining to this submission.

Sincerely,

M Scott Stevens

Counselfor Complainants NokiaCorporation and Nokia, Inc.

Enclosures

ALSTON8BIRD LLPThe Atlantic Building

950 F Street, NWWashington, DC 20004-1404

202-239-3300Fax 202239-3333www.alston.com

M Scott Stevem Direct Dial: 202-Z39-30% Email: [email protected]

May 23, 201 3

VIAHAND DELIVERY

The Honorable Lisa R. BartonActing SecretaryU.S. International Trade Commission500 E Street, S.W., Room 112Washington, DC 20436

Re: Certain Portable Electronic Communications Devices, including Mobile Phonesand Components Thereof Docket No. 337-TA

REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT

Dear Acting Secretary Barton:

Pursuant to Commission Rule 201.6, Complainants Nokia Corporation and Nokialnc. (collectively “Nokia”) hereby respectfully request confidential treatment of certainconfidential business information contained in Confidential Exhibits 15, l7, 22, 23, 26,42, 44, 47, 53, 61, and 63 to Nokia’s Complaint, filed herewith.

The information for which confidential treatment is sought consists of proprietarycommercial and technical secrets, specifically:

1. Proprietary Nokia or third-party technical data, including intemal engineeringreports (Confidential Exhibits 15, 17, 22, 23, 26, 42, 44, 47, and 53);

2. Confidential information relating to licensees to the Asserted Patents(Confidential Exhibit 61);

3. Proprietary financial data regarding Nokia’s domestic investments inengineering, research and development, and testing, in support of articlesprotected by one or more claims of the Asserted Patents (Confidential Exhibit63).

The business information described herein qualifies as confidential businessinformation because substantially-identical information is not available to the public and

Atlanta ' Brussels 0 Charlotte I Dallas 1 L05Angeles I New York I Research Triangle ' Silicon Valley I Ventum County ~ Washington, D.C.

its disclosure would likely impair the Commission’s ability to obtain informationnecessary to perform its statutory functions as well as cause substantial harm to thecompetitive position of the organizations from which the information was obtained. Acertification that substantially-identical information is not available to the public isattached hereto.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact me with any questionspertaining to this submission.

Sincerely,

//§,(,%\Scott StevensM

Attachment (certification)

CERTIFICATION

I, M Scott Stevens, attomey for Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. (collectively“Nokia”), declare:

1. I am duly authorized by Nokia to execute this certification.

2. I have reviewed Confidential Exhibits 15, 17, 22, 23, 26, 42, 44, 47, 53, 61, and63 to Nokia’s Complaint, for which confidential treatment has been requested.

3. To the best of my knowledge, information and belief, founded after reasonableinquiry, substantially-identical information is not available to the public.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 23rd day of May, 2012, in Charlotte, NC.

MScott1s

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSIONWASHINGTON, D.C.

In the Matter of

Certain Portable ElectronicCommunications Devices, Including Inv. No. 337-TAMobile Phones and Components Thereof

COMPLAINANTS’ PUBLIC-INTEREST STATEMENT

Complainants Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. (collectively, “Nokia”) submit this

public-interest statement, as required by 19 C.F.R. § 2l0.8(b). As discussed below, the remedy

sought against Respondents HTC Corporation and HTC America, lnc. (collectively, “HTC”) will

not have an adverse effect on public health or welfare, competitive conditions in the U.S.

economy, production of like or directly competitive articles in the U.S., or U.S. consumers.

I. THE REQUESTED REMEDY WILL NOT HARM THE PUBLICINTEREST

The Accused Products in this matter, as defined in the accompanying complaint, are the

types that are before the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) on a regular basis, and are

also the subject of multiple ITC remedial orders. Here, the requested remedy is directed only at

mobile devices sold for importation into the United States, imported into the United States,

and/or sold after importation into the United States by proposed Respondents. Thus, the sole

relevant public-interest inquiry is whether the exclusion of this discrete set of articles, not mobile

devices generally, necessitates the denial of Section 337 relief based on the statutory public

interest factors. Here, no such action is justified.

_1_

The ITC has made clear that the public interest rests in the protection of intellectual

property rights (“IPR”).‘ That protection is to be denied in only limited situations? The question

with respect to public interest, then, is not whether a “balancing” of factors merely favors a

remedy, but rather whether competing interests exist of such significance with regard to only the

Accused Products that the strong public policy of protecting IPR must give way.

Here, although the Accused Products may be popular, the exclusion of this relatively

small subset of the U.S. market does not implicate the national security or public-health issues

upon which the ITC has precluded relief in the past.3 Not only does Nokia offer mobile devices

with the same specific patented features as those offered by proposed Respondents, there is a

plethora of other mobile devices available to U.S. consumers including those running the same

Android operating system as the majority of HTC’s products, ensuring that any remedy issued

will have no relevant public-interest impact on the domestic market.

1See, e.g., Certain Digital Television Prods. & Certain Prods. Containing Same & Methods ofUsing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-617, C0mm’n Op., at 9 (Aug. 23, 2009) (“Digital TVPr0ducts”).

2See Certain Baseband Processor Chips & Chipsets, Transmitter & Receiver (Radio) Chips,Power Control Chips, & Prods. Containing Same, Including Cellular Tel. Handsets, Inv. No.337-TA-543, Comm’n Op., at 153 (June 19, 2007) (“[T]he statute requires relief for an aggrievedpatent holder, except in those limited circumstances in which the statutory public interestconcerns are so great as to trump the public interest in enforcement of [lPR].”). See also Sect.II(A), infia.

3See Certain Fluidized Supporting Apparatus & Components Thereof Inv. Nos. 337-TA182/188, Comm’n Op. (Oct. 5, 1984); Certain Inclined-Field Acceleration Tubes & ComponentsThereof Inv. No. 337-TA-67, Comm’n. Op. (Dec. 29, 1980); Certain Automatic CrankpinGrinders, Inv. No. 337-TA-60, Comm’n Op. (Dec. 17, 1979); see also Personal Data & MobileCommc ’nDevices & Related Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-710, Comm’n Op., at 81 n.56 (Dec. 29,2011) (stating that the ITC “does not believe that the mere fact that a technological field has beendetermined to provide benefits to the economy is sufficient to excuse infringement of a patent inthat field”).

-2

II. SPECIFIC PUBLIC-INTEREST INQUIRIES

A. Use of Accused Products in the United States

The infringing articles in this matter are mobile phones. They are designed and

manufactured abroad, and then they are sold to consumers through websites and retail outlets,

which service the U.S. consumer electronics market. The asserted claims of the patents at issue,

as practiced by the infringing articles, are not essential to any technical standard. Nor has Nokia

made, nor been required to make, any commitment to license the asserted claims of the patents at

issue for their practice in the accused manner. In sum, Nokia is not aware of any feature of these

articles so unique and necessary to the U.S. market to require the denial of Section 337 remedial

measures based on the public interest.

B. Accused Products Pose No Public Health, Safety, or WelfareConcerns

The Accused Products do not invoke any public health, safety, or welfare concerns. The

mobile devices at issue in this investigation are ubiquitous consumer items. While they may be

entertaining, or even useful, the Accused Products are not essential to the public interest.

C. Like Articles Are Available to Satisfy Demand for Excluded AccusedProducts

With regard to mobile devices, the features embodied in the relevant infringed patents at

issue are, and will be, available on Nokia products. Thus, any U.S. consumer with a desire for

those specific features will have access to a non-infringing substitute containing those features.

The products of Nokia and others will ensure that, even after the requested remedy is issued,

U.S. consumers will still have myriad choices of mobile phones and operating systems. Even if

some of those choices do not contain the specific features embodied in the infringed patents at

issue, the primary functions of those numerous mobile phone devices will not be significantly

_3_

compromised for the average U.S. consumer. Accordingly, issuance of the requested remedy

Willnot result in any shortage of mobile devices in the United States.4

In fact, the U.S. markets that include the Accused Products are fiercely competitive.

Nokia and many other entities such as Apple, Motorola, Samsung, LG, Huawei, ZTE, Pantech,

and RIM, among others, sell in the U.S. market a variety of mobile devices. For example, the

Accused Products likely compete with dozens, if not hundreds, of other models available in the

United States. As of March 2013, HTC mobile devices accounted for only approximately

9.0% percent of the broad U.S. smartphone market and only about 17% of the U.S. market for

Android-based smartphones.5

In addition, the Accused Products are made overseas, along with most (if not all) other

like products.6 Accordingly, the requested remedy will not harm any competitive production in

the U.S. As the ITC has explained, the competitive conditions public-interest factor does not

Weighagainst issuance of a remedy when: (i) there is a variety of other similar products available

domestically; and (ii) most of the like products at issue are manufactured in foreign countries.7

4See Certain Agric. Tractors Under 50 Power Take-oflHorsepower, USITC Pub. 3026, Lnv.No.337-TA-380, Comm’n Op., at 34 (Mar. 1997) (concluding that orders at issue had limitedeconomic impact due to considerable competition from other non-infringing goods).

5See c0mSc0re Reports March 2013 U.S.Smartphone Subscriber Market Share (May 3,2013), http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Press_Releases/2013/5/comScore_Reports_March_201 3_U.S._Smartphone_Subscriber*Market_Share.

6 See Certain Personal Data & Mobile Commc’n Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-710,Complainants’ Written Submission on Remedy, the Public Interest, and Bonding, at 17 (Oct.17, 2011) (stating that HTC products are designed and manufactured in Taiwan); HTCANNUAL REPORT 152 (2010) (“The Company does not have any foreign operations”). Seealso Mark Milian, How Apple cuts costs in building its gadgets, CNN (Feb. 6, 2012),http://articles.cnn.com/20 l2-02-06/tech/tech_gaming-gadgetsapple-supply-chain_l_foxconniphone-demand-for-apple-products? J=PM:TECH (“How Apple finds parts and manufactures itsproducts, almost entirely abroad, is standard protocol in the technology industry.”).

7See Digital TVProds, Comm’n Op., at 15.

_ 4

D. There Is Sufficient Capacity to Replace Excluded Accused Products

There is no question that Nokia and third parties, including the many other making

mobile phones running the Andriod operating system, have the capacity to replace the volume

of Accused Products subject to the requested remedial orders within a commercially reasonable

time. More specifically, Nokia and other manufacturers of mobile devices such as Apple,

Motorola, Samsung, LG, Huawei, ZTE, Pantech, and R.lM, among others, have more than

enough capacity to supply the U.S. market with products sufficient to fiilfill U.S. demand for

mobile phones on each of the various ecosystems currently available, including Windows

Phone, Andriod, and iOS. Thus, there is no indication that excluding the infringing articles will

harm the public interest via unmet demands

E. The Remedy Has No Relevant Public-Interest Impact on U.S.Consumers

As discussed above, even after the requested remedy is issued, consumers may purchase

mobile devices from numerous sources. Accordingly, the issuance of such relief will have no

relevant public interest impact on U.S. consumers.9

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, no public-interest concerns preclude the issuance of the

proposed remedy against Respondents in this matter.

8See Certain Optical Disk Controller Chips & Chipsets & Prods. Containing Same, IncludingDVD Players & PC Optical Storage Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-506, Comn1‘nOp., at 61 (Sept.28, 2005) (issuing remedy where “there is no evidence that the U.S. demand for the coveredproducts cannot be met by other entities, including the Complainants”).

9See Digital TVProds, Comm'n Op., at 15-16 (finding that any adverse effect on U.S.consumers resulting from remedy would be minimal, given the range of available products, andwould not outweigh the benefit of protecting complainant’s IPR).

_5_

Dated: May 23, 2013 Respectfully submitted,

HQ.-1'%Jamie D. Underwood 'Scott J. PivnickM. Scott StevensALSTON& BIRD LLPThe Atlantic Building950 F Street, NWWashington, DC 20004Telephone: (202) 239-3300Facsimile: (202)239-3333

John M. DesmaraisAlan S. KellmanJason BerrebiDESMARAISLLP230 Park AvenueNew York, NY 10169Telephone: (212) 351-3400Facsimile: (212)-351-3401

Counselfor ComplainantsNokia Corporation and Nokia Inc

-6

U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSIONWASHINGTON, DC

In the Matter of

Certain Portable ElectronicCommunications Devices, IncludingMobile Phones and Components Thereof

Investigation No. 337-TA

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 337 OFTHE TARIFF ACT OF 1930. AS AMENDED

Complainants:

Nokia CorporationKeilalahdentie 4PO Box 226Espoo, FinlandTelephone: 358 (0) 7180-08000

Nokia Inc.200 South Mathilda AvenueSunnyvale, CA 94086Telephone: (408) 530-7600

Counsel for Complainants:

Jamie D. UnderwoodScott J. PivnickM. Scott StevensALSTON& BIRD LLP

The Atlantic Building950 F Street, NWWashington, DC 20004Telephone: (202) 239-3300Facsimile: (202)239-3333

John M. DesmaraisAlan S. KellmanJason BerrebiDESMARAISLLP230 Park AvenueNew York, NY 10169Telephone: (212) 351-3400Facsimile: (212)-351-3401

Proposed Respondents:

HTC Corporation23 Xinghua Road, Taoyuan CityTaoyuan County 330, TaiwanRepublic of ChinaTelephone: +866-3-3753252

HTC America, Inc.13920 SE Eastgate Way, Suite 400Bellevue, WA 98005Telephone: (425) 679-5318

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. ..II

LIST OF EXHIBITS ................................................................................................................... .. IV

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... ..VII

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

II. COMPLAINANTS ........................................................................................................... .. 3

A. NOKIA CORPORATION .................................................................................... .. 3

B. NOKIA INC.......................................................................................................... .. 5

III. PROPOSED RESPONDENTS ......................................................................................... .. 6

A. HTC CORPORATION ......................................................................................... .. 6

B. HTC AMERICA, INC. ......................................................................................... .. 6

IV. THE TECHNOLOGY AND ACCUSED PRODUCTS AT ISSUE ........ ................... .. 7

V. THE ASSERTED PATENTS AND NON-TECHNICAL DESCRIPTIONOF THE INVENTIONS ................................................................................................... .. 9

A. OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS ................................................ .. 9

B. U.S. PATENT NO. 6,035,189 .............................................................................. .. 9

C. U.S. PATENT NO. 6,373,345 ......................................................................... .. 10

D. U.S. PATENT NO. 6,711,211 ............................................................................ ..11

E. U.S. PATENT NO. 7,187,945 ............................................................................ .. 11

F. U.S. PATENT NO. 8,140,650 ............................................................................ .. 12

G. U.S. PATENT NO. 8,363,824 ............................................................................ .. 13

H. FOREIGN COUNTERPARTS OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS .................... .. 13

I. LICENSEES UNDER THE ASSERTED PATENTS ........................................ .. 14

VI. HTC’S UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR ACTS ........... ................................................. .. I4

A. DIRECT INFRINGEMENT ............................................................................... .. 16

B. CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT .............................................................. .. I6

ii

C. INDUCED INFRINGEMENT ................................................................... ..

VII. SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF UNFAIR IMPORTATION AND SALE ................ ..

VIII. HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE NUMBERS ............................................ ..

IX. RELATED LITIGATION ..................................................................................... ..

X. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY ...................................................................................... ..

