UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NANOCO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,803,423
`Case IPR2021-00184
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`NANOCO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,803,423
`Case IPR2021-00184
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`PATENT OWNER MISCHARACTERIZES THE DISTRICT
`COURT’S ORDER ON PETITIONER’S MOTION TO STAY. ................... 1
`THE RELATIVE TIMING OF THE DISTRICT COURT CASE AND
`THIS IPR DOES NOT MANDATE DISCRETIONARY DENIAL. ............. 3
`PETITIONER’S UPDATED STIPULATION ELIMINATES
`POSSIBLE OVERLAP. .................................................................................. 4
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00184: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Petitioner submits this Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`pursuant to the Board’s March 8, 2021 email granting Petitioner leave to file a reply.
`
`I.
`
`Patent Owner Mischaracterizes The District Court’s Order On
`Petitioner’s Motion To Stay.
`As promised in its Petition, Petitioner promptly filed a motion to stay in the
`
`related district court proceeding once a notice of filing date had been accorded to the
`
`petition. Paper 1 at 65; Paper 4 (notice of filing date accorded dated November 25,
`
`2020); Ex. 2018 (motion to stay filed November 30, 2020). In its Preliminary
`
`Response, Patent Owner emphasizes that this motion was denied, but fails to
`
`acknowledge that Petitioner’s motion was “DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to
`
`refiling the same, which shall be permitted within fourteen (14) days following the
`
`PTAB’s institution decision regarding the last of the patents-in-suit to be acted upon
`
`by the PTAB.” Ex. 2019 at 3 (emphasis in original). This decision was in
`
`accordance with that court’s “consistent practice of denying motions to stay when
`
`the PTAB has yet to institute post-grant proceedings.” Id. at 2. Thus, contrary to
`
`Patent Owner’s argument, the district court’s order denying Petitioner’s motion to
`
`stay without prejudice and with express leave to refile does not tip Fintiv factor 1,
`
`“whether the court granted a stay or evidence exists that one may be granted if a
`
`proceeding is instituted,” in favor of the Board exercising its discretion to deny
`
`institution in this case.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00184: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Further, the district court has shown its willingness to stay cases pending
`
`instituted IPRs, even on the eve of trial. As explained in the Petition, the same
`
`district court has severed and stayed claims “pending a resolution in the inter partes
`
`review proceedings,” despite the case being less than six weeks away from jury
`
`selection. Seven Networks, LLC v. Apple Inc., C.A. No. 2:19-cv-00115-JRG, Dkt.
`
`313 (Sept. 22, 2020) (Ex. 1017).
`
`Even more recently, that same court granted a renewed motion to stay pending
`
`IPR for a party similarly situated to Petitioner. In Arbor Global Strategies LLC v.
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Samsung filed a motion to stay a month after filing IPR
`
`petitions, which the court denied because IPR had not been instituted against any
`
`asserted claims. C.A. No. 2:19-cv-00333, Dkt. 175 at 1-2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2021).
`
`While the institution decisions were pending, the court issued its Markman order and
`
`the parties completed fact discovery and exchanged opening expert reports. Id. at 2.
`
`After the Board instituted Samsung’s petitions, Samsung renewed its motion to stay,
`
`at which time “expert discovery was still ongoing, dispositive and Daubert motions
`
`were not yet due, the pretrial conference was less than three months away, and trial
`
`was less than four months away.” Id. The district court granted the renewed motion
`
`to stay, finding that a stay would simplify the issues. Id. at 5-6. There is no reason
`
`to believe the court would act differently in the case related to this IPR.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00184: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`II. The Proximity of the Trial Date Should Be Given Little If Any Weight.
`Patent Owner wrongly argues that the trial date in the related district court
`
`action, which is currently scheduled to begin seven months before a Final Written
`
`Decision would be expected, “should control” and favors the Board exercising its
`
`discretion. POPR at 9. On the contrary, the currently scheduled trial date should be
`
`given little if any weight as the Board has instituted similarly situated IPRs, and as
`
`noted above, the district court is likely to stay the case―and thus trial―if this IPR
`
`is instituted.
`
`For example, in the Arbor IPRs, trial was scheduled to begin eight months
`
`before a Final Written Decision would be expected, yet the Board instituted the IPRs
`
`over Patent Owner’s § 314(a) arguments. Arbor, Dkt. 175 at 2; Samsung Elecs. Co.
`
`v. Arbor Global Strategies LLC, IPR2020-01020, -01021, Paper 11 (PTAB Dec. 2,
`
`2020) (Arbor PTAB I and II); Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Arbor Global Strategies LLC,
`
`IPR2020-01022, Paper 12 (PTAB Dec. 2, 2020) (Arbor PTAB III). And, as shown
`
`above, in response, the same district court then stayed the litigation.
`
`Moreover, in other recent IPR proceedings, the Board has instituted IPRs over
`
`Patent Owner’s § 314(a) arguments even though trial was expected to begin seven
`
`months before the statutory date for the final written decision. Peag LLC, Audio
`
`P’ship LLC, and Audio P’ship PLC v. Varta Microbattery GMBH, IPR2020-01212,
`
`Paper 8 at 17, 22-23 (PTAB Jan. 6, 2021) (“seven months”); Samsung Elec. Am. Inc.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00184: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`v. Snik LLC, IPR2020-01428, Paper 10 at 11, 13 (Mar. 9, 2021) (“approximately
`
`seven months”). Again, as in the Arbor proceedings, the district court stayed those
`
`litigations. Varta Microbattery GMBH v. Peag LLC et al., C.A. No. 2:20-cv-00138-
`
`JRG, Dkt. 10 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2021); Snik LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co. et al., C.A.
`
`No. 2:19-cv-00387, Dkt. 109 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2021). Thus, under the
`
`circumstances, this factor is neutral or weighs at most only slightly in favor of Patent
`
`Owner.
`
`III. Petitioner’s Updated Stipulation Eliminates Possible Overlap.
`Petitioner’s original stipulation (Ex. 1021) was sufficient to avoid overlap
`
`between the district court case and this IPR. Indeed, Petitioner’s original stipulation
`
`was identical to the stipulation in the Arbor IPRs, which the Board found would
`
`mitigate concerns of duplicative efforts and potentially conflicting decisions. Arbor
`
`PTAB I, II & III at 14-15. Nonetheless, to address Patent Owner’s concerns about
`
`the alleged overlap between the grounds asserted here and Petitioner’s invalidity
`
`contentions in the related district court case, Petitioner has provided an updated,
`
`broader stipulation to Patent Owner. Ex. 1090. Petitioner now stipulates that for
`
`those patents for which the Board institutes IPR, Samsung will not pursue in the
`
`district court case the specific grounds asserted in the IPR or “any other ground …
`
`that was raised or could have been reasonably raised in an IPR (i.e., any ground that
`
`could be raised under §§ 102 or 103 on the basis of prior art patents or printed
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00184: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`publications).” See Sotera Wireless, Inc. v. Masimo Corp., IPR2020-01019, Paper
`
`12 at 18-19 (PTAB Dec. 1, 2020) (precedential).
`
`In Sotera, the petitioner broadly stipulated not to raise invalidity grounds in
`
`district court using the exact same language as Petitioner’s new stipulation here. Id.
`
`at 18-19. The Board found that such a broad stipulation was sufficient to mitigate
`
`any concerns of duplicative efforts and ensured that the IPR was a true alternative to
`
`district court proceedings. Id. Accordingly, the Board found that Fintiv factor 4
`
`weighed “strongly in favor of not exercising discretion to deny institution.” Id. at
`
`19. Indeed, in a recent case where the Petitioner adopted a stipulation matching the
`
`one in Sotera, the Board found that Fintiv factor 4 weighed in favor of not exercising
`
`discretion to deny institution. Ability Opto-Elecs. Tech. Co. v. Largan Precision
`
`Co., IPR2020-01345, Paper 11 at 11-12 (Feb. 22, 2021). In adopting the same
`
`stipulation used in Sotera here, Petitioner has eliminated any overlap with the
`
`parallel district court litigation. Thus, Fintiv factor 4 strongly weighs in favor of not
`
`exercising discretion to deny institution.
`
`In summary, Fintiv factors 1 and 4 weigh in favor of the Board not exercising
`
`its discretion to deny institution (strongly in the case of factor 4), and neither factor
`
`2 nor other factors should alter that conclusion. For the reasons stated above and in
`
`its Petition, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board institute this Petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00184: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`DATED: March 15, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ F. Christopher Mizzo, P.C.
