throbber
Case 2:16-cv-OO725-JRG Document 21 Filed 05/16/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 194
`A0 120 (Rev. 08/10)
`
`TO:
`
`Mail Stop 8
`Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`REPORT ON THE
`FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
`ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR
`
`In Compliance with 35 U.SIC. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been
`
`filed in the U.S. District Court
`Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`on the following
`
`D Trademarks or
`
`EPatents.
`
`( D the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):
`
`DOCKET NO.
`2:16-cv-725
`PLAINTIFF
`
`DATE FILED
`7/5/2016
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`DEFENDANT
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., and
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.
`
`BEETALK PRIVATE LTD.
`
`DATE INCLUDED
`
`In the abovegentitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:
`INCLUDED BY
`
`PATENT 0R
`
`D Amendment
`DATE OF PATENT
`
`D Answer
`
`B Cross Bill
`
`D Other Pleading
`
`TRADEMARK N0
`
`0R TRADEMARK
`
`HOLDER 0E PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`
`
`
`DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. CLERK
`
`In the aboveientitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:
`DECIS ION/JUDGEMENT
`
`Any and all claims by Uniloc against Defendant BeeTalk Private Limited (“BeeTalk") in Case No. 2:16-cv-725 are
`
`l3
`-
`C 61.331119 A O‘KMQWL
`
`(BY) DEPUTY CLERK
`.
`Nakisha Love
`
`DATE
`
`5/16/17
`
`Copy l—Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director
`Copy 2—Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Case file copy
`
`1
`
`GOOGLE 1002
`
`1
`
`GOOGLE 1002
`
`

`

`,‘-.( I
`
`'E,Iii|1\:\
`
`1 \1111
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`“a!“ 510'] 8
`Director ui'the [25. Patent and Trademark Office
`I’.().Bm 1-150
`-\|umudria, \v’.\ ZED-1450
`
`REPORT ON THE
`FillNG 0R DETERMINATION OF AN
`ACTION REG.-\RDING A P41 EN'I‘ UR
`
`In L'umphdncc nili: 3‘ LS C. § 2‘?“ und‘cr 15 USI'. S I] I6 _\ou lift: hereby :ulVifiCd than 1'1 unurl zlctiun has bum
`Iiiul u" Elle L1 S, Disli'icl L'uui'i
`Eastern District Of Texas
`.m [.iiéiivt|iil,1\\'i‘l§
`
`[j 'l'mLE-‘zmeu'ixs m‘
`Mi‘ulmln
`i L} lilc gaunt diill‘fl nnulws 37" l' b L'. ;
`DOCK Ii'i
`\EU
`L* S DIS’TRIFT mum
`DA'i‘L 1-17.11) "
`
`
`
`2:17wcv-347
`4/21/2017
`
`
`1’! . --\i'\T1'IHi'
`Diii-EX DAN'I'
`UNILOC USA. INC. and
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.
`
`KM INTERACTIVE, 1N0.
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`
`
`PA'I‘I-‘NTQR
`.I.MI)H_MRKNO_
`
`
`DATE OF PMEN’i'
`0R TRADEMARK
`
`.
`.
`_
`.7
`,
`,
`,
`.
`HOLDL-R Oi PAH-M OR iHADhMAklx
`
`5/13/2014
`
`5/31/2015
`
`5/19/2009
`
`I 8,724,622
`.
`‘ 8,995,433
`
`R 7,535,890
`
`4 3,199,747
`
`
`
`Uniloc Luxembourg SA,
`-
`Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.
`
`l
`
`Uniioc Luxembourg SA.
`
`Uniloc Luxembourg SA.
`
`DA'I‘I? i\7('I.U[)ED
`
`in (iii: zilm\c#cnmicd c2131.: [he ['nllmxmg gaunt/~31 li'aiii’lliltlki_.\‘l hm: hccn unciudcd:
`i\('_‘i Chili) BY
`
`'i’Ai‘inVI'tJi-i
`Hun/MARK N”
`
`:3 \mumlmum
`{MTFOFi‘.-\’ii€N'l’
`(iR‘i'iMDEMARK
`
`
`E (fins-5 Bill
`[3 (1|ch Pleading
`fl ‘\nS\\CI'
`,
`,
`..
`,
`7.
`,
`. HICILDLROI 1‘,\|1.\I()RFRADLMARR
`
`.
`
`
`(BY 1 DFPU'I‘Y (‘LFRK
`
`“1 the al)u\u-—cnlil!cd case. Lhc lullou'ing dccxsmn has bun lL'llLCiL‘iJ m Iimigunurll issuud:
`DEUSIUNJI iDGi—WiP-N'i‘
`
`('LE'RK
`
`('um' S—UImn terminatinn in" action, muii this (up) [u Dii‘tt'liil'
`('up) l—Lpun initiatiim (if amiim. mail this mm lu Dil'l'fllll'
`(“um l—lipim filing ilncumcnl adding pan-mm, mail [his cum in Dircclur
`(‘upy 4—4556 file cup},
`
`2
`
`

`

`AU [20 Rm: [Iii/Iii)
`
`
`
`
`Mail Stop 8
`Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P1). Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 225134450
`
`REPORT ON THE
`FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
`ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR
`TRADEMA RK
`
`in Compliancc with 35 U.S,C. § 295) and-"0r l5 U.S.C', § i116 you are hereby ntltiscd that a 0mm action has been
`filed in the l i S. District Court
`Eastem District Of Texas
`on the following
`
`El Trademarks or
`
`MPntcnts
`
`(' g the patent action mmh‘cs 35 U.S.C. § 292.];
`
`
`
`DATE FILED
`421/2017
`
`US. DISTRICT COURT
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`DOCKET NO.
`
`
`2:17-cv—349
`PLAINTIFF
`DEFENDANT
`
`UNiLOC USA, INC. and
`HIKE LTD.
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT 0R
`
`DATF. 0F PATENT
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.
`
`,
`
`I 8,724,622
`
`2 8,995,433
`
`3 7,535,890
`
`4 3.199.747
`
`
`
`
`
`
`511312014
`
`Uniioc Luxembourg S.A.
`
`58112015
`
`Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.
`
`SITQIZUUQ
`
`5’1212012
`
`
`
`Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.
`
`Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.
`
`
`
`in lllC above—entitled case, the following potential.” trademark(s_] have been included.
`
`lNCLL‘DED BY
`
`
`
`
`DATE lNCLUDED
`
`PATENT 0R
`TRADEMARK NO.
`
`CI Amendment
`DATE OF PATENT
`OR TRADEMARK
`
`Answer
`
`E] Crass Bill
`
`C] Other Pleading
`,
`HOLDER Ol— PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(BY) DEPUTY CLERK
`
`In the abm c—cmitlcd case. the [blloning decision has been rendered orjudgcmcni issued:
`DECISION/JUDGEMENT
`
`Copy l-Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3-—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director
`Copy Z—Upnn filing document adding patcntls}, mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Cnsc file copy
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00992-JRG Document 2 Filed 09/06/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 145
`A0 120 (Rev. 08/10)
`
`TO:
`
`Mail Stop 8
`Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`REPORT ON THE
`FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
`ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR
`
`In Compliance with 35 U.SIC. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been
`
`filed in the U.S. District Court
`Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`on the following
`
`D Trademarks or
`
`EPatents.
`
`( D the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):
`
`DOCKET NO.
`2:16-cv-992
`PLAINTIFF
`
`DATE FILED
`9/6/2016
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`DEFENDANT
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., and
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
`
`
`HOLDER 0E PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`
`DATE INCLUDED
`
`In the abovegentitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:
`INCLUDED BY
`
`PATENT 0R
`
`D Amendment
`DATE OF PATENT
`
`TRADEMARK N0
`
`0R TRADEMARK
`
`D Answer
`
`B Cross Bill
`
`D Other Pleading
`
`In the aboveientitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:
`DECIS ION/JUDGEMENT
`
`
`
`CLERK
`
`(BY) DEPUTY CLERK
`
`DATE
`
`Copy l—Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director
`Copy 2—Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Case file copy
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00993-JRG Document 2 Filed 09/06/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 184
`A0 120 (Rev. 08/10)
`
`TO:
`
`Mail Stop 8
`Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`REPORT ON THE
`FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
`ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR
`
`In Compliance with 35 U.SIC. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been
`
`filed in the U.S. District Court
`Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`on the following
`
`D Trademarks or
`
`EPatents.
`
`( D the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):
`
`DOCKET NO.
`2:16-cv-993
`PLAINTIFF
`
`DATE FILED
`9/6/2016
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`DEFENDANT
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., and
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.
