`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`Filed on behalf of Supercell Oy
`
`By:
`BRIAN HOFFMAN, Reg. No. 39,713
`JENNIFER R. BUSH, Reg. No 50,784
`MICHAEL J. SACKSTEDER (pro hac vice)
`KEVIN X. MCGANN, Reg. No. 48,793
`GREGORY HOPEWELL, Reg. No. 66,012
`GEOFFREY MILLER (pro hac vice)
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`555 California Street, 12th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: 415.875.2300
`Facsimile: 415.281.1350
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`GREE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case PGR2021-00014
`Patent 10,583,362 B2
`_____________
`
`PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00014
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION AND REQUESTED RELIEF .......................................... 1
`LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................... 1
`BASIS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF ..................................................... 2
`1.
`The NHK-Fintiv Factors Support Institution......................................... 2
`a.
`The Board’s conclusion regarding Factor 4 fails to
`follow precedent. ........................................................................ 3
`The Board’s conclusion regarding Factor 6 is
`inconsistent with Fintiv. ............................................................. 6
`The Board misapprehended or overlooked the proper
`weighing of the Fintiv factors. ................................................... 7
`Exercising Discretion Based on the NHK-Fintiv Factors Is
`Improper ................................................................................................ 8
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 10
`
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`D.
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`i
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00014
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) ..................................passim
`Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, LLC,
`IPR2020-00235, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. July 28, 2020) ............................................ 7
`Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal,
`872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................................ 9
`Facebook, Inc. v. Blackberry Ltd.,
`IPR2019-00899, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 8, 2019) .............................................. 5
`Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC,
`973 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................ 9
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`821 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................ 2, 7
`NanoCellect Biomedial, Inc., v. Cytonome/ST, LLC,
`IPR2020-00551, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2020) ........................................... 7
`NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2018)............................................. 2
`Oticon Medical AB v. Cochlear Ltd.,
`IPR2019-00975, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2019) ............................................ 4
`Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp.,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (P.T.A.B. June 16, 2020) ........................................... 7
`Snap, Inc. v. SRK Technology LLC,
`IPR2020-00820, Paper 15 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2020) ........................................ 3, 4
`Ultratec, Inc. v. Captioncall, LLC,
`872 F.3d. 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................... 5
`VMWare, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC,
`IPR2020-00407, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2020) ........................................... 7
`
`ii
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00009
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`STATUTES AND RULES
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ........................................................................................................ 10
`35 U.S.C. § 316 ................................................................................................ 8, 9, 10
`35 U.S.C. § 324 ................................................................................................ 2, 8, 10
`35 U.S.C. § 326(b) ................................................................................................... 10
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71 ....................................................................................................... 1
`The Eleventh Auer: The Effect of Kisor v. Wilkie On Rulemaking and
`Adjudication at the United States Patent and Trademark Office,
`19, Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 485, 501-502 (2020) ............................................... 8
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00014
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`EXHIBIT LIST (37 CFR § 42.63(e))
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1001 U.S. Patent No. 10,518,177 to Suzuki
`
`1002 File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,518,177
`
`1003 U.S. Patent No. 10,583,362
`
`1004 File History of U.S. Patent No. 10,583,362
`
`1005 Declaration of Steve Meretzky
`
`1006 Curriculum Vitae of Steve Meretzky
`
`1007 GREE’s Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`Contentions, dated August 19, 2020 in Case No. 2:19-cv-00413-JRG-RSP
`(E.D. Tex.)
`
`1008 Microsoft Computer Dictionary, 4th Ed. (1999)
`
`1009 YouTube - Master Hearthstone in 10 Minutes! The Ultimate Beginner’s
`Guide (“MH”) (web page print out from
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVZ4qyx-c2o)
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`“Master Hearthstone in 10 Minutes! The Ultimate Beginner’s Guide,”
`webpage as captured by The Internet Archive on January 2, 2014
`
`“Master Hearthstone in 10 Minutes! The Ultimate Beginner’s Guide” –
`Video File
`
`“Master Hearthstone in 10 Minutes! The Ultimate Beginner’s Guide” –
`Transcript
`
`1013 U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0281173 to Gilson et al.
