IPR2015-01751, No. 1098-63 Exhibit - Petitioners Demonstrative Exhibits for Remand Hearing Public Part 1 of 2 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 19, 2019)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`RPX CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET TIME, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-01750
`
`Patent 8,484,111 B2
`
`Case IPR2015-01751
`
`Case IPR2015-01752
`
`Patent 7,356,482 B2
`
`Petitioner’s Demonstratives for Oral Hearing
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`April 25, 2019
`
`

`Benefits-Plus-Relationship Is Not the Law
`
`Reply (Paper 101) at 19
`
`AIT Opposition (Paper 100) at 8
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`AIT Opposition (Paper 100) at 9
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`

`Benefits-Plus-Relationship Is Not the Law; AIT Ignores Contrary Authority
`Reply (Paper 101) at 19
`
`RPX Reply (Paper 101) at 19
`
`AIT Opposition (Paper 100) at iii (Table of Authorities)
`
`RPX Opening Brief (Paper 98) at 51
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`

`Benefits-Plus-Relationship Is Not the Law; AIT Ignores Contrary Authority
`Reply (Paper 101) at 19
`
`Unified v. Realtime at 14-15 (cited RPX Opening Brief at 52)
`
`Google v. Seven Networks at 14-15 (cited RPX Opening Brief at 52)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`Unified v. Barkan at 11-12 (cited RPX Opening Brief at 52)
`
`

`AIT Ignores the Federal Circuit’s Instruction That the Board Probe
`Whether RPX Was Representing Salesforce’s Interests
`Reply (Paper 101) at 20
`
`AIT, 897 F.3d at 1353
`(cited RPX Opening Brief at 52-53,
`Reply at 21-22)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`5
`
`Unified v. Barkan at 11-12 (cited RPX Opening Brief at 52, Reply at 22)
`
`

`AIT Ignores Authority That Representation Requires Appointment and
`Agency Requires Control and Assent
`
`Reply (Paper 101) at 27
`
`Taylor at 895 (cited RPX Opening Brief at 53)
`
`POPR (Paper 21) at 5
`
`AIT Opposition (Paper 100) at 1 (Table of Contents)
`
`Taylor at 906 (cited Reply at 23)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`6
`
`

`RPX Is Not Salesforce’s Proxy
`
`Reply (Paper 101) at 25
`
`Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (cited Reply at 25)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`Taylor at 906 (cited Reply at 25)
`
`

`RPX Is Not Salesforce’s Proxy
`
`Reply (Paper 101) at 25
`
`POPR (Paper 21) at 1
`
`POPR (Paper 21) at 6
`
`POPR (Paper 21) at 13
`
`AIT Opposition (Paper 100) at 36
`
`Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (cited Reply at 25)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`8
`
`

`RPX Is Not Salesforce’s Proxy
`
`Reply (Paper 101) at 25
`
`AIT Opposition (Paper 100) at 5
`
`AIT Opposition (Paper 100) at 30
`
`Taylor at 906 (cited Reply at 25)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`

`RPX Is Not Salesforce’s Proxy
`
`Reply (Paper 101) at 25
`
`WesternGeco at 1320 (cited Reply at 25)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`Wi-Fi Remand at 1340
`(cited RPX Opening Brief at 51 with typo as 1341, Reply at 25)
`
`

`AIT Ignores RPX’s Showing That RPX Is Not Representing Salesforce’s Interests
`Reply (Paper 101) at 23
`
`Taylor at 906 (cited Reply at 23)
`
`RPX Opening Brief (Paper 98) at 53-54
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`RPX Opening Brief (Paper 98) at 54-55
`11
`
`

`AIT Ignores RPX’s Showing That RPX Is Not Representing Salesforce’s Interests
`Reply (Paper 101) at 23
`
`AIT Opposition (Paper 100) at 37-38
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`RPX Opening Brief (Paper 98) at 54-55
`
`

`AIT’s Assertion That Salesforce Is a “Clear Beneficiary” of These IPRs
`Misunderstands What a “Beneficiary” Is
`
`Reply (Paper 101) at 20
`
`Ex. 1018 (cited RPX Opening Brief at 49)
`
`AIT, 897 F.3d at 1351 (cited Reply at 20)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Reply (Paper 101) at 20
`
`13
`
`

