DOCKET NO.: 01033300-00348
`Filed on behalf of Apple Inc.
`By: Jason D. Kipnis, Reg. No. 40,680
`David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`Mary V. Sooter, Reg. No. 71,022
`Richard Goldenberg, Reg. No. 38,895
`Ravinder Deol, Reg. No. 62,165
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`Tel: (617) 526-6000
`Email:
`Jason.Kipnis@wilmerhale.com
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`Mindy.Sooter@wilmerhale.com
`Richard.Goldenberg@wilmerhale.com
`Ravi.Deol@wilmerhale.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2020-00465
`U.S. Patent No. 8,102,833
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Apple Inc.
`By: Jason D. Kipnis, Reg. No. 40,680
`David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`Mary V. Sooter, Reg. No. 71,022
`Richard Goldenberg, Reg. No. 38,895
`Ravinder Deol, Reg. No. 62,165
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`Tel: (617) 526-6000
`Email:
`Jason.Kipnis@wilmerhale.com
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`Mindy.Sooter@wilmerhale.com
`Richard.Goldenberg@wilmerhale.com
`Ravi.Deol@wilmerhale.com
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2020-00465
`U.S. Patent No. 8,102,833
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00465
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`The Fintiv Factors Counsel Against Exercising Discretion to Deny .............. 1
`A.
`Factor 1: Lack of Evidence of Stay Renders This Factor Neutral ....... 1
`B.
`Factor 3: Petitioner’s Diligence and No Tactical Advantage .............. 1
`C.
`Factor 4: The Issues Do Not Substantially Overlap ............................. 2
`D.
`Factor 6: Strong Petition Outweighs Other Factors ............................. 3
`E.
`Additional Considerations Under Factor 6 Favor Institution ................ 4
`The NHK/Fintiv Framework Should Be Overturned ...................................... 6
`A.
`The NHK/Fintiv Framework Is Legally Invalid .................................... 6
`B.
`The NHK/Fintiv Framework Encourages Gamesmanship .................... 8
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00465
`
`
`The POPR urges the Board to deny the Petition under § 314(a) based on a
`
`misapplication of the Fintiv factors and an undue focus on the time between the
`
`current trial date in the co-pending district court case (“Texas case”) and an
`
`expected Final Written Decision (“FWD”). Other factors favor institution,
`
`including Petitioner’s strong showing on the merits, a lack of overlap in prior art
`
`between the Petition and the Texas case, and the complexities of litigation. A
`
`balanced weighing of the factors favors institution.
`
`I.
`
`The Fintiv Factors Counsel Against Exercising Discretion to Deny
`
`A.
`
`Factor 1: Lack of Evidence of Stay Renders This Factor Neutral
`
`The Board routinely declines to speculate as to the likelihood of a stay where
`
`none has been requested. See, e.g., Fintiv, Paper 15 at 12. Because no stay has
`
`been requested in the Texas case, this factor is neutral. Id.
`
`B.
`
`Factor 3: Petitioner’s Diligence and No Tactical Advantage
`
`PO fails to acknowledge Petitioner’s diligence in filing the Petition.
`
`Petitioner’s initial invalidity contentions identified nearly 140 different prior art
`
`references across seven asserted patents. Rather than burden the Board with
`
`multiple petitions on each patent, Petitioner diligently evaluated the unique
`
`strengths of each prior art reference and combination, searched for additional prior
`
`art, and filed only three petitions. This Petition uses only a single ground for
`
`fourteen claims and does not depend on the constructions disputed by the parties in
`
`1
`
`
`
`the Texas case. Such careful selection of grounds, given the constraints placed
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00465
`
`
`upon petitions and the parties constructions, shows Petitioner’s diligence. See
`
`Med-El Elek. Geräte GES.M.B.H v. Advanced Bionics AG, IPR2020-00190, Paper
`
`15 at 13-14 (June 3, 2020). PO also does not allege that Petitioner obtained any
`
`tactical advantage for the Petition from the litigation based on the time the Petition
`
`was filed, further tilting factor 3 in favor of institution.
`
`C.
`
`Factor 4: The Issues Do Not Substantially Overlap
`
`PO’s assertion of complete overlap between the Petition and Texas case
`
`(POPR at 11-12) is now inaccurate. At PO’s request, and to eliminate the
`
`possibility of inconsistent findings, Petitioner agreed on July 2, 2020 to drop
`
`grounds involving Qualcomm-269 and Cho in the Texas case. See Ex. 1063 (PO
`
`requesting “narrowing of invalidity theories”). This mitigates concerns of
`
`duplicative efforts. See Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp.–
`
`Trucking LLC, IPR2019-01393, Paper 24, 11-12 (June 16, 2020). The significant
`
`differences between the issues in this IPR and the Texas case tip factor 4 in favor
`
`of institution. Neither party seeks to construe a term already construed by the
`
`Texas case, and PO seeks to construe “control signals” in this IPR, but not in the
`
`Texas case. Furthermore, PO’s argument about the relative amount of space in the
`
`Petition devoted to overlapping and non-overlapping claims fails—PO does not
`
`concede that the dependent claims fall with the independent claims.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00465
`
`
`Factor 6: Strong Petition Outweighs Other Factors
`
`D.
`
`The Petition demonstrates that all claim elements were well-known
`
`techniques for arranging signals for transmission, which favors institution. See
`
`Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, LLC, IPR2020-00156, Paper 10 at 20-22. PO’s
`
`focus on the fact that Petitioner argues obviousness rather than anticipation misses
`
`the mark.
`
`First, PO analyzes the references piecemeal, arguing that no single reference
`
`teaches entire limitations. See, e.g., POPR at §§ VI.A, B, C. But the Petition
`
`showed that each limitation, as a whole, is obvious over the prior art combination
`
`(e.g., Qualcomm-037 and -269 teach how to form signals for transmission, whereas
`
`Cho and Samsung-094 disclose where to place particular signals).
`
`Second, PO’s argument that a POSA would not look to Qualcomm-037
`
`because it was not endorsed by the 3GPP working group is irrelevant in light PO’s
`
`own citations showing that Qualcomm-037 was “presented” to the group, and that
`
`the sections cited by Petitioner were discussed by the working members. PO
`
`identifies no technical flaw in Qualcomm-037, much less one that rises to the level
`
`of those identified in the cases PO relies on. POPR at 56-58. In addition, PO’s
`
`arguments that Qualcomm-037’s principle of operation is fundamentally different
`
`from Cho’s are incorrect; as explained in the Petition, Qualcomm-037 provides a
`
`process for mapping signals to a matrix that could easily be used with Cho to yield
`
`3
`
`
`
`predictable results.
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00465
`
`
`Third, construing “first control signals” to exclude ACK/NACK signals is
`
`both inconsistent with ’833 patent family members (U.S. 9,001,814 at claim 1
`
`(referring to ACK/NACK and non-ACK/NACK signals as first and second
`
`“control information”)) and inconsequential. Neither Cho nor Qualcomm-037
`
`requires control information to include ACK/NACK signals. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 at
`
`¶37 (control information “can be included…with …ACK/NACK.”). Samsung-
`
`094 also teaches treating ACK/NACKs differently from other control signals,
`
`which would motivate doing the same in Qualcomm-037. Pet. at 54-59.
`
`Finally, the Petition thoroughly analyzed why, when choosing to puncture
`
`ACK/NACK signals adjacent to reference signals as taught by Samsung-094 and
`
`Qualcomm-269, a POSA would do so starting from the last row. Pet. at 55-59, Ex.
`
`1002, ¶¶109-113. PO’s suggestion that such reasoning was gleaned from the ’833
`
`patent is incorrect—the patent provides no such reasoning.
`
`E. Additional Considerations Under Factor 6 Favor Institution
`
`PO also fails to present other key factors that weigh in favor of institution.
`
`First, the public interest would be served by addressing invalidity of the
`
`’833 patent, which PO alleges is essential to the 3GPP standard (Ex. 1064 at 9) and
`
`which PO has asserted five times (Ex. 1066-1069 Ex. 1009) while avoiding any
`
`determination on validity. See Ex. 1069 (declining to elect’833 patent for trial
`
`4
`
`
`
`against Huawei).
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00465
`
`
`Second, the Board is well suited to address complex technical subject
`
`matter. A significant degree of technical literacy is useful to understand SC-
`
`FDMA schemes, DFTs, and IFFTs. Presenting this subject matter to a jury in
`
`combination with issues for five other patents is highly challenging given that trial
`
`is to be completed in one week. Validity of the ’833 patent is likely to occupy
`
`approximately one hour of trial. Unlike a jury verdict, a detailed FWD would shed
`
`light on the large ’833 patent family, which PO continues to prosecute.
