throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
` ____________
`
`RELOADED GAMES, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PARALLEL NETWORKS LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00136
`Patent 7,188,145
` ____________
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.120
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00136
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................... 2
`I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`II. SMITH IN VIEW OF INOHARA RENDERS CLAIMS 1, 2-4, 6, 7, 10, 16-18,
`20, 21, 24, 35 AND 36 OBVIOUS ..................................................................... 1
`A. SMITH IN VIEW OF INOHARA TEACH “ALLOWING A CLIENT TO JOIN THE CACHE
`COMMUNITY” (CLAIM 1) .............................................................................................. 1
`1. Inohara’s Disclosed Server Group is a “Community” ................................................. 2
`2. Inohara’s Disclosed Server Group “Allows” a Client to Join a Community ................ 6
`3. The Combination of Smith and Inohara Teach Allowing and Denying Entry of
`Servers to a Proxy Server Array (i.e., Community) .................................................... 9
`4. The Record Evidence Supports that Smith and Inohara are Properly Combined to
`Render Claim 1 Obvious ....................................................................................... 11
`III. SMITH IN VIEW OF INOHARA RENDERS CLAIMS 29-34 AND 36
`OBVIOUS ..................................................................................................... 12
`IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`INTRODUCTION
`Taking a similar tactic to its response in the related proceeding (IPR2014-00139),
`
`IPR2014-00136
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`
`
`I.
`
`PO is improperly attempting to create limitations through the terms “allowing” and
`
`“community” that are not found in the claims or required by the Board’s construction.
`
`The PO strains the Board’s constructions to avoid the prior art. A proper application of
`
`the Board’s claim construction – rendered according to the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation standard – to the combination of Smith and Inohara confirms that the
`
`Challenged Claims are obvious.
`
`II.
`
`SMITH IN VIEW OF INOHARA RENDERS CLAIMS 1, 2-4, 6, 7, 10, 15,
`16-18, 20, 21, 24, 35 AND 36 OBVIOUS1
`A.
`Smith in view of Inohara Teach “Allowing a Client to Join the Cache
`Community” (Claim 1)
`
`
`
` 1
`
`
`
`While the Board instituted the present proceeding on dependent claims 2-4, 6,
`
`7, 10, 16-18, 20, 21 and 24, it expressly found that Inohara teaches “allowing” or
`
`“allow” as claimed by independent claims 1 and 15, which were not instituted because
`
`it was not specifically requested by Petitioner. Petitioner respectfully requests that the
`
`Board exercise its discretion in any final decision to cancel independent claims 1 and
`
`15. First, in the event that the Board invalidates claims 2 and 16, it will necessarily
`
`have found that all limitations of the independent claims are present in the prior art.
`
`Second, PO will not be prejudiced by such a finding because the “allowing” and
`
`“allow” limitations of claims 1 and 15 are the premise of PO’s entire argument.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00136
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`
`PO’s response on the combination of Smith in view of Inohara is somewhat
`
`confusing. It appears that PO contends that Inohara does not teach a “community”
`
`under PO’s strained interpretation of that term, and because of that strained
`
`interpretation does not teach “allowing.” This is confusing because PO does not
`
`dispute that Smith teaches a “community.” And, the Board has already found that
`
`Inohara teaches “allowing” as required by claim 1. Paper 15 [Institution Decision] at
`
`30.
`
`Nonetheless, PO appears to be melding the two concepts into a single concept
`
`by testing Inohara against the entire phrase “allowing a client to join the cache
`
`community.” This is a meritless argument by PO. A proper application of the
`
`Board’s constructions of “allowing” and “community,” demonstrates that Inohara
`
`meets PO’s challenge head-on.
`
`1.
`
`Inohara’s Disclosed Server Group is a “Community”
`
`In its Decision to Institute, the Board construed “community” to mean “similarity
`
`or identity” or “sharing, participation, and fellowship.” Paper 15 [Institution Decision] at
`
`13. The Board also correctly found that Inohara’s disclosed server group is a
`
`“community” and rejected PO’s contention that Inohara’s server group is not a “group
`
`of peers that cooperate to cache data.” Id. at 28-31. Now, PO argues that the
`
`“community” of Inohara is “a single distributed cache hierarchy” rather than the
`
`individual server groups and, therefore, a server is not “allowed” to join the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00136
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`
`“community” because it cannot be denied entry to the hierarchy, only to a server group.
`
`Paper 23 [PO Response] at 4-18.
`
`The individual server groups of Inohara are each a “community” under the
`
`Board’s construction. Namely, Inohara discloses that “[o]ne [server] group includes a
`
`MAX servers or members (MAX: a fixed number) at the largest.” Ex. 1007, Inohara at
`
`7:47-49. Each member of a server group participates in that group and in order to
`
`become a member of a group, the server that “wants to newly participate in a group”
`
`issues a “group participation message 300.” Ex. 1007, Inohara at 8:1-2 (emphasis added).
`
`The leader of the group determines whether a “server [is] permitted to participate in a
`
`group.” Id. at 8:24-26 (emphasis added); also 10:51-11:17. Once part of the group, each
`
`member of the group has a common similarity or identity and “participates” in that
`
`group. Namely, each member’s “group table” has the same list of a leader server ID and
`
`group member IDs, i.e., the servers of a group have “similarity” in their group tables and
`
`share information with other servers in the group. Id. at Fig. 2, 10:19-30, 7:59-61; see also
`
`id. at 11:32-37 (“In subsequent step 519, a group update message 320 having the server
`
`ID of the server 10 stored in new leader server ID 321 is transmitted to the new server
`
`ID 301 and a group update message having the new server ID 301 stored in new leader
`
`server ID 321 is transmitted to the new server ID’s 3011, 30111, ….”). On the other hand,
`
`when a server is not permitted to join a group, “a new group is formed.” Id. at 11:8-19.
`
`To suggest that a first group of servers (e.g., servers 2321, 23211, etc. in Inohara), which
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00136
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`
`have the same group leader (e.g., server 232), are not “participating” in a “community,”
`
`to which a second group of servers (e.g., servers 301, 3011, 30111, etc.) are denied the
`
`opportunity to join, is not consistent with the broadest reasonable interpretation of a
`
`“community.” Each server group of Inohara is a community because the members of
`
`each server group have similarity or identity and each server group is established for the
`
`purpose of “sharing, participation, and fellowship.”
`
`Further, Inohara discloses that a cache directory is updated and shared among
`
`members of the group. Id. at 15:19-21 (“In order to update the cache directory 108 of the
`
`group, the server 10 acquiring the new information transmits a host URL message 370 to
`
`members of the group.”)(emphasis added); also id. at 18:24-27. Inohara also discloses a
`
`process for making sure that all copies of cached information in a group are not
`
`“revoked” at the same time. Id. at 17:49-55. Nowhere, however, does Inohara disclose
`
`that the cache directories are shared among members of other groups in the hierarchy. In
`
`terms of retrieving shared content, there is no appreciable difference between the
`
`“community” in the preferred embodiment of the ‘145 Patent and Inohara. Compare Ex.
`
`1001, ‘145 Patent at 14:20-32 (determining whether requested content is available within
`
`the “community” by searching a location table) with Ex. 1007, Inohara at 14:53-15:24
`
`(determining whether requested content is available within the group, i.e., “community,”
`
`by searching a cache directory).
`
`
`
`
`
`Neither the ‘145 Patent nor the Board’s construction preclude a situation where a
`
`4
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00136
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`
`member of one community cannot also be a member of a hierarchy of communities.
`
`Tellingly, Patent Owner does not cite to the intrinsic record to support its position. In
`
`fact, the ‘145 Patent is lacking any disclosure limiting clients to only being a member of a
`
`single community. Rather, the ‘145 Patent discloses that a community “may be formed
`
`by dynamically seeking out other active instances of cache module” where “based on a
`
`set of performance heuristics, clients 12 are bonded together under favorable
`
`conditions.” Ex. 1001, ‘145 Patent at 13:22-26.
`
`Nor does the Board’s construction of “community” require membership only in a
`
`single community. Using PO’s example (see Paper 23 [PO Response] at 16-17), a house in
`
`a subdivision/neighborhood may be a member of the subdivision/neighborhood
`
`community, such that the house has similarity or identity with other houses in that
`
`subdivision/neighborhood. The house may also be a member of the broader city-wide
`
`community, such that the house has similarity or identity with other houses in that city.
`
`The city may be a member of the broader county-wide community, and so on. Thus, the
`
`broadest reasonable construction – or any reasonable construction – of “community” is
`
`not limited as PO suggests.
`
`
`
`Further, although Inohara contemplates a hierarchy of groups, where each
`
`member of the group is aware of other proximate server groups by virtue of information
`
`stored in a “group table,” Inohara also discloses that, on startup, servers initially form
`
`“one group.” Ex. 1007, Inohara at 9:17-41. Contrary to PO’s numerous and lengthy
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00136
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`
`assertions, Inohara expressly discloses a situation where there is only one group in the
`
`hierarchy, and prior to reaching the maximum number of members for the initial group,
`
`each server that attempts to join the group will be “allowed” entry, with a possibility of
`
`being “denied.” Id. In this scenario, the initial server group can be seen as a “cache
`
`community” even under PO’s overly narrow interpretation, “because it would [] provide
`
`access to all requests for cached content.” Paper 23 [PO Response at 16].
`
`Finally, PO relies on its expert, Dr. Mitchell Thornton, to support its
`
`interpretation of Inohara. However, Dr. Thornton’s report is notable for a few
`
`reasons. First, he does not at any point acknowledge the Board’s construction of
`
`“allowing” or “community.” Failing to even recognize the Board’s construction, he
`
`does not state why Inohara does not meet the Board’s construction. Second, Dr.
`
`Thornton does not specifically reference any portion of the ‘145 Patent. Dr.
`
`Thornton’s opinions are entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether the server groups
`
`of Inohara have “similarity or identity” and “[s]haring, participation, and fellowship.”
`
`He simply did not discuss these actual constructions.
`
`The Board should, once again, reject PO’s attempt to inject an inappropriate
`
`limitation into the term “community.” Under the broadest reasonable construction,
`
`Inohara, and Smith for that matter, teach a “community.”
`
`2.
`
`Inohara’s Disclosed Server Group “Allows” a Client to Join a
`Community
`
`In its Decision to Institute, the Board construed “allow” and “allowing” as
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00136
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`
`meaning “to permit the presence of.” Paper 15 [Institution Decision] at 14. The
`
`Board correctly found that Inohara’s disclosed server groups “permit the presence of”
`
`new servers in the group. Id. at 30. PO contends that, in Inohara, “even if an
`
`individual server group could be construed as a cache community, there is no
`
`mechanism in Inohara to deny entry to a new server into such a group.” See Paper 23
`
`[PO Response] at 19. The Board has already properly rejected this same argument.
`
`Paper 15 [Institution Decision] at 30.
`
`PO appears to contend that “allowing a client to join the community” as
`
`recited in claim 1 also requires “denying” a client attempting to join the community.
`
`As the Board already determined, “[i]f the sum of the number of old members and
`
`new members in Inohara is smaller than MAX, Inohara would permit the presence of
`
`the server requesting to join.” Paper 15 [Institution Decision] at 30. When the leader
`
`of a group determines that the group is at maximum capacity, instead of allowing a
`
`new client to join the group, the client requesting to participate in the group must
`
`form a new group. Ex. 1007, Inohara at 11:18-37; see also id. at 11:39-42 (“[I]t becomes
`
`possible to make hierarchization corresponding to a dynamic increase in the number
`
`of servers while the maximum number of members in each group is kept equal to or
`
`smaller than MAX.”). Not allowing a client into the group is denying its ability to
`
`join.
`
` The
`
`‘145 Patent discloses the nearly
`
`identical process. Namely, the
`
`determination of whether to allow a new client to join an existing community may be
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00136
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`
`based on “whether the addition of client 404 would exceed the maximum number of
`
`members 412 that may be in community 402.” Ex. 1001, ‘145 Patent at 20:53-55.
`
`Where a client is denied entry, the client “nominates itself as a master” and “creates a
`
`new cache community.” Id. at 24:23-40; see also id. at 13:33-36 (“If no communities 100
`
`are found or found communities 100 do not allow cache module 26, then cache
`
`module 26 may attempt to start its own cache community.”), Fig. 9.
`
`The caching architecture of Inohara is not nearly as different, as Patent Owner
`
`would have this Panel believe, from the architecture described by the ‘145 Patent. In
`
`the ‘145 Patent, one or more cache servers include an “administration module” that
`
`stores a list of communities that are close to the one or more cache servers “in terms
`
`of network distance,” and may impose an upper and/or a lower limit on the network
`
`distance from the server that may be listed. Ex. 1001, ‘145 Patent at 19:33-20:10.
`
`Similar to the “master” and “members” of a community, the one or more cache
`
`servers are nothing more than a general-purpose computer programmed to perform
`
`certain functions. Id. As discussed above, when a server is “denied” entry into one
`
`community, it may form its own community, which will be listed on the community
`
`list of one or more cache servers. Id. at 24:23-45. Accordingly, the caching architecture
`
`of the ‘145 Patent includes a hierarchy of communities organized based on network
`
`distance. Similarly, Inohara discloses that each server in the hierarchy includes a
`
`“group table” with a list of proximate servers and a “server status table” with a
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`measured communication speed to each proximate server. Ex. 1007, Inohara at 7:31-
`
`IPR2014-00136
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`
`
`64, 19:33-20:19. A new server determines which group to join based on the measured
`
`communication speed (i.e., network distance). Id. at 10:13-19. As previously discussed,
`
`when the leader of a group determines that the group is at maximum capacity, instead
`
`of allowing a new client to join the group, the client requesting to participate in the
`
`group must form a new group. Ex. 1007, Inohara at 11:18-37. In both the ‘145 Patent
`
`and Inohara a server that is denied entry into a specific group/community still
`
`participates in the overall “caching architecture.”