A. NOKIA’S PRACTICE OF THE ASSERTED PATENTS ........................ ..

B. NOKIA’S INVESTMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES RELATING TOPRODUCTS THAT PRACTICE THE ASSERTED PATENTS ................

1. SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT IN PLANT AND EQUIPMENT.

2. SIGNIFICANT EMPLOYMENT OF LABOR AND CAPITAL

3. SUBSTANTLAL INVESTMENTS IN ENGINEERING ANDRESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT ................................................ ..

XI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF ...................................................................................... ..

iii

OO\lO\U‘|-PU->l\)'—‘

910ll121314151617181920212223242526

272829303132333435363738394041

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit No. Description

Certified copy of U.S. Patent No.Certified copy of U.S. Patent No.Certified copy of U.S. Patent No.Certified copy of U.S. Patent No.Certified copy of U.S. Patent No.Certified copy of U.S. Patent No.

6,035,1896,373,3456,71 1,21 17,187,9458,140,6508,363,824

Certified copy of assignment for U.S. Patent NoCertified copy of assignment for U.S. Patent NoCertified copy of assignment for U.S. Patent No.Certified copy of assignment for U.S. Patent NoCertified copy of assignment for U.S. Patent NoCertified copy of assignment for U.S. Patent No.

. 6,035,189

. 6,373,3456,71 1,21 17,187,9458,140,6508,363,824

List of Foreign Counterparts of the Asserted PatentsClaim Chart Showing Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,035,189Confidential Claim Chart Showing Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,373,345Claim Chart Showing Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,71 1,211Confidential Claim Chart Showing Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,187,945Claim Chart Showing Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,140,650Claim Chart Showing Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,363,824Information regarding the HTC One Phone (overview)Information regarding the HTC One Phone (specifications)Confidential Analysis of Broadcom BCM4334Confidential Tear Down Report-HTC One VXInformation regarding the HTC One Phone (User Guide)Information regarding the Android 2.3 PlatformConfidential Information regarding the HTC One Phone (Techlnsights Report on

HTC One)Android Developers AccountManagerInformation regarding the Android 2.2 Phone-User’s GuideAndroid Developers PermissionsThe AndroidManifest.xml FileDeclaration of Matt McNeillPhotographs of HTC One (Sprint) handsetPhotographs of HTC One (AT&T) handsetPhotographs of HTC One X handsetPhotographs of HTC First handsetPhotographs of HTC One VX handsetsPhotograph of Nokia Lumia 810 Mobile Phone Purchased from U.S. RetailerPhotograph of Nokia Lumia 820 Mobile Phone Purchased from U.S. RetailerPhotograph of Nokia Lumia 822 Mobile Phone Purchased from U.S. RetailerPhotograph of Nokia Lumia 920 Mobile Phone Purchased from U.S. RetailerClaim Chart Showing Nokia Lumia 920 Mobile Phone Practices the 6,035,189

Patent

iv

Confidential Claim Chart Showing Nokia Lumia 822 Mobile Phone Practices the6,373,345 Patent

Claim Chart Showing Nokia Lumia 920 Mobile Phone Practices the 6,711,211Patent

Confidential Claim Chart Showing Nokia Lumia 822 Mobile Phone Practices the7,187,945 Patent



Confidential Analysis of Qualcomm WTRl605L ReceiverIl‘lf0l‘1Tl8.tlOI‘lregarding the Nokia Lumia 920 Phone (User Guide)Infomiation regarding the Nokia Lumia 920 Phone (Lumia 920 Specifications)VP8 Data Format and Decoding GuideITU-T: H. 264: Series H: Audiovisual and Multimedia SystemsInformation regarding the Nokia Lumia 920 (Windows Phone with Pureview

Camera)Confidential Presentation on Arrow Antenna and RF ArchitectureMurata Electronics Data Sheet of SAW ComponentsInformation Regarding the Nokia Lumia 822 Phone (322 Specifications)UMTS Band, UTRA FDD Frequency Band, WCDMA BandInformation regarding the Microsoft Phone-Account Classlnfonnation regarding the Microsoft Phone-Contacts Accounts PropertyInformation regarding the Microsoft Phone-Set up a Facebook accountInformation regarding the Microsoft Phone-App Manifest fileConfidential List of Licenses to Asserted PatentExcerpts from HTC Corporation’s 2011 Annual ReportConfidential Declaration of Mario ViaminPhotographs of HTC First Tear DownPhotographs of Lumia 920 Tear Down

V

LIST OF PHYSICAL EXHIBITS

Exhibit N0. Description

l Physical sample of the domestic article protected by the asserted patents (Lumia920)

2 Physical sample of the following imported article that is a subject of thecomplaint: HTC One VX

3 Physical sample of the following imported article that is a subject of thecomplaint: HTC One

4 Physical sample of the following imported article that is a subject of thecomplaint: HTC First

vi

APPENDICES

Agpendix Description

App.

App

APP

App

App.

App.

App

APP

App

App.

App

App

A

.B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

Certified copy of Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No

Copy of References Cited in Prosecution History of U.S.



Certified copy of Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No.


Certified copy of Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No.

Copy of References Cited in Prosecution History of U.S




Copy of References Cited in Prosecution History of U.S

vii

6,035,189

Patent No

. 6,373,345

Patent No.

6,711,211

Patent No.

7,187,945

Patent No

8,140,650

Patent No.

. 8,363,824

Patent No

6,035,189

6,373,345

6,711,211

. 7,187,945

8,140,650

8,363,824

I. INTRODUCTION

1. Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. (collectively, “Nokia” or “Complainants”) file

this complaint pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337

(“Section 337”), based on the unlawful importation into the United States, the sale for

importation into the United States, and/or the sale within the United States after importation of

certain portable electronic communications devices, including mobile phones and components

thereof.

2. The proposed Respondents are HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.

(collectively, “Respondents”).

3. The complaint is directed to Respondents’ imported portable electronic

communications devices, including mobile phones and components thereof, that infringe U.S.

Patent Nos. 6,035,189 (“the ’l89 Patent”); 6,373,345 (“the ’345 Patent); 6,711,211 (“the ’211

Patent”); 7,187,945 (“the ’945 Patent”); 8,140,650 (“the ’650 Patent”) and 8,363,824 (“the ’824

Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). Such products include at least the HTC One S,

HTC One V, HTC One X, HTC Evo 4G LTE, HTC Droid Incredible 4G LTE, HTC Droid DNA,

HTC One X+, HTC One VX, HTC First, and HTC One (collectively, the “Accused Products”).1

The following table provides a summary of which Accused Products infringe which of the claims

of the Asserted Patents:

U.S. Patent No. Asserted Claims Accused Products

6,035,189 Claim 8 and 10-11 HTC One SHTC One VHTC One X

HTC Evo 4G LTE

1The identification of a specific model or type of electronic device is not intended to limit thescope of the investigation. Discovery may reveal that additional HTC products infringe theasserted patent claims and/or that additional claims are infringed, and any remedy should extendto all infringing electronic devices.

1

U.S. Patent No. Asserted Claims Accused Products

HTC Droid Incredible 4G LTEHTC Droid DNA

HTC One X+HTC One VX

HTC FirstHTC One

6,3 73,3 45 Claims 1-12 HTC One VHTC Droid DNA

HTC One X+HTC One VX

HTC FirstHTC One

6,711,211 Claims 26-27, 29-31, 50-53, and 5657

HTC One SHTC One VHTC One X

HTC Evo 4G LTEHTC Droid Incredible 4G LTE

HTC Droid DNAHTC One X+HTC One VX

HTC FirstHTC One

7,187,945 Claims 1-7, 12-14, 19, 27, and 31 HTC One XHTC One VX

HTC FirstHTC One

8,140,650 Claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17-18 HTC One SHTC One VHTC One X

HTC Evo 4G LTEHTC Droid Incredible 4G LTE

HTC Droid DNAHTC One X+HTC One VX

HTC FirstHTC One

8,363,824 Claims 1-4, 7, 11-12, and 17-19 HTC FirstHTC One X+HTC One X

4.

importation into the United States, imported into the United States, and/or sold after importation

into the United States by or on behalf of Respondents.

On information and belief, the Accused Products are manufactured and/or sold for

2

5. An industry as required by 19 U.S.C. §§ l337(a)(2) and (3) exists or is in the

process of being established in the United States relating to articles protected by the Asserted

Patents.

6. Nokia seeks as relief a permanent limited exclusion order prohibiting entry into

the United States of Respondents’ infringing portable electronic communications devices,

including mobile phones. Nokia also requests that such an exclusion order prohibit Respondents

from importing into the United States key components of the accused portable electronic

communications devices, such as chipsets containing infringing functionality, so as to prevent

Respondents from evading any exclusion order directed to its portable electronic

communications devices. See, e.g., Exhibit l5.

7. Nokia also requests permanent cease and desist orders prohibiting Respondents

from importing, admitting or withdrawing from a foreign trade zone, marketing, advertising,

demonstrating, warehousing inventory, distributing, offering for sale, selling, licensing,

repairing, programming, or updating portable electronic communications devices, including

mobile phones.

II. COMPLAINANTS

A. Nokia Corporation

8. Nokia Corporation is a company organized under the laws of Finland, with its

principal place of business at Keilalahdentie 4, PO Box 226, Espoo, Finland.

9. Nokia Corporation was founded in 1865 and is one of the world’s largest

manufacturers of mobile phones. Nokia pioneered the early evolution of mobile

communications. Begimiing in the early 1980s, Nokia introduced the first car phone and

portable phone to operate on the Nordic Mobile Telephone (“NMT”) network, which was the

first international cellular network. Nokia also provided base stations and switches for NMT

3

networks. Then, in 1987, Nokia launched the first handheld mobile phone for NMT networks —

known as the “Mobira Cityman.”

10. Nokia was also one of the key developers of Global System for Mobile

communications (“GSM”) technology, which was adopted in 1987 as the European standard for

digital mobile technology. Nokia delivered its first GSM network to the Finnish company

Radiolinja in 1989 and launched its first digital handheld GSM phone —the Nokia 1011 —in

1992. Throughout the 1990s, Nokia’s core business was manufacturing mobile phones and

telecommunications systems.

11. Nokia’s innovations have continued throughout the wireless era to the

smartphones of the present day, bringing several “firsts” in the industry. For example, in 1996,

Nokia introduced the Nokia 9000 Communicator, which was the first all-in-one phone, fax,

calendar, email, and Internet device in a hand-portable size. The Nokia 8110i, introduced in

1997, was the first mobile phone with a dynamic menu supporting Smart Messaging. Just two

years later, Nokia introduced the Nokia 7110, the first mobile phone compliant with Wireless

Application Protocol 1.1, which provided access to mobile Intemet services, such as banking,

email, and news, and was the first phone with predictive text input.

12. The new century brought even further Nokia advances. ln 2002, Nokia launched

the third generation (“3G”) Nokia 6650. That same year, Nokia also unveiled the Nokia 7650, a

phone with a built-in camera, and the Nokia 3650, N0kia’s video capture phone. The following

year, Nokia rolled out its 5140, the first Push-to-Talk GSM handset. In 2006, Nokia introduced

the N95, which was the first such device with built-in Global Positioning System (“GPS”)

technology, and, in 2008, Nokia released the E71, the world's slimmest smartphone. In 2010,

Nokia pioneered the N8, the first smartphone with built-in 720P High Definition video and a 12

megapixel camera.

4

13. In February of 201 1, Nokia announced it would release a new line of smartphones

that use the Microsoft Windows Phone operating system, designed to offer enhanced hardware

optimization, software customization, and language support. Early Nokia Windows-based

phones for the U.S. market include the Lumia 710, which was released in the United States in

January 2012, and the Lumia 900, which was released in the United States in April 2012. Nokia

has continued to build upon its Windows Phone product line through 2012 and 2013, with

additional releases in the United States including Lumia 810, Lumia 820, Lumia 822, and Lumia

920.

14. Research is one of the keys to Nokia’s success and the necessary cornerstone for

its cutting-edge products.

B. Nokia Inc.

15. Nokia Inc. is a corporation existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with

its principal place of business in Sumiyvale, California. Nokia Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary

of Nokia Corporation.

16. Since 2011, Nokia Inc. has spent millions of dollars in U.S. expenditures related

to the development, testing, product support, repair, and service of its Lumia Windows Phone

product line, which, inter alia, embodies the innovations of the Asserted Patents, and many

others in Nokia’s vast portfolio. These expenditures and efforts demonstrate Nokia’s

commitment to bringing state-of-the-art mobile communications to U.S. consumers.

17. As of April, 2013, Nokia had over 1,500 employees in the United States, and their

combined salaries total in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Over 1,100 of these U.S.-based

Nokia employees work in research and development or in ongoing product maintenance that

support Nokia’s products sold in the United States, including those protected by the Asserted

Patents. Additional information regarding Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. may be found in

5

Nokia Corporation’s 2012 Annual Report, available at http://wwwnokia.com/global/abouv

nokia/investors/financials/reports/resuIts---reports/.

III. PROPOSED RESPONDENTS

A. HTC Corporation

18. Proposed Respondent HTC Corporation is a company organized under the laws of

Taiwan, with its principal place of business at 23 Xinghua Road, Taoyuan City, Taoyuan County

330, Taiwan, Republic of China. HTC Corporation, among other things, is engaged in the

manufacture, importation into the United States, and sale after importation into the United States

of mobile phones, including the Accused Products. Upon information and belief, HTC

Corporation is the entity that manufactures each of the Accused Products, predominantly in

Taiwan.

B. HTC America, Inc.

19. Proposed Respondent HTC America, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing

under the laws of Texas, with its principal place of business at 13920 SE Eastgate Way, Suite

400, Bellevue, Washington 98005. HTC America, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of HTC

Corporation. HTC America, Inc., among other things, is engaged in services related to the

importation into the United States and sale after importation into the United States of mobile

phones, including the Accused Products. On infonnation and belief, such services include the

marketing, repair, and after-sale service of mobile phones, including the Accused Products.

20. Additional information regarding HTC may be found in Exhibit 62, which

includes excerpts from HTC Corporation’s 2011 Annual Report.

6

IV. THE TECHNOLOGY AND ACCUSED PRODUCTS AT ISSUE

21. The Accused Products are certain portable electronic communications devices,

including mobile phones and components thereof.

22. The Asserted Patents are a reflection of the breadth of Nokia’s extensive

dedication and investment in technology. Ever since the introduction of Nokia’s first car phone

in 1981, Nokia has continuously endeavored to make the world’s best mobile phones and

enhance the user’s experience with diverse and advanced functionality. Whether it is designing

more reliable mobile phones that drop fewer calls, pioneering the first smartphones that

synchronize seamlessly with computers, or developing some of the first mobile phones with

built-in GPS, Nokia has taken great strides to stay ahead of its competition. N0kia’s innovations

have been applied in many portable electronic communications devices other than mobile

phones, such as mobile tablets, portable music players, and computers.

23. Mobile phones have come a long way since the car phones and briefcase phones

of the 1980s. Today’s mobile phones not only make phone calls, they are also GPS devices,

internet browsers, electronic mail devices, electronic book readers, social networking platforms,

and so much more. Not only do smartphones have many functions, they also have different

processes for connecting to a network and sending information over that network, depending on

the type of information that is being sent or received. For example, smartphones have Wi-Fi,

GPS, and Bluetooth capabilities for connecting to wireless devices and sending and receiving

applications, software upgrades, email, text messages, and voice information.

24. Today’s mobile phones must also operate in a multitude of different frequency

bands. A problem with this is that a mobile station operating in two or three frequency bands,

for example, requires many filters, which occupy too much space in a mobile station. The ’345

7

Patent introduces a technology that allows for a compact modulator structure that can be used in

many frequency bands while also achieving an improved signal-to-noise ratio.

25. Today’s smartphones are also capable of decoding and playing large video files.

Unlike traditional desktop computers, mobile tenninals have limited computational resources

and battery life. The ’2ll Patent introduces versatile and flexible technology for encoding and

decoding video information with less computational complexity, allowing smartphones to

efficiently decode video information.

26. Mobile phones also continue to increase the number of frequency bands and types

of networks on which they can operate. This allows access to more systems, for example, when

a phone is roaming but increases the complexity of the radio transceiver portion of the device.

Nokia’s ’945 Patent therefore provides, for example, a technology that allows for a portable and

universal radio transceiver that can be utilized in different regions around the world.

27. Current phones have also seen an explosion in the number and types of

applications for which they are used. Many applications require access to third party information

using different user accounts. In order to balance security needs with the convenience of these

services, the ’650 Patent introduces, for example, a method that allows applications to specify

what pennissions are needed and allows users to determine whether to allow applications to

access their private data.

28. Customers desire modem smartphones that have high performance, long-lasting

batteries, and appealing designs. Increasing performance and battery life can require more space,

but many consumers prefer thin smartphone designs. The ’824 Patent introduces an efficient

configuration for the internal architecture of a smartphone that promotes these goals, for

example, by placing the engine and battery adjacent to each other and directly beneath the user

input, in a one-piece housing.

8

29. Smartphone users desire the ability to customize the functionality of their phones

depending on individual preferences and the availability of new services. Accordingly, the ’l89

Patent discloses a device that can adapt to continuously changing and developing services by

having the ability to load new services onto the device. Users can add new functionalities by

installing applications that are made available via an application store.

v. THE ASSERTED PATENTS ANDNON-TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION or THEINVENTIONSI

A. Ownership of the Asserted Patents

30. Nokia Corporation owns the entire right, title, and interest to the Asserted Patents.

Copies of the assignments for each of the Asserted Patents are attached as Exhibits 7-12.

B. U.S. Patent N0. 6,035,189

31. The ’l89 Patent, entitled “Method for Using Services Dffered by a

Telecommunication Network, a Telecommunication System and a Terminal for It,” issued on

March 7, 2000, to inventors Timo Ali-Vehmas, Pekka Heinonen, Harri Okkonen, Lioudmila

Blants, and Petteri Saarinen. The ’l89 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application Serial No.

08/867,296, filed on June 2, 1997, and expires on or after June 2, 2017.

32. A certified copy of the ’l89 Patent is attached as Exhibit 1.

33. A certified copy of the prosecution history of the ’l89 Patent and copies of each

reference cited in the ’l89 Patent and its prosecution history are included in Appendices A and

B, respectively.

2 All non-technical descriptions of the inventions herein are presented to give a generalbackground of those inventions. Such statements are not intended to be used, nor should beused, for purposes of patent claim interpretation. Complainants present these statements subjectto, and without Waiver of, their right to argue that claim terms should be consmled in a particularway, as contemplated by claim interpretation jurisprudence and the relevant evidence.

9

34. The ’189 Patent has thirteen claims, five of which are independent claims.

Complainants are asserting claims 8, 10, and ll.

35. The ’189 Patent discloses, for example, a device that has the ability to add new

services made available by a telecommunications system. In one embodiment, the device loads

instructions related to a new service that determines display and selection information for that

new service.

C. U.S. Patent No. 6,373,345

36. The ’345 Patent, entitled “Modulator Structure for a Transmitter and a Mobile

Station,” issued on April 16, 2002, to inventors Harri Kimppa, Simo Murtojarvi and Markus

Pettersson. The ’345 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 09/429,911, filed on

October 29, 1999, and expires on or after October 29, 2019.

37. A certified copy of the ’345 Patent is attached as Exhibit 2.

38. A certified copy of the prosecution history of the ’345 Patent and copies of each

reference cited in the ’345 Patent and its prosecution history are included in Appendices C and

D, respectively.

39. The ’345 Patent has 12 claims, two of which are independent claims.

Complainants are asserting claims 1-l2.

40. The ’345 Patent discloses, for example, a modulator structure that is suitable for

use in mobile stations that are required to operate in multiple frequency bands. In one

embodiment, for example, the modulator structure contains a switching arrangement and a driver

arrangement that is coupled to the switching arrangement, where the driver arrangement includes

at least one low-pass filter arrangement that can be used to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of a

device.

10

D. U.S. Patent N0. 6,711,211

41. The ’2ll Patent, entitled “Method for Encoding and Decoding Video Information,

a Motion Compensated Video Encoder and a Corresponding Decoder,” issued on March 23,

2004, to inventor Jani Lainema. The ’2ll Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application Serial No.

09/566,020, filed on May 8, 2000, and expires on or after May 8, 2020.

42. A certified copy of the ’2ll Patent is attached as Exhibit 3.

43. A certified copy of the prosecution history of the ’2ll Patent and copies of each

reference cited in the ’2ll Patent and its prosecution history are included in Appendices E and F,

respectively.

44. The ’2ll Patent has fifty-seven claims, six of which are independent claims.

Complainants are asserting claims 26, 27, 29-31, 50-53, and 56-57.

45. The ’2ll Patent discloses, for example, methods for encoding and decoding video

infonnation. In one embodiment, prediction motion coefficients are derived for blocks Within a

macroblock of a video frame.

E. U.S. Patent No. 7,187,945

46. The ’945 Patent, entitled “Versatile Antenna Switch Architecture,” issued on

March 6, 2007, to inventors Tero Ranta and Juha Ella. The ’945 Patent issued from U.S. Patent

Application Serial No. 10/836,124, filed on April 30, 2004, and expires on or after September 1,

2024.



reference cited in the ’945 Patent and its prosecution history are included in Appendices G and

H, respectively.

ll

49. The ’945 Patent has forty-three claims, five of which are independent claims.

Complainants are asserting claims 1-7, 12-14, l9, 27, and 31.

50. The ’945 Patent discloses, for example, a technology that facilitates band

selection and mode switching in today’s multi-standard and multi-band wireless communications

devices. For example, it discloses a mobile station that uses two antenna switches to route

various multi-band and/or multi-standard transmit and receive paths to two antennas.

F. U.S. Patent N0. 8,140,650

51. The ’650 Patent, entitled “Use of Configurations in Device with Multiple

Configurations,” issued on March 20, 2012, to inventors Markku Pulkkinen and Martti Lindroos.

The ’650 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application Serial No. ll/794,421, filed on December

30, 2004, and expires on or after December 30, 2024.



reference cited in the ’650 Patent and its prosecution history are included in Appendices I and J,

respectively.

54. The ’650 Patent has thirty claims, seven of which are independent claims.

Complainants are asserting claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17-18.

55. The ’650 Patent discloses, for example, a method for an external managing entity

to arrange use of configurations in a device with multiple configuration data sets. In one

embodiment, the device stores multiple configuration data sets, checks access control

information provided by an extemal entity for a configuration data set, and arranges for an

application to have access to the configuration data set on the basis of the access control

information.

12

G. U.S. Patent N0. 8,363,824

56. The ’824 Patent, entitled “Portable Electronic Device,” issued on January 29,

2013, to inventor Claus H. Jorgensen. The ’824 Patent issued from U.S. Patent Application

Serial No. 12,860,234, filed on August 20, 2010, and expires on or after March 29, 2026.



reference cited in the ’824 Patent and its prosecution history are included in Appendices K and

L, respectively.

59. The ’824 Patent has twenty claims, three of which are independent claims.

Complainants are asserting claims 1-4, 7, 11-12, and 17-19.

60. The ’824 Patent discloses, for example, a portable electronic device including a

user input, an engine, a battery, and a housing. ln one embodiment, the housing forms a rear side

and enclosed lateral sides. The user input is located in a hole through the front of the housing.

The engine and battery are adjacent to one another directly beneath the user input. This

configuration allows for efficient use of space within the one-piece housing.

H. Foreign Counterparts of the Asserted Patents

61. A list of each foreign patent, each foreign patent application, and each foreign

application that has been denied, abandoned, or withdrawn corresponding to the Asserted

Patents, with an indication of the prosecution status of each such foreign patent application, is

attached as Exhibit 13. Nokia is aware of no other foreign patent, foreign patent application, or

foreign application that has been denied, abandoned, or withdrawn corresponding to the Asserted

Patents.

13

I. Licensees Under the Asserted Patents

62. Any party that may be licensed to one or more of the Asserted Patents is

identified in Confidential Exhibit 61.

VI. HTC’S UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR ACTS

63. As discussed in detail below, HTC’s Accused Products are portable electronic

communications devices, including mobile phones and components thereof, that infringe the

Asserted Patents and are manufactured abroad by or for HTC and sold for importation into the

United States, imported into the United States, and/or sold within the United States after

importation. Information regarding representative Accused Products discussed below can be

found in Exhibits 31-36.

64. HTC directly infringes, contributes to the infringement of, and induces the

infringement of at least claims 8, 10, and 11 of the ’189 Patent with respect to at least the

following portable electronic communications devices: HTC One S, HTC One V, HTC One X,

HTC Evo 4G LTE, HTC Droid Incredible 4G LTE, HTC Droid DNA, HTC One X+, HTC One

VX, HTC First, HTC One (collectively, the “HTC ’189 Accused Devices”).

65. An exemplary claim chart showing infringement of independent claim 8 of the

’l89 Patent by the HTC One is attached as Exhibit 14.


infringement of at least claims 1-12 of the ’345 Patent with respect to at least the following

portable electronic communications devices: HTC One V, HTC Droid DNA, HTC One X+,

HTC One VX, HTC First, HTC One (collectively, the “HTC ’345 Accused Devices”).

67. An exemplary claim chart showing infringement of independent claims 1 and 7 of

the ’345 Patent by the HTC One VX is attached as Confidential Exhibit 15.

14

68. HTC directly infringes, contributes to the infringement ofi and induces the

infringement of at least claims 26-27, 29-31, 50-53, and 56-57 of the ’21l Patent with respect to

at least the following portable electronic communications devices: HTC One S, HTC One V,

HTC One X, HTC Evo 4G LTE, HTC Droid Incredible 4G LTE, HTC Droid DNA, HTC One

X+, HTC One VX, HTC First, HTC One (collectively, the “HTC ’211 Accused Devices”).

69. An exemplary claim chart showing infringement of independent claims 26, 50,

and 56 of the ’211 Patent by the HTC One is attached as Exhibit 16.


infringement of at least claims 1-7, 12-14, 19, 27, and 31 of the ’945 Patent with respect to at

least the following portable electronic communications devices: HTC One X, HTC One VX,

HTC First, HTC One (collectively, the “HTC ’945 Accused Devices”).

71. An exemplary claim chart showing infringement of independent claims 1, 12, 19,

and 31 of the ’945 Patent by the HTC One is attached as Confidential Exhibit 17.


infringement of at least claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17-18 of the ’650 Patent with respect to at least

the following portable electronic communications devices: HTC One S, HTC One V, HTC One

X, HTC Evo 4G LTE, HTC Droid Incredible 4G LTE, HTC Droid DNA, HTC One X+, HTC

One VX, HTC First, HTC One (collectively, the “HTC ’65OAccused Devices”).

73. An exemplary claim chart showing infringement of independent claims 1 and 10

of the ’650 Patent by the HTC One is attached as Exhibit 18.


infringement of at least claims 1-4, 7, 11-12, and 17-19 of the ’824 Patent with respect to at least

the following portable electronic communications devices: HTC First, HTC One X+, and HTC

One X (collectively, the “HTC ’824 Accused Devices”).

15

75. An exemplary claim chart showing infringement of independent claims l and l7

of the ’824 Patent by the HTC First is attached as Exhibit 19.

A. Direct Infringement

76. HTC directly infringes the Asserted Patents through its sale for importation,

importation, and/or sale after importation of the Accused Products.

77. On information and belief, HTC imports into the United States at least the HTC

Accused Products.

78. HTC, directly and through authorized agents, sells and offers for sale the HTC

Accused Products within the United States to end users.

79. On information and belief, HTC sells and offers for sale the HTC Accused

Products to wireless system operators, distributors, independent retailers, and other resellers in

the United States.

80. On infonnation and belief, HTC tests or operates the HTC Accused Products in

the United States, thereby performing the claimed methods and directly infringing any asserted

claims of the Asserted Patents requiring such operation. Similarly, HTC’s customers and the end

users of the Accused Products test and/or operate the HTC Accused Products in the United

States, in accordance with HTC’s instruction contained in, for example, its user manuals, thereby

also performing the claimed methods and directly infringing any asserted claims of the Asserted

Patent requiring such operation.

B. Contributory Infringement

81. HTC also contributes to infringement of the Asserted Patents by selling for

importation into the United States, importing into the United States, and/or or selling within the

United States after importation the HTC Accused Products, and the non-staple constituent parts

16

of those devices, that embody a material part of the inventions described in the Asserted Patents.

These devices are known by HTC to be especially made or especially adapted for use in the

infringement of the Asserted Patents.

82. Specifically, HTC sells the HTC Accused Products to resellers and end users with

knowledge that the devices infringe. End users of those portable electronic communications

devices directly infringe the Asserted Patents.

83. HTC has had knowledge and notice of the Asserted Patents and its infringement

thereof since at least May 23, 2013, when Nokia sent a letter to HTC concerning such

allegations. HTC has also had knowledge and notice of the Asserted Patents and its infringement

as of the date of the filing of this complaint.

C. Induced Infringement

84. HTC also induced, and continues to induce, infringement of the Asserted Patents

by encouraging and facilitating others to perfonn acts known by HTC to infringe the Asserted

Patents with the specific intent that those performing the acts infringe the Asserted Patents.

Upon information and belief, HTC did so with knowledge or willful blindness of the Asserted

Patents. HTC, upon infonnation and belief, inter alia, advertises the HTC Accused Products,

publishes datasheets and promotional literature describing the operation of those devices, creates

and/or distributes user manuals for the HTC Accused Products, and offers support and technical

assistance to its customers designed to induce those customers to perform the specific acts of

direct infringement. On information and belief, these materials instruct and encourage users to

use HTC’s Accused Products in a manner than infringes the asserted claims.

l7

VII. SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF UNFAIR IMPORTATION AND SALE

85. Respondents sell for importation into the United States, import into the United

States, and/or sell after importation into the United States the Accused Products. Examples of

Accused Products were purchased in the United States. See Exhibit 31.

86. HTC’s Accused Products are manufactured abroad, sold for importation into the

United States, imported into the United States, and/or sold after importation into the United

States by HTC and/or their authorized agents. See Exhibit 31. For example, Exhibit 62 contains

excerpts from HTC’s Annual Report for fiscal year 2011.3 That Amiual Report indicates that

HTC’s manufacturing facilities for its mobile phones are located in at least Taiwan. See Exhibit

62 at 188-189. The Annual Report also touted HTC’s purported position as the “3rd largest

smaitphone player in North America.” Id. at 6.

87. Exhibits 32-36 contain photographs of HTC One, HTC One X, HTC One VX, and

HTC First mobile phones purchased from retailers in the United States. The photographs show,

inter alia, that these mobile phones themselves, as well as their packaging, indicate that they

were “Made in Taiwan." For example, Nokia’s counsel caused an HTC One to be purchased

from the AT&T Premier Online Store on April 8, 2013, and said HTC One was subsequently

shipped to Atlanta, Georgia. See Exhibit 31. Exhibit 33 shows that the packaging of said HTC

One states that it was “Made in Taiwan.”

VIII. HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE NUMBERS

88. On information and belief, the Accused Products have been imported into the

United States under at least the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule number: 85l7.l2.0050

(mobile phones).

3 HTC’s A1’l1'lLlfllReport for fiscal year 2012 is not yet available.

18

IX. RELATED LITIGATION

89. Nokia has litigated the ’345 patent against another party in prior litigation. Nokia

asserted the ’345 patent against Apple Inc. before the Western District of Wisconsin in Nokia

Corp. v. Apple Ina, case 3:10-cv-249 (WMC), later transferred to the District of Delaware as

case 1:11-cv-15 (GMS). All of these actions were ten-ninated based on a settlement agreement in

June 2011.

90. Nokia has not litigated the Asserted Patents against Respondents before any other

court or agency, nor is Nokia currently bringing any concurrent litigation involving the Asserted

Patents.

X. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

91. An industry as required by Section 337(a)(2) and as defined by Section 337(a)(3)

exists or is in the process of being established in the United States. Nokia already offers in the

U.S. market at least four models of mobile phones that practice one or more of the Asserted

Patents, the Lumia 810, Lumia 820, Lumia 822, and Lumia 920, and has already spent millions

of dollars in the United States to create, test, and support these models for use by U.S.

consumers. Moreover, Nokia continues to take the necessary tangible steps to further establish a

domestic industry for the Lumia 810, Lumia 820, Lumia 822, and Lumia 920, and other

Windows-based mobile phones by budgeting additional and substantial resources to ensure that

these products are fully developed, are available, and are serviced properly in the United States.

Thus, Nokia’s past, present, and future activities as they relate to the Lumia 810, Lumia 820,

Lumia 822, and Lumia 920 support both a current and future domestic industry relating to

products that practice the Asserted Patents.

19

A. Nokia’s Practice of the Asserted Patents

92. As stated above, for purposes of this complaint, Nokia submits the Lumia 810,

Lumia 820, Lumia 822, and Lumia 920 as representative mobile phones that practice one or

more the Asserted Patents. The following table provides a summary of the each of the Asserted

Patents being practiced by these Nokia products:

U.S. Patent No. Nokia Product I

6,373,345 Lumia 810, Lumia 822 I

6,71 1,211 Lumia 810, Lumia 820, Lumia 822, & Lumia 920

7,187,945 Lumia 810, Lumia 822

8,140,650 Lumia 810, Lumia 820, Lumia 822, & Lumia 920

8,363,824 Lumia 920

6,035,189 Lumia 810, Lumia 820, Lumia 822, & Lumia 920

93. In addition, Nokia is actively designing new mobile phones in the United States

that will use the Windows Phone operating system, and which may also practice the Asserted

Patents.

94. Photographs of Nokia’s Lumia 810 mobile phone are included in Exhibit 37.




98. Technical information regarding the Nokia Lumia products referred to here may

be found in Exhibits 47-49, 51-55, 57-60, and 65.

99. Confidential Exhibit 42 contains a claim chart showing that Nokia’s Lumia 822

mobile phone practices at least claim 1 of the ’345 Patent.

100. Exhibit 41 contains a claim chart showing that Nokia’s Lumia 920 mobile phone

practices at least claim 8 of the ’189 Patent.

20



102. Confidential Exhibit 44 contains a claim chart showing that Nokia’s Lumia 822

mobile phone practices at least claim 19 of the ’945 Patent.





B. Nokia’s Investments in the United StatesRelating to Products that Practice the Asserted Patents

105. Nokia has made, and continues to make, substantial investments in the United

States to create and support the products that practice the Asserted Patents.

106. In 2011, Nokia began development of a new line of smartphones for the U.S.

market that use the Microsoft Windows Phone operating system.

107. The first of these Windows-based mobile phones, Nokia’s Lumia 710, was

released in the United States in January 2012.

108. The second of these Windows-based mobile phones, Nokia’s Lumia 900, was

released in the United States in April 2012.

109. Each of the Windows-based Lumia 810, Lumia 820, Lumia 822, and Lumia 920,

was released in the United States in November 2012.

I10. Nokia has expended considerable resources on plant and equipment, labor and

capital, and engineering and research and development to support its Windows-based mobile

phones in the United States. These expenditures continue as Nokia further improves the Lumia

810, Lumia 820, Lumia 822, and Lumia 920 mobile phones and also seeks to develop new

21

Windows-based mobile phones. A discussion of both current and future representative

expenditures is set forth below.

lll. Moreover, Nokia has and continues to expended considerable resources on plant

and equipment, labor and capital, and engineering and research and development to support its

domestic efforts to release additional Windows-based mobile phones in the United States.

1. Significant Investment in Plant and Equipment

112. Nokia has spent, and continues to spend, significant sums on its domestic

facilities supporting the products that practice the Asserted Patents. For example, the research

and development efforts for the Lumia 810 and Lumia 822 mobile phones took place in Nokia’s

San Diego, Califomia facility, and the Lumia 820 and Lumia 920 were technologically tested

and readied for market in the San Diego facility, in which Nokia has made, and continues to

make, extensive investments.

113. In addition, Nokia maintains several other locations throughout the United States

that support activities related to these mobile phones, including, but not limited to, Irving, Texas;

Bellevue, Washington; and Sunnyvale, California. See Confidential Exhibit 63. Such

expenditures for facilities supporting the Lumia 810, Lumia 820, Lumia 822, and Lumia 920 will

continue.

114. Nokia has also made, and continues to make, significant domestic investments in

equipment used to perfonn technical testing and to research and develop the Lumia 810, Lumia

820, Lumia 822, and Lumia 920. From 2011 to 2012, Nokia spent millions of dollars in the

United States on such equipment. See Confidential Exhibit 63.

115. In addition to expenditures already made, Nokia has budgeted millions of dollars

more to be spent in the United States on equipment used to perform technical testing and to

22

continue to research and develop the Lumia 810, Lumia 820, Lumia 822, and Lumia 920, as well

as other Windows-based mobile phones. See Confidential Exhibit 63.

2. Significant Employment of Labor and Capital

116. Nokia has engaged in, and continues to engage in, significant employment of

labor and capital in the United States.

117. As of April, 2013, Nokia had over 1,500 U.S.-based employees, and their

combined salaries total in the hundreds of millions of dollars. See Confidential Exhibit 63.

118. The majority of these employees work in research and development or in ongoing

product maintenance supporting Nokia’s products in sold in the United States, including those

that practice the Asserted Patents. Many of them were specifically dedicated to the development,

testing, and readying-for-market activities for the Lumia 810, Lumia 820, Lumia 822, and Lumia

920 mobile phones. See Confidential Exhibit 63.

119. In addition to employment expenditures already made, Nokia has budgeted

significant additional money to be spent in the United States on salaries for the continued

development of the Lumia-series of mobile phones in the upcoming months of 2013. See

Confidential Exhibit 63.

3. Substantial Investments in Engineering and Research & Development

120. Nokia has made, and continues to make, substantial investment in engineering

and research and development activities that support the products that practice the Asserted

Patents.

121. For example, just since 2012, Nokia has spent millions of dollars in the United

States on the research and development of the Lumia 810, Lumia 820, Lumia 822, and Lumia

23

920. These expenditures include, but are not limited to, direct technical program costs and costs

for building prototypes of these mobile phones. See Confidential Exhibit 63.

122. In addition to expenditures already made, Nokia has budgeted additional

expenditures to be spent on the further research and development of Lumia-series mobile phones

for the remainder of 2013. See Confidential Exhibit 63.

123. Nokia’s engineers also continue to design new mobile phones to be used in

conjunction with the Windows Phone operating system. See Confidential Exhibit 63.

124. Once initial development is complete for any Nokia mobile phone produced for

the U.S. market, including, but not limited to, the Lumia 810, Lumia 820, Lumia 822, and Lumia

920, that phone undergoes rigorous technical testing. See Confidential Exhibit 63.

125. Even after Nokia makes a new mobile phone available for sale domestically,

Nokia continues to work on in-market research and development activities, which involve, inter

alia, product support and quality control. Nokia has spent sizeable resources in the United States

on in-market research and development activities for the Lumia 810, Lumia 820, Lumia 822, and

Lumia 920. See Confidential Exhibit 63.

126. In addition to expenditures already made, Nokia has budgeted additional

expenditures to be spent on domestic in-market research and development activities to support

the Lumia 810, Lumia 820, Lumia 822, and Lumia 920 for the remainder of 2013. See

Confidential Exhibit 63.

127. Nokia has also budgeted millions of dollars for warranty and repair of the

products that practice the Asserted Patents, including the Lumia 810, Lumia 820, Lumia 822, and

Lumia 920 mobile phones. Nokia CARE, currently based out of Nokia’s Irving, Texas facility,

is responsible for providing these services. See Confidential Exhibit 63.

24

128 Further, Nokia has budgeted millions of dollars to be spent domestically in 2013

for salaries and materials that support the Lumia 810, Lumia 820, Lumia 822, and Lumia 920.

See Confidential Exhibit 63.

XI REQUEST FOR RELIEF

129 Complainants request that the U.S. lntemational Trade Commission:

Institute an immediate investigation, pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff

Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, with respect to violations of

Section 337 based upon the sale for importation into the United States, the

importation into the United States, and/or the sale within the United States

after importation of Respondents’ portable electronic communications

devices, including mobile phones, and components thereof that infringe

one or more claims of the Asserted Patents;

Determine that there has been a violation of Section 337 by each

Respondent;

Issue a permanent exclusion order, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1337(d),

prohibiting entry into the United States all of Respondents’ portable

electronic connnunications devices, including mobile phones, and

components thereof that infringe one or more claims of the Asserted

Patents;

Issue permanent cease and desist orders, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § l337(f),

prohibiting Respondents, or their parents, subsidiaries, or other affiliates,

from importing, admitting or withdrawing from a foreign trade zone,

marketing, advertising, demonstrating, warehousing inventory,

25

C.

Dated: May 23,2013

distributing, offering for sale, selling, licensing, repairing, programming,

or updating portable electronic communications devices, including mobile

phones, and components thereof that infringe one or more claims of the

Asserted Patents; and

Grant such other and further relief as the Commission deems just and

proper based on the facts determined by the investigation and the authority

of the Commission.

Respectfully submitted,

J4§.,4%_Jamie D. UnderwoodScott J. PivnickM. Scott StevensALSTON& BIRD LLPThe Atlantic Building950 F Street, NWWashington, DC 20004Telephone: (202) 239-3300Facsimile: (202)239-3333

John M. DesmaraisAlan S. KellmanJason BerrebiDESMARAISLLP230 Park AvenueNew York, NY 10169Telephone: (2 I2) 351-3400Facsimile: (212)-351-3401

Counselfor ComplainantsNokia Corporalion and Nokia Inc.

26

VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT

l Paul Melin, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United

States of America, and in accordance with 19 C.F.R. §§ 2l0.4 and 210_l2(a) the

following IStrue and correct:

Executed on May 23, 2013

I am the Chief lntellectual Property Officer of Nokia Corporation and

am duly authorized to verify this complaint on behalf of complainants;

I have read the complaint and am aware of its contents;

The complaint is not being presented for any improper purpose, such

as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needlessly increase in the

cost of litigation;

To the best of my knowledge, information and belief founded upon

reasonable inquiry, the claims and legal contentions of this complaint

are warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the

extension, modification or reversal of existing law;

To the best of my knowledge, information and belief founded upon

reasonable inquiry, the allegations and other factual contentions in the

complaint have evidentiary support or are likely to have evidentiary

support afier a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or

discovery.

Paul Melin

nokia's may 23 complaint against htc sent to the us itc

Documents