UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Panasonic Corporation of North America et al.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Cellspin Soft, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE: IPR2019-00131
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`
`PETITIONERS PANASONIC CORPORATION AND PANASONIC
`
`CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`PURSUANT TO THE DECEMBER 12, 2019 ORDER
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Panasonic Corporation of North America et al.
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`Cellspin Soft, Inc.
`Patent Owner
`
`CASE: IPR2019-00131
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`
`PETITIONERS PANASONIC CORPORATION AND PANASONIC
`
`CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`PURSUANT TO THE DECEMBER 12, 2019 ORDER
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. Argument ........................................................................................................ 2
`A.
`The Untimely Evidence Violates the PTAB’s Consolidated
`Trial Practice Guide’s Prohibition Against Including New
`Evidence with a Sur-Reply ................................................................... 2
`If Not Stricken, the Untimely Evidence Would Prejudice
`Panasonic and Violate Panasonic’s Due Process Rights ..................... 4
`Cellspin Cannot Justify the Belated Submission of the Untimely
`Evidence ............................................................................................... 8
`Cellspin’s Sur-Reply Attempts to Circumvent the Word Count
`Limit with Improper Spacing Throughout the Brief .......................... 10
`Granting this Motion is the Proper Remedy for Cellspin’s
`Violations ........................................................................................... 12
`III. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 13
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Abbott Labs. v. Cordis Corp.,
`710 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................ 7
`Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC,
`818 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 8
`Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. Ltd. P’Ship v. Biomarin Pharm. Inc.,
`825 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 7
`Mallinckrodt Pharm. Ir. Ltd. v. Biovie, Inc.,
`IPR2018-00974, Paper 34 (PTAB Nov. 13, 2019) ......................................... 3, 12
`N. Am. Coal Co. v. Miller,
`870 F.2d 948 (3d Cir. 1989) ................................................................................. 8
`Navistar, Inc. v. Fatigue Fracture Tech., LLC,
`IPR2018-00853, 2019 WL 4126205 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2019) ......................... 4, 12
`Pi-Net Int’l, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.,
`600 F. App’x 774 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................... 11
`Snap-On Inc. v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp.,
`IPR2015-01242, 2016 WL 8944781 (PTAB Aug. 19, 2016) ............................. 11
`Trane U.S. Inc. v. SEMCO, LLC,
`IPR2018-00514, 2019 WL 1757866 (PTAB Apr. 17, 2019) ............................... 4
`Yeda Res. v. Mylan Pharm. Inc.,
`906 F.3d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 7
`Statutes
`5 U.S.C. §§ 554(b)-(c), .............................................................................................. 7
`5 U.S.C. §§ 556(d) ..................................................................................................... 7
`5 U.S.C. §§ 557(c) ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Administrative Procedure Act .......................................................................... 1, 7, 12
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(2)(ii) ......................................................................................... 11
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(c) ................................................................................................. 10
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00131
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`I.
`Introduction
`Petitioners Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North
`
`America (“Panasonic”) move to strike Exhibits 2026-2029 and 2031-2033 (the
`
`“Untimely Evidence”), which Patent Owner Cellspin Soft, Inc. (“Cellspin”)
`
`belatedly submitted with its sur-reply. Panasonic further moves to strike Cellspin’s
`
`sur-reply (Paper 30), or alternatively, for the Board to accord no weight to the
`
`arguments in the sur-reply based on the Untimely Evidence.
`
`This case is exceptional. Cellspin violated the Board’s Trial Practice Guide
`
`by submitting extensive new testimonial and documentary evidence with its sur-
`
`reply. Cellspin’s actions were neither authorized ahead of time nor can they be
`
`justified post hoc. If left in the record, the Untimely Evidence would unfairly
`
`prejudice Panasonic and violate the Administrative Procedure Act and its
`
`guarantees of due process. Left unchecked, Cellspin’s actions also would set a bad
`
`precedent, emboldening patent owners to submit unauthorized sur-reply evidence
`
`in other proceedings.
`
`Cellspin also tried to game the word count limit by deleting spaces in
`
`citations in a way that cannot be justified. This is another basis for striking the sur-
`
`reply, particularly given Cellspin’s other failures to follow applicable rules.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00131
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`Cellspin’s failure to follow and twisting of applicable rules justify the
`
`exceptional remedy of striking at least the Untimely Evidence, and the sur-reply as
`
`well in the Board’s discretion.
`
`II.
`
`Argument
`A.
`The Untimely Evidence Violates the Trial Practice Guide’s
`Prohibition Against Including New Evidence with a Sur-Reply.
