Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 25
`Entered: September 29, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SIERRA WIRELESS AMERICA, INC.,
`SIERRA WIRELESS, INC., and RPX CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01073
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`____________
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
`DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge ARBES.
`
`Opinion Concurring filed by Administrative Patent Judge GALLIGAN.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
` Paper 25
`Entered: September 29, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SIERRA WIRELESS AMERICA, INC.,
`SIERRA WIRELESS, INC., and RPX CORP.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01073
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`____________
`
`Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, JUSTIN T. ARBES, and
`DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge ARBES.
`
`Opinion Concurring filed by Administrative Patent Judge GALLIGAN.
`
`ARBES, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01073
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`
`Petitioners Sierra Wireless America, Inc., Sierra Wireless, Inc., and
`RPX Corp. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`requesting inter partes review of claims 1–24 and 29 of U.S. Patent
`No. 8,648,717 B2 (Ex. 1101, “the ’717 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§ 311(a) and a Motion for Joinder (Paper 2, “Mot.”) with Case
`IPR2016-00055 (“the -55 Case”). Patent Owner M2M Solutions LLC filed
`an Opposition (Paper 12, “Opp.”) to the Motion for Joinder, to which
`Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 15, “Reply”). Patent Owner did not file a
`preliminary response pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 313. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§ 314(a), the Director may not authorize an inter partes review unless the
`information in the petition and preliminary response “shows that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow,
`we institute an inter partes review as to claims 1–24 and 29 of the
`’717 patent on certain grounds of unpatentability, and grant Petitioner’s
`Motion for Joinder.
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`A. Related Proceedings
`Petitions requesting inter partes review of the ’717 patent were filed
`previously in Cases IPR2015-01670, IPR2015-01672, IPR2016-00054, and
`IPR2016-00853, all of which were denied.
`On August 26, 2015, Petitioner filed a petition requesting inter partes
`review of claims 1–3, 5–7, 10–24, 29, and 30 of the ’717 patent, asserting
`four grounds of unpatentability based on five prior art references.
`IPR2015-01823, Paper 1. On March 8, 2016, we instituted an inter partes
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01073
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`review as to claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10–13, 15–24, and 29 on three of the asserted
`grounds, but denied institution as to claims 2, 7, 14, and 30.
`IPR2015-01823, Paper 16.
`On October 21, 2015, Telit Wireless Solutions Inc. and Telit
`Communications PLC (collectively, “Telit”) filed a petition requesting inter
`partes review of claims 1–30 of the ’717 patent in the -55 Case, asserting
`14 grounds of unpatentability based on seven prior art references.
`IPR2016-00055, Paper 1. On April 22, 2016, we instituted an inter partes
`review as to claims 1–24 and 29 on five of the asserted grounds, but denied
`institution as to claims 25–28 and 30. IPR2016-00055, Paper 9 (“-55 Dec.
`on Inst.”). Telit filed a request for rehearing, which was denied. See
`IPR2016-00055, Papers 11, 13. Petitioner filed its Petition and Motion for
`Joinder with the -55 Case in the instant proceeding on May 19, 2016.
`Also, on May 23, 2016, Telit filed a petition requesting inter partes
`review of claims 25–28 and 30 of the ’717 patent and a motion for joinder
`with the -55 Case. IPR2016-01081, Papers 1, 3. In a concurrently issued
`decision, we deny Telit’s petition and motion for joinder.
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 1 of the ’717 patent recites:
`1. A programmable communicator device comprising:
`a
`a
`programmable
`interface
`for
`establishing
`communication link with at least one monitored technical
`device, wherein the programmable interface is programmable
`by wireless packet switched data messages; and
`a processing module for authenticating one or more
`wireless transmissions sent from a programming transmitter and
`received by
`the programmable communicator device by
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01073
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`
`determining if at least one transmission contains a coded
`number;
`wherein the programmable communicator device is
`configured to use a memory to store at least one telephone
`number or IP address included within at least one of the
`transmissions as one or more stored telephone numbers or IP
`addresses if the processing module authenticates the at least one
`of the transmissions including the at least one telephone number
`or IP address and the coded number by determining that the at
`least one of the transmissions includes the coded number, the
`one or more stored telephone numbers or IP addresses being
`numbers to which the programmable communicator device is
`configured
`to and permitted
`to send outgoing wireless
`transmissions;
`wherein the programmable communicator device is
`configured to use an identity module for storing a unique
`identifier that is unique to the programmable communicator
`device; and
`wherein the one or more wireless transmissions from the
`programming transmitter comprises a General Packet Radio
`Service (GPRS) or other wireless packet switched data
`message;
`and wherein the programmable communicator device is
`configured to process data received through the programmable
`interface from the at least one monitored technical device in
`response to programming instructions received in an incoming
`wireless packet switched data message.
`
`C. The Prior Art
`Petitioner relies on the following prior art:
`Publication
`International
`Patent
`Application
`No. WO 95/05609, published February 23, 1995 (Ex. 1129,
`“Eldredge”);
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01073
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`
`Publication
`Application
`Patent
`International
`No. WO 97/49077, published December 24, 1997 (Ex. 1128,
`“Kuusela”);
`Publication
`Application
`Patent
`International
`No. WO 00/14984, published March 16, 2000 (Ex. 1125,
`“Sonera”);
`Publication
`Application
`Patent
`International
`No. WO 00/17021, published March 30, 2000 (Ex. 1113, “Van
`Bergen”); and
`C. Bettstetter et al., “GSM Phase 2+ General Packet
`Radio Service GPRS: Architecture, Protocols, and Air
`Interface,” IEEE COMMUNICATIONS SURVEYS, vol. 2, no. 3
`(1999) (Ex. 1114, “Bettstetter”).1
`
`D. The Asserted Grounds
`Although the Petition presents unpatentability challenges to claims
`1–30 of the ’717 patent, Petitioner states that the Petition “is narrowly
`tailored to the identical grounds of unpatentability that are [the] subject of
`[the -55 Case]” and that Petitioner “agree[s] to be bound by the Board’s
`
`
`1 Based on the current record, Petitioner has made a threshold showing that
`Bettstetter is a prior art printed publication under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and
`(b). See Pet. 14; Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. ITC, 545 F.3d 1340,
`1350–51 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (holding that a “reference is publicly accessible
`‘upon a satisfactory showing that such document has been disseminated or
`otherwise made available to the extent that persons interested and ordinarily
`skilled in the subject matter or art exercising reasonable diligence, can locate
`it.’” (citation omitted)). Also, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,
`Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), amended 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 102 and 103. Because the ’717 patent has an effective filing date before
`the effective date of the applicable AIA amendment, we refer to the pre-AIA
`versions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01073
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`decision on the Request for Rehearing” in the -55 Case.2 See Mot. 1, 3, 6;
`Pet. 1, 4–5. We denied Telit’s request for rehearing. IPR2016-00055, Paper
`13. Accordingly, we understand Petitioner to be challenging claims 1–24
`and 29 of the ’717 patent based on the asserted grounds of unpatentability
`set forth in the table below, which are the unpatentability grounds on which
`we instituted a trial in the -55 Case:
`Reference(s)
`Basis
`
`Claim(s) Challenged
`
`Van Bergen
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) 24
`
`Van Bergen and
`Bettstetter
`Van Bergen, Bettstetter,
`and Sonera
`Van Bergen, Bettstetter,
`and Kuusela
`Van Bergen, Bettstetter,
`and Eldredge
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 1–3, 5–18, 22, 23,
`and 29
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 19 and 20
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 21
`
`E. Claim Interpretation
`Petitioner makes the same claim interpretation arguments that Telit
`made in the -55 Case. Compare Pet. 8–13, with IPR2016-00055, Paper 1,
`8–13. We interpreted various limitations of the claims in the -55 Case, and
`incorporate our previous analysis for purposes of this Decision. See
`-55 Dec. on Inst. 6–12.
`
`
`2 Petitioner states that Telit in the -55 Case filed a request for rehearing
`regarding claim 26. See Pet. 4 n.3; Mot. 3. Telit, however, requested
`rehearing only as to claims 25, 27, 28, and 30. See IPR2016-00055, Paper
`11, 1.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01073
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`A. The Petition
`Petitioner in its Petition asserts the same grounds of unpatentability as
`those on which a trial was instituted in the -55 Case. See Pet. 5; -55 Dec. on
`Inst. 48. Petitioner’s arguments are identical to the arguments made by Telit
`in its petition. Compare Pet. 13–58, with IPR2016-00055, Paper 1,
`13–56; see also Mot. 1 (arguing that the Petition “is practically a copy of the
`petition in [the -55 Case] with respect to the adopted grounds, including the
`same analyses, prior art references, exhibits, and expert testimony as in [the
`-55 Case]”). Patent Owner did not file a preliminary response. We
`incorporate our previous analysis regarding the asserted grounds of
`unpatentability, and conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing on the grounds of unpatentability asserted in the
`Petition for the same reasons. See -55 Dec. on Inst. 12–47.
`
`
`B. Motion for Joinder
`The AIA created administrative trial proceedings, including inter
`partes review, as an efficient, streamlined, and cost-effective alternative to
`district court litigation. The AIA permits the joinder of like proceedings.
`The Board, acting on behalf of the Director, has the discretion to join an
`inter partes review with another inter partes review. 35 U.S.C. § 315(c).
`Section 315(c) provides (emphasis added):
`JOINDER.—If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the
`Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that
`inter partes review any person who properly files a petition
`under section 311
`that
`the Director, after receiving a
`preliminary response under section 313 or the expiration of the
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01073
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`
`time for filing such a response, determines warrants the
`institution of an inter partes review under section 314.
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) bars institution of an inter partes review when the
`petition is filed more than one year after the petitioner (or the petitioner’s
`real party-in-interest or privy) is served with a complaint alleging
`infringement of the patent. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b); 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b).
`However, the one-year time bar does not apply to a request for joinder.
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (“The time limitation set forth in the preceding sentence
`shall not apply to a request for joinder under subsection (c).”); 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.122(b). Petitioner was served with a complaint alleging infringement
`of the ʼ717 patent more than one year before filing the instant Petition. See
`Mot. 1–2; Opp. 1. Thus, absent joinder with the -55 Case, the Petition in
`this proceeding would be barred.
`Joinder may be authorized when warranted, but the decision to grant
`joinder is discretionary. See 35 U.S.C. § 315(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.122. The
`Board determines whether to grant joinder on a case-by-case basis, taking
`into account the particular facts of each case, substantive and procedural
`issues, and other considerations. See 157 CONG. REC. S1376 (daily ed.
`Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Kyl) (when determining whether and when
`to allow joinder, the Office may consider factors including “the breadth or
`unusualness of the claim scope” and claim construction issues). When
`exercising its discretion, the Board is mindful that patent trial regulations,
`including the rules for joinder, must be construed to secure the just, speedy,
`and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(b);
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b).
`As the moving party, Petitioner has the burden of proof in establishing
`entitlement to the requested relief. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.122(b).
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01073
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`A motion for joinder should: (1) set forth the reasons why joinder is
`appropriate; (2) identify any new ground(s) of unpatentability asserted in the
`petition; and (3) explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the trial
`schedule for the existing review. See Mot. 5; Frequently Asked Question H5
`on the Board’s website at http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/prps.jsp.
`Petitioner should address specifically how briefing and/or discovery may be
`simplified to minimize schedule impact. See Mot. 5; Kyocera Corp. v.
`SoftView LLC, Case IPR2013-00004, slip op. at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013)
`(Paper 15) (representative).
`Petitioner argues that joinder with the -55 Case is appropriate because
`its Petition “challenges claims 1–24 and 29 based on the same grounds
`adopted by the Board in [the -55 Case], and also relies on the same analysis,
`prior art, exhibits, and expert testimony submitted by Telit.” Mot. 3, 6;
`Reply 1 (“Petitioners’ Petition in this case is identical to the Petition filed by
`Telit as to the grounds on which the Board granted institution.”). Patent
`Owner does not dispute that the asserted grounds are identical to those on
`which a trial was instituted in the -55 Case. See Opp. 2 (“[Patent Owner]
`does not object to Petitioner’s Material Fact Nos. 1-8.”). Petitioner contends
`that joinder would not result in any undue delay in the -55 Case because the
`issues are the same and joinder “will not introduce any additional arguments,
`briefing, or need for discovery.” Mot. 10.
`Petitioner also identifies various ways in which briefing and discovery
`may be simplified in a joined proceeding. Id. at 10–11; Reply 2–3. For
`example, Petitioner states that it is “willing to be limited to separate filings,
`if any, of a reasonable number of pages (e.g., seven pages) directed only to
`points of disagreement with Telit with the understanding that it will not be
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01073
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`permitted any separate arguments in furtherance of those advanced in Telit’s
`consolidated filings.” Mot. 11. Petitioner also “agree[s] not to conduct
`additional depositions or other discovery,” and requests that it “be able to
`present arguments at the oral hearing only after Telit has completed its
`arguments, and only if there is any remaining time available.” Id. Finally,
`Petitioner states that it “will coordinate with Telit to consolidate filings,
`manage questioning at depositions, manage presentations at the hearing,
`ensure that briefing and discovery occur within the time normally allotted,
`and avoid redundancies.” Id.
`Patent Owner argues in its Opposition that Petitioner did not explain
`sufficiently how discovery and briefing could be simplified if joinder is
`granted, and that Patent Owner will be prejudiced by costs incurred to
`respond to any separate filings by Petitioner. Opp. 2–5. Patent Owner states
`that, “[a]t most, the Board should permit joinder only on the condition that
`Petitioner not file any briefs or other papers in this action or participate in
`depositions or the final hearing.” Id. at 1.
`We agree with Petitioner that the Petition raises no new issues beyond
`those already before the Board in the existing proceeding, which weighs in
`favor of joinder. See 157 CONG. REC. S1376 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011)
`(statement of Sen. Kyl) (“The Office anticipates that joinder will be allowed
`as of right—if an inter partes review is instituted on the basis of a petition,
`for example, a party that files an identical petition will be joined to that
`proceeding, and thus allowed to file its own briefs and make its own
`arguments.” (emphasis added)). Petitioner also consents to procedural
`protections that will retain Telit’s control over the proceeding and minimize
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01073
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`any prejudice to Patent Owner. Accordingly, the impact of joinder on the
`existing proceeding will be minimal.
`Given all of the considerations above, we are persuaded that Petitioner
`has met its burden of demonstrating that joinder is warranted under the
`circumstances. Petitioner will have a limited role in the -55 Case, as
`explained below. If at some point the -55 Case is terminated with respect to
`any of the existing parties, the role of any remaining party or parties in the
`proceeding will be reevaluated.
`
`
`C. Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission
`Patent Owner filed a motion requesting pro hac vice admission of
`Michelle Moran, and provided an affidavit from Ms. Moran in support of the
`request. See Paper 11; Ex. 2001. Because Ms. Moran already is authorized
`to represent Patent Owner as back-up counsel in Case IPR2016-00055 (the
`proceeding to which the instant proceeding is being joined), the motion is
`dismissed as moot. See IPR2016-00055, Paper 7 (granting Patent Owner’s
`motion for pro hac vice admission).
`
`
`D. Motions to Expunge
`Petitioner filed motions to expunge Exhibit 1130 and a notice of
`deposition (Paper 13), arguing that each document was filed by mistake. See
`Papers 7, 14. The incorrectly-filed documents will be expunged.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01073
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`
`III. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that an inter partes review is instituted as to claims
`1–24 and 29 of the ’717 patent;
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter
`partes review of the ’717 patent is hereby instituted commencing on the
`entry date of this Decision, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the following
`grounds of unpatentability, and no other grounds as to claims 1–24 and 29
`of the ’717 patent are authorized:
`Claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Van Bergen;
`Claims 1–3, 5–18, 22, 23, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
`unpatentable over Van Bergen and Bettstetter;
`Claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Van Bergen,
`Bettstetter, and Sonera;
`Claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
`Van Bergen, Bettstetter, and Kuusela; and
`Claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Van Bergen,
`Bettstetter, and Eldredge;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motion for pro hac vice
`admission (Paper 11) is dismissed;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s motions to expunge (Papers 7
`and 14) are granted, and Paper 13 and Exhibit 1130 are expunged from the
`record of the instant proceeding;
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01073
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder with
`Case IPR2016-00055 is granted, and Sierra Wireless America, Inc., Sierra
`Wireless, Inc., and RPX Corp. are joined as parties to Case IPR2016-00055;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Case IPR2016-01073 is instituted, joined,
`and terminated under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72, and all further filings in the joined
`proceeding shall be made in Case IPR2016-00055;
`FURTHER ORDERED that throughout Case IPR2016-00055, Telit
`and Petitioner will file papers, except for motions which do not involve the
`other party, as consolidated filings.3 Telit will identify each such filing as a
`consolidated filing and will be responsible for completing all consolidated
`filings. Petitioner may file concurrently an additional paper, not to exceed
`seven pages, which may address only points of disagreement with points
`asserted in Telit’s consolidated filing. Any such filing by Petitioner must
`identify specifically and explain each point of disagreement. Petitioner may
`not file separate arguments in support of points made in Telit’s consolidated
`filing;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to responding to any
`consolidated filing, Patent Owner may respond separately to any separate
`Petitioner filing. Any such response by Patent Owner to a Petitioner filing
`may not exceed the number of pages in the Petitioner filing and is limited to
`issues raised in the Petitioner filing;
`FURTHER ORDERED that unless given prior authorization by the
`Board, Petitioner is not permitted to engage in discovery or participate in
`
`
`3 Counsel for Telit and Petitioner should refer to the Board’s website for
`information regarding filings in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board End to
`End (PTAB E2E) system.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01073
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`any deposition in Case IPR2016-00055. Should Petitioner believe it
`necessary to take any further action, Petitioner should request a conference
`call to obtain authorization from the Board;
`FURTHER ORDERED that any issues regarding participation or
`timing for oral argument will be decided after any requests for oral argument
`are received in Case IPR2016-00055;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in Case IPR2016-00055
`shall be changed to reflect the joinder with this proceeding in accordance
`with the attached example; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision be entered into
`the file of Case IPR2016-00055.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01073
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`
`
`GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring in part.
`I agree with the majority that granting relief pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`§ 315(c) is appropriate under these circumstances. However, section 315(c)
`does not refer to joining a petition for inter partes review or a proceeding to
`an inter partes review. Rather, it refers to joining a “person” “as a party” to
`an instituted inter partes review. It states the following:
`(c) JOINDER.—If the Director institutes an inter partes review,
`the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that
`inter partes review any person who properly files a petition
`under section 311
`that
`the Director, after receiving a
`preliminary response under section 313 or the expiration of the
`time for filing such a response, determines warrants the
`institution of an inter partes review under section 314.
`35 U.S.C. § 315(c) (emphasis added); cf. id. § 315(d) (referring to
`“consolidation” of a pending inter partes review and “another proceeding or
`matter involving the patent”).
`As such, I concur only in the joinder of Sierra Wireless America, Inc.,
`Sierra Wireless, Inc., and RPX Corp. as parties to Case IPR2016-00055, as
`stated in Section III.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01073
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`
`Caleb Pollack
`Guy Yonay
`David Loewenstein
`Milo Eadan
`PEARL COHEN ZEDEK LATZER BARATZ LLP
`cpollack@pearlcohen.com
`gyonay@pearlcohen.com
`dloewenstein@pearlcohen.com
`meadan@pearlcohen.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Jeffrey N. Costakos
`Michelle A. Moran
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`jcostakos@foley.com
`mmoran@foley.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TELIT WIRELESS SOLUTIONS INC., TELIT COMMUNICATIONS
`PLC, SIERRA WIRELESS AMERICA, INC., SIERRA WIRELESS, INC.,
`and RPX CORP.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`M2M SOLUTIONS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-000551
`Patent 8,648,717 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Case IPR2016-01073 has been joined with this proceeding.
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.
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