`
`1014 US Patent Publication No. 2014/0349723 to Nakatani et al.
`
`1015 U.S. Patent No. 5,662,332 to Garfield
`
`iv
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00014
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`Exhibit
`
`Description
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`“Dynamic game difficulty balancing,” Wikipedia page as captured by The
`Internet Archive on December 12, 2011
`
`“And That’s A Wrap! BlizzCon 2013 Has Officially Come to an End!”
`webpage as captured by the Internet Archive on Nov. 16, 2013
`
`“FAQ – Hearthstone” webpage as captured by the Internet Archive on Nov.
`16, 2013
`
`“Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft Official Game Site” webpage as captured
`by the Internet Archive on Nov. 16, 2013
`
`1020 GREE, Inc.’s Opposition to Defendant Supercell Oy’s Motion to Dismiss,
`Dkt. No. 34, Filed April 8, 2020, Case No. 2:19-cv-00413-JRG-RSP (E.D.
`Texas)
`
`1021 Claim Construction Memorandum Opinion and Order, Dkt. No. 85, Filed
`Nov. 6, 2020, Case No. 2:19-cv-00413-JRG-RSP (E.D. Texas)
`
`1022 Declaration of Madeline Byers, Custodian of Records for Google LLC
`
`1024
`
`1023 Affidavit of Elizabeth Rosenberg, Records Processor at the Internet Archive
`[Model] Order Focusing Patent Claims and Prior Art to Reduce Costs,
`retrieved from
`http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/forms/ModelPatentOrder.pdf
`1025 Declaration of Jennifer R. Bush in Support of Supercell Oy’s Reply to Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`1026 Amended Docket Control Order, Dkt. 139, Entered
`Mar. 9, 2021 (ED Texas 2:19-cv-00413)
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00014
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`INTRODUCTION AND REQUESTED RELIEF
`A.
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71, Petitioner Supercell Oy (“Supercell” or
`
`“Petitioner”) respectfully requests rehearing of the Board’s Decision Denying
`
`Institution of Post Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,583,362 (the “’362 Patent”)
`
`(Paper 10) (“Decision”) because the Board “misapprehended or overlooked”
`
`matters addressed by the Petition and thus abused its discretion in denying
`
`institution. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) and
`
`(d). Specifically,
`
`the Board
`
`misapprehended or overlooked the impact of the lack of overlap with the parallel
`
`proceeding and the strength of the grounds presented in the Petition, and
`
`improperly weighed the Fintiv factors to deny institution.
`
`B.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party
`
`believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each
`
`matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, [or] a reply.”
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review
`
`the decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of
`
`discretion is found if the decision: (1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful;
`
`(2) is based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact
`
`finding; or (4) involves a record that contains no evidence on which the Board
`
`1
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00014
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`could rationally base its decision.” Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina
`
`Cambridge Ltd., 821 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`C. BASIS FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF
`The NHK-Fintiv Factors Support Institution
`1.
`The Board relied on the multi-factor test set forth in the precedential
`
`NHK Spring decision and Fintiv order in reaching its decision to deny institution.
`
`See generally Decision at 5-13; NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs., Inc.,
`
`IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential); Apple Inc. v.
`
`Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential). In
`
`its analysis, the Board concluded that Factors 1 (stay) and 6 (other circumstances,
`
`including
`
`the merits) were neutral, and Factors 2 (proximity of
`
`trial),
`
`3 (investment), 4 (overlap), and 5 (parties) weighed in favor of Patent Owner.
`
`Decision at 7-12. Ultimately, the Board determined that the “trial date, investment,
`
`overlap, and same parties factors outweigh facts that do not support exercising
`
`discretion to deny institution.” Id. at 12. Therefore, the Board concluded that
`
`“inefficient duplication of efforts here is likely. Accordingly, we determine that the
`
`circumstances presented weigh in favor of denying institution under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 324(a).” Id. at 13.
`
`However, the Board overlooked or misapprehended facts regarding Factors
`
`4 and 6 that, when properly considered, tip the balance in favor of institution.
`
`2
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00014
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`The Board’s conclusion regarding Factor 4 fails to follow
`a.
`precedent.
`The Board’s conclusion that there is substantial overlap between the
`
`arguments in this proceeding and the parallel litigation is clearly erroneous, when
`
`PTAB precedent and the facts are properly considered. The primary reference
`
`relied on in Ground 2, Master Hearthstone, is not at issue in the related litigation.
`
`GREE acknowledges as much in its Preliminary Response, and even concedes that
`
`inclusion of Master Hearthstone in the Petition may weigh against the Board
`
`exercising discretion to deny institution. Prelim. Resp. at 32-33. The secondary
`
`reference for Ground 2, Gilson, is merely used to show it was known to play a
`
`battle card game using the generic computer-related limitations recited by the
`
`claims. Prelim. Reply at 1.
`
`Moreover, in Factor 6 the Board found that “Petitioner’s challenge based on
`
`§ 103 [] has merit.” Decision at 12. Given that Petitioner’s § 103 challenge is based
`
`primarily on Master Hearthstone, the Board appears to recognize that Master
`
`Hearthstone includes disclosures that more likely than not render obvious claims of
`
`the challenged patent. Hence, the record demonstrates that Master Hearthstone is a
`
`material reference, and there are material differences between Ground 2 and the
`
`invalidity grounds at issue in the parallel litigation.
`
`The circumstances for Ground 2 resemble those of Snap, Inc. v. SRK
`
`Technology LLC, IPR2020-00820, Paper 15 at 19 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2020)
`
`3
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00014
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`(Precedential as to § II.A.). There, the Board declined to exercise its discretion
`
`under § 314(a) when a reference cited in the Petition was not at issue in the
`
`litigation. See Snap at 15. The new reference in the IPR rendered “the prior art and
`
`arguments included in the Petition [] materially different than those presented in the
`
`District Court.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`The Board’s opinion in Snap is consistent with the Board’s earlier Fintiv
`
`decision, where it noted that “if the petition includes materially different grounds,
`
`arguments, and/or evidence than those presented in the district court, this fact has
`
`tended to weigh against exercising discretion to deny institution.” Fintiv at 12-13.
`
`Snap and Fintiv are likewise consistent with the Board’s prior precedential decision
`
`in Oticon Medical, in which institution was favored because “the Board proceeding
`
`would not be directly duplicative of the District Court[’s] consideration of
`
`validity.” Oticon Medical AB v. Cochlear Ltd., IPR2019-00975, Paper 15 at 23-24
`
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 16, 2019) (Precedential).
`
`The Board appears to have misapprehended or overlooked the import of
`
`these precedential decisions in evaluating the Overlap Factor of Ground 2. The
`
`Board’s only substantive statement regarding Ground 2 in the discussion of the
`
`Overlap factor is “[f]or Ground 2, there is also overlap because Gilson is relied
`
`upon as prior art in both proceedings.” Decision at 11. The Board did not address
`
`or even acknowledge the material difference between Ground 2 and the parallel
`
`4
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00014
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`proceeding – namely that Master Hearthstone is not asserted in the litigation.
`
`Instead, the Board inexplicably focused on a secondary reference relied upon for
`
`generic teachings.
`
`The Board also appears to have not given substantive consideration to the
`
`lack of overlap among the claims at issue in the instant PGR and the parallel
`
`litigation. The Petition applies Master Hearthstone against all claims, whereas
`
`12 of the claims are not asserted in the litigation. Further, GREE very likely will
`
`drop claims before trial, as they have done in the past, and as instructed under the
`
`E.D. Tex. Model Order Focusing Patent Claims. Ex. 1021 at 2. The Petition thus
`
`presents significant non-overlapping claim challenges – and the overlap is likely to
`
`decrease ahead of trial – which weighs against discretionary denial. See Facebook,
`
`Inc. v. Blackberry Ltd., IPR2019-00899, Paper 15 at 12 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 8, 2019).
`
`As such,
`
`the Board abused
`
`its discretion by deviating from
`
`the
`
`considerations highlighted in its prior precedential decisions and by failing to
`
`provide an explanation or reasoned basis for its decision. See Ultratec, Inc. v.
