Paper No. ____
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`
`
`RPX CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`CHANBOND LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________________
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00234
`Patent No. 7,941,822
`
`_______________________
`
`
`PETITIONER RPX CORPORATION’S NOTICE OF APPEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________________
`
`
`RPX CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`CHANBOND LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________________
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-00234
`Patent No. 7,941,822
`
`_______________________
`
`
`PETITIONER RPX CORPORATION’S NOTICE OF APPEAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a), notice is hereby given that Petitioner RPX
`
`Corporation (“RPX”) appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
`
`Circuit from the Final Written Decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“PTAB”) entered on May 25, 2017 (Paper No. 28) in Case No. IPR2016-00234,
`
`and from all underlying orders, decisions, rulings, and opinions.
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 90.2(a)(3)(ii), RPX states that the issues on
`
`appeal may include, but are not limited to:
`
`(1) that RPX has standing to appeal the Final Written Decision to the U.S.
`
`Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit;
`
`(2) the PTAB’s decision that RPX did not meet its burden of proving by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-31 of U.S. Patent No. 7,941,822 (“the
`
`’822 patent”) are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of U.S.
`
`Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0172658 (“Rakib”) and Data-Over-Cable
`
`Service Interface Specifications, Radio Frequency Interface Specification, SP-RFI-
`
`I04-980724 (“DOCSIS 1.1.4”);
`
`(3) the PTAB’s decision that RPX did not meet its burden of proving by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-9, 16, 19-25, 29, and 31 of the ’822
`
`patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of PCT
`
`1
`
`
`
`Publication No. WO 99/49592 (“Haugli”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,633,893
`
`(“Grindahl”);
`
`(4) the PTAB’s decision that RPX did not meet its burden of proving by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 10, 11, and 26 of the ’822 patent are
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Haugli, Grindahl, and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,522,865 (“Otten”);
`
`(5) the PTAB’s decision that RPX did not meet its burden of proving by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 12-14, 17, 18, 27, and 28 of the ’822
`
`patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Haugli,
`
`Grindahl, and U.S. Patent No. 6,377,981 (“Ollikainen”);
`
`(6) the PTAB’s failure to afford RPX the protections of the Administrative
`
`Procedure Act (“APA”), including, without limitation, 5 U.S.C. § 554(b)(3), 5
`
`U.S.C. § 554(c)(1) and/or 5 U.S.C. § 556(e), due to, without limitation (A) the
`
`PTAB’s failure to timely inform RPX of matters and/or law relating to a version of
`
`DOCSIS 1.1 that the PTAB asserted superseded DOCSIS 1.1.4 but was never
`
`introduced into evidence by the Patent Owner or otherwise, the PTAB’s failure to
`
`give RPX a meaningful opportunity to submit facts and/or arguments in rebuttal or
`
`otherwise relating to such new matters and/or law, and/or the PTAB’s reliance on
`
`evidence outside of the record of this proceeding concerning the existence and/or
`
`content of a purportedly superseding version of DOCSIS 1.1, (B) the PTAB’s
`
`2
`
`
`
`failure to timely inform RPX of matters and/or law relating to a purported need for
`
`RPX to show the relationship between DOCSIS 1.1.4 and DOCSIS 1.2 to establish
`
`technical compatibility between Rakib and DOCSIS 1.1.4, and/or the PTAB’s
`
`failure to give RPX a meaningful opportunity to submit facts and/or arguments in
`
`rebuttal or otherwise relating to such new matters and/or law, and/or (C) the
`
`PTAB’s failure to timely inform RPX of matters and/or law relating to a purported
`
`need for RPX to address KSR’s “effects of demands known to the design
`
`community or present in the marketplace” to demonstrate a reason to combine
`
`Rakib and DOCSIS 1.1.4, and/or the PTAB’s failure to give RPX a meaningful
`
`opportunity to submit facts and/or arguments in rebuttal or otherwise relating to
`
`such new matters and/or law; and
`
`(7) any finding or determination supporting the foregoing issues, as well as
`
`all other issues decided adversely to RPX in any orders, decisions, rulings and/or
`
`opinions.
`
`This Notice of Appeal is being filed with the Director of the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office as provided in 37 C.F.R. § 104.2, and is also being
`
`filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in the appropriate manner provided in
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(b), and with the Clerk’s Office for the United States Court of
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 26, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`RPX Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By /Randy J. Pritzker/
`Richard F. Giunta, Reg. No. 36,149
`Randy J. Pritzker, Reg. No. 35,986
`Elisabeth H. Hunt, Reg. No. 67,336
`Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210
`Tel: 617-646-8000
`Fax: 617-646-8646
`RGiunta-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`RPritzker-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`EHunt-PTAB@wolfgreenfield.com
`
`Counsel if Petitioner’s Motion to Withdraw
`and Substitute Counsel (Paper No. 29) is
`Granted:
`
`Robert M. Abrahamsen, Reg. No. 40,886
`Ilan N. Barzilay, Reg. No. 46,540
`Pierce Atwood, LLP
`100 Summer Street
`Suite 2250
`Boston, Massachusetts 02210
`Tel: 617-488-8100
`rabrahamsen@pierceatwood.com
`ibarzilay@pierceatwood.com
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE
`
` I
`
` hereby certify that, in addition to being filed and served electronically
`through the Board’s E2E System, the foregoing PETITIONER RPX
`CORPORATION’S NOTICE OF APPEAL was filed and served by hand on this
`26th day of July, 2017, with the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office, at the following address:
`
`
`Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
`c/o Office of the General Counsel
`Madison Building East, 10B20
`600 Dulany Street
`Alexandria, VA 22314-5793
`
`
`
`I also hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER RPX CORPORATION’S NOTICE OF APPEAL will be filed with
`
`the Clerk’s Office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`
`through the court’s Case Management and Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system
`
`on the 26th day of July 2017, along with the requisite fee and that three (3) true and
`
`correct copies of the foregoing Notice of Appeal were also filed by hand on this
`
`26th day of July, 2017, with the Clerk’s Office of the United States Court of
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit, at the following address:
`
`
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`717 Madison Place, N.W., Suite 401
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`I certify that on this 26th day of July, 2017, I will cause a copy of the
`foregoing PETITIONER RPX CORPORATION’S NOTICE OF APPEAL, to be
`served via electronic mail, as previously consented to by Patent Owner, upon the
`following counsel of record:
`
`
`Tarek N. Fahmi
`tarek.fahmi@ascendalaw.com
`
`Holly J. Atkinson
`holly.atkinson@ascendalaw.com
`
`Patents@ascendalaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: July 26, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Randy J. Pritzker/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
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
