Paper 6
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: November 2, 2016
`
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`RPX CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOCKEYE LICENSING TX, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00985
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
`JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: November 2, 2016
`
`571-272-7822
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`RPX CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOCKEYE LICENSING TX, LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2016-00985
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`_______________
`
`
`
`Before BRYAN F. MOORE, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
`JOHN A. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00985
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`RPX Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”)
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 20–29, 31–37, 39–45, and 47 of
`U.S. Patent No. 8,879,987 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’987 patent”). Sockeye
`Licensing TX, LLC (“Patent Owner”) did not file a preliminary response to
`the Petition. An inter partes review may not be instituted “unless . . . there
`is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at
`least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable
`likelihood of prevailing in showing the unpatentability of claims 20–29, 31–
`37, 39–45, and 47 of the ’987 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter
`partes review as to claims 20–29, 31–37, 39–45, and 47 of the ’987 patent
`on the grounds specified below.
`A.
`Related Proceedings
`The parties indicate that the ’987 patent is the subject of several cases
`in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Pet.
`1; Paper 5, 2–3. The parties also indicate that the following petitions for
`inter partes review are related to this case:
`Case No.
`Involved U.S. Patent No.
`IPR2016-00989
`U.S. Patent No. 8,135,342
`IPR2016-01052
`U.S. Patent No. 8,135,342
`IPR2016-01053
`U.S. Patent No. 8,879,987
`IPR2016-01054
`U.S. Patent No. 8,879,987
`Pet. 1; Paper 5, 2.
`B.
`The ’987 Patent
`The ’987 patent relates to establishing a connection between a
`wireless device and a peripheral device. Ex. 1001, col. 1, ll. 25–30. The
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00985
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`’987 patent explains that, although previous products allowed a wireless
`device to project images onto a wall or nearby surface, those products did
`not allow a wireless device to transmit browser-based content to a full-size
`digital display device, such as a computer monitor. Id. at col. 2, ll. 1–9. To
`address this deficiency, the ’987 patent describes connecting a wireless
`device to one or more peripheral devices, such as a desktop monitor or
`printer, using one or more wireline or wireless connections. Id. at col. 6, ll.
`55–63. The wireless device uses a cell phone network and Transmission
`Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (“TCP/IP”) network to access one or
`more browser-based applications. Id. at col. 6, ll. 63–67. The data received
`by the wireless device from the browser-based applications is communicated
`through a peripheral communications interface to the one or more peripheral
`devices. Id. at col. 7, ll. 9–18.
`C.
`Illustrative Claim
`Claims 20, 32, and 40 are independent. Claim 20 is reproduced
`
`below.
`
`20. A wireless device for facilitating user connectivity
`comprising:
`a connector, said connector connecting a user of said
`wireless device to a remote server containing user information
`therein;
`a memory, said memory containing therein said user
`information downloaded from said server;
`a transmitter, said transmitter, at the control of said user,
`sending said user information to a peripheral device; and
`an interface, on said wireless device, where said user
`through said interface operates said peripheral device from said
`wireless device,
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00985
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`Ex. 1002
`
`Ex. 1003
`
`Ex. 1004
`
`Ex. 1005
`
`Ex. 1006
`
`Ex. 1008
`
`wherein said peripheral device comprises one or more
`components of personal equipment of said user,
`wherein two users interconnect to said peripheral device,
`said two users controlling said user information,
`whereby said user information is employed by said one
`or more components.
`Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 44–61.
`D.
`Evidence of Record
`Petitioner relies on the following references and declaration (Pet. 3, 8–
`9, 34–35, 55):
`Reference or Declaration
`Tee et al., U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2006/0203758
`A1 (published Sept. 14, 2006) (“Tee”)
`Acharya et al., U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.
`2005/0036509 A1 (published Feb. 17, 2005) (“Acharya”)
`Soin et al., U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2005/0091359
`A1 (published Apr. 28, 2005) (“Soin”)
`Wang et al., U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.
`2006/0077310 A1 (published Apr. 13, 2006) (“Wang”)
`Benco et al., U.S. Patent Application Pub. No.
`2005/0135393 A1 (published June 23, 2005) (“Benco”)
`Declaration of Peter Rysavy (“Rysavy Declaration”)
`E.
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable on the
`following grounds (Pet. 3):
`Claim(s)
`Basis
`20–29, 31–37, 39–
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`45, and 47
`20–23, 25–29, 31,
`40–45, and 47
`24, 32–37, and 39
`
`Reference(s)
`Soin and Wang
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Tee and Acharya
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Tee, Acharya, and Benco
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00985
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`The claims of an unexpired patent are interpreted using the broadest
`reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which
`they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136
`S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Petitioner proposes construing several claim
`terms in the ’987 patent. Pet. 5–8. On this record and for purposes of this
`decision, we determine that no claim terms require express construction. See
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir.
`1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and
`only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).
`B.
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`1.
`Obviousness of Claims 20–29, 31–37, 39–45, and 47
`Over Soin and Wang
`Petitioner argues that claims 20–29, 31–37, 39–45, and 47 would have
`been obvious over Soin and Wang. Pet. 3. We have reviewed Petitioner’s
`assertions and supporting evidence. For the reasons discussed below, we
`determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing
`in showing that claims 20–29, 31–37, 39–45, and 47 would have been
`obvious over Soin and Wang.
`
`Claim 20 recites “a connector, said connector connecting a user of
`said wireless device to a remote server containing user information therein.”
`Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 46–48. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that
`Soin teaches a network adapter or modem for connecting a user of a wireless
`device to a remote server that contains user information. Pet. 11–12 (citing
`Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 33, 44, 56; Ex. 1008 ¶ 177). On this record, Petitioner has
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00985
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`shown sufficiently that the combination of Soin and Wang teaches the above
`limitation of claim 20.
`Claim 20 recites “a memory, said memory containing therein said user
`information downloaded from said server.” Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 49–50.
`Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that Soin teaches a memory
`containing files or data downloaded from the remote server. Pet. 12–13
`(citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 45, 50, 52; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 124–128, 178–181). Petitioner
`also identifies evidence indicating that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would have known that the files or data in Soin can include the video or
`multimedia information in Wang. Pet. 13 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 27). On this
`record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Soin and
`Wang teaches the above limitation of claim 20.
`Claim 20 recites “a transmitter, said transmitter, at the control of said
`user, sending said user information to a peripheral device.” Ex. 1001, col.
`17, ll. 51–52. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that Soin teaches a
`transmitter at the control of the user that sends the user information to a
`peripheral device, such as a laptop or a projector. Pet. 13–15 (citing Ex.
`1004 ¶¶ 24, 26, 56, 98, 102, 104, 106, 109; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 182–183). On this
`record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Soin and
`Wang teaches the above limitation of claim 20.
`Claim 20 recites “an interface, on said wireless device, where said
`user through said interface operates said peripheral device from said wireless
`device.” Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 53–55. Petitioner identifies evidence
`indicating that Soin teaches an interface that allows the user to operate the
`peripheral device from the wireless device, such as by using the wireless
`device to change slides in a presentation displayed on the peripheral device.
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00985
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`Pet. 15–16 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 109, 118, 163; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 95–100, 131,
`190–191). On this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the
`combination of Soin and Wang teaches the above limitation of claim 20.
`Claim 20 recites “wherein said peripheral device comprises one or
`more components of personal equipment of said user.” Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll.
`56–57. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art reading Soin would have known that the peripheral device
`(e.g., the laptop or projector) can belong to the user of the wireless device or
`a third party.1 Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 103–104; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 150–
`151). On this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination
`of Soin and Wang teaches the above limitation of claim 20.
`Claim 20 recites “wherein two users interconnect to said peripheral
`device, said two users controlling said user information.” Ex. 1001, col. 17,
`ll. 58–59. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that, in Soin, one user can
`transfer control of the peripheral device to a second user. Pet. 17–18 (citing
`Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 99, 167; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 156–160, 174). Petitioner also identifies
`evidence indicating that a person of ordinary skill in the art reading Soin
`would have known that two users can control the peripheral device
`simultaneously, such as in the multi-user gaming scenario described in Soin.
`Pet. 18–19 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 181; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 190–191). On this record,
`Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Soin and Wang
`teaches the above limitation of claim 20.
`
`
`1 Petitioner argues alternatively that ownership of the peripheral device is
`neither structural nor functional, and, thus, cannot distinguish the challenged
`claims from the prior art. Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex Parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d
`1883 (BPAI 2008)).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00985
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`
`Claim 20 recites “whereby said user information is employed by said
`one or more components.” Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 60–61. Petitioner identifies
`evidence indicating that, in Soin, the components of the peripheral device
`display the user information received from the wireless device. Pet. 19–20
`(citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 74, 98, 171; Ex. 1008 ¶ 185). On this record, Petitioner
`has shown sufficiently that the combination of Soin and Wang teaches the
`above limitation of claim 20.
`
`In sum, on this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the
`combination of Soin and Wang teaches the limitations in claim 20. Claims
`21–29 and 31 depend from claim 20, and Petitioner identifies evidence
`indicating that the combination of Soin and Wang also teaches the
`limitations in claims 21–29 and 31.2 See Pet. 20–31. Claims 32–37, 39–45,
`and 47 recite limitations similar to those recited in claims 20, 24–29, and 31.
`See id. at 31–34. Therefore, on this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently
`that the combination of Soin and Wang teaches the limitations in claims 21–
`29, 31–37, 39–45, and 47.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 20–29, 31–37,
`39–45, and 47 would have been obvious over Soin and Wang.
`
`
`2 For example, claim 24 further recites that the peripheral device is a hub
`device. Ex. 1001, col. 18, ll. 7–11. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating
`that Wang teaches a hub device (Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1005 ¶¶ 32, 34)), and
`that it would have been obvious to use the hub device in Wang with the
`wireless device in Soin in order to provide additional flexibility (Pet. 10–11
`(citing Ex. 1005 ¶ 51; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 120–122); Pet. 23–24 (citing Ex. 1008
`¶¶ 187–189)).
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00985
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`
`2.
`
`Obviousness of Claims 20–23, 25–29, 31, 40–45, and 47
`Over Tee and Acharya
`Petitioner argues that claims 20–23, 25–29, 31, 40–45, and 47 would
`have been obvious over Tee and Acharya. Pet. 3. We have reviewed
`Petitioner’s assertions and supporting evidence. For the reasons discussed
`below, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing in showing that claims 20–23, 25–29, 31, 40–45, and 47 would
`have been obvious over Tee and Acharya.
`
`Claim 20 recites “a connector, said connector connecting a user of
`said wireless device to a remote server containing user information therein.”
`Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 46–48. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that
`Tee teaches a transceiver for connecting a user of a wireless device to a
`remote server that contains user information. Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 15,
`18–19, 22, 25, 29; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 58–59). On this record, Petitioner has shown
`sufficiently that the combination of Tee and Acharya teaches the above
`limitation of claim 20.
`Claim 20 recites “a memory, said memory containing therein said user
`information downloaded from said server.” Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 49–50.
`Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that Tee teaches a memory
`containing a video file. Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 24–25, 30).
`Petitioner also identifies evidence indicating that a person of ordinary skill
`reading Tee would have known that the wireless device can download the
`video file from the remote server. Pet. 38 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 30; Ex. 1008
`¶¶ 202–203). On this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the
`combination of Tee and Acharya teaches the above limitation of claim 20.
`Claim 20 recites “a transmitter, said transmitter, at the control of said
`user, sending said user information to a peripheral device.” Ex. 1001, col.
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00985
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`17, ll. 51–52. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that Tee teaches a
`transceiver at the control of the user that sends the user information to a
`peripheral device, such as a computer or a projector. Pet. 38–39 (citing Ex.
`1002 ¶¶ 15–16, 23, 25–26, 29). On this record, Petitioner has shown
`sufficiently that the combination of Tee and Acharya teaches the above
`limitation of claim 20.
`Claim 20 recites “an interface, on said wireless device, where said
`user through said interface operates said peripheral device from said wireless
`device.” Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 53–55. Petitioner identifies evidence
`indicating that Acharya teaches an interface that allows a user to operate a
`peripheral device from a wireless device, such as by using the wireless
`device to start or hide a presentation displayed on the peripheral device. Pet.
`40–41 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 84, 117; Ex. 1008 ¶ 63). Petitioner also identifies
`evidence indicating that it would have been obvious to use the interface in
`Acharya with the wireless device in Tee in order to “improv[e] users’
`experience by allowing them to better control presentations and other media
`being displayed on the external display device.” Pet. 41 (citing Ex. 1008
`¶¶ 62–63). On this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the
`combination of Tee and Acharya teaches the above limitation of claim 20.
`Claim 20 recites “wherein said peripheral device comprises one or
`more components of personal equipment of said user.” Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll.
`56–57. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art reading Tee would have known that the peripheral device
`(e.g., the computer or projector) can belong to the user of the wireless device
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00985
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`or a third party.3 Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 75–77). On this record,
`Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Tee and Acharya
`teaches the above limitation of claim 20.
`Claim 20 recites “wherein two users interconnect to said peripheral
`device, said two users controlling said user information.” Ex. 1001, col. 17,
`ll. 58–59. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that, in Acharya, one user
`can transfer control of the peripheral device to a second user. Pet. 42–43
`(citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 56, 94–95). Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that
`Acharya also teaches that two users can modify a presentation on the
`peripheral device simultaneously. Pet. 42–44 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 94–95).
`Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that it would have been obvious to
`use the multi-user feature in Acharya with the wireless device in Tee in
`order “to handle common user scenarios,” such as “a conference room
`meeting with many users taking the podium in sequence.” Ex. 1008 ¶ 90.
`On this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Tee
`and Acharya teaches the above limitation of claim 20.
`Claim 20 recites “whereby said user information is employed by said
`one or more components.” Ex. 1001, col. 17, ll. 60–61. Petitioner identifies
`evidence indicating that, in Tee, the components of the peripheral device
`display the user information received from the wireless device. Pet. 44–45
`(citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 18, 35). On this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently
`
`
`3 Petitioner argues alternatively that ownership of the peripheral device is
`neither structural nor functional, and, thus, cannot distinguish the challenged
`claims from the prior art. Pet. 16–17, 42 (citing Ex Parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d
`1883 (BPAI 2008)).
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00985
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`that the combination of Tee and Acharya teaches the above limitation of
`claim 20.
`
`In sum, on this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the
`combination of Tee and Acharya teaches the limitations in claim 20. Claims
`21–23, 25–29, and 31 depend from claim 20, and Petitioner identifies
`evidence indicating that the combination of Tee and Acharya also teaches
`the limitations in claims 21–23, 25–29, and 31. See Pet. 45–53. Claims 40–
`45 and 47 recite limitations similar to those recited in claims 20, 25–29, and
`31. See id. at 53–55. Therefore, on this record, Petitioner has shown
`sufficiently that the combination of Tee and Acharya teaches the limitations
`in claims 21–23, 25–29, 31, 40–45, and 47.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 20–23, 25–29, 31,
`40–45, and 47 would have been obvious over Tee and Acharya.
`3.
`Obviousness of Claims 24, 32–37, and 39 Over Tee,
`Acharya, and Benco
`Petitioner argues that claims 24, 32–37, and 39 would have been
`obvious over Tee, Acharya, and Benco. Pet. 3. We have reviewed
`Petitioner’s assertions and supporting evidence. For the reasons discussed
`below, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of
`prevailing in showing that claims 24, 32–37, and 39 would have been
`obvious over Tee, Acharya, and Benco.
`Claim 24 recites “wherein said peripheral device is a hub device, and
`wherein one or more components of said peripheral device are connected to
`said hub device and interconnected to said wireless device.” Ex. 1001, col.
`18, ll. 7–11. Claim 32 recites limitations similar those recited in claims 20
`and 24. Id. at col. 18, ll. 46–63. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00985
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`that Benco teaches a peripheral hub that connects a wireless device to a
`plurality of peripheral devices, such as a monitor, a printer, a keyboard, and
`a mouse. Pet. 57 (citing Ex. 1006 ¶ 19). Petitioner also identifies evidence
`indicating that it would have been obvious to use the peripheral hub in
`Benco with the wireless device in Tee in order to allow “users to connect to
`a wider variety of peripheral devices.” Pet. 56 (citing Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 55–56,
`71, 73–74).
`Thus, on this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the
`combination of Tee, Acharya, and Benco teaches the limitations in claims 24
`and 32. Petitioner also identifies evidence indicating that the combination of
`Tee, Acharya, and Benco teaches the limitations in claims 33–37 and 39.
`See Pet. 57–59. Therefore, on this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently
`that the combination of Tee, Acharya, and Benco teaches the limitations in
`claims 33–37 and 39.
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 24, 32–37, and 39
`would have been obvious over Tee, Acharya, and Benco.
`III. CONCLUSION
`Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in
`showing the unpatentability of claims 20–29, 31–37, 39–45, and 47 of the
`’987 patent. At this stage in the proceeding, we have not made a final
`determination with respect to the patentability of any of the challenged
`claims.
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00985
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes
`
`review is hereby instituted as to claims 20–29, 31–37, 39–45, and 47 of the
`’987 patent on the following grounds:
`A. Claims 20–29, 31–37, 39–45, and 47 as unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Soin and Wang;
`B.
`Claims 20–23, 25–29, 31, 40–45, and 47 as unpatentable under
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Tee and Acharya; and
`C.
`Claims 24, 32–37, and 39 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Tee, Acharya, and Benco;
`FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter
`partes review of the ʼ987 patent is hereby instituted commencing on the
`entry date of this Order, and, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.4, notice is hereby given of the institution of a trial; and
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the trial is limited to the grounds
`identified, and no other grounds are authorized.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2016-00985
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`Andrew M. Mason
`John D. Vandenberg
`Jeffrey Love
`KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP
`andrew.mason@klarquist.com
`john.vandenberg@klarquist.com
`jeffrey.love@klarquist.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Gregory S. Donahue
`DINOVO PRICE ELLWANGER & HARDY LLP
`gdonahue@dpelaw.com
`
`Jeffrey W. Salmon
`JEFFREY W. SALMON LAW LLC
`jeff@jeffreywsalmonlawllc.com
`
`
`15
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
