Case: 16-1636
`
`Document: 52-1
`
`Page:1
`
`Filed: 02/13/2017
`
`(1 of 5)
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERALCIRCUIT
`
`NOTICE OF ENTRY OF
`JUDGMENT WITHOUT OPINION
`
`JUDGMENT ENTERED: 02/13/2017
`
`The judgmentof the court in your case was entered today pursuant to Rule 36. This Court affirmed the judgment
`or decision that was appealed. Noneofthe relief soughtin the appeal was granted. No opinion accompanied the
`judgment. The mandate will be issued in due course.
`
`Information is also provided aboutpetitions for rehearing and suggestions for rehearing en banc. The questions
`and answersare those frequently asked and answered bythe Clerk's Office.
`
`Costs are taxed againstthe appellant in favor of the appellee under Rule 39. The party entitled to costs is
`provideda bill of costs form and aninstruction sheet with this notice.
`
`The parties are encouragedto stipulate to the costs. A bill of costs will be presumedcorrectin the absenceof a
`timely filed objection.
`
`Costs are payable to the party awarded costs.If costs are awarded to the government, they should be paid to the
`Treasurer of the United States. Where costs are awarded againstthe government, payment should be made to the
`person(s) designated underthe governing statutes, the court's orders, and the parties' written settlement
`agreements. In cases betweenprivate parties, payment should be madeto counsel for the party awarded costsor,if
`the party is not represented by counsel, to the party pro se. Payment of costs should not be sent to the court. Costs
`should be paid promptly.
`
`If the court also imposed monetary sanctions, they are payable to the opposing party unlessthe court's opinion
`provides otherwise. Sanctions should be paid in the same wayascosts.
`
`Regarding exhibits and visual aids: Your attention is directed to FRAP 34(g) which states that the clerk may
`destroy or disposeof the exhibits if counsel does not reclaim them within a reasonable time after the clerk gives
`notice to remove them. (The clerk deems a reasonable time to be 15 days from the date the final mandateis issued.)
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`{s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`16-1636, 16-1637, 16-1638 - LMK Technologies, LLC v. BLD Services, LLC
`United States Patent and Trademark Office, Case Nos. IPR2014-00768, IPR2014-00770, IPR2014-00772
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1636
`
`Document: 52-2
`
`Page:1
`
`Filed: 02/13/2017
`
`(2 of 5)
`
`NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
`
`Gnited States Court of Appeals
`for the federal Circuit
`
`LMK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`Appellant
`
`Vv.
`
`BLD SERVICES, LLC,
`Appellee
`
`2016-1636, 2016-1637, 2016-1638
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trade-
`mark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos.
`IPR2014-00768, IPR2014-00770, IPR2014-00772.
`
`JUDGMENT
`
`JEFFREY HARTY, Nyemaster Goode PC, Des Moines,
`argued
`for
`appellant. Also
`represented
`by
`IA,
`CHRISTOPHER
`LEWIS
`MCKEE,
`CRAIG
`WILLIAM
`KRONENTHAL, Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., Washington, DC.
`
`Scott A. M. CHAMBERS, Porzio, Bromberg & Newman,
`P.C., Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also repre-
`sented by KEVIN M. BELL, RICHARD J. OPARIL.
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1636
`
`Document: 52-2
`
`Page:2
`
`Filed: 02/13/2017
`
`(3 of 5)
`
`THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered,it is
`
`ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
`
`PER CURIAM (MOORE, TARANTO, and CHEN,Circuit
`Judges).
`
`AFFIRMED. SeeFed.Cir. R. 36.
`
`ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT
`
`February 13, 2017
`‘Date
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1636
`
`Document: 52-3
`
`Page:1
`
`Filed: 02/13/2017
`
`(4 of 5)
`
`RT OF APPEAL
`NITED STATE
`FOR THE FEDERALCIRCUIT
`
`Questions and Answers
`
`Petitions for Rehearing (Fed. Cir. R. 40)
`and
`Petitions for Hearing or Rehearing En Banc(Fed. Cir. R. 35)
`
`
`Q. Whenis a petition for rehearing appropriate?
`
`A. Petitions for panel rehearing are rarely successful
`because they mostoften fail to articulate sufficient grounds
`upon which to grant them. For example, a petition for panel
`rehearing should not be used to reargue issues already
`briefed and orally argued; if a party failed to persuade the
`court on an issuein the first instance, a petition for panel
`rehearing should not be used as an attempt to get a second
`“bite at the apple.” This is especially so when the court has
`entered a judgmentof affirmance without opinion under
`Fed. Cir. R. 36. Such dispositions are enteredif the court
`determines the judgmentof the trial court is based on
`findings that are not clearly erroneous, the evidence
`supporting the jury verdictis sufficient, the record supports
`the trial court’s ruling, the decision of the administrative
`agency warrants affirmance under the appropriate standard
`of review, or the judgmentor decision is without an errorof
`law.
`
`Q. Whenis a petition for hearing or rehearing en banc
`appropriate?
`
`A. En banc decisions are extraordinary occurrences. To
`properly answerthe question, one mustfirst understand the
`responsibility of a three-judge merits panel of the court. The
`panelis charged with decidingindividual appeals according
`to the lawofthe circuit as established in the court's
`precedential opinions. While each merits panelis
`empoweredto enter precedential opinions, the ultimate
`duty of the court en bancis to set forth the law of the
`Federal Circuit, which merit panels are obliged to follow.
`
`Thus, as a usual prerequisite, a merits panel of the court
`must have entered a precedential opinion in support ofits
`judgment for a suggestion for rehearing en banc to be
`appropriate. In addition, the party seeking rehearing en
`banc mustshowthateither the merits panel has failed to
`follow identifiable decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court or
`
`Federal Circuit precedential opinions or that the merits
`panel hasfollowed circuit precedent, which the party seeks
`to have overruled by the court en banc.
`
`Q. How frequently are petitions for rehearing granted by
`merits panels orpetitions for rehearing en banc accepted
`by the court?
`
`A. The data regarding petitions for rehearing since 1982
`showsthat merits panels granted some relief in only three
`percentof the more than 1900petitionsfiled. The relief
`granted usually involved only minor corrections of factual
`misstatements, rarely resulting in a change of outcomein
`the decision.
`
`En bancpetitions were accepted less frequently, in only 16
`of more than 1100 requests. Historically, the court itself
`initiated en banc review in more than half (21 of 37) of the
`very few appeals decided en banc since 1982. This sua
`sponte, en bancreview is a by-productof the court's
`practice of circulating every precedential panel decision to
`all the judges of the Federal Circuit beforeit is published.
`No countis kept of sua sponte, en bancpollsthatfail to
`carry enough judges,but one of the reasonsthatvirtually
`all of the more than 1100 petitions made bythe parties
`since 1982 have beendeclinedis that the court itself has
`already implicitly approved the precedential opinions before
`theyare filed by the merits panel.
`
`Q.Is it necessary to havefiled either of these petitions
`beforefiling a petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme
`Court?
`
`A. No.All that is neededis a final judgment of the Court of
`Appeals. As a matterofinterest, very few petitions for
`certiorari from Federal Circuit decisions are granted. Since
`1982, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in only
`31 appeals heard in the Federal Circuit. Almost 1000
`petitions for certiorari have beenfiled in that period.
`
`October 20, 2016
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1636
`
`Document: 52-4
`
`Page:1
`
`Filed: 02/13/2017
`
`(5 of 5)
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`INFORMATION SHEET
`
`FILING A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`Thereis no automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Courtof the United States from judgments
`of the Federal Circuit. You mustfile a petition for a writ of certiorari which the Supreme Court
`will grant only when there are compelling reasons. (See Rule 10 of the Rules of the Supreme
`Court of the United States, hereinafter called Rules.)
`
`Time. Thepetition mustbe filed in the Supreme Court of the United States within 90 daysofthe
`entry of judgmentin this Court or within 90 days of the denial of a timely petition for rehearing.
`The judgmentis entered on the day the Federal Circuit issues a final decision in yourcase. [The
`time does not run from the issuance of the mandate, whichhasno effect on the rightto petition.]
`(See Rule 13 of the Rules.)
`
`
`Fees. Either the $300 docketing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis with an
`affidavit in support thereof must accompanythepetition. (See Rules 38 and 39.)
`
`Authorized Filer. The petition must be filed by a memberof the bar of the Supreme Court of the
`United States or by the petitioner representing himself or herself.
`
`Formatof a Petition. The Rules are very specific about the order of the required information
`and should be consulted before youstart drafting your petition. (See Rule 14.) Rules 33 and 34
`should be consulted regarding type size and font, paper size, paper weight, margins, page limits,
`cover,etc.
`
`Numberof Copies. Forty copies of a petition must befiled unless the petitioneris proceeding in
`forma pauperis, in which casean original andten copiesofthe petition for writ of certiorari and
`of the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (See Rule 12.)
`
`Whereto File. You mustfile your documents at the Supreme Court.
`
`Clerk
`SupremeCourtof the United States
`1 First Street, NE
`Washington, DC 20543
`(202) 479-3000
`
`No documentsare filed at the Federal Circuit and the Federal Circuit provides no information to
`the Supreme Court unless the Supreme Court asks for the information.
`
`Accessto the Rules. The currentrules can be found in Title 28 of the United States Code
`Annotated and other legal publications available in many public libraries.
`
`Revised December16, 1999
`
`

`

`Case: 16-1636
`Document:53
`Page:1
`Filed: 03/22/2017
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERALCIRCUIT
`
`2016-1636, 2016-1637, 2016-1638
`
`LMK TECHNOLOGIES,LLC,
`Appellant
`
`BLD SERVICES,LLC,
`Appellee
`
`Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office in case nos. IPR2014-00768, IPR2014-
`00770, IPR2014-00772
`
`In accordance with the judgmentof this Court, entered February 13, 2017, and pursuant to Rule 41(a)
`of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the formal mandateis hereby issued.
`
`MANDATE
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`