`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Your Honors,
`
`Caplan, Jonathan S. <JCaplan@KRAMERLEVIN.com>
`Wednesday, June 20, 2018 11:12 AM
`Trials@uspto.gov
`KL Sirius XM IPR Team; McPhie, David; Vakili, Kamran; Yorks, Ben
`IPR2018-00681 and IPR2018-00682
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests a call with the Board to address the issues identified below relating to IPR2018-
`00681 and IPR2018-00682. Counsel for Petitioner and Patent Owner have met and conferred and counsel for
`both parties are available for the requested call on Thursday, June 21 between 1pm and 5pm EST this week
`and can provide additional dates for a call next week.
`
`IPR2018-00681 – Petitioner requests permission to submit a reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response to
`address the following:
`
`1. Patent Owner incorrectly asserts that Sirius XM was required to identify Sirius XM Holdings and Liberty
`Media as real parties in interest. Sirius XM will explain through case law and company information that
`neither Sirius XM Holdings nor Liberty Media is a real party interest. In addition, Sirius XM will explain that,
`in circumstances such as these, the PTAB routinely grants requests to amend RPI disclosures without
`affecting the filing date accorded to the petition.
`
`2. Patent Owner presents a legally erroneous proposal for the construction of the preamble of the ‘997
`Patent. Sirius XM will explain the correct view of the law to be applied for the construction.
`
` IPR2018-00682 – Petitioner requests permission to submit a reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response to
`address the following:
`
`1. Patent Owner incorrectly asserts that Sirius XM was required to identify Sirius XM Holdings and Liberty
`Media as real parties in interest. Sirius XM will explain through case law and company information that
`neither Sirius XM Holdings nor Liberty Media is a real party interest. In addition, Sirius XM will explain that,
`in circumstances such as these, the PTAB routinely grants requests to amend RPI disclosures without
`affecting the filing date accorded to the petition.
`
`2. Patent Owner presents an erroneous view of Federal Circuit case law relating to applicant’s
`concessions during prosecution. Sirius XM will explain the correct view of Federal Circuit case law
`applicable to applicant’s actions during prosecution.
`
`Patent Owner has indicated that it (1) opposes the requests set forth above, and (2) in the alternative seeks
`leave to submit a sur-reply. Petitioner opposes Patent Owner’s requested sur-reply.
`
`Respectfully,
`
`Jonathan S. Caplan
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`Jonathan S. Caplan
`Partner, Co-chair, Intellectual Property
`
`1
`
`Fraunhofer Ex 2026-p 1
`Sirius v Fraunhofer
`IPR2018-00681
`
`
`
`Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP
`1177 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10036
`T 212.715.9488 M 973.420.5047 F 212.715.7718
`jcaplan@kramerlevin.com
`
`Bio
`
`This communication (including any attachments) is intended solely for the recipient(s) named above and may contain information that is
`confidential, privileged or legally protected. Any unauthorized use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received
`this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail message and delete all copies of the original communication.
`Thank you for your cooperation.
`
`2
`
`Fraunhofer Ex 2026-p 2
`Sirius v Fraunhofer
`IPR2018-00681
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
