`
`Paper No. ___
`Filed: September 29, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`—————————————————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`—————————————————
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
`Patent Owner.
`
`—————————————————
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`—————————————————
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION TO
`SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On September 22, 2017, Apple, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Motion to Submit
`
`Supplemental Information under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.123 and 42.5 (Paper 21)
`
`(“Motion”). Petitioner seeks to introduce 15 exhibits that were previously served
`
`on Patent Owner as Supplemental Evidence. Patent Owner California Institute of
`
`Technology (“Caltech”) opposes Petitioner’s motion.
`
`Rule 123(a) applies to requests made within one month of institution. Rule
`
`123(b) applies to requests made later than one month from institution. The present
`
`case presents the latter scenario. Petitioner does not meet the higher threshold
`
`showing required under Rule 123(b), nor could it as there is no reasonable excuse
`
`for its delay. Petitioner admits as much by requesting a waiver of the rules
`
`governing submission of supplemental information. The motion should be denied
`
`on that basis, as Petitioner cannot show its unexplained delay should be excused.
`
`Further, the Motion should also be denied for reasons extending beyond the
`
`timeliness issue to the merits of the supplemental information request. The
`
`requested supplemental evidence relates to purported publication of the Frey and
`
`Divsalar references. Petitioner was already given one chance to modify the
`
`evidence relied upon in the petition on these issues when it was allowed to enter
`
`substitute exhibits prior to institution. See Papers 10, 12. Now, Petitioner seeks a
`
`third opportunity to present evidence that should have been included in the
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`petition. This is remarkable considering Petitioner recycled previous petitions
`
`where the public availability of Frey and Divsalar was at issue.
`
`What’s more, Petitioner makes clear that the new evidence is intended to
`
`shift the case away from the grounds presented in the petition by presenting a
`
`myriad of possible publication dates. To begin with, Frey is not a reference
`
`asserted in any instituted ground. Furthermore, as discussed below, the petition
`
`made no effort to argue, much less substantiate, any particular date of publication
`
`for Frey.1 Yet the Motion asserts that the various exhibits in the requested
`
`supplemental information demonstrate publication in February 2000, January
`
`2000, October 1999, or even the year 1999 generally. As such, these exhibits are
`
`not only internally contradictory so as to create an evidentiary mess, but irrelevant
`
`to the March 20, 2000 date stated in Petitioner’s exhibit list and the Motion.
`
`Finally, Petitioner has candidly acknowledged that it is attempting to
`
`preempt potential arguments in the Patent Owner Response. Petitioner expressly
`
`stated in the July 26, 2017 conference call with the Board its concern that Caltech
`
`
`
`1 The table of exhibits lists a date of March 20, 2000, but no argument or
`
`explanation is provided.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`might attempt to antedate the alleged March 20, 2000 publication date asserted
`
`regarding Frey. 2 However, submitting supplemental information as a vehicle to
`
`preempt a possible position the Patent Owner may take is impermissible.
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Endotach LLC, IPR2014-00100, Paper 18 at 4 (Apr. 21, 2014)
`
`(“[S]upplemental information . . . to respond to a possible position that another
`
`party may take in the future is improper.”). Presenting publication dates as moving
`
`targets with evolving theories of unpatentability is prejudicial to Caltech, is
`
`improper use of supplemental information, and should be denied.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Even if the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a) for filing the motion are
`
`satisfied, the Board is not required to grant the motion. Redline Detection, LLC v.
`
`Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 445 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Instead, the “guiding
`
`principle” for the Board is to “ensure efficient administration of the Office and the
`
`ability of the Office to complete IPR proceedings in a timely manner.” Id.
`
`The Board has denied supplementation proffered to change the evidence
`
`presented in the petition, or to “bolster” a challenge based on feedback gleaned
`
`
`
`2 That call involved IPR2017-00210 and -00219.
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`from the institution decision. Mitsubishi Plastics, Inc. v. Celgard, LLC, IPR2014-
`
`00524, Paper 30 at 5-6 (Nov. 28, 2014); Redline Detection, LLC v. Star
`
`Envirotech, Inc., IPR2013-00106, Paper 24 at 4 (Aug. 5, 2013), aff’d, 811 F.3d
`
`435 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
`
`The use of supplemental information as a vehicle to reply to arguments
`
`made in a preliminary response or as an attempt to preempt possible arguments a
`
`Patent Owner might take during trial is not permitted either. VTech Commc’ns, Inc.
`
`v. Spherix Inc., IPR2014-01432, Paper 12 at 3 (, Jan. 21, 2015); see also
`
`Medtronic, IPR2014-00100, Paper 18 at 4 (Apr. 21, 2014).