`
`Third, uncertainties created by the COVID-19 pandemic counsel in favor of
`
`institution. PO’s statement that “trial has been moved up to August 3, 2020” is
`
`misleading. After (on March 4) the Court moved trial up to July 7, 2020, the
`
`parties jointly requested (on April 2) that trial be postponed to September 14, 2020.
`
`Ex. 1070. The Court rescheduled trial to August 3, 2020, but noted: “Nothing
`
`prevents the parties from seeking additional relief at a later date, taking into
`
`account compelling circumstances or unforeseeable changes as the COVID-19
`
`pandemic develops and evolves.” Ex. 1071. In recent weeks, Texas has
`
`experienced a significant increase in COVID-19 cases. Ex. 1072. By contrast, the
`
`Board has continued to hold hearings remotely.
`
`Finally, the narrowing of issues in the Texas case that has already occurred
`
`highlights “the complexity of multiple patents and issues” in the Texas case, which
`
`5
`
`
`
`involves six unrelated patents. Seven at 21-22. Even if overlapping issues remain
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00465
`
`
`between the litigation and this IPR, the unpredictability of trials calls into question
`
`whether these issues will be considered at trial. By contrast, “this IPR trial will
`
`provide the parties with an in-depth analysis of” the ’833 patent and “a full record
`
`that will enhance the integrity of the patent system.” Id. at 22.
`
`II. The NHK/Fintiv Framework Should Be Overturned
`
`A.
`
`The NHK/Fintiv Framework Is Legally Invalid
`
`The NHK/Fintiv framework is legally invalid for three primary reasons.
`
`First, the PTO lacks authority to deny institution based on non-statutory
`
`factors. The AIA establishes the conditions that must be satisfied to institute IPR,
`
`e.g., 35 U.S.C. §311(c)(1), (2); §312(a)(1)-(5); §314(a); §315(a)(1), (b), and the
`
`conditions under which IPR may nonetheless not be instituted, e.g., §325(d); Pub.
`
`L. No. 112-29, §6(c)(2)(B). “In light of Congress’s special care in drawing so
`
`precise a statutory scheme,” it is “improper” to consider non-statutory factors.
`
`University of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 356 (2013).
`
`The AIA further precludes the PTO from denying institution based on non-
`
`statutory efficiency considerations because Congress already specified how
`
`parallel litigation should be accounted for. §311(c)(2); §315; §325(d). Congress
`
`granted the PTO discretion to decide how to manage IPR when there is a parallel
`
`proceeding before the PTO, §315(d), but permitted “overlap” between IPR and
`
`6
`
`
`
`parallel litigation, §301(a), (d); §315(e)(2). “It would have made little sense for
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00465
`
`
`Congress to insist on” such rules if the Director could deny institution for his own
`
`efficiency reasons. SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018).
`
`Moreover, the NHK/Fintiv framework contravenes Congress’s judgment to
`
`allow IPR if filed within one year of the commencement of parallel infringement
`
`litigation. §315(b); cf. §315(a)(1). Congress crafted that limit “to minimize”—not
`
`eliminate—overlap between IPR and litigation. Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call
`
`Techs., LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367, 1374-1375 (2020). Statutory limitations on filing
`
`inherently “take[] account of delay,” and therefore other “case-specific
`
`circumstances”—like the NHK-Fintiv factors—“cannot be invoked to preclude
`
`adjudication of a claim … brought within the [statutory] window.” Petrella v.
`
`Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663, 667, 677-680, 685 (2014).
`
`The NHK/Fintiv framework is also arbitrary and capricious. The factors
`
`require speculation about the likely course of parallel litigation, which will produce
`
`irrational and unfair outcomes. And if trial is rescheduled after a non-institution
`
`decision, as often happens, an IPR petitioner will have lost any avenue for
`
`expeditious resolution of patent validity. These unpredictable risks will undermine
`
`the PTO’s efficiency goal by incentivizing accused infringers to splinter issues and
`
`petition for IPR prematurely, see 157 Cong. Rec. S5430 (Sept. 8, 2011).
`
`Finally, the NHK/Fintiv framework is invalid because it is a substantive rule
`
`7
`
`
`
`that was adopted without public notice and comment. “[T]he Director has no
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00465
`
`
`substantive rule making authority with respect to interpretations of the Patent Act.”
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, 953 F.3d 1313, 1341 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2020) (additional views of Prost, C.J., Plager, & O’Malley, JJ.). And although
`
`agencies “must use notice-and-comment procedures” when adopting substantive
`
`rules, Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400, 2420 (2019), the Director designated NHK
`
`and Fintiv as precedential (i.e., a binding rule) without such procedures.
`
`B.
`
`The NHK/Fintiv Framework Encourages Gamesmanship
`
`The NHK/Fintiv framework is also bad policy because it encourages
`
`inefficient gamesmanship. The framework will induce plaintiffs to sue in fast-
`
`moving districts in hopes of setting trial before the FWD. It will encourage
`
`plaintiffs to hide important claims early in litigation to delay the filing of IPR
`
`petitions. And it may cause plaintiffs to assert many patents in their complaint to
`
`increase the “overlap” with an IPR petition, only then to withdraw a patent from
`
`the lawsuit once institution of IPR has been denied. Accused infringers may
`
`respond by quickly filing petitions on more patents and claims without fully
`
`understanding the infringement allegations against them. And the pressure to act
`
`immediately will divert efforts from alternative dispute resolution.
`
`Dated: July 2, 2020
`
`/Jason Kipnis/ (Registration No. 40,680)
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`8
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00465
`
`
`Jason D. Kipnis
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Registration No. 36,476
`
`Mary V. Sooter
`Registration No. 71,022
`
`Richard Goldenberg
`Registration No. 38,895
`
`Ravinder Deol
`Registration No. 62,165
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00465
`
`
`Updated Exhibit List
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,102,833 (“’833 patent”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Wells (“Wells-Decl.”)
`
`Declaration of Mr. Bishop
`
`File History for U.S. Patent Application No. 12/209,136 (issued as
`U.S. Patent No. 8,102,833)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0262871 A1
`(“Cho”)
`
`Qualcomm Europe, Draft Change Request: 36.212.v.8.0.0, 3GPP
`TSG-RAN #51 Document R1-075037
`
`Qualcomm Europe, Rate matching details for control and data
`multiplexing, 3GPP TSG-RAN #50 Document R1-073269
`
`Samsung, Control Signaling Location in Presence of Data in E-
`UTRA UL, 3GPP TSG RAN #49 Document R1-073094
`
`Complaint, Optis Wireless Technology, LLC v. Apple Inc., No.
`2:19-cv-00066 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2019)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Optis
`Cellular Technology, LLC, IPR2018-00807 (PTAB Mar. 21, 2018)
`
`Decision, Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Optis Cellular Technology,
`LLC, IPR2018-00807 (PTAB Nov. 5, 2018)
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, Optis Wireless
`Technology, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00066 (E.D. Tex. Feb.
`25, 2019)
`
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/972,244 File History
`
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/987,427 File History
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`1003
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`1014
`
`10
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00465
`
`
`Description
`U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/988,433 File History
`
`Korean Application No. 10-2008-0068634
`
`Optis Wireless Technology, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00066-
`JRG (E.D. Tex.) (Plaintiffs’ Disclosure of Asserted Claims,
`Infringement Contentions, and Accompanying Document
`Production)
`
`3GPP TS 36.211 v.2.0.0 (Release 8) (Sep. 2007)
`
`Optis Wireless Technology, LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.,
`No. 2:17-cv-00123-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2018) (Pretrial
`Order)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0304467
`(“Papasakellariou”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0185159 (“Seo”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0098568 (“Oh”)
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0097901
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0149206
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0067495
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0254656
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0260140
`
`CV of Craig Bishop
`
`Press Release, GSMA, Global Mobile Communication is 20 years
`old (Sept. 6, 2007), https://www.gsma.com/newsroom/press-
`release/global-mobile-communication-is-20-years-old/.
`
`Exhibit
`1015
`1016
`1017
`
`1018
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`1022
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1029
`
`1030
`
`ETSI, LISTSERV Archives (last visited Jan. 24, 2020),
`https://list.etsi.org/scripts/wa.exe?INDEX=&p=2.
`
`11
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00465
`
`
`Exhibit
`1031
`
`Description
`ETSI, LISTSERV Archives at LIST.ETSI.ORG (Jan. 04, 2006),
`http://list.etsi.org/archives/index.html[https://web.archive.org/web/
`20060104073144/http://list.etsi.org/archives/index.html].
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`3GPP, List of 3GPP Individual Members (Dec. 5, 1999)
`http://www.3gpp.org/Participation/3GPP_IM.htm[https://web.archi
`ve.org/web/19991205075508/http://www.3gpp.org:80/Participation
`/3GPP_IM.htm].
`
`Adrian Scrase, MCC Activity Report, 3GPP PCG#20 Tdoc 23 (Apr.
`22, 2008) (Available at
`http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/pcg/pcg_20/docs/PCG20_23.zip).
`
`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #50 Attendees List (Jan. 1, 2008)
`(Available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_50/Report).
`
`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #51 Attendees List (Jan. 29, 2008)
`(Available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_51/Report).
`
`Email from Juan Montojo to
`3GPP_TSG_RAN_WG1@LIST.ETSI.ORG (Nov. 4, 2007)
`(Available at
`https://list.etsi.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=3GPP_TSG_RAN_WG1;9d
`eb8c5f.0711A).
`
`ETSI, LISTSERV Archives at LIST.ETSI.ORG (Oct. 13, 2007),
`http://list.etsi.org/[https://web.archive.org/web/20071013085602/ht
`tp://list.etsi.org:80/].
`
`Email from Patrick Merias to
`3GPP_TSG_RAN_WG1@LIST.ETSI.ORG (Sept. 4, 2007)
`(Available at
`https://list.etsi.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0709&L=3GPP_TSG_R
`AN_WG1&O=D&P=8218).
`
`1039
`
`Patrick Mérias, Draft Report of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #51 v1.0.0,
`Document R1-080002 (Jan. 9, 2008) (Available at
`
`12
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00465
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_51/Report).
`
`1040
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044
`
`1045
`
`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #51 FTP Documents List (last
`accessed Jan. 29, 2020) (Available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_51/Docs/).
`
`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #51 Draft Agenda, Document R1-
`074525 (Oct. 24, 2007) (Available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_51/Agenda).
`
`Email from Dirk Gerstenberger to
`3GPP_TSG_RAN_WG1@LIST.ETSI.ORG (Oct. 17, 2007)
`(Available at
`https://list.etsi.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0710C&L=3GPP_TSG_
`RAN_WG1&O=D&P=7621).
`
`Email from Juan Montojo to
`3GPP_TSG_RAN_WG1@LIST.ETSI.ORG (Aug. 15, 2007)
`(Available at
`https://list.etsi.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=3GPP_TSG_RAN_WG1;b2
`a9a883.0708C)
`
`ETSI, LISTSERV Archives at LIST.ETSI.ORG (Jul. 6, 2007),
`http://list.3gpp.org/[
`https://web.archive.org/web/20070706074307/http://list.3gpp.org:8
`0/].
`
`Email from Emmanuelle Wurffel to
`3GPP_TSG_RAN_WG1@LIST.ETSI.ORG (Apr. 5, 2007)
`(Available at
`https://list.etsi.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0704A&L=3GPP_TSG_
`RAN_WG1&O=D&P=51550).
`
`1046
`
`Patrick Mérias, Draft Report of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #50 v0.2.0,
`Document R1-073896 (Jan. 29, 2008) (Available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_50/Report).
`
`1047
`
`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #50 FTP Documents List (last
`accessed Jan. 24, 2020) (Available at www.3gpp.org -
`
`13
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00465
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_50/Docs/).
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`1053
`
`1054
`
`Tdoc List, 3GPP TSG RAN Meeting #50 (Aug. 29, 2007)
`(Available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_50/Docs/).
`
`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #50 Draft Agenda, Document R1-
`073240 (Aug. 6, 2007) (Available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_50/Agenda/)
`.
`
`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #50 FTP Agenda (last accessed
`Jan. 27, 2020) (Available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_50/Agenda/)
`.
`
`Email from Patrick Merias to
`3GPP_TSG_RAN_WG1@LIST.ETSI.ORG (Aug. 6, 2007)
`(Available at
`https://list.etsi.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=3GPP_TSG_RAN_WG1;32
`2932c6.0708A).
`
`Email from Juho Lee to
`3GPP_TSG_RAN_WG1@LIST.ETSI.ORG (Jun. 20, 2007)
`(Available at
`http://list.etsi.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=3GPP_TSG_RAN_WG1;6a2
`ecaab.0706C).
`
`ETSI, LISTSERV Archives at LIST.ETSI.ORG (Jun. 13, 2007),
`http://list.etsi.org/
`[https://web.archive.org/web/20070613124514/http://list.etsi.org/].
`
`Email from Don Zelmer to
`3GPP_TSG_RAN_WG1@LIST.ETSI.ORG (Mar. 20, 2007)
`(Available at
`https://list.etsi.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0703C&L=3GPP_TSG_
`RAN_WG1&O=D&P=83062).
`
`1055
`
`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #49bis Attendees List (Jan. 29,
`
`14
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00465
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`2008) (Available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_49b/Report).
`
`Patrick Mérias, Draft Report of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #49b
`v0.3.0, Document R1-073815 (Jan. 29, 2008) (Available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_49b/Report).
`
`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #49bis FTP Documents List (last
`accessed Jan. 29, 2020) (Available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_49b/Docs/).
`
`Tdoc List, 3GPP TSG RAN Meeting #49bis (Jul. 24, 2007)
`(Available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_49b/Docs).
`
`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #49bis Draft Agenda, Document
`R1-072645 (Jun. 11, 2007) (Available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_49b/Agenda
`).
`
`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #49bis FTP Agenda (last accessed
`Jan. 29, 2020) (Available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_49b/Agenda/
`).
`
`Email from Dirk Gerstenberger to
`3GPP_TSG_RAN_WG1@LIST.ETSI.ORG (Jun. 5, 2007)
`(Available at
`https://list.etsi.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0706A&L=3GPP_TSG_
`RAN_WG1&O=D&P=16753).
`
`Email from Xin Michael Qian to 3GPP_TSG_RAN
`@LIST.ETSI.ORG (Mar. 31, 2004) (Available at
`https://list.etsi.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0403&L=3GPP_TSG_R
`AN&P=R142537).
`
`Letter from Mr. Selwyn to Mr. Sheasby
`
`IPR Information Statement and Licensing Declaration by Optis
`
`1056
`
`1057
`
`1058
`
`1059
`
`1060
`
`1061
`
`1062
`
`1063
`1064
`
`15
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00465
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`Wireless Technology, LLC for ’833 Patent
`
`1065
`
`1066
`
`1067
`
`1068
`
`1069
`
`1070
`
`1071
`
`1072
`
`Optis Wireless Tech., LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co. Ltd., Case No. 17-
`cv-00123, Third Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (Apr.
`14, 2017)
`
`Optis Cellular Tech., LLC v. ZTE Corp., Case No. 16-cv-00058,
`Complaint (Jan. 17, 2016)
`
`Optis Cellular Tech., LLC v. Blackberry Ltd., Case No. 16-cv-
`00060, Complaint (Jan. 17, 2016)
`
`Optis Cellular Tech., LLC v. Kyocera Comms., Inc., Case No. 16-
`cv-00059, Complaint (Jan. 17, 2016)
`
`Optis Wireless Tech., LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co. Ltd., Case No. 17-
`cv-00123, Plaintiffs’ Notice of Election of Patent Claims for Trial
`(Aug. 15, 2018)
`
`Optis Wireless Tech., LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 19-cv-00066,
`Joint Motion to Amend the Docket Control Order and Proposed
`Order (Apr. 2, 2020)
`
`Optis Wireless Tech., LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 19-cv-00066,
`Amended Docket Control Order (Apr. 6, 2020)
`
`Nicole Cobler, Texas Breaks Previous Daily Record with Nearly
`7,000 New Coronavirus Cases, Austin American-Statesman, Jun.
`30, 2020, https://www.statesman.com/news/20200630/texas-
`breaks-previous-daily-record-with-nearly-7000-new-coronavirus-
`cases.
`
`1073
`
`Email Authorizing Reply to POPR and Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00465
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on July 2, 2020, I caused a true and correct copy of the
`foregoing materials:
`• Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`• Updated Table of Exhibits (Ex-1001-1073)
`• Exhibits 1063-1073
`to be served via email on the following attorneys of record as listed in Patent
`Owner’s mandatory notices:
`
`
`Hong Annita Zhong (Reg. No. 66,530)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`hzhong@irell.com
`azhong@irell.com
`
`Jason Sheasby
`jsheasby@irell.com
`
`PanOptisIPRs@irell.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jason Kipnis/
`Jason D. Kipnis
`Registration No. 40,680
`
`17
`
`
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
