`________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`_________________
`
`BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., TRUIST BANK, BOKF, N.A., WELLS FARGO
`BANK, N.A., and PNC BANK, N.A.,
`
`Petitioner,
`v.
`DYNAPASS IP HOLDINGS, LLC
`
`Patent Owner.
`__________________
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR2023-00367
`Patent No. 6,993,658
`PATENT OWNER’S SUR-REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS PRELIMINARY
`RESPONSE TO THE PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S.
`PATENT NO. 6,993,658 PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107
`
`Filed on behalf of Patent Owner by:
`
`John Wittenzellner (Reg. No. 61,662)
`1735 Market Street, Suite A #453
`Philadelphia, PA 19103
`
`Todd E. Landis (Reg. No. 44,200)
`Michael J. Fagan, Jr. (Reg. No. 71,654)
`2633 McKinney Ave., Suite 130
`Dallas, TX 75204
`
`Mark McCarthy (Reg. No. 69,575)
`601 Congress Ave., Suite 600
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`
`
`WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC
`WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC
`
`
`
`Dynapass IP Holdings, LLC (“Patent Owner”) respectfully submits this sur-
`
`reply in support of its Preliminary Patent Owner Response, as authorized by the
`
`Board on May 18, 2023.
`
`First, Petitioner fails to address Patent Owner’s application of Oil States to
`
`expired patents, as set forth in the preliminary patent owner response. Compare
`
`Paper 11 with Paper 10 at 39-40. The final written decision in Apple, Inc. v. Gesture
`
`Tech. Partners, LLC, which Petitioner cites in its reply, also fails to address the Oil
`
`States decision. See IPR2021-00922, Paper 26 at 25-27.
`
`Second, Petitioner fails to dispute that the Reiher declaration does nothing
`
`more than restate Petitioners’ argument without any additional supporting evidence
`
`or reasoning. See Paper 11. Nor could Petitioner because in each of the seven
`
`instances identified in the Preliminary Patent Owner Response, the Reiher
`
`declaration is nearly word-for-word identical to the Petition. See Paper 10 at 17-21,
`
`23, 32, 35. It does not provide any technical reasoning, other than to parrot the legal
`
`arguments of the Petition. See id. It does not cite to any evidence not already
`
`identified in the Petition. See id. Nor does it provide any further technical analysis
`
`of that evidence. See id. In sum, the portions of the Reiher declaration identified in
`
`the Preliminary Patent Owner Response are merely a restatement of Petitioner’s
`
`legal argument, not evidence. Therefore, those “opinions” should be afforded no
`
`weight.
`
`
`
`Dated: May 26, 2023
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /John Wittenzellner/
`John Wittenzellner
`Registration No. 61,662
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6, the undersigned certifies that on May 26, 2023,
`
`the foregoing document was served on counsel of record for Petitioner by filing this
`
`document through the End-to-End System, as well as via electronic mail to counsel
`
`of record for Petitioner at the following addresses: Lionel M. Lavenue
`
`(lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com); Kara A. Specht (kara.specht@finnegan.com); Cory
`
`C. Bell (cory.bell@finnegan.com); Xirui Zhang (xirui.zhang@finnegan.com).
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /John Wittenzellner/
`John Wittenzellner
`Registration No. 61,662
`Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
