`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`Filed on behalf of Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`By: Michael J. Fink (mfink@gbpatent.com)
`Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`Reston, Virginia 20191
`Tel: (703) 716-1191
`Fax: (703) 716-1180
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-00920
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S COMBINED OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S
`MOTION FOR JOINDER AND PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`Mail Stop PATENT BOARD, PTAB
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00920 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner, Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 (“IP Bridge”) submits this
`
`Combined Opposition To Petitioner’s Motion For Joinder And Preliminary
`
`Response (“Opposition”) in response to Petitioner GlobalFoundries, U.S. Inc.’s
`
`(“Global U.S.”) Motion for Joinder (Paper 3) and Petition filed in Case IPR2017-
`
`00920. Global U.S. seeks to join Case IPR2017-00920 with Case IPR2016-01264,
`
`which was instituted on December 21, 2016.
`
`A similar Petition and Motion for Joinder were filed by GlobalFoundries,
`
`Inc. (“Global”) in IPR2017-00757. The Petition in this case (IPR2017-00920)
`
`filed by Global U.S. states that the Petition filed in IPR2017-00757 will be
`
`withdrawn (IPR2017-00920 Petition, p. 40, footnote 9). A call was held with the
`
`Board on February 22, 2017 and the Board issued an Order in Cases IPR2017-
`
`00753, IPR2017-00757, IPR2017-00849, IPR2017-00850, IPR2017-00919,
`
`IPR2017-00920, IPR2017-00925 and IPR2017-00926 authorizing Petitioner to file
`
`a motion to dismiss the petitions in Cases IPR2017-00753, IPR2017-00757,
`
`IPR2017-00849 and IPR2017-00850 within one week of a filing date being
`
`accorded to the corresponding Petitions in Cases IPR2017-00919, IPR2017-00920,
`
`IPR2017-00925 and IPR2017-00926. Cases IPR2017-00919 and IPR2017-00920
`
`were accorded filing dates on February 23, 2017 (Paper 5). Petitioner filed
`
`Unopposed Motions to Dismiss Cases IPR2017-00753 and IPR2017-00757 on
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`March 1, 2017. The Board granted the Motions to Dismiss in Cases IPR2017-
`
`00753 and IPR2017-00757 (and in Cases IPR2017-00849 and IPR2017-00850) on
`
`Case IPR2017-00920 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`March 10, 2017.
`
`Petitioner acknowledges that the present Motion for Joinder was “filed after
`
`the one month date on which [IPR2016-01264] was instituted under 37 C.F.R. §§
`
`42.22 and 42.122(b).” Motion for Joinder (Paper 3), p. 4.
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder Should Be Denied Because It Was
`Not Timely Filed
`
`Joinder is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 315(c), which provides the Director with
`
`discretion whether or not to permit a party to join an instituted IPR proceeding:
`
`(c) Joinder. - If the Director institutes an inter partes review,
`
`the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that
`
`inter partes review any person who properly files a petition
`
`under section 311 that the Director, after receiving a
`
`preliminary response under section 313 or the expiration of the
`
`time for filing such a response, determines warrants the
`
`institution of an inter partes review under section 314.
`
`The PTAB Rules require that a request for joinder must be filed within one
`
`month after the institution date of an IPR proceeding:
`
`(b) Request for joinder. Joinder may be requested by a patent
`
`owner or petitioner. Any request for joinder must be filed, as a
`
`motion under § 42.22, no later than one month after the
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00920 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is
`
`requested. The time period set forth in § 42.101(b) shall not
`
`apply when the petition is accompanied by a request for joinder.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)(emphasis added).
`
`IPR2016-01264 was instituted on December 21, 2016. Petitioner’s Motion
`
`for Joinder was filed February 16, 2017, more than one month after institution of
`
`Case IPR2016-01264. The rule governing when a request for joinder can be made
`
`specifically requires that “[a]ny request for joinder must be filed . . . no later than
`
`one month after the institution date of any inter partes review for which joinder is
`
`requested.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). In other words, joinder with an existing IPR
`
`proceeding is permitted only if the joinder request is made within one month of a
`
`decision to institute that IPR proceeding.
`
`Global U.S. readily admits that its Motion for Joinder was filed more than
`
`one month after the institution date of IPR2016-01264. Thus, it is undisputed that
`
`the Motion for Joinder is untimely filed. Nothing prevented Global U.S. from
`
`filing a timely request to join IPR2016-01264. However, for its own reasons, it did
`
`not comply with the rules which require that a joinder request “must be filed … no
`
`later than one month after the institution date…” 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (emphasis
`
`added). Global U.S. did not provide reasonable justification for excusing its
`
`untimeliness.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00920 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`The only reason that Global U.S. provides for filing the duplicative Petition
`
`is that TSMC might settle with Patent Owner. See Motion, pp. 3, 7 (“Global is
`
`willing to act as an “understudy” to TSMC, only assuming an active role in the
`
`event TSMC settles with IP Bridge.”). Global U.S. could have timely filed its
`
`petition as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b). Global filed a substantially similar
`
`motion for joinder, but then requested dismissal of the petition (Paper 14). Global
`
`U.S. has not provided any reason why it could not have timely filed a request for
`
`joinder, and having failed to timely do so, must bear the consequences.
`
`
`
`Global U.S. asserts that (1) Joinder will not impact the Board’s ability to
`
`complete the review in a timely manner; (2) Joinder will promote efficiency by
`
`consolidating issues, avoiding duplicate efforts, and preventing inconsistencies;
`
`and (3) Joinder will not prejudice IP Bridge (Patent Owner). Motion, pp. 6-8.
`
`Patent Owner disagrees with these assertions.
`
`
`
`With respect to the first assertion, joinder could impact the Board’s ability to
`
`complete the review in a timely manner. As noted above, neither the Petition nor
`
`the Motion for Joinder explains the relationship, if any, between Global and Global
`
`U.S., or why it was necessary to withdraw the Petition filed by Global and file
`
`another Petition by Global U.S. As such, there may be issues concerning the real
`
`party(ies) in interest, which will likely require discovery to resolve. As the Patent
`
`Owner’s discovery period has closed, and its Response in IPR2016-01264 was
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00920 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`filed on March 7, 2017, joinder could require the adjustment of the schedule,
`
`which could impact the Board’s ability to complete the review in a timely manner.
`
`
`
`With respect to the second assertion, joinder will not promote efficiency by
`
`consolidating issues, avoiding duplicate efforts, and preventing inconsistencies.
`
`Given that the Petition relies on the same prior art, the same arguments, and the
`
`same expert declaration previously presented to the Office, for the reasons set forth
`
`in the following section, the Petition should be denied under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`
`
`As for the third assertion, Global U.S. is simply wrong. Permitting Global
`
`U.S. to join IPR2016-01264 will prejudice Patent Owner as it would frustrate the
`
`possibility of settlement under 35 U.S.C. § 317. Neither Patent Owner nor TSMC
`
`would have an incentive to simplify and streamline the IPR issues via settlement if
`
`Global U.S. looms in the background. Thus, permitting Global U.S. to join
`
`IPR2016-01264 would unnecessarily burden the Board and harass Patent Owner.
`
`Accordingly, for all of these reasons, Petitioner’s untimely Motion for
`
`Joinder should be denied. 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).
`
`B.
`
`If The Board Denies The Motion For Joinder, The Board Should
`Deny Institution Of The Petition Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`
`If the Board denies Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder, the Board should also
`
`deny institution of the Petition pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), which in pertinent
`
`part authorizes the Board to reject IPR petitions asserting positions previously
`
`presented:
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00920 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`In determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under
`
`this chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take
`
`into account whether, and reject the petition or request because,
`
`the same or substantially the same prior art or arguments
`
`previously were presented to the Office. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`The legislative history of Section 325(d) confirms Congress’ intent that the Board
`
`can reject duplicative IPR petitions. For example, Senator Jon Kyl stated that
`
`Section 325(d) “allows the Patent Office to reject any request for a proceeding,
`
`including a request for ex parte reexamination, if the same or substantially the
`
`same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office with respect to
`
`that patent.” 157 Cong. Rec. S1042 (daily ed. Mar. 1, 2011) (Statement of Sen.
`
`Kyl). Thus, it is clear that the Board can reject a petition where “the same or
`
`substantially the same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the
`
`Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 325(d); see also Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed.
`
`Reg. 48756, 48765 (Aug. 14, 2012). The Board’s discretion to deny duplicative
`
`petitions is necessary to avoid inefficient and wasteful use of the Board’s resources
`
`and time. See 35 U.S.C. § 316(b)(regulations should take into account, inter alia,
`
`“the effect of any such regulation on the efficient administration of the Office, and
`
`the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings instituted under this
`
`chapter”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b) (“This part shall be construed to secure the just,
`
`speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00920 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`The Board has repeatedly exercised its discretion to deny duplicative, late-
`
`filed petitions that rely on the same prior art and arguments, on the grounds that it
`
`would be a “waste of time, effort, and resources to relitigate the same issues.”
