throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________________
`
`Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc., and Axis Communications AB,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`Avigilon Fortress Corporation,
`
`Patent Owner.
`______________________
`
`Case No. IPR2019-00314
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,932,923
`______________________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR
`AUTHORIZATION TO COMPEL TESTIMONY AND/OR DOCUMENTS
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Opp. to Petitioners’ Mot. for Auth. to Compel Test. and/or Docs.
`IPR2019-00314
`
`I.
`II.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`PETITIONERS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE
`REGULATION’S REQUIREMENTS AND THE BOARD’S
`INSTRUCTIONS. .......................................................................................... 1
`III. PETITIONERS’ REQUESTED DISCOVERY IS NOT IN THE
`INTEREST OF JUSTICE ............................................................................. 2
`A.
`There is only a mere possibility and a mere allegation that useful
`information will be discovered. (Factor 1) ............................................ 3
`Factor 2 is neutral and not a basis to grant the motion. (Factor 2)
` ............................................................................................................... 6
`Petitioners fail to show that the requested information is not
`available through other means. (Factor 3) ............................................. 6
`The discovery instructions are not easy to understand. (Factor 4)
` ............................................................................................................... 8
`The discovery instructions are overly burdensome. (Factor 5) ............. 9
`E.
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Opp. to Petitioners’ Mot. for Auth. to Compel Test. and/or Docs.
`IPR2019-00314
`
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`2001 Declaration of Michael W. De Vries in Support of Unopposed Motion
`to Appear Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Patent Owner Avigilon Fortress
`Corporation.
`
`2002 Declaration of Adam R. Alper in Support of Unopposed Motion to
`Appear Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Patent Owner Avigilon Fortress
`Corporation.
`
`2003 Declaration of Akshay S. Deoras in Support of Unopposed Motion to
`Appear Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Patent Owner Avigilon Fortress
`Corporation.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.132 Declaration of Kenneth A. Zeger (excerpt of U.S.
`Patent No. 7,868,912 Reexamination).
`
`Thomas Olson & Frank Brill, Moving Object Detection & Event
`Recognition Algorithms for Smart Cameras, 1 PROC. 1997 IMAGE
`UNDERSTANDING WORKSHOP 159-175 (1997).
`
`Jonathan D. Courtney, Automatic Video Indexing Via Object Motion
`Analysis, 30(4) PATTERN RECOGNITION 607-625 (1997).
`
`2007 U.S. Patent No. 6,628,835 to Brill et al.
`
`2008 Young Francis Day, et al, Spatio-Temporal Modeling of Video Data
`for On-Line Object-Oriented Query Processing, Proceedings of the
`International Conference on Multimedia Computing and Systems 98-
`105 (1995).
`
`Forouzan Golshani & Nevenka Dimitrova, A Language for Content-
`Based Video Retrieval, 6 MULTIMEDIA TOOLS AND APPLICATIONS,
`289-312 (1998).
`
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2009
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Opp. to Petitioners’ Mot. for Auth. to Compel Test. and/or Docs.
`IPR2019-00314
`
`Description
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`2010
`
`IPR2018-00138; IPR2018-00140, Ex. 2009 (Grindon Dep. Transcript
`Aug. 15, 2018).
`
`2011 Declaration of Jennifer A. Babbitt.
`
`SearchWorks Catalog Entry for Thomas Olson & Frank Brill, Moving
`Object Detection & Event Recognition Algorithms for Smart Cameras,
`1 PROC. 1997 IMAGE UNDERSTANDING WORKSHOP 159-175 (1997).
`
`Scanned Cover and Front Matter of Jonathan D. Courtney, Automatic
`Video Indexing Via Object Motion Analysis, 30(4) PATTERN
`RECOGNITION 607-625 (1997)
`
`2014 MRC Standards Wikipedia Search.
`
`2015 Declaration of Jennifer A. Babbitt for Sur-Reply.
`
`LinkedIn Profile of Marilyn McSweeney.
