`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`———————
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`———————
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`AIRE TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,
`Patent Owner
`
`———————
`
`IPR2022-01137
`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,706
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY
`TO PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01137 (U.S. Patent 8,581,706)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST ............................................................................ iii
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`THE PETITION ESTABLISHES THAT A POSITA WOULD HAVE
`BEEN MOTIVATED TO COMBINE GUTHERY WITH NOZAWA ......... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Patent Owner addresses the wrong embodiment of Guthery. .............. 4
`
`A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success when
`modifying Guthery to incorporate Nozawa’s technique as
`proposed. .............................................................................................. 8
`
`III. THE PETITION ESTABLISHES THAT A POSITA WOULD HAVE
`BEEN MOTIVATED TO COMBINE GUTHERY WITH THE RFID
`HANDBOOK ................................................................................................10
`
`IV. PATENT OWNER’S ATTORNEY ARGUMENT IS ENTITLED TO
`LITTLE WEIGHT .........................................................................................13
`
`V.
`
`CLAIM 18 IS OBVIOUS OVER GUTHERY IN VIEW OF THE
`SMART CARD HANDBOOK .....................................................................14
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................15
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ......................................................................16
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................17
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1001
`
`Ex.1002
`
`Ex.1003
`Ex.1004
`
`Ex.1005
`
`Ex.1006
`
`Ex.1007
`
`Ex.1008
`
`Ex.1009
`
`Ex.1010
`
`Ex.1011
`
`Ex.1012
`
`Ex.1013
`
`Ex.1014
`
`Ex.1015
`
`Ex.1016
`
`Ex.1017
`
`IPR2022-01137 (U.S. Patent 8,581,706)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,581,706
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,581,706
`
`Declaration of Dr. Joshua Phinney under 37 C.F.R. § 1.68
`Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Joshua Phinney
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,824,064 to Guthery et al. (“Guthery”)
`JP2000163539 to Nozawa et al. (“Nozawa”) – Certified English
`Translation
`
`RFID Handbook: Radio-Frequency Identification Fundamentals
`and Applications, Klause Finkenzeller (1999)
`
`Smart Card Handbook: Third Edition, Wolfgang Rankl (3rd ed.
`2003)
`
`Reserved.
`
`Reserved.
`Complaint, Aire Technology Ltd. v. Apple Inc. 6-21-cv-01101
`(W.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2021)
`
`Infringement Contentions, Aire Technology Ltd. v. Apple Inc. 6-21-
`cv-01101 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2021)
`
`Scheduling Order, Aire Technology Ltd. v. Apple Inc. 6-21-cv-
`01101 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2021)
`
`Standing Order Governing Proceedings (OGP) 4.1
`Complaint, Aire Technology Ltd v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`6:21-cv-00955 (W.D. Tex. Sep. 15, 2021)
`
`JP2000163539 to Nozawa et al. (original)
`
`Internet Archive capture of “Wiley:Smart Card Handbook, 3rd
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1018
`Ex.1019
`Ex.1020
`Ex.1021
`Ex.1022
`Ex.1023
`Ex.1024
`
`Ex.1025
`
`Ex.1026
`
`IPR2022-01137 (U.S. Patent 8,581,706)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Edition,”
`https://web.archive.org/web/20041026102425/http://www.wiley.co
`m:80/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470856688.html
`(archived October 26, 2004)
`
`Declaration of Franchesca Ruiz
`Reserved.
`
`Reserved.
`Reserved.
`
`Reserved.
`
`Federal District Court Trial Statistics (June 2022)
`Email chain with Board granting Petitioner’s request to file
`preliminary reply briefs
`Plaintiff Aire Technology Ltd.’s Motion to Amend Preliminary
`Infringement Contentions, Aire Technology Ltd. v. Apple Inc. 6-21-
`cv-01101 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2022)
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Joshua Phinney under 37 C.F.R. §
`1.68
`
`iv
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01137 (U.S. Patent 8,581,706)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Petition, relying on Dr. Phinney’s expert testimony, provides detailed
`
`reasons why a person of skill in the art (“POSITA”) would have found claims 1-3,
`
`11, 12, 16, 18, and 20 of the ’706 patent obvious over Guthery in view of Nozawa.
`
`Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 17, “Response”), which relies entirely upon
`
`attorney argument, fails to refute this evidence-based showing.
`
`With respect to Ground 1, Patent Owner attacks a strawman version of the
`
`proposed combination—one that relies on the wrong embodiment of Guthery. With
`
`respect to Grounds 2 and 4, Patent Owner bases its argument on the notion that
`
`Guthery’s RAM “could not possibly be subject to segmentation.” Response, 19.
`
`Guthery, however, expressly states that its RAM “is logically partitioned into a
`
`plurality of memory blocks.” Ex.1005, 4:1-8.
`
`Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board find each of the
`
`challenged claims unpatentable.
`
`II. THE PETITION ESTABLISHES THAT A POSITA WOULD HAVE
`BEEN MOTIVATED TO COMBINE GUTHERY WITH NOZAWA
`
` Patent Owner’s arguments fail because they rely on a strawman version of
`
`the combination proposed by the Petition and ignore the actual teachings of
`
`Guthery. Guthery explains that to select an application, the host/reader sends a
`
`“Request-to-Send packet” to the smart card. Ex.1005, 8:65-9:2; Petition, 28. Then,
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`like the in ’706 patent (which uses a “communication-readiness signal”), the
`
`IPR2022-01137 (U.S. Patent 8,581,706)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`selected application generates and sends a “permission-to-send packet … when the
`
`application is ready” to communicate with the reader. Ex.1005, 9:9-12; see also id.,
`
`3:43-48; Petition, 28. This process flow is shown in Fig. 14A, reproduced below.
`
`host sends
`request-to-send
`packet identifying
`application M
`
`card sends
`permission-to-send
`packet indicating
`application M is ready
`Ex.1005, Fig. 14A (annotated); Ex.1003, ¶42.
`
`
`
`As also explained in the Petition, Nozawa teaches a technique in which the
`
`smart card itself automatically selects an application having “a high probability of
`
`being selected” by the reader to reduce “waiting time.” Ex.1006, [0019], [0007];
`
`Petition, 31-32. The benefits of this technique would have motivated a POSITA to
`
`modify Guthery’s smart card such that it tracked application selection and
`
`automatically selected applications that have a high probability of being utilized, in
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`the manner taught by Nozawa. Petition, 33. For example, in one potential
`
`IPR2022-01137 (U.S. Patent 8,581,706)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`implementation, Guthery’s smart card would not wait to receive a Request-to-Send
`
`packet from the reader prior to selecting an application for communication and
`
`initializing. Petition, 33. Rather, Guthery’s system would identify the application
`
`most likely to be selected by the reader (e.g., the most recently selected
`
`application) and begin the initialization process described in Fig. 14A without
`
`waiting for a Request-to-Send packet identifying that application. Petition, 33.
`
`Patent Owner alleges (without evidence) that a POSITA would not have
`
`been motivated to begin the application initialization process without first
`
`receiving the Request-to-Send packet because “the efficiencies described by
`
`Guthery would be dismantled.” Response, 14. Specifically, Patent Owner asserts
`
`that the “Request-to-Send [] allows the application to understand the processing
`
`and data being sought by the host,” and that
`
`without the Request-to-Send, the application does not know (i)
`the size of the message to be received from the host (see, e.g., id.,
`12:65-13:4); (ii) the type of data to be received from the host
`(see, e.g., id., 13:46-52); (iii) the number of buffers the
`application should request from the card manager (see, e.g., id.,
`13:5-12);or (iv) how the application will issue Permissions-to-
`Send ...
`
`Response, 13-14.
