throbber
By:
`
`Filed on behalf of:
`Patent Owner Masimo Corporation
`Irfan A. Lateef (Reg. No. 51,922)
`Ted M. Cannon (Reg. No. 55,036)
`Jarom D. Kesler (Reg. No. 57,046)
`Jacob L. Peterson (Reg. No. 65,096)
`Jeremiah S. Helm, Ph.D. (admitted pro hac vice)
`
`
`
`Filed: November 22, 2022
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`2040 Main Street, Fourteenth Floor
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Tel.: (949) 760-0404
`Fax: (949) 760-9502
`E-mail:
`AppleIPR127-1@knobbe.com
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`MASIMO CORPORATION,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2022-01299
`U.S. Patent 7,761,127
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER RENEWED MOTION TO SEAL AND
`FOR ENTRY OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Masimo Corporation (“Masimo”) submits this opposed
`
`Renewed Motion to Seal and for Entry of a Protective Order. Masimo’s POPR
`
`relies, in part, on objective evidence of non-obviousness. In particular, Masimo
`
`presents evidence demonstrating the commercial success and praise for the ’127
`
`patented product, Masimo’s rainbow® sensors. The POPR and supporting
`
`declarations include Masimo’s proprietary and highly sensitive information
`
`detailing the development, design, structure, functionality, and sales of that product.
`
`Thus, Masimo moves to seal confidential versions of its POPR and Exhibits 2002-
`
`2004, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012-2016, 2018-2021, 2027, 2028, 2031, 2032,
`
`2033, 2051, 2057, 2058, 2081, and 2082. Masimo has filed public versions, with
`
`confidential portions redacted, of its POPR and Exhibits 2002, 2051, and 2082.
`
`Masimo also proposes a modified version of the Default Protective Order to
`
`include language from an ITC investigation protective order agreed upon by Apple
`
`and Masimo. The proposed protective order and a redline version showing changes
`
`from the Default Protective Order are being filed as Exhibits 2086 and 2087.
`
`Masimo certifies that it accepts and agrees to the terms of the proposed protective
`
`order.
`
`This IPR is part of multiple patent and trade secret lawsuits between the
`
`parties, generally related to the Apple Watch and Masimo’s W1 watch:
`
` Masimo Corp. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-00048 (C.D. Cal.);
`
`1
`
`

`

` Certain Light-Based Physiological Measurement Devices and
`
`Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1276 (ITC) (“ITC Investigation”);
`
` Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp., Case No. 1:22-cv-01377 (D. Del.); and
`
` Apple Inc. v. Masimo Corp., Case No. 1:22-cv-01378 (D. Del.).
`
`The Central District of California case has a protective order, including a prosecution
`
`bar. EX2088 ¶10. The ITC Investigation, which included the ’127 patent, also has
`
`a protective order with a prosecution and development bar, and strong protection of
`
`“Confidential Business Information” (“CBI”). EX2083, EX2084. A protective
`
`order has not yet been entered in the District of Delaware cases Apple recently filed
`
`on October 20, 2022.
`
`In the ITC Investigation, Masimo designated as CBI most of the objective
`
`evidence it submitted with the POPR. With that designation, Apple’s outside ITC
`
`counsel, but not its in-house counsel, had access to this evidence under narrow and
`
`agreed-upon limitations. Masimo seeks a protective order here with the same level
`
`of protection that the parties already agreed to in the ITC Investigation.
`
`I.
`
`DOCUMENTS REQUESTED TO BE SEALED
`Exhibit 2002 is the Declaration of named inventor Mohamed Diab. The
`
`declaration tracks ITC Investigation testimony that Diab gave in deposition and at
`
`the evidentiary hearing. Paragraphs 19-27, 37-42, 47, 48, and 71-90 of Diab’s
`
`declaration contains information pertaining to Masimo’s research, development, and
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`production work related to the subject matter of the ’127 patent and patented
`
`products.
`
`Exhibit 2003 is a collection of plots from computer simulations that Diab
`
`performed while researching and developing the invention of the ’127 patent and
`
`rainbow® products.
`
`Exhibits 2004 and 2017 are Masimo internal PowerPoint Presentations about
`
`research and development of the ’127 invention and rainbow® products.
`
`Exhibits 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2020, 2027, 2032,
`
`and 2033 are engineering drawings and technical specifications detailing the design,
`
`structure, components, materials used, dimensions, and functionality of rainbow®
`
`sensors. These documents have internal corporate confidentiality designations.
`
`Exhibit 2016 is an internal Masimo CAD drawing showing an expanded view
`
`of, and additional detail related to, the substrate of some rainbow® products.
`
`Exhibit 2018 is a technical data sheet for adhesive used in rainbow® sensors.
`
`Exhibits 2019 and 2021 are internally produced, non-public photographs of
`
`internal parts and structure of rainbow® sensors that are not publicly viewable.
`
`Exhibit 2028 is a collection of testing data plots showing results of internal
`
`Masimo sensor characterization tests to verify that the rainbow® products work.
`
`Exhibit 2031 is Diab’s confidential research folder containing an internal
`
`Masimo technical report authored by the named inventors and having an internal
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`corporate confidentiality designation. This exhibit contains information about
`
`Masimo’s research and development of the ’127 invention and rainbow® products.
`
`Exhibit 2051 is a declaration of Masimo’s technical expert, Jack Goldberg.
`
`Paragraphs 28-32 of Goldberg’s declaration include information from the
`
`confidential testimony of Diab and Exhibit 2003. Exhibits 2057 and 2058 are
`
`Goldberg’s claim charts detailing analysis comparing the rainbow® products to the
`
`claims of the ’127 patent. The charts heavily rely on confidential exhibits.
`
`Exhibit 2081 is a declaration of Micah Young, Masimo’s CFO. Paragraph 9
`
`summarizes confidential financial data in Exhibit 2082. Exhibit 2082 is a
`
`spreadsheet showing confidential financial data from an internal Masimo database.
`
`None of these exhibits or confidential information have been made public.
`
`II. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO SEAL
`Argentum Pharms. LLC v. Alcon Res., Ltd., IPR2017-01053, Paper 27 at 3–4
`
`(PTAB Jan. 19, 2018) (informative) sets forth four factors for showing that good
`
`cause exists to seal confidential information. The four factors are satisfied here.
`
`First, the information sought to be sealed is “truly confidential.” Masimo has
`
`not publicly disclosed the information it requests to be sealed. Masimo produced
`
`the information in the ITC Investigation as CBI under a protective order.
`
`Second, “concrete harm” to Masimo would result if the documents were
`
`accessible to Apple or the public. The confidential information includes engineering
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`drawings and technical specifications that reveal significant confidential information
`
`about the development, design, structure, and functionality of Masimo’s rainbow®
`
`sensors. The rainbow® sensors give Masimo a significant competitive advantage in
`
`the market because they are the first and only medical sensors able to noninvasively
`
`measure carboxyhemoglobin and other parameters. EX2002 ¶15. Therefore, the
`
`public disclosure or use (whether intentional or inadvertent) of Masimo’s
`
`confidential information about the development, design, structure, and functionality
`
`of the rainbow® sensors would provide Apple and the public at large direct insight
`
`into Masimo’s closely held technological advancements and strategies. Disclosure
`
`or use of that information outside this proceeding would substantially harm Masimo
`
`and its ability to compete in the market. It would enable Apple and other competitors
`
`to interfere with Masimo’s commercialization of its rainbow® sensors or to develop
`
`competing products to erode Masimo’s market share. To prevent such disclosure
`
`and the resultant harm to commercial interests, the CBI documents submitted by
`
`Masimo are precisely the type of information to be protected pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.54(a)(7).
`
`Third, Masimo has a “genuine need” to rely on the documents. Masimo
`
`asserts that commercial success and industry praise of its rainbow® sensors are
`
`objective evidence of non-obviousness of the ’127 patent claims. The documents
`
`show that the rainbow® sensors embody the claims and there is a nexus between the
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`objective evidence regarding the rainbow® sensors and the claims. Apple knew of
`
`this information and arguments from the ITC Investigation but ignored them here.
`
`Fourth, the prejudicial effect that disclosure would have on Masimo far
`
`outweighs the public’s interest in accessing this information for the purposes of
`
`understanding the file history and the Board’s patentability decisions. Masimo has
`
`made sufficient information available to the public to understand the nature of the
`
`objective evidence and why it supports patentability. The information Masimo seeks
`
`to seal is a small fraction of the information Masimo relies on to argue patentability
`
`in its POPR. See Redacted Paper 10. The public will be able to understand that
`
`Masimo’s rainbow® sensors embody the ’127 patent and have enjoyed commercial
`
`success and praise without accessing CBI detailing precisely how the rainbow®
`
`sensors practice the patent. Moreover, Masimo has submitted redacted versions of
`
`its POPR and supporting declarations, appropriately balancing the public’s interest
`
`in an open record with Masimo’s interest in protecting its CBI. However, in addition
`
`to Masimo’s strong interest in protecting its intellectual property in this IPR, Masimo
`
`also has a strong interest in maintaining the confidentiality of information related to
`
`the development, design, structure, and functionality of the rainbow® sensors.
`
`Masimo should not be required to sacrifice either interest.
`
`III. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO MODIFY THE PROTECTIVE ORDER
`A. The “Confidential Business Information” Designation
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Masimo proposes the following changes to the Default Protective Order’s
`
`“Protective Order Material” designation: (1) replacing the designation with a
`
`“Confidential Business Information” (“CBI”) designation, (2) including a specific
`
`and relatively narrow definition of the scope of CBI, (3) limiting access by party
`
`representatives to outside counsel of record only, (4) eliminating access by in-house
`
`counsel, (5) eliminating access by employees and consultants of the parties (except
`
`retained experts), and (6) including a process to resolve objections to the disclosure
`
`of CBI to a particular expert. These are similar to the ITC’s CBI designation and
`
`common Attorneys’ Eyes Only designations. See EX2083 ¶¶1, 3, 11.
`
`Good cause exists for these proposed CBI provisions. As explained above,
`
`the disclosure or use of Masimo’s confidential information about the development,
`
`design, structure, and functionality of the rainbow® sensors would substantially
`
`harm Masimo. See supra II(Second). Disclosure to or use by Apple would be
`
`particularly damaging because it would facilitate an attempt to compete with
`
`Masimo in the field of noninvasive physiological measurement devices. Thus, good
`
`cause exists to prevent Apple’s employees and in-house counsel from accessing
`
`Masimo’s CBI. Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. 10X Genomics, Inc., IPR2019-00565, Paper
`
`21 at 3-5 (PTAB July 22, 2019) (finding good cause, despite opposition, to enter
`
`protective order tracking ITC protective order provisions prohibiting the non-
`
`producing party and its in-house counsel from seeing CBI); Brunswick Corp. v.
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Volvo Penta of the Ams., LLC, IPR2020-01512, Paper 27 at 3 (PTAB June 2, 2021)
`
`(finding good cause to prohibit in-house counsel from seeing CBI when the parties
`
`are competitors); T-Max (Hangzhou) Tech. Co. v. T-Max Indus. (H.K.) Co.,
`
`IPR2018-01636, Paper 28 at 3-4 (PTAB Mar. 12, 2020). Masimo proposes a
`
`process for resolving objections to experts’ seeing CBI to avoid intractable disputes.
`
`In the parties’ meet and confer, Apple did not object to the CBI provisions.
