Quest Patent Research Corp (QPRC)

[RagingBobNY]

If I'm reading this correctly ZTE's accused products has more than doubled.

Dr. Carbonell opines, for example, that newer ARM Cortex architectures “do not result in the removal of the essential DVFS framework incorporated into each ZTE SoC.” Carbonell Rep. ¶ 103, Dkt. No. 318-4. Thus, to the extent that one of the originally accused 32 products includes one of these later architectures, reference to the later architecture is not stricken. In sum, only the portions of Dr. Carbonell’s report that refer to infringement involving one of the 44 additionally accused products are stricken.1 ZTE’s motion is granted-in-part to that extent.


Thoughts?