`
`III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`Petitioner’s motion for supplemental information represents its third attempt
`
`to provide support for its grounds of unpatentability. See Motion at 11; Paper 10.
`
`The petition materials initially relied upon a draft version of the Frey paper
`
`allegedly distributed over the Internet—a theory previously rejected by the Board.
`
`See Ex. 1010 (original); see also Hughes Communications, Inc. v. California
`
`Institute of Technology (IPR2015-00067, “Hughes”), Paper 18 at 8-11. As to
`
`Divsalar, the petition relies on the Declaration of Robin Fradenburgh (Ex. 1019),
`
`recycled from the Hughes case, to allege public accessibility of the reference.
`
`Prior to institution, the Petitioner requested permission to replace certain
`
`exhibits including Frey and Divsalar with new exhibits, and filed a motion to that
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`effect. Paper 10. The Board granted the motion. The newly-submitted evidence
`
`included a copy of Frey (Ex. 1010, replacement) which the Motion now argues was
`
`published on March 20, 2000 based on a library stamp in the document. The
`
`original copy of the Divsalar exhibit was also replaced (Ex. 1017, replacement).
`
`On July 26, 2017, the Board held a conference call to discuss Petitioner’s
`
`request to submit the same supplemental information in IPR2017-00210 and
`
`IPR2017-00219. During the call, Petitioner admitted that it intended to submit Exs.
`
`1027–1041 as supplemental information at least in part because it anticipated that
`
`Patent Owner would show that the claimed invention was invented prior to the
`
`alleged March 20, 2000 publication date of Frey. Over six weeks later, and more
`
`than one month after trial was instituted in this proceeding, Petitioner requested the
`
`same supplemental information in this proceeding. Petitioner’s Motion followed.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Petitioner’s Request to Waive the Requirements for Submission of
`Supplemental Information Improperly Circumvents Rule 123(b)
`
`It is undisputed that Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements of 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.123 for submission of supplemental information. Petitioner’s request
`
`for authorization to file its Motion was not made within one month of institution so
`
`Petitioner did not satisfy Rule 123(a). Moreover, Petitioner makes no attempt to
`
`argue that “the supplemental information reasonably could not have been obtained
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`earlier,” so submission under Rule 123(b) is likewise improper. Petitioner’s motion
`
`should be denied for failure to satisfy either Rule 123(a) or Rule 123(b).
`
`Rather than argue that its request fits the framework laid out in the rules on
`
`submission of supplemental information, Petitioner seeks a waiver granting it an
`
`exemption from the rules. No such exemption is merited. Petitioner was on notice
`
`that Caltech contests the prior art status of Frey and Divsalar even before it filed
`
`the petition in this proceeding, by virtue of the publicly available record of the
`
`Hughes case. The Board already gave Petitioner the opportunity to attempt to
`
`remedy its evidentiary deficiencies once when it granted its motion to submit
`
`replacement exhibits. Petitioner was in possession of the supplemental information
`
`weeks before the institution decision in this case. Motion at 1 (describing service
`
`on July 14, 2017 in other proceedings). In view of this, Petitioner’s delay in
`
`making its request for supplemental information is inexcusable.
`
`Petitioner argument that good cause exists to grant the requested waiver is
`
`an attempted circumvention of Rule 123(b) and should be rejected. Petitioner
`
`makes no attempt to explain its delay other than an unexplained assertion that it
`
`“inadvertently missed the deadline.” Motion at 2. This does not constitute good
`
`cause, let alone satisfy the “interests-of-justice” standard recited in Rule 123(b).
`
`Nor does its argument that the waiver is necessary to maintain consistency with
`
`other IPRs involving the ’032 patent. As explained in the sections below, the
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`proper way for the Board to achieve consistency is by denying Petitioner’s
`
`supplemental information motions in all proceedings. Beyond that, to the extent
`
`there is any risk of the Board reaching different results in different cases it is
`
`entirely of Petitioner’s own doing. Petitioner chose to file multiple petitions, and it
`
`was in Petitioner’s own power to comply with the requirements of Rule 123 in
`
`each case. That its failure to do so might lead to different records in each case does
`
`not create a risk of an “arbitrary” result, as Petitioner bears the burden of
`
`demonstrating unpatentability in each proceeding, and of creating a record in
`
`compliance with Board rules to satisfy that burden. Rather, Petitioner through its
`
`waiver request seeks an arbitrary result that would undermine consistent
`
`application of the Board’s rules.