`F. Christopher Mizzo, P.C. (No. 73,156)
`W. Todd Baker (No. 45,265)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20004
`P: 202.389.5000; F: 202.389.5200
`chris.mizzo@kirkland.com
`todd.baker@kirkland.com
`
`Gregory S. Arovas, P.C. (No. 38,818)
`Stefan Miller (No. 57,623)
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`P: 212.446.4800; F: 212.446.4900
`greg.arovas@kirkland.com
`stefan.miller@kirkland.com
`
`Attorneys for Petitioners
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00184: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Exhibit No.
`1001
`1002
`
`1003
`1004
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`1010
`
`1011
`1012
`
`1013
`1014
`1015
`1016
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`Description
`U.S. Patent No. 7,803,423 (“the ’423 patent”)
`Declaration of Mark A. Green in Support of Petition for Inter
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,803,423
`Curriculum Vitae for Mark A. Green
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 7,803,423
`International Patent Publication No. WO 03/097904 to Banin et
`al. (“Banin”)
`A. Zaban, O. I. Mićić, B. A. Gregg, and A. J. Nozik,
`Photosensitization of Nanoporous TiO2 Electrodes with InP
`Quantum Dots, 14 LANGMUIR 3153 (1998) (“Zaban”)
`Olga I. Mićić et al., Synthesis and Characterization of InP
`Quantum Dots, 98 J. PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY 4966 (1994) (“Mićić”)
`V. Ptatschek et al., Quantized Aggregation Phenomena in II–VI-
`Semiconductor Colloids, 102 BERICHTE DER BUNSEN–
`GESELLSCHAFT FÜR PHYSIKALISCHE CHEMIE 85 (1998)
`(“Ptatschek”)
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`Heng Yu et al., Heterogeneous Seeded Growth: A Potentially
`General Synthesis of Monodisperse Metallic Nanoparticles, 123 J.
`AM. CHEMICAL SOC’Y 9198 (2001)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,193,098 to Lucey et al. (“Lucey”)
`S.P. Ahrenkiel et al., Synthesis and Characterization of Colloidal
`InP Quantum Rods, 3 NANO LETTERS 833 (2003) (“Ahrenkiel”)
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`U.S. Patent No. 6,576,291 to Bawendi et al. (“Bawendi”)
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`N. Herron et al., Crystal Structure and Optical Properties of
`Cd32S14(SC6H5)36·DMF4, a Cluster with a 15 Angstrom CdS Core,
`259 SCIENCE 1426 (1993)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00184: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Exhibit No.
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`1024
`1025
`1026
`1027
`1028
`1029
`1030
`1031
`1032
`1033
`1034
`1035
`
`1036
`1037
`
`Description
`Seven Networks, LLC v. Apple Inc., C.A. No. 2:19-cv-00115-JRG,
`Dkt. 313 (Sept. 22, 2020)
`Docket Control Order, Nanoco Technologies Ltd. v. Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2:20-cv-00038 (E.D. Tex.)
`October 2021 Calendar for Judge Rodney Gilstrap, Eastern
`District of Texas
`Return of summons to Samsung Electronics Co. and Samsung
`Electronics America, Nanoco Technologies Ltd. v. Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2:20-cv-00038 (E.D. Tex.)
`Letter dated November 9, 2020 from M. Pearson to M. Newman
`re stipulation about invalidity grounds
`Infringement contentions, Nanoco Technologies Ltd. v. Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2:20-cv-00038 (E.D. Tex.)
`Cover material for Zaban
`Cover material for Mićić
`Cover material for Ptatschek
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`Cover material for Yu
`Cover material for Ahrenkiel
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`Declaration of Chris Lowden
`Declaration of David Smorodin
`Affidavit of Elizabeth Rosenberg
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`Catherine J. Murphy, Optical Sensing with Quantum Dots, 74
`ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY 520A (2002)
`U.S. Patent App. No. 2003/0106488 to Huang et al.
`NANOPARTICLES: FROM THEORY TO APPLICATION (Günter Schmid
`ed., March 2004)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00184: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Exhibit No.
