Filed on behalf of Textron Innovations Inc.
`
`By:
`
`Patrick A. Doody (patrick.doody@pillsburylaw.com)
`Bryan P. Collins (bryaneollins@pillsburylaw.com)
`Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
`1650 Tysons Boulevard
`McLean, VA 22102
`Tel: (703) 770—7900
`Fax: (703) 770—7901
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`WAVELOCK ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`TEXTRON INNOVATIONS INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2013—00149
`
`Patent 6,455,138
`
`PATENT OWNER TEXTRON INNOVATIONS
`
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.64
`
`
`
`By:
`
`Patrick A. Doody (patrick.doody@pillsburylaw.com)
`Bryan P. Collins (bryaneollins@pillsburylaw.com)
`Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
`1650 Tysons Boulevard
`McLean, VA 22102
`Tel: (703) 770—7900
`Fax: (703) 770—7901
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`WAVELOCK ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`TEXTRON INNOVATIONS INC.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2013—00149
`
`Patent 6,455,138
`
`PATENT OWNER TEXTRON INNOVATIONS
`
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.64
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. STATEMENT OF REQUESTED RELIEF ......................................................... 1
`
`II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY ........................................................... 1
`
`III.ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................ 5
`
`A. A Reply That Raises A New Issue, a-New Grounds of Rejection, And That
`Belatedly Presents New Evidence Should Be Excluded, Along With Its
`Exhibits ............................................................................................................ 5
`
`l. Petitioner’sReply ......... 7
`2. Exhibit 1018 ............................................................................................. 10
`B. The New Ground of Rejection, New Evidence, and Reply Severely
`Prejudice Patent Owner ................................................................................. 12
`
`IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`In re Biedermann, No. 2013—1080, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18, 2013) ................ 9, 14
`
`Rules and Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) ................................................................................................ 12
`37 C.F.R. §42.23 ...................................................................................................... 13
`37 C.F.R. §42.64 ............................................... '......................................................... 1
`Fed. R. Evid. Rule 402 ......................................................................................... 1, 12
`Fed. R. Evid. Rule 403 ......................................................................................... 1, 12
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48767, No. 157
`Aug. 14, 2012 ........................................................................................... 7,11,13,14
`
`Administrative Proceedings
`
`Blackberry Corp. v. Mobilemedz‘a Ideas, IPR2013-00036 ........................................ 7
`Corning Inc. v. DSMIP Assets B. V., IPR2013.00043 ............................................. 15
`Kyocera Corporation v. Softvz'ew, IPR2013—00004,
`IPR2013—00257, Paper No. 32 ............................................................................. 7, 15
`Wavelock v. Textron Innovations, 1PR2013—00149, Paper No. 8 .............................. 3
`
`ii
`
`
`
`1.
`
`STATEMENT OF REQUESTED RELIEF
`
`Pursuant to 37 CPR. §42.64 and Patent Owner Textron Innovations ‘
`
`(“Textron’s”) Objections to Evidence (“Objections”) served on Petitioner
`
`Wavelock Advanced Technology Co., Ltd., (“Wavelock”) and filed with the Patent
`
`Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on December 6, 2013, paper No. 18, (Copy of the
`
`Objections is attached as Exhibit 2003). Textron seeks the exclusion of
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, the Second Declaration of Robert Iezzi, Ph.D., Exhibit 1018,
`
`and the improperly attached exhibits to Dr. Iezzi’s Second Declaration (Exhibits
`
`AA—GG). Each of these items raises a new issue, belatedly presents new evidence
`
`and presents no reason as to why the evidence was not presented when the petition
`
`was filed. The new evidence and Petitioner’s reply also are not related to the
`
`grounds of rejection adopted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), is
`
`prejudicial to Patent Owner, and is outside the scope of these proceedings.
`
`Accordingly, these documents should be excluded from this proceeding under the
`
`PTABs own rules, as well as at least under Fed. R. Evid. Rule 402 and Fed. R.
`
`Evid. Rule 403.
`
`II.
`
`RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`Each ofthe challenged claims of US Patent No. 6,455,138 (the “‘ 138
`
`patent”) requires first and second thermoplastic layers with a discontinuous layer
`
`positioned therebetween, in which the discontinuous layer includes “discrete
`
`
`
`IPR2013—00149
`
`Patent No. 6,455,138
`
`islands of metal in an adhesive.” Ex. 1001, at col. 9, 11. 7—9. The Petition filed on
`
`February 15, 2013, alleged that the disclosure of Kuwahara’s examples anticipated
`
`claim 1.
`
`IPR2013—00149, Petition for Inter Partes Review, Paper No. (“Petition”),
`
`at 8, 9. The Petition alleged the following: “When this disclosure is illustrated as
`
`shown below,1 it is clear that Kuwahara fully anticipates claim 1.” Id. at 9. The
`
`Petition included a claim chart and alleged the following: “The vinyl chloride—
`
`Vinyl acetate copolymer resin is an adhesive between the metalized film surface
`
`and the 200 um thick vinyl chloride film. (Iezzi (Ex. 1017), 11 57.) Because the"
`
`Vinyl chloride adhesive is applied directly over the discrete islands of metal, the
`
`discrete islands of metal would be in the adhesive.” Id at 12. Paragraph 57 of Dr.
`
`Iezzi’s declaration states: “One of ordinary skill in the art would have also
`
`understood that since the adhesive (vinyl chloride—vinyl acetate copolymer resin) is
`
`applied by a coater to the Sn islands deposited on the PET film, the Sn islands are
`
`in the adhesive.” Ex. 1017, 1157, pg. 27. While not relied upon in the Petition, Dr.
`Iezzi also states: “Since the adhesive is applied on top ofthe discontinuous metal
`
`layer in a liquid state, the adhesive would inherently flow around the island metal
`
`
`
`‘The Petition reproduced an alleged illustration of examples 1 and 2 of Kuwahara
`
`from Dr. Iezzi’s declaration, Exhibit 1017, at paragraph 52, pg. 25.
`
`
`
`lPR20l 3—00149
`
`Patent No. 6,455,138
`
`structures so that islands of metal would be in the adhesive.”2 Id at 1139, pg. 17.
`
`This is the only place in Dr. Iezzi’s Declaration where inherency is discussed, and
`
`it is NOT relied upon in the Petition or in the Decision to Institute.
`
`The Decision to Institute, Wavelock v. Textron Innovations, IPR2013-00149,
`
`Paper No. 8 (“Decision”) only refers to the examples of Kuwahara as allegedly
`
`anticipating the ‘138 patent claims. These examples only disclose a distance
`
`between the metal islands as being 500 Angstroms. Kuwahara does not disclose
`
`the use of an adhesive; rather, Dr. Iezzi alleges that the copolymer used and only
`
`described in the examples, is an adhesive, and that it was applied as a liquid to the
`
`top of the discontinuous metal layer (none of which is actually disclosed in
`
`Kuwahara’s examples). Kuwahara, Ex. 1007, at 5:14—27; Dr. Iezzi’s Declaration,
`
`Exh. 1017, at 1157.
`
`
`
`2 The Petition does not rely on this paragraph of Dr. Iezzi’s Declaration as
`
`“inherently” disclosing the discontinuous layer element of the ‘138 patent claims.
`
`Moreover, Dr. Iezzi’s statement regarding inherency is based upon an improper
`
`understanding of the law of inherency a “It also is my understanding that to
`
`establish anticipation by inherency, the extrinsic evidence must be clearly
`
`described in the reference.” Id at 1H4, pg. 5.
`
`
`
`IPR2013—00149
`
`Patent No. 6,455,138
`
`Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner response to point out the deficiencies in
`
`Petitioner’s evidence. IPR2013—00149, Patent Owner Response, Paper No. 16.
`
`Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent Owner Response, together with a
`
`second declaration by Dr. Iezzi.
`
`IPR2013—00149, Petitioner’s Reply, Paper No. 17
`
`and Exhibit 1018. Petitioner takes pains to criticize Patent Owner’s strategy for
`
`deciding at the last minute to file a Patent Owner Response, and as presenting only
`
`attorney argument, which it alleges is insufficient. Id at 5. If attorney argument is
`
`insufficient as Petitioner alleges, then Petitioner has expressly admitted that none
`
`of the evidence that has now been submitted was necessary. Despite this
`
`admission, nearly every statement in Petitioner’s Reply and in Dr. Iezzi’s second
`
`Declaration is new, presents new evidence, new issues, and cites new documents to
`
`support its inherent anticipation allegation, all of which should have been
`
`presented when it filed its Petition. More importantly, nearly every statement in
`the Reply and Dr. Iezzi’s second declaration is premised on. an entirely new ground
`
`of rejection ~ one that has never been proposed and was NOT adopted by the
`
`PTAB.
`
`Petitioner now alleges the claims are anticipated by Kuwahara because
`
`Kuwahara discloses a'spacing of up to 5,000 Angstroms. The Petition and the
`Decision each relied solely on the examples ofKuwahara as allegedly inherently
`
`anticipating the claims, and the examples only disclose a spacing of 500
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00149
`
`Patent No. 6,455,138
`
`Angstroms. Dr. Iezzi also provides an entirely new statement regarding the law of
`
`inherent anticipation: “For a prior art reference to describe a claim element
`
`inherently, the claim element must be necessarily present.” Exh. 1018 at 116, pgs. 1
`
`and 2. The last paragraph of the Reply(pages 14 and 15) clearly establishes the
`
`fact that every argument advanced, and new issue and evidence submitted by
`
`Petitioner is presented to shore up its case in chief, thus presenting a tacit
`
`admission that the original evidence is insufficient.3
`
`Patent Owner timely served on Petitioner, and filed with the PTAB its
`
`Objections to Petitioner’s Reply and Dr. Iezzi’s Second Declaration, the
`
`Objections being served and filed on December 6, 2013, paper No. 18.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`A Reply That Raises A New Issue, a New Grounds of Rejection,
`And That Belatedly Presents New Evidence Should Be Excluded,
`Along With Its Exhibits
`
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office could not have made it any
`
`clearer that the submission of additional evidence, especially replies and evidence
`
`presenting a new issue, a new grounds of rejection, and new evidence to bolster its
`
`
`
`3This last paragraph lists 4 factors, each of which is brand new to these
`
`proceedings, and clearly is submitted because Patent Owner revealed to
`
`Petitioner the insufficiency in its originally submitted evidence.
`
`
`
`original allegation of unpatentability, is not only improper, but should be returned
`
`to Petitioner and expunged from the record:
`
`IPR2013—00149
`
`Patent No. 6,455,138
`
`A reply may only respond to arguments raised in the corresponding
`
`opposition. § 42.23. While replies can help crystalize issues for
`
`decision, a reply that raises a new issue or belatedly presents evidence
`
`will not be considered and may be returned. The Board will not
`
`attempt to sort proper from improper portions of the reply. Examples '
`
`of indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply include
`
`new evidence necessary to make out a prima/acie case for the
`
`patentability or unpatentability of an original or proposed
`
`substitute claim, and new evidence that could have been presented
`
`in a prior filing.
`
`' Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48767, No. 157, Aug. 14, 2012
`
`(“Trial Practice Guide”). Emphasis added. See also Blackberry Corp. v.
`
`Mobilemea’ia Ideas, IPR2013-0003 6, Paper No. 40, pg. 2: “For instance, a new
`
`issue is raised if the reply includes new evidence necessary to make out a prima
`
`facie case for the unpatentability of a challenged claim.”
`
`The PTAB also has issued a number of Orders and Decisions related to its
`
`consideration of new evidence. For example, the PTAB suggests that a motion to
`
`strike is not necessary when Petitioner submits new evidence in its reply, and that
`
`the PTAB itself will not consider such new evidence, and may return the Reply.
`
`Kyocera Corporation v. Softvz'ew, IPR2013—00004, IPR2013—00257, Paper No. 32.
`
`
`
`lPR2013—00149
`
`Patent No. 6,455,138
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the PTAB follow its prior decisions and the
`
`Trial Practice Guide and refuse to consider Petitioner’s Reply and the second
`
`declaration of Dr. Iezzi.
`
`The evidence presented in the Second Declaration and the Reply is new
`
`evidence, it is presented in an attempt to fill the holes in its previously submitted
`
`and admittedly insufficient evidence4 so as to make out a prima facie case for the
`
`unpatentability of an original claim, and there is no legitimate reason why the
`
`evidence could not have been presented in a prior filing. Accordingly, despite the
`
`PTAB rules and the Board’s stern warnings in prior orders, Petitioner Wavelock
`
`submitted a reply that raises new issues, advances a new theory of unpatentability,
`
`and belatedly presents evidence to bolster its deficient evidence presented with its
`
`Petition. Textron addresses the Reply and Dr. Iezzi’s second declaration in turn
`
`below.
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply
`
`When Wavelock filed its Petition, it submitted a 102 page declaration from
`
`Dr. Iezzi with 14 exhibit attachments. Despite the volumes of material submitted
`
`with the Petition, Petitioner and Dr. Iezzi relied on an improper understanding of
`
`
`
`4 By submitting this evidence now, the Petitioner tacitly admits its initial
`
`submission is inadequate ~ otherwise it should not be needed.
`
`
`
`IPR2013~00149
`
`Patent No. 6,455,138
`
`the law of inherent anticipation, made unsupported statements of fact contradicted
`
`by the examples of Kuwahara, and withheld key arguments and evidence that are
`
`apparently central to Petitioner’s positions in this proceeding. Petitioner sprung
`
`these arguments and evidence on Textron after Textron pointed out the deficiencies
`
`in their Petition and first declaration of Dr. Iezzi.
`
`There can be no doubt that the Petition relied entirely on the examples of
`
`Kuwahara, and it relied entirely on paragraph 57 of Dr. Iezzi’s first Declaration in
`
`its allegations that Kuwahara satisfies the requirement in the ‘138 patent claims
`
`that the discontinuous layer “discrete islands of metal in an adhesive.” Petition at
`
`9, 12, Exh. 1017, at fl57. There also can be no doubt that the PTAB relied
`
`exclusively on the examples of Kuwahara as satisfying this element of the claims.
`
`Decision at page 10. 5 These examples are limited to the use of a specific
`
`copolymer that is not disclosed as a liquid, and not disclosed as an adhesive (it has
`
`many other uses), and that is applied to a metallized surface having a spacing of
`
`500 Angstroms. Patent Owner therefore focused entirely on the infirmities in
`
`Petitioner’s evidence alleging inherency,_ since Petitioner did not, as a matter of
`
`5The Decision is silent with respect to inherent anticipation. The Decision does
`
`NOT rely on or otherwise make reference to Dr. Iezzi’s one sentence conclusion
`
`of inherency in para. 39.
`
`
`
`IPR2013—00149
`
`Patent No. 6,455,138
`
`law, show that the copolymer was an adhesive, was applied as a liquid, or would
`
`flow between the islands as a matter of necessity.
`
`Having realized the inadequacies of its evidence, Petitioner now attempts to
`
`introduce an entirely new rationale for its allegation of inherency. Now Petitioner
`
`contends that the disclosure of Kuwahara describing a spacing of up to 5,000
`
`Angstroms could be used (instead of the example). Reply at pages 7—13. Now
`
`Petitioner contends that for some reason the copolymer that is only used and only
`
`disclosed in the examples would somehow generally apply to Kuwahara’s general
`
`disclosure. This is clearly a new basis for the rejection, and a new ground of
`
`rejection, each of which is improper at this late stage in the proceeding. In re
`
`Biedermann, No. 2013—1080, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18, 2013). And the Reply
`
`includes statements of fact (15—20 on pages 3 and 4 of the Reply) that rely on
`
`entirely new evidence, some of which includes documents published a decade after
`
`the ‘138 patent filing date.
`
`Simply put, the evidence upon‘which the entire Reply is premised, is new
`
`evidence necessary to make out a primafacie case for the patentability or
`
`unpatentability of an original or proposed substitute claim, and new evidence
`
`that could have been presented in a prior filing.” That the evidence is necessary
`
`is evident by it being submitted now for the very first time. The evidence and the
`
`Reply also attempt to make out a prima facie case for the unpatentability of an
`
`
`
`IPR2013—00149
`
`Patent No. 6,455,138
`
`original claim by supporting its allegation of inherent anticipation. Finally, the
`
`Petitioner presents absolutely no reason why this evidence could not have been '
`
`presented earlier ~ because it cannot -— the evidence clearly could have been
`
`presented when the Petition was filed.
`
`Neither the Patent Owner nor the PTAB should be required to sift through
`
`Petitioner’s Reply or Dr. Iezzi’s second declaration to sort out which arguments or
`
`evidence is new or not. Indeed, the Trial Practice Guide specifically states that the
`
`“Board will not attempt to sort proper from improper portions of the reply.” Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48767. Patent Owner requests that Petitioner’s Reply
`
`be excluded.
`
`2.
`
`Exhibit 1018
`
`Exhibit 1018 is a second declaration from Dr. Iezzi, and it contains new
`
`evidence and relies on new exhibits, many of which are either undated, not
`
`authenticated, or dated long after the filing date of the ‘138 patent and
`
`consequently, cannot be relied upon to describe what would have been known to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Interestingly,
`
`Dr. Iezzi apparently only now has been informed as to the correct legal meaning of
`
`inherency: “For a prior art reference to describe a claim element inherently, the
`
`claim element must be necessarily present.” Exh. 1018 at 116. This is brand new
`
`and must be excluded from these proceedings.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00149
`
`. Patent No. 6,455,138
`
`Based on his new understanding, Dr. Iezzi now explains in paragraphs 8—30
`
`of Exhibit 1018 why or how the copolymer used in Kuwahara’s examples MIGHT
`
`flow between the metal islands formed on the first film. Once again, Dr. Iezzi
`
`never says that the copolymer must flow — only that it might, and only if it satisfies
`
`a multitude of processing parameters (viscosity, molecular weight, polymer
`
`diameter, diameter of metal spacing of 5000 Angstroms, surface tension) none of
`
`which is disclosed in Kuwahara, and none of which was mentioned in the Petition.
`
`Each of these paragraphs should be excluded for the following reasons:
`
`0 Each of these paragraphs relies on undated documents, un—
`
`authenticated documents, or documents dated after the filing date of
`
`the ‘138 patent;
`
`0 Each of these paragraphs is premised on Dr. Iezzi’s brand new
`
`understanding of the law of inherency; and
`
`o , These new paragraphs present evidence related to a rejection now
`
`alleging inherent anticipation based on a disclosure of 5000
`
`Angstroms ~ a rejection that was never advanced in the Petition, and
`
`clearly was not adopted by the PTAB in its Decision
`
`By withholding such arguments and evidence until the Reply, Petitioner has
`
`now ambushed and significantly prejudiced Textron. Petitioner’s belated efforts to
`
`introduce supporting expert testimony regarding a new theory of inherent
`
`anticipation, premised on a newfound understanding of the law of inherency, are a
`
`glaring breach of the basic rule of fairness, in clear violation of Fed. R. Evid. Rule
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00149
`
`Patent No. 6,455,138
`
`402 and Fed. R. Evid. Rule 403; in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.23(b) and the Office
`
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (August 14, 2012). For
`
`these reasons, Petitioner’s Reply and Exhibit 1018 should be excluded.
`
`B.
`
`The New Ground of Rejection, New Evidence, and Reply Severely
`Prejudice Patent Owner
`
`As Petitioner notes in its Reply, Patent Owner initially did not intend on
`
`filing a Patent Owner Response. The reason for this is clear. Patent Owner wished
`
`to immediately move for trial on the basis that the evidence was woefully
`
`inadequate to establish inherent anticipation (interestingly, the PTAB’s Decision to
`
`Institute fails to mention inherent anticipation). Having failed to establish that the
`
`copolymer of Kuwahara’s examples would necessarily flow in between the 500
`
`Angstrom spacing utilized in the examples, Patent Owner knew and understood
`
`that every ground of rejection advanced in the Decision must fail. Patent Owner
`
`also did not want to permit Petitioner to cure its patently defective evidence. Thus,
`
`Patent Owner initially intended on moving directly to trial.
`
`The Trial Practice Guide states, however, that a party may only present
`
`arguments at trial that have been relied upon in the papers previously submitted.
`
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48768, Patent Owner also understood from the
`
`Trial Practice Guide that even if it did submit its arguments pointing out the
`
`glaring deficiencies in‘Petitioner’s evidence, Petitioner would not be able to
`
`present new evidence to fill in the holes and shore up its original allegation of
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00149
`Patent No. 6,455,138
`
`inherency.
`
`Id. at 48767; 37 C.F.R. §42.23. Accordingly, Patent Owner carefully
`
`selected its strategy not to depose the witness, not to seek any additional evidence
`
`to which Petitioner could reply, but rather only to present attorney argument as to
`
`why Petitioner’s evidence was insufficient.
`
`To permit Petitioner to now advance entirely new theories of inherent
`
`anticipation based on entirely new evidence completely defeats the purpose of the
`
`notice function, and deprives Patent Owner of its opportunity to respond as
`
`required by law. In re Biedermann et 01]., No. 2013—1080, slip 0p. at 15—17. The
`
`same prejudice exists if Petitioner were permitted to submit additional evidence
`
`and argument to shore up its initial case, and to fill in the holes that exist in its
`
`original case.
`
`Indeed, had Petitioner submitted all of the evidence it now submits,
`
`Patent Owner likely would have taken a completely different strategy — perhaps it
`
`would have deposed Dr. Iezzi and/or presented its own expert evidence.6
`
`Patent OWner has no opportunity to now respond to these new arguments
`
`and evidence, and to this new ground of rejection. See e.g., Kyocera Corporation
`
`v. Soflvz'ew, IPR2013—00004, IPR2013—00257, Paper No. 32. Had they presented
`
`6 It is interesting that Petitioner has not reproduced the examples of Kuwahara to
`
`prove inherency, which would be expected in these proceedings. See e.g.,
`
`Corning Inc. v. DSMIP Assets B. V., IPR2013.00043, and the 8 related cases.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2013—00149
`
`Patent No. 6,455,138
`
`these arguments and evidence earlier, Patent Owner would have adopted a
`
`completely different strategy. Accordingly, a failure to exclude this evidence
`
`under Federal Rules of Evidence and the PTABs own rules and guidelines would
`
`unfairly and severely prejudice Patent Owner, would deprive it of being adequately
`
`notified of the basis upon which its claims are being challenged, and would deprive
`
`Patent Owner of its opportunity to respond, as required by law.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s Reply, along with Exhibit 1018 and
`
`the documents appended thereto, should be excluded.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`@013SHAWPITTMANLLP
`
`Patrick A. Doody, Reg. No. 35,022
`Bryan P. Collins, Reg. No. 43,560
`
`Date: January 22, 2014
`1650 Tysons Boulevard
`McLean, VA. 22102
`(703) 770—7900
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2013—00149
`
`Patent No. 6,455,138
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing PATENT OWNER
`
`TEXTRON INNOVATIONS MOTION TO EXCLUDE PURSUANT TO 37
`
`C.F.R. §42.64 was served electronically via e—mail on January 22, 2014, in its
`
`entirety on the following:
`
`marjornand@mofo.corn via electronic mail, and via Express Mail to:
`
`Mehran Arjomand
`Morrison & Foerster LLP
`
`707 Wilshire Boulevard
`
`Los Angeles, California 90017
`
`mpSHAWPITTMANLLP
`
`P trick A. Doody
`Lead Attorney for Patent Owner
`Reg. No. 35,022
`
`Date: January 22, 2014
`1650 Tysons Boulevard
`' McLean, VA. 22102
`
`(703) 770—7900
`
`15
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
