` Entered: March 2, 2015
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`DELAWARE DISPLAY GROUP LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent No. 7,914,196
`____________
`
`
`
`Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, NEIL T. POWELL, and
`BEVERLY M. BUNTING, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`
`GIANNETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 1 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`
`LG Display Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition pursuant to 35
`U.S.C. §§ 311–319 to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–25 of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,914,196 (“the ’196 patent”). Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Delaware
`Display Group LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper
`9 (“Prelim. Resp.”). Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a),
`which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we deny the
`Petition as to all challenges.
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`A. The ʼ196 patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ʼ196 patent is entitled “Light Redirecting Film Systems Having
`Pattern of Variable Optical Elements.” The Abstract describes the subject
`matter as follows:
`Light redirecting film systems comprise a backlight
`having deformities that cause a majority of the light entering
`the input edge of the backlight to be emitted from a light output
`surface of the backlight. In close proximity to the light output
`surface is a light redirecting film that has a pattern of individual
`optical elements of well-defined shape to redistribute the light
`emitted by the light output surface toward a direction normal to
`the film.
`
`Ex. 1001, Abstract (emphasis added).
`
`The invention of the ʼ196 patent is further described in the Summary
`of Invention:
`The present invention relates to light redirecting films and light
`redirecting film systems that redistribute more of the light
`emitted by a backlight or other light source toward a direction
`more normal to the plane of the films, and to light redirecting
`
`
`
`2
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 2 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`
`films that produce a softer image without the brightness
`decrease associated with films that have a matte or diffuse
`finish on the light entrance surface of the films, for increased
`effectiveness.
`
`Ex. 1001, col. 2, ll. 44–51 (emphasis added).
`
`Figure 2 of the ʼ196 patent follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 2 shows backlight BL, light redirecting film 2, and optical elements 5
`on light redirecting surface 6 of the film. Ex. 1001, col. 5, ll. 20–35, 62–67.
`The Figure shows rays R being directed by deformities 50 to the surface of
`the backlight BL, where they are redirected by optical elements 5 to be
`normal to the film surface 6. As further described in the ʼ196 patent, “the
`backlight BL itself may be designed to emit more of the light rays at lower
`
`
`
`3
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 3 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`angles to increase the amount of light emitted by the backlight and rely on
`the light redirecting film to redistribute more of the emitted light within a
`desired viewing angle.” Id. col. 7, ll. 33–37 (emphasis added).
`
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims at issue:
`
`1. A light redirecting film system comprising
`
`a backlight including at least one input edge for receiving
`light from a light source, and at least one light output surface
`for emitting light,
`
`the backlight having deformities that cause most of the
`light entering the input edge to be emitted from the light output
`surface at relatively low angles, and
`
`a light redirecting film in close proximity to the light
`output surface for receiving light emitted from the light output
`surface,
`
`the light redirecting film having a pattern of individual
`optical elements of well-defined shape that vary at different
`locations on the film to redistribute the light emitted from the
`light output surface toward a direction normal to the film.
`
`
`
`C. Related Proceedings
`Patent Owner states that it has asserted infringement by Petitioner of
`the ʼ196 patent in the following proceeding: Delaware Display Group LLC
`et al. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., No. 1:13-cv-02109 (D. Del., filed Dec.
`31, 2013). Paper 6. Patent Owner identifies numerous other proceedings in
`which it has alleged infringement of the ʼ196 patent. See Paper 6 for a
`listing.
`In addition, there are three pending inter partes reviews for patents
`related to the ’196 patent. Those are as follows:
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 4 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`
`1. IPR2014-01096 (U.S. Patent No. 7,537,370);
`2. IPR2014-01097 (U.S. Patent No. 7,300,194); and
`3. IPR2014-01357 (U.S. Patent No. 6,755,547).
`
`
`D. Claim Construction
`The Board interprets claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest
`reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); see also Office Patent Trial Practice
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012).
`1. “deformities”
`The only claim term for which Petitioner proposes a construction is
`the term “deformities,” appearing in all challenged claims. Pet. 7–8.
`Petitioner asserts that the ʼ196 patent “expressly defines” the term to mean
`“any change in the shape or geometry of the panel surface and/or coating or
`surface treatment that causes a portion of light to be emitted from the
`backlight.” Id. (citing ʼ196 patent, Ex. 1001, col. 9, ll. 44–48). Patent
`Owner opposes the inclusion of the term “from the backlight” at the end of
`the proposed construction as “unsupported in the intrinsic record.” Prelim.
`Resp. 3. We have considered Petitioner’s construction of “deformities” and
`agree that the term “from the backlight” should be included, as it appears in
`the specification at col. 9, lines 47–48.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 5 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`
`
`
`
`2. “the backlight having deformities that cause the light entering the
`input edge to be emitted from the light surface at relatively low
`angles”
`
`This limitation appears in challenged claims 1–21. Although not
`construed by either party, we conclude that to evaluate Petitioner’s
`challenges, it is necessary to determine the meaning of this limitation.
`First, we determine the meaning of “light surface.” Petitioner does
`not propose a construction or specifically address the issue. In at least one
`instance, however, the Petition suggests that the “light surface” is the surface
`of the deformities. Pet. 6 (“The ʼ196 patent purports to achieve the alleged
`improvements by providing a backlight having deformities that cause the
`light to be emitted at relatively low angles.”)(citing claim 1).
`We are not persuaded that this analysis is correct. The claims
`themselves, Figure 2, as well as the discussion of “lower angles” in the
`specification indicate that the “light surface” is the upper surface of the
`backlight BL. See discussion supra.
`
`Next, we attempt to determine the meaning of the claim term
`“relatively low angles.” Petitioner does not provide a proposed construction
`of this term. Nor does Petitioner point to anything in the specification that
`would provide guidance to a person of ordinary skill. Figure 2 shows light
`rays R being emitted from the upper surface of backlight BL at various
`angles. See supra. The specification mentions “the backlight BL itself may
`be designed to emit more of the light rays at lower angles.” Ex. 1001, col. 7,
`ll. 33–35 (emphasis added). But no numerical values or other guides for
`determining these angles are presented are presented in the specification.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 6 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`While it is permissible to use terms of degree (e.g., “relatively low”)
`
`in patent claims, the patent specification must provide a standard for
`measuring that degree. United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S.
`228, 236 (1942); Ex Parte Lazzara, Appeal 2007-0192, 2007 WL 5963473
`(BPAI Nov. 13, 2007)(informative).
`
`Petitioner has the burden of showing in the Petition “[h]ow the
`challenged claim is to be construed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.204(b)(3). We
`determine that Petitioner has not met this requirement. Petitioner has not
`identified anything in the specification that provides adequate guidance to
`determine the meaning of “relatively low.”
`
`In addition, the Petition must show “[h]ow the construed claim is
`unpatentable under the statutory grounds.” Id. § 42.204(b)(4). For the
`reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has not met this additional
`burden.
`We have further determined that, except as may be indicated in the
`discussion below, the remaining terms should be given their plain and
`ordinary meaning.
`
`E. References
`Petitioner relies on the following references1:
`US 5,808,784
`Sept. 5, 1995
`US 5,797,668
`Aug. 25, 1998
`US 5,982,540
`Mar. 13, 1995
`US 5,838,403
`Nov. 17, 1998
`US 5,769,522
`Jun. 23, 1998
`GB 2 281 802
`Mar. 15, 1995
`
`Ando
`Kojima
`Koike
`Jannson
`Kaneko
`Hattersley
`
`
`Ex. 1006
`Ex. 1007
`Ex. 1008
`Ex. 1009
`Ex. 1010
`Ex. 1011
`
`
`1 The references are ordered by exhibit number with effective dates asserted
`by Petitioner.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`
`Petitioner also states that it is relying on Admitted Prior Art (“APA”)
`from the ʼ196 patent specification. Pet. 8; Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 30–40.
`Petitioner also relies on a Declaration of Michael J. Escuti, Ph.D. (“Escuti
`Decl.”). Ex. 1004.
`
`F. Grounds Asserted
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–25 of the ʼ196 patent on the following
`
`grounds.
`
`
`References
`
`Kojima
`Koike
`Ando and Jannson
`Koike and Kaneko
`Koike and Hattersley
`
`Claims Challenged
`1–3, 5, 10, 18, 19
`22, 23
`1–21
`1–3, 5, 7–13, 19, 21
`24, 25
`
`Basis
`§ 102(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`§ 103(a)
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Real Party-in-Interest
`We first address Patent Owner’s contention that the Petition should be
`denied because Petitioner has failed to name two real parties-in-interest.
`Prelim. Resp. 11. They are LG Electronics Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A.
`Inc. Id.
`Patent Owner’s preliminary response fails to provide convincing
`evidence that LG Electronics Inc. is a real party-in-interest. According to
`Patent Owner, “[w]e know LG Electronics Inc. is a real party in interest
`because it owns 37.9% of Petitioner and because it has admitted to being a
`related party to Petitioner.” Id. We are not persuaded by this argument. As
`the Office Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14,
`
`
`
`8
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 8 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`2014), makes clear, and as Patent Owner acknowledges (Prelim. Resp. 12),
`an important factor in determining real party in interest is control or the
`ability to control the proceeding. Zoll Lifecor Corp. v. Philips Elect. North
`America Corp, IPR2013-00609 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2014), Paper 15, slip op. at
`10. In Zoll, the Board relied on the fact that the party determined to be a real
`party-in-interest (Zoll Medical) controlled 100 % of the petitioner (Zoll
`Lifecor). Here, LG Electronics Inc. is not even a majority owner of
`Petitioner. And the fact that the attorneys representing Petitioner here also
`represent LG Electronics Inc. in a district court lawsuit involving the ʼ196
`patent, without more, is insufficient evidence of control of this proceeding
`by LG Electronics.
`Patent Owner also fails to provide convincing evidence that LG
`Electronics U.S.A. Inc. is a real party-in-interest. Patent Owner’s sole
`argument states “[w]e know that LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. is a real party-
`in-interest because it is 100 % owned by LG Electronics, Inc.” Prelim.
`Resp. 11–12. But Patent Owner has not provided sufficient proof that LG
`Electronics Inc. is a real party-in-interest. See supra. Therefore, Patent
`Owner’s contention that LG Electronics U.S.A. Inc. also is a real party-in-
`interest simply because it is “100% owned by LG Electronics, Inc.” is not
`persuasive.
`We therefore determine that, on this record, the Petition should not be
`denied on this ground.
`
`B. Asserted Grounds Based On Kojima (Claims 1–3, 5, 10, 18, 19)
`Petitioner contends that these claims are anticipated by Kojima under
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 9 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a). Pet. 11. For the reasons that follow, we do not institute
`a review based on this challenge.
`
`Kojima describes a surface illuminant device used as a backlight for a
`transmission liquid crystal display. Ex. 1007, col. 1, ll. 4–6. The device
`includes a light conduction or guide plate, a linear light source, a lens film, a
`light diffusing film, and a light reflecting member disposed behind the guide
`plate. Id. col. 2, ll. 43–49. This is illustrated by Figure 1 of Kojima
`reproduced here:
`
`
`
`
`In Figure 1 above, lens film 1 provided with a plurality of triangular prisms
`2, light guide plate 3, “imaginary” exit surface p1 of lens film 1, and exit
`surface p2 of light guide plate 3 are shown. Ex. 1007, col 2, l. 66–col. 3,
`l. 14. The figure also shows peak exit angle θ1, defined as “an angle at which
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`a direction in which most light rays outgoing from the exit surface p2 of the
`light guide plate 3 toward the entrance surface 1b of the lens film 1 travel is
`inclined to a normal to the exit surface p2 of the light guide plate 3.” Id.
`col. 3, ll. 14–19. Kojima describes using a peak exit angle θ1 of 28°. Id. col.
`5, l. 65–col. 6, l. 12.
`
`Petitioner’s analysis of claims 1–3, 5, 10, 18, and 19 of the ʼ196
`patent in relation to Kojima appears at pages 11–20 of the Petition.
`As noted supra, Petitioner has not offered any construction of the term
`
`“relatively low” appearing in these claims, nor is the specification adequate
`to make that determination. Therefore, we are not able to evaluate
`Petitioner’s argument for unpatentability based on Kojima.
`
`Furthermore, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s analysis
`adequately demonstrates that “most of the light” entering the input edge is
`emitted a relatively low angle. We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s
`argument that, at best, Kojima describes that most of the emitted light rays
`exit at the peak angle θ1. The claims, however, refer to the entering light
`rays. Prelim. Resp. 5.
`
` For these reasons we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claims 1–3, 5, 10, 18,
`and 19 of the ʼ196 patent over Kojima.
`
`
`C. Asserted Grounds Based On Koike and Kaneko
`(Claims 1–3, 5, 7–13, 19, 21)
`Koike describes a surface light source device with a polarization
`
`function for backlighting a liquid crystal display. Ex. 1008, col. 2, ll. 16–18.
`Figure 4 of Koike follows:
`
`
`
`11
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 11 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Figure 4 shows fluorescent lamp L, reflector R, light flux parallelizer 1, light
`incident surface 2, light exit surface 3, polarization plate 8, air layer 9, light
`direction modifier 10, and light exit surface 11. Ex. 1008, col. 10, l. 32–col.
`11, l. 5. Petitioner’s analysis of Koike and Kaneko in relation to these
`claims of the ʼ196 patent appears at pages 43–55 of the Petition.
`
`To meet the “relatively low angles” limitation of these claims,
`Petitioner relies on Figure 5 of Koike, showing light rays exiting the light
`flux parallelizer at an angle of 65° from the normal. Pet. 46 (claim chart).
`
`For the reasons previously stated, Petitioner has not offered any
`construction of the term “relatively low” appearing in these claims, nor has
`Petitioner identified any description in specification that would be adequate
`to provide a standard for measuring the degree. Therefore, we are not able
`to evaluate Petitioner’s argument for unpatentability based on Koike.
`Furthermore, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s analysis adequately
`demonstrates that “most of the light” entering the input edge is emitted a
`
`
`
`12
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 12 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`relatively low angle. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not
`shown that Koike teaches this. Prelim. Resp. 9–10.
`
`Petitioner relies on Kaneko only as to other limitations of the claims.
`Therefore, Kaneko does not affect our analysis and will not be discussed
`further.
`
`For these reasons we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claims 1–3, 5, 7–13,
`18, 19, and 21 of the ʼ196 patent over Koike and Kaneko.
`
`
`D. Asserted Grounds Based On Ando and Jannson (Claims 1–21)
`Ando assertedly is directed to a lens array sheet that can effectively
`
`use light energy of the light source, maintain the light condensing effect,
`prevent the luminance from deteriorating, homogeneously distribute the
`luminance on the light emitting surface, and prevent equal-thickness
`interference fringes and wasteful light dispersion out of the angle of visual
`angle from taking place. Ex. 1006, col. 2, ll. 54–57.
`
`Jannson is directed to a liquid crystal display system having a
`collimated back light and a diffuser. The effect is to project light through a
`liquid crystal display. Ex. 1009, col 2, l. 66–col. 3, l. 2.
`
`
`
`13
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 13 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`
`
`Figure 12 of Jannson follows:
`
`
`Figure 12 of Jannson shows a ray diagram with the rays emerging from a
`waveguide at various angles. Ex. 1009, col. 22, ll. 27–36.
`
`Petitioner’s analysis of claims 1–21 of the ʼ196 patent in relation to
`Ando and Jannson appears at pages 26–43 of the Petition. Petitioner relies
`on Jannnson to meet the “relatively low” requirement of these claims.
`Pet. 29 (claim chart). As noted supra, however, Petitioner has not provided
`a claim construction for the “relatively low” requirement, nor has Petitioner
`identified any description in specification that would be adequate to provide
`a standard for measuring the degree. Therefore, we are not able to evaluate
`Petitioner’s argument for unpatentability based on Koike.
`
`Furthermore, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s analysis
`adequately demonstrates that “most of the light” entering the input edge is
`emitted a relatively low angle. We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner
`has not shown that Jannson meets this limitation. Prelim. Resp. 8–9.
`
`Petitioner does not rely on Ando to teach this limitation of the claims.
`Therefore, Ando does not affect our analysis and will not be considered
`further.
`
`
`
`14
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 14 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`For these reasons we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claims 1–21 of the
`ʼ196 patent over Ando and Jannson.
`
`
`E. Asserted Grounds Based on Koike (Claims 22, 23) and
`Koike and Hattersley (Claims 24, 25)
`Petitioner’s analysis of claims 22 and 23 of the ʼ196 patent in relation
`
`to Koike appears at pages 20–26 of the Petition. Petitioner’s analysis of
`claims 24 and 25 of the ʼ196 patent in relation to Koike and Hattersley
`appears at pages 56–59 of the Petition.
`These claims include the following limitation:
`
`the backlight having individual optical deformities of well-
`defined shape for causing 60 to 70% or more of the light
`received through the input edge to be reflected or refracted out
`of the light output surface
`
`
`To meet this requirement, Petitioner relies on the discussion in Koike of the
`composition and other characteristics of the light flux parallelizer discussed
`supra. Pet. 23–24 (claim charts). Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s
`analysis fails to show that 60–70% more of the light received “through the
`input edge” is “refracted out of the light output surface.” Prelim. Resp. 7.
`Patent Owner contends that the transmissivity percentages cited in Koike
`apply only to light rays where the incident angle is lower than the critical
`angle by 5° to 10° or more. Id. (citing Ex. 1008, col. 7, ll. 1–5). Patent
`Owner contends that the Petition does not show how much of the light
`received through the input end of Koike’s device meets this condition. Id.
`
`
`
`15
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 15 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`We are persuaded by Patent Owner’s argument that Petitioner has failed to
`demonstrate that Koike meets this element of the claims.
`
`For these reasons we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claims 22 or 23 of the
`ʼ196 patent over Koike or claims 24 or 24 of the 196 patent over Koike and
`Hammersley.
`
`III. SUMMARY
`The information presented in the Petition does not show there is a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner will prevail on any of the following
`challenges to patentability of the ʼ196 patent:
`A. Anticipation of claims 1–3, 5, 10, 18, and 19 by Kojima;
`B. Obviousness of claims 1–3, 5, 7–13, 18, 19, and 21 over
`Koike and Kaneko;
`C. Obviousness of claim 1–21 over Ando and Jannson;
`D. Obviousness of claims 22 and 23 over Koike; and
`E. Obviousness of claims 24 and 25 over Koike and Hattersley.
`.
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`It is, therefore,
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims and
`no trial is instituted.
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 16 of 17
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-01359
`Patent 7,914,196
`
`PETITIONER:
`Robert G. Pluta
`Amanda K. Streff
`Baldine B. Paul
`Anita Y. Lam
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`astreff@mayerbrown.com
`bpaul@mayerbrown.com
`alam@mayerbrown.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Justin B. Kimble
`BRAGALONE CONROY P.C.
`jkimble@bcpc-law.com
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`Fontem Ex. 2027
`R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company v. Fontem Holdings 1 B.V. IPR2016-01268
`Page 17 of 17
`
`