UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

RF MICRO DEVICES, INC., a North Carolina corporation, Civil Action No. __1:12-cv-377______Plaintiff, AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR vs. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF PATENT NON-INFRINGEMENT AND PEREGRINE SEMICONDUCTOR INVALIDITY CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant.

Plaintiff RF Micro Devices, Inc. (“RFMD”) brings this action for a declaratory judgment of patent non-infringement and invalidity against Defendant Peregrine Semiconductor Corporation (“Peregrine”) as the result of a coordinated campaign of judicial and extrajudicial patent enforcement directed by Peregrine towards RFMD’s products, RFMD’s operations in North Carolina, and the North Carolina operations of its customers. RFMD complains as follows: THE PARTIES 1. RFMD is a North Carolina corporation with its principal place of business at 7268 Thorndike Road, Greensboro, North Carolina 27409. 2. RFMD is informed and believes that Peregrine is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 9380 Carroll Park Drive, San Diego, California 92121. BACKGROUND AND NATURE OF THE ACTION 3. RFMD is a North Carolina corporation founded and headquartered in Greensboro with nearly 1500 employees in the Greensboro area. RFMD is a global leader in the design and manufacture of high-performance semiconductor components, including a pioneering line of broadband high power radio frequency

04712.35002/4768752.1 1 Case 1:12-cv-00377-WO-LPA Document 16 Filed 05/21/12 Page 1 of 17 (“RF”) switches used in and other high-performance applications and devices. 4. RFMD sells its RF switches to a number of companies, including to leading manufacturers such as Mobility, Inc. (“Motorola”) and HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”) for use in the popular Motorola Droid RAZR and HTC One smartphones. RFMD’s customers visit and correspond with RFMD in North Carolina regarding the use of RFMD’s switches in their end products, including Motorola (with respect to its Droid RAZR smartphones) and HTC (with respect to its HTC One smartphones). Some of RFMD’s customers, including HTC, have recently opened design centers in North Carolina. 5. For nearly a decade, Peregrine has repeatedly attempted to sell Peregrine components to RFMD in North Carolina. For example, in 2003, Peregrine visited RFMD in North Carolina to negotiate and execute a joint development agreement between the two companies with the goal of supplying a Peregrine component for use in RFMD products. The Peregrine-RFMD joint development agreement was in force until at least 2004, when Peregrine was unable to deliver a satisfactory component to RFMD. 6. In 2008, Peregrine again traveled to North Carolina to attempt to sell another Peregrine component to RFMD for use in RFMD’s products. This same year, Peregrine hired David Halchin, a former RFMD engineer based in Greensboro, and publicly announced “a strategic commitment” to the Greensboro area.1 On information and belief, Peregrine hired Mr. Halchin under the title

1 See Exhibit A, http://www.bizjournals.com/triad/stories/2008/11/03/story3.html?page=all (accessed May 21, 2012).

04712.35002/4768752.1 2 Case 1:12-cv-00377-WO-LPA Document 16 Filed 05/21/12 Page 2 of 17 “Director of North Carolina Design Center,”2 but the promised Peregrine North Carolina Design Center may never have opened. In 2009, Mr. Halchin returned to RFMD.3 7. Peregrine is the purported assignee of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,910,993 (“the ‘993 patent”), 7,123,898 (“the ‘898 patent”), 7,460,852 (“the ‘852 patent”), 7,796,969 (“the ‘969 patent”), and 7,860,499 (“the ‘499 patent”) (collectively, “the Peregrine patents”). The ‘993 patent is titled “Method and Apparatus for Use in Improving Linearity of MOSFET’s Using an Accumulated Charge Sink” and issued March 22, 2011. The ‘898 patent is titled “Switch Circuit and Method of Switching Radio Frequency Signals” and issued October 17, 2006. The ‘852 patent is titled “Switch Circuit and Method of Switching Radio Frequency Signals” and issued December 2, 2008. The ‘969 patent is titled “Symmetrically and Asymmetrically Stacked Transistor Group RF Switch” and issued September 14, 2010. The ‘499 patent is titled “Switch Circuit and Method of Switching Radio Frequency Signals” and issued December 28, 2010. 8. After incurring net losses in four of the five years leading up to 2012 and an accumulated deficit of more than $200 million,4 in February 2012, without any notice or warning to RFMD, Peregrine launched a judicial and extrajudicial patent enforcement campaign against RFMD, asserting a number of patents against not only RFMD, but also RFMD’s customers, including Motorola and HTC.

2 See Exhibit B, http://www.linkedin.com/pub/david-halchin/b/4a9/363 (accessed May 21, 2012). 3 See id. 4 See Exhibit C, Peregrine Semiconductor Form S-1/A, Risk Factors at 10 (Nov. 19, 2010), available at http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/filing.ashx?filingid=7230257 (accessed May 21, 2012); Exhibit D, Peregrine Semiconductor Form S-1/A, Prospectus Summary at 1 (Apr. 12, 2012), available at http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/ipos/filing.ashx?filingid=8161797 (accessed May 21, 2012).

04712.35002/4768752.1 3 Case 1:12-cv-00377-WO-LPA Document 16 Filed 05/21/12 Page 3 of 17 9. For example, on February 14, 2012, Peregrine filed an action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against RFMD and its customer, Motorola Mobility, Inc. (“Motorola”), alleging that RFMD’s RF1603, RF1604 and RF1293 switch products, and the Motorola phones containing them, infringe the Peregrine patents. 10. The same day, February 14, 2012, Peregrine began a parallel extrajudicial patent enforcement campaign against RFMD and its customers on these same RFMD switch products. In particular, on February 14, 2012, Peregrine filed a complaint in the United States International Trade Commission (an independent administrative agency located in Washington, D.C.), naming RFMD as a proposed respondent and seeking institution of an investigation into an alleged violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 with respect to the Peregrine patents. Peregrine’s ITC complaint sought an administrative exclusion order preventing the importation and sale of certain RFMD products throughout the United States, including North Carolina. 11. Also on February 14, 2012, Peregrine issued a press release announcing its patent enforcement campaign. This press release “announced that [Peregrine] has filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and a lawsuit in U.S. District Court [for the Central District of California] alleging the infringement of certain Peregrine patents relating to RFICs and switching technology by RF Micro Devices, Inc. (RFMD) and Motorola Mobility, Inc.” and that “[t]he complaint filed with the ITC . . . seeks, among other remedies, an exclusion order preventing the importation and sale of infringing products in the United States.”5 Peregrine’s press release was received by RFMD customers and

5 See Exhibit E, http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120214006943/en/Peregrine-Semiconductor- Files-Patent-Infringement-Actions-RF (accessed May 21, 2012).

04712.35002/4768752.1 4 Case 1:12-cv-00377-WO-LPA Document 16 Filed 05/21/12 Page 4 of 17 investors throughout the country, including in North Carolina. RFMD received several communications from concerned customers and investors, including persons in North Carolina, regarding the Peregrine press release. 12. On April 10, 2012, RFMD and Motorola filed a motion to transfer Peregrine’s Central District of California lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina because neither the allegations of Peregrine’s complaint, nor any of the parties, had any connection to the Central District of California. On April 13, 2012, rather than opposing that motion to transfer, Peregrine voluntarily dismissed its Central District of California action and filed a new action for patent infringement against RFMD and Motorola in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. This second complaint alleged infringement of the same Peregrine patents as before, based on the same RFMD switch products originally targeted in the first complaint. 13. On May 11, 2012, Peregrine expanded its judicial and extrajudicial patent enforcement campaign against RFMD and its customers. That day, Peregrine filed a third lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California against RFMD customer HTC, alleging that another RFMD switch product (RF8889A) used in the HTC One smartphone infringed the Peregrine patents. The same day, Peregrine also filed an amended complaint with the ITC, naming RFMD, Motorola, and HTC as proposed respondents and seeking an extrajudicial exclusion order preventing the importation of certain RFMD switch products (RF1604, RF1293 and RF8889A), and certain smartphones made by Motorola and HTC containing these RFMD switch products . 14. While Peregrine’s third Southern District of California complaint against HTC alleged that RFMD’s RF8889A switch infringed the Peregrine patents, that suit did not name RFMD as a defendant. The RF8889A switch, which is used in the HTC One smartphone, was not one of the RFMD switches identified

04712.35002/4768752.1 5 Case 1:12-cv-00377-WO-LPA Document 16 Filed 05/21/12 Page 5 of 17 in Peregrine’s second Southern District of California complaint against RFMD and Motorola. 15. On information and belief, HTC has a design center in North Carolina that opened in 2010, in the same time frame that HTC began using RFMD switches in its smartphone products. 16. Peregrine has conducted a judicial and extrajudicial enforcement campaign spanning multiple forums, directed at RFMD in North Carolina as well as at RFMD’s customers who based or present in North Carolina. Moreover, based on Peregrine’s actions with regards to its patents, RFMD is under reasonable apprehension of suit by Peregrine. 17. RFMD does not infringe and has not infringed the Peregrine patents. Each claim of the Peregrine patents fails to meet one or more of the statutory requirements and/or conditions for patentability under the patent laws of the United States, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101–103 and 112. RFMD brings this action to obtain declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity of the Peregrine patents. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 18. RFMD realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 17, inclusive, as though fully set forth in this paragraph. 19. This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq. 20. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 2201, and 2202. 21. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Peregrine. On information and belief and based on, among other things, the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 17 of this Amended Complaint, Peregrine has significant contacts with North Carolina, has purposefully directed and purposefully directs commercial activities towards North Carolina, including activities relating to the enforcement

