PATENT OWNER ORAL PRESENTATION
`PATENT OWNER ORAL PRESENTATION
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`RIMFROSTAS.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`AKER BIOMARINE ANTARCTICAS.
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-01532 (Patent 9.644.169 B2)
`IPR2020-01533 (Patent 9.816.046 B2)
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2026 SLIDE 0001
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2026 SLIDE 0001
`
`
`PATENT OWNER ORAL PRESENTATION
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`RIMFROSTAS.
`
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`AKER BIOMARINE ANTARCTICAS.
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-01532 (Patent 9.644.169 B2)
`IPR2020-01533 (Patent 9.816.046 B2)
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2026 SLIDE 0001
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2026 SLIDE 0001
`
`
`
`INSTITUTED GROUNDS
`
`US PAT NO 9,644,169 (‘169 Patent)
`
`US PAT NO 9,816,046 (‘046 Patent)
`
`All Grounds reply on Breivik II
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2026 SLIDE 0002
`
`
`
`CLAIMS – ‘169 Patent
`
`1. A method of production of krill oil comprising:
`
`a) providing krill;
`
`b) treating said krill to denature lipases and phospholipases in said krill to provide a denatured krill product;
`
`c) storing said denatured krill product for a storage period of from 1 to 24 months;
`
`d) after said storage period, extracting oil from said denatured krill product with a polar solvent to provide a krill
`
`oil with from about 3% to about 15% ether phospholipids w/w of said krill oil astaxanthin esters in amount of greater than
`
`about 100 mg/kg of said krill oil.
`
`4. The method of claim 1, wherein said denatured krill product is a krill meal.
`
`12. A method of production of krill oil comprising:
`
`a) obtaining a denatured krill product produced by treating freshly harvested krill to denature lipases and
`
`phospholipases in said krill and that has been stored from 1 to 24 months; and
`
`b) extracting oil from said denatured krill product that has been stored from 1 to 24 months with a polar
`
`solvent to provide a krill oil with from about 3% to about 15% ether phospholipids w/w of said krill oil astaxanthin esters in
`
`amount of greater than about 100 mg/kg of said krill oil.
`
`14. The method of claim 12, wherein said denatured krill product is a krill meal.
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2026 SLIDE 0003
`
`
`
`CLAIMS – ‘046 Patent
`
`1. A method of production of krill oil comprising:
`
`obtaining a krill meal produced by a process comprising treating krill to destroy the activity of lipases and
`
`phospholipases naturally present in krill and wherein said krill meal has been stored for period of from 1 to 36 months;
`
`and
`
`extracting krill oil from said krill meal that has been stored from 1 to 36 months with a polar solvent to
`
`provide a krill oil with greater than 30% phosphatidylcholine w/w of said krill oil and astaxanthin esters.
`
`13. A method of production of Euphausia superba krill oil comprising:
`
`a) obtaining a Euphausia superba krill meal produced by a process comprising treating Euphausia superba to
`
`destroy the activity of lipases and phospholipases naturally present in Euphausia superba and wherein said Euphausia
`
`superba krill meal has been stored from 1 to 36 months; and
`
`b) extracting Euphausia superba oil from said krill meal that has been stored from 1 to 36 months with a
`
`polar solvent to provide a Euphausia superba krill oil comprising greater than 30% phosphatidylcholine w/w of
`
`said Euphausia superba krill oil, less than 3% free fatty acids w/w of said Euphausia superba krill oil, and at least 100
`
`mg/kg astaxanthin esters.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2026 SLIDE 0004
`
`
`
`CLAIMS – Key Features
`
`• Starting material: Denatured krill product (which can be krill meal) or krill meal made by
`process which destroys activity of lipases and phospholipases.
`
`• Storing the denatured krill product/krill meal for from 1 to 24 months or 1 to 36 months.
`
`• Extracting krill oil containing phospholipids from the stored krill product/krill meal with a
`polar solvent.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2026 SLIDE 0005
`
`
`
`BREIVIK II IS NOT PRIOR ART
`
`• All of the Grounds rely on Breivik II. If Breivik II is removed, the Grounds fail.
`• The critical date of Breivik II is Nov. 16, 2006 (Ex. 1037 at 0001).
`• Breivik II discloses extraction of a krill oil containing phospholipids from fresh krill that has been
`heat treated immediately prior to extraction. See Ex. 1037, Examples 6 and 7 (p. 0009) and the
`Summary at pp. 0003-4:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2026 SLIDE 0006
`
`
`
`BREIVIK II IS NOT PRIOR ART – TILSETH DECLARATION
`
`It cannot be disputed that the Dr. Tilseth’s testimony on conception and reduction to practice is corroborated:
`
`• Krill meal was made on board the Atlantic Navigator and stored for 13 months. Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 7-8 (citing Exs.
`2003, 2004, 1001 and 1005).1
`
`• After the storage period, the krill meal was extracted with ethanol. Ex. 2001, ¶¶9-14 (citing Exs. 2005-2014). 1
`
`• The resulting krill oil contained phospholipids including phosphatidylcholine and astaxanthin. Ex. 2001, ¶14
`(citing Exs. 2013, 1001 and 1005). 1
`
`• This method of extraction was developed at least as early as September 14, 2006. Ex. 2001, ¶15. 1
`
`• This evidence demonstrates conception and reduction to practice of at least as much of the invention as the
`reference happens to show.2
`
`• Alternatively, the evidence is sufficient to antedate if the differences are obvious.3
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`
`PO ‘169/’046 Responses at 20-23, PO ‘169/’046 Sur-Replies at 9-10
`PO ‘169/’046 Responses at 24, citing In re Stempel, In re Wakefield.
`PO ‘169/’046 Responses at 24-25, citing In re Spiller, In re Stryker
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2026 SLIDE 0007
`
`
`
`BREIVIK II IS NOT PRIOR ART – TILSETH DECLARATION
`Exs. 2013 and 2014
`
`PO ‘169/’046 Responses at 22-23.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2026 SLIDE 0008
`
`
`
`BREIVIK II IS NOT PRIOR ART – RULE OF REASON
`
`•
`
`“Sufficiency of corroboration is determined by using a ‘rule of reason’ analysis, under which all pertinent
`evidence is examined when determining the credibility of an inventor’s testimony.” Medichem, S.A. v.
`Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1170 (2006).1
`
`• The “rule of reason” was developed to ease the requirement of corroboration. Coleman v. Dines, 754
`F.2d 353, 360 (Fed. Cir. 1985). 1
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“Despite the importance of the independence requirement, however, [t]he law does not impose an
`impossible standard of ‘independence’ on corroborative evidence by requiring that every point of a
`reduction to practice be corroborated by evidence having a source totally independent of the
`inventor....” Medichem, 437 F.3d at 1171. 1
`
`“Credibility concerns undergird the corroboration requirement, the purpose of which is to prevent
`fraud.” Id. Thus, the corroboration requirement provides “a safeguard against courts being deceived by
`inventors who may be tempted to mischaracterize the events of the past through their testimony.” Id. 1
`
`1. PO ‘169/‘046 Sur-Replies at 8-9.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2026 SLIDE 0009
`
`
`
`BREIVIK II IS NOT PRIOR ART – PETITIONER FAILS TO
`APPLY THE RULE OF REASON
`• Petitioner has failed to present any analysis under the “rule of reason.”1
`
`• Instead, Petitioner presents an analysis that focuses on alleged failure to corroborate each claim element
`as written, arguing: “Dr. Tilseth’s post-hoc interpretation of two sections from this 15-year old document
`cannot be used to backfill the gaps in what is not found within the four corners of Sections 6.1-6.2.” 2
`
`• This “four corners” analysis is inconsistent with the “rule of reason.” It is the antithesis of the rule of
`reason to require evidence on every aspect of conception and reduction to practice. E.I. du Pont De
`Nemours & Co., 921 F.3d 1060, 1077 (Fed. Cir. 2019).3
`
`• As a result, Petitioner has failed to present any evidence that undermines the credibility of Dr. Tilseth’s
`testimony.
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`PO ‘169/’046 Sur-Replies at 15.
`PO ‘169/’046 Sur-Replies at 15-16, (quoting Petitioner’s Reply at 10).
`PO ‘169/-046 Sur-Replies at 16.
`PO ‘169/’046 Sur-Replies at 12.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2026 SLIDE 0010
`
`
`
`BREIVIK II IS NOT PRIOR ART – CREDIBILITY OF DR. TILSETH
`
`• “Credibility concerns undergird the corroboration requirement, the purpose of which is to prevent fraud.”
`Medichem, 437 F.3d at 1171. Thus, the corroboration requirement provides “a safeguard against courts
`being deceived by inventors who may be tempted to mischaracterize the events of the past through their
`testimony.” Id.1
`
`• Has Petitioner done anything to undermine Dr. Tilseth’s credibility? NO!
`
`• First, Petitioner did not depose Dr. Tilseth.2
`
`• Second, Petitioner’s only argument is that that Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of Ex. 2003 does not specifically
`mention that the krill meal was made a standard process involving a cooking stage that denatured krill
`lipases and phospholipases.3
`
`• This argument ignores corroborating evidence presented by Dr. Tilseth and admissions by it’s expert, Dr.
`Tallon.4
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`PO ‘169/‘046 Sur-Replies at 8.
`PO ‘169/‘046 Sur-Replies at 11. See Paper 14 filed in both IPRs.
`PO ‘169/‘046 Sur-Replies at 12; Petitioner ‘169 /‘046 Replies at 9-10.
`PO ‘169/‘046 Sur-Replies at 12-14
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2026 SLIDE 0011
`
`
`
`BREIVIK II IS NOT PRIOR ART – CREDIBILITY OF DR. TILSETH
`
`• Petitioner focused solely on Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of Ex. 2003 and failed to consider other evidence cited by
`Dr. Tilseth.1
`
`• Dr. Tilseth also testified that the krill meal described in Table 13 of Ex. 2003 is the same meal described in
`Example 1, Table 1 of Ex. 1005 (the priority document). Ex. 2001, ¶8. The data provided in Table 13 of Ex.
`2003 (p. 0023) is repeated in Table 1 of Ex. 1005 (p. 0023).2
`
`• As described in Ex. 1005, the krill meal was made by standard methods (Example 1 at 0023). 3
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`
`PO ‘169/’046 Sur-Replies at 12.
`PO ‘169/’046 Sur-Replies at 12-14.
`PO ‘169/’046 Sur-Replies at 13.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2026 SLIDE 0012
`
`
`
`BREIVIK II IS NOT PRIOR ART – CREDIBILITY OF DR. TILSETH
`
`• When viewed as a whole, as required by the “rule of reason,” the corroborating evidence supports Dr.
`Tilseth’s testimony that the krill meal was made by a standard process involving cooking, pressing and
`decanting which denatured lipases and phospholipase. Ex. 2001, ¶8.1
`
`• Dr. Tallon acknowledged that the standard process involves cooking sufficient to denature lipases and
`phospholipases.2
`
`• Dr. Tallon, referencing Budziński (Ex. 1008), acknowledged that the “traditional method of krill-meal
`production is by cooking and pressing or centrifuging and drying . . . and the resulting denatured krill meal
`is stable . . . .” Ex. 1006 ¶168.2
`
`• Dr. Tallon confirmed this conclusion in his Reply Declaration: “The cooking that occurs during preparation
`of the krill meal was a well-known process in the prior art for preventing this enzymatic degradation
`allowing for stable storage of a krill meal.” Ex. 1086 ¶46.2
`
`• There is no reasonable basis to believe that Dr. Tilseth somehow manufactured his testimony in a post-hoc
`fashion as alleged by Petitioner.3
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`
`PO ‘169/’046 Sur-Replies at 15-16.
`PO ‘169/’046 Sur-Replies at 17-18.
`PO ‘169/’046 Sur-Replies at 19.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2026 SLIDE 0013
`
`
`
`BREIVIK II IS NOT PRIOR ART – CORROBORATION WITH
`METADATA
`
`• Petitioner further alleges that Dr. Tilseth has “self-corroborated” Sections 6.1 and 6.2 of Ex. 2003 and that
`Dr. Tilseth’s notes cannot corroborate his reduction to practice story.1
`
`• Metadata has been provided for each of Exs. 2003, 2005, 2008, 2010, and 2013 which provides time
`stamps for the dates on which the documents were created and last modified.2
`
`• The combination of testimony and metadata independently corroborates and authenticates the
`documents. See, e.g., Motorola Mobility LLC. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, IPR2014-00504, Paper 84, at
`17-19 (PTAB March 13, 2020)(citing Sonos, Inc. v. Implicit, LLC, 2019 WL 4419356 (PTAB Sept. 16, 2019) and
`ATI Tech. ULC v. Iancu, 920 F.3d 1362, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2019)).2
`
`1.
`2.
`
`Petitioner’s ‘169/’046 Replies 10-11, 14.
