Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 7
`
`Date: November 3, 2020
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COREPHOTONICS, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
`JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 7
`
`Date: November 3, 2020
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COREPHOTONICS, LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
`JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) requested an inter partes review of claims 1–
`6 and 8–30 (the “challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 10,330,897 B2 (Ex.
`1001, “the ’897 patent”). Paper 2 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). Corephotonics Ltd.
`(“Patent Owner”) did not file a Preliminary Response.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted
`unless it is determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in the
`petition. Based on the information presented in the Petition and the
`supporting evidence, we are persuaded that there is a reasonable likelihood
`Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the challenged claims.
`Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review of claims 1–6 and 8–30 on
`all of the grounds set forth in the petition.
`Our factual findings and conclusions at this stage of the proceeding
`are based on the evidentiary record developed thus far. This is not a final
`decision as to patentability of the challenged claims.
`II.
`BACKGROUND
`Related Proceedings
`A.
`The ’897 patent is asserted in Corephotonics Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 5-19-
`cv-04809 (N.D. Cal.) filed August 14, 2019. Pet. 1; Paper 6, 1.
`U.S. Patent No. 9,897,712 (“the ’712 patent”), 9,402,032 (“the ’032
`patent”), 9,857,568 (“the ’568 patent”), and 10,324,277 (“the ’277 Patent”)
`are part of a chain of continuity that includes PCT/IB2014/062465, from
`which the ’897 patent also claims priority. This proceeding is related to
`IPR2018-01146 (“the ’1146IPR”), an inter partes review proceeding
`instituted based on Petitioner’s challenge to the ’712 patent. This
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`proceeding is also related to IPR2018-01140 (“the ’1140IPR”), an inter
`partes review proceeding instituted based on Petitioner’s challenge to the
`’032 patent. This proceeding is also related to IPR2019-00030 (“the
`’0030IPR”), an inter partes review proceeding instituted based on
`Petitioner’s challenge the ’568 patent. Each of those IPRs resulted in a Final
`Written Decision. Presently pending is IPR2020-00897 (“the ’897IPR”), an
`inter partes review proceeding based on Petitioner’s challenge to the ’277
`Patent.
`The ’897 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`B.
`The ’897 patent issued on June 25, 2019 based on an application filed
`May 10, 2018, which claimed priority back to a provisional application filed
`Nov. 19, 2017. Ex. 1001, [45], [22], [63]. The ’897 patent concerns an
`optical lens assembly with five lens elements. Id. at [57]. Figure 1A of the
`’897 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`
`Figure 1A of the ’897 patent illustrates an arrangement of lens
`elements in a first embodiment of an optical lens system.
`In order from an object side to an image side, optical lens assembly
`100 comprises: optional stop 101; first plastic lens element 102 with positive
`refractive power having a convex, object-side surface 102a; second plastic
`lens element 104 with negative refractive power having a meniscus, convex,
`object-side surface 104a, with an image side surface marked 104b; third
`plastic lens element 106 with negative refractive power having a concave,
`object-side surface 106a, with an inflection point and a concave image-side
`surface 106b; fourth plastic lens element 108 with positive refractive power
`having a positive meniscus with a concave, object-side surface 108a and an
`image-side surface marked 108b; fifth plastic lens element 110 with negative
`refractive power having a negative meniscus with a concave, object-side
`surface 110a and an image-side surface marked 110b. Id. at 3:24–41.
`In Table 1, reproduced below, the ’897 patent discloses radii of
`curvature, R, for the lens elements, lens element thicknesses and/or distances
`between each of the lens elements, and a refractive index, Nd, for each lens
`element.
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`
`
`Table 1 of the ’897 patent sets forth optical parameters for the optical lens
`assembly.
`
`The ’897 patent discloses that,
`[T]he distances between various elements (and/or surfaces) are
`marked “Lmn” (where m refers to the lens element number, n=1
`refers to the element thickness and n=2 refers to the air gap to the
`next element) and are measured on the optical axis z, wherein the
`stop is at z=0. Each number is measured from the previous
`surface. Thus, the first distance -0.466 mm is measured from the
`stop to surface 102a, the distance L11 from surface 102a to
`surface 102b (i.e. the thickness of first lens element 102) is
`0.894 mm, the gap L12 between surfaces 102b and 104a is 0.020
`mm, the distance L21 between surfaces 104a and 104b (i.e.