`
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC, No. IPR2014-00702, Paper 13
`
`(PTAB July 24, 2014); see also ZTE Corp. and ZTE (USA) Inc. v. ContentGuard
`
`Holdings, Inc., No. IPR2013-00454, Paper 12 (PTAB Sept. 25, 2013); Medtronic,
`
`Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc., No. IPR2014-00487, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 11, 2014);
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Sys., Inc., No. IPR2014- 0436, Paper
`
`17 (PTAB June 19, 2014); Initiative for Responsibility in Drug Pricing, LLC v.
`
`Wyeth, LLC, No. IPR2014-01259, Paper 8 (PTAB February 13, 2015).
`
`Indeed, the Board has recognized that the efficient resolution of IPR
`
`proceedings justifies rejecting duplicative petitions even when it prevents a
`
`different petitioner from having “an opportunity to submit arguments or evidence
`
`with respect to” the challenged patent claims. Unified Patents, Inc. v. PersonalWeb
`
`Techs., LLC, No. IPR2014-00702, Paper 13 (PTAB July 24, 2014).
`
`Global U.S.’s Petition is a duplicative filing. It is not only substantively
`
`duplicative of TSMC’s petition in IPR2016-01264, it is also duplicative of the
`
`Petition filed by Global in IPR2017-00757 which was voluntarily dismissed. As
`
`Global U.S. admits, the instant Petition mirrors the pending IPR Petition filed by
`
`TSMC, challenging the same claims with the same arguments and the same prior
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00920 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`art. Motion, p. 7 (The prior art, arguments and evidence in the present Petition
`
`“are essentially identical to the grounds for which the Board instituted” IPR2016-
`
`01264.). Global U.S. relies on the same expert declaration submitted by TSMC.
`
`Global U.S.’s arguments for instituting this duplicative petition are that
`
`TSMC might settle, and that its previously filed Petition did not name the correct
`
`real parties-in-interest. These positions have no support in law or policy justifying
`
`the late institution of a copied petition. In fact, such an outcome would frustrate the
`
`purpose of settlement under 35 U.S.C. § 317; neither party to the previously
`
`instituted IPR proceeding has an incentive to simplify and streamline the IPR
`
`issues via settlement if the specter of Global U.S.’s copycat Petition looms in the
`
`background. Granting Global U.S.’s copied Petition and instituting a proceeding
`
`would unnecessarily burden the Board and harass Patent Owner.
`
`Instituting an essentially identical IPR proceeding involving the same prior
`
`art, the same arguments, and the same evidence further prejudices Patent Owner, if
`
`not joined to the earlier IPR proceeding, requiring it to defend multiple
`
`proceedings brought by different petitioners. Section 315(c) provides that “the
`
`Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any
`
`person who properly files a petition … that the Director … determines warrants the
`
`institution of an inter partes review…” (Emphasis added). “[I]n determining
`
`whether to institute or order a proceeding …, the Director may take into account
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00920 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`whether, and reject the petition or request because, the same or substantially the
`
`same prior art or arguments previously were presented to the Office.” 35 U.S.C. §
`
`325(d)(emphasis added). Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), the Board “has broad
`
`discretion to deny a petition that raises substantially the same prior art or
`
`arguments previously presented to the Office.” Conopco, Inc. v. The Procter &
`
`Gamble Co., No. IPR2014-00506, Paper 17, Decision Denying Institution of Inter
`
`Partes Review at 6 (PTAB July 7. 2014). Permitting duplicate petitions where
`
`joinder is not appropriate, “would risk encouraging parties to engage in a pattern of
`
`duplicative filings that harass patent owners.” MaxLinear, Inc. v. Cresta Tech.
`
`Corp., Case IPR2015-00593 (Aug. 14, 2015) (Paper 9). “The statutory structure of
`
`the America Invents Act includes a more appropriate mechanism for petitioners to
`
`assert grounds upon which inter partes review has already been instituted - a
`
`request for joinder under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c).” Id. However, as Petitioner did not
`
`timely file such a request, joinder should be denied.
`
`Accordingly, the Board should reject the Petition because, the same prior art
`
`and arguments have been presented to the Office. 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). Global U.S.
`
`had the opportunity to join IPR2016-01264 but failed to timely file its request.
