1 

900738003 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC, 

PLAINTIFF,

v. 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.LTD 

And SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS 

AMERICA, INC., 

DEFENDANTS. 

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00507 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 

Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) and Samsung Electronics America, 

Inc.’s (“SEA’s”) (collectively, “Samsung” or “Defendants”) answer Neonode Smartphone LLC’s 

(“Plaintiff” or “Neonode”) Complaint for Patent Infringement (“Complaint”) as follows 

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION 

Complaint No. 1: This is a patent infringement action for damages and other 

appropriate remedies for Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) and Samsung 

Electronics America, Inc.’s (“SEA’s”) (collectively, “Samsung” or “Defendants”) unauthorized 

and infringing manufacture, use, sale, offering for sale, and/or importation of products 

incorporating Plaintiff’s patented inventions. 

Answer to Complaint No. 1: Defendants admit that Plaintiff’s Complaint purports to arise 

under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code but deny infringement 

and any and all relief Plaintiff is seeking. 

Complaint No. 2: Neonode is the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to United 

States Patent Nos. 8,095,879 (the “’879 Patent”), issued January 10, 2012 and titled “User 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 1 of 47
2 

900738003 

Interface for Mobile Handheld Computer Unit.” A true and correct copy of the ‘879 Patent is 

attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

Answer to Complaint No. 2: Defendants admit that the ’879 patent appears on its face to 

have issued on January 10, 2012, and is entitled “User Interface for Mobile Handheld Computer 

Unit.” Defendants admit that a document that purports to be a copy of the ’879 patent is attached as 

Exhibit A to the Complaint. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 2 of the Complaint, and therefore 

deny them. 

Complaint No. 3: Neonode is also the owner of all right, title, and interest in and to 

United States Patent Nos. 8,812,993 (the “’993 Patent”), issued August 19, 2014 and titled “User 

Interface.” A true and correct copy of the ’993 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 

Answer to Complaint No. 3: As the ’993 Patent is no longer a patent-in-suit in this case, 

no response is required. See Dkt. No. 70 (Order severing and staying Neonode’s claims for 

infringement of the ’993 Patent). To the extent any response is required, Defendants deny the 

allegations and/or legal conclusions in paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 

Complaint No. 4: Samsung manufactures, provides, sells, offers for sale, imports, 

and/or distributes products that directly infringe the ’879 and ‘993 Patents. Further, Samsung 

indirectly infringes the ‘879 and ‘993 Patents by inducing and contributing to infringement by 

others, including users of Samsung devices. 

Answer to Complaint No. 4: Denied. 

Complaint No. 5: Neonode seeks monetary damages, prejudgment interest, injunctive 

relief, and other relief for Samsung’s past and continuing infringement of the ‘879 and ‘993 

Patents. 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 2 of 47
3 

900738003 

Answer to Complaint No. 5: Paragraph 5 alleges legal conclusions to which no response is 

required, and therefore Defendants deny them. Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any 

relief. 

II. PARTIES 

Complaint No. 6: Plaintiff Neonode is a Wyoming limited liability company having a 

principal place of business at 30 N. Gould St., Suite R, Sheridan, WY 82801. 

Answer to Complaint No. 6: Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 6 of the Complaint, and therefore deny 

them. 

Complaint No. 7: Upon information and belief, Defendant SEC is a corporation 

organized under the laws of South Korea, with its principal place of business at 129 SamsungRo, Maetan-3dong, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon, 443-742, South Korea. 

Answer to Complaint No. 7: Admitted. 

Complaint No. 8: Upon information and belief, SEA is a wholly owned subsidiary of 

SEC and is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal 

place of business at 85 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660. 

Answer to Complaint No. 8: Admitted. 

 III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

Complaint No. 9: This is an action for patent infringement, which arises under the 

Patent Laws of the United States, in particular, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 282, 284, and 285. The 

Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 

1338(a). 

Answer to Complaint No. 9: Defendants admit that Plaintiff’s Complaint purports to arise 

under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code and that this Court has 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 3 of 47
4 

900738003 

subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a), but denies 

infringement and any and all relief Plaintiff is seeking. 

Complaint No. 10: This Court has personal jurisdiction over Samsung because Samsung 

has committed acts giving rise to this action within Texas and within this judicial district. 

Defendants regularly do business or solicit business in this District and in Texas, engage in other 

persistent courses of conduct and derive substantial revenue from products and services provided 

in this District and in Texas, and have purposefully established substantial, systematic, and 

continuous contacts within this District and should reasonably expect to be sued in a court in this 

District. For example, Samsung has offices within this district. The website www.samsung.com

solicits sales of infringing products to consumers in this District and in Texas. Given these 

contacts, the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over Samsung will not offend traditional notions of 

fair play and substantial justice. 

Answer to Complaint No. 10: Defendants do not contest, at this time, and solely for the 

purpose of the present litigation, whether Defendants are subject to this Court’s specific personal 

jurisdiction. Defendants admit that SEA sells certain products through the website 

www.samsung.com/us, but denies that any such products are infringing. The remaining allegations 

in paragraph 10 of the Complaint constitute conclusions of law and no response of Defendants is 

required. To the extent an answer is required, Defendants deny the allegations. Defendants also 

deny infringement and any and all relief Plaintiff is seeking. Except as expressly admitted, 

Defendants deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 10. 

Complaint No. 11: Venue in the Western District of Texas is proper pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c) and l400(b) because Samsung has regular and established places of 

business in this District, including at 12100 Samsung Boulevard, Austin, Texas, has committed 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 4 of 47
5 

900738003 

acts within this judicial district giving rise to this action, and continues to conduct business in 

this judicial district, including multiple acts of making, selling, using, importing and/or offering 

for sale infringing products in this District. 

Answer to Complaint No. 11: Defendants do not contest, at this time, and solely for the 

purpose of the present litigation, whether venue over it properly lies in this district. However, 

Defendants deny that venue in this district is convenient. Defendants further deny that Samsung 

Electronics Co., Ltd. or Samsung Electronics America, Inc. has a regular or established place of 

business located at 12100 Samsung Boulevard, Austin, Texas. Defendants further deny that 

Samsung is making, using, importing and/or offering for sale infringing products in this District. 

Except as expressly admitted, Defendants deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 11. 

IV. THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT 

Complaint No. 12: Magnus Goertz, the named inventor of both the ‘879 and ‘993 

Patents, cofounded Neonode AB in or about 2001. Neonode AB and its affiliated and successor 

entities developed and commercialized the Neonode N1 and N2 mobile phones. The N1 and N2 

incorporated the company’s zForce and Neno touchscreen and interface technologies, which 

enabled production of a phone small enough to fit in the palm of your hand and allowed the user 

to navigate menus and functions with simple finger-based taps and swipes. Patents covering 

these technologies were later issued in the United States to Neonode Inc. As of 2020, the zForce 

technology had been incorporated into at least 73 million products worldwide. 

Answer to Complaint No. 12: Defendants admit that Magnus Goertz appears on the face 

of the ’879 patent to be the named inventor, but lack knowledge or information form a belief as to 

the truth of inventorship of the ’879 patent. Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 12 of the 

Complaint, and therefore deny them. 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 5 of 47
6 

900738003 

Complaint No. 13: The ‘879 and ‘993 Patents relate to the Neno technology for 

presenting and interacting with a user interface of a mobile handheld computer unit that includes 

a touch sensitive display. 

Answer to Complaint No. 13: Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph 13 of the Complaint, and therefore 

deny them. 

Complaint No. 14: The specification common to both the ‘879 Patent and the ‘993 

Patent identifies technical problems in the prior art and discloses solutions to these problems. For 

instance, the specification explains that there was a recognized problem in the prior art as of 

2002, the priority date of both patents, providing an interface on mobile handheld computers that 

was “adapted to handle a large amount of information and different kinds of traditional 

computer-related applications on a small handheld computer unit.” (‘879 Patent, col. 1:49-52; 

‘993 Patent, col. 1:59-62) It was also “a problem to provide a small handheld computer unit with 

an easily accessible text input function.” (‘879 Patent, col. 1:56-57; ‘993 Patent, col. 1:66-67) It 

was “also a problem to provide a simple way to make the most commonly used functions for 

navigation and management available in the environment of a small handheld computer unit.” 

(‘879 Patent, col. 1:58-61; ‘993 Patent, col. 2:1-4) 

Answer to Complaint No. 14: Defendants admit that the ’879 Patent and ’993 Patent, 

which is no longer a patent-in-suit, share a common specification. Defendants admit that paragraph 

14 quotes from selective portions of the ’879 Patent specification and Defendants refer to the ’879 

Patent for its true and complete contents. Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations and legal conclusions in 

paragraph 14 of the Complaint, and therefore deny them. 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 6 of 47
7 

900738003 

Complaint No. 15: In order to overcome these problems, the ‘879 and ‘993 Patents 

taught, among other things, that a mobile device with a touch sensitive display could be 

configured to provide a user interface presenting multiple representations of predefined 

functions, each of which could be activated when the device detects a particular type of 

movement of an object on the display, such as, for example, a user’s finger touching the display 

and gliding away from the touched location. This teaching was novel, and, among other things, 

enabled more effective use of the limited space available on the touch sensitive display of a 

mobile computer unit such as a smartphone. 

Answer to Complaint No. 15: The allegations in paragraph 15 of the Complaint constitute 

conclusions of law and no response of Defendants is required. To the extent an answer is 

required, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations and legal conclusions in paragraph 15 of the Complaint, and therefore 

deny them. 

V. SAMSUNG’S KNOWLEDGE OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT 

Complaint No. 16: On information and belief, Samsung has known of the ‘879 Patent 

since shortly after it issued, on January 10, 2012. 

Answer to Complaint No. 16: Defendants admit that Samsung became aware of the ’879 

Patent in early 2012. 

Complaint No. 17: On or about July 13, 2005, Neonode Sweden AB entered into a 

Research & Development and License Agreement with Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“the 

Samsung Agreement”). Pursuant to this agreement, Neonode Sweden AB licensed certain patent 

applications “and the patents into which they may mature” in the zForce and Neno portfolios to 

Samsung; one of those applications, specifically identified in the Samsung Agreement, was U.S. 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 7 of 47
8 

900738003 

Application No. 10/315,250, which later issued as the ‘879 Patent. On information and belief, the 

Samsung Agreement terminated according to its terms by no later than early 2009. 

Answer to Complaint No. 17: Defendants admit that on or about July 13, 2005, Neonode 

Sweden AB entered into a Research & Development and License Agreement with Samsung 

Electronics Co., Ltd. (“the 2005 Agreement”) and Defendants refer to the 2005 Agreement for its 

true and complete contents. The remaining allegations in paragraph 17 of the Complaint contain 

conclusions of law that require no response. To the extent an answer is required, Defendants deny 

the allegations. Except as expressly admitted, Defendants deny all remaining allegations in 

paragraph 17. 

Complaint No. 18: On or about February 8, 2012, Apple Inc. filed a complaint against 

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung 

Telecommunications America, LLC, entitled Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., 

in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 12-CV-00630-LHK 

(“the Apple v. Samsung litigation”). In the Apple v. Samsung litigation, Apple alleged that the 

defendant Samsung entities had infringed and were infringing a number of Apple patents. 

Among the Apple patents asserted in this action were U.S. Patent No. 8,046,721, entitled 

“Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image.” On information and belief, 

this patent became widely known as the “swipe to unlock” or “slide to unlock” patent. 

Answer to Complaint No. 18: Defendants admit that on or about February 8, 2012, Apple 

Inc. filed a complaint against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 

and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, entitled Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 

Ltd., et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 12-CV00630-LHK. Defendants admit that Apple alleged infringement of a number of patents, including 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 8 of 47
9 

900738003 

U.S. Patent No. 8,046,721, and admit that U.S. Patent No. 8,046,721 is titled “Unlocking a device 

by performing gestures on an unlock image.” Defendants are without knowledge or information 

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations and/or legal conclusions in 

paragraph 18 of the Complaint, and therefore deny them. 

Complaint No. 19: On information and belief, Samsung and/or its litigation counsel 

regularly monitored industry press relating to the subject matter of the litigation against Apple 

and undertook substantial research and investigative efforts to obtain information pertinent to the 

subject matter of the litigation against Apple, on an ongoing basis from at least February 2012 

forward. 

Answer to Complaint No. 19: Defendants admit that Samsung has previously received 

press relating to the wireless industry, but deny that Samsung “regularly monitored industry press 

relating to the subject matter of the Apple v. Samsung litigation.” The remaining allegations in 

paragraph 19 of the Complaint are directed to subject matter that is subject to attorney-client 

privilege and/or attorney work-product protection and Defendants’ response would require the 

disclosure of privileged information. Defendants, therefore, do not respond to the remaining 

allegations in paragraph 19, and on that basis deny them. 

Complaint No. 20: On or about February 22, 2012, an article entitled “Neonode Beat 

Apple By Three Years With The Swipe-To-Unlock Patent” was published in the online journal 

The Tech Journal, https://thetechjournal.com/tech-news/industry-news/neonode-beat-apple-bythree-years-with-the-swipe-to-unlock-patent.xhtml. The article stated, among other things, that 

“[a] small but feisty Swedish company, Neonode figured out how to integrate a slide to unlock 

feature in its phones, long before Apple even considering making an iPhone.” The article further 

stated: 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 9 of 47
10 

900738003 

Apparently, in July 2004, Neonode introduced to the market a small phone called N1 that 

had the unlock feature. Neonode already had patented a slide to unlock feature, without 

the associated graphics and obtained the patent in December 2002 (the US patent 

number: 8095879). 

Id. The article included images of Figures 11 and 12 from the ‘879 Patent. On information and 

belief, Samsung became aware of this article shortly after it was published. 

Answer to Complaint No. 20: Defendants admit, upon information and belief, that a blog 

post entitled “Neonode Beat Apple By Three Years With The Swipe-To-Unlock Patent A Swedish 

Company Claims It Owns A Swipe Patent Used By Apple” is available at the website link 

reproduced in the first sentence of paragraph 20. Defendants admit that paragraph 20 quotes from 

selective portions of the cited blog post, admit that the blog post appears to reproduce images of 

Figures 11 and 12 from the ’879 patent, and refer to the cited blog post for its true and complete 

contents. Except as expressly admitted, Defendants deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 20. 

Complaint No. 21: On or about February 27, 2012, an article entitled “A Swedish 

Company Claims It Owns A Swipe Patent Used By Apple” was published in the online journal 

Tech Crunch, https://techcrunch.com/2012/02/27/a-swedish-company-claims-it-owns-a-swipepatent-that-is-used-by-apple/. The article stated, among other things: 

Another front has opened in the multi-faceted story of patent battles: Neonode, an optical 

touchscreen tech company based in Sweden, says that it has been granted a patent in the 

U.S. that covers the touch-and-glide gesture that it claims is used on devices like the 

iPhone and iPad. 

The patent is notable not only because Neonode says the patent covers functions like the 

horizontal touch gesture that Apple uses between screens on its iOS devices, as well as in 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 10 of 47
11 

900738003 

the slide-to-unlock feature. But also because slide-to-unlock is the same feature that 

Apple has been citing in its own patent lawsuits against Android device makers Motorola 

and Samsung. 

Id. The article identified the patent by number – “number 8,095,879 from the U.S. Patent and 

Trademark Office.” Id. On information and belief, Samsung became aware of this article shortly 

after it was published. 

Answer to Complaint No. 21: Defendants admit, upon information and belief, that an 

article entitled “A Swedish Company Claims It Owns A Swipe Patent Used By Apple” is available 

at the website link reproduced in the first sentence of paragraph 21. Defendants admit that 

paragraph 21 quotes from selective portions of the cited article and refer to the cited article for its 

true and complete contents. Except as expressly admitted, Defendants deny all remaining 

allegations in paragraph 21. 

Complaint No. 22: On or about February 28, 2012, an article entitled “Swedish 

company claims rights to ‘slide to unlock’ with new UI patent” was published in the online 

journal “appleinsider,” 

https://appleinsider.com/articles/12/02/28/swedish_company_claims_rights_to_slide_to_unlock_ 

with_new_ui_patent. The article stated, among other things, that “Neonode says it was issued 

U.S. Patent No. 8,095,879 which covers gesture-based interaction with a touch sensitive surface, 

a description that is similar to Apple's "slide to unlock" patent,” and that: 

If Apple is indeed sued over the '879 patent, it wouldn't be the first time the company has 

seen Neonode in a court hearing. In August 2011, Samsung trotted out a relatively 

obscure device made by the Swedish company in defense of an Apple suit regarding 

"slide to unlock" functionality. 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 11 of 47
12 

900738003 

Id. The article included images of Figures 10-12 from the ‘879 Patent. On information and belief, 

Samsung became aware of this article shortly after it was published. 

Answer to Complaint No. 22: Defendants admit, upon information and belief, that an 

article entitled “Swedish company claims rights to ‘slide to unlike’ with new UI patent” it is 

available at the website link reproduced in the first sentence of paragraph 22. Defendants admit that 

paragraph 22 quotes from selective portions of the cited article, admit that the article appears to 

reproduce images of Figures 10-12 of the ’879 patent, and refer to the cited article for its true and 

complete contents. Except as expressly admitted, Defendants deny all remaining allegations in 

paragraph 22. 

Complaint No. 23: On March 19, 2012, Joseph Shain, Neonode Inc.’s Vice President of 

Intellectual Property, and well as Bjorn Thomas Eriksson, CEO of Neonode Technologies AB 

and Neonode Inc., were deposed by counsel for Apple and Motorola Mobility, Inc. in the action 

entitled Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., in the U.S District Court for the Southern District 

of Florida, Case No. 1:10cv023580-Civ-UU. In the course of this deposition, the ‘879 Patent was 

marked as an exhibit, and counsel for both Apple and Motorola asked Mr. Shain numerous 

questions relating to the patent. The law firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP 

(“Quinn Emanuel”) served as counsel for Motorola in this action and appeared on behalf of 

Motorola at this deposition; Quinn Emanuel also served as counsel for Samsung in the 

concurrently-pending Apple Inc. v. Samsung litigation. 

Answer to Complaint No. 23: Defendants admit that attorneys from the law firm of Quinn 

Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP served as counsel for Samsung in the Apple v. Samsung

litigation in or around 2012. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 23 of the Complaint, and therefore 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 12 of 47
13 

900738003 

deny them. Except as expressly admitted, Defendants deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 

23. 

Complaint No. 24: On information and belief, Samsung has known of the ‘993 Patent 

since shortly after it issued, on August 19, 2014. 

Answer to Complaint No. 24: As the ’993 Patent is no longer a patent-in-suit, no response 

is required. To the extent any response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 24 

of the Complaint. 

Complaint No. 25: On or about July 8, 2013, Samsung filed “Samsung’s Reduction of 

Invalidity References,” Dkt. No. 671, in the Apple v. Samsung litigation. Samsung’s Reduction 

of Invalidity References identified “Neonode N1 Quickstart Guide V0.5” as a reference against 

Apple’s “swipe to unlock” patent. On information and belief, to the extent that Samsung was not 

already aware of the ‘879 Patent, the process of undertaking research and investigation regarding 

prior art references pertinent to Apple’s “swipe to unlock” patent, in combination with articles 

previously published concerning the ‘879 Patent, as well as the interrogation by Samsung’s 

counsel at the March 19, 2012 deposition, caused Samsung to become aware of the existence of 

the ‘879 Patent prior to submitting this filing. 

Answer to Complaint No. 25: Defendants admit that on or about July 8, 2013, the 

Samsung parties to the Apple v. Samsung litigation filed a document that was titled “Samsung’s 

Reduction of Invalidity References,” and that this document was assigned Docket No. 671. 

Defendants further admit that the document identified “Neonode N1 Quickstart Guide V0.5” as a 

prior art reference with respect to asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,046,721. Defendants deny the 

allegations in the last paragraph of paragraph 25. Except as expressly admitted, Defendants deny 

all remaining allegations in paragraph 25. 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 13 of 47
14 

900738003 

Complaint No. 26: After a 13-day trial in the Apple v. Samsung litigation, the jury found 

the asserted claims of Apple’s “swipe to unlock” patent infringed and not invalid. Samsung 

appealed the finding that the patent was not invalid. In an opinion issued on or about February 

26, 2016, the Federal Circuit held that Apple’s “swipe to unlock” patent would have been 

obvious over a combination that included the Neonode N1 Quickstart Guide. In a second opinion 

issued on or about October 7, 2016, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, held that there was 

substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding that Apple’s “swipe to unlock” patent was not 

obvious over the cited combination, and affirmed and reinstated the district court judgment. 

Answer to Complaint No. 26: Defendants admit that after a trial in the Apple v. Samsung 

litigation, the jury found the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,046,721 infringed and not invalid; 

admit that Samsung appealed the district court’s post-trial judgment in the Apple v. Samsung 

litigation; admit that, in an opinion issued on or about February 26, 2016, the Federal Circuit 

determined that U.S. Patent No. 8,046,721 would have been obvious over a combination of prior art 

that included, among other things, the Neonode N1 Quickstart Guide; and admit that, in an opinion 

issued on or about October 7, 2016, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed and reinstated the 

district court judgment. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations and/or legal conclusions in paragraph 26 of the 

Complaint, and therefore deny them. Except as expressly admitted, Defendants deny all remaining 

allegations in paragraph 26. 

