UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`FINTIV, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00019
`U.S. Patent 8,843,125 B2
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING MOBILE WALLET AND
`ITS RELATED CREDENTIALS
`_________________________________________________________________
`
`APPLE INC.’S PRELIMINARY REPLY
`_________________________________________________________________
`
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`FINTIV, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00019
`U.S. Patent 8,843,125 B2
`Title: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING MOBILE WALLET AND
`ITS RELATED CREDENTIALS
`_________________________________________________________________
`
`APPLE INC.’S PRELIMINARY REPLY
`_________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`The District Court’s Trial Date Should Not Control Institution ............. 1
`Congress Established a 1-Year Filing Window. .................................. 1
`Trial-Based Institution Encourages Forum Shopping .......................... 2
`Initial Trial Dates are Frequently Continued ....................................... 3
`The NHK Factors Favor Institution ............................................................ 5
`Potential for a district court stay .......................................................... 6
`Proximity of the court’s trial date ........................................................ 7
`Investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the
`parties ................................................................................................... 7
`Overlap between issues in the petition and the parallel
`proceeding ............................................................................................ 9
`Whether the petitioner and the defendant are the same party ............ 10
`Other circumstances impacting the Board’s exercise of
`discretion ............................................................................................ 10
`
`i
`
`
`
`LISTING OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,843,125 to Kwon et al.
`
`File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,843,125 to Kwon et al.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Clifford Neuman
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0138518 to Aiglstorfer et al.
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0190437 to Buhot
`
`eWallet: Users Guide and Reference: Version 5.0, Ilium Software
`(Nov. 2007) (available at https://web.archive.org/web/
`20071110033509/http:/www.iliumsoft.com/gh/download/
`doc/eWallet.pdf)
`
`Excerpt from the File History of U.S. Patent No. 8,646,056 to
`Poplett
`
`CN101459902A to Wang et al.
`
`English translation of CN101459902A to Wang et al. and
`associated translator declaration
`
`[Reserved]
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,832,373 to O’Neill
`
`Provisional U.S. Patent App. No. 61/428,846
`
`Provisional U.S. Patent App. No. 61/428,851
`
`Provisional U.S. Patent App. No. 61/428,852
`
`Provisional App. No. 61/428,853
`
`Apple’s Opening Claim Construction Brief from Fintiv, Inc. v.
`Apple Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00372 (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 71.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`Plaintiff Fintiv, Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief from
`Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00372 (W.D. Tex.),
`Dkt. 72.
`
`Apple’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief from Fintiv, Inc. v.
`Apple Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00372 (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 74.
`
`Plaintiff Fintiv, Inc.’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief from
`Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00372 (W.D. Tex.),
`Dkt. 75.
`
`Apple’s Reply Claim Construction Brief from Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple
`Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00372 (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 76.
`
`Plaintiff Fintiv, Inc.’s Reply Claim Construction Brief from Fintiv,
`Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00372 (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 77.
`
`Agreed Scheduling Order Subsequent to Case Management
`Conference from Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00372
`(W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 38.
`
`Swick et al., “The X Toolkit: More Bricks for Building User-
`Interfaces−or−Widgets For Hire,” published in USENIX Winter
`1988.
`
`Excerpt from Underdahl, “iPAQ™ for Dummies®” (2004) and
`associated Library of Congress Certification
`
`Excerpt from Peacock, “Windows® CE, Clear & Simple” (1999)
`and Associated Library of Congress Certification
`
`Excerpt from McPherson, “How to Do Everything with Your
`Pocket PC” (2nd Ed. 2002) and Associated Library of Congress
`Certification
`
`Claim Construction Order from Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No.
`6:18-cv-00372 (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 86.
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0095852 to Bauer et al.
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`ISO/IEC 7816-4 Standard, First Edition (Sept. 1, 1995) as
`submitted on May 9, 2006 in an IDS for U.S. Pat. App. 10/471,883
`
`ISO/IEC 7816-4 Standard, First Edition (Sept. 1, 1995) and Second
`Edition (Jan. 15, 2005) as submitted on April 6, 2009 in an IDS for
`U.S. Pat. App. 12/376,360
`
`ISO/IEC 14443-4 Standard, First Edition (Feb. 2, 2001)
`
`ISO/IEC 14443-4 Standard (July 13, 2000) as submitted on Feb. 1,
`2005 in an IDS for U.S. Pat. App. 10/937,084
`
`Cover pleading for Fintiv’s Initial Disclosure of Asserted Claims,
`Accused Instrumentalities, and Infringement Contentions from
`Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00372 (W.D. Tex.)
`(dated May 20, 2019)
`
`Excerpts from Fintiv’s First Amended and Supplemental
`Responses and Objections to Apple’s First Set of Interrogatories
`(no pre-suit notice) from Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:18-
`cv-00372 (W.D. Tex.) (dated February 24, 2020)
`
`Docket Navigator nationwide trial date continuance statistics
`(including table of underlying cases)
`
`Docket Navigator nationwide time-to-trial statistics for patent cases
`
`Docket Navigator WDTX time-to-trial statistics for patent cases
`
`Western District of Texas Order re COVID-19, dated March 13,
`2020
`
`Email correspondence between counsel for Apple and Fintiv re:
`depositions and case schedule
`
`Collection of deposition notices, subpoena excerpts, and 30(b)(6)
`topics from Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00372
`(W.D. Tex.)
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`Email correspondence between counsel for Apple and Fintiv re:
`source code inspection
`
`Shelter-in-Place Orders for San Francisco and Santa Clara
`Counties, dated March 16, 2020
`
`Email from Fintiv counsel re: document production, dated March
`10, 2020
`
`Email correspondence from Fintiv re: refiling IPR petition, dated
`November 21, 2019
`
`Cover document from Apple’s Final Invalidity Contentions from
`Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00372 (W.D. Tex.)
`(dated January 17, 2020)
`
`Fintiv’s Second Amended Complaint from Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple
`Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00372 (W.D. Tex.), Dkt. 92 (dated January
`30, 2020)
`
`Apple’s Motion to Dismiss Fintiv’s Second Amended Complaint
`from Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00372 (W.D.
`Tex.), Dkt. 93 (dated February 12, 2020)
`
`Apple Press release announcing Apple Pay
`(https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2014/09/09Apple-Announces-
`Apple-Pay/), dated September 9, 2014
`
`v
`
`
`
`As authorized in Paper 11, Apple respectfully submits this brief addressing
`
`whether the Board should exercise its discretion under § 314(a) to institute Apple’s
`
`IPR. The answer is a resounding yes. As discussed herein and in Sand Revolution
`
`v. Continental, denying institution under § 314 would be contrary to Congressional
`
`intent, encourage forum shopping, place undue emphasis on an uncertain trial date,
`
`and set unrealistic timing requirements to prepare and file IPRs. See IPR2019-
`
`01393, Paper 15 (March 6, 2020). Such a result would be inequitable on the facts
`
`of this case and is not supported by NHK or sound policy. See NHK Spring Co. v.
`
`Intri-plex Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018).
`
`I.
`
`The District Court’s Trial Date Should Not Control Institution
`Congress Established a 1-Year Filing Window
`After thorough consideration, Congress established a 1-year window for
`
`filing IPR petitions. Notably, § 315(b) originally contained only a 6-month filing
`
`window which was amended to 1-year prior to passage of the AIA to “afford
`
`defendants a reasonable opportunity to identify and understand the patent claims
`
`that are relevant to the litigation” before filing an IPR. 157 Cong. Rec. S5429
`
`(daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (Sen. Kyl). Especially where, as here, the petitioner had
`
`no pre-suit notice (Ex. 1034) and Fintiv did not identify the asserted claims until 5-
`
`months after the Complaint was filed (Ex. 1033), a 1-year filing window is
`
`appropriate. Reducing the Congressionally-proscribed 1-year period undermines
`
`1
`
`
`
`the AIA’s objectives of improving patent quality and reducing costs by forcing
`
`parties to (1) engage in the full course of civil litigation or (2) participate in IPR
`
`proceedings without an adequate opportunity to prepare an IPR petition.
`
`In addition to providing district court defendants a year to file IPRs,
`
`Congress keyed the filing period prospectively from service of the complaint, not
`
`retrospectively from the trial date. 35 U.S.C. 314(b). This is for good reason: the
`
`service date of a Complaint is a fixed marker known ex ante. By contrast, trial
`
`dates vary from court to court (and even by judge) and may not even be set when a
`
`Petitioner files an IPR (as was the case here). They are also often moving targets.
`
`Elevating the uncertain timing of trial over the fixed statutory filing window as a
`
`threshold for institution contravenes Congressional intent.
`
`Trial-Based Institution Encourages Forum Shopping
`Petitioners should not be prejudiced in seeking IPR based on a forum
`
`selected by the patent owner. Denying an IPR solely (or in significant part) based
`
`on a trial date insulates patents against IPR in fast trial venues, limits PTAB access
`
`to only defendants sued in slower jurisdictions, and encourages forum shopping. If
`
`the possibility of trial prior to a FWD acts as a de-facto bar on institution, the
`
`PTAB’s doors will be unfairly closed to all defendants in any jurisdiction that sets
`
`an early trial date. There is no basis in statute or the rules for such disparate
`
`venue-based treatment. Congress offered IPRs as a litigation alternative to
`
`2
`
`
`
`petitioning parties; it did not afford patent owners an option to self-select out of
`
`IPR proceedings. The AIA should provide petitioners a fair shake before the
`
`PTAB regardless of the district court chosen by the patent owner (especially
`
`where, as here, Apple disputes the propriety of Fintiv’s selected forum under
`
`§ 1404(a)). See Fed. Cir. Misc. Case No. 20-104 (pending petition for en banc
`
`rehearing re transfer).
`
`Moreover, making the trial date a threshold consideration before institution
`
`ignores the common scenario, contemplated by Congress, of obtaining a district
`
`court stay based on institution. See, e.g., IOENGINE, LLC v. PayPal Holdings,
`
`Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141545, at *9-10 (D. Del. Aug. 21, 2019) (J. Bryson);
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S1363 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (Sen. Schumer); H. Rep. No. 112-
`
`98, Part I, at 48 (2011). Denying institution because of an approaching trial date
`
`guarantees that a stay will be denied, and thus becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
`
`Such circular reasoning cannot be the basis on which to deny an IPR.
`
`The “efficiency and integrity of the patent system” is best served when
`
`forum shopping for an IPR benefit is discouraged. See Paper 11 at 6, 15, and 16.
`
`Initial Trial Dates are Frequently Continued
`Trial dates are often moving targets. It is not uncommon to start with one
`
`trial date and end with a completely different one many months later. Indeed,
`
`more than 40% of cases which proceed to trial have their trial dates continued by
`
`3
`
`
`
`more than 4 months. Ex. 1035. Even if the Board considered only the Western
`
`District of Texas (WDTX) where the underlying case is pending, its median time-
`
`to-jury trial for patent cases is substantially the same as the nationwide median of
`
`over 2.5 years, which places trial after the PTAB’s FWD deadline. Exs. 1036
`
`(national); 1037 (WDTX). Moreover, looking only at trial dates ignores the fact
`
`that final judgment is rarely entered until months later after post-trial motions,
`
`making it even more likely that the PTAB will issue a FWD before the conclusion
`
`of district court proceedings. The initially scheduled trial date is thus a speculative
`
`basis on which to deny institution.
`
`That trial dates are uncertain and often in flux is reflected by the “apparent
`
`change in status” (viz. trial date assignment) which prompted the Board to request
`
`supplemental briefing. Paper 11 at 2. This alone makes Petitioner’s point that
`
`deciding § 314 issues on such a basis is unwise, and unfair to petitioners who
`
`cannot revisit institution when a trial is continued. And the Board can take judicial
`
`notice of the global COVID-19 pandemic which has disrupted trial schedules
`
`nationwide, including continuances of all WDTX civil trials (where the co-pending
`
`district court case is currently venued) scheduled before May 1, 2020. Ex. 1038.
`
`This will undoubtedly have a domino effect on subsequent trials. Moreover,
`
`COVID-19 has delayed depositions, service of subpoenas, source code reviews,
`
`and numerous other aspects of the co-pending district court case, making it likely
`
`4
`
`
`
`that trial will be continued even further.1 Exs. 1039, 1041.
`
`One need look no further than NHK where, after the Board’s institution
`
`decision, the court postponed trial multiple times by more than 8-months, belying
`
`the Board’s prediction that the trial would occur six months prior to the FWD. See
`
`Intri-Plex Techs. v. NHK Int’l Corp., 3:17-cv-01097 (N.D. Cal.) (Dkt. 173, 175).
`
`II.
`
`The NHK Factors Favor Institution
`As an initial matter, NHK did not hold that institution can be denied based
`
`solely on a trial date being before a FWD. NHK was primarily a § 325(d) analysis
`
`focused on the duplicative nature of the IPR grounds vis-à-vis the prosecution
`
`history, with the “state of the district court proceeding” under § 314(a) being
`
`merely an “additional factor” that supported denial. NHK at 19-20. Notably,
`
`Fintiv never raised a § 325(d) argument, nor could it have as there was practically
`
`no substantive prosecution and there are no other IPR petitions challenging
`
`the ’125 patent. Thus, the present proceeding is factually distinct from NHK.
`
`Regardless, even assuming that NHK held that the “advanced” state of a co-
`
`1 Only two fact depositions have been taken. Ex. 1039. With less than a month
`
`left in discovery, dozens of party depositions remain and Fintiv has noticed 14
`
`third-party depositions, not to mention more than eighty 30(b)(6) topics between
`
`the parties. Exs. 1039-1040. Before the Board requested § 314 briefing, the
`
`parties had raised the possibility of revising the case schedule. Ex. 1039.
`
`5
`
`
`
`pending litigation can itself justify denial of institution (it did not), the NHK factors
`
`still do not support denial in this case.
`
`Potential for a district court stay
`This factor is neutral or weighs in favor of institution. As there are no other
`
`co-pending actions (in the ITC or otherwise), a stay of the district court action
`
`would amount to a stay of all litigation outside of the PTAB on the ’125 patent.
`
`As numerous district courts have recognized, “Congress intended for district
`
`courts to be liberal” in granting stays pending PTAB proceedings. IOENGINE at
`
`10-11 (liberal stay policy applies to IPR and CBM proceedings); 157 Cong. Rec.
`
`S1363 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011) (Sen. Schumer) (Congress placed “a very heavy
`
`thumb on the scale in favor of a stay being granted”). This case is no exception.
`
`See, e.g., NFC Tech. LLC v. HTC Am., Inc., 2015 WL 1069111, at *7 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Mar. 11, 2015) (“[A]fter the PTAB has instituted review proceedings, the parallel
`
`district court litigation ordinarily should be stayed.”).2 There is no reason a stay
`
`2 Some courts have expressed reluctance to stay any litigation in view of an IPR.
`
`The likelihood that a particular judge or court will ultimately grant a stay should be
`
`afforded no weight in the § 314 analysis. Doing so improperly motivates patent
`
`owners to forum shop for venues that—contrary to Congressional intent—routinely
`
`deny stays, and petitioners should not be prejudiced in pursuing IPR based on the
`
`stay practices of the particular district or judge selected by the patent owner.
`
`6
`
`
`
`should be denied here and this factor favors institution.
`
`Proximity of the court’s trial date
`When Apple filed its petition, no trial date had been set. The district court
`
`subsequently set trial for November 16, 2020. See Ex. 2009. But, as noted in
`
`Section I, over 40% of trials are continued 4+ months and the trial here will likely
`
`be continued to near (or after) the May 2021 FWD date due to (1) conditions
`
`beyond anyone’s control (e.g., COVID-19 complications)3 and (2) circumstances
`
`unique to this case such as Fintiv’s delinquent document production and failure to
`
`timely make its witnesses available for deposition. Ex. 1039, 1043. Regardless of
`
`the precise trial date (which remains uncertain), Apple submits that the trial date
`
`should play little (if any) role in the Board’s decision here. See supra Section I.
`
`Investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties
`Apart from the Markman proceedings, which Judge Albright conducts at an
`
`early stage, the district court has invested virtually no time in assessing the parties
`
`claims and defenses, including invalidity. No motion for preliminary injunction
`
`was filed, summary judgment is still months away, and it is unlikely the court will
`
`address any invalidity issues until trial.
`
`In contrast to NHK, where the petition was filed only 2-days before the
`
`3 Apple, its witnesses, both parties’ counsel, and Apple’s source code are near San
`
`Francisco and subject to a shelter-in-place order since March 16, 2020. Ex. 1042.
`
`7
`
`
`
`§ 315(b) deadline, Apple filed its IPR petition more than 2-months in advance. See
`
`NHK, Paper 1 (filed March 7, 2018) and Intri-Plex v. NHK, Case No. 17-cv-01097,
`
`Dkt. 8 (complaint served March 9, 2017) (N.D. Cal.). To ensure a FWD before
`
`trial (which had not been set), Apple would have had to file its IPR in April 2019.
`
`Apple had no pre-suit notice (Ex. 1034) and would need to have searched for prior
`
`art and drafted a petition in only 4 months, before Fintiv identified the asserted
`
`claims or disclosed its infringement contentions on May 20, 2019. Ex. 2023. But,
`
`as the Board has recognized, it is “reasonable for a petitioner to wait to file its
`
`petition until it learns which claims are being asserted against it.” Paper 11 at 11.4
`
`The bulk of the parties’ work also lies ahead (and any Apple efforts thus far
`
`should not be used to deny Apple’s IPR). See IOENGINE at *14. Fact discovery
`
`is ongoing and Fintiv only recently made its first substantial document production.
`
`Ex. 1043. Fintiv has taken only two depositions among the dozens it seeks from
`
`Apple and third-parties (and Apple has been unable to depose any Fintiv witness).
`
`Exs. 1039-1040. As noted above, the case schedule will need to be reset. Thus,
`
`this case should not be considered “advanced” and this factor favors institution.
`
`4 Further evincing the timeliness of Apple’s petition, Fintiv requested that Apple
`
`withdraw its petition and refile at a later date (Ex. 1044), and argued to the Board
`
`in a teleconference that Apple filed too early and should have waited until after the
`
`Markman order to avoid prejudicing Fintiv. See, e.g., Paper 6 at 3.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Overlap between issues in the petition and the parallel proceeding
`Apple’s district court invalidity contentions contain numerous prior art
`
`references—including various system art—that are not at issue in the IPR. Ex.
`
`1045. Thus, there is little overlap with the district court invalidity issues (and it
`
`would be inequitable and make little sense to incentivize defendants to withhold
`
`prior art from the district court just to increase the chance of IPR institution).
`
`Moreover, Apple has not decided whether it will pursue any of the IPR art in
`
`expert discovery or at trial. For this reason, Fintiv recently filed an amended
`
`complaint seeking a declaratory judgment of validity over the IPR art to force
`
`Apple to litigate the IPR art in district court. Ex. 1046. But this is not a cognizable
`
`cause of action and Apple has moved to dismiss it. Ex. 1047. Thus, there is no
`
`guarantee that any of the IPR art will be litigated in district court.
`
`Fintiv is also incorrect that the PTAB and district court apply “the same
`
`legal standards.” Paper 10 (POPR) at 24. The PTAB and district court
`
`indisputably examine invalidity through different lenses—the PTAB applies a
`
`lower burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence) than district court (clear
`
`and convincing evidence). 35 U.S.C. § 316(e). Thus, the invalidity “issues” are
`
`not the same and this factor does not support discretionary denial.
`
`While the same claims are challenged in both forums, petitioners like Apple
`
`should not be disadvantaged for respecting the Board’s resources by filing a
`
`9
`
`
`
`petition only after asserted claims are identified. See Paper 11 at 11. To hold
`
`otherwise incentives undesirable behavior (unnecessarily challenging numerous
`
`claims and/or filing multiple petitions). Indeed, the PTAB has cited this practice as
`
`a basis for denying institution. See, e.g., IPR2019-00885, Paper 21 at 15-16.
`
`Whether the petitioner and the defendant are the same party
`Here, the parties are the same in the IPR and district court proceeding. But
`
`this will almost always be the case. This factor should have little impact.
`
`Other circumstances impacting the Board’s exercise of discretion
`As discussed in Section I, other circumstances strongly favor institution. In
`
`particular, denying institution here will (1) negate the statutorily provided 1-year
`
`filing period, (2) encourage forum shopping, and (3) condition the institution of
`
`IPR on the timing of an oft-changed trial placeholder. No other parties have
`
`sought IPR of the ’125 patent. Mindful of the Board’s resources, Apple filed a
`
`strong single petition challenging only the asserted claims with one obviousness
`
`ground per claim. Fintiv’s POPR is particularly weak as demonstrated, for
`
`example, by its “secondary considerations” arguments. See Paper 10 at 63-67. As
`
`a representative example, Fintiv contends Apple copied the ’125 patent citing
`
`the ’125 patent itself (mistaking it for an Apple patent) and two other patents
`
`which, contrary to Fintiv’s assertion, do not cite the ’125 patent at all (one of
`
`which post-dates release of the accused Apple Pay technology). Id., 66; Ex. 1048.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Dated: March 27, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Travis Jensen/
`Travis Jensen, Reg. No. 60,087
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`1000 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
`Phone: (650) 614-7400
`Fax: (650) 614-7401
`Email: tjensen@orrick.com
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`11
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned certifies, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), that service
`
`was made on the Patent Owner as detailed below.
`
`Date of Service
`
`March 27, 2020
`
`Manner of Service
`
`Electronic Mail
`
`Documents Served
`
`Apple Inc.’s Preliminary Reply
`
`Persons Served
`
`Patent Owner’s Counsel of Record
`Jonathan K. Waldrop (jwaldrop@kasowitz.com)
`Rodney R. Miller (rmiller@kasowitz.com)
`John W. Downing (jdowning@kasowitz.com)
`KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP
`333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`
`Additional Email addresses:
`Fintiv@kasowitz.com
`
`Dated: March 27, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Travis Jensen/
`Travis Jensen, Reg. No. 60,087
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
`1000 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
`Phone: (650) 614-7400
`Fax: (650) 614-7401
`Email: tjensen@orrick.com
`
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`12
`
`
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