`
`Further, the parties agreed to and operated under similar provisions in the ITC
`
`Investigation. The CTPG indicates that the “Board will presumptively accept
`
`agreed-to changes that provide additional categories of confidentiality as long as
`
`they are reasonable and adequately define what types of materials are to be included
`
`in the additional categories.” CTPG, 115-116. Here, the proposed protective order
`
`specifically defines the types of materials included in the CBI designation. EX2086
`
`¶2; compare EX2083 ¶1 (ITC definition). The definition is not “overly inclusive”
`
`and does not “encourage the parties to categorize all or most of their discovery
`
`materials” as CBI. See CTPG, 116. Indeed, Masimo has publicly filed many
`
`exhibits and the vast majority of its POPR and supporting declarations. Masimo
`
`designates as CBI confidential design, engineering, and financial information only.
`
`B.
`
`The Prosecution and Development Bar
`Masimo also proposes a prosecution and development bar similar to the one
`
`the parties agreed to in the ITC Investigation. EX2086 ¶4; compare EX2084
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`¶¶19(A)-19(C). The bar is limited in scope and duration, including the following:
`
` Applies only to individuals who receive CBI; no imputation to firm
`
` Applies only to activity within narrowly defined “Relevant Technology”
`
` Except for amending claims, IPR and post-grant activities are not barred
`
` Prosecution bar extends no longer than two years after IPR termination
`
` Development bar extends no longer than one year after expert withdraws
`
`EX2086 ¶4. In the meet and confer, Apple outright rejected any prosecution and
`
`development bar, and would not consider a bar narrower in scope.
`
`The bar’s purpose is to prevent the inadvertent use of a party’s most
`
`confidential and detailed information to inform a competitor’s patent prosecution
`
`strategy or design of competing commercial products. Preventing such inadvertent
`
`use is a well-accepted reason to impose a prosecution and development bar. See,
`
`e.g., In re Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Ams., 605 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The
`
`Federal Circuit explained that courts recognize that even rigorous efforts to abide by
`
`a protective order “may not prevent inadvertent compromise” because “it is very
`
`difficult for the human mind to … selectively suppress information once learned, no
`
`matter how well-intentioned the effort may be to do so.” Id. The ITC similarly
`
`recognized that CBI, once seen, cannot simply be forgotten. Certain Memory
`
`Devices with Increased Capacitance and Prods. Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-
`
`TA-371, Order No. 19 at 2 (Apr. 27, 1995) (EX2089).
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`1.
`
`The balance of interests between the parties favors entry of
`the proposed prosecution and development bar.
`The Board directed the parties to Green Cross Corp. v. Shire Human Genetic
`
`Therapies, Inc., IPR2016-00258, Paper 37 (PTAB Aug. 9, 2016), which states that
`
`a court deciding whether to impose a prosecution bar must balance the risk to the
`
`proponent’s interests against the potential harm of restricting the opposing party’s
`
`choice of counsel. Green Cross, IPR2016-00258, Paper 37 at 3 (citing Deutsche
`
`Bank). Here, the balance of interests favors entry of the proposed bar.
`
`The use of Masimo’s CBI during prosecution or product development by
`
`competitors would be far more damaging to Masimo than it would have been to the
`
`disclosing party in Green Cross. In Green Cross, the patent owner, Shire, attempted
`
`to antedate a prior art reference by establishing an earlier reduction to practice. Id.
`
`at 2. The Board explained that the confidential information needed for this purpose
`
`was “limited” and its disclosure not “unduly prejudicial” because “Shire need not
`
`disclose its earliest invention date but only sufficient information to antedate” the
`
`alleged prior art. Id. at 2-3. Here, by contrast, Masimo needs to disclose significant
`
`confidential information about the development, design, structure, and functionality
`
`of the rainbow® sensors to show nexus. See supra I, II(Second). The inadvertent
`
`use of that information for prosecution or product development would substantially
`
`harm Masimo by enabling Apple and other competitors to seek patents meant to
`
`interfere with Masimo’s sales of rainbow® sensors or to develop competing
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`products. Id.
`
`Unlike in Green Cross, this Motion identifies “with specificity the nature of
`
`the information that may potentially be misused [and] the harm that may ensue.”