`
`Petitioner’s argument that waiver would be in the interest of justice also
`
`should not persuade the Board to grant the requested exemption. Petitioner had
`
`possession of the documents at issue weeks before institution and yet failed to
`
`timely request authorization to submit them. Nothing prevented Petitioner from
`
`making the request promptly after the institution decision, in view of the fact that it
`
`had already made a similar request in other proceedings on a related patent.
`
`Petitioner’s delay has prejudiced, and continues to prejudice, Caltech. We are now
`
`more than halfway through the period for preparing the Patent Owner Response
`
`and uncertainty still looms over whether these documents will be admitted to the
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`record. On the other hand, any prejudice to Petitioner that would result from
`
`denying the motion is entirely of its own doing in view of its repeated efforts to
`
`supplement its petition case and delay in requesting the Motion. Similarly,
`
`Petitioner’s attempt to blame Caltech for the delay is misplaced, as nothing
`
`prevented Petitioner from raising the issue with the Board in a timely manner and
`
`stating that Caltech had not yet provided its position.
`
`Finally, the cases cited by Petitioner do not support its waiver request.
`
`Petitioner cites decisions granting a request for late filing due to technical
`
`difficulties with the PTAB electronic filing system. See Valeo N. Am. Inc. et al. v.
`
`Schaeffler Techs. AG & Co. KG, IPR2016-00502, Paper 46 (Aug. 7, 2017); H&S
`
`Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Oxbo Int’l Corp., IPR2016-00960, Paper 8 (Dec. 7, 2016);
`
`Universal Remote Control, Inc. v. Universal Elecs., Inc., IPR2014-01102, Paper 26
`
`(July 6, 2015). That is not the case here, where Petitioner simply failed to email its
`
`request to the Board in a timely manner. Petitioner’s support for waiving the
`
`requirements of § 42.123(b) is similarly misplaced, as the two cited cases involve
`
`an instance where “the record indicates that Petitioner made continuous attempts to
`
`obtain the [supplemental] information,” and a case where the sole requested
`
`supplemental exhibit was a replacement declaration in which “none of the
`
`substantive testimony is altered, and no new substantive testimony is added.”
`
`Biomarin Pharm. Inc. v. Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. Ltd. P’ship, IPR2013-
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`00534, Paper 80 at 5-6 (Jan. 7, 2015); Gen. Elec. Co. v. Univ. of Virginia Patent
`
`Found., IPR2016-00357, Paper 51 at 4 (Feb. 21, 2017). Again, the circumstances
`
`here are quite different, where Petitioner seeks to add fifteen new exhibits
`
`including multiple declarations, and had the information in hand long before the
`
`time for making its request expired.
`
`For these reasons, Petitioner’s request for a waiver from the requirements of
`
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.123(a)-(b) should be rejected and its Motion denied on that basis.
`
`B. Petitioner Has Failed to Demonstrate That Exhibits 1027–1041
`Are Relevant to an Instituted Claim
`
`Beyond the timeliness issue, Petitioner’s motion should also be denied on its
`
`merits. The exhibits submitted by Petitioner are confusing, duplicative, and contain
`
`speculation and hearsay. Furthermore, they fail to support the specific allegations
`
`made in the petition regarding the publication date of Divsalar. As to Frey, as an
`
`initial matter, Petitioner made no effort in the petition to demonstrate that Frey
`
`qualifies as a prior art printed publication. See, e.g., Paper 5 at 20, 40. The Motion
`
`is a belated attempt to fix that flaw. Beyond that, the proposed supplemental
`
`evidence fails to support the March 20, 2000 date now asserted. Petitioner’s
`
`motion promises to turn the present proceeding into an evidentiary morass.
`
`Exs. 1027-1030: Exhibits 1027 and 1028 are identified as library records
`
`that allegedly show a 1999 date of publication for the conference proceedings
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`containing Frey. Motion at 5. Petitioner relies on the declaration of Theodore Fons
`
`(Ex. 1030) in support. These documents are irrelevant to the March 20, 2000 date
`
`asserted in the Motion, but are an improper attempt to materially alter the petition
`
`theory and preempt an argument Petitioner believes Caltech may make later.
`
`Exhibits 1027, 1028 and 1030 additionally create confusion rather than any
`
`clarity, and will waste Caltech and Board resources. For example, in his
`
`declaration, Mr. Fons observes that the date “1999” was entered into a field by
`
`WorldCat, and possibly copied by JPL at an unknown later date. Ex. 1030, ¶21.
