`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`_____________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_____________________
`
`
`
`WAVEMARKET, INC. D/B/A LOCATION LABS
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CALLWAVE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`
`_____________________
`
`Case IPR2014-00199
`Patent 6,771,970
`_____________________
`
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner's Motion for Additional Discovery
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ - 1 -
`
`II. MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE ............................................................... - 2 -
`
`III. PATENT OWNER SEEKS DISCOVERY FOR AN ISSUE THAT
`HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED – PATENT OWNER'S LACK
`OF DILIGENCE .......................................................................................... - 2 -
`
`IV. THE MOTION AND THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY EXCEEDS
`THE SCOPE OF WHAT WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD ......... - 4 -
`
`V. THE PATENT OWNER BEARS THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING
`THAT THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY IS "NECESSARY IN THE
`INTEREST OF JUSTICE" ............................................................................. - 6 -
`
`VI. THE GARMIN FACTORS STRONGLY WEIGH AGAINST A
`FINDING THAT ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY IS IN THE
`INTEREST OF JUSTICE ............................................................................... - 7 -
`
`A. The Patent Owner Offers Nothing More Than Speculation That
`Something Useful Will be Found ................................................................ - 7 -
`
`B. The Patent Owner Has The Ability to Obtain the Information by
`Other Means................................................................................................. - 9 -
`
`C. The Requested Discovery Is Overly Burdensome .................................... - 11 -
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... - 15 -
`
`APPENDIX I ......................................................................................................... A-1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner chose to make the argument in its Preliminary Response
`
`that the Petition was defective for failure to identify the real party-in-interest.
`
`Instead of seeking discovery on the issue in a timely fashion, prior to the filing of
`
`its Preliminary Response, the Patent Owner chose to roll the dice and based its
`
`argument on nothing more than mere speculation. The Board correctly recognized
`
`the deficiencies of the Patent Owner's argument, and rejected it. Ignoring the
`
`guidance offered by the Office regarding the timing of such discovery and the
`
`limitations and guidance provided by the Board in its Order authorizing the Motion
`
`(i.e., authorizing a Motion for discovery only on the issue of real party-in-interest),
`
`the Patent Owner now attempts to resurrect its failed position after-the-fact by
`
`seeking untimely, overly broad and excessively burdensome discovery. The Board
`
`should reject the Patent Owner’s Motion.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On December 12, 2012 the Patent Owner filed multiple lawsuits in the
`
`District Court alleging infringement of US 6,771,970 ("the '970 patent). The
`
`pending litigation names, inter alia, AT&T, T-Mobile and Sprint as defendants
`
`("the Defendants")1. To date, the Petitioner (Location Labs, Inc.) has not been
`
`named as a defendant or served with a complaint for patent infringement in
`
`
`1 See, Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2014-00199, Paper No. 1, Section I.B.
`
`(Related Matters): hereafter "District Court Actions."
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`connection with the '970 patent. On November 27, 2013, less than one year from
`
`the date that the Defendants were served with a complaint for infringement of
`
`the '970 patent, Petitioner filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review of the '970
`
`patent, and by its Decision of May 9, 2014, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`("Board") instituted the current proceedings. The Petition identifies the real party-
`
`in interest, Location Labs, Inc., and affirmatively states on the record that "no
`
`party exercised control or could exercise control over Location Labs' participation
`
`in this proceeding, the filing of this petition, or the conduct of any ensuing trial."
`
`II.
`
`
`
`MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE
`
`The Patent Owner's Motion of July 16, 2014 (Paper No. 31; "Motion")
`
`contains no unambiguous assertions of material facts. To the extent that the
`
`statements made by the Patent Owner in section II. ("Factual Background") could
`
`be construed as assertions of "material fact," Petitioner denies the statements made
`
`therein, for at least the reasons to be explained below.
`
`III.
`
`PATENT OWNER SEEKS DISCOVERY FOR AN ISSUE THAT HAS
`ALREADY BEEN DECIDED – PATENT OWNER'S LACK OF
`DILIGENCE
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner argued in its Preliminary Response filed March 17, 2014
`
`(Paper No. 12) that the petition should be rejected pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.8(b)(1) "because Petitioner has failed to identify each of the real parties in
`
`interest." Preliminary Response, pp. 1-4. In its Decision instituting inter partes
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`review dated May 9, 2014 (Paper No. 18; "Decision"), the Board expressly
`
`considered this argument, and rejected it. Decision, pp.27-29. The Patent Owner
`
`did not file a timely request for rehearing challenging the Board's Decision in this
`
`regard. Thus, the issue of the Petition's compliance with the identification of the
`
`real party-in-interest requirement has already been decided as part of the process of
`
`the decision to institute trial. 35 U.S.C. § 314(d); 37 C.F.R. § 42.71. The
`
`"evidence" cited in the Motion merely alleges the existence of documents that the
`
`Patent Owner hopes may bolster their position, but is no more persuasive that the
`
`reasons offered in the Preliminary Response. Therefore, the Board should deny the
`
`Motion. See, IPR2013-00028, Paper No. 31, p. 3 (Exhibit 1014).
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner should have sought this discovery before its Preliminary
`
`Response. 77 Fed. Reg. 48680, 48695 (8/14/2012) ("The Office agrees with the
`
`comments that such a [identification of the real-party-in-interest] challenge should
`
`be brought before or with the filing of the patent owner preliminary response.
`
`During that period, the patent owner may seek authorization to take pertinent
`
`discovery. After the patent owner preliminary response, the likelihood of granting
`
`an authorization for additional discovery related to the challenge before institution
`
`will decrease because the Board is required to determine whether to institute a
`
`review within three months from the filing of the patent owner preliminary
`
`response"; emphasis added).
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner's lack of diligence in pursuing the requested discovery
`
`further weighs against granting the Motion. The Patent Owner waited until the
`
`initial conference call (June 13, 2014) to request authorization to file its Motion.
`
`Three days later the Board granted authorization. The Patent Owner then waited
`
`an additional month (i.e., one-third of its allotted time for the preparation of a
`
`patent owner response) before filing its Motion on July 16, 2014. The Patent
`
`Owner’s response is due August 11, 2014. Thus, even if the Board is able to
`
`render a decision granting the Motion prior to the Patent Owner response deadline,
`
`it would be impossible for the Petitioner to respond to far-ranging discovery
`
`requested by the Patent Owner in time for it to be used in its August 11, 2014
`
`response. Thus, no practical purpose can be served by granting the Motion and
`
`doing so would prejudice the Petitioner.
`
`IV.
`
`THE MOTION AND THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY EXCEEDS
`THE SCOPE OF WHAT WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD
`
`
`
`The only reason that could possibly justify the requested discovery is a
`
`defense based upon failure to name the real party-in-interest in the Petition. 35
`
`U.S.C. § 312(a)(2). The issue of "privity" is of no consequence at this juncture.
`
`The Petition was filed less than one year after the service of a complaint for
`
`infringement of the '970 patent by the Defendants in the District Court Actions.
`
`Therefore, there is no issue of a bar under 35 U.S.C. §315 that could be based on a
`
`finding of privity between the Petitioner and the Defendants. Perhaps recognizing
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`this, the Board explicitly limited its Order of June 16, 2014 ("Order") authorizing
`
`the Motion for additional discovery directed solely to the issue of real party-in-
`
`interest:
`
`In view of the facts disclosed during the conference call, and the
`
`potential significance of a real party in interest not yet identified,
`
`Patent Owner is authorized to file a motion for additional discovery
`
`related to this relationship. However, this authorization does not
`
`mean that any such a motion will be granted.
`
`Order, p. 4; emphasis added.
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner ignores the Board's restriction on the permitted scope of
`
`its Motion and requested discovery.
`
`Patent Owner's limited requests are narrowly tailored and seek . . .
`
`materials concerning . . . the real party-in-interest/privy issues in this
`
`case.
`
`Motion, p. 12; emphasis added.
`
`
`
`As noted in the Trial Practice Guide:
`
`The notion of 'privity' is more expansive, encompassing parties that
`
`do not necessarily need to be identified in the petition as a 'real
`
`party-in-interest.'
`
`77 Fed. Reg., 48756, 48759 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Therefore, it is quite clear that the Patent Owner seeks discovery on an issue
`
`that exceeds the authorization granted by the Board in its Order. For this reason
`
`alone, the Motion should be denied.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`V.
`
`THE PATENT OWNER BEARS THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING
`THAT THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY IS "NECESSARY IN THE
`INTEREST OF JUSTICE"
`
`
`
`Congress intended Inter Partes Review to be a quick and cost effective
`
`alternative to litigation. The additional discovery sought by the Patent Owner
`
`should only be permitted where such discovery is “necessary in the interest of
`
`justice.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5); 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2). IPR2013-00080, Paper
`
`18, p. 3 (Exhibit 1015). The Board must therefore be “conservative in its grants of
`
`discovery.” 154 Cong. Rec. S9988-89 (daily ed. Sept. 27, 2008)(statement of Sen.
`
`Kyl). The Board has previously explained in Garmin v. Cuzzo Speed2 that the
`
`following factors inform the analysis of whether the party requesting discovery has
`
`satisfied its burden: (1) Whether there exists more than a possibility and mere
`
`allegation of possibly finding something useful; (2) Whether the requested
`
`discovery seeks the other party's litigation positions or underlying bases therefor;
`
`(3) Whether the requesting party has the ability to generate equivalent information
`
`by other means; (4) Whether the instructions are easily understandable; and (5)
`
`Whether the requested discovery is overly burdensome. The burden of
`
`establishing the above-mentioned standard justifying additional discovery rests
`
`with the party requesting the discovery. Id.
`
`
`2 Garmin Int'l, Inc. v. Cuzzo Speed Techs. LLC, Case No. IPR2012-00001, Paper
`
`No. 26, pp. 6-7 (PTAB, March 5, 2013) (Exhibit 1016).
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`VI.
`
`THE GARMIN FACTORS STRONGLY WEIGH AGAINST A
`FINDING THAT ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY IS IN THE INTEREST
`OF JUSTICE
`
`A. The Patent Owner Offers Nothing More Than Speculation That
`Something Useful Will be Found
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner has clearly failed to establish, beyond mere speculation,
`
`that the requested discovery will contain any useful information. In order to
`
`establish that it is entitled to the requested discovery, the Patent Owner must
`
`demonstrate that it is already in possession of "a threshold amount of evidence or
`
`reasoning tending to show beyond speculation that something useful will be
`
`uncovered." IPR 2012-00001, Paper Number 26, p.6 (Exhibit 1016). It is noted
`
`that the term "useful" goes beyond traditional district court litigation thresholds of
`
`relevance and admissibility. Id., p.7. In particular, the Patent Owner has the
`
`burden of demonstrating that the requested discovery is "favorable in substantive
`
`value to a contention of the party moving for discovery." Id., p. 7.
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner alleges that the requested discovery is relevant to the
`
`issue of "privity," but fails to provide any explanation as to how a finding of
`
`"privity" between the Petitioner and Defendants is useful with respect to
`
`establishing any possible defense that could be raised in the Patent Owner's
`
`Response.
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner alleges that indemnification agreements and joint
`
`defense/common interest agreements exist between the Petitioner and the
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Defendants3, yet it fails to explain how such evidence is favorable in substantive
`
`value to the contention that the petition failed to name a real party-in-interest.
`
`
`
`The mere existence of an indemnification provision or agreement alone is
`
`insufficient to establish a more expansive concept of privity, much less the more
`
`narrowly defined relationship of a real party-in-interest:
`
`According to long-standing precedent, Bros, Inc. v. W.E. Grace Mfg.
`
`Co., 261 F.2d 428, 429 (5th Cir. 1958), when a patent holder sues a
`
`dealer, seller, or distributer of an accused product, as is the case at
`
`hand, indemnity payments and minor participation in a trial are not
`
`sufficient to establish privity between the non-party manufacturer of
`
`the accused device and the defendant parties (also citing I.T.S. Rubber
`
`Co. v. Essex Co., 272 U.S. 429 (1926); and Restatement, Judgment §
`
`84, comment e (1942)).
`
`IPR2013-00601, Paper Number 23, p. 7 (Exhibit 1017).
`
`
`
`Likewise, the existence of, or participation in, a joint defense group does not
`
`necessarily mean that the members of the group are real parties-in-interest, or for
`
`that matter privies. Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48760
`
`(August 14, 2012) ("If Party A is part of a Joint Defense Group with Party B in a
`
`patent infringement suit . . . Party A is not a 'real party-in-interest' . . . based solely
`
`on its participation in that Group.")
`
`3 See, e.g., Motion, p. 2 ("Indemnification and Joint Defense/Common Interest
`
`Agreements Likely Exist between Petitioner and Its Customers, AT&T, T-Mobile,
`
`and Sprint").
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`With regard to the issue of shared counsel between the Petitioner and
`
`Defendants, the Patent Owner alleges that the requested discovery is justified in
`
`order to support a finding of privity. Motion, p. 8. The Patent Owner provides no
`
`evidence or explanation as to how the mere fact that the Petitioner shares counsel
`
`with the Defendants demonstrates that the Defendants exercised control over the
`
`Petitioner, funded the proceedings, etc. As explicitly stated on the record in the
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review (section I. A.) under the obligations of candor
`
`imposed by the rules of practice,4 none of these defendants have exercised control
`
`over or directed the Petitioner in these proceedings. Under similar circumstances,
`
`the Board has found that such on-the-record assertions, coupled with a lack of
`
`evidence or persuasive reasoning that the requested discovery contains useful
`
`information, weighs in favor of denying a request for additional discovery.
`
`IPR2013-00028, Decision, Paper No. 31, p. 5 (Exhibit 1014).
`
`
`
`For at least the reasons explained above, the Patent Owner has failed to
`
`satisfy its obligation of demonstrating that the requested additional discovery is in
`
`the interest of justice.
`
`B.
`
`The Patent Owner Has The Ability to Obtain the Information by
`Other Means
`
`
`
`Not only does the Patent Owner have the ability to obtain information by
`
`other means, it previously chose to pursue alternative means for obtaining the same
`
`
`4 See, e.g., 37 C.F.R. § 11.18(b).
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`discovery requested in this proceeding, by requesting the same discovery from
`
`both the Defendants and Location Labs in the District Court Actions. The Patent
`
`Owner has made a strategic decision to employ its subpoena power over Location
`
`Labs to compel the same discovery it now seeks for a third time. See, e.g., Patent
`
`Owner's Exhibit 2008; see also, Exhibit 2009, p. 5 (objecting to Patent Owners'
`
`discovery requests as being redundant to discovery obtainable from the
`
`Defendants).
`
`
`
`Not only has the Patent Owner previously sought the same discovery
`
`requested in these proceedings from the Petitioner, counsel for Petitioner in these
`
`proceedings has been advised that the Patent Owner has actually received at least
`
`some of its requested discovery from the Defendants. The Patent Owner represents
`
`to the Board multiple times in its Motion that "Petitioner has not produced any
`
`documents." Id. What the Patent Owner failed to reveal to the Board is that it has
`
`already received documents containing the requested indemnification provisions
`
`between Petitioner and Defendants during the course of discovery in the District
`
`Court Actions. T-Mobile produced its License and Services Agreement with
`
`Location Labs on March 14, 2014.5 AT&T produced its License and Services
`
`Agreement with Petitioner Location Labs by e-mail two days before Patent Owner
`
`
`5 Bates Nos. TM-CW00000074-00000113.
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`filed its Motion (July 14, 2014).6 Likewise, Sprint produced its Master Services
`
`Agreement with Petitioner on July 15, 2014.7
`
`
`
` Therefore, the Patent Owner's claims that it cannot obtain the requested
`
`information by alternative means is unfounded.
`
`C. The Requested Discovery Is Overly Burdensome
`
`
`
`The Patent Owner's proposed discovery requests are not narrowly tailored,
`
`are redundant to the requests for discovery already made of Petitioner Location
`
`Labs in the District Court Actions, and compliance therewith would be overly
`
`burdensome. As previously explained, and as admitted by the Patent Owner, the
`
`requested discovery is intended to be broad enough to uncover information related
`
`to the irrelevant issue of privity, which is broader than necessary and cannot be
`
`justified.
`
`
`
`Proposed Document Requests 1-3 asked for "[a]ll indemnification
`
`agreements between Petitioner and AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile that are "related to
`
`the patent infringement claims raised in the respective District Court Action [s]. "
`
`As previously explained, the Patent Owner is already in possession of documents
`
`responsive to these requests. Requiring Petitioner Location Labs to produce the
`
`same documents already produced by AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile represents an
`
`
`6 Bates Nos. ATT-CW-FM-00005261-00005336.
`
`7 Bates Nos. SPT-CW_D00000446-00000567.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`unjustified and undue burden on Petitioner. Document Requests 1-3 additionally
`
`ask for "[a]ll . . . communications about indemnification by and between Petitioner
`
`and [AT&T, Sprint and T mobile]." The Patent Owner has not provided any basis
`
`to establish that the requested "communications about indemnification" contain
`
`any useful and discoverable information. Thus, Document Requests 1-3 represent
`
`nothing more than a fishing expedition and an unjustified and undue burden on the
`
`Petitioner.
`
`
`
`Document Request 4 asks for all joint defense and common interest
`
`agreements "related to the District Court actions." Such agreements are likely
`
`privileged under the common interest doctrine, and unlikely to be discoverable.
`
`Moreover, the Patent Owner has not established, beyond mere speculation, that any
`
`such agreements contain useful information in the event that they are discoverable.
`
`This document requests also goes much further than necessary or justified by
`
`expanding the scope of the request to include "[a]ll . . . communications about the
`
`joint defense and/or common interest agreements." Again, the Patent Owner
`
`provides no basis whatsoever to satisfy its burden of establishing that the discovery
`
`of such communications will likely lead to "useful" information.
`
`
`
`Document Request 5 requests communications between Petitioner and
`
`AT&T, Sprint and/or T-Mobile regarding the preparation, filing, control or funding
`
`of the IPR. In the proposed Instructions, "Petitioner" is defined as including its
`
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`attorneys. Therefore, the request is overly broad in that it seeks privileged
`
`information which is not discoverable, and not reasonably calibrated to lead to the
`
`discovery of "useful" information. The Patent Owner offers no evidence or
`
`rationale to establish otherwise. Similarly, no basis exists in the Motion to
`
`establish that the intrusion into the attorney-client relationship sought in Document
`
`Request 6 is likely to yield any useful information. Thus, a response to Document
`
`Requests 5 and 6 represent an unjustified and undue burden on Petitioner.
`
`
`
`The proposed Interrogatory is not limited to communications concerning
`
`indemnity associated with the District Court Actions. In fact, the Interrogatory is
`
`not limited to communications regarding indemnity for patent infringement
`
`lawsuits, but encompasses communications about indemnification for liability
`
`arising from any possible source (e.g., products liability, breach of contract, etc.).
`
`It is abundantly clear that the interrogatory is excessively broad and overreaching,
`
`and potentially encompasses a large number of "communications" which bear no
`
`relevance whatsoever to these proceedings. Moreover, the interrogatory is not
`
`time-limited, but is broad enough to encompass communications about the general
`
`subject of "indemnity" that could have occurred even before the application that
`
`spawned the '970 patent application was filed.
`
`
`
`The proposed Deposition Notice proposes to depose individuals that
`
`authored or received documents associated with Document Requests 1-6, or who
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`were identified in response to the proposed Interrogatory. Therefore, the proposed
`
`Deposition Notice is also objectionable for these same reasons previously noted in
`
`connection with the proposed document requests and interrogatories. In addition,
`
`the proposed Deposition Notice is overly burdensome for at least two additional
`
`reasons. First, there is no limit on the number of persons who can be deposed. It is
`
`unknown how many persons "authored or received documents" or had non-tangible
`
`"communications" falling under the document requests and interrogatory, but given
`
`their excessive breath, it is likely that many such persons could be identified.
`
`Producing large numbers of Petitioner's employees for deposition, preparing them,
`
`and defending their deposition testimony would create an enormous disruption of
`
`Petitioner's business, and the potential attorneys fees associated with responding to
`
`the proposed bottomless Deposition Notice could be enormous. Second, the scope
`
`of the subject matter to be covered by the proposed deposition is unspecified. The
`
`Patent Owner does not provide a list of topics for the proposed depositions. The
`
`Board has rejected similar proposed open-ended deposition requests. See,
`
`IPR2013-00431, Paper No. 43, p. 3 (Rejecting a proposed deposition notice for
`
`failing to specify the topics to be discussed at the deposition) (Exhibit 1018).
`
`
`
`For at least the reasons explained above, the proposed Deposition, and all of
`
`the other proposed discovery, is excessively and unjustifiably broad and a response
`
`thereto would represent an undue burden to the Petitioner.
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`VII.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`As explained above, granting the Patent Owner's request for additional
`
`discovery under these circumstances in no way serves the interest of justice.
`
` No fees are believed due in connection with this submission. However, the
`
`undersigned further authorizes payment for any additional fees that might be due in
`
`connection with this submission to be charged to Deposit Account No 19-3140.
`
`Dated: July 28, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`Mark L. Hogge, Reg. No. 31,662
`Email: mark.hogge@dentons.com
`
`/Scott W. Cummings/
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`Dentons US LLP
`
`By:
`
`Scott W. Cummings, Reg. No. 41, 567
`Email: scott.cummings@dentons.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPENDIX 1 - LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`EXHIBIT NO.
`
`DESCRIPTION
`
`1014
`
`Innolux Corp. v. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd.,
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00028, Paper No. 31
`
`1015
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Achates Reference Publ., Inc.
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00080, Paper No. 18
`
`1016
`
`Garmin Int'l, Inc. v. Cuzzo Speed Techs. LLC,
`
`Case No. IPR2012-00001, Paper No. 26
`
`1017
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson ,
`
` Case No. IPR 2013-00601, Paper No. 23
`
`1018
`
`Cardiocom, LLC v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc.,
`
`Case No. IPR2013-00431, Paper No. 43
`
`
`
`
`
`A-1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Petitioner’s Opposition
`
`to Patent Owner's Motion for Additional Discovery was served via Federal
`
`Express Overnight Delivery Service, in its entirety, on Patent Owner's attorneys of
`
`record in IPR2014-00199.
`
`Thomas Engellenner, Esq.
`
`Reza Mollaaghababa, Esq.
`
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`
`125 High Street
`
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`
`Boston, MA 02110
`
`By: /Scott W. Cummings/
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 28, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