`
`Global U.S.’s current Petition appears to have been filed to correct an
`
`alleged error in naming the real part(ies)-in-interest in an earlier filed petition, but
`
`Global U.S. has not been forthright in its efforts. Global originally asserted that
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00920 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`there had been a non-substantive clerical or typographical error (IPR2017-00757,
`
`Motion to Correct filed February 13, 2017 (Paper 11)), which later proved to be
`
`untrue as Global U.S. subsequently represented that it had not named the correct
`
`real parties-in-interest in IPR2017-00757. IPR2017-00757 Motion to Dismiss filed
`
`March 1, 2017 (Paper 14). Notably, the Motion to Dismiss does not mention the
`
`earlier filed Motion to Correct. Such cavalier lack of candor should not be
`
`condoned. Additionally, Patent Owner should not be unnecessarily prejudiced in
`
`view of Global U.S.’s actions. For these additional reasons, the Board should
`
`reject the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`C. Petitioner’s Actions Raise Questions As To The Real Party-In-
`Interest
`
`Global has manufacturing centers, trusted foundries, R&D offices, design
`
`centers, and regional offices around the U.S and the world. See Exhibit 2001, p. 3;
`
`Exhibit 2002. Global U.S. has not provided any explanation of the relationship
`
`between Global and Global U.S.
`
`The only comments made relating to changing Global to Global U.S. were
`
`set forth in a Motion to Correct Petition Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(c), filed
`
`February 13, 2017 (“Motion to Correct”). The Motion to Correct simply asserted,
`
`without providing any supporting facts, that, “This proposed amendment only
`
`corrects a non-substantive clerical or typographical error in the petition and would
`
`have no substantial substantive effect on the proceedings.” Motion to Correct, p. 2.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`The Motion to Correct indicated that the filing date should not be affected by the
`
`Case IPR2017-00920 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`correction. Id.
`
`The refiling of the Petition and Motion for Joinder with a new filing date of
`
`February 16, 2017, after the one month requirement of §42.122(b), coupled with an
`
`indication that the first filed Petition will be withdrawn, certainly suggests that
`
`more than an error of a typographical nature was requested to be corrected.
`
`Indeed, the Motion to Dismiss filed on March 1, 2017 in IPR2017-00757 (Paper
`
`14) establishes that contrary to Petitioner’s representation, it was not merely an
`
`“error of a typographical nature” but rather the Petition did not name the correct
`
`real parties-in-interest. Also, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board End to End
`
`(PTAB E2E) system specifically requires the user to input the real party(ies)-in-
`
`interest such that identifying the wrong real party(ies)-in-interest would not likely
`
`be a non-substantive clerical or typographical error. Thus, Petitioner’s assertion is
`
`further belied by the fact that the act of electronically filing with the PTAB
`
`requires confirmation as to the identities of the real parties-in-interest.
`
`This raises issues as to who are the real party(ies)-in-interest. In fact, the
`
`same requested corrections were filed in IPR2017-00849 and IPR2017-00850. It
`
`appears to be strange that the same “error of a typographical nature” was made by
`
`two different sets of lead counsel/backup counsel, and the powers of attorney
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`signed for both Global and Global U.S. were signed by the same person. IPR2017-
`
`Case IPR2017-00920 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`00757, Papers 1 and 10.
`
`Furthermore, in another Petition recently filed by Global U.S. (Case
`
`IPR2017-00903), Global U.S. stated that the Petition had been timely filed because
`
`it was filed less than one year after the date Broadcom was served with both the
`
`summons and the complaint. IPR2017-00903, Paper 2, pp. 87-88. Broadcom is
`
`accused of infringing the ‘324 patent in the pending litigation Godo Kaisha IP
`
`Bridge 1 v. Broadcom Limited et al., Case No. 2-16-cv-00134 (E.D. Tex. February
`
`14, 2016). This litigation has been identified as a related matter in both this Case
`
`IPR2017-00920 and Case IPR2017-00903. Case IPR2017-00920, Paper 2, p. 40;
`
`Case IPR2017-00903, Paper 2, p. 86.
`
`
`
`Global U.S.’s statement about Broadcom raises additional concerns
`
`regarding the real party(ies)-in-interest, as there is no need for Global U.S. to
`
`have mentioned the Broadcom litigation unless the relationship between
`
`Global U.S. and Broadcom is such that Broadcom is another real party-in-
`
`interest.
`
`Issues relating to the real party-in-interest, including potential additional
`
`discovery, would not be conducive to help “secure the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b). Permitting
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00920 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`institution and joinder under the present circumstances would appear to
`
`unnecessarily waste the Board’s limited resources.
