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 SUR-REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S REPLY TO
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`———————
`
`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 SUR-REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S REPLY TO
`OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Sur-reply to Reply to Opposition to Motion to Amend
`IPR2022-01137 / U.S. Patent No. 8,581,706
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`Petitioner’s Exhibit List ........................................................................................... iii
`
`I.
`
`Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. The claims are unpatentable under any proposed interpretation. ........................ 1
`
`III. Substitute claims 23-26 are obvious under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 103. ............ 2
`
`A. Guthery explicitly describes an example in which no steps are required
`between “selection” and “subsequent communication.” .............................. 3
`
`B. Patent Owner improperly relies on unclaimed requirements for the
`claimed “selection.” ...................................................................................... 5
`
`IV. The Specification does not provide written description support for the
`scope of the newly proposed language. ..................................................................... 6
`
`V. The Opposition properly relies on the entirety of the record to show the
`substitute claims are unpatentable ...........................................................................12
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Sur-reply to Reply to Opposition to Motion to Amend
`IPR2022-01137 / U.S. Patent No. 8,581,706
`PETITIONER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`
`
`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
`
`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)
`
`Ex.1016
`
`JP2000163539 to Nozawa et al. (original)
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Sur-reply to Reply to Opposition to Motion to Amend
`IPR2022-01137 / U.S. Patent No. 8,581,706
`
`Ex.1017
`
`Ex.1018
`Ex.1019
`
`Ex.1020
`
`Ex.1021
`Ex.1022
`
`Ex.1023
`
`Ex.1024
`
`Ex.1025
`
`Ex.1026
`
`Internet Archive capture of “Wiley:Smart Card Handbook, 3rd
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Sur-reply to Reply to Opposition to Motion to Amend
`IPR2022-01137 / U.S. Patent No. 8,581,706
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`Patent Owner filed a Motion to Amend (“Motion,” Paper 16) with substitute
`
`claims 23-26, Petitioner filed an opposition (“Opposition,” Paper 19). The Board
`
`issued preliminary guidance (“Guidance,” Paper 21) which stated that “Petitioner
`
`(or the present record) has shown that Guthery discloses or renders obvious each of
`
`the newly recited limitations of proposed substitute claims 23–26.” Guidance, 11.
`
`Patent Owner then filed a reply (“PO Reply,” Paper, 23). For the reasons below,
`
`Patent Owner’s reply does not refute Petitioner’s obviousness analysis presented in
`
`the Opposition. Petitioner further maintains that the substitute claims lack written
`
`description support and enablement under Patent Owner’s proposed construction.
`
`II. The claims are unpatentable under any proposed interpretation.
`
`The claims are unpatentable under the Board’s interpretation provided in the
`
`preliminary guidance. Guidance, 7. Substitute claim 23 recites “wherein after
`
`selection of one of the plurality of applications, subsequent communication
`
`between the reading device and the selected application takes place without
`
`requiring any further steps.” In the Guidance, the Board interpreted this language
`
`to “not require any further steps between selection and the subsequent
`
`communication.” Guidance, 7. It is unclear from the Patent Owner Reply whether
`
`Patent Owner agrees or disagrees with the Board’s interpretation. Patent Owner
`
`states only that “[o]nce selected, the communication device will then control
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Sur-reply to Reply to Opposition to Motion to Amend
`IPR2022-01137 / U.S. Patent No. 8,581,706
`communications between the reading device and the selected application, such that
`
`subsequent communication, i.e., after application selection, ‘takes place without
`
`requiring any further steps.’” PO Reply, 3.
`
`The substitute claims, however, are unpatentable under any understanding. If
`
`the Board maintains its interpretation from the preliminary guidance, then the
`
`claims are obvious for the reasons provided in the Opposition. Opposition, 13-16.
`
`If, instead, the claims are interpreted as written—which requires communication
`
`without any steps—the claims would recite the impossible and lack enablement for
`
`the reasons provided in the Opposition. See Opposition, 11-13 (communication
`
`cannot occur without requiring some “steps,” e.g., formatting and transmitting).
`
`III. Substitute claims 23-26 are obvious under (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 103.
