throbber
Filed on behalf of TQ Delta LLC
`By: Peter J. McAndrews
`McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.
`500 W. Madison St., 34th Floor
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Tel: 312-775-8000
`Fax: 312-775-8100
`E-mail:
`pmcandrews@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_____________
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`TQ DELTA, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_____________
`
`Case IPR2016-01466
`Patent No. 8,611,404
`_____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR OBSERVATION
`
`1
`
`
`
`
` 
`
` 
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion for Observation
`IPR2016-01466
`Patent No. 8,611,404
` 
`
`Patent Owner TQ Delta, LLC (“Patent Owner”) submits this motion for
`
`observation regarding cross-examination of Dr. Sayfe Kiaei, a reply declarant for
`
`Petitioner.
`
`Observation #1: In Ex. 2017, on page 90, line 19 to page 91, line 7, Dr. Kiaei
`
`testified that the superframe structure and initialization described in the ADSL
`
`Standard, Ex. 1009 are ADSL standard requirements: “So the framing structure is
`
`one of those ADSL standard requirements, and initialization exchange and all that
`
`stuff is part of that as well.” This testimony is relevant to Dr. Kiaei’s declaration
`
`testimony that “even if Yamano’s burst-mode protocol does not result in a
`
`continuous stream of superframes [as required by the ADSL standard], a POSITA
`
`would still find Yamano and the ANSI standard compatible.” (Ex. 1012 at ¶ 23).
`
`The testimony is relevant because it contradicts Dr. Kiaei declaration testimony
`
`that Yamano’s burst-mode embodiment is compatible with the ADSL standard.
`
`Observation #_2: Dr. Kiaei admits that the objective of synchronization is to lock
`
`the frequency of the transmitter and the frequency of the receiver. Ex. 2017, at
`
`page 53, line 25 to page 54, line 3 (“THE WITNESS: In line 44 [of col. 5 of the
`
`’404 patent] its talking about locking the frequencies . . . . The objective of this
`
`whole operation is to lock the frequency of the transmitter and the frequency of the
`
`receiver.”). Separately, Dr. Kaiei admits that an embodiment described in the’404
`
` 
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion for Observation
`IPR2016-01466
`Patent No. 8,611,404
` 
`patent, performs synchronization of the frequency the master clock of the
`
`transmitter with the CPE by using a PLL to minimize the difference/error between
`
`the master clock in the transmitter and the clock in the receiver. Ex. 2017, at page
`
`50, line 19 (“THE WITNESS: the PLL, that is one example of synchronization
`
`used here.”); id. at page 54, line 14 to page 55, line 5 (“THE WITNESS: The PLL
`
`is a block that the input of it is a reference clock . . . And the output signal has a
`
`frequency which is related to the input frequency. So what [the PLL] tries to do is
`
`to minimize the difference between the output frequency in a relationship . . . [The
`
`PLL] does look at a difference in the error in terms of output frequency and the
`
`input frequency.”); id. at page 55, lines 9 to 12 (“[The ’404 Patent] is talking about
`
`the pilot tone . . . which has a pure tone of fixed frequency and phase. It’s
`
`synchronizing it with the receiver to make sure that the frequency of it is the same .
`
`. . .”) (emphasis added); See also, Ex. 2017, at pages 59, line 24-page 60, line 25
`
`(confirming PLL corrects errors as set forth in Ex. 2016 at p. 184).
`
`This testimony is relevant because it undermines Dr. Kiaei declaration
`
`testimony that “[t]he claims at issue . . . do [not] require correcting errors or
`
`differences in the timing between transceivers.” See Ex. 1012 at ¶ 5. This
`
`testimony is further relevant because it confirms Dr. Chrissan’s opinions set forth
`
`in his declaration and deposition testimony regarding the proper construction of the
`
` 
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion for Observation
`IPR2016-01466
`Patent No. 8,611,404
` 
`claimed “synchronization signal.” Ex. 2005 at ¶¶ 83-86 and Ex. 1011 at 63:4 –
`
`69:1 and 83:11 – 89:6.
