`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`BILLJCO LLC,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE: IPR2022-00131
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,639,267
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`PURSUANT TO 35 U.S.C. § 313 AND 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`39612871.2
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... - 1 -
`
`ALLEGED GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY ................................. - 3 -
`
`III. THE ‘267 PATENT .................................................................................... - 3 -
`
`IV. PETITIONER DISREGARDS THE “DESTINATION IDENTITY”
`
`RECITED IN EACH OF THE INDEPENDENT CLAIMS................................. - 4 -
`
`A. Neither of the primary references teach or suggest the recited
`
`“destination identity”. ........................................................................................... - 5 -
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner’s reliance on Boger doubles down on its mistaken
`
`interpretation. ........................................................................................................ - 7 -
`
`V.
`
`“PREFERENCES” ARE NOT “PRIVILEGES” ....................................... - 8 -
`
`VI. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED UNDER § 314(A) .................... - 9 -
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`D.
`
`Fintiv Factor 1–Likelihood of Stay ................................................ - 10 -
`
`Fintiv Factor 2–Trial Date Versus FWD Due Date ....................... - 11 -
`
`Fintiv Factor 3–Investment in the Proceeding ............................... - 11 -
`
`Fintiv Factor 4–Overlap of Issues .................................................. - 12 -
`
`Fintiv Factor 5–Identity of Parties ................................................. - 13 -
`
`Fintiv Factor 6–Other Circumstances ............................................ - 14 -
`
`39612871.2
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... - 15 -
`
`IPR2022-00131
`Patent No. 8,639,267
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`39612871.2
`
`ii
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner Apple, Inc. (“Petitioner”) has not met its burden in demonstrating
`
`that U.S. Patent No. 8,639,267 (“the ‘267 patent”) is more likely than not invalid,
`
`and, as such, institution should be denied.
`
`Petitioner’s contention that the challenged claims of the ‘267 patent are
`
`invalid as obvious lacks merit. Petitioner relies on two primary prior art references—
`
`U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2005/0096044 A1 to Haberman (Ex. 1004)
`
`and U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2002/0132614 A1 to Vanluijt (Ex.
`
`1006). The Petition is facially defective in that it fails to demonstrate “a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the Petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims
`
`challenged in the petition” under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`Petitioner’s obviousness arguments fail because none of the cited references
`
`teach or suggest the recited “matching privilege [...] relating the originating identity
`
`of the whereabouts data with a destination identity of the whereabouts data”. This
`
`“privilege data [is] stored local to the mobile data processing system”. The primary
`
`references (Haberman and Vanluijt) are silent regarding any destination address.
`
`The secondary reference (Boger) includes the address of the receiving phone in the
`
`message, leaving no destination identity to match upon receipt.
`
`Neither the Petition, nor the declaration submitted by Petitioner’s expert,
`
`provide an articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to support a legal
`
`conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007),
`
`39612871.2
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Petition only provides
`
`IPR2022-00131
`Patent No. 8,639,267
`
`
`
`
`“mere conclusory statement[s]” (id.) that the claims are obvious, and lacks cogent
`
`reasoning as to why a person of ordinary skill in the art would modify or combine
`
`the cited references in the specific manner that is recited in each of the challenged
`
`claims.
`
`Petitioner’s expert declaration (Ex. 1002) merely repeats the attorney
`
`arguments in the Petition (often verbatim).
`
`In summary, the IPR Petition fails to show a reasonable likelihood that at least
`
`one of the challenged claims of the ‘267 patent is unpatentable. The Board should
`
`not institute inter partes review of the ‘267 patent and should deny the Petition in its
`
`entirety.
`
`
`
`
`39612871.2
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II. ALLEGED GROUNDS OF UNPATENTABILITY
`Petitioner alleges the following grounds of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C.
