DOCKET NO.: 01033300-00350
`Filed on behalf of Apple Inc.
`By: Jason D. Kipnis, Reg. No. 40,680
`David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`Mary V. Sooter, Reg. No. 71,022
`Richard Goldenberg, Reg. No. 38,895
`Ravinder Deol, Reg. No. 62,165
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`Tel: (617) 526-6000
`Email:
`Jason.Kipnis@wilmerhale.com
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`Mindy.Sooter@wilmerhale.com
`Richard.Goldenberg@wilmerhale.com
`Ravi.Deol@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`OPTIS WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2020-00466
`U.S. Patent No. 8,411,557
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Filed on behalf of Apple Inc.
`By: Jason D. Kipnis, Reg. No. 40,680
`David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`Mary V. Sooter, Reg. No. 71,022
`Richard Goldenberg, Reg. No. 38,895
`Ravinder Deol, Reg. No. 62,165
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`Tel: (617) 526-6000
`Email:
`Jason.Kipnis@wilmerhale.com
`David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
`Mindy.Sooter@wilmerhale.com
`Richard.Goldenberg@wilmerhale.com
`Ravi.Deol@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`APPLE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`OPTIS WIRELESS TECHNOLOGY, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case IPR2020-00466
`U.S. Patent No. 8,411,557
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00466
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`The Fintiv Factors Counsel Against Exercising Discretion to Deny .............. 1
`A.
`Factor 1: Lack of Evidence of Stay Renders This Factor Neutral ....... 1
`B.
`Factor 3: Petitioner’s Diligence and No Tactical Advantage .............. 1
`C.
`Factor 4: The Issues Do Not Substantially Overlap ............................. 2
`D.
`Factor 6: Strong Petition Outweighs Other Factors ............................. 3
`E.
`Additional Considerations under Factor 6 Favor Institution ................ 4
`The NHK/Fintiv Framework Should Be Overturned ...................................... 6
`A.
`The NHK/Fintiv Framework Is Legally Invalid .................................... 6
`B.
`The NHK/Fintiv Framework Encourages Gamesmanship .................... 8
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00466
`
`
`The POPR urges denial of the Petition under § 314(a) based on
`
`misapplication of the Fintiv factors and an undue focus on the time between the
`
`trial date in the district court litigation (“Texas case”) and an expected Final
`
`Written Decision (“FWD”). Other factors favor institution, including Petitioner’s
`
`strong showing on the merits, a lack of overlap in prior art between the Petition
`
`and the Texas case, and the complexities of litigation. A balanced weighing of the
`
`factors shows that the patent system would best be served by instituting review.
`
`I.
`
`The Fintiv Factors Counsel Against Exercising Discretion to Deny
`
`A.
`
`Factor 1: Lack of Evidence of Stay Renders This Factor Neutral
`
`The Board routinely declines to speculate as to the likelihood of a stay where
`
`none has been requested. See, e.g., Fintiv, Paper 15 at 12. Because no stay has
`
`been requested in the Texas case, this factor is neutral. Id.
`
`B.
`
`Factor 3: Petitioner’s Diligence and No Tactical Advantage
`
`PO’s discussion of Factor 3 fails to acknowledge Petitioner’s diligence in
`
`filing the Petition, which favors institution. Petitioner’s initial invalidity
`
`contentions identified nearly 140 prior art references across seven asserted patents
`
`in the Texas case. Rather than burden the Board with multiple petitions on seven
`
`patents, Petitioner diligently evaluated the unique strengths of each prior art
`
`reference and combination, searched for additional prior art, and filed only three
`
`petitions. This Petition uses only two grounds to show unpatentability of 10 claims
`
`1
`
`
`
`in a way that does not depend on the constructions disputed by the parties in the
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00466
`
`
`Texas case. Such careful selection of grounds shows Petitioner’s diligence. See
`
`Med-El Elek. Geräte GES.M.B.H v. Advanced Bionics AG, IPR2020-00190, Paper
`
`15 at 13-14 (June 3, 2020). PO does not allege that Petitioner obtained any tactical
`
`advantage for the Petition from the litigation based on the time the Petition was
`
`filed.
`
`C.
`
`Factor 4: The Issues Do Not Substantially Overlap
`
`PO’s assertion of complete overlap between the Petition and Texas case
`
`(POPR at 6-7) is now inaccurate. At PO’s request, and to eliminate the chance of
`
`inconsistent findings, Petitioner agreed on July 2, 2020 to drop the Harris grounds
`
`in the Texas case and further stipulates that it will not pursue Ground 2 (Sutivong
`
`and Tan) in this IPR. See Ex. 1045. This mitigates concerns of duplicative efforts.
`
`See Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp.–Trucking LLC, IPR2019-
`
`01393, Paper 24, 11-12 (June 16, 2020). The significant differences between the
`
`issues in the present IPR and the Texas case (below) tip factor 4 for institution:
`
`
`
`Grounds
`
`Claims
`
`Unique Issues
`
`Texas
`Case
`
`Sutivong + Tan
`(+046 Tdoc)
`
`1, 6, 10 Sutivong used for rejection of parent ’530
`Application (Pet. at 14-19)
`
`IPR
`
`Harris + Tan
`
`1-10
`
`Harris incorporates Tan (motivation to
`combine), not considered by USPTO
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Neither party seeks a construction of a term construed by the district court.
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00466
`
`
`Contrary to PO’s arguments, Petitioner’s analysis of non-overlapping claims is
`
`proportionate to their length (12/42 pages = 29%; 216/542 words = 40%).
`
`D.
`
`Factor 6: Strong Petition Outweighs Other Factors
`
`Petitioner’s strong showing on the merits more than balances out the time
`
`between trial and an FWD and the minimal overlap remaining in the proceedings.
`
`See Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, LLC, IPR2020-00156, Paper 10 at 20-22.
`
`First, the Petition showed that one must “arrange ... [sequences] so that the
`
`base station and mobile devices ... [can] unambiguously identify[] each sequence”
`
`and that “arranging the sequences in an increasing order of cyclic shifts is the most
`
`obvious choice for a POSITA.” Pet. at 34-35, 27-32. The POPR at 24-31 does not
`
`address this, and mischaracterizes cases that, if read as PO does, would contravene
`
`precedent in KSR v. Teleflex. 550 U.S. 398 at 420-421 (a POSA “is also a person
`
`of ordinary creativity, not an automaton”). PO’s other arguments are wrong:
`
`paragraph 25 of Tan discloses multiple, not one, cyclic shifts, and the Petition
`
`addresses using multiple base sequences. Compare POPR at 26-27 with Pet. at 33-
`
`35, 27-32.
`
`Second, PO does not challenge Harris’s incorporation of Tan. See Ex. 1004,
`
`4:5-11. PO’s attempt to evade this teaching by asserting that “Harris is not
`
`concerned with ... interferences” and is instead “concerned with increasing the
`
`3
`
`
`
`number of useable code [sic] so as to avoid collisions” is self-contradictory (POPR
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00466
`
`
`at 35-37)—avoiding collisions by using more codes requires that the additional
`
`codes do not mutually interfere (like Tan’s Chu sequences). Likewise, Harris’s
`
`disclosure that spreading channel codes need not be orthogonal (POPR at 34-35)
`
`does not negate the disclosure to use (Tan’s) orthogonal sequences, or that such
`
`sequences were desirable. Ex. 1004, 4:2-3; see also Pet. at 29-30, Ex. 1002 at ¶76.
`
`Third, PO’s arguments that rely on Tan’s disclosure of combining Chu
`
`sequences with other codes (POPR at 29-31) contradict PO’s allegations in district
`
`court that the use of Zadoff-Chu sequences in LTE RA preambles infringes despite
`
`further processing. Compare Ex. 1046 at 10-24 with Ex. 1047 at §§5.7, 5.8.
`
`Finally, the Petition showed adjusting code groupings in Harris would
`
`repartition the sequences. Pet. at 46-47. PO does not dispute that when the system
`
`load in Harris does not vary proportionally to the number of UEs in each group,
`
`there would be a change in the number of sequences in code groups. Instead, PO
`
`cites only to the particular situation in which the system load varies proportionally
`
`and might not result in changing the number of sequences in groups (POPR at 33).
`
`E. Additional Considerations under Factor 6 Favor Institution
`
`PO also fails to present other key factors that weigh in favor of institution.
`
`First, the public interest would be served by addressing the invalidity of the
`
`’557 patent, which PO alleges is essential to multiple 3GPP LTE standards and
`
`4
`
`
`
`which PO has already asserted twice. See Ex. 1048 at 8 (declaration of
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00466
`
`
`essentiality); Ex. 1049 (against ZTE), Ex. 1050 (against Petitioner).
`
`Second, the Board is well suited to address the complex technical subject
`
`matter in the Petition, like Tan’s Chu sequences and Walsh codes. Presenting this
`
`subject matter to a jury with issues for five other patents is highly challenging in a
`
`one-week trial. Validity of the ’557 patent is likely to occupy approximately one
`
`hour of trial. Unlike a jury verdict, a detailed FWD on Harris and Tan would shed
`
`light on the large ’557 patent family, which PO continues to prosecute.
`
`Third, the uncertainties created by the COVID-19 pandemic counsel in favor
`
`of institution. PO’s statement that “trial has been moved up to August 3, 2020” is
`
`misleading. After (on March 4) the Court moved trial up to July 7, 2020, the
`
`parties jointly requested (on April 2) that trial be postponed to September 14, 2020.
`
`Ex. 1051. The Court rescheduled trial to August 3, 2020, but noted the parties
`
`could seek “additional relief ... as the COVID-19 pandemic develops.” Ex. 1052.
`
`Texas has recently experienced a significant increase in COVID-19 cases. Ex.
`
`1053. By contrast, the Board has continued to hold hearings remotely.
`
`Finally, the narrowing of issues in the Texas case that has already occurred
`
`shows “the complexity of multiple patents and issues” in a case involving six
`
`unrelated patents. Seven at 21-22. The case may narrow to omit the ’557 patent
`
`entirely. Compare Ex. 1054 (PO’s complaint asserting U.S. 8,102,833 in another
`
`5
`
`
`
`case) with Ex. 1055 (leaving ’833 patent out of trial). Even if overlapping issues
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00466
`
`
`remain between the litigation and this IPR, the unpredictability of trials calls into
`
`question whether such issues will be fully considered at trial. By contrast, “this
`
`IPR trial will provide the parties with an in-depth analysis of” the ’557 patent and
`
`“a full record that will enhance the integrity of the patent system.” Id. at 22.
`
`II. The NHK/Fintiv Framework Should Be Overturned
`
`A.
`
`The NHK/Fintiv Framework Is Legally Invalid
`
`The NHK/Fintiv framework is legally invalid for three primary reasons.
`
`First, the PTO lacks authority to deny institution based on non-statutory
`
`factors. The AIA establishes the conditions that must be satisfied to institute IPR,
`
`e.g., 35 U.S.C. §311(c)(1), (2); §312(a)(1)-(5); §314(a); §315(a)(1), (b), and the
`
`conditions under which IPR may nonetheless not be instituted, e.g., §325(d); Pub.
`
`L. No. 112-29, §6(c)(2)(B). “In light of Congress’s special care in drawing so
`
`precise a statutory scheme,” it is “improper” to consider non-statutory factors.
`
`University of Texas Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 356 (2013).
`
`The AIA further precludes the PTO from denying institution based on non-
`
`statutory efficiency considerations because Congress already specified how
`
`parallel litigation should be accounted for. §311(c)(2); §315; §325(d). Congress
`
`granted the PTO discretion to decide how to manage IPR when there is a parallel
`
`proceeding before the PTO, §315(d), but permitted “overlap” between IPR and
`
`6
`
`
`
`parallel litigation, §301(a), (d); §315(e)(2). “It would have made little sense for
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00466
`
`
`Congress to insist on” such rules if the Director could deny institution for his own
`
`efficiency reasons. SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018).
`
`Moreover, the NHK/Fintiv framework contravenes Congress’s judgment to
`
`allow IPR if filed within one year of the commencement of parallel infringement
`
`litigation. §315(b); cf. §315(a)(1). Congress crafted that limit “to minimize”—not
`
`eliminate—overlap between IPR and litigation. Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call
`
`Techs., LP, 140 S. Ct. 1367, 1374-1375 (2020). Statutory limitations on filing
`
`inherently “take[] account of delay,” and therefore other “case-specific
`
`circumstances”—like the NHK-Fintiv factors—“cannot be invoked to preclude
`
`adjudication of a claim … brought within the [statutory] window.” Petrella v.
`
`Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663, 667, 677-680, 685 (2014).
`
`The NHK/Fintiv framework is also arbitrary and capricious. The factors
`
`require speculation about the likely course of parallel litigation, which will produce
`
`irrational and unfair outcomes. And if trial is rescheduled after a non-institution
`
`decision, as often happens, an IPR petitioner will have lost any avenue for
`
`expeditious resolution of patent validity. These unpredictable risks will undermine
`
`the PTO’s efficiency goal by incentivizing accused infringers to splinter issues and
`
`petition for IPR prematurely, see 157 Cong. Rec. S5430 (Sept. 8, 2011).
`
`Finally, the NHK/Fintiv framework is invalid because it is a substantive rule
`
`7
`
`
`
`that was adopted without public notice and comment. “[T]he Director has no
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00466
`
`
`substantive rule making authority with respect to interpretations of the Patent Act.”
`
`Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, 953 F.3d 1313, 1341 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2020) (additional views of Prost, C.J., Plager, & O’Malley, JJ.). And although
`
`agencies “must use notice-and-comment procedures” when adopting substantive
`
`rules, Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400, 2420 (2019), the Director designated NHK
`
`and Fintiv as precedential (i.e., a binding rule) without such procedures.
`
`B.
`
`The NHK/Fintiv Framework Encourages Gamesmanship
`
`The NHK/Fintiv framework is also bad policy because it encourages
`
`inefficient gamesmanship. The framework will induce plaintiffs to sue in fast-
`
`moving districts in hopes of setting trial before the FWD. It will encourage
`
`plaintiffs to hide important claims early in litigation to delay the filing of IPR
`
`petitions. And it may cause plaintiffs to assert many patents in their complaint to
`
`increase the “overlap” with an IPR petition, only then to withdraw a patent from
`
`the lawsuit once institution of IPR has been denied. Accused infringers may
`
`respond by quickly filing petitions on more patents and claims without fully
`
`understanding the infringement allegations against them. And the pressure to act
`
`immediately will diverts efforts from alternative dispute resolution.
`
`Dated: July 2, 2020
`
`/Jason Kipnis/ (Registration No. 40,680)
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`8
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00466
`
`
`Jason D. Kipnis
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner Apple Inc.
`
`Mary V. Sooter
`Registration No. 71,022
`
`David L. Cavanaugh
`Registration No. 36,476
`
`Richard Goldenberg
`Registration No. 38,895
`
`Ravinder Deol
`Registration No. 62,165
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`1001
`1002
`1003
`
`1004
`1005
`1006
`1007
`1008
`1009
`1010
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00466
`
`
`Updated Exhibit List
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,411,557
`
`Declaration of Mark R. Lanning
`
`International Patent Application No. WO 2006/019710 A1
`(“Sutivong”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,009,637 (“Harris”)
`
`U.S. Patent Publication No. 2007/0165567 (“Tan”)
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,411,557 (’805 Application)
`
`File History for U.S. Patent No. 8,139,473 (’530 Application)
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/781,527 (“Harris Provisional”)
`
`Provisional Application No. 60/759,697 (“Tan Provisional”)
`
`Optis Wireless Technology, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00066-
`JRG, *2 (E.D. Tex.) (Plaintiff’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims,
`Infringement Contentions, and Accompanying Document
`Production).
`
`1011
`
`Optis Wireless Technology, LLC v. ZTE Corp., No. 2:15-cv-300-
`JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., Apr. 19, 2016) (Memorandum Opinion and
`Order).
`1012 Motorola, RACH Design for EUTRA, 3GPP TSG RAN #44,
`Document R1-060387
`
`1013
`1014
`
`1015
`
`CV of Craig Bishop
`
`ETSI, LISTSERV Archives (last visited Jan. 24, 2020) (Available
`at https://list.etsi.org/scripts/wa.exe?INDEX=&p=2)
`
`ETSI, LISTSERV Archives at LIST.ETSI.ORG (Jan. 04, 2006),
`http://list.etsi.org/archives/index.html[https://web.archive.org/web/
`
`10
`
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00466
`
`
`Description
`20060104073144/http://list.etsi.org/archives/index.html]
`
`3GPP, List of 3GPP Individual Members (Dec. 5, 1999)
`http://www.3gpp.org/Participation/3GPP_IM.htm[https://web.archi
`ve.org/web/19991205075508/http://www.3gpp.org:80/Participation
`/3GPP_IM.htm]
`
`Adrian Scrase, MCC Activity Report, 3GPP PCG#20 Tdoc 23 (Apr.
`22, 2008) (Available at
`http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/pcg/pcg_20/docs/PCG20_23.zip)
`
`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #44 Report (Apr. 1, 2006)
`(Available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_44/Reports)
`
`Email from Robert Love to
`3GPP_TSG_RAN_WG1@LIST.ETSI.ORG (Feb. 9, 2006)
`(Available at
`https://list.etsi.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=3GPP_TSG_RAN_WG1;9d
`eb8c5f.0711A)
`
`ETSI, LISTSERV Archives at LIST.ETSI.ORG (Dec. 21, 2005),
`http://list.etsi.org/[https://web.archive.org/web/20051221155929/ht
`tp://list.etsi.org/]
`
`ETSI, LISTSERV Archives at LIST.ETSI.ORG (Feb. 2, 2006),
`http://list.etsi.org/[https://web.archive.org/web/20060202233210/ht
`tp://list.etsi.org:80/archives/index.html]
`
`Email from Yoshikazu Ishii to
`3GPP_TSG_RAN_WG1@LIST.ETSI.ORG (Nov. 17, 2005)
`(Available at
`https://list.etsi.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0511&L=3GPP_TSG_R
`AN_WG1&O=D&P=85658)
`
`1023
`
`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #44 FTP Documents List (last
`accessed Jan. 30, 2020) (Available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_44/Docs)
`
`11
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00466
`
`
`Exhibit
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`Description
`Tdoclist, 3GPP TSG RAN Meeting #44 (Mar. 4, 2006) (Available
`at https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_44/Docs)
`
`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #44 Draft Agenda, Document R1-
`060270 (Jan. 31, 2006) (Available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_44/Agenda)
`
`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #44 FTP Agenda (last accessed
`Jan. 30, 2020) (Available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_44/Agenda)
`
`Email from Yoshikazu Ishii to
`3GPP_TSG_RAN_WG1@LIST.ETSI.ORG (Jan. 31, 2006)
`(Available at
`https://list.etsi.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0601&L=3GPP_TSG_R
`AN_WG1&O=D&P=66623)
`
`Email from Xin Michael Qian to
`3GPP_TSG_RAN_WG1@LIST.ETSI.ORG (Mar. 31, 2007)
`(Available at
`https://list.etsi.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=3GPP_TSG_RAN;b06f8b08.
`0403)
`
`1029
`Park IP Translations and Certification
`1030 Motorola, Random Access Channel TP, 3GPP TSG RAN #44bis,
`Document R1-06xxxx (“Ghosh Proposal”)
`
`1031
`
`Email from Amitava Ghosh to
`3GPP_TSG_RAN_WG1@LIST.ETSI.ORG (Mar. 10, 2006)
`(Available at
`https://list.etsi.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0603B&L=3GPP_TSG_
`RAN_WG1&O=D&P=43036)
`
`1032
`
`NTT DoCoMo, NEC, Sharp, Orthogonal Pilot Channel Structure
`in E-UTRA Uplink, 3GPP TSG RAN Ad Hoc, Document R1-
`060046
`
`1033
`
`Email from Hiroyuki Atarashi to
`
`12
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00466
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`1034
`
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`
`Description
`3GPP_TSG_RAN_WG1@LIST.ETSI.ORG (Jan. 19, 2006)
`(Available at
`https://list.etsi.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0601&L=3GPP_TSG_R
`AN_WG1&O=D&P=38080)
`
`Email from Antti Toskala to
`3GPP_TSG_RAN_WG1@LIST.ETSI.ORG (Nov. 22, 2005)
`(Available at
`https://list.etsi.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0511&L=3GPP_TSG_R
`AN_WG1&O=D&P=116412)
`
`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 LTE Ad Hoc Meeting Report (Feb. 20,
`2006) (Available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_AH/LTE_A
`H_0601/Report)
`
`3GPP TSG RAN WG1 LTE Ad Hoc Meeting FTP Documents List
`(last accessed Feb. 26, 2020) (Available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_AH/LTE_A
`H_0601/Docs)
`
`Tdoclist, 3GPP TSG RAN LTE Ad Hoc Meeting (Feb. 3, 2006)
`(Available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_AH/LTE_A
`H_0601/Docs)
`
`3GPP TSG RAN LTE Ad Hoc Meeting Draft Agenda, Document
`R1-060001 (Jan. 6, 2006) (Available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_AH/LTE_A
`H_0601/Agenda)
`
`3GPP TSG RAN LTE Ad Hoc Meeting FTP Agenda (last accessed
`Feb. 26, 2020) (Available at
`https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_AH/LTE_A
`H_0601/Agenda)
`
`Email from Yoshikazu Ishii to
`3GPP_TSG_RAN_WG1@LIST.ETSI.ORG (Jan. 6, 2006)
`(Available at
`
`13
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00466
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`https://list.etsi.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0601&L=3GPP_TSG_R
`AN_WG1&O=D&P=849)
`
`1041
`
`1042
`
`1043
`
`1044
`1045
`1046
`
`1047
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`1052
`
`1053
`
`Newsletter, GSA, Global Mobile Dialogue, GSA Newsletter: Issue
`Eleven (March 2005)
`
`ETSI, LISTSERV Archives at LIST.ETSI.ORG (Apr. 30, 2006),
`http://list.etsi.org/[https://web.archive.org/web/20060430220228/ht
`tp://list.etsi.org:80/archives/index.html]
`
`Harri Holma and Antti Toskala, WCDMA for UMTS: Radio
`Access For Third Generation Mobile Communications, 2000
`
`Declaration of Craig Bishop
`
`Letter from Mr. Selwyn to Mr. Sheasby
`
` Optis Wireless Tech., LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 19-cv-00066,
`Exhibit 4 to Plaintiffs’ Infringement Contentions (June 17, 2019)
`
`3GPP TS 36.211 v8.2.0 (2008-03)
`
`IPR Information Statement and Licensing Declaration by Optis
`Wireless Technology, LLC for ’557 Patent
`
`Optis Wireless Tech., LLC v. ZTE Corp., Case No. 15-cv-00300,
`Complaint (Mar. 2, 2015)
`
`Optis Wireless Tech., LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 19-cv-00066,
`Original Complaint (Feb. 25, 2019)
`
`Optis Wireless Tech., LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 19-cv-00066,
`Joint Motion to Amend the Docket Control Order and Proposed
`Order (Apr. 2, 2020)
`
`Optis Wireless Tech., LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 19-cv-00066,
`Amended Docket Control Order (Apr. 6, 2020)
`
`Nicole Cobler, Texas Breaks Previous Daily Record with Nearly
`7,000 New Coronavirus Cases, Austin American-Statesman, June
`
`14
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00466
`
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`30, 2020, https://www.statesman.com/news/20200630/texas-
`breaks-previous-daily-record-with-nearly-7000-new-coronavirus-
`cases.
`
`1054
`
`1055
`
`Optis Wireless Tech., LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co. Ltd., Case No. 17-
`cv-00123, Third Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (Apr.
`14, 2017)
`
`Optis Wireless Tech., LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co. Ltd., Case No. 17-
`cv-00123, Plaintiffs’ Notice of Election of Patent Claims for Trial
`(Aug. 15, 2018)
`
`1056
`
`Email Authorizing Reply to POPR and Sur-Reply
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`IPR2020-00466
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on July 2, 2020, I caused a true and correct copy of the
`foregoing materials:
`• Reply to Patent Owner Preliminary Response
`• Updated Table of Exhibits (Ex-1001-1056)
`• Exhibits 1045-1056
`to be served via email on the following attorneys of record as listed in Patent
`Owner’s mandatory notices:
`
`
`Hong Annita Zhong (Reg. No. 66,530)
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`hzhong@irell.com
`azhong@irell.com
`
`Jason Sheasby
`jsheasby@irell.com
`
`PanOptisIPRs@irell.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /Jason Kipnis/
`Jason D. Kipnis
`Registration No. 40,680
`
`
`16
`
`
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