`
`ZTE (USA), INC. and ZTE (TX), |NC.,
`
`
`HOLDER 0E PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`
`DATE INCLUDED
`
`In the abovegentitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:
`INCLUDED BY
`
`PATENT 0R
`
`D Amendment
`DATE OF PATENT
`
`TRADEMARK N0
`
`0R TRADEMARK
`
`D Answer
`
`B Cross Bill
`
`D Other Pleading
`
`In the aboveientitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:
`DECIS ION/JUDGEMENT
`
`
`
`CLERK
`
`(BY) DEPUTY CLERK
`
`DATE
`
`Copy l—Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director
`Copy 2—Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Case file copy
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00994-JRG Document 2 Filed 09/06/16 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 134
`A0 120 (Rev. 08/10)
`
`TO:
`
`Mail Stop 8
`Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`REPORT ON THE
`FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
`ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR
`
`In Compliance with 35 U.SIC. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been
`
`filed in the U.S. District Court
`Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`on the following
`
`D Trademarks or
`
`EPatents.
`
`( D the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):
`
`DOCKET NO.
`2:16-cv-994
`PLAINTIFF
`
`DATE FILED
`9/6/2016
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`DEFENDANT
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., and
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC. and
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC.,
`
`
`HOLDER 0E PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`
`DATE INCLUDED
`
`In the abovegentitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:
`INCLUDED BY
`
`PATENT 0R
`
`D Amendment
`DATE OF PATENT
`
`TRADEMARK N0
`
`0R TRADEMARK
`
`D Answer
`
`B Cross Bill
`
`D Other Pleading
`
`In the aboveientitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:
`DECIS ION/JUDGEMENT
`
`
`
`CLERK
`
`(BY) DEPUTY CLERK
`
`DATE
`
`Copy l—Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director
`Copy 2—Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Case file copy
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-OO347-JRG Document 5 Filed 04/24/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 133
`AG 121‘: (Rev. 118/11);
`
`‘
`
` 1.0
`
`REPGRT ON THE
`1“} LENS {ER 1} E’TERA‘TENAT‘TGT‘J 01.“ AN
`ACTTUN REGARDENG A PATENT OR
`TRAQEMARK
`
`11112111 Stage 8
`Dim-211:1? {311113 11.3. P3113131 and Trademark 011333
`11.0. 1313.3: 11-511
`Mexzmdrie, VA. 223134451”?
`
`
`in. Camp/1212
`
`, wifia 3S 13.6.C 38 291'} Enid/w if: U ~31“ "11%; 3 m; 2113 {1513133 M131 311:112112130311331103? has 133-31
`Eastern District of 1’8an
`on 1123 renewing,
`
`DATE FELED
`DGL‘KET NO.
`TRECT COURT
`
`
`
`
`
`217-031-3417
`41/21/201 7
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT
`PLANT EFZ‘“
`
`
`
`
`UNILOC USA, ENC. and
`I KEK EN'T'ERAC'E'EVE, ENC.
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, SA.
`
`PATENT OR
`
`
`T}? ADEM ARK NC’.
`
`
`
`
`’nTE EFF PATENT
`("JR T}? AWEM nRK
`
`. -
`_ r ‘1
`1
`
`OLDELR 3L PA EXT JR TRADEMARK
`
`8, 724 622
`
`8. 995. 433
`
`.7,535.8913
`
`4 8.1%,?
`
`5/13/21314
`
`Uniioc Luxembouzg S.A.
`
`5/31/2015
`
`11131103 Luxembourg 8. A.
`
`5/19/2099
`
`Uniiec LuxembouzwgoA
`
`13/12/2012
`
`Uniioc Luxembauzg S.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`: Amendment
`
`[:3 Answer
`
`I: (ire-545; 13111
`
`[:1 011m 171321131233;
`
`‘f’f‘. 1‘“ ”“1AH“.1
`
`Emerge. 0r- PATENT GP. TRADEMARK
`(BY; DEPUT Y ‘L‘LERS;
`
`1311113 210-333 -----311311391 32153. the 111-1113331533; daisies) has been renderiid (vrjudgmnsm 13513311,:
`DEUSIONH UDGEMENT
`
`CLERK
`
`{31:-p}; 3v------ 113015 13113113311011 05‘ 21311123), msaii this fit-pf; 1:0 BEre-c‘mr
`(30533 i-----13pm: irtitia‘iion 3112-3173-1311. mail this mm 1-3 1111331133
`{131:3- 2------11pm; {fling 11131115319131 adding patent/gs)? maié this 1133137 113 13111331131“
`Cup}? Jun-13253312. 1113 mp3;
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-OO349-JRG Document 5 Filed 04/24/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 134
`AG 121‘: (R63: 118/11);
`
`‘
`
` 1.0
`
`REPGRT ON THE
`1“} LENS {ER 1} E’TERA‘TENAT‘TGT‘J 01.“ AN
`ACTTUN REGARDENG A PATENT OR
`TRAQEMARK
`
`11112111 Stage 8
`Dim-211:1? {311113 11.3. P3113131 and Trademark 011333
`11,0. 1313.3: 1151.1
`Mexzmdrie, VA. 223134451”?