`
`IPR2022-00131
`Patent No. 8,639,267
`
`
`
`
`§ 103 against independent claims 1 and 29 and dependent claims 5, 13, 20, 21, 30,
`
`34, 42, and 49. Pet. 4. All are deficient in meeting the challenged claims.1
`
` Grounds Reference(s)
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`1. § 103
`
`Haberman
`
`1, 5, 13, 20, 21, 29, 30, 34, 42, 49
`
`2. § 103
`
`Haberman in view of Boger 1, 5, 13, 20, 21, 29, 30, 34, 42, 49
`
`3. § 103
`
`Vanluijt
`
`1, 5, 13, 20, 21, 29, 30, 34, 42, 49
`
`III. THE ‘267 PATENT
`The ‘267 Patent enables the automatic location based exchange processing
`
`by a mobile data processing system. The claimed methods and systems recite:
`
` presenting a user interface to a user of the mobile data processing system,
`
`the user interface for configuring privilege data relating the mobile data
`
`processing system with a remote data processing system, the privilege data
`
`stored local to the mobile data processing system and searched upon receipt
`
`of whereabouts data received for processing by the mobile data processing
`
`system;
`
`
`1 Patent Owner appreciates Petitioner’s recognition that the claims “should be
`
`interpreted according to their plain and ordinary meaning.” Pet. 7.
`
`
`
`
`39612871.2
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
` receiving, for processing by the mobile data processing system, the
`
`IPR2022-00131
`Patent No. 8,639,267
`
`
`
`
`whereabouts data including an originating identity of the whereabouts data;
`
` searching, by the mobile data processing system, the privilege data stored
`
`local to the mobile data processing system for a matching privilege upon the
`
`receiving, for processing by the mobile data processing system, the
`
`whereabouts data, wherein the matching privilege is configured for relating
`
`the originating identity of the whereabouts data with a destination identity of
`
`the whereabouts data to permit trigger of a privileged action for the receipt
`
`of whereabouts data received for processing by the mobile data processing
`
`system; and
`
` performing the privileged action at the mobile data processing system upon
`
`finding the matching privilege, after the searching, by the mobile data
`
`processing system, the privilege data stored local to the mobile data
`
`processing system.
`
`The ‘267 Patent enables the automatic performance of privileged actions
`
`based on the receipt of whereabouts data.
`
`IV. PETITIONER DISREGARDS THE “DESTINATION IDENTITY”
`RECITED IN EACH OF THE INDEPENDENT CLAIMS
`Both of independent claims 1 and 29 recite “wherein the matching privilege
`
`is configured for relating the originating identity of the whereabouts data with a
`
`
`
`
`39612871.2
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`destination identity of the whereabouts data to permit trigger of a privileged action
`
`IPR2022-00131
`Patent No. 8,639,267
`
`
`
`
`for the receipt of whereabouts data received for processing by the mobile data
`
`processing system”, which Petitioner refers to as [1.c][i] and [29.e][i].
`
`A. Neither of the primary references teach or suggest the recited
`“destination identity”.
`Petitioner argues that the recited “destination identity” feature is met by the
`
`receiving device itself. Pet. 23 & 55-56. Specifically, Petitioner asserts (with
`
`identical parallelism) that:
`
`Petition
`
`Primary
`Reference
`Haberman Page 23
`The matching privilege relates
`the originating identity with the
`destination identity (e.g., the
`mobile device). The preferences
`profile generated by the user is
`unique to the user and that
`mobile device. The “destination
`identity” encompasses terminals
`for which the content being
`broadcast is preferred.
`Accordingly, by identifying a
`portion of the preferences profile
`that matches a portion of the
`whereabouts data, the matching
`privilege relates the originating
`identity of the whereabouts data
`with the destination identity of
`the whereabouts data. EX1002,
`¶89.
`
`La Porta Declaration
`
`Page 38, ¶ 89
`The matching privilege relates
`the originating identity with the
`destination identity (e.g., the
`mobile device). The preferences
`profile generated by the user is
`unique to the user and that
`mobile device. The “destination
`identity” encompasses terminals
`for which the content being
`broadcast is preferred.
