throbber
From: Cho, Tim <Tim.Cho@wilmerhale.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 5:11 PM
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Cc: Bridget Smith <smith@lowensteinweatherwax.com>; Kenneth Weatherwax
`<weatherwax@lowensteinweatherwax.com>; Nathan Lowenstein
`<lowenstein@lowensteinweatherwax.com>; Flavio Rose <rose@lowensteinweatherwax.com>;
`Edward Hsieh <hsieh@lowensteinweatherwax.com>; Parham Hendifar
`<hendifar@lowensteinweatherwax.com>; Patrick Maloney
`<maloney@lowensteinweatherwax.com>; Jason Linger <linger@lowensteinweatherwax.com>;
`VLSI <VLSI_IPRs@lowensteinweatherwax.com>; Ha, Yung-Hoon (Sam) <Yung-
`Hoon.Ha@wilmerhale.com>; Konstantakopoulos, Theodoros
`<Theodoros.Konstantakopoulos@wilmerhale.com>; Walden, S. Calvin
`<Calvin.Walden@wilmerhale.com>; Cho, Tim <Tim.Cho@wilmerhale.com>
`Subject: Re: Case Nos. IPR2019-01198, IPR2019-01199, and IPR2019-01200 // Request to file
`supplemental information
`
`Re: IPR2019-01198, IPR2019-01199, and IPR2019-01200
`
`Dear Honorable Board,
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests authorization to submit the following as exhibits in this
`proceeding under the Board’s authority in 37 CFR 42.5:
`
`
` “Plaintiff VLSI Technology LLC’s Identification of Eighteen Asserted Claims Pursuant to
`the Court’s April 22, 2019 Memorandum Order (D.I. 136)” The proposed exhibit shows
`that Plaintiff is no longer asserting the challenged claims of IPR proceedings IPR2019-
`01197 and IPR2019-01200 in the concurrent district court litigation.
`
` “Defendant Intel Corporation’s Identification of Thirty Prior Art Combinations” The
`proposed exhibit shows that on January 17, 2020, Intel further narrowed prior art
`combinations being pursued in the concurrent district court litigation as required by the
`district court, and is relevant to IPR2019-01198, -01199, and -1200. For example, Oda
`(relied upon in IPR2019-01198 and 01200) is no longer being pursued in the concurrent
`district court litigation.
`
` “Stipulation Regarding Case Schedule and Discovery Disputes” The proposed exhibit
`shows that Petitioner and Patent Owner have stipulated to an extended case schedule
`in the concurrent district court litigation.
`
` “District Court’s Order dated January 13, 2020” The proposed exhibit shows that the
`district court has adopted the stipulated extended case schedule, has cancelled the trial
`that had been scheduled for 11/2/2020, and ordered that the trial “will be rescheduled
`after the dispositive motions have been decided.”
`
`
`Petitioner believes these proposed exhibits are relevant to the 314(a) issues raised by the
`Patent Owner. Patent Owner does not oppose this request.
`
` 1 Exhibit 3001
`
`
`

`

`Respectfully,
`Tim Cho
`
`Taeg Sang (Tim) Cho | WilmerHale
`7 World Trade Center
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, NY 10007 USA
`+1 212 295 6490 (t)
`+1 212 230 8888 (f)
`tim.cho@wilmerhale.com
`
`Please consider the environment before printing this email.
`
`This email message and any attachments are being sent by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
`Dorr LLP, are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please
`notify us immediately—by replying to this message or by sending an email to
`postmaster@wilmerhale.com—and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.
`Thank you.
`
`For more information about WilmerHale, please visit us at http://www.wilmerhale.com.
`
`
`
` 2 Exhibit 3001
`
`
`

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