Paper 6
`Trials@uspto.gov
`Entered: November 17, 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 IPR2016-01053
`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 17, 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 IPR2016-01053
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01053
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`RPX Corporation (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 2, “Pet.”)
`requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–5, 12–17, and 19 of U.S.
`Patent No. 8,879,987 B1 (Ex. 1101, “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 1–5, 12–17,
`and 19 of the ’987 patent. Accordingly, we institute an inter partes review
`as to claims 1–5, 12–17, and 19 of the ’987 patent on the grounds specified
`below.
`Related Proceedings
`A.
`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. 1–2; 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.
`IPR2016-00985
`U.S. Patent No. 8,879,987
`IPR2016-00989
`U.S. Patent No. 8,135,342
`IPR2016-01052
`U.S. Patent No. 8,135,342
`IPR2016-01054
`U.S. Patent No. 8,879,987
`Pet. 1; Paper 5, 2.
`The ’987 Patent
`B.
`The ’987 patent relates to establishing a connection between a
`wireless device and a peripheral device. Ex. 1101, col. 1, ll. 25–30. The
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01053
`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.
`Illustrative Claim
`C.
`Claims 1 and 12 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
`1. A communication system for facilitating user
`connectivity, said system comprising:
`a communications network, said network comprising at
`least one server with user information thereon, said user
`information being remote to a user;
`a peripheral device, said peripheral device being
`associated with said user;
`a wireless device, said wireless device wirelessly
`interconnected within said communications network to said
`server and said peripheral device; and
`said user controlling said peripheral device from said
`wireless device, said user information being transmitted to said
`peripheral device from said wireless device, and employed at
`the control of said user,
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01053
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`
`Exhibit No.
`Ex. 1102
`
`Ex. 1103
`
`Ex. 1104
`
`Ex. 1105
`
`Ex. 1106
`
`Ex. 1108
`Ex. 1110
`
`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. 1101, col. 15, ll. 14–33.
`Evidence of Record
`D.
`Petitioner relies on the following references and declarations (Pet. 4,
`8–9, 30–31, 50):
`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”)
`Second Declaration of Peter Rysavy (“Second Rysavy
`Declaration”)
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`E.
`Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are unpatentable on the
`following grounds (Pet. 4):
`Claim(s)
`Basis
`1–5, 12–17, and 19 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`1–3, 5, 12–17, and
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`19
`4
`
`Reference(s)
`Soin and Wang
`Tee and Acharya
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`Tee, Acharya, and Benco
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01053
`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.”).
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`B.
`Obviousness of Claims 1–5, 12–17, and 19 Over Soin
`1.
`and Wang
`Petitioner argues that claims 1–5, 12–17, and 19 would have been
`obvious over Soin and Wang. Pet. 4. 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 1–5, 12–17, and 19 would have been obvious over
`Soin and Wang.
`
`Claim 1 recites “a communications network, said network comprising
`at least one server with user information thereon, said user information being
`remote to a user.” Ex. 1101, col. 15, ll. 16–18. Petitioner identifies
`evidence indicating that Soin teaches a communications network, such as a
`local area network (“LAN”) or a wide area network (“WAN”), that includes
`a server with remote storage containing user information. Pet. 11 (citing
`Ex. 1104 ¶¶ 33, 44, 56; Ex. 1108 ¶ 177). On this record, Petitioner has
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01053
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`shown sufficiently that the combination of Soin and Wang teaches the above
`limitation of claim 1.
`Claim 1 recites “a peripheral device, said peripheral device being
`associated with said user.” Ex. 1101, col. 15, ll. 19–20. Petitioner identifies
`evidence indicating that Soin teaches that a user can connect to and control a
`peripheral device, such as a laptop, a projector, or a monitor. Pet. 11–12
`(citing Ex. 1104 ¶¶ 8, 24, 112, 115). On this record, Petitioner has shown
`sufficiently that the combination of Soin and Wang teaches the above
`limitation of claim 1.
`Claim 1 recites “a wireless device, said wireless device wirelessly
`interconnected within said communications network to said server and said
`peripheral device.” Ex. 1101, col. 15, ll. 21–23. Petitioner identifies
`evidence indicating that Soin teaches a computing device, such as a
`handheld computer or a gaming console, that is wirelessly connected to the
`server and the peripheral device. Pet. 12–13 (citing Ex. 1104 ¶¶ 8, 33–34,
`40, 44, 58, 181; Ex. 1108 ¶¶ 95–105). Petitioner also identifies evidence
`indicating that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have known to use
`Wang’s cellular phone as the computing device in Soin. Pet. 13 (citing
`Ex. 1105 ¶¶ 26–27; Ex. 1108 ¶¶ 100, 122, 127). On this record, Petitioner
`has shown sufficiently that the combination of Soin and Wang teaches the
`above limitation of claim 1.
`Claim 1 recites “said user controlling said peripheral device from said
`wireless device, said user information being transmitted to said peripheral
`device from said wireless device, and employed at the control of said user.”
`Ex. 1101, col. 15, ll. 24–27. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that
`Soin teaches an interface that allows the user of the wireless computing
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01053
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`device to remotely control the peripheral device. Pet. 13–14 (citing
`Ex. 1104 ¶¶ 8, 109, 112; Ex. 1108 ¶¶ 95–100, 131, 182–183). Petitioner
`also identifies evidence indicating that, in Soin, the user can transmit content
`or data from the wireless computing device to the peripheral device. Pet. 14
`(citing Ex. 1104 ¶ 98). Petitioner additionally identifies evidence indicating
`that, in Soin, the user can control the content or data transmitted to the
`peripheral device, such as by changing slides in a presentation being
`transmitted to and displayed on the peripheral device. Pet. 14–15 (citing
`Ex. 1104 ¶ 163). On this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the
`combination of Soin and Wang teaches the above limitation of claim 1.
`Claim 1 recites “wherein said peripheral device comprises one or
`more components of personal equipment of said user.” Ex. 1101, col. 15, ll.
`28–29. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would have known that the peripheral device in Soin can
`include personal equipment of the user or a third party.1 Pet. 15–16 (citing
`Ex. 1104 ¶¶ 103–104; Ex. 1108 ¶¶ 150–151). On this record, Petitioner has
`shown sufficiently that the combination of Soin and Wang teaches the above
`limitation of claim 1.
`Claim 1 recites “wherein two users interconnect to said peripheral
`device, said two users controlling said user information.” Ex. 1101, col. 15,
`ll. 30–31. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that Soin teaches that
`multiple users can transfer control of the peripheral device to one another.
`
`
`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. 15–16 (citing Ex Parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d
`1883 (BPAI 2008)).
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01053
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`Pet. 16–17 (citing Ex. 1104 ¶¶ 99, 167; Ex. 1108 ¶¶ 156–160, 174).
`Petitioner also identifies evidence indicating that a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would have understood that multiple users can control the peripheral
`device in Soin simultaneously, such as in the multi-user gaming scenario
`described in Soin. Pet. 16–18 (citing Ex. 1104 ¶ 181; Ex. 1108 ¶ 191;
`Ex. 1110 ¶ 58). On this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the
`combination of Soin and Wang teaches the above limitation of claim 1.
`Claim 1 recites “whereby said user information is employed by said
`one or more components.” Ex. 1101, col. 15, ll. 32–33. Petitioner identifies
`evidence indicating that the peripheral device in Soin displays the user
`information. Pet. 18 (citing Ex. 1104 ¶¶ 74, 98, 171; Ex. 1108 ¶ 185). On
`this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Soin
`and Wang teaches the above limitation of claim 1.
`
`In sum, on this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the
`combination of Soin and Wang teaches the limitations in claim 1. Claim 12
`recites limitations similar to those recited in claim 1. See Pet. 23–24.
`Claims 2–5 depend from claim 1, and claims 13–17 and 19 depend from
`claim 12. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that the combination of
`Soin and Wang also teaches the limitations in claims 2–5, 13–17, and 19.
`See id. at 19–29. For example, claim 4 further recites that the peripheral
`device is a hub device. Ex. 1101, col. 15, ll. 41–45. Petitioner identifies
`evidence indicating that Wang teaches a hub device. Pet. 20–21 (citing
`Ex. 1105 ¶¶ 32, 34). Petitioner also identifies evidence indicating that it
`would have been obvious to use the hub device in Wang with the wireless
`computing device in Soin in order to provide additional flexibility. Pet. 10–
`11 (citing Ex. 1105 ¶ 51; Ex. 1108 ¶¶ 120–122); Pet. 21–22 (citing Ex. 1108
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01053
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`¶¶ 187–189). Therefore, on this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently
`that the combination of Soin and Wang teaches the limitations in claims 2–5,
`12–17, and 19.
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 1–5, 12–17, and
`19 would have been obvious over Soin and Wang.
`Obviousness of Claims 1–3, 5, 12–17, and 19 Over Tee
`2.
`and Acharya
`Petitioner argues that claims 1–3, 5, 12–17, and 19 would have been
`obvious over Tee and Acharya. Pet. 4. 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 1–3, 5, 12–17, and 19 would have been obvious over
`Tee and Acharya.
`
`Claim 1 recites “a communications network, said network comprising
`at least one server with user information thereon, said user information being
`remote to a user.” Ex. 1101, col. 15, ll. 16–18. Petitioner identifies
`evidence indicating that Tee teaches a communications network, such as a
`WAN, a wireless local area network (“WLAN”), or a personal area network
`(“PAN”), that includes a remote server containing user information, such as
`video data. Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 18, 22, 30; Ex. 1108 ¶¶ 58–59). On
`this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination of Tee
`and Acharya teaches the above limitation of claim 1.
`Claim 1 recites “a peripheral device, said peripheral device being
`associated with said user.” Ex. 1101, col. 15, ll. 19–20. Petitioner identifies
`evidence indicating that Tee teaches that a user can connect to and control a
`peripheral device, such as a computer or projector. Pet. 33 (citing Ex. 1102
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01053
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`¶¶ 16, 23). On this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the
`combination of Tee and Acharya teaches the above limitation of claim 1.
`Claim 1 recites “a wireless device, said wireless device wirelessly
`interconnected within said communications network to said server and said
`peripheral device.” Ex. 1101, col. 15, ll. 21–23. Petitioner identifies
`evidence indicating that Tee teaches a mobile terminal that is wirelessly
`connected to the server and the peripheral device. Pet. 33–34 (citing
`Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 17, 24, Abstract; Ex. 1108 ¶¶ 50–51). On this record, Petitioner
`has shown sufficiently that the combination of Tee and Acharya teaches the
`above limitation of claim 1.
`Claim 1 recites “said user controlling said peripheral device from said
`wireless device, said user information being transmitted to said peripheral
`device from said wireless device, and employed at the control of said user.”
`Ex. 1101, col. 15, ll. 24–27. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that
`Acharya teaches an interface that allows a user of a computing device to
`remotely control a peripheral device. Pet. 34–36 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 84,
`117). Petitioner further identifies evidence indicating that, in Acharya, the
`user can transmit information, such as a presentation, from the computing
`device to the peripheral device. Pet. 34–36 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 84, 117).
`Petitioner also identifies evidence indicating that, in Acharya, the user can
`control the information transmitted to the peripheral device, such as by
`starting or hiding a presentation being transmitted to and displayed on the
`peripheral device. Pet. 34–36 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 84, 117; Ex. 1108 ¶ 63).
`Petitioner additionally identifies evidence indicating that it would have been
`obvious to use the interface in Acharya with the mobile terminal in Tee in
`order to “improv[e] users’ experience by allowing them to better control
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01053
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`presentations and other media being displayed on the external display
`device.” Pet. 36 (citing Ex. 1108 ¶¶ 62–63). On this record, Petitioner has
`shown sufficiently that the combination of Tee and Acharya teaches the
`above limitation of claim 1.
`Claim 1 recites “wherein said peripheral device comprises one or
`more components of personal equipment of said user.” Ex. 1101, col. 15, ll.
`28–29. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would have known that the peripheral device in Tee can
`include personal equipment of the user or a third party.2 Pet. 36–37 (citing
`Ex. 1108 ¶¶ 75–77). On this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that
`the combination of Tee and Acharya teaches the above limitation of claim 1.
`Claim 1 recites “wherein two users interconnect to said peripheral
`device, said two users controlling said user information.” Ex. 1101, col. 15,
`ll. 30–31. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that Acharya teaches that
`multiple users can transfer control of the peripheral device to one another.
`Pet. 37 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 56, 94–95). Petitioner identifies evidence
`indicating that Acharya also teaches that multiple users can control the
`peripheral device simultaneously, such as by making edits or annotations to
`another user’s presentation. Pet. 37–38 (citing Ex. 1103 ¶¶ 94–95).
`Petitioner additionally identifies evidence indicating that it would have been
`obvious to use the multi-user feature in Acharya with the mobile terminal in
`Tee in order “to handle common user scenarios,” such as “a conference
`
`
`2 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. 15–16 (citing Ex Parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d
`1883 (BPAI 2008)).
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01053
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`room meeting with many users taking the podium in sequence.” Ex. 1108
`¶ 90. On this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the combination
`of Tee and Acharya teaches the above limitation of claim 1.
`Claim 1 recites “whereby said user information is employed by said
`one or more components.” Ex. 1101, col. 15, ll. 32–33. Petitioner identifies
`evidence indicating that the peripheral device in Tee displays the user
`information. Pet. 39 (citing Ex. 1102 ¶¶ 18, 35). On this record, Petitioner
`has shown sufficiently that the combination of Tee and Acharya teaches the
`above limitation of claim 1.
`In sum, on this record, Petitioner has shown sufficiently that the
`combination of Tee and Acharya teaches the limitations in claim 1.
`Claim 12 recites limitations similar to those recited in claim 1. See Pet. 43–
`44. Claims 2, 3, and 5 depend from claim 1, and claims 13–17 and 19
`depend from claim 12. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that the
`combination of Tee and Acharya also teaches the limitations in claims 2, 3,
`5, 13–17, and 19. See id. at 40–49. Therefore, on this record, Petitioner has
`shown sufficiently that the combination of Tee and Acharya teaches the
`limitations in claims 2, 3, 5, 12–17, and 19.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claims 1–3, 5, 12–17,
`and 19 would have been obvious over Tee and Acharya.
`Obviousness of Claim 4 Over Tee, Acharya, and Benco
`3.
`Petitioner argues that claim 4 would have been obvious over Tee,
`Acharya, and Benco. Pet. 4. We have reviewed Petitioner’s assertions and
`supporting evidence. For the reasons discussed below, we determine that
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01053
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that
`claim 4 would have been obvious over Tee, Acharya, and Benco.
`Claim 4 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. 1101,
`col. 15, ll. 41–45. Petitioner identifies evidence indicating that Benco
`teaches a hub device that interconnects a plurality of components of a
`peripheral device with a wireless device. Pet. 51–52 (citing Ex. 1106 ¶¶ 7,
`19). Petitioner also identifies evidence indicating that it would have been
`obvious to use the peripheral hub in Benco with the mobile terminal in Tee
`in order to allow “users to connect to a wider variety of peripheral devices.”
`Pet. 51 (citing Ex. 1108 ¶¶ 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 claim 4.
`For the foregoing reasons, we determine that Petitioner demonstrates a
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing in showing that claim 4 would have been
`obvious over Tee, Acharya, and Benco.
`III. CONCLUSION
`Petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in
`showing the unpatentability of claims 1–5, 12–17, and 19 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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01053
`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 1–5, 12–17, and 19 of the ’987 patent
`on the following grounds:
`A. Claims 1–5, 12–17, and 19 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Soin and Wang;
`Claims 1–3, 5, 12–17, and 19 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
`B.
`§ 103(a) as obvious over Tee and Acharya; and
`Claim 4 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
`C.
`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
`
`
`
`IPR2016-01053
`Patent 8,879,987 B1
`
`PETITIONER:
`Andrew M. Mason
`John D. Vandenberg
`Jeffrey S. 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
