throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. ___
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`Sand Revolution II, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Continental Intermodal Group-Trucking LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2019-01393
`Patent 8,944,740
`____________
`
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`LATHROP GPM LLP
`
`/Anna M. Quinn/
`Anna M. Quinn, Reg. No. 72,744
`A. Justin Poplin, Reg. No. 53,476
`2345 Grand Blvd., Ste. 2400
`Kansas City, Missouri 64108
`Phone: 913-451-5100
`
`
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Exhibit 1006
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. StratosAudio, Inc., IPR2021-00716 - Page 1
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` Page
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1 
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 2 
`A. 
`There is very little potential for a district court stay. ........................... 2 
`B. 
`The district court’s trial date is months before any final
`decision. ................................................................................................ 6 
`The district court’s and parties’ investment in the parallel
`litigation is substantial. ......................................................................... 7 
`This proceeding and the parallel litigation involve common
`issues..................................................................................................... 8 
`Petitioner is a defendant in the parallel action. .................................... 8 
`E. 
`No other circumstances warrant upsetting the Denial Decision. ......... 8 
`F. 
`III.  CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 10 
`
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Exhibit 1006
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. StratosAudio, Inc., IPR2021-00716 - Page 2
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ..................................passim
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,
`941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................................ 8
`E-One, Inc. v. Oshkosh Corp.,
`IPR2019-00161, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. May 15, 2019) ..................................... 8, 10
`Ford Motor Co. v. Mass. Inst. of Tech.,
`IPR2020-00012, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2020) ..................................... 2, 10
`General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha,
`IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017) ........................................... 10
`Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Ethicon LLC,
`IPR2018-01703, Paper 7 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2019) .............................................. 9
`Motion Games, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`2014 WL 11678661 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 23, 2014) ............................................... 4, 5
`Multimedia Content Mgmt. v. Dish Network,
`No. 6:18-cv-00201 (W.D. Tex. May 30, 2019) (Ex. 2024) .................................. 5
`MV3 Partners, LLC v. Roku, LLC,
`No. 18-cv-308 (W.D. Tex. July 19, 2019) (Ex. 2023).......................................... 5
`Nat’l Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Omron Oilfield & Marine, Inc.,
`2013 WL 6097571 (W.D. Tex. June 10, 2013) .................................................... 4
`NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2018) ....................................passim
`Precision Planting, LLC v. Deere & Co.,
`IPR2019-01044, Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2019) ............................................. 8
`Signal IP, Inc. v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc.,
`2015 WL 5764831 (C.D. Cal. May 26, 2015) ...................................................... 2
`ii
`
`
`
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Exhibit 1006
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. StratosAudio, Inc., IPR2021-00716 - Page 3
`
`

`

`
`
`TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC,
`137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017) ........................................................................................ 10
`Telemac Corp. v. Teledigital, Inc.,
`450 F. Supp. 2d 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ................................................................ 5
`Universal Elecs., Inc. v. Universal Remote Control, Inc., 943 F. Supp.
`2d 1028, 1030–31 (C.D. Cal. 2013) ...................................................................... 4
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ........................................................................................... 1, 9, 10
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ..................................................................................................... 9
`Other Authorities
`PTAB Standard Operating Procedure 2 ..................................................................... 9
`PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) ........................................... 10
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Exhibit 1006
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. StratosAudio, Inc., IPR2021-00716 - Page 4
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Patent Owner Continental Intermodal Group-Trucking LLC (“CIG”)
`
`respectfully submits this supplemental brief pursuant to the Board’s April 7, 2020
`Order (Paper 19), directing the parties to address the application of six factors
`relating to discretionary denial under NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-Plex Techs.,
`Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential).
`For the reasons explained in CIG’s preliminary response (Paper 8), and
`elaborated upon below, every single factor supports discretionary denial. This
`proceeding involves the same parties, same patent, same claims, same invalidity
`references, and nearly identical invalidity arguments as the parallel district court
`action. The district court trial is scheduled to occur on November 9, 2020, at least
`five months before any final written decision by the Board.
`Moreover, due to the advanced stage of the district court action, the parties
`and the district court have expended significant resources in that forum. The
`district court issued its Markman order ten months ago—rejecting the same claim
`constructions advanced by Petitioner here, and rejected again in the Board’s
`February 5, 2020 decision denying review (Paper 12) (“Denial Decision”). And in
`the past eighteen months, CIG has served initial and final infringement
`contentions, Petitioner has served initial and final invalidity contentions (and
`multiple sets of amended contentions), the parties have engaged in extensive
`written discovery and third-party discovery, produced over 30,000 documents,
`taken eight fact depositions, and prepared opening expert reports.
`The Board therefore did not abuse its discretion in denying review under 35
`1
`
`
`
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Exhibit 1006
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. StratosAudio, Inc., IPR2021-00716 - Page 5
`
`

`

`
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a). The Board’s denial rightly conserves the Board’s finite resources
`and promotes efficiency and fairness. To disturb that Order would burden the
`Office’s already limited resources, and would be contrary to Congress’s intent to
`“establish a more efficient and streamlined patent system that will improve patent
`quality and limit unnecessary and counterproductive litigation costs.” Ford Motor
`Co. v. Mass. Inst. of Tech., IPR2020-00012, Paper 10 at 20 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26,
`2020) (quotation omitted).
`II. ARGUMENT
`All of the NHK factors support discretionary denial, as detailed below.
`A. There is very little potential for a district court stay.
`Petitioner asserts that courts “frequently stay proceedings before them when
`
`the Board institutes IPR review,” but it is speculation to assume that the district
`court would grant a stay here. In fact, given the advanced stage of the litigation, a
`stay is very unlikely, which is perhaps why Petitioner has not sought a stay.
`
`The district court action commenced in August 2018—a year and eighth
`months ago, which is more than “an amount of time that courts have considered
`indicative of an advanced stage in the proceedings that weighs against entry of a
`stay.” Signal IP, Inc. v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 2015 WL 5764831, at *3
`(C.D. Cal. May 26, 2015) (denying stay in case pending “for over a year”) (citing
`cases); Ex. 2009.1 Moreover, CIG sent notices of infringement even earlier, in
`April, May, and June 2018. Exs. 2010–2012.
`
`
`1 A list of CIG’s exhibits is provided as Exhibit 2008, per Rule 42.63(e).
`2
`
`
`
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Exhibit 1006
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. StratosAudio, Inc., IPR2021-00716 - Page 6
`
`

`

`
`
`The parties and the district court have expended significant effort and
`resources during the nearly two-year pendency of the district court action. The
`parties briefed Petitioner’s motion to dismiss in September and October 2018, and
`the court denied that motion in April 2019. Ex. 2009. The parties served initial
`infringement and invalidity contentions in November and December 2018,
`respectively. Exs. 2013–2014. CIG filed a motion to compel Petitioner to
`sufficiently identify its invalidity contentions and bases on April 5, 2019, and in
`response Petitioner served amended initial invalidity contentions on April 19,
`2019. Exs. 2009, 2015. The parties completed Markman briefing in April 2019,
`and in June 2019 the district court held a Markman hearing and issued a Markman
`order construing the claims at issue—the same claims at issue in this proceeding.
`Ex. 1011. Since then, the parties have exchanged final infringement and invalidity
`contentions, and have twice briefed motions by Petitioner to serve amended final
`invalidity contentions—one of which remains pending. Exs. 2005–2006, 2009,
`2016.
`
`In addition, since October 2018, the parties have served and responded to
`eight sets of interrogatories, nine sets of requests for production, and two sets of
`requests for admission, and have served dozens of third-party subpoenas for
`documents and deposition testimony. Exs. 2017–2019. And they have produced
`(and reviewed) more than 30,000 documents, taken eight fact depositions, and
`prepared opening expert reports. Ex. 2020.
`Further, although the district court recently extended the case schedule
`(discussed in Section II.B, infra), the bulk of fact discovery had already been
`3
`
`
`
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Exhibit 1006
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. StratosAudio, Inc., IPR2021-00716 - Page 7
`
`

`

`
`
`completed, with only a handful of fact depositions remaining. And as the schedule
`currently stands, fact discovery will conclude on May 1, 2020, expert discovery
`will conclude on July 17, 2020, dispositive motions will be fully briefed by
`September 25, 2020, and trial will begin on November 9, 2020. Ex. 2021.
`If the Office were to grant Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing, and institute
`review, a final written decision would not be expected to issue until April 2021 at
`the earliest—five months after trial in the district court action. And that is
`assuming that the Office issues a decision on Petitioner’s Request within the next
`two weeks. In all likelihood, this proceeding will not be resolved until May or even
`June 2021—six or seven months after trial in the parallel action—without taking
`into account any extensions of the Office’s statutory deadline.
`District courts routinely deny stays in cases as advanced, or even less
`advanced, than the district court action here—particularly where, as here, claim
`construction is complete. See, e.g., Motion Games, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 2014 WL
`11678661, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 23, 2014) (denying stay, even though IPR had
`been instituted, where case was twenty months old, court had held Markman
`hearing, and trial was scheduled for one year later), adopted, 2014 WL 11709443
`(E.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2014); Nat’l Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Omron Oilfield & Marine,
`Inc., 2013 WL 6097571, at *1 (W.D. Tex. June 10, 2013) (denying stay pending
`IPR during Markman briefing because “[i]t would be a waste of judicial resources
`to stay the case now, when the matter is so close to issuance of a Markman order”
`(citing Universal Elecs., Inc. v. Universal Remote Control, Inc., 943 F. Supp. 2d
`1028, 1030–31 (C.D. Cal. 2013))).
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Exhibit 1006
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. StratosAudio, Inc., IPR2021-00716 - Page 8
`
`

`

`
`
`Such courts recognize that a patent owner has “an interest in the timely
`enforcement of its patent rights,” and that staying litigation is unfairly prejudicial
`to the extent it delays a patent owner’s opportunity to enforce its patent rights
`against competitors. Motion Games, 2014 WL 11678661, at *3; Universal, 943 F.
`Supp. 2d at 1033–34. Given that the district court trial is set to occur months in
`advance of any final decision here, a stay would undoubtedly prejudice CIG’s
`interest in timely enforcement. Id.
`A stay is also unlikely to significantly simplify the issues in dispute, given
`that the district court is already familiar with the ‘740 Patent and already construed
`the claims at issue. See, e.g., Telemac Corp. v. Teledigital, Inc., 450 F. Supp. 2d
`1107, 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (denying stay pending reexamination where court was
`“already familiar with some of Telemac’s patents”).
`
`A stay is made even less likely given that Judge Alan Albright—who
`presides over the district court action—generally does not stay litigation in favor of
`PTAB proceedings, based on patentees’ “constitutional right to assert their patent.”
`Ex. 2022. Indeed, Judge Albright has denied motions to stay under circumstances
`similar to those here. See, e.g., MV3 Partners, LLC v. Roku, LLC, No. 18-cv-308
`(W.D. Tex. July 19, 2019) (denying stay at Markman hearing, after IPR had been
`instituted) (Ex. 2023); Multimedia Content Mgmt. v. Dish Network, No. 6:18-cv-
`00201 (W.D. Tex. May 30, 2019) (denying stay one month after Markman
`hearing) (Ex. 2024). In one such case, Judge Albright noted that the defendant’s
`nine-month delay in filing its IPR petition was “a factor” in the denial. Ex. 2024 at
`3. Here, Petitioner waited eleven months to file its Petition—after it had served
`5
`
`
`
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Exhibit 1006
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. StratosAudio, Inc., IPR2021-00716 - Page 9
`
`

`

`
`
`initial and amended invalidity contentions, after the court had construed the claims,
`and after a trial date had been set. This factor weighs heavily in favor of
`discretionary denial.
`B.
`The district court’s trial date is months before any final decision.
`As shown above, the district court trial is scheduled to occur on November
`
`9, 2020, at least five months (and more realistically six to seven months) before
`any final decision from the Board would be due. “If the court’s trial date is earlier
`than the projected statutory deadline, the Board generally has weighed this fact in
`favor of exercising authority to deny institution under NHK.” Apple, Inc. v. Fintiv,
`Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 9 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020).
`
`That the district court schedule, including the trial date, has twice been
`extended since the Denial Decision does not warrant departure from this general
`rule. First and foremost, as shown above, the proximity of the district court trial to
`the Board’s statutory deadline—five months—remains unchanged since the Denial
`Decision.
`Second, Petitioner initially proposed these extensions, first to accommodate
`“client and attorney schedules” and then to “postpone attorney and witness travel
`for depositions” in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Exs. 2025–2026. Petitioner’s
`proposals to extend the district court schedule should not afford it grounds for
`reconsideration of the Denial Decision, and CIG should not be prejudiced by
`accommodating these proposals. Granting Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing on
`this basis would incentivize petitioners unhappy with a denial of institution to
`simply manufacture grounds for reconsideration by forcing some delay in parallel
`6
`
`
`
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Exhibit 1006
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. StratosAudio, Inc., IPR2021-00716 - Page 10
`
`

`

`
`
`litigation. Requests for rehearing should not be mechanisms for such
`gamesmanship and opportunism, nor should they afford litigants an opportunity to
`simply “update” arguments that were already unsuccessful.
`Third, there is no reason to believe that the COVID-19 pandemic will further
`delay trial, let alone by more than five months. Trials set on or after May 1, 2020
`have not been continued, and Judge Albright has made clear he will not continue
`hearings but rather will hold them telephonically. Ex. 2027. Judge Albright has
`also announced that he is “pretty certain” that a trial scheduled in another patent
`case before him “is going to go forward” in July 2020. Ex. 2022. This factor, too,
`favors discretionary denial.
`
`C. The district court’s and parties’ investment in the parallel
`litigation is substantial.
`As shown above, the district court issued its Markman order ten months ago,
`
`which alone “indicate[s] that the court and parties have invested sufficient time in
`the parallel proceeding to favor denial.” Apple, Paper 11, at 10. In addition, the
`parties have exchanged initial and final infringement and invalidity contentions;
`briefed motions relating to Petitioner’s amended invalidity contentions; engaged in
`extensive written and document discovery, and third-party discovery; taken eight
`fact depositions; and prepared opening expert reports. Moreover, Petitioner did not
`file its Petition expeditiously, but “wait[ed] until the district court trial ha[d]
`progressed significantly,” thereby imposing “unfair costs” on CIG. Id. at 11. This
`factor favors discretionary denial, as well.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Exhibit 1006
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. StratosAudio, Inc., IPR2021-00716 - Page 11
`
`

`

`
`
`D. This proceeding and the parallel litigation involve common issues.
`As shown in CIG’s preliminary response, and just as in NHK, this
`
`proceeding involves the same patent, same claims, same invalidity references, and
`nearly identical invalidity arguments as the district court action. And the terms
`Petitioner proposes for construction here have been construed by the district court.
`Thus, as the Denial Decision recognized, “[t]he issues, evidence, and argument
`presented in the Petition essentially duplicate what has been and continues to be
`litigated in the Parallel District Court Case.” E-One, Inc. v. Oshkosh Corp.,
`IPR2019-00161, Paper 16 at 7 (P.T.A.B. May 15, 2019); see Apple, Paper 11, at
`12; Denial Decision at 17–18. This factor also favors discretionary denial.
`E.
`Petitioner is a defendant in the parallel action.
`This factor unquestionably supports discretionary denial because Petitioner
`
`is also a defendant in the district court action.
`F. No other circumstances warrant upsetting the Denial Decision.
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing does not address the NHK factors, but
`
`rather argues that NHK was “wrongly decided” and that discretionary denial cannot
`be based solely on parallel litigation. These arguments cannot properly be
`considered here. NHK is a precedential Board decision, as of May 7, 2019, and
`therefore is “binding on all future panels of the Board.”2 Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith &
`
`
`2 Notably, Petitioner cites only one Board decision dated after NHK was
`designated as precedential—Precision Planting, LLC v. Deere & Co., IPR2019-
`01044, Paper 17 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2019). And in one decision cited by Petitioner,
`8
`
`
`
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Exhibit 1006
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. StratosAudio, Inc., IPR2021-00716 - Page 12
`
`

`

`
`
`Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2019); see also PTAB Standard
`Operating Procedure 2, at 11. Authority lies exclusively with the Precedential
`Opinion Panel to consider these arguments, and that Panel has declined review
`(Paper 18). The Office should therefore decline to consider these arguments.
`Yet even if the Office were to consider these arguments, they are meritless.
`First, Petitioner’s argument that discretionary denial in view of parallel litigation
`negates the one-year filing period under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) ignores that
`discretionary denial under § 314(a) necessarily means denial of a timely-filed
`petition, based on a “balanced assessment of all relevant circumstances of the
`case”—i.e., the NHK Factors. Apple, Paper 11, at 5. Petitioner’s argument focuses
`myopically on one factor—factor two, relating to the timing of trial relative to the
`timing of a final written decision—while ignoring all others.
`Second, Petitioner erroneously assumes that discretionary denial based on
`parallel litigation equates to denial on “grounds that are entirely outside of a
`petitioner’s control.” On the contrary, each of the NHK factors turn on
`developments that are at least partially within the petitioner’s control—e.g., the
`timing of the petition, investment in the parallel litigation, and overlap in issues.
`
`
`the panel suggested that its decision might have been different had it been obliged
`to follow NHK as binding authority, but at that time NHK “ha[d] not been
`designated as either precedential or informative under Patent Trial and Appeal
`Board Standard Operating Procedure 2.” Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Ethicon LLC,
`IPR2018-01703, Paper 7 at 12 n.7 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2019).
`9
`
`
`
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Exhibit 1006
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. StratosAudio, Inc., IPR2021-00716 - Page 13
`
`

`

`
`
`Third, Petitioner’s argument that NHK encourages forum shopping is
`misplaced in light of TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S.
`Ct. 1514 (2017), which limits proper venue to the defendant’s place of
`incorporation or regular and established place of business. Petitioner admits that it
`is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Midland,
`Texas, and therefore also admits that venue is proper in the Western District of
`Texas. Exs. 2028 ¶¶ 2, 5; 2029 ¶¶ 2, 5.
`Fourth, Petitioner is wrong in asserting that parallel litigation alone cannot
`be the basis for discretionary denial under § 314(a). The Board has rejected the
`notion that “the legislative history indicates an intent to limit discretion under §
`314(a), such that it is subordinate to or encompassed by § 325(d).” General Plastic
`Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 at 19
`(P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential). And the Office has denied petitions under
`NHK even absent grounds under § 325(d). Ford Motor, Paper 10 at 19–23; E-One,
`Paper 16 at 4–9; see also Apple, Paper 11, at 3 n.2 (parallel litigation is “separate”
`basis from § 325(d)); PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide at 58 (Nov. 2019)
`(parallel litigation is “other reason[]” supporting discretionary denial).
`Accordingly, this factor favors discretionary denial, as well.
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, and for the additional reasons stated in CIG’s
`preliminary response, CIG requests that the Office deny Petitioner’s Request for
`Rehearing.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Exhibit 1006
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. StratosAudio, Inc., IPR2021-00716 - Page 14
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of CIG’s supplemental brief,
`
`Exhibits 2008 through 2029, and Certificate of Service was served on Petitioner on
`
`April 13, 2020, by e-mailing a copy to the attorneys of record at the following
`
`addresses pursuant to Petitioner’s consent to e-mail service.
`
`
`James D. Stein (Reg. No. 63,782)
`LEE & HAYES P.C.
`james.stein@leehayes.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`32520132v.5
`
`Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224)
`Chetan R. Bansal (Ltd. Rec. No. L0667)
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`chetanbansal@paulhastings.com
`
`Armon B. Shahdadi (Reg. No. 70,728)
`Ben D. Bailey (Reg. No. 60,539)
`Brannon C. McKay (Reg. No. 57,491)
`Leonard J. Weinstein (Reg. No. 69,562)
`CLAYTON, MCKAY & BAILEY, PC
`armon@cmblaw.com
`ben@cmblaw.com
`brannon@cmblaw.com
`leonard@cmblaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Anna M. Quinn/
`Anna M. Quinn, Reg. No. 72,744
`LATHROP GPM LLP
`2345 Grand Blvd., Suite 2400
`Kansas City, Missouri 64108
`(913) 451-5100
`patent@lathropgpm.com
`
`11
`
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Exhibit 1006
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. v. StratosAudio, Inc., IPR2021-00716 - Page 15
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket