Samsung Electronics Co. LTD., Apple Inc., and Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. (Petitioner)
`
`v.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Before Hon. HYUN J. JUNG, GARTH D. BAER, and AARON W. MOORE
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,946
`Case No. IPR2022-01249
`
`Petitioner Demonstratives
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies, LLC (Patent Owner)
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 1100
`Samsung v. Smart Mobile
`IPR2022-01249
`
`
`
`Electronics America, Inc. (Petitioner)
`
`v.
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Before Hon. HYUN J. JUNG, GARTH D. BAER, and AARON W. MOORE
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,946
`Case No. IPR2022-01249
`
`Petitioner Demonstratives
`
`Smart Mobile Technologies, LLC (Patent Owner)
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 1100
`Samsung v. Smart Mobile
`IPR2022-01249
`
`
`
`2
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`127
`
`110
`
`104
`
`57
`
`36
`
`30
`
`11
`
`3
`
`27-30)
`Issue 7: “In Response To A Change In The Signal Strength And/OrConnectivity” (Claims
`
`Issue 6: “Simultaneous Use of Multiple Network Paths” (Claims 14-21 and 26)
`
`Issue5: Certain Dependent Claims (Claims 2, 5, and 10)
`
`Issue 4: The “Multiplex” Limitations (Claims 1-13)
`
`Applications” (Claims 6-10, 17-21, and 26)
`Issue 3: “Combin[ing] The Data Paths Into A Single Transmission Interface To One Or More
`
`Issue 2: The “Remote Server” Limitations (Claims 27-30)
`
`Issue 1: The “IP Addresses” Limitations (Claims 14-16)
`
`Background / Overview
`
`Table of Contents
`
`2
`
`
`
`3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Background / Overview
`
`3
`
`
`
`4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`•Dependent claims 2-13, 15-16, 18-
`EX-1001 (the ’434 patent), Cover; Petition, 1.
`
`21, 26, 28-30
`
`27
`Independent claims 1, 14, 17, and
`
`•Challenged Claims
`
`•
`
`1999.
`application 09/281,789 filed June 4,
`possible priority claim to U.S. patent
`Patent” or “EX-1001”)has an earliest
`•U.S. Patent No. 9,019,946 (the “’946
`EX-1001 (’946 Patent), Cover
`
`Overview of the ’946 Patent
`
`4
`
`
`
`5
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1001 (’946 Patent), 7:21-47
`
`EX-1001 (’946 Patent), Figure 10
`
`Petition 3-4
`
`Overview of the ’946 Patent
`
`5
`
`
`
`6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1[j]
`
`1[i]
`
`1[h]
`1[g]
`
`1[f]
`
`1[e]
`
`1[d]
`1[c]
`1[b]
`1[a]
`
`1[pre]
`
`EX-1001 (’946 Patent), Claim 1
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`6
`
`
`
`7
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`14[k]
`
`14[j]
`
`14[i]
`
`14[h]
`14[g]
`
`14[f]
`
`14[e]
`14[d]
`14[c]
`14[b]
`14[a]
`
`14[pre]
`
`EX-1001 (’946 Patent), Claim 14
`
`Independent Claim 14
`
`7
`
`
`
`8
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`17[k]
`
`17[j]
`
`17[i]
`
`17[h]
`17[g]
`
`17[f]
`
`17[e]
`
`17[d]
`17[c]
`17[b]
`17[a]
`17[pre]
`
`EX-1001 (’946 Patent), Claim 17
`
`Independent Claim 17
`
`8
`
`
`
`9
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27[i]
`
`27[h]
`
`27[g]
`
`27[f]
`
`27[e]
`
`27[d]
`
`27[c]
`27[b]
`27[a]
`27[pre]
`
`EX-1001 (’946 Patent), Claim 27
`
`Independent Claim 27
`
`9
`
`
`
`10
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Institution Decision, 7
`
`Instituted Grounds
`
`10
`
`
`
`11
`
`11
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Claims 14-16)
`
`The “IP Addresses” Limitations
`
`Issue 1
`
`11
`
`
`
`12
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Relevant Limitations (14[i])
`
`EX-1001 (’946 Patent), Claim 14
`
`The “IP Addresses” Limitations In Claims 14
`
`12
`
`
`
`13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Yegoshin expressly describes use of an IP address for WLAN.
`
`EX-1004 (Yegoshin), 7:48-54
`
`Figure 2 (annotated in EX-1003 (1stJensen Decl.), [80])
`
`EX-1004 (Yegoshin), 7:10-14
`
`Yegoshin
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 1-2
`
`Yegoshin’s Disclosure of an IP Address for WLAN
`
`13
`
`
`
`14
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`communication and setting up an IP address for device identification.
`
`Yegoshingenerally describes selecting a type of network for voice
`Yegoshin contemplates “taking all cellular calls in IP format.”
`
`EX-1004 (Yegoshin), 5:49-54
`
`EX-1004 (Yegoshin), 5:33-37
`
`EX-1004 (Yegoshin), 8:47-56
`
`Yegoshin
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 1-2
`
`Yegoshin’s Disclosure of IP Communication for Cellular
`
`14
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`15
`
`Yegoshin expressly describes how cellular networks were known to use
`EX-1004 (Yegoshin), 6:27-35
`
`IP and known to include a mobile-switching-center (MSC).
`
`EX-1004 (Yegoshin), 9:19-29
`
`EX-1004 (Yegoshin), 5:6-9
`
`EX-1004 (Yegoshin), 2:30-36
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 2; EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [5]
`
`Yegoshin
`
`Yegoshin’s Disclosure of IP Address for Cellular
`
`15
`
`
`
`16
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1006 (Billström), 7:58-64
`
`EX-1006 (Billström), 5:66-6:2
`
`EX-1006 (Billström), 5:60-65
`
`EX-1006 (Billström), 5:26-27
`
`“mobile station (MS)”
`
`EX-1003 (1stJensen Decl.), [83]-[85]
`Petitioner’s Reply, 2-3; EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [5]-[6];
`
`Billström
`
`Billström’s Disclosure of IP Address for Cellular
`
`16
`
`
`
`17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`No dispute that Yegoshin describes using IP address for communication
`
`EX-2019 (2ndCooklev Decl.), [113]
`
`Second Declaration of Patent Owner’s Expert (Dr. Cooklev)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 1-3
`
`No Dispute On Yegoshin and Billström’s IP Addresses
`
`No dispute that Billström describes using IP address for communication
`
`on cellular network
`
`on WLAN
`
`17
`
`
`
`18
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Dr. Jensen’s Second Declaration
`
`Dr. Jensen’s First Declaration
`
`EX-1003 (1stJensen Decl.), [84]
`Petitioner’s Reply, 2-3; EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [6];
`
`Predictable Modification of Yegoshin Based on Billström
`
`18
`
`
`
`19
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1016 (Ota), 6:42-56, 9:6-10
`
`Ota (Corroborating)
`
`EX-1003 (1stJensen Decl.), [85]
`
`Dr. Jensen’s First Declaration
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 1
`
`Maintaining Two IP Addresses Was Well-known
`
`19
`
`
`
`20
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Claim 14 does not state selectingbetween a first IP address or a second
`
`IP address
`
`(cited in POR, 39-40)
`EX-2019 (2ndCooklev Decl.), [113]-[114]
`
`Dr. Cooklev’s Second Declaration
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 1
`
`Patent Owner Reads More Into The Claim (14[i])
`
`20
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`21
`
`EX-1016 (Ota), 6:42-56, 9:6-10
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [3]
`
`Ota (Corroborating)
`
`Dr. Jensen’s Second Declaration
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 1
`
`Selection Between Two IP Addresses Was Well-known
`
`21
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`22
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [7]
`
`another IP address.
`WLAN communication using
`independent from IP-based
`communication, which is
`it is for IP-based cellular data
`would not be redundant because
`Billström’s use of an IP address
`
`Yegoshin’s association between
`
`14.
`WLAN. EX-1004, 8:16-27, 4:10-
`way to forward a cellular call to
`number is merely an example
`the IP address and the phone
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 3-4
`
`(citing EX-2019 (2nd Cooklev Decl.), [115], [117]-[118])
`POR, 40-41
`
`addresses would not work.
`that Yegoshin-Billström’s two IP
`argues that would be a reason
`based on a phone number and
`Yegoshin assigns an IP address
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Yegoshin-BillströmCombination
`Yegoshin’s Call Forwarding Does Not Disrupt The
`
`22
`
`
`
`23
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [7]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 3-4
`
`Dr. Jensen’s Second Declaration
`
`Yegoshin-BillströmCombination
`Yegoshin’s Call Forwarding Does Not Disrupt The
`
`23
`
`
`
`24
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [8]
`
`based cellular communication.”
`Billström’s IP address for IP-
`Yegoshin’s phoneto use
`combination simply modifies
`as discussed above, Petitioner’s
`view of the combination because,
`“This represents an overly narrow
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 3-4
`
`(citing EX-2019 (2nd Cooklev Decl.), [123]-[126])
`POR, 42-48
`
`cellular systems.