`AIT Ignores RPX’s Showing That RPX Is Not Representing Salesforce’s Interests
`Reply (Paper 101) at 23
`
`Reply (Paper 101) at 23-24
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`Wi-Fi Remand at 1340
`(cited RPX Opening Brief at 51 with typo as 1341, Reply at 25)
`
`

`Privity Is a Limited Exception to the Rule Against Nonparty Preclusion
`RPX Opening Brief (Paper 98) at 58
`
`Taylor at 894 n.8 (cited RPX Opening Brief at 59)
`
`WesternGeco at 1319 (cited RPX Opening Brief at 59)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`

`RPX’s Contractual Relationship with Salesforce Does Not Establish Privity
`Reply (Paper 101) at 30
`
`AIT Opposition (Paper 100) at 37
`
`Taylor at 894 n.8 (cited Reply at 30)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`

`Under WesternGeco, Salesforce’s Contractual Relationship with RPX
`Does Not Establish Privity
`
`Reply (Paper 101) at 31
`
`WesternGeco at 1320
`(cited RPX Opening Brief at 62, Reply at 32)
`
`WesternGeco at 1321
`(cited RPX Opening Brief at 62-63, Reply at 32)
`
`WesternGeco at 1322
`(cited RPX Opening Brief at 63, Reply at 31)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`

`Under Wi-Fi Remand, Salesforce’s Contractual Relationship with RPX
`Does Not Establish Privity
`
`Reply (Paper 101) at 31
`
`Wi-Fi Remand at 1337 (cited Reply at 32)
`
`Wi-Fi Remand at 1341 (cited Reply at 32)
`
`Wi-Fi Remand at 1340 (cited Reply at 32)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`

`The Evidence Establishes Salesforce Is Not an RPI or RPX’s Privy
`RPX Opening Brief (Paper 98) at 8
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Reply (Paper 101) at 7-9
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`

`RPX’s Patent Aggregation Service Is the Primary Reason Clients Join RPX
`Reply (Paper 101) at 7
`
`Second Chuang Dec. (Ex. 1073) ¶ 31 (cited Opening Brief at 18)
`
`- RPX Form Membership Agreements:
`Ex. 1074, Ex. 1075
`cited Opening Brief at 9, Reply at 10
`
`- Salesforce membership agreement:
`Ex. 1020 (
`)
`cited Opening Brief at 23, Reply at 9-10
`
`- Salesforce Third Amendment: Ex. 1077
`(
` expressly
`)
`
`cited Reply at 9-10
`
`-
`
`(
`
` agreement: Ex. 1079
`)
`
`cited Reply at 9-10
`
`Second Chuang Dec. (Ex. 1073) ¶ 3 (cited Opening Brief at 9)
`
`- First Chuang Dec. (Ex. 1019) ¶ 8
`cited Opening Brief at 9
`
`- Second Chuang Dec. (Ex. 1073)
`¶¶ 3-9, 29-36
`cited Opening Brief at 8-10, 18-23
`
`- Chuang Depo. (Ex. 1095) at 72:19-73:14
`cited Opening Brief at 19
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`

`RPX’s Patent Aggregation Service Is the Primary Reason Clients Join RPX
`Reply (Paper 101) at 7
`
`RPX Form Membership Agreement (Ex. 1074) at 2
`(cited Second Chuang Dec. (Ex. 1073) ¶¶ 5, 21;
`Opening Brief at 23; Reply at 10)
`
`Second Chuang Dec. (Ex. 1073) ¶ 5 (cited Opening Brief at 23)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`

`Salesforce Contracts for RPX’s Core Patent Aggregation Service
`RPX Opening Brief (Paper 98) at 23
`
`Salesforce membership agreement (Ex. 1020) at 1 (cited Opening Brief at 23)
`
`Salesforce membership agreement Third Amendment dated 2017
`(Ex. 1077) at 1 (cited Reply at 9)
`
`Salesforce membership agreement (Ex. 1020) at 2
`(cited Second Chuang Dec. (Ex. 1073) ¶¶ 14, 21;
`Opening Brief at 23; Reply at 9-10)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`Reply (Paper 101) at 9
`
`

