`IPR 2016-01263
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,298
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________________
`
`
`Bright House Networks, LLC,
`WideOpenWest Finance, LLC,
`Knology of Florida, Inc.
`Birch Communications, Inc.,
`Petitioners
`v.
`
`Focal IP, LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`Case No. IPR2016-01263
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,298
`
`
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JONI Y. CHANG, and BARBARA A. PARVIS,
`ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT JUDGES.
`
`PETITIONERS’ RESPONSIVE LISTING OF SUPPORT SHOWING
`REPLY ARGUMENTS ARE PROPER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s Order (Paper No. 44), Petitioners provide the
`
`following citations to show that statements made in the Petitioners’ Reply were (1)
`
`first raised in the Petition, and/or (2) raised in response to arguments and
`
`statements made by Patent Owner in the Patent Owner’s Response (“P.O. Resp.”)
`
`and its expert in his declaration (“Bates Dec.”). For the Board’s convenience,
`
`Petitioners have repeated Patent Owner’s assertions of new argument/evidence
`
`using the same numbering as Patent Owner, followed by Petitioners’ support by
`
`citation to the record to show that all arguments constitute a proper reply:
`
`(1) Petitioners’ Support: P.O. Resp., 39:3-47:20, 55:7-14; Bates Dec., ¶¶68-79, 88;
`
`Pet., 23:17-20, 33:12-34:2, 35:7-11, 46:15-47:3, 47:19-48:8, 53:18-22, 54:5-12,
`
`15:16-16:2, 9:10-14.
`
`(2) Petitioners’ Support: P.O. Resp., 48:5-7, 49:16-17; Bates Dec., ¶¶81, 83;
`
`EX1059, 155:13-158:11; Pet., 40:7-41:15, 22:8-23:4 (FIG. 4 (68)).
`
`(3) Petitioners’ Support: P.O. Resp., 39:3-47:20, 55:7-14, 48:5-7, 49:16-17, 53:22-
`
`54:2; Bates Dec., ¶¶68-79, 81, 83, 88; Pet., 23:17-20, 33:12-34:2, 35:7-11,
`
`40:7-41:15, 46:15-47:3, 47:19-48:8, 53:18-22, 54:5-12, 15:16-16:2, 22:8-23:4.
`
`(4) Petitioners’ Support: Pet., 23:17-20, 33:12-34:2, 35:7-11, 46:15-47:3, 47:19-
`
`48:8, 53:18-22, 54:5-12, 15:16-16:2, 9:10-14; P.O. Resp., 39:3-40:14, 43:5-
`
`45:20, 51:18-56:2; Bates Dec., ¶¶68-70, 74-76, 84-89.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(5) Petitioners’ Support: P.O. Resp. 51:18-56:2; Bates Dec. ¶¶80-89; EX1060,
`
`356:9-357:8; Pet., 23:17-20, 33:12-34:2, 34:19-35:6, 46:15-47:3, 53:22-54:12,
`
`54:17-57:2.
`
`(6) Petitioners’ Support: P.O. Resp., 44:1-45:20, 53:9-54:7, 56:3-57:7, 39:3-40:14,
`
`55:7-14; Bates Dec. ¶¶74-76, 85, 88-89, 68-70, 45; EX1059, 22:23-23:8; 26:7-
`
`15; Pet. 33:12-34:2, 35:7-11, 46:15-47:3, 47:19-48:8, 53:18-22, 54:5-12.
`
`(7) Petitioners’ Support: P.O. Resp., 30:16-35:10; 35:11-38:5, 56:18-20, 57:5-10;
`
`Bates Dec., ¶¶61-66, 90-91; Pet., 22:2-7, 24:1-9, 26:6-10, 48:6-16, 52:4-9.
`
`(8) Petitioners’ Support: P.O. Resp. 39:3-47:20, 51:18-57:7; Bates Dec., ¶¶61-79,
`
`84-89; EX1059, 201:22-202:11, 205:15-206:16, 211:21-213:14.
`
`(9) Petitioners’ Support: P.O. Resp., 39:3-40:14, 47:2-20, Bates Dec., ¶¶45, 68-70,
`
`78-79; Pet., 20:1-9, 36:9-37:4, 38:6-7, 38:16-21, 49:7-12.
`
`(10) Petitioners’ Support: P.O. Resp., 39:3-40:14, 47:2-20, Bates Dec., ¶¶45, 68-
`
`70, 78-79; Pet., 20:1-21:5, 27:13-29:12, 30:3-13, 31:8-32:19, 36:8-37:4, 38:8-
`
`41:11, 49:7-12.
`
`(11) Petitioners’ Support: P.O. Resp., 60:12-61:10; Bates Dec., ¶95; Pet., 20:1-
`
`21:5, 36:8-37:4, 38:8-41:11, 49:7-12.
`
`(12) Petitioners’ Support: P.O. Resp., 48:5-7, 49:16-17; Bates Dec., ¶¶81, 83;
`
`EX1059, 155:13-158:11; Pet., 40:7-41:15, 22:8-23:4 (FIG. 4 (68)).
`
`(13) Petitioners’ Support: see (1), (4), (6)-(8), (9)-(10) above.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Responsive Listing of Support Showing Reply Arguments Are Proper
`IPR 2016-01263
`U.S. Patent No. 8,155,298
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`Dated: July 21, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Wayne Stacy/
`Wayne Stacy
`USPTO Reg. No. 45,125
`Baker Botts LLP
`101 California Street, Suite 3600
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`LEAD COUNSEL FOR
`PETITIONERS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PATENT OWNER
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on the 21st
`
`day of July 2017, a complete and entire copy of this Responsive Listing of Support
`
`Showing Reply Arguments Are Proper was provided via the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board End to End (PTAB E2E) System as well as delivering a copy via
`
`email on the following counsel for Patent Owner at:
`
`Brent N. Bumgardner
`brent@nelbum.com
`PAL-IPR@nelbum.com
`
`John Murphy
`murphy@nelbum.com
`
`NELSON BUMGARDNER, P.C.
`3131 W. 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`
`Dated July 21, 2017
`
`LEAD COUNSEL FOR PETITIONERS
`
`
`
`DM2\8020773.1
`
`2
`
`
`
`By: /Wayne Stacy/
`Wayne Stacy
`USPTO Reg. No. 45,125
`Baker Botts LLP
`101 California Street, Suite 3600
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`