com STEVEN S. CHERENSKY Email: steven.cherensky @weil.com WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 201 Redwood Shores Parkway Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 802-3034 Facsimile: (650) 802-3100 ROBERT S. BEREZIN Email: robert.berezin@weil.com WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP New York Office 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Telephone: (212) 310-8000 Case5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document1286 Filed10/24/08 Page33 of 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT MOTION OF HYNIX, MICRON, AND SAMSUNG FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102 OF CLAIM 14 OF THE ‘184 PATENT, CLAIM 33 OF THE ‘120 PATENT, CLAIM 16 OF THE ‘863 PATENT, CLAIMS 2 AND 3 OF THE ‘446 PATENT, CLAIM 43 OF THE ‘051 PATENT, AND CLAIM 34 OF THE ‘037 PATENT -- CASE NOS. C 05 00334 RMW, C 05 02298 RMW, AND C 06 00244RMW 28 Attorneys for Defendants SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., and SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, L.P. Case5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document1286 Filed10/24/08 Page34 of 34

Therefore, the RemoteWare System cannot anticipate any of the Asserted Claims of the ‘917 Patent. V. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth herein and in any reply, and in view of the supporting declarations and arguments to be made by counsel, Mformation’s Motion for Summary Judgment of No Anticipation Under 35 U.S.C. § 102 should be granted. Dated: July 11, 2011 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP By: /s/ Amar L. Thakur AMAR L. THAKUR SHAWN E. MCDONALD ALLEN A. ARNTSEN LISA M. NOLLER JUSTIN E. GRAY ATTORNEYS FOR MFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES, INC..

Additional References Additional prior art references are discussed in Section IV. III. ANTICIPATION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102 Based on Defendants’ present understanding of the Asserted Claims of the ’970 Patent and the apparent constructions CallWave is asserting based on CallWave’s Infringement Contentions, the prior art references charted in Exhibits A-1 through A-29 show how the asserted prior art meets each element of the Asserted Claims. Chart Anticipating Reference A-1 U.S. Patent No. 7,764,231 (“Karr”) A-2 U.S. Patent No. 6,104,931 (“Havinis”) A-3 U.S. Patent No. 6,999,779 (“Hashimoto”) A-4 U.S. Patent No. 6,115,754 (“Landgren”) A-5 U.S. Patent No. 6,243,039 (“Elliot”) A-6 U.S. Patent No. 6,321,092 (“Fitch”) A-7 U.S. Patent No. 6,838,998 (“Brown”) A-8 U.S. Patent No. 6,169,497 (“Robert”) A-9 U.S. Patent No. 6,100,806 (“Gaukel”) A-10 U.S. Patent No. 6,393,346 (“Keith”) A-11 U.S. Patent No. 6,236,358 (“Durst”) A-12 U.S. Patent No. 5,724,660 (“Kauser”) A-13 U.S. Patent No. 5,515,043 (“Berard”) A-14 U.S. Patent No. 5,420,594 (“FitzGerald”) A-15 U.S. Patent No. 5,602,739 (“Haagenstad”) A-16 U.S. Patent No.

Additional References Additional prior art references are discussed in Section IV. III. ANTICIPATION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 102 Based on Defendants’ present understanding of the Asserted Claims of the ’970 Patent and the apparent constructions CallWave is asserting based on CallWave’s Infringement Contentions, the prior art references charted in Exhibits A-1 through A-29 show how the asserted prior art meets each element of the Asserted Claims. Chart Anticipating Reference A-1 U.S. Patent No. 7,764,231 (“Karr”) A-2 U.S. Patent No. 6,104,931 (“Havinis”) A-3 U.S. Patent No. 6,999,779 (“Hashimoto”) A-4 U.S. Patent No. 6,115,754 (“Landgren”) A-5 U.S. Patent No. 6,243,039 (“Elliot”) A-6 U.S. Patent No. 6,321,092 (“Fitch”) A-7 U.S. Patent No. 6,838,998 (“Brown”) A-8 U.S. Patent No. 6,169,497 (“Robert”) A-9 U.S. Patent No. 6,100,806 (“Gaukel”) A-10 U.S. Patent No. 6,393,346 (“Keith”) A-11 U.S. Patent No. 6,236,358 (“Durst”) A-12 U.S. Patent No. 5,724,660 (“Kauser”) A-13 U.S. Patent No. 5,515,043 (“Berard”) A-14 U.S. Patent No. 5,420,594 (“FitzGerald”) A-15 U.S. Patent No. 5,602,739 (“Haagenstad”) A-16 U.S. Patent No.

Nov. 21, 2013 AM, at 19:10-20:19. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Newegg is entitled to judgment as a matter of law that the asserted claims of ’730 Patent are not infringed, that Newegg does not actively induce infringement of the ’730 Patent, that the asserted claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or § 103, and that the damages verdict of $2.3 million is unsupportable and must be remitted.

At best, in the light most favorable to the non-movant, there exists an issue of material fact that cannot be resolved by a summary judgment motion As such, there is no issue of non-joinder that the Court should address and the motion for summary judgment under 102(f) should be denied. Case 5:03-cv-02289-JW Document 454 Filed 09/01/2006 Page 24 of 25 RICOH’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 4,922,432 FOR VIOLATION OF 35 U.S.C. § 102(f), OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO JOIN ALL CO-OWNERS AS PLAINTIFFS CASE NOS. CV-03-4669-MJJ (EMC) & CV-03-02289 MJJ (EMC) Page 21 2136483.

Trial Tr. 4/7; S-The Weideman patent was published March 21, 2001, and thus is printed Case 3:12-cv-00260-H-WVG Document 970 Filed 04/10/14 Page 23 of 31 3125225v1/013090 18 of 31 Case No. 3:12-cv-00260 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 publication prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and 102(b). S-2271.

After considering all briefs, evidence, objections to evidence, and arguments of counsel, it appears and the Court finds that Kenu has shown by admissible evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom not contradicted by other evidence or inferences that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and Kenu is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Belkin’s First Affirmative Defense of invalidity of the ’714 Patent and the ’D707 Patent, and therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Kenu’s Motion is GRANTED. The Court finds that: (1) Belkin has not shown Hale and GripTight are prior art to the ’714 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), (b) or (e) (pre-AIA); (2) Belkin’s expert testified that the ’D707 Patent is valid and Belkin presented no other evidence to support a genuine issue of material fact regarding invalidity of the ’D707 Patent; and, (3) the ’714 Patent and the ’D707 are each not invalid based on Belkin’s failure to prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, partial summary judgment is granted in favor of Kenu and against Belkin on Belkin’s First Affirmative Defense for invalidity of the ’714 and ’D707 Patents IT IS SO ORDERED.

Counterclaim Plaintiff inMusic repeats and incorporates by reference, as though set forth in full, all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 21 of this Counterclaim. 23. The ‘626 Patent fails to meet statutory requirements for patentability and all of the limitations of the purported invention claimed in the ‘626 Patent are present in prior art references, including, without limitation, Japanese Application No. 08- 183588 (published April 8, 1997) to Roland alone or in combination with Japanese Application No. 08-146797 (published December 2, 1997) to Roland that were available sufficiently prior so as to render each asserted claim of the ‘626 Patent invalid anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, inMusic Brands, Inc., prays that this Court grant the following relief: Case 2:16-cv-06256-CBM-AJW Document 44 Filed 02/03/17 Page 17 of 20 Page ID #:618 EXHIBIT 1 Page 29 Case 2:16-cv-06256-CBM-AJW Document 46-1 Filed 02/17/17 Page 18 of 21 Page ID #:664 18 INMUSIC BRANDS, INC.’S AMENDED ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF CASE NO. 2:16-CV-06256-CBM-AJW 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A. Dismissal with prejudice of Roland’s Complaint and all claims for relief therein and entry of an order denying Roland any relief in this action; B. Entry of declaratory judgment in favor of inMusic that each claim that Roland asserts against inMusic of U.S. Patent No. 7,385,135; U.S. Patent No. 6,921,857; U.S. Patent No. 6,756,535; U.S. Patent No. 6,271,458; U.S. Patent No. 6,121,538; U.S. Patent No. 6,881,8

VIII. CONCLUSION CTGC’s patent infringement claims should be rejected for the following reasons: (1) the ‘284 patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) because the Autumn King was in public use for more than a year prior to the filing of the application for the ‘284 patent; (2) the CTGC lacks the authority under the Ketchum Act to create a patent licensing program, to sue for patent infringement or to collect revenues from patent royalties and therefore lacks standing to bring this suit; and (3) the CTGC offered Mr. Sandrini a license to the ‘284 patent, which Mr. Sandrini accepted and executed. The facts concerning each of these issues are undisputed.