`
`
`in. Camp/1212
`
`, wifia 3S 13.6.C 38 291'} Enid/w if: U ~31“ "11%; 3 m; 2113 {1513133 M131 311:112112130311331103? has 133-31
`Eastern District of 1’8an
`on 1123 renewing,
`
`DATE FELED
`DGL‘KET NO.
`TRECT COURT
`
`
`
`
`
`217-031-349
`41/21/201 7
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT
`PLANT EFZ‘“
`
`
`
`
`' HTKE LID
`UNILOC USA, ENC. and
`
`
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, SA.
`
`PATENT OR
`
`
`T}?- ADEM ARK NC’.
`
`
`
`
`’nTE EFF PATENT
`("JR T}? AWEM ”RK
`
`. v
`_ r ‘1
`1
`
`OLDELR JL PA E\T JR TRADEMARK
`
`8, 724 622
`
`8. 995. 433
`
`.75358913
`
`4 8.1%,?
`
`5/13/21314
`
`Uniioc Luxembouzg S.A.
`
`5/31/2015
`
`11131103 Luxembourg 8. A.
`
`5/19/2099
`
`Uniiec Luxembouzwgo.A.
`
`13/12/2012
`
`Uniioc Luxembauzg S.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`: Amendment
`
`[:3 Answer
`
`I: (ire-545; 13111
`
`[:1 011m 171321131233;
`
`5511111132,“;“.1
`
`HGLUER 0r- PATENT GP. TRADEMARK
`(BY; DEPUT Y ‘L‘LERS;
`
`1311113 210-333 -----311311391 32153. the 111-1113331533; daisies) has been rendsriid (vrjudgmnsm 13513311.:
`DEUSIONH UDGEMENT
`
`CLERK
`
`{31:-p}; 3v------ 113015 13113113311011 05‘ 21311123), msaii this fit-pf; 1:0 BEre-c‘mr
`(30533 i-----13pm: irtitia‘iion ()1 22317313111 mail this mm 1-3 1111331133
`{131:3- 2------11pm; {fling 11131115319131 adding patent/gs)? maié this 1133137 113 13111331131“
`Cup}? Jun-1325333 1113 mp3;
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-OO779-JRG Document 32 Filed 04/19/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 207
`A0 120 (Rev. 08/10)
`
`TO:
`
`Mail Stop 8
`Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`REPORT ON THE
`FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
`ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR
`
`In Compliance with 35 U.SIC. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been
`
`filed in the U.S. District Court
`Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`on the following
`
`D Trademarks or
`
`EPatents.
`
`( D the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):
`
`DOCKET NO.
`2:16-cv-779
`PLAINTIFF
`
`DATE FILED
`7/15/2016
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`DEFENDANT
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., and
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.
`
`SHORETEL, INC.
`
`HOLDER 0E PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`
`DATE INCLUDED
`
`INCLUDED BY
`
`PATENT 0R
`
`D Amendment
`DATE OF PATENT
`
`TRADEMARK N0
`
`0R TRADEMARK
`
`D Answer
`
`B Cross Bill
`
`D Other Pleading
`
`In the aboveientitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:
`DECIS ION/JUDGEMENT
`
`Any and all claims by Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (collectively, “Uniloc”) against ShoreTel, Inc.
`
`("ShoreTel”) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
`
`Copy l—Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director
`Copy 2—Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Case file copy
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-OO641-JRG Document 21 Filed 04/18/17 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 331
`A0 120 (Rev. 08/10)
`
`TO:
`
`Mail Stop 8
`Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`TRADEMARK
`
`REPORT ON THE
`FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
`ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR
`
`In Compliance with 35 U.SIC. § 290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby advised that a court action has been
`
`filed in the U.S. District Court
`Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`on the following
`
`D Trademarks or
`
`EPatents.
`
`( D the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):
`
`DOCKET NO.
`2:16-Cv-641
`PLAINTIFF
`
`DATE FILED
`6/14/2016
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`DEFENDANT
`
`UNILOC USA, INC., and
`UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.
`
`LINE EURO-AMERICAS CORP. & LINE
`CORPORATION
`
`DATE INCLUDED
`
`In the abovegentitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:
`INCLUDED BY
`
`PATENT 0R
`
`D Amendment
`DATE OF PATENT
`
`D Answer
`
`B Cross Bill
`
`D Other Pleading
`
`TRADEMARK N0
`
`0R TRADEMARK
`
`HOLDER 0E PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`
`In the aboveientitled case, the following decision has been rendered or judgement issued:
`DECIS ION/JUDGEMENT
`
`Any and all claims by Uniloc against Line Euro-Americas Corporation and Line Corporation (together, “Line”) are
`
`
`
`DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (BY) DEPUTY CLERK
`
`Nakisha Love
`
`DATE
`
`4/18/17
`
`Copy l—Upon initiation of action, mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director
`Copy 2—Upon filing document adding patent(s), mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Case file copy
`
`10
`
`10
`
`

`

`REPORT ON THE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FILING OR DETERMINATION OF AN
`'
`Director ofthe U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`.1.0‘
`Mail Stop 8
`
`
`
`ACTION REGARDING A PATENT OR
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`
`
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`TRADEMARK
`
`ised that a court action has been
`ith 35 U.SC §290 and/or 15 U.S.C. § 1116 you are hereby adv
`on the following
`In Compliance w
`filed in the U.S. District Court
`Eastern District Of Texas
`E] Trademarks or
`[ZPatents
`( D the patent action involves 35 U.S.C. § 292.):
`
`DATE FILED
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`
`
`
`DOCKET N .
` I
`3/26/2017
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`2:17-cv-0231—JRG
`
`DEFENDANT
`
`
`PLAINTIFF
`
`Google, Inc.
`Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HOLDER OF PATENT OR TRADEMARK
`
`
`OR TRADEMARK—m—
`
`
`
`—m Uniloc Luxembourg SA.
`
`_—-
`
`
`———
`
`TRADEMARKNO.
`
`
`
`
`
`In the above—entitled case, the following patent(s)/ trademark(s) have been included:
`
`INCLUDED BY
`
`
`I] Answer
`1] Cross Bill
`D Other Pleading
`
`HOLDER OF PATENT ORTRADEMARK
`
`
`
`DATE INCLUDED
`
`PATENT OR
`
`TRADEMARKNO,
`
`E] Amendment
`
`ORTRADEMARK
`DATE OF PATENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In the above—entitIed case, the following decision has been rendered orjudgement issued:
`
`DECISION/JUDGEMENT
`
`(BY) DEPUTY CLERK
`
`
`mail this copy to Director Copy 3—Upon termination of action, mail this copy to Director
`Copy l—Upon initiation of action,
`mail this copy to Director Copy 4—Case file copy
`Copy Z—Upon filing document adding patcnfls),
`
`11
`
`11
`
`

`

`Trials
`
`us to. 0V
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper No. 7
`Entered: May 25, 2017
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,1
`
`Case IPR2017-00223
`
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, KERRY BEGLEY, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`1 Patent Owner’s Mandatory Notice filed pursuant to 37 CPR. § 42.8
`identifies Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. as Patent Owner
`and as real parties in interest. Paper 4 at caption, 1. Therefore, we adjust the
`case caption to include Uniloc USA, Inc.
`
`12
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00223
`
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`1. INTRODUCTION
`
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”) requesting
`
`an inter partes review of claims 3, 4, 6—8, 10—19, 21—23, and 38 (“the
`
`challenged claims”) of US. Patent No. 8,724,622 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the
`
`’622 patent”). Pet. 2. Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.
`
`(“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 6 (“Prelim Resp”).
`
`We review the Petition under 35 U.S.C. § 314, which provides that an
`inter partes review may not be instituted “unless .
`.