`Accordingly, by identifying a
`portion of the preferences profile
`that matches a portion of the
`whereabouts data, the matching
`privilege relates the originating
`identity of the whereabouts data
`with the destination identity of
`the whereabouts data.
`
`
`
`
`39612871.2
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Vanluijt
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00131
`Patent No. 8,639,267
`
`Pages 55-56
`The matching privilege relates
`the originating identity with the
`destination identity (e.g., a
`preference of the user) in that the
`matching privilege portion of the
`broadcast (e.g., the originating
`identity) matches at least one
`preference set by the user (e.g.,
`destination identity). EX1002,
`¶160.
`
`For example, the user of mobile
`device 130 can set a preference
`that the user only wishes to be
`alerted for transmissions
`originating from Store X in a
`shopping mall. In this manner,
`Vanluijt teaches matching the
`originating identity (“Store X”)
`with the destination identity
`(e.g., devices on which a
`preference has been set to accept
`transmissions having an
`originating identity of Store X).
`EX1002, ¶161.
`
`Page 71, ¶ 160 & 161
`The matching privilege relates
`the originating identity with the
`destination identity (e.g., a
`preference of the user) in that the
`matching privilege portion of the
`broadcast (e.g., the originating
`identity) matches at least one
`preference set by the user (e.g.,
`destination identity).
`
`
`For example, the user of mobile
`device 130 can set a preference
`that the user only wishes to be
`alerted for transmissions
`originating from Store X in a
`shopping mall. In this manner,
`Vanluijt teaches matching the
`originating identity (“Store X”)
`with the destination identity
`(e.g., devices on which a
`preference has been set to accept
`transmissions having an
`originating identity of Store X).
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s argument renders the term “destination identity” superfluous or
`
`redundant. If independent claims 1 and 29 were so broad so as encompass the
`
`receiving device being the destination, then there would be no need for the recited
`
`“matching privilege [...] relating the originating identity of the whereabouts data
`
`with a destination identity of the whereabouts data”. Instead, Patent Owner
`
`could have merely recited screening originating identities.
`
`
`
`
`39612871.2
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner needs to gloss over the recited “matching privilege [...] relating
`
`IPR2022-00131
`Patent No. 8,639,267
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the originating identity of the whereabouts data with a destination identity of the
`
`whereabouts data” because both Haberman and Vanluijt disclose simple devices
`
`that:
`
` in the case of Haberman, simply “SCAN[s]” incoming broadcast content for
`
`preferred informational content and “PRESENT[s]” preferred informational
`
`content (EX1004 at 0010); and
`
` in the case of Vanluijt, “filter[s]” beaconed content according to “pre-stored
`
`user preferences” (EX1006 at ¶ [0058]).
`
`Neither Haberman nor Vanluijt provide any destination-based matching as
`
`recited by the claims. Rather, if the content is received and contains content that
`
`matches the user’s preferences, that is good enough for the references. Notably,
`
`this does not facilitate the location-aware-app ecosystem provided by Petitioner’s
`
`iOS and iPadOS operating systems.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner’s reliance on Boger doubles down on its mistaken
`interpretation.
`Petitioner argues that, “to the extent that Patent Owner argues that
`
`Haberman does not explicitly provide that the matching privilege is configured for
`
`relating the originating identity of the whereabouts data with a destination identity
`
`of the whereabouts data, Boger teaches doing so.” Pet. 35. Specifically, Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`39612871.2
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`asserts that, “Boger teaches explicitly that a Bluetooth packet includes an address
`
`IPR2022-00131
`Patent No. 8,639,267
`
`
`
`
`(e.g., AM_ADDR) of the device for which the packet is intended. EX1005, [0009];
`
`EX1002, ¶118.”
`
`Just like Petitioner’s arguments with regard to the primary references
`
`(Haberman and Vanluijt), this is untethered from the language of the claims. As
`
`discussed above, Petitioner’s obviousness arguments fail not because Haberman
`
`and Vanluijt do not teach including a specific address for the receiving device.
`
`Rather, Petitioner’s obviousness arguments fail because none of the cited
`
`references teach or suggest the recited recited “matching privilege [...] relating the
`
`originating identity of the whereabouts data with a destination identity of the
`
`whereabouts data”. This “privilege data [is] stored local to the mobile data
`
`processing system”. Thus, the inclusion of an address in Boger’s packet does not
`
`and cannot backfill the lack of a locally stored matching privilege in any of the
`
`primary references.
`
`V.
`
`“PREFERENCES” ARE NOT “PRIVILEGES”
`Petitioner conflates the “preferences” disclosed by Haberman and Vanluijt
`
`with the “privilege data” recited by the claims. See, e.g., Pet. 14 (“‘preferences
`
`profile’ (i.e., privilege data)”).
`
`However, a “privilege” has a well-defined plain-and-ordinary meaning
`
`within the software field. For example, the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific
`
`
`
`
`39612871.2
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and Technical Terms defines “privileged instruction” as “A class of instructions,
`
`IPR2022-00131
`Patent No. 8,639,267
`
`
`
`
`usually including storage protection setting, interrupt handling, timer control,
`
`input/output, and special processor status-setting instructions, that can be
`
`executed only when the computer is in a special privileged mode that is
`
`generally available to an operating or executive system, but not to user
`
`programs.” EX2007 p 3 (Emphasis added.)
`
`Neither Haberman nor Vanluijt provide any teaching or suggestion that the
`
`content filtering is performed in a manner that is capable of utilizing privileges.
`
`Indeed, this is not surprising given the mere display of relevant content in both
`
`references.
`
`VI. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED UNDER § 314(A)
`Patent Owner contends that, in view of the pending litigation in the Western
`
`District of Texas (“WDTX”) -- BillJCo v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-00528-ADA
`
`(“Litigation”), the Fintiv factors enumerated below weigh in favor of discretionary
`
`denial. Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, IPR2020-00019, Paper 11, 5-6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020)
`
`(precedential).
`
`Preliminarily, Petitioner stated that it was challenging venue in the Litigation
`
`and had moved to transfer the Litigation to the Northern District of California. Pet.
`
`at 62. Petitioner’s motion to transfer, however, was denied on February 17, 2022
`
`(corrected March 1, 2022). EX2001. [Public Version].
`
`
`
`
`39612871.2
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. Fintiv Factor 1–Likelihood of Stay
`Petitioner advised that it will move to stay the Litigation if the IPR is
`
`IPR2022-00131
`Patent No. 8,639,267
`
`
`
`
`instituted. Pet. at 62. Petitioner contended that institution of an IPR would provide
`
`an opportunity to simplify the Litigation, which would increase the likelihood that a
`
`stay would be granted. Pet. at 62. Petitioner also contended that a finding of
`
`invalidity in the IPR would “relieve the Western District of Texas of the need to
`
`continue with the companion litigation for the ‘867 patent.” Pet. at 62. Neither
`
`contention is correct.
`
`First, unless all claims asserted in the Litigation are found invalid in the IPR,
`
`the district court will not be relieved of the need to continue with the Litigation.
`
`Second, a stay is not likely to be granted on a contested motion in the WDTX. As
`
`the “LegalMetric District Report Texas Western District Court in Patent Cases,
`
`January, 2017–September, 2021” (EX2002) reveals, stays pending an IPR were
`
`granted in the WDTX only 36.4% of the time during the five-year reporting period.
`
`Id., p.3. The percentage is even lower for the judge assigned to the Litigation, Judge
`
`Albright. His stay grant rate is only 28.6%. Id., pp. 70-71. It is more than 70% likely
`
`that a stay will not be granted if an IPR is instituted.
`
`Fintiv Factor 1 weighs strongly in favor of discretionary denial.
`
`
`
`
`39612871.2
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fintiv Factor 2–Trial Date Versus FWD Due Date
`B.
`Trial is scheduled for February 13, 2023, “or as soon as practicable.” EX1007.
`
`IPR2022-00131
`Patent No. 8,639,267
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner emphasizes the phrase in quotes to support its contention that the trial date
`
`is not reliable. Pet. at 63. To further support its contention, Petitioner discusses the
`
`reliability of trial dates in general rather than addressing the facts specific to the
`
`Litigation.
`
`The facts specific to the Litigation suggest that this trial date is extremely
`
`reliable. A review of the Agreed Scheduling Order confirms that the court and parties
`
`have kept to the scheduling order fairly closely. EX1007. Indeed, although the
`
`Markman Hearing was held on February 22, 2022 instead of February 10, 2022, the
`
`Claim Construction Order was issued February 24, 2022 (EX2003). Judge Albright’s
`
`average time to a claim construction decision is 12.1 months from the date of filing
`
`of a case, which is May 25, 2021 for the Litigation. EX2002; EX2004. Judge
`
`Albright, thus, is about three months ahead of schedule with his claim construction
`
`decision.
`
`Fintiv Factor 2 weighs strongly in favor of discretionary denial.
`
`Fintiv Factor 3–Investment in the Proceeding
`C.
`Petitioner was served in the Litigation on May 28, 2021. EX2005. Petitioner
`
`filed its Petition on November 30, 2021, just over six months thereafter. Petitioner
`
`stated that “almost no other court would be as far along in its trial calendar” within
`
`
`
`
`39612871.2
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`six months. Pet. at 65. Petitioner’s statement is an express acknowledgement both
`
`IPR2022-00131
`Patent No. 8,639,267
`
`
`
`
`of the alacrity of proceedings in the WDTX and of the investment by the court and
`
`parties in the Litigation.
`
`Indeed, the parties have already disclosed extrinsic evidence and identified
`
`expert witnesses for claim construction and indefiniteness (November 16, 2021);
`
`served initial disclosures (February 15, 2022); and submitted claim construction
`
`briefs (completed January 27, 2022. EX1007. As noted above, a Claim Construction
`
`Order was already issued. EX2003. And, three claim terms of the ‘839 patent were
`
`construed. EX2003. It is not likely that an institution decision will issue before the
`
`end of July 2022, which means an FWD will not issue before July 2023. The parties’
`
`and the court’s investment will most likely be substantial before an FWD issues.
`
`Fintiv Factor 3 weighs strongly in favor of discretionary denial.
`
`Fintiv Factor 4–Overlap of Issues
`D.
`Petitioner stipulated that it would not assert invalidity of the challenged claims
`
`in the Litigation using grounds asserted in the Petition. Pet. 65. The Petitioner’s
`
`stipulation is quite limited in scope. The Board views stipulations like Petitioner’s
`
`as only mitigating concerns of duplicate efforts and of potentially conflicting
`
`decisions “to some degree.” See Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, LLC, IPR2020-
`
`00180, Paper 12, at 15 (PTAB Aug. 14, 2020). Such a stipulation, then, may slightly
`
`favor institution.
`
`
`
`
`39612871.2
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Under the present facts, however, discretionary denial should be favored
`
`IPR2022-00131
`Patent No. 8,639,267
`
`
`
`
`instead. Petitioner asserted only three bases for challenging validity in its Petition,
`
`and relied upon only three references; Haberman, Haberman+Boger, and Vanluijt.
`
`Pet. 4. In the Litigation, Petitioner cited eight references, and enumerated seven
`
`single reference, and numerous two- and three-reference combinations, for a total of
`
`105 bases for challenging validity, including the three bases relied upon in the
`
`Petition. Defendant Apple Inc.’s Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, EX2006, pp
`
`32-34. If both actions proceed simultaneously, not only is efficiency decreased, but
`
`also the possibility of conflicting decisions is increased, assuming that all bases of
`
`invalidity asserted by Petitioner in the litigation are of equal merit. It is possible that
`
`the claims challenged in the Petition could be determined to be valid over the art
`
`relied upon in the Petition, but invalid over art relied upon in the Litigation.
`
`Fintiv Factor 4 weighs in favor of discretionary denial.
`
`Fintiv Factor 5–Identity of Parties
`E.
`The Litigation involves the same parties. Petitioner argued that this factor is,
`
`at worst, neutral. Pet. at 66. In Apple, however, the Board found that, when the
`
`parties are the same, Fintiv factor 5 weighed slightly in favor of the Patent Owner.
`
`Apple, at 16.
`
`Fintiv Factor 5 weighs in favor of discretionary denial.
`
`
`
`
`39612871.2
`
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Fintiv Factor 6–Other Circumstances
`D.
`Unlike the situation in Apple, the number of prior art challenges has not been
`
`IPR2022-00131
`Patent No. 8,639,267
`
`
`
`
`limited in the Litigation. Indeed, more art and bases for challenging the claims of the
`
`‘267 Patent were raised in the Litigation. Also unlike the situation in Apple, then, an
`
`IPR will not provide the parties with an in-depth analysis of the ‘267 Patent, nor a
`
`full record that will enhance the integrity of the patent system.
`
`Petitioner made a weak showing on the merits. Patent Owner has pointed out
`
`weaknesses in the Petition, on two separate bases, regarding each of the challenged
`
`independent claims. Therefore, the merits, taken as a whole, do not favor Petitioner
`
`and instead also weigh in favor of discretionary denial.
`
`Fintiv factor 6 weighs in favor of discretionary denial.
`
`
`
`
`39612871.2
`
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VII. CONCLUSION
`For the above reasons, the Petition is deficient and institution of the IPR
`
`IPR2022-00131
`Patent No. 8,639,267
`
`
`
`
`should be denied.
`
`Dated March 9, 2022
`
`Mailing address for all correspondence:
`Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP
`Centre Square West
`1500 Market Street, 38th Floor
`Philadelphia, PA 19102-2186
`
`
`/s/ Brian R. Michalek
`
`Brian R. Michalek (Reg. No. 65,816)
`Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP
`161 North Clark Street, Suite 4200
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Tel: (312) 876-7836
`brian.michalek@saul.com
`
`Joseph M. Kuo (Reg. No. 38,943)
`Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP
`161 North Clark Street, Suite 4200
`Chicago, IL 60601
`Tel: (312) 876-7151
`joseph.kuo@saul.com
`
`Brian Landry (Reg. No. 62,074)
`Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP
`131 Dartmouth Street, Suite 501
`Boston, MA 02116
`Tel: (617) 912-0969
`Brian.Landry@saul.com
`
`Counsel for Patent Owner, BillJCo,
`LLC
`
`
`
`
`39612871.2
`
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00131
`Patent No. 8,639,267
`
`Certification of Service Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4)
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing complies with the type-
`
`volume limitation in 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(b)(1). According to the word-processing
`
`system’s word count, the document contains 3,032 words, excluding the parts of
`
`the brief exempted by 37 C.F.R § 42.24(b).
`
`Date: March 9, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Brian R. Landry/
`Reg. No. 62,074
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`39612871.2
`
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00131
`Patent No. 8,639,267
`
`Certification of Service Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4)
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing was served in its entirety
`
`by filing through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board End to End (PTAB E2E), as
`
`well as providing a courtesy copy via e-mail to the following attorneys of record
`
`for Petitioner listed below:
`
`Larissa S. Bifano
`
`Jonathan Hicks
`
`Joseph Wolfe
`
`
`
`larissa.bifano@dlapiper.com
`
`jonathan.hicks@dlapiper.com
`
`joseph.wolfe@us.dlapiper.com
`
`Date: March 9, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Brian R. Landry/
`Reg. No. 62,074
`
`
`
`
`39612871.2
`
`- 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
