Filed: March 16, 2023
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2022-01249
`Patent 9,019,946 B1
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL
`INFORMATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`SMART MOBILE TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2022-01249
`Patent 9,019,946 B1
`____________
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL
`INFORMATION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`PETITIONER FAILS TO SHOW WHY IT SHOULD SUBMIT ITS
`41-PAGE DECLARATION NOW INSTEAD OF WITH ITS REPLY ......... 1
`A.
`Petitioner’s Proposed Declaration Consists of Untimely, New
`Claim Construction And Prior Art Analysis in 41 Pages, 7,500
`Words And Dozens Of New Citations To The Record ......................... 2
`Petitioner Fials To Meet Its Burden To Show Why Its Proposed
`Declaration Should Be Submitted Now Instead Of With Its
`Reply...................................................................................................... 4
`III. ALLOWING PETITIONER A DE FACTO ADDITIONAL INTERIM
`ROADMAPPED BRIEF PREJUDICES PATENT OWNER ......................... 9
`IV. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................10
`
`
`
`B.
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Cases
`Am. Well Corp. v. TelaDocHealth, Inc.,
`IPR2021-00748, Paper 23 (Feb. 28, 2022) ............................................................ 6
`Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson,
`IPR2022-00343, Paper 14 (Nov. 10, 2022) ........................................................... 8
`Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (Aug. 29, 2014) ........................................................... 7
`Frameless Hardware Co. v. CR Laurene Co.,
`IPR2022-00356, Paper 29 (Oct., 25, 2022) .......................................................8, 9
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..........................................................................1, 9
`Lab. Francais du Fractionnement et des Biotechs. SA v. Novo Nordisk
`Healthcare AG,
`IPR2017-00028, Paper 22 (Jun. 13, 2017) ............................................................. 5
`MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geraete GmbH v. Advanced Bionics AG,
`IPR2020-00190, Paper 24 (Aug. 10, 2022) ........................................................... 8
`Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Microspherix LLC,
`IPR2018-00393, Paper 21 (Sep. 10, 2018) ............................................................ 6
`Nissan N. Am., Inc. v. Diamond Coating Techs.,
`IPR2014-01548, Paper 37 (July 15, 2015)............................................................. 6
`Ooma, Inc. v. Deep Green Wireless LLC,
`IPR2017-01541, Paper 14 (Jan. 23, 2018) ............................................................. 2
`Pac. Mkt. Int’l, LLC v. Ignite USA, LLC,
`IPR2014-00561, Paper 23 (Dec. 2, 2014) .............................................................. 8
`Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc.,
`811 F.3d 435 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................ 5
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Immersion Corp.,
`IPR2018-01499, Paper 19 (May 16, 2019) ............................................................ 5
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`Sling TV LLC v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC,
`IPR2018-01342, Paper 17 (May 7, 2019) .............................................................. 6
`Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte.,
`IPR2022-00180, Paper 18 (Aug. 25, 2022) ................................................. passim
`W. Digital Corp. v. Spex Techs.,
`IPR2018-00082, Paper 22 (July 23, 2018)............................................................. 6
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ................................................................................................. 1
`Other Authorities
`Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg.,
`48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012) ............................................................................. 4
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) ............................................................................................ 2
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123 ...............................................................................................5, 10
`37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c) ................................................................................................... 4
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3) ................................................................................................ 7
`37 C.F.R. §42.123 ...................................................................................................... 5
`37 C.F.R. §42.123(a) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Brief Description
`
`2001.
`
`Reserved.
`
`2002.
`
`Declaration of Professor Todor V. Cooklev, Ph.D.
`
`2003.
`
`2004.
`
`Defendants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief Regarding the °434
`Patent Family.
`
`Declaration of Harry Bins in Support of Defendants’ Opening
`Claim Construction Briefs (Exhibit 1 to Defendants’ Opening
`Claim Construction Briefs).
`
`2005.
`
`Kevin M.Stack, Preambles as Guidance, September 2016, Vol. 84,
`No. 5 [1252-1292].
`
`2006.
`
`Electronics Tutorials, The Multiplexer.
`
`2007.
`
`2008.
`
`2009.
`
`2010.
`
`Texas Instruments, SN74HC153 Data Sheet, Dec. 1982 — Revised
`Feb. 2022 (2022).
`
`Lee Stanton, What Is The Difference Between A Landline And A
`Mobile Phone Number? (Feb. 22, 2022)
`(https://www.alphr.com/difference-landline-mobile-phone-
`number/
`
`Focus LCDs, LCD Resources — Serial Vs. Parallel (Oct. 19, 2022)
`(https://focuslcds.com/serial-vs-parallel/)
`
`Techopedia, Whatis a Serial Interface? — Definition from
`Techopedia (Nov.4, 2014)
`(https://www.techopedia.com/definition/93 12/serial-interface)
`
`2011.
`
`The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms, Seventh
`Edition (2000), “serial interface.”
`
`
`
`-IvV-
`
`
`
`
`
`2012.
`
`2013.
`
`2014.
`
`2015.
`
`2016.
`
`2017.
`
`Brief Description
`
`Jonathan Valvanoef al., Chapter 11: Serial Interfacing, Embedded
`Systems — Shape The World (Oct. 20, 2022)
`(https://users.ece.utexas.edu/~valvano/Volume]/E-
`Book/C11_ SerialInterface.htm)
`
`Steve Goldband, Jnput and outputfor microprocessors, Behavior
`Research Methods & Instrumentation, 1978, Vol. 10, No. 2 [249-
`253].
`
`Ex parte Orbotech Lt Solar, LLC (In rem Application 11/826,336)
`2012 Pat. App. LEXIS 2784 (May31, 2012).
`
`Ex parte Christopher A. Evansef a/., 2017 Apt. App. LEXIS 386
`(Jan. 23, 2017).
`
`Declaration of Philip J. Graves in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Unopposed Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice Admission.
`
`Declaration of Greer N. Shaw in Support of Patent Owner’s
`Unopposed Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice Admission.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner seeks to file a 41-page, ~7,500 word claim construction and prior
`
`art analysis, with dozens of new citations to the patent, its reference(s), and other
`
`evidence, under the guise of “supplemental information,” now instead of with its
`
`reply. See § I.A, infra. That is in addition to the 140 page declaration already
`
`submitted with the Petition. The Board routinely rejects such after-the-fact efforts to
`
`bolster the petition with expansive substantive analysis. If that were not so, then any
`
`petitioner could simply turn the filing of every petition into a two-stage process, as
`
`Petitioner seeks to do here. Petitioner’s argument that its motion must be granted
`
`merely because it is timely and relevant has been rejected by the Board and the
`
`Federal Circuit. See § I.B, infra. And for good reason: granting the motion would
`
`prejudice Patent Owner, invert the carefully balanced IPR process, and benefit no
`
`one but Petitioner. See § II, infra. The Board should deny the Motion.
`
`II.
`
`PETITIONER FAILS TO SHOW WHY IT SHOULD SUBMIT ITS 41-
`PAGE DECLARATION NOW INSTEAD OF WITH ITS REPLY
`“It is of the utmost importance that petitioners in the IPR proceedings adhere
`
`to the requirement that the initial petition identify ‘with particularity’ the ‘evidence
`
`that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim.’” Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc.
`
`v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting 35
`
`U.S.C. § 312(a)(3)). “Unlike district court litigation—where parties have greater
`
`freedom to revise and develop their arguments over time and in response to newly
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`discovered material,” the “expedited nature of IPRs bring[s]…an obligation for
`
`petitioners to make their case in their petition to institute.” Id. These are
`
`“strict…requirements of which petitioners are aware when they seek to institute an
`
`IPR.” Id.; see also 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Accordingly, Board decisions
`
`disallowing new declarations like the one Petitioner proposes here have held:
`
`Supplemental information is not intended to provide a petitioner an
`advantageous ‘wait-and-see’ opportunity to use a patent owner’s
`preliminary response and our decision on institution in order to refine
`or bolster petitioner’s position.