`communication services over
`for providing packet data
`infrastructure (“apparatuses”)
`incorporate Billström’s entire
`to modify Yegoshin’s system to
`Petitioner’s demonstration of how
`
`Patent Owner requires
`Patent Owner
`
`Yegoshin-BillströmWas Within a POSITA’s Capabilities
`
`24
`
`
`
`25
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Patent Owner’s argument that Billström’s teachings would not be
`
`incorporation from Billström into Yegoshin, which is not the law.
`physically combinable with Yegoshin improperly requires bodily
`
`(C.C.P.A. 1973)(emphasis original).
`combine their specific structures.” In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968
`“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to
`
`In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (C.C.P.A. 1981)
`references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”
`reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those
`reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
`“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 5
`
`Yegoshin-BillströmWas Within a POSITA’s Capabilities
`
`25
`
`
`
`26
`
`EX-1006, 7:58-64
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1053, 28:14-16, 29:10-12
`
`EX-1004, 2:30-36
`
`Billström
`
`Yegoshin
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [9]
`
`Dr. Cooklev
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 2, 4; EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [9]-[10]
`
`Dr. Jensen’s Second Declaration
`
`Yegoshin-BillströmWas Within a POSITA’s Capabilities
`
`26
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`27
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [11]
`
`Dr. Jensen’s Second Declaration
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 4-5
`
`Yegoshin-BillströmWas Within a POSITA’s Capabilities
`
`27
`
`
`
`28
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1053, 98:17-22
`
`Dr. Cooklev
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 5-6
`
`Yegoshin-BillströmWas Within a POSITA’s Capabilities
`
`28
`
`
`
`29
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`1355, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2013))
`ordinary skill in the art would employ” (Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d
`the art” and “the inferences and creative steps that a person of
`background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in
`Emphasizing the importance of interpreting prior art in view of “the
`
`Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007))
`knowledge, creativity, and experience of a POSITA (KSR Int’l
`disclosures of individual prior art references, with little recourse to the
`Criticizinga rigid approach to determining obviousness based on the
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 4-5
`
`Yegoshin-BillströmWas Within a POSITA’s Capabilities
`
`29
`
`
`
`30
`
`30
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Claims 27-30)
`
`The “Remote Server” Limitations
`
`Issue 2
`
`30
`
`
`
`31
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Relevant Limitations (27[h])
`
`EX-1001 (’946 Patent), Claim 27
`
`“Remote Server” In Claim 27
`
`31
`
`
`
`32
`
`Petition, 56-57 (discussing 17[i])
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Next Slide
`
`Petition
`
`Petition, 80-81 (discussing 27[h])
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 10-11
`
`Petition
`
`Yegoshin Describes a “Remote Server”
`
`32
`
`
`
`33
`
`Petition, 26 (discussing claim 15)
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition, 48-49 (discussing claim 4)
`
`Next Slide
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 10-11
`
`Petition
`
`Yegoshin Describes a “Remote Server”
`
`33
`
`
`
`34
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [28]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petition, 23 (discussing claim 14[j])
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`EX-1004 (Yegoshin), 7:26-37
`
`Yegoshin
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 10-11
`
`Petition
`
`Yegoshin Describes a “Remote Server”
`
`34
`
`
`
`35
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1004 (Yegoshin), Figure 3
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [29]
`
`EX-1004 (Yegoshin), Figure 2
`
`“PSTN Network 25”
`
`Yegoshin’s
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 12
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`Yegoshin Describes a “Remote Server”
`
`35
`
`
`
`36
`
`36
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Transmission Interface To One Or More Applications”
`
`“Combin[ing] The Data Paths Into A Single
`
`(Claims 6-10, 17-21, and 26)
`
`Issue 3
`
`36
`
`
`
`37
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Note: Claim 17 recites similar limitations
`
`Relevant Limitations (Claim 6)
`
`EX-1001 (’946 Patent), Claims 6 and 17
`
`The “Combine …” Limitations In Claims 6 and 17
`
`37
`
`
`
`38
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`POR, 34 (citing EX-2019 (2nd Cooklev Decl.), [100]
`
`POR, 30-31 (citing EX-2019 (2nd Cooklev Decl.), [97]
`
`Patent Owner argues the Yegoshin-Bernard combination does not teach
`
`devices utilize two networks simultaneously.
`the limitation because Yegoshin and Bernard do not describe that their
`
`POR, 29-35
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 14
`
`Patent Owner
`
`“Combining The Data Paths”
`
`38
`
`
`
`39
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [36]
`
`Simultaneous communication of “data” over different
`“data paths” ≠ data
`
`networks is not required in the claims.
`
`EX-1001 (’946 Patent), Claim 6
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 9-10
`
`Patent Owner’s Interpretation Is Incorrect
`
`39
`
`
`
`40
`
`EX-1003 (1st Jensen Decl.), [189]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1003 (1st Jensen Decl.), [188]
`
`Petition, 58; EX-1003 (1st Jensen Decl.), [189]
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 14-16
`
`Petition
`
`YegoshinCombines Cellular and WLAN Data Paths
`
`40
`
`
`
`41
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [36]
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 14-15
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`YegoshinCombines Cellular and WLAN Data Paths
`
`41
`
`
`
`42
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [36]
`
`EX-1004 (Yegoshin), 8:47-56
`
`Yegoshin
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 14-15
`
`YegoshinCombines Cellular and WLAN Data Paths
`
`42
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`43
`
`EX-1003 (1st Jensen Decl.), [190]
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [38];
`(“single transmission interface”)
`cellular and WLAN to be combined through Bernard’s serial interface 701
`
`Combined “data paths” in Yegoshin-Bernard permit the signals from
`
`Bernard’s serial interface combines multiple paths into a single interface
`
`to one or more applications 702, 704, 706.
`
`Petition, 36(discussing 1[i], referred in discussion of 17[i])
`
`Petition, 58
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 15-16
`
`Petition
`
`“One Or More Applications”
`
`43
`
`
`
`44
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [39]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`mobile device.” POR, 44-46.
`interface—Bernard’s serial interface] are separated upon arrival at the
`different data paths [which are already combined into a single transmission
`paths into a single interface to one or more applications” because “the
`Patent Owner argues that Bernard fails to teach “combin[ing] the data
`
`POR, 35-37
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 16-17
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent Owner’s Interpretation Is Incorrect
`
`44
`
`
`
`45
`
`EX-1053, 92:21-93:13
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 17
`
`Dr. Cooklev
`
`Patent Owner’s Interpretation Is Incorrect
`
`45
`
`
`
`46
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1007 (Bernard), 17:66-18:2
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [41]
`
`(citing EX-2019 (2nd Cooklev Decl.), [102])
`POR, 44-45
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 17-18
`
`Patent Owner
`
`By Yegoshin-Bernard
`Patent Owner’s Erroneous Interpretation Is Still Covered
`
`46
`
`
`
`47
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [40]
`
`Similarly, “combining” can be performed without requiring data to be
`
`transferred simultaneously.
`
`“Interleaving” can be performed for data being communicated both
`
`simultaneously and sequentially.
`
`EX-1053, 11:12-13
`
`Dr. Cooklev
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 17
`
`Transmission of Data
`“Combin[ing]” Does Not Require Simultaneous
`
`47
`
`
`
`48
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [41]
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 17-18
`
`Covered by Yegoshin-Bernard
`Patent Owner’s Reading of “Combin[ing]” Is Still
`
`48
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`49
`
`EX-1003 (1stJensen Decl.), [107], [127]
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 17-18
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`Covered by Yegoshin-Bernard
`Patent Owner’s Reading of “Combin[ing]” Is Still
`
`49
`
`
`
`50
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [21]
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 17-18
`
`Covered by Yegoshin-Bernard
`Patent Owner’s Reading of “Combin[ing]” Is Still
`
`50
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`51
`
`EX-1053, 64:2-15
`
`EX-1007 (Bernard), 26:57-65
`
`Dr. Cooklev
`
`Example 1: Bernard
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 17-18
`
`Simultaneous Use of TwoNetworks Was Well-Known
`
`51
`
`
`
`52
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1045 (Gillig), 6:36-7:16
`
`Example 2: Gillig
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 17-18
`
`Simultaneous Use of TwoNetworks Was Well-Known
`
`52
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`53
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [22]
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 12-13
`
`Simultaneous Use of TwoNetworks Was Well-Known
`
`53
`
`
`
`54
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [40]
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 13
`
`Covered by Yegoshin-Bernard
`Patent Owner’s Reading of “Combin[ing]” Is Still
`
`54
`
`
`
`55
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1007 (Bernard), 26:57-65
`
`Bernard
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 13
`
`Covered by Yegoshin-Bernard
`Patent Owner’s Reading of “Combin[ing]” Is Still
`
`55
`
`
`
`56
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [41]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`application.”
`cellular networks” and thus “never ‘combin[es]’ the two paths to an
`example as support that Bernard’s device uses “only one of the landline or
`
`Despite this express disclosure, Patent Owner relies on a particular
`
`(citing EX-2019 (2nd Cooklev Decl.), [100]-[103])
`POR, 34-35
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 13
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Covered by Yegoshin-Bernard
`Patent Owner’s Reading of “Combin[ing]” Is Still
`
`56
`
`
`
`57
`
`57
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`(Claims 1-13)
`
`The “Multiplex” Limitations
`
`Issue 4
`
`57
`
`
`
`58
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`The claims do notrequire data being communicated
`
`“simultaneously.”
`
`Relevant Limitations (Claim 1)
`
`EX-1001 (’946 Patent), Claim 1
`
`The “Multiplex” Limitations In Claim 1
`
`58
`
`
`
`59
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3.The Parties’ District Court Constructions Are Met
`
`Billström Based on Bernard To Satisfy The “Multiplex” Limitations
`
`D.Sufficient Motivations Existed To Modify Yegoshin-Johnston-
`
`Analysis
`
`C.Patent Owner’s Arguments Do Not Impact Petitioner’s Prior Art
`
`2.Yegoshin, Alone or As Modified, Renders Obvious The “Multiplexed”
`
`A.Yegoshin Renders Obvious Both Simultaneous and Selective
`Limitations
`
`Cellular and WLAN Connections
`
`B.The Yegoshin-Bernard Based Combination Renders Obvious
`
`“Multiplexed Signals”
`
`1.The ’946 Patent Requires No More Than Known Use of “Multiplexing”
`
`B.The Intrinsic Record Supports Petitioner’s Understanding of
`A.The Record Clarified The Term “Multiplex”
`
`“Multiplex”
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 18-30
`
`Sub-Issues
`
`59
`
`
`
`60
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [42]
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 18
`
`The Record Clarified The Term “Multiplex”
`
`60
`
`
`
`61
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Decl.), [128], [134], [140]; EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [44]
`EX-1011, 15, Figure 1.7 (cited in Petition, 34, 39, 42); EX-1003 (1stJensen
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 18-19
`
`Example 1: EX-1011
`
`The Record Clarified The Term “Multiplex”
`
`61
`
`
`
`62
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [45]
`EX-1050 (Supp. Jensen Decl.), [9];
`EX-1003 (1stJensen Decl.), [98], [108], [128], [134], [158];
`EX-1013, 33, Figure 1-19 (cited in Petition, 25, 28, 34, 39, 50);
`
`Example 2: EX-1013
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 19
`
`The Record Clarified The Term “Multiplex”
`
`62
`
`
`
`63
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [45]
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 19
`
`The Record Clarified The Term “Multiplex”
`
`63
`
`
`
`64
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3.The Parties’ District Court Constructions Are Met
`
`A.Yegoshin Teaches Both Simultaneous and Selective Cellular and
`Limitations
`
`2.Yegoshin, Alone or As Modified, Renders Obvious The “Multiplexed”
`
`WLAN Connections
`
`B.The Yegoshin-Bernard Based Combination Renders Obvious
`
`“Multiplexed Signals”
`
`Billström Based on Bernard To Satisfy The “Multiplex” Limitations
`
`D.Sufficient Motivations Existed To Modify Yegoshin-Johnston-
`
`Analysis
`
`C.Patent Owner’s Arguments Do Not Impact Petitioner’s Prior Art
`
`B.The Intrinsic Record Supports Petitioner’s Understanding of
`A.The Record Clarified The Term “Multiplex”
`
`1.The ’946 Patent Requires No More Than Known Use of “Multiplexing”
`
`“Multiplex”
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 18-30
`
`Sub-Issues
`
`64
`
`
`
`65
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [48]
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 20
`
`Intrinsic Evidence Supports Petitioner’s Understanding
`
`65
`
`
`
`66
`
`EX-1001 (’946 Patent), 5:46-67, Figure 6
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’946 Patent
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 20-21
`
`Intrinsic Evidence Supports Petitioner’s Understanding
`
`66
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`67
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [49]
`
`EX-1001 (’946 Patent), Claim 3
`
`EX-1001 (’946 Patent), Claim 2
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`Claim 2 vs. Claim 3
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 20
`
`Intrinsic Evidence Supports Petitioner’s Understanding
`
`67
`
`
`
`68
`
`EX-1052 (’789 Patent), 11:30-12:2, Figure 3
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’946 Patent’s Priority Application (“’789 Patent”)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 21; EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [50]-[51]
`
`Intrinsic Evidence Supports Petitioner’s Understanding
`
`68
`
`
`
`69
`
`EX-1052 (’789 Patent), 11:30-12:20, Figure 4
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`’946 Patent’s Priority Application (“’789 Patent”)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 21; EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [50]-[51]
`
`Intrinsic Evidence Supports Petitioner’s Understanding
`
`69
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`70
`
`13:51-31, 21:4-20, Figure 6
`EX-1052 (’789 Patent),
`
`’946 Patent’s Priority Application (“’789 Patent”)
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 21; EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [52]
`
`Intrinsic Evidence Supports Petitioner’s Understanding
`
`70
`
`
`
`71
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3.The Parties’ District Court Constructions Are Met
`
`A.Yegoshin Teaches Both Simultaneous and Selective Cellular
`“Multiplexed” Limitations
`
`2.Yegoshin, Alone or As Modified, Renders Obvious The
`
`and WLAN Connections
`
`B.The Yegoshin-Bernard Based Combination Renders Obvious
`
`“Multiplexed Signals”
`
`Billström Based on Bernard To Satisfy The “Multiplex” Limitations
`
`D.Sufficient Motivations Existed To Modify Yegoshin-Johnston-
`
`Analysis
`
`C.Patent Owner’s Arguments Do Not Impact Petitioner’s Prior Art
`
`1.The ’946 Patent Requires No More Than Known Use of “Multiplexing”
`
`B.The Intrinsic Record Supports Petitioner’s Understanding of
`A.The Record Clarified The Term “Multiplex”
`
`“Multiplex”
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 18-30
`
`Sub-Issues
`
`71
`
`
`
`72
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [55]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1001 (’946 Patent), 5:55-65, 8:47-56
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 21-22
`
`Yegoshin
`
`Selective Cellular and WLAN Connections
`YegoshinRenders Obvious Both Simultaneous and
`
`72
`
`
`
`73
`
`EX-1007 (Bernard), 26:57-65
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Bernard
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [55]
`
`EX-1045 (Gillig), 6:36-7:16
`
`Gillig
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 21-22
`
`Connections Would Have Been Obvious
`Both Simultaneous and Selective Cellular and WLAN
`
`73
`
`
`
`74
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1003 (1stJensen Decl.), [127]
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 22
`
`Connections Would Have Been Obvious
`Both Simultaneous and Selective Cellular and WLAN
`
`74
`
`
`
`75
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3.The Parties’ District Court Constructions Are Met
`
`A.Yegoshin Teaches Both Simultaneous and Selective Cellular and
`Limitations
`
`2.Yegoshin, Alone or As Modified, Renders Obvious The “Multiplexed”
`
`WLAN Connections
`
`B.The Yegoshin-Bernard Based Combination Renders
`
`Obvious “Multiplexed Signals”
`
`Billström Based on Bernard To Satisfy The “Multiplex” Limitations
`
`D.Sufficient Motivations Existed To Modify Yegoshin-Johnston-
`
`Analysis
`
`C.Patent Owner’s Arguments Do Not Impact Petitioner’s Prior Art
`
`1.The ’946 Patent Requires No More Than Known Use of “Multiplexing”
`
`B.The Intrinsic Record Supports Petitioner’s Understanding of
`A.The Record Clarified The Term “Multiplex”
`
`“Multiplex”
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 18-30
`
`Sub-Issues
`
`75
`
`
`
`76
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [57]
`EX-1007 (Bernard), 17:26-60;
`modem 114, and packet radio 124).
`cellular telephone 126, phone
`networks (e.g., GPS engine 120,
`coupled to different types of
`
`The communication server 750 is
`
`The application server 710 in the
`through an application server 710.
`multiple application programs
`data are routed to or from these
`704, 706 run on a PDA 102B, and
`Multiple application programs 702,
`
`701.
`through a single serial interface
`communication device 100B
`communication server 750 in a
`PDA 102B interacts with a
`
`EX-1007 (Bernard), Figure 10
`
`Bernard
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 22-23
`
`The “Multiplex” Limitations
`The Yegoshin-Bernard Combination Renders Obvious
`
`76
`
`
`
`77
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [57]-[58]
`“established at a time” (sequentially).
`“established simultaneously” or
`“multiple connections” can be
`
`Bernard clearly describes that such
`
`Different applications can each use
`use multiple communication circuits.
`For example, a single application can
`
`different communication circuits.
`
`circuits.
`programs and the communication
`operations between the application
`
`Bernard contemplates various
`
`EX-1007 (Bernard), 26:56-65
`
`EX-1007 (Bernard), 17:64-18:2
`
`Bernard
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 22-23
`
`The “Multiplex” Limitations
`The Yegoshin-Bernard Combination Renders Obvious
`
`77
`
`
`
`78
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [59]
`
`single serial interface 701.
`126 are all transferred through the
`communication circuits 114, 120, 124,
`applications 702, 704, 706 and the
`
`The packets exchanged between the
`
`and communication circuit.
`routed between appropriate application
`identified by “address” or “type,” and
`
`Each individual packet is uniquely
`
`EX-1007 (Bernard), 18:39-40
`
`EX-1007 (Bernard), 18:19-20
`
`Bernard
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 23-24
`
`The “Multiplex” Limitations
`The Yegoshin-Bernard Combination Renders Obvious
`
`78
`
`
`
`79
`
`EX-1007 (Bernard), 26:56-65
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [60]
`
`Bernard
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 24-25
`
`Bernard
`
`The “Multiplex” Limitations
`The Yegoshin-Bernard Combination Renders Obvious
`
`79
`
`
`
`80
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [60]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 23-24
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`The “Multiplex” Limitations
`The Yegoshin-Bernard Combination Renders Obvious
`
`80
`
`
`
`81
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`Dr. Cooklev’s description of Bernard’s Figure 10 in fact supports
`
`Petitioner’s interpretation of “multiplexing.”
`
`EX-1053, 80:4-10
`
`Dr. Cooklev
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 22
`
`The “Multiplex” Limitations
`The Yegoshin-Bernard Combination Renders Obvious
`
`81
`
`
`
`82
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3.The Parties’ District Court Constructions Are Met
`
`A.Yegoshin Teaches Both Simultaneous and Selective Cellular and
`Limitations
`
`2.Yegoshin, Alone or As Modified, Renders Obvious The “Multiplexed”
`
`WLAN Connections
`
`B.The Yegoshin-Bernard Based Combination Renders Obvious
`
`“Multiplexed Signals”
`
`Billström Based on Bernard To Satisfy The “Multiplex” Limitations
`
`D.Sufficient Motivations Existed To Modify Yegoshin-Johnston-
`
`Art Analysis
`
`C.Patent Owner’s Arguments Do Not Impact Petitioner’s Prior
`
`1.The ’946 Patent Requires No More Than Known Use of “Multiplexing”
`
`B.The Intrinsic Record Supports Petitioner’s Understanding of
`A.The Record Clarified The Term “Multiplex”
`
`“Multiplex”
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 18-30
`
`Sub-Issues
`
`82
`
`
`
`83
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [64]
`
`type.”
`even if they are of the same
`be routed to different applications
`obvious that data packets would
`have understood and found
`“[T]hereforea POSITA would
`
`EX-1007 (Bernard), 18:19-20
`
`EX-1007 (Bernard), 26:56-65
`
`Bernard’s express disclosure:
`
`Bernard & Dr. Jensen
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 25-26
`
`(citing EX-1007, 18:36-51)
`POR, 16-17
`
`application.”
`data contained in that
`packet belongs to by the typeof
`which application a given data
`“Bernard’s system determines
`Bernard is impossible because
`simultaneous connection in
`Patent Owner argues that
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent Owner’s Argument Has No Impact
`
`83
`
`
`
`84
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1007 (Bernard), 17:66-18:1
`
`Bernard
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [64]
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 25-26
`
`Patent Owner’s Argument Has No Impact
`
`84
`
`
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`85
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [65]
`
`Bernard.
`reasonable in the context of
`analysis or is not technically
`does not change the obviousness
`
`See next slides
`
`Dr. Cooklev’s speculation either
`
`No evidence supports Dr.
`
`Cooklev’s conclusion.
`
`(citing EX-2019 (2nd Cooklev Decl.), [81])
`POR, 19
`
`Bernard’s cradle and phone.
`serial interface 701 between
`parallel interface instead of the
`interconnection” would require a
`speculating that the “alternative
`simultaneous connections by
`Bernard’s express disclosure of
`
`Dr. Cooklev downplayed
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`Patent Owner
`
`EX-1007 (Bernard), 26:56-65
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 26
`
`Bernard
`
`Patent Owner’s Argument Has No Impact
`
`85
`
`
`
`86
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [74]
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [65]
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 26
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`Patent Owner’s Argument Has No Impact
`
`86
`
`
`
`87
`
`EX-1054 (Cooklev Dep. Tr.), 78:23-79:4
`
`EX-1053 (Cooklev Dep. Tr.), 63:12-17
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1054 (Cooklev Dep. Tr.), 77:16-78:1
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [66]
`
`01248 for ’653 Patent), 75:7-20
`EX-1054 (Cooklev Dep. Tr. in IPR2022-
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 26
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`Patent Owner’s Argument Has No Impact
`
`87
`
`
`
`88
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1007 (Bernard), 25:26-29, 26:25-42, Figure 13
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [67];
`
`110B, not the PDA.
`128 and 130) within the cradle
`132 and appropriate amplifiers
`microphone and earphone jack
`earphone (through the
`an external microphone and
`digital audio amplifier 116), and
`(through the phone jack 118 and
`telephone126, land phone 708
`phone modem 114, cellular
`interconnection between the
`Bernard’s Figure 14 describes the
`
`This is clearly incorrect because
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 27
`
`POR, 20 (citing Institution Decision, 37-38)
`
`seeks to import into Yegoshin.”
`the interface 750 that Petitioner
`relates to Bernard’s PDA, not to
`characterizes that “Figure 14
`
`Patent Owner erroneously
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Patent Owner’s Argument Has No Impact
`
`88
`
`
`
`89
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`3.The Parties’ District Court Constructions Are Met
`
`A.Yegoshin Teaches Both Simultaneous and Selective Cellular and
`Limitations
`
`2.Yegoshin, Alone or As Modified, Renders Obvious The “Multiplexed”
`
`WLAN Connections
`
`B.The Yegoshin-Bernard Based Combination Renders Obvious
`
`“Multiplexed Signals”
`
`Billström Based on Bernard To Satisfy The “Multiplex” Limitations
`
`D.Sufficient Motivations Existed To Modify Yegoshin-Johnston-
`
`Analysis
`
`C.Patent Owner’s Arguments Do Not Impact Petitioner’s Prior Art
`
`1.The ’946 Patent Requires No More Than Known Use of “Multiplexing”
`
`B.The Intrinsic Record Supports Petitioner’s Understanding of
`A.The Record Clarified The Term “Multiplex”
`
`“Multiplex”
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 18-30
`
`Sub-Issues
`
`89
`
`
`
`90
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`A POSITA would have understood
`EX-1004 (Yegoshin), 5:4-9
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [69]
`replace Yegoshin’s cellular phone.
`communication device” that can
`one of the “type of wireless
`such as that of Bernard, would be
`and found obvious that a PDA,
`
`Yegoshin’s express disclosure:
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 27-28
`
`POR, 21-22
`
`with a serial data bottleneck.”
`WLAN network through a cradle
`reason to use a cellular and
`not appear to be any obvious
`interfaces” and thus “[t]here does
`includes cellular and WLAN
`“Yegoshin’s phone already
`phone) by arguing that
`adapter plugged into Yegoshin’s
`cradle being modified as an
`of the combination (Bernard’s
`
`Attacks Petitioner’s first scenario
`
`Patent Owner
`
`and Bernard
`Sufficient Motivation Exists For Combining Yegoshin
`
`90
`
`
`
`91
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [70]
`
`technique.
`implemented using Bernard’s
`GSM, CDMA)) would be similarly
`having different protocols (e.g.,
`(e.g., WLAN, or cellular networks
`that other types of networks
`understood and found obvious
`
`Thus, a POSITA would have
`
`“multiple communication media.”
`merely non-limiting examples of
`radio, and cellular telephone) are
`telephone modem, GPS, packet
`communication circuits (i.e.,
`
`Bernard’s four different
`
`EX-1007 (Bernard), 30:1-2
`
`EX-1007 (Bernard), 1:11-14
`
`Bernard
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 27-28
`
`and Bernard
`Sufficient Motivation Exists For Combining Yegoshin
`
`91
`
`
`
`92
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1004 (Yegoshin), 5:23-32, Figure 1
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [70]
`
`phone.
`expand the capability of the
`Yegoshin’s phone to thereby
`different protocol from that of
`and/or cellular networks having a
`would be configured for WLAN
`Bernard’s general teachings,”
`adapter, as modified by
`that, at a minimum, Yegoshin’s
`understood and found obvious
`GSM), a POSITA would have
`particular cellular protocol (e.g.,
`Where Yegoshin’s phone has a
`
`Dr. Jensen
`
`Petitioner’s Reply, 28
`
`Yegoshin
`
`and Bernard
`Sufficient Motivation Exists For Combining Yegoshin
`
`92
`
`
`
`93
`
`DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT –NOT EVIDENCE
`
`EX-1053, 47:15-21
`
`Dr. Cooklev
`
`EX-1051 (2ndJensen Decl.), [71]
`device.
`change the “mobile” nature of the
`Bernard’s cradle) does not
`stationary computing device (like
`being c
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
