throbber
PGR2021-00014
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket