Bradium Exhibit 2015
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 1 of 10
`
`" 8/23/2013
`Unified Patents Inc. Mail - Docket Report for June 17, 2015
`U !fiedPatents
`Jonathan Stroud <jonathan@unifiedpatents. com>
`Docket Report for June 17, 2015
`1 message
`docketreport@docketnavigator. com <docketreport@docketnavigator. com>
`Reply-To: docketreport@docketnavigator.
`com
`To: Jonathan Stroud <Jonathan@unifiedpatents.com>
`Patent Docket Report far June 17, 2015. To avoid missing an Issue add aockelrc-portaaociielFiavigaloi uom to your
`address book.
`e Report
`Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 7:30 AM
`Courtesy of
`mfi'edPa . ents
`U. S, District Courts
`10 new cases
`1 award
`20 injunctions
`26daim terms construed
`9 determinations
`12 rulings
`June 17, 2015
`Computer Voice Control Patent Claims Invalid Under 35 U. S. C. § 101
`The-Murt..gra"ted defenda"t'.s .moti°" for judgment on the pleadings that four daims of plaintiffs patent for voice control of a comouler
`wereimalid
`for
`lack
`of
`patentabte
`subject
`matter
`and found the
`dajms
`were
`direded
`to
`an
`abstract
`idea.
`The
`[patent-rn-suitl7es'Srites a
`method and apparatus that 'uses oral input, natural language based rules, assodabve search and tabular data'struciures'toproude"ai?
`easLtyleaTedm_eans forc°"fr°"inga digital compute'--' . . . [Plaintiff] also emphasizes that the patent is directed to using'the'human mce
`S??"!.?1 L?.'Y'.put?r ^s!"g natural language.. . . The present patent is like that in [UNramercial, Inc. v. Hulu^LLC,'772"?. 3'd~7'69.'7l4"
`(Fed. Cir. 2014)] in that it is directed to an abstraction; its disclosure of the useofa'human voice to controTa'camiiuter has'no'ta'n'nit
`concrete form. Like UHramerdal, the ddms contain some limitations, such as the use of a microphone and word recognii
`these are not novel invertions.... The [paterTt-in-suH:] does not simply perform a pre-existing business pradice'ontheintemet'
`does it solve a business problem created by internet commerce. "
`~
`'
`' . ----...-...-,
`nothing to report
`Patent Trial & Appeal Board
`10 new petitions
`15 daim tsrms construed
`11 institution rulings
`5 rulings
`Potter Voice Technologies LLC, v.^ipple. Inc., et al, 4-13-CT-01710 (CAND June 11, 2015, Order) (Wilken, J.)
`Docket sheet fil Read order B
`Delivered 10 Jonathan Straud under an iridjvidual licanse and subject to restrictions on d'ssemination. Ptgase review Tenns of Use before Forwarding,
`U. S. DISTRICT COURTS
`New cases
`Shane Chen v. Soibatian Corporation, 2-15-cv-04562 (CACD)
`District Judge Percy Anderson
`Magistrate Judge Jean P. RosenMuth
`daim
`Infringement
`Soibatian Corporation
`no counsel of record
`Shane Chen
`plaintiff
`Paul Nathan Tauger
`Devon J Zastrow Newman
`judges
`defendant
`Apogee Law Group
`Schwabe Williamson & WysM
`defendant
`patent
`8738278
`Two-wheel, setf-balandng vehicle with independently movable foot placement sections
`80 Percent Arms Inc. v. Modulus Designs, Inc., 8-1 S-cv-00953 (CACD)
`daim
`Infnngement
`Modulus Designs, Inc.
`no counsel of record
`80 Percent Anns Inc.
`plaintiff
`Shunsuke S Sumitani
`Stetina Brunda Garred & Brucker
`William J Bmcker
`Stetina Brunda Garred & Brucker
`patent
`9009986
`Jig for firearm lower receiver manufacture
`Endeavor MeshTech, Inc. v. FreeVteve Technologies, Inc., 1-15-cv-01276 (COD)
`judge
`Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
`daim
`Infringement
`FreeWave Technologies, Inc.
`no counsel of record
`Endeavor MeshTech, Inc.
`Jacqueline Knapp Burt
`Heninger Gamson Davis
`James F McDonough, III
`Heninger Garrison Davis
`F Brittin Clayton, III
`Ryley Cariock & ApplewhHe
`7379981
`Wireless communication enabled meter and network
`8700749
`Wireless communication enabled meter and network
`B8S5019
`Wireless communication enabled meter and network
`defendant
`plairtiff
`patents
`Medigus Ltd. v. EndoChoice, Inc., 1-15-cv-00505 (DED)
`daim
`Infringement
`EndoChoice. Inc.
`no counsel of record
`plaintiff_ _ Medigus Ltd.
`defendant
`EXHIBIT
`T^9'^/?
`// / *y / L^
`Planet Dfi'pos, LLC
`.
`Med[ays_Ltd,_
`ORDER UflATERIAL
`June
`16, 2015 E?
`s'
`ff
`Ip
`5/27/2014l§rir1
`June 16, 2015 I?
`m
`^
`Ip
`4/21/2015'Bff
`June 16, 20151?
`fi"
`m
`ff
`I?
`5/27/2008 IS I?
`4/15/2014Bl?
`10/7/2014
`Bfi1
`June 16, 2015 I?
`a
`Ip
`UP-000001
`[p
`https://muI. google. com/mffll/u/0/?m=2<Mk=5ddl963617&jsver=^^739CjoDVc. en. <Stebl=gmail_fe_180819. 13_p2&view=pt&q=bradium&qs=tme&search=query&...
`1/10
`

`

`Bradium Exhibit 2015
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 2 of 10
`
`8/23/2018
`patent
`Andrew C Mayo
`John G Day
`Lauren E Maguire
`Howard N Wisnia
`6997871
`Multiple view endoscopes
`Unified Patents Inc. Mail - Docket Report for June 17, 2015
`Ashby & Geddes
`Ashby & Geddes
`Ashby & Geddes
`Mintz Levin Cohn Ferns Glovsky & Popeo
`Unikey Technologies, Inc. v. AssaAbloy Hospitality Inc. et al, 6-15-cv-00986 (FLMD)
`Distrid Judge John Antoon, II
`Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly
`Infringement
`Assa Abloy Hospitality Inc.
`HID Global Corporation
`Starwood Hotels & Resorts Wbridwide, Inc.
`no counsel of record
`UniKsy Technologies, Inc.
`Brendan S Cox
`Proskauer Rose
`Kimberiy A Mottley
`Proskauer Rose
`Matthew Triggs
`Proskauer Rose
`Steven M Bauer
`Proskauer Rose
`9057210
`Wireless access control system and related methods
`judges
`daim
`defendants
`plaintiff
`patent
`SnowCast Solutions LLC d/b/a Nobel Weather Assodates v. Endurance Spedatty Holdings Ltd., 1-15-cv-05305 (ILND)
`judge
`District Judge Manish S. Shah
`daim
`Infringement
`Endurance Spedalty Holdings Ltd.
`no counsel of record
`SnowCast Solutions LLC d/b/a Nobel Weather Assodates
`AlainVilleneuve
`Vedder Price
`Angela J Bufalino
`Vedder Price
`Michael J Vteters
`Vedder Price
`8543427
`Weather risk management system
`8924242
`Weather risk management system
`2/14/200613 f5I
`June 16, 2015 i6I
`i?
`fi*
`6"
`6/16/2015 B ff
`June 16, 2015 I
`defendant
`plaintiff
`patents
`judges
`Penguin Ucensing, LLC v. Mansfield Plumbing Products, LLC et al, 5-15-cv-12175 (MIED)
`District Judge John Corbett O'Meara
`Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
`daim
`Infringement
`Mansfield Plumbing Products, LLC
`defendants Menard, Inc.
`no counsel of record
`Penguin Licensing, LLC
`plaintiff
`Christopher Vtenli Wen
`Thomas A Hallin
`patent
`9057187
`Anti-overflow toilet and method
`Fishman Stewart Yamaguchi
`Rshman Stewart Yamaguchi
`Wireless Environment, LLCv. Sunvalleytek International, Inc. etal, 1-15-CV-01215 (OHND)
`daim
`Infringement
`Hootoo. com Inc. (d/b/a Taotronics)
`defendants Sunvallsytek International, Inc.
`no counsel of record
`Wireless Environment, LLC
`Amelia J Workman-Farago
`plaintiff
`JulieACrocker
`Michael H Diamant
`Philip R Bautista
`patent
`D729956
`LED light bulb
`Taft Stettinius & Hollister
`Taft Stettinius & Hollister
`Taft Stettinius & Hollister
`Taft Stettinius & Hollister
`Fellowship Rltering Technologies, LLC v. Grade America, Inc., 2-15-cv-01045 CTXED)
`claim
`defendant
`plaintiff
`Infringement
`Grade America, Inc.
`no counsel of record
`Fellowship Filtering Technologies, LLC
`D Jeffrey Rambin
`Elizabeth LDeRieux
`Brian J Dunne
`Daniel P Hipskind
`Dorian S Berger
`Matt Olavi
`I?
`m
`d"
`ff
`9/24/2013 D (S'
`12/30/2014l
`©i51
`June 16, 2015 E?
`I?
`ff
`m
`I?
`6/16/2015®
`fil
`June 16, 2015 ff
`m
`ff
`ff
`ff
`5/19/2015 QE?
`June 16, 2015 ff
`m
`I?
`Capshaw DeRieux
`Capshaw DeRieux
`Olavi Dunne
`Olavi Dunne
`Olavi Dunne
`Olavi Dunne
`patent
`5884282
`Automated collaborative filtering system
`defendant
`3/16/1999 B^
`June 16, 2015 E?
`13
`s
`Creswell Holdings LLC v. Lenovo (US) Inc., 4-1 S-cv-00407 (TXED)
`dam
`Infringement
`Lenovo (US) Inc.
`no counsel of record
`plaintiff
`Creswell Holdings LLC
`E?
`Hao Ni
`Ni Wang & Massand
`Meal GMassand_ _ __ _ _ ___ _Nj Wang & Massand
`PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL °
`UP-000002
`https://mail. google. com/maiI/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5ddl963617&jsver=CH739CjoDVc.
`en. &cbl=gmail_fe_180819. 13_p2&view=pt&q=bradium&qs=true&seaich=query&...
`2/10
`

`

`Bradium Exhibit 2015
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 3 of 10
`
`' 8/23/201-8
`patents
`Stevenson Moore V
`Timothy Mfang
`6194677
`Structure of keyswitch
`6318695
`Notebook computer key
`6340303
`Computer keyswrtch
`Unified Patents Inc. Mail - Docket Report for June 17, 2015
`Ni Vteng & Massand
`NiVteng&Massand
`2/27/2001 ® ff
`11/20/2001 ® ff
`1/22/2002®!?
`U. S. DISTRICT COURTS
`Significant activity
`Sunwortd Industrial Co. Ltd. v. DYE Precision, Inc., 2-14-CV-07654 (CACD)
`Distrid Judge Ronald S. W. Lew
`Injunctions granted
`against
`in favor of
`DYE Precision, Inc.
`Sunworid Industrial Co. Ltd.
`Patent determinations
`patent
`title
`8720427 Paintball gun having interned pressure regulator
`RE44328 Pairrtball gun having internal pressure regulator
`Subotincjc et al v. Propack Processing & Packaging Systems Inc. et al, 8-13-cv-00066 (CACD)
`District Judge Andrew J. GuiNord
`Injunctions granted
`against
`in favor of
`Chris Follows
`Milos Misha Subotincic
`Propack Processing & Packaging Systems Inc.
`Milos Misha Subotindc
`Chris Follows
`Subo Automation Inc.
`Propack Processing & Packaging Systems Inc.
`Subo Automation Inc.
`Altergan USA Inc. et al v. Medids Aesthetics, Inc. et al. 8-13-cv-01436 (CACD)
`District Judge Andrew J. Guilford
`Injunctions granted
`against
`Galderma Laboratories, LP
`Medicis Aesthetics, Inc.
`Medids Pharmaceutical Corporation
`Weant Pharmaceuticals International
`Valeant PharmaceuUcals International, Inc.
`Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America, LLC
`Galderma Laboratories, LP
`Medids Aesthetics, Inc.
`Medids Pharmaceutical Corporation
`VNeant Pharmaceuticals International
`Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc.
`Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America, LLC
`6/15/2015 fil
`infevorof
`AIIeigan Industrie, SAS
`Allergan Industrie, SAS
`Allergan Industrie, SAS
`Alteigan Industrie, SAS
`Altergan Indusbie, SAS
`Allergan Industrie, SAS
`Alleigan USA, Inc.
`Altengan USA, Inc.
`Allergan USA, Inc.
`Altergan USA, Inc.
`Allergan USA, Inc.
`Alleigan USA, Inc.
`for
`Injunction
`determinations
`Infringed
`Infringed
`for
`Injunction
`Injunction
`Injunction
`Injunction
`for
`Injunction
`Injunction
`Injunction
`Injunction
`Injunction
`Injunction
`InjuncBon
`Injunction
`Injunction
`Injunction
`Injunction
`Injunction
`6/12/2015 fil
`s
`I?
`6/12/2015
`ff
`ff
`I
`Sillage, LLC v Kenrose Perfumes, Inc. d/b/a Europerfumes et al, 8-14-cv-02043 (CACD)
`District Judge Christina A. Snyder
`6/9/2015 i?
`Motion to Sever
`Granted
`The court granted defendants' mohon to sever and stay plaintiffs daims against two retailer defendants because the defendants were
`AIA Joinder Rule (35 USC direct competitors. 'TD]ired competitors at the same level of commeroe cannot be property joined as patent infrin
`§ 299)
`299. PlaintHT does not contest that [the retailers] are direct competitors at the same level of'commerce, and does not allege a consBiracv:'
`consequently, the retail defendants are misjoined and must be severed. " (page 7)
`- --. -r.. -,,
`Granted
`The court granted defendants' motion to sever and stay plaintiffs daims against the retailer defendants pending resolution of the daims
`against the manufacturer because the retailers agreed to be bound by the'results of the manufacturer's litigation. "Although the custo'mer sl3
`excepSon does not erectly appty^the Court condudes that staying the severed acUons against the retail defendants wourdbethemost-efflcient
`and fair course of action.. .. White the Court is not persuaded that staying litigation against a downstream defendant will
`effident couree the Court finds itto be Justified in this case; largely because each retail defendant has agreed to be bound by the results of'
`litigation against [the manufacturer].... [l]t is hard to imagine a situation in which litigation agair
`simplify the litigab-on against the retail defendants." (page'8)
`§299)
`Motion to Stay-Other
`Suit Against Customer
`Stay Of Proceedings
`Potter Voice Technologies LLC, v. Apple, Inc., et a), 4-13-0^. 01710 (CAND) ^
`District Judge Claudia Wilken
`6/11/2015 I?
`Patent determinations
`patent We
`determinations
`5729659 Method and apparatus for controlling a digital computer using oral input
`Invalid
`Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
`Denied in part, granted in part
`The court granted defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings that four daims of plaintiffs patent for voice control of a comouter
`were invalid for lack of patentable subject matter and found the claims were directed to an abstract idea. "The [patent-irt-suit] descnbes a
`method and apparatus that 'uses oral input, natural language^based mles, associative search and tabular data'structures toprovide'an easily
`teamed means for controlling a dlgHal computer; ... [Plaintiff] also emphasizes that the patent Is directed to using the human voice tocontrd a
`f;??El^e^s??-,n.aturalJ?".gua.?e- -.: . 'nle. Prese"t.Patent is like that in [UHramerdal Inc.V. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714 (Fed. C^2bl4)]Tn'
`that it is directed to an abstraction; its disdosure of the use of a human'voice to control a computer has no tangible or concrete form" Ute'
`Ultramerdal, the claims contain some limitations, such as the use of a microphone and word recognition software, but these are riot novel
`inventions.... The [patent-in-suit] does not simply perform a pre-existing business practice on the internet, but neither does it solve a'business
`problem created by internet commerce. " (page 6)
`The court denied defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings that three daims of plaintiffs |
`were invalid for lack of patentabte subject matter "Although [one] daim term does not disdose any inventive concepts, the specification furthe'!"'
`descnbes using uintent determination in conjunction with natural language and associative search. [Plaintiff argues that the[patent-in-sLnt]'
`advanced existing voice controls for computers by using syntactic and semantic content information to enable associative searching. ..~ln light
`?!.^l£e^. i"SSr"_cti°!?.to. ltread carefu"y in constniing [Hs] exdusionary prindple test rt swallow all of patent law, ' the Court finds that [one da'imf
`^"djtspwo dependent daims] may involve an inventive concept of content determination when described and limited by the relevant language
`PROTECTIVE
`tbR0i&
`°IVlATCraA
`L
`UP-000003
`https://maiI.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5ddl963617&jsver=CH739CjoDVc.en.&cbl=gmail_fe_180819.13_p2&view=pt&q=bradinm&qs=true&search=query&... 3/10
`Unpatentable Subject
`Matter (35 USC § 101)
`Unpatentable Subject
`Matter (35 USC § 101)
`

`

`Bradium Exhibit 2015
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 4 of 10
`
`8/23/2018
`Unpatentable Subject
`Matter (35 USC §101)
`Unified Patents Inc. Mail - Docket Report for June 17, 2015
`The court granted defendant's motion for Judgment on the pleadings that four daims of plaintiffs patent for voice control of a computer Q ^l
`were invalid for lack of patentable subject matter and found the daims lacked an inventive concept. "[Plaintiff] contends that its patent
`introduces the inventive concept of using associative searching.... As [defendant] points out, this is itself an abstract idea. The patent does not
`introduce any novel hardware.. .. mhe daims simply recite the abstract idea of finding and processing data implemented on a generic
`computer which is controlled by a generic word recognition device. " (page 10)
`6/15/2015 E?
`for
`Costs
`for
`Injunction
`Injunction
`Toesox, Inc. v. Toez et al, 3-14-CV. 02542 (CASD)
`District Judge Marilyn L. Huff
`Monetary awards
`against
`in favor of
`Kelly Sheppard
`ToeSox, Inc.