`
`Observation # 3: Dr. Kiaei admits that the objective of synchronization in the
`
`context of the ’404 patent specification is to lock the frequency of the transmitter
`
`and the frequency of the receiver. Ex. 2017, at page 53, line 25 to page 54, line 3
`
`(“THE WITNESS: In line 44 [of col. 5 of the ’404 patent] its talking about
`
`locking the frequencies . . . . The objective of this whole operation is to lock the
`
`frequency of the transmitter and the frequency of the receiver.”). Dr. Kiaei
`
`testified that in Yamano “[t]he synchronization is done to synchronize periodically
`
`enabling the non-idle detector such that the non-idle detector is activated and is
`
`enabled by the time that the non-idle detector signal arrives and is able to enable
`
`that to perform the -- to indicate there is a packet data coming or not.” Ex. 2004, at
`
`page 174, lines 18-24. Dr. Kiaei’s testimony is relevant because it supports Patent
`
`Owner and its Expert’s contention that Yamano does not disclose the claimed
`
`“synchronization signal.” Response at pages 39-40.
`
`Observation # 4: Dr. Kiaei agrees that bit allocation and fine gain parameters are
`
`derived, in part, from signal-to-noise ratio, that in turn is, in part, determined from
`
`attenuation that, in turn, is representative of the electronic characteristic of the
`
`loop. Ex. 2017, at page 14, lines 10-16 (“A. Yes if the line resistance changes, the
`
` 
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion for Observation
`IPR2016-01466
`Patent No. 8,611,404
` 
`attenuation of the line will change.”); Ex. 2017, at page 15, lines 14-17 (“THE
`
`WITNESS: . . . one of the parameters that determines the signal-to-noise ratio is
`
`the attenuation of the line.”); and Ex. 2017, at page 17, lines 4-7 (“[f]rom the
`
`signal-to-noise ratio and other parameters, [the modem] determines the bits and
`
`gains and so forth.”). Dr. Kiaei maintains that Bowie’s stored loop characteristics
`
`include not
`
`just parameters
`
`that are values representing
`
`the electronic
`
`characteristics of the particular wire loop but also include parameters like “signal
`
`to noise ratio and so forth, including bits and gains” that are, in part, a function of
`
`the electronic characteristics of the particular wire loop. Ex. 2017, at page 20,
`
`lines 5-8; Ex. 2004, page 56, lines 16-17 (“A. The number of bits is part of the
`
`characteristics -- the loop characteristics.”). However, in Wi-Lan Inc. v. Westell
`
`Tech., Inc., a patent infringement case involving Bowie, Ex. 1005, and where Dr.
`
`Kiaei was retained as plaintiff’s expert witness (see Ex. 1004 at. 4), the court
`
`interpreted Bowie’s loop characteristics as “values representing the electronic
`
`characteristics of the particular wire loop” and rejected a construction that Bowie’s
`
`loop characteristics are “values that are a function of the electronic characteristics
`
`of the particular wire loop.” Ex. 2017 at page 33, lines 17-23; and Ex. 2015 at p.
`
`26.
`
` 
`
`This is relevant because the Wi-Lan court relied on Bowie’s disclosure at
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion for Observation
`IPR2016-01466
`Patent No. 8,611,404
` 
`4:64-5:4 to reject the overbroad interpretation of Bowie’s loop characteristics that
`
`Plaintiff Wi-Lan, Dr. Kiaei’s purported client, advocated for and that Dr. Kiaei
`
`advocates for in this case. This is further relevant because it undermines
`
`Petitioner’s attorney argument that Bowie’s stored loop characteristics “are not
`
`just the physical aspects of the wire loop.” Reply at p. 10 (emphasis in original).
`
`Observation # 5: Dr. Kiaei has, in this proceeding and other proceedings,
`
`consistently claimed in his Curriculum Vitae that he worked as plaintiff’s expert
`
`witness from 2007-2011 in a patent infringement action where Bowie (Ex. 1005)
`
`was asserted. Ex. 1004 (“8. 2007-2011 Wi-LAN, Inc. Vs. Wesrell (sic)
`
`Technologies, Mckool Smith, Representing Wi-LAN DSL Modem,
`
`Communications, Signal Processing”) (construing loop characteristics as noted in
`
`the prior observation); and IPR2015-01444, Ex. 1003 at p. 4. When asked about
`
`this listing on his C.V. at his deposition, and about his involvement in the Wi-LAN
`
`case, Dr. Kiaei testified inconsistently about his involvement and ultimately
`
`claimed that he had not worked on the matter. Ex. 2017, at pages 20-26 and 34-37
`
`(“I don’t remember all the details of it,” “I did not do any work,” “I did some
`
`consulting for them,” “I was not involved in that case by any means,” “[t]his is
`
`more of in-house . . . consulting with them as a technical consultant,” “they
`
`interviewed me. They talked to me a couple of times and that was it,” “I should
`
` 
`
`5
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion for Observation
`IPR2016-01466
`Patent No. 8,611,404
` 
`actually delete that [case] from [my CV]”).
