Filed: November 4, 2022
`
`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)
`
`
`
`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 IPR2022-01300
`U.S. Patent 7,761,127
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER MOTION TO SEAL AND FOR ENTRY OF A
`PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`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)
`
`
`
`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 IPR2022-01300
`U.S. Patent 7,761,127
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER MOTION TO SEAL AND FOR ENTRY OF A
`PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.14 and 42.54, Patent Owner Masimo Corporation
`
`(“Masimo”) respectfully submits this opposed Motion to Seal and for Entry of a
`
`Protective Order. Masimo specifically moves to seal confidential versions of its
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response and Exhibits 2002-2004, 2006, 2007, 2009,
`
`2010, 2012-2016, 2018-2021, 2027, 2028, 2031, 2032, 2051, 2057, 2058, 2081, and
`
`2082. Masimo is concurrently filing public versions, with confidential portions
`
`redacted, of its Patent Owner Preliminary Response and Exhibits 2002, 2051, and
`
`2082.
`
`Patent Owner also proposes, and moves for entry of, a modified version of the
`
`Board’s Default Protective Order as Appendix A.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Masimo’s POPR,
`
`in part,
`
`relies on secondary considerations of
`
`nonobviousness related to its rainbow® sensors. For support, Masimo’s POPR
`
`includes its proprietary and highly sensitive documents including technical
`
`documents detailing the research, design, structure, and functionality of Masimo’s
`
`rainbow® sensors and devices. Masimo’s POPR also includes confidential financial
`
`documents on Masimo’s sales of the rainbow® sensors.
`
`Masimo relied on most of these documents in the ITC Investigation involving
`
`Apple and the ’127 patent. In the ITC Investigation, the Administrative Law Judge
`
`entered a protective order providing strong protection of these documents. EX2083.
`
`
`
`That protective order provided
`
`for a “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS
`
`INFORMATION, SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER” (“CBI”) designation.
`
`Masimo and Apple also negotiated and stipulated to a supplemental protective order
`
`that addressed source code and a prosecution bar. EX2084.
`
`Masimo designated most of the documents at issue in this Motion under the
`
`CBI designation in the ITC investigation. With that designation Apple’s outside
`
`counsel in the ITC, but not its in-house counsel, had access to these documents.
`
`Masimo seeks a protective order here with the same level of protection that the
`
`parties already operated under during the ITC Investigation.
`
`II.
`
`DOCUMENTS TO BE SEALED
`
`Masimo requests the following technical documents be sealed:
`
`Exhibit 2002 is the Declaration of named inventor Mohamed Diab. The
`
`declaration tracks testimony that Diab gave in deposition and at the hearing in the
`
`ITC investigation. Paragraphs 19-27, 37-42, 47, 48, and 71-90 of this declaration
`
`contain information pertaining to Masimo’s research, development, and production
`
`work related to the subject matter of the ’127 patent and patented products. This
`
`testimony has never been made public.
`
`Exhibit 2003 are plots from computer simulations that Diab performed. Diab
`
`performed the simulations while researching and developing the subject matter of
`
`
`
`the ’127 patent and rainbow® products. These computer simulations have never
`
`been made public.
`
`Exhibits 2004 and 2017 are Masimo internal PowerPoint Presentations. These
`
`exhibits contain information pertaining to Masimo’s research and development work
`
`related to the subject matter of the ’127 patent and/or rainbow® products, These
`
`presentations have never been made public.
`
`Exhibit 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2020, 2027, 2032,
`
`2033 are Masimo engineering drawings and technical specifications containing
`
`detailed information about rainbow sensors®, including structure, components,
`
`materials used, dimensions, and functionality. These documents are marked with
`
`internal corporate confidentiality designations. This information has never been
`
`made public.
`
`Exhibit 2016 is an internal Masimo CAD drawing showing an expanded view
`
`of, and additional detail related to, the substrate of some rainbow® products. This
`
`drawing has never been made public.
`
`Exhibit 2018 is a technical data sheet containing technical details about an
`
`adhesive used in the rainbow® products. These technical details of the rainbow®
`
`sensors’ adhesive have not been made public.
`
`
`
`Exhibits 2019 and 2021 are photographs showing internal parts and structure
`
`of rainbow® sensors that are not publicly viewable. Masimo produced these
`
`photographs internally and they have not been made public.
`
`Exhibit 2028 is a collection of testing data plots showing results of internal
`
`Masimo sensor characterization tests conducted to verify the operability of the
`
`rainbow® products. The plots have not been made public.
`
`Exhibit 2031 is Diab’s confidential research folder containing an internal
`
`Masimo technical report authored by the named inventors and marked with an
`
`internal corporate confidentiality designation. This exhibit contains information
`
`pertaining to Masimo’s research and development work related to the subject matter
`
`of the ’127 patent and rainbow® products. The research folder has not been made
`
`public.
`
`Exhibit 2051 is a declaration of Masimo’s technical expert, Jack Goldberg.
`
`Paragraphs 28-32 of Mr. Goldberg’s declaration include information from the
`
`confidential testimony of Mr. Diab and Exhibit 2003. This information has not been
`
`made public.
`
`Exhibits 2057 and 2058 are Mr. Goldberg’s claim charts detailing analysis
`
`comparing the rainbow® products to the claims of the ’127 patents. The charts
`
`heavily rely on the confidential exhibits listed herein. This information has not been
`
`made public.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 2081 is a declaration of Micah Young, Masimo’s Chief Financial
`
`Officer. Paragraph 9 of the declaration contains a summary of confidential financial
`
`data in Exhibit 2082. Exhibit 2082 is a spreadsheet showing detailed financial data
`
`regarding sales of the rainbow® products. The financial data is extracted from
`
`Masimo’s internal financial database. This information has not been made public.
`
`III. The Proposed Protective Order
`
`Masimo proposed protective order (Appendix A) modifies the PTAB default
`
`protective order with certain provision from the ITC protective order. For example,
`
`Masimo proposes a confidential designation with essentially the same scope as the
`
`ITC Investigation’s CBI designation. The CBI definition in the ITC investigation
`
`is:
`
`information which concerns or relates to the trade secrets,
`processes, operations, style of work, or apparatus, or to the
`production,
`sales,
`shipments, purchases,
`transfers,
`identification of customers, inventories, amount or source
`of any income, profits, losses, or expenditures of any
`person,
`firm, partnership,
`corporation, or other
`organization, or other information of commercial value,
`the disclosure of which is likely to have the effect of either
`(i) impairing the Commission’s ability to obtain such
`information as is necessary to perform its statutory
`functions; or (ii) causing substantial harm
`to
`the
`competitive position of the person, firm, partnership,
`corporation, or other organization from which the
`information was obtained, unless the Commission is
`required by law to disclose such information.
`
`
`
`CITE. Masimo proposes substituting “PTAB” for “Commission” in the definition
`
`of CBI. Masimo also proposes accessibility restrictions to CBI information
`
`commensurate with that in the ITC investigation.
`
`IV. MOTION TO SEAL LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“There is a strong public policy for making all information filed in a quasi-
`
`judicial administrative proceeding open to the public.” Garmin Int’l v. Cuozzo Speed
`
`Techs., LLC, IPR2012–00001, slip op. at 1–2 (PTAB Mar. 14, 2013) (Paper 34).
`
`The record for an inter partes review shall be made available to the public, except
`
`as otherwise ordered on a motion to seal. 35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. § 42.14.
`
`The documents and information that are the subject of the motion to seal shall be
`
`treated as sealed until the motion is decided. Id.
`
`In determining whether to grant a Motion to Seal, the Board must find “good
`
`cause” and “strike a balance between the public’s interest in maintaining a complete
`
`and understandable file history and the parties’ interest in protecting truly sensitive
`
`information.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.54(a); Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (November
`
`2019) at 19 see also Argentum Pharms. LLC v. Alcon Res., Ltd., IPR2017-01053,
`
`Paper 27 at 3–4 (PTAB Jan. 19, 2018) (Informative) (describing the “good cause”
`
`standard). As described in the Consolidated Trial Practice Guide, the Board
`
`identifies confidential information in a manner “consistent with Federal Rule of
`
`
`
`Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G), which provides for protective orders for trade secret or
`
`other confidential research, development, or commercial information.”
`
`The moving party bears the burden of showing that the relief requested should
`
`be granted. 37 C.F.R. § 42.20(c). That includes showing that the information is truly
`
`confidential, and that such confidentiality outweighs the strong public interest in
`
`having an open record. See Argentum, Paper 27 at 3–4. A party moving to seal has
`
`the burden of showing that:
`
`(1) the information sought to be sealed is truly confidential, (2) a
`
`concrete harm would result upon public disclosure, (3) there exists a
`
`genuine need to rely on the specific information sought to be sealed,
`
`and (4) on balance, an interest in maintaining confidentiality outweighs
`
`the strong public interest in having an open record.
`
`Id. These factors support granting Masimo’s motion to seal.
`
`V. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO SEAL
`
`First, the information sought to be sealed is “truly confidential.” Masimo has
`
`not publicly disclosed the information it requests to be sealed. Moreover, the
`
`information that was disclosed in the ITC investigation was disclosed as CBI under
`
`the ITC protective order.
`
`Second, “concrete harm” to Masimo would result if the documents were
`
`accessible to Apple or the public. Broad unprotected disclosure of this information
`
`would provide the public at-large with direct insight into Patent Owner’s closely
`
`
`
`held technological advancements and strategies. Such access would severely hinder
`
`Patent Owner’s ability to compete in the market. Confidential information such as
`
`this is 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 in this
`
`proceeding. Masimo asserts that commercial success and industry praise of its
`
`rainbow® sensors are secondary considerations of non-obviousness supporting
`
`patentability of the challenged claims of the ’127 patent. The documents are
`
`essential for showing that the rainbow® sensors embody the claimed invention and
`
`that there is a nexus between the commercial success and industry praise of the
`
`rainbow® sensors and the ‘127 claimed invention. Apple knew of these arguments
`
`and evidence from the ITC Investigation but chose not to address them in its Petition.
`
`Fourth, the prejudicial effect that disclosure would have on Masimo far
`
`outweighs the public’s interest in accessing this information for the purposes of the
`
`patentability of the challenged claims in this proceeding. Masimo has a strong
`
`interest in protecting its intellectual property by asserting commercial success and
`
`industry praise of its rainbow® sensors to support non-obviousness of the challenged
`
`claims of the ’127 patent. Moreover, Masimo will submit a redacted version of its
`
`Patent Owner Preliminary Response, which appropriately balances the public’s
`
`
`
`interest in having an open record with Masimo’s interest in protecting its confidential
`
`information.
`
`VI. CERTIFICATION OF CONFERENCE WITH OPPOSING PARTY
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.54
`
`Masimo certifies pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.54(a) that it contacted Apple’s
`
`counsel regarding this Motion to Seal and for Entry of a Protective Order on
`
`November 2, 2022. Apple responded it would need time to consider the issues
`
`before agreeing to meet and confer, which it expected it could do next week. Apple
`
`indicated it opposes the motion and requested that Masimo provide the email
`
`exchange to the Board. See EX2085.
`
`VII. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons stated above, Masimo respectfully requests that the Board
`
`grant this Motion to Seal and for Entry of a Protective Order.
`
`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
`
`
`Dated: November 4, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPENDIX A
`
`PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`This protective order governs the treatment and filing of confidential information,
`
`including documents and testimony.
`
`1.
`
`Confidential information shall be clearly marked “CONFIDENTIAL
`
`BUSINESS INFORMATION, SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER.”
`
`2.
`
`Confidential information is information which concerns or relates to
`
`the trade secrets, processes, operations, style of work, or apparatus, or to the
`
`production, sales, shipments, purchases, transfers, identification of customers,
`
`inventories, amount or source of any income, profits, losses, or expenditures of
`
`any person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other organization, or other
`
`information of commercial value, the disclosure of which is likely to have the
`
`effect of either (i) impairing the PTAB's ability to obtain such information as is
`
`necessary to perform its statutory functions; or (ii) causing substantial harm to the
`
`competitive position of the person, firm, partnership, corporation, or other
`
`organization from which the information was obtained, unless the PTAB is
`
`required by law to disclose such information.
`
`3.
`
`Access to confidential information is limited to the following
`
`individuals who have executed the acknowledgment appended to this order:
`
`
`
`A. Outside Counsel. Outside counsel of record for a party in the
`
`proceeding.
`
`B.
`
`Experts. Retained experts of a party in the proceeding who further
`
`certify in the Acknowledgement that they are not a competitor to any
`
`party, or a consultant for, or employed by, such a competitor with
`
`respect to the subject matter of the proceeding.
`
`No less than 10 days prior to the initial disclosure to an expert of any confidential
`
`information, the party proposing to use such expert shall submit in writing the name
`
`of such expert and his or her educational and detailed employment history to the
`
`supplier. If the producing party objects to the disclosure of such confidential
`
`business information to such expert as inconsistent with the language or intent of
`
`this order or on other grounds, it shall notify the other party in writing of its objection
`
`and the grounds therefore prior to the initial disclosure. If the dispute is not resolved
`
`on an informal basis within ten days of receipt of such notice of objections, the party
`
`seeking access to the confidential information shall arrange for a conference call
`
`with the PTAB to resolve the dispute. Absent an order from the PTAB, the expert
`
`shall not have access to the confidential information.
`
`C.
`
` Support Personnel. Administrative assistants, clerical staff, court
`
`reporters and other support personnel of the foregoing persons who are
`
`reasonably necessary to assist those persons in the proceeding shall not
`
`
`
`be required to sign an Acknowledgement, but shall be informed of the
`
`terms and requirements of the Protective Order by the person they are
`
`supporting who receives confidential information.
`
`D.
`
`The Office. Employees and representatives of the United States Patent
`
`and Trademark Office who have a need for access to the confidential
`
`information shall have such access without the requirement to sign an
`
`Acknowledgement. Such employees and representatives shall include
`
`the Director, members of the Board and their clerical staff, other
`
`support personnel, court reporters, and other persons acting on behalf
`
`of the Office.
`
`4.
`
`Prosecution and Development Bar.
`
`A.
`
`“Relevant Technology” means technology related to non-invasive
`
`monitoring of pulse oximetry, total hemoglobin, oxygen content,
`
`carboxyhemoglobin, and/or methemoglobin.
`
`B. Unless otherwise permitted in writing between the parties, any
`
`individual who personally receives from the other party, any material
`
`showing or describing the technical functionality of the other party’s
`
`products
`
`designated
`
`as
`
`CONFIDENTIAL
`
`BUSINESS
`
`INFORMATION SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER under this
`
`Protective Order shall not prepare, prosecute, supervise, advise,
`
`
`
`counsel, or assist in the preparation or prosecution of any patent
`
`application seeking a patent on behalf of the party receiving the
`
`material or its acquirer, successor, or predecessor in the Relevant
`
`Technology during the pendency of this proceeding and for two years
`
`after final termination of this proceeding or, alternatively, for two years
`
`after the time the individual person(s) formally withdraws from the
`
`proceeding. In addition, any such person is prohibited from having any
`
`involvement in the prosecution of any patent, patent application or re-
`
`examination in the Relevant Technology that was filed, or that claims
`
`priority from any application that was filed, for up to one year
`
`following the final termination of this proceeding (including any
`
`appeals). To avoid any doubt, “prosecution” as used in this paragraph
`
`does not include representing or advising a Party before a domestic or
`
`foreign agency in connection with a reissue, ex parte reexamination,
`
`inter partes review, opposition, cancelation, or similar proceeding;
`
`though in connection with any such agency proceeding involving the
`
`patent-at-issue , outside counsel of a party receiving confidential
`
`information shall not: (i) participate in the preparation, prosecution,
`
`supervision, advice, counsel, or assistance of any amended claims; (ii)
`
`reveal a confidential information to any prosecuting reexamination
`
`
`
`counsel or agent; or (iii) use a the other party’s confidential
`
`information for any purpose prohibited by this Protective Order. The
`
`applicability of this provision is to be determined on an individual-by-
`
`individual basis such that an individual attorney who has not received
`
`confidential information is not restricted from undertaking any
`
`activities by virtue of this provision even if said individual attorney is
`
`employed by or works for the same firm or organization as an
`
`individual who has received such material.
`
`C. Unless otherwise permitted in writing between Supplying Party and
`
`Receiving Party, any expert retained on behalf of a party who is to be
`
`given access to any material from another party showing or describing
`
`the technical functionality of products produced by another party must
`
`agree in writing not to be involved in creating, developing, or
`
`modifying, for commercial use (which, for the avoidance of doubt,
`
`does not include academic research which is not for industry), any
`
`Relevant Technology from the time of first receipt of such confidential
`
`material through one year after the date the expert formally withdraws
`
`from the Protective Order. For avoidance of doubt, during periods in
`
`which the individual person(s) has ceased to have possession of such
`
`
`
`material or any documents or notes reflecting such material, this
`
`section shall not apply.
`
`5.
`
`Persons receiving confidential information shall use reasonable
`
`efforts to maintain the confidentiality of the information, including:
`
`A. Maintaining such information in a secure location to which persons not
`
`authorized to receive the information shall not have access;
`
`B. Otherwise using reasonable efforts to maintain the confidentiality of
`
`the information, which efforts shall be no less rigorous than those the
`
`recipient uses to maintain the confidentiality of information not
`
`received from the disclosing party;
`
`C.
`
`Ensuring that support personnel of the recipient who have access to the
`
`confidential information understand and abide by the obligation to
`
`maintain the confidentiality of information received that is designated
`
`as confidential; and
`
`D.
`
`Limiting the copying of confidential information to a reasonable
`
`number of copies needed for conduct of the proceeding and
`
`maintaining a record of the locations of such copies.
`
`6.
`
`Persons receiving confidential information shall use the following
`
`procedures to maintain the confidentiality of the information:
`
`
`
`A. Documents and Information Filed With the Board.
`
`(i)
`
`A party may file documents or information with the Board along with
`
`a Motion to Seal. The Motion to Seal should provide a non-confidential
`
`description of the nature of the confidential information that is under seal, and
`
`set forth the reasons why the information is confidential and should not be
`
`made available to the public. A party may challenge the confidentiality of the
`
`information by opposing the Motion to Seal. The documents or information
`
`shall remain under seal unless the Board determines that some or all of it does
`
`not qualify for confidential treatment.
`
`(ii) Where confidentiality is alleged as to some but not all of the
`
`information submitted to the Board, the submitting party shall file confidential
`
`and non-confidential versions of its submission, together with a Motion to
`
`Seal the confidential version setting forth the reasons why the information
`
`redacted from the non-confidential version is confidential and should not be
`
`made available to the public. A party may challenge the confidentiality of the
`
`information by opposing the Motion to Seal. The non-confidential version of
`
`the submission shall clearly indicate the locations of information that has been
`
`redacted. The confidential version of the submission shall be filed under seal.
`
`The redacted information shall remain under seal unless the Board determines
`
`that some or all of the redacted information does not qualify for confidential
`
`
`
`treatment.
`
`B. Documents and
`
`Information Exchanged Among
`
`the Parties.
`
`Documents (including deposition transcripts) and other information
`
`designated as confidential that are disclosed to another party during
`
`discovery or other proceedings before the Board shall be clearly
`
`marked as “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS
`
`INFORMATION,
`
`SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER” and shall be produced in a
`
`manner that maintains its confidentiality.
`
`7. Within 60 days after the final disposition of this action, including the
`
`exhaustion of all appeals and motions, each party receiving confidential
`
`information must return, or certify the destruction of, all copies of the confidential
`
`information to the producing party.
`
`8.
`
` Standard Acknowledgement of Protective Order. Exhibit A may be
`
`used to acknowledge a protective order and gain access to information covered by
`
`the protective order.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VIII. Acknowledgment for Access to Protective Order Material
`
`Exhibit A
`
`
`
`I
`
`, affirm that I have read the Protective Order; that I will abide by its
`
`terms; that I will use the confidential information only in connection with this
`
`proceeding and for no other purpose; that I will only allow access to support staff
`
`who are reasonably necessary to assist me in this proceeding; that prior to any
`
`disclosure to such support staff I informed or will inform them of the requirements
`
`of the Protective Order; that I am personally responsible for the requirements of the
`
`terms of the Protective Order and I agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the Office
`
`and the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia for purposes
`
`of enforcing the terms of the Protective Order and providing remedies for its breach.
`
`[Signature]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 MOTION
`
`TO SEAL AND FOR ENTRY OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER is being served
`
`electronically on November 4, 2022, to the e-mail 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
`
`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
`
`Dated: November 4, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`/Ted M. Cannon/
`Ted M. Cannon (Reg. No. 55,036)
`Customer No. 64,735
`
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`Masimo Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
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