`thickness d2 of second lens element 104) is 0.246 mm, etc. Also,
`L21=d2 and L51=d5.
`Id. at 4:16–28 (emphasis added).
`C.
`Challenged Claims
`Challenged claims 1 and 17 are independent. Challenged claims 2–6,
`and 8–16 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1 and challenged claims
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`18–30 depend directly or indirectly from claim 17. Independent claim 1 is
`reproduced below.
`1. A lens assembly, comprising: a plurality of lens elements arranged
`along an optical axis and spaced apart by respective spaces, wherein the
`lens assembly has an effective focal length (EFL), a total track length
`(TTL) of 6.5 millimeters or less and a ratio TTL/EFL<1.0, wherein the
`plurality of lens elements includes, in order from an object side to an
`image side, a first group comprising lens elements L1_1, L1_2 and L1_3
`with respective focal lengths f1_1, f1_2 and f1_3 and a second group
`comprising lens elements L2_1 and L2_2, wherein the first and second
`groups of lens elements are separated by a gap that is larger than twice
`any other gap between lens elements, wherein lens element L1_1 has
`positive refractive power and lens element L1_2 has negative refractive
`power and wherein lens elements L2_1 and L2_2 have opposite refractive
`powers.
`
`Ex. 1001, 8:21–36
`
`Proposed Grounds of Unpatentability
`D.
`Petitioner advances the following challenges supported by the
`declaration of Dr. José Sasián (Ex. 1003).
`Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. §1
`102
`1, 4, 9–15, 17, 20,
`25–29
`2, 5, 6, 18, 21–23
`
`103
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`U.S. Patent No. 9,128,267 to Ogino
`et al. (“Ogino,” Ex. 1005)
`Ogino and The Optics of Miniature
`Digital Cameras by Jane Bareau et
`al., SPIE Proceedings Volume 6342,
`International Optical Design
`
`
`1 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(September 16, 2011) (“AIA”), included revisions to 35 U.S.C. § 103 that
`became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the ’840 patent issued from
`an application filed after March 16, 2013, we apply the AIA version of the
`statutory basis for unpatentability. See Ex. 1001, codes (22), (86).
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`
`Claims Challenged 35 U.S.C. §1
`
`3, 8, 19, 24
`
`16, 30
`
`103
`
`103
`
`
`
`Reference(s)/Basis
`Conference 2006; 63421F (2006)
`(“Bareau”, Ex. 1012).
`Ogino, Bareau, and U.S. Patent No.
`9,128,267 to Kingslake, Optics in
`Photography, 1992, (“Kingslake,”
`Ex. 1013)
` Ogino, and U.S. Patent No.
`10,324,273 to Chen et al. (“Chen,”
`Ex. 1020), and U.S. Patent No.
`9,678,310 to Iwasaki et al.
`(“Iwasaki,” Ex. 1009), and Polymer
`Optics: A Manufacturer’s
`Perspective on the Factors that
`Contribute to Successful Programs
`to Beich et al. (“Beich,” Ex. 1007)
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`Claim Construction
`A.
`We interpret a claim “using the same claim construction standard that
`would be used to construe the claim in a civil action under 35 U.S.C.
`282(b).” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).2 Under that standard, we construe the
`claim “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning of such
`
`
`2 The Office has changed the claim construction standard in AIA
`proceedings, replacing the broadest reasonable interpretation standard with
`the same claim construction standard used in a civil action in federal district
`court. Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims
`in Trial Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 83 Fed. Reg.
`51,340, 51,340 (Oct. 11, 2018). This change applies to petitions filed on or
`after November 13, 2018. Id. Because the present Petition was filed on
`May 1, 2020, we construe the claims in accordance with the standard used in
`federal district court, now codified at 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the prosecution
`history pertaining to the patent.” Id.
