`571.272.7822
`
`Paper No. 41
`Filed: March 15, 2017
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CORE WIRELESS LICENSING S.A.R.L.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-01985
`Patent 8,713,476 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, DAVID C. MCKONE, and
`KEVIN W. CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CHERRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`
`LG Electronics, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting inter
`partes review of claims 1, 4–6, 8, 9, 20, 26, 27, and 29 of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,713,476 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’476 patent”). Paper 1 (“Petition” or
`“Pet.”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), we determined that the Petition
`showed a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`Patent 8,713,476 B2
`
`the unpatentability of claims 1, 4–6, 8, 9, 20, 26, 27, and 29, and we
`instituted an inter partes review of these claims on certain asserted grounds
`of unpatentability. Paper 7 (“Inst. Dec.”). Patent Owner Core Wireless
`Licensing S.A.R.L. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Patent Owner Response.
`Paper 22 (“PO Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s
`Response. Paper 24 (“Reply”). An oral hearing was held on December 14,
`2016, pursuant to requests by both parties. Paper 40 (“Tr.”); see Papers 28,
`32, 33.
`We issue this Final Written Decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. For the reasons that follow, we determine Petitioner
`has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 4–6, 8, 9,
`20, 26, 27, and 29 of the ’476 patent are unpatentable. See 35 U.S.C.
`§ 316(e).
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`A. RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`According to Petitioner and Patent Owner, the ’476 patent is involved
`in, at least, the following lawsuits: Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v.
`Apple, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-00751 (E.D. Tex.), Core Wireless Licensing
`S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-00752 (E.D. Tex.), and Core Wireless
`Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00911 (E.D. Tex.).
`Pet. 1; Paper 5, 2. Petitioner indicates that the cases involving Apple, Inc.
`are being transferred to the Northern District of California. Pet. 1. The ’020
`patent is also the subject of IPR2015-01899. Paper 5, 1. A related patent,
`U.S. Patent No. 8,434,020, is at issue in IPR2015-01898 and
`IPR2015-01984. Patent Owner also indicates that pending U.S. Application
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`Patent 8,713,476 B2
`
`No. 10/343,333 is a continuation of the application that issued as the ’476
`patent. Paper 5, 2.
`
`B. THE ’476 PATENT
`The ’476 patent relates to a computing device with an improved user
`interface for applications. Ex. 1001, 1:23–24. The ’476 patent describes a
`“snap-shot” view of an application that brings together, in one summary
`window, a limited list of common functions and commonly accessed stored
`data. Id. at 2:37–41. Preferably, where the summary window for a given
`application shows data or a function of interest, the user can select that data
`or function directly, which causes the application to open and the user to be
`presented with a screen in which the data or function of interest is
`prominent. Id. at 2:42–46. The ’476 patent explains that this summary
`window functionality saves the user from navigating to the required
`application, opening it up, and then navigating within that application to
`enable the data of interest to be seen or a function of interest to be activated.
`Id. at 2:46–50. Figure 2 of the ’476 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`Patent 8,713,476 B2
`
`Figure 2 illustrates an implementation of the summary window of the ’476
`patent. Ex. 1001, 3:42–43.
`
`
`C. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
`Claim 1, a device claim, and claim 20, a method claim, are the only
`independent claims of the ’476 patent that are challenged here. Claims 4–6,
`8, and 9 depend directly from claim 1. Claims 26, 27, and 29 depend
`directly from claim 20. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter in this
`proceeding, and is reproduced below (formatting added).
`1. A computing device comprising a display
`screen,
`the computing device being configured to display
`on the screen a menu listing one or more
`applications, and
`additionally being configured to display on the
`screen an application summary that can be
`reached directly from the menu,
`wherein
`the application summary displays a
`limited list of data offered within the one or
`more applications,
`each of the data in the list being selectable to
`launch the respective application and enable
`the selected data
`to be seen within
`the
`respective application, and
`wherein the application summary is displayed
`while the one or more applications are in an
`unlaunched state.
`
`Id. at 5:59–6:3.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`Patent 8,713,476 B2
`
`
`D. INSTITUTED GROUND OF UNPATENTABILITY
`We instituted an inter partes review of the ’476 patent on the ground
`that claims 1, 4–6, 8, 9, 20, 26, 27, and 29 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Blanchard (Ex. 1002, U.S. Patent
`No. 6,415,164 B1, issued July 2, 2002, filed March 17, 1999).
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`We interpret claims in an unexpired patent using the “broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`[they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under this standard, we presume
`that a claim term carries its “ordinary and customary meaning,” which “is
`the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art
`in question” at the time of the invention. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504
`F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The presumption may be overcome by
`providing a definition of the term in the specification with reasonable clarity,
`deliberateness, and precision. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480
`(Fed. Cir. 1994). In the absence of such a definition, limitations are not to
`be read from the specification into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988
`F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Only those terms which are in
`controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve
`the controversy. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d
`795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`1. “limited list”
`Neither party proposes a construction for the phrase “limited list”
`recited in claims 1, 8, and 20. However, Patent Owner contends that this
`phrase “requires that fewer than all possible items are shown in the ‘limited
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`Patent 8,713,476 B2
`
`list’[.]” PO Resp. 45. Patent Owner relies on the following testimony of
`Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Vernon Thomas Rhyne, III, at his first deposition on
`the related term of “limited list of at least one function” found in the claims
`of the ’020 patent:
`
`
`
`Ex. 2002, 49:8–15. Dr. Rhyne reiterated this understanding at his second
`deposition. See Ex. 2011, 85:14–22 (“I thought everybody had interpreted
`the limited list of functions to mean that you wouldn’t have all of the
`functions that were available in that one window for some application.”).
`
`Petitioner accepts this understanding—that “limited” requires fewer
`than all—in its Reply. See Reply 22–24 (discussing why Blanchard’s
`application summary window includes fewer than all functions and data).
`
`We agree with the parties that the phrase “limited list” requires that
`any data or functions shown in the “limited list” are fewer than all the data
`or functions available in an application. We conclude that this construction
`is consistent with the language of claims 1, 8, and 20. Moreover, it is
`consistent with the Specification. See, e.g., Ex. 1001, Abstract (“a limited
`list of common functions and commonly accessed stored data”); 2:66–3:2
`(“Once the summary window is launched, core data/functionality is
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`Patent 8,713,476 B2
`
`displayed . . .”); 3:27–30 (“The App Snapshot for any given application is a
`window which includes commonly requested data associated with that
`application and links to common functionality in that application.”); 3:31–35
`(“The App Snapshot . . . includes the number of new messages (‘0’) and
`links to the two most common functions (as defined by the system designer,
`or selected by the user, or learned by the device) . . . .”).
`
`Thus, we construe “limited list” as requiring that any data or functions
`shown in the “limited list” are fewer than all the data or functions available
`in an application.
`
`2. Remaining Terms
`We determine that no construction is necessary for any other term at
`
`this time.
`
`
`B. OBVIOUSNESS OF CLAIMS 1, 4–6, 8, 9, 20, 26, 27, AND 29 OVER
`BLANCHARD
`
`
`
`The sole instituted ground alleges that claims 1, 4–6, 8, 9, 20, 26, 27,
`and 29 of the ’476 patent are unpatentable as obvious over Blanchard.
`Pet. 14–22; Inst. Dec. 7–15.
`1. Blanchard (Ex. 1002)
`Blanchard, titled “Arrangement for Dynamic Allocation of Space on a
`Small Display of a Telephone Terminal,” discloses a telephone terminal
`configurable for accessing features available on the terminal through an
`interactive display arrangement. Ex. 1002, 1:11–14. In particular,
`Blanchard describes a user-interface for a mobile telephone, which is based
`on a “parent menu,” and has a window with selectable sub-level menu
`choices for each of the five options in the “parent menu.” Id. at 3:54–63.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`Patent 8,713,476 B2
`
`Figure 3 of Blanchard provides a display screen flow diagram and is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 3 illustrates the various display screens of one embodiment of
`Blanchard.
`
`The top row of Figure 3 illustrates the top level of the menu in five
`parent screens 210, 320, 330, 340, and 350. Id. at 5:39–41. Each of the five
`screens corresponds to one of the five options in the “parent menu,” which is
`the row of icons containing “[t]he Icon Home symbol 213, the Icon Phone
`Book symbol 214, the Icon Mailbox symbol 215, the Icon Lock symbol
`216[,] and the Icon Tools symbol.” Id. at 3:54–63. The user presses the
`“Left” or “Right” arrow keys to cycle through these screens. Id. at 5:39–46.
`In the leftmost screen, which is displayed when the “Home” symbol is
`selected in the parent menu, the window below that menu provides the name
`of the cellular service provider, the time and date, and two “selectable menu
`choices”: “Last Number” and “View Own Number.” Id. at 6:47–64.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`Patent 8,713,476 B2
`
`Similarly, in the middle screen, which is displayed when the “Mailbox”
`symbol is selected in the parent menu, the window provides three selectable
`menu choices, which are used to access “voice messages, text messages, and
`call logs,” respectively. Id. at 3:67–4:3. In each screen, “the Up and Down
`arrow keys 222 and 224 can be used to move the darkened elliptical cursor.”
`Id. at 6:7–15. The darkened elliptical cursor identifies the function in the
`sub-level menu that will be activated if the user presses “Select.” Id. at
`6:42–44.
`
`2. Analysis
`Petitioner identifies Figure 3 of Blanchard as disclosing the “main
`menu” and “application summary that can be reached directly from the
`menu,” as recited in claim 1. Pet. 15. For the “menu,” Petitioner relies on
`“parent menu” of Blanchard, which includes icons for what Petitioner
`characterizes as “applications.” Id. The icons that Petitioner specifically
`identifies as “applications” include “Home,” “Phone Book,” “Mailbox,”
`“Security,” and “Tools.” Id. As for the “application summary,” Petitioner
`identifies the “window with selectable sub-level choices” for each
`application icon in the main menu, e.g., Windows 210, 211 for “Home” and
`Windows 320–324 for “Phone Book.” Id. (citing Ex. 1002, 4:17–34).
`Independent claim 1 recites “wherein the application summary
`displays a limited list of data offered within the one or more applications.”
`Ex. 1001, 5:63–65. Claim 20 has a similar limitation. Id. at 7:13–15. In the
`Petition, Petitioner submitted that “[e]ach ‘window with selectable sub-level
`menu choices’ in Blanchard displays a limited list of data offered within the
`application corresponding to the highlighted main menu icon, and each listed
`data is selectable to launch the application and enable the selected data to be
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`Patent 8,713,476 B2
`
`seen within the respective application.” Pet. 16. In particular, Petitioner
`asserts that “when the ‘Mailbox’ icon is highlighted as shown in screen 332
`in Figure 3, the application summary for the Mailbox application displays a
`limited list showing that the user has 0 voice messages and 7 text messages.”
`Id. (citing Ex. 1002, Fig. 3). Petitioner states that “[b]oth the number of
`voice messages and the number of text messages are data stored in the
`Mailbox application.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 45). Petitioner contends that
`“[s]electing one of the menu choices in the ‘Mailbox’ window allows the
`user to ‘access’ either ‘voice messages’ or ‘text messages.’” Id. (citing
`Ex. 1002, 6:15–18, 3:67–4:3, 6:7–15).
`Petitioner also argues that “when the ‘Home’ icon highlighted as
`shown in screen 210 in Figure 4, the application summary . . . displays a
`limited list with the items ‘Last Number’ and ‘View Own Number.’” Id. at
`17 (citing Ex. 1002, 6:36–42). Petitioner asserts that “[t]hese items are both
`selectable to activate (i.e. ‘launch’) the corresponding application and enable
`the selected data to be seen within the application.” Id.
`Patent Owner argues, however, that none of this discussion in the
`Petition identifies or explains how Blanchard discloses a “limited list” of the
`data available within one or more applications. PO Resp. 44–50. Patent
`Owner submits, and Petitioner’s expert agreed, that the term “limited list”
`requires that the data shown in the “limited list” are fewer than all the data
`available in an application. Id. at 45 (quoting Ex. 2002, 49:8–15). Patent
`Owner asserts that Petitioner has failed to make an adequate showing on this
`element because there is no evidence of available “data” beyond the sub-
`menus shown in Figure 3 of Blanchard. Id. (Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 43–46). Patent
`Owner contends that Dr. Rhyne’s declaration contains only conclusory
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`Patent 8,713,476 B2
`
`assertions that this limitation is accounted for by Blanchard, but has no
`analysis or evidence to support this contention. Id. at 45–46. Instead, Patent
`Owner submits, the weight of the evidence supports a conclusion that Figure
`3 of Blanchard does not show a limited list of data and functions, but rather
`shows all of the selectable options. Id. at 47.
`We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show that
`Blanchard accounts for the requirement that the application summary display
`“a limited list of data offered within the first application.” As we explained
`above in Section II.A.1, this phrase requires that the list of data displayed in
`the application summary be fewer than all of the data offered within each
`respective application. Petitioner provides no explanation or evidence as to
`why Figure 3 of Blanchard, which Petitioner relies on as disclosing the
`“application summary,” displays fewer than all of the data offered within
`each of the applications that comprise the menu. Petitioner’s arguments to
`the contrary do not persuade us otherwise. To begin with, the Petition and
`Dr. Rhyne’s declaration only contain conclusory assertions that Blanchard
`accounts for the “limited list.” See Pet. 16–17; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 45, 46. There is
`no explanation in either the Petition or Dr. Rhyne’s declaration why the
`options “0 voice messages and 7 text messages” of the “Mailbox”
`application are a limited list. See id.
`Moreover, we fail to see, and Petitioner fails to explain, how the one
`other set of data Petitioner identifies—the “Home” icon options “Last
`Number” and “View Own Number”—are “data” that are offered within the
`home application. They appear to be simply functions and while they could
`be associated with data — e.g., the phone numbers — the claim requires that
`the “data” be displayed in the “summary window” not options that can allow
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`Patent 8,713,476 B2
`
`the user to access the “data.” Indeed, Petitioner identifies them as functions,
`not data, in the related Petition in IPR2015-01984. See LG Elecs., Inc. v.
`CORE Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., Case IPR2015-01984, Paper 1, at 16
`(“For example, when the ‘Home’ icon that corresponds to the telephone
`application is highlighted, the functions ‘Last Number’ and ‘View Own
`Number’ are displayed. (Id. at 6:36–42.) Each of the functions in this
`limited list is selectable to activate (i.e. ‘launch’) the corresponding
`application and initiate the selected function. For example, ‘pressing the
`Select key 227 redials the last number previously dialed.’ (Id. at 6:40–46).”).
`In the Reply, Petitioner offers several theories for why Blanchard
`accounts for this limitation. Reply 22–24. None of them is persuasive.
`First, Petitioner argues that “the phone in Blanchard does have data and
`functions that are not listed in the menus in Fig. 3.” Id. at 23. Petitioner
`contends that Patent Owner’s expert, Mr. Denning, admitted that a person of
`ordinary skill would have understood that the phone described in Blanchard
`included the ability to make a call and send a text message. Id. (citing
`Ex. 1016, 15:3–19, 14:4–7, 13:11–15). However, this contention ignores the
`claim language.
`To begin with, the mere ability to do something is not data, and
`Petitioner fails to explain how these additional functions account for other
`data that are not displayed. In addition, it is not enough that the device offer
`other data or functions. The claim requires that the “limited list” be of data
`“offered within the first application.” Petitioner provides no evidence or
`argument tying the allegedly missing data to any particular application or
`any particular application summary window. See id. The testimony cited of
`Mr. Scott A. Denning does nothing to remedy this failure. Ex. 1016, 15:3–
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`Patent 8,713,476 B2
`
`19, 14:4–7, 13:11–15. Instead, this testimony, at best, suggests that there
`may be some functions, not data, offered by the telephone terminal of
`Blanchard that are not accessed through the menu shown in Figure 3.
`Petitioner’s argument simply asks us to speculate about what Blanchard does
`and where there might be data offered. But speculation cannot carry
`Petitioner’s burden of proof. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1533 n.3
`(Fed. Cir. 1993) (Board’s language that limitation was “probably satisfied”
`by prior art “is speculative and therefore does not establish a prima facie
`case of unpatentability.”).
`Second, in the same discussion, Petitioner also mentions that Figure 4
`of Blanchard shows that data about missed calls when the number of missed
`calls is zero. Reply 23. The “Missed Calls” was not identified or discussed
`in the Petition, so this appears to be a new argument. Moreover, Petitioner
`provides no evidence, testimony, or even attorney argument that “Missed
`Calls” meet any of the other requirements that the claim sets forth for the
`data that are part of the limited list in application summary. For instance,
`the claim requires that the data may be “selectable to launch the respective
`application and enable the selected data to be seen within the respective
`application,” but Petitioner does not offer any evidence that the “Missed
`Calls” meets those attributes or even that it would have been obvious to add
`them. Thus, this new theory about the “Missed Calls” does not persuade us
`that that Petitioner has shown sufficiently that Blanchard accounts for the
`“limited list.”
`Third, Petitioner argues that several of the applications identified in
`Figure 3 “have more selectable options than can fit [into] a single summary
`window.” Reply 23. Petitioner submits that “screen 320 [of Figure 3 of
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`Patent 8,713,476 B2
`
`Blanchard] shows three options in the application summary window for
`Phone Book, and screen 323 shows two different options.” Id. Petitioner
`contends that “[t]his shows that the ‘limited list’ limitation is satisfied: the
`two options shown in screen 323 are not displayed in the application
`summary window shown in screen 320.” Id. Petitioner asserts that Patent
`Owner’s understanding of screens 320 and 323 as a single application
`summary window requires an “unnatural reading of ‘window.’” Id. (citing
`Ex. 1015 ¶¶ 55–57).
`This argument is not helpful to showing that Blanchard discloses a
`“limited list of data.” Neither the “Phone Book” nor the “Security” options
`are identified as including any list of data. Thus, this argument fails to
`persuade us that Blanchard discloses the “limited list of data” recited in
`claims 1 and 20.
`Finally, Petitioner submits that Patent Owner “mischaracterizes
`Blanchard by asserting that ‘the features of Blanchard’s Fig. 3’ are ‘all of the
`features of the telephone terminal’ and citing to ‘Blanchard at 3:21–25.’”
`Reply 24 (quoting PO Resp. 48). Petitioner argues that “Blanchard never
`states that the menus of Fig. 3 represent ‘all of the features’ of the phone.”
`Id. Petitioner asserts that, instead, “Blanchard expressly describes features
`of the phone that are not listed in Figure 3, such as making or ending a call.”
`Id. (citing Ex. 1002, 3:39–43). Even if Blanchard does not say that all of the
`features of the phone are shown in Figure 3 or there are other features
`available in the telephone terminal, that does not correct the defect
`recognized above that Petitioner has failed to show that the alleged
`application summary window shown in Figure 3 represents a “limited list”
`of data offered within the applications shown in Figure 3.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`Patent 8,713,476 B2
`
`
`The conjecture that the telephone terminal may offer other functions
`does not close this gap in Petitioner’s arguments. As we mentioned above,
`the availability of additional “functions” does not necessarily establish that
`there is additional data for display. Moreover, there is nothing to tie these
`functions and any associated data with any particular application shown in
`Figure 3. Without any evidence or even attorney explanation to close these
`gaps, we can only speculate what additional data may be available, what
`application they are offered within, and whether that application is one of the
`applications that can be accessed through the main menu shown in Figure 3.
`However, as we explained, speculation cannot carry the Petitioner’s burden
`of proof. Thus, we conclude that Petitioner has failed to show that
`Blanchard accounts for the “limited list” requirement of claims 1 and 20.
`Because this limitation is present in all of the claims, we find that Petitioner
`has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged
`claims are unpatentable as obvious over Blanchard.
`III. PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE
`We have reviewed Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude (Paper 29),
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition to the Motion (Paper 34), and Patent Owner’s Reply
`in Support of the Motion (Paper 36). Patent Owner moves to exclude certain
`exhibits and testimony from Dr. Rhyne’s Rebuttal Declaration. In particular,
`Patent Owner seeks to exclude Exhibits 1010–1013 and ¶¶ 13–18 of
`Dr. Rhyne’s Rebuttal Declaration (Exhibit 1015). Paper 29. We did not rely
`on either the testimony to which Patent Owner objects or any of the exhibits
`identified in Patent Owner’s motion. Accordingly, for this reason, we
`dismiss Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude as moot.
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`Patent 8,713,476 B2
`
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons given, based on the arguments and evidence of record,
`
`Petitioner has not met its burden to prove by a preponderance of the
`evidence that claims 1, 4–6, 8, 9, 20, 26, 27, and 29 of the ’476 patent are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Blanchard. See 35 U.S.C.
`§ 316(e).
`
`
`V. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`ORDERED that claims 1, 4–6, 8, 9, 20, 26, 27, and 29 of the ’476
`
`patent have not been proven unpatentable;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motion to exclude is
`dismissed as moot; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision,
`any party to the proceeding seeking judicial review of this Decision must
`comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2015-01985
`Patent 8,713,476 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`Herbert Finn
`Richard Harris
`Ashkon Cyrus
`Eric Maiers
`Kevin Kudlac
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`LG-CoreWireless-IPR@
`harrrisr@gtlaw.com
`cyrusa@gtlaw.com
`maierse@gtlaw.com
`kudlack@gtlaw.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Wayne M. Helge
`Walter D. Davis
`Alan A. Wright
`DAVIDSON, BERQUIST, JACKSON & GOWDEY, LLP
`whelge@davidsonberquist.com
`wdavis@davidsonberquist.com
`awright@davidsonberquist.com
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`