`
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ECOFACTOR, INC.,
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONER’S ASSERTED GROUNDS AND REFERENCES ........... 1
`
`INSTITUTION SHOULD BE DENIED UNDER THE FINTIV
`III.
`FACTORS ............................................................................................................... 2
`A.
`Parallel Proceedings ............................................................................. 3
`B.
`Factor 1 weighs against institution, as there is no stay in the district
`court now and no evidence exists that a stay may be granted in the future. ............. 5
`C.
`Factor 2 weighs against institution, as trial in the district court is
`scheduled to be completed seven months before the FWD. ..................................... 6
`D.
`Factor 3 weighs against institution, as claim construction proceedings
`in the district court case are almost completed, briefing and oral argument on
`Google’s § 101 motion are already completed, and discovery will likely be under
`way either before or shortly after the date the institution decision is due. ............... 8
`E.
`Factor 4 weighs against institution, as there is overlap between this
`IPR and the district court case. ............................................................................... 10
`F.
`Factor 5 weighs against institution, as Petitioner is a Respondent in
`the parallel district court case. ................................................................................ 12
`G.
`Factor 6 weighs against institution. .................................................... 12
`H.
`Summary Regarding Fintiv Factors ................................................... 13
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 13
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Apple Inc., v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) ....................................... passim
`Apple Inc., v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (PTAB May 13, 2020) ....................................... passim
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd.,
`IPR2020-00123, Paper 14 (PTAB May 15, 2020) ................................................ 5
`Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC,
`IPR2020-00158, Paper 16 (PTAB May 20, 2020) ............................................ 5, 8
`NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) ................................. 2, 7, 11, 13
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ........................................................................................... 1, 4, 8, 13
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ...................................................................................... 1, 2, 5, 13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`Exhibits
`
`Description
`Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 4-21-cv-03220
`(N.D. Cal. April 30, 2021), Dkt. 1 (Complaint)
`Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 4-21-cv-03220
`(N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2021), Dkt. 30 (Joint Case Management
`Statement)
`Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 4-21-cv-03220
`(N.D. Cal. April 7, 2022), Dkt. 72 (Amended Scheduling Order)
`Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 4-21-cv-03220
`(N.D. Cal. April 13, 2022), Dkt. 73 (Amended Scheduling
`Order)
`Google’s Oct. 19, 2021, Invalidity Contentions in Google, LLC
`f/k/a Google Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 4-21-cv-03220 (N.D. Cal.)
`“Silicon Valley’s Home Court: Patent Trends in the Northern
`District of California.” White & Case Newsflash (Mar. 18,
`2020).
`U.S. Patent No. 10,018,371
`
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Petition challenges claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 9,194,597 (Ex. 1001)
`
`under one ground of unpatentability. Instituting review in this IPR would cause the
`
`parties and the Board to incur significant inefficiencies and wasted efforts of the type
`
`warned of in Fintiv and NHK Spring. Over a year ago, on April 30, 2020, Petitioner
`
`Google filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
`
`California against Patent Owner EcoFactor for a declaratory judgement of non-
`
`infringement of the ‘597 patent. EcoFactor filed its counter-claim on July 13, 2021.
`
`That district court case has progressed substantially, with claim construction briefing
`
`under way and the Markman hearing scheduled for July 22, 2022—and with the
`
`court having already received all briefing and oral argument on Google’s dispositive
`
`motion under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Further, fact discovery is likely to close sometime in
`
`the spring of 2023, and trial will likely occur shortly before the Final Written
`
`Decision would be due in this IPR proceeding (should it be instituted). Further, the
`
`district court case involves the same claim construction standard and the same
`
`claims, invalidity theories, and prior art as this IPR. Under the PTAB’s precedential
`
`orders in Fintiv and NHK Spring, the Board should exercise its discretion to deny
`
`institution under § 314(a).
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONER’S ASSERTED GROUNDS AND REFERENCES
`
`The Petition asserts the following ground of unpatentability:
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`• “Claims 1-24 are obvious over Ehlers ’330 in view of the knowledge of
`
`a POSITA and Wruck.” (Pet. at 6).
`
`III.
`
`INSTITUTION SHOULD BE DENIED UNDER THE FINTIV
`
`FACTORS
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) gives the Board discretion to deny institution because of
`
`efficiency considerations stemming from parallel proceedings on the same patent.
`
`See NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept.
`
`12, 2018) (precedential, designated May 7, 2019) (“NHK Spring”). The PTAB
`
`recently promulgated six factors for determining whether discretionary denial due to
`
`efficiency considerations relating to parallel proceedings is appropriate (the “Fintiv
`
`factors”):
`
`1. whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be
`granted if a proceeding is instituted;
`
`2.
`
`proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory
`deadline for a final written decision;
`
`3.
`
`investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the parties;
`
`4.
`
`overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the parallel
`proceeding;
`
`5. whether the petitioner and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are
`the same party; and
`
`6.
`
`other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of discretion,
`including the merits.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`Apple Inc., v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020)
`
`(precedential, designated May 5, 2020) (“Fintiv Order”) at 6; Apple Inc., v. Fintiv,
`
`Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (order denying institution)
`
`(informative, designated July 13, 2020) (“Fintiv ID”) at 7–8. Here, all six Fintiv
`
`factors weigh against institution.
`
`A.
`
`Parallel Proceedings
`
`Over a year ago, on April 30, 2021, Petitioner Google LLC (“Google”) filed
`
`a declaratory judgement action in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
`
`California against Patent Owner EcoFactor alleging that Google does not infringe
`
`the ‘597 patent. Ex. 2001, Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 4-21-
`
`cv-03220 (N.D. Cal. April 30, 2021), Dkt. 1 (“Complaint”). EcoFactor filed a
`
`counterclaim on July 13, 2021. Pet. at 72; Ex. 1018, Count III.
`
`This Petition for inter partes review was filed on February 3, 2022, nearly
`
`nine months after Google started the litigation and over six months after EcoFactor
`
`filed its counterclaim.
`
`The district court case is substantially advanced, as the parties have exchanged
`
`initial invalidity, infringement, and damages contentions, and claim construction
`
`briefing is already in progress. Ex. 2002, Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v.
`
`EcoFactor, Inc., 4-21-cv-03220 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2021), Dkt. 30 (Joint Case
`
`Management Statement) at 6-7; Ex. 2003, Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`EcoFactor, Inc., 4-21-cv-03220 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2021), Dkt. 30 (Amended
`
`Scheduling Order). The Markman hearing is scheduled for July 22, 2022. Ex. 2004,
`
`Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 4-21-cv-03220 (N.D. Cal. April
`
`13, 2022), Dkt. 73 (Amended Scheduling Order). Assuming the claim construction
`
`order issues within three months of the Markman hearing, fact discovery will close
`
`five months later, which will be approximately March 2023. Ex. 2002 at 7-8. Expert
`
`discovery will close 28 days later, in approximately April 2023, and summary
`
`judgment briefing will be completed 59 days later, in approximately June 2023. Id.
`
`This is approximately two months before the Final Written Decision would be due
`
`(August 2023) in this IPR proceeding (should it be instituted). The district court will
`
`also soon decide Google’s fully briefed and argued motion for judgment on the
`
`pleadings under 35 U.S.C. § 101 targeting every claim of the four patents-in-suit
`
`(including the ‘597 patent). Certain findings in the district court case will likely be
`
`instructive and may be dispositive of certain issues in this IPR proceeding. These
`
`issues may include claim construction and invalidity issues.
`
`The district court case qualifies as a parallel proceeding that justifies
`
`discretionary denial. Parties expend enormous resources in district court cases, and
`
`district court is a forum where parties can litigate their disputes fully and fairly. See
`
`Fintiv Order at 6 (explaining that the Fintiv factors “relate to whether efficiency,
`
`fairness, and the merits support the exercise of authority to deny institution in view
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`of an earlier trial date in the parallel proceeding”); see also, e.g., Cisco Systems, Inc.
`
`v. Ramot at Tel Aviv University Ltd., IPR2020-00123, Paper 14 (PTAB May 15,
`
`2020) at 11 (denying institution where it “would be an inefficient use of Board, party,
`
`and judicial resources”); Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC, IPR2020-00158, Paper 16
`
`at 4 (PTAB May 20, 2020) (same).
`
`The Board has previously denied three IPR petitions filed by Google against
`
`EcoFactor patents based on the Board’s discretion under § 314(a). See IPR2020-
`
`00946, Paper 11 (Nov. 18, 2020); IPR2020-00947, Paper 11 (Nov. 18, 2020);
`
`IPR2020-00968, Paper 10 (Nov. 18, 2020). While those petitions involved different
`
`patents asserted in a different forum (International Trade Commission), the same
`
`rationale applies here. The Board should exercise its discretion to deny institution
`
`here, just as it did for the earlier three IPR petitions against EcoFactor patents.
`
`B.
`
`Factor 1 weighs against institution, as there is no stay in the
`
`district court now and no evidence exists that a stay may be
`
`granted in the future.
`
`Factor 1 concerns whether the district court granted a stay or evidence exists
`
`that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted. Fintiv Order at 6; Fintiv ID at
`
`12. This factor weighs against institution.
`
`No stay has been issued in the concurrent Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v.
`
`EcoFactor, Inc., 4-21-cv-03220 litigation. In fact, contrary to the statement in the
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`Petition that “Petitioner intends to seek a corresponding stay of the litigation,” (Pet.
`
`at 73), Google has not filed any motion to stay the district court case.
`
`Further, it is unlikely that the district court case will be stayed pending IPR.
`
`Google has not requested any stay pending IPR in the district court case. The stay is
`
`even more unlikely considering the advanced stage of the district court case, with
`
`claim construction briefing closing in the next two weeks, with all briefing and oral
`
`argument on Google’s § 101 motion already concluded, and with fact discovery
`
`poised to begin. And fact discovery in the district court is set to close in the March
`
`to April 2023 time frame, while the institution decision is due here in August 2023.
`
`See Ex. 2002. Instituting this IPR will not promote judicial efficiency. Rather,
`
`substantial work in the district court will have been completed even before the due
`
`date of an institution decision in this IPR.
`
`C.
`
`Factor 2 weighs against institution, as trial in the district court is
`
`scheduled to be completed seven months before the FWD.
`
`Factor 2 relates to proximity of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected
`
`statutory deadline for a final written decision. Fintiv Order at 9; Fintiv ID at 12. The
`
`statutory deadline for the final written decision (FWD) for this IPR Petition would
`
`be in August 2023. While the trial in the district court case has not been set, it is
`
`likely to be in the fall of 2023, which is just months after the Final Written Decision
`
`would be due in this IPR proceeding (should it be instituted). See Ex. 2006, “Silicon
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`Valley’s Home Court: Patent Trends in the Northern District of California.” White
`
`& Case Newsflash (Mar. 18, 2020) (Finding the median time to trial in the Northern
`
`District of California is 861 days, which from April 30, 2021 would be September
`
`8, 2023.).
`
`Under Factor 2, this weighs against institution. As NHK Spring explained, one
`
`of the primary objectives of the AIA was “to provide an effective and efficient
`
`alternative” to parallel litigation. NHK Spring at 19–20 (quoting General Plastic at
`
`16–17) (emphasis added). Although Finitiv involved a situation where the trial
`
`occurred before the FWD, here the FWD would occur no later than August 8, 2023,
`
`which is only a month before the expected trial date. Thus, the present IPR
`
`proceeding (if instituted) would not be an “efficient alternative” to the parallel
`
`litigation.
`
`The Petition’s argument regarding Factor 2 (Pet. at 73) is wrong. For example,
`
`Google’s argues that “the co-pending litigation is at its inception” and that “[n]either
`
`the parties nor the court has invested substantial resources therein.” Pet. at 73. But
`
`Google provided its initial invalidity contentions over six months ago, claim
`
`construction briefing is nearly concluded, and the district court has received all
`
`briefing and oral argument on Google’s § 101 motion seeking to invalidate every
`
`asserted patent claim (including every claim of the ’597 patent). Ex. 2002. Further,
`
`substantial work will have been undertaken by both parties by the time the FWD is
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`due, including the completion of fact and expert discovery, and briefing on any
`
`remaining dispositive motions.
`
`Here, this IPR cannot be an alternative to a trial in the district court likely to
`
`occur shortly after the date of the FWD deadline. This alone provides a compelling
`
`reason for the Board to exercise its discretion to deny institution. Fintiv ID at 13;
`
`Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC, IPR2020-00158, Paper 16 (PTAB May 20, 2020) at
`
`9.
`
`D.
`
`Factor 3 weighs against institution, as claim construction
`
`proceedings in the district court case are almost completed,
`
`briefing and oral argument on Google’s § 101 motion are already
`
`completed, and discovery will likely be under way either before or
`
`shortly after the date the institution decision is due.
`
`Factor 3 relates to investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and the
`
`parties. Fintiv Order at 9; Fintiv ID at 14. Here, the parties and the district court have
`
`already (and will continue to) invest enormous effort and resources.
`
`Importantly, this factor is judged from the date of the institution decision,
`
`which is expected to be in August 2022. See Fintiv Order at 9 (considering “the
`
`amount and type of work already completed in the parallel litigation by the court and
`
`the parties at the time of the institution decision”) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`The initial district court case was filed over a year ago, back in April 2021,
`
`and the parties and the district court have expended substantial resources since then.
`
`This includes the exchange of invalidity, infringement, and damages contentions,
`
`substantial claim construction briefing, and full briefing and oral argument on
`
`Google’s § 101 motion for judgment on the pleadings that seeks a case-dispositive
`
`invalidity ruling against all 70 claims of the four patents-in-suit (including all ’597
`
`patent claims). These activities have already required significant investment of time
`
`and resources from the parties and the district court. In addition, a Markman hearing
`
`and technology tutorial will also be completed prior to the institution date. Ex. 2003.
`
`And by August 2022, the parties in the district court case will be poised to start fact
`
`discovery either before or shortly after the institution date.
`
`Further, the Petition could have been filed much sooner, but Petitioner waited
`
`nine months —on February 3, 2022—to file the Petition after the district court case
`
`began on April 3, 2021. This delay is inexcusable particularly since Petitioner
`
`submitted invalidity contentions in the district court case months before (on October
`
`19, 2021) it filed the present Petition, asserting the same Ehlers ‘330, knowledge of
`
`a POSITA, and Wruck references as relied upon here. Ex. 2004, Google’s Oct. 19,
`
`2021, Invalidity Contentions in Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 4-
`
`21-cv-03220 (N.D. Cal.), Exhibit A-24 at 1, Exhibit B-11 at 25. Further, EcoFactor
`
`had already asserted U.S. Patent No. 10,018,371 (which claims priority to the ‘597
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`patent) against Google in the ITC. Ex. 1017; Ex. 2007, U.S. Patent No. 10,018,371.
`
`Thus, Google was already familiar with the subject matter of the ‘597 patent.
`
`Thus, Petitioner failed to file the Petition “expeditiously.” See Fintiv Order at
`
`11. It was not filed “promptly after becoming aware of the claims being asserted”
`
`(nine months earlier in April 30, 2021), nor around the time Google served invalidity
`
`contentions (three months earlier in October 2021). And this unjustified delay
`
`prejudiced Patent Owner. For example, Petitioner’s timing imposes unfair costs to
`
`Patent Owner, ensuring that the Patent Owner would continue to invest heavily
`
`through claim construction, motion practice, discovery, and costs and expenses
`
`associated with those activities.
`
`Accordingly, Factor 3 weighs against institution.
`
`E.
`
`Factor 4 weighs against institution, as there is overlap between
`
`this IPR and the district court case.
`
`Factor 4 relates to overlap between issues raised in the petition and in the
`
`parallel proceeding. Fintiv Order at 12; Fintiv ID at 13. This factor weighs against
`
`institution because the same claims and claim construction standard are at issue in
`
`both proceedings, and there is substantial overlap in invalidity theories and prior art.
`
`For example, this IPR challenges the claims of the ‘597 patent based on Ehlers
`
`‘330 in view of the knowledge of a POSITA and Wruck in Ground 1. Pet. at 6.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`Google asserts substantially overlapping prior art and invalidity theories in the
`
`district court case, asserting Ehlers ‘330, the knowledge of a POSITA, and Wruck
`
`against the ‘567 patent. In the district court case, Google provided invalidity
`
`contentions chart “Exhibit A-24,” which charts Ehlers ‘330 and the knowledge of a
`
`POSITA against the claims of the ‘597 patent. Ex. 2005 at Exhibit A-24. Moreover,
`
`Wruck is also asserted as a secondary reference against the ‘597 in Google’s district
`
`court invalidity contentions “B” exhibits. See, e.g., Ex. 2005, Google’s Oct. 19,
`
`2021, Invalidity Contentions in Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v. EcoFactor, Inc., 4-
`
`21-cv-03220 (N.D. Cal.), Exhibit B-11 at 25, Exhibit A-24 at 1 (“Claims 1-24 of the
`
`‘597 patent anticipated and/or rendered obvious by Ehlers ‘330 or in combination
`
`with any of the other references identified in these contentions, including in Exhibit
`
`B hereto.”)
`
`Further, both this IPR and the district court proceedings are governed by the
`
`same Phillips claim construction standard. Thus, this IPR involves the same claim
`
`construction standard, claims, invalidity theories, and prior art. See NHK Spring at
`
`19–20. Here, just as in NHK Spring, “concerns of inefficiency and the possibility of
`
`conflicting decisions [are] particularly strong.” Fintiv Order at 12. This factor
`
`weighs against institution.
`
`The Petition states that “the parties have neither narrowed the asserted claims
`
`nor the asserted prior art references and thus it is premature to evaluate the eventual
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`overlap between the proceedings.” Pet. at 73. But this ignores that Google is
`
`applying in both the Petition and the district court the same art to all of the claims of
`
`the ‘597 patent—and ignores that Google is the plaintiff in the district court action
`
`who is seeking a declaratory judgment with respect to all claims of the ‘597 patent.
`
`F.
`
`Factor 5 weighs against institution, as Petitioner is a Respondent
`
`in the parallel district court case.
`
`Factor 5 concerns whether the petitioner and the respondents in the parallel
`
`proceeding are the same parties. Fintiv Order at 13; Fintiv ID at 15. This factor
`
`weighs against institution because Petitioner Google is the plaintiff in the district
`
`court case (a declaratory judgment action). Ex. 2001, Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc.
`
`v. EcoFactor, Inc., 4-21-cv-03220 (N.D. Cal. April 30, 2021) (Complaint).
`
`G.
`
`Factor 6 weighs against institution.
`
`Factor 6 relates to other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of
`
`discretion. Fintiv Order at 14; Fintiv ID at 15. Here, Factor 6 supports discretionary
`
`denial for additional reasons. For example, having an IPR Final Written Decision
`
`issue right before the district court trial is likely to occur is procedurally unfair to
`
`Patent Owner. For example, if the claims are confirmed in FWD, Petitioner would
`
`be bound by IPR estoppel and not be able to assert any invalidity grounds it raised
`
`or could have raised. But having dispositive motions completed long before the IPR
`
`FWD would eliminate that benefit to Patent Owner and the district court during the
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`summary judgement phase. Moreover, there is no other circumstance that favors
`
`institution.
`
`H.
`
`Summary Regarding Fintiv Factors
`
`Factor 1 Weighs against institution
`Factor 2 Weighs against institution
`Factor 3 Weighs against institution
`Factor 4 Weighs against institution
`Factor 5 Weighs against institution
`Factor 6 Weighs against institution
`
`
`
`In summary, all Fintiv factors weigh against institution. The district court trial
`
`is expected to be scheduled around the time the final written decision in this IPR
`
`would be due. Further, the level of investment in the district court action is already
`
`high and growing more substantial by the day. The parties in the district court case
`
`have nearly completed claim construction briefing and have already completed
`
`briefing and oral argument on a dispositive motion under § 101. And, by the time an
`
`institution decision issues in August 2022, the district court will already have
`
`conducted a Markman hearing and technology tutorial, and the parties will be ready
`
`to start fact discovery. Instituting review under these “facts and circumstances would
`
`be an inefficient use of the Board’s resources.” NHK Spring at 19–20. Under §
`
`314(a) and the totality of the Fintiv factors, institution should be denied.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, institution should be denied.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 6, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Philip X. Wang
`
`Philip X. Wang (Reg. No. 74,621)
`Russ August & Kabat
`12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Fl.
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Phone: (310) 826-7474
`Fax: (310) 826-6991
`pwang@raklaw.com
`rak_ecofactor@raklaw.com
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`CERTIFICATION REGARDING WORD COUNT
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.24(d), Patent Owner certifies that there are 2,748
`
`
`
`
`words in the paper excluding the portions exempted under 37 C.F.R. §42.24(a)(1).
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Philip X. Wang
`
`Philip X. Wang (Reg. No. 74,621)
`Russ August & Kabat
`12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Fl.
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Phone: (310) 826-7474
`Fax: (310) 826-6991
`pwang@raklaw.com
`rak_ecofactor@raklaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 6, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-00538
`Patent No. 9,194,597
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(1))
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above document was served on May
`
`6, 2022, by filing this document through the Patent Trial and Appeal Board End to
`
`End system as well as delivering a copy via electronic mail upon the following
`
`attorneys of record for the Petitioner:
`
`Matthew A. Smith
`Elizabeth Laughton
`smith@smithbaluch.com
`laughton@smithbaluch.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Philip X. Wang
`
`Philip X. Wang (Reg. No. 74,621)
`Russ August & Kabat
`12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Fl.
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Phone: (310) 826-7474
`Fax: (310) 826-6991
`pwang@raklaw.com
`rak_ecofactor@raklaw.com
`
`
`Dated: May 6, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`