UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED ST" n :s flEPARTM[Nl Of CO.\IMI':RC[
`liD!!" S .. ... hun. 1l1li T .. d~mlrk OmCf
`lid"""', COMMISSIONER f OR PATENTS
`p,o, &0. I .S~
`111",--' VifJil)io mll·I.50
`"""W.""",.""
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED IN VEI<m)R
`
`AITORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO,
`
`9SI001 ,4S2
`
`1111112010
`
`7,397,411
`
`0690.00Cl4L
`
`6101
`
`21896
`OlfO S120 1.
`1)\10
`EDELL, SHAPIRO & FINNAN, LLC
`9801 Washingtonian Blvd.
`Suite 750
`Gaithersburg, MD 20878
`
`EXAMINER
`
`NGUYEN. LlNfI M
`
`"RT UNIT
`
`PA P~ R N UMB~R
`
`08/05120 14
`
`D~LI VER Y MODE
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for rep ly, if any, is set in the attached communic~tion.
`
`I
`
`1'TOL- 90A ( R~ v. (4107)
`
`ZTE v Fractns
`[PR2018·01461
`
`ZTE
`Exhibit 1023.0001
`
`

`

`(I) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS
`NOVAK DRUCE & QUIGG LLP
`1000 LOUISIANA STREET
`53rd. FLOOR
`HOUSTON, TX 77002
`
`Transmittal of Communication to Third Party Requester
`Inter Partes Reexamination
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO.: 95001482
`PATENT NO. : 7397431
`ART UN IT : 3992
`
`o,mmissioner for Palenu
`United Slales PatenlS and Trademark Offia
`P.O.Box 145<1
`A IclUlntlria. VA 2231 3- 1450
`WWW_\lSP(o.go~
`
`Date:
`
`MAILED
`
`AUG 05 Z0I4
`
`CENTRAL REEXAMINATION UNIT
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above-identified reexamination proceeding. 37 CFR 1.903.
`
`Prior to the filing of a Notice of Appeal, each time the patent owner responds to this
`communication, the third party requester of the inter partes reexamination may once file
`written comments within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the patent owner's
`response. This 30-day time period is statutory (35 U.S.c. 314(b)(2)), and, as such, it cannot
`be extended. See also 37 CFR 1.947.
`
`If an ex parte reexamination has been merged with the inter partes reexamination, no responsive
`submissiQn by any ex parte third party requester is permitted.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the
`Central Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand~cany addresses given at the end of the
`communication enclosed with this transmittal.
`
`-
`
`- - - - -- -- - - --
`
`-
`
`-
`
`- - -- - ------ -
`
`. .
`
`ZTE v Fractns
`[PR2018-01461
`
`ZTE
`Exhibit 1023.0002
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`-- .-_. -- - -
`
`-
`
`-
`
`- - -- - - - .
`
`-;-=
`'C-C-
`Commissioner for PalCnt~
`United Slalcs Paltnt and Tr.ul emark Offict
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria. VA 22313-1450
`www.~sp{r).g:O \·
`
`(For Patent Owner)
`
`MAILED
`
`AUG 05 2014
`
`(For Third Party Requester)
`CfNTRAL REEXAMINATION UNIT
`
`Edell, Shapiro, & Finnan, LLC
`9801 Washingtonian Blvd.
`Suite 750
`Gaithersburg, MD 208 78
`
`Novak, Druce & Quigg, LLP
`(NDQ Reexamination Group)
`1000 Louisiana Srreet
`f-ift y-third Floor
`Houston, TX 77002
`
`Infer Paries Reexamination Proceeding
`Contro l No.: 95100 I ,482
`Filed: November 11,20 10
`For: U.S. Patent No. 7,397,43 I
`
`DECISION GRANTING
`PETITION TO TERMINATE
`INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION
`PROCEEDING
`
`This is a decision on patent owner' s pctition fi led on April 4, 20 14 and entitled " Petition to
`Terminate Inter Partes Reexam inat ion". (patent owner's Apri14, 2014 petition).
`
`This decision also addresses patcnt owner's "S upplement
`to Patent Owner's Pelition to
`Terminate of April 3, 2014,,,1 filed on June 3, 20 14 (patent owner's June 3, 2014 suppl ement ).
`
`Patent .owner' s April 4,20 14 petition, patent owner' s June 3, 2014 supplement, and the record as
`a whole, are before the Office of Patent Legal Administration for consideration.
`
`SUMMARY
`
`Patent owner's April 4, 2014 petition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.182 to terminate infer parIes
`reexamination proceedin g 95/00 I ,482 is granted.
`
`Prosecut ion of inter partes r.eexam ination proceeding 95100 1,482 is hereby terminated.
`
`DECISION
`
`The patent owner argues that termi nat ion of inter paries reexamination proceeding control
`number 95/00 1 ,482 (the' 1482 proceeding) is requ ired by pre-A lA 35 V.S.c. 3 17(b),2 which
`prov ides, in pert inent part (emphasis added):
`
`I Allhough the patent ownerrefers to the date of the petition 10 tenn inate as April 3, 20 14, Oflice records reveal that
`the date of receipt ofpatcnI owner' s petition is April 4, 20 14.
`
`I Congress, when enacting the America Invents Act (AlA), replaced the provisions for inter partes reexamination
`with provisions fo r a new procedure. inter panes review. Congress amended the provisions of 35 U.S.c. 317"io
`only apply to infer partes review proceedings, which, by definition, are filed on or after Seplembcr 16,2012 (post-
`
`ZTE v Fractns
`[PR2018-01461
`
`ZTE
`Exhibit 1023.0003
`
`