04712.35002/4768752.1 6 Case 1:12-cv-00377-WO-LPA Document 16 Filed 05/21/12 Page 6 of 17 of the Peregrine patents. Peregrine has, among other things, purposefully directed its attempts at extrajudicial enforcement of the Peregrine patents at RFMD and other parties and persons in North Carolina, and its extrajudicial enforcement efforts, if successful, will impact RFMD’s and its customers’ operations in North Carolina. In this manner, exercise of jurisdiction over Peregrine is consistent with the North Carolina long-arm statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-75.4, and does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 22. This Court can enter the declaratory relief sought in this Amended Complaint because an actual case and controversy exists between the parties within the scope of this Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201. An actual case and controversy exists because, among other things, the factual allegations set forth in paragraphs 1-17 cause RFMD to reasonably apprehend litigation of the Peregrine patents. 23. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c). GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 24. RFMD realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 23, inclusive, as though fully set forth in this paragraph. 25. Peregrine has represented on multiple occasions that it is the assignee of the Peregrine patents. On information and belief, the documents attached to this Amended Complaint as Exhibits F through J are true and correct copies of the Peregrine patents. 26. On February 14, 2012, Peregrine filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging infringement of the Peregrine patents by RFMD and Motorola. A true and correct copy of that complaint is attached to this Amended Complaint as Exhibit K. 27. On February 14, 2012, Peregrine filed a complaint in the United States International Trade Commission alleging infringement of the Peregrine

04712.35002/4768752.1 7 Case 1:12-cv-00377-WO-LPA Document 16 Filed 05/21/12 Page 7 of 17 patents by RFMD and Motorola. A true and correct copy of a public version of that complaint is attached to this Amended Complaint as Exhibit L. 28. On February 14, 2012, Peregrine issued a press release announcing its attempts to enforce the Peregrine patents against RFMD and Motorola in the Central District of California and the International Trade Commission. A true and correct copy of a website displaying that press release is attached to this Amended Complaint as Exhibit E. 29. On April 10, 2012, RFMD and Motorola filed a motion to transfer the Central District of California action to the Middle District of North Carolina. A true and correct copy of that motion is attached to this Amended Complaint as Exhibit M. 30. On April 13, 2012, Peregrine filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the Central District of California action without prejudice. A true and correct copy of that notice is attached to this Amended Complaint as Exhibit N. 31. On April 13, 2012, Peregrine filed a second complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California alleging infringement of the Peregrine patents by RFMD and Motorola. A true and correct copy of that complaint is attached to this Amended Complaint as Exhibit O. 32. On April 30, 2012, RFMD filed a motion to transfer the Southern District of California action to the Middle District of North Carolina. A true and correct copy of that motion is attached to this Amended Complaint as Exhibit P. 33. On May 11, 2012, Peregrine filed a third complaint for patent infringement against HTC in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. A true and correct copy of that complaint is attached to this Amended Complaint as Exhibit Q. 34. On May 11, 2012, Peregrine filed an amended complaint in the United States International Trade Commission alleging infringement of the Peregrine patents by RFMD, Motorola, and HTC. A true and correct copy of a

04712.35002/4768752.1 8 Case 1:12-cv-00377-WO-LPA Document 16 Filed 05/21/12 Page 8 of 17 public version of that complaint is attached to this Amended Complaint as Exhibit R. 35. Peregrine’s actions have caused RFMD reasonably to apprehend litigation of the Peregrine patents. 36. RFMD does not infringe and has not infringed, either directly, contributorily, or by inducement, any valid and enforceable claim of the Peregrine patents, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 37. Each claim of the Peregrine patents fail to meet one or more of the statutory requirements and/or conditions for patentability under the patent laws of the United States, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101–103 and 112. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,910,993) 38. RFMD realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 37, inclusive, as though fully set forth in this paragraph. 39. RFMD does not make, use, offer for sale, sell, import, or export, and has never made, used, offered to sell, sold, imported, or exported, a method, device, or apparatus (including but not limited to the RF1293, RF1603, RF1604, and RF8889A switches) that infringes, either directly, contributorily, or by inducement, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’993 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 40. There is an actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, between RFMD and Peregrine concerning the non- infringement of the ’993 patent. 41. RFMD is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe, either directly, contributorily, or by inducement, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’993 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

04712.35002/4768752.1 9 Case 1:12-cv-00377-WO-LPA Document 16 Filed 05/21/12 Page 9 of 17 SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,910,993) 42. RFMD realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 41, inclusive, as though fully set forth in this paragraph. 43. An actual controversy exists between RFMD and Peregrine with respect to the validity of the ‘993 patent. 44. Each claim of the ‘993 patent fails to meet one or more of the statutory requirements and/or conditions for patentability under the patent laws of the United States, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101–103 and 112. 45. Each claim of the ‘993 patent is invalid because it is anticipated by the pertinent prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and/or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the pertinent prior art at the time of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 46. The claims of the ‘993 patent are also invalid for lack of enablement, insufficient written description, indefiniteness and/or failure to disclose the best mode of the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112. The claims of the ‘993 patent are vague and indefinite and incorporate limitations that are neither disclosed, described, explained, nor enabled by the specification of the ‘993 patent. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,123,898) 47. RFMD realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 46, inclusive, as though fully set forth in this paragraph. 48. RFMD does not make, use, offer for sale, sell, import, or export, and has never made, used, offered to sell, sold, imported, or exported, a method, device, or apparatus (including but not limited to the RF1293, RF1603, RF1604, and RF8889A switches) that infringes, either directly, contributorily, or by inducement, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’898 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

04712.35002/4768752.1 10 Case 1:12-cv-00377-WO-LPA Document 16 Filed 05/21/12 Page 10 of 17 49. There is an actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, between RFMD and Peregrine concerning the non- infringement of the ’898 patent. 50. RFMD is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe, either directly, contributorily, or by inducement, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’898 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,123,898) 51. RFMD realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 50, inclusive, as though fully set forth in this paragraph. 52. An actual controversy exists between RFMD and Peregrine with respect to the validity of the ‘993 patent. 53. Each claim of the ‘898 patent fails to meet one or more of the statutory requirements and/or conditions for patentability under the patent laws of the United States, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101–103 and 112. 54. Each claim of the ‘898 patent is invalid because it is anticipated by the pertinent prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and/or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the pertinent prior art at the time of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 55. The claims of the ‘898 patent are also invalid for lack of enablement, insufficient written description, indefiniteness and/or failure to disclose the best mode of the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112. The claims of the ‘898 patent are vague and indefinite and incorporate limitations that are neither disclosed, described, explained, nor enabled by the specification of the ‘898 patent. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,460,852) 56. RFMD realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 55, inclusive, as though fully set forth in this paragraph.

04712.35002/4768752.1 11 Case 1:12-cv-00377-WO-LPA Document 16 Filed 05/21/12 Page 11 of 17 57. RFMD does not make, use, offer for sale, sell, import, or export, and has never made, used, offered to sell, sold, imported, or exported, a method, device, or apparatus (including but not limited to the RF1293, RF1603, RF1604, and RF8889A switches) that infringes, either directly, contributorily, or by inducement, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’852 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 58. There is an actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, between RFMD and Peregrine concerning the non- infringement of the ’852 patent. 59. RFMD is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe, either directly, contributorily, or by inducement, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’852 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,460,852) 60. RFMD realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 59, inclusive, as though fully set forth in this paragraph. 61. An actual controversy exists between RFMD and Peregrine with respect to the validity of the ‘852 patent. 62. Each claim of the ‘852 patent fails to meet one or more of the statutory requirements and/or conditions for patentability under the patent laws of the United States, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101–103 and 112. 63. Each claim of the ‘852 patent is invalid because it is anticipated by the pertinent prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and/or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the pertinent prior art at the time of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 64. The claims of the ‘852 patent are also invalid for lack of enablement, insufficient written description, indefiniteness and/or failure to disclose the best mode of the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112. The claims of the ‘852

04712.35002/4768752.1 12 Case 1:12-cv-00377-WO-LPA Document 16 Filed 05/21/12 Page 12 of 17 patent are vague and indefinite and incorporate limitations that are neither disclosed, described, explained, nor enabled by the specification of the ‘852 patent. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,796,969) 65. RFMD realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 64, inclusive, as though fully set forth in this paragraph. 66. RFMD does not make, use, offer for sale, sell, import, or export, and has never made, used, offered to sell, sold, imported, or exported, a method, device, or apparatus (including but not limited to the RF1293, RF1603, RF1604, and RF8889A switches) that infringes, either directly, contributorily, or by inducement, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’969 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 67. There is an actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, between RFMD and Peregrine concerning the non- infringement of the ’969 patent. 68. RFMD is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe, either directly, contributorily, or by inducement, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’969 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,796,969) 69. RFMD realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 68, inclusive, as though fully set forth in this paragraph. 70. An actual controversy exists between RFMD and Peregrine with respect to the validity of the ‘969 patent. 71. Each claim of the ‘969 patent fails to meet one or more of the statutory requirements and/or conditions for patentability under the patent laws of the United States, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101–103 and 112.

04712.35002/4768752.1 13 Case 1:12-cv-00377-WO-LPA Document 16 Filed 05/21/12 Page 13 of 17 72. Each claim of the ‘969 patent is invalid because it is anticipated by the pertinent prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and/or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the pertinent prior art at the time of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 73. The claims of the ‘969 patent are also invalid for lack of enablement, insufficient written description, indefiniteness and/or failure to disclose the best mode of the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112. The claims of the ‘969 patent are vague and indefinite and incorporate limitations that are neither disclosed, described, explained, nor enabled by the specification of the ‘969 patent. NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,860,499) 74. RFMD realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 73, inclusive, as though fully set forth in this paragraph. 75. RFMD does not make, use, offer for sale, sell, import, or export, and has never made, used, offered to sell, sold, imported, or exported, a method, device, or apparatus (including but not limited to the RF1293, RF1603, RF1604, and RF8889A switches) that infringes, either directly, contributorily, or by inducement, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’499 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. 76. There is an actual controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, between RFMD and Peregrine concerning the non- infringement of the ’499 patent. 77. RFMD is entitled to a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe, either directly, contributorily, or by inducement, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’499 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

04712.35002/4768752.1 14 Case 1:12-cv-00377-WO-LPA Document 16 Filed 05/21/12 Page 14 of 17 TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,860,499) 78. RFMD realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 77, inclusive, as though fully set forth in this paragraph. 79. An actual controversy exists between RFMD and Peregrine with respect to the validity of the ‘499 patent. 80. Each claim of the ‘499 patent fails to meet one or more of the statutory requirements and/or conditions for patentability under the patent laws of the United States, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101–103 and 112. 81. Each claim of the ‘499 patent is invalid because it is anticipated by the pertinent prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and/or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the pertinent prior art at the time of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. § 103. 82. The claims of the ‘499 patent are also invalid for lack of enablement, insufficient written description, indefiniteness and/or failure to disclose the best mode of the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112. The claims of the ‘499 patent are vague and indefinite and incorporate limitations that are neither disclosed, described, explained, nor enabled by the specification of the ‘499 patent. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, RFMD respectfully requests that: (a) Judgment be entered declaring that RFMD has not infringed, induced the infringement of, or contributed to the infringement of, and is not infringing, inducing the infringement of, or contributing to the infringement of any valid, enforceable claim of any of the Peregrine patents; (b) Judgment be entered declaring that one or more claims of each of the Peregrine patents are invalid;

04712.35002/4768752.1 15 Case 1:12-cv-00377-WO-LPA Document 16 Filed 05/21/12 Page 15 of 17 (c) Judgment be entered finding that this is an exceptional case entitling RFMD to an award of its attorneys’ fees for bringing and prosecuting this action, together with interest, and costs of the action under 35 U.S.C. § 285; and (d) Judgment be entered awarding RFMD such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff RFMD demands a trial by jury on all issues triable by jury.

04712.35002/4768752.1 16 Case 1:12-cv-00377-WO-LPA Document 16 Filed 05/21/12 Page 16 of 17 Respectfully submitted this 21st day of May, 2012.

By: /s/ John F. Morrow, Jr. ______John F. Morrow, Jr. (N.C. Bar No. 23382) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE. LLP One West Fourth Street Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Telephone: (336) 721-3584 Fascimile: (336) 733-8429 [email protected]

Of Counsel:

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP Frederick A. Lorig (CA Bar 057645) Christopher A. Mathews (CA Bar 144021) Brian J. Dunne (CA Bar 275689) 865 S. Figueroa St. 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Fascimile: (213) 443-3100 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP Paul F. Brinkman (VA Bar 35950) 1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 825 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 538-8000 Fascimile: (202) 538-8100 [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff RF MICRO DEVICES, INC.

04712.35002/4768752.1 17 Case 1:12-cv-00377-WO-LPA Document 16 Filed 05/21/12 Page 17 of 17