`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`BRADIUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00448
`Patent No. 7,908,343 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION FOR OBSERVATIONS ON CROSS EXAMINATION
`
`Paper No. 48
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner's Motion for Observation
`
`Petitioner Microsoft timely files this response to Patent Owner’s Motion for
`
`Observations on Cross-Examination of Dr. William Michalson (Paper 44). Patent
`
`Owner’s Observation Nos. 3-4, 7-8, 11-13, and 20-28 are beyond the permissible
`
`scope of Motions for Observation because these Observations do not identify any
`
`5
`
`relevance to Dr. Michalson’s Reply Declaration (Ex. 1016). See 37 C.F.R.
`
`42.53(d)(5)(ii) (cross-examination limited to scope of direct testimony); Office
`
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48768 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“[a]n observation
`
`(or response) is not an opportunity to raise new issues, re-argue issues, or pursue
`
`objections”). Further responses are contained below.
`
`10
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION 1
`
`I.
`PO’s Observation No.1 is misleading and incomplete. The cited document
`
`(Ex. 1030) itself states on its face that it was published June 1999 and revised
`
`February 2000, which is consistent with Dr. Michalson’s testimony that
`
`TerraServer was “introduced in June 1998 and later described in a Microsoft
`
`15
`
`technical report in 1999.” Dr. Michalson further testified that he was “personally
`
`familiar” with the TerraServer system in the late 1990s, and that Ex. 1030 is
`
`consistent with his personal recollection of the introduction date and operation of
`
`the TerraServer system in the late 1990s. Ex. 2078 at 76:11-78:5. Dr. Michalson
`
`further testified that Ex. 1030 states that TerraServer was operational for 18
`
`20
`
`months prior to Ex. 1030, which is consistent with his personal recollection.
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner's Motion for Observation
`
`
`Ex. 2078 at 77:14-78:5, citing Ex. 1030 at 5. PO’s Observation No. 1 is also
`
`irrelevant to PO’s stated purpose that “it shows Dr. Michalson and Petitioner’s
`
`argument is based on a non-prior-art reference” because the earliest claimed
`
`priority date of the ‘343 Patent (December 27, 2000) is after all dates listed on Ex.
`
`5
`
`1030, and Dr. Michalson opined on Ex. 1030 only to rebut Bradium’s arguments
`
`about the state of the art prior to the alleged inventions in general, but Ex. 1030 is
`
`not part of the instituted grounds of obviousness at issue in this IPR.1 Ex. 1016,
`
`¶¶ 74-75, 93.
`
`10
`
`15
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION 2
`
`II.
`PO’s Observation No. 2 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant for
`
`substantially the same reasons discussed regarding PO’s Observation No. 1.
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION 3
`
`III.
`PO’s Observation No. 3 is irrelevant for the cited purpose because the cited
`
`portion of Exhibit 1030 does not refer to VRML.
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION 4
`
`IV.
`PO’s Observation No. 4 is misleading and incomplete. Bradium’s citation to
`
`Ex. 2078 omits a portion of Dr. Michalson’s response, which further states that
`
`“the last sentence where it discusses military planning, battle damage assessment,
`
`emergency relief efforts is implicitly discussing situations where you would not
`
`1 TerraServer, discussed in Ex. 1030, should not be confused with TerraVision,
`discussed in Ex. 1004.
`
`2
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner's Motion for Observation
`
`
`expect to have high bandwidth communications available.” Ex. 2078 at 13:3-9.
`
`Dr. Michalson further testified at length in his opening and reply declarations and
`
`his deposition why limited bandwidth communications channels would be obvious
`
`to a POSITA in view of teachings of Reddy. See generally Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 131-33;
`
`5
`
`Ex. 1016 ¶¶ 43-45; Ex. 2078 at 13:10-15:7.
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION 5
`
`V.
`PO’s Observation No. 5 is misleading and incomplete. Dr. Michalson
`
`further testified in Ex. 1016 that “teachings in Reddy are not dependent on specific
`
`software” and that “adding the same features found in TerraVision to a VRML
`
`10
`
`browser … would be well within the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art,
`
`using known methods with predictable results.” Ex. 1016, ¶ 55.
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION 6
`
`VI.
`PO’s Observation No. 6 is misleading and incomplete for the same reasons
`
`discussed in regard to PO’s Observation No. 5. Additionally, Dr. Michalson
`
`15
`
`further testified in Ex. 1016, ¶¶ 52-54 that PC software “could be easily ‘ported’ to
`
`a mobile computing device using techniques that would have been well-known to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art.” Dr. Michalson further testified that Ex. 2066
`
`shows that TerraVision was “portable” to platforms such as Windows NT” (Id.,
`
`¶ 54; Ex. 2066 at 2), that “there was also NT embedded that was targeted at
`
`20
`
`personal digital assistants,” that “Windows NT existed in a variety of forms”
`
`3
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner's Motion for Observation
`
`
`including PCs, handheld portable devices, and laptop computers, that “I personally
`
`have installed Windows NT on laptop computers of the day in the mid-1990s,” and
`
`that Windows NT “basically would run on pretty much any PC-compatible
`
`platform” including “embedded versions,” “handheld devices,” “lower
`
`5
`
`performance laptops and portable devices.” Ex. 2078 at 35:24-36:8, 38:1-40:10.
`
`Accordingly, the cited testimony does not “support[] Patent Owner’s argument that
`
`the laptop disclosed by Reddy views VRML data with a standard VRML browser
`
`and not with TerraVision II.”
`
`10
`
`15
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION 7
`
`VII.
`PO’s Observation No. 7 is incomplete for the reasons discussed above in
`
`regard to PO’s Observation Nos. 5 and 6.
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION 8
`
`VIII.
`PO’s Observation No. 8 is misleading and incomplete because it omits the
`
`testimony discussed above in regard to PO’s Observation No. 5.
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION 9
`
`IX.
`PO’s Observation No. 9 is misleading and incomplete because it ignores Dr.
`
`Michalson’s testimony in Ex. 1016, ¶ 56 that “Ex. 2066 makes it clear that it is
`
`‘feasible’ that some of the features identified as additions to TerraVision compared
`
`to a ‘standard browser’ (many of which are unrelated to the claims) ‘be
`
`20
`
`implemented for a standard VRML browser through the use of various Java scripts
`
`4
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner's Motion for Observation
`
`
`embedded in the scene, or running externally to the browser.’” PO’s Observation
`
`No. 9 is further incomplete and irrelevant for the stated purpose because it omits
`
`the testimony discussed above in regard to PO’s Observation No. 5.
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION 10
`
`X.
`PO’s Observation No. 10 mischaracterizes the cited testimony, in which Dr.
`
`5
`
`Michalson states that certain capabilities “may well be in a standard VRML
`
`browser, but those capabilities would be at a lower level of performance.” Ex.
`
`2078 at 30:2-20. The cited testimony is also incomplete, in addition to the reasons
`
`discussed above in regard to PO’s Observation No. 5, because Dr. Michalson
`
`10
`
`further testified that “If performance is a lower performance level, then that’s
`
`lower relative to some higher-performance system. That doesn’t necessarily mean
`
`that it’s unacceptable levels of performance relative to the patents at issue because
`
`there is no performance requirement in those patents.” Ex. 2078 at 78:13-79:24.
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION 11
`
`XI.
`PO’s Observation No. 11 is irrelevant and improper under the Board’s rules
`
`15
`
`because the “testimony” quoted in the observation merely consists of an exhibit
`
`excerpt (read by PO’s counsel, not Dr. Michalson- see Ex. 2078 at 31:15-33:17)
`
`that PO chose not to discuss when it originally introduced Ex. 2066 with its PO
`
`Response, and is therefore an attempt to introduce new issues or re-argue issues.
`
`20
`
`This observation also mischaracterizes the cited testimony. Dr. Michalson testified
`
`5
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner's Motion for Observation
`
`
`at Ex. 2078, 33:7-17 that “[t]he portion I cite of Exhibit 2066 is that second
`
`sentence under ‘Cross-Platform Capability,’ which reads, ‘[h]owever, we have
`
`engineered TerraVision to be easily portable to other platforms, and we have
`
`recently performed a port to Microsoft’s Windows NT platform.’ So what that
`
`5
`
`says is that TerraVision has been ported to not only SGI platforms, which they
`
`reference previously, but also to Windows NT platforms.” Therefore, the cited
`
`testimony is also irrelevant to the cited purpose because the full two-sentence
`
`excerpt cited by Dr. Michalson on page 2 of Ex. 2066 does not “support[] Patent
`
`Owner’s argument that the ‘PC connected to the internet’ of Reddy is not a limited
`
`10
`
`bandwidth communications device.”
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION 12
`
`XII.
`PO’s Observation No. 12 is irrelevant for its stated purpose because it has
`
`nothing to do with whether the broader teachings of Reddy or the specific
`
`TerraVision II system are operable on a laptop. This Observation is further
`
`15
`
`incomplete without the further testimony of Dr. Michalson discussed in regard to
`
`PO’s Observation No. 6.
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION 13
`
`XIII.
`PO’s Observation No. 13 is irrelevant for its stated purpose because Dr.
`
`Michalson’s cited testimony that a POSITA may “design a piece of software on a
`
`20
`
`particular platform with the expectation that it will run on other platforms,” and
`
`6
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner's Motion for Observation
`
`
`that “Windows NT and SGI graphics work stations” were examples of compatible
`
`platforms, does not “show[] the distinction between TerraVision II and a standard
`
`VRML browser…” as argued by Bradium. In regard to Bradium’s “distinction,”
`
`Dr. Michalson further testified that a POSITA would recognize that Reddy’s
`
`5
`
`teachings designed to be broadly applicable to “enable a wide variety of users to
`
`access geographic data over the Internet using standard browsing techniques and
`
`standard browser software that can be implemented on a wide variety of devices
`
`including small clients” (Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 124, 131, 136; Ex. 1016, ¶ 34), that a
`
`POSITA would “read Reddy as a whole for all that it teaches or suggests, and not
`
`10
`
`simply for specific embodiments (Ex. 1016, ¶ 38), and that a POSITA would
`
`recognize that the features taught by TerraVision could be implemented on other
`
`browsers (Id., ¶ 39).
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION 14
`
`XIV.
`PO’s Observation No. 14 is irrelevant for the cited purpose because the
`
`15
`
`infringement contentions cited by Dr. Michalson in Ex. 1016, ¶ 30, including the
`
`statement in Ex. 1026 accusing “all versions of the Bing Maps Preview App.,
`
`operating, for example, as a Microsoft Windows application” of infringing claims
`
`reciting a “limited communication bandwidth computer device,” do not state that
`
`they are limited to the allegations made in the pleadings or complaint, and
`
`20
`
`therefore do not “show the lack of basis for Petitioner’s claim, based on Dr.
`
`7
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner's Motion for Observation
`
`
`Michalson’s claim, that Bradium’s position in that litigation contradicts its position
`
`in this IPR.”
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION 15
`
`XV.
`PO’s Observation No. 15 is irrelevant for the cited purpose because Bradium
`
`5
`
`identifies no evidence or other reason that any “discovery or depositions in the
`
`Bradium v. Microsoft litigation” renders Dr. Michalson’s quotation and
`
`consideration of Bradium’s own infringement contentions misleading or
`
`incomplete.
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION 16
`
`XVI.
`PO’s Observation No. 16 is irrelevant for the cited purpose because Bradium
`
`identifies no evidence or other reason that any claim construction in the Bradium v.
`
`Microsoft litigation renders Dr. Michalson’s quotation and consideration of
`
`Bradium’s own infringement contentions misleading or incomplete.
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION 17
`
`XVII.
`PO’s Observation No. 17 is irrelevant for the cited purpose because Bradium
`
`10
`
`15
`
`identifies no evidence or other reason that any “relevant local rules of the Court
`
`with respect to contentions in the Bradium v. Microsoft litigation” renders Dr.
`
`Michalson’s quotation and consideration of Bradium’s own infringement
`
`contentions misleading or incomplete.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner's Motion for Observation
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION 18
`
`XVIII.
`PO’s Observation No. 18 is irrelevant for the cited purpose because Bradium
`
`identifies no evidence or other reason that Bradium’s First Amended Complaint in
`
`the Bradium v. Microsoft renders Dr. Michalson’s quotation and consideration of
`
`5
`
`Bradium’s own infringement contentions misleading or incomplete.
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION 19
`
`XIX.
`PO’s Observation No. 19 is irrelevant for the cited purpose because Ex.
`
`1026 contains no indication that Bradium limited its infringement contentions to
`
`examples provided in its First Amended Complaint, and therefore the cited
`
`10
`
`testimony does not show a lack of basis for Dr. Michalson’s testimony that
`
`Bradium’s infringement contentions accusing “all versions of the Bing Maps
`
`Preview app, operating, for example, as a Microsoft Windows application” are
`
`inconsistent with its positions taken in this IPR. Ex. 1016, ¶ 30.
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION 20
`
`XX.
`PO’s Observation No. 20 is misleading and incomplete. This Observation
`
`15
`
`omits both the context of the question regarding directly vs. indirectly limited
`
`channels, and Dr. Michalson’s full response, which further states that “from the
`
`perspective of a user using a channel, they see a result in throughput. They don’t
`
`necessarily know what caused that resultant throughput, whether it be a
`
`20
`
`technological limitation on the channel or whether it be a large number of users
`
`9
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner's Motion for Observation
`
`
`that they’re competing for bandwidth with. So I think that both -- relative to the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘limited bandwidth communications channel,’
`
`I don’t think that the distinction that Bradium and Dr. Agouris are attempting to
`
`draw is valid.” Additionally, Dr. Michalson’s testimony in Ex. 1005 and Ex. 1016
`
`5
`
`did not rely on the assumption that all channels are limited bandwidth. For
`
`example, Dr. Michalson testified at length that Reddy in view of Hornbacker
`
`teaches a “limited communication bandwidth” channel because Reddy teaches use
`
`of its system in bandwidth-constrained environments such as military or
`
`emergency response scenarios while Hornbacker further specifically teaches using
`
`10
`
`a 28.8 kilobaud modem. See, e.g. Ex. 1005, ¶¶ 122-126, 130-136; Ex. 1016, ¶¶ 32-
`
`37, 39, 43-45; Ex. 2078 at 13:3-9, 13:17-23, 14:8-14, 15:2-11. Dr. Michalson
`
`further testified in Ex. 1016 that a similar statement to this Observation by
`
`Bradium in the Patent Owner Response (Ex. 1016, ¶ 24, citing Paper 20 at 11
`
`(“[t]he Petition argues that Reddy teaches a device that retrieves data over limited
`
`15
`
`bandwidth communications channel [sic] because Reddy uses the Internet”))
`
`mischaracterized the Petition because “the Petition contains a much more extensive
`
`discussion of how Reddy teaches or suggests a limited bandwidth communication
`
`channel and how such a channel would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art, particularly through Reddy’s teachings about accessing data in conditions
`
`10
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner's Motion for Observation
`
`
`of limited bandwidth that would be encountered in a military or emergency
`
`response scenario.” Ex. 1016, ¶ 24, citing Paper 1 at 25-27.
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION 21
`
`XXI.
`PO’s Observation No. 21 is misleading and incomplete for the reasons
`
`5
`
`discussed above in regard to PO’s Observation No. 20.
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION 22
`
`XXII.
`PO’s Observation No. 22 is irrelevant because it relates to a different
`
`proceeding involving different patents and PO does not articulate any relevance to
`
`Dr. Michalson’s reply testimony in Ex. 1016.
`
`10
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION 23
`
`XXIII.
`PO’s Observation No. 23 is misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant for the
`
`cited purpose. Dr. Michalson further testified that “that, clearly, is not the entirety
`
`of my support for the -- for that opinion,” and that “[t]hat’s not correct if you
`
`consider the entirety of the declaration supporting those opinions. My issue with
`
`15
`
`Exhibit 2016 for IPR 2016-00448, we were just looking at Paragraph 144, and the
`
`heading of that paragraph is ‘no nexus and no evidence.’ If you look at what
`
`you’ve provided as Exhibit 2076, and if you read past Paragraph 76, you’ll see
`
`Paragraph 77, 78, and 79, at least, discuss specifically the nexus between the
`
`claims and the products to which I’m offering opinions.” Ex. 2078 at 65:2-15,
`
`20
`
`66:10-67:5. Dr. Michalson further testified that his opinions in the unrelated
`
`11
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner's Motion for Observation
`
`
`Under Armour v. Adidas case cited by PO during Dr. Michalson’s deposition
`
`further relied on evidence of nexus between the instituted claims and the alleged
`
`secondary indicia of nonobviousness as well as evidence of commercial success
`
`relative to the relevant market, and that PO had provided no such evidence in
`
`5
`
`support of its secondary indicia of nonobviousness arguments in this case. Ex.
`
`2078 at 84:1-92:1; citing Ex. 2076, ¶¶ 75, 77, 79-83. Therefore, the cited
`
`testimony in context does not “show[] that Dr. Michalson previously opined that
`
`commercial success supported non-obviousness using the same type of information
`
`that Patent Owner relies on in this IPR.”
`
`10
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION 24
`
`XXIV.
`PO’s Observation No. 24 is improper, misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant
`
`for the reasons discussed above in regard to PO’s Observation No. 23. PO’s
`
`Observation No. 24 is also improper, irrelevant, and incomplete because the quoted
`
`testimony (in this matter) consists entirely of counsel reading an exhibit and omits
`
`15
`
`any response from the witness in this proceeding. Dr. Michalson further testified
`
`that “in answering this question, I clearly was addressing those two factors that
`
`they were asking questions about. And clearly, in Paragraphs 77, 78, and 79, I
`
`showed the nexus in answering these questions that clearly was assumed that the
`
`nexus had been established. They didn’t ask questions about the nexus. If they
`
`20
`
`did, I would have answered questions about the nexus.” Ex. 2078 at 67:10-69:3.
`
`12
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner's Motion for Observation
`
`
`Therefore, the cited testimony in its full context does not “show[] that Dr.
`
`Michalson previously opined that commercial success supported non-obviousness
`
`using the same type of information that Patent Owner relies on in this IPR.”
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION 25
`
`XXV.
`PO’s Observation No. 25 is improper, misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant
`
`for the reasons discussed above in regard to PO’s Observation Nos. 23 and 24.
`
`PO’s Observation No. 25 is also improper, irrelevant, and incomplete because the
`
`quoted testimony (in this matter) consists entirely of counsel reading an exhibit.
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION 26
`
`XXVI.
`PO’s Observation No. 26 is improper, misleading, incomplete, and irrelevant
`
`for the reasons discussed above in regard to PO’s Observation Nos. 23 through 25.
`
`PO’s Observation No. 26 is also incomplete because it references testimony from
`
`an unrelated prior proceeding in which Dr. Michalson based his opinions on
`
`additional exhibits which PO failed to introduce in this proceeding. Dr. Michalson
`
`5
`
`10
`
`15
`
`further testified that “I also provide a reference. I don’t recall what Exhibit 2020
`
`precisely was. But then I go into certain features that were -- that were noted in
`
`that article, and I continue on with additional analysis.”
`
`RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION 27
`
`XXVII.
`PO’s Observation No. 27 is irrelevant for the cited purpose because the only
`
`20
`
`exhibit in this proceeding to which PO claims the testimony is relevant is Ex. 1019
`
`13
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner's Motion for Observation
`
`
`at 11:6-12:5, which contains neither a question from counsel nor an answer from a
`
`witness, and consists entirely of PO’s counsel objecting to questions from
`
`Petitioner about Mr. Levanon’s financial interest in the outcome of this proceeding
`
`(and failure to disclose that interest to the Board) and Petitioner’s counsel
`
`5
`
`responding to the objection. Dr. Michalson’s non-contingent compensation for
`
`expert consulting, which was disclosed by Dr. Michalson in Ex. 1005, ¶ 22, has no
`
`relevance to Mr. Levanon’s financial interest in PO and failure to disclose that
`
`interest to the Board.
`
`XXVIII. RESPONSE TO OBSERVATION 28
`PO’s Observation No. 28 is improper and irrelevant for the reasons
`
`10
`
`discussed above in regard to PO’s Observation No. 27.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`XXIX.
`Dr. Michalson's testimony is consistent and should be given weight by the
`
`Board.
`
`14
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner's Motion for Observation
`
`Respectfully submitted,
` /Chun M. Ng/
`Lead Counsel
`Chun M. Ng, Reg. No. 36,878
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Matthew C. Bernstein, Pro Hac Vice
`Vinay Sathe, Reg. No. 55,595
`Patrick J. McKeever, Reg. No. 66,019
`Evan S. Day, Pro Hac Vice
`
`Attorneys for Microsoft Corporation
`
`15
`
`
`Dated: March 31, 2017
`
`
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130
`(858) 720-5700
`
`
`
`PTAB Case IPR2016-00448, Patent 7,908,343 B2
`Petitioner’s Response to Patent Owner's Motion for Observation
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER'S RESPONSE TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`
`OBSERVATION has been served in its entirety this 31st day of March, 2017 by
`
`electronic mail on the Patent Owner via its attorneys of record:
`
`BACK-UP COUNSEL
`Michael N. Zachary
`mzachary@kenyon.com
`KENYON & KENYON, LLP
`1801 Page Mill Road, Ste 210
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Clifford Ulrich
`culrich@kenyon.com
`KENYON & KENYON, LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`
`Respectfully submitted,
` /Chun M. Ng/
`Lead Counsel
`Chun M. Ng, Reg. No. 36,878
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Matthew C. Bernstein, Pro Hac Vice
`Vinay Sathe, Reg. No. 55,595
`Patrick J. McKeever, Reg. No. 66,019
`Evan S. Day, Pro Hac Vice
`
`Attorneys for Microsoft Corporation
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`LEAD COUNSEL
`Christopher J. Coulson
`ccoulson@kenyon.com
`KENYON & KENYON, LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`
`Bradiumiprservice@kenyon.com
`
`
`Dated: March 31, 2017
`
`
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130
`(858) 720-5700
`
`