`PO ‘169/’046 Sur-Replies at 10, 19-20.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2026 SLIDE 0014
`
`
`
`THE CLAIMS ARE NOT OBVIOUS
`
`• Even if Breivik II is prior art, the claims are not obvious.1
`
`• The claims all require the element of extraction from a denatured krill product or krill meal that has been
`stored for from 1 to 24 or 1 to 36 months.
`
`• The combined references do not teach extraction from any krill material that has been stored for from 1 to
`24 or 1 to 36 months.2
`
`• Alternatively, there is no motivation to combine the references to arrive at a method where krill oil is
`extracted from a denatured krill product or krill meal that has been stored for from 1 to 24 or 1 to 36
`months.3
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`
`PO ‘169 Response at 36, ‘046 Response at 38.
`PO ‘169 Response at 36-40, ‘046 Response at 44-45.
`PO ‘169 Response at 40-53, ‘046 Response at 45-53.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2026 SLIDE 0015
`
`
`
`THE COMBINED REFERENCES DO NOT TEACH THE ELEMENT
`OF EXTRACTION FROM A STORED MATERIAL
`• Breivik II does not teach extraction from a stored material, and instead teaches extraction from fresh krill.1
`
`• As admitted by Petitioner “Breivik II describes a process in which fresh krill is heated to 80oC, washed with
`ethanol and then subjected to supercritical fluid extraction with CO2 and 10% ethanol to obtain an extract
`“rich in phospholipids” and astaxanthin.” ‘169 Petition at 46, ‘046 Petition at 45.2
`
`• Examples 6 and 7 both describe use of fresh krill that is heated for either five minutes or a few minutes
`immediately before extraction. Ex. 1037 (Breivik II) at 0009.3
`
`• The summary also describes heating immediately before extraction. Ex. 1037 (Breivik II) at 0003-4.4
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`PO ‘169 Response at 37, ‘046 Response at 42-44. PO ‘169/’046 Sur-Replies at 23-25.
`PO ‘169 Response at 37, ‘046 Response at 42.
`PO ‘169 Sur-Reply at 23, ‘046 Sur-Reply at 26-27.
`PO ‘169 Sur-Reply at 24, ‘046 Sur-Reply at 27.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2026 SLIDE 0016
`
`
`
`THE COMBINED REFERENCES DO NOT TEACH THE ELEMENT
`OF EXTRACTION FROM A STORED MATERIAL
`
`• Budzinski teaches krill meal that is stable for 13 months, but does not teach extraction from that material.1
`• The paragraph at p. 0030 of Budzinski relied on by Petitioner does not disclose extraction from krill meal.1
`• Likewise, the section in Budzinski referring to krill meal does not teach extraction from that meal. Ex. 1008
`at 0027-28.1
`• Dr. Tallon admitted that Budzinski “doesn’t describe much of the detail of how that organic solvent
`extraction might be done.” Ex. 2019 at 0036.1
`
`Budzinski at 0030
`
`Budzinski at 0027-28
`
`1.
`
`PO ‘169 Response at 38-39, ‘046 Response at 39-40
`PO ‘169 Sur-Reply at 27-28, ‘046 Sur-Reply at 22-23.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2026 SLIDE 0017
`
`
`
`THE COMBINED REFERENCES DO NOT TEACH THE ELEMENT
`OF EXTRACTION FROM A STORED MATERIAL
`
`• Neither Fricke 1984 (Ex. 1008) or Fricke 1986 (Ex. 1160) teach extraction from a denatured material that has been
`stored.1
`• Fricke 1984 mentions that samples that were “cooked on board immediately after hauling” had a low free fatty
`acid content.1
`• Fricke 1986, which was belatedly introduced by Petitioner in its Reply, provides no information on storage time
`for cooked krill.1
`
`Fricke 1984 at 0002-3.
`
`1.
`
`PO ‘169 Response at 38, ‘046 Response at 41
`PO ‘169 Sur-Reply at 25-27, ‘046 Sur-Reply at 23-25.
`
`Fricke 1986 at 0001.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2026 SLIDE 0018
`
`
`
`NO MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
`
`• The claims require the step of extracting krill oil from a denatured krill product or krill meal that has been
`stored for from 1 to 24 or 1 to 36 months.
`
`• The lead reference cited in each ground, Breivik II, teaches that fresh krill should be utilized and that its
`methods are suitable for use on-board the fishing vessel at 0003-4.1
`
`1.
`
`PO ‘169 Response at 41, ‘046 Response at 46.
`PO ‘169 Sur-Reply at 29-30, ‘046 Sur-Reply at 26-27.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2026 SLIDE 0019
`
`
`
`NO MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
`
`• Breivik II further specifically notes problems associated with oxidation and polymerization of lipids in
`“traditional krill meal”. Ex. 1037 at 0002, 6, 10, 12.1
`
`Breivik II at 0002.
`
`Breivik II at 0010.
`
`1.
`
`PO ‘169 Response at 41, ‘046 Response at 46.
`PO ‘169/’046 Sur-Replies at 29-30.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2026 SLIDE 0020
`
`
`
`NO MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
`
`• The question becomes whether there is any motivation to substitute a stored krill meal for the fresh krill utilized
`in Breivik II.1
`
`• This motivation does not come from any of the other cited references, none of which teach or suggest extraction
`from a denatured krill product or krill meal that has been stored.2
`
`•
`
`In the absence of any motivation in the references themselves, Petitioner relies on the unsupported testimony of
`Dr. Tallon, arguing: “Among the reasons for extracting krill oil on land as opposed to at sea, include the expense
`of installing and operating extraction processes on a ship, and the hazards associated with using flammable polar
`solvents at sea. Because of the practicality and desirability of preforming land-based solvent extraction, a POSITA
`would have understood that denatured krill needed to be stored prior to extraction because of, inter alia, the
`temporal and geographic restrictions on krill harvesting, the distance between the krill fishing grounds and
`commercial solvent extraction facilities, and the need to intermittently schedule oil extraction to satisfy
`customer demand for freshly extracted krill oil.” ‘169/’046 Petitions at 59-60.3
`
`• No evidence is provided to back up these speculative conclusions other than Dr. Tallon’s unsupported testimony
`which should be given little or no weight.4
`PO ‘169/’046 Sur-Replies at 28-29.
`PO ‘169 Response 41-44, ‘046 Response at 45-49; PO ‘169/’046 Sur-Replies at 28.
`PO ‘169 Response at 41, ‘046 Response at 45-46; PO ‘169/’046 Sur-Replies at 30-31.
`PO ‘169 Response at 45, ‘046 Response at 50; PO ‘169/’046 Sur-Replies at 30-31.
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2026 SLIDE 0021
`
`
`
`NO MOTIVATION TO COMBINE
`
`• Dr. Tallon’s deposition testimony undermines the unsupported rationale in his Declaration.1
`
`• When deposed, Dr. Tallon admitted that the flammability of ethanol “did not preclude it from being used
`on a ship” and that “flammable solvents can be managed.” Ex. 2019 at 0049, l. 18 – 25.2
`
`• When deposed, Dr. Tallon further admitted that factories in ships looked just like land-based factories and
`that “conceptually, many of the processes that we have been involved with could equally be installed on a
`ship as they could on land.”3
`
`• There is no basis to conclude that extraction would preferably be done on land on stored material due to
`safety concerns when: a) Breivik II teaches that extraction of fresh krill is preferable and that its processes
`can be performed on the fishing vessel; and b) Dr. Tallon admitted that solvents can be managed on-board
`a ship.4
`
`• Finally, no supporting evidence is provided to support Dr. Tallon’s speculation on economic advantages of
`extracting on land. Ex. 1006 at ¶173.5
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`5.
`
`PO ‘169 Response at 42-45, ‘046 Response at 47-51.
`PO ‘169 Response at 42, ‘046 Response at 47.
`PO ‘169 Response at 45, ‘046 Response at 50-51.
`PO ‘169 Response at 43, ‘046 Response at 48.
`PO ‘169 Response at 45 , ‘046 Response at 50.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2026 SLIDE 0022
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`• Breivik II is not prior art. Dr. Tilseth’s corroborated testimony establishes conception and reduction to
`practice prior to the November 16, 2006 critical date of Breivik II.
`
`• Since all of the Grounds in both IPR’s rely on Breivik II, removal of Breivik II as a prior art reference defeats
`every asserted Ground.
`
`• Even if Breivik II is admitted as prior art, the combined references do not teach the claim element of
`extraction from a denatured krill product or krill meal that has been stored from 1 to 24 or 1 to 36 months.
`
`• Grounds 1 and 2 of IPR2020-01532 should be denied.
`
`• Grounds 1, 2 and 3 of IPR2020-01533 should be denied.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT - NOT EVIDENCE
`
`AKER EXHIBIT 2026 SLIDE 0023
`
`
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
