UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`APPLE INC., LG ELECTRONICS INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`CO., LTD., AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC
`
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2019-00510
`
`Patent 6,868,079 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER SUR-REPLY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`B2
`
`Table of Contents
`
`EXHIBIT LIST ................................................................................................... 2
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. 1
`
`PETITIONERS’ REPLY AND ACCOMPANYING BELATED
`ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE UNDERSCORES
`DEFICIENCIES OF THE PETITION .................................................... 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Petitioners fail to meet their burden to show the cited
`combination of Wolfe and Bousquet (Ground 1) teaches
`“wherein the at least one of the plurality of respective
`secondary stations retransmits the same respective request
`in consecutive allocated time slots without waiting for an
`acknowledgement until said acknowledgement is received
`from the primary station” (Claim 17) ........................................... 2
`
`Petitioners fail to meet their burden to show the cited
`combination of Wolfe, Bousquet, and Everett (Ground 2)
`teaches “wherein the at least one of the plurality of
`respective secondary stations retransmits the same
`respective request in consecutive allocated time slots
`without waiting for an acknowledgement until said
`acknowledgement is received from the primary station”
`(Claim 17) .................................................................................... 8
`
`The Petition fails to render obvious “wherein the primary
`station determines whether a request for services has been
`transmitted by the at least one of the plurality of respective
`secondary stations by determining whether a signal
`strength of the respective transmitted request of the at
`least one of the plurality of respective secondary stations
`exceeds a threshold value” (Claim 17) (Grounds 1 and 2) .......... 11
`
`D.
`
`Claim 18 ..................................................................................... 12
`
`III.
`
`RELATED PROCEEDINGS ............................................................. 12
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`B2
`
`Exhibit List
`
`Exhibit
`EX2001
`
`Description
`Claim Construction Memorandum and Order entered in Uniloc
`USA, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-
`0042-JRG-RSP, D.I. 93 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2019) and Uniloc
`USA, Inc. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-0075-
`JRG-RSP, D.I. 57 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2019)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`B2
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Uniloc” or “Patent Owner”) submits this Sur-Reply to
`
`the Petition IPR2019-00510 for Inter Partes Review (“Pet.” or “Petition”) of
`
`United States Patent No. 6,868,079 (“the ’079 patent” or “Ex. 1001”) filed by
`
`Apple Inc., LG Electronics Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. (“Petitioners”).
`
`For the reasons given in Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 9, “POR”) and
`
`herein, Petitioner fails to carry its burden of proving the challenged claims of the
`
`’079 patent unpatentable on the challenged grounds.
`
`II. PETITIONERS’ REPLY AND ACCOMPANYING BELATED
`ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE UNDERSCORES DEFICIENCIES
`OF THE PETITION
`
`Petitioners’ Reply insists that Patent Owner has provided no evidence that
`
`warrants reconsideration of the institution decision, and that its arguments improperly
`
`attack individually, the multiple references asserted by petitioner in Grounds 1 and 2,
`
`without addressing the combinations presented in the Petition. (Reply, p. 1-2).
`
`Petitioner’s Reply not only ignores the clear requirement that “In an inter
`
`partes review . . ., the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of
`
`unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence” (35 U.S.C.§ 316(e)), but also
`
`ignores Patent Owner’s unambiguous rebuke of Petitioner’s Grounds 1 and 2, in that
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`B2
`no combination of Wolfe, Bousquet, or Everett discloses “wherein the at least one
`
`of the plurality of respective secondary stations retransmits the same respective
`
`request in consecutive allocated time slots without waiting for an acknowledgement
`
`until said acknowledgement is received from the primary station” (POR, p. 11-13).
`
`Further still, Petitioner’s contention that Patent Owner “improperly attacks the
`
`references individually” (Reply, p. 1-2) is equally misplaced, as the POR lays bare
`
`the glaring deficiencies of each of the references themselves, and as used by the
`
`Petitioner and declarant in the failed assertion of obviousness of claims 17 and 18 in
`
`view of Wolfe, Bousquet, and Patsiokas (Ground 1), and Wolfe, Bousquet, Everett,
`
`and Patsiokas (Ground 2). (POR, p. 7-18).
`
`A. Petitioners fail to meet their burden to show the cited combination of
`Wolfe and Bousquet (Ground 1) teaches “wherein the at least one of
`the plurality of respective secondary stations retransmits the same
`respective request in consecutive allocated time slots without waiting
`for an acknowledgement until said acknowledgement is received from
`the primary station” (Claim 17)
`
`Patent Owner’s Response explains that the Petition fails to establish prima facie
`
`obviousness for the above-identified recitation. (POR p. 7-13). None of the
`
`references, alone or in combination, teach retransmission in even two consecutive
`
`allocated time slots.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply admits the clear deficiency in Wolfe by conceding that “the
`
`Petition recognized that Wolfe did not fully disclose the retransmission limitation.”
`
`(Reply, p. 4 (emphasis added)). Notably, both the Petition and the Reply are silent as
`
`to what, if any, partial disclosure of the above retransmission limitation Petitioner
`
`attributes to Wolfe, given that Wolfe itself provides absolutely no disclosure
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`B2
`
`whatsoever that each of the respective secondary stations retransmits the same
`
`respective request in consecutive allocated time slots without waiting for an
`
`acknowledgement until said acknowledgement is received from the primary station.
`
`Nevertheless, given Wolfe’s glaring omission, the Reply necessarily asserts that
`
`“Bousquet…suggest[s] modification of Wolfe
`
`to perform retransmission
`
`in
`
`consecutive allocated time slots without waiting for an acknowledgement until said
`
`acknowledgement is received”, and further asserts that Patent Owner fails to “address
`
`the Petition’s nearly twelve page explanation of how a POSITA would have combined
`
`Wolfe and Bousquet to modify Wolfe’s ground station 10”. (Reply, p. 4-5).
`
`
`
`
`
`Tellingly, neither Petitioner nor declarant, in its twelve pages of “explanation”
`
`for the proposed combination, points to any portion of Bousquet as disclosing the
`
`limitation performing retransmission in consecutive allocated time slots without
`
`waiting for an acknowledgement as required by claim 17, let alone the further
`
`requirement of retransmission of the same respective request in consecutive allocated
`
`time slots without waiting until said acknowledgement is received from the primary
`
`station. Petitioner’s reliance on Bousquet’s disclosure of systematic repetition of the
`
`access packets in the predefined time period (Pet. 49) (citing EX1006, 3:53-56) is
`
`unavailing, as such disclosure falls far short of the required showing of performing
`
`retransmission in consecutive allocated time slots until said acknowledgement is
`
`received from the primary station.
`
`Moreover, as addressed in the POR, operation of the Bousquet reference is
`
`further confirmed in an earlier passage:
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00510
`
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`
`The effect of the invention can be seen in HO. 1 which
`
`shows the probability of collision between access packets as
`a function of the load on the temporally shared resource
`
`
`
`'or a random A . )HA access system. Here the packet error
`rate is 1%.
`
`EX1006, 3:7-13 (highlighting and underlining added).
`
`Further still, Bousquet itself recites that “the invention proposes to send the
`
`same access packer n times
`
`(n>1)
`
`in a given time period whether an
`
`acknowledgement message is received from the Station to which these packets are
`
`sent or not.” (emphasis added) EX 1006, 2:53-56.
`
`
`Thus, Bousquet itself teaches a retransmitting technique which is the exact
`
`Opposite from the claim requirement of retransmitting “until said acknowledgement
`
`is received”,
`
`in that Bousquet expressly requires its technique be performed a
`
`requisite number of times Within a defined interval, and n_ot “until receipt of an
`
`acknowledgement”. Piecemeal reconstruction of the ‘079 Patent’s disclosure from
`
`selected portions of prior art patents is contrary to the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103, as “[i]t is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose
`
`from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the
`
`exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference
`
`fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Wesslaa, 353 F.2d 238, 241
`
`(CCPA 1965). Petitioners here fail to provide a convincing explanation as to why a
`
`POSITA would select
`
`from Bousquet’s integrated teaching of performing a
`
`predetermined number of retransmissions, preferably spaced at random in time,
`
`regardless of receipt of an acknowledgment, only the feature of retransmitting. This
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`B2
`proposed selection would require that a POSITA opt against incorporation of the
`
`feature of performing those retransmissions a predetermined number of times, or the
`
`feature of spacing of the retransmissions at random, clearly represents an improper
`
`attempt to pick and choose from Bousquet only those teachings that support
`
`Petitioner’s position.
`
`Further still, by Petitioners’ own admission, at least because Bousquet limits
`
`its “repetition” to “in the predefined time period”, Bousquet cannot and does not
`
`disclose the required retransmitting the same respective request “in consecutive
`
`allocated time slots without waiting for an acknowledgement until said
`
`acknowledgement is received from the primary station.” (emphasis added).
`
`Bousquet’s additional teachings of “n packets transmitted . . . spaced in time,
`
`preferably at random” and only “during a predetermined time period”, further
`
`illustrate Bousquet’s failure to teach the required claim language.
`
`Petitioner’s Reply contends that Patent Owner erroneously addresses the
`
`references individually, concluding that, if a claim limitation is not fully taught by
`
`any single reference in the combination, it cannot be rendered obvious by the
`
`combination. (Reply, p. 6). However, the Reply, like the Petition itself, fails to
`
`identify any portion of Bousquet that in fact teaches the above-identified limitations,
`
`given that the primary reference Wolfe is admittedly deficient in this regard. Indeed,
`
`the Reply implicitly acknowledges the deficiencies of the Petition and the
`
`declaration filed with the Petition by improperly seeking to rely on a second
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`B2
`declaration of Paul G. Steffes (Ex. 1018, 16-18), even though the Petitioner
`
`repeatedly argues that the Patent Owner did not submit its own evidence. (Reply, p.
`
`1-2). In fact, as demonstrated by the Petitioner’s attempt to belatedly justify its
`
`arguments via a further declaration, Patent Owner’s Response has demonstrated that
`
`Petitioner and declarant have failed to meet their burden of showing that each of the
`
`features in the above-identified claim limitation is mapped by Bousquet and Wolfe.
`
`Further still, the Reply’s assertion that Patent Owner has failed to demonstrate
`
`that Bousquet teaches away from the proposed combination likewise misses the
`
`mark. (Reply, p. 6). There is no need for the Board here to find that Bousquet teaches
`
`away from the proposed combination to determine that the Petitioners have failed to
`
`demonstrate unpatentability of the challenged claims, as the Petitioners and their
`
`declarant have failed to provide a reasonable explanation as to why a POSITA,
`
`considering the references as a whole, would pick and choose features from Wolfe
`
`and Bousquet to obtain the recitations of the claims of the ‘079 Patent. As discussed
`
`above, the ‘079 Patent provides functionality which is absent from Bousquet’s
`
`teaching, in the case of the recited consecutive allocated time slots. Further still,
`
`Bousquet’s own disclosure of its retransmission technique (send the same access
`
`packet n times in a given time period whether or not an acknowledgement message
`
`is received from the station) is opposite that recited in the claimed limitation, and
`
`Petitioner points to no portion of the references of Bousquet or Wolfe to cure these
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`B2
`glaring omissions and contradictions. Similarly, Petitioner’s declarant’s testimony
`
`merely parrots the Petition’s conclusory and unsupported statements as to what a
`
`POSITA would find obvious, without properly evaluating how a POSITA would
`
`view the references as a whole. Recognizing the clear deficiencies in the references
`
`themselves, the Reply asserts (Reply, p. 11) that Petitioner’s declarant alleges that,
`
`“to maximize the speed of call setup while minimizing wasted bandwidth, a POSITA
`
`would have found it obvious to modify Wolfe to use all opportunities available for
`
`a successful request.” Petition, 32; EX-1018, [21]-[22], and that, “[t]o achieve that
`
`result, a POSITA would have modified Wolfe to re-transmit requests in consecutive
`
`frames until a point in time when an acknowledgement of the first request would
`
`have been expected.” Id. (emphasis added); EX-1018, [21]-[22]. This conclusory
`
`analysis should be given little or no weight, as Petitioner’s declarant has provided
`
`only a hindsight reconstruction of the claim limitations, rather than an analysis based
`
`on a POSITA’s understanding of the references as a whole. Further, declarant’s
`
`incongruous assertion that a POSITA would modify Wolfe to include retransmission
`
`until a point in time when an acknowledgement would have been expected is not
`
`only inconsistent with the claim language itself, but is untethered from the
`
`references’ teachings and finds no basis in fact, law or logic. As the Court of
`
`Appeals has stated:
`
`[W]e rejected obviousness determinations based on conclusory and
`
`unsupported expert testimony. We repeatedly expressed concerns that
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`B2
`crediting such testimony risks allowing the challenger to use the challenged
`
`patent as a roadmap to reconstruct the claimed invention using disparate
`
`elements from the prior art—i.e., the impermissible ex post reasoning and
`
`hindsight bias that KSR warned against. See Van Os, 844 F.3d at 1361 (citing
`
`KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 421).
`
`TQ Delta, LLC v. Cisco Sys., 2018-1766, at *13-14 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 22, 2019).
`
`
`
`Here, the evidence on which Petitioner seeks to reply is nothing more than an
`
`improper use of the ‘079 Patent as a roadmap to reconstruct the claimed invention
`
`using disparate elements from the Wolfe and Bousquet references, and should be
`
`given no weight.
`
`
`
`B. Petitioners fail to meet their burden to show the cited combination of
`Wolfe, Bousquet, and Everett (Ground 2) teaches “wherein the at least
`one of the plurality of respective secondary stations retransmits the
`same respective request in consecutive allocated time slots without
`waiting for an acknowledgement until said acknowledgement is
`received from the primary station” (Claim 17)
`
`Patent Owner’s Response explains that the Petition fails to establish prima facie
`
`obviousness for the above-identified recitation. (POR p. 9-13). The inclusion of
`
`Everett fails to cure the glaring omissions and contradictions inherent in Wolfe and
`
`Bousquet described herein above. Petitioner’s Reply, in regards to Ground 2, asserts
`
`that Bousquet and Everett suggest modification of Wolfe to perform retransmission
`
`in consecutive allocated time slots without waiting for an acknowledgement until
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`B2
`said acknowledgement is received. (Reply, p. 4). In response to Patent Owner’s clear
`
`rebuke of Petitioner’s reliance on Everett (POR p. 9-13), including evidence showing
`
`Everett’s retransmissions are done at randomly selected time intervals (opposite to the
`
`claim requirements), no evidence exists for Everett disclosing the required
`
`retransmitting the same respective request “in consecutive allocated time slots
`
`without waiting for an acknowledgement until said acknowledgement is received
`
`from the primary station”, Petitioner’s Reply concedes such failure by Everett.
`
`(Reply, p. 9). However, in a futile attempt to cabin Everett and maintain its erroneous
`
`contention of obviousness, the Reply asserts that the Petition’s combination “relies
`
`primarily on Everett for teaching the use of “acknowledgement[s] to acknowledge,
`
`separate from an allocation, a secondary station’s request to the primary station for
`
`additional capacity and to retransmit the request until Everett’s acknowledgement is
`
`received” and to “cease re-transmission once the secondary station has received an
`
`acknowledgement from the primary station.” Petition, 48 (citing to EX-1008, 317- 318,
`
`FIG. 17. 7), 75-76 (citing to EX-1008, 207). “ (Reply, p. 9). The Reply further asserts
`
`that Everett’s processing technique and “use of randomly selected time intervals” is
`
`beside the point because the proposed combination relies only on Everett’s concept
`
`of using acknowledgements and ceasing re-transmissions. EX-1018, [19]-[20]. (id.).
`
`(emphasis added). The Reply once again points out Petitioner’s impermissible
`
`piecemeal selection of only so much of a reference “as will support a given position,
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`B2
`to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference
`
`fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Wesslau, 353 F.2d at 241. For
`
`this reason alone, Petitioner fails to carry its burden of proof.
`
`As further evidence of Petitioner’s utter failure to establish a prima facie case
`
`of obviousness of the retransmission limitation of claim 17 over Wolfe in view of
`
`Bousquet and in further view of Everett, the Reply and declarant refer to the first
`
`declaration (Ex. 1003) for support, which asserts that to maximize the speed of call
`
`setup while minimizing wasted bandwidth, a POSITA would have found it obvious
`
`to modify Wolfe to use all opportunities available for a successful request.”
`
`Petition, 32; Ex. 1003; 69. (emphasis added). The above statement endeavors to
`
`provide the illusion of explanation, but is nonsensical and devoid of any analysis,
`
`logic or application of the references. For this additional reason, Petitioner fails
`
`to carry its burden of proof.
`
`Further still, given that Petitioner’s Reply admits that Everett is relied upon
`
`only in an attempt to teach use of acknowledgement[s] to retransmit the request
`
`until Everett’s acknowledgement and to and to cease re-transmission upon receipt
`
`of an acknowledgement (Reply, p. 9), Petitioner nevertheless fails to reconcile
`
`Everett’s allegation of acknowledgement processing with the unambiguous
`
`language of Bousquet, which teaches retransmission of requests a predefined
`
`number of times independent of whether an acknowledgement is received or not.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`B2
`(Ex. 1006; 2: 53-56). Such failure is striking and points up the incongruous and
`
`disparate teachings asserted in Petitioner’s Reply, which fail to carry Petitioners’
`
`burden of proof under 35 U.S.C. §316(e).
`
`
`
`C. The Petition fails to render obvious “wherein the primary station
`determines whether a request for services has been transmitted by the at
`least one of the plurality of respective secondary stations by determining
`whether a signal strength of the respective transmitted request of the at
`least one of the plurality of respective secondary stations exceeds a
`threshold value” (Claim 17) (Grounds 1 and 2)
`
`i.
`
`A POSITA Would Not Combine Patsiokas with Wolfe and
`Bousquet, or with Wolfe, Bousquet, and Everett
`
`Patent Owner’s Response explains that the Petition fails to establish prima
`
`facie obviousness for the above-identified recitation as Petitioner fails to establish
`
`that a POSITA would have made the hypothetical combinations proposed by the
`
`Petition involving Patsiokas. (POR p. 13-18). Petitioner’s Reply asserting
`
`misrepresentation of Petitioner’s arguments (Reply, p. 16) is unavailing, as
`
`Petitioner fails to cite any portion of Wolfe, Bousquet, or Everett to refute Patent
`
`Owner’s contention that Patsiokas addresses a shortcoming in cordless radio
`
`telephone systems that is unidentified in the satellite systems of these references.
`
`(POR, p.16).
`
`Further, Petitioner’s reliance on declarant’s testimony (Ex.-1018, [30]-[31])
`
`attempting to refute Patent Owner’s assertion of Wolfe’s showing of a single
`
`reference station (base station) and Everett’s single hub (base station) (POR, p. 17-
`
`18) misses the mark, as Wolfe’s system makes clear that only one reference station
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00510
`
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`
`exercises control. (EX-1005, 5:20-21). Further still,
`
`the Petition’s reliance on
`
`specific portions and embodiments of Everett’s single hub (base station) as shown
`
`by Petitioner in Fig. 1.6(c) is not defended, but rather the Reply points to separate
`
`embodiments, unidentified in the asserted Petition, in a failed effort to rebut Patent
`
`Owner’s contention. (See Reply, p. 19). Not only is such new evidence insufficient,
`
`the Petitioners’ desperate attempt to salvage its case by belatedly introducing new
`
`evidence demonstrates that even Petitioners concede that the Petition is deficient.
`
`D. Claim 18
`
`Patent Owner’s Response acknowledges that
`
`the Board has made its
`
`determination that Petitioners”
`
`contentions
`
`are
`
`inadequate for
`
`the alleged
`
`obviousness of claim 18, and that the Board included the claim in this trial only in
`
`light of SAS. See Paper 7, 24. The Petition’s contentions as to claim 18 are also
`
`deficient for at least the same reasons argued above as to claim 17, and Petitioner’s
`
`Reply fails to address those deficiencies.
`
`111. Related Proceedings
`
`Patent Owner identifies the following proceedings involving the ’079 patent:
`
`Case
`
`Filing
`Date
`
`2/22/2018
`
`Case Name
`
`Case Number
`
`Court
`
`Unilcc USA, Inc. et a! v. Apple
`Inc.
`
`l-l8-cv-0015 8
`
`WDTX
`
`
`
`
`EDTX
`2-18-cv-00042
`Unilcc USA, Inc. et a! v. Samsung
`2/23/2018
`
`Electronics America, Inc. et a/
`
`3/9/2018
`
`Unilcc USA, Inc. et a! v. LG
`
`3-18-cv-00557
`
`NDTX
`
`Electronics USA, Inc. eta!
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case
`
`Case Name
`
`Case Number
`
`Court
`
`IPR2019-00510
`
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`
`Filing
`
`Date
`
`
`
`3/ 13/2018
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. er al v. Huawei
`
`2-18-cv-00075
`
`Device USA, Inc. ei a!
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. ei o! v. ZTE
`
`USA , Inc. ei nl
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. eial v.
`
`BlackBer Corioroiion
`
`Uniloc USA Inc er al v.
`
`Blackber Corooriiiion
`
`
`
`EDTX
`
`EDTX
`
`EDTX
`
`NDTX
`
`NDTX
`
`DDE
`
`“’D‘“
`
`NDTX
`3-18-cv-02835
`Uni/0c USA, Inc. ei al v. ZTE
`10/24/2018
`
`(USA), Inc. er al
`NDCA
`4-18-cv-06737
`Uniloc USA Inc ei al v. LG
`11/6/2018
`
`Electronics USA Inc ei‘ cl
`
`
`
`11/17/2018
`
`Uni/0c 2017 LLC v. ZTE Inc ei‘ al
`
`3-18-cv-03064
`
`Cororaiion
`
`Uniloc 2OI7LLC v. Motorola
`
`Mobili
`
`,LLC
`
`America, Inc.
`
`LLC
`
`Services, Inc. ei al
`
`NDCA
`4-19-cv-01691
`Uniloc USA, Inc. eial 12. Apple
`4/2/2019
`
`171C.
`
`Electronics America, Inc. eiol
`
`7/1/2019
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Samsung
`
`19-2072
`
`CAFC
`
`10/11/2019 Motorola Mobility LLC er al v.
`IPR2020-00038
`PTAB
`
`Uni/0c 201 7 LLC
`
`1/17/2020
`
`Ericsson Inc. v. Uniloc 201 7 LLC
`
`IPR2020-00420
`
`PTAB
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`B2
`
`For at least the reasons set forth above, Uniloc respectfully requests that
`
`the Board deny all challenges in the instant Petition.1
`
`Date: February 20, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Ryan Loveless/
`Ryan Loveless
`Reg. No. 51,970
`Brett A. Mangrum
`Reg. No. 64,783
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`1 Patent Owner does not concede, and specifically denies, that there is any
`
`legitimacy to any arguments in the instant Petition that are not specifically
`
`addressed herein.
`
`14
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`B2
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d), the undersigned certifies that the foregoing
`
`complies with the type-volume limitation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(c)(1) because it
`
`contains fewer than the limit of 5,600 words, as determined by the word- processing
`
`program used to prepare the brief, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.24(c).
`
`Date: February 20, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By: /Ryan Loveless/
`Ryan Loveless
`Reg. No. 51,970
`Brett A. Mangrum
`Reg. No. 64,783
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2019-00510
`U.S. Patent 6,868,079
`B2
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that an electronic
`
`copy of the foregoing Sur Reply was served via email to Petitioner’s counsel at the
`
`following addresses identified in the Petition’s consent to electronic service:
`
`Lead Counsel: W. Karl Renner, Reg. No. 41,265
`IPR39521-0060IP1@fr.com
`
`Backup Counsel: Jeremy J. Monaldo, Reg. No. 58,680
`Roberto J. Devoto, Reg. No. 55,108
`
`Grace Kim, Reg. No. 71,977
`
`PTABInbound@fr.com; axf-ptab@fr.com;
`monaldo@fr.com; devoto@fr.com; gkim@fr.com
`
`Date: February 20, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Ryan Loveless/
`Ryan Loveless
`Reg. No. 51,970
`Brett A. Mangrum
`Reg. No. 64,783
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`