`

`Infer Partes Reexamination Control No. 951001,482
`
`-2-
`
`Once a final decision has been entered against a party in a civil action arising in
`whole or in part under section 1338 of tit le 28, that the party has not sustained its
`burden of proving the ,inval id ity of any patent claim in suit . .. then neither that
`pany nor its privies may thereafter request an inter panes reexamination of any
`such patent claim on the basis of issues which that party or its privies raised or
`could have raised in such civil action or inter panes reexamination proceeding,
`and an inter partes reexamination requested by that party or its privies on the basis
`of such issues may not thereafter be maintained by the Office ... This subsec tion
`does not prevent the assertion of invalidity based on newly discovered prior art
`unavailable to the third·party requester and the Patent and Trademark Office al
`the time of the inler partes reexamination proceedings.
`
`The Office analyzes whether a reexamination proceeding must be tenninated pursuant to pre(cid:173)
`AlA 35 U.S.C. 3 I 7(b) by determining:
`
`1. Whether the third pany requester was a party to the liti gation;
`2. Whether the decision is final, i.e., after all appeals;
`3. Whether the court decided that the requester/party had not sustained its burden of
`proving the in validity of any claim in suit of the' patent, which claim is also under
`reexamination; and
`4. Whether the issues raised in the· reexamination proceeding are the same as issues that
`were rai sed, or are issues that could have been raised, by the requester in the civil action.
`
`Element I Has Been Show" 10 Have Bee" Satisfied
`
`The patent owner, Fractus, S.A. (Fractus), has informed the Office that the patent under
`. reexamination, U.S. Patent No. 7,397,431 (the ' 431 patent). was the subject ofa civil action
`styled Fractus, SA. v. Samsung Elecfronics, Co., Lid. e{ aI., Civil Action No. 6:09~cv·00203 (E.
`D. Tt:x.) (the litigation). The patent owner submits, with the present petition, a series of court
`documents, includ ing a copy of the district court's "Final Judgmcnt", dated June 28, 2012,3
`which shows that the requester Sam sung Electronics Co. Ltd. (Samsung) is a party to the
`lit igation. Accordingly, element 1 has been shown to have been satisfied.
`
`ElefnelU 2 Has Been Sufficiently Shown 10 Have Been Satisfiel/
`
`The patcnt owner states that an appeal of the district court's June 28, 2012 j udgment to the Court
`of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFe) was filed. The appeal was later dismissed on
`March 28, 2014. As evidencc, the patent owner submits a copy of the March 28, 2014 CAFC
`order dismissing the appeal, and a copy of the formal mandate issued by the CAFC.4 Patent
`owner's evidence sufficiently shows that the district court'sjudgment is tinal, i.e., after all
`appeals. Accordingly, element 2 has been shown to have been sati sfied .
`
`AlA 35 U.S.c. 317). Congress also specified Ihal the provisions of the imer. paries reexamination statute which
`were in effe~ t prior to September 16, 20!2. including the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 3!7(b) (pre-AlA 35 U.S.C.
`3 17(b», remain applic<lblc to filler porlrs reexamination proceedings, which were on ly permincd to be filed be fore
`September 16,2012 .
`
`• 1 See Exhibit 0·3, which is attached to the present petition.
`
`4 See Exh ib.its O-g and 0·9. which are attached to the present petition.
`
`ZTE v Fractns
`[PR2018·01461
`
`ZTE
`Exhibit 1023.0004
`
`

`

`Infer Paries Reexaminarion Conrro/ No, 951001,482
`
`·3·
`
`Elemelll 3 HlIs Bee" Sufficiently Shown to HlIve Bee" Sali·ified
`
`The patent owner states that the jury determined. and the district court held , that claims 14 and
`30 of the '431 patent were not invalid. As evidence, Ihe patent .owner submits:
`
`I) the di strict court's June 28, 2012 judgment , which stales that "[t]he ' 868, '208, ' 431,
`and ' 43 2 Patents are valid and enforceable";
`
`2) the di strict court's June 28, 2012 "Memorandum Opinion and Order",s which slates
`that the patent owner asserted, at trial , claims 14 and 30 of the '431 patent,6 and which
`further states that " [t]he j ury reasonably found that Sams ung failed to prove by clear
`and convincing evidence thal lhe M LV Patents [the '868, '208, '43 1, and ' 432
`PalentsJ are anticipated by the Cohen Patent," and that "[t]he jury reasonably
`concluded that Samsung fa iled to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the
`MLV Patents are obvious in view of the Cohen Patent;" 1 and
`
`3) a redacted copy of the jury verdict form , dated May 23 , 20 11 .8
`
`Patent owner's ev idence, taken together, is sufficient to show that the court held that the
`requester Sam:sung did not sustain its burden of proving the invalidity of claims 14 and 30 of the
`'431 patent.
`
`Oflicc records reveal, however, that claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12- 14, 17, 21, 22, 24~27, 29·3 1 of the
`' 43 1 patent are under reexam inat ion in the present proceeding. To ensure that the claims of the
`present proceeding are identical to the claims asserted in the litigation, the patent owner has filed
`a statutory disclaimer d isclaimi ng claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 21 , 22, 24·27, 29 and 3 1 in the
`file of the ' 431 patent.9 Thus, only claims 14 and 30 remain under reexamination in the present
`proceeding.
`
`Acco rdin gly, element 3 has been shown to have been satisfied.
`
`Element.f Has Bee" S"OWII to Have Been Satisfied
`
`The evidence of record shows that any iss ues raised with respect to claims 14 and 30 of the '43 1
`patent either were raised or cou ld have been raised in the liti gati on.
`
`The last sentence of pre-A lA 35 U.S.C. 317(b) permits "the assertion of in validity [by the
`regues,ter] based on newly discovered prior art unavailable to the third party requester". See the
`
`5 See Exhibit 0-4, wh ich is attached to the present petition.
`b Sec the June 28, 2012 "Memorandum Opinion and Order", page 2.
`7 !d.. pages 27 and 29.
`a See Exhibit 0.2 , which is attached to the present petition. The j ury verdict fo rm provides evidence that claims 14
`and )0 of the '431 patent were before the jury. However, the jury's determinations on the issue of the invalidity of
`the asserted claims, due to anticipation or obviousness, are unclear. The j ury's determinations on page 3 of the
`form, which is the perti nent portion ofthe verdict form, are partially illegible .
`
`9 The slatutorydisc laimer was fil ed on September 10, 2013 in application number 11 / 179,257, which became the
`'43 1 patent.
`
`ZTE v Fractns
`[PR2018·01461
`
`ZTE
`Exhibit 1023.0005
`
`

`

`Inter Paries Reexamination ControJ No. 951001,482
`
`-4-
`
`legislati ve history of pre-AlA 35 U.S.c. 317(b), which provides the meaning of the word
`"un~vailable", as it appears in the statute (emphasis added in bold):IO
`
`Further, ira thi rd-party requester asserts patent invalidity in a civil action and a final decision
`is entered that the party failed to prove the assertion of invalidity ... afier any appeals, that
`third-party requester cannot thereafter request inter partes reexamination on the basis of issues
`which were or which could have been rai sed. However, the third-party requester may assert
`invalidity based on newly discovered prior art unavailable at the lime of the civil action or
`inter partes reexamination. Prior art was unavailable at the time if il was not known 10
`the individuals who were invoh'cd in the civil action or inter partes reexamination
`proceeding on behalf of the third-party requester and the USPTO.
`
`Thus, to show that a reference is "available", the patent owner must provide sufficient evidence
`that the reference was known to the requester (i.e., actual .knowledge) at a time when it could
`have been raised in the civil action; i.e., prior to tria l.
`
`In the present case, trial commenced on May 17,20 11, as evidenced by the court's docket, a
`copy of which is filed wilh the present petition as Exhibit 0-1. 'fhe requester, as a pany to the
`present reexamination proceeding, was aware of all prior art, with respect to claims 14 and 30 of
`the '43 1 patent, which was raised in the present reexamination proceeding prior to May 17,20 11 ,
`the dale that trial began in the liti gation. A nontinal Office aclion citing the prior art applied in
`this reexamination proceeding was mailed on May 13, 20 11, prior to the date that trial began.
`
`In addition, the requester has admitted that the "Requester cited the prior art relied on in this
`reexamination in its invalidity contentions in the underl ying litigation"ll and that "Requester was
`aware of the invalidating references prior to trial". 12 Thus, the requester has admitted that the
`prior art relied on in this reexamination was available (i.e., known) to the requester prior to trial,
`i.e., at a lime when the art and issues could have been placed in the litigation. l
`)
`
`The requester has argued that even though it was aware of the art at a time when the an could
`have been placed in the litigation, it chose not to do so because of strict time constraints, and for
`that reason, ~'coliid not have placed it in litigati on".14 However, as discussed in the Ofllce's
`decision mailed on July 29, 2013 (the July 29, 2013 deci sion), the fact that there were strict time
`constraints at trial is not "evidcnce" that it was not possjble for the requester to raise, at tria l, all
`
`10 106 Congo Rec. S 14720. Nov. 17, 1999. Sec also 106 Congo Rec. Hll 805, Nov. 9, 1999.
`II Sec requesler's August 30, 2012 opposition paper, tit led ""Third Party Requesler's Opposition under 37 C.F.R. § .
`1. 182 10 Palent Owner's Petition ror Suspension", (requesler's August 30, 2012 opposition paper), on page 6,
`referring 10 this statement as a " ract".
`.
`
`II See requester's August 30, 2012 opposition paper, page 7: see also requester's October 10,2013 opposition
`paper, titled "Third Party Requester's Opposition under 37 C.F.R. § 1.182 to Patent Owner's Petition ror
`Suspension" (requester's OClober 10, 20 13 opposilion paper). page 10.
`
`Il The patcnt owner atso submits, with ils June 3, 2014 supplement, a copy ofa do,ument entilled "Joint MOlionlC
`Dismiss". which is dated April IS, 201 4 and which is signed by both parties. In lhis document, Ihe part ies, inc luding
`the requester, Slate thaI "[tJhe prior art rai sed by Samsung in the Reexaminations was raised by Samsung or could
`have been raised by Samsung in lh is suil" (see paragraph 8). The present reexamination proceeding is listed as one
`of"the " Reexaminations" (sec paragraph 7).
`l~ See requester's August 30, 20 12 opposition paper, pages 7-9.
`
`ZTE v Fmctlls
`[PR2018-01461
`
`ZTE
`Exhibit 1023.0006
`
`

`

`Infer ParIes Reexamination Control No. 95/001,482
`
`·5·
`
`of the iss~es in the reexamination proceeding, It is the responsibility of counsel to decide which
`issues to present to the court. The fact that counsel chose not to raise one or more issues at trial
`is not equivalent to a showing that these issues could not have been raised . Counsel's choice of
`which issues to present at trial is not "evidence" that the remainder of lhe issues cou ld not have
`been raised at trial . Further, if a proceed ing cannot be term inated under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C.
`317(b) because the trial in the related civil action involved strict time constraints, then most, if
`not all, reexamination proceedings where a related civil suit involving the patent went 10 trial
`cannot be terminated, because most, if not all , tria ls in patent suits involve strict lime constraints.
`
`For the reasons set forth above, the ev idence of record shows that the requester was aware of the
`prior art raised in the present reexaminat ion proceeding with respect 10 claims 14 and 30 of the
`'431 patent, and that the requester was awarc or these re rerences prior.to trial; i.e., at a time such
`that the references could have been raised at trial.
`
`Accordingly, the record contains sufficient evidence that any issues raised in the present
`reexaminati on proceeding with respect to claims 14 and 30 of the ' 431 patent could have been
`raised by the requester in the li tigat ion, which satisfies element 4.
`
`Atltlitional C(lmmellls
`
`The Office notes that a portion or patent owner's preliminary infringement contentions which
`were filed by Ihe requester as part oflhe request for reexamination is labeled "Confidential".
`However, the requester explained, later in th e reexamination proceeding, thut patent owner's
`in fringement contentions had been designated as " non-confidential" in a court order rendered on
`June 7, 2010,15 and were "unsealed", perm itting the requester to submit them to the Office with
`it s requesl. 16 Thus, it appears that patent owner's infringement contentions did not remain
`subject to a protecti ve order of thc'court at the time of fil ing the request.
`
`Simi larly, copies of requester's February 24. 2010 invalidity contentions and patent owner 's
`undated " Rebuttal Expert Report of Dr. Stuart A. Long" (the Long Rebuttal Rcport),17 have been
`HIed by the patent owner in the present reexam ination proceed ing, as evidence that the requester
`was aware of the prior art raised in the reexamination at a time when it could have been raised in
`the litigation. IS The captions of these documents each state that the document is "Confidential"
`or "Highl y Confidential" and " Subject to [the] Protective Order". The patent owner states that
`the version of patent owner's Long Rebuttal Reporl 19 subm itted in this proceed ing has been
`redacted to remove confidential information.2o The Office also notes that neither party has
`
`15 See requester's August 30, 20 12 oppos ition paper, footnote 2.
`Ib See req uester's October 10.20 13 opposilion paper, page 12.
`11 Attached to the present petition as Exhibits 0· 10 and 0· 11 : see also patent owner's August 1,20 12 "Petition tor
`Suspension of Infer Partes Reexam ination Proceed ings" (patent owner's August 1, 20 12 pet ition to suspend),
`Exh ibits 0-1 and 0-1 I.
`IS Sec, e.g., patent owner's August 1, 2012 petition to suspend; sec also pages 6-1 I of the present petition.
`19 Dr. Stuan A. Long was apparently employed by the patent owner.
`10 Sec, e.g., patent owner's August 1,2012 peti lion to suspend, page 3; see also page 90fthe present petition.
`
`ZTE v Fractns
`[PR2018·01461
`
`ZTE
`Exhibit 1023.0007
`
`

`

`Infer Paries Reexamination Control No. 951001,482
`
`-6-
`
`alerted the Office 10 the possibility that such documents remain subject 10 a protective order, or
`has objected to the submi ssion of such documents to the Office.2t
`
`The Office was not a party to the liti gation. The parties to the litigation are required to be aware
`of the provisions of any protcrtive order rendered by the court , and any modifications of those
`provisions. It is the responsibility orthe parties to the litigation to determine, and to ensure, that
`any document filed in this proceeding is not, or does not remain, subject to a protective order of
`the court. For this reason, the Office presumes that the parties, and in particular, the party filing
`the document in the present reexamination proceeding, has determined and ensured that the
`document is not, or does not remain, subject to a protective order. If any document filed in this
`proceeding remains subject to a protective order, the parties are required 10 so inform the
`Office.
`
`In addi tion, the requester has pointed to an earlier, inconsisten t petition decision which was
`rendered tn an unrelated reexamination proceeding (the '5 45 proceed in g),22 as ev.idence that it
`could not have raised the same issues in the litigation that were raised in the reexam ination
`proceeding, The decision stated that a requester' s reliance on the same prior art references in
`bOlh the reexamination proceeding and in th e civilli rigation does not mean that the same issues
`were rai sed or could have been raised in both proceedings, because of the difference in claim
`construction between the Office, which uses the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, and
`the distTict court, which uses a narrower standard .
`
`However, the Office does not follow this reasoning set forth in the petition decision in the ' 545
`proceeding. The broadest reasonable interpretation standard is used by Ihe Office in· the majority
`of inter paries reexamination proceedings. The narrow construction used by the courts is only
`used by the Ortice in an inler parIes reexamination proceeding in the rare situation where the
`patent under reexaminat ion has expired. If the Office were to follow the reasoning set forth in
`the petition dec ision in the ' 545 proceeding, nearly all inIer parleJ reexamination proceedings
`would be exempt from the estoppel provisions orpre-AlA 35 U.S.c. 3 17(b).
`
`Prosecution of the Present Proceeding is Terminated
`
`For the reasons given above, patent owner's April 4, 20 14 petition under 37 CFR 1.182 to
`term inate the present inler parIes reexamination proceeding is granted.
`
`Prosecution ofinler parIes reexam ination proceeding control no, 95/00 1,482 is hereby
`terminated.
`
`11 For example, the patent owner filed , on September 30, 20 11 , a " Petition under 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.59 and 1.18210
`Expunge In format ion Submined under MPEP § 724.02" (pet ition to expunge). informing the Office that the district
`coun's September 22, 20 11 consent judgment. filed by the patent owner under ~ea l with the Offi ce, had been fil ed
`under seal with the district coun . The Office required the patent oWller 10 show that the Office would not be
`violating a protect ive order of the coun by reviewing the consent judgment and making it available to the publ ic.
`Sec, e.g., the pet ition decisions ma iled on November 15,2012 and Oil July 16,20 13.
`
`21 Sec the petition dt:c i:sion mailed on' February 17, 20 II in inta parlttS recxaminiltion proceeding 951000,545.
`
`ZTE v Fractns
`[PR2018-01461
`
`ZTE
`Exhibit 1023.0008
`
`

`

`Inler ParIes Reexamination Control No. 951001,482
`
`-7-
`
`The ' 1482 inler panes reexamination proceeding is being referred to the Central Reexamination
`. Uni t (CRU) for conclusion of that proceeding. The CRU wi ll mail the present deci sion, and
`process the reexamination file to update the Image File Wrapper (IFW) records for thi s
`proceeding. The file will be assigned an 822 statu s. A copy of the PALM "Application Number
`Informati on" screen and the "Contents" screen will be printed, the printed copy will be. annotated
`by adding the comment "PROCEEDING CONCLUDED," and the annotated copy will then be
`scanned into Image File Wrapper (lFW) using the miscellaneous letter document code.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`• Patent owner's April 4, 20 14 petition under 37 CFR 1.182 to terminate infer partes
`reexamination proceeding control number 95/001,482 is granted .
`
`• Prosecution of the ' 1482 inler parIes reexamination proceeding is hereby terminated and
`wi ll be concluded.
`
`• The ' 1482 inler paries reexamination proceeding is being referred to the Central
`Reexamination Unit eCRU) for further processing to conclude the' 1482 proceeding, as
`sel forth in this decision.
`
`• Telephone inquiries related to this decision should be directed to the undersigned at (571)
`272-7724.
`
`~;j11~
`
`Cy~
`Senior Legal Advisor
`Office of Patent Legal Admin istration
`
`8/4/20 14
`
`ZTE v Fractns
`[PR2018-01461
`
`ZTE
`Exhibit 1023.0009
`
`

`

`Application Numberlnrorrn.alion
`
`Application Number: '51001482 A$s;gnmcnts
`Filing or 371 (t) Date: t JIl tI2(HO cDan
`Effeclive Date: 1111112010
`Application Rec.eived: lllllnOIO
`Pmlent Number:
`h s ue Date: 0010010000
`Date of AbandonmeOl: 00/0010000
`Anomey Do~ket Number: 06'U,OOOn
`Status: 822IDECISION VACATING RE£XAM
`Confirmation Number: 6101
`Title of ln vfn tion: MULTILEVEL ANTENNAE
`
`Al A (First In"e nlol to File): NO
`Examiner Number: 76781/ i'iG U'I' EN, UNII
`Group Art Unil: J221
`elms/Subclass: J4Jn02,OOO
`Appeal Number; 2014002519
`Unmatched Petition: NO
`L&R Code: Secret y Code:l
`Thi rd uvel Review:; NO
`
`Oral Heming: NO
`
`TYPE ENT: U
`IfW Mullnu
`Waiting for Response [)esc
`Prior Art .'jled
`frjorArtfj lcd
`frior ,'Ii filtd
`friur Art }'i1,,11
`I'rinr Art filed
`SeCrety Ordcr: NO
`Status Dwe: 0810512014
`Lost Case: NO
`
`Search Another: Application #
`pcr t
`/
`
`I Searc/l )
`or Patent #
`or PG PUBS #
`I Search I
`
`r Search. !
`rs;;;d.l
`
`Attorney Docket #
`BarCooe#
`
`To Go BACK Us. BACK BunOll on Yo., BROWSER Tool Bat
`Batk 10 U!.MJ MSIGN MENT 1Qn.SJlJ Hom. pqc
`
`Imp:llpahnapps. uspto_gov/c.GJ_hil1/exoo/Genl flfQ/snguciy.DP A f'PL ! 0 "9500 1482
`
`(PROCEEDINGS CONClUDED)
`
`ZTE V Fractns
`[PR2018·01461
`
`ZTE
`Exhibit 1023.0010
`
`