UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NADER ASGHARI-KAMRANI and KAMRAN ASGHARI-KAMRANI,
`Patent Owners
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,266,432
`Case IPR2015-01842
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNERS
`MOTION TO WITHDRAW CURRENT COUNSEL AND APPOINT MEI &
`MARK LLP
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01842
`Attorney Docket No: 36137-0007IP1
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owners are principals of a Patent Assertion Entity known as
`
`Delphinus Technology and have demanded from USAA tens of millions of dollars
`
`for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432, the subject of this
`
`proceeding.
`
`On December 29, 2015, Patent Owners appointed Mei & Mark as
`
`prosecution counsel on a continuation application of the patent at issue in this
`
`proceeding. Based on his participation in an Examiner Interview, it appears that
`
`Mr. Nienstadt of Mei & Mark is serving as lead prosecution counsel for the Patent
`
`Owners.1 On January 13, 2016, Patent Owners’ prior counsel, Novak, Kim & Lee,
`
`PLLC, filed a Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel and now Patent Owners seek to
`
`appoint Mei & Mark, LLP as new counsel in this proceeding. Petitioner was
`
`unconcerned with this change, given the Patent Owners’ history of frequently
`
`changing counsel. However, Petitioner later came to find that on January 13, 2016,
`
`Patent Owners also sought to appoint the same counsel from Mei & Mark LLP as
`
`litigation counsel in a related proceeding pending in the Eastern District of
`
`Virginia. Petitioner opposes the Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel pending Mei
`
`& Mark’s representation that it will agree to basic terms of a protective order in
`
`this proceeding.
`                                                            
`1 See Interview Summary mailed 1/20/16 in Ser. No. 13/606,538.
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01842
`Attorney Docket No: 36137-0007IP1
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`1. Novak, Kim & Lee was appointed as counsel for Petitioner on September
`
`23rd, 2015. The Novak firm was also appointed as counsel in the Patent Owners’
`
`pending U.S. Application No. 13/606,538, which is a continuation of the
`
`challenged patent. The Novak firm never made an appearance in any litigation
`
`between Patent Owners and Petitioner and, to Petitioner’s knowledge, had no
`
`involvement in any such litigation.
`
`2. On October 30th, 2015, Patent Owners filed suit in the Eastern District of
`
`Virginia, appointing McClanahan Powers, PLLC as counsel in a case styled
`
`Ashgari-Kamrani et al. v. United Services Automobile Association, Case No. 2:15-
`
`cv-00478-RGD-LRL. To Petitioner’s knowledge, the McClanahan firm never
`
`made an appearance before the PTAB or the PTO on behalf of the Patent Owners.
`
`3. Until the Mei & Mark firm started making appearances, the Patent
`
`Owners separated their PTO/PTAB counsel and litigation counsel.
`
`4. On January 13th, 2016, Patent Owners filed a Motion for Withdrawal
`
`Counsel by the Novak firm.
`
`5. On January 14th, 2016, Petitioner signaled its potential opposition to the
`
`Motion to Withdraw for the Novak firm, noting that the proposed withdrawal and
`
`substitution subjects Petitioner USAA to having its proprietary information abused
`
`through the inter partes review. The PTAB asked both sides to meet and confer.
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01842
`Attorney Docket No: 36137-0007IP1
`6. On January 15, 2016 the parties conferred telephonically. Petitioner
`
`identified its concern, but Mr. Nienstadt, on behalf of the Patent Owners, indicated
`
`that USAA’s concern was likely premature and that the PTAB does not enter
`
`protective orders.
`
`7. Though premised by Mr. Nienstadt’s threat of sanctions, the parties
`
`continued their efforts to resolve the issue via email, with the Patent Owners later
`
`agreeing “to discuss[] … any reasonable protective order [Petitioner] seek[s] in the
`
`IPR.” 2 Mr. Nienstadt also noted that “of course [Petitioner] can send me a draft
`
`proposed protective order.”3
`
`8. As Petitioner had no interest in holding up Mei & Mark’s or Mr.
`
`Nienstadt’s appearance in this proceeding subject to negotiating a complete
`
`protective order (which is a fairly complex agreement having numerous terms),
`
`USAA sought to expedite matters for the parties and the Panel by offering to
`
`withdraw its opposition if Patent Owners agreed to accept certain simple, non-
`
`controversial terms in an eventual protective order.4
`
`                                                            
`2 See attached email chain at pp. 2, 4 (highlighted for the Panel’s convenience;
`
`emphasis original).
`
`3 Id.
`
`4 Id. at 1.
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01842
`Attorney Docket No: 36137-0007IP1
`9. Rather than consider Petitioner’s request, try to negotiate different terms,
`
`or make even the appearance of trying to resolve this dispute, Mr. Nienstadt’s
`
`entire response to USAA’s proposal reads: “We are not opposing [our own]
`
`motion for withdrawal and substitution of counsel.”5
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`The appointment of Mei & Mark, LLP as counsel for both district court
`
`litigation and in this proceeding erodes previous safeguards that existed with
`
`maintenance of separate counsel for IPR and district court litigation.6 The
`
`potential for abuse through the amendment process is well documented with
`
`protective orders becoming the common remedy to address such concerns.
`
`Notwithstanding these concerns, Patent Owners refuse to even consider safeguards
`
`in this proceeding. The terms proposed by Petitioner are hardly unusual and can be
`
`found in virtually any protective order where one firm wants to wear as many hats
`
`as Mei & Mark does.
`
`The above-noted defects can be remedied with the adoption of a protective
`
`                                                            
`5 Id. at 1.
`
`6 Mr. Nienstadt’s role as lead prosecution counsel on a pending application for
`
`Patent Owners raises another significant issue with respect to his appearance in the
`
`parallel E.D. Va. proceeding, but that is outside the purview of the instant paper.
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01842
`Attorney Docket No: 36137-0007IP1
`order that protects Petitioner’s confidential information. Patent Owners’ proposed
`
`new counsel relies upon one authority that allows a single firm to “participate” in
`
`both litigation and before the PTAB. See Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Actavis
`
`Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv-08115-TPG-GWG (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2014). However,
`
`Endo speaks to the importance of such safeguards in order to protect confidential
`
`information and, in fact, restricts litigation counsel from conferring with patent
`
`counsel on the amendment of patent claims and sharing confidential information.
`
`In addition to offering the patently obvious point that the Patent Owners do
`
`not oppose their own motion, Patent Owners have argued that discovery has not
`
`yet begun in the related litigation, making protective measures unnnecesary. It is
`
`unclear when the E.D. Va. court is going to even consider entry of a protective
`
`order because of a pending motion to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101. It is further
`
`unclear when, if ever, a discovery schedule will be set. However, Patent Owners
`
`ignore that their litigation counsel’s receipt of confidential information likely can
`
`happen before either of those things occur. While Petitioner cannot reveal its
`
`litigation strategy, it needs to be free to file briefing under seal in the E.D. Va.
`
`court, provide service copies of that briefing to opposing litigation counsel, and
`
`know that it can reveal confidential information in furtherance of the litigation
`
`without that information being used against it in this IPR. For at least that reason,
`
`USAA asks for agreement now on basic terms of a protective order than can be
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01842
`Attorney Docket No: 36137-0007IP1
`more fully negotiated in the coming days or weeks.
`
`Moreover, additional risks are raised in light of Patent Owners’ historical
`
`behavior with respect to counsel. In the litigation (filed on October 30, 2015),
`
`Patent Owners are already on their second law firm. In the course of its overtures
`
`to USAA prior to filing the litigation, Patent Owners switched counsel once.
`
`During prosecution of challenged U.S. Patent No. 8,266,432, Patent Owners went
`
`through no fewer than five different law firms. As for pending continuation
`
`application 13/606,538, Patent Owners are already on law firm number five.
`
`Patent Owners’ penchant for switching firms puts USAA’s confidential
`
`information at an inherent risk because each change in counsel means another firm
`
`is going to have access to the information and another firm is going to have to be
`
`bound not to use that information after conclusion of representation. Without
`
`some sort of protection in place, USAA is left unprotected when the next firm
`
`shows up.
`
`Thus, in view of the foregoing and the Patent Owners’ relied-upon Endo
`
`case, Petitioner submits that if Patent Owners wish to consolidate PTAB and
`
`litigation counsel, Patent Owners must agree to safeguards that protect the abuse of
`
`Petitioner’s confidential information in this proceeding and avoid the appearance
`
`of impropriety. Therefore, Petitioners condition their consent to Mei & Mark’s
`
`appearance in this proceeding upon their agreement that a protective order will be
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01842
`Attorney Docket No: 36137-0007IP1
`entered that, inter alia, prohibits anyone who receives access to USAA confidential
`
`information in the related EDVA litigation from (1) using USAA confidential
`
`information in this proceeding or providing such information to others working on
`
`this proceeding and (2) amending, drafting, or consulting on amendments to the
`
`claims of the challenged patent. As Patent Owners have failed to disclose their
`
`objection to these very simple, commonplace terms, Petitioner is at a loss to advise
`
`the Board as to the full nature of the dispute and observes that it is asking for very
`
`little.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Thomas A. Rozylowicz/
`
`Thomas A. Rozylowicz
`Reg. No. 50,620
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
` 1/20/2016
`Date:
`
`
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01842
`Attorney Docket No: 36137-0007IP1
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.6(e)(1), the undersigned certifies that on January
`20, 2016, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`Owners Motion to Withdraw Current Counsel and Appoint Mei & Mark LLP, and
`its attachment, were provided via email, to the Petitioner by serving the email
`correspondence addresses of record as follows:
`
`Jae Youn Kim
`Harold L. Novick
`Sang Ho Lee
`Novick, Kim & Lee, PLLC
`1604 Spring Hill Rd., Suite 320
`Vienna, VA 22182
`
`Email: skim@nkllaw.com
`Email: hnovick@nkllaw.com
`Email: slee@nkllaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Edward G. Faeth/
`Edward G. Faeth
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis MN 55402
`(202) 626-6420
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`ATTACHMENT
`
`ATTACHMENT
`
`
`
`

`
`Michael Zoppo
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Reece Nienstadt <rnienstadt@meimark.com>
`Tuesday, January 19, 2016 1:06 PM
`Michael Zoppo
`Thomas Rozylowicz; IPR36137-0007IP1; kcolantoni@meimark.com; mei@meimark.com
`Re: IPR2015-001842 Motion to Withdraw Counsel
`
`Michael, 
` 
`We are not opposing Patent Owners' motion for withdrawal and substitution of counsel. 
` 
`With best regards, 
`Reece 
` 
`On Jan 19, 2016, at 12:39 PM, Michael Zoppo <Zoppo@fr.com> wrote: 
`
`
`
`Hi Reece, 
` 
` 
`We disagree that the issues are separate or “brand new”; Tom’s initial email to the PTAB raised 
`the issue of a protective order.  We will continue to oppose unless you represent to us and the 
`PTAB that you will agree to a protective order in the IPR that includes a prosecution bar 
`consistent with the prohibitions in your cited Endo case.  Particularly, the bar must prohibit 
`anyone who receives access to USAA confidential information in the EDVA litigation from (1) 
`using USAA confidential information in the IPR proceeding or providing such information to 
`others working on the IPR and (2) amending, drafting, or consulting on amendments to the 
`claims of the challenged patent.   
` 
` 
`We can’t agree with you that the issue is premature because, while I cannot reveal our 
`litigation strategy, USAA is well within its rights to file additional briefing in the litigation that 
`requires outside‐attorneys’‐eyes only treatment prior to the entry of a protective order 
`pursuant to EDVA Local Rule 5. 
` 
` 
`As our opposition is due tomorrow, kindly let us have your position as soon as possible. 
` 
` 
`Thanks, 
` 
` 
`Michael 
`  
` 
` 
`From: Reece Nienstadt [mailto:rnienstadt@meimark.com]  
`Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 5:38 PM 
`To: Michael Zoppo 
`Cc: Thomas Rozylowicz; IPR36137‐0007IP1; kcolantoni@meimark.com; mei@meimark.com 
`Subject: Re: IPR2015‐001842 Motion to Withdraw Counsel 
`  
`
`1
`
`

`
`Michael, 
` 
`I'm similarly puzzled by the change of topic.  The purpose of the meet‐and‐confer was to discuss USAA's 
`holding up of the the Patent Owners' motion for withdrawal and appearance of counsel.  In order to 
`resolve the currently pending motion for withdrawal and appearance of counsel and thereby address 
`the matter currently before the Board, please let me know whether USAA continues to oppose Patent 
`Owners' motion for withdrawal and appearance of counsel. 
` 
`If you wish to discuss a brand new topic about a motion for protective order in the IPR, of course you 
`can send me a draft proposed protective order at any time and we can discuss that, although I'm not 
`sure if that wouldn't be a premature motion to bring at the Board at this time.  
` 
`Thanks, 
`Reece 
` 
`On 1/15/2016 5:22 PM, Michael Zoppo wrote: 
`
`  
`
`
`
` 
`
`Hi Reece, 
`  
`I wouldn’t normally respond to an email like this, but your response has me 
`scratching my head and I have to ensure that we are not talking past each 
`other:  are you now saying that you would agree to protective order in the IPR 
`so long as it is “reasonable”?  I haven’t proposed a protective order to you 
`because you have scoffed at the idea (and I’m equally puzzled why you are 
`calling something I haven’t proposed “unreasonable”…).    
` 
` 
`Thanks, 
` 
` 
`Michael 
` 
` 
`From: Reece Nienstadt [mailto:rnienstadt@meimark.com]  
`Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 5:15 PM 
`To: Michael Zoppo 
`Cc: Thomas Rozylowicz; IPR36137‐0007IP1; kcolantoni@meimark.com; 
`mei@meimark.com 
`Subject: Re: IPR2015‐001842 Motion to Withdraw Counsel 
`
`  
`Michael, 
` 
`I've already explained our position to you in my previous e‐mail and on the phone.  It is 
`not the extreme position that you continue to misrepresent it to be.  As I said, I 
`understand your concern and simply ask that you bring your concern about confidential 
`information at the proper forum and at the proper time, in accordance with well 
`established precedent in this area.  Instead of frivolously holding up the withdrawal and 
`appearance of counsel, we are open to discussing any proposed protective order that 
`you wish to lodge at the District Court (and/or any reasonable protective order that you 
`seek in the IPR ‐‐ which is not at all what you have described so far).   
` 
`
`2
`
`

`
`Even if you seek a protective order in the IPR, there is absolutely no basis for USAA to 
`continue to hold up the withdrawal and appearance of counsel. 
` 
`With best regards, 
`Reece 
`
`On 1/15/2016 5:05 PM, Michael Zoppo wrote: 
`
` 
`
`Hi Reece, 
` 
` 
`We are disappointed that you would resort to a threat of 
`sanctions when the case you cite supports the concerns we raised 
`on our call—that protections need to be put in place to ensure 
`that no one with access to USAA’s confidential information is in a 
`position to make claim amendments (whether in standard 
`prosecution or in the IPR).  If there is actual authority for your 
`position that you should have free reign in the IPR despite all the 
`other hats you want to wear, please share it.  Also, please send us 
`authority for your position that protective orders cannot be 
`entered in the PTAB, as that contradicts our experience.   
` 
` 
`As we continue to consider the issue of your appearance in the 
`district court litigation, it’d be helpful to know whether you intend 
`to maintain your appearance in the PTO in the pending 
`continuation application or if lawyers/agents not involved in the 
`litigation will handle instead (with appropriate walls in place 
`shielding them from lawyers working in the PTO).    
` 
` 
`Best, 
` 
` 
`Michael 
`  
` 
` 
`From: Reece Nienstadt [mailto:rnienstadt@meimark.com]  
`Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 4:41 PM 
`To: Michael Zoppo 
`Cc: Thomas Rozylowicz; IPR36137‐0007IP1; kcolantoni@meimark.com; 
`mei@meimark.com 
`Subject: Re: IPR2015‐001842 Motion to Withdraw Counsel 
`
`  
`Michael and Tom, 
` 
`Thanks for participating in the telephonic meet‐and‐confer today.  In 
`the teleconference, I reiterated our position that for USAA to either 
`continue opposing Patent Owners' appearance of counsel or move for a 
`protective order is premature at this time, for at least the reason that 
`we have not even had an initial conference and no discovery schedule 
`has been entered in the District Court.  More importantly, it is well 
`established that any motion for a protective order or prosecution bar 
`3
`
`

`
`based on the concerns you have articulated should be brought at the 
`District Court. 
` 
`Please be mindful that, like Rule 11 in district courts, under 37 C.F.R. 
`42.12 the Board can impose sanctions against a party for "advancing a 
`misleading or frivolous argument or request for relief," "engaging in 
`dilatory tactics," and/or "abuse of process."  In my opinion, the well‐
`established case law on the issues we've discussed would support such 
`relief if USAA continues to oppose Patent Owners' motion for 
`appearance of counsel on the grounds it has articulated or if USAA files 
`a frivolous and premature motion. 
` 
`If you have any questions, please let me know. 
` 
`With best regards, 
`Reece 
`
`     
`
`--
`Reece Nienstadt
`Attorney at Law
`Mei & Mark LLP
`888-860-5678 x710 (US) | 202-567-6417 x710 (Int'l) |
`888-706-1173 (Fax)
`rnienstadt@meimark.com | GnuPG Key ID: 0x85C30122 |
`www.meimark.com
`Office Address: 818 18th Street NW, Suite 410,
`Washington, DC
`Mailing Address: P.O. Box 65981, Washington, DC
`20035-5981
`
`---
`This e-mail message is intended only for
`individual(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain
`information that is privileged, confidential,
`proprietary, or otherwise exempt from disclosure
`under applicable law. If you believe you have
`received this message in error, please advise the
`sender by return e-mail and delete it from your
`mailbox. Thank you.
` 
`On 1/15/2016 11:22 AM, Michael Zoppo wrote: 
`
` 
`
`Hi Reece, 
` 
` 
`Not having heard back, we propose a call at 4PM 
`today to conduct our meet and confer on the IPR 
`issue.  Dial in:  888 706 0584, code 435 971. 
` 
` 
`Look forward to speaking then concerning then. 
`  
`
`4
`
`

`
`Thanks, 
` 
` 
`Michael 
` 
` 
`From: Michael Zoppo  
`Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 6:45 PM 
`To: Reece Nienstadt 
`Cc: Thomas Rozylowicz; Underwood, Cathy; IPR36137‐
`0007IP1; kcolantoni@meimark.com; 
`mei@meimark.com 
`Subject: Re: IPR2015‐001842 Motion to Withdraw 
`Counsel 
`
`  
`Hi Reece, 
`
`  
`You seem to misunderstand our concern so let's 
`schedule a meet and confer and spare Cathy this back 
`and forth.  Shoot us a note with your availability.  
`
`  
`Thanks much.   
` 
`Sent from my iPhone 
` 
`On Jan 14, 2016, at 5:45 PM, Reece Nienstadt 
`<rnienstadt@meimark.com> wrote: 
`
`Tom and Cathy, 
` 
`Since the concern raised in Tom's email 
`appears to be limited to USAA's 
`proprietary and confidential 
`information that may be produced 
`during discovery at the District Court in 
`the future, it seems to me that these 
`concerns should be raised at the District 
`Court, not at the PTAB.  At the District 
`Court, neither a discovery schedule nor 
`a protective order has been entered, 
`and therefore this concern is 
`speculative and better addressed to the 
`District Court.  We are open to 
`discussing with Fish & Richardson a 
`proposed prosecution bar to be lodged 
`in the District Court. 
` 
`This concern certainly does not provide 
`a basis for opposing a withdrawal or 
`appearance of counsel in this IPR.  It is 
`well established that an IPR is 
`analogous to a district court litigation 
`for these purposes and a patent 
`owner's counsel may therefore 
`5
`
`

`
`participate in an IPR simultaneous with 
`the litigation.  See, e.g., Endo 
`Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Actavis Inc., et 
`al., No. 1:12‐cv‐08115‐TPG‐GWG 
`(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2014).  (Indeed, Fish 
`& Richardson is representing USAA in 
`the IPR as well as in the District Court 
`with the benefit of receiving Plaintiff's 
`proprietary and confidential 
`information, rather than having a 
`different firm handle the IPR.) 
` 
`If you wish to schedule a meet‐and‐
`confer, I'm available. 
` 
`With best regards, 
`Reece  
`--
`Reece Nienstadt
`Attorney at Law
`Mei & Mark LLP
`888-860-5678 x710 (US) | 202-
`567-6417 x710 (Int'l) | 888-
`706-1173 (Fax)
`rnienstadt@meimark.com |
`GnuPG Key ID: 0x85C30122 |
`www.meimark.com
`Office Address: 818 18th
`Street NW, Suite 410,
`Washington, DC
`Mailing Address: P.O. Box
`65981, Washington, DC 20035-
`5981
`
`---
`This e-mail message is
`intended only for
`individual(s) to whom it is
`addressed and may contain
`information that is
`privileged, confidential,
`proprietary, or otherwise
`exempt from disclosure under
`applicable law. If you
`believe you have received
`this message in error, please
`advise the sender by return
`e-mail and delete it from
`your mailbox. Thank you.
`On 1/14/2016 1:10 PM, Thomas 
`Rozylowicz wrote: 
`
` 
`
`Cathy and Reece, 
`
`  
`This email raises a few 
`questions.  First, we 
`6
`
`

`
`duly note that Reece 
`was appointed by the 
`Patent Owner to 
`prosecute the 
`continuation 
`application in 
`December.  And just 
`yesterday, Reece 
`sought leave to appear 
`as litigation counsel in 
`the related proceeding 
`pending in the Eastern 
`District of 
`Virginia.   Before USAA 
`can indicate whether it 
`opposes a motion to 
`withdraw, USAA wants 
`to better understand 
`the process by which 
`Reece and his firm will 
`protect USAA’s 
`proprietary and 
`confidential 
`information from 
`improper usage in the 
`IPR. The Patent Owner 
`has the ability to abuse 
`proprietary information 
`through the 
`amendment process 
`and also in advancing 
`claim constructions 
`based upon a preferred 
`infringement 
`construction.  USAA will 
`not consent to any 
`arrangement where 
`prosecution and IPR 
`counsel are given 
`access to USAA’s 
`proprietary 
`information.   
`  
`In order to arrive at 
`USAA’s final position, 
`we propose a short call 
`where Reece can advise 
`whether these concerns 
`can be adequately 
`addressed. 
`
`  
`Regards, 
`
`7
`
`

`
`  
`
`Tom Rozylowicz 
`
`  
`Thomas Rozylowicz
`:: Principal :: Fish &
`Richardson P.C. 
`+1-202-626-6395
`direct ::
`rozylowicz@fr.com 
`fr.com :: Bio ::
`LinkedIn :: Twitter  
`  
`
`  
`From: Underwood, 
`Cathy 
`[mailto:Cathy.Underwo
`od@USPTO.GOV]  
`Sent: Thursday, January 
`14, 2016 10:13 AM 
`To: Michael Zoppo; 
`IPR36137‐0007IP1; 
`rnienstadt@meimark.c
`om; 
`kcolantoni@meimark.c
`om; 
`mei@meimark.com 
`Subject: IPR2015‐
`001842 Motion to 
`Withdraw Counsel 
`
`  
`Hello, 
`  
` 
` 
`On January 13, 2016, 
`Counsel for Patent 
`Owners filed a 
`motion to withdraw 
`as counsel.  Does 
`Petitioner oppose the 
`motion to withdraw?  
`  
`
` 
`Thank you, 
`Cathy Underwood 
`Trial Paralegal  
`Patent Trial and
`Appeal Board 
`U.S. Patent &
`Trademark Office 
`cathy.underwood@usp
`to.gov 
`
`8
`
`

`
`(DIRECT) 571-272-
`8358 
`(MAIN) 571-272-9797 
`  
`  
`  
`  
`  
`  
`  
`
`*******************
`*******************
`*******************
`*******************
`*******************
`*******************
`**********
`This email message
`is for the sole use
`of the intended
`recipient(s) and
`may contain
`confidential and
`privileged
`information. Any
`unauthorized use or
`disclosure is
`prohibited. If you
`are not the
`intended recipient,
`please contact the
`sender by reply
`email and destroy
`all copies of the
`original message.
`*******************
`*******************
`*******************
`*******************
`*******************
`*******************
`**********  
`
`
`
`  
`
`
`
`**********************************************
`**********************************************
`********************************
`This email message is for the sole use of the
`intended recipient(s) and may contain
`confidential and privileged information. Any
`unauthorized use or disclosure is prohibited.
`If you are not the intended recipient, please
`contact the sender by reply email and destroy
`all copies of the original message.
`**********************************************
`**********************************************
`********************************  
`
`  
`
`9
`
`

`
`
`
`************************************************************************
`****************************************************
`This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
`confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is prohibited.
`If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy
`all copies of the original message.
`************************************************************************
`****************************************************  
`
`  
`
`
`
`*************************************************************************
`***************************************************
`This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
`may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized use
`or disclosure is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
`please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the
`original message.
`*************************************************************************
`***************************************************  
`
`  
`
`
`
`**************************************************************************************
`**************************************
`This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
`confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is
`prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply
`email and destroy all copies of the original message.
`**************************************************************************************
`**************************************
`
`10