`
`Patent Owner’s Reply fails to refute Petitioner’s showing of obviousness.
`
`The Opposition explains how substitute claims 23-26 are obvious in view of
`
`Guthery and Nozawa—the same prior art combination presented in the petition.
`
`Opposition, 13-20. To the extent the claims are interpreted to not require any steps
`
`between selection and subsequent communication, they are rendered obvious by
`
`the prior art. Patent Owner’s arguments fail to refute Petitioner’s obviousness
`
`analysis because they (1) improperly characterize the analysis as relying on silence
`
`alone and (2) rely on claim limitations that do not exist.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Sur-reply to Reply to Opposition to Motion to Amend
`IPR2022-01137 / U.S. Patent No. 8,581,706
`A. Guthery explicitly describes an example in which no steps are
`required between “selection” and “subsequent communication.”
`Guthery describes an application selection process in which the host
`
`(“reading device”) sends a request to an application on the smart card and receives
`
`a permission-to-send (PTS) packet confirming its selection. See Opposition, 14;
`
`Ex.1005, 12:17-52. Guthery’s multi-step selection process is consistent with Patent
`
`Owner’s understanding that “‘selecting an application’ as claimed is not a single
`
`step, but rather a function that may involve several steps.” PO Reply, 6. After
`
`receiving the permission-to-send packet (“after selection of one of the plurality of
`
`applications”), the host then begins to communicate with the application
`
`(“subsequent communication”). Ex.1005, 12:17-52. Fig. 15 of Guthery, as
`
`annotated in the Opposition, illustrates an example of this sequence, where
`
`application selection spans steps 320-348, and communication subsequently begins
`
`at step 350 with no steps between 348 and 350. Ex.1005, 12:54-59, Fig. 15.
`
`Patent Owner ignores this explicit teaching of Guthery and instead
`
`mischaracterizes Petitioner’s position: “Petitioner argues that Guthery teaches this
`
`negative limitation because Guthery is in essence silent with respect to the steps
`
`being performed between reference numbers 348 and 350.” PO Reply, 10. Patent
`
`Owner then argues that “[n]egative limitations, however, are not taught by the
`
`prior art by silence alone.” PO Reply, 10.
`
`But Guthery is not silent with respect to the steps “required” for the
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Sur-reply to Reply to Opposition to Motion to Amend
`IPR2022-01137 / U.S. Patent No. 8,581,706
`interaction between the host and application. Guthery illustrates in Fig. 15B-C
`
`exactly which steps are required for application selection and communication—and
`
`no steps are required between the last step of selection (348) and the first step of
`
`communication (350). In other words, as long as all the steps shown in Fig. 15B-C
`
`are performed, there will be communication between the host and smart card—and
`
`no other steps are “required” as claimed.
`
`The facts here are distinguishable from the non-precedential case cited by
`
`Patent Owner. PO Reply, 10 (citing International Business Machines Corporation
`
`v. Iancu, 759 Fed. Appx. 1002, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). There, the Federal Circuit
`
`reversed the Board’s obviousness finding because the Board “could not tell one
`
`way or the other whether” the user authentication action in the prior art disclosed a
`
`“single-sign-on operation.” IBM at 15. The Court thus found that “[s]ilence in that
`
`sense would not by itself suffice for the Petitioner to meet its burden.” Id. But here,
`
`one can tell that the prior art teaches what is claimed because Guthery explicitly
`
`illustrates that no steps are required between step 348 (end of the selection process)
`
`and step 350 (start of subsequent communication) in Guthery for the reasons given
`
`above. Even if Guthery did contemplate additional optional steps between steps
`
`348 and 350 not shown in Fig. 15C (which it does not), Guthery would still meet
`
`the claim because the claim only recites the absence of “required” steps.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner has not properly refuted Petitioner’s obviousness
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Sur-reply to Reply to Opposition to Motion to Amend
`IPR2022-01137 / U.S. Patent No. 8,581,706
`
`analysis.
`
`Patent Owner improperly relies on unclaimed requirements for
`B.
`the claimed “selection.”
`Patent Owner also disputes the specific steps in Guthery that Petitioner has
`
`identified as corresponding to the claimed “selection” process. PO Reply, 11-12.
`
`Patent Owner tries to draw the box differently: “Application selection as claimed
`
`therefore occurs in Guthery when the host 60 receives the application index in
`
`packet 60, not after receiving the PTS packet, as Petitioner contends.” PO Reply,
`
`11-12. But Patent Owner does not point to anything in the claim language itself
`
`that precludes Petitioner’s identification. In fact, Petitioner’s identification is
`
`consistent with Patent Owner’s own understanding of the selection process: “the
`
`claimed selection process includes the steps necessary for the reading device to
`
`engage in communications with the selected application.” PO Reply, 11. In
`
`Guthery, step 348 (receiving the PTS packet) is a step necessary for the host to
`
`engage in communications with the selected application—the host will not
`
`communicate with the application until it has received the PTS packet. Ex.1005,
`
`3:52-57 (“A permission-to-send packet is received from the addressed application
`
`once sufficient memory has been allocated to the addressed application.
`
`Information is then sent to the addressed application upon receiving, at the host,
`
`the permission-to-send packet.”). Step 348 is thus included in Guthery’s selection
`
`process. There are no further steps (required or otherwise) between step 348 and
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Sur-reply to Reply to Opposition to Motion to Amend
`IPR2022-01137 / U.S. Patent No. 8,581,706
`step 350, the first communication step. See Opposition, 14-16.
`
`Patent Owner’s attorney argument cannot overcome Petitioner’s evidence-
`
`based showing because it is based upon alleged requirements not recited in the
`
`claims. According to Patent Owner, the selection process is complete “when the
`
`selected application is sufficiently addressed by the reading device to begin
`
`communicating with the data carrier,” where this “occurs no later than when the
`
`reading device receives the identification number assigned to the application, or,
`
`when session numbers are used, no later than when the application is addressed
`
`uniquely with the session numbers.” PO Reply, 11. But Patent Owner does not
`
`(and cannot) point to anything in the claim that supports such a meaning of
`
`“selection.” The claim merely recites “selection of one of the plurality of
`
`applications”—nothing more. Had Patent Owner wished the term “selection” to be
`
`met only “when the selected application is sufficiently addressed by the reading
`
`device to begin communicating with the data carrier” and “no later than when the
`
`reading device receives the identification number assigned to the application, or,
`
`when session numbers are used, no later than when the application is addressed
`
`uniquely with the session numbers,” Patent Owner could have added such
`
`limitations when it drafted the substitute claims. Instead, Patent Owner elected to
`
`broadly recite “selection” with no further requirements.
`
`IV. The Specification does not provide written description support for the
`scope of the newly proposed language.
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Sur-reply to Reply to Opposition to Motion to Amend
`IPR2022-01137 / U.S. Patent No. 8,581,706
`The claims lack written description support because they attempt to claim
`
`the “selection of one of the plurality of applications” step more broadly than what
`
`is actually disclosed. Although it is true that ‘[c]laims are not interpreted in a
`
`vacuum, but are part of and are read in light of the specification.’ (Slimfold Mfg.
`
`Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed.Cir.1987)), claims cannot
`
`omit “essential or critical features of the invention.” See Gentry Gallery Inc. v. the
`
`Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473, 1480 (claims to a sectional sofa comprising, inter
`
`alia, a console and a control means were held invalid for failing to satisfy the
`
`written description requirement where the claims were broadened by removing
`
`the location of the control means).
`
`For example, the claims here lack the “essential” feature of which element
`
`performs the selection. The Board notes “paragraph 21 of the Specification makes
`
`it clear that ... ‘[t]he reading device’ is the element that ‘selects an application.’”
`
`Guidance, 7; see also Ex.1002, p.290, ¶ [0021] (“[w]hen an application has been
`
`selected for further communication by the reading device”). If the specification
`
`makes clear that the invention covers only the reading device making the selection,
`
`the claim cannot omit that essential feature. The substitute claims cannot cover a
`
`broader invention in which any device makes the selection.
`
`The unrecited “essential” feature is important here because the result is a
`
`claim scope that is much broader than what is actually disclosed. As explained in
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Sur-reply to Reply to Opposition to Motion to Amend
`IPR2022-01137 / U.S. Patent No. 8,581,706
`the Opposition, the proposed claim amendments add new matter because they
`
`“recite subject matter different than the subject matter possessed by the inventor at
`
`the time of filing.” Opposition, 2. The substitute claims recite that no further steps
`
`are required “after selection of one of the plurality of applications.” Motion, 4.
`
`Because they don’t recite what performs the selection, the claim scope is broad
`
`enough to include selection by the smart card itself or something else entirely—
`
`including manual selection by a human user. But the specification does not provide
`
`for selection by anything besides the reading device. The proposed claims are thus
`
`far broader in scope than the invention possessed by the inventor upon filing. The
`
`same issue applies to when the selection of an application takes place and for what
`
`purpose the application is being selected. See Opposition, 3.
`
`Because the substitute claims omit essential features of the selection step and
`
`are thus of a scope not disclosed in the specification, the substitute claims add new
`
`matter in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 316(d). Despite providing this statutory basis in
`
`the Opposition, Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner has not provided any basis for
`
`its self-imposed requirements for the claims to recite, when selection takes place,
`
`which element, and for what the application is being selected. That is because there
`
`is no reason.” PO Reply, 5; Opposition, 1. But Petitioner is not imposing
`
`requirements as to what must be recited in the claims. Rather, Petitioner’s position
`
`is that the scope of the substitute claims is not supported by the specification.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Sur-reply to Reply to Opposition to Motion to Amend
`IPR2022-01137 / U.S. Patent No. 8,581,706
`Patent Owner cannot fix the lack of “essential” features in the claims by
`
`importing limitations from the specification, as they suggest: “The claims when
`
`read in light of the specification, do not require Petitioner’s limitations.” PO Reply,
`
`5. Patent Owner’s position, however, does more than just interpret a claim term in
`
`light of the specification. Rather, Patent Owner is seeking to add an entirely new
`
`limitation to the claim—that selection is done by the reader. But the Federal
`
`Circuit has “cautioned against reading limitations into a claim from the preferred
`
`embodiment described in the specification, even if it is the only embodiment
`
`described, absent clear disclaimer in the specification.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320,
`
`1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (en banc) (The Court “expressly rejected the contention that if a patent
`
`describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as
`
`being limited to that embodiment”). For this reason, along with the reasons
`
`provided in the Opposition, Petitioner maintains that the substitute claims
`
`improperly add subject matter in violation of 35 U.S.C. 316(d).1
`
`Patent Owner likewise seeks to improperly import limitations into its own
`
`claim amendments with respect to claim 24. Substitute claim 24 requires
`
`
`1 Substitute claims 25 and 26 recite similar subject matter. Thus, the reasoning
`
`described above with respect to claim 23 similarly applies to claims 25 and 26.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Sur-reply to Reply to Opposition to Motion to Amend
`IPR2022-01137 / U.S. Patent No. 8,581,706
`communication “without requiring any further steps after the communication
`
`readiness signals are generated.” Motion, 5-6. But the portions of the
`
`specification identified by Patent Owner lack any disclosure of “communication”
`
`after generation of “communication readiness signals.” Opposition, 7-8. For this
`
`reason alone, the Motion fails with respect to claim 24. See Guidance, 10.
`
`Patent Owner responds to the Opposition’s analysis by importing the term
`
`“second” communication readiness signal into the claim—despite there being no
`
`first communication readiness signal recited. Citing to the specification, Patent
`
`Owner notes that “the communication device may later generate another
`
`‘communication readiness signal for that application … with which the reading
`
`device [] actively communicated last, in order for example, to bring to an end a
`
`data communication that was commenced by not completed.’” PO Reply, 8
`
`(emphasis added). Referring to this “second readiness signal,” Patent Owner
`
`argues that “the reader can communicate with the selected application
`
`subsequently ‘without requiring any further steps after the [second]
`
`communication-readiness signals are generated.’” PO Reply, 8 (emphasis and
`
`bracket in the original). Patent Owner’s use of a bracket to add the term “second”
`
`into its claim construction represents an improper importation of limitations. Had
`
`Patent Owner wished to claim this “second readiness signal” concept, they could
`
`have clearly done so. Patent Owner instead chose to broadly recite that no further
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Sur-reply to Reply to Opposition to Motion to Amend
`IPR2022-01137 / U.S. Patent No. 8,581,706
`steps are required after communication readiness signals are generated—a concept
`
`not supported in the specification.
`
`Claim 24 is also inconsistent with Patent Owner’s own understanding of
`
`independent claim 23, the claim upon which claim 24 depends. Patent Owner
`
`states that: “Claim 23 as written, therefore, recites the occurrence of the generation
`
`function, followed by the selection function thereafter, which delineates the
`
`subsequent communications that occur “without requiring any further steps.” PO
`
`Reply, 3-4 (emphasis in original). Patent Owner similarly states “‘selecting an
`
`application’ … may involve several steps that occur between the generation
`
`function and when the reader is engaged in further communications with the
`
`application”—i.e., the selection steps are “between” generation and
`
`communication. PO Reply, 6-7. Claim 24, in direct contrast, requires
`
`communication to happen “subsequently without requiring any further steps
`
`[including selection] after the communication-readiness signals are generated.”
`
`Patent Owner’s approach of amending the claims with broad language and
`
`then seeking narrow interpretations by importing limitations from the specification
`
`is of particular concern in the context of its Motion to Amend. Patent Owner had
`
`the opportunity to draft claim language that precisely and clearly defines the scope
`
`of the claimed invention. It would be improper to now interpret Patent Owner’s
`
`specifically selected language to include additional limitations that Patent Owner
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Sur-reply to Reply to Opposition to Motion to Amend
`IPR2022-01137 / U.S. Patent No. 8,581,706
`itself elected not to include when given the opportunity.
`
`V. The Opposition properly relies on the entirety of the record to show the
`substitute claims are unpatentable
`
`Petitioner’s Opposition relies on the same prior art combination as the
`
`Petition to show obviousness of the substitute claims. To avoid unnecessarily
`
`repeating the analysis from the Petition, the Opposition cites to the petition for the
`
`unchanged claim limitations. See Opposition, 13-14. Patent Owner characterizes
`
`the Opposition’s approach of citing to the Petition for unchanged claim limitations
`
`as an improper incorporation by reference in violation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3).
`
`PO Reply, 10, n. 1. Petitioner did not incorporate by reference—and did not need
`
`to. “[T]he Board determines whether substitute claims are unpatentable by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence based on the entirety of the record, including any
`
`opposition made by the petitioner.” Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-
`
`01129, 01130, Paper 15 at 4 (PTAB Feb. 2019) (precedential). Consistent with this
`
`precedent, the Board has specifically approved Petitioner’s approach here. See
`
`Offshore Technical Compliance, LLC v. Innovative Pressure Testing, LLC,
`
`IPR2020-00923, Paper 43 at 75 (“With respect to the limitations of the proposed
`
`substitute claims that are identical to their counterparts in the original claims, we
`
`do not find Petitioner’s reliance to be an improper incorporation ... we see little
`
`purpose to requiring that Petitioner copy lengthy arguments wholesale from its
`
`Petition into its Opposition”).
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Sur-reply to Reply to Opposition to Motion to Amend
`IPR2022-01137 / U.S. Patent No. 8,581,706
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 13, 2023
`
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`Telephone: 972-739-8663
`Facsimile: 214-200-0853
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Scott T. Jarratt/
`Scott T. Jarratt
`Registration No. 70,297
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s Sur-reply to Reply to Opposition to Motion to Amend
`IPR2022-01137 / U.S. Patent No. 8,581,706
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies, in accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), that
`
`service was made on the Patent Owner as detailed below.
`
`Date of service September 13, 2023
`
`Persons served
`
`
`
`Manner of service Electronic Mail: bcooper@bc-lawgroup.com
` robert@auchterlaw.com
` ap@lombardip.com
` Aire_Counsel@b-clg.com
`
`Documents served Petitioner’s Sur-reply to Patent Owner’s Reply to
`Opposition to Motion to Amend
`
`Brett Cooper
`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
`Registration No. 70,297
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`14
`
`
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
