UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS INC.,
`RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC.,
`BROCADE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
`and NETGEAR, INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-013971
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO STRIKE PETITIONERS’ REPLY
`
`
`
`
`1 Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Brocade Communication Systems, Inc. and Netgear, Inc.
`
`(“Ruckus et al.”) filed a petition in (now terminated) IPR2017-00720, and Ruckus
`
`et al. has been joined to the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`______________
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS INC.,
`RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC.,
`BROCADE COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
`and NETGEAR, INC.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`CHRIMAR SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-013971
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,019,838 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO STRIKE PETITIONERS’ REPLY
`
`
`
`
`1 Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Brocade Communication Systems, Inc. and Netgear, Inc.
`
`(“Ruckus et al.”) filed a petition in (now terminated) IPR2017-00720, and Ruckus
`
`et al. has been joined to the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`Table of Authorities ................................................................................................ iiii
`
`List of Exhibits ...................................................................................................... iiiiii
`
`Petitioners’ shift from Ethernet to IEEE 802.9 in Ground 1 ...............12
`A.
`New arguments and evidence regarding BSTs and CMCs .................33
`B.
`The Fisher and De Nicolo patents .......................................................55
`C.
`D. New arguments and evidence regarding skepticism ...........................66
`E.
`New evidence regarding CAT-3 & CAT-5 cabling ............................77
`
`Certificate of Service ...............................................................................................99
`
`Certificate of Compliance Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24 ...................................1111
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`
`Ariosa Diags. v. Verinata Health, Inc.,
`
`805 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ....................................................................... 1
`
`Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets B.V.,
`
`IPR2013-00052, Paper No. 88 (PTAB May 1, 2014) ..................................... 1
`
`Intelligent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................... 1
`
`Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc.,
`
`724 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ....................................................................... 6
`
`Rules
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 .................................................................................................1, 2
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide,
`
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012) .............................................................. 1
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`
`
`List of Exhibits
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`Identifier
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`No.
`2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order,
`Dkt. No. 96, filed in Chrimar Systems,
`Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC, Civil Action
`No. 6:13-cv-881-JDL, Eastern District
`of Texas
`2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order,
`Dkt. No. 105, filed in Chrimar Sys-
`tems, Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC, Civil
`Action No. 6:13-cv-881-JDL, Eastern
`District of Texas
`2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order,
`Dkt. No. 108, filed in Chrimar Sys-
`tems, Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC, Civil
`Action No. 6:13-cv-881-JDL, Eastern
`District of Texas
`2020 Memorandum Opinion and Order,
`Dkt. No. 122, filed in Chrimar Sys-
`tems, Inc., et al. v. Alcatel-Lucent, et
`al., Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-163-
`JDL, Eastern District of Texas
`2021 Memorandum Opinion and Order,
`Dkt. No. 123, filed in Chrimar Sys-
`tems, Inc., et al. v. Alcatel-Lucent, et
`al., Civil Action No. 6:15-cv-163-
`JDL, Eastern District of Texas
`2035 Memorandum Opinion and Order,
`Dkt. No. 318, filed in Chrimar Sys-
`tems, Inc., et al. v. AMX, LLC, Civil
`Action No. 6:13-cv-881-JDL, Eastern
`District of Texas
`2036 Response to Office Action (Reexam
`Control No. 90/009,513) (June 15,
`2010)
`
`Date
`10/22/2014
`
`1/8/2015
`
`1/16/2015
`
`3/28/2016
`
`3/28/2016
`
`9/27/2016
`
`6/15/2010
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`Date
`11/22/2010
`
`
`
`Identifier
`
`
`
`11/5/1999
`
`Madisetti Decl.
`Crayford Dep.
`Anderson 1999
`slides
`
`3/7-8/2000
`
`5/24-25/2000
`
`
`
`
`
`5/24/2000
`
`Dove slides
`
`5/24/2000
`
`Anderson 2000
`slides
`
`7/11-12/2000
`
`
`
`
`
`Karam slides
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`2041
`
`2042
`
`2043
`
`Exhibit
`Description
`No.
`2037 Notice of Intent to Issue Ex Parte
`Reexamination Certificate (Reexam
`Control No. 90/009,513) (Nov. 22,
`2010)
`2038 Declaration of Dr. Vijay Madisetti
`2039 Deposition transcript of Ian Crayford
`2040
`Slides titled “DTE Power via MDI:
`System Requirements,” presented on
`November 5, 1999 by Arlan Anderson
`of Nortel Networks
`IEEE Power via MDI Task Force
`Meeting Minutes from March 7-8,
`2000
`IEEE Power via MDI Task Force
`Meeting Minutes from May 24-25,
`2000
`Slides titled “DTE Power over MDI:
`Building Consensus,” presented on
`May 24, 2000 by Ralph Andersson of
`TDK Semiconductor, Daniel Dove of
`Hewlett Packard, and Robert Muir of
`Level One Communications
`Slides titled “Powering and Discovery
`Alternatives,” presented on May 24,
`2000 by Arlan Anderson of Nortel
`Networks
`IEEE Power via MDI Task Force
`Meeting Minutes from July 11-12,
`2000
`Slides titled “Technical Feasibility of
`Sending Common Mode Power on the
`Signal Pairs,” presented on May 24,
`2000 by Roger Karam and Karl
`Nakamura of Cisco Systems
`
`2044
`
`2045
`
`2046
`
`iv
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`2047
`
`Description
`E. Krol & E. Hoffman, Internet Engi-
`neering Task Force Network Working
`Group, Request for Comments: 1462,
`“FYI on “What is the Internet?’”
`2048 Declaration of Clyde Camp
`2049 U.S. Patent No. 5,995,392
`2050 Madisetti Curriculum Vitae
`2051 Not used
`2052 U.S. Pat. No. 7,061,142 B1
`2053
`Supplemental Declaration of Dr. Vijay
`Madisetti
`2054 Declaration of Steven Johnson
`2055 Crayford 7-21-17 Deposition Tran-
`script
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`Date
`May 1993
`
`Identifier
`Krol RFC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Camp Decl.
`
`
`
`the ‘142 patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`Pursuant to the Board’s Order (Paper 42), Chrimar Systems, Inc. (“Chri-
`
`mar”) moves to strike Petitioners’ Reply (Paper 32). A Petition must identify (i)
`
`all relevant exhibits and (ii) the “specific portions of the evidence that support the
`
`challenge.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5). But Petitioners’ Reply introduces significant
`
`new evidence and new arguments, which they could have and should have raised
`
`in their Petition.
`
`The Board may “exclude or give no weight” to such unidentified evidence.
`
`Id.; see also Ariosa Diags. v. Verinata Health, Inc., 805 F.3d 1359, 1367-68 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2015)(upholding PTAB’s rejection of petitioner’s reliance, in its Reply, on
`
`previously uncited portions of prior art reference); Corning Inc. v. DSM IP Assets
`
`B.V., IPR2013-00052, Paper No. 88 at 16 (PTAB May 1, 2014)(excluding late evi-
`
`dence). Because Petitioners’ new evidence and new arguments are extensive—and
`
`the Board has no obligation “to sort proper from improper portions of the reply”2—
`
`Chrimar moves to strike Petitioners’ entire Reply and its accompanying new exhib-
`
`its.
`
`A.
`
`Petitioners’ shift from Ethernet to IEEE 802.9 in Ground 1
`
`
`2 Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,767 (Aug. 14, 2012); Intelli-
`
`gent Bio-Sys., Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed.Cir.
`
`2016).
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`The Petition recognized that, for Chrimar’s claims to be found obvious, Peti-
`
`tioners’ needed prior art that disclosed Ethernet equipment, and the Petition’s only
`
`source for such equipment in Ground 1 was Hunter (Ex. 1003). (See, e.g., Pet. at
`
`7.) The Petition asserted that the “10Base-T bus” in Fig.2 (comprising connectors
`
`240, 250) carried Ethernet data. (See, e.g., Pet. at 25-27.) Four times, the Petition
`
`quoted Hunter’s term “isoEthernet®” as something separate and apart from
`
`“Ethernet®,” with no explanation or analysis. (E.g., pp. 7, 27.)
`
`The Reply newly asserts that “Hunter's disclosure of isoEthernet also teaches
`
`Ethernet” and interjects new concepts: “[i]soEthernet...10Base-T and ISDN
`
`modes” and “isoEthernet interfaces.” (Reply at 16:12-14, 20:21-21:4, 23:12-20;
`
`see also Ex. 1046, ¶¶48, 68-69, 74, 80-81.) Crayford’s new expert declaration,
`
`submitted with the Reply, contained even more exposition. (Ex. 1046, ¶¶48, 67-69,
`
`74, 80-81.)
`
`Petitioners know that, if they want to rely on a standard, they were required
`
`by §42.104(b)(5) to include that standard as an exhibit to the Petition, and cite to
`
`specific portions of it, just as they did with the two IEEE 802.3 standards (Exs.
`
`1006-1008) relied on for Ground 2. Nevertheless, the Reply relies on (Reply at
`
`16:12-14, 17:2-7, 23:18) a newly-cited IEEE standard for 802.9 (Ex. 1032) from
`
`1994, purportedly because it details the isoEthernet used in Hunter.
`
`Neither the Petition nor the Reply explain how “isoEthernet®” (in Hunter)
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`relates to new Ex. 1032. Hunter consistently refers only to the trademarked version
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`“isoEthernet®” (Ex. 2055 at 25:10-14), which Crayford testified is a proprietary
`
`isoEthernet created by National Semiconductor. (Id. at 31:9-21; see also, Pet. p.
`
`27, n. 8.). Neither the Petition nor the Reply links “isoEthernet®” to Ex. 1032. In
`
`addition, when Hunter refers to an IEEE standard, he refers to “IEEE draft standard
`
`802.9a.” (Ex. 1003 at 16:7.) On its face, Ex. 1032 is (1) not for 802.9a (it states
`
`“802.9”), and (2) not a draft (it states “Approved”).
`
`Finally, had the Petition relied on isoEthernet (trademarked or otherwise)
`
`and/or Ex. 1032 as a basis for Ground 1, Chrimar would have provided evidence
`
`with its Response that, as late as 1999, the IEEE isoEthernet committee prohibited
`
`combining phantom-power and Ethernet data signals (“10Base-T mode”) to “in-
`
`sure[] that 10Base-T services are unaffected.” (Ex. 2055 at 38:23-39:18.) Hunter
`
`fails to teach “insur[ing] that 10Base-T services are unaffected” in his phantom
`
`power circuitry, evidence that Hunter does not teach phantom-power combined
`
`with 10Base-T Ethernet data services.
`
`B. New arguments and evidence regarding BSTs and CMCs
`
`Petition Grounds 1 and 2 each propose delivering phantom power when
`
`Ethernet equipment is attached to the proposed phantom-power network. Chrimar
`
`explained in its Response that the proposed Ground 1 and Ground 2 combinations
`
`would not work to solve the problem solved by the Chrimar patents because Peti-
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`tioners failed to address what happens to existing BSTs and CMCs when phantom
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`power is delivered blindly to Ethernet equipment. (E.g., Res. at 7.)
`
`The Reply addresses the BST and CMC issues for the first time, and adds
`
`new exhibits (Exs. 1021-1024, 1029), new expert testimony (Ex. 1046 ¶¶12-21),
`
`and new arguments (Reply at 3:1--5:17, 8:11-14). But the Petition led to Chrimar’s
`
`Response, so Petitioners cannot excuse their untimely arguments and evidence.
`
`The Petition explained that the Chrimar patents are “directed to equipment
`
`networked over ‘pre-existing wiring or cables that connect pieces of networked
`
`computer equipment to a network’” (Pet. at 3), that “[t]he equipment would be
`
`connected over ‘conventional multi-wire cables that include a plurality of transmit
`
`and receive data communication links [emphasis in Petition]” (id.), and that a
`
`“[POSITA] would be familiar with . . . the behavior of data communications prod-
`
`ucts available on the market” (Ex. 1002, Crayford ¶50).
`
`Petitioners also knew that pre-existing Ethernet equipment included termina-
`
`tions (e.g., BSTs and CMCs) that were essential to the operation of an Ethernet
`
`network. (Ex. 2039 at 45:10-21; Ex. 2055 at 65:13-67:11.) Despite express recog-
`
`nition of this environment for Chrimar’s claimed inventions, the Petition did not
`
`address the effects of the blind-powering on pre-existing BSTs and CMCs.
`
`Petitioners’ proposed Grounds 1 and 2 have no ability to detect if equipment
`
`being attached is legacy equipment with legacy terminations such as BSTs and
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`CMCs. The Petition, not the Reply, should have: (1) recognized that the “hub”
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`power supply could not know if equipment being attached was legacy equipment,
`
`and (2) explained Petitioners’ views why detection is necessary (or not) for their
`
`proposed combinations to work without disrupting “billions of nodes” containing
`
`legacy Ethernet equipment. (Ex. 2039 at 192:21-193:7.) Those arguments made for
`
`the first time in the Reply, are improper.
`
`C. The Fisher and De Nicolo patents
`
`In Reply, Petitioners argued (Reply at 5:18-8:17, 13:15-21) that Chrimar did
`
`not invent power-over-Ethernet (“PoE”). To support those argument, they added
`
`new exhibits (two Fisher patents and two De Nicolo patents, Exs. 1025-1028) and
`
`a lengthy discussion by Crayford (Ex. 1046 ¶¶27-35). Although Petitioners’ basic
`
`argument that Chrimar did not invent PoE is not new—Petitioners made a similar
`
`argument in the Petition at 4-5— the Petition did not include citations to or analy-
`
`sis of any evidence. Instead, the Petition merely cited as support: “See Ground 1”
`
`and “See Ground 2.” (Pet. at 4-5.)
`
`Moreover, Petitioners’ untimely evidence and argument prevents Chrimar
`
`from establishing that De Nicolo is not prior art to Chrimar’s patents. As Petition-
`
`ers know, in a separate IPR filed against Chrimar based on the De Nicolo patents
`
`(IPR2016-00569), Chrimar established that the De Nicolo patents are not prior art.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`(IPR2016-00569 Paper 31 at 17-27). Chrimar has no way to do so in the present
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`IPR because the Petition did not address the De Nicolo patents.
`
`D. New arguments and evidence regarding skepticism
`
`Petitioner has the burden of proof on all elements of its obviousness argu-
`
`ments, including on secondary considerations. Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724
`
`F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“The burden of proof lies with the challenger,
`
`and this court has rejected any formal burden-shifting framework in evaluating the
`
`four Graham factors.”). Crayford’s first declaration recognized this obligation and
`
`identified secondary considerations that should have been, but were not, addressed
`
`in the Petition, including “expressions of surprise or skepticism by experts and
`
`those skilled in the art.” (Ex. 1002, ¶30; compare with Pet., which omits Graham)
`
`At the time of his first declaration, Crayford was aware of the IEEE 802.3af
`
`PoE committee. (Ex. 2039 at 187:24-188:25.) Nonetheless, neither he nor the Peti-
`
`tion addressed the skepticism committee members expressed about the suggestion
`
`to apply power to the Ethernet signal-carrying conductors (e.g., Exs. 2040-2046).
`
`Once again, Petitioners were aware of the secondary considerations issues,
`
`but failed to address them in the Petition. In their Reply, they added new exhibits
`
`from the 802.af committee (Exs. 1035-1042), new expert testimony (Ex. 1046,
`
`¶¶36-44), and new attorney argument (Reply at 9:1-10:11). Petitioners could have,
`
`and should have, included this evidence and argument in the Petition.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`E. New evidence regarding CAT-3 & CAT-5 cabling
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`As noted above, the Petition recognized, “The equipment [of Chrimar’s pa-
`
`tent claims] would be connected over ‘conventional multi-wire cables that include
`
`a plurality of transmit and receive data communication links.’” (Pet. at 3, emphasis
`
`in Petition.) Crayford included this same sentence in his first declaration. (Ex.
`
`1002, ¶45.) He testified that he had emphasized “conventional” to highlight “the
`
`fact that it was the existing-the existing media of choice, whether that be category
`
`3 for 10BASE-T or category 5 for 100BASE-T.” (Ex. 2039 at 70:23-71:3, empha-
`
`sis added.) Despite knowing that “conventional” referred to Category 3 (“CAT-3”)
`
`and Category 5 (“CAT-5”) cabling, the Petition and Crayford failed to offer evi-
`
`dence regarding the number of conductors used in CAT-3 and CAT-5 cabling.
`
`When Chrimar explained, “CAT-3 and CAT-5 are cable standards that re-
`
`quire cables with eight conductors twisted into four pairs” (Res. at 19-20), Peti-
`
`tioners, in Reply, added a new exhibit (Ex. 1031) purporting to show that some
`
`CAT-3/CAT-5 cables were sold with only two wire pairs. The Reply included a
`
`new argument (pp. 14:12-15:5) and new expert testimony (Ex. 1046, ¶61), which
`
`Petitioners could have included in their Petition. Had they done so, Chrimar, in its
`
`Response, would have included the cable specification for CAT-3/CAT-5 wiring,
`
`confirming that such cables comprise four wire pairs. (Ex. 2055 at 171:23-176:13.)
`
`Dated: August 8, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Thomas A. Lewry/
`Thomas A. Lewry (Reg. No. 30,770)
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733)
`Marc Lorelli (Reg. No. 43,759)
`Christopher C. Smith (Reg. No. 59,669)
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`(248) 358-4400
`
`Richard W. Hoffmann (Reg. No. 33,711)
`Reising Ethington PC
`755 West Big Beaver Rd., Suite 1850
`Troy, Michigan 48084
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`On August 8, 2017, a copy of this PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO
`STRIKE PETITIONERS’ REPLY has been served on Petitioner’s counsel via
`electronic mail at the email addresses shown below:
`
`
`Lead Counsel & Back-up Counsel for Juniper
`Talin Gordnia, Reg. No. 76,214
`Michael Fleming, Reg. No. 67,933
`IRELL & MANELLA, LLP
`Jonathan Kagan, pro hac vice
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`IRELL & MANELLA, LLP
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Juniper-ChrimarIPR@irell.com
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Juniper-ChrimarIPR@irell.com
`
`Nima Hefazi Reg. No. 63,658
`IRELL & MANELLA, LLP
`840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Juniper-ChrimarIPR@irell.com
`
`Lead Counsel & Back up Counsel for Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Brocade
`Communication Systems, Inc., & Netgear, Inc.
`Joseph Powers (Reg. No. 47,006)
`Christopher Tyson (Reg. No. 63,850)
`Duane Morris LLP
`Duane Morris LLP
`30 South 17th Street
`505 9th St. NW, Ste 1000
`Philadelphia PA 19103-4196
`Washington DC 20004
`JAPowers@duanemorris.com
`CJTyson@duanemorris.com
`
`
`Matthew S. Yungwirth
`DUANE MORRIS LLP
`1075 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2000
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`msyungwirth@duanemorris.com
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
` /Thomas A. Lewry/
`Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733)
`Thomas A. Lewry (Reg. No. 30,770)
`Marc Lorelli (Reg. No. 43,759)
`Christopher C. Smith (Reg. No. 59,669)
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`(248) 358-4400
`
`Richard W. Hoffmann (Reg. No. 33,711)
`Reising Ethington PC
`755 West Big Beaver Rd., Suite 1850
`Troy, Michigan 48084
`248.786.0163
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2016-01397
`Patent No.: 9,019,838
`
`
`Atty. Dkt. No.: CHRMC0111IPR1
`
`Certificate of Compliance Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24
`
`
`
`
`This paper complies with the type-volume limitation set by the Board in its
`
`August 1, 2017 Order granting Patent Owner’s request for authorization to file a
`
`motion to strike. (Paper 42.) The paper contains no more than 7 pages pursuant to
`
`the Board’s Order.
`
`This paper also complies with the typeface requirements of 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.6(a)(ii) and the type style requirements of § 42.6(a)(iii) & (iv).
`
`
`Dated: August 8, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
` /Thomas A. Lewry/
`Frank A. Angileri (Reg. No. 36,733)
`Thomas A. Lewry (Reg. No. 30,770)
`Marc Lorelli (Reg. No. 43,759)
`Christopher C. Smith (Reg. No. 59,669)
`Brooks Kushman P.C.
`1000 Town Center, 22nd Floor
`Southfield, MI 48075
`(248) 358-4400
`
`Richard W. Hoffmann (Reg. No. 33,711)
`Reising Ethington PC
`755 West Big Beaver Rd., Suite 1850
`Troy, Michigan 48084
`248.786.0163
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
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
