SONOS, INC. V. IMPLICIT, LLC
`
`IPR2018-00766
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,391,791
`
`IPR2018-00767
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,252
`
`1
`
`
` Page 1 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IPR2018-00766
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,391,791
`
`IPR2018-00767
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,942,252
`
`1
`
`
` Page 1 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`SONOS ESTABLISHED UNPATENTABILITY OF EACH CLAIM
`
`Sonos Petition
`‘791 Patent
`
`Sonos Petition
`‘252 Patent
`
` Janevski anticipates the
`‘791 patent claims
`
` Janevski + any “clock
`synchronization” reference
`renders the ‘252 patent
`claims obvious
`
`Sonos ‘791 Pet., pp. 38-68; Sonos ‘252 Pet., pp. 35-64.
`
`2
`
`
` Page 2 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`SONOS’S PETITIONS ARE BASED ON EVIDENCE
`
`Dr. Chertov Declaration
`‘791 Patent
`Ex.1009
`
`Dr. Chertov Declaration
`‘252 Patent
`Ex.1009
`
` Sonos’s petitions rely on
`Dr. Chertov’s expert
`testimony regarding the
`invalidity of the patents
`
`Chertov ‘791 Dec. (Ex.1009); Chertov ‘252 Dec. (Ex.1009).
`
`3
`
`
` Page 3 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S DEFENSES FAIL
`
`Implicit’s attack on the prior art fails
` It is unsupported attorney-argument
` Prior art invalidates all claims
`
`Implicit’s swear-behind defense fails
` It fails legally
` It fails substantively
`
`Sonos Reply, pp. 1, 12, 22.
`
`4
`
`
` Page 4 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT FAILED TO REBUT SONOS’S PETITIONS WITH EVIDENCE
`
`“Elbit fails to present any evidence supporting this
`contention beyond attorney argument . . .
`
`‘[A]ttorney argument is not evidence’ and cannot
`rebut other admitted evidence.”
`
`Elbit Systems of America, LLC
`v. Thales Visionix, Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1354, 1359
`(Fed. Cir. 2018)
`
`Sonos Reply, pp. 22-23.
`
`5
`
`
` Page 5 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT CHALLENGES JANEVSKI’S DISCLOSURE OF “DEVICE TIME”
`
`Implicit POR
`‘791 Patent
`
`Implicit POR, pp. 32-33.
`
`6
`
`
` Page 6 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`JANEVSKI DISCLOSES “DEVICE TIME”
`
`Sonos Petition
`‘791 Patent
`
`Sonos Petition, p. 17.
`
`7
`
`
` Page 7 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`JANEVSKI DISCLOSES “DEVICE TIME”
`
`Each PVR has a “time count” provided by the PVR’s “video timer”:
`
`Janevski
`Ex.1007
`
`Janevski (Ex.1007) at 2:21-23, 8:39-42, Figs. 2, 4; Sonos Pet, p. 39.
`
`8
`
`
` Page 8 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`JANEVSKI DISCLOSES “DEVICE TIME”
`
`Dr. Roman Chertov
`Sonos’s Expert Witness
`
`Sonos Pet., p. 17; Chertov Dec. (Ex.1009) at ¶102.
`
`9
`
`
` Page 9 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT ARGUES THAT OUTPUT OF “VIDEO TIMER” IS NOT “DEVICE TIME”
`
`Implicit POR
`‘791 Patent
`
`Implicit POR, p. 33.
`
`10
`
`
` Page 10 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`JANEVSKI’S “VIDEO TIMER” IS A CLOCK THAT OUTPUTS “DEVICE TIME”
`
`Dr. Roman Chertov
`Sonos’s Expert Witness
`
`Janevski
`Ex.1007
`
`Chertov Dec. (Ex.1009) at ¶102; Janevski (Ex.1007) at 8:39-42, 8:53-56; Sonos Reply, p. 24.
`
`11
`
`
` Page 11 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`JANEVSKI’S “VIDEO TIMER” IS A CLOCK THAT OUTPUTS “DEVICE TIME”
`
`Webster’s New World Dictionary
`“clock”
`Ex.1023
`
`Webster’s New World Dictionary (Ex.1023); Sonos Reply, p. 24.
`
`12
`
`
` Page 12 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`JANEVSKI’S “VIDEO TIMER” IS A CLOCK THAT OUTPUTS “DEVICE TIME”
`
`Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
`“timer”
`Ex.1024
`
`Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (Ex.1024); Sonos Reply, p. 24.
`
`13
`
`
` Page 13 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`JANEVSKI’S “VIDEO TIMER” IS A CLOCK THAT OUTPUTS “DEVICE TIME”
`
`LITIGATION CONSTRUCTION
`
`IPR CONSTRUCTION
`
`“[a] time indicated by a designated clock of
`the [master/slave] device”
`
`“a time indicated by any clock of a given
`rendering device”
`
`Dr. Roman Chertov
`Sonos’s Expert Witness
`
`Sonos Pet., p. 17; Chertov Dec. (Ex.1009) at ¶102; Sonos Reply, p. 24.
