Source: https://es.scribd.com/document/385258987/WiLAN-Lawsuit
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:46:14+00:00

Document:
Guardian Media Technologies v. Amazon.com et. al.
Case 3:14-cv-02235-DMS-BLM Document 431 Filed 07/16/18 PageID.
3 respectfully submits this trial brief.
22 LAN will establish that Apple’s infringement was and continues to be willful.
6 patents-in-suit by actively inducing infringement.
8 evidence that every limitation of the patent claim be found in the accused product.
9 See Wenger Mfg., Inc. v. Coating Mach. Sys., Inc., 239 F.3d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
12 accused iPhones meet every limitation of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit.
15 The accused iPhones directly infringe claims 9 and 26 of the ’145 patent.
20 reasonably capable of satisfying every element in the claims.
24 iPhones include such a timer.
10 which is a module that allocates bandwidth across its user connections.
8 capable of satisfying every element in the claim.
14 with specific intent to induce infringement of the patent. See DSU Med. Corp. v.
20 someone directly infringed at least one patent claim. See Lucent Techs., Inc. v.
21 Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
23 induces its customers to directly infringe the asserted claims of Wi-LAN’s patents.
1 its iPhones to use those networks.
13 Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 1933-34 (2016); Arctic Cat Inc. v.
14 Bombardier Rec. Prods., 876 F.3d 1350, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
14 was first introduced to the market in September 2014. Based on these sales, Mr.
10 iPhones if Apple had to remove its infringing technology from its iPhones.
20 Order Regarding Trial, ¶ 1.
3 delivered via CM/ECF on the counsel of record.
Transcenic v. Google et. al.
Cellular Communications Equipment v. Apple et. al.
Fairchild Semiconductor Corp., et al. v. Power Integrations, Inc., C.A. No. 12-540-LPS (D. Del. Aug. 28, 2013).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.