`
`See Green Cross, Paper 37 at 4; see also supra I, II(Second). Further, the risk of
`
`Apple’s prosecutors or experts inadvertently using Masimo’s CBI during
`
`prosecution or product development is not speculative. The parties are engaged in
`
`extensive patent and trade secret litigation against each other in three district court
`
`cases and the ITC. On October 20, 2022, Apple accused Masimo of infringing
`
`patents that Apple prosecuted during Masimo’s earlier lawsuits and were issued
`
`from April 21, 2020 to October 18, 2022. Therefore, with pending lawsuits and
`
`concurrent prosecution, absent entry of the proposed prosecution bar, there is a risk
`
`that Masimo’s CBI would inadvertently inform Apple’s prosecution strategy. And
`
`Masimo’s CBI is precisely the type of detailed product information that could be
`
`exploited in that manner.
`
`In addition, absent entry of the development bar, there is significant risk that
`
`Masimo’s CBI would inadvertently inform Apple’s expert Anthony in developing
`
`commercial products for Masimo competitors. In the ITC, Masimo objected to
`
`Anthony seeing Masimo’s CBI because Anthony works with its competitors,
`
`including Apple and Philips, in fields including “Medical Device Design and
`
`Manufacturing,” “Innovation and Product Realization,” and “wearable, non-
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`invasive and minimally invasive optical biosensor devices.” See EX2090; EX1003
`
`¶5 & pp. 97-98, 102. Philips is one of Masimo's largest competitors. Masimo Corp.
`
`v. Philips Elec. N. Am. Corp., No. CV 09-80-LPS, 2015 WL 2379485 (D. Del. May
`
`18, 2015) (awarding Masimo $466 million for Philips’s patent infringement).
`
`As Masimo explained to the ITC, it “is entirely foreseeable that Anthony will
`
`use information” from Masimo’s CBI “that cannot be forgotten for the use and
`
`benefit” of the Masimo competitors with whom he works. EX2090, 8-9. Apple
`
`responded that a product development bar would address Masimo’s concerns.
`
`EX2091, 2, 11-12.
`
`Subsequently, the parties resolved the objections to Anthony and other experts
`
`by agreeing to a prosecution and development bar, which the ALJ entered for “good
`
`cause.” See EX2084, 2. Anthony agreed to the ITC protective order and the
`
`development bar. EX2092. Indeed, Apple insisted, in view of Masimo’s
`
`prosecution of patents, that “a patent prosecution and product development bar is a
`
`necessary and reasonable amendment to the Protective Order.” EX2091, 3.
`
`
`
`The ALJ correctly found “good cause” to protect the parties’ CBI from
`
`inadvertent use during prosecution or product development. EX2084, 2. Apple has
`
`not explained why it insisted on a prosecution and development bar in the ITC but
`
`opposes them here. Likely, Apple sees no need to submit any CBI here, as its
`
`Petition included none. The Board should reject Apple’s attempt to undo the agreed-
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`upon protection to Masimo’s CBI that it demanded for Apple’s CBI in the ITC.
`
`The proposed prosecution and development bar does not significantly harm
`
`Apple or impose undue restrictions on its right to choose its counsel or experts.
`
`Apple told the ITC that its proposed prosecution and development bar, which the
`
`parties negotiated, is “appropriately limited in duration and scope, consistent with
`
`other patent and prosecution bars permitted by the CALJ in other investigations.”
`
`EX2091, 3. And because the proposed bar “is to be determined on an individual-
`
`by-individual basis,” Apple can reasonably have particular attorneys review
`
`Masimo’s CBI without preventing other attorneys from continuing to prosecute for
`
`Apple. And Apple’s prosecution attorneys can work on the vast majority of
`
`Masimo’s patentability arguments, which do not rely upon Masimo CBI. Apple
`
`already agreed, in the ITC, that these provisions strike the right balance.
`
`The Board has previously recognized the propriety of entering a protective
`
`order with a prosecution bar “commensurate in scope with the protective order
`
`entered in the related ITC investigation.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Wirtgen Am., Inc.,
`
`IPR2017-02188, Paper 18 at 3, 7, Paper 19 at 2 (PTAB Aug. 22, 2018).
`
`2.
`
`Entry of the proposed prosecution and development bar is
`in the public interest.
`In Green Cross, the Board also relied on “Board policy and practice” to deny
`
`entry of a prosecution bar. Green Cross, Paper 37 at 4. The Board quoted a
`
`guideline that “[c]ounsel for a party who receives confidential information in a
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`proceeding will not be restricted by the Board from representing that party in any
`
`other proceeding or matter before the Office.” Id. This guideline is not a per se rule
`
`prohibiting prosecution bars in all PTAB cases. See Caterpillar, Paper 18 at 3, 7,
`
`Paper 19 at 2 (entering protective order matching ITC order with prosecution bar).
`
`Also, the proposed prosecution bar does not prohibit PTAB activities except claim
`
`amendment, which would only apply to Masimo.
`
`The Board panel denying entry of a prosecution bar in Green Cross also relied
`
`on “a strong public policy in favor of making information filed in an inter partes
`
`review open to the public.” Green Cross, Paper 37 at 5. Here, the vast majority of
`
`the record would remain open because Masimo has designated only a small amount
`
`of CBI. Further, Masimo has shown, in addressing the Argentum factors, that
`
`Masimo’s interest in protecting the limited amount of information it has designated
`
`as CBI outweighs the public’s interest in a completely open record. See supra II.
`
`The CTPG’s general guidance that “prosecution bars are rarely appropriate”
`
`in PTAB cases because they may harm “patent owners wishing to make use of
`
`amendment or reissue processes” does not apply here. See CTPG, 116 (emphases
`
`added). The patent owner, Masimo, does not seek to amend or reissue its claims.
`
`
`
`Entry of a prosecution and development bar in appropriate circumstances is
`
`in the public interest because it encourages the parties to provide a fuller record. The
`
`Board should not discourage reliance on relevant CBI by providing less protection
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`for CBI than other tribunals. Nor should the Board condition a party’s right to rely
`
`on its CBI on exposing its CBI to an unnecessarily high risk of inadvertent use.
`
`IV.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.54(a) CERTIFICATION OF CONFERENCE
`Masimo certifies the parties conferred regarding this Motion on November
`
`14, 2022. Apple said it opposes the Motion at least because of the prosecution bar.
`
`V.
`
`STATEMENT ABOUT SERVICE OF CBI DOCUMENTS
`In reliance on protective order guideline (e) of the CTPG, Masimo has not
`
`served Apple’s counsel with the unredacted confidential versions of CBI documents
`
`and exhibits. That guideline provides that, once a proposed protective order is filed:
`
`Prior to the receipt of confidential information, any other party to the
`proceeding also shall certify that the party accepts and agrees to the
`terms of the proposed Protective Order.
`CTPG, 113-114 (guideline (e)). Therefore, Apple cannot yet receive CBI, from
`
`Masimo or the Board, because it has not accepted the proposed protective order.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`The Board should grant this Motion and enter the proposed protective order.
`
`Dated: November 22, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP
`
`
`
`/Ted M. Cannon/
`Ted M. Cannon (Reg. No. 55,036)
`Customer No. 64,735
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Masimo Corporation
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and with the agreement
`
`of counsel for Petitioner, a true and correct copy of PATENT OWNER
`
`RENEWED MOTION TO SEAL AND FOR ENTRY OF A PROTECTIVE
`
`ORDER is being served electronically on November 22, 2022, to the e-mail
`
`Daniel D. Smith
`Andrew B. Patrick
`Nicholas Stephens
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: 202-783-5070
`Fax:877-769-7945Email:
`PTABInbound@fr.com
`
`
`
`/Ted M. Cannon/
`Ted M. Cannon (Reg. No. 55,036)
`Customer No. 64,735
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Masimo Corporation
`
`
`
`
`addresses shown below:
`
`W. Karl Renner
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza
`60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Tel: 612-335-5070
`Fax: 612-288-9696
`Email: IPR50095-0046IP1@fr.com
`
`Dated: November 22, 2022
`
`56652011
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket