throbber
By: Anthony F. Lo Cicero
`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
`
`

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