`Case 5:19-cv-00036—RWS Document 289-2 Filed 04/22/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 10099
`
`EXHIBIT D
`
`EXHIBIT D
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 289-2 Filed 04/22/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 10100
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`MAXELL, LTD.
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2020-00199
`U.S. Patent No. 6,329,794
`____________
`
`
`PETITONER APPLE INC.’S PRELIMINARY REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 289-2 Filed 04/22/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 10101
`
`dates.3 See 157 Cong. Rec. S5429 (Sept. 8, 2011) (Sen. Kyl) (“High-technology
`
`companies … are often sued by defendants asserting multiple patents with large
`
`numbers of vague claims, making it difficult to determine in the first few months of
`
`the litigation which claims will be relevant. . . . [I]t is important that the section
`
`315(b) deadline afford defendants a reasonable opportunity to identify and
`
`understand the patent claims that are relevant to the litigation.”)
`
`Factor 3 – The Court has little substantive investment: Apart from the
`
`Markman proceedings, the district court has not invested other substantive efforts
`
`and the litigation is not “advanced.” Summary judgment is still months away, and it
`
`is unlikely the court will tackle invalidity until trial. Fact discovery and depositions
`
`are ongoing. The bulk of the parties’ work lies ahead. See IOENGINE at *14.
`
`Nor did the litigation give Apple a tactical advantage. Because Maxell did not
`
`substantively respond to Apple’s invalidity contentions, Apple could not have used
`
`any substantive insight gained in the litigation in its IPR filings. (Paper 11, at 12.)
`
`
`3 Maxell argues it served Apple with a letter identifying the challenged patent on
`
`May 17, 2018. That letter (Ex. 2001) listed 80 different patents and 647 possible
`
`claims. Maxell’s suggestion that this letter should be part of this analysis is patently
`
`unreasonable.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
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