`
`Thus, Petitioner’s actions raise questions as to the real party(ies)-in-interest.
`
`Moreover, Petitioner’s misrepresentation to the Board about typographical errors
`
`suggests the appropriateness of sanctions in addition to termination of this
`
`proceeding under the provisions of §325(d).
`
`D. If The Board Permits Joinder Over Patent Owner’s Objections, The
`Board Should Do So Only If Global U.S. Agrees To Abide By Certain
`Conditions
`
`Patent Owner maintains that the Motion for Joinder should be denied and the
`
`Board should dismiss the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). However, if the
`
`Board were to deny the Motion for Joinder and not dismiss the Petition, Patent
`
`Owner would be severely prejudiced by having to defend two IPR proceedings
`
`involving the same patents, the same arguments, and the same expert witness. As
`
`such, in the event the Board does not dismiss the Petition under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`325(d), the Board should permit joinder provided Global U.S. agrees to abide by at
`
`least certain conditions.
`
`Global U.S.’s proposal “to remain in a circumscribed ‘understudy’ role
`
`without a separate opportunity to actively participate,” (Motion, p.7) should be
`
`further limited, and Global U.S. should be required to further agree that it will not
`
`file additional written submissions, nor will Global U.S. pose questions at
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00920 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`depositions or argue at oral hearing without the prior permission of the Board,
`
`rather than permission of TSMC as proposed. Requiring permission from only
`
`TSMC would make it very easy for Global U.S. to take an active role, thereby
`
`circumventing its agreement to remain in an understudy role “without a separate
`
`opportunity to actively participate.” Moreover, Global U.S. stated: “Only in the
`
`event that TSMC settles will Global [U.S.] seek to become active in the joined
`
`IPR.” Motion, p. 7.
`
`Furthermore, the Board should require Global U.S. to agree to abide by the
`
`following conditions which are consistent with its proposal:
`
`1. Global U.S. agrees to proceed based solely on the arguments and evidence
`
`presented and maintained by TSMC in IPR2016-01264.
`
`2. Global U.S. consents to being added to the case caption of IPR2016-01264
`
`as a Petitioner without any active participation or involvement that is
`
`separate from TSMC.
`
`3. Global U.S. agrees to remain in a circumscribed “understudy” role in
`
`IPR2016-01264 without any right to separate briefing or discovery. Global
`
`U.S. will not file additional written submissions, not pose questions at
`
`depositions and not argue at oral hearing without the prior authorization of
`
`the Board.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00920 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`4. TSMC will conduct cross-examination and other discovery on behalf of
`
`TSMC and Global U.S., and Patent Owner is not required to provide
`
`separate discovery responses or additional deposition time as a result of the
`
`consolidation.
`
`5. Global U.S. will seek authorization from the Board to become active in
`
`IPR2016-01264 only in the event that TSMC settles.
`
`6. Global U.S. acknowledges that the estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)
`
`will be applicable to it even if it remains in a circumscribed “understudy”
`
`role.
`
`Patent Owner will be prejudiced if Global U.S. is permitted to join IPR2016-
`
`01264. If the Board is inclined to permit Global U.S to join IPR2016-01264, in an
`
`attempt to limit the prejudice to Patent Owner, the Board should require Global
`
`U.S. to agree to abide by the above conditions before permitting it to join
`
`IPR2016-01264.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Board is respectfully requested to deny the
`
`motion for joinder and deny institution of the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d).
`
`Dated: March 15, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted by:
`
`/Michael J. Fink/
`Michael J. Fink
`Registration No. 31,827
`Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00920 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`Reston, Virginia 20191
`Tel: 703-716-1191
`Fax: 703-716-1180
`Email: mfink@gbpatent.com
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner,
`IP Bridge
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`{J709906 03045331.DOC 4}
`
`
`
`Case IPR2017-00920 for
`U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true copy of the foregoing:
`
`PATENT OWNER’S COMBINED OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S
`MOTION FOR JOINDER AND PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`was served by electronic mail on this 15th day of March, 2017, upon Counsel for
`
`Petitioner, as follows:
`
`Christopher P. Carroll (christopher.carroll@whitecase.com); and
`Shamita Etienne-Cummings (setienne@whitecase.com).
`
`
`
`
`/Michael J. Fink/
`Michael J. Fink
`Registration No. 31,827
`Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C.
`1950 Roland Clarke Place
`Reston, Virginia 20191
`Tel: 703-716-1191
`Fax: 703-716-1180
`Email: mfink@gbpatent.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`