`
`This testimony is relevant because it goes to Dr. Kiaei’s general credibility
`
`and truthfulness. See Fed. R. Evid. 608. It is further relevant because the court in
`
`Wi-LAN v. Westell interpreted Bowie’s disclosure of loop characteristics in a
`
`manner that contradicts Dr. Kiaei’s opinion, and confirms Patent Owner’s expert’s
`
`opinion that Bowie’s loop characteristics do not include bit allocation and fine gain
`
`parameters. Ex. 2015 at p. 26. It is further relevant because it undermines
`
`Petitioner’s contention that Dr. Kaiei’s testimony and declaration is reliable and
`
`credible. See Reply at pages 28-30.
`
`Observation # 6: Dr. Kiaei testified that Yamano does not discuss implementation
`
`details of its periodic poll or other timing signals. Ex. 2017 at page 113, line 19 to
`
`page 114, line 22 (“Q. Okay. . . . is the other periodic poll or other timing signal
`
`that is exchanged between the two ends, the far end transmitter and the near end
`
`receiver, is that in addition to the non-idle state signal and packet data? . . . . A.
`
`The implementation of the details of how the data is preceded by preamble or other
`
`things are not discussed in detail”); Ex. 2017 at page 121, lines 2-5 (“A. Okay. I
`
`guess what I want to point out here, the key issue in here is that it’s not the details
`
`of the implementation but that what the claim says in terms of a staying in the low
`
`power mode.”).
`
` 
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion for Observation
`IPR2016-01466
`Patent No. 8,611,404
` 
`
`This is relevant because Dr. Kiaei previously testified that designing ADSL
`
`systems is not trivial and is complicated (Ex. 2004, at page 198, lines 6-8
`
`(“Designing ADSL system is not parking your car in the garage. Designing ADSL
`
`system would require significant amount of timing.”)) and, thus, it undermines Dr.
`
`Kiaei reply declaration testimony that notwithstanding the lack of details in
`
`Yamano, modifying Bowie’s “circuitry to also detect a timing signal, as taught in
`
`Yamano, would be well within the level of a POSITA.” Ex. 1012 at ¶ 21. This is
`
`further relevant because it undermines Petitioner’s Reply assertion that “modifying
`
`. . . Bowie to also detect Yamano’s timing signal would be well within the level of
`
`a POSITA since Yamano teaches similar circuitry . . . .” Reply at p. 24. It is also
`
`relevant because
`
`the
`
`lack of details
`
`in Yamano regarding
`
`the alleged
`
`synchronization undermines Petitioner’s conclusion that a POSITA would have
`
`combined Yamano and Bowie because such combination would have been the
`
`predictable result. See Petition at 43. This is still further relevant because
`
`Petitioner and Dr. Kiaei have failed to addressed the specifics of how Bowie would
`
`be modified and/or combined with the disclosure of Yamano to render the claims
`
`obvious.
`
`Observation # 7: In Ex. 2017, at page 121, lines 2-5, Dr. Kiaei testified as
`
`follows: “A Okay. I guess what I want to point out here, the key issue in here is
`
` 
`
`7
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion for Observation
`IPR2016-01466
`Patent No. 8,611,404
` 
`that it’s not the details of the implementation but that what the claim says in terms
`
`of a staying in the low power mode.” This is relevant because it shows that Dr.
`
`Kiaei used the claims to guide his understanding of Yamano and to supplement
`
`lack of details in Yamano. This is relevant because it supports Patent Owner’s
`
`contention that the entirety of Dr. Kiaei analysis is based on hindsight. See
`
`Response at pages 58-59.
