`Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 11:41 AM
`To: Oliver, Justin; DeLucia,Frank
`Subject: RE: Petition Real Party of Interest Question
`
`Justin and Frank,
`
`
`Pleasure meeting you during the conference. What is a good time/contact for following up with
`you about information relating to the relationships between Askelladen, PQI, the Clearing House, and
`the 20 banks that the clearing house represents. Specifically, I’m trying to determine what roles if any
`these other companies/organizations had in suggesting any of the particular patents in question be
`filed. Further, the structure of selecting counsel and paying for the Petitions is relevant based on RPX
`Corp v. VirnexX.
`
`
`To elaborate, I have noticed a strong cross pollination between employees of the two
`companies and the board of directors of the two companies. Therefore, if the same person (wearing a
`hat of the clearing house) made one set of decisions then made a second set of decisions (wearing the
`hat of an Askelladen employee) it would appear that that person made a suggestion for filing the IPR,
`which would appear to have an effect on whether The Clearing House was effectively making the
`suggestion. I noticed some online documents indicating that the board of directors are identical for
`Askelladen and the Clearing House, so if the board of directors of Askellanden made decisions,
`effectively the same board of directors for the Clearing House was making those decisions.
`
`
`So, if you have established any Chinese walls to ensure autonomy of decision making between
`the two companies despite the strong cross pollination, it would definitely be useful to know. Basically,
`I’m asking for information that would be relevant in determining or not whether the Clearing House
`would be legally considered a real party of interest for the IPRs in light of RPX Corp v. VirnexX and the
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (TPG). The TPG cites In re Guan,
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001, 045(Aug 25, 2008)(Decision Vacating Filing Date) there the Office
`held that an entity named as the sole real party of interest may not receive a suggestion from another
`party that a particular patent should be the subject of a request for inter partes reexamination and be
`compensated by that party for the filing of the request without naming the party who suggested and
`compensated the entity for the filing of the request.
`
`
`You may be aware of more current law/procedure on this issue, in which case I would greatly
`appreciate being apprised.
`
`
`Thanks again,
`
`
`Brian K Buchheit (305-761-1972)
`
`
`
`
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