`
`Mr. Fons offers conjecture as to the thoughts of unknown cataloguers but concedes
`
`a “date was not present in place where imprint information is normally found and
`
`used for cataloging.” Ex. 1030, ¶19. However, this opinion is speculation on the
`
`part of Mr. Fons and hearsay. Indeed, the simplest explanation is that the “1999” in
`
`the date field reflects the conference date, at which Frey gave a presentation but no
`
`paper was distributed (it is uncontested that no Frey paper was distributed at the
`
`conference, as Dr. Frey previously testified). Moreover, an alleged 1999
`
`publication date for Frey contradicts other arguments and evidence relied on by
`
`Petitioner. See, e.g., Motion at 7 (arguing that Ex. 1038 shows the 1999
`
`Proceedings were not shipped to the Allerton hosts before late February, 2000).
`
`Exhibit 1029 is a library record from WorldCat allegedly showing that the
`
`conference proceedings containing Divsalar were published in June of 1999. First,
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`this is irrelevant to the Fradenburgh declaration’s alleged publication at the
`
`University of Texas, or the asserted April 30, 1999 public accessibility case as
`
`stated in the petition. Second, the petition asserts Divsalar solely as 102(b) prior art
`
`based on the asserted April 30, 1999 date. Pet. at 34-35. However, Ex. 1029 serves
`
`as an implicit acknowledgment by Petitioner that the unpatentability case as stated
`
`in the petition was not sufficiently substantiated. That does not permit Petitioner,
`
`however, to use supplemental information to advance an alternate theory.
`
`Ex. 1031: Exhibit 1031, the affidavit of Pamela Stansbury, is the sole piece
`
`of evidence provided by Petitioner that actually discusses the alleged March 20,
`
`2000 publication of Frey. However, Petitioner has failed to sufficiently explain
`
`why this testimony was not provided either with the original petition, or when
`
`changing the exhibits after filing. Petitioner should not be permitted to change the
`
`evidence and have yet another attempt to substantiate unsupported assertions made
`
`in the exhibits list, but omitted from the petition.
`
`Exs. 1032–1035: Exhibits 1032–1034 are declarations by three Allerton
`
`conference chairs and Exhibit 1035 is a declaration by Brendon Frey. The
`
`conference chairs’ declarations speculate, roughly 20 years later, as to expected
`
`“timelines associated with the 36th and 37th Allerton Conferences.” Motion at 6-7.
`
`Not one of the four witnesses, however, purports to have actual knowledge specific
`
`to the actual alleged publication of the 37th Proceedings. Instead, each repeats the
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`same speculation about when the Proceedings might have been shipped.
`
`Dr. Frey’s declaration (Ex. 1035) adds significant confusion, and is not
`
`relevant to the Cornell library stamp on Frey or the instituted ground as it discusses
`
`a different alleged publication than the identified March 20, 2000 date. Dr. Frey
`
`reverts to a different theory compared to what is relied on in the petition—the
`
`alleged internet posting of the draft version of Frey. For example, Dr. Frey
`
`discusses the alleged posting of the electronic draft Frey paper on Dr. MacKay’s
`
`website. See Ex. 1035, ¶¶17-18. Moreover, Petitioner disavowed that draft Frey
`
`paper and pled for relief by arguing that filing the draft Frey paper was a clerical
`
`error due to an associate not following instructions. Paper 10 at 4. Petitioner should
`
`not be allowed to reintroduce the admittedly erroneous document, and advance a
`
`different and previously rejected theory, after trial has been instituted. Moreover,
`
`Petitioner should not be allowed to circumvent the standards for gaining institution
`
`(and avoid 325(d) arguments) through a supplemental information submission.
`
`Ex. 1036: Exhibit 1036, the Allerton website from 1999, is not relevant to
`
`the date of publication of the Frey paper. The only basis for relevance suggested is
`
`that Ex. 1036 lists a due date (September 24) for papers. However, this does not
`
`indicate a date of publication. Indeed, its relevance is further undermined by the
`
`testimony of Dr. Frey that he finished his paper on September 29 and submitted it
`
`“within a couple of weeks of that.” Ex. 1035, ¶17.
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`Exs. 1037 and 1038: Both documents address Frey but are irrelevant to the
`
`Motion’s theory. Exhibit 1037 is an email dated December 8, 1999. The email
`
`relates only to the placing of an order for future publication and speculations of the
`
`Allerton conference chairs regarding how long after that date printed copies of the
`
`conference proceedings might have been shipped.
`
`Exhibit 1038 is allegedly “a bill of lading for the 37th Annual Allerton
`
`Conference Proceedings with a ship date of February 21, 2000.” However, no
`
`witness has authenticated this exhibit—only unsubstantiated attorney argument is
`
`provided. There is no indication how a shipment could have been made on a
`
`federal holiday, no indication of a date when this alleged shipment was received is
`
`present on the form, nor does it indicate how much time would have passed
`
`between any request and subsequent mailing to the public.
`
`Exs. 1039 and 1040: Exhibits 1039 and 1040 each contain testimony from
`
`the Hughes litigation and are irrelevant here. Petitioner relies on Ex. 1039 as
`
`allegedly showing that the deponent in that case, Dr. Wicker, was “reasonably sure
`
`that the irregular turbo codes paper, Frey ’99, was indeed published as part of the
`
`proceedings of the Allerton conference.” Motion at 9 (citing Ex. 1039 at 157:2–5).
`
`However, Dr. Frey concedes that the paper was not published at the conference.
`
`Ex. 1035, ¶ 17. Moreover, the exhibits are irrelevant to the March 20, 2000 date.
`
`Petitioner relies on Ex. 1040 as allegedly demonstrating that “Dr. Urbanke
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`suggested that people in the field were looking at Divsalar in 1999.” Motion at 9
`
`(citing Ex. 1040 at 168:4–21). First, this extrinsic deposition of a different witness
`
`is irrelevant to the Fradenburgh testimony relied on in the petition as allegedly
`
`demonstrating publication and related issues raised in the preliminary response.
`
`Additionally, Petitioner improperly characterizes the cited testimony. It is the
`
`attorney taking the deposition, not Dr. Urbanke, who discusses the Divsalar paper.
`
`Given the voluminous content of this deposition transcript (383 pages) and
`
`Petitioner’s mischaracterization of Dr. Urbanke’s testimony, submission as
`
`supplemental information should be denied.
`
`Ex. 1041: Exhibit 1041 is irrelevant to the asserted March 20, 2000 date and
`
`provides no contemporaneous evidence regarding Frey’s publication as it is a copy
`
`of a book published in 2014. Ex. 1041 at 4. Motion at 9. Moreover, as Petitioner
`
`admits, the book describes 1999 as the date of some presentation, not publication
`
`of a paper. Id., Ex. 1041 at 36. And the book adds confusion rather than clarity as
`
`the dates cited in the book are internally inconsistent. Ex. 1041 at 68 (ref. 4).
`
`C. Petitioner Should Not Be Allowed a Third Reformulation
`
`Petitioner chose not to previously submit any of the evidence it now seeks to
`
`introduce. Given the unique history of the present case, including the previous
`
`Hughes cases and the fact that this petitioner was already granted the extraordinary
`
`relief of replacing its petition documents with different ones, the Board should
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`decline to exercise its discretion in allowing yet another attempt to address issues
`
`that should have been identified and addressed previously. Allowing the petitioner
`
`multiple opportunities to supplement, and even alter, its petition case long after the
`
`petition filing is inefficient, wastes resources, is prejudicial to Caltech, and is
`
`contrary to the “guiding principle” for the Board to “ensure efficient administration
`
`of the Office and the ability of the Office to complete IPR proceedings in a timely
`
`manner.” Redline Detection, 811 F.3d at 435.
`
`D. The Motion is an Improper Vehicle to Change the Petition’s
`Alleged Dates of Publication
`
`Exs. 1027-1041 are irrelevant to the asserted March 20, 2000 publication
`
`date for Frey. Petitioner has admitted that its purposes in submitting these exhibits
`
`include an attempt to head off a potential argument by Caltech of prior invention.
`
`See Section III, supra (discussing July 26, 2017 call). This represents improper use
`
`of supplemental information to modify arguments made in the petition. Medtronic,
`
`IPR2014-00100, Paper 18 at 4; see also Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina
`
`Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (“[T]he expedited nature of IPRs bring[s]
`
`with it an obligation for petitioners to make their case in their petition.”). The
`
`Board should deny use of supplemental information for such purposes.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons described above, the Board should deny Petitioner’s Motion.
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: September 29, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/ Michael T. Rosato /
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 52,182
`
`
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00700
`Patent 7,421,032
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that the foregoing Patent Owner’s Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion
`
`to Submit Supplemental Information was served on this 29th day of September,
`
`2017, on the Petitioner at the correspondence address of the Petitioner as follows:
`
`
`Richard Goldenberg
`Brian M. Seeve
`Dominic Massa
`Michael H. Smith
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`richard.goldenberg@wilmerhale.com
`brian.seeve@wilmerhale.com
`dominic.massa@wilmerhale.com
`michaelh.smith@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`Date: September 29, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/ Michael T. Rosato /
`Michael T. Rosato, Lead Counsel
`Reg. No. 52,182
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`