`
`Observation # 8: Dr. Kiaei admits that Yamano describes a single carrier system
`
`that would need to be modified for multicarrier operation. Ex. 2017, at page 71,
`
`lines 23-25 (referencing Ex. 1006, Fig. 4) (“THE WITNESS: I believe it could be
`
`an MCM receiver with some modifications or -- or clear definition of some of
`
`these blocks.”); Ex. 2017, at page 73, lines 2-19 (“Figure 400, looking at this, is a
`
`general receiver structure, which can be modified . . . “). This testimony is
`
`relevant because it confirms Dr. Chrissan’s deposition testimony that Yamano is a
`
`single carrier system that is not readily adaptable to a multicarrier ADSL system.
`
`Ex. 1011, at page 103, lines 19-23 (“[Dr. CHRISSAN:] I will say that this is not a
`
`multicarrier transmitter, this is a single carrier -- this is a single carrier transmitter,
`
`and that is described in my declaration in more than one place.”); Ex. 1011, at page
`
`109, lines 1-4 (Q. Could you adapt the teachings of Yamano for use in a
`
`multicarrier system? A. No, you could not adapt the teachings of Yamano for use
`
` 
`
`8
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion for Observation
`IPR2016-01466
`Patent No. 8,611,404
` 
`in a multicarrier system.”). This testimony that Yamano’s disclosure does not
`
`relate to an ADSL transceiver is relevant because its undermines Dr. Kiaei and
`
`Petitioner’s assertion that “because Bowie and Yamano both describe DSL
`
`systems, a skilled artisan would have sought to implement the systems and
`
`methods according to a standard, such as ANSI T1.413 . . . .” Petition at page 28
`
`and Ex. 1003 at page 38.
`
`Observation # 9: In Ex. 2017, page 65, lines 9-13, Dr. Kiaei testified that a
`
`“POSITA will know how to modify the Bowie's circuits and the timing detecting
`
`signal that Yamano is teaching so that in the low power mode, it can also detect a
`
`synchronized – synchronization signal and detect resume signal.” In contrast, Dr.
`
`Kiaei previously testified that Bowie’s resume signal detector 115 and Yamano’s
`
`non-idle detector are “two different things.” Ex. 2004 at page 107, lines 15-20 (Q.
`
`Okay. Isn’t the function of Yamano’s non-idle detector substantially the same if
`
`not identical to Bowie’s resume signal detector 115? A. Not exactly. They are two
`
`different things.”). This is relevant because it goes to Dr. Kiaei’s credibility and
`
`undermines Dr. Kiaei and the Petitioner’s contention that “modifying . . . Bowie to
`
`also detect Yamano’s timing signal would be well within the level of a POSITA
`
`since Yamano teaches similar circuitry . . . .” Ex. 1012 at ¶ 21; and Reply at p. 24.
`
`Observation # 10: Dr. Kiaei testified that the non-idle detector of Yamano does
`
` 
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion for Observation
`IPR2016-01466
`Patent No. 8,611,404
` 
`not receive the periodic poll or other timing signal. Ex. 2017, at page 105, lines
`
`13-16 (“Q. Is it your position then that the non-idle detector also receives the
`
`periodic poll or other timing signal? A. Non-idle detector receives the poll? No”).
`
`This testimony is relevant because Dr. Kiaei contradicts ¶ 20 of his Reply
`
`Declaration, where he stated that “a POSITA would understand that Yamano’s
`
`non-idle detector 401 is active, at least periodically, in order to receive the timing
`
`signal to maintain synchronization . . . .” Ex. 1012 at ¶ 20. This deposition
`
`testimony is also relevant because it shows that Dr. Kiaei has no basis for his
`
`assertion in Ex. 1003 at p. 56 that Yamano “teaches that the receive circuit receives
`
`a synchronization signal while operating in ‘standby mode.’”
`
`Observation # 11: With reference to the far-end transmitter in Yamano, Dr. Kiaei
`
`testified that Yamano, Ex. 1006, at 13:58 teaches that “[i]f the transmitter circuit is
`
`not transmitting the predetermined non-idle state signal or packet data, the
`
`transmitter does not transmit any signals on the communication channel.” Ex.
`
`2017, at pages 123, lines 14-17. Separately, Dr. Kiaei testified that the non-idle
`
`state signal that indicates the presence of data is not the periodic poll or other
`
`timing signal recited in Yamano at 15:16-32. Ex. 2004, page 211, lines 9-12. (“Q.
`
`Is the non-idle signal the poll that is described in Yamano, column 15, lines 16 to
`
`32? THE WITNESS: No, it's not.”). This testimony is relevant because Dr.
`
` 
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion for Observation
`IPR2016-01466
`Patent No. 8,611,404
` 
`Kiaei’s understanding that (i) the far-end “transmitter does not transmit any signals
`
`on the communication channel” other than the non-idle signal or packet data and
`
`(ii) the non-idle state signal (i.e., not a periodic poll or other timing signal), renders
`
`impossible and incorrect Dr. Kiaei’s conclusion at Ex. 2004, at pages 242-243 that
`
`“the periodic poll or other timing signal” recited in Yamano is transmitted by the
`
`far-end transmitter and received by the receiver in low-power mode. This is
`
`relevant because it undermines Petitioner’s ultimate conclusion that Yamano
`
`teaches “receiving, in the low power mode, a synchronization signal.”
`
`Observation # 12: Dr. Kiaei testified that the conclusion at ¶ 22 in his Reply
`
`Declaration that “Yamano teaches that its modem transmits and receives data via
`
`‘an analog signal in accordance with a conventional modem protocol, such as
`
`xDSL. Ex.1006, 7:18-20’” is an out of context citation to Yamano and does not
`
`concern the burst-mode protocol. Ex. 2017, at page 84, line 11 to page 85, line 5;
`
`Ex. 2017, at page 86, line 8 to page 87, line 11 (citing Ex. 1006 at 13:41-44). This
`
`undermines Dr. Kiaei and the Petitioner’s conclusion that Yamano’s burst mode
`
`uses the same method of transmitting data as other ADSL modems. See Ex. 1012
`
`at ¶ 24 and Reply at 26.
`
`Observation # 13: At Ex. 2017, page 110, lines 7-12 Dr. Kiaei states that the non-
`
`idle state signal may or may not be the periodic poll or timing signal, the alleged
`
` 
`
`11
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion for Observation
`IPR2016-01466
`Patent No. 8,611,404
` 
`synchronization signal. Ex. 2017 at page 110, lines 7-12 (Q. So the non-idle state
`
`signal is the timing signal? A. Not necessarily. Q So the non-idle state signal is not
`
`the timing signal? A Not necessarily.”). However, previously, Dr. Kiaei testified
`
`that Yamano’s non-idle detector 401 “is periodically enabled and -- such that then
`
`he can detect a non-idle signal coming in and then see if there’s any data or not,
`
`and then it’s disabled again” (Ex. 2004, at page 170, lines 4-7) and that the non-
`
`idle state signal that indicates the presence of data is not the periodic poll or other
`
`timing signal recited in Yamano at 15:16-32. Ex. 2004, page 211, lines 9-12. (“Q.
`
`Is the non-idle signal the poll that is described in Yamano, column 15, lines 16 to
`
`32? THE WITNESS: No, it’s not.”). This testimony is relevant because it goes to
`
`Dr. Kiaei’s credibility and further demonstrates that Petitioner cannot identify in
`
`Yamano the claim element, “receiving, in low power mode, a synchronization
`
`signal.”
`
`Observation # 14: Dr. Kiaei testified that Yamano does not describe the nature
`
`and implementation of the periodic poll or other timing signal that is allegedly the
`
`“synchronization signal” and that he “think[s] the POSITA should know how to do
`
`that.” Ex. 2017, at pages 121, lines 18 – pages 123, line 4 (“Q. You have not cited
`
`to anything in Yamano that describes what the periodic poll or other timing signal
`
`is, correct? A. In this declaration, supplemental declaration, I have not, and I don’t
`
` 
`
`12
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion for Observation
`IPR2016-01466
`Patent No. 8,611,404
` 
`recall what I have said in my previous declaration or deposition to point out to that,
`
`but I believe the POSITA will clearly understand how the polling mechanism is --
`
`or developing a synchronization between transmitter and receiver and other timing
`
`signals. As I said before, one could be a tone or a clock between the two. . . . .
`
`What I’m saying is that a POSITA will know what the nature and implementation
`
`of that poll or synchronous signal could be depending on the implementation. Q.
`
`Is there any teaching in Yamano? A. I think polling mechanism is a well-known
`
`mechanism in computer science, the polling going on between printers and
`
`processors and so on and so forth and the networking . . . We do discuss that in the
`
`junior/senior classes, computer science, computer architecture. So a POSITA
`
`should know that. And maintaining some sort of a synchronization between them
`
`like a clock or pilot tone, a POSITA should also know that because that could be
`
`potentially similar to a full power mode synchronization, as well as I believe that
`
`Bowie discusses that in terms of time intervals that it’s able to get out of the low
`
`power mode to the -- having a detector to get out of low power mode to full power
`
`mode. So these type of synchronization signals, I think the POSITA should know
`
`how to do that.”) (emphasis added).
`
`This testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that Yamano does not
`
`describe any type of synchronization signal, and Petitioner therefore has failed to
`
` 
`
`13
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion for Observation
`IPR2016-01466
`Patent No. 8,611,404
` 
`make a prima facie case of obviousness.
`
`Observation # 15: Dr. Kiaei has been consistently inconsistent about when
`
`Yamano’s periodic poll or other timing signal is received or what receives the
`
`periodic poll or other timing signal. Ex. 2017, at page 105, lines 13-16 (“Q. Is it
`
`your position then that the non-idle detector also receives the periodic poll or other
`
`timing signal? A. Non-idle detector receives the poll? No”); id., at page 99, lines
`
`3-6 (“Q. Is it your opinion that the quote, “a timing signal, is a periodic poll or
`
`some other timing signal? A Not necessarily.”); Ex. 2004, at page 200, line 22 to
`
`page 201, line 9 (Q. BY MR. WIMBISCUS: And the periodic poll that you’re
`
`referring to must be received by the receiver circuit 400 when it is in standby
`
`mode, correct? A. I did not say that in my statement.  Q. Is the periodic poll
`
`received by receiver circuit 400 when it is in standby mode? THE WITNESS:
`
`No.); Ex. 2004 at page 216, lines 21-25 (A. It is the periodic poll or timing signal is
`
`used in low power mode or full power mode to allow the 401 circuit to be enabled
`
`and allow the synchronization between transmitter and receiver.); Ex. 2004, at
`
`page 212, line 23 to page 213, line 2 (“Q. And, in your opinion, the
`
`synchronization signal can also be operating while the receiver is in full power
`
`mode, correct? A. It could be.”); Ex. 2004, at 214, lines 7-11 (Q. Does Yamano
`
`teach that receiver circuit 400 receives the periodic poll that you find to be a
`
` 
`
`14
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion for Observation
`IPR2016-01466
`Patent No. 8,611,404
` 
`synchronization signal while the receiver circuit 400 is in normal mode? A. It
`
`could possibly do that.”). This testimony is relevant because it demonstrates that
`
`Dr. Kiaei’s opinions are not credible and further that Yamano does not teach the
`
`claim element, “receiving, in the low power mode, a synchronization signal.”
`
`
`
`
`
`/Peter J. McAndrews/
`Peter J. McAndrews
`Registration No. 38,547
`McANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY,
`LTD.
`500 West Madison St., Suite 3400
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Telephone: (312) 775-8000
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: October 2, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Motion for Observation
`IPR2016-01466
`Patent No. 8,611,404
` 
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. Section 42.6, that a complete copy of
`
`the attached CORRECTED PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR
`
`OBSERVATION is being served on October 2, 2017, by electronic mail to the
`
`following:
`
`Lead Counsel
`David L. McCombs
`HAYNES & BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave., Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`Tel. 214-651-5533
`Fax 214-200-0853
`david.mccombs.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Dated: October 2, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Theodore M. Foster
`Tel. 972-739-8649
`Gregory P. Huh
`Tel. 972-739-6939
`Russell Emerson
`Tel. 214-651-5328
`HAYNES & BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave., Suite 700
`Dallas, TX 75219
`Fax 972-692-9156
`ipr.theo.foster@haynesboone.com
`michael.parsons@haynesboone.com
`russell.emerson.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`
`
`/Peter J. McAndrews/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Peter J. McAndrews
`Registration No. 38,547
`McANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY,
`LTD.
`500 West Madison Street, 34th Floor
`Chicago, Illinois 60661
`Telephone: (312) 775-8000
`
`16
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket