UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01201
`Patent 8,542,815
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF
`PETITIONER AS A SANCTION FOR
`IMPROPER EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS
`BY PATENT OWNER, OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR NEW AND
`CONSTITUTIONALLY CORRECT PROCEEDINGS
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary measures. Patent Owner
`
`Voip-Pal.com, Inc. has irreparably tainted this proceeding through repeated ex
`
`parte communications addressed to the panel, Board officials, and agency
`
`leadership. Between May 1, 2017 and October 23, 2017, Voip-Pal’s former CEO
`
`and Chairman and current advisor, Dr. Thomas Sawyer, sent at least six ex parte
`
`letters to the Board. The letters and surrounding context make clear that
`
`Dr. Sawyer acted in concert with Voip-Pal and its counsel. The threatening letters
`
`went so far as to accuse the Board of criminal conspiracy. Yet none of these letters
`
`was sent to Apple, and none was entered into the record in this proceeding.
`
`After the first such ex parte communication demanded that the Board
`
`replace the original panel due to alleged bias, the Board granted Voip-Pal the relief
`
`it demanded by replacing the panel. Emboldened, Voip-Pal continued a months-
`
`long campaign of ex parte communications, demanding reversal of the Institution
`
`Decision and dismissal of all pending IPR petitions against it. Voip-Pal ultimately
`
`got exactly what it requested when the replacement panel reversed the prior
`
`decision, sustained the challenged claims of the patents-in-suit, and denied
`
`institution of Apple’s two pending petitions.
`
`Where, as here, one party tarnishes a proceeding’s fundamental fairness with
`
`ex parte communications, the appropriate sanction is entry of judgment against that
`
`party. Alternatively, the Board should vacate its Final Written Decision and
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`provide a constitutionally correct process going forward after consultation with the
`
`parties to ensure fairness.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Factual Background
`
`Apple petitioned for inter partes review (“IPR”) of several claims of U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,542,815 B2 (EX. 1001, “the ’815 patent”) in June 2016. Paper 1
`
`(“Petition”). Apple’s Petition contended that the ’815 patent was unpatentable
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over (1) Chu ’684 and Chu ’366, and (2) Chu
`
`’684 and Chen. Petition at 5.
`
`In September 2016, Voip-Pal filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 5
`
`(“POPR”)) containing four main arguments: (1) Apple failed to identify its grounds
`
`with sufficient particularity (POPR at 9); (2) “[t]he combination … fails to render
`
`obvious ‘classifying the call’ as recited in element [1d]” (POPR at 18, 48);
`
`(3) “[t]he combination … fails to render obvious ‘locating a caller dialing profile’
`
`as recited in [1b]” (POPR at 26, 52); and (4) Apple failed to articulate a proper
`
`reason to combine the references (POPR at 38, 59).
`
`
`
`After addressing Voip-Pal’s second, third, and fourth arguments, the Board
`
`instituted IPR on all challenged claims in November 2016. Paper 6 (“ID”). At that
`
`point, the Board panel was composed of Administrative Patent Judges Barbara
`
`Benoit, Lynne Pettigrew, and Stacy Margolies (“Original Panel”). Id. at 1.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`In December 2016, Voip-Pal requested rehearing, arguing that the Board
`
`overlooked two arguments: (1) “a proper construction of the claims requires a
`
`particular ordering of steps” (Paper 9 at 3–7) (emphasis in original); and (2) the
`
`Petition’s failure to provide a valid motivation for why a skilled person would
`
`combine Chu ‘684 with either Chu ‘366 or Chen (id. at 7–13).
`
`
`
`The Original Panel denied Voip-Pal’s rehearing request in January 2017
`
`after rejecting Voip-Pal’s “ordering argument” and noting that it “did not overlook
`
`or misapprehend” either of Patent Owner’s arguments. Paper 11 at 3–7.
`
`
`
`Voip-Pal responded
`
`to
`
`the Petition
`
`in February 2017. Paper 17
`
`(“Response”). Voip-Pal spent over half its Response attempting a swear-behind, id.
`
`at 4–38, and repeated the same rejected arguments from the POPR and rehearing
`
`request, id. at 38–64. It devoted only six pages to arguing a lack of a motivation to
`
`combine. Id. at 64–69.
`
`
`
`On May 1, 2017, Dr. Sawyer sent the first of many ex parte letters to the
`
`Board. EX3003. Dr. Sawyer claimed he “no longer [had] a formal role with Voip-
`
`Pal,” but complained that all three judges on the Original Panel allegedly lacked
`
`“impartiality.” Id. at 1–5. The May 1 letter was addressed to Chief Judge Ruschke
`
`and copied the Original Panel. Id. at 5–6. Apple was not copied, and the Board
`
`never entered Dr. Sawyer’s May 1 ex parte letter into the record.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`On May 17, Apple filed its reply, which predominately focused on Voip-
`
`Pal’s swear-behind arguments. Paper 34.1
`
`
`
`On June 7, the parties participated in a conference call with the Board to
`
`discuss Voip-Pal’s request for a sur-reply. Unbeknownst to Apple, the Original
`
`Panel had been removed and new judges—Administrative Patent Judges Josiah
`
`Cocks, Jennifer Chagnon, and John Hudalla (“Substitute Panel”)—were appointed.
`
`This call was the first time Apple learned of the Substitute Panel. Paper 37. There
`
`was no discussion or explanation for why the Substitute Panel was appearing.
`
`
`
`On June 21, Dr. Sawyer sent his second letter to Chief Judge Ruschke.
`
`EX3004. He noted the removal of the Original Panel and that “replacement of an
`
`entire panel of judges is almost unheard of . . . since such a change is likely to have
`
`impacts on all concerned.” Id. at 1. Dr. Sawyer concluded by seeking sanctions of
`
`“a judgment in the patent owner’s favor or a dismissal of the action [to] make the
`
`patent owner whole.” Id. at 3. Apple was not copied, and the Board never entered
`
`Dr. Sawyer’s June 21 ex parte letter into the record.
`
`
`
`On July 11, Dr. Sawyer sent his third letter to Chief Judge Ruschke and
`
`copied the Substitute Panel. EX3005. Dr. Sawyer again noted the replacement of
`
`1 Prior to filing its Reply, on May 9, Apple filed two more petitions for IPR, one
`relating to the ’815 patent and the other relating to the ‘005 patent, a related Voip-
`Pal patent. See IPR2017-1398; IPR2017-1399. These petitions requested review of
`previously unchallenged claims and relied on different references.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`the Original Panel and the Board’s lack of explanation. Id. at 1. Dr. Sawyer argued
`
`that the change in panel “does not resolve the problem” of a perception of systemic
`
`bias. Id. at 3. He further noted “[i]t is common practice in other federal judicial
`
`settings to set aside the original outcome and try the case again to ensure that
`
`decision, which may have been based upon bias, can be tried again in an unbiased
`
`setting” and that “such an outcome would be particularly appropriate in this
`
`setting.” Id. Dr. Sawyer again requested sanctions of “judgment in the patent
`
`owner’s favor or a dismissal of the action.” Id. at 4. Apple was not copied, and the
`
`Board never entered Dr. Sawyer’s July 11 ex parte letter into the record.
`
`
`
`Oral argument occurred on July 20. Neither Voip-Pal nor the Substitute
`
`Panel discussed Dr. Sawyer’s ex parte letters. The schedule did not provide for any
`
`further input from the parties after this point.
`
`On July 27, Dr. Sawyer sent his fourth letter to Chief Judge Ruschke and
`
`Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross. EX3006. Dr. Sawyer argued that “[t]he
`
`replacement of the original judges alone, does not make Voip-Pal whole” in the
`
`face of perceived bias. Id. at 5. He also stated that due process required the Board
`
`to “dismiss the two Apple petitions that have been instituted and a [sic] make a
`
`decision not to institute the five pending petitions.” Id. Apple was not copied, and
`
`the Board never entered Dr. Sawyer’s ex parte July 27 letter into the record.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
` On August 31, Dr. Sawyer sent his fifth letter to Secretary Ross, copying
`
`Chief Judge Ruschke and the Substitute Panel, continuing to omit Apple from the
`
`recipient list. EX3007. The August 31 letter concluded by claiming that
`
`“seemingly unfair/illegal acts” have occurred and that “the only equitable and
`
`acceptable resolution would be an immediate dismissal of the seven pending IPR
`
`petitions against Voip-Pal.” Id. at 4. Apple was not copied, and the Board never
`
`entered Dr. Sawyer’s August 31 ex parte letter into the record.
`
`
`
`On September 18, Voip-Pal posted Dr. Sawyer’s letters on its website.
`
`EX1019.
`
`
`
`On October 23, Dr. Sawyer sent his sixth letter to Chief Judge Ruschke and
`
`Acting Director of the USPTO Joseph Matal, copying the Substitute Panel.
`
`EX3008. In this letter, Dr. Sawyer admitted he had been acting in coordination
`
`with Voip-Pal and its attorneys:
`
`Over the last several months, I have participated in a series of
`meetings and consultations with attorneys for Voip-Pal, a software
`development company for which I served as CEO for several years,
`and for which I continue to serve as an advisor. Their perceptions
`suggest very serious concerns that the Patent Trial and Appeals [sic]
`Board (PTAB) and implementation of the Inter Partes Review (IPR)
`process have deviated far from the initial purposes of the America
`Invents Act. The shared perception of the attorneys was that the
`administration of the process has included practices leading to results
`that are inequitably administered and anticompetitive.
`
`Id. at 1. Dr. Sawyer also suggested criminal liability for the Board:
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`There was no reason given for the changes. However, as the new
`panel did not revisit the earlier institution decisions, Voip-Pal must
`assume that these changes had something to do with maintaining the
`Director’s “Policy Position” as in the three earlier circuit court oral
`arguments I quoted. Because of the serious consequences associated
`with RICO violations and
`its potentially criminal
`liability
`implications, I ask you both to please consider taking the steps
`necessary to change these unfair and unjust PTAB and IPR procedures
`which have become the “killing field” of thousands of valid patents.
`
`Id. at 8. Dr. Sawyer concluded by requesting “corrective actions against these
`
`unjust practices.” Id. Apple was not copied, and the Board never entered
`
`Dr. Sawyer’s October 23 ex parte letter into the record. On November 20, the
`
`Substitute Panel issued the Final Written Decision, finding that Apple “has not
`
`shown by a preponderance of the evidence that [the challenged claims] are
`
`unpatentable.” Paper 54 (“FWD”) at 3. The FWD analyzed only the ordering of
`
`steps and motivation to combine arguments—both of which the Original Panel had
`
`previously rejected in its ID and in response to Voip-Pal’s rehearing request.2
`
`II. Argument
`Voip-Pal’s ex parte communications have tainted this proceeding with
`
`
`
`fundamental unfairness and violated Board regulations, the APA, and Apple’s due
`
`process rights. Entry of judgment against Voip-Pal is the most appropriate sanction
`
`to remedy the harm from Voip-Pal’s conduct and deter similar future ex parte
`
`
`2 Also on November 20, the Substitute Panel denied institution of Apple’s other
`two pending IPR petitions for the same reasons. See IPR2017-1398 (Paper 6);
`IPR2017-1399 (Paper 6).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`communication. Alternatively, the Board and the parties should discuss how to
`
`provide a fair and constitutionally correct way forward.3
`
`A. Voip-Pal
`Is Responsible
`Communications
`
`for Dr. Sawyer’s Ex Parte
`
`As Dr. Sawyer’s letter writing campaign progressed, he became more
`
`forthcoming about his cooperation with Voip-Pal and its attorneys. In the final
`
`letter of the campaign, dated October 23, Dr. Sawyer stated, “Over the last several
`
`months, I have participated in a series of meetings and consultations
`
`with attorneys for Voip-Pal, a software development company for which I served
`
`as CEO for several years, and for which I continue to serve as an adviser.”
`
`EX3008 at 1 (emphasis added). Dr. Sawyer explained his letter was intended to
`
`provide “notice of their concerns” and even revealed that Voip-Pal’s attorneys
`
`played an active role in preparing the letter by “identify[ing] the sections of law
`
`that they feel have been offended by the current implementation of the PTAB.”
`
`Id. (emphasis added). The October 23 letter thus makes clear that Dr. Sawyer is no
`
`rogue actor; rather, Voip-Pal knew about—and assisted in—Dr. Sawyer’s ex parte
`
`communications with the Board designed to influence this proceeding. If there
`
`were any doubt, Voip-Pal posted all of Dr. Sawyer’s letters on its website in
`
`
`3 The ex parte communications impacted at least four proceedings:
`
`IPR2016-1198 and IPR2016-1201 (which issued Final Written Decisions); and
`IPR2017-1398 and IPR2017-1399 (which denied institution).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`September 2017, where they remain today.4 EX1020. Voip-Pal cannot distance
`
`itself from these communications and should be held accountable for the activity in
`
`which it participated and to which it apparently contributed and planned.
`
`B.
`
`The Ex Parte Communications Violated 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(d) and
`the APA
`
`
`
`“Communication regarding a specific proceeding with a Board member
`
`defined in 35 U.S.C. 6(a) is not permitted unless both parties have an opportunity
`
`to be involved in the communication.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(d). There is no question
`
`that each of Voip-Pal’s six letters violated this regulation. Every letter identified
`
`this specific proceeding. Each was directed to at least the Chief Judge (who is a
`
`Board member), and four letters were directed to the actual panel judges
`
`adjudicating this IPR. Despite each letter’s extensive distribution list, Apple is
`
`absent from each and every letter.5 As such, neither Apple nor its counsel “had an
`
`
`4 See Voip-Pal, “Independent Letters from Dr. Thomas Sawyer &
`
`Shareholders,” https://www.voip-pal.com/news-interviews-more (last visited Dec.
`20, 2017). Voip-Pal’s description of these letters as “independent” (EX1019) is
`belied by the content of the letters themselves, which explain that Dr. Sawyer
`attended meetings with Voip-Pal attorneys and wrote to notify the Board of “their
`concerns.” EX3008 at 1. Moreover, “counsel . . . have a continuing duty to inform
`the Court of any development which may conceivably affect the outcome of the
`litigation.” Bd. of License Comm’nrs v. Pastore, 469 U.S. 238, 240 (1985)
`(quotation marks and citation omitted). As soon as Voip-Pal or its attorneys knew
`that Dr. Sawyer sent ex parte communications to the Board, they should have
`formally notified the Board and Apple “without delay.” Id.
`5 In a separate improper ex parte communication, Dr. Sawyer mailed a copy
`of his May 1 letter to the district court judge presiding over the co-pending and
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`opportunity to be involved in the communication” as required. It is beyond dispute
`
`that Dr. Sawyer violated Board regulations in sending these letters.
`
`
`
`Further, the ex parte communications violate the APA, which prohibits an
`
`“interested person outside the agency” from making, or knowingly causing to be
`
`made, an ex parte communication relevant to the merits of the proceeding with a
`
`member of the adjudicatory body. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct.
`
`2131, 2140 (2016) (applying APA review to IPR); 5 U.S.C. § 557(d)(1)(A). An
`
`agency adjudicatory body must render decisions based on the neutral judgment of
`
`individual adjudicators, uninfluenced by external pressure or internal preferences.
`
`Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 513–14 (1978); Brennan v. Dep’t of Health &
`
`Human Servs., 787 F.2d 1559, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
`
`C. The Ex Parte Communications Violated Apple’s Due Process
`Rights
`
`
`
`Voip-Pal’s repeated ex parte communications violated the bedrock principle
`
`
`now stayed litigation in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.
`This letter was entered into the record sua sponte by the court clerk as a
`communication received from an “interested party.” See Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`v. Apple Inc., 2:16-cv-00260, Dkt. 28 (D. Nev. May 8, 2017). Apple had no reason
`to think the May 1 letter might impact the Board—the letter was never filed on the
`Board’s docket—or that the letter was the cause of the panel change. Apple never
`knew of the June 21, July 11, July 27, or August 31 letters—which were not filed
`on the dockets of the district court or the Board—until it began investigating the
`letter campaign in November. On November 1 (well after the conclusion of
`briefing and oral argument), Dr. Sawyer mailed his October 23 letter to the district
`court, where again it was entered on the court’s docket not by Voip-Pal but sua
`sponte by the court clerk.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`that litigants are entitled to know the facts and arguments presented against them.
`
`“A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process” and “[t]his
`
`applies to administrative agencies which adjudicate as well as to courts.” Withrow
`
`v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 46–47 (1975). This “safeguards the two central concerns of
`
`procedural due process, the prevention of unjustified or mistaken deprivations and
`
`the promotion of participation and dialogue by affected individuals in the
`
`decisionmaking process.” Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980). The
`
`fundamental harm of ex parte communications is that the potentially prejudiced
`
`party does not know “whether the incidents that may have occurred were harmful
`
`or harmless.” Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 229 (1954); 3 W.
`
`Blackstone, Commentaries *375–376 (factfinders are prohibited from ex parte
`
`communication with parties).
`
`The Federal Circuit, in a different context, provided three factors for
`
`determining whether ex parte communications violate due process: (1) whether the
`
`ex parte communication introduces new or merely “cumulative” information;
`
`(2) whether the adversely impacted party knew of and had a chance to respond to
`
`the communication; and (3) whether the communication was “of the type likely to
`
`result in undue pressure upon the deciding official to rule in a particular manner.”
`
`Stone v. FDIC, 179 F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Each Stone factor points to a due process violation here. First, every ex
`
`parte letter included new information and arguments, not in the record, such as
`
`allegations of bias, alleged procedural violations, and potential criminal liability
`
`for the Board. The ex parte letters also included new demands for remedies like
`
`reversal of the Institution Decisions and termination of the IPR. Second, Voip-Pal
`
`never addressed a single letter to Apple, and the Board never made the ex parte
`
`letters part of this record or provided Apple an opportunity to respond. Third, the
`
`ex parte letters—which go so far as to threaten criminal liability, see EX3008 at
`
`8—unquestionably were intended to exert pressure upon the Board. Further, as
`
`discussed below,
`
`the Board was
`
`in fact
`
`influenced by
`
`the ex parte
`
`communications—in apparent response to what appears to be the first letter, the
`
`Board replaced the entire Original Panel overseeing this proceeding.
`
`When ex parte communications satisfy these criteria, they constitute a due
`
`process violation, and such a “violation is not subject to the harmless error test.”
`
`Stone, 179 F.3d at 1377. Instead, the impacted party is automatically entitled, at a
`
`minimum, to an “entirely new” and “constitutionally correct” proceeding. Id. As
`
`explained below, the proper sanction is the entry of judgment against Voip-Pal. If
`
`the Board disagrees, Apple deserves, at minimum, a discussion with the Board to
`
`determine a fair and constitutionally correct process to move forward where care is
`
`taken to prevent the type of psychological undue influences described next.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`D. Apple was Prejudiced by the Board’s Response to Voip-Pal’s Ex
`Parte Letter-Writing Campaign
`
`Ex parte communications constitute structural error that requires an
`
`appropriate sanction precisely because no one will ever know what influence such
`
`communications may have had, and formal proceedings must be conducted and
`
`concluded without even the appearance of undue influence. Due process demands
`
`nothing less. Here, the record is irrefutable that the Board took actions adverse to
`
`Apple after receiving Voip-Pal’s unauthorized ex parte communications asking for
`
`that precise result; the inference of prejudice is inescapable.
`
`After Voip-Pal accused the Original Panel of bias in its first ex parte
`
`communication, the Board removed the Original Panel in favor of a Substitute
`
`Panel after the Original Panel issued its Institution Decision. Apple does not doubt
`
`that the Board acted out of good intentions to remedy Voip-Pal’s ex parte
`
`allegations of bias. Yet the Board’s actions were not vetted through open discourse
`
`and Apple had no opportunity to respond. Replacing the Panel was the first step
`
`toward instilling the Substitute Panel with a reciprocal bias against Apple. By
`
`replacing a panel in response to allegations of bias, the Board implicitly
`
`acknowledged the Patent Owner’s claims of bias by acting in what could be seen
`
`as a response to the ex parte communications. The Board’s actions began to bias
`
`the Substitute Panel toward undoing whatever the Original Panel had done under
`
`the shadow of alleged bias. And every additional letter from Voip-Pal fostered and
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`nurtured that bias, compounding the error, the prejudice, and the due process
`
`violation.
`
`The common-sense problem with removing a judge (or an entire panel of
`
`judges) in the face of bias allegations after a substantive decision has been
`
`rendered is that the newly appointed adjudicators necessarily assume the task of
`
`fixing what led to the substitution in the first place (a task that Voip-Pal’s
`
`subsequent ex parte communications demanded). See, e.g., Utica Packing Co. v.
`
`Block, 781 F.2d 71, 75, 78 (6th Cir. 1986). The clarity of the path toward which the
`
`Substitute Panel was implicitly pushed becomes ever more clear through the
`
`additional ex parte letters. If the Board responded positively to the first letter, the
`
`Substitute Panel must have considered the need to follow through in a similar
`
`fashion on the remainder of the letters. Such a consideration should never have
`
`been a possibility much less a reality. While the Board likely had fairness in mind,
`
`the actions the Board took had the opposite effect, resulting in a thumb on the scale
`
`in favor of Voip-Pal as a direct—and intended—consequence of Voip-Pal’s
`
`campaign of ex parte communications. This violated Apple’s Due Process rights.
`
`E. Adverse Judgment Against Voip-Pal Is An Appropriate Sanction
`
`
`
`The Board may impose sanctions for a “failure to comply with an applicable
`
`rule,”
`
`including
`
`the rule prohibiting ex parte communications. 37 CFR
`
`§ 42.12(a)(1); Nissan N. Am. Inc. v. Collins, 2013 WL 6327754, at *1 (P.T.A.B.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Jan. 29, 2013). Here, with the FWD already issued, most of the statutorily
`
`authorized sanctions would not remedy the harm that infected this proceeding.
`
`Of the eight sanctions specified in 37 CFR § 42.12(b), the only one
`
`appropriate to these facts is entry of judgment against Voip-Pal. This potent
`
`sanction is appropriate here for several reasons. First, a lengthy campaign of
`
`threatening ex parte letters is particularly egregious conduct. Second, it appears
`
`that Voip-Pal and its attorneys participated in (or at least knew of) Dr. Sawyer’s
`
`letter campaign but concealed their involvement. Third, the present situation could
`
`have been avoided if Voip-Pal had simply put its bias complaints on record so they
`
`could be addressed in an above-board manner with input from both parties.
`
`Apple can never know “what actually transpired” when the Board received
`
`six threatening letters from Dr. Sawyer or whether the ex parte campaign was
`
`“harmful or harmless.” Remmer, 347 U.S. at 229. And that is the real danger of ex
`
`parte communications. Whether or not Voip-Pal’s ex parte communications
`
`influenced the ultimate decision, they were certainly designed to do so. Such
`
`actions cannot go unredressed. The Board should enter judgment against Voip-Pal
`
`on all claims subject to IPR challenge by Apple. Alternatively, Apple requests
`
`vacatur of the FWD and a constitutionally correct process going forward before a
`
`new panel after consultation with both parties to ensure fairness.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`15
`
`

`

`Date: December 20, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Adam P. Seitz
`Adam P. Seitz, Reg. No. 52,206
`Eric A. Buresh, Reg. No. 50,394
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`7015 College Blvd., Suite 700
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`(913) 777-5600 Phone
`(913) 777-5601 Fax
`eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`adam.seitz@eriseip.com
`
`Paul R. Hart, Reg. No. 59,646
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`5600 Greenwood Plaza Blvd., Suite 200
`Greenwood Village, CO 80111
`(913) 777-5600 Phone
`(913) 777-5601 Fax
`paul.hart@eriseip.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
`
`16
`
`

`

`III. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on December 20, 2017, a true and correct copy
`
`of this Motion For Entry Of Judgment In Favor Of Petitioner As A Sanction For Ex
`
`Parte Communications And As A Remedy For Due Process Violations, Or,
`
`Alternatively, For “Entirely New” And “Constitutionally Correct” Proceedings was
`
`served upon the following counsel for Patent Owner, via the email correspondence
`
`address of record:
`
`
`Kerry Taylor, Reg. No. 43,947
`
`2kst@knobbe.com
`
`
`
`John M. Carson, Reg. No. 34,303
`
`2jmc@knobbe.com
`
`
`Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
`2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
`
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`858-707-4000 Phone
`858-707-4001 Fax
`
`
`Stephen Melvin
`meliin@zytek.com
`Zytek Communications Corporation
`114 W. Magnolia Street, Suite 400-113
`Bellingham, WA 98225
`(360) 543-5611
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BY:
`
`/s/ Paul R. Hart
`Paul R. Hart, Reg. No. 59,646
`
`
`
`ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`