Petitioner’s Demonstrative Slides
`
`IPR2022-01227 (U.S. Pat. No. 9,762,636)
`IPR2022-01228 (U.S. Pat. No. 9,742,824)
`
`November 13, 2023
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01227 (U.S. Pat. No. 9,762,636)
`IPR2022-01228 (U.S. Pat. No. 9,742,824)
`
`November 13, 2023
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`Challenged Grounds
`
`For both the ’824 and ’636 Patents:
`
`GROUNDS
`
`CLAIMS
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1-12
`
`1-12
`
`BASIS
`
`§ 103
`
`§ 103
`
`PRIOR ART
`
`Obvious over
`Carmel
`
`Obvious over
`Carmel and Shteyn
`
`(Pet., 6)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`2
`
`
`
`Issues for Oral Hearing
`
`POSITA
`• Petitioner’s definition should apply, as Patent Owner’s POSITA definition is unsupported and
`contradicts prior agreed definition
`Claim Construction
`• Plain and ordinary meaning of terms should apply, Patent Owner does not actually propose
`constructions and arguments are unsupported by the record
`Ground 1 – Disputed 1.h, 1.j, 1.k Limitations
`• Carmel renders obvious claims 1-12 of the ’824 and ’636 Patents
`Ground 2 – Disputed 1.h, 1.j, 1.k Limitations
`• Carmel and Shteyn renders obvious claims 1-12 of the ’824 and ’636 Patents
`(Pet., 54-67; Pet. Reply, 24-27)
`
`(Pet., 10-54 Pet. Reply, 7-24)
`
`(Pet., 7-8; Pet. Reply, 2)
`
`(Pet., 9; Pet. Reply, 3-6)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,742,824
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`4
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,824 – Streaming Media Delivery System
`
`(EX1001, 1:52-55)
`
`(EX1001, 14:48-55)
`
`(EX1001)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(EX1001, 14:56-67, 15:1)
`
`5
`
`
`
`Claim 1, ’824 Patent - Disputed 1.h, 1.j, 1.k Limitations
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’824 Patent at Claim 1
`
`6
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`7
`
`
`
`Claim 1, ’636 Patent - Disputed 1.h, 1.j, 1.k Limitations
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(’636 Patent at Claim 1)
`
`8
`
`
`
`Difference Between ’824 and ’636 Patents
`
`•
`
`’824 Patent:
`
`•
`
`’636 Patent:
`
`• This difference is not at issue
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`9
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,122,141 – Streaming Media Buffering System
`
`(EX1007, 2-3; EX1006, 2, 15-24)
`
`(EX1007, 3)
`
`(Id., 3, 16-23)
`
`(EX1005)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`10
`
`
`
`POSITA Definition
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`11
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s POSITA Definition
`
`(Pet., 7-8; EX1002, ¶¶54-55)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`12
`
`
`
`PO’s Definition Adds Unsupported Language
`
`(POR 9, EX2006, ¶13)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`13
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14
`
`
`
`Claim Construction Overview
`
`(Pet. Reply, 3; Pet., 9)
`Program: Patent Owner contends “program” recited in the claimed preambles should be construed as “entire
`program” because “steps, a-g” allegedly streams the entire program.
`(POR 10-12; Pet. Reply, 3-4)
`
`Limitation 1.f: Patent Owner argues that the “plain and literal meaning of limitation f is that, even if the ‘received
`request’ is for more than one element, each such requested element is identified in the request by the serial identifier
`of that media data element.”
`(POR 12-13; Pet. Reply, 3-4)
`
`Limitation 1.h: Patent Owner argues that limitation 1.h is for the “data rate … over the entire streaming of the
`program.”
`(POR 13-17; Pet. Reply, 4-5)
`
`Limitation 1.j: Patent Owner requests construction for limitation 1.j
`
`(POR 18-19; Pet. Reply, 6)
`
`Limitation 1.k: Patent Owner appears to argue that the claim limitation applies to “each and every element” of the
`stream.
`(POR 19- 20; Pet. Reply, 6)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`
`
`“Entire” Program is not Plain and Ordinary Meaning
`
`(POR 11, Pet. Reply, 3-4; Hoarty Tr., 31:13-33:7; EX1030, ¶25)
`
`(POR 12, Pet. Reply, 3-4; Hoarty Tr., 31:13-33:7; EX1030, ¶25)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`16
`
`
`
`“Entire” Program is not Plain and Ordinary Meaning
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17
`
`(EX1001, 16:36-59; Pet. Reply, 3-4)
`
`
`
`Plain and Ordinary meaning of Limitation 1.h
`
`(EX1001, 16:64-67; Pet. Reply, 4-5)
`
`(POR 13; Pet. Reply, 4-5; EX2006, ¶25; EX1015, 15-16; EX1001, 2:34-40; Hoarty Tr., 68:2-15)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`18
`
`
`
`No Construction Proposed for Limitation 1.j
`
`(POR 18; EX1001, 17:4-7; Pet. Reply, 6; EX1006, 26; EX1007; Pet., 43; Paper 12, 40)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`19
`
`
`
`Plain and Ordinary Meaning of Limitation 1.k
`
`Patent Owner Construction
`
`Claim Language
`
`(POR 20; EX1001, 17:8-10; Pet. Reply, 6)
`
`(EX1001, 17:8-10; Pet., 9-10; Pet. Reply, 6)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`20
`
`
`
`Ground 1 – Obvious Over Carmel
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`
`
`Prior Art
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`
`
`Carmel (US 6,389,473) Overview
`
`Carmel
`
`Network Media Streaming
`
`(EX1004, 6:28–31; Pet., 11-12)
`
`(EX1004, Fig. 2; Pet., 11-12)
`
`(Id., 2:56-59; Pet., 13, 35; Pet. Reply, 8-9)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`23
`
`
`
`Carmel Overview, cont’d
`
`Carmel
`
`(EX1004, Fig. 3A; Pet., 12; Pet. Reply, 12-13)
`
`(EX1004, 7:18–35; Pet., 11-12, 30-31, 33, 42, 46-47; Pet. Reply, 12-13)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`24
`
`
`
`Carmel Overview, cont’d
`
`Carmel
`
`(EX1004, Fig. 3C; Pet., 26-27; Pet. Reply, 12-13)
`
`(EX1004, 8:18-23; Pet., 26-27; Pet. Reply, 12-13)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`25
`
`
`
`Carmel Overview, cont’d
`
`Carmel
`
`(EX1004, 10:24-27; Pet., 12, 33, 44; Pet. Reply, 15-17)
`
`(EX1004, Fig. 6A; Pet., 12; Pet. Reply, 15-17)
`
`(Id., 10:35-54; Pet., 12, 33, 44; Pet. Reply, 15-17)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`26
`
`
`
`Carmel Overview, cont’d
`
`Carmel
`
`(EX1004, 9:6-9; Pet., 13, 37, 39; Pet. Reply, 16-17)
`
`(EX1004, Fig. 6B (annotated); EX1004, 9:6-9; Pet., 13, 37, 39; Pet. Reply, 16-17)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`
`
`Limitation 1.h: Sending Faster than the Playback Rate
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`28
`
`
`
`Patent Owner is Collaterally Estopped on the Issue
`of Carmel Teaching Limitation 1.h
`
`Patent
`
`Limitation
`
`’141
`
`’824
`
`(Pet. Reply, 7)
`
`(Id)
`
`(Pet. Reply, 8)
`
`(EX1005, 13:30-33; EX1001, 16: 57-60)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`29
`
`
`
`Carmel Teaches A Data Rate More Rapid Than The
`Playback Rate
`
`(EX1004, 2:56-59; Pet., 35-38; Pet. Reply, 8-9; Paper 12, 31-35;
`EX1007, 18-23)
`
`(EX1004, 11:9-18 see also id., 7:45-49; Pet., 37)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`30
`
`
`
`Data Rate Limitation is Well-known
`
`(Pet., 35; EX1004, 2:51-59; EX1002, ¶102-107)
`
`(Paper 12, 34-35; Pet., 35; EX1004, 2:51-59; EX1002, ¶102-107)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`31
`
`
`
`Data Rate Limitation is Well-known
`
`(Pet. Reply, 10; EX2006, ¶110; Paper 12, 34-35)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`32
`
`(Id)
`
`
`
`PO’s Flip-Flop from POR to Sur-reply
`
`(POR 31; Hoarty Tr., 68:2-15; Pet. Reply, 8-9)
`
`(Sur Reply, 9; see Pet. Reply, 8-9)
`
`(Hoarty Tr., 68:2-15; POR 31; Pet., Reply, 8-9)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`33
`
`
`
`Aggregate Connections Argument: Made for the First
`Time In Sur Reply
`
`(Sur Reply, 10; Pet., 35-38; Paper 12, 31-35; EX1007, 18-23. Pet. Reply, 8-9)
`
`(EX1004, 9:6-9; Pet., 37; EX1002, ¶109; Hoarty Tr., 67:6-18;
`EX1007, 22-23; Pet. Reply, 8-9)
`
`(EX1007, 23; Pet., 37; Pet. Reply, 8-9)
`
`(EX1002, ¶102; Pet., 37; Pet. Reply, 8-9)
`
`(Sur Reply, 10-11; ; Pet., 37; EX1004, 9:6-9, 4:43-47; Pet. Reply, 9)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`34
`
`
`
`Limitation 1.j: Server does not Maintain Last Media Element
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`35
`
`
`
`Patent Owner is Collaterally Estopped on the Issue
`of Carmel Teaching Limitation 1.j
`
`Patent
`
`’141 (claim
`15)
`
`’824
`
`(Pet. Reply, 11)
`
`(Pet. Reply, 12)
`
`Limitation
`
`(EX1005, 14:38-40; EX1001, 16: 64-67)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`36
`
`
`
`Carmel Teaches The Media Data Elements Are Selected
`Without The Server Maintaining A Record
`
`(Pet. Reply, 12)
`
`(EX1004, 10:36-54; Pet., 42-43; Pet. Reply, 12-13)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`37
`
`
`
`Carmel Teaches The Media Data Elements Are Selected
`Without The Server Maintaining A Record, cont’d
`
`(EX1004, 8:7-9; Pet., 42-43; Pet. Reply, 12-13; EX1002, ¶125; Paper 12, 40)
`
`(Id., 2:17–21; Pet., 43; EX1006, 26; Pet. Reply, 12)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`38
`
`
`
`PO Argument on Client Side Control
`
`(Sur Reply, 18; see Pet. Reply, 13)
`
`(Pet. Reply, 13; EX1004, 8:7-9; Paper 12, 40 (quoting EX1004, 2:17–21);
`EX1006, 26; EX1002, ¶126)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`39
`
`
`
`Limitation 1.k:
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`40
`
`
`
`Patent Owner is Collaterally Estopped on the Issue
`of Carmel Teaching Limitation 1.k
`
`Limitation
`
`(Pet. Reply, 14)
`
`Patent
`
`’141 (claim
`10)
`
`’824
`
`(Id)
`
`(EX1005, 14:21-26; EX1001, 17: 1-3)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`41
`
`
`
`Carmel Teaches The Server Sends Media Data Elements
`In Response To Requests From The Client
`
`(EX1004, 10:35-39; Pet., 30-35, 44, 46-47; EX1002, ¶¶98, 128, 135; Pet. Reply, 15)
`
`(EX1004, 6:3-6; Pet., 30-35, 44; 46-47; EX1002, ¶¶98, 128, 135; Pet. Reply, 15)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`42
`
`
`
`Loop in Fig. 6A Selects Individual Slices
`
`Carmel
`
`(EX1004, 10:35-47; Pet., 43-44; Pet. Reply, 15-16;
`EX1002, ¶128; EX2005, 60:7-61:6, 74:2-22.)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`(EX1004, Fig. 6A (annotated); Pet., 43-44; Pet. Reply, 15-16)
`
`
`
`PO Argument Misinterprets Fig. 6A
`
`Carmel
`
`(Sur Reply, 21; Pet., 44; EX1004, 10:38-40; Pet. Reply, 17-19)
`
`(EX1004, Fig. 6A (annotated); Pet., 44; EX1004, 10:38-40; Pet. Reply, 17)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`44
`
`
`
`Loop in Fig. 6B Selects Individual Slices + Quality Level
`
`Carmel
`
`(EX1004, 10:64-67, 11:1-8; Pet., 44-45; Pet. Reply, 18-19)
`
`(EX1004, Fig. 6B (annotated); Pet., 44-45; Pet. Reply, 18-19)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`45
`
`
`
`PO Argument Misinterprets Fig. 6B
`
`Carmel
`
`(POR 44; Pet., 44-45; Pet. Reply, 18-19)
`
`(Pet. Reply, 18-19 ; POR 44; Pet., 44-45)
`
`(EX1004, Fig. 6B (annotated); Pet., 44-45; Pet. Reply, 18-19)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`46
`
`
`
`Carmel Does not Teach “Scripts”
`
`(Pet. Reply, 19; POR 44-47; EX2006, ¶¶82, 86-93)
`
`(Hoarty Tr., 65:2-15; EX1030, ¶¶38-40; Pet. Reply, 19)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`47
`
`
`
`Carmel Inherently Teaches A Client Request System
`
`(Pet. Reply, 20; Pet., 45-46; EX1030, ¶¶9-11, 28-51; EX1004, 10:38-40. EX1002, ¶130)
`
`Dr. Houh testifies:
`
`PO’s expert states:
`
`(EX1002, ¶130; Pet., 45-46; EX1030, ¶29; Pet. Reply, 20-21)
`
`(EX 2006, ¶81; EX1002, ¶130; EX1030, ¶31; Hoarty Tr. 50:1-6; Pet. Reply, 20-21)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`48
`
`
`
`PO’S Alleged Two Embodiment HTTP 1.1 Arguments
`
`(POR 45; see Pet. Reply, 21; EX1030, ¶34-35)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`49
`
`
`
`Chunked Encoding
`
`(POR 48; see Pet. Reply, 21; EX1030, ¶36)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`50
`
`
`
`Chunked Encoding, cont’d
`
`(Hoarty Tr., 66:11-22, 67:1; see Pet. Reply, 21; POR 48; EX1030, ¶36-37)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`
`
`Dr. Houh’s Testimony
`
`(EX1030, ¶37; Pet. Reply, 20-21; EX2004, 21; EX1002, ¶130; Hoarty Tr., 66:5-67:1)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`52
`
`
`
`Range Retrieval Requests
`
`(POR 48; see Pet. Reply, 22-23; EX1030, ¶41)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`53
`
`
`
`Carmel’s Disclosure
`
`(EX1004, 2:22-23; POR 48; Pet. Reply, 22-23; Pet., 14-49; EX1002, ¶62-138; EX1030, ¶¶ 42-43)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`54
`
`
`
`Range Retrieval Requests
`
`(EX2004; 112; Pet. Reply, 23; EX1030, ¶47)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`55
`
`
`
`Dr. Houh’s Testimony
`
`(EX1030, ¶48-50; EX2004; 112; see POR 48; Pet. Reply, 23)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`56
`
`
`
`Obviousness in view of Carmel
`
`(Pet., 48; EX1002, ¶131; Pet. Reply, 23-24)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`57
`
`
`
`PO’s Failed Efficiency Argument
`
`(Pet. Reply, 24; Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2023))
`
`(POR 50; see Pet. Reply, 23-24)
`
`(Pet. Reply, 24; Pet., 40; EX1012, 19; EX2006, ¶138; EX1013, ¶30; EX1001, 8:38-48)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`58
`
`
`
`Ground 2 – Obvious Over Carmel and Shteyn
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`59
`
`
`
`Shteyn Overview
`
`Partitioning of MP3 Content File For Emulating Streaming
`
`(EX1008, Abstract)
`
`(EX1008, 2:57-63; Pet., 55)
`
`(EX1008; Pet. 55)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`60
`
`
`
`Shteyn Overview, Cont’d
`
`(EX1008, 3:14-18; Pet., 55)
`
`(EX1008, Fig. 2; Pet., 55)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`61
`
`(EX1008, 3:44-53; Pet., 55)
`
`
`
`Limitation 1.j: Server does not Maintain Last Media Element
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`62
`
`
`
`PO Argument
`
`(Pet. Reply, 25; Pet., 55; POR 57, 59)
`
`(Sur Reply, 25; EX1008, 2:67, 3:1-2, 3:44-61; Pet. Reply, 25)
`
`(EX1008, 3:44-61; Pet. Reply, 25)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`63
`
`
`
`Carmel and Shteyn Teaches The Media Data Elements Are Selected
`Without The Server Maintaining A Record
`
`(EX1008, 2:3-7; Paper 12, 56-57; Pet., 57-61; EX1002, ¶¶149, 162-169; Pet. Reply, 25)
`
`(Id, 2:67, 3:1-2)
`
`(EX1008, 3:44-61; Pet. Reply, 25)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`64
`
`
`
`Carmel and Shteyn Teaches The Media Data Elements Are
`Selected Without The Server Maintaining A Record, cont’d
`
`(EX1008, 3:55-61; EX1008, 4:20–23; EX1002 ¶¶149, 166–
`167; Paper 12, 56; Pet. Reply, 25-26)
`
`(Id, 4:20-23)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`65
`
`
`
`A POSITA Would Have Combined Carmel and Shteyn
`
`(Pet., 61; EX1002, ¶173-174; Pet. Reply, 26-27)
`
`(Pet., 62; EX1002, ¶175; Pet. Reply, 26-27)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`66
`
`
`
`A POSITA Would Have Combined Carmel and Shteyn, cont’d
`
`(POR 60; see Pet. Reply, 26)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`67
`
`
`
`A POSITA Would Have Combined Carmel and Shteyn, cont’d
`
`(Pet. Reply, 26; POR 60-61; EX2006, ¶¶168-169)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`68
`
`
`
`A POSITA Would Have Combined Carmel and Shteyn, cont’d
`
`(POR 60; see Pet. Reply, 26)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`69
`
`
`
`A POSITA Would Have Combined Carmel and Shteyn, cont’d
`
`(EX1002, ¶176; Pet., 62-63; Pet. Reply, 26-27)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`70
`
`
`
`IPR2022-01227 (U.S. Pat. No. 9,762,636)
`
`IPR2022-01228 (U.S. Pat. No. 9,742,824)
`
`November 13, 2023
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT – NOT EVIDENCE
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of Petitioner’s
`
`Combined Demonstratives has been served on the Patent Owner via email to Patent
`
`Owner by serving the email correspondence addresses of record as follows:
`
`ron.abramson@listonabramson.com
`michael.lewis@listonabramson.com
`ari.jaffess@listonabramson.com
`gina.kim@listonabramson.com
`
`Date: November 7, 2023
`
` By: /Larissa S. Bifano/
` Larissa S. Bifano
` Reg. No. 59,051
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
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