`
`Finally, Patent Owner’s contention that a communication denying entrance
`
`into the server group is a requirement of claim 1 (Paper 23 [PO Response] at 19
`
`(“There is no communication sent in Inohara to a new server indicating that entrance
`
`to the server group has been denied.”) is clearly controverted by the express
`
`disclosures of ‘145 Patent. Ex. 1001, ‘145 Patent at 25:10-13 (“If client 404 is not
`
`allowed to join community 402, then the … join request is ignored by master 410”);
`
`see also id. at 21:22-27. Inohara teaches “allowing” a client to join a “community.”
`
`3.
`
`The Combination of Smith and Inohara Teach Allowing and
`Denying Entry of Servers to a Proxy Server Array (i.e.,
`Community)
`
`Looking now to the combination of Smith and Inohara, PO does not dispute
`
`that the proxy server array of Smith is a cache “community” within the meaning of
`
`claim 1, as construed by the Board. Smith discloses a distributed data caching scheme
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00136
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`
`utilizing an array of proxy servers (i.e., community). Ex. 1006, Smith at 1:5-15; Fig. 2.
`
`Smith also teaches sharing array membership information between proxy servers in
`
`the array so that all proxy servers know where object data resides. Id. at 4:31-36. A
`
`membership list is updated upon allowing the addition or removal of members to the
`
`array. Id. at 4:67-5:6, 18:49-53. When a proxy server is added or removed, all of the
`
`remaining proxy servers will be assigned fewer or additional data objects to store in
`
`their local cache. Id. at 12:50-62. PO argues, “[i]nstead of including any discussion on
`
`how a proxy server is admitted into the described proxy server array, Smith simply
`
`describes a new proxy server as having been added to the array.” See Paper 23 [PO
`
`Response] at 4 (citing Ex. 1006, Smith at 18:54-55). Again, this argument is confusing
`
`because the instituted grounds rely on Inohara for teaching a specific mechanism for
`
`“allowing” a new server in a server group, not Smith.
`
`
`
`Like Smith and the ‘145 Patent, Inohara describes a distributed caching
`
`infrastructure and recognizes that rapid growth of internet usage has created increased
`
`response times for users. Ex. 1007, Inohara at Abstract, 3:4-15; Ex. 1006, Smith at 2:18-
`
`24. As with Smith, Inohara allows for the addition of servers to form a group of
`
`servers and the groups, in turn, make up the large-scale cache. Ex. 1007, Inohara at
`
`9:16-10:36. Inohara expressly discloses permitting the presence of or “allowing” a
`
`server to join a server group. Specifically, Inohara discloses that the group “leader”
`
`receives a group participation message and determines whether to permit the presence
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00136
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`
`of a server in the group based on whether the group has reached a maximum number
`
`of members. See, e.g., id. at 10:38-11:3, 8:1-18, 8:25-27. Inohara’s disclosure of
`
`determining whether to permit the presence of a client in a community based on
`
`whether the sum of the old and new members is smaller than a maximum number
`
`(“MAX”) is expressly contemplated by the ‘145 patent. Compare Ex. 1007, Inohara at
`
`10:60-66 with Ex. 1001, ‘145 Patent at 20:53-55.
`
`As noted by the Board, “Smith describes that ‘many different implementations
`
`may be envisioned by those skilled in the art that will allow a proxy server to be added
`
`to the proxy server array.’” See Paper 15 [Institution Decision] at 24 (citing Ex. 1006,
`
`Smith at 18:51-53). Inohara discloses one such implementation and teaches that it
`
`would be useful to allow cache servers the ability to search for and join cache groups
`
`so as to increase the effectiveness of the caching scheme. Ex. 1007, Inohara at 3:48-58.
`
`Inohara’s “allowing” is combined with Smith’s “community” to satisfy the Challenged
`
`Claims.
`
`4.
`
`The Record Evidence Supports that Smith and Inohara are
`Properly Combined to Render Claim 1 Obvious
`
`In a last-ditch attempt to rescue some of its claims, PO argues that “a forced
`
`combination with Smith renders Inohara inoperative and therefore Inohara and Smith
`
`are non-combinable.” Paper 23 [PO Response] at 22. PO’s assertion is an offshoot of
`
`PO’s overly narrow claim interpretations and reading of Inohara which, as discussed
`
`above, should be rejected. It should also be rejected because PO fails to recognize
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00136
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`
`that it is the “community” of Smith that is being modified in the proposed
`
`combination, not the “community” of Inohara. On the actual proposed combination,
`
`the record is clear. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized
`
`that the distributed caching scheme described in Smith could have been combined
`
`with Inohara to include the function of allowing proxy servers the ability to search for
`
`and join existing proxy server arrays (i.e., communities). Ex. 1002, Danzig Declaration,
`
`at ¶ 17. Adding the software capabilities for transmitting group participation
`
`messages, determining whether the addition of a new server would cause the group to
`
`exceed the maximum number of members, and permitting the new server to join the
`
`group based on that determination as described in Inohara to the distributed caching
`
`system of Smith is well within the capabilities of one of skill in the art. Id. Upon
`
`reading the disclosure of Inohara, a skilled artisan would have recognized that such a
`
`modification would increase the effectiveness and performance of the system
`
`described in Smith due to the resulting large-scale cache that extends over a plurality
`
`of servers. Id. Therefore, the evidence of record demonstrates that one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the various teachings of Smith
`
`and Inohara to arrive at the purported invention of claim 1.
`
`III. SMITH IN VIEW OF INOHARA RENDERS CLAIMS 29-34 AND 36
`OBVIOUS
`
`Continuing with its misconstruction of “community,” PO asserts that Smith in
`
`view of Inohara does not teach claims 29-34 and 36. Paper 23 [PO Response] at 26-
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00136
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`
`28. PO argues that Inohara does not teach a list of communities because it only
`
`involves a single community and further argues that a server group is assigned, and
`
`not selected, by the server requesting to join. This flawed reasoning is discussed
`
`above and will not be repeated here. PO additionally argues that a server is “assigned”
`
`to a group and, therefore, does not meet the “selecting” limitation. This too is
`
`incorrect. As noted in the Petition, a joining server in Inohara sends a group
`
`participation message to “the most proximate server in a group of servers.” Ex. 1007,
`
`Inohara at 10:13-17; see also id. at claim 2 (“a processing for which said first computer
`
`selects a second computer in said table”). The most proximate server is determined as
`
`the server with the maximum value of the division of throughput by latency. Id. This
`
`is not a random assignment of a server; rather, it is a calculated decision of which
`
`server group to join. The process for selecting the most proximate server is akin to
`
`the ‘145 Patent’s preferred embodiment for determining the “best fit” community
`
`based on the roundtrip transmission time. Compare Ex. 1001, ‘145 Patent at 23:54-62,
`
`19:58-20:7 with Ex. 1007, Inohara at 10:13-17. Therefore, Inohara clearly teaches the
`
`“selecting” limitation. As PO does not raise any other issues with respect to these
`
`claims, the Board should affirm its initial finding and invalidate claims 29-34 and 36.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Based on the foregoing, the Board should invalidate claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 15-18,
`
`20, 21, 24 and 29-36 of the ‘145 Patent as obvious over Smith in view of Inohara.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: October 31, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00136
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`BY: /Eric A. Buresh
`
`Eric A. Buresh, Reg. No. 50,394
`Mark C. Lang, Reg. No. 55,356
`6201 College Blvd., Suite 300
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`P: (913) 777-5600
`F: (913) 777-5601
`eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`mark.lang@eriseip.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONERS
`
`14
`
`

`
`IPR2014-00136
`U.S. Patent No. 7,188,145
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PATENT OWNER
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.105(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(b), the undersigned certifies that on
`October 31, 2014, a complete and entire copy of Petitioner’s Reply was served by
`electronic mail to Counsel for Patent Owner at the e-mail addresses identified below:
`
`Darren Collins
`Robert Hilton
`Aaron Pickell
`McGuire Woods
`2000 McKinney Ave., Suite 1400
`Dallas, TX 75201
`dwcollins@mcguirewoods.com
`rhilton@mcguirewoods.com
`apickell@mcguirewoods.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`BY:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Eric A. Buresh/
`Eric A. Buresh, Reg. No. 50,394
`Mark C. Lang, Reg. No. 55,356
`6201 College Blvd., Suite 300
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`P: (913) 777-5600
`F: (913) 777-5601
`eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`mark.lang@eriseip.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket