Case5:11-cv-00234-EJD Document169 Filed05/02/12 Page1 of 17

1 ROBERT WHITMAN (NY Bar No. 2497147) (admitted via pro hac vice) [email protected] 2 SCOTT KOLASSA (NY Bar No. 4308409) (admitted via pro hac vice) [email protected] 3 BENJAMIN J. WARLICK (NY Bar No. 4502589) (admitted via pro hac vice) [email protected] 4 LOWELL D. JACOBSON (NY Bar No. 4585428) (admitted via pro hac vice) [email protected] 5 CHARLES D. LEE (GA Bar No. 325191) (admitted via pro hac vice) [email protected] 6 ERIK J. DYKEMA (NJ Bar No. 02165-2010) (admitted via pro hac vice) [email protected] 7 KING & SPALDING LLP 1185 Avenue of the Americas 8 New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 556-2310 9 Facsimile: (212) 556-2222

10 SANJEET DUTTA (State Bar No. 203463) [email protected] 11 KING & SPALDING LLP 333 Twin Dolphin Drive 12 Suite 400 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 13 Telephone: (650) 590-0700 Facsimile: (650) 590-1900 14 Attorneys for Plaintiff 15 LANTIQ DEUTSCHLAND GMBH

16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 SAN JOSE DIVISION 18 LANTIQ DEUTSCHLAND GMBH Case No.: 5:11-CV-00234-EJD 19 Consolidated with 5:11-cv-01549-EJD Plaintiff, 20 v. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT 21 RALINK TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION 22 (a California Corporation); RALINK Demand for Jury Trial TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION 23 (a Taiwanese Corporation); MEDIATEK INC. (a Taiwanese Corporation); MEDIATEK USA 24 INC. (a Delaware Corporation), and MEDIATEK WIRELESS INC. (a 25 Massachusetts Corporation), 26 Defendants.

27 28 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 5:11-CV-00234-EJD (PSG)

Case5:11-cv-00234-EJD Document169 Filed05/02/12 Page2 of 17

1 Plaintiff LANTIQ DEUTSCHLAND GMBH (“Lantiq”) hereby brings this complaint 2 against Defendants RALINK TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, a California Corporation, 3 (“Ralink California”), RALINK TECHNOLOGY CORP., which refers to itself as “Ralink 4 Technology Corporation - A MediaTek Company,” a Taiwanese Corporation (“Ralink ”) 5 (collectively with Ralink California “Ralink”), MEDIATEK INC., a Taiwanese Corporation, 6 MEDIATEK USA INC. a Delaware Corporation (“MediaTek USA”), and MEDIATEK 7 WIRELESS, INC., a Massachusetts Corporation (“MediaTek Wireless”) (the MediaTek entities, 8 collectively “MediaTek”; collectively with Ralink, “Ralink/MediaTek”). Lantiq brings this 9 complaint against Ralink/Mediatek for the infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,351,799 10 (“the ‘799 Patent” or “Födlmeier Patent”) and 7,061,904 (“the ‘904 Patent” or “Preiss Patent”). 11 In addition, Lantiq brings this complaint against Ralink Taiwan seeking a declaration that it has 12 not and does not infringe United States Patent No. 5,394,116 (“‘116 Patent”) and that the ‘116 13 Patent is invalid. 14 Copies of the Födlmeier and Preiss Patents are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, 15 respectively. A copy of the ‘116 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

16 PARTIES 17 1. Plaintiff Lantiq is a German corporation with its principal place of business at Am 18 Campeon 3, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany. Plaintiff Lantiq is owned and controlled directly by 19 Lantiq Beteiligungs-GmbH & Co. KG, a German limited partnership.

20 2. On information and belief, Defendant Ralink Taiwan which is referred to by 21 Ralink Taiwan and MediaTek as “a MediaTek Company,” is a Taiwanese entity with its principal 22 place of business at 5F, No.5, Tai-Yuen 1st St., Jhubei City, HsinChu Hsien 30265, Taiwan, 23 R.O.C. 24 3. On information and belief, Defendant MediaTek is a Taiwanese corporation with 25 its principal place of business at No. 1, Dusing 1st Rd., Hsinchu Science Park, Hsinchu City 26 30078, Taiwan. 27 28 1 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 5:11-CV-00234-EJD (PSG) Case5:11-cv-00234-EJD Document169 Filed05/02/12 Page3 of 17

1 4. On information and belief, Ralink California is a California corporation. On 2 information and belief, on or about October 3, 2011, Ralink California merged into MediaTek 3 USA, which does business in California as “MediaTek USA Inc. (West).” On information and 4 belief, Defendant MediaTek USA is a Delaware corporation. On information and belief, 5 Defendants MediaTek USA and Ralink California (collectively “Ralink California/MediaTek 6 USA”) share a principal place of business at 2860 Junction Ave, San Jose, CA 95134, USA. 7 5. On information and belief, Defendant MediaTek Wireless, Inc. is a Massachusetts 8 corporation with its principal place of business at 120 Presidential Way, Woburn, MA, 01801.