`Injunctions granted
`against
`in favor of
`Kelly Sheppard
`ToeSox, Inc.
`Toez
`ToeSox, Inc.
`CIMA Labs Inc. et al v. Mylan PharmaceuUcals Inc., 1-10-cv-00625 (DED)
`District Judge Leonard P. Stark
`Claim terms construed
`patent
`title
`6024981 Rapidly dissolving robust dosage form
`6221392 Rapidly dissolving robust dosage form
`adidas AS et al v. Under Armour Inc. et al, 1-14-CV-OQ130 (DED)
`District Judge Gregory M. Sleet
`Claim terms constmed
`patent
`(He
`terms constmed
`7905815 Personal data collection systems and methods
`7931562 Mobile data logging systems and methods
`Location-aware
`fflness training device, methods, and program products that support real-time interactive communication
`and automated route generation
`8068858 Methods and computer program products for providing information about a user during a physical activity
`8244226 Systems and methods for presenting characteristics assodated with a physical activity route
`8579767 Performance monitoring apparatuses, methods, and computer program products
`8652009 Modular personal network systems and methods
`8721502 Systems and methods for displaying performance information
`8725276 Performance monitoring methods
`I?
`award
`$1, 17613
`6/15/201515'
`terms construed
`6/15/20151?
`3 terms fi" S
`3 terms I? S
`1 term EP TS
`4 terms i5I B
`3 (arms I? B
`2 terms E?'S
`2 terms (S'S
`2 terms ES*'S
`2 terms tP®
`2termsS''B
`2termsE51'B
`ff
`Quest Integrity USA LLC v. Clean Harbors Industrial Sennces Inc., 1-14-cv-01482 (DED)
`District Judge Sue L. Robinson
`6/12/2015 fil
`Motion for Preliminary Injunction
`Denied
`The court denied plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injuncUon from using the accused furnace tube inspection systems because
`® ff
`defendants raised a substanh'al question of invalidity due to arrtidpation and obviousness in light of plaintiff's own prior art system. "It is evident
`that the inspection data in the [report about the prior system] has been divided into subsets of smaller size, i. e., according to data markers
`Likelihood Of Success
`(return bends). The resulting display, while not as user-friendly as any of the contemporary systems, still presents the inspection data in a way
`that 'maps' or 'connects systematically' the data to the physical geometry of the furnace.. .. [N]othing in the specification or daims of the
`[patent-in-surt] that requires the inventive system to perform or look exactly like [plaintiffs] latest commercial iteraUon of its [system], so long as
`the inspedion data can be displayed in a way that suggests data markers representing the physical geometry of the furnace. " (page 15)
`The court denied plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction from using the accused furnace tube inspedion systems because plaintiff ^| ff
`failed to establish irreparable harm. "[PlainfifF] must 'deariy establish' that monetary damages will not suffice and that the alleged harm is related
`to the alleged infringing features of the accused inspecBon services. ... plaintiff] has not even attempted to analyze the relative importance of
`Irreparable Harm
`patented versus non-patented features and has tacifly conceded that several of the initially raised factors cannot be demonstrated. And
`although the court recognizes that, to some extent, the irreparable harm analysis is a forward-looking exercise, nevertheless, the court is not
`persuaded that [plaintiff] has demonstrated that defendants pose a threat of irreparable harm if allowed to compete, given the size of the
`market, the large number of refineries, and the fact that the parties have been competing for years. " (page 17)
`Market Track, LLC v. Efficient Collaborative Retail Marketing, LLC, 1-14-CV-04957 (ILND)
`[§"
`District Judge John J. Tharp, Jr
`6/12/20151?
`Patent determinations
`patent We
`determinations
`7849083 Automatic creation of output file from images in database
`Invalid
`T§
`Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
`Granted
`The court granted defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings that plalnllfrs output file creation patent was invalid for lack of
`Q I?
`patentable subject matter and found that the patent was directed to an abstract idea. 'The dam elements redte a method of processing a
`query and returning results, deriving content from those results, and then organizing and delivering that content somewhere.... The method
`does add certain limitations, such as requiring that the query be processed against a database, that the database regard images, that the
`output be a stand-alone file containing an image and associated information, and that the file be delhrered. But... these limitations add no real
`degree of particularity, but regardless, at fts core, the central concept of the daimed invention is highly abstract: it is the idea of identifying,
`organizing, and presenting stored information. " (page 12)
`The court granted defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings that plaintiffs output file creation patent was invalid for lack of
`TB I?
`patentable subject matter and found that the patent lacked an inventive concept. "Hhe mamage af image and text data in the presentation of
`information is a ubiquitous, not inventive, practice.... What that leaves, then, is only [plaintifFs] daim that its method of automatically
`generating those stand-alone output files combining image and text data is new and innovative. What [plaintiff] describes as its 'concrete and
`particularized' methods for automatically creating those files, however, amount to nothing more than routine and well understood data
`processing procedures.... Itis dfficuK to understand how a process whose steps can be deleted, modified, supplemented, and re-ordered,
`and which depends on no particular system or software for its implementation, provides a 'concrete' or 'particularized' limitation on the abstract
`concept of identifying, organizing, and presenting data. " (page 15)
`The court granted defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings that plaintiffs output file creation patent was invalid for lack of
`B [§l
`patentable subject matter and found that the patent implicated preemption concerns. "The process, system, and software disdosed by the
`[patent-in-suit] are so abstract and generic that they represent little more than an attempt to monopolize any and every technical implementation
`of the basic process of identifying, organizing, and presenting images and assodated data stored in a database. Critically, claiming all forms of
`'automatically creating at least one stand-alone output file' could preempt even future innovations not contemplated by the [patent's] inventor."
`(page 19)
`Unpatertable Subject
`Matter (35 USC §101)
`Unpatentable Subject
`Matter (35 USC §101)
`Unpatentable Subject
`Matter (35 USC §101)
`Eli
`LillypRO>TE©T|!tf^OR|^WA1S
`ERI LLtd.
`et
`al^
`1-14-CV-01647
`(INSD)
`UP-000004
`https://mail. google. com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=5ddl963617&jsver=CH739CjoDVc.
`en. &cbl=gmail_fe_180819. 13^)2&view=pt&q=bradium&qs=tTue&search=query&...
`4/10
`

`

`Bradium Exhibit 2015
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 5 of 10
`
`8/23/2018
`Unified Patents Inc. Mail - Docket Report for June 17, 2015
`6/15/2015 E?
`s'
`District Judge Tanya Wtatton Pratt
`Motion for Expedited Discovery
`Denied
`Lh,e:a'^t-den'edp!al"tiffs'_m°tionfol'j"nsd'ctio"al dlscoYeryandto stay defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
`^^J^Uy^n^l^m^on^lAthelrp^.
`and
`curre.
`rrt
`°?nd"ct,
`b"""'t"re
`mndud
`as
`well-'.
`'~~'pTarn iiffs
`cannot'
`^dd^'suat^
`i^e
`Jurisdictional Discovery of infringement until theydearthe personal jurisdiction hurdle, and acBvWi
`pers°nau"risdlct"ln- . . :mhere is already sufficient evidence in the record for Plaintiffs to'respond to the'moiion to dismiss,"
`alre^in
`^°ssess">n
`°f
`Defenda"ts'ANDA-The
`additional
`discoveiy
`requested
`by
`Plaintiffs
`would
`essenUally'amounTto~a"fi^ing°ex"p^n.
`Sprint Communications Company L. P. v. Comcast Cable CommunicaUons, LLC etal, 2-11-cv-D2684 (KSD)
`Magistrate
`Judge James P. O'Hara
`g^ ^^ g g,
`Motion to Compel Discoven^
`Denied in part, granted in part"
`II?.
`?-".
`1
`?J^n??,
`^,
`fart, d8f?"d^"tl
`s
`n?°ti°.
`"to
`<?°mpel
`the
`production
`of
`a
`30(b)(6)
`wHness for
`deposition
`but
`rejected
`defendant's
`ainuff waived certain objections because of a seven-minute filing delay after the dose of fact discovery. "FPIaintif
`that ne-mailed [defendant] its formal objections to [defendant's] Second and ThFrd Rule 30(b)(6) Notices ;^ seven mm
`2ffact_dLscove,
`ly-;. . .
`[D^enda"tLhas
`not
`demonstrated that
`it
`has
`been
`prejudiced
`by
`the
`seven-minute,
`middre
`-of-the-nightfitoaddav:';
`airadvantaaeaaain^ r^^
`.. [Defendant] argues that '[bjecause of balaintiffs] delay, there are eleven additional topics on which [plamtifflwiii need'to RSdurel^t^^J' "
`r;?w-a!mosttt. reem?"ths-past,. the dose offaddisu'wiy. ' However, the fad that [plainfiff] may need to produce mtnesses'afterTedo'^T'
`discovery would be true even if pl] had sen/ed its objections seven minutes eariieF. " (page 6)
`Ttec°^rt, d^ed-d^ndfflrfsmd°ntoc°mpdthepr^ud°nrfa30(^
`1syeare- "mhere. 's "° obvious connection^befaveen [plaintilTs] layoffs'and reductions in
`equteMe-e?°p^!OTJa^drfe^^\\\p^n^rtih^ndaddres^why[plai^^^
`would tear
`any
`relation
`to
`[defendant's]
`choice
`to
`end its
`voice^partnershlp
`vrit'h
`[plaintiff].
`'. ..
`[Defendant]'hasnotexplaii
`ned'how
`rD
`la^tifl
`te^^°^mLem^^^thCT^teyJ^^-K^ne!^ ^
`Si
`^toTs'^^Da"^'"1'"0'"'11'hire
`key
`[plai"tiffl
`personnel-
`'"the
`end'Jo{xc
`32 seeks
`a
`l°t'of
`infonTiationthat'can'not'p^bTy1^
`Depositions
`Asserting Objedion
`Laches
`Depositions
`Objection: Relevance
`Laches
`Depositions
`Objection: Relevance
`pdicyterausettie information TOS relevant to defendanfs equitable estoppel and laches defenses: "A-def^dai:rt'canmeetthe"p^di^"
`element
`of
`a
`laches
`defense
`by
`proving
`that
`plaintffl-s
`delay
`in
`filing
`suK
`has
`hurt defendant's
`ability
`to
`Dresent'ahilFandfarr
`merits
`'due to the loss of records; among other thir
`by proving that a patentee's misleading communicaUon caused a loss of evidence, such as a 'loss of records-' or that"^
`correspondence have been destroyed." (page 24)
`Hard Metal Advantage L L C v. Famco Machine Shop at al, 6-14-cu-02769 (LAWD)
`District Judge Donald E. WaSter
`Injunctions granted
`against
`in favor of
`FAMCO Machine Shop
`Hard Metal Advantage, LLC
`Patent determinations
`patent
`tide
`D649987 Carbide chip
`D656167 Mill
`6/15/2015 [S'
`for
`Injunction
`determinations
`Not invalid, Not unenforceable
`Not invalid. Not unenforceable
`Ip
`m
`Trustees of Boston University v. Everiight Bectronics Co., Ltd., et. al., 1-12-CV-1193S (MAO)
`Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal
`Motion for Protect. Order-Preserve CorTfldentiality
`Denied in part, granted in part
`Protective Orders
`The court 9ranted "1 Part defendants' motion for keystroke tracking when plaintiff accessed their modules in discoverv on desk
`Preserving Confldentiality c°Tplrtere:^ecause, s"Gh_m°nJtori"?mi9ht implicate attorney work product concerns, keystroke data shall be stored by-[p[aTntjff| but shafnS[
`.
`"(page 3)
`6/11/2015 I?
`I?
`determinations
`Invalid
`Invalid
`Recommended granting
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al v. Capital One Rnandal CoqporaUon et al, 8-14-CT-00111 (MOD)
`Special Master Raphael V. Lupo
`Patent determinahons
`patent
`title
`6314409 System for controlling access and distribution of digital property
`6715084 Firewall system and method via feedback from broad-scope monrtoring for intrusion detection
`MSJ-Invalidity
`_
`^
`Recommended granting
`The spedal master recommended granting defendants' motic
`.
`unprotected'
`data.... In
`this
`regard,
`the
`claimed invenUon
`embodies
`an
`idea
`that has
`long-plagued
`governments,
`miiitaries7and~ol?lCT"
`organizations for centuries; wz., restricting the distribution of dassified, sensiflve, or otheiwise private ir
`know- and to use the information. " (page 29)
`The spedal master recommended granting defendants' moUon for summary judgment that plaintiffs' data access patent was ir
`lad< of patentabte subject matter and found that the patent lacked an inventive «>ncept. "Plaintiffs assert thrtimplementing'ihe''access
`'necha"ism'.creatTO a "ew machine- 'a spedal-purpose computer. ' Plaintiffs further respond to Defendarrts- a^uments' byasserti'n'a^hat 'the
`patent provided the necessary structure to allow for the appropriate data protecUon in the limit
`the claims must necessarily be directed to this structure. '.. . The [patent-in-suit's] spedfication confirms that the .access'mechaiiia'm'ls'^'hTr
`more than a generic computer - basically if s either hardware or software that controls access to data. " (page 33)
`The special master recommended granting defendants' motion for summary judgment that plaintiffs' firewall patent was invalic
`P.TteMeiu^m^TamLfaunlth?^-damsweradi^^^
`f."?1-?-. 1^ T5^?!?_?°^he b^c. Problem-solving process of collecting and analyang Information from multiple sources'andia'i(jn'B'st^'to''use
`the results of that analysis so that corrective action can be taken. Applying that process to a provic
`intrusion detedfon protection to a collection of already-protected customeT networks, without' more,
`less_abstradLThesPecial Mastel- also asrees^with Defendants that the patent is directed to abstract concepts that existedbefore'comD'utCT''
`technology and the internet existed. " (page 43)
`The special master recommended granting defendants' moUon for summary judgment that plaintiffs' firewall patent was invalid tor tarir nf R
`are directed to^sdving the problem of preventing malicious i
`to protect anetwo^rk, and is necessarily rooted in and inextricably tied to computer technology.... |
`network intrusion detection; it merely adds a level of protection above existing intrusion detection systems. " (page 46)
`MSJ - Claim Barred by SOL, Laches, Estoppel
`Recommended denial
`R^
`Ji^^lg^^y^^^^^denying
`defendants'
`motion for
`summary
`judgment
`that
`issue
`preclusion
`barred
`Qp^^gr
`two®
`[?
`https://mail. googIe. com/maiI/WO/?ui=2&ik=5ddl963617&jsver=CH739CjoDVc, en. <tebl=gmail_fe_180819J3j2&view^t&q=bradium&qs=fruetoearch=q^ery&...
`5/10
`Unpatentabte Subject
`Matter (35 USC §101)
`Unpatentabte Subject
`Matter (35 USC §101)
`Unpatentabte Subject
`Matter (35 USC §101)
`Unpatentable Subject
`Matter (35 USC §101)
`

`

`Bradium Exhibit 2015
`Unified Patents Inc. v. Bradium Technologies LLC
`IPR2018-00952
`Page 6 of 10
`
`8/23/2018
`Estoppel
`Unified Patents Inc. Mail - Docket Report for June 17, 2015
`patents-in-suit because those patents were found invalid for lack of patentafale subject matter in another ongoing action. "Defendants assert
`that collateral estoppel applies to any order that finally determines the issues between the parties and that no entry of 'judgment' is required to
`give predusive effect. Notably, Defendants ate to no Fourth Circuit case which applies collateral estoppel specifically to the context we have
`here - an order granting partial summary judgment in an ongoing, separate litigation... . That order could be revised or vacated at any time
`before the court enters a judgment in the entire case. " (page 9)
`DietGoal Innovations LLC v. Meredith Corporation, 1-13-CV-08384 (NYSD)
`District Judge Thomas P. Griesa
`Patent determinations
`patent
`title
`6585516 Method and system for computerized visual behavior analysis, training, and planning
`6/12/2015 E?
`^
`determinations
`Invalid
`AngleFix, LLC v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc., 2-13-CV-02407 fTNWD) ^
`Distrid Judge Jan Phipps McCalla
`6/12/2015 ifi'
`Motion to Lift Stay/Reopen
`Denied
`The court denied plaintiff's motion to lift a stay pending inter partes review after plaintiff offered to dismiss with prejudice the claims under @ gp
`review because the potential simplification of issues was not materially changed. "Under Rule 41(a)(2), [defendant's] counterclaims must
`Lift of Stay
`remain in the case for independent adjudication. Because [defendant's] first counterclaim implicates infringement detenminations for 'any daim
`of the [patent-in-suit]' and ['its] second counterclaim challenges the validity of the entire [patent], the claims under review at the USPTO will
`remain at issue in the instant case regardless of whether [plaintiff] is allowed to w'rthdraw the proposed daims." (page 6)
`DataQuill Umrted v. Huawei Technologies Co LTD et al, 2-13-CV-00633 (TXED)
`fi»
`District Judge Rodney Gilstrap
`6/1 5/2015 i?
`Motion to File Under Seal
`Ruling deferred
`The court deferred ruling on an intervenor's motion to seal the courtroom if evidence was presented at trial regarding two exhibits. "Hhe 18 ep
`Court invrtes Fnfervenor] to partidpate via personal representative in open court for the limited purpose of urging and seeking sealing of the
`courtroom at such times that pt] feels is appropriate in order to protect the interests of pntenrenor]. Failure to have representative counsel
`present for this limBed purpose constitutes a waiver. Exhibits displayed and adm'itted in open court as well as witness testimony or argument of
`counsel regarding these matters will not be sealed except upon request made in open Court during the trial of this case. " (page 1)
`Sealingffiedacting Trial
`Evidence
`Intervention
`patent
`owners
`PATENT TRIAL SAMP; APPEAL BOARD
`New petitions
`Petitions for Inter Partes Review by Robert Bosch LLC, IPR2015-_(PTAB)
`Orbital Engine Company Pty Limited
`Orbital Australia Pty Ltd.
`Orbital Fluid Technologies, Inc.
`no counsel of record
`Daimler AG
`Daimler North America Corporation
`Mereedos-Benz USA, LLC
`Mercedes-Benz US International, Inc.
`Brett N Watklns
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
`Edward J DeFranco
`Quinn Emanuel