From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Counsel: 
`
`Vignone, Maria on behalf of Trials
`Thursday, December 04, 2014 3:29 PM
`Brian Buchheit; Trials
`askeladdenIPR@fchs.com; elizabeth.nelson@patentsondemand.com;
`scott.garrett@patentsondemand.com; Sean McGhie
`RE: IPR2015-00122 IPR2015-00123 IPR2015-00124 IPR2015-00125 IPR2015-00133
`IPR2015-00137
`
`The panel has determined that a conference call is premature at this time.   
`
`The parties are reminded of the proper procedure for requesting a conference call with the board.  The email contains 
`substantive arguments and Patent Owner does not indicate that it conferred with Petitioner prior to requesting the 
`call.  See technical issue 3 on our website (especially the highlighted portions) 
`(http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/prps.jsp): 
`
`3. To request a conference call for a particular case (e.g., to request authorization to file a motion), contact the
`Board at Trials@uspto.gov. The email should copy the other party or parties to the proceeding, indicate generally
`the relief being requested or the subject matter of the conference call, state whether the opposing party or parties
`oppose the request, and include times when all parties are available. Unless otherwise authorized, do not use the
`Trials@uspto.gov email address for substantive communications to the Board. Parties may also contact the Board
`by telephone at (571) 272-7822. 
`
`Thank you, 
`
`Maria Vignone 
`Paralegal Operations Manager 
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
`571‐272‐4645 
`
`From: Brian Buchheit [mailto:brian.buchheit@patentsondemand.com]
`Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2014 11:35 AM
`To: Trials
`Cc: askeladdenIPR@fchs.com; elizabeth.nelson@patentsondemand.com; scott.garrett@patentsondemand.com; Sean
`McGhie
`Subject: IPR2015-00122 IPR2015-00123 IPR2015-00124 IPR2015-00125 IPR2015-00133 IPR2015-00137
`
`Good Afternoon,  
`
`We request a conference with a judge and the Petitioner as soon as feasible, regarding the matters indicated 
`herein.  The Patent owners will make themselves available whenever the judge and Petitioner are able to conference.
`The IPRS (IPR2015‐00122 IPR2015‐00123 IPR2015‐00124 IPR2015‐00125 IPR2015‐00133 IPR2015‐00137) were 
`filed by Askeladden, LLC. And served to Patents On Demand, PA naming Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation (LCSC) 
`as the Patent owner.  Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation is a client of Patents On Demand, PA, who did not 
`authorize a response to the IPRs, as they are not the owners and had no substantial interest in the patents (via exclusive 
`
`1
`
`

`

`license or otherwise) at the time the petitions were filed.  The patents have never been assigned to LCSC (or any other 
`entity).  The owners are the named inventors, who have not been properly served.  
`The improper service created a highly prejudicial situation, in that one of the two patent owners, Brian K 
`Buchheit, is an attorney employed by Patents on Demand.   Because of attorney/client conflict and ethical rules of the 
`Florida bar, the law firm informed myself of the improper service, but didn’t authorize filing of the mandatory notices 
`(served to Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation) due to the named client not authorizing the response.  The 
`improper service has created a work conflict and possible Florida Bar ethics conflict, which has negatively impacted one 
`of the two patent owners. 
`The only party authorized per the USPTO website to upload mandatory notices, was Patents On Demand on 
`behalf of LCSC.  The lawfirm was unable to complete the mandatory notices, as completion was explicitly not authorized 
`by the named client, LCSC.   Patent owner, Brian Buchheit, was informed of this situation but was not authorized to 
`respond to the mandatory notices by the firm at which he works.  We brought this situation immediately to the assigned 
`paralegal, Cathy Underwood, who asked us to provide proof that LCSC is not the proper owner and to include 
`statements of the problem.  Ms. Underwood stated that we had to first upload the mandatory notices to submit these 
`documents though we indicated the above problem causing the served party to not be able to upload the mandatory 
`notices – and no proper party could respond to the mandatory notices.   Part of the documents served to the Petitioner 
`and uploaded to the USPTO (removed on December 3, 2014) was a special appearance by a principle of Patents on 
`Demand, Scott Garrett, stating the problem officially from the law firm’s perspective.    
`Left with no other option (we were told we could not submit an email to the trials until we filed the mandatory 
`notices, which we couldn’t file) the patent owners completed the mandatory notices in their own name, then had a 
`USPTO administrator alter the records to a pro‐se response.  The electronic system did not allow this filing as pro‐se, as 
`the served party was identified as the law firm, which is why we had to have a USPTO administrator “cheat” the system, 
`as we did not have a proper avenue to respond. 
`We request a withdrawal of the uploaded mandatory notices which were filed under protest as a special 
`appearance, since no proper service of the patent owners occurred.  The patent owners have been prejudiced by this 
`improper service and have been unable to progress on the petitions due to conflicts. 
`We request a conference on a motion to dismiss for improper service and for failure to name the real party of 
`interest.    
`We request permission to re‐upload the documents (requested originally of Patents On Demand by the USPTO 
`PTAB paralegal) and place them on the record for the Panel’s consideration.  
`Further, we request a hearing for sanctions and permission for filing motions for sanctions for the costs 
`incurred thus far that is a direct result of the improper service.   Specifically, after informing the petitions (Askeladden, 
`LLC.) of the error of service, their representatives have maintained despite the facts submitted to them and despite a 
`complete lack of proof/evidence that LCSC was the owner.  Thus, the costs of completing the mandatory notices and 
`additional administrative costs to provide the requested proof is due solely to the improper diligence and identification 
`of named parties by Askeladden, LLC.   
`Moreover, Askeladden, LLC. Issued press releases in regard to filing of the IPRs that improperly named LCSC as 
`the owner.  These press releases have materially harmed the patent owners, who were in discussions relating to 
`sale/funding of the patents, which in light of the misrepresentations of Askeladden, LLC have harmed the patent 
`owners.  The patent owners request a hearing on sanctions on this issue as well, as Askeladden, LLC is believed to have 
`improperly used the PTAB proceedings to further their financial model to solicit new business while harming the actual 
`patent owners by misrepresenting the ownership publicly. 
`
`  
`Very Truly Yours,  
`
`‐ Brian K Buchheit and Sean McGhie, Patent Owners 
`14955 SW 33rd Street, Davie Florida 33331 
`305‐761‐1972 
`
`2
`
`  
`
`  
`
`

`

`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Counsel: 
`
`Vignone, Maria on behalf of Trials
`Thursday, February 26, 2015 12:33 PM
`Brian Buchheit; Yam, Stephen
`Trials; #AskeladdenIPR; Oliver, Justin; DeLucia,Frank; sean@mcghie.com
`RE: IPR2015-00122, -00123, -00124, -00125, -00133, -00137
`
`The panel has determined that a conference call is premature at this time.   
`
`The parties are reminded of the proper procedure for requesting a conference call with the board.  Patent Owner does 
`not indicate that it conferred with Petitioner prior to requesting the call.  See technical issue 3 on our website (especially 
`the highlighted portions) (http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/prps.jsp): 
`
`3. To request a conference call for a particular case (e.g., to request authorization to file a motion), contact the
`Board at Trials@uspto.gov. The email should copy the other party or parties to the proceeding, indicate generally
`the relief being requested or the subject matter of the conference call, state whether the opposing party or parties
`oppose the request, and include times when all parties are available. Unless otherwise authorized, do not use the
`Trials@uspto.gov email address for substantive communications to the Board. Parties may also contact the Board
`by telephone at (571) 272-7822. 
`
`Thank you, 
`
`Maria Vignone 
`Paralegal Operations Manager 
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board 
`571‐272‐4645 
`
`From: Brian Buchheit [mailto:bbuchheit@gmail.com]
`Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 10:38 AM
`To: Yam, Stephen
`Cc: Trials; #AskeladdenIPR; Oliver, Justin; DeLucia,Frank; sean@mcghie.com
`Subject: Re: IPR2015-00122, -00123, -00124, -00125, -00133, -00137
`
`Board and Petitioner,
`
` In response to the Petitioner's submission per Judicial Order of Feb 17, 2015, the Patent Owners would
`like to schedule a meeting with the Panel and the Petitioner to resolve some concerns and to seek permission
`to provide submissions, as appropriate.
`
` First, Patent Owners and Petitioner have an unresolved issue related to the Protective Order for which
`Patent Owners seek the Board's resolution. Second, Patent Owner's believe content of the Petitioners
`submission exceed the scope of the judicial order, in regard to newly advanced legal argument based on
`previously known facts, and request a determination. If new legal arguments are within scope of the Judicial
`Order, Patent Owners seek leave to respond to these newly advanced legal arguments. Third, Patent Owners
`
`1
`
`

`

`wish to raise concerns with regard to the Duty of Candor and Disclosure Obligations imposed by 37 CFR 42.11
`in relationship to the RPI issue.
`
` Thank you for your time and consideration.
`
`
`
`
`
`Very Truly Yours,
`
`- Brian K Buchheit, for the Patent Owners
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`