9 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10 6. This is an action arising under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 11 et seq. and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. This Court has 12 jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a) and

13 1400. 14 7. On information and belief, Ralink California, believed to have formerly been a 15 wholly-owned subsidiary of Ralink Taiwan and now believed to have merged with MediaTek 16 USA, is responsible for Ralink Taiwan’s U.S. business. On information and belief, Ralink 17 California/Mediatek USA have a principal place of business within this judicial district. On 18 information and belief, Ralink California/MediaTek USA sells, offers for sale, imports and uses 19 and/or has sold, offered for sale, imported or used networking, computing, (IC)

20 and semiconductor products, including, but not limited to, access point (AP), router, Ethernet, 21 network interface controller, universal serial bus (USB), peripheral component interconnect 22 (PCI), PCI express (PCIe), and/or 802.11x products; Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) 23 products; Bluetooth products; WiFi products; mobile Wi-Fi products; bridge, router, gateway, 24 802.11x, and/or xDSL () products; IC cards; as well as mobile 25 communications products such as multimedia wireless handset system-on-chip products; digital 26 home products such as digital consumer DVD products and digital television products; 27 information technology products such as PC optical storage device products (including DVD- 28 2 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 5:11-CV-00234-EJD (PSG) Case5:11-cv-00234-EJD Document169 Filed05/02/12 Page4 of 17

1 ROM, DVD-RW and Blu-ray products); and wireless broadband connectivity products such as 2 mobile connectivity products (including WiFi, FM, GPS and Bluetooth products) in the United 3 States, including within the Northern District of California. For example, based on information 4 currently known to Lantiq, and without limitation, Ralink California/MediaTek USA (i) used and 5 continues to use, has sold and continues to sell, has offered and offers for sale, has imported 6 and/or continues to import products, including system on chip products and/or (ii) has directed 7 and/or continues to direct third-party products containing such MediaTek/Ralink products into 8 the domestic stream of commerce, including by way of example, but not limitation, parts 9 designated by RT2561, RT2561S, RT2571W, RT2661, RT2760, RT2770, RT2790, RT2860, 10 RT2870, RT2880, RT2890, RT3050, RT3052, RT3062, RT3070, RT3071, RT3072, RT3090, 11 RT3092, RT3180, RT3290, RT3290LE, RT3350, RT3352, RT3370, RT3390, RT3562, RT3572, 12 RT3592, RT3592BC8, RT3593, RT3662, RT3680, RT3883, RT5350, RT5370, RT5390, RT5572, 13 RT5592, RT63095, RT65168, RT8180, TC2206, TC3162, TC3162P2M, TC3162U, TC3162L2F, 14 TC3162L2M, TC3162LEM, TC3162L2H, TC3162LEH, TC3162P2H, TC3162L2M, 15 TC3162LEM, and MT5921, MT6188, MT3326, MT3328, MT3329, MT6601, MT6611, 16 MT6612, MT6616, MT6223, MT6225, MT6226, MT6226M, MT6227, MT6228, MT6229, 17 MT6230, MT6235, MT6236, MT6238, MT6239, MT6252, MT6253, MT6268, MT6516, 18 MT6573, MT1369, MT1389/K, MT1389/KP, MT1389/L, MT1389/LP, MT1389/M, MT13891R, 19 MT1389/S, MT8520, MT8555, MT5135, MT5301, MT5362, MT5363, MT5366, MT5382, 20 MT5388, MT5395, MT5112, MT5133, MT8222, MT8223, MT1308/9, MT1339, MT1805, 21 MT1807, MT1868/9 and MT1879 (collectively, “the Accused Products”). The identification of 22 parts herein is for example only; on information and belief, all products with similar 23 functionality and/or architecture, whether discontinued, current or planned future parts, similarly 24 infringe the respective Patents-in-Suit. 25 8. On information and belief, Ralink Taiwan conducts business in this judicial 26 district, and is subject to personal jurisdiction in this Court. On information and belief, Ralink 27 Taiwan has made, offered for sale, sold, imported and/or used and continues to make, offer for 28 3 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 5:11-CV-00234-EJD (PSG) Case5:11-cv-00234-EJD Document169 Filed05/02/12 Page5 of 17

1 sale, sell, import and/or use networking, computing, integrated circuit (IC) and semiconductor 2 products, including, but not limited to, the Accused Products in the United States, including 3 within the Northern District of California. For example, and without limitation, based on 4 information currently known to Lantiq, Ralink Taiwan has made, makes, has used, uses, has sold, 5 sells, has and continues to offer for sale, has imported and/or continues to import the Accused 6 Products. 7 9. On information and belief, MediaTek Inc. entered into a merger agreement with 8 Ralink on or about March 16, 2011, completed the merger in October of 2011, and is subject to 9 personal jurisdiction in this Court. On information and belief, MediaTek USA Inc. and MediaTek 10 Wireless, Inc. are believed to be wholly owned subsidiaries of MediaTek Inc. 11 10. Defendant Ralink Taiwan filed an action in the Western District of Wisconsin 12 alleging that Lantiq infringes the ‘116 Patent. On March 31, 2011, the Western District of 13 Wisconsin transferred that action to this District (see Ralink Technology Corp. v. Lantiq 14 Deutschland GmbH, Civil Action No. 5:11-cv-01549-EJD) (“Transferred Action”). On May 4, 15 2011, this Court related the Transferred Action to this action. On February 1, 2012, this Court 16 consolidated the two actions. 17 11. Because Ralink Taiwan has accused Lantiq of infringing the ‘116 Patent in the 18 Transferred Case, there exists a substantial controversy between Lantiq and Ralink Taiwan. 19 These parties have adverse legal interests that are of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant 20 the issuance of a declaratory judgment. Accordingly, an actual controversy exists between Lantiq 21 and Ralink Taiwan as to non-infringement and invalidity of the ‘116 Patent. 22 12. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) & (c) and 23 1400(b).

24 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 25 13. Lantiq is a privately-held international semiconductor company that develops, 26 manufacturers, and sells a broad portfolio of semiconductor solutions for next generation 27 networks. Lantiq’s semiconductor solutions address a wide variety of technologies, including 28 4 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 5:11-CV-00234-EJD (PSG) Case5:11-cv-00234-EJD Document169 Filed05/02/12 Page6 of 17

1 xDSL (digital subscriber line), VoIP, wireless LAN (local area network), Gigabit Ethernet and 2 home networking. Until 2009, Lantiq was a part of AG (“Infineon”). 3 Through Infineon, Lantiq traces its roots back to the dawn of the semiconductor era as a part of 4 Siemens AG’s Semiconductor Group. In 1952, five years after the invention of the transistor, 5 Siemens built one of the first fabrication facilities (“fabs”) in the world to manufacture 6 semiconductor products. In 1954, Siemens became the first company in the world to use silicon 7 as the basis for semiconductor fabrication. Silicon is one of only a handful of materials that 8 permit electrical current to flow under some conditions but not others (hence the name “semi” 9 conductor). Today, silicon is used by the vast majority of all semiconductor manufacturers. In the 10 early 1960s, Siemens pioneered the development of integrated circuits (“ICs”) for use in 11 consumer products. 12 14. Siemens’, Infineon’s and Lantiq’s inventions and innovations, over many decades, 13 have enabled the exponential expansion of the global semiconductor market. In 1954, global 14 sales of semiconductors were only $5 million. In 2008, more than $250 billion of semiconductors 15 were sold worldwide. 16 15. Lantiq’s success depends on its ability to invest in research and development and 17 to innovate. The is highly cyclical and characterized by constant and 18 rapid technological change, rapid product obsolescence, evolving standards, and wide 19 fluctuations in product supply and demand. The nature of the industry demands constant 20 innovation. Research and development (“R&D”) activities are therefore critical for developing 21 successful products over the longer term. Patents and other intellectual property rights enable 22 Lantiq to protect its technologies and processes and to realize the full benefit of its investments 23 in research and development. 24 16. On information and belief, Ralink was founded and entered the semiconductor 25 market in 2001. Ralink offers networking, computing, integrated circuit (IC) and semiconductor 26 products and products containing the same using, without permission, Lantiq’s innovations and 27 patented technologies. 28 5 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 5:11-CV-00234-EJD (PSG) Case5:11-cv-00234-EJD Document169 Filed05/02/12 Page7 of 17

1 17. On information and belief, MediaTek was founded and entered into the 2 semiconductor market in 1997. MediaTek offers wireless communications, digital multimedia 3 solutions, digital home solutions, mobile communication solutions, and wireless home 4 networking and broadband access solutions, including integrated circuit (IC) and 5 semiconductor products and products containing the same using, without permission, Lantiq’s 6 innovations and patented technologies. 7 COUNT I 8 INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,351,799 9 18. Lantiq realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations stated in paragraphs 10 1 through 17 of this Complaint. 11 19. U.S. Patent No. 6,351,799, entitled “Integrated Circuit for Executing Software 12 Programs” duly and legally issued on February 26, 2002, naming Dieter Födlmeier, Udo Stuting 13 and Bernd Brachmann as inventors. Lantiq owns by assignment all right, title and interest in the 14 Födlmeier Patent, including the right to sue for and recover all past, present and future damages 15 for infringement of the Födlmeier Patent. A copy of the Födlmeier Patent is attached hereto as 16 Exhibit A. 17 20. The Födlmeier Patent was first-filed in 1996, on information and belief five years 18 before Ralink was formed, and one year before MediaTek was formed. 19 21. The Födlmeier Patent explains that “it is difficult or sometimes even impossible to 20 find a version [of a microprocessor, , signal processor or the like] which can meet 21 the requirements imposed in a specific individual case (and only those requirements).” ‘799 22 Patent at 1:22- 25. “If [the selected device] is one which, for whatever reason, cannot meet all of 23 the imposed requirements, then this will generally increase the outlay on the hardware in which it 24 will be used.” Id. at 26:30. The Födlmeier Patent teaches and claims, among other things, an 25 integrated circuit and method wherein “the electronic components of the integrated circuit and/or 26 the electrical connections provided between the components are at least in part arranged in such 27 a way that the interconnection of the electronic components and/or their function and/or their 28 6 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 5:11-CV-00234-EJD (PSG) Case5:11-cv-00234-EJD Document169 Filed05/02/12 Page8 of 17

1 mode of operation can be individually configured by selectively breaking and/or making 2 connections. The configuration of the connections is carried out dynamically and in parallel 3 during the operation of the integrated circuit.” Id. at 1:56-64. “This hardware-level 4 configurability makes it possible to match the integrated circuit in virtually any way to the 5 respectively desired condition.” Id. at 2:1-3. 6 22. Published literature, including Ralink/MediaTek technical “Product Briefs,” 7 Ralink/MediaTek technical “Datasheets” and Ralink/MediaTek technical “User’s Manuals” 8 describe the functionality of the accused products. Ralink/MediaTek’s technical information 9 states that the accused products are integrated circuits that include at least a programmable 10 microcontroller (e.g., baseband processor) and additional devices on the integrated circuit (e.g., 11 receivers, transmitters, MAC, MII, AFE, USB port, Flash controller, UART port, PCI port, I2C 12 port, I2S port, SPI port, PCM port, GPIO port, PCIe port, and/or Gigabit MAC). The literature 13 further indicates that the accused Ralink/MediaTek integrated circuits are software configurable 14 so that these additional devices can be configured to desired applications. 15 23. On information and belief, Ralink/MediaTek’s networking, computing, integrated 16 circuit (IC) and semiconductor products, including at least the Accused Products, include all 17 elements of one or more of claims 1 through 13 of the Födlmeier Patent. 18 24. On information and belief, Ralink/MediaTek has in the past and continue to 19 directly infringe, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more of claims 1 through 20 13 of the Födlmeier Patent by using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United 21 States at least the Accused Products, which are within the scope of one or more of claims 1 22 through 13 of the Födlmeier Patent. 23 25. On information and belief, Ralink/MediaTek has in the past and continue to 24 directly infringe, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more of claims 1 through 25 13 of the Födlmeier Patent by making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the 26 United States the Accused Products, and which are within the scope of one or more claims of the 27 Födlmeier Patent. 28 7 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 5:11-CV-00234-EJD (PSG) Case5:11-cv-00234-EJD Document169 Filed05/02/12 Page9 of 17

1 26. On information and belief, Ralink/MediaTek has in the past and continues to 2 infringe by actively inducing others to infringe at least claims 1 through 13 of the Födlmeier 3 Patent by making, using, offering for sale and/or selling in the United States at least the Accused 4 Products, which are within the scope of one or more of claims 1 through 13 of the Födlmeier 5 Patent. Specifically, Ralink/MediaTek have actively induced at least the manufacturers (e.g., the 6 companies that manufacture Ralink’s/MediaTek’s products for them ), sellers, resellers and/or 7 users to engage in direct infringement of the Födlmeier Patent by making, using, selling and/or 8 offering to sell the aforementioned products. On information and belief, for example, Ralink / 9 MediaTek markets, sells and offers for sale certain of the Accused Products to at least D-Link 10 Corporation (“D-Link”) and Billion Electric Co. Ltd. (“Billion”) (who both have their principal 11 place of businesses in Taiwan), Vizio television company (“Vizio”), Sonim Technologies 12 (“Sonim”), Haier TV (“Haier”), Sony, AnyData, Vodaphone, Lenovo, Samsung, Pioneer, 13 Phillips, Oppo Digital (“Oppo”) and Azur. On information and belief, Vizio, Sonim, Haier, Sony, 14 AnyData, Vodaphone, Lenovo, Samsung, Pioneer, Phillips, Oppo, Azur, D-Link and Billion 15 assemble Accused Products into television products, DVD products, Blu-ray products, mobile 16 phone products, modems, access points, USB adapters, gateways, switches and routers that 17 Vizio, Sonim, Haier, Sony, AnyData, Vodaphone, Lenovo, Samsung, Pioneer, Phillips, Oppo, 18 Azur, D-Link and Billion, in turn, make, use, sell, offer for sale and/or import into the United 19 States. On information and belief, Ralink/MediaTek actively induces Vizio, Sonim, Haier, Sony, 20 AnyData, Vodaphone, Lenovo, Samsung, Pioneer, Phillips, Oppo, Azur D-Link and Billion, 21 among others, to infringe one or more of claims 1 through 13 of the Födlmeier Patent by, with 22 knowledge of and/or deliberate indifference of the Födlmeier Patent, directing, advising and/or 23 instructing Vizio, Sonim, Haier, Sony, AnyData, Vodaphone, Lenovo, Samsung, Pioneer, 24 Phillips, Oppo, Azur, D-Link and Billion to dynamically configure and/or reconfigure the 25 Accused Products by executing software programs on the Accused Products. On information and 26 belief, Ralink/MediaTek knew or should have known that its actions would induce Vizio’s, 27 Sonim’s, Haier’s, Sony’s, AnyData’s, Vodaphone’s, Lenovo’s, Samsung’s, Pioneer’s, Phillips’, 28 8 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 5:11-CV-00234-EJD (PSG) Case5:11-cv-00234-EJD Document169 Filed05/02/12 Page10 of 17

1 Oppo’s, Azur’s D-Link’s and Billion’s infringement of one of more of claims 1 through 13 of the 2 Födlmeier Patent. 3 27. On information and belief, Ralink/MediaTek have in the past and continue to 4 contributorily infringe one or more of claims 1 through 13 of the Födlmeier Patent by making, 5 using, offering for sale and/or selling in the United States at least the Accused Products, which 6 are within the scope of one or more claims of the Födlmeier Patent. Specifically, 7 Ralink/MediaTek have contributed to the direct infringement of at least the manufacturers sellers, 8 resellers and/or users to engage in direct infringement of the aforementioned products. On 9 information and belief, for example, Ralink/MediaTek markets, sells and offers for sale certain of 10 the Accused Products to at least Vizio, Sonim, Haier, Sony, AnyData, Vodaphone, Lenovo, 11 Samsung, Pioneer, Phillips, Oppo, Azur, D-Link and Billion. On information and belief, 12 Ralink/MediaTek knows that the Accused Products are not staple articles of commerce and are 13 not suitable for substantial non-infringing use. On information and belief, Vizio, Sonim, Haier, 14 Sony, AnyData, Vodaphone, Lenovo, Samsung, Pioneer, Phillips, Oppo, Azur, D-Link and 15 Billion assemble Accused Products into products that they, in turn, make, use, sell, offer for sale 16 and/or import into the United States that infringe one or more of claims 1 through 13 of the 17 Födlmeier Patent. 18 28. On information and belief, Ralink has had notice of the Födlmeier Patent at least 19 since January 14, 2011, the date that the original complaint was filed in this action, and therefore 20 Ralink has willfully infringed the Födlmeier Patent. 21 29. On information and belief, MediaTek, by way of communication with Ralink 22 prior to, during and subsequent to the corporate merger, has had notice of the Födlmeier Patent at 23 least since January 14, 2011, the date that the original complaint was filed in this action, and 24 therefore Ralink and MediaTek have both willfully infringed the Födlmeier Patent. 25 30. Ralink/MediaTek’s infringement of the Födlmeier Patent has irreparably damaged 26 Lantiq, and this harm will continue unless this Court enjoins Ralink/MediaTek. 27 28 9 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 5:11-CV-00234-EJD (PSG) Case5:11-cv-00234-EJD Document169 Filed05/02/12 Page11 of 17

1 COUNT II

2 INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,061,904 3 31. Lantiq realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations stated in paragraphs 4 1 through 30 of this Complaint. 5 32. U.S. Patent No. 7,061,904, entitled “Integrated Access Device Controller” duly 6 and legally issued on June 13, 2006, naming Frank Preiss and Oliver von Soosten as inventors. 7 Lantiq owns by assignment all right, title and interest in the Preiss Patent, including the right to 8 sue for and recover all past, present and future damages for infringement of the Preiss Patent. A 9 copy of the Preiss Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 10 33. The Preiss Patent was first filed in 1999, on information and belief two years 11 before Ralink was formed. 12 34. The Preiss Patent explains that the “Internet is a global network of computers 13 wherein data is transmitted from a source to a destination as a series of individually addressed 14 packets. Such packets are most often used to carry computer data. However, it is also possible to 15 transmit real time voice data over a packetized network [e.g., Von)] provided that proper 16 compression techniques are used and the speed of the network is fast enough to avoid producing 17 noticeable delay.” ‘904 Patent at 1:24- 31. The Preiss Patent explains that “there is a need for a 18 network processor having integrated peripheral interfaces.” Id. at 1:48-49. The Preiss Patent 19 teaches and claims, among other things, an apparatus and method involving a VoIP network 20 processor having integrated peripheral interfaces. 21 35. Published literature, including Ralink/MediaTek technical “Product Briefs,” 22 Ralink/MediaTek technical “Datasheets” and technical “User’s Manuals” describe the 23 functionality of the accused products. Ralink’s/MediaTek’s technical information states that the 24 accused products are integrated circuits that includes at least a programmable microcontroller 25 (e.g., baseband processor) and additional, integrated peripheral interfaces (e.g., receivers, 26 transmitters, MAC, MIT, AFE, USB port, Flash controller, UART port, PCI port, I2C port, I2S 27 port, SPI port, PCM port, GPIO port, PCIe port, and/or Gigabit MAC). The literature further 28 10 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 5:11-CV-00234-EJD (PSG) Case5:11-cv-00234-EJD Document169 Filed05/02/12 Page12 of 17

1 indicates that the accused products are capable of transmitting and receiving voice over the 2 Internet (VoIP) and that the accused products comply with quality of service standards, which are 3 intended to limit transmission delays. 4 36. On information and belief, Ralink’s Accused Products include all elements of one 5 or more of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-15 and 17-18 of the Preiss Patent. 6 37. On information and belief, Ralink/MediaTek have in the past and continue to 7 directly infringe, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least one or more of claims 1-3, 8 5-7, 9-11, 13- 15 and 17-18 of the Preiss Patent by using, offering for sale, selling and/or 9 importing the in the United States Accused Products, which are within the scope of one or more 10 claims of the Preiss Patent. 11 38. On information and belief, Ralink/MediaTek have in the past and continues to 12 directly infringe, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least one or more of claims 1-3, 13 5-7, 9-11, 13- 15 and 17-18 of the Preiss Patent by making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or 14 importing in the United States Accused Products, which are within the scope of one or more of at 15 least claims 1-3, 5-7, 9- 11, 13-15 and 17-18 of the Preiss Patent. 16 39. On information and belief, Ralink/MediaTek have in the past and continues to 17 infringe by actively inducing others to infringe one or more claims of the Preiss Patent by 18 making, using, offering for sale and/or selling in the United States at least the Accused Products, 19 which are within the scope of at least one or more of claims 13, 5-7, 9-11, 13-15 and 17-18 of the 20 Preiss Patent. Specifically, Ralink has actively induced at least the manufacturers, sellers, 21 resellers and users to engage in direct infringement of the Preiss Patent by making, using, selling 22 and offering to sell the aforementioned products. On information and belief, for example, 23 Ralink/MediaTek markets, sells and offers for sale certain of the Accused Products to at least 24 Sonim, D-Link and Billion. On information and belief, Sonim, D-Link and Billion assemble the 25 Accused Products into mobile phones, modems, access points, USB adapters, gateways, switches 26 and routers that D-Link and Billion, in turn, make, use, sell, offer for sale and/or import into the 27 United States. On information and belief, therefore, Ralink/MediaTek actively induces Sonim, D- 28 11 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 5:11-CV-00234-EJD (PSG) Case5:11-cv-00234-EJD Document169 Filed05/02/12 Page13 of 17

1 Link and Billion, among others, to infringe one or more of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9- 11, 13-15 and 17- 2 18 of the Preiss Patent by, with knowledge of the Preiss Patent or with deliberate indifference of 3 the Preiss Patent, directing, advising and/or instructing Sonim, D-Link and Billion to process 4 VoIP information on the Accused Products. On information and belief, Ralink/MediaTek knew or 5 should have known that its actions would induce Sonim’s, D-Link’s and Billion’s infringement of 6 one of more of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-15 and 17-18 of the Preiss Patent. 7 40. On information and belief, Ralink/MediaTek have in the past and continue to 8 contributorily infringe at least one or more of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-15 and 17-18 of the 9 Preiss Patent by making, using, offering for sale and/or selling in the United States at least the 10 Accused Products, which are within the scope of one or more claims of the Preiss Patent. 11 Specifically, Ralink/MediaTek have contributed to the direct infringement of at least the 12 manufacturers, sellers, resellers and users of the aforementioned products. On information and 13 belief, for example, Ralink/MediaTek markets, sells and offers for sale certain of the Accused 14 Products to at least Sonim, D-Link and Billion. Ralink/MediaTek knows that the Accused 15 Products are not staple articles of commerce and are not suitable for substantial non-infringing 16 use. On information and belief, Sonim, D-Link and Billion assemble the Accused Products into 17 phones, modems, access points, USB adapters, gateways, switches and routers that Sonim, D- 18 Link and Billion, in turn, make, use, sell, offer for sale and/or import into the United States that 19 infringe one or more of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, 13-15 and 17-18 of the Preiss Patent. 20 41. On information and belief, Ralink has had notice of the Preiss Patent at least since 21 January 14, 2011, the date the original complaint was filed in this action, and therefore Ralink 22 has willfully infringed the Preiss Patent. 23 42. On information and belief, MediaTek, by way of communication with Ralink 24 during and subsequent to the corporate merger, has had notice of the Preiss Patent at least since 25 January 14, 2011, the date that the original complaint was filed in this action, and therefore has 26 willfully infringed the Preiss Patent. 27 28 12 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 5:11-CV-00234-EJD (PSG) Case5:11-cv-00234-EJD Document169 Filed05/02/12 Page14 of 17

1 43. Ralink’s/MediaTek’s infringement of the Preiss Patent has irreparably damaged 2 Lantiq, and this harm will continue unless this Court enjoins Ralink. 3 COUNT III

4 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘116 PATENT 5 44. Lantiq realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations stated in paragraphs 6 1 through 43 of this Complaint. 7 45. Lantiq has not directly infringed and does not directly infringe any valid and 8 enforceable claim of the ‘116 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 9 46. Lantiq does not contribute to or induce others to engage in direct infringement of 10 any valid and enforceable claim of the ‘116 Patent. 11 47. A judicial declaration of non-infringement of the ‘116 Patent is necessary and 12 appropriate so that Lantiq can ascertain its rights, duties, and obligations with respect to Ralink 13 Taiwan and the ‘116 Patent. 14 COUNT IV 15 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF THE ‘116 PATENT 16 48. Lantiq realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations stated in paragraphs 17 1 through 47 of this Complaint. 18 49. The claims of the ‘116 Patent are invalid for failure to meet the conditions of 19 patentability and/or otherwise comply with one or more of 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq., including §§

20 102, 103 and 112. 21 50. One or more prior art references disclose or render obvious each of the claims of 22 the ‘116 Patent, including, but not limited to, prior art references identified during the 23 prosecution of the European Patent Application that claim priority to the application that issued 24 as the ‘116 Patent and not cited or considered during prosecution of the ‘116 Patent Application. 25 The patentee withdrew the European Patent Application on August 14, 1997 after the European 26 Patent Office identified these prior art references. 27 28 13 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 5:11-CV-00234-EJD (PSG) Case5:11-cv-00234-EJD Document169 Filed05/02/12 Page15 of 17

1 51. A judicial declaration of Invalidity of the ‘116 Patent is necessary and appropriate 2 so that Lantiq can ascertain the rights, duties, and obligations with respect to Ralink Taiwan and 3 the ‘116 Patent. 4 COUNT V

