`Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP
`90 Park Avenue, Suite 2100
`New York, NY 10016
`Tel: (212)-336-8000
`Fax: (212)-336-8001
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`___________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`___________________
`
`WATERMARKET, INC. D/B/A LOCATION LABS
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`LOCATIONET SYSTEMS, LTD.
`
`Patent Owner
`
`___________________
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`___________________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO LOCATION LABS’
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,771,970
`
`Location Labs Exhibit 1103 Page 1
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,970
`
`Page
`
`Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... i
`
`Table of Authorities .................................................................................................. ii
`
`Table of Exhibits ...................................................................................................... iii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`The Petition Should Be Dismissed Because It Fails To Identify The
`Real Parties In Interest .................................................................................... 2
`
`III. The Petition Presents Redundant Grounds ..................................................... 5
`A. Ground 1a of the Petition Based on Anticipation by U.S. Patent
`No. 6,243,039 of Elliot is Horizontally Redundant Relative to
`Ground 2g of The Petition Based on Anticipation by U.S.
`Patent No. 6,321,092 of Fitch .............................................................. 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Ground 1a of the Petition Based on Anticipation by Elliot is
`Vertically Redundant Relative to Ground 2g of the Petition
`Based on Obviousness Over Elliot in View of Fitch ......................... 10
`
`Ground 1c of the Petition Based on Obviousness over Elliot in
`View of U.S. Patent No. 6,741,927 of Jones is Vertically
`Redundant Relative to Ground 1d of the Petition Based on
`Obviousness over Elliot in View of Fitch and Jones ......................... 12
`
`D. Ground 1e of the Petition Based on Obviousness over Elliot in
`View of U.S. Patent No. 5,758,313 of Shah is Vertically
`Redundant Relative to Ground 1f of the Petition Based on
`Obviousness over Elliot in View of Fitch and Shah .......................... 13
`
`IV. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 13
`
`-i-
`
`Location Labs Exhibit 1103 Page 2
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`Asahi Glass Co. v Toledo Engineering Co., 505 F. Supp. 2d 423,434 (W.D.
`Ohio 2007) ............................................................................................................ 4
`
`Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.,
`CBM2012-00003 (Paper 7, Oct. 25, 2012) ................................................ 6, 9, 10
`
`RPX Corp. v. VirnetX, Inc., IPR2014-000171 (Paper 25, February 10, 2014) ......... 5
`
`Oracle Corp. v. Clouding IP, LLC, IPR2013-00088 (Paper 13, June 13,
`2013) ............................................................................................................... 8, 11
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(e) .................................................................................................. 7, 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 313 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 326(b) .................................................................................................... 6
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) .................................................................................................... 5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2) ................................................................................................ 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c) ................................................................................................... 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`37 CFR § 42.8(a)(1) ................................................................................................... 1
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (August 14, 2012) ........... 3
`
`Code of Federal Regulations, Title 37, Part 4. .......................................................... 5
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`Location Labs Exhibit 1103 Page 3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Description
`
`Pro Hac Vice Motion of Mark Hogge entering an
`appearance on behalf of T-Mobile USA Inc. in
`12-cv-1702 D.I. 18 (Federal District of Delaware)
`
`Pro Hac Vice Motion of Mark Hogge entering an
`appearance on behalf of Sprint Nextel Corp. in
`12-cv-1703 D.I. 23 (Federal District of Delaware)
`
`A page of Location Lab’s website indicating partnering
`with T-Mobile and Spring to provide subscription-
`based, mobile device management and location services
`
`Exhibit #
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`-iii-
`
`Location Labs Exhibit 1103 Page 4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, the Patent Owner, LocationNet
`
`Systems, Ltd. (“LocationNet”) hereby submits the following Preliminary Response
`
`to the Petition seeking inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,970 (the ‘970
`
`Patent). This filing is timely under 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.107, as it is
`
`being filed within three months of the mailing date of the Notice of Filing Date
`
`Accorded to Petition (Paper 3), mailed December 17, 2013.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`LocationNet is the owner of the entire interest in the ‘970 patent, and
`
`thus is a real party-in-interest. Callwave Communications, LLC (“Callwave”) is an
`
`exclusive licensee of the ‘970 patent and is also a real party-in-interest.
`
`A trial should not be instituted in this matter because Petitioner has
`
`failed to identify each of the real parties in interest under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1).
`
`Further, the anticipation and obviousness grounds raised by the
`
`Petitioner against the challenged claims are horizontally and vertically redundant.