`RPX’s Patent Aggregation Service Is the Primary Reason Clients Join RPX
`Reply (Paper 101) at 7
`
`Ex. 2008 (RPX 2013 10-K) at 3 (cited Opening Brief at 9)
`
`Second Chuang Dec. (Ex. 1073) ¶ 9 (cited Opening Brief at 9)
`
`Ex. 1019, Attachment B (RPX website, Services tab) (cited Opening Brief at 9)
`
`Ex. 2015 (RPX website FAQs) (cited Ex. 1073, Second
`Chuang Dec., ¶ 36; Opening Brief at 22-23)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`

`RPX Files IPRs on Its Own To Benefit RPX’s Core Business
`RPX Opening Brief (Paper 98) at 10
`
`Chiang Dec. (Ex. 1090) ¶ 23 (cited Opening Brief at 11)
`
`- First Chuang Dec. (Ex. 1019) ¶¶ 7-13, 34-49
`cited Opening Brief at 10-11, 37-42
`- Second Chuang Dec. (Ex. 1073) ¶¶ 28, 38
`cited Opening Brief at 40, 42
`- Chuang Depo. (Ex. 1095) at 97:4-98:12
`cited Opening Brief at 37, 42
`- Chiang Dec. (Ex. 1090) ¶¶ 20-30
`cited Opening Brief at 37-42
`- Chiang Depo. (Ex. 1094) at 50:4-21, 67:9-17,
`141:4-6, 147:3-148:19
`cited Opening Brief at 37-38, 41-42
`
`First Chuang Dec. (Ex. 1019) ¶¶ 8-9 (cited Opening Brief at 11)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`

`RPX Files IPRs on Its Own To Benefit RPX’s Core Business
`RPX Opening Brief (Paper 98) at 10
`
`First Chuang Dec. (Ex. 1019) ¶ 10 (cited Opening Brief at 11)
`
`Chuang Depo. (Ex. 1095) at 97-98 (cited Opening Brief at 11)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Chuang Depo. (Ex. 1095) at 98 (cited Opening Brief at 11)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`

`RPX Files IPRs on Its Own To Benefit RPX’s Core Business
`RPX Opening Brief (Paper 98) at 10
`
`Reply (Paper 101) at 14
`
`Second Chuang Dec. (Ex. 1073) ¶ 28 (cited Opening Brief at 20, 40-41)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`

`RPX Clears Liability for Members Via Defensive Patent Aggregation
`RPX Opening Brief (Paper 98) at 10
`
`Second Chuang Dec. (Ex. 1073) ¶ 32 (cited Opening Brief at 20)
`
`Second Chuang Dec. (Ex. 1073) ¶ 31 (cited Opening Brief at 10)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`

`Invalidating the AIT Patents Offered Significant Reputational Benefits
`Reply (Paper 101) at 8
`- The AIT Patents: Exs. 1001, 1101
`
`First Chuang Dec. (Ex. 1019) ¶ 41 (cited Opening Brief at 38-39)
`
`- AIT’s Litigation Complaint: Ex. 1093 at 13
`cited Opening Brief at 39; Chiang Dec. (Ex. 1090) ¶ 22
`
`- Final Written Decisions: Paper 80
`
`- Examiner’s Note: Ex. 1013 at 7-8
`cited Opening Brief at 38
`
`- Technology tags mapped to AIT Patents:
`Ex. 1024
`cited Opening Brief at 40
`
`- Application Developers Alliance and
`Electronic Frontier Foundation articles on
`“patent trolls” in software industry:
`Ex. 1019 Attachment C
`cited Opening Brief at 39
`(Ex. 1019 cited with typo as “Ex. 1090”)
`
`First Chuang Dec. (Ex. 1019) ¶ 42 (cited Opening Brief at 40-41)
`- First Chuang Dec. (Ex. 1019) ¶¶ 37, 41-43
`cited Opening Brief at 39-42
`- Chiang Dec. (Ex. 1090) ¶¶ 21-23, 25-26, 28
`cited Opening Brief at 38, 40-42
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`- Chiang Depo. (Ex. 1094) at 57:6-58:12, 74:16-75:20
`cited Opening Brief at 40, 46
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`

`Invalidating the AIT Patents Offered Significant Reputational Benefits
`Reply (Paper 101) at 8
`
`Chiang Dec. (Ex. 1090) ¶ 25 (cited Opening Brief at 38)
`
`Ex. 1013 at 7-8 (cited Opening Brief at 38; Chiang Dec., Ex. 1090, ¶ 21)
`
`Chiang Dec. (Ex. 1090) ¶ 21 (cited Opening Brief at 38)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`Final Written Decision (Paper 80) at 35
`
`

`RPX Did Not Represent Salesforce’s Interests
`RPX Opening Brief (Paper 98) at 47
`
`Chiang Dec. (Ex. 1090) ¶ 27 (cited Opening Brief at 44)
`
`Chiang Dec. (Ex. 1090) ¶ 30 (cited Opening Brief at 47)
`
`First Chuang Dec. (Ex. 1019) ¶ 20 (cited Opening Brief at 26, 49)
`
`Chiang Dec. (Ex. 1090) ¶ 36 (cited Opening Brief at 45)
`
`First Chuang Dec. (Ex. 1019) ¶ 46 (cited Opening Brief at 45)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`30
`
`

`RPX Did Not Represent Salesforce’s Interests
`RPX Opening Brief (Paper 98) at 47
`
`Second Chuang Dec. (Ex. 1073) ¶ 38, citing Exs. 1082-1089
`(cited Opening Brief at 47)
`
`Chiang Dec. (Ex. 1090) ¶ 24 (cited Opening Brief at 47)
`
`Ex. 1086
`(cited Opening Brief at 47; Second Chuang Dec., Ex. 1073, ¶ 38)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`Ex. 1087 (cited Opening Brief at 47; Second Chuang Dec., Ex. 1073, ¶ 38)
`
`

`RPX Did Not Represent Salesforce’s Interests
`RPX Opening Brief (Paper 98) at 52
`
`RPX Opening Brief (Paper 98) at 53
`
`First Chuang Dec. (Ex. 1019) ¶ 20 (cited Opening Brief at 26, 49)
`
`Chiang Dec. (Ex. 1090) ¶ 27 (cited Opening Brief at 33, 57)
`
`First Chuang Dec. (Ex. 1019) ¶ 45 (cited Opening Brief at 49)
`
`Salesforce agreements: Exs. 1020-1022, 1076-1079
`cited Second Chuang Dec. (Ex. 1073) ¶¶ 12-23;
`Opening Brief at 23-26; Reply at 9-10
`
`Salesforce payment records: Exs. 2019, 1081
`cited Second Chuang Dec. (Ex. 1073) ¶¶ 17-21;
`Opening Brief at 25-26; Reply at 10
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`

`Summary of Unmet Legal Requirements To Find Salesforce an RPI or Privy
`Proxy:
`- RPX must have had no interest of its own.
`Opening Brief at 53-54 and Reply at 25-26
`(collectively citing WesternGeco at 1340, Wi-Fi Remand at 1320, Black’s Law Dictionary definition of “proxy”)
`
`- Salesforce must have appointed RPX its litigating agent/representative and
`controlled these IPRs.
`Opening Brief at 53-55 and Reply at 25-26 (collectively citing Taylor at 906: “preclusion is appropriate only if the
`putative agent’s conduct of the suit is subject to the control of the party who is bound by the prior adjudication.”)
`
`RPI:
`
`- RPX must have represented Salesforce’s interests.
`Opening Brief at 48-53 and Reply at 19-24 (collectively citing AIT at 1353, Wi-Fi Remand at 1341, Barkan at 11)
`
`- Salesforce must have appointed RPX its representative.
`Opening Brief at 53-55 and Reply at 25-26 (collectively citing Taylor at 906, WM&C § 4454 (representation
`requires appointment), Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01 cmt.c (agency requires principal’s assent, agent’s
`consent, and principal’s control), O’Neil (same), Pac. Gas (agency requires principal’s control)
`- RPX must have filed these IPRs at Salesforce’s behest/command.
`Opening Brief at 48-50 and Reply at 20-22 (collectively citing AIT at 1351, TPG at 48,759, Wi-Fi Remand at
`1351, Ex. 1018 (“behest” means “command”), Black’s Law Dictionary (“beneficiary” is “designated”)
`
`Privity:
`
`- RPX/Salesforce contractual relationship must have given RPX control of
`Salesforce’s litigation/CBMs.
`Opening Brief at 61-63 and Reply at 30-33 (collectively citing Taylor at
`894 n.8, Wi-Fi Remand at 1337 and 1340-41, WesternGeco at 1319-22)
`
`- Proxy – see above.
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`

`Summary of Unmet Legal Requirements To Find Salesforce an RPI or Privy
`- RPX must have represented Salesforce’s interests.
`Opening Brief at 48-53 and Reply at 19-24 (collectively citing AIT at 1353, Wi-Fi Remand at 1341, Barkan at 11)
`
`RPI:
`
`- Salesforce must have appointed RPX its representative.
`Opening Brief at 53-55 and Reply at 25-26 (collectively citing Taylor at 906, WM&C § 4454 (representation
`requires appointment), Restatement (Third) of Agency § 1.01 cmt.c (agency requires principal’s assent, agent’s
`consent, and principal’s control), O’Neil (same), Pac. Gas (agency requires principal’s control)
`- RPX must have filed these IPRs at Salesforce’s behest/command.
`Opening Brief at 48-50 and Reply at 20-22 (collectively citing AIT at 1351, TPG at 48,759, Wi-Fi Remand at
`1351, Ex. 1018 (“behest” means “command”), Black’s Law Dictionary (“beneficiary” is “designated”)
`
`First Chuang Dec. (Ex. 1019) ¶ 20 (cited Opening Brief at 26, 49)
`
`Chiang Dec. (Ex. 1090) ¶ 36 (cited Opening Brief at 47)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`

`Summary of Unmet Legal Requirements To Find Salesforce an RPI or Privy
`
`Privity:
`
`- RPX/Salesforce contractual relationship must have given RPX control of
`Salesforce’s litigation/CBMs.
`Opening Brief at 61-63 and Reply at 30-33 (collectively citing Taylor at
`894 n.8, Wi-Fi Remand at 1337 and 1340-41, WesternGeco at 1319-22)
`
`- Proxy – see above.
`
`Second Chuang Dec. (Ex. 1073) ¶ 39 (cited Opening Brief at 62)
`
`Second Chuang Dec. (Ex. 1073) ¶ 37 (cited Opening Brief at 62)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`

`AIT Misrepresents RPX’s Petition for Certiorari
`
`Reply (Paper 101) at 5-6
`
`AIT Opposition (Paper 100) at 3
`
`AIT Opposition (Paper 100) at 8
`
`RPX Petition for Certiorari at i
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`

`AIT Misreads Wright & Miller § 1552
`
`Reply (Paper 101) at 24
`
`AIT Opposition (Paper 100) at 28
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Wright & Miller § 1552
`
`38
`
`

`AIT’s Acquiescence Theory Fails
`
`Reply (Paper 101) at 28
`
`AIT Opposition (Paper 100) at 38-39
`
`Reply (Paper 101) at 29-30
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`

`AIT Misstates RPX’s Burden
`
`Reply (Paper 101) at 29
`
`AIT Opposition (Paper 100) at 18
`
`AIT Opposition (Paper 100) at 8
`
`Wi-Fi Remand at 1338 n.3 (cited Reply at 29)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`Worlds at 1242 (cited Reply at 29)
`
`

`AIT’s Apparent Authority Argument Fails
`RPX Opening Brief (Paper 98) at 55
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`RPX Opening Brief (Paper 98) at 56
`
`

`Willful Blindness
`
`Global-Tech Appliances at 769 (cited RPX Opening Brief at 33)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`RPX Opening Brief (Paper 98) at 33
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`

`RPX Is Not Salesforce’s Attorney-in-Fact or Agent
`
`Reply (Paper 101) at 27
`
`AIT Opposition (Paper 100) at 37
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`

`AIT’s Concurrence Is Not Law
`
`Reply (Paper 101) at 31
`
`AIT Opposition (Paper 100) at 35
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, 52 F.3d at 976-77 n.7
`(cited Reply at 31)
`
`Wi-Fi Remand at 1346 (Reyna, J., dissenting)
`(cited Reply at 32)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`

`ARRIS Does Not Help AIT
`
`Reply (Paper 101) at 32
`
`AIT Opposition (Paper 100) at 5
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`
`ARRIS at 8 (cited Opposition at 5, Reply at 32-33)
`
`

`AIT’s Amorphous Privity Test Is Contrary to Law
`
`Reply (Paper 101) at 33
`
`Taylor at 898 (cited RPX Opening Brief at 59, Reply at 34)
`
`Reply (Paper 101) at 33-34
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`46
`
`

`AIT’s Analogies to Ventex Fail
`
`Reply (Paper 101) at 18
`
`Ventex at 13 (cited Reply at 18)
`
`Ventex at 13-14 (cited Reply at 18)
`
`Ventex at 10 (cited Reply at 19)
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`Ventex at 15 (cited Reply at 18-19)
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`

`AIT Waived Any Privity Argument
`
`RPX Opening Brief (Paper 98) at 58
`
`AIT, 897 F.3d at 1344 n.1 (cited Opposition at 35 n.8)
`
`Board’s Oct. 2016 Hearing Order (Paper 75) at 3
`(cited RPX Opening Brief at 58)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`

`Benefits-Plus-Relationship Is Not the Law
`
`Reply (Paper 101) at 19
`
`Hybrigenics v. Forma Therapeutics at 14-15 (cited Reply at 19)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`49
`
`

`AIT Ignores RPX’s Showing That RPX Is Not Representing Salesforce’s Interests
`Reply (Paper 101) at 23
`
`Wi-Fi Remand at 1340
`(cited RPX Opening Brief with typo as 1341,
`Reply at 25)
`
`WesternGeco at 1320 (cited Reply at 25)
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`50
`
`

`Benefits-Plus-Relationship Is Not the Law
`
`Reply (Paper 101) at 19
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`Unified v. Barkan at 11-12 (cited Opening Brief at 52)
`
`

`No Other Taylor Exception Applies
`
`RPX Opening Brief (Paper 98) at 63
`
`RPX Opening Brief (Paper 98) at 63
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`52
`
`

`AIT Opposition (Paper 100) at 5
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT — NOT EVIDENCE
`
`53
`
`AIT, 897 F.3d at 1350
`
`

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

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

Up-to-date information for this case.
Email alerts whenever there is an update.
Full text search for other cases.
Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

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

Supplemental Search

Search for PTAB Motions

PTAB Analytics

TTAB Analytics

Basic Search

Filters

Party Search

Advanced

Selected Courts

Recently Selected Courts

Find PTAB Decisions

PTAB Analytics

Special PTAB Alerts

Orange Book

Directly Search Federal Courts

Search Trademark ...

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

Still Working On It

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

This document could not be displayed.

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.

One Moment Please

Your document is on its way!

Sealed Document

We are redirecting youto a mobile optimized page.

Document Unreadable or Corrupt

We are unable to display this document.

STEP 2 of 2

Choose your membership type

Flat-Fee

Pay-As-You-Go

Add your payment information

Login or Join

Enter your corporate Email

Thousands of your peers are saving time and gaining a competitive advantage with Docket Alarm.

Join Docket Alarm to perform smarter legal research.

Download this document and millions of others instantly with a Docket Alarm membership.

Join Docket Alarm and start performing smarter legal research.

Start tracking this docket instantly with a Docket Alarm membership.

Join thousands of your peers and start performing smarter legal research.

STEP 1 of 2

Millions of Documents | 15 Seconds to Signup

Hi !

Welcome to Docket Alarm

Welcome to Docket Alarm!

Explore Litigation Insights andManage Your Cases

Reset Password

What is PACER?

Why do I need it?

What will I be charged?

Do other courts have fees?

Basic Free Access

Welcome

Thank you

Check Firm Account

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

Explore Litigation Insights and
Manage Your Cases