5 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF LICENSE 6 52. Lantiq realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations stated in paragraphs 7 1 through 51 of this Complaint. 8 53. A ‘116 Patent assignee entered into at least one license agreement with at least 9 one of Lantiq’s predecessors. Lantiq is a sub-licensee and beneficiary of those license 10 agreement(s). 11 54. Lantiq is licensed to the ‘116 Patent and is therefore immune from any allegations 12 of infringement. A judicial declaration that Lantiq is licensed to practice the ‘116 Patent is 13 necessary and appropriate so that Lantiq can ascertain its rights, duties, and obligations with 14 respect to Ralink Taiwan and the ‘116 Patent. 15 COUNT VI 16 DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NO STANDING 17 55. Lantiq realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations stated in paragraphs 18 1 through 54 of this Complaint. 19 56. On information and belief, Ralink Taiwan does not own the ‘116 Patent and

20 therefore lacks standing to bring suit for infringement of the ‘116 Patent. 21 57. A judicial declaration that Ralink Taiwan lacks standing to sue for infringement of 22 the ‘116 Patent is necessary and appropriate so that Lantiq can ascertain its rights, duties, and 23 obligations with respect to Ralink Taiwan and the ‘116 Patent. 24 25 26 27 28 14 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 5:11-CV-00234-EJD (PSG) Case5:11-cv-00234-EJD Document169 Filed05/02/12 Page16 of 17

1 REQUEST FOR RELIEF 2 WHEREFORE, LANTIQ requests that this Court: 3 A. Enter a judgment that Ralink/MediaTek have infringed and are infringing, both 4 directly and indirectly, the Födlmeier and Preiss Patents as set forth in this Second Amended 5 Complaint; 6 B. Enter a judgment that Ralink’s/MediaTek’s infringement of the Födlmeier and 7 Preiss Patents has been and continues to be deliberate and willful and enhancing damages under 8 35 U.S.C. § 284; 9 C. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Ralink/MediaTek, and those in active 10 concert therewith, from infringing the Födlmeier and Preiss Patents; 11 D. Award damages adequate to fully compensate Lantiq for Ralink/MediaTek’s 12 E. infringement of the Födlmeier and Preiss Patents, in no event less than a 13 reasonable royalty, together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interests and costs fixed by 14 the Court as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 284; 15 F. Order an accounting of all infringing sales and revenues; 16 G. Declare that Lantiq does not directly or indirectly infringe any claim of the ‘116 17 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents; 18 H. Declare that Lantiq is licensed to practice the ‘116 patent; 19 I. Declare that Ralink Taiwan does not own the ‘116 patent; 20 J. Declare that Ralink Taiwan lacks standing to bring suit for infringement of the 21 ‘116 patent; 22 K. Declare this case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and award Lantiq reasonable 23 attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs incurred in this action; and 24 L. Grant Lantiq further relief as this Court may deem just and proper, or that Lantiq 25 may be entitled to as a matter of law or equity. 26 27 28 15 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 5:11-CV-00234-EJD (PSG) Case5:11-cv-00234-EJD Document169 Filed05/02/12 Page17 of 17

1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 2

3 Lantiq hereby demands a jury trial on all issues triable by a jury. 4 5 Dated: May 2, 2012 Respectfully submitted, 6 /s/ Charles D. Lee 7 ROBERT WHITMAN (NY Bar No. 2497147) 8 (admitted via pro hac vice) [email protected] 9 SCOTT KOLASSA (NY Bar No. 4308409) (admitted via pro hac vice) 10 [email protected] BENJAMIN J. WARLICK (NY Bar No. 4502589) 11 (admitted via pro hac vice) [email protected] 12 LOWELL D. JACOBSON (NY Bar No. 4585428) (admitted via pro hac vice) 13 [email protected] CHARLES D. LEE (GA Bar No. 325191) 14 (admitted via pro hac vice) [email protected] 15 ERIK J. DYKEMA (NJ Bar No. 02165-2010) (admitted via pro hac vice) 16 [email protected] KING & SPALDING LLP 17 1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 18 Telephone: (212) 556-2310 Facsimile: (212) 556-2222 19 SANJEET DUTTA (State Bar No. 203463) 20 [email protected] KING & SPALDING LLP 21 333 Twin Dolphin Drive Suite 400 22 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 590-0700 23 Facsimile: (650) 590-1900 Attorney for Plaintiff 24 LANTIQ DEUTSCHLAND GMBH 25 26 27 28 16 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT CASE NO. 5:11-CV-00234-EJD (PSG)