Complaint No. 27: On information and belief, to the extent that Samsung was not 

already aware of the ‘879 and ‘993 Patents, Samsung’s reliance on the Neonode N1 Quickstart 

Guide as a principal prior art reference over several years of litigation that included a jury trial, 

an appeal to the Federal Circuit and two issued Federal Circuit opinions on the merits, combined 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 14 of 47
15 

900738003 

with Samsung’s knowledge of the ‘879 Patent – from which the ‘993 Patent descended as a 

continuation – from at least early 2012, caused Samsung to become aware of the ‘993 Patent as a 

result of, inter alia, the work of its counsel in connection with the Apple v. Samsung litigation. 

Answer to Complaint No. 27: As the ’993 Patent is no longer a patent-in-suit, no response 

is required. To the extent any response is required, Defendants deny the allegations and/or legal 

conclusions in paragraph 27 of the Complaint. 

Complaint No. 28: Samsung was again made aware of the ‘879 and ‘993 Patents on or 

about September 24, 2015, when Mr. Shain informed Claude Stern, an attorney with Quinn 

Emanuel, that John Quinn was authorized to explore Samsung’s interest in Neonode Inc.’s patent 

portfolio. On or about October 22, 2015, Stern informed Mr. Shain that Samsung had told Quinn 

that it was uninterested. 

Answer to Complaint No. 28: Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations as to the alleged communications between Mr. 

Shain and Claude Stern in paragraph 28 of the Complaint, and therefore deny them. The remaining 

allegations in paragraph 28 of the Complaint are directed to subject matter that is subject to 

attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work-product protection and Defendants’ response would 

require the disclosure of privileged information. Defendants, therefore, do not respond to the 

allegations in paragraph 28, and on that basis deny them. 

VI. THE INFRINGING SAMSUNG DEVICES 

Complaint No. 29: The Samsung Galaxy S line of smartphones was released for sale in 

the United States in or about June 2010. Although the Galaxy S line ran the Android operating 

system, from the beginning the devices used a proprietary user interface designed and developed 

by Samsung, initially called TouchWiz, later rebranded as Samsung Experience and still later as 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 15 of 47
16 

900738003 

One UI. The code for executing Samsung’s proprietary interface was also loaded onto 

Samsung’s Galaxy Note, Galaxy Tab, and Galaxy A series devices, among others. 

Answer to Complaint No. 29: Defendants admit that certain Samsung Galaxy S products 

have been sold in the United States as early as June 2010. Defendants further admit that certain 

Galaxy S products use versions of Google’s Android operating system. Defendants admit that 

versions of the Galaxy Note, Galaxy Tab, and Galaxy A series devices sold in the United States use 

the Android operating system. Defendants admit that the code for executing Samsung’s proprietary 

interface was loaded onto certain versions of Samsung’s Galaxy Note, Galaxy Tab, and Galaxy A 

series devices. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 29 of the Complaint not 

expressly admitted. 

Complaint No. 30: Swipe Typing. On information and belief, beginning in or about 

October 2012, Samsung Galaxy S, Galaxy A, Galaxy Note, and Galaxy Tab devices running 

version 4.2 and later versions of the Android operating system provided users a functionality that 

Samsung branded as “Continuous Input.” Continuous Input was a “swipe typing” functionality 

that provided users the ability to enter text on a keyboard by gliding an object (such as the user’s 

finger) across the keys on a keyboard rather than tapping each key individually: 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 16 of 47
17 

900738003 

Answer to Complaint No. 30: Defendants admit that certain Samsung Galaxy S, Galaxy 

A, Galaxy Note, and Galaxy Tab devices sold in the United States as early as October 2012 ran 

version 4.2 or later versions of the Android operating system. Defendants lack knowledge or 

information regarding the source of the image produced in paragraph 30 of the Complaint. 

Defendants therefore are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth 

of any allegations in paragraph 30 based on the contents of this image, and therefore deny them. 

Defendants deny that the remaining allegations in paragraph 30 of the Complaint concerning 

Plaintiff’s characterization of certain Samsung products are complete or accurate, and on that basis 

denies them. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 30 of the Complaint not 

expressly admitted. 

Complaint No. 31: On information and belief, Samsung believed that its Continuous 

Input functionality favorably differentiated Samsung’s mobile devices from competing devices 

sold by Apple Inc., which for several years following the introduction of Continuous Input 

lacked a native keyboard with swipe-typing functionality: 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 17 of 47
18 

900738003 

Answer to Complaint No. 31: Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 31 of the 

Complaint. Defendants lack knowledge or information regarding the source of the image produced 

in paragraph 31 of the Complaint. Defendants therefore are without sufficient knowledge or 

information to form a belief as to the truth of any allegations in paragraph 31 based on the contents 

of this image, and therefore deny them. 

Complaint No. 32: Incoming Call Interface. On information and belief, since at least 

around 2013, Samsung Galaxy S and Galaxy A devices, Galaxy Note devices, and at least some 

models of Galaxy Tab devices have presented the user with an “Incoming call” interface that 

requires the user to, e.g., accept an incoming voice call by touching a green “phone” icon and 

swiping away from the icon, or decline an incoming voice call and send the caller to voicemail 

by touching a red “phone” icon and swiping away from that icon: 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 18 of 47
19 

900738003 

Answer to Complaint No. 32: Defendants admit that certain Samsung Galaxy S and 

Galaxy A devices, Galaxy Note devices, and some models of Galaxy Tab devices, sold in the 

United States since around 2013, have included an “Incoming call” interface. Defendants lack 

knowledge or information regarding the source of the image produced in paragraph 32 of the 

Complaint. Defendants therefore are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 

as to the truth of any allegations in paragraph 32 based on the contents of this image, and therefore 

deny them. Defendants deny that the remaining allegations in paragraph 32 of the Complaint 

concerning Plaintiff’s characterization of certain Samsung products are complete or accurate, and 

on that basis denies them. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 32 of the 

Complaint not expressly admitted. 

Complaint No. 33: Lock Screen. On information and belief, since at least around 2014, 

Samsung Galaxy S, Galaxy A, Galaxy Note, and Galaxy Tab devices have included code for 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 19 of 47
20 

900738003 

presenting the user with a Lock Screen that includes the legend “Swipe to unlock” or “Swipe to 

open” in the lower center portion of the display. For example, the Lock Screen interface on a 

Galaxy S10 with the “Screen lock type” set to PIN and biometric security not enabled presents 

this display: 

Following execution of a swiping gesture across the display, the Lock Screen as displayed above 

transitions to, e.g., a passcode or PIN entry screen. 

Answer to Complaint No. 33: Defendants admit that certain Samsung Galaxy S, Galaxy 

A, Galaxy Note, and Galaxy Tab devices sold in the United States since around 2014 have included 

a lock screen interface in the lower center portion of the display. Defendants lack knowledge or 

information regarding the source of the image produced in paragraph 33 of the Complaint. 

Defendants therefore are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 20 of 47
21 

900738003 

of any allegations in paragraph 33 based on the contents of this image, and therefore deny them. 

Defendants deny that the remaining allegations in paragraph 33 of the Complaint concerning 

Plaintiff’s characterization of certain Samsung products are complete or accurate, and on that basis 

denies them. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 33 of the Complaint not 

expressly admitted. 

Complaint No. 34: On information and belief, since at least around 2014, the Lock 

Screen presented by Samsung Galaxy S, Galaxy A, Galaxy Note, and Galaxy Tab devices has 

included one or more Lock Screen shortcuts, typically depicted as one or more icons in the lower 

portion of the display. For example, the Lock Screen shortcuts in the screen shot of the Galaxy 

S10 shown above are for the phone application (in the lower left corner of the display) and the 

camera application (in the lower right corner of the display). Lock Screen shortcuts are activated 

by a swiping gesture that begins at the location of the icon and glides away from the icon along 

the display. 

Answer to Complaint No. 34: Defendants deny that the allegations in paragraph 34 of the 

Complaint concerning Plaintiff’s characterization of certain Samsung products are complete or 

accurate, and on that basis denies them. The allegations in paragraph 34 of the Complaint contain 

conclusions of law that require no response. To the extent an answer is required, Defendants deny 

the allegations. 

Complaint No. 35: On information and belief, in or about April 2017, Samsung released 

the Galaxy S8 and Galaxy S8+ devices in the United States. One of the new features touted for 

the devices was the incorporation of facial recognition security. This feature was incorporated 

into subsequent models of Samsung Galaxy S devices, as well as into Galaxy Note, Galaxy A, 

and Galaxy Tab devices. In order to prevent accidental unlocking of the devices that included the 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 21 of 47
22 

900738003 

new feature, they were configured to stay on the Lock Screen following use of the facial 

recognition feature to unlock the device, presenting an “opened padlock” graphic across the 

upper center of the display, until the user executes a swiping gesture across the display. For 

example, the Lock Screen interface on a Galaxy S10 with the “Screen lock type” set to PIN and 

facial recognition security enabled presents this display: 

Answer to Complaint No. 35: Defendants admit that Samsung released the Galaxy S8 and 

Galaxy S8+ devices in the United States in 2017. Defendants lack knowledge or information 

regarding the source of the image produced in paragraph 35 of the Complaint. Defendants therefore 

are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of any allegations in 

paragraph 35 based on the contents of this image, and therefore deny them. Defendants deny that 

the allegations in paragraph 36 of the Complaint concerning Plaintiff’s characterization of certain 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 22 of 47
23 

900738003 

Samsung products are complete or accurate, and on that basis denies them. The remaining 

allegations in paragraph 36 of the Complaint contain conclusions of law that require no response. 

To the extent an answer is required, Defendants deny the allegations. Defendants deny all 

remaining allegations in paragraph 35 of the Complaint not expressly admitted. 

Complaint No. 36: Following execution of a swiping gesture across the display, the 

display transitions to the Home Screen. With facial recognition security configured for use on the 

devices, executing a swipe downward from the location where the “opened padlock” graphic is 

presented will not cause the display to transition to the Home Screen until after the “opened 

padlock” graphic has been instantiated on the display. 

Answer to Complaint No. 36: Defendants deny that the allegations in paragraph 36 of the 

Complaint concerning Plaintiff’s characterization of certain Samsung products are complete or 

accurate, and on that basis denies them. The remaining allegations in paragraph 36 of the Complaint 

contain conclusions of law that require no response. To the extent an answer is required, 

Defendants deny the allegations. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 36 of the 

Complaint not expressly admitted. 

COUNT I: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘879 PATENT 

Complaint No. 37: Neonode incorporates paragraphs 1 through 36 herein by reference. 

Answer to Complaint No. 37: Defendants incorporate their responses to the preceding 

paragraphs 1-36 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 

Complaint No. 38: Samsung has been and is presently directly infringing at least claim 

1 of the ‘879 Patent by making, using, selling, or offering for sale within the United States, 

and/or importing into the United States, Samsung Galaxy S, Galaxy A, Galaxy Note, and Galaxy 

Tab devices (collectively, “the Samsung Galaxy Devices.”). 

Answer to Complaint No. 38: Denied. 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 23 of 47
24 

900738003 

Complaint No. 39: As one non-limiting example of the claims of the ‘879 Patent that 

are infringed by the Samsung Galaxy Devices, claim 1 of the ‘879 Patent recites: 

Answer to Complaint No. 39: Defendants deny that Samsung Galaxy Devices infringe 

claim 1 of the ’879 patent. Defendants admit only that claim 1 of the ’879 patent recited the claim 

language reproduced in paragraph 39 of the Complaint and refer to the ’879 patent for its true and 

complete contents. Defendants deny any remaining allegations or legal conclusions in paragraph 39 

of the Complaint not expressly admitted. 

Complaint No. 40: The Samsung Galaxy Devices are mobile handheld computer units, 

and include a memory storing code which, when read by a processor, allows the devices to 

present a user interface as described below. 

Answer to Complaint No. 40: Defendants deny that the allegations in paragraph 40 of the 

Complaint concerning Plaintiff’s characterization of certain Samsung products are complete or 

accurate, and on that basis denies them. The allegations in paragraph 40 of the Complaint contain 

conclusions of law that require no response. To the extent an answer is required, Defendants deny 

the allegations. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 40 of the Complaint not 

expressly admitted. 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 24 of 47
25 

900738003 

Complaint No. 41: The Samsung Galaxy Devices include a display that is touch 

sensitive, in which one or more representations of functions are provided. 

Answer to Complaint No. 41: Defendants deny that the allegations in paragraph 41 of the 

Complaint concerning Plaintiff’s characterization of certain Samsung products are complete or 

accurate, and on that basis denies them. The allegations in paragraph 41 of the Complaint contain 

conclusions of law that require no response. To the extent an answer is required, Defendants deny 

the allegations. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 41 of the Complaint not 

expressly admitted. 

Complaint No. 42: Direct Infringement – Lock Screen: The Samsung Galaxy Devices 

present a Lock Screen, from which a user may transition to, e.g., a passcode entry screen: 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 25 of 47
26 

900738003 

Answer to Complaint No. 42: Defendants deny that the allegations in paragraph 42 of the 

Complaint concerning Plaintiff’s characterization of certain Samsung products are complete or 

accurate, and on that basis denies them. Defendants lack knowledge or information regarding the 

source of the image produced in paragraph 42 of the Complaint. Defendants therefore are without 

sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of any allegations in paragraph 

42 based on the contents of this image, and therefore deny them. The allegations in paragraph 42 of 

the Complaint contain conclusions of law that require no response. To the extent an answer is 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 26 of 47
27 

900738003 

required, Defendants deny the allegations. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 

42 of the Complaint not expressly admitted. 

Complaint No. 43: In the display as set forth above, the “Swipe to unlock” legend is a 

representation of a function, the representation consists of only one option for activating the 

function, and the function is activated by a multi-step operation comprising (i) an object (such as 

a user’s finger) touching the display at the location of the “Swipe to unlock” representation and 

(ii) gliding along the display away from the touched location. The “Swipe to unlock” 

representation is not relocated or duplicated during the gliding. 

Answer to Complaint No. 43: Defendants deny that the allegations in paragraph 43 of the 

Complaint concerning Plaintiff’s characterization of certain Samsung products are complete or 

accurate, and on that basis denies them. The allegations in paragraph 43 of the Complaint contain 

conclusions of law that require no response. To the extent an answer is required, Defendants deny 

the allegations. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 43 of the Complaint not 

expressly admitted. 

Complaint No. 44: By way of additional example, the Samsung Galaxy Devices present 

a Lock Screen from which a user may transition to the Home Screen: 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 27 of 47
28 

900738003 

Answer to Complaint No. 44: Defendants deny that the allegations in paragraph 44 of the 

Complaint concerning Plaintiff’s characterization of certain Samsung products are complete or 

accurate, and on that basis denies them. Defendants lack knowledge or information regarding the 

source of the image produced in paragraph 44 of the Complaint. Defendants therefore are without 

sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of any allegations in paragraph 

44 based on the contents of this image, and therefore deny them. The allegations in paragraph 44 of 

the Complaint contain conclusions of law that require no response. To the extent an answer is 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 28 of 47
29 

900738003 

required, Defendants deny the allegations. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 

44 of the Complaint not expressly admitted. 

Complaint No. 45: In the display as set forth above, the “Swipe to open” legend is a 

representation of a function, the representation consists of only one option for activating the 

function, and the function is activated by a multi-step operation comprising (i) an object (such as 

a user’s finger) touching the display at the location of the “Swipe to open” representation and (ii) 

gliding along the display away from the touched location. The “Swipe to open” representation is 

not relocated or duplicated during the gliding. 

Answer to Complaint No. 45: Defendants deny that the allegations in paragraph 41 of the 

Complaint concerning Plaintiff’s characterization of certain Samsung products are complete or 

accurate, and on that basis denies them. The allegations in paragraph 45 of the Complaint contain 

conclusions of law that require no response. To the extent an answer is required, Defendants deny 

the allegations. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 45 of the Complaint not 

expressly admitted. 

Complaint No. 46: By way of additional example, the Lock Screen shortcut icons 

depicted on the Lock Screen display of the Samsung Galaxy Devices are representations of 

functions, each of which consists of only one option for activating the function, and the functions 

are activated by a multi-step operation comprising (i) an object (such as a user’s finger) touching 

the display at the location of the icon and (ii) gliding along the display away from the touched 

location. The icons are not relocated or duplicated during the gliding. 

Answer to Complaint No. 46: Defendants deny that the allegations in paragraph 41 of the 

Complaint concerning Plaintiff’s characterization of certain Samsung products are complete or 

accurate, and on that basis denies them. The allegations in paragraph 46 of the Complaint contain 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 29 of 47
30 

900738003 

conclusions of law that require no response. To the extent an answer is required, Defendants deny 

the allegations. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 46 of the Complaint not 

expressly admitted. 

Complaint No. 47: Direct Infringement – Swipe Typing: By way of additional 

example, the Samsung Galaxy Devices present a “keyboard” display enabling text entry into a 

text field: 

Answer to Complaint No. 47: Defendants deny that the allegations in paragraph 47 of the 

Complaint concerning Plaintiff’s characterization of certain Samsung products are complete or 

accurate, and on that basis denies them. Defendants lack knowledge or information regarding the 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 30 of 47
31 

900738003 

source of the image produced in paragraph 47 of the Complaint. Defendants therefore are without 

sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of any allegations in paragraph 

47 based on the contents of this image, and therefore deny them. The allegations in paragraph 47 of 

the Complaint contain conclusions of law that require no response. To the extent an answer is 

required, Defendants deny the allegations. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 

47 of the Complaint not expressly admitted. 

Complaint No. 48: In the display as set forth above, each of the “key” icons of the 

virtual keyboard is a representation of a function, each of the key icons consist of only one 

option for activating the function (i.e., one letter), and the function may be activated by a multistep operation comprising (i) an object (such as a user’s finger) touching the display at the 

location of the key and (ii) gliding along the display away from the touched location. Keys are 

not relocated or duplicated during the gliding. 

Answer to Complaint No. 48: Defendants deny that the allegations in paragraph 48 of the 

Complaint concerning Plaintiff’s characterization of certain Samsung products are complete or 

accurate, and on that basis denies them. The allegations in paragraph 48 of the Complaint contain 

conclusions of law that require no response. To the extent an answer is required, Samsung denies 

the allegations. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 48 of the Complaint not 

expressly admitted. 

Complaint No. 49: Direct Infringement – Incoming Call: By way of additional 

example, the Samsung Galaxy Devices present the following display when the device receives an 

incoming call: 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 31 of 47
32 

900738003 

Answer to Complaint No. 49: Defendants deny that the allegations in paragraph 49 of the 

Complaint concerning Plaintiff’s characterization of certain Samsung products are complete or 

accurate, and on that basis denies them. Defendants lack knowledge or information regarding the 

source of the image produced in paragraph 49 of the Complaint. Defendants therefore are without 

sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of any allegations in paragraph 

49 based on the contents of this image, and therefore deny them. The allegations in paragraph 49 of 

the Complaint contain conclusions of law that require no response. To the extent an answer is 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 32 of 47
33 

900738003 

required, Samsung denies the allegations. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 

49 of the Complaint not expressly admitted. 

Complaint No. 50: Each of the two “telephone” icons (one green, one red) in the lower 

portion of the display is a representation of a function, each of them consist of only one option 

for activating the function, and the function is activated by a multi-step operation comprising (i) 

an object (such as a user’s finger) touching the display at the location of the icon and (ii) gliding 

along the display away from the touched location. The telephone icons are not relocated or 

duplicated during the gliding. 

Answer to Complaint No. 50: Defendants deny that the allegations in paragraph 50 of the 

Complaint concerning Plaintiff’s characterization of certain Samsung products are complete or 

accurate, and on that basis denies them. The allegations in paragraph 50 of the Complaint contain 

conclusions of law that require no response. To the extent an answer is required, Samsung denies 

the allegations. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in paragraph 50 of the Complaint not 

expressly admitted. 

Complaint No. 51: Samsung has never been, and is not now, licensed under the ‘879 

Patent, and has never been authorized by any owner of the ‘879 Patent to engage in the acts 

alleged herein. 

Answer to Complaint No. 51: Paragraph 51 alleges legal conclusions to which no 

response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations and/or 

legal conclusions in paragraph 51 of the Complaint. Defendants deny all remaining allegations in 

paragraph 51 of the Complaint not expressly admitted. 

Complaint No. 52: Samsung’s infringement of the ‘879 Patent has been and continues 

to be willful. On information and belief, based on at least the facts alleged at paragraphs 16-28 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 33 of 47
34 

900738003 

above, Samsung has known of the ‘879 Patent since at least February 22, 2012. Samsung is a 

large corporation with a large and experienced legal department, and highly sophisticated inhouse and outside intellectual property counsel. Samsung knew or should have known that its 

conduct in making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing the Samsung Galaxy 

Devices has infringed and does infringe the ‘879 Patent, yet proceeded to engage in such conduct 

despite a high likelihood that a court would find the products to be infringing. 

Answer to Complaint No. 52: Denied. 

Complaint No. 53: The ‘879 Patent is not invalid and is enforceable. 

Answer to Complaint No. 53: Denied. 

Complaint No. 54: Neonode has sustained significant damages as a direct and 

proximate result of Samsung’s infringement of the ‘879 Patent. 

Answer to Complaint No. 54: Denied. 

COUNT II: INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘993 PATENT 

Complaint No. 55: Neonode incorporates paragraphs 1 through 54 herein by reference. 

