`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