`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________
`
`TERREMARK NORTH AMERICA LLC, VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK
`SERVICES INC., VERIZON SERVICES CORP., TIME WARNER CABLE
`INC., ICONTROL NETWORKS, INC., AND COXCOM, LLC
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`JOAO CONTROL & MONITORING SYSTEMS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`Cases:
`
`IPR2015-01486 (Pat. 6,549,130)
`________________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S JOINT OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO
`RECOGNIZE JUNE 23 FILING DATE OF PETITIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Description
`Declaration of René A. Vazquez
`Proof of Service indicating that Verizon Communications, Inc. was
`served with a Complaint alleging infringement of the ’010 Patent on
`June 23, 2104 in the matter of JCMS v. Terremark North America
`LLC, C.A. No. 14-525-GMS (D. Del.)
`Terremark’s Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement in the matter of JCMS v.
`Terremark North America LLC, C.A. No. 14-525-GMS (D. Del.)
`Substitution of Terremark North America LLC in place of Verizon
`Communications Inc. in the matter of JCMS v. Terremark North
`America LLC, C.A. No. 14-525-GMS (D. Del.)
`Proof of Service indicating that Time Warner Inc. was served with a
`Complaint alleging infringement of the ’010 Patent on June 23,
`2104 in the matter of JCMS v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., C.A. No.
`14-524-GMS (D. Del.)
`USPS Tracking data for package containing service copies of
`IPR2015-01482, -01485 and -01486, indicating shipment on June
`24, 2105
`FedEx Tracking data for package containing service copies of
`IPR2015-01466, -01477, -01478 and -01484, indicating shipment on
`June 24, 2105
`Email dated July 17, 2015 from Patent Owner’s counsel R. Vazquez
`to Petitioners’ counsel C. Holloway
`Email dated July 29, 2015 from Petitioners’ counsel C. Holloway to
`Patent Owner’s counsel R. Vazquez.
`Email dated July 31, 2015 from Petitioners’ counsel C. Holloway to
`Patent Owner’s counsel R. Vazquez.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`In order to be accorded a filing date of June 23, 2015, Petitioners needed to
`
`accomplish nine separate tasks for three separate petitions: 2015IPR-01482; -
`
`01485; and -01486.1 Petitioners were required to complete the electronic filing of
`
`each separate petition and all supporting exhibits; they needed to pay the required
`
`fees for all each petition; and they needed to serve the petitions and supporting
`
`documents on Patent Owner at its correspondence address of record. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.106. Petitioners not only failed to accomplish any of these tasks on June 23,
`
`2015, they did not even attempt to accomplish eight of the nine tasks until June 24.
`
`In their motions, Petitioners’ effectively concede that these failures were not the
`
`result of a “clerical or typographical error,” but instead resulted from deliberate
`
`decisions made by Petitioners and their counsel. The Board has never accorded an
`
`earlier filing date where petitioners failed to accomplish, much less even attempt,
`
`any of the trial practice requirements for according a filing date. As such, the
`
`Board should deny Petitioners’ motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Due to the common actors and issues involved, Patent Owner addresses facts for
`
`each of these three petitions below. Because the -01482 Petition involves
`
`aggravating facts, that petition is addressed separately.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`II. Law
`
`Petitions for inter partes review (IPR) may not be filed more than one year
`
`after Petitioners were served with a complaint alleging infringement. 35 U.S.C. §
`
`315(b). The same one-year time bar is found in the USPTO’s trial practice rules.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b).
`
`Moreover, the Board’s governing statute provides that a petition “may be
`
`considered only if … the petition is accompanied by payment of the fee established
`
`by the Director under section 311.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(1). The same statute
`
`provides that an IPR petition may be considered only if “the petitioner provides
`
`copies of any of the documents required under paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) to the
`
`patent owner or, if applicable, the designated representative of the patent owner.”
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(5). These statutory requirements cannot be waived by the
`
`Board. In addition, the Board’s trial practice rules provide that a petition is only
`
`accorded a filing date once a petition has been filed, payment has been made, and
`
`the complete petition is served on the patent owner. 37 CFR 42.106(a). The Board
`
`has discretion to excuse certain late actions “on a showing of good cause” or “in
`
`the interests of justice.” 37 C.F.R. 42.5(c)(3). The trial practice rules also include
`
`provisions for correcting a “clerical or typographical mistake”. 37 C.F.R. §
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`42.104(c). The burden of proving that such a correction is appropriate rests with
`
`Petitioners. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c).
`
`III. Facts
`
`In spite of well-known risks and in the face of clear warnings, Petitioners
`
`intentionally engaged in a deliberate course of conduct that should have, and
`
`properly did, result in their petitions being accorded a filing date of June 24, 2015
`
`– one day after the statutory bar period. Now, by their motions, Petitioners seek to
`
`have this panel save them from the consequences flowing directly from their
`
`decisions.
`
`Two of the filing Petitioners (Terremark and Time Warner) were served with
`
`complaints for infringement of the ’363 and ’130 Patents on June 23, 2014.
`
`(Vazquez Decl., ¶¶ 1-4, Exh. 2002-2005). Over the last year, the parties have
`
`engaged in extensive discovery in the District of Delaware. This discovery
`
`includes Initial Disclosures, interrogatories and requests for documents directed to
`
`each Defendant, production and review of more than 4,600 pages of “core
`
`technical documents,” and initial scheduling of depositions. Initial infringement
`
`and invalidity contentions have also been exchanged. In February 2015, the parties
`
`jointly requested, and the Court entered, a case progression schedule with
`
`significant dates including: Claim Construction Opening Brief (October 23, 2015);
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Answering Brief (November 20); and Markman Hearing (December 21). The
`
`Court also set dates for fact and expert discovery, summary judgment, and trial.
`
`In late June 2015, without warning, Petitioners here filed seven petitions
`
`seeking IPR.2 On June 22, these Petitioners filed, but intentionally did not serve,
`
`IPR2015-1466. Then on June 23, Petitioners filed, but intentionally did not serve,
`
`IPR2015-1476 and 1477. Then on June 24, a day after the one year bar, Petitioners
`
`finally filed IPR2015-1482, 1484, 1485 and 1486, finally payed for IPR2015-
`
`1482, 1484, 1485 and 1486, and finally served all seven petitions. Vazquez Decl.,
`
`¶¶ 7-8, Exh. 2006-2007. Each of these filings has been marred by errors, as well as
`
`repeated, intentional misrepresentations to Patent Owner and the PTAB, including
`
`the filing of false certificates of service (COS) for all seven petitions. Revised
`
`COSs were filed with respect to only four IPR petitions, and only after Patent
`
`Owner discovered and raised the false statements.
`
`
`2 In addition to the seven petitions filed by Petitioners regarding five of Patent
`
`Owner’s patents, Cox has now filed two additional IPR petitions purportedly
`
`seeking review of the ’130 Patent (IPR2015-01760), the ’363Patent (IPR2015-
`
`01762) and the ‘010 Patent (IPR2015-01765). Counsel for Petitioner Cox has also
`
`filed four additional petitions regarding Patent Owner’s patents for a different
`
`client, Nissan North America, Inc.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`A. The Petitions Were Not Timely Filed, Fees Were Not Timely
`Paid and the Petitions Were Not Timely Served
`
`
`Lawyers have long known of the risks of delaying filings until the last
`
`minutes. In fact, large law firms have warned each other of these risks for many
`
`years. See, e.g., “New Risks Every Litigator Should Know,” W. Kelly Stewart,
`
`Jeffrey L. Mills, Jones Day (2011). Such warnings routinely include descriptions
`
`of cases where filing parties have been denied the ability to pursue claims because
`
`of missed deadlines. See, e.g., id., p. 29, citing PHL Variable Ins. Co. v. U.S. Bank
`
`Nat’l Ass’n, Civ. No. 10-1197 (D. Minn. Oct. 4, 2010). Known risks include
`
`improperly converting documents, filing the wrong document, and trying to file
`
`documents that exceed file-size limits. Id. Moreover, courts have advised
`
`attorneys
`
`that “[c]omputer failures, not unlike human failures, must be
`
`anticipated.” Martinelli v. Farm-Rite, 785 A. 2d 33, 36 (2001). See also Graves v.
`
`Deutsche Bank Sec., Inc., Case No. 07 cv 05471, p. 4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2011).
`
`Here, Petitioners’ motions and supporting exhibits demonstrate that
`
`Petitioners deliberately waited until the eleventh hour to finalize their petitions for
`
`filing. Petitioners admit that they did not finalize the “petitions, exhibits, powers of
`
`attorney and payment means” until 10:45 pm on June 23, 2015. IPR2015-01482,
`
`Paper 6 at 3. Despite the late hour, and despite representation by five attorneys
`
`from three different large law firms, Petitioners deliberately decided to have one
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`paralegal file the petitions serially, rather than have multiple people file the
`
`petitions simultaneously. Id. at 4. Petitioners now contend that “the petitions were
`
`done in sequential order to avoid having to reload any previously submitted
`
`exhibits.” Id. But this explanation does not make sense, as the PRPS system
`
`requires separate uploading and filing of documents in each separate petition.
`
`Vazquez Decl., ¶¶ 9-11. Moreover, Petitioners own filings demonstrate this did not
`
`happen. Petitioners did not cross-reference earlier-filed documents in later-filed
`
`petitions, but instead re-filed numerous duplicative exhibits in each of the three
`
`petitions at issue. See, e.g., “Curriculum Vitae of Richard Bennet,” filed as Exh.
`
`1003 in IPR2015-01482, -01485 and -01486; “U.S. Patent Application No.
`
`08/622749,” filed as Exh. 1004 in IPR2015-01482, -01485 and -01486.
`
`Petitioners’ argument that “the second … and third petition … could not be filed
`
`until the first filing was completed” cannot be true. Vazquez Decl., ¶¶ 9-11.
`
`Petitioners easily could have had multiple persons upload these petitions and
`
`supporting documents simultaneously. They simply chose not to do so. As a result,
`
`they did not accomplish any of the tasks required for according their IPRs a filing
`
`date of June 23, and did not even attempt eight of those nine tasks until June 24.
`
`Defendants also deliberately decided not to serve the petitions and
`
`supporting documents on June 23. Petitioners allege that “Copies of the three
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`petitions, corresponding exhibits and powers of attorney were printed no later than
`
`11:15 pm est and were prepared for service.” See, e.g., IPR2015-01482, Paper 7,
`
`Robinson Decl. at ¶ 4. Petitioners further allege that their counsel “was prepared to
`
`serve the three petitions and accompanying documents” by driving them to an
`
`unidentified U.S. Post Office that is purportedly open until midnight. Id. Crucially,
`
`however, this service did not happen. Rather than serve the documents on June 23
`
`as required by the governing statute and trial practice rules, Petitioners’ counsel
`
`made a deliberate decision to forego even attempting such service until June 24.
`
`Petitioners have not offered the Board a declaration from the attorney involved,
`
`instead relying on their paralegal’s hearsay statement that Petitioners’ counsel
`
`“remained in the office to focus on solving the problems we were experiencing
`
`with filing the petitions with the PRPS system.” Id. But Petitioners offer no
`
`explanation as to why their alleged filing problems prevented timely service. Filing
`
`and service are independent events, as evidenced by the fact that Petitioners printed
`
`the documents for service before completing the electronic filing. Id. There is no
`
`legitimate reason Petitioners could not have at least attempted service before
`
`midnight on June 23 as they now claim they planned to do. Petitioners’ counsel
`
`simply chose not to do so.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Finally, although Petitioners acknowledge that they chose not to serve the
`
`petitions until June 24, they nevertheless filed a COS with the Board in each
`
`petition attesting that the documents “ha[d] been served via U.S. Postal Service
`
`Express Mail on June 23, 2015.” See IPR2015-01482, Paper 1 at 44; IPR2015-
`
`01485, Paper 1 at 42; IPR2015-01486, Paper 1 at 60. Each COS is false, as the
`
`documents were admittedly not mailed until the next morning, June 24, 2015. See,
`
`e.g., Paper 7, Robinson Decl. at Att. B; Vazquez Decl., ¶¶ 7, 13, Exh. 2006.
`
`Petitioners have not filed a corrected COS for any of these Petitions. Vazquez
`
`Decl., ¶ 14, Exh. 2008.
`
`IV. Analysis
`
`Three sophisticated law firms engaged in a scheme to inundate Patent Owner
`
`with a flurry of IPRs at the last possible moment while simultaneously obtaining
`
`and pursuing an aggressive litigation schedule in district court. Their plan clearly
`
`risked missing the statutory one year bar, and they should not now be saved,
`
`especially as they have now come forward with unclean hands.
`
`A. Petitioners Have Engaged In A Course Of Conduct That Has
`Deprived The PTAB Of Jurisdiction Over These Petitions
`
`As explained below, the Petitions were not timely filed, paid for or served.
`
`These Petitions cannot now be “corrected” under 37 CFR § 42.104(c) because
`
`Petitioners have not identified any “clerical or typographical error” that prevented
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`them from even timely attempting, much less timely accomplishing, any of the
`
`nine tasks required for according their Petitions an earlier filing date.
`
`i. Petitioners’ Intentionally Delayed Completing the Filing
`of the -01485 and -01486 Petitions Until June 24, 2015
`
`
`Petitioners’ counsel claim they experienced some unknown “issue” with the
`
`electronic filing of the -01482 petition. Even if their arguments regarding the -
`
`01482 petition are credited, Petitioners still chose to make no effort to file, pay
`
`for, or serve the -01485 and -01486 Petitions until June 24, 2015. The facts
`
`demonstrate Petitioners’ counsel made a choice to not meet, or even attempt to
`
`meet, any of the statutory requirements. No clerical error exists – it was a lapse in
`
`professional judgment resulting in loss of jurisdiction that cannot now be
`
`corrected.
`
`Of concern, none of these facts were presented by Petitioners to the panel
`
`when they sought leave to file the instant motions. Nor were these facts presented
`
`to the Board paralegal who was contacted ex parte by Petitioners’ counsel. See,
`
`e.g., IPR2015-01482, Paper 7, Robinson Decl. at Exh. 2 (6/26 email from C.
`
`Holloway to trials@uspto.gov). But for this paralegal, Petitioners may have gotten
`
`away with their deceit.
`
`ii. The -01482 Petition
`
`The -01482 Petition suffers from all of the defects identified above.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`However, the significant, aggravating difference is that Petitioners admit they did
`
`not serve a critical document – their expert declaration (the “Bennett Declaration”)
`
`– until more than five weeks after expiration of the one year bar date, and did not
`
`file the correct declaration until they filed the present motion. The Bennett
`
`Declaration provides essential information missing from the Petition itself – both
`
`direct “support” for Petitioners’ arguments and critical conclusions and
`
`interpretations reached and relied upon by Petitioners’ expert.
`
`The failure to properly file and serve the Bennet Declaration has
`
`undoubtedly prejudiced Patent Owner. In fact, Patent Owner has suffered undue
`
`prejudice from Petitioners’ numerous failures to follow Board rules and
`
`misrepresentations. Specifically, time and resources have been redirected away
`
`from preparing the preliminary responses, and instead, Patent Owner is now forced
`
`to ferret out
`
`the real facts regarding Petitioners’ failed attempts and
`
`misrepresentations regarding the filing, serving and paying for the IPRs and to
`
`prepare these oppositions to Petitioners’ numerous motions regarding same.
`
`iii. Petitioners’ Counsel Have Breached Their Duties Of
`Candor And Good Faith
`
`Practitioners before the Board owe a duty of candor, which is codified in 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.11: “Parties and individuals involved in the proceeding have a duty of
`
`candor and good faith to the Office during the course of a proceeding.” This duty
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`of candor is continuing. “[P]ractitioners ... understand that they are under a
`
`continuing duty of candor to update any changes in the representations that they
`
`have made.” Innolux Corp. v. Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co., Ltd. IPR2013-0028
`
`(May 21, 2013). The Board further requires that practitioners exhibit a duty of
`
`good faith by following proper procedure in each of its filings, which may be
`
`evaluated using the “totality of the circumstances.” For example, in CBS
`
`Interactive Inc. v. Helferich Patent Licensing, the patentee requested a rehearing of
`
`an order expunging filed non-compliant papers. CBS Interactive Inc., IPR2013-
`
`00033, 2013 WL 5970154, at *1 (Patent Tr. & App. Bd. Aug. 30, 2013). The
`
`patentee argued that it had acted “in good faith” when it “mistakenly” filed papers
`
`that did not follow proper procedure. Id. In rejecting the motion, the Board noted
`
`that the patentee had previously filed three other papers in violation of the rules.