`. there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the
`
`claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). For the reasons that
`
`follow and on this record, we are not persuaded that Petitioner demonstrates
`
`a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of any
`
`of the challenged claims on the asserted grounds. Accordingly, we deny
`
`Petitioner’s request to institute an inter partes review.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Related Matters
`
`Petitioner indicates that the ’622 patent is involved in Uniloc USA,
`
`Inc. v. Apple Inc, No. 2: 16-cv-00638 (E.D. Tex.) and twenty-six other
`
`actions in the US. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Pet. 71—
`
`73. The ’622 patent also is the subject of Case IPR2017-00224, which
`
`Petitioner filed concurrently with the instant proceeding. See Pet. 2—3;
`
`Prelim. Resp. 1 & n.1.
`
`B. Overview of the ’622 Patent
`
`The ’622 patent explains that “[v]oice messaging” and “instant text
`
`messaging” in both the Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) and public
`
`switched telephone network environments are known. Ex. 1001, 2:22—46.
`
`13
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00223
`
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`In prior art instant text messaging systems, a server presents a user of a
`
`client terminal with a “list of persons who are currently ‘online’ and ready to
`
`receive text messages,” the user “select[s] one or more” recipients and types
`
`the message, and the server immediately sends the message to the respective
`
`client terminals. Id. at 2:34—46. According to the ’622 patent, however,
`
`“there is still a need in the art for .
`
`.
`
`. a system and method for providing
`
`instant VOIP messaging over an IP network,” such as the Internet.
`
`Id. at 1:18—22, 2:47—59, 6:47—49.
`
`In one embodiment, the ’622 patent discloses local instant voice
`
`messaging (“IVM”) system 200, depicted in Figure 2 below. Id. at 6:22—24.
`200
`
`216
`
`/
`
`[DCAL
`IVM
`
`SERVER '
`
`IVM CLIENT
`(VolP
`PHONE)
`
`. LEGACY
`SWITCH
`
`FIG. 2
`
`As illustrated in Figure 2, local packet-switched IP network 204, which may
`
`be a local area network (“LAN”), “interconnects” IVM clients 206, 208 and
`
`legacy telephone 110 to local IVM server 202.
`
`Id. at 6250—72; see id.
`
`at 7:23—24, 7:61-65. Local IVM server 202 enables instant voice messaging
`
`functionality over network 204. Id. at 7:61—65.
`
`14
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00223
`
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`In “record mode,” IVM client 208, exemplified as a VoIP softphone
`
`in Figure 2, “displays a list of one or more IVM recipients,” provided and
`
`stored by local IVM server 202, and the user selects recipients from the list.
`
`Id. at 7:57—59, 7:65—8:4. IVM client 208 then transmits the selections to
`
`IVM server 202 and “records the user’s speech into .
`
`.
`
`. digitized audio
`
`file 210 (i.e., an instant voice message).” Id. at 824—11.
`
`When the recording is complete, IVM client 208 transmits audio
`
`file 210 to local IVM server 202, which delivers the message to the selected
`
`recipients via local IP network 204. Id. at 8:15—29. “[O]nly the available
`
`IVM recipients, currently connected to .
`
`.
`
`. IVM server 202, will receive the
`
`instant voice message.” Id. at 8:33—34. IVM server 202 “temporarily saves
`
`the instant voice message” for any IVM client that is “not currently
`
`connected to .
`
`.
`
`. local IVM server 202 (i.e., is unavailable)” and “delivers it
`
`.
`
`.
`
`. when the IVM client connects to .
`
`.
`
`. local IVM server 202 (i.e., is
`
`available).” Id. at 8:34—39; see id. at 9:17—21. Upon receiving the instant
`
`voice message, the recipients can audibly play the message. Id. at 8:29—32.
`
`C. Illustrative Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 3 and 38 are independent. Those
`
`two independent claims, which are reproduced below, are illustrative of the
`
`recited subject matter:
`
`3. A system comprising:
`a network interface connected to a packet-switched network;
`a messaging system communicating with a plurality of instant
`voice message client systems via the network interface; and
`a communication platform system maintaining connection
`information for each of the plurality of instant voice
`message client systems indicating whether there is a current
`connection to each of the plurality of instant voice message
`client systems,
`
`15
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00223
`
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`wherein the messaging system receives an instant voice
`message from one of the plurality of instant voice message
`client systems, and
`wherein the instant voice message includes an object field
`including a digitized audio file.
`
`38. A system comprising:
`a client device;
`a network interface coupled to the client device and connecting
`the client device to a packet—switched network; and
`an instant voice messaging application installed on the client
`device, wherein the instant voice messaging application
`includes a client platform system for generating an instant
`voice message and a messaging system for transmitting the
`instant voice message over the packet-switched network via
`the network interface,
`a display displaying a list of one or more potential recipients
`for an instant voice message.
`
`Ex. 1001, 24:12—27, 27:11—23.
`
`D. References Relied Upon
`
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`
`Vuori
`
`US 2002/0146097 A1
`
`Oct. 10, 2002 (Ex. 1005)
`
`Holtzberg US 6,625,261 B2
`
`Sept. 23, 2003 (Ex. 1007)
`
`Va'ananen US 7,218,919 B2
`
`May 15, 2007 (Ex. 1008)
`
`European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), Technical
`Specification (TS) 123 040 v3.5.0 (2000-07): Universal Mobile
`Telecommunications System (UMTS); Technical realization ofthe
`Short Message Service (SMS) (“SMSS”; Ex. 1006)
`
`Pet. 2. Petitioner also relies on a declaration of Leonard J. Forys, PhD.
`
`(Ex. 1003).
`
`16
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00223
`
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`Petitioner challenges the patentability of claims 3, 4, 6—8, 10—19, 21—
`
`23, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the following grounds:
`'
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pet. 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given
`
`their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the
`
`patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed
`
`Techs, LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144—46 (2016) (upholding the use of
`
`the broadest reasonable interpretation standard as the claim construction
`
`standard to be applied in an inter partes review proceeding). Under the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms generally are given
`
`their ordinary and customary meaning as would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. See In re
`Translogz'c Tech, Inc, 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`\
`
`Petitioner proposes constructions for “object field,” as recited in
`
`independent claim 3; “action field,” as recited in dependent claim 4;
`
`“identifier field,” as recited in dependent claim 6; “source field,” as recited
`
`in dependent claim 7; “destination field,” as recited in dependent claim 8;
`
`17
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00223
`
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`and “display[ing] at least one of the plurality of instant voice messages,” as
`
`recited in dependent claim 16. Pet. 6—8.2 Patent Owner does not proffer any
`
`terms for construction, but contends that Petitioner’s construction of “object
`
`field” “risks rending other claim language superfluous” and “should also be
`
`rejected as seeking to eviscerate the expressly recited ‘object’ qualifier.”
`
`Prelim. Resp. 20—23. Patent Owner contends, however, that regardless
`
`whether we adopt Petitioner’s proposed construction of “object field,”
`
`Petitioner fails to meet its burden with respect to the asserted grounds. Id. at
`
`23—24.
`
`Based on our review of the record before us, we determine that no
`
`claim termsrequire an express construction to resolve the issues presented
`
`by the patentability challenges in this case. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci.
`
`& Eng ’g, Inc, 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only claim
`
`terms that “are in controversy” need to be construed and “only to the extent
`
`necessary to resolve the controversy”). Our determination infia that
`
`Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with
`
`respect to any challenged claim does not turn on the construction of any
`
`disputed claim term.
`
`B. Analysis ofAsserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`
`1. Principles ofLaw
`
`_ A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are “such
`
`7' In the Petition, Petitioner identifies each of “object field,” “action field,”
`“identifier field,” “source field,” and “destination field” as being recited in
`claim 1. Pet. 6—7. As Patent Owner points out, however, claim 1 is not
`challenged in the Petition, and in any event, none of those terms is recited in
`claim 1. Prelim. Resp. 20.
`
`18
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00223
`
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 550 US. 398, 406
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`
`(3) the level of skillin the art;3 and (4) objective evidence of
`
`nonobviousness, i.e., secondary considerations.4 Graham v. John Deere Ca,
`
`383 US 1, 17—18 (1966). “To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a
`
`petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must
`
`instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support
`
`the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int ’1, Ltd,
`
`829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We analyze the asserted grounds
`
`with the principles stated above in mind.
`
`2. Obviousness over Vuori and SMSS (Claims 3, 4, 6—8, 11—13,
`18, and 21—23) or Vuori alone (Claim 38)
`
`Petitioner contends that Vuori teaches or suggests all limitations of
`
`claims 3, 4, 6—8, 11—13, 18, 21—23, and 38 ofthe ’622 patent. Pet. 12—19,
`
`21—22, 24—25, 27, 29, 31, 33—34, 36—47, 65—71. Petitioner further contends,
`
`however, that, “[t]o the extent Patent Owner argues” Vuori does not
`
`explicitly teach or suggest “wherein the instant voice message includes an
`
`3 Petitioner proposes an assessment of the level of skill in the art with
`respect to the ’622 patent. Pet. 5. Patent Owner does not challenge this
`assessment or propose an alternative assessment. For purposes of this
`Decision and to the extent necessary, we adopt Petitioner’s assessment.