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01137 (U.S. Patent 8,581,706)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`This argument does not rebut the combination proposed in the Petition
`
`
`
`because it relies upon an alternative embodiment in Guthery that is not part of the
`
`proposed combination. The proposed combination is instead based upon Guthery’s
`
`main embodiment in which the Request-to-Send packet does not include any
`
`information other than the identification of the application being selected. Patent
`
`Owner further ignores the Petition’s analysis on why a POSITA would have made
`
`the proposed combination and improperly treats a POSITA as an automaton.
`
`A.
`
`Patent Owner addresses the wrong embodiment of Guthery.
`
`Patent Owner incorrectly assumes that an essential part of Guthery’s
`
`Request-to-Send packet is information related to message size and buffer
`
`requirements. See Response, 13-14. This assumption leads Patent Owner to assert
`
`that Guthery’s device could not efficiently initialize an application without first
`
`receiving a Request-to-Send packet. See Response, 13-14. Contrary to Patent
`
`Owner’s arguments, however, Guthery is explicit that message size information is
`
`not an essential, or even typical part, of its Request-to-Send packet. Guthery’s
`
`main embodiment that spans twenty-three figures and over ten columns does not
`
`mention, much less require the Request-to-Send packet to include such
`
`information.
`
`For example, Guthery describes and illustrates an exemplary Request-to-
`
`Send packet in Fig. 8, reproduced below. See Ex.1005, 8:65-9:12.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01137 (U.S. Patent 8,581,706)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 8; Petition, 48.
`
`
`
`As illustrated, the RTS packet 70 does not include any message size or buffer
`
`allocation information. Rather, as explained, the RTS packet simply includes “a
`
`Request-to-Send value 74” identifying the packet type and “a list 76 of
`
`applications for which packets are waiting on the host side.” Ex.1005, 8:65-9:12.
`
`Consistent with this, Guthery explains that it is the application—not the
`
`RTS packet—that is in charge of declaring the application memory requirements.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Ex.1005, 3:43-44 (“The application declares its memory requirements.”). This is a
`
`IPR2022-01137 (U.S. Patent 8,581,706)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`consistent theme throughout Guthery’s main embodiment:
`
`The card manager 34 adopts the convention that each
`application 32 is programmed to explicitly determine its own
`input, output and temporary storage memory requirements.
`When activated, an application 32 attempts to fulfill its memory
`buffer requirements by requesting temporary use of RAM
`memory blocks 40 from the card manager 34.
`
`Ex.1005, 9:25-31.
`
`At step 202, the host sends a Request-to-Send packet 70 (FIG. 8)
`addressed to Application M. The card manager receives the
`request in Buffer a (step 204) and activates Application M (step
`206) with the request. Application M determines that it
`requires two buffers in order to perform its operation, and at
`step 208, asks the card manager for two buffers.
`
`Ex.1005, 12:22-29.
`
`Accordingly, an application is selected and initialized in Guthery’s main
`
`embodiment without any information about the amount of data the application will
`
`be sent by the reader. The combination proposed in the Petition relies upon this
`
`main embodiment that includes the exemplary Request-to-Send packet illustrated
`
`in Fig. 8 above. See, e.g., Petition 47-50 (citing Ex.1005, 8:65-9:12, Fig. 8 and
`
`explaining that “Guthery’s smart card, as modified by the teachings of Nozawa,
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`preemptively sends a Permission-to-Send packet for the initial application selection
`
`IPR2022-01137 (U.S. Patent 8,581,706)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`without receiving the initial Request-to-Send packet. Ex.1003, ¶82. However, for
`
`subsequent, or “further” communication, Guthery’s smart card would wait to
`
`receive the Request-to-Send packet as normal. Ex.1003, ¶82.”).
`
`The proposed combination, in which the smart card automatically selects an
`
`application, is no less efficient than the unmodified version of Guthery. In both
`
`cases, the application is selected without information from the reader about the
`
`incoming message size. And, upon selection, the application of the proposed
`
`combination still declares its own memory needs, just like in Guthery’s unmodified
`
`smart card.
`
`The Response ignores all of the above and focuses on an alternative
`
`embodiment in Guthery consisting of two paragraphs. See, e.g., Response, 13-14
`
`(citing Ex.1005, 12:65-13:12). This portion of Guthery states that “[i]n one
`
`embodiment, the original request to send packet contains an indication of the size
`
`of the message ... .” Ex.1005, 12:65-13:12. Given that this discussion of additional
`
`information in the request to send packet is presented in the context of “one
`
`embodiment,” and after extensive explanation of a main embodiment, indicates
`
`that such additional information is optional. Patent Owner’s assertion that the
`
`Request-to-Send packet must include this additional information is simply not
`
`credible.
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01137 (U.S. Patent 8,581,706)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Accordingly, by failing to address the pertinent disclosure in Guthery relied
`
`
`
`upon in the Petition, Patent Owner fails to refute the Petition’s obviousness
`
`analysis.
`
`B. A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success when
`modifying Guthery to incorporate Nozawa’s technique as proposed.
`
`There is nothing in the record to suggest or indicate that Guthery’s device is
`
`incompatible with the teachings of Nozawa as proposed by Petitioner. Patent
`
`Owner argues more generally that “the proposed combination would be
`
`detrimental to Guthery, because, for example, it contradicts Guthery’s stated goal
`
`of tightly coupling the execution of applications and thereby communication with
`
`them with efficient management of the smart card’s limited RAM memory.”
`
`Response, 2. But Patent Owner fails to present any evidence that the actual
`
`combination (i.e., Guthery’s smart card based on Nozawa’s techniques) would not
`
`be possible while efficiently “manag[ing Guthery’s] limited RAM memory.” Id.
`
`In contrast to Patent Owner’s arguments that “the efficiencies described by
`
`Guthery would be dismantled” (Response, 14), the proposed modifications are in
`
`line with Guthery’s efficient use of limited RAM memory and serve to improve the
`
`efficiency of the system to a degree not possible with Guthery’s unmodified
`
`message sending regime. Guthery focuses on the “most efficient use of the limited
`
`RAM [] in a smart card.” Ex.1005, 10:42-46. This efficiency goal is precisely the
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`motivation set forth by the Petition for combining Guthery and Nozawa. Petition,
`
`IPR2022-01137 (U.S. Patent 8,581,706)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`31. For example, by using Nozawa’s techniques for automatically selecting
`
`applications, “Guthery’s smart card would not have to wait to receive a Request-to-
`
`Send packet for that application” resulting in “improved efficiency because
`
`Guthery’s system would preemptively prepare the buffers and transmit the
`
`Permission-to-Send packet without waiting to receive the Request-to-Send packet.”
`
`Petition, 35. In other words, the combination would have resulted in increased
`
`efficiency over and above the efficiency already in place in Guthery. Id.
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments fail to give credit to the background knowledge
`
`and abilities of a POSITA to make the proposed combination—effectively treating
`
`a POSITA as an automaton. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill
`
`is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton”). As explained with
`
`supporting evidence in the Petition, it would have been within the level of ordinary
`
`skill in the art to make whatever changes necessary for implementation of
`
`Nozawa’s techniques in Guthery’s smart card. Petition, 33; Ex.1003, ¶ 59 (“[A]ny
`
`modification of Guthery’s teachings, including implementing software
`
`programming, to accommodate the teachings of Nozawa, would have been within
`
`the level of ordinary skill in the art.”).
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01137 (U.S. Patent 8,581,706)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`Thus, for the reasons explain in the Petition, a POSITA would have found it
`
`
`
`obvious to combine the teachings of Guthery and Nozawa to arrive at the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`III. THE PETITION ESTABLISHES THAT A POSITA WOULD HAVE
`BEEN MOTIVATED TO COMBINE GUTHERY WITH THE RFID
`HANDBOOK
`
`Patent Owner also fails to refute the Petition’s showing that the claims
`
`challenged by Grounds 2 and 4 are obvious in view of Guthery, Nozawa, and the
`
`RFID handbook. Patent Owner argues that a POSITA would not have modified
`
`Guthery’s EEPROM memory because doing so “ignores the random access
`
`memory (RAM) through which all communications to and from the host are sent.”
`
`Response, 19. According to Patent Owner, having “only Guthery’s EEPROM
`
`memory be subject to segmentation to enhance security leaves the RAM memory
`
`still subject to security issues.” Id. Patent Owner’s arguments, however, are
`
`premised on a misconception—that “Guthery’s RAM is so limited that it could not
`
`possibly be subject to segmentation.” Response, 19. Guthery expressly teaches that
`
`its RAM is in fact segmented:
`
`Accordingly, with respect to one embodiment of the present
`invention, a smart card capable of having on it a plurality of
`applications, has a random access memory (RAM) that is
`logically partitioned into a plurality of memory blocks. A
`control program on the smart card allocates one or more memory
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01137 (U.S. Patent 8,581,706)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`blocks to one of the applications, upon a declaration from the
`application of its memory needs.
`
`Ex.1005, 4:1-8.
`
`Guthery illustrates the segmentation of the RAM, as shown in Fig. 3 below.
`
`Ex.1005, Fig. 3.
`
`
`
`Guthery explains that “FIG. 3 is a schematic diagram illustrating that at least a
`
`portion of the RAM 14 of FIG. 2 is logically divided into several buffers 40. One
`
`or more buffers 40 can be assigned to an application 32 according to the
`
`application’s needs.” Ex.1005, 7:12-15.
`
`With respect to Patent Owner’s assertion that the proposed combination
`
`would result in “only Guthery’s EEPROM memory be[ing] subject to
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`segmentation,” such an assertion is plainly incorrect in light of the above
`
`IPR2022-01137 (U.S. Patent 8,581,706)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`teachings. Guthery’s RAM is always segmented—and segmented by application.
`
`Ex.1005, 4:4-7 (“A control program on the Smart card allocates one or more
`
`memory blocks to one of the applications, upon a declaration from the
`
`application of its memory needs.”). The Petition did not have to propose modifying
`
`Guthery’s RAM because Guthery’s RAM is already segmented. Thus, Patent
`
`Owner has no basis for its assertion that the proposed combination would still be
`
`subject to RAM-based security vulnerabilities.
`
`Even if Patent Owner’s assessment of security vulnerabilities in Guthery’s
`
`RAM memory were accurate (which is certainly not the case), such an assessment
`
`is irrelevant to the motivation to improve security in the Guthery’s separate
`
`EEPROM memory. The Petition states that “[i]t would have been obvious,
`
`beneficial, and predictable for the EEPROM of Guthery’s smart card to be divided
`
`into segments, each segment corresponding to only one application—for example,
`
`to improve security of addressing the segmenting of Guthery’s EEPROM
`
`memory.” Petition, 66. A POSITA would have found this improvement to the
`
`EEPROM beneficial regardless of the security condition of Guthery’s RAM
`
`memory. That is, a POSITA would have been motivated to improve aspects of a
`
`system even if other possible challenges exist. Accordingly, Patent Owner fails to
`
`show how “a POSITA would not have recognized any benefit” by modifying the
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Guthery’s EEPROM as detailed by the Petition. Response, 19 (emphasis in
`
`IPR2022-01137 (U.S. Patent 8,581,706)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`original).
`
`Accordingly, because Patent Owner relies on inaccurate characterizations of
`
`Guthery, and ignores the actual combination proposed in the Petition, Patent
`
`Owner fails to refute the Petition’s obviousness analysis.
`
`IV. PATENT OWNER’S ATTORNEY ARGUMENT IS ENTITLED TO
`LITTLE WEIGHT
`
`Throughout its Response, Patent Owner presents technical arguments related
`
`to aspects of the proposed obviousness combination, such as arguments regarding
`
`the efficient use of limited RAM in Guthery (Response, 12-13), the role and
`
`necessity of various types of messages in Guthery’s buffer allocation and
`
`communication processes (Response, 13), and the security implications of
`
`segmentation to memory modules (Response, 18-19). However, Patent Owner does
`
`not rely upon any evidence—declaration or otherwise—for support.
`
`Without supporting evidence, Patent Owner’s Response amounts to nothing
`
`more than attorney argument that is insufficient to rebut the Petition’s expert-
`
`supported positions. See Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., 572 F.3d 1371,
`
`1380 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that “unsworn attorney argument . . . is not
`
`evidence and cannot rebut . . . evidence.”); Google, LLC f/k/a Google Inc. v.
`
`MindbaseHQ LLC IPR2021-01251, Paper 40 at 33 (Jan. 6, 2023) (“It is well
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which are
`
`IPR2022-01137 (U.S. Patent 8,581,706)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value”); Qualcomm
`
`Incorporated v. UNM Rainforest Innovations f/k/a STC.UNM, IPR2021-00582,
`
`Paper 63 at 16 (Aug. 15, 2022) (“We also do not credit Patent Owner’s
`
`unsupported attorney arguments ... Argument of counsel cannot take the place of
`
`objective evidence”). Here, Patent Owner’s argument regarding the technical
`
`capabilities of Guthery’s device cannot take the place of the objective evidence in
`
`the record.
`
`Accordingly, because the Petition is supported by unrebutted expert
`
`testimony, which explicitly identifies and explains how the cited references render
`
`the claim limitations obvious, the Board should find all challenged claims
`
`unpatentable.
`
`V. CLAIM 18 IS OBVIOUS OVER GUTHERY IN VIEW OF THE
`SMART CARD HANDBOOK
`
`Patent Owner does not rebut the arguments for Ground 3 challenging claim
`
`18 in the Petition. Response, 1, n.1. Petitioner respectfully requests that claim 18
`
`be found unpatentable and cancelled for the reasons presented in the Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01137 (U.S. Patent 8,581,706)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner’s arguments in its Response should
`
`be rejected, and the Challenged Claims should be found unpatentable.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Scott T. Jarratt/
`Scott T. Jarratt
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 70,297
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 26, 2023
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`
`
`Customer No. 27683
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01137 (U.S. Patent 8,581,706)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d), Petitioner hereby certifies, in accordance
`
`with and reliance on the word count provided by the word-processing system used
`
`to prepare this Reply, that the number of words in this paper is 2,608. This word
`
`count excludes the table of contents, table of authorities, mandatory notices under
`
`§42.8, certificate of service, certificate of word count, signature block, and
`
`appendix of exhibits. See 37 C.F.R. §42.24(c).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Scott T. Jarratt/
`Scott T. Jarratt
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 70,297
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01137 (U.S. Patent 8,581,706)
`Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e),
`
`service was made on Patent Owner as detailed below.
`
`Date of service June 26, 2023
`Manner of service Electronic Mail: bcooper@bc-lawgroup.com
` robert@auchterlaw.com
` ap@lombardip.com
` Aire_Counsel@b-clg.com
`Documents served Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response
`Brett Cooper
` Persons served
`BC Law Group, P.C.
`200 Madison Avenue, 24th Floor
`New York, NY 10016
`
`Robert A. Auchter
`Auchter PLLC
`1629 K. Street, NW, Suite 300
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`Antonio Papageorgiou
`Lombard & Geliebter LLP
`230 Park Avenue, 4th Floor West
`New York, NY 10169
`
`
`
`/Scott T. Jarratt/
`Scott T. Jarratt
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`Registration No. 70,297
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