`
`Id. at *1-*2. Given the totality of the circumstances, the Board was not convinced
`
`that the patentee acted “in good faith” when submitting the non-compliant papers.
`
`Id. at *3 (“We are not persuaded by Helferich’s arguments in view of the totality of
`
`the circumstances. At best, Helferich’s arguments possibly could have merit if
`
`each noncompliant paper was viewed individually as a first improper filing.”)
`
`Courts have joined with the Board in emphasizing the importance of these
`
`fundamental obligations. See, e.g., Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc. v. Samsung,
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`983 F.Supp.2d 713 (E.D. Va. May 2, 2014). The Virginia Innovation Sciences
`
`court addressed the duties of candor and good faith in detail:
`
`Our adversary system for the resolution of disputes rests on the
`unshakable foundation that truth is the object of the system’s process
`which is designed for the purpose of dispensing justice. However,
`because no one has an exclusive insight into truth, the process
`depends on the adversarial presentation of evidence, precedent, and
`custom, and argument to reasoned conclusions–all directed with
`unwavering effort to what, in good faith, is believed to be true on
`matters material to the disposition.
`Id. at 755; see generally, id. at 51-61.
`
`Petitioners’ and their counsel have failed to meet their duties of candor and
`
`good faith. First, they knowingly filed a false COS in each of the three Petitions at
`
`issue. Second, they contacted the Board ex parte to seek a new filing date without
`
`disclosing their many false COSs. See, e.g., IPR2015-01482, Paper 7, Robinson
`
`Decl. at Exh. 2 (6/26 email from C. Holloway to trials@uspto.gov). Third, despite
`
`their continuing duty of candor, they did not correct their false COS even after
`
`Patent Owner discovered the issue and brought it to Petitioners’ attention. Fourth,
`
`and perhaps most surprisingly, Petitioners have continued to flout the Board’s rules
`
`in their motion and supporting documents. For example, the Exhibits to
`
`Petitioners’ Motion do not conform to 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(c), requiring all exhibits
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`to be separately and uniquely numbered within the range of 1001-1999, or 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(1)(ii), requiring exhibits not filed with the petition to include
`
`“the party’s name, followed by a unique exhibit number, the names of the parties,
`
`and the trial number.” Instead, Petitioners have filed their Motions, the Robinson
`
`declarations, and all supporting exhibits together as Paper 7. See, e.g., IPR2015-
`
`01482, Paper 7. Petitioners have confusingly referred to their supporting exhibits
`
`as Exhibits 1-4 (See, e.g., IPR2015-01482, Paper 7, Certificate of Service) and
`
`included “Attachments” A & B within the Robinson declaration. It is surprising
`
`that in a motion seeking relief for Petitioners’ inability to meet the statutory and
`
`Board rules, Petitioners still cannot follow the Board’s rules.
`
`iv. The PTAB’s Prior Decisions Are Distinguishable
`
`There is no previous case in which the PTAB addressed the combination of
`
`an intentional failure to meet all three the filing requirements with the manifest bad
`
`faith demonstrated here. The PTAB addressed a Motion to Correct Filing Date
`
`(Late Filing) in 2Wire, Inc. v. TQ Delta, IPR2015-00239. The motion granted was
`
`based on very different facts. Counsel pressed “submit” button after midnight but
`
`all other filing requirements had been met. Documents were uploaded on time, fees
`
`were paid on time, and the documents were properly served on time. In Micron
`
`Tech., Inc. v. e.Digital Corp., the Board denied a Motion to Deny Petition a Filing
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Date based on Improper Service. IPR2015-00519. In that instance, Petitioner
`
`served a courtesy copy of the petition and supporting documents on Patent
`
`Owner’s litigation counsel via email more than two weeks prior to expiration of the
`
`bar date. The Board found this was a good faith attempt at service. No such good
`
`faith attempt at service was made here before the bar date. In ABB Inc. v. Roy-G-
`
`Biv-Corp., the Board addressed a Motion to Correct Petition. IPR2013-00063.
`
`The motion was granted based on a finding that although Petitioner filed the wrong
`
`documents, Petitioner timely served the correct documents on Patent Owner.
`
`That obviously did not happen here. In Schott Gemtron Corp. v. SSW Holding Co.,
`
`IPR2014-00367, the Board granted an unopposed motion to replace a document.
`
`However, again, Petitioner timely served the correct document on Patent Owner.
`
`Finally, in Syntroleum Corp. v. Nestle Oil OYJ, IPR2013-00178, the Board granted
`
`a motion to correct its submission. In that case, Petitioner failed to both file and
`
`serve the correct exhibits. Petitioner intended to file a published European
`
`application, but inadvertently filed the patent that issued from the publication. The
`
`motion was granted primarily because the Patent Owner did not argue prejudice.
`
`V. Conclusion
`
`Petitioners do not even argue that there was a typographical mistake. It
`
`follows that Petitioners must be arguing there was a clerical mistake; however, the
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`facts they have presented in their motion demonstrate deliberate decisions, not
`
`clerical mistakes, which they clearly now regret. First, Petitioners’ counsel made a
`
`deliberate decision to wait until literally the eleventh hour to finalize the IPRs.
`
`Second, despite the late hour, Petitioner’s counsel approved a serial (rather than
`
`simultaneous) filing process, which meant that no filings were completed on time
`
`and two of three were not even attempted before the one-year bar date. Third,
`
`Petitioner’s counsel made a deliberate decision not to pay the filing fees until after
`
`electronic filing was completed, meaning none of the statutorily required fees were
`
`paid on time. Fourth, Petitioners’ counsel made a deliberate (and entirely
`
`unnecessary) decision not to serve the petitions on June 23. These repeated
`
`deliberate decisions simply cannot be dismissed as “clerical mistakes.”
`
`In sum, Petitioners’ motions involve unique facts before the PTAB that have
`
`never formed the basis for the relief requested. The Petitions were not timely filed
`
`and jurisdiction cannot be restored pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.104.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC
`
`/René A. Vazquez/
`BY:
`Raymond A. Joao (Lead Counsel)
`Reg. No. 35,907
`René A. Vazquez (Backup Counsel)
`Reg. No. 38,647
`
`
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Date: August 19, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e) and 42.105(b), the undersigned certifies
`
`that on August 19, 2015, a copy of the foregoing PATENT OWNER’S JOINT
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS TO RECOGNIZE JUNE 23 FILING DATE OF
`
`PETITIONS was served by electronic mail on the following:
`
`Vaibhav P. Kadaba (Lead Counsel), Reg. No. 45,865
`D. Clay Holloway (Backup Counsel), Reg. No. 58,011
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, GA 30309-4528
`Phone: 404-532-6959; 404-815-6537
`Email: wkadaba@kilpatricktownsend.com;
`cholloway@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`
`Jackson Ho (Backup Counsel), Reg. No. 72,360
`K&L Gates LLP
`630 Hansen Way
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Phone: 650-798-6719
`Email: jackson.ho@klgates.com
`
`Frank C. Cimino (Backup Counsel), Reg. No. 39,945
`Megan S. Woodworth (Backup Counsel), Reg. No. 53,655
`VENABLE LLP
`575 7th Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20004
`Phone: 202-344-4000
`Email: FCCimino@fVenable.com; MSWoodworth@Venable.com
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`Dated: August 19, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/René A. Vazquez/
`BY:
`Raymond A. Joao (Lead Counsel)
`Reg. No. 35,907
`René A. Vazquez (Backup Counsel)
`Reg. No. 38,647
`
`
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`17