`
`Captioncall, LLC, 872 F.3d. 1267, 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (finding the Board abused
`
`its discretion by making “significant evidentiary decisions without providing an
`
`explanation or a reasoned basis for its decisions”). When the lack of overlap is
`
`properly considered, Factor 4 weighs in favor of institution.
`
`5
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00014
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`The Board’s conclusion regarding Factor 6 is inconsistent
`b.
`with Fintiv.
`The Board’s analysis of Factor 6 also appears to disregard precedent. The
`
`Board found that “Petitioner’s challenge based on § 101 has merit” and that
`
`“Petitioner’s challenge based on § 103 also has merit.” “Merit,” in this context, is
`
`understood to mean that the challenges meet the standard for institution.
`
`Yet the Board concluded that “the facts underlying this factor are neutral.”
`
`Decision at 12. This conclusion is inconsistent with the Fintiv order. In Fintiv, the
`
`Board stated that “if the merits of a ground raised in the petition seem particularly
`
`strong on the preliminary record, this fact has favored institution.” Fintiv, Paper 11
`
`at 14–15. Fintiv states that institution in such an instance “may serve the interest of
`
`overall system efficiency and integrity.” Id.
`
`The only “facts” presented in the Decision’s discussion of Factor 6 is the
`
`Board’s finding that the two challenges have merit. Not only that, the Board found
`
`merit under the PGR “more likely than not” institution standard. Such merit is
`
`inherently “strong,” as it meets a higher burden than the IPR institution standard
`
`under consideration in Fintiv.
`
`It should follow from these facts that Factor 6 favors institution. However,
`
`the Decision found this factor to be “neutral.” The Board therefore deviated from
`
`precedent without providing any explanation or analysis as to how or why it
`
`reached the “neutral” finding. This conclusion is “clearly unreasonable, arbitrary,
`
`6
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00014
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`or fanciful,” and thus constitutes an “abuse of discretion” under Intelligent
`
`Bio-Systems, 821 F.3d at 1367. Under a proper rationale, Factor 6 weighs in favor
`
`of institution.
`
`c.
`
`The Board misapprehended or overlooked the proper
`weighing of the Fintiv factors.
`The Board misapprehended or overlooked the weighing of the factors when
`
`conducting the holistic analysis of Fintiv and came to its ultimate conclusion based
`
`on erroneous findings of fact. The Board found that “all of the factors weigh in
`
`Patent Owner’s favor except for the first and sixth factors, which are neutral.”
`
`Decision at 12. However, Factors 4 and 6 both support institution when properly
`
`considered.
`
`Furthermore, the Board previously has found Factors 4 and 6 to be definitive
`
`in reaching its decisions to institute, regardless of its findings regarding other
`
`factors. See, e.g., Sand Revolution II, LLC v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp., IPR2019-
`
`01393, Paper 24 at 13-14 (P.T.A.B. June 16, 2020) (Informative); Apple Inc. v.
`
`Seven Networks, LLC, IPR2020-00235, Paper 10 at 20 (P.T.A.B. July 28, 2020);
`
`NanoCellect Biomedial, Inc., v. Cytonome/ST, LLC, IPR2020-00551, Paper 19
`
`(P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2020); VMWare, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, IPR2020-
`
`00407, Paper 12 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2020).
`
`Here, Factors 4 and 6 are likewise strong, and the Board should institute this
`
`PGR consistent with its prior decisions.
`
`7
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00014
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`Exercising Discretion Based on the NHK-Fintiv Factors Is
`2.
`Improper
`In fact, the entire NHK-Fintiv framework relied on by the Board to deny
`
`institution is improper. Section § 324(a) sets forth the requirements for the Director
`
`to institute PGR; it does not grant the Director authority to create new tests for
`
`denying institution. See 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (“The Director may not authorize a
`
`post-grant review to be instituted unless…”). Rather, 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(2)
`
`requires the Director to prescribe regulations “setting forth the standards for the
`
`showing of sufficient grounds to institute a review.”
`
`The Director has not prescribed regulations setting forth the standards used
`
`by the Board to deny institution of the instant Petition. Neither the precedential
`
`decision and order of NHK-Fintiv nor the 2019 Consolidated Trial Practice Guide
`
`(“2019 TPG”) are regulations. See Andrew Schneider & Jonathan Stroud, The
`
`Eleventh Auer: The Effect of Kisor v. Wilkie On Rulemaking and Adjudication at
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office, 19 Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 485,
`
`501-502 (2020) (finding that neither the 2019 TPG nor the SOP 2, which includes
`
`guidance on the process for designating PTAB decisions as precedential, are the
`
`result of notice-and-comment rulemaking). Moreover, the Court of Appeals for the
`
`Federal Circuit has expressly found that precedential opinions are not regulations
`
`within the context of § 316(a), stating that “[t]here is no indication in the statute
`
`that Congress either intended to delegate broad substantive rulemaking authority to
`
`8
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00014
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`the Director to interpret statutory provisions through POP opinions or intended him
`
`to engage in any rulemaking other than through the mechanism of prescribing
`
`regulations.” Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, 973 F.3d 1321, 1350
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2020) (additional views by Prost, C.J., Plager & O’Malley, J.J.).
`
`The NHK-Fintiv framework is thus procedurally invalid because it
`
`prescribes a new standard for institution but was not promulgated via the requisite
`
`regulation. The “Patent Office cannot effect an end-run around its congressionally
`
`delegated authority by conducting rulemaking through adjudication without
`
`undertaking the process of promulgating a regulation.” Aqua Prods., Inc. v. Matal,
`
`872 F.3d 1290, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (separate opinion of Reyna & Dyk, J.J.). Any
`
`rule “resulting” from such evasion of the congressionally specified process “is a
`
`nullity.” Id. at 1338.
`
`This invalid framework is apparent from the Patent Office’s own writings.
`
`Fintiv states that “in evaluating the factors, the Board takes a holistic view of
`
`whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served by denying or
`
`instituting review. See 2019 TPG at 58 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 316(b)).” Fintiv at 6.
`
`The portion of the 2019 TPG cited by Fintiv states, in relevant part: “There may be
`
`other reasons besides the ‘follow-on’ petition context where the ‘effect . . . on the
`
`economy, the integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the
`
`Office, and the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings,’ 35 U.S.C.
`
`9
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00014
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`§ 316(b), favors denying a petition even though some claims meet the threshold
`
`standards for institution under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a), and 324(a).” 2019 TPG at 58.
`
`However, as discussed above, both §§ 316(b) and 326(b) require the
`
`Director to consider “the economy, the integrity of the patent system, [and] the
`
`efficient administration of the Office” “[i]n prescribing regulations.” 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 316(b), 326(b) (emphasis added). Thus, the 2019 TPG misstates the law by
`
`using the economy, integrity, and efficiency factors outside the context of
`
`regulation. It is improper for the Director, and the Board, to deny institution based
`
`on these considerations absent properly promulgated regulations. Hence, the
`
`Board, in its reliance on the NHK-Fintiv framework to exercise its discretion to
`
`deny institution of a meritorious petition, has overlooked or misunderstood the law.
`
`D. CONCLUSION
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board rehear the Decision and grant
`
`institution based on all grounds raised in the Petition.
`
`
`
`Dated: June 8, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`/Jennifer R. Bush/
`Jennifer R. Bush
`Reg. No. 50,784
`Attorneys for Petitioner Supercell Oy
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`PGR2021-00014
`Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE ON PATENT OWNER
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Petitioner’s Request for
`
`Rehearing was served on Patent Owner’s lead and back-up counsel in its entirety by
`
`electronic service at the email addresses provided below:
`
`Andrew W. Rinehart
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1001 West Fourth Street
`Winston-Salem, NC 27101
`arinehart@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Scott A. McKeown
`Ropes & Gray
`2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 2006
`scott.mckeown@ropesgray.com
`
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`
`/Jennifer R. Bush/
`Jennifer R. Bush
`Reg. No. 50,784
`Attorneys for Petitioner Supercell Oy
`
`
`
`
`
`
`John C. Alemanni
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1400
`Raleigh, NC 27609
`jalemanni@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Joshua H. Lee
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, GA 30309-6582
`jlee@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Dated: June 8, 2021
`Fenwick & West LLP
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`