`
`14
`
`
` Page 14 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT CHALLENGES JANEVSKI’S DISCLOSURE OF “TIME DOMAIN”
`
`Implicit POR
`‘791 Patent
`
`Implicit POR, p. 36.
`
`15
`
`
` Page 15 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`JANEVSKI DISCLOSES THE “TIME DOMAIN” ELEMENTS
`
`* * * *
`
`Implicit POR
`‘791 Patent
`
`Dr. Roman Chertov
`Sonos’s Expert Witness
`
`Implicit POR, pp. 37-38; Chertov Dec. (Ex.1009) at ¶107; Sonos Reply, p. 25.
`
`16
`
`
` Page 16 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`JANEVSKI DISCLOSES THE “TIME DOMAIN” ELEMENTS
`
`Sonos Petition
`‘791 Patent
`
`Janevski
`Ex.1007
`
`Sonos Pet., p. 41; Janevski (Ex.1007) at 8:65-9:34.
`
`17
`
`
` Page 17 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`OBVIOUSNESS ARGUMENTS FOR THE ‘791 PATENT CAN BE DISREGARDED
`
`The petition included an alternative obviousness ground for
`claim 1 to the extent Implicit disputed whether Janevski
`inherently disclosed the “source time domain” element
`
`Implicit did not dispute this
`
`Implicit’s “objective evidence” is deficient in any event
`
`Sonos Reply, pp. 25-26.
`
`18
`
`
` Page 18 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT DISPUTES OBVIOUSNESS OF THE ‘252 PATENT
`
`Implicit POR
`‘252 Patent
`
`Implicit POR, p. 32.
`
`19
`
`
` Page 19 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`JANEVSKI + ANY “CLOCK SYNCHRONIZATION” REFERENCE RENDERS ‘252 CLAIMS OBVIOUS
`
`Azevedo
`Ex.1010
`
`Mills
`Ex.1011
`
`Berthaud
`Ex.1012
`
`Edison
`Ex.1013
`
`Janevski
`Ex.1007
`
`Sonos Pet., pp. 35, 57.
`
`20
`
`
` Page 20 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`SONOS ESTABLISHED A MOTIVATION TO COMBINE WITH EVIDENCE
`
`Dr. Roman Chertov
`Sonos’s Expert Witness
`
`Chertov Dec. (Ex.1009) at ¶ 153-54; Sonos Reply, p. 58.
`
`21
`
`
` Page 21 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`SONOS ESTABLISHED A MOTIVATION TO COMBINE WITH EVIDENCE
`
`Dr. Roman Chertov
`Sonos’s Expert Witness
`
`Chertov Dec. (Ex.1009) at ¶¶109-129, 153-168; Sonos Reply, p. 58.
`
`22
`
`
` Page 22 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`SONOS ESTABLISHED A MOTIVATION TO COMBINE WITH EVIDENCE
`
`Janevski
`Ex.1007
`
`Sonos Pet., pp. 38-39; Janevski (Ex.1007) at 8:53-64, 13:22-23.
`
`23
`
`
` Page 23 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`SONOS ESTABLISHED A MOTIVATION TO COMBINE WITH EVIDENCE
`
`Janevski
`Ex.1007
`
`Janevski (Ex.1007) at Abstract, 3:52-57, 5:3-5; Sonos Reply, pp. 22-23.
`
`24
`
`
` Page 24 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT MISCONSTRUES LEGAL STANDARD OF OBVIOUSNESS
`
`Implicit POR
`‘252 Patent
`
`“Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the
`differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
`and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
`would have been obvious . . . to a person having ordinary skill
`in the art to which said subject matter pertains. ’”
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007)
`
`Implicit POR, p. 33; Sonos Reply, p. 21.
`
`25
`
`
` Page 25 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S “TEACHING AWAY” ARGUMENT IS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY FLAWED
`
`Implicit POR
`‘252 Patent
`
`Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier
`Recreational Prod. Inc.,
`876 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
`
`“Prior art teaches away when ‘a person of ordinary skill, upon
`reading the reference, would be discouraged from following
`the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction
`divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.’”
`
`Implicit POR, p. 33; Sonos Reply, pp. 22-23.
`
`26
`
`
` Page 26 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S “TEACHING AWAY” ARGUMENT IS LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY FLAWED
`
`Implicit POR
`‘252 Patent
`
`Janevski
`Ex.1007
`
`Implicit POR, p. 33; Janevski (Ex.1007) at 8:53-59; Sonos Reply, p. 22-23.
`
`27
`
`
` Page 27 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`EVIDENCE SHOWS HOW A POSITA WOULD HAVE APPLIED “SMOOTHING”
`
`Implicit POR
`‘252 Patent
`
`Janevski
`Ex.1007
`
`Dr. Roman Chertov Declaration
`Ex.1009
`
`Implicit POR, p. 33.
`
`28
`
`
` Page 28 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE ARGUMENTS ARE UNSUPPORTED
`
`No evidence of long-felt but unmet need
`
`No evidence that purported licenses exist or have a
`nexus with the claims
`
`No evidence that commerical success has a
`nexus with the claims
`
`Sonos Reply, pp. 24-25.
`
`29
`
`
` Page 29 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT FAILS TO ESTABLISH LONG-FELT NEED
`
`Juno Phase 0
`(Dec. 2000)
`Ex.2009
`
`Ecolochem, Inc. v. S. California Edison Co.,
`227 F.3d 1361
`(Fed. Cir. 2000)
`
`One-year time between identification of problem
`and patent solution was found to be a “shortly-felt
`requirement” rather than a “long-felt need”
`
`Juno Phase 0 (Ex.2009) at 15; Implicit POR, pp. 35-36; Sonos Reply, pp. 24-25.
`
`30
`
`
` Page 30 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S LICENSING “EVIDENCE” IS DEFICIENT
`
`Implicit POR
`‘252 Patent
`
`Edward Balassanian
`Lead Inventor & Founder
`
`Implicit POR, p. 37; Balassanian Dec. (Ex.2001) at ¶10; Sonos Reply, pp. 24-25.
`
`31
`
`
` Page 31 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT FAILS TO ESTABLISH NEXUS FOR COMMERCIAL SUCCESS
`
`Implicit POR
`‘252 Patent
`
`ABT Sys., LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co.,
`797 F.3d 1350
`(Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`“[R]eliance on commercial success is undermined
`as a matter of law by [patentee’s] failure to
`introduce evidence related to the nexus.”
`
`Implicit POR, p. 36-37; Sonos Reply, pp. 24-25.
`
`32
`
`
` Page 32 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`JANEVSKI DISCLOSES “MASTER DEVICE TIME” OF ‘252 CLAIM 2
`
`Implicit POR
`‘252 Patent
`
`Dr. Roman Chertov
`Sonos’s Expert Witness
`
`Implicit POR, p. 39; Chertov Dec. (Ex.1009) at ¶129; Sonos Pet., p. 48.
`
`33
`
`
` Page 33 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`DR. CHERTOV’S OPINIONS ON “RENDERING TIME” ARE ENTIRELY CONSISTENT
`
`Implicit Sur-Reply
`‘791 Patent
`
`Implicit Sur-Reply, p. 9.
`
`34
`
`
` Page 34 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`DR. CHERTOV’S OPINIONS ON “RENDERING TIME” ARE ENTIRELY CONSISTENT
`
`Dr. Roman Chertov
`Sonos’s Expert Witness
`
`Chertov Dec. (Ex.1022) at ¶¶ 24-25; Sonos Reply., p. 14.
`
`35
`
`
` Page 35 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`DR. CHERTOV’S OPINIONS ON “RENDERING TIME” ARE ENTIRELY CONSISTENT
`
`Dr. Roman Chertov
`Sonos’s Expert Witness
`
`Chertov Dec. (Ex.1009) at ¶¶ 69, 103; Sonos Pet., p. 39.
`
`36
`
`
` Page 36 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`DR. CHERTOV’S OPINIONS ON “RENDERING TIME” ARE ENTIRELY CONSISTENT
`
`Dr. Roman Chertov
`Sonos’s Expert Witness
`
`Implicit Sur-Reply
`‘791 Patent
`
`Chertov Dec. (Ex.1009) at ¶ 103; Implicit Sur-Reply, p. 9; Sonos Pet., p. 39.
`
`37
`
`
` Page 37 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S SWEAR BEHIND IS LEGALLY DEFECTIVE
`
`Implicit’s swear behind does not address the claimed
`subject matter
`
`Implicit’s swear behind lacks independent corroboration
`
`Implicit’s swear behind improperly relies on incorporated
`material
`
`Sonos Reply, pp. 1-12.
`
`38
`
`
` Page 38 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S SWEAR BEHIND DOES NOT ADDRESS THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
`
`“Conception is the touchstone to determining
`inventorship.”
`
`Fina Oil & Chem. Co. v. Ewen,
`123 F.3d 1466, 1473
`(Fed. Cir. 1997)
`
`To establish conception, a party must show possession of
`every feature recited in the claim, and every limitation of
`the claim must have been known to the inventor at the time
`of the alleged conception.
`
`Coleman v. Dines,
`754 F.2d 353, 359
`(Fed. Cir. 1985)
`
`Sonos Reply, p. 1.
`
`39
`
`
` Page 39 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S SWEAR BEHIND DOES NOT ADDRESS THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
`
`Balassanian states that he and Bradley “originally
`conceived of the inventions set forth in the Claims of the
`Patents and they were actually reduced to practice before
`December 11, 2001”
`
`Ex. 2001, ¶6
`
`To make this declaration, Balassanian must have had some
`understanding of what the claims of the patents mean
`
`Sonos Reply, p. 2.
`
`40
`
`
` Page 40 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S SWEAR BEHIND DOES NOT ADDRESS THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
`
`Balassanian repeatedly testified during his deposition that
`he could not, and would not, provide his understanding of
`“the inventions set forth in the Claims of the Patents”
`Ex.1019, 20:16-22:24; 26:5-16; 36:3-19; 39:18-41:12; 44:22-45:3;
`47:6-49:20; 50:11-22; 51:22-52:4; 53:1-24; 165:9-166:10
`Balassanian was asked for his understanding of the
`claimed invention, not a lawyer’s understanding
`
`Sonos Reply, p. 2.
`
`41
`
`
` Page 41 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`BALASSANIAN REFUSED TO PROVIDE HIS UNDERSTANDING OF THE CLAIMS
`
`Edward Balassanian
`Lead Inventor & Founder
`
`Q. What inventions set forth in the Claims of the Patents did you
`conceive of?
`A. The specific inventions detailed in the claims.
`Q. What are those inventions?
`A. They are what the claims state they are. And I am not going to
`construe claims for you.
`Q. Do you have any understanding of how the Claims of the Patents
`are construed?
`A. I do not purport to understand claim construction.
`Q. Have you read the claims?
`A. At some point, yes, I have.
`Q. And did you understand the claims when you read them?
`A. My understanding of the claims is simply as a layman. I do not
`have a legal perspective on the claims.
`Q. Can you tell me what that understanding is?
`A. Not without reading the claims.
`*****
`Q. Okay. Having just read Claim 1 of the 791 patent, can you tell me
`your understanding of the invention of Claim 1?
`A. Claim 1 is, specifically, what Claim 1 says. And for me to say
`anymore than that would mean I’m construing what it means. And I
`am not going to do that. I am not a lawyer.
`Balassanian Dep., Ex. 1019 at 47:6-48:24; Sonos Reply, pp. 2-3.
`
`42
`
`
` Page 42 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`BALASSANIAN IMPROPERLY CONNECTED CONCEPTION TO SPECIFICATION
`
`Edward Balassanian
`Lead Inventor & Founder
`
`Q. And so when you said: "According to the invention that Mr.
`Bradley and I conceived of earlier in 2001.” Are you referring
`to the claims of the 791 and the 252 patents?
`A. No, I'm referring to the general concept of synchronizing audio
`and video content.
`Q. So, anytime throughout this declaration when you’re testifying
`that tests and demos synchronize content according to the
`invention, am I correct in saying that you are not referring to
`the claims in the invention?
`A. In this particular sentence, I am saying that the demonstration
`synchronized content according to the invention in my references
`in regards to the concept of synchronizing multimedia content in
`the network. I am not speaking to the invention as claimed in
`the patent or any other references to invention in here.
`Unless
`you want to specifically call them out and I can tell you what I
`think I meant by them.
`
`Balassanian Dep., Ex. 1019 at 143:20-144:14; Sonos Reply, p. 3.
`
`43
`
`
` Page 43 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S SWEAR BEHIND DOES NOT ADDRESS THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
`
`Unable to formulate an understanding of “the inventions set
`forth in the Claims of the Patents,” Balassanian cannot
`competently testify regarding any conception of the
`claimed inventions of the patents at issue, let alone when
`such conception occurred
`
`For this reason alone, the Board should reject Implicit’s
`swear behind
`
`Sonos Reply, p. 3.
`
`44
`
`
` Page 44 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S SWEAR BEHIND IS LEGALLY DEFECTIVE
`
`Implicit’s swear behind does not address the claimed
`subject matter
`
`Implicit’s swear behind lacks independent corroboration
`
`Implicit’s swear behind improperly relies on incorporated
`material
`
`Sonos Reply, pp. 1-12.
`
`45
`
`
` Page 45 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S SWEAR BEHIND LACKS INDEPENDENT CORROBORATION
`
`It is well established that when a party seeks to
`prove conception through an inventor’s testimony,
`the party must proffer evidence, “in addition to [the
`inventor’s] own statements and documents,”
`corroborating the inventor’s testimony.
`
`Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc.,
`79 F.3d 1572, 1577
`(Fed. Cir. 1996)
`
`Sonos Reply, p. 5
`
`46
`
`
` Page 46 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S SWEAR BEHIND LACKS INDEPENDENT CORROBORATION
`
`The requirement of independent corroboration exists
`to prevent an inventor from “describ[ing] his actions
`in an unjustifiably self-serving manner.”
`
`Chen v. Bouchard,
`347 F.3d 1299, 1309
`(Fed. Cir. 2003)
`
`“Even the most credible inventor testimony is a
`fortiori required to be corroborated by independent
`evidence.”
`
`Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.,
`437 F.3d 1157, 1171-72
`(Fed. Cir. 2006)
`
`Sonos Reply, p. 5
`
`47
`
`
` Page 47 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S SWEAR BEHIND LACKS INDEPENDENT CORROBORATION
`
`The sufficiency of the proffered corroboration is
`determined by a “rule of reason” analysis.
`
`In re NTP, Inc.,
`654 F.3d 1279, 1291
`(Fed. Cir. 2011)
`
`Cooper v. Goldfarb,
`154 F.3d 1321, 1330
`(Fed. Cir. 1998)
`
`But, even under the “rule of reason” analysis, the
`“evidence of corroboration must not depend solely
`on the inventor himself.”
`
`Sonos Reply, pp. 5-6.
`
`48
`
`
` Page 48 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S SWEAR BEHIND LACKS INDEPENDENT CORROBORATION
`
`Implicit’s swear behind relies exclusively on the declaration
`and documents of inventor Balassanian, who is also
`Implicit’s founder, sole member, and manager
`
`Ex. 2001, ¶¶2-6
`
`Without any independent corroboration, the Board should
`reject Implicit’s swear behind
`
`Sonos Reply, p. 5.
`
`49
`
`
` Page 49 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S SWEAR BEHIND IS NEARLY IDENTICAL TO THE ONE REJECTED IN APATOR
`
`FACTS IN APATOR
`
`FACTS HERE
`
`Patent owner attempted to swear eighteen days behind prior art’s
`filing date.
`
`Patent owner has attempted to swear seven days behind prior art’s
`filing date.
`
`Patent owner proffered an inventor declaration in support of its
`swear behind.
`
`Patent owner has proffered an inventor declaration in support of its
`swear behind.
`
`In his declaration, the inventor cited to several different documents,
`such as emails, a presentation, an image file, and numerous
`drawings, related to his invention.
`
`In his declaration, the inventor has cited to several different
`documents, such as video file, internal literature, and certain test
`packages, related to his invention.
`
`Patent owner attempted to corroborate inventor testimony with
`documents, but the documents only provide corroboration with
`help from the inventor’s testimony.
`
`Patent owner has attempted to corroborate inventor testimony with
`documents, but the documents only provide corroboration with
`help from the inventor’s testimony.
`
`Inventor’s declaration and documents were not independently
`corroborated.
`
`Inventor’s declaration and documents have not been independently
`corroborated.
`
`Apator Miitors ApS v. Kamstrup A/S, 887 F.3d 1293, 1294-97 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Sonos Reply, pp. 6-8.
`
`50
`
`
` Page 50 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S SWEAR BEHIND LACKS INDEPENDENT CORROBORATION
`
` With respect to the source code written by Guy Carpenter, Implicit
`presents no evidence (other than Balassanian’s uncorroborated
`testimony) that the inventors communicated the invention to
`Carpenter
`
`Ex. 2019, lns. 23-25 (“Owner: Guy Carpenter”); Ex.2017 (same); Ex.2020 (same).
`
`The record is devoid of evidence that
`Carpenter’s work inured to the benefit of
`the inventors and thus the Board should not
`rely on the code for conception or RTP.
`
`KAYAK Software Corp. v. IBM Corp.,
`IPR2016–00608, 2017WL3425957
`(P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 2017)
`
`Sonos Reply, p. 9.
`
`51
`
`
` Page 51 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S SWEAR BEHIND LACKS INDEPENDENT CORROBORATION
`
` As an expert hired by Implicit for this IPR to analyze source code
`and compare it to the Challenged Claims, Dr. Hashmi cannot
`corroborate Balassanian’s invention testimony
`
`Ex. 2080, ¶¶1-3
`
`Effective corroborative testimony must be based
`on the personal observations of an independent
`witness who recognized and appreciated the
`claimed invention at the time the work was
`done.
`
`Tavory v. NTP, Inc.,
`297 F. App’x 976, 979
`(Fed. Cir. 2008)
`Weaver v. Houchin,
`467 F. App’x 878, 881
`(Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`Sonos Reply, p. 10.
`
`52
`
`
` Page 52 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S SWEAR BEHIND IS LEGALLY DEFECTIVE
`
`Implicit’s swear behind does not address the claimed
`subject matter
`
`Implicit’s swear behind lacks independent corroboration
`
`Implicit’s swear behind improperly relies on incorporated
`material
`
`Sonos Reply, pp. 1-12.
`
`53
`
`
` Page 53 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S SWEAR BEHIND IMPROPERLY RELIES ON INCORPORATED MATERIAL
`
`ZTE (USA), Inc. v. Elec. and Telecomm. Research Inst.,
`IPR2015-00028, Paper 12 at 7
`(P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2015)
`
`“A brief must make all arguments
`accessible to the judges, rather than
`ask them to play archeologist with the
`record.”
`
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Tech., LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 at 9
`(P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2014)
`IBG LLC v. Trading Tech., Inc.,
`CBM2016-00054, Paper 36 at 3-4
`(P.T.A.B. Apr. 7, 2017)
`
`When a party fails to adequately explain its
`reasoning in its principal brief, and instead
`merely cites to a declaration or claim chart
`exhibit, the Board routinely finds an improper
`incorporation by reference.
`
`Sonos Reply, pp. 10-11.
`
`54
`
`
` Page 54 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S SWEAR BEHIND IMPROPERLY RELIES ON INCORPORATED MATERIAL
`
`Here, Implicit made no attempt in its POR to tie its source
`code to the actual limitations of the Challenged Claims.
` Instead, Implicit defers to its expert declaration (Ex. 2080) and
`accompanying claim chart (Ex. 2081)
`
`See POR at pp. 15, 25, 28-31
`
`As such, Implicit has improperly incorporated these
`arguments by reference into its POR in contravention of 37
`C.F.R. §§42.6(a)(3), §42.24(b)(2)
`
`Sonos Reply, p. 11.
`
`55
`
`
` Page 55 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S SWEAR BEHIND FAILS SUBSTANTIVELY
`
`The code fails to synchronize between a master and a
`slave
`
`The code fails to meet “rendering time”
`
`Sonos Reply, pp. 13, 15.
`
`56
`
`
` Page 56 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`THE ‘791 CLAIMS REQUIRE SYNCHRONIZING BETWEEN MASTER AND SLAVE
`
`‘791 Patent (Ex.1001) at cls. 1, 16, 23; Sonos Reply, pp. 15-16.
`
`57
`
`
` Page 57 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`THE ‘791 CLAIMS REQUIRE SYNCHRONIZING BETWEEN MASTER AND SLAVE
`
`Joint Claim Construction Chart
`Ex. 2010
`
`Joint Claim Const. Chart (Ex.2010) at 2; Sonos Reply, p. 16.
`
`58
`
`
` Page 58 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`THE ‘252 CLAIMS REQUIRE SYNCHRONIZING BETWEEN MASTER AND SLAVE
`
`‘252 Patent
`
`‘252 Patent (Ex.1001) at cls. 1, 11; Sonos Reply, p. 15.
`
`59
`
`
` Page 59 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`INTENDED PURPOSE IS SYNCHRONIZING BETWEEN MASTER AND SLAVE
`
`Edward Balassanian
`Lead Inventor & Founder
`
`Balassanian Dec. (Ex.2001) at ¶¶ 47, 56, 68; Sonos Reply, p. 17.
`
`60
`
`
` Page 60 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S CODE FAILS TO SYNCHRONIZE BETWEEN MASTER AND SLAVE
`
`Dr. Roman Chertov
`Sonos’s Expert Witness
`
`Chertov Dec. (Ex.1022) ¶60; Sonos Reply, p. 17.
`
`61
`
`
` Page 61 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S CODE FAILS TO SYNCHRONIZE BETWEEN MASTER AND SLAVE
`
`pcmserveraudio.rule
`Ex. 2065
`
`pcmserveraudio.rule (Ex.2065); Sonos Reply, p. 18.
`
`62
`
`
` Page 62 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S CODE FAILS TO SYNCHRONIZE BETWEEN MASTER AND SLAVE
`
`Dr. Roman Chertov
`Sonos’s Expert Witness
`
`Chertov Dec. (Ex.1022) ¶¶ 65, 71; Sonos Reply, p. 18.
`
`63
`
`
` Page 63 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S CODE FAILS TO SYNCHRONIZE BETWEEN MASTER AND SLAVE
`
`Chertov Dec. (Ex.1022) ¶¶72-74; Sonos Reply, pp. 18-20.
`
`64
`
`
` Page 64 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S GOAL WAS SYNCHRONIZING BETWEEN SLAVES
`
`Strings Whitepaper
`Ex. 2021
`
`Strings Whitepaper (Ex.2021) (annotations added); Sonos Reply, p.21.
`
`65
`
`
` Page 65 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S SUR-REPLY ON “SYNCHRONIZATION”
`
`Implicit Sur-Reply
`‘791 Patent
`
`Implicit Sur-Reply, p. 16.
`
`66
`
`
` Page 66 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S SUR-REPLY ON “SYNCHRONIZATION”
`
`Implicit Sur-Reply
`‘791 Patent
`
`Implicit Sur-Reply, p. 18.
`
`67
`
`
` Page 67 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S SUR-REPLY ON “SYNCHRONIZATION”
`
`Implicit Sur-Reply
`‘791 Patent
`
`Implicit Sur-Reply, p. 19.
`
`68
`
`
` Page 68 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S SWEAR BEHIND FAILS SUBSTANTIVELY
`
`The code fails to synchronize between a master and a
`slave
`
`The code fails to meet “rendering time”
`
`Sonos Reply, pp. 13, 15.
`
`69
`
`
` Page 69 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S CODE FAILS TO MEET “RENDERING TIME” LIMITATIONS
`
`‘791 Patent
`
`‘791 Patent (Ex.1001) at 2:18-19; Sonos Reply, p. 13.
`
`70
`
`
` Page 70 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S CODE FAILS TO MEET “RENDERING TIME” LIMITATIONS
`
`Dr. Atif Hashmi
`Implicit’s Expert Witness
`
`Q.
`A.
`
`So what construction of rendering time did you use?
`So I used the construction that is on page 28 of
`Sonos Exhibit 1009 for the 791 patent, which
`states, “A time measure of the amount of content
`that has already been rendered by a given rendering
`device.”
`
`Hashmi Dep. (Ex.1020) at 80:13-22 (objs. omitted);Sonos Reply, p. 13.
`Hashmi Dec. (Ex.2080) at ¶16; Implicit Sur-Reply, p. 15.
`
`71
`
`
` Page 71 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S CODE FAILS TO MEET “RENDERING TIME” LIMITATIONS
`
`Dr. Atif Hashmi
`‘791 Claim Chart
`Ex.2081
`
`Ex.2081, pp. 2, 5, 11, 17.
`
`72
`
`
` Page 72 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S CODE FAILS TO MEET “RENDERING TIME” LIMITATIONS
`
`Dr. Chertov Reply Declaration
`Ex.1022
`
`Chertov Reply Dec. (Ex.1022) at ¶29; Sonos Reply, p. 14.
`
`73
`
`
` Page 73 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S “RENDERING TIME” ALLEGATIONS ARE A MOVING TARGET
`
`Implicit Sur-Reply
`‘791 Patent
`
`Implicit Sur-Reply, p. 9, 12.
`
`74
`
`
` Page 74 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT PATENT OVERVIEW
`
`‘791 Patent
`‘252 Patent
`
`‘252 Patent (Ex.1001) at 1:40-53, Fig. 1; Sonos Pet., pp. 7-15.
`
`75
`
`
` Page 75 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT PATENT OVERVIEW
`
`‘791 Patent
`‘252 Patent
`
`‘252 Patent (Ex.1001) at 2:19-23, Fig. 1; Sonos Pet., pp. 7-15.
`
`76
`
`
` Page 76 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT PATENT OVERVIEW
`
`‘791 Patent
`‘252 Patent
`
`‘252 Patent (Ex.1001) at 3:34-53, 47, Fig. 2; Sonos Pet., pp. 7-15.
`
`77
`
`
` Page 77 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT PATENT OVERVIEW
`
`‘791 Patent
`‘252 Patent
`
`‘252 Patent (Ex.1001) at 7:16-19, Fig. 2; Sonos Pet., pp. 7-15.
`
`78
`
`
` Page 78 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT PATENT OVERVIEW
`
`‘791 Patent
`‘252 Patent
`
`‘252 Patent (Ex.1001) at 2:36-38, 4:25-28, 4:32-36, Fig. 1; Sonos Pet., pp. 7-15.
`
`79
`
`
` Page 79 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT PATENT OVERVIEW
`
`‘791 Patent
`‘252 Patent
`
`‘252 Patent (Ex.1001) at 4:38-40, Fig. 1; Sonos Pet., pp. 7-15.
`
`80
`
`
` Page 80 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`A “TIME DOMAIN” IS NOT LIMITED TO A “DEVICE CLOCK”
`
`Implicit POR
`‘791 Patent
`
`‘791 Patent
`Ex.1001
`
`Implicit POR, p. 37; ‘791 Pat. (Ex.1001) at 1:44-47; Sonos Reply, p. 24-25.
`
`81
`
`
` Page 81 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`JANEVSKI ANTICPATES CHALLENGED CLAIM 1
`
`‘791 Patent
`
`Sonos Pet., pp. 55-64.
`
`82
`
`
` Page 82 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`JANEVSKI ANTICIPATES CHALLENGED CLAIM 16
`
`‘791 Patent
`
`‘791 Patent (Ex.1001) at cl. 16; Sonos Pet., pp. 47-54.
`
`83
`
`
` Page 83 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`JANEVSKI ANTICIPATES CHALLENGED CLAIM 23
`
`‘791 Patent
`
`‘791 Patent (Ex.1001) at cl. 23; Sonos Pet., pp. 39-47.
`
`84
`
`
` Page 84 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`JANEVSKI ANTICIPATES CHALLENGED CLAIM 23
`
`Janevski
`Ex.1007
`
`Janevski (Ex.1007) at 1:7-11, 6:45-51, Fig. 1; Sonos Pet., p. 39.
`
`85
`
`
` Page 85 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`JANEVSKI ANTICIPATES CHALLENGED CLAIM 23
`
`Each PVR keeps track of “the time or frame into the program”:
`
`Janevski
`Ex.1007
`
`Janevski (Ex.1007) at 1:65-2:5, 7:39-47; Sonos Pet., p. 39.
`
`86
`
`
` Page 86 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`JANEVSKI ANTICIPATES CHALLENGED CLAIM 23
`
`Janevski
`Ex.1007
`
`Janevski (Ex.1007) at 6:4-7, 6:16-23, Fig. 1; Sonos Pet., p. 39.
`
`87
`
`
` Page 87 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`JANEVSKI ANTICIPATES CHALLENGED CLAIM 23
`
`Janevski
`Ex.1007
`
`Janevski (Ex.1007) at 8:53-62, 8:39-42, 8:65-9:4, Fig. 4; Sonos Pet., p. 39.
`
`88
`
`
` Page 88 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`JANEVSKI + ANY “CLOCK SYNCHRONIZATION” REFERENCE RENDERS ‘252 CLAIMS OBVIOUS
`
`‘252 Patent (Ex.1001) at cls. 1, 11; Sonos Reply, p. 15.
`
`89
`
`
` Page 89 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`JANEVSKI + ANY “CLOCK SYNCHRONIZATION” REFERENCE RENDERS ‘252 CLAIMS OBVIOUS
`
`Azevedo
`Ex.1010
`
`Azevedo (Ex.1010), p. 4; Sonos Pet., pp. 44.
`
`90
`
`
` Page 90 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`JANEVSKI + ANY “CLOCK SYNCHRONIZATION” REFERENCE RENDERS ‘252 CLAIMS OBVIOUS
`
`Mills
`Ex.1011
`
`Mills (Ex.1011) p.36; Sonos Pet., p. 59.
`
`91
`
`
` Page 91 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`JANEVSKI + ANY “CLOCK SYNCHRONIZATION” REFERENCE RENDERS ‘252 CLAIMS OBVIOUS
`
`Berthaud
`Ex.1012
`
`Berthaud (Ex.1012) at pp. 1-2; Sonos Pet., p. 60.
`
`92
`
`
` Page 92 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`JANEVSKI + ANY “CLOCK SYNCHRONIZATION” REFERENCE RENDERS ‘252 CLAIMS OBVIOUS
`
`Edison
`Ex.1013
`
`Edison (Ex.1013) at 1:8-20, 4:16-22, 4:23-35; Sonos Pet., pp. 60-63.
`
`93
`
`
` Page 93 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S CODE FAILS TO SYNCHRONIZE BETWEEN MASTER AND SLAVE
`
`pcmserveraudio.rule
`Ex. 2065
`
`pcmserveraudio.rule (Ex.2065); Sonos Reply, p. 18.
`
`94
`
`
` Page 94 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S CODE FAILS TO SYNCHRONIZE BETWEEN MASTER AND SLAVE
`
`pcmserveraudio.rule (Ex.2065);
`Sonos Reply, p. 18.
`
`Dr. Roman Chertov
`Sonos’s Expert Witness
`
`Chertov Dec. (Ex.1022) ¶63; Sonos Reply, p. 18.
`
`95
`
`
` Page 95 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S CODE FAILS TO SYNCHRONIZE BETWEEN MASTER AND SLAVE
`
`Dr. Roman Chertov
`Sonos’s Expert Witness
`
`pcmserveraudio.rule (Ex.2065);
`Sonos Reply, p. 18.
`
`Chertov Dec. (Ex.1022) ¶64; Sonos Reply, p. 18.
`
`96
`
`
` Page 96 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`DR. HASHMI DID NOT RUN THE CODE TO SHOW OTHERWISE
`
`Dr. Atif Hashmi
`Implicit’s Expert Witness
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Can you point me to somewhere in your
`declaration, Exhibit 2080, where you offer
`an opinion regarding the reduction to
`practice?
`I don't offer an opinion on reduction to
`practice.
`
`Hashmi Dep. (Ex.1020) at 19:10-15;
`Sonos Reply, p. 12.
`
`97
`
`
` Page 97 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`DR. HASHMI DID NOT RUN THE CODE TO SHOW OTHERWISE
`
`Dr. Atif Hashmi
`Implicit’s Expert Witness
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A.
`
`Do you have an opinion on whether the
`inventions of the 791 and 252 patents were
`reduced to practice?
`I did not run the source code.
`
`Hashmi Dep. (Ex.1020) at 17:17-22 (objs. omitted) ;
`Sonos Reply, p. 12.
`
`[D]o you know for certain that the source
`code could be compiled and run
`successfully?
`I did not compile the code. I did not run
`the code. I don't have an opinion on that.
`
`Hashmi Dep. (Ex.1020) at 22:2-6 ;
`Sonos Reply, p. 12.
`
`98
`
`
` Page 98 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S CODE FAILS TO MEET “RENDERING TIME” LIMITATIONS
`
`Hashmi Claim Chart (Ex.2081) at 2;
`Sonos Reply, p. 13.
`
`Dr. Roman Chertov
`Sonos’s Expert Witness
`
`Chertov Dec. (Ex.1022) at ¶31; Sonos Reply, p. 14.
`
`99
`
`
` Page 99 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S CODE FAILS TO MEET “RENDERING TIME” LIMITATIONS
`
`avidemux.c (Ex.2043);
`Chertov Dec. (Ex.1022) ¶31.
`
`sampleclock.c (Ex.2086);
`Chertov Dec. (Ex.1022) ¶31.
`
`* * *
`
`Hashmi Claim Chart (Ex.2081) at 2;
`Sonos Reply, p. 13.
`
`speaker.c (Ex.2051);
`Chertov Dec. (Ex.1022) ¶31.
`
`100
`
`
` Page 100 of 103
`
`IPR2018-00766, -00767 EXHIBIT 1028
`
`
`
`IMPLICIT’S CODE FAILS TO MEET “RENDERING TIME” LIMITATI
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