`The Board’s Trial Practice Guide sets forth “standard practices before the
`
`Board during AIA trial proceedings” based upon the Board’s trial rules. Patent
`
`Trial and Appeals Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, November 2019
`
`(“Practice Guide”) at 1. These standard practices “includ[e] the structure and times
`
`for taking action in each of the AIA proceedings,” to “encourage[] consistency of
`
`procedures among panels of the Board.” Id. at 1, 3. “[A]bsent special
`
`circumstances, discovery will proceed in a sequenced fashion” as set forth in the
`
`Practice Guide. Id. at 7-8.
`
`In particular, the Practice Guide explains the proper procedure for Patent
`
`Owner sur-replies and discovery. The Practice Guide is clear: “The sur-reply may
`
`not be accompanied by new evidence other than deposition transcripts of the cross-
`
`examination of any reply witness.” Id. at 73 (emphasis added). Accordingly,
`
`pursuant to the Board’s standard practices and procedures, Cellspin plainly was not
`
`permitted to introduce new evidence with its sur-reply.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00131
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`Cellspin violated the Practice Guide by submitting the Untimely Evidence.
`
`The Untimely Evidence consists of extensive new testimonial and documentary
`
`evidence, namely:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`a new, 56-page-long declaration from Cellspin’s expert witness
`
`(Ex. 2026); and
`
`six other new documents spanning over 300 pages, including a
`
`published patent application, website printouts, and two technical
`
`specifications. (Exs. 2027-2029 and 2031-2033).1
`
`Cellspin did not seek, and the Board did not grant, prior authorization to
`
`deviate from the Practice Guide and file the Untimely Evidence. For this reason
`
`alone, these materials should be stricken. The Board has granted motions to strike
`
`exhibits filed with a sur-reply and portions of the sur-reply relying upon such
`
`exhibits, finding that they constitute improper new evidence. See Mallinckrodt
`
`Pharm. Ir. Ltd. v. Biovie, Inc., IPR2018-00974, Paper 34 at 8-9 (PTAB Nov. 13,
`
`1 Cellspin also submitted with its sur-reply Exhibit 2030, the transcript of the
`
`deposition Cellspin took of Panasonic’s expert witness on June 13, 2019. Cellspin
`
`cited to this transcript in its patent owner response (e.g., Paper 19 at 24) but did not
`
`previously submit the transcript, an apparent oversight. Accordingly, Panasonic
`
`does not seek to strike this evidence.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00131
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`2019) (striking portions of a sur-reply that relied on new evidence, in the form of a
`
`supplemental declaration, improperly included as an exhibit to the sur-reply, citing
`
`the Practice Guide); Navistar, Inc. v. Fatigue Fracture Tech., LLC, IPR2018-
`
`00853, 2019 WL 4126205, at *21 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2019) (granting motion to
`
`strike exhibits to a sur-reply as evidence because they “do not comply with [the
`
`Board’s] rules for proper evidence to accompany a sur-reply,” citing the Practice
`
`Guide).
`
`Furthermore, the circumstances here do not justify a departure from the
`
`Practice Guide. To the contrary, fairness and due process require the Board to
`
`follow the Practice Guide, as discussed in Sections II.B and II.C below.
`
`B.
`
`If Not Stricken, the Untimely Evidence Would Prejudice
`Panasonic and Violate Panasonic’s Due Process Rights.
`The Untimely Evidence unfairly prejudices Panasonic because it has no
`
`opportunity to depose Cellspin’s expert witness on his extensive new declaration or
`
`to address Cellspin’s new evidence in briefing. The Board strikes sur-reply
`
`evidence and sur-replies based thereon not just for plainly violating the Board’s
`
`rules and guidance, but also to prevent the unfair prejudice that would otherwise
`
`accrue to the other party due to a lack of other means for responding to the newly
`
`presented evidence. See Trane U.S. Inc. v. SEMCO, LLC, IPR2018-00514, 2019
`
`WL 1757866, at *2-4 (PTAB Apr. 17, 2019), (striking new arguments in a sur-
`
`reply accompanied by belatedly presented evidence, noting that “we cannot
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00131
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`overlook a party’s blatant disregard of our rules and practice when doing so would
`
`unfairly prejudice another party, unduly burden the Board’s review of the
`
`evidence, and impact the efficiency of our decision-making”).
`
`Cellspin’s new expert declaration would be particularly prejudicial; it is
`
`largely a lengthy improper re-direct that frequently attempts to undo the damaging
`
`admissions in his deposition testimony. One clear example: in his deposition
`
`Dr. Foley answered a line of questions about the Mashita prior art reference,
`
`specifically the process shown and described in Figures 6 and 7. Concluding this
`
`line of questions, Dr. Foley agreed that “multiple images could be transferred”
`
`between the digital camera and cell phone in one session—after receiving one
`
`image file, “the cellular phone could receive another image file from the digital
`
`camera.” Ex. 1023, 103:7-104:21 (quoted at length in Panasonic’s reply (Paper 23)
`
`at 16-17). His admissions completely undermined Cellspin’s theory that Mashita’s
`
`system would terminate the Bluetooth connection after every image transfer. In his
`
`second declaration, Dr. Foley purports to address “confusion” about his
`
`testimony—by contradicting it entirely. “The digital camera terminates the
`
`wireless link with the cellular phone immediately after transmitting the file … it
`
`would be impossible [for the cell phone] to receive another image from the digital
`
`camera.” Ex. 2026, ¶¶58-61.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00131
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`Another example: at his deposition, when asked “HTTP is a protocol that
`
`can be used for wireless communication in a public network; is that right?”
`
`Dr. Foley did not disagree, answering: “I don't see anything that would exclude it
`
`from being used over, you know, any IP network.” Ex. 1023, 18:14-19. As
`
`explained in Panasonic’s reply, this admission undermines Cellspin’s “teaching
`
`away” argument. Paper 23 at 25. In his second declaration, Dr. Foley claims this
`
`answer was “misconstrue[d]” in Panasonic’s reply and spends three paragraphs
`
`attempting to explain away his testimony. Ex. 2026, ¶¶98-100.
`
`Cellspin could have—indeed, did—ask Dr. Foley redirect questions at his
`
`deposition. See Ex. 1023, 107:1-108:20. That was the time for Cellspin to seek to
`
`elicit any testimony from Dr. Foley to clear up any “confusion.” Waiting to see
`
`how Panasonic used his deposition testimony in its reply brief, then lobbing in over
`
`50 pages of written redirect without any opportunity for Panasonic to re-cross or
`
`respond, is improper and prejudicial.
`
`Dr. Foley also presents entirely new theories in his second declaration. For
`
`example, in his first declaration Dr. Foley did not contest Panasonic’s argument
`
`that Mashita discloses a GUI. Panasonic pointed this out in its reply brief. Paper
`
`23 at 27-28. In his second declaration, Dr. Foley now asserts that “[i]n fact,
`
`Mashita does not contain a GUI.” Ex. 2026, ¶112. Once again, Cellspin waited to
`
`see Panasonic’s reply and then used the second declaration to try to patch the holes
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00131
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`Panasonic identified in its positions. Once again, it would unfairly prejudice
`
`Panasonic to allow this untimely material to remain in the record.
`
`Failure to strike the Untimely Evidence would also violate the
`
`Administrative Procedure Act and its guarantees of due process. “In a formal
`
`adjudication, such as inter partes review, the APA imposes certain procedural
`
`requirements on the agency.” Genzyme Therapeutic Prods. Ltd. P’Ship v.
`
`Biomarin Pharm. Inc., 825 F.3d 1360, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Among these are
`
`the basic requirements of due process: that parties be given both notice of the
`
`evidence and arguments on which the other side relies as well as an opportunity to
`
`respond. See id.; see also 5 U.S.C. §§ 554(b)-(c), 556(d), 557(c); Abbott Labs. v.
`
`Cordis Corp., 710 F.3d 1318, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“The indispensable
`
`ingredients of due process are notice and an opportunity to be heard by a
`
`disinterested decision-maker.”).
`
`If the Board admits Cellspin’s Untimely Evidence, those basic due process
`
`requirements will have been violated. The introduction of new evidence in the
`
`middle of a proceeding is permissible only “as long as the opposing party is given
`
`notice of the evidence and an opportunity to respond to it.” Genzyme, 825 F.3d at
`
`1366; accord Yeda Res. v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., 906 F.3d 1031, 1040 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2018) (approving of new evidence included in reply declaration because opposing
`
`party deposed expert afterward and could have substantively responded through a
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00131
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`sur-reply). Here the Untimely Evidence is attached to a sur-reply, to which no
`
`responsive briefing is permitted. Nor would responsive briefing, alone, provide an
`
`adequate remedy; Panasonic has no opportunity to depose Cellspin’s expert
`
`witness on the extensive new material in his declaration. Panasonic’s only
`
`opportunity to address the new factual assertions is at the hearing, which is too late
`
`to comport with due process. See, e.g., Dell Inc. v. Acceleron, LLC, 818 F.3d
`
`1293, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he Board denied Acceleron its procedural rights
`
`by relying in its decision on a factual assertion introduced into the proceeding only
`
`at oral argument, after Acceleron could meaningfully respond.”). If the Board does
`
`not strike Cellspin’s improper evidentiary submission, any decision in this
`
`proceeding will be subject to vacatur for failing to afford Panasonic due process.
`
`See id. at 1301-02; see also, e.g., N. Am. Coal Co. v. Miller, 870 F.2d 948, 951 (3d
`
`Cir. 1989) (vacating and remanding agency decision on due-process grounds for
`
`failing to provide an opportunity to cross-examine witness’s opinions through
`
`deposition).
`
`C.
`
`Cellspin Cannot Justify the Belated Submission of the Untimely
`Evidence.
`Cellspin has argued, post hoc, that its Untimely Evidence and improper sur-
`
`reply are justified because of supposed improprieties in Panasonic’s reply brief and
`
`accompanying evidence (see Paper 35 at 2-5); this argument fails for several
`
`reasons. As an initial matter, Cellspin’s complaints about Panasonic’s reply and
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00131
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`evidence are meritless, as Panasonic will explain in detail in responding to
`
`Cellspin’s expected motion to strike.
`
`In any case, the two motions to strike are not “intertwined” whatsoever.
`
`Contra Paper 35 at 3. Cellspin flatly and unquestionably violated an express
`
`prohibition on submitting new evidence with a sur-reply. Panasonic submitted
`
`new evidence with a reply, which is permitted under the Board’s rules and Practice
`
`Guide. Cellspin’s anticipated motion will turn on a different issue than this
`
`motion: whether, on the specific facts of this case, Panasonic’s arguments and
`
`evidence exceeded the proper scope of a reply brief (they do not).
`
`The Board has made clear what parties should do if they believe the
`
`opposing party has exceeded the proper scope of reply: timely request
`
`authorization to file a motion to strike. Practice Guide at 80.2 The parties should
`
`2 Cellspin argued that Panasonic’s request for authorization to move to strike was
`
`untimely because it was filed “eight days” after Cellspin’s sur-reply (see Paper 35
`
`at 2), ignoring that the “delay” was due in part to Cellspin’s non-responsiveness
`
`and the intervening Thanksgiving holiday. Cellspin filed its sur-reply shortly
`
`before midnight on Tuesday, November 26. Panasonic’s counsel’s offices were
`
`closed on November 28 and 29 for Thanksgiving. On the next business day,
`
`Monday, December 2, Panasonic contacted Cellspin asking for availability for a
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00131
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`not do what Cellspin did: engage in unauthorized self-help by filing new evidence
`
`and impermissible sur-reply arguments purportedly responding to the improper
`
`reply, then only seek to strike the reply in a tit-for-tat motion after filing a sur-
`
`reply.
`
`It is not hard to imagine what could result in future proceedings if the Board
`
`permits Cellspin’s conduct here. Patent owners often dispute whether petitioners
`
`adhered to the proper scope of the reply brief. In such cases, patent owners would
`
`cite this case as precedent for filing unauthorized sur-reply evidence. In short,
`
`even if Cellspin’s complaints about Panasonic’s reply were valid (they are not), the
`
`Board should still strike the Untimely Evidence.
`
`D.
`
`Cellspin’s Sur-Reply Attempts to Circumvent the Word Count
`Limit with Improper Spacing Throughout the Brief.
`In addition to rules regarding the timing of evidence, the Board’s rules and
`
`guidance provide that replies and sur-replies are limited to 5,600 words. See 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.24(c); Practice Guide at 38. Furthermore, the Board’s rules require
`
`“normal spacing” be used in documents filed in a proceeding. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.6(a)(2)(ii). In light of these rules, the Board has warned that use of citation
`
`conference call with the Board to discuss a motion to strike, and followed up the
`
`next day. Cellspin did not respond until Wednesday, December 4, after which
`
`Panasonic contacted the Board.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00131
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`formats in circumvention of these rules “could result in dismissal” of a paper filed
`
`in a proceeding before the Board. Snap-On Inc. v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp.,
`
`IPR2015-01242, 2016 WL 8944781, at *2 (PTAB Aug. 19, 2016). In particular,
`
`“deleting spacing between words, … in order to circumvent the rules on word
`
`count, may lead to a party’s brief not being considered.” Practice Guide at 40
`
`(citing Pi-Net Int’l, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 600 F. App’x 774 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2015)).
`
`Cellspin improperly deleted spaces between words in, it appears, every
`
`record citation in the sur-reply, so that each citation would be counted as one word.