`
`Ooma, Inc. v. Deep Green Wireless LLC, IPR2017-01541, Paper 14, 3-4 (Jan. 23,
`
`2018) (“Ooma”); ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holding, Inc., IPR2013-00139, Paper
`
`27, 3 (July 30, 2013) (“ZTE”). Petitioner’s proposed declaration is precisely the type
`
`of declaration rejected by the Board as improper “supplemental information.”
`
`A.
`
`Petitioner’s Proposed Declaration Consists of Untimely, New
`Claim Construction And Prior Art Analysis in 41 Pages, 7,500
`Words And Dozens Of New Citations To The Record
`Petitioner submitted a 140-page expert declaration with the Petition. See Ex.
`
`1003. Yet now Petitioner wants still more pages, to “clarif[y]” its positions. Mot., 6.
`
`But this declaration does not “clarify.” It adds, for the first time, a lengthy,
`
`substantive and untimely claim construction and prior art analysis. Nor is there a
`
`“misunderstanding” of Petitioner’s positions by the Board. Mot., 3. Petitioner is
`
`simply controverting each one of the Board’s conclusions adverse to Petitioner.
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`First, the proposed declaration is a massive post-institution increase in
`
`Petitioner’s case-in-chief—41 pages and ~7,500 words, more than half of the word
`
`limit of the Petition itself and on top of Petitioner’s 140-page initial declaration. This
`
`volume alone makes clear it is not “merely clarif[ying]” positions. Mot., 6.
`
`Second, the proposed declaration adds dozens of for-the-first-time citations to
`
`the record found nowhere in Petitioner’s first declaration. These new citations are to
`
`the Patent itself (see, e.g., Ex. 1050 [Proposed-Decl.] 6-7 (citing Ex. 1001 [’946
`
`Pat.] 3:47-48, 5:8-11, 5:46-67, 8:32-37, 9:4-6, 9:8-10, 9:14-17, 9:31-34, 9:36-38,
`
`9:42-44, 11:1-30, 11:34-41, 12:25-37, Fig. 6)), the grounds’ reference(s) (see, e.g.,
`
`id., 10-11, 24-29 (citing Ex. 1007 [Bernard] 2:51-54, 17:26-32, 25:26-29, 26:20-55,
`
`Figs. 13-14)), and other evidence (see, e.g., id., 5-6, 8-10, 22-23 (citing Ex. 2003
`
`[Defendants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief] 37, 40, Exs. 17, 49-53); 34-35
`
`(citing Ex. 1028 [Jakes] 310, 324-329)).
`
`Third, the proposed declaration also presents new analysis and assertions not
`
`found in the first declaration. It devotes 15 pages to arguing why “multiplexing does
`
`not require multiple signals to be presented to a multiplexer simultaneously.” Ex.
`
`1050, ¶¶ 6-33. This new claim construction analysis is not found anywhere in the
`
`first declaration. It also spends pages analyzing, for the first time, the Patent’s
`
`alleged “intent to cover simultaneous and sequential multiplexing.” Id., ¶¶ 11-12. It
`
`also devotes 3 pages to analyzing the Patent’s priority application, which was never
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`cited once in the original declaration. Id., ¶¶ 13-16 (discussing Ex. 17). And it
`
`finishes with for-the-first-time arguments that the references allegedly disclose
`
`every element of Petitioner’s prima facie case that the Board found is missing from
`
`the Petition. See, e.g., Paper 13 [ID] 34 (“Petitioner’s arguments . . . do not explain
`
`sufficiently that Yegoshin’s handling of IP and cellular calls would be recognized as
`
`“multiplexed signals.”).
`
`Furthermore, the proposed declaration is untimely as it submits new citations
`
`to the record and provides new analysis to meet Petitioner’s prima facie case. Trial
`
`Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012) (“Examples of
`
`indications that a new issue has been raised in a reply include new evidence
`
`necessary to make out a prima facie case … and new evidence that could have been
`
`presented in a prior filing.”); Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, 73 (similar).
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner Fials To Meet Its Burden To Show Why Its Proposed
`Declaration Should Be Submitted Now Instead Of With Its Reply
`“Parties generally submit evidence to support positions in a brief. …
`
`Petitioner bears the burden of establishing why we should allow the submission of
`
`such evidence now.” Triller, Inc. v. TikTok Pte., IPR2022-00180, Paper 18, 3 (Aug.
`
`25, 2022) (“Triller”); 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). The thrust of Petitioner’s argument is
`
`that the Board should grant its request “because [it] meets both requirements laid out
`
`in 37 C.F.R. §42.123(a).” Mot., 1. That is not enough. Section 42.123(a) “does not
`
`connote the PTAB must accept supplemental information so long as it is timely and
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`relevant.” Redline Detection, LLC v. Star Envirotech, Inc., 811 F.3d 435, 445 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015). Otherwise, every petitioner could simply submit a supplemental expert
`
`declaration to address every deficiency identified in every institution decision,
`
`turning the filing of every instituted petition into a “two-stage process.” ZTE, 3.1
`
`Instead, where, as here, a petitioner submits new claim construction and prior
`
`art analysis to bolster deficiencies identified in the petition under the guise of
`
`“supplemental information,” the Board typically denies the request unless the
`
`petitioner shows something more than mere relevance and timeliness. See, e.g., Lab.
`
`Francais du Fractionnement et des Biotechs. SA v. Novo Nordisk Healthcare AG,
`
`IPR2017-00028, Paper 22, 4 (Jun. 13, 2017) (“Petitioner has not explained
`
`sufficiently why the supplemental information could not have been presented with
`
`its original Petition.”); Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Immersion Corp., IPR2018-
`
`01499, Paper 19, 6-7 (May 16, 2019) (“We look to whether the petitioner has
`
`articulated a specific reason to enter the evidence at that particular time under the
`
`guise of supplemental
`
`information.”); Triller, 3-4 (finding “unwarranted”
`
`supplemental declaration that “seeks to provide arguments via the supplemental
`
`
`1 Furthermore, this proposed testimony is not merely “information” under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.123, like, e.g., evidence of public availability or document translations. Instead,
`
`it is additional briefing on claim construction and prior art analysis.
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`declaration for issues addressed by Patent Owner in its Preliminary Response or by
`
`us in the Decision on Institution”); Ooma, 3-4 (denying 42.123 supplemental
`
`declaration on level of ordinary skill in art in response to institution), Sling TV LLC
`
`v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, IPR2018-01342, Paper 17, 3-4 (May 7, 2019)
`
`(similar); Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Microspherix LLC, IPR2018-00393,
`
`Paper 21, 3 (Sep. 10, 2018) (“supplemental information is not intended to offer a
`
`petitioner a routine avenue for bolstering deficiencies in a petition raised by a patent
`
`owner in a preliminary response.”); Am. Well Corp. v. TelaDocHealth, Inc.,
`
`IPR2021-00748, Paper 23, 6-7 (Feb. 28, 2022) (noting Board’s denial of motions
`
`“where the petitioner sought to use the supplemental information to refine or bolster
`
`challenges originally presented in the petition, based on information in the
`
`preliminary response or institution decision”); Nissan N. Am., Inc. v. Diamond
`
`Coating Techs., IPR2014-01548, Paper 37, 3-4 (July 15, 2015) (denying
`
`“supplemental information” expert declaration on how person of ordinary skill in
`
`the art would understand disclosure in references); W. Digital Corp. v. Spex Techs.,
`
`IPR2018-00082, Paper 22, 9 (July 23, 2018) (similar).
`
`Recognizing that its motion is a mere request to bolster the Petition based on
`
`the roadmap laid out by Patent Owner and the Board, Petitioner presents an array of
`
`generic assertions supposedly supporting its motion, all of which have already been
`
`rejected by the Board. Petitioner first cites the ID’s statements suggesting the parties
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`
`
`address certain issues in future briefing. Mot., 1-2. However, “statements in the
`
`institution decision that the parties should consider addressing certain issues” did not
`
`“invit[e] supplemental information” and are instead “directed at the normal briefing
`
`process, and d[id] not justify supplemental information.” Triller, 5-6.
`
`Petitioner next argues it could not have “anticipated” the ID’s statements.
`
`Mot., 10. But Petitioner offers no evidence that the Board’s findings identifying the
`
`Petition’s weaknesses are unique in any way or warrant any out-of-turn additional
`
`briefing. Petitioner also does not address why the procedures that allow Petitioner to
`
`properly submit a reply brief with a supporting declaration to address any issues
`
`raised in the institution decision are inadequate. Triller, 5.
`
`Moreover, by offering its new expert declaration as a free-floating exhibit
`
`untethered to either the Petition or Petitioner’s Reply, Petitioner creates an
`
`unnecessary procedural muddle. To the extent that Petitioner seeks to rely on its new
`
`declaration as support for the arguments made in the Petition, it constitutes a gross
`
`violation of the rule against incorporation by reference, as none of this new
`
`“clarification” was set out or even referenced in the Petition, which already totals
`
`13,970 words. 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3); Cisco Sys., Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12, 10 (Aug. 29, 2014) (Informative). To the extent that
`
`Petitioner intends to rely on it to support its Reply, there is no reason the declaration
`
`cannot be submitted with the Reply. And, as shown above, any attempt by Petitioner
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`
`
`to leverage this declaration as a purported “cure” of the deficiencies in the Petition
`
`and its original expert declaration would be improper.
`
`Petitioner’s legal citations are inapposite. Petitioner argues (Mot., 8) that its
`
`facts are distinct from Redline Detection and “similar” to Pac. Mkt. Int’l, LLC v.
`
`Ignite USA, LLC, IPR2014-00561, Paper 23 (Dec. 2, 2014). That is both factually
`
`and legally wrong. Factually, Pacific Market’s supplemental declaration was ten
`
`pages, not, as here, 41 pages on top of a 140-page first declaration. Id., Ex. 1021.
`
`Legally, the reasoning in Pacific Market no longer applies. Triller, 5.
`
`Petitioner (Mot., 4-5) relies heavily on Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM
`
`Ericsson, IPR2022-00343, Paper 14 (Nov. 10, 2022). The supplemental declaration
`
`in Ericsson, however, did not “seek to rely on … uncited portions of relied-upon
`
`prior art.” Id., 4. Petitioner’s proposed declaration includes dozens of new citations
`
`to its prior art, the patent, and additional documents. See § II.A, supra. Petitioner
`
`(Mot, 5) also cites MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geraete GmbH v. Advanced
`
`Bionics AG, IPR2020-00190, Paper 24 (Aug. 10, 2022), but the proposed declaration
`
`in MED-EL was only six pages (id., Ex. 1014), in contrast to the 41-page declaration
`
`here. Petitioner’s reliance (Mot., 5-6) on Frameless Hardware Co. v. CR Laurene
`
`Co., IPR2022-00356, Paper 29 (Oct., 25, 2022), is also misplaced. That
`
`supplemental declaration provided underlying data for tests discussed in the expert’s
`
`original declaration, giving “the panel additional information to evaluate how much
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`weight to give” the original declaration. Id., 8. That is a far cry from 41 pages of
`
`new claim construction and prior art analysis here.
`
`III. ALLOWING PETITIONER A DE FACTO ADDITIONAL INTERIM
`ROADMAPPED BRIEF PREJUDICES PATENT OWNER
`Petitioner’s new 41-page analysis of claim construction and art, with dozens
`
`of new citations to the record, effectively provides Petitioner with an additional
`
`round of briefing, and in almost the most prejudicial manner possible. It inverts the
`
`statutory scheme, which carefully balances the rights of patent owners against
`
`expedited challenges to their patents. Intelligent Bio-Sys., 821 F.3d at 1369 (“Unlike
`
`district court litigation—where parties have greater freedom to revise and develop
`
`their arguments over time,” the “expedited nature of IPRs” requires petitioners to
`
`make their case in the petition.”). Instead of its reply, Petitioner would be able to
`
`respond to Patent Owner’s arguments now, assess how Patent Owner responds to
`
`the new arguments, and then respond to that response in its Reply—an additional,
`
`critical round of briefing it has no right to receive.
`
`Furthermore, Patent Owner’s Response would have to address the 41-page
`
`new declaration, on top of the 140-page first declaration, and would effectively have
`
`less word count than the Petition. And Patent Owner would not know how Petitioner
`
`may rely on the declaration, and would have to decide how to respond to it without
`
`guidance from any brief. It may guess wrong. The Reply may even not rely on this
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`proposed declaration, and may instead file a modified declaration, with the result
`
`that Patent Owner wasted briefing. Accord Triller, 5.
`
`Filing of the proposed declaration now would not even reduce the number of
`
`depositions. Petitioner would still be able to submit a third declaration with its reply,
`
`potentially requiring an additional deposition.
`
`Petitioner argues that Patent Owner “benefit[s]” if Petitioner’s motion is
`
`granted. Mot., 6. This is incorrect—every advantage goes to Petitioner, none to
`
`Patent Owner. And the Board has, correctly, declined to force this supposed
`
`“benefit” on unwilling patent owners. Triller, 5 (“Patent Owner’s opposition to
`
`Petitioner’s Motion shows that Patent Owner does not view this opportunity as a
`
`sufficient reason for allowing the supplemental declaration now. We will not
`
`second-guess Patent Owner as to whether it should forego this opportunity.”).
`
` Finally, Petitioner’s counsel can hardly be unacquainted with these points.
`
`The same law firm represented the patent owner in Triller, where it successfully
`
`opposed on the patent owner’s behalf a similar—and, indeed, not nearly as
`
`prejudicial—proposal for a “supplemental information” declaration under § 42.123,
`
`successfully raising many arguments also raised in this opposition. Those arguments
`
`are even more persuasive here, for the reasons given above.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner’s motion should be denied.
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`Dated: March 16, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Philip J. Graves/
`Philip J. Graves (Pro Hac Vice)
`Greer N. Shaw (Pro Hac Vice)
`GRAVES & SHAW LLP
`355 S. Grand Ave., Suite 2450
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Tel: (213) 214-5101
`Back-Up Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`Rex Hwang (Reg. No. 56,206)
`SKIERMONT DERBY LLP
`633 West 5th Street, Suite 5800
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`P: 213-788-4500/F: 213-788-4545
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`Todd Martin (Reg. No. 78,642)
`SKIERMONT DERBY LLP
`1601 Elm Street, Suite 4400
`Dallas, TX 75201
`P: 214-978-6600/F: 214-978-6621
`Back-Up Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that I caused to be served on the
`
`counsel for Petitioners a true and correct copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s
`
`Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Submit Supplemental Information Pursuant to
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a), by electronic means on March 16, 2023, by delivering a copy
`
`via electronic mail to the attorneys of record for the Petitioners as follows:
`
`W. Karl Renner
`IPR39843-0126IP1@fr.com
`
`Jeremy J. Monaldo
`jjm@fr.com
`Hyun Jin In
`in@fr.com
`Sangki Park
`spark@fr.com
`Aamir A. Kazi
`kazi@fr.com
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`axf-ptab@fr.com
`
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Clint S. Wilkins
`clint.wilkins.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`
`Dated: March 16, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Philip J. Graves/
`Philip J. Graves (Pro Hac Vice)
`Back-Up Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
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
