throbber
Paper 13
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: January 29, 2015
`,2015
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION, NETAPP INC., and
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01197
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`____________
`
`Before HYUN J. JUNG, NEIL T. POWELL, and KRISTINA M. KALAN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`CROSSROADS EXHIBIT 2101
`NetApp Inc. v. Crossroads Systems, Inc.
`IPR2015-00777
`
`1
`
`CROSSROADS EXHIBIT
`Oracle Corp. v. Crossroads Systems, Inc.
`IPR2015-008(cid:1009)(cid:1006)
`
`2101
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01197
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`A. Background
`Oracle Corporation, NetApp Inc., and Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
`(“Petitioners”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”), requesting institution of an
`inter partes review of claims 1–14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,425,035 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’035 patent”). Crossroads Systems, Inc. (“Patent Owner”)
`timely filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 12, “Prelim. Resp.”). We have
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`We institute inter partes review because we determine that the
`information presented in the Petition and in the Preliminary Response shows
`that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners would prevail with
`respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the Petition. See 35
`U.S.C. § 314(a). In particular, we institute inter partes review with respect
`to claims 1, 2, 4–6, 11, 12, and 14.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. The ’035 Patent
`The ’035 patent relates to a storage router and method for providing
`virtual local storage on remote Small Computer System Interface (“SCSI”)
`storage devices to Fiber Channel (“FC”) devices. Ex. 1001, 1:16–19. SCSI
`is a storage transport medium that provides for “relatively small number of
`devices to be attached over relatively short distances.” Id. at 1:23–26. FC is
`a high speed serial interconnect that provides “capability to attach a large
`number of high speed devices to a common storage transport medium over
`large distances.” Id. at 1:29–32. Computing devices can access local
`storage through native low level, block protocols and can access storage on a
`remote network server through network interconnects. Id. at 1:37–49. To
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2014-01197
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`access the storage on the remote network server, the computing device must
`translate its file system protocols into network protocols, and the remote
`network server must translate network protocols to low level requests. Id. at
`1:51–60. A storage router can interconnect the SCSI storage transport
`medium and the FC high speed serial interconnect to provide devices on
`either medium access to devices on the other medium so that no network
`server is involved. Id. at 3:30–40.
`Figure 4 of the ’035 patent is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`Figure 4 is a block diagram of an embodiment of a storage router. Id.
`at 2:59–60, 5:6–7. Storage router 56 can comprise FC controller 80 that
`interfaces with FC 52 and SCSI controller 82 that interfaces with SCSI bus
`54. Buffer 84 connects to FC controller 80 and SCSI controller 82 and
`provides memory work space. Id. at 5:7–9. Supervisor unit 86 connects to
`FC controller 80, SCSI controller 82, and buffer 84. Id. at 5:10–12.
`Supervisor unit 86 controls operation of storage router 56 and handles
`mapping and security access for requests between FC 52 and SCSI bus 54.
`Id. at 5:12–17.
`Claims 1, 7, and 11 are the independent claims challenged by this
`petition, and claim 1 is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01197
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`
`
`
`1. A storage router for providing virtual local storage on
`remote storage devices to devices, comprising:
`
`a buffer providing memory work space for the storage
`router;
`
`a first controller operable to connect to and interface with
`a first transport medium;
`
`a second controller operable to connect to and interface
`with a second transport medium; and
`
`a supervisor unit coupled to the first controller, the
`second controller and the buffer, the supervisor unit operable to
`map between devices connected to the first transport medium
`and the storage devices, to implement access controls for
`storage space on the storage devices and to process data in the
`buffer to interface between the first controller and the second
`controller to allow access from devices connected to the first
`transport medium to the storage devices using native low level,
`block protocols.
`
`Id. at 9:13–31.
`
`B. Related Proceedings
`
`The ’035 patent is the subject of multiple district court proceedings.
`Pet. 2–3; Exs. 1026, 1034, 1035, 1036; Paper 10, 2.
`
`The ’035 patent is also involved in Case IPR2014-01226 and belongs
`to a family of patents that are the subject of multiple inter partes review
`petitions, including IPR2014-01177, IPR2014-01207, IPR2014-01209,
`IPR2014-01233, and IPR2014-01463.
`
`C. Challenges
`Petitioners challenge the claims as follows, all on the basis of
`obviousness:
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01197
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`References
`
`CRD-5500 User Manual1,
`CRD-5500 Data Sheet2, and
`Smith3
`Kikuchi4 and Bergsten5
`
`Kikuchi, Bergsten, and
`Smith
`Bergsten and Hirai
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`1–14
`
`1–4 and 7–14
`
`5 and 6
`
`1–4 and 7–14
`
`Bergsten, Hirai, and Smith
`
`5 and 6
`
`
`D. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`interpreted according to their broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14,
`2012). We determine that no express claim construction is required for the
`purposes of this decision.
`
`
`
`
`1 CMD Technology, Inc., CRD-5500 SCSI RAID Controller User’s Manual,
`(1996) (Ex. 1003).
`2 CRD-5500 RAID Disk Array Controller, (Dec. 4, 1996),
`http://web.archive.org/web/19961226091552/http:/www.cmd.com/brochure/
`crd5500.htm (last visited July 23, 2014) (Ex. 1004).
`3 Judith A. Smith and Meryem Primmer, Tachyon: A Gigabit Fibre Channel
`Protocol Chip, Hewlett-Packard J., 1–17 (1996) (Ex. 1005).
`4 U.S. Pat. No. 6,219,771 B1, iss. Apr. 17, 2001 (Ex. 1006).
`5 U.S. Pat. No. 6,073,209, iss. June 6, 2000 (Ex. 1007).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2014-01197
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`E. Obviousness of Claims 1–14 over CRD-5500 User Manual, CRD-
`
`5500 Data Sheet, and Smith
`Petitioners argue that the CRD-5500 controller described in the CRD-
`5500 User Manual and CRD-5500 Data Sheet discloses all the limitations of
`claim 1 except for:
`a supervisor unit coupled to the first controller, the
`second controller, and the buffer, the supervisor unit operable to
`map between devices connected to the first transport medium
`and the storage devices, to implement access controls for
`storage space on the storage devices and to process data in the
`buffer to interface between the first controller and the second
`controller to allow access from devices connected to the first
`transport medium to the storage devices using native low level,
`block protocol.
`
`Pet. 18–20 (citing Ex. 1003, 1–1, 1–4, 4–5; Ex. 1005 Fig.8; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 36,
`44–47). Petitioners assert that the combination of CRD-5500 User Manual,
`CRD-5500 Data Sheet, and Smith meet the limitations of the recited
`“supervisor unit.” Pet. 20–22 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 31, 48–52). Petitioners
`also refer to Patent Owner’s assertions in litigation. Id. at 19, 20, 22 (citing
`Ex. 1009, p. 9; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 45–52). For independent claims 7 and 11,
`Petitioners rely on their arguments for claim 1. Pet. 26 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶
`46, 60–66), 28 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 78–83).
`Patent Owner responds that the Petition attempts to show how the
`cited references teach a “supervisor unit” “without a single reference to the
`specific portions of the cited art that allegedly show the supervisor unit as
`claimed.” Prelim. Resp. 16 (citing Pet. 21–23).
`We agree with Patent Owner. The Petition states that “[t]he CRD-
`5500 references in combination with Smith . . . meet the limitations of the
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2014-01197
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`claimed ‘supervisor unit,’” without any citations to the references
`themselves. Pet. 20. The Petition cites paragraph 48 of the Chase
`Declaration (Ex. 1010) in support of its statement that “[m]ore particularly,
`the CRD-5500 User Manual describes a central processing unit (CPU) that is
`coupled to a host device interface module, a storage interface module, and a
`buffer module.” Id. at 20–21. Petitioners’ further arguments regarding the
`recited “supervisor unit” cite only paragraphs 31 and 48–52 of the Chase
`Declaration. The cited paragraphs of the Chase Declaration refer to portions
`of the CRD-5500 User Manual to argue that it teaches the “supervisor unit.”
`Ex. 1010 ¶ 31 (citing Ex. 1003, pp. 1–1, 2–3, 2–4, 3–3, 3–4, 4–5), ¶ 48
`(citing Ex. 1003 1–3), ¶ 49 (citing Ex. 1003, pp. 1–1, 2–3, 2–4, 3–3, 3–4, 4–
`5), ¶ 50 (citing Ex. 1003 4–5), ¶ 51 (citing Ex. 1003 4–10). Petitioners
`provide no citation to CRD-5500 User Manual, CRD-5500 Data Sheet, or
`Smith in the Petition itself in support of their arguments regarding the
`“supervisor unit.”
`The Petition’s sole reliance on citations to the Chase Declaration in
`lieu of citations to the references themselves amounts to an incorporation by
`reference of arguments made in the Chase Declaration into the Petition,
`thereby circumventing the page limits that apply to petitions. We decline to
`consider the information found only in the Chase Declaration. After
`considering the descriptions of the references, which do not explain how the
`recited “supervisor unit” of claim 1 is taught (Pet. 11–18), and the analysis
`presented in the Petition itself, which does not cite CRD-5500 User Manual,
`CRD-5500 Data Sheet, or Smith (Pet. 20–22), we conclude that Petitioners
`have not shown a reasonable likelihood that they would prevail in
`establishing that claim 1 is unpatentable. Because Petitioners rely on their
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2014-01197
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`arguments for claim 1 to establish the unpatentability of independent claims
`7 and 11, Petitioners likewise have not shown a reasonable likelihood that
`they would prevail in showing these claims to be unpatentable. Petitioners’
`arguments regarding dependent claims 2–6, 8–10, and 12–14 do not add to
`Petitioners’ analysis of how CRD-5500 User Manual, CRD-5500 Data
`Sheet, and Smith teach the “supervisor unit” of claim 1. Pet. 22–25, 26–27,
`28.
`
`For these reasons, based on information in the Petition and
`Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioners have not demonstrated
`a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) over CRD-5500 User Manual, CRD-5500 Data Sheet, and Smith.
`
`F. Obviousness of Claims 1–4 and 7–14 over Kikuchi and Bergsten
`In their analysis of the recited “supervisor unit” of claim 1, Petitioners
`argue that, “[i]n the combined system of Kikuchi and Bergsten, a CPU is
`programmed to enact certain functionalities of the address registration unit,
`address verification unit, address offset information conversion unit, actual
`partition address conversion unit, and command interpretation and execution
`unit, and is coupled to the ‘first controller,’ ‘second controller,’ and the
`‘buffer’ as recited in claim 1.” Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶ 103). Petitioners
`also argue that “the combined system includes an enhanced correlation
`chart” and a “RAM to temporarily buffer commands and data.” Id. at 36–37
`(citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 104–107). Petitioners also refer to Patent Owner’s
`assertions in litigation. Id. at 35, 36, 37–38 (citing Ex. 1009, 9; Ex. 1010 ¶¶
`99, 101–107). For independent claims 7 and 11, Petitioners rely on their
`arguments for claim 1. Id. at 39, 41 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 11–117, 129–134).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01197
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner responds, and we agree, that “the Petition fails to make
`a single citation to the references, once again relying solely on the
`declaration of Dr. Chase to provide the required explanation.” Prelim. Resp.
`17–18 (citing Pet. 36–37). The Petition cites paragraphs 103–107 of the
`Chase Declaration (Ex. 1010). Pet. 36–37. Petitioners provide no citation to
`Kikuchi or Bergsten in the Petition itself in support of their arguments
`regarding the “supervisor unit.”
`As discussed supra, the Petition’s sole reliance on citations to the
`Chase Declaration in lieu of citations to the references themselves amounts
`to an incorporation by reference of arguments made in the Chase Declaration
`into the Petition, thereby circumventing the page limits that apply to
`petitions. We decline to consider the information found only in the Chase
`Declaration.
`After considering the descriptions of the references, which do not
`explain how the “supervisor unit” of claim 1 is taught (Pet. 28–34) and the
`analysis presented in the Petition itself, which only cites Kikuchi for “a
`buffer providing memory work space for the storage router” (Pet. 35), we
`conclude that Petitioners have not shown a reasonable likelihood that they
`would prevail in establishing that claim 1 is unpatentable. Because
`Petitioners rely on their arguments for claim 1 to establish the
`unpatentability of independent claims 7 and 11, Petitioners likewise have not
`shown a reasonable likelihood that they would prevail in showing these
`claims to be unpatentable. Petitioners’ arguments regarding dependent
`claims 2–4, 8–10, and 12–14 do not add to Petitioners’ analysis of how
`Kikuchi and Bergsten teach the “supervisor unit” of claim 1. Pet. 38–39,
`40–41.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01197
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`
`
`
`For these reasons, based on information in the Petition and
`Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioners have not demonstrated
`a reasonable likelihood that claims 1–4 and 7–14 are unpatentable under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kikuchi and Bergsten.
`G. Obviousness of Claims 5 and 6 over Kikuchi, Bergsten, and Smith.
`Petitioners’ arguments regarding dependent claims 5 and 6, which
`depend from claim 1, do not add to Petitioners’ analysis of how Kikuchi and
`Bergsten teach the “supervisor unit” of claim 1. Pet. 42–43 (citing Ex. 1005,
`pp. 5, 7, 9, Figs. 4–6; Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 138–143).
`Accordingly, based on information in the Petition and Preliminary
`Response, we determine that Petitioners have not demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood that claims 5 and 6 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`over Kikuchi, Bergsten, and Smith.
`
`H. Obviousness of Claims 1–4 and 7–14 over Bergsten and Hirai
`
`Petitioners argue that Bergsten discloses a storage router having all
`the limitations of claim 1 except for access controls. Pet. 49–52 (citing Ex.
`1007 3:14–19, 4:25–28, 5:65–6:1, 6:24–26, 7:24–31, 8:62–9:8, 10:23–29).
`Petitioners rely on Hirai for disclosing unauthorized commands from a
`particular host device are denied based upon a virtual address. Id. at 51
`(citing Ex. 1008 ¶ 13). In view of the Petition’s citations to the Bergsten and
`Hirai references, Petitioners’ arguments regarding how Bergsten and Hirai
`disclose the limitations of claim 1 are reasonable and supported by the
`record thus far presented.
`Petitioners argue that “[a]n artisan skilled in network storage during
`the relevant timeframe would combine the Bergsten and Hirai teachings . . .
`in order to provide additional levels of granularity to the access controls of
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2014-01197
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`the Bergsten system based on the mapping-based access controls of Hirai.”
`Id. at 48 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 147–151). Petitioners’ argument that it would
`have been obvious to combine Bergsten’s storage controller with Hirai’s
`access controls is reasonable and supported by record evidence.
`For claim 3, which recites “wherein the devices connected to the first
`transport medium comprise workstations,” Petitioners cite only paragraph
`162 of the Chase Declaration (Ex. 1010) and provide no citation to Bergsten
`or Hirai. Pet. 53. After considering the descriptions of the references, which
`do not explain how the limitations of claim 3 are taught (Pet. 29–31, 44–45),
`and the analysis presented in the Petition itself, we conclude that Petitioners
`have not established a reasonable likelihood that claim 3 is unpatentable.
`Independent claim 7 recites “a plurality of workstations connected to
`the first transport medium,” and Petitioners argue that it “recites similar
`limitations as in claims 1, 3, and 4, and so the discussion . . . for claims 1, 3,
`and 4 applies with equal force to claim 7.” Pet. 54 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 164–
`170). Claim 13, which depends indirectly from independent claim 11,
`recites “wherein the devices connected to the first transport medium
`comprise workstations.” Petitioners assert that “[d]ependent claims 8, 9 and
`12-14 correspond to dependent claims 2-4” and that the “discussion . . . for
`claims 2-4 therefore applies with equal force to claims 8, 9, and 12-14.” Pet.
`56 (citing Ex. 1010 ¶¶ 171, 172, 188–190). For the reasons discussed for
`claim 3, Petitioners have not met their burden in establishing a reasonable
`likelihood that independent claim 7, claims 8–10 which depend from claim
`7, and claim 13 are unpatentable.
`We also have considered the arguments and evidence of record thus
`far concerning independent claim 11 and dependent claims 2, 4, 12, and 14
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2014-01197
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`and are persuaded of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners would prevail
`in establishing that these claims would have been obvious over Bergsten and
`Hirai as well.
`Patent Owner responds that Petitioners do not provide “expert
`testimony or other probative evidence regarding the meaning of other terms,
`which must be construed in order to apply the asserted prior art to the
`claims,” and that Petitioners “improperly attempt to construe claim language
`with respect to accused instrumentalities,” and “rely on ‘Patent Owner’s
`assertion in litigation,’” thus, “fail[ing] to meet their obligation to explain
`how the challenged claims are to be construed.” Prelim. Resp. 10–14.
`The argument is unpersuasive because Petitioners state that “[a]ll
`claimed terms not specifically addressed in [the claim construction] section
`have been accorded their ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ in light of the
`’035 Patent including their plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 9. Also, this
`decision does not rely on Petitioners’ arguments regarding Patent Owner’s
`assertions in related litigation because the Petition does not explain how
`those assertions are the broadest reasonable construction in light of the
`specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`Patent Owner argues that Bergsten previously has been presented to
`and considered by the Office and has been rejected by the Office as a basis
`for challenging the claims. Prelim. Resp. 32 (citing Ex. 2012, 61, 69–70).
`The argument is not persuasive because, although Bergsten was cited
`previously during a reexamination of the ’035 patent, Patent Owner does not
`explain how Petitioners’ arguments regarding Bergsten and Hirai were
`considered previously.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2014-01197
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`Patent Owner argues that Petitioners combine Bergsten and Hirai into
`
`a theoretical combined system and then provide a purported correspondence
`between the claims and the theoretical combined system. Prelim. Resp. 49–
`50 (citing Pet. 44–49). However, Petitioners’ arguments explain how
`Bergsten, Hirai, or both teach the limitations of the claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12,
`and 14, and where a combined system is asserted to teach a particular
`limitation, Petitioners provide a citation to the references. Pet. 49–58. Thus,
`Petitioners have provided a correspondence between the claims and the
`references, and not merely compared the claims to a theoretical combined
`system.
`Patent Owner argues that the “purpose of Bergsten is to provide a
`
`system in which all hosts have the same access to all storage.” Prelim.
`Resp. 50–51 (citing Ex. 1007, Abstract, 1:39–42, 3:1–4, 4:7–9, 4:39–41,
`4:66–5:2). Patent Owner, thus, argues that Petitioners cannot show a
`reasonable likelihood of success. Id. at 51. After considering Patent
`Owner’s citations to Bergsten, we find that all hosts having the same access
`to all storage would not necessarily conflict with, for example, some
`portions of all storage being restricted to all hosts.
`For the reasons above, based on information in the Petition and
`Preliminary Response, we determine that Petitioners have demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood that claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, and 14 are unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bergsten and Hirai.
`
`I. Obviousness of Claims 5 and 6 over Bergsten, Hirai, and Smith
`After considering the arguments (Pet. 57–58) and evidence of record
`thus far concerning claims 5 and 6, which depend from claim 1, we are
`persuaded of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners would prevail in
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2014-01197
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`establishing that claims 5 and 6 would have been obvious over Bergsten,
`Hirai, and Smith. Patent Owner does not present further arguments
`regarding claims 5 and 6, other than those discussed supra. Patent Owner
`does argue that the information in Smith was considered during the
`reexamination of the ’035 patent, but notes that Smith was not explicitly
`before the Office. Prelim. Resp. 19. The Preliminary Response also does
`not explain how Petitioners’ arguments regarding Bergsten, Hirai, and Smith
`were considered previously during the reexamination of the ’035 patent.
`Thus, based on information in the Petition and Preliminary Response,
`we determine that Petitioners have demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that
`claims 5 and 6 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bergsten,
`Hirai, and Smith.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioners have
`demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood of their proving
`unpatentability of claims 1, 2, 4–6, 11, 12, and 14 of the ’035 patent.
`The Board has not made a final determination on the patentability of
`the challenged claims.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review is hereby instituted as to claims 1, 2, 4–6, 11, 12, and 14 of U.S.
`Patent No. 6,425,035 on the following grounds of unpatentability:
`A. Claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
`obviousness over Bergsten and Hirai; and
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2014-01197
`Patent 6,425,035 B2
`
`
`
`
`B. Claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over
`Bergsten, Hirai, and Smith;
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial, the trial
`commencing on the entry date of this decision; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the grounds
`identified above, and no other grounds are authorized.
`
`PETITIONERS:
`Greg H. Gardella
`Scott A. McKeown
`OBLON SPIVAK
`cpdocketgardella@oblon.com
`cpdocketmckeown@oblon.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Steven R. Sprinkle
`John L. Adair
`SPRINKLE IP LAW GROUP
`crossroadsipr@sprinklelaw.com
`
`Russell Wong
`James Hall
`WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH, RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, LLP
`CrossroadsIPR@counselip.com
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

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