Answer to Complaint No. 55: Defendants incorporate their responses to the preceding 

paragraphs 1-54 of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 

Complaint No. 56: Direct Infringement: Samsung has been and is presently directly 

infringing at least claim 1 of the ‘993 Patent by making, using, selling, or offering for sale within 

the United States, and/or importing into the United States, Samsung Galaxy S, Galaxy A, Galaxy 

Note, and Galaxy Tab devices that include or included code for enabling the device to stay on the 

Lock Screen following use of facial recognition security (collectively, “the Infringing ‘993 

Devices”). 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 34 of 47
35 

900738003 

Answer to Complaint No. 56: As the ’993 Patent is no longer a patent-in-suit, no response 

is required. To the extent any response is required, Defendants deny the allegations and/or legal 

conclusions in paragraph 56 of the Complaint. 

Complaint No. 57: As one non-limiting example of the claims of the ‘993 Patent that 

are infringed by the Infringing ‘993 Devices, claim 1 of the ‘993 Patent recites: 

Answer to Complaint No. 57: As the ’993 Patent is no longer a patent-in-suit, no response 

is required. To the extent any response is required, Defendants deny the allegations and/or legal 

conclusions in paragraph 57 of the Complaint. 

Complaint No. 58: The Infringing ‘993 Devices are electronic devices having a touch 

sensitive display screen and include a memory storing code which, when executed by a 

processor, causes the processor to present a user interface as outlined below. 

Answer to Complaint No. 58: As the ’993 Patent is no longer a patent-in-suit, no response 

is required. To the extent any response is required, Defendants deny the allegations and/or legal 

conclusions in paragraph 58 of the Complaint. 

Complaint No. 59: The user interface of the Infringing ‘993 Devices includes at least 

one tap-present state, in which a plurality of tap-activatable icons for a plurality of preCase 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 35 of 47
36 

900738003 

designated system functions are present, each system function of which is activated in response 

to a tap on its respective icon, including at least the following. 

Answer to Complaint No. 59: As the ’993 Patent is no longer a patent-in-suit, no response 

is required. To the extent any response is required, Defendants deny the allegations and/or legal 

conclusions in paragraph 59 of the Complaint. 

Complaint No. 60: The Home Screen interface of the Infringing ‘993 Devices includes 

tap-activatable icons for a plurality of pre-designated system functions, such as a telephone 

function, an email function, a browser function and a camera function. For example, the Home 

Screen interface on a Galaxy S10 presents multiple such tap-activatable icons: 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 36 of 47
37 

900738003 

Answer to Complaint No. 60: As the ’993 Patent is no longer a patent-in-suit, no response 

is required. To the extent any response is required, Defendants deny the allegations and/or legal 

conclusions in paragraph 60 of the Complaint. 

Complaint No. 61: The user interface of the Infringing ‘993 Devices includes a Lock 

Screen in which tap-activatable icons are absent, but in which at least one otherwise-activatable 

graphic is present, consisting of an “opened padlock” graphic in the upper center of the display. 

For example, the Lock Screen interface on a Galaxy S10 presents this otherwise-activatable 

graphic: 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 37 of 47
38 

900738003 

Neither the telephone icon in the lower left, nor the camera icon in the lower right, nor any of the 

icons in the upper right corner of the display, of the Lock Screen are tap-activatable. 

Answer to Complaint No. 61: As the ’993 Patent is no longer a patent-in-suit, no response 

is required. To the extent any response is required, Defendants deny the allegations and/or legal 

conclusions in paragraph 61 of the Complaint. 

Complaint No. 62: When setting up facial recognition security on an Infringing ‘993 

Device, the user is presented with an option to “Stay on Lock Screen,” which configures the 

device to stay on the Lock Screen after the device has been unlocked with facial recognition until 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 38 of 47
39 

900738003 

the user swipes across the display. This option is enabled by default. With facial recognition 

security configured for use on an Infringing ‘993 Device, and with the “Stay on Lock screen” 

option enabled, the interface will transition from the Lock Screen to the Home Screen after, e.g., 

the user touches the location where the “opened padlock” graphic is presented and glides 

downward on the display. 

Answer to Complaint No. 62: As the ’993 Patent is no longer a patent-in-suit, no response 

is required. To the extent any response is required, Defendants deny the allegations and/or legal 

conclusions in paragraph 62 of the Complaint. 

Complaint No. 63: The instructions that cause the processor to enable configuration of 

the Infringing ‘993 Devices to use facial recognition security, and to stay on the Lock Screen 

following unlocking of the device using facial recognition security until the user has executed a 

swipe across the display, is present on the devices when they are made, used, sold, or offered for 

sale within the United States, and/or imported into the United States, by or for Samsung. 

Answer to Complaint No. 63: As the ’993 Patent is no longer a patent-in-suit, no response 

is required. To the extent any response is required, Defendants deny the allegations and/or legal 

conclusions in paragraph 63 of the Complaint. 

Complaint No. 64: Indirect Infringement: Samsung has been and is presently 

indirectly infringing at least claim 1 of the ‘993 Patent, including by inducing users of Samsung 

devices to use devices that infringe the ‘993 Patent. 

Answer to Complaint No. 64: As the ’993 Patent is no longer a patent-in-suit, no response 

is required. To the extent any response is required, Defendants deny the allegations and/or legal 

conclusions in paragraph 64 of the Complaint. 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 39 of 47
40 

900738003 

Complaint No. 65: Samsung has induced and continues to induce users of Samsung 

devices to use products that infringe the ‘993 Patent by, among other things, prompting and 

encouraging users of Samsung Galaxy S, Galaxy A, Galaxy Note, and Galaxy Tab devices to 

enable facial recognition security, and setting “Stay on Lock screen” as enabled by default. For 

example, Samsung’s website, at https://www.samsung.com/us/support/answer/ANS00062630/ 

and https://www.samsung.com/us/support/answer/ANS00083151/, provides detailed instructions 

to users of Infringing ‘993 Devices concerning how to enable facial recognition security and 

unlock their devices using facial recognition security. 

Answer to Complaint No. 65: As the ’993 Patent is no longer a patent-in-suit, no response 

is required. To the extent any response is required, Defendants deny the allegations and/or legal 

conclusions in paragraph 65 of the Complaint. 

Complaint No. 66: Users of the Infringing ‘993 Devices have committed and continue 

to commit acts of direct infringement by way of their past and ongoing configuring of the 

devices for facial recognition security and their use of the devices to perform the functionality 

alleged above. 

Answer to Complaint No. 66: As the ’993 Patent is no longer a patent-in-suit, no response 

is required. To the extent any response is required, Defendants deny the allegations and/or legal 

conclusions in paragraph 66 of the Complaint. 

Complaint No. 67: On information and belief, based on at least the facts alleged at 

paragraphs 16-28 above, Samsung has known of the ‘993 Patent since shortly after it issued on 

August 19, 2014. 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 40 of 47
41 

900738003 

Answer to Complaint No. 67: As the ’993 Patent is no longer a patent-in-suit, no response 

is required. To the extent any response is required, Defendants deny the allegations and/or legal 

conclusions in paragraph 67 of the Complaint. 

Complaint No. 68: On information and belief, Samsung has intended, and does intend, 

that users of Infringing ‘993 Devices use the devices to perform the functionality alleged above. 

On information and belief, Samsung has known and knows that, or has acted and acts with 

willful blindness to the likelihood that, the acts of users of Samsung devices in using the devices 

to perform the functionality alleged above constitutes infringement of the ‘993 Patent. 

Answer to Complaint No. 68: As the ’993 Patent is no longer a patent-in-suit, no response 

is required. To the extent any response is required, Defendants deny the allegations and/or legal 

conclusions in paragraph 68 of the Complaint. 

Complaint No. 69: Samsung has never been, and is not now, licensed under the ‘993 

Patent, and has never been authorized by any owner of the ‘993 Patent to engage in the acts 

alleged herein. 

Answer to Complaint No. 69: As the ’993 Patent is no longer a patent-in-suit, no response 

is required. To the extent any response is required, Defendants deny the allegations and/or legal 

conclusions in paragraph 69 of the Complaint. 

Complaint No. 70: Samsung’s infringement of the ‘993 Patent has been and continues 

to be willful. On information and belief, based on at least the facts alleged at paragraphs 16-28 

above, Samsung has known of the ‘993 Patent since shortly after it issued. Samsung is a large 

corporation with a large and experienced legal department, and highly sophisticated in-house and 

outside intellectual property counsel. Samsung knew or should have known that the Infringing 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 41 of 47
42 

900738003 

‘993 Devices infringe the ‘993 Patent, yet proceeded to engage in such conduct despite a high 

likelihood that a court would find the products to be infringing. 

Answer to Complaint No. 70: As the ’993 Patent is no longer a patent-in-suit, no response 

is required. To the extent any response is required, Defendants deny the allegations and/or legal 

conclusions in paragraph 70 of the Complaint. 

Complaint No. 71: The ‘993 Patent is not invalid and is enforceable. 

Answer to Complaint No. 71: As the ’993 Patent is no longer a patent-in-suit, no response 

is required. To the extent any response is required, Defendants deny the allegations and/or legal 

conclusions in paragraph 71 of the Complaint. 

Complaint No. 72: Neonode has sustained significant damages as a direct and 

proximate result of Samsung’s infringement of the ‘993 Patent. 

Answer to Complaint No. 72: As the ’993 Patent is no longer a patent-in-suit, no response 

is required. To the extent any response is required, Defendants deny the allegations and/or legal 

conclusions in paragraph 72 of the Complaint. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Complaint No. 73: Neonode demands a trial by jury of all issues triable of right before a 

jury. 

Answer to Complaint No. 73: The jury demand requires no response. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

The Prayer for Relief requires no response. To the extent a response is required, 

Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief requested or any other relief whatsoever. 

First Defense 

(Failure to State a Claim) 

The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 42 of 47
43 

900738003 

Second Defense 

(Invalidity) 

Upon information and belief, the ’879 Patent is invalid because it fails to meet the 

conditions specified in 35 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 

102, 103, 112 and/or 116 and/or because it fails to claim patentably distinct subject matter under 

the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (or non-statutory double 

patenting). 

Third Defense 

(Non-Infringement) 

Defendants have not and do not infringe the ’879 Patent, either directly or indirectly, 

literally, or under the doctrine of equivalents. 

Fourth Defense 

(35 U.S.C. § 286) 

Plaintiff’s recovery for alleged infringement of the ’879 Patent, if any, is limited to any 

alleged infringement committed no more than six years prior to the filing of its Complaint 

pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 286. 

Fifth Defense 

(35 U.S.C. § 287) 

Any claim for damages for patent infringement by Plaintiff is limited by 35 U.S.C. § 287 

to those alleged damages occurring only after sufficient notice of infringement. 

Sixth Defense 

(Prosecution History Estoppel and Disclaimer) 

Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by prosecution history estoppel and/or 

prosecution disclaimer. 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 43 of 47
44 

900738003 

Seventh Defense 

(Ensnarement) 

Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of ensnarement. 

Eighth Defense 

(Prosecution Laches) 

Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part because the ’879 patent is equitably 

unenforceable under the doctrine of prosecution laches. 

Ninth Defense 

(Equitable Estoppel) 

Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of equitable estoppel. 

Tenth Defense 

(License) 

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or part by a license, 

express or implied, to the ’879 Patent and to other related Neonode technology. 

Eleventh Defense 

(Settlement, Agreement, Release and Waiver) 

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or part by a 

settlement, agreement, release or waiver by Neonode. 

RESERVATION OF RIGHTS 

Defendants reserve all affirmative defenses under Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the Patent Laws of the United States, and any other defenses, at law and equity, that 

may now or in the future be available based on discovery or any other factual investigation 

concerning this case or any related action. 

DEFENDANTS’ DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Defendants demand a trial by jury on all issues triable by right of jury. 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 44 of 47
45 

900738003 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for relief as follows: 

(a) Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice and ordering that Plaintiff is 

entitled to no recovery on the Complaint; 

(b) That no damages or royalties are due or owing for any of the acts alleged by Plaintiff 

in its Complaint; 

(c) For an entry of judgment declaring that each of the asserted claims of the ’879 Patent 

is invalid, void, and without force and effect; 

(d) For an entry of judgment declaring that Defendants have not infringed and do not 

infringe, either directly, contributorily or through inducement, any of the claims of the ’879 Patent; 

(e) Ordering that this is an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, and awarding 

Defendants their attorney fees and full costs of suit; and 

(f) Awarding Defendants such other and further relief as this Court deems just and 

appropriate. 

Dated: November 5, 2024 

By: 

Respectfully submitted, 

DLA PIPER LLP (US) 

/s/ John M. Guaragna 

John M. Guaragna 

Texas Bar No 24043308 

Brian Erickson 

Texas Bar No 24012594 

DLA PIPER LLP (US) 

303 Colorado Street, Suite 3000 

Austin, TX 78701-4653 

Tel: 512.457.7125 

Fax: 512.457.7001 

john.guaragna@dlapiper.com

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 45 of 47
46 

900738003 

Mark D. Fowler (Pro hac vice) 

Bar No. 124235 

mark.fowler@dlapiper.com 

Erik Fuehrer (Pro hac vice) 

Bar No. 252578 

Erik.fuehrer@dlapiper.com 

DLA PIPER LLP (US) 

2000 University Avenue 

East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2214 

Tel: 650.833.2000 

Fax: 650.833.2001 

Tiffany Miller (Pro hac vice) 

Tiffany.miller@dlapiper.com 

DLA PIPER LLP (US) 

4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100 

San Diego, CA 92121-2133 

Tel: 858.677.1400 

Fax: 858.677.1401 

Zachary Loney (Pro hac vice) 

DLA Piper LLP (US) 

303 Colorado St., Suite 3000 

Austin, TX 78701 

Tel: 512.457.7000 

Zachary.loney@us.dlapiper.com 

Benjamin Mueller (Pro hac vice) 

Benjamin.mueller@dlapiper.com 

DLA PIPER LLP (US) 

444 West Lake Street, Suite 900 

Chicago, IL 60606-0089 

Tel: 312.368.4000 

Fax: 312.236.7516 

ATTORNEYS FOR SAMSUNG 

ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. and SAMSUNG 

ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 46 of 47
47 

900738003 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic 

service are being served on November 5, 2024 with a copy of this document via the Court’s 

CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be served by 

electronic mail on this same date. 

/s/ John M. Guaragna 

John M. Guaragna 

Case 6:20-cv-00507-ADA Document 104 Filed 11/05/24 Page 47 of 47