`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`Wavelock Advanced Technology Co., Ltd.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Textron Innovations Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`Patent No. 6,455,138
`Issue Date: September 24, 2002
`Title: METALLIZED SHEETING, COMPOSITES,
`AND METHODS FOR THEIR FORMATION
`_______________
`
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2013-00149 (SCM)
`____________________________________________________________
`
`PETITIONER WAVELOCK ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD’S
` OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`
`
`
`
`la-1237725
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2013-00149
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY SUBMISSIONS WERE RESPONDING TO
`PATENT OWNER’S ATTACKS ON KUWAHARA .................................. 3
`
`III. PETITIONER’S REPLY DID NOT RAISE A NEW GROUND OF
`REJECTION ................................................................................................... 6
`
`IV. THE SECOND IEZZI DECLARATION AND ACCOMPANYING
`EXHIBITS WERE PROPER REBUTTAL EVIDENCE .............................. 8
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`The Challenge To The Second Iezzi Declaration Is Improper............. 8
`There Is No “New Rejection” In The Second Iezzi Declaration ....... 10
`There Was No Objection To The Accompanying Exhibits ............... 11
`The New Objection To The Exhibits Is Without Merit ..................... 12
`
`V.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S CLAIMS OF PREJUDICE ARE MISPLACED ...... 13
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`la-1237725
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00149
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner provides this Opposition under 37 C.F.R. § 42.23 to Patent
`
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude dated January 22, 2014 (Paper 19) (“Motion”). The
`
`Motion seeks to exclude Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 17), the Second Iezzi
`
`Declaration (Ex. 1018) and the Exhibits accompanying the Second Iezzi
`
`Declaration (collectively, the “Reply Submissions”). As the moving party, Patent
`
`Owner has the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). The Motion should be summarily denied.
`
`The Board instituted this trial based on its finding that the prior art reference
`
`Kuwahara raises a prima facie case of invalidity for claim 1. (Institution Decision
`
`(Paper 8) at 9-11, 21.) In its Corrected Response (Paper 16), Patent Owner
`
`challenged this finding by concocting deficiencies in Kuwahara, where the Board
`
`had found none. Petitioner rebutted each and every deficiency in its timely Reply
`
`Submissions. These submissions were not to fill any “holes” in Kuwahara as
`
`Patent Owner asserts, but rather to rebut Patent Owner’s groundless attacks on
`
`Kuwahara.
`
`Moreover, the Patent Owner has distorted this proceeding’s history in
`
`attempting to claim that Petitioner has raised a “new ground of rejection.” Patent
`
`Owner asserts that the prima facie case in the Petition (Paper 3) and the Board’s
`
`Institution Decision was based “entirely” or “exclusively” on a 500 Angstrom
`
`la-1237725
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00149
`
`island spacing in Kuwahara’s examples 1 and 2. This assertion is meritless.
`
`Kuwahara is to be considered in its entirety, and neither the Petition nor the
`
`Board’s Institution Decision suggested that only portions of Kuwahara were to be
`
`considered. Moreover, Patent Owner fails to provide the proper context in which
`
`Petitioner cited the spacing range of Kuwahara. Kuwahara discloses a metallized
`
`layer having metal islands spaced “between 100 and 5000 Å” and then provides
`
`two “examples” in that range. (Ex. 1007 at 3:1-15; 4:6-7; 5:12-28.) However,
`
`Patent Owner attempted to limit Kuwahara to a single spacing in that range, so
`
`Petitioner cited Kuwahara’s spacing range “between 100 and 5000 Å” as rebuttal.
`
`Finally, Patent Owner asserts that it has been “ambushed” and “prejudiced.”
`
`Its shrill claims are misplaced. Rebuttal, such as provided by Petitioner, is
`
`envisioned in the framework for inter partes review. Furthermore, the framework
`
`permits cross-examination of any declarant – including a reply declarant – as
`
`routine discovery and further permits, if necessary, the submission of observations
`
`on that cross-examination. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii); Scheduling Order
`
`(Paper 9) at 4. Here, Patent Owner has failed to cross-examine Dr. Iezzi. Patent
`
`Owner now muses that “perhaps it would have deposed Dr. Iezzi,” but it has only
`
`itself to blame for not conducting routine discovery.
`
`Thus, the Motion should be summarily denied for these reasons, which are
`
`also addressed in detail below.
`
`la-1237725
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00149
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY SUBMISSIONS WERE RESPONDING TO
`
`PATENT OWNER’S ATTACKS ON KUWAHARA
`
`When one properly considers the Petition, the Institution Decision and the
`
`Patent Owner’s Response, it is clear that Petitioner was simply rebutting the
`
`attacks against Kuwahara raised by Patent Owner in its Response.
`
`In its Petition, Petitioner explained that Kuwahara anticipates claim 1,
`
`because it discloses two thermoplastic layers and a discontinuous layer between
`
`them, with the discontinuous layer including discrete islands of metal in an
`
`adhesive. (See, e.g., Petition at 7-12; Iezzi First Dec. (Ex. 1017) at ¶¶ 37-39, 50-
`
`58.) With respect to the discontinuous layer, Petitioner pointed to Kuwahara’s roll
`
`coating an adhesive over a metallized layer and then applying heat and pressure to
`
`laminate all the layers together. (Id.) The Board “evaluat[ed] the disclosure of
`
`Kuwahara” and did not find it deficient. (Institution Decision at 9-11, 21.) It
`
`determined that a prima facie case of invalidity had been met based on the
`
`evidence and instituted this trial. (Id.)
`
`Patent Owner’s Response attacked the finding of invalidity by concocting
`
`five deficiencies in Kuwahara. In its Reply, Petitioner simply quoted or cited to
`
`each purported deficiency and rebutted it with analysis backed up with testimony
`
`as discussed below.
`
`la-1237725
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00149
`
`First, Patent Owner challenged whether Kuwahara’s adhesive was a liquid.
`
`Petitioner explained that a skilled artisan would have understood the adhesive to be
`
`liquid given, among other reasons, Kuwahara’s disclosure of roll coating. (Reply
`
`at 5-7; Iezzi Second Dec. (Ex. 1018) at ¶¶ 8-11.) Moreover, Petitioner showed that
`
`Patent Owner’s very own exhibit related to roll coating supported this conclusion.
`
`(Id.)
`
`Second, Patent Owner challenged whether the liquid adhesive would be
`
`capable of “filling” the 500 Angstrom spacing between the metal islands in
`
`Kuwahara. Petitioner explained that Patent Owner incorrectly construed the claim
`
`language as requiring “filling” and incorrectly presented Kuwahara’s disclosure as
`
`limited to a 500 Angstrom spacing between metal islands. (Reply at 7-10; Ex.
`
`1018 at ¶¶ 12-18.) Petitioner noted that Patent Owner was conspicuously silent
`
`about Kuwahara’s full spacing range “between 100 and 5000 Å” as well as
`
`whether the adhesive would flow around discrete islands with a spacing of 5000
`
`Angstroms. (Id. at 7-8.) Petitioner further showed through calculations by Dr.
`
`Iezzi that the polymer chains of Kuwahara’s adhesive would flow around areas
`
`between islands with a spacing of 500 or 5000 Angstroms. (Id. at 7-10; Ex. 1018
`
`at ¶¶ 12-18.)
`
`Third, Patent Owner challenged Dr. Iezzi for purportedly requiring
`
`Kuwahara to roll coat on “top” of the metallized layer and to fill in adhesive
`
`la-1237725
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00149
`
`between the metal islands through gravity. Petitioner and Dr. Iezzi explained that
`
`Patent Owner misunderstood the term “top” in Dr. Iezzi’s First Declaration.
`
`(Reply at 11-13; Ex. 1018 at ¶¶ 19-27.) Petitioner also showed through
`
`calculations by Dr. Iezzi that surface tension, among other reasons, would drive the
`
`adhesive between the metal islands without the need for gravity. (Id.)
`
`Fourth, Petitioner rebutted the factually and legally dubious argument that
`
`Kuwahara teaches away from the presence of adhesive between the metal islands.
`
`(Reply at 14; Ex. 1018 at ¶ 28.)
`
`Fifth, Patent Owner challenged Dr. Iezzi’s analysis of Kuwahara as
`
`“unsupported” testimony. Dr. Iezzi reviewed the facts in Kuwahara as understood
`
`by a skilled artisan and reiterated his conclusion that the metal islands in Kuwahara
`
`are in an adhesive based on the facts. (Reply at 14-15; Ex. 1018 at ¶¶ 29-30.)
`
`Thus, in view of the history of this proceeding, the Reply Submissions were
`
`not to a tacit admission of the insufficiency of the original submitted evidence or a
`
`need to make out a prima facie case of invalidity as Patent Owner states. (Motion
`
`at 7.) The Board has already found a prima facie case in instituting trial, so there
`
`were no “holes” in Kuwahara to fill. Petitioner instead was simply rebutting Patent
`
`Owner’s meritless arguments that Kuwahara was deficient with analysis supported
`
`by testimony.
`
`la-1237725
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00149
`
`III. PETITIONER’S REPLY DID NOT RAISE A NEW GROUND OF
`
`REJECTION
`
`With the above backdrop of the proceeding, it is clear that Patent Owner is
`
`distorting this proceeding’s history in claiming a “new ground of rejection.”
`
`Specifically, Patent Owner claims that the prima facie case of invalidity was based
`
`solely on Kuwahara’s disclosure of a 500 Angstrom spacing between metal islands
`
`in examples 1 and 2, and that Petitioner has raised a “new ground of rejection” by
`
`citing to Kuwahara’s spacing range “between 100 and 5000 Å.” (Motion at 4, 7-
`
`10; Kuwahara (Ex. 1007) at 4:6-11.) Patent Owner states that “nearly every
`
`statement in the Reply and Dr. Iezzi’s Second Declaration is premised on an
`
`entirely new ground of rejection . . . .” (Id. at 4 (emphasis added).) This assertion
`
`is a hyperbolic distortion when one considers this proceeding’s history.
`
`As discussed above, the Reply Submissions addressed five alleged
`
`deficiencies raised by Patent Owner. The Petitioner’s citation to Kuwahara’s
`
`spacing range of up to 5000 Angstroms was in a single paragraph. (Reply at 7-8.)
`
`Moreover, Petitioner showed that the adhesive would flow around areas between
`
`islands with spacings of even 500 Angstroms. (Id. at 9-10; Ex. 1018 at ¶¶ 16-18.)
`
`It can hardly be said that “nearly every statement” in the Reply Submissions is
`
`premised on a 5000 Angstrom spacing.
`
`la-1237725
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00149
`
`Moreover, Patent Owner distorts the invalidity analysis in the Petition and
`
`the Board’s Institution Decision as being “entirely” or “exclusively” based on the
`
`examples of Kuwahara or based on certain paragraphs, such as ¶ 57, of Dr. Iezzi’s
`
`First Declaration. (Motion at 6.) Kuwahara is to be considered in its entirety as a
`
`reference, and Dr. Iezzi’s First Declaration was submitted for full consideration.
`
`Neither the Petition nor the Institution Decision suggested through their citations
`
`that only certain portions of Kuwahara or Dr. Iezzi’s First Declaration were to be
`
`considered. To the contrary, the Petition explains that Dr. Iezzi’s First Declaration
`
`is submitted to provide “testimony regarding the prior art . . . .” (Petition at 7.) Dr.
`
`Iezzi’s First Declaration, in turn, provides such testimony about Kuwahara at ¶¶
`
`37-39 and 50-97, including specifically stating in ¶ 39 that “the separation between
`
`the metal islands is 100-5000 Å.” (Ex. 1018 at ¶ 39.) Moreover, in instituting
`
`review, the Board cited passages throughout Kuwahara in finding claim 1 to be
`
`anticipated. (Institution Decision at 9-10.) To be clear, examples 1 and 2 of
`
`Kuwahara were cited in both the Petition and the Institution Decision, but neither
`
`paper suggested that these citations were at the exclusion of other portions of
`
`Kuwahara.
`
`Finally, Patent Owner fails to mention the reason for the citation to
`
`Kuwahara’s spacing range “between 100 and 5000 Å.” Patent Owner asserted in
`
`its Response that the polymer chains in Kuwahara’s adhesive would not “fill” a
`
`la-1237725
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00149
`
`500 Angstrom spacing. (Response at 24-27.) Petitioner responded that Patent
`
`Owner was incorrectly limiting the claim language and Kuwahara and that Patent
`
`Owner was conspicuously silent about Kuwahara’s full disclosure. (Reply at 7-8.)
`
`Kuwahara describes a metallized layer as one crux of its invention and plainly
`
`states that the “distance between the islands is set to between 100 and 5000 Å.”
`
`(Ex. 1007 at 3:1-15; 4:6-7.) Kuwahara then provides two “examples” with spacing
`
`within the broadly described range. The examples are just examples. Petitioner
`
`thus cited to Kuwahara’s disclosure of a spacing range “between 100 and 5000 Å”
`
`in order to rebut Patent Owner’s attempt to limit Kuwahara to a single spacing in
`
`that range.
`
`IV. THE SECOND IEZZI DECLARATION AND ACCOMPANYING
`
`EXHIBITS WERE PROPER REBUTTAL EVIDENCE
`
`Patent Owner’s motion to exclude the Second Iezzi Declaration (Ex. 1018)
`
`and its accompanying Exhibits (App. Exs. AA-GG) are also unavailing, because
`
`these were proper rebuttal evidence.
`
`A. The Challenge To The Second Iezzi Declaration Is Improper
`
`Patent Owner seeks to exclude the entire Second Iezzi Declaration due to a
`
`statement about the law of inherency by Dr. Iezzi. Specifically, Patent Owner
`
`claims that Dr. Iezzi has a “new understanding of the law of inherency.” (Motion
`
`at 11.) Petitioner disagrees with Patent Owner’s characterization of Dr. Iezzi’s
`
`la-1237725
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00149
`
`statements or his understanding, but ultimately Patent Owner’s challenge is
`
`irrelevant and untimely.
`
`As discussed in Petitioner’s Reply, anticipation is an “issue of fact.” (Reply
`
`at 4-5.) Dr. Iezzi in his two declarations reviewed the facts of Kuwahara as
`
`understood by the skilled artisan and concluded that the metal islands in Kuwahara
`
`would be in an adhesive based on the facts. (See, e.g., Ex. 1017 at ¶¶ 50-58; Ex.
`
`1018 at ¶¶ 7, 30.) This factual analysis establishes anticipation regardless of
`
`whether or not Dr. Iezzi properly stated the law in his declarations. In other words,
`
`his legal statements do not change the facts that the metal islands of Kuwahara are
`
`in the adhesive.
`
`Patent Owner’s argument thus boils down to the weight that should be
`
`afforded to Dr. Iezzi’s testimony. Such a challenge is untimely. A motion to
`
`exclude is not an opportunity to file a sur-reply on the sufficiency of the evidence.
`
`See Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., CBM2012-00002,
`
`Final Written Decision (Paper 66) at 61-62. That ship has long sailed for Patent
`
`Owner.
`
`Patent Owner had the ability to cross-examine Dr. Iezzi as to his statements
`
`in his First Declaration and to present that testimony in its Response. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii). Patent Owner did not do so. After Petitioner submitted
`
`Dr. Iezzi’s Second Declaration, Patent Owner again had the ability to cross-
`
`la-1237725
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00149
`
`examine him as a reply declarant and, if necessary, move to submit cross-
`
`examination observations. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii); see also CBS
`
`Interactive Inc. et al. v. Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC et al., IPR2013-00033,
`
`Order (Paper 85) at 2-3. Once again, Patent Owner did not. Thus, having
`
`repeatedly failed to utilize its right to cross-examine Dr. Iezzi and to present such
`
`testimony, Patent Owner should not be afforded a sur-reply to challenge the
`
`sufficiency of Dr. Iezzi’s testimony.
`
`Indeed, Petitioner respectfully submits that Patent Owner’s Motion is
`
`sprinkled throughout with improper statements about the sufficiency of the
`
`evidence, including Dr. Iezzi’s testimony. These arguments have turned the
`
`Motion into an improper sur-reply.
`
`B.
`
`There Is No “New Rejection” In The Second Iezzi Declaration
`
`Patent Owner also contends that the Second Iezzi Declaration includes a
`
`“new rejection” based on a spacing of 5000 Angstroms and should be excluded.
`
`(Motion at 11.) This argument is simply a re-hash of Patent Owner’s flawed “new
`
`rejection” argument for the Reply. In his Declaration, Dr. Iezzi noted that
`
`Kuwahara discloses a spacing range “between 100 and 5000 Å.” (Ex. 1018 at ¶
`
`12; Ex. 1007 at 4:6-7.) Given this disclosure, Dr. Iezzi explained that one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would not have understood Kuwahara as limited to a
`
`la-1237725
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00149
`
`spacing of 500 Angstroms. (Id.) This understanding was to rebut Patent Owner’s
`
`attempt to limit Kuwahara to a single exemplary spacing as discussed above.
`
`C. There Was No Objection To The Accompanying Exhibits
`
`Patent Owner’s challenge to the accompanying Exhibits of the Second Iezzi
`
`Declaration is improper. In its statement of requested relief, Patent Owner seeks to
`
`exclude the Exhibits. (Motion at 1.) However, at least one of the Exhibits – a
`
`book on organic coatings by Wick et al. (Ex. 1018; App. Ex. DD) – was previously
`
`cited in Dr. Iezzi’s First Declaration with the Petition. (Ex. 1017, ¶¶ 89, 92; App.
`
`Ex. H.) Patent Owner never objected to it. Indeed, Patent Owner never expressly
`
`objected to the Exhibits even in its December 6, 2013 Objection after Petitioner’s
`
`Reply. (Ex. 2003.) And it certainly did not object to the Exhibits as “either
`
`undated, not authenticated or dated long after the filing date” of the '138 patent as
`
`Patent Owner does now. (Motion at 10-11.)
`
`Moreover, Patent Owner does not even bother to separately address the
`
`various exhibits. For example, some of the exhibits are dated well before the filing
`
`date of the '138 patent and thus could not possibly be “dated long after the filing
`
`date” of the '138 patent.
`
`Given that Patent Owner has not identified where the objection as to the
`
`Exhibits was timely made nor addressed the objection to the exhibits in order, the
`
`la-1237725
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00149
`
`motion should be denied as to them. See Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive
`
`Casualty Ins. Co., CBM2012-00002, Final Written Decision (Paper 66) at 61.
`
`D. The New Objection To The Exhibits Is Without Merit
`
`Even if the new objection to the accompanying Exhibits is to be considered,
`
`it is without merit. All of the accompanying Exhibits are dated. None of the
`
`Exhibits are “undated” as Patent Owner claims.
`
`Patent Owner’s assertion that the Exhibits are “unauthenticated” is hard to
`
`understand. All of the Exhibits are from textbooks or known journal articles.
`
`Every Exhibit was provided with a copyright page or some designation in the
`
`document of its publication. Dr. Iezzi also stated that he had “no reason to doubt
`
`that the printed publications were published on the dates indicated on the printed
`
`publications.” (Ex. 1018 at ¶ 7.)
`
`Patent Owner also challenges the Exhibits as dated after the filing date of the
`
`'138 patent. Only four exhibits – App. Exs. AA, DD, EE and GG – are dated 2000
`
`or later. Dr. Iezzi merely cited these Exhibits to support his statements regarding
`
`the knowledge of the skilled artisan and well-known equations or definitions,
`
`which is legally appropriate. See, e.g., In re Wilson, 311 F.2d 266, 268-269
`
`(CCPA 1962). For example, App. Ex. DD – a book on organic coatings by Wick
`
`et al., which was used in the Petition as well – was cited for well-known surface
`
`tension facts. (Ex. 1018 at ¶¶ 22-23.)
`
`la-1237725
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00149
`
`Moreover, as discussed above, Patent Owner did not take advantage of its
`
`opportunities to cross-examine Dr. Iezzi as to the authentication and import of the
`
`Exhibits and the statement of facts which the Exhibits support. (Reply at 3-4.) It
`
`should now bear the consequences of those decisions, especially when the
`
`objection to the Exhibits was not even made. Otherwise, Patent Owner would be
`
`afforded an improper sur-reply at this stage.
`
`V.
`
`PATENT OWNER’S CLAIMS OF PREJUDICE ARE MISPLACED
`
`Patent Owner asserts that it was “ambushed” and “significantly prejudiced.”
`
`(Motion at 11-14.) Patent Owner’s shrill claims are misplaced.
`
`The inter partes review framework envisions rebuttal, because a petitioner
`
`cannot guess in advance all the arguments to be raised by a patent owner. This
`
`proceeding is a good example. Petitioner asserted five grounds of rejection based
`
`on Kuwahara for 21 claims and submitted a declaration by Dr. Iezzi. Patent Owner
`
`responded to this entire package by plucking one sentence in Dr. Iezzi’s
`
`declaration and concocting attorney argument deficiencies about Kuwahara based
`
`on that sentence. Even though Patent Owner wishes for Petitioner to remain silent,
`
`the framework allows Petitioner to respond. Petitioner addressed the attorney
`
`arguments and – unlike the Patent Owner throughout this proceeding – supported
`
`its arguments with testimony. This is not an ambush, but rather a means to ensure
`
`a fair process for a petitioner.
`
`la-1237725
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00149
`
`Indeed, as the Board recently held, “[t]here is a strong public policy for
`
`making all information filed in a non-jury, quasi-judicial administrative proceeding
`
`available to the public, especially in a inter partes review which determines the
`
`patentability of a claim in an issued patent . . . . [I]t is better to have a complete
`
`record of the evidence submitted by the parties than to exclude particular pieces.”
`
`Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., CBM2012-00002, Final
`
`Written Decision (Paper 66) at 60-61.
`
`Finally, Patent Owner states that it “has no opportunity to now respond to
`
`these new arguments and evidence, and to this new ground of rejection.” (Motion
`
`at 13.) Patent Owner had the opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Iezzi as a reply
`
`declarant and, if necessary, submit observations on the cross-examination. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(ii); Scheduling Order (Paper 9) at 4. It did not take advantage
`
`of that opportunity. Thus, Patent Owner’s claims of “prejudice” are misplaced. It
`
`has only itself to blame.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`For at least the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude should
`
`be denied. The Motion did not list any material facts and, to the extent Patent
`
`Owner asserts that material facts were provided, Petitioner denies them. Finally,
`
`Petitioners petitions for any required relief and authorizes the Board or the
`
`Commissioner to charge the cost of such petitions and/or other fees due in
`
`la-1237725
`
`14
`
`
`
`connection with the filing of this document to Deposit Account No. 03-1952
`
`IPR2013-00149
`
`referencing 673842800100.
`
`
`
`Dated: February 5, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By__/Mehran Arjomand/_______
`Mehran Arjomand, Reg. 48, 231
`Jonathan Bockman, Reg. 45,640
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`707 Wilshire Boulevard
`Los Angeles, California 90017
`(213) 892-5630
`
`
`
`
`
`
`la-1237725
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00149
`
`
`
`Certificate of Service (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4))
`
`I hereby certify that the attached Petitioner Wavelock Advanced Technology
`
`Co., Ltd.’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude was served as of the
`
`below date on the Patent Owner via e-mail (by consent) to
`
`patrick.doody@pillsburylaw.com.
`
`
`Dated: February 5, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__/Mehran Arjomand/_____
`Mehran Arjomand
`
`
`
`la-1237725
`
`16
`
`