`We construe claim terms to the extent necessary for our analysis on
`whether to institute a trial. See, e.g., Nidec Motor Corp. Zhongshan Broad
`Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only
`construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to
`resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g,
`Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`Consequently, we address below Petitioner’s proposed constructions
`for the terms “effective focal length” and “total track length.” We further
`direct the parties to address fully the meaning of these terms at trial.
`1.
`Effective Focal Length (EFL)
`Independent claim 1 recites “wherein the lens assembly has an
`effective focal length (EFL).” Petitioner contends the term “effective focal
`length” should be construed as “the focal length of a lens assembly.” Pet. 7.
`For purposes of this Decision, we construe the term “effective focal length”
`in this manner. This construction coincides with the construction of the
`same term in the ’1140IPR (Paper 10, 10), the ’1146IPR (Paper 8, 7–8), and
`’0030IPR (Paper 32, 8). The ’897 specification supports this construction
`because it is the essentially the same as the specification on which the
`’1140IPR based the construction of EFL.
`2.
`Total Track Length (TTL)
`Independent claim 1 recites “wherein the lens assembly has a
`total track length (TTL) of 6.5 millimeters or less.” Petitioner contends that
`the ’897 patent discloses that TTL is the “the length of the optical axis
`spacing between the object-side surface of the first lens element and one of:
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`an electronic sensor, a film sensor, and an image plane corresponding to
`either the electronic sensor or [the] film sensor.” Pet. 8. For purposes of
`this Decision, we construe the term “total track length” in this manner. This
`construction coincides with the construction of the same term in the
`’1140IPR (Paper 10, 10–11), the ’1146IPR (Paper 8, 8), and ’0030IPR
`(Paper 32, 14–15). The ’897 specification supports this construction
`because it is the essentially the same as the specification on which the
`’1140IPR based the construction of TTL. We note, however, that Petitioner
`proposes a different construction of the term in IPR2020-00877. The parties
`should address during trial whether and why the construction of this term
`should differ in these two IPRs.
`B.
`Principles of Law
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations, including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of skill in the art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness,
`i.e., secondary considerations. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
`17–18 (1966).
`“In an [inter partes review], the petitioner has the burden from the
`onset to show with particularity why the patent it challenges is
`unpatentable.” Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`Cir. 2016) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) (requiring inter partes review
`petitions to identify “with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the
`grounds for the challenge to each claim”)). The burden of persuasion never
`shifts to Patent Owner. See Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics,
`Inc., 800 F.3d 1375, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Tech. Licensing Corp.
`Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1326–27 (Fed. Cir. 2008)) (discussing the
`burden of proof in an inter partes review). Furthermore, Petitioner cannot
`satisfy its burden of proving obviousness by employing “mere conclusory
`statements.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed.
`Cir. 2016).
`Thus, to prevail in an inter partes review, Petitioner must explain how
`the proposed combinations of prior art would have rendered the challenged
`claims unpatentable. We analyze the challenges presented in the Petition in
`accordance with the above-stated principles.
`C.
`Anticipation by Ogino
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 4, 9–15, 17, 20, and 25–29 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Ogino. Pet. 10–40.
`For the reasons that follow, we are persuaded, at this stage of the
`proceeding, that the evidence supports Petitioner’s arguments and Dr.
`Sasián’s testimony and thus, establishes a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing with respect to this ground.
`1.
`Overview of Ogino
`Ogino concerns an imaging lens substantially consisting of, in order
`from an object side, five lenses: a first lens L1 that has a positive refractive
`power and a meniscus shape which is convex toward the object side; a
`second lens L2 that has a biconcave shape; a third lens L3 that has a
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`meniscus shape which is convex toward the object side; a fourth lens L4 that
`has a meniscus shape which is convex toward an object side; and a fifth lens
`L5 that has a negative refractive power and at least one inflection point on
`an image side surface. See Ex. 1005, 2:4–13. Figure 5 of Ogino is
`reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 6 is a lens cross-sectional view illustrating a configuration example of
`an imaging lens according to an embodiment of the invention. See id. at
`4:5–9.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`
`Independent Claim 1
`2.
`“A lens assembly, comprising: a plurality of lens elements
`arranged along an optical axis and spaced apart by respective
`spaces”
`Petitioner contends Ogino discloses this limitation in Ogino’s
`Example 5, shown in Figure 5 reproduced above, which includes lenses L1
`to L5 arranged along optical axis Z1, in order from an object side. Pet. 14–
`15 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 5, 5:13–15).
`“wherein the lens assembly has an effective focal length
`(EFL)”
`As discussed above in Section III.A.1, we construe EFL as “the focal
`length of a lens assembly.” Petitioner contends that “Ogino teaches for each
`of its embodiments, that ‘f is a focal length of a whole system.’” Id. at 15.
`(quoting Ex. 1005, 3:16) (citing Ex. 1003, 29). In Table 9, Ogino discloses
`that the focal length f of the entire lens system of Example 5 is provided in
`Table 9 as f = 5.956 mm. Id. (quoting Ex. 1005, Table 9) (citing Ex. 1005,
`14:47–53). Table 11 of Ogino is reproduced below.
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`
`
`Table 9 of Ogino discloses optical parameters for the lens assembly of
`Example 5, which is depicted in Figure 5.
`“a total track length (TTL) of 6.5 millimeters or less and a ratio
`TTL/EFL of less than 1.0”
`As discussed above in Section III.A.2, we construe TTL as “the on-
`axis spacing between the object-side surface of the first lens element and the
`image plane.” Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`“would have identified the total track length of Example 5 lens apparatus to
`be the distance between the object-side surface of the first lens L1 and the
`image plane 100 (R14).” Pet. 16-17 (citing Ex. 1005, Fig. 5; Ex. 1003, 30).
`As noted by Petitioner, Ogino explicitly discloses that “the TTL with
`the cover glass element can be calculated by summing the widths above
`labeled D1 to D13” which results in a TTL of 5.273, using the values
`depicted in Table 9 of Ogino. Ex. 1005, Table 9; see Pet. 17–18 (citing in
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`part Ex. 1003, 30–31). Ogino discloses an EFL of 5.956 as depicted in
`Table 9. Ex. 1005, Table 9; see Pet. 17–19 (citing in part Ex. 1003, 30–32).
`With Ogino disclosing a TTL of 5.273 and an EFL of 5.956, Ogino
`also discloses a ratio of TTL/EFL of 0.8853, which is less than 1.0. See Pet.
`18–19.
` “wherein the plurality of lens elements includes, in order from an object
`side to an image side, a first group comprising lens elements L1_1, L1_2 and
`L1_3 with respective focal lengths f1_1, f1_2 and f1_3 and a second group
`comprising lens elements L2_1 and L2_2,”
`
`According to Petitioner, Figure 13 of Ogino depicts “Example 5 lens
`assembly includes a first lens group with three lens elements L1-L3 in order
`(i.e., L1_1, L1_2, and L1_3) and a second lens group with two lens elements L4-
`L5 in order (i.e., L2_1 and L2_2) as shown in Fig. 5 above.” Pet. 19–20 (citing
`Ex. 1003, 33; Ex. 1005, Figs. 5, 13). Petitioner calculates the focal lengths
`of L1_1, L1_2, and L1_3 respectively as 2.068, -3.168, -6.926. Id. at 20–21
`(citing Ex. 1005, 15:44–48).
`“wherein the first and second groups of lens elements are
`separated by a gap that is larger than twice any other gap
`between lens elements”
`Petitioner asserts Figure 5 shows the “gap between the other lens
`elements are identified as D2+D3 (between L1 and L2), D5 (between L2 and
`L3), and D9 (between L4 and L5) [and t]he widths of each gap D2+D3 (with
`the aperture stop in the middle, which is not a lens element), D5, D7, and D9
`are provided in Table 9.” Pet. 22–24 (Ex. 1005, Fig. 5, Table 11).
`Petitioner further presents, based on this data, calculations that show
`Ogino’s D7 is more than twice as large than the other gaps between lens
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`elements, i.e. D7 (0.506) is more than two times the length of the gaps D2,
`D3 (0.099), D5 (0.243), and D9 (0.100).
`“wherein lens element L1_1 has positive refractive power and lens element
`L1_2 has negative refractive power”
`
`Petitioner contends Ogino discloses this limitation because the optical
`data for the Example 5 lens assembly shows that the L1 lens element (i.e.,
`L1_1) has positive refractive power and the L2 lens element (i.e., L1_2) has
`negative refractive power. Pet. 24 (citing Ex. 1003, 37).
`Petitioner asserts “[a person of ordinary skill at the time of the
`invention] would have recognized that the refractive power of a lens is equal
`to the inverse of the focal length of the lens: ‘[t]he practical unit of power is
`a dioptre; it is the reciprocal of the focal length, when the focal length is
`expressed in meters.’” Pet. 24 (quoting Ex. 1010, 159). Thus, as established
`above, the L1 lens has a positive focal length of 2.068 mm thereby
`indicating a positive refractive power and the L2 lens has a negative focal
`length of -3.168 mm thereby indicating a negative refractive power. Id.
`(citing Ex. 1003, 37).
`“and wherein lens elements L2_1 and L2_2 have opposite refractive powers”
`
`Petitioner asserts “while not given in Ogino, the focal length f4 of the
`L4 lens can be calculated by inputting the optical data for the lens into the
`commonly known ‘lens maker’s equation’ for lenses separated by a gap, as
`stated in Born
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`where f is the focal length of the lens, n is the index of refraction, r1 and r2
`are the curvature of the lens’s two surfaces, and t is the axial thickness of the
`lens.” Pet. 25.
`Petitioner further presents, based on the data in Table 9, calculations
`that show the L4 lens has a focal length f4 = 2.7359 mm and the L5 lens has
`a focal length f5 = -2.451 mm. Pet. 25–27 (citing Ex. 1005, Table 9, 13; Ex.
`1003, 40). Thus, because L4 is positive and L5 is negative, they have
`opposite refractive powers.
`3.
`Dependent Claims 4, 9–15, 17, 20, 25–29
`Patent Owner does not raise arguments for claims 1, 4, 9–15, 17, 20,
`and 25–29. We have reviewed Petitioner’s arguments and evidence
`concerning claims 1, 4, 9–15, 17, 20, 25–29 and are persuaded, at this stage
`of the proceeding, that Petitioner has also shown a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing in demonstrating that these claims are anticipated by Ogino. See
`Pet. 28–40.
`Additional Asserted Grounds
`D.
`As to the remaining claims and grounds asserted in the Petition, Patent
`Owner does not raise any arguments. Having decided that Petitioner is
`likely to prevail as to at least one claim challenged in the Petition, the review
`shall proceed on all challenged claims and on all grounds raised in the
`Petition.
`
`IV. SUMMARY
`For the reasons expressed above, we determine that Petitioner has
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of showing that at least claim 1 among
`the challenged claims is unpatentable. As set out in the Order below, we
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`institute a trial on all challenged claims and all asserted grounds of
`unpatentability.
`This is a decision to institute an inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. §
`314. Our factual findings and determinations at this stage of the proceeding
`are preliminary, and based on the evidentiary record developed thus far.
`This is not a final decision as to the patentability of claims for which inter
`partes review is instituted. Our final decision will be based on the record as
`fully developed during trial.
`
`V. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`review of claims 1–6 and 8–30 of the ’897 patent is instituted on all grounds
`in the Petition that these claims are unpatentable; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), inter
`partes review of the ʼ897 patent is instituted commencing on the entry date
`of this Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4,
`notice is given of the institution of a trial.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00878
`Patent 10,330,897 B2
`
`
`For PETITIONER:
`Michael S. Parsons
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`Jordan Maucotel
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`michael.parsons.ipr@haynesboone.com
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`jordan.maucotel.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`For PATENT OWNER:
`Neil Rubin
`C. Jay Chung
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`nrubin@raklaw.com
`jchung@raklaw.com
`
`
`
`18
`
`
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