`
`Should a trial be instituted based on certain grounds, other redundant grounds
`
`should be dismissed.
`
`The patent owner elects not to provide substantive responses to the
`
`grounds raised by the Petitioner against the challenged claims at this time. This
`
`-1-
`
`Location Labs Exhibit 1103 Page 5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`
`should not be viewed as acquiescence to the Petitioner’s allegations regarding
`
`validity of the challenged claims.
`
`Should the Board decide to institute a trial, the patent owner reserves
`
`the right to rebut, and will rebut, the grounds raised by the Petitioner against the
`
`challenged claims.
`
`II. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE IT FAILS TO
`IDENTIFY THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST
`
`In its Petition, Wavemarket, Inc. d/b/a Location Labs (“Location
`
`Labs”) states that it “is the real party-in interest[sic],” and that “no other 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.”
`
`(Petition, p. 1.)
`
`Petitioner also identifies several pending cases as Related Matters
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2). (Petition at 2.) However, Petitioner neglects to
`
`inform the PTAB that at the time the Petition was filed, Lead Counsel for Location
`
`Labs, Mark Hogge, had entered appearances Pro Hac Vice for both T-Mobile USA
`
`Inc. (“T-Mobile”) and Sprint Nextel Corp. (“Sprint”), in two of the related matters
`
`in the District of Delaware. 12-cv-1702 D.I. 18, 12-cv-1703 D.I. 23. (See Pro Hac
`
`Vice Motions of Mark Hogge, Exhibits 2001 and 2002.) T-Mobile and Sprint both
`
`are accused of infringing the ‘970 Patent in the cases in which Mr. Hogge has
`
`-2-
`
`Location Labs Exhibit 1103 Page 6
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`
`entered appearances, and both have asserted affirmative defenses alleging that the
`
`‘970 Patent is invalid.
`
`Mr. Hogge’s representation of Petitioner in the instant matter and
`
`Sprint and T-Mobile in the related matters raises serious questions regarding
`
`whether the Petition has identified all real parties-in-interest. The Petition not only
`
`fails to disclose that Petitioner, T-Mobile and Sprint all share the same counsel but
`
`also fails to state whether or not a joint defense agreement has been entered into by
`
`Petitioner and Mr. Hogge’s other clients, T-Mobile and Sprint.
`
`Whether a non-party is a real party-in-interest or privy for the
`
`purposes of an inter partes review proceeding is a “highly fact-dependent
`
`question.” Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (August 14,
`
`2012). At a minimum, a real party-in-interest is “the party or parties at whose
`
`behest the petition has been filed.” Id. at 48,759. To determine whether a party is
`
`a real party-in-interest, the USPTO applies traditional common law principles with
`
`the goals of “identifying potential conflicts” and “assur[ing] proper application of
`
`the statutory estoppel provisions.” Id.
`
`According to Petitioner’s website, Petitioner has partnered with
`
`Spring and T-Mobile to “provide subscription-based, mobile device management
`
`and location services to millions of customers.” (See Exhibit 2003) Further, on
`
`-3-
`
`Location Labs Exhibit 1103 Page 7
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`
`information and belief, there is an indemnitee-indemnitor relationship between
`
`Sprint and T-Mobile, on one hand, and Petitioner, on the other hand.
`
`The indemnity agreements together with Mr. Hogge’s representation
`
`of defendants accused of infringing the ‘970 Patent in the related litigations raise
`
`substantial concerns regarding the real parties-in-interest in this proceeding.
`
`It is clear that T-Mobile and Sprint have an interest in the outcome of
`
`this proceeding. For example, if the ‘970 patent’s validity is confirmed, Sprint and
`
`T-Mobile could be liable for any damages imposed in the related district court
`
`litigations that would be in excess of any cap that might limit the indemnification
`
`obligation, or any damages that Petitioner would not be able to satisfy.
`
`Importantly, T-Mobile and Sprint have chosen not to file a petition
`
`requesting an inter partes review of the ‘970 patent, presumably to avoid any
`
`estoppel with regard to the references cited in the present Petition, and to have
`
`multiple bites at the apple. Instead, T-Mobile and Sprint appear to rely on their
`
`partner and indemnitor, Petitioner, and their shared counsel, Mr. Hogge, to
`
`challenge the validity of the ‘970 patent and pursue their common interests in the
`
`present proceeding for them.
`
`Thus, the PTAB should dismiss this petition on the grounds that
`
`Petitioner has failed to identify the real parties-in-interest. See, e.g., Asahi Glass
`
`-4-
`
`Location Labs Exhibit 1103 Page 8
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`
`Co. v Toledo Engineering Co., 505 F. Supp. 2d 423,434 (W.D. Ohio 2007) (finding
`
`privity based on an indemnification agreement, retention of shared counsel and a
`
`joint defense agreement.)
`
`Should the PTAB decline to dismiss this petition at this time,
`
`discovery is warranted to determine the details surrounding the relationship
`
`between Petitioner, its shared counsel, and the parties to the related litigation. The
`
`PTAB has allowed such additional discovery when it is in the interests of justice to
`
`determine which party or parties are the real parties-in-interest. See, e.g., RPX
`
`Corp. v. VirnetX, Inc., IPR2014-000171 (Paper 25, February 20, 2014).
`
`III. THE PETITION PRESENTS REDUNDANT GROUNDS
`A. Ground 1a of the Petition Based on Anticipation by U.S. Patent
`No. 6,243,039 of Elliot is Horizontally Redundant Relative to
`Ground 2g of The Petition Based on Anticipation by U.S. Patent
`No. 6,321,092 of Fitch
`
`In Ground 1a, Petitioner alleges that Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
`
`12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are anticipated by Elliot. In Ground 2g,
`
`Petitioner alleges that Claims 1-3, 11-14, 16 and 19 are anticipated by Fitch. These
`
`two anticipation grounds are horizontally redundant for the following reasons.
`
`Part 42 of Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations, governs proceedings
`
`before the Board and 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) provides that “[t]his part shall be
`
`-5-
`
`Location Labs Exhibit 1103 Page 9
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`
`construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every
`
`proceeding.” In the case of Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty
`
`Insurance Co., CBM2012-00003 (Paper 7, Oct. 25, 2012), the Board addressed the
`
`issue of redundancy:
`
`When promulgating the regulations, the Board
`considered “the effect of the regulations on the economy,
`the integrity of the patent system, the efficient
`administration of the Office, and the ability of the Office
`to timely complete proceedings” as mandated by 35
`U.S.C. § 326(b). Conducting a proceeding contrary to
`those statutory considerations would frustrate
`Congressional intent. We take this opportunity to note
`that multiple grounds, which are presented in a redundant
`manner by a petitioner who makes no meaningful
`distinction between them, are contrary to the regulatory
`and statutory mandates, and therefore are not all entitled
`to consideration. . . . A petitioner has the burden of proof
`to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief. 37
`C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 7, p. 2
`
`In the Liberty Mutual case, the Board defined two types of
`
`redundancy: horizontal and vertical. Petitioner’s assertion of each of Elliot and
`
`-6-
`
`Location Labs Exhibit 1103 Page 10
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`
`Fitch (Grounds 1a and 2g) as anticipatory is a classic case of horizontal
`
`redundancy:
`
`[Horizontal Redundancy] involves a plurality of prior art
`references applied not in combination to complement
`each other but as distinct and separate alternatives. All
`of the myriad references relied on provide essentially the
`same teaching to meet the same claim limitation, and the
`associated arguments do not explain why one reference
`more closely satisfies the claim limitation at issue in
`some respects than another reference, and vice versa.
`Because the references are not identical, each reference
`has to be better in some respect or else the references are
`collectively horizontally redundant.
`
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 7, p. 2 (emphasis in the original).
`
`In the present case, Petitioner argues that the proposed grounds based
`
`on anticipation by Elliot and Fitch are not redundant. Specifically, Petitioner
`
`argues that because these two references, which qualify as prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. §102(e), have different priority dates, it is possible that one reference, and
`
`not the other, could be disqualified by evidence of prior invention submitted by the
`
`patent owner. Petition, pages 5 and 6.
`
`The Petitioner’s argument regarding the need to include both Grounds
`
`1a and 2g based on anticipation by Elliot and Fitch is, however, unconvincing.
`
`-7-
`
`Location Labs Exhibit 1103 Page 11
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`
`The effective filing date of Elliot (i.e., April 21, 1998) is earlier than the effective
`
`filing date of Fitch (i.e., November 3, 1998). Thus, if the patent owner were to
`
`submit evidence of prior invention that would antedate Elliot, such evidence would
`
`also antedate Fitch. And if the patent owner were able to antedate Fitch but not
`
`Elliot, then only Elliot would be available as an alleged prior art reference. Hence,
`
`Petitioner fails to establish that Elliot and Fitch are not redundant as anticipatory
`
`grounds.
`
`Petitioner further argues that “while both references clearly describe
`
`the fundamental ‘invention’ associated with the ’970 Patent, and recited in the
`
`majority of the claims, each reference has slightly different areas of emphasis with
`
`respect to the subject matter claimed in the ’970 patent.” Petition, page 6
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`The patent owner respectfully contends that “slightly different areas
`
`of emphasis” is not a sufficient basis to assert that Fitch is not redundant relative to
`
`Elliot. In Oracle Corp. v. Clouding IP, LLC (IPR2013-00088, Paper 13, June 13,
`
`2013), the Board explained that “the proper focus of a redundancy designation is
`
`not on whether the applied prior art disclosures have differences, for it is rarely the
`
`case that the disclosures of different prior art references will be literally identical.”
`
`Paper 13, p. 3. Rather, “the focus is on whether Petitioner articulated a meaningful
`
`-8-
`
`Location Labs Exhibit 1103 Page 12
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`
`distinction in terms of relative strengths and weaknesses with respect to application
`
`of the references’ disclosures to one or more claim limitations.” Id.
`
`Petitioner in the present case fails to articulate any meaningful
`
`distinction with respect to the application of Elliot and Fitch to one or more claim
`
`limitations. Rather, Petitioner simply provides a vague statement that “[F]itch is
`
`relatively more focused on the back-end of the system with respect to management
`
`of data received from mobile devices or platforms,” and Elliot “is relatively more
`
`focused on the front-end of the system with respect to the interface with an end
`
`user or subscriber.” Petition, p. 6.
`
`In fact, Petitioner alleges that both Elliot and Fitch “clearly describe
`
`the fundamental ‘invention’ associated with the ’970 patent.” Petition, page 6. In
`
`other words, according to Petitioner, Elliot and Fitch are equally good in allegedly
`
`anticipating the challenged claims.
`
`Accordingly, in the interest of timely and efficient administration of
`
`justice, Petitioner’s horizontally redundant grounds are not entitled to
`
`consideration.
`
`-9-
`
`Location Labs Exhibit 1103 Page 13
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`
`
`B. Ground 1a of the Petition Based on Anticipation by Elliot is
`Vertically Redundant Relative to Ground 2g of the Petition Based
`on Obviousness Over Elliot in View of Fitch
`
`In Ground 1a, Petitioner alleges that Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
`
`12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) by Elliot.
`
`In Ground 1b, Petitioner alleges that the same claims are obvious over Elliot in
`
`view of Fitch. As discussed below, these two grounds are vertically redundant.
`
`In the Liberty Mutual case, the Board defined vertical redundancy as
`
`follows:
`
`Vertical redundancy exists when there is assertion of an
`additional prior art reference to support another ground
`of unpatentability when a base ground already has been
`asserted against the same claim without the additional
`reference and the Petitioner has not explained what are
`the relative strength and weakness of each ground. To
`move forward with such a multiplicity of grounds,
`Petitioner must articulate a reasonable basis to believe
`that from a certain perspective the base ground is
`stronger, and that from another perspective the ground
`with additional reference is stronger.
`
`CBM2012-00003, Paper 7, p. 11.
`
`-10-
`
`Location Labs Exhibit 1103 Page 14
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`
`
`In the present case, Petitioner does not articulate any distinction
`
`between these two grounds. As Petitioner alleges that Elliot discloses all
`
`limitations of the above claims (See, e.g., pages 18-35 of the Petition), the ground
`
`based on the combination of Elliot and Fitch is redundant.
`
`In the Oracle case, the Board ruled that an obviousness ground based
`
`on a combination of two references was redundant relative to an anticipation
`
`ground based on one of those references. Paper 13, p. 3. The Board in Oracle
`
`indicated that the petitioner had failed to explain why one reference was more
`
`preferred for satisfying some elements while the other reference was more
`
`preferred for satisfying some other elements. Id. In response to the petitioner’s
`
`contention that the anticipation and obviousness grounds “are premised on
`
`different statutory provisions and engender fundamentally different legal standards
`
`and analyses,” the Oracle Board explained that the issue is not that the two
`
`statutory grounds are different. Rather, “what matters for determining redundancy
`
`of grounds is whether Petitioner has articulated meaningful distinction in the
`
`potential strength and weakness of the applied prior art.” Paper 13, p. 4.
`
`Similar to Oracle, Petitioner in the present case fails to articulate
`
`meaningful distinction in the potential strength and weakness of Elliot and Fitch.
`
`For example, Petitioner fails to explain why Elliot is more preferred for satisfying
`
`-11-
`
`Location Labs Exhibit 1103 Page 15
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`
`some elements of the challenged claims while Fitch is more preferred for satisfying
`
`other elements.
`
`Accordingly, in the interest of timely and efficient administration of
`
`justice, Petitioner’s above vertically redundant grounds are not entitled to
`
`consideration.
`
`C. Ground 1c of the Petition Based on Obviousness over Elliot in
`View of U.S. Patent No. 6,741,927 of Jones is Vertically
`Redundant Relative to Ground 1d of the Petition Based on
`Obviousness Over Elliot in View Of Fitch and Jones
`
`In Ground 1c, Petitioner alleges that Claim 4 is obvious over Elliot in
`
`view of Jones. In Ground 1b, Petitioner alleges that Claim 4 is obvious over Elliot
`
`in view of Fitch and Jones.
`
`The Petitioner, however, does not explain any meaningful distinction
`
`between these two obviousness grounds. For example, the Petitioner does not
`
`point to any weakness of the combination of Elliot and Jones that would be cured
`
`by addition of Fitch.
`
`Accordingly, in the interest of timely and efficient administration of
`
`justice, Petitioner’s above vertically redundant grounds are not entitled to
`
`consideration.
`
`-12-
`
`Location Labs Exhibit 1103 Page 16
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`
`
`D. Ground 1e of the Petition Based on Obviousness Over Elliot in
`View of U.S. Patent No. 5,758,313 of Shah is Vertically Redundant
`Relative to Ground 1f of the Petition Based on Obviousness Over
`Elliot in View of Fitch and Shah
`
`In Ground 1e, Petitioner alleges that Claim 5 is obvious over Elliot in
`
`view of Shah. In Ground 1f, Petitioner alleges that Claim 5 is obvious over Elliot
`
`in view of Fitch and Shah.
`
`The Petitioner, however, does not explain any meaningful distinction
`
`between these two obviousness grounds. For example, the Petitioner does not
`
`point to any weakness of the combination of Elliot and Shah that would be cured
`
`by addition of Fitch.
`
`Accordingly, in the interest of timely and efficient administration of
`
`justice, Petitioner’s above vertically redundant grounds are not entitled to
`
`consideration.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`The Petition should be dismissed for failing to identify all of the real
`
`parties in interest. Alternatively, additional discovery is warranted on this point.
`
`The Petition presents multiple redundant grounds for invalidity and
`
`should not be granted on such redundant issues in the interest of timely and
`
`efficient administration of justice.
`
`-13-
`
`Location Labs Exhibit 1103 Page 17
`
`
`
`IPR2014-00199
`U.S. Patent 6,771,970
`
`
`
`In the event that a trial is instituted with respect to any of the grounds
`
`of the Petition, the Patent Owner reserves the right to provide substantive
`
`arguments with regard to patentable distinctions of each of the independent and
`
`dependent claims over the cited references.
`
`Dated: March 17, 2014
`
`
`
`/Anthony F. Lo Cicero/
`Anthony F. Lo Cicero, Reg. No. 29,403
`Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP
`90 Park Avenue, Suite 2100
`New York, NY 10016
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`-14-
`
`Location Labs Exhibit 1103 Page 18
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00593
`U.S. Patent 8,045,952
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on March 17, 2014, a true and accurate copy of this paper,
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO LOCATION LABS’ PETITION FOR INTER
`PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,771,970 and its Exhibits, were served on the
`following counsel for Petitioner Location Labs via email and U.S. Express Mail:
`
`
`
`Mark L. Hogge
`Scott W. Cummings
`
`mark.hogge@dentons.com
`scott.cummings@dentons.com
`
`
`DENTONS US LLP
`1301 K Street, NW Suite 600
`East Tower
`Washington, District of Columbia 20005-3364
`Tel: 202-408-6400
`Fax: 202-408-6399
`
`Dated: March 17, 2014 By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Anthony F. Lo Cicero/
`Anthony F. Lo Cicero, Reg. No. 29,403
`Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP
`90 Park Avenue, Suite 2100
`New York, NY 10016
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Location Labs Exhibit 1103 Page 19
`
`