`
`2017 Declaration of Jennifer A. Babbitt in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Authorization to Compel
`Testimony and/or Documents.
`
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2016
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`I.
`
`Patent Owner’s Opp. to Petitioners’ Mot. for Auth. to Compel Test. and/or Docs.
`IPR2019-00314
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner Avigilon Fortress Corporation (“Patent Owner”) submits this
`
`Opposition to Petitioner Canon Inc., Canon U.S.A., Inc., and Axis Communications
`
`AB’s (collectively, “Petitioners”) Motion for Authorization to Compel Testimony
`
`and/or Documents (the “Motion”) dated August 16, 2019 (Paper 18). Patent Owner
`
`respectfully requests that the Board deny the Motion, which seeks purely
`
`hypothetical and irrelevant information, as would significantly burden Patent Owner
`
`by forcing it to engage in this meritless discovery process.
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONERS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE REGULATION’S
`REQUIREMENTS AND THE BOARD’S INSTRUCTIONS.
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.52(a)(1), a party seeking to compel testimony must
`
`“identify the witness by name or title.” Additionally, the Board instructed Petitioners
`
`to “identify as specifically as possible exactly what testimony and documents it is
`
`seeking from each of the third parties.” Ex. 1050 at 20:19-21:5. Petitioners have
`
`not complied with any of these directives, and Patent Owner submits that their
`
`request should be denied for at least that reason. See Motion at 3; id. at Exs. A and
`
`B. First, Petitioners clearly do not satisfy Rule 42.52(a)(1) because they do not
`
`identify the witnesses, either by name or title, at the Massachusetts Institute of
`
`Technology (“MIT”) library or the Library of Congress (“LOC”) from whom they
`
`seek to obtain testimony. Id; see, e.g., Motion at 1 (“Petitioners are seeking to
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Opp. to Petitioners’ Mot. for Auth. to Compel Test. and/or Docs.
`IPR2019-00314
`
`
`subpoena these libraries to address Patent Owner’s challenge to the public
`
`accessibility of the asserted references.”) (emphasis added). This is in contrast with
`
`the cases cited by Petitioner, such as Kaz USA, Inc. v. Exergen Corp., IPR2016-
`
`01437, Paper 15 at 3 (PTAB May 16, 2017), where a petitioner identified the
`
`librarian that would be submitting a declaration. Indeed, as explained below,
`
`Petitioners have done nothing to demonstrate that there in fact is anyone at MIT or
`
`the LOC that can provide the requested information, regarding the particular
`
`practices in the timeframes that are relevant to the issues in this case.
`
`III. PETITIONERS’ REQUESTED DISCOVERY IS NOT IN THE
`INTEREST OF JUSTICE
`There is a strong public policy to limit discovery in administrative trial
`
`proceedings. See Bloomberg Inc. v. Markets-Alert Pty. Ltd., CBM2013-00005,
`
`Paper 32 at 11 (PTAB May 29, 2013). As such, the Board shall be “conservative in
`
`granting leave for additional discovery,” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`
`IPR2012-00026, Paper 32 at 4, for when the petitioner satisfies the burden of
`
`showing that the additional discovery it seeks is in the “interests of justice.” See 37
`
`C.F.R. §§ 42.20(c), 42.51(b)(2)(i); see also 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5). The five Garmin
`
`factors aid the Board in determining whether additional discovery serves the
`
`interests of justice. Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, IPR2012-00001,
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Opp. to Petitioners’ Mot. for Auth. to Compel Test. and/or Docs.
`IPR2019-00314
`
`
`Paper 26 at 6-7 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013) (precedential). Here, four of the five Garmin
`
`factors weigh against the Petitioners.
`
`A. There is only a mere possibility and a mere allegation that useful
`information will be discovered. (Factor 1)
`Petitioners fail to show “beyond speculation that something useful will be
`
`uncovered” with their discovery requests. Garmin, Paper 26 at 7. The Board in
`
`Garmin made clear that “useful . . . does not mean merely ‘relevant’ and/or
`
`‘admissible.’” Id.; see also Bloomberg Inc., Paper 32 at 5.