`4 Patent Owner does not contend in its Preliminary Response that such
`
`secondary considerations are present.
`
`19
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00223
`
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`object field including a digitized audio file,” as recited in independent
`
`claim 3, and certain limitations recited in claims 4 and 6—8, those limitations
`
`are taught or suggested by SMSS. Id. at 19—20, 22—23, 25, 27—30, 32, 34—
`
`35.
`
`Patent Owner raises several arguments in its Preliminary Response,
`
`including that the Petition does not identify anything in Vuori that satisfies
`
`the “network interface” limitations of independent claims 3 and 38.
`
`Prelim. Resp. 25—26, 35—37.
`
`We begin with a brief overview of Vuori and relevant legal principles
`
`and then address the parties’ arguments.
`
`a. Overview of Vuori
`
`Vuori is titled “Short Voice Message (SVM) Service Method,
`
`Apparatus and System.” Ex. 1005, [54]. Vuori discloses a method for
`
`sending voice-type short messages using an SVM service. Ex. 1005, [57],
`
`1[ 31. Vuori teaches that SVMs “are recorded in the sending terminal and
`
`sent to an SVM service center (SVMSC),” and a “second terminal may then
`
`commence a bidirectional communication so that an instant voice message
`
`session can be established.” Id. 11 31.
`
`In one embodiment, a user initiates a short voice message by pressing
`
`a menu key on a user equipment, which prepares to receive the message and
`
`may emit a sound to alert the user to commence speaking. Id. ll 32, Figs. 1—
`
`2. The user equipment then receives and stores the short voice message. Id.
`
`Next, the user “select[s] one or more intended recipients” and initiates the
`
`transfer. Id. 11 33. The short voice message is then sent to the SVMSC,
`
`which “check[s]” and “determines the availability of the one or more
`
`intended recipients.” Id. 1H] 34, 50; see id. 11 37. The SVMSC sends the
`
`20
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2017—00223
`
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`short voice message “immediately to the intended recipients who are
`
`available.” Id. 1] 34; see id. 1[ 50. For recipients who are not available,
`
`however, the SVMSC “temporarily stor[es]” the message and “continue[s]
`
`attempting to send [the message] .
`
`.
`
`. until the[ recipients] become available
`
`or until a time out occurs.” Id. W 34, 50. Upon delivery of the short voice
`
`message, the recipient may play back the message. Id. 1] 35, Figs. 1—2.
`
`Vuori teaches that the SVM service may be carried out in a Global
`
`System for Mobile communications (“GSM”) network as shown in Figure 3,
`
`reproduced below. Id. fl 37.
`
`EASE STATION
`
`I
`
`SUBSVSTEM [355) I
`
`Figure 3 of Vuori.
`
`In Figure 3, SVMSC 50 is shown along with interworking mobile
`
`switching center (“MSC”) 52 connected by line 54 to GSM Network
`
`Subsystem 56. Id. Gateway 58 is provided for interworking between
`
`10
`
`21
`
`21
`
`

`

`IPR2017-00223
`
`Patent 8,724,622 B2
`
`SVMSC 50 and “MSC 58”5 of another GSM network 59. Id. Vuori
`
`explains that GSM Network Subsystem 56 also includes MSC 66 connected
`
`to a base station subsystem (“BSS”) 68 as well as other base station
`
`subsystems 70 for communication with a plurality of mobile stations, but
`
`that only one mobile station 72 is shown in Figure 3. Id. According to
`
`Vuori, MSC 66 is also connected to public switched telephone network
`
`(“PSTN”)/Integrated Services Digital Network (“ISDN”) network 78 for
`
`allowing mobile stations to communicate with wired telephone sets in a
`
`circuit—switched manner, as well as to a plurality of databases that may in
`
`turn be connected directly to MSC 66 or via data network 80 and operation
`
`and maintenance center 82. Id.
`
`[3. Analysis
`
`As reproduced above, independent claim 3 recites, in part, “a network
`
`interface connected to a packet-switched network” and “a messaging system
`
`communicating with a plurality of instant voice message client systems via
`
`the network interface.” Ex. 1001, 24:13—17. Independent claim 38 similarly
`
`recites “a network interface coupled to [a] client device and c

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