`1038
`
`1039
`
`1040
`1041
`
`1042
`1043
`1044
`
`1045
`
`1046
`
`1047
`
`1048
`
`1049
`
`1050
`
`1051
`
`Description
`Victor I. Klimov, Nanocrystal Quantum Dots, 28 LOS ALAMOS
`SCI. 214 (2003)
`David J. Norris, Electronic Structure in Semiconductor
`Nanocrystals, in SEMICONDUCTOR AND METAL NANOCRYSTALS 65
`(Victor I. Klimov ed., 2003)
`U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0036130 to Lee et al. (“Lee”)
`Andy Watson et al., Lighting Up Cells with Quantum Dots, 34
`BIOTECHNIQUES 296 (2003)
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`Victor K. LaMer et al., Theory, Production and Mechanism of
`Formation of Monodispersed Hydrosols, 72 J. AM. CHEMICAL
`SOC’Y 4847 (1950)
`Scott L. Cumberland et al., Inorganic Clusters as Single-Source
`Precursors for Preparation of CdSe, ZnSe, and CdSe/ZnS
`Nanomaterials, 14 CHEMISTRY OF MATERIALS 1576 (2002)
`C. B. Murray et al., Synthesis and Characterization of Nearly
`Monodisperse CdE (E = S, Se, Te) Semiconductor
`Nanocrystallites, 115 J. AM. CHEMICAL SOC’Y 8706 (1993)
`David Battaglia et al., Formation of High Quality InP and InAs
`Nanocrystals in a Noncoordinating Solvent, 2 NANO LETTERS
`1027 (2002)
`Tobias Hanrath et al., Nucleation and Growth of Germanium
`Nanowires Seeded by Organic Monolayer-Coated Gold
`Nanocrystals, 124 J. AM. CHEMICAL SOC’Y 1424 (2002)
`Jennifer A. Hollingsworth et al., “Soft” Chemical Synthesis and
`Manipulation of Semiconductor Nanocrystals, in
`SEMICONDUCTOR AND METAL NANOCRYSTALS 1 (Victor I. Klimov
`ed., 2003)
`Nigel L. Pickett et al., Syntheses of Semiconductor Nanoparticles
`Using Single-Molecular Precursors, 1 CHEMICAL REC. 467 (2001)
`S.B. Qadri et al., Size-Induced Transition-Temperature Reduction
`in Nanoparticles of ZnS, 60 PHYSICAL REV. B 9191 (1999)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00184: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Exhibit No.
`1052
`
`1053
`1054
`1055
`1056
`1057
`1058
`1059
`1060
`
`1061
`1062
`1063
`
`1064
`1065
`1066
`
`1067
`
`1068
`
`Description
`T.M. Hayes et al., Growth and Dissolution of CdS Nanoparticles
`in Glass, 13 J. PHYSICS: CONDENSED MATTER 425 (2001)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,056,471 to Han et al.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,588,828
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`Arthur J. Nozik, et al., III-V Quantum Dots and Quantum Dot
`Arrays: Synthesis, Optical Properties, Photogenerated Carrier
`Dynamics, and Applications to Photon Conversion, in
`SEMICONDUCTOR AND METAL NANOCRYSTALS 327 (Victor I.
`Klimov ed., 2003)
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`INTENTIONALLY OMITTED
`Supporting Material of Heng Yu et al., Heterogeneous Seeded
`Growth: A Potentially General Synthesis of Monodisperse
`Metallic Nanoparticles, 123 J. AM. CHEMICAL SOC’Y 9198 (2001)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,864,626 to Weiss et al. (“Weiss”)
`U.S. Patent No. 7,147,712 to Zehnder et al. (“Zehnder ’712”)
`M. A. Olshavsky, Organometallic Synthesis of GaAs Crystallites
`Exhibiting Quantum Confinement, 112 J. AM. CHEM. SOC. 9438
`(1990)
`A. R. Kortan et al, Nucleation and Growth of CdSe on ZnS
`Quantum Crystallite Seeds, and Vice Versa, in Inverse Micelle
`Media, 112 J. AM. CHEM. SOC. 1327 (1990)
`Holger Borchert et al., Investigation of ZnS Passivated InP
`Nanocrystals by XPS, 2 NANO LETTERS 151 (2002)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00184: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Exhibit No.
`1069
`
`1070
`
`1071
`
`1072
`
`1073
`1074
`
`1075
`
`1076
`1077
`1078
`
`1079
`
`1080
`1081
`
`1082
`
`1083
`
`Description
`Gregory A. Khitrov, Synthesis, Characterization and Formation
`Mechanisms of Inorganic Nanomaterials, University of California
`Santa Barbara (1993)
`Frederic V. Mikulec, Organometallic Synthesis and Spectroscopic
`Characterization of Manganese-Doped CdSe Nanocrystals, 122 J.
`AM. CHEM. SOC. 2532 (2000)
`Stephan Haubold, Strongly Luminescent InP/ZnS Core-Shell
`Nanoparticles, 2 CHEMPHYSCHEM 331 (2001)
`Huheey et al., INORGANIC CHEMISTRY: PRINCIPLES OF STRUCTURE
`AND REACTIVITY (4th ed. 1993)
`Linus Pauling, GENERAL CHEMISTRY (3d ed. revised 1988)
`Richard L. Wells et al., Tris(trimethylsilyl)arsine and Lithium
`Bis(trimethylsilyl)arsenide, 31 INORGANIC SYNTHESES 150 (Alan
`H. Cowley ed., 1997)
`J.R. De Laeter et al., Atomic Weights of the Elements: Review
`2000, 75 PURE & APPLIED CHEMISTRY 683 (2003)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,649,138 to Adams et al. (“Adams ’138”)
`European Patent App. No. 84303605.4 (“Hashimoto”)
`M. W. G. De Bolster, Glossary of Terms Used in Bioinorganic
`Chemistry, 69 PURE & APPLIED CHEMISTRY 1251 (1997)
`YunWei Cao et al., Growth and Properties of Semiconductor
`Core/Shell Nanocrystals with InAs Cores, 122 J. AM. CHEM. SOC.
`9692 (2000)
`U.S. Patent No. 8,033,977 to Hainfeld et al. (“Hainfeld”)
`Charles L. Cleveland, Structural Evolution of Smaller Gold
`Nanocrystals: The Truncated Decahedral Motif, 79 PHYSICAL
`REV. LETTERS 1873 (1997)
`Shinichiro Hakomori, The Electrode Potential of Indium Against
`Indium Chloride Solutions, 52 J. AM. CHEM. SOC. 2372 (1930)
`Von G. Becker et al., Synthese und Eigenschaften von
`Trimethylsilylarsanen, 462 ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR ANORGANISCHE UND
`ALLGEMEINE CHEMIE 113 (1980)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00184: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Exhibit No.
`1084
`
`1085
`
`1086
`
`1087
`
`1088
`
`1089
`1090
`
`Description
`B. O. Dabbousi et al., (CdSe)ZnS Core-Shell Quantum Dots:
`Synthesis and Characterization of a Size Series of Highly
`Luminescent Nanocrystallites, 101 J. PHYS. CHEM. B 9463 (1997)
`Nathalie Audebrand et al., The Layer Crystal Structure of
`[In2(C2O4)3(H2O)3]·7H2O and Microstructure of Nanocrystalline
`In2O3 Obtained from Thermal Decomposition, 5 SOLID ST. SCI.
`783 (2003)
`G. W. Parshall, Synthesis of Alkylsilylphosphines, 81 J. AM.
`CHEM. SOC. 6273 (1959)
`Michael L. Steigerwald et al., Semiconductor Crystallites: A
`Class of Large Molecules, 23 ACCTS. OF CHEMICAL RES. 183
`(1990)
`Richard L. Wells, Synthesis of Nanocrystalline Indium Arsenide
`and Indium Phosphide from Indium(III) Halides and
`Tris(trimethylsilyl)pnicogens; Synthesis, Characterization, and
`Decomposition Behavior of I3In·P(SiMe3)3, Office of Naval
`Research, United States Government (1995)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,699,647 to Lynch (“Lynch”)
`March 2, 2021 Letter M. Pearson to M. Newman
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00184: Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned certifies that the above-captioned “PETITIONER’S REPLY
`
`TO PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE” and accompanying
`
`Exhibit 1090 were served in their entirety on March 15, 2021, via electronic service
`
`on lead and back-up counsel:
`
`WAMeunier@mintz.com
`
`PJCuomo@mintz.com
`
`MCNewman@mintz.com
`
`TWintner@mintz.com
`
`MSGalica@mintz.com
`
`NanocoIPRs@mintz.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ F. Christopher Mizzo, P.C.
`F. Christopher Mizzo, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