`
`The Petition sets the boundaries of what is “useful” to Petitioners’ arguments.
`
`As to Dimitrova, the only allegation of public availability in the Petition is that
`
`“Dimitrova was published in the ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Vol.
`
`13, No. 4, in October 1995.” Paper 1 at 3 (emphasis added).1 But Petitioners’
`
`discovery requests is not tailored to information relevant to their assertion.
`
`Petitioners seek documents that hypothetically would show that Dimitrova was
`
`
`1 The Petition also relies on Brill to challenge the claims in the ’923 patent. Paper
`
`1 at 3. Petitioners claim that Brill was published in the Proceedings of Image
`
`Understanding Workshop, Vol. 1, published December 1998. Paper 1 at 4; Ex.
`
`1007, ¶¶30-33. Petitioners state they are not seeking information allegedly
`
`related to the public accessibility of Brill. Motion at 1, fn. 1.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Opp. to Petitioners’ Mot. for Auth. to Compel Test. and/or Docs.
`IPR2019-00314
`
`
`“received and made available to the public by the MIT Libraries before October
`
`1999” and testimony that hypothetically would show how Dimitrova was “made
`
`publicly available by MIT Libraries before October 1999.”2 Motion at Exhibit A
`
`(emphasis added). But there is no reason to believe that information responsive to
`
`Petitioners’ request would be relevant to the allegations in the Petition, which is over
`
`four years earlier than the date identified in the Motion. That is, Petitioners have
`
`done nothing to ensure that the libraries can and will provide pre-October-1995
`
`information. In fact, the information Petitioners request do not indicate that the MIT
`
`library has information on when Dimitrova was “published”—the only allegation
`
`made as to Dimitrova in the Petition. See Paper 1 at 3. As a result, the likelihood
`
`that any information returned will be irrelevant to Petitioners’ assertions is high,
`
`wasting time on all sides and burdening Patent Owner as a result of Petitioners’
`
`misguided quest. In a similar case, the Board denied a motion for additional
`
`discovery because there was no evidence that “the historical information even
`
`exists” regarding activities before August 2000, which was only fourteen years
`
`before the request, in contrast to the twenty-four year gap at issue here. Alt. Legal
`
`
`2 Petitioners make the same request regarding the LOC, and so the following
`
`argument applies equally to Petitioners’ proposed subpoena to the LOC.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Opp. to Petitioners’ Mot. for Auth. to Compel Test. and/or Docs.
`IPR2019-00314
`
`
`Sols. Inc. v. Emp’t Law Compliance Inc., IPR2014-00562, Paper 22, at 3-4, 5 (PTAB
`
`Dec. 23, 2014).
`
`More fundamentally, Petitioners simply have failed to show that there is more
`
`than a mere possibility that useful information will be discovered because the Motion
`
`does nothing at all to establish that there is anyone at MIT or the LOC that can and
`
`will testify as to the relevant information on or before October 1995 (or October
`
`1999, for that matter), or that any of the documentary evidence they request exists.
`
`The existence of such a witness and testimony is doubtful, given that it is now
`
`twenty-four years after the timeframe in question. The only examples Petitioners
`
`cite regarding MIT are a declaration from an employee who began working there in
`
`2016, and one from an employee who no longer works at MIT and therefore will not
`
`be put up for deposition. Kaz, Ex. 1027; Google Inc. v. CreateAds LLC, IPR2014-
`
`00200 (PTAB Nov. 27, 2013), Ex. 1007; Ex. 2016 (LinkedIn Profile of Marilyn
`
`McSweeney showing retirement from MIT in December 2016). All Petitioners have
`
`established is that MIT allegedly will not provide a declaration voluntarily, and that
`
`the LOC apparently did not respond at all. Motion at 3-4.