`
`An example is on page 4: “table.’Ex.2003,6;Ex.2026,¶15.” This is not even
`
`arguably “normal spacing”; it is “no spacing.” Indeed, it is just like the improper
`
`lack of spacing in Pi-Net that led the Federal Circuit to strike a party’s brief. See
`
`600 F. App’x at 774 (giving an example improper case cite from the brief:
`
`“Thorner.v.SonyComputerEntm'tAm.LLC,669F3d1362,1365(Fed.Cir.2012)”). The
`
`example cited above, spaced properly, would be seven words: “table.’ Ex. 2003, 6;
`
`Ex. 2026, ¶15.” With proper citation spacing, the sur-reply would be
`
`approximately 400 words over the 5600-word limit.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00131
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`E.
`Granting this Motion is the Proper Remedy for Cellspin’s
`Violations.
`Panasonic understands that the Board views motions to strike as requesting
`
`an “exceptional remedy” that is granted rarely. See Practice Guide at 80-81. With
`
`that in mind, Panasonic has considered carefully what remedy to request.
`
`Panasonic submits that the Board has no reasonable alternative to striking
`
`the Untimely Evidence. Anything short of that would violate Panasonic’s due
`
`process rights and the Administrative Procedure Act, and unfairly prejudice
`
`Panasonic in a substantial way, for the reasons explained in detail above. Indeed,
`
`this is just the type of exceptional situation that the Practice Guide instructs will
`
`justify a motion to strike: when the fact that “evidence is belatedly presented [is]
`
`beyond dispute.” See Practice Guide, p. 80-81. And the Board has done just that
`
`in other cases presenting the same type of violation. See Mallinckrodt, IPR2018-
`
`00974, Paper 34 at 8-9; Navistar, 2019 WL 4126205, at *21.
`
`As for the sur-reply brief itself, the totality of the circumstances justifies
`
`striking that brief as well. First, the sur-reply brief largely just paraphrases the
`
`second Foley declaration. Almost every sentence in the sur-reply is followed by a
`
`citation to the second Foley declaration. Indeed, Cellspin has represented that its
`
`patent owner response “copied or paraphrased” Dr. Foley’s first declaration (Paper
`
`30 at 2); it seems the sur-reply did the same for the second declaration. As such,
`
`this is not a case where the Board can parse and consider only the proper portions
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00131
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`of the sur-reply. See Practice Guide at 74 (“The Board is not required to attempt to
`
`sort proper from improper portions of the reply or sur-reply.”). Second, Cellspin’s
`
`attempt to manipulate the word count limit through clearly improper spacing also
`
`justifies striking the sur-reply, as the authorities discussed above demonstrate.
`
`Third, and finally, the Board should consider that it has already admonished
`
`Cellspin twice for failing to follow proper procedure. See Paper 29 at 33 n.19;
`
`Paper 33 at 3.
`
`Should the Board wish to impose a more lenient sanction as an alternative to
`
`striking the sur-reply, however, the Board could strike the Untimely Evidence and
`
`treat the statements in the sur-reply citing to those exhibits as unsupported attorney
`
`argument.
`
`III. Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners respectfully request that the Board
`
`strike Cellspin’s sur-reply and Exhibits 2026-2029 and 2031-2033.
`
`Dated: December 23, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: / T. Vann Pearce, Jr. /
`
`T. Vann Pearce, Jr.
`Lead Counsel for Petitioners Panasonic
`Corporation of North America and
`Panasonic Corporation
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00131
`Patent No. 9,258,698
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing was served on
`
`December 23, 2019 via electronic service:
`
`David T. Xue
`Karineh Khachatourian
`Rimôn Law
`2479 East Bayshore Road, Suite 210
`Palo Alto, CA 94303
`david.xue@rimonlaw.com
`karinehk@rimonlaw.com
`
`Jennifer C. Bailey
`Adam P. Seitz
`Erise IP, P.A.
`7015 College Boulevard, Suite 700
`Overland Park, KS 66211
`jennifer.bailey@eriseip.com
`adam.seitz@eriseip.com
`PTAB@eriseip.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioners GoPro, Inc. Garmin International, Inc., and Garmin
`USA, Inc.
`Stephen F. Schlather
`Edmonds & Schlather, PLLC
`1616 South Voss Road, Suite 125
`Houston, TX 77057
`sschlather@ip-lit.com
`
`John J. Edmonds
`Edmonds & Schlather, PLLC
`355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`pto-edmonds@ip-lit.com
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner Cellspin Soft, Inc.
`
`/ T. Vann Pearce, Jr. /
`
`14
`
`
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
