Paper 9
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: May 30, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00958
`Patent 7,848,439 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before THU A. DANG, KEVIN F. TURNER, and BARBARA A. BENOIT,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822 Entered: May 30, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-00958
`Patent 7,848,439 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before THU A. DANG, KEVIN F. TURNER, and BARBARA A. BENOIT,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b)
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00958
`Patent 7,848,439 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Apple”) filed a petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`seeking inter partes review of claims 1–7 of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,439 B2
`(Ex. 1001, “the ’439 patent” or “the challenged patent”). On the same day,
`Petitioner filed a Motion for Joinder with HTC Corp. v. INVT SPEC LLC,
`IPR2018-01555 (“the HTC IPR”). Paper 4 (“Mot.”).1 Patent Owner, INVT
`SPE LLC, filed a Preliminary Response and Response in Opposition to
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`For the reasons described below, we institute an inter partes review of
`claims 1–7 of the challenged patent and grant Petitioner’s Motion for
`Joinder.
`
`A. Related Matters
`As required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2), each party identifies various
`judicial or administrative matters that would affect or be affected by a
`decision in this proceeding. Pet. 1; Paper 6 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory
`Notice), 2–3. The parties identify several district court proceedings and a
`U.S. International Trade Commission Investigation involving the challenged
`patent. Pet. 1; Paper 6, 2. Patent Owner additionally identifies various
`proceedings involving petitions for inter partes review. Paper 6, 2–3.
`
`
`1 On April 8, 2019, Petitioner filed two copies of its Motion for Joinder as
`Papers 3 and 4. In the PTAB E2E electronic filing system, Petitioner
`identified Paper 3 as Paper Type “Other,” whereas Petitioner identified
`Paper 4 as Paper Type “Motion.” We refer to the later-filed Paper 4 as
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00958
`Patent 7,848,439 B2
`
`
`B. The Asserted Ground of Unpatentability
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–7 of the ’439 patent as unpatentable
`under 35 U.S.C. § 1032 over the following references:
`U.S. Patent No. 6,904,283 B2, filed April 17, 2001, issued June
`7, 2005 (Ex. 1003, “Li”);
`U.S. Patent No. 7,221,680 B2, filed September 1, 2004, issued
`May 22, 2007 (Ex. 1004, “Vijayan”); and
`U.S. Patent No. 6,721,569 B1, filed September 29, 2000, issued
`April 13, 2004 (Ex. 1005, “Hashem”).
`Pet. 3. In its challenges, Petitioner cites to the references and declaration
`testimony from Zhi Ding, Ph.D. (Exhibit 1007). Pet. 3, 11–75.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Three Petitions Challenging Claims of the ’439 Patent
`In addition to the instant Petition challenging claims 1–7 of the ’439
`Patent, Petitioner and ZTE (USA) Inc. filed a petition in IPR2018-01477
`challenging claims 1–11 of the ’439 Patent and relying on Li, Vijayan, and
`U.S. Patent No. 7,885,228 B2 (“Walton”). IPR2018-01477, Paper 1 (“1477
`Dec.”), 9.3 On March 7, 2019, we denied institution after concluding that
`the information presented in the petition did not show a reasonable
`
`
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
`Stat. 284, 287–88 (2011), revised 35 U.S.C. § 103 effective March 16, 2013.
`Because the challenged patent was filed before March 16, 2013, we refer to
`the pre-AIA version of § 103.
`3 Specifically, Apple and ZTE (USA) Inc. asserted claims 1, 3, and 5–11
`would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Li and Walton and
`claims 2 and 4 would have been obvious over Li, Walton, and Vijayan.
`1477 Dec. 9.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00958
`Patent 7,848,439 B2
`
`likelihood that Petitioner would prevail with respect to claims 1–11.
`1477 Dec. 37.
`On the same day, we instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–7 of
`the ’439 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Li, Vijayan, and Hashem in
`IPR2018-01555 (“the HTC IPR”) based on a petition filed by HTC Corp.
`and HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “the HTC Petitioner”). IPR2018-
`01555, Paper 1 (“HTC Petition” or “HTC Pet.”), Paper 8 (“HTC Dec.”), 2;
`IPR2018-01555, Paper 10.
`
`B. Reasonable Likelihood of the Instant Petition
`Institution of an inter partes review is authorized by statute when “the
`information presented in the petition . . . and any response . . . shows that
`there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect
`to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a);
`see 37 C.F.R § 42.4(a) (delegating authority to institute trial to the Board).
`We address whether the Petition in this proceeding reaches the institution
`threshold before turning to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder and considering
`whether to exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`The Petition in this proceeding asserts the same ground of
`unpatentability as the one on which we instituted review in the HTC IPR.
`Compare Pet. 3, 11–75, with HTC Pet. 3, 12–83; see also HTC Dec. 8, 17–
`46 (discussing asserted grounds). The Petition relies on the same expert
`declaration relied on in the HTC Petition. Mot. 4; Pet. 3 (relying on
`declaration testimony of Zhi Ding, Ph.D. (Ex. 1007)); HTC Dec. 8 (noting
`petition relies on declaration testimony of Zhi Ding, Ph.D. (Ex. 1007)).
`Indeed, Petitioner contends that the Petition “is substantively identical to the
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00958
`Patent 7,848,439 B2
`
`HTC Petition, containing only minor differences related to formalities of a
`different party filing the petition as well as” arguments related to
`discretionary denial of the Petition. Mot. 4.
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response does not address Petitioner’s
`prior art, arguments, or evidence. See generally Prelim. Resp.
`For the reasons set forth in our institution decision in the HTC IPR,
`we determine the information presented in the instant Petition shows a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing claims 1–7
`would have been obvious over Li, Vijayan, and Hashem. See HTC Dec. 17–
`46.
`
`C. Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder
`We have authority under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) to join a properly filed
`inter partes review petition to an instituted inter partes review. A motion
`for joinder must be filed “no later than one month after the institution date of
`any inter partes review for which joinder is requested.” 37 C.F.R. § 122(b).
`The Petition in this proceeding was accorded a filing date of Monday,
`April 8, 2019. Paper 5 (Notice of Filing Date Accorded). The HTC IPR
`was instituted on March 7, 2019. HTC Dec. 1. Petitioner contends that its
`Motion for Joinder is timely because joinder was requested no later than one
`month after the institution of the HTC IPR. Mot. 3; see 35 U.S.C. § 21(b)
`(“When . . . the last day . . . for taking any action . . . in the United States
`Patent and Trademark Office falls on . . . Sunday . . . , the action may be
`taken . . . on the next succeeding secular or business day.”); 37 C.F.R. § 1.7
`(Expiration on Saturday, Sunday or Federal Holiday). We agree that
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder is timely.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00958
`Patent 7,848,439 B2
`
`
`Both parties recognize, as do we, that the one-year bar set forth in 35
`U.S.C. § 315(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) would bar institution of the
`Petition except for the request for joinder. Mot. 3 (“Further, the one-year
`bar set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 42.101(b) does not apply to the Apple Petition
`because this Motion for Joinder is filed concurrently with the Apple Petition.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b).”); Prelim. Resp. 2; see 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (“The time
`limitation . . . shall not apply to a request for joinder under subsection (c).”);
`37 C.F.R. § 42.122(b) (“The time set forth in §42.101(b) shall not apply
`when the petition is accompanied by a request for joinder.”).
`In its Motion, Petitioner contends that its narrowly tailored petition
`would “not unduly burden or prejudice the parties to the HTC IPR while
`efficiently resolving the question of the ’439 Patent’s validity in a single
`proceeding.” Mot. 1. In opposition, Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s
`Motion for Joinder should be denied “because it is predicated upon Apple’s
`own strategic choices and Apple has not articulated any prejudice it may
`suffer in the absence of a joinder.” Prelim. Resp. 12 (capitalization altered);
`see Prelim. Resp. 12–15.
`As noted previously, Petitioner asserts the same unpatentability
`ground on which we instituted review in the HTC IPR. See Mot. 4 (“Joinder
`with the HTC IPR is appropriate because the Apple Petition involves the
`same patent, challenges the same claims, relies on the same expert
`declaration, and is based on the same grounds and combinations of prior art
`submitted in the HTC Petition.”). Petitioner relies on the same prior art
`analysis and expert declaration as presented in the HTC Petition. See Mot. 4
`(“Other than these mere differences related to formalities, there are no
`changes to the facts, citations, evidence, or arguments presented in the HTC
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00958
`Patent 7,848,439 B2
`
`Petition.”); Mot. 4–5 (“The Apple Petition is substantively identical to the
`HTC Petition. The Apple Petition presents the unpatentability of the same
`claims of the same patent in the same way as the HTC Petition.”).
`Accordingly, this inter partes review does not present any ground or
`matter not already at issue in the HTC IPR. Furthermore, if joinder is
`granted, Petitioner anticipates participating in the proceeding in a limited
`capacity absent termination of HTC Corp. and HTC America Inc. as parties.
`Mot. 6–7; see Mot. 6 (“Petitioner explicitly agrees to take an ‘understudy’
`role, as described by the Board” in IPR2014-00550, Paper 38, 5). Petitioner
`proposes its participation be limited to being an “understudy” as defined in a
`prior Board decision. Mot. 6 (“Petitioner explicitly agrees to take an
`‘understudy’ role, as described by the Board” in IPR2014-00550, Paper 38,
`5); see Mot. 6–7 (Petitioner’s block quote). Petitioner thus proposes its
`understudy role to be the following:
`(a) all filings by Petitioner in the joined proceeding would be
`consolidated with the filings of the petitioner in the HTC IPR
`unless a filing solely concerns issues that do not involve the
`original petitioner in the HTC IPR;
`(b) Petitioner shall not be permitted to raise any new grounds not
`already instituted by the Board in the HTC IPR, or introduce any
`argument or discovery not already introduced by the petitioner in
`the HTC IPR;
`(c) Petitioner shall be bound by any agreement between Patent
`Owner and the petitioner in the HTC IPR concerning discovery
`and/or depositions; and
`(d) Petitioner at deposition shall not receive any direct, cross-
`examination or redirect time beyond that permitted for the
`petitioner in the HTC IPR alone under either 37 C.F.R. § 42.53
`or any agreement between Patent Owner and the petitioner in the
`HTC IPR.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00958
`Patent 7,848,439 B2
`
`See Mot. 6–7. Petitioner represents that it would “assume the primary role
`only if HTC ceases to participate in the HTC IPR.” Mot. 7.
`Patent Owner contends that if we grant Petitioner’s Motion we should
`limit Petitioner’s role in the manner proposed by Petitioner and Petitioner
`“should be required to seek permission from the Board first before making
`any . . . filings” “as to matters that solely concern itself.” Prelim. Resp. 15.
`We agree with Patent Owner’s request.
`Because Petitioner expects to participate only in this limited capacity,
`Petitioner submits that joinder will not impact the trial schedule for the HTC
`IPR. Mot. 7 (“By Petitioner accepting an ‘understudy’ role, Patent Owner
`and Petitioner Apple can comply with the current trial schedule and avoid
`any duplicative efforts by the Board or the Patent Owner.”).
`Petitioner represents that Petitioner HTC “takes no position as to
`Petitioner Apple joining in IPR2018-01555 in an ‘understudy’ role.” Mot. 7.
`In view of the particular circumstances of this case, we agree with
`Petitioner that joinder is appropriate in these circumstances because joinder
`will not unduly burden the parties to the HTC IPR while efficiently
`resolving the question of the unpatentability of claims 1–7 of the ’439 patent
`in a single proceeding. See, e.g., Mot. 1.
`
`D. Discretionary Denial under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`Patent Owner requests that we exercise the Board’s discretion under
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny institution of an inter parties review in the
`particular circumstances of this proceeding. See Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC
`v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a
`petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion.”); Harmonic
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00958
`Patent 7,848,439 B2
`
`Inc. v. Avid Tech, Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The PTO is
`permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR proceeding.”).
`In General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`the Board enumerated non-exhaustive factors that the Board would consider
`in exercising discretion on instituting inter partes review, especially as to
`“follow-on” petitions challenging the same patent as challenged previously
`in an inter partes review. Case IPR2016-01357, slip op. at 16 (PTAB
`Sept. 6, 2017) (Paper 19) (§ II.B.4.i precedential); see Office Trial Practice
`Guide, August 2018 Update, 83 Fed. Reg. 39989 (Aug. 13, 2018) (Notice of
`update); Trial Practice Guide Update (August 2018),4 9–10 (Considerations
`in Instituting a Review (discussing General Plastic)). The non-exhaustive
`General Plastic factors are
`1. whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition
`directed to the same claims of the same patent;
`2. whether at the time of filing of the first petition the petitioner
`knew of the prior art asserted in the second petition or should
`have known of it;
`3. whether at the time of filing of the second petition the
`petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary
`response to the first petition or received the Board’s decision
`on whether to institute review in the first petition;
`4. the length of time that elapsed between the time the petitioner
`learned of the prior art asserted in the second petition and the
`filing of the second petition;
`
`
`4 Trial Practice Guide Update (August 2018) is available at
`https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2018_Revised_Trial_Pr
`actice_Guide.pdf.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00958
`Patent 7,848,439 B2
`
`
`5. whether the petitioner provides adequate explanation for the
`time elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions directed
`to the same claims of the same patent;
`6. the finite resources of the Board; and
`7. the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issue a final
`determination not later than 1 year after the date on which the
`Director notices institution of review.
`General Plastic, slip op. at 9–10.5 The General Plastic factors generally
`have been used to analyze situations in which the same party files multiple
`petitions challenging the same patent. As the Office Trial Practice Guide
`explains, the General Plastic factors are not dispositive, but are part of a
`balanced assessment of the relevant circumstances in a particular case.
`Office Trial Practice Guide Update (August 2018), 10.
`Petitioner contends that the General Plastic factors are inapplicable to
`the circumstances here because Petitioner requests to join an ongoing
`proceeding without expanding the scope of the proceeding and participating
`in a limited understudy role. Mot. 7–8; see Pet. 2. Petitioner reasons that its
`understudy role in joining an instituted review would not impact the Board’s
`finite resources and “is not the type of serial petition to which General
`Plastic applies.” Mot. 8.
`Patent Owner contends that “General Plastic applies to follow-on
`petitions like this one, by the same Petitioner and directed to the same claims
`of the same patent.” Prelim. Resp. 4–5, 6 (General Plastic factor 1). Patent
`Owner argues that Petitioner knew about two of the three asserted prior art
`references when it filed its 1477 Petition, because it asserted them in its prior
`
`5 See also NVIDIA Corp. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Case IPR2016-00134
`(PTAB May 4, 2016) (Paper 9) (cited by General Plastic).
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00958
`Patent 7,848,439 B2
`
`petition, and Petitioner should have known “with reasonable diligence” of
`Hashem, the third prior art reference asserted in the Petition. Prelim. Resp. 6
`(General Plastic factor 2). Patent Owner further argues that Petitioner filed
`the Petition in this proceeding to cure the deficiencies in its earlier petition in
`IPR2018-01477 (General Plastic factor 3) and has not provided any
`explanation for the time elapsed between the petition in IPR2018-01477 and
`the Petition in this proceeding (General Plastic factors 4 and 5). Prelim.
`Resp. 8–11. Patent Owner contends that “instituting a new proceeding, or
`adding another party in the case of an ultimate joinder” typically reduces
`efficiency and increases costs. Prelim. Resp. 11 (General Plastic factors 6
`and 7) (“At the very least, Factors 6 and 7 moderately weigh in favor of
`denial of this IPR. Certainly, it is true that instituting a new proceeding, or
`adding another party in the case of an ultimate joinder, seldom inherently
`screams greater efficiency or fewer costs. Indeed, it more typically indicates
`the opposite.”).
`Petitioner argues that, even if the General Plastic factors are applied
`to this proceeding, the factors do not weigh against institution because
`Petitioner filed its subsequent petition to seek joinder with an ongoing
`proceeding in the role of an understudy and without seeking to expand the
`scope of the ongoing review. Mot. 11 (“Thus, none of the General Plastic
`factors weigh against institution and joinder in this situation.”); see Mot. 8–
`11 (discussing each General Plastic factor).
`We do not agree with Patent Owner that the General Plastic factors
`weigh against institution in the particular circumstances of this case. Patent
`Owner does not adequately address an important circumstance here—
`Petitioner only seeks to join an ongoing proceeding as an understudy without
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00958
`Patent 7,848,439 B2
`
`expanding the scope of the review. See generally Prelim. Resp. 6–11. In
`August 2018, both Petitioner and Petitioner HTC submitted separate,
`independent petitions that were filed one day apart. On March 7, 2019, we
`denied Petitioner’s first petition (IPR2018-01477) and instituted an inter
`partes review based on HTC’s petition (IPR2018-01555). Within a month,
`Petitioner filed the Petition in this proceeding, seeking to join the HTC IPR
`in a limited “understudy” role without expanding the scope of the ongoing
`proceeding.
`Moreover, in these particular circumstances, we do not agree with
`Patent Owner that Petitioner engaged in “unreasonable delay and
`questionable tactics” (Prelim. Resp. 11) or that “[t]his is an improper and
`belated attempt by Apple to remedy the deficiencies in its first filed petition”
`(Prelim. Resp. 12). Rather, in view of our decision not to institute a review
`in IPR2018-01477, Petitioner seeks to avail itself of the joinder provision
`provided by statute and regulation without expanding the scope or unduly
`burdening the parties of the ongoing proceeding.
`For these reasons, we do not choose to exercise our discretion under
`§ 314(a) to deny institution of an inter partes review in these particular
`circumstances.
`
`E. Summary
`Having determined the Petition meets the threshold of institution and
`that we will not exercise our discretion to deny institution, we institute an
`inter partes review on the same grounds as the ones on which we instituted
`review in the HTC IPR: whether claims 1–7 would have been obvious over
`Li, Vijayan, and Hashem. Having instituted review and having determined
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00958
`Patent 7,848,439 B2
`
`joinder of Petitioner to the HTC IPR is appropriate in these circumstances,
`we grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder and terminate the newly instituted
`review of the instant proceeding IPR2019-00958.
`
`
`
`III. ORDER
`For the reasons given, it is
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review of claims 1–7 of the ’439 patent is instituted with respect to the only
`ground set forth in the Petition;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Joinder with IPR2018-
`01555 is granted, and Apple Inc. is joined as a petitioner in IPR2018-01555;
`FURTHER ORDERED that IPR2019-00958 is terminated under
`37 C.F.R. § 42.72, and all further filings shall be made only in IPR2018-
`01555;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, subsequent to joinder, the grounds for
`trial in IPR2018-01555 remain unchanged;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, subsequent to joinder, the Scheduling
`Order in place for IPR2018-01555 (Paper 9), as modified by the Revised
`Scheduling Order (Paper 12), remains unchanged;
`FURTHER ORDERED that in IPR2018-01555, the HTC Petitioner
`and Petitioner will file each paper, except for a motion that does not involve
`the other party, as a single, consolidated filing, subject to the Conduct of the
`Proceeding Order issued April 22, 2019 (Paper 13) or otherwise set forth in
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24, and shall identify each such filing as a consolidated filing
`of the petitioners;
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00958
`Patent 7,848,439 B2
`
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that subject to Petitioner’s “understudy role”
`as defined herein, the HTC Petitioner and Petitioner shall collectively
`designate attorneys to conduct the cross-examination of any witness
`produced by Patent Owner and the redirect of any witness produced by the
`HTC Petitioner and Petitioner, within the timeframes set forth in 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.53(c) or agreed to by the parties;
`FURTHER ORDERED that subject to Petitioner’s “understudy role,”
`the HTC Petitioner and Petitioner shall collectively designate attorneys to
`present at the oral hearing, if requested and scheduled, in a consolidated
`argument;
`FURTHER ORDERED that the case caption in IPR2018-01555 shall
`be changed to reflect joinder of Apple Inc. as a petitioner in accordance with
`the below example; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Decision shall be entered
`into the record of IPR2018-01555.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00958
`Patent 7,848,439 B2
`
`
`
`
`EXAMPLE CAPTION
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC.
`and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`INVT SPE LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2018-015556
`Patent 7,848,439 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6 Apple Inc., who filed a petition in IPR2019-00958, has been joined as a
`petitioner in this proceeding.
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00958
`Patent 7,848,439 B2
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Adam Seitz
`Paul Hart
`ERISE IP, P.A.
`Adam.seitz@eriseip.com
`Paul.hart@erisiep.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Cyrus Morton
`Bryan Vogel
`Derrick Carman
`Stephanie Diehl
`Shui Li
`Li Zhu
`ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`cmorton@robinskaplan.com
`bvogel@robinskaplan.com
`dcarman@robinskaplan.com
`sdiehl@robinskaplan.com
`sli@robinskaplan.com
`Izhu@robinskaplan.com
`
`
`
`16
`
`
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