`
`Further, of the three references for which Petitioners request discovery, only
`
`one (Dimitrova) is at issue in this case. Kellogg and Flinchbaugh are not at issue in
`
`this IPR and Petitioners’ baseless attempt to seek discovery on them from two
`
`different libraries, including at least five categories of documents and substantial
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Opp. to Petitioners’ Mot. for Auth. to Compel Test. and/or Docs.
`IPR2019-00314
`
`
`deposition testimony, and should be denied at least for those reasons. Motion, Exs.
`
`A and B. Further, the LOC is completely irrelevant to Petitioners’ assertions, as they
`
`have not argued public availability at the LOC for any reference, and that issue is
`
`not in the case. Petitioners’ Motion should be denied for that reason as well.
`
`Nor is the public availability of Flinchbaugh at issue in this case. The Petition
`
`makes no mention of Flinchbaugh whatsoever, let alone does it, or any other
`
`pleading from Petitioners, argue for Flinchbaugh’s public availability.
`
`B.
`Factor 2 is neutral and not a basis to grant the motion. (Factor 2)
`At this time, Petitioners’ requests do not appear to seek legal positions or the
`
`underlying basis for any legal positions, but Patent Owner reserves the right to raise
`
`the issue if Petitioners modify their requests. Petitioners, however, cite to no case
`
`where mere compliance with Factor 2 justifies granting a motion for additional
`
`discovery.
`
`C.
`
`Petitioners fail to show that the requested information is not
`available through other means. (Factor 3)
`Petitioners claim “MIT has indicated to Petitioners that it will only provide a
`
`declaration for a reference in response to a subpoena.” Motion at 6. But Petitioners
`
`do not provide any evidence to support that claim, and two IPRs that Petitioners cite
`
`to demonstrate that that is not MIT’s policy. In CreateAds, Paper 1, Ex. 1007, the
`
`petitioners included a declaration from an MIT librarian with the petition and
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Opp. to Petitioners’ Mot. for Auth. to Compel Test. and/or Docs.
`IPR2019-00314
`
`
`without requiring a subpoena.3 Also, in Alternative Legal Solutions, Inc., the patent
`
`owner obtained a declaration from an MIT librarian without a subpoena as well. See
`
`IPR2014-00562, Exhibit 2029; see also id. Paper 18 at 1 (“Ms. Marilyn McSweeney,
`
`an MIT librarian, voluntarily provided a sworn declaration.”) (emphasis added).
`
`This shows that MIT does not necessarily require a subpoena for the discovery
`
`Petitioners seek.
`
`Petitioners also claim that a copy of Dimitrova is found at the University of
`
`California Los Angeles Science & Engineering Library (“UCLA”) (Paper 11 at 5
`
`(arguing “Dimitrova was publicly disseminated, as it was received by at least three
`
`different institutions (UCLA, Library of Congress, and MIT)” (citations omitted);
`
`Ex. 1007 ¶12 (Florio Declaration); see also Ex. 3002 (seeking permission to compel
`
`testimony or documents from the University of California Los Angeles Science &
`
`Engineering Library) but provide no evidence or describe any efforts made to obtain
`
`a declaration from UCLA without a subpoena, and so have failed completely to
`
`establish that their request complies with Factor 3. See generally, Motion.
`
`
`3 Petitioners’ Motion to Submit Supplemental Information, Paper 19, improperly
`
`attempts to file this declaration (Ex. 1048) in the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opp. to Petitioners’ Mot. for Auth. to Compel Test. and/or Docs.
`IPR2019-00314
`
`D. The discovery instructions are not easy to understand. (Factor 4)
`Instructions and questions should be easily understandable so that the
`
`responder can answer efficiently, accurately, and confidently. Bloomberg, Paper 32
`
`at 5. Petitioners misunderstand this requirement and assert that because MIT has
`
`provided declarations regarding public availability in the past, it “should be able to
`
`do so again in this proceeding” and “[t]he same should be true for the LOC.” Motion
`
`at 7. MIT’s prior willingness to provide declarations, however, does not speak to
`
`how easy Petitioners’ discovery instructions are to understand. For example,
`
`Petitioners ask for “documents reflecting the authenticity of Kellogg, Dimitrova, and
`
`Flinchbaugh” but do not explain how MIT would prove the authenticity of a
`
`document or that anyone at MIT would know how to perform the proper analysis
`
`regarding the legal question of authenticity. Also, Petitioners’ instructions are not
`
`sufficiently understandable because they failed to identify the intended party to be
`
`deposed or the specific documents it requests. Arm Ltd. v. Complex Memory, LLC,
`
`IPR2019-00053, 00058, Paper 6 at 9-10 (PTAB Jan. 31, 2019) (denying a request
`
`file a motion for additional discovery because the instructions fail to identify the
`
`witness and documents with specificity). Moreover, Petitioners’ instructions for
`
`“[r]esponsive documents” is overly broad in scope and thus, difficult for the
`
`responder to understand. See id. (finding “limited communications” not specific
`
`enough for the responder to easily understand).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opp. to Petitioners’ Mot. for Auth. to Compel Test. and/or Docs.
`IPR2019-00314
`
`E.
`The discovery instructions are overly burdensome. (Factor 5)
`“Requests must not be overly burdensome . . . . The burden includes financial
`
`burden, burden on human resources, and burden on meeting the time schedule of the
`
`trial.” Bloomberg, Paper 32 at 5. Petitioners fail to show that the discovery they
`
`seek from MIT and the LOC are not overly burdensome. Instead, they make baseless
`
`assertions that because MIT has provided declarations regarding public availability
`
`in the past, it “should be able to do so again in this proceeding” and “[t]he same
`
`should be true for the LOC.” Motion at 7.
`
`Petitioners’ discovery request is overly burdensome. First, merely identifying
`
`the broad categories of discovery Petitioners’ seek is too broad in scope, and thus
`
`Petitioners’ request for “responsive documents” is overly burdensome. See Arm
`
`Ltd., Paper 6 at 9 (finding instructions for “limited communications” a category that
`
`is too broad in scope). Second, besides suggesting “checkouts and/or copies” as
`
`records allegedly showing public access, Petitioners have not narrowly tailored the
`
`list of documents or specified the relevant time period they claim would be
`
`responsive to the remaining requests, which will require a burdensome expenditure
`
`of human resources for the library to divine what is a “responsive document.”
`
`Motion, Exs. A and B. Third, Petitioners’ instructions are unduly broad and
`
`burdensome because Petitioners have not complied with Rule 42.52(a) and have not
`
`identified the witness they seek to depose. This will cause burden and delay because
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Opp. to Petitioners’ Mot. for Auth. to Compel Test. and/or Docs.
`IPR2019-00314
`
`
`it places an obligation on the libraries to expend financial and human resources to
`
`determine who, if anyone, can testify to the library shelving and recording practices
`
`in October 1995—a burden that the regulations place on the party seeking the
`
`discovery, not the subpoenaed entity. See Bloomberg, Paper 32 at 9.
`
`Also, Petitioners’ apparent explanation as to why they seek to compel
`
`testimony and production of documents regarding references not at issue in this case
`
`(Dimitrova and Flinchbaugh) is puzzling and misplaced. Motion at 7-8. The LOC
`
`for example, is more burdened, not less burdened, by having to respond to two
`
`subpoenas (one in connection with each IPR) instead of one; at a minimum, there is
`
`no reduction in burden by requesting irrelevant information. Moreover, Petitioners’
`
`instructions seeking irrelevant information on references unrelated to this
`
`proceeding from two different libraries is not “sensible and responsibly tailored
`
`according to a genuine need,” and thus unduly burdensome. Garmin, Paper 26 at
`
`14.
`
`Lastly, Petitioners fail to explain why they discovery from both the MIT
`
`library and the LOC when the MIT library allegedly possesses information on all
`
`three references. See Motion at 3, Ex. A.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`Patent Owner respectfully requests the Board deny Petitioners’ Motion.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Opp. to Petitioners’ Mot. for Auth. to Compel Test. and/or Docs.
`IPR2019-00314
`
`Dated: August 23, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`Reza Dokhanchy (Reg. No. 62,795)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: 415-439-1400
`Facsimile: 415-439-1500
`reza.dokhanchy@kirkland.com
`
`Adam R. Alper (pro hac vice)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: 415-439-1400
`Facsimile: 415-439-1500
`adam.alper@kirkland.com
`
`Back-Up Counsel for Patent Owner
`Avigilon Fortress Corporation
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Eugene Goryunov/
`Eugene Goryunov (Reg. No. 61,579)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`300 North LaSalle
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Telephone: 312-862-2000
`Facsimile: 312-862-2200
`
`
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`Avigilon Fortress Corporation
`
`Akshay S. Deoras (pro hac vice)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: 415-439-1400
`Facsimile: 415-439-1500
`akshay.deoras@kirkland.com
`
`Michael W. De Vries (pro hac vice)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`333 South Hope Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: 213-680-8400
`Facsimile: 213-680-8500
`michael.devries@kirkland.com
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Patent Owner’s Opp. to Petitioners’ Mot. for Auth. to Compel Test. and/or Docs.
`IPR2019-00314
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing PATENT
`
`OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO
`
`PETITIONERS’ MOTION
`
`FOR
`
`AUTHORIZATION TO COMPEL TESTIMONY AND/OR DOCUMENTS,
`
`and all associated exhibits was served on August 23, 2019 via electronic service on
`
`lead and back up counsel:
`
`
`Axis Communications AB
`Lead Counsel
`
`C. Gregory Gramenopoulos (Reg. No.
`36,532)
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`Telephone: 202-408-4263
`Facsimile: 202-408-4400
`gramenoc@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`Canon Inc. and Canon U.S.A., Inc.
`Lead Counsel
`
`Joseph A. Calvaruso (Reg. No. 28,287)
`Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe LLP
`2050 Main Street, Suite 1110
`Irvine, CA 92614-8255
`Telephone: 212-506-5140
`Facsimile: 949-567-6710
`ipprosecution@orrick.com
`jcalvaruso@orrick.com
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`Axis Communications AB
`Backup Counsel
`
`Kelly S. Horn (Reg. No. 70,657)
`Guang-Yu Zhu (Reg. No. 66,250)
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`Telephone: 202-408-43131
`Facsimile: 202-408-4400
`kelly.horn@finnegan.com
`guang-yu.zhu@finnegan.com
`
`
`Canon Inc. and Canon U.S.A., Inc.
`Back-Up Counsel
`
`Richard F. Martinelli (Reg. No. 52,003)
`Orrick, Herrington, & Sutcliffe LLP
`2050 Main Street, Suite 1110
`Irvine, CA 92614-8255
`Telephone: 212-506-5140
`Facsimile: 949-567-6710
`ipprosecution@orrick.com
`rmartinelli@orrick.com
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Opp. to Petitioners’ Mot. for Auth. to Compel Test. and/or Docs.
`IPR2019-00314
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Eugene Goryunov
`
`Eugene Goryunov (Reg. No. 61,579)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`300 North LaSalle
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Telephone: 312-862-2000
`Facsimile: 312-862-2200
`eugene.goryunov@kirkland.com
`
`Akshay S. Deoras (pro hac vice)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: 415-439-1400
`Facsimile: 415-439-1500
`akshay.deoras@kirkland.com
`
`Michael W. De Vries (pro hac vice)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`333 South Hope Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: 213-680-8400
`Facsimile: 213-680-8500
`michael.devries@kirkland.com
`
`
`Dated: August 23, 2019
`
`Reza Dokhanchy (Reg. No. 62,795)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: 415-439-1400
`Facsimile: 415-439-1500
`reza.dokhanchy@kirkland.com
`
`Adam R. Alper (pro hac vice)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: 415-439-1400
`Facsimile: 415-439-1500
`adam.alper@kirkland.com
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket