Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 12
`571-272-7822
`
`Entered: November 1, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UBISOFT, INC. and SQUARE ENIX, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01290
`Patent 6,510,466 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Entered: November 1, 2017
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`UBISOFT, INC. and SQUARE ENIX, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG S.A.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-01290
`Patent 6,510,466 B1
`____________
`
`
`Before MIRIAM L. QUINN, ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, and
`JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Patent 6,510,466 B1
`
`
`Ubisoft, Inc. and Square Enix, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a
`
`Petition pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319 requesting an inter partes review
`
`of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 15–17, 22, 23, 30, 35, and 36 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,510,466 B1, issued on January 21, 2003 (Ex. 1001, “the ’466 patent”).
`
`Paper 3 (“Pet.”). Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A.
`
`(collectively, “Patent Owner”)1 filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 11
`
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). Applying the standard set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a),
`
`which requires demonstration of a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`
`would prevail with respect to at least one challenged claim, we deny
`
`Petitioner’s request and do not institute an inter partes review of any
`
`challenged claim.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`A. The ʼ466 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`
`The ʼ466 patent relates to management of application programs on a
`
`network including a server supporting client stations. Ex. 1001, at [57]. The
`
`’466 patent states that user mobility and hardware portability are provided
`
`by establishing a user desktop interface responsive to a user login request.
`
`Id. Responsive to a request from the user on the user desktop screen at the
`
`client, a selected application program is provided from the server to the
`
`client. Id.
`
`Figure 1 of the ’466 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`1 Although the Preliminary Response initially identifies only Uniloc
`Luxembourg S.A. as the patent owner (Prelim. Resp. 1), Patent Owner’s
`Mandatory Notice identifies both Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg
`S.A. as Patent Owner in this case. Paper 7, 1.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Patent 6,510,466 B1
`
`
`Figure 1 illustrates a computer network according to an embodiment of the
`
`invention. Id. at 6:57–60. In particular, network management server 20 is
`
`connected to on-demand servers 22 and 22’, which are in turn connected to
`
`client stations 24 and 24’ and 26 and 26’ respectively. Id. at 6:60–7:6.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Patent 6,510,466 B1
`
`
`Figure 8 of the ’466 patent is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 8 is a flowchart illustrating operations for application program
`
`distribution and execution in a network management server environment.
`
`Id. at 6:28–31. In particular, at block 110, an application program to be
`
`distributed is placed by a system administrator on a disk or storage device at
`
`a network management server such as a Tivoli server. Id. at 17:52–55. At
`
`block 112, the application program source and destination programs are
`
`specified, and a pre-distribution program is run (if specified) at block 114.
`
`Id. at 17:55–60. The application program is then distributed to the on-
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Patent 6,510,466 B1
`
`demand servers at block 116, and any specified after-distribution programs
`
`are executed at block 118. Id. at 17:60–18:7.
`
`B. Illustrative Claims
`
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 15, and 16 are independent claims.
`
`Claim 1 is directed to a method for management of application programs on
`
`a network including a server and a client; claim 15 is directed to an
`
`application program management system for managing the same; and claim
`
`16 is directed to a computer program product for managing the same. Claim
`
`15 is illustrative and is reproduced below.
`
`15. An application program management system for
`managing application programs on a network including a server
`and a client comprising:
`means for installing a plurality of application programs at
`the server;
`means for receiving at the server a login request from a
`user at the client;
`means for establishing a user desktop interface at the
`client associated with the user responsive to the login request
`from the user, the desktop interface including a plurality of
`display regions associated with a set of the plurality of
`application programs installed at the server for which the user is
`authorized;
`means for receiving at the server a selection of one of the
`plurality of application programs from the user desktop
`interface; and
`means for providing an instance of the selected one of the
`plurality of application programs to the client for execution
`responsive to the selection.
`
`Id. at 22:57–23:8.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Patent 6,510,466 B1
`
`
`C. Related Proceedings
`
`Petitioner identifies pending litigation as well as terminated litigation
`
`involving the ’466 patent. Pet. 62 (citing Ex. 1010; Ex. 1011; Ex. 1012).
`
`Patent Owner identifies related litigation in the Eastern District of Texas in
`
`which the ʼ466 patent was asserted against Petitioner: Uniloc USA Inc. et al.
`
`v. Ubisoft, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00397 (E.D. Tex.), and Uniloc USA Inc. et
`
`al. v. Square Enix, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00872 (E.D. Tex.). Paper 7, 2.
`
`
`
`D. References
`
`Petitioner relies on the following references:
`
`1. “Sonderegger” (US 5,692,129; issued Nov. 25, 1997) (Ex. 1002);
`
`2. “Hughes” (Jeffrey F. Hughes and Blair W. Thomas, NOVELL’S
`GUIDE TO NETWARE 4.1 NETWORKS (1996)) (Ex. 1003);
`
`3. “Franklin” (US 6,105,069; issued Aug. 15, 2000) (Ex. 1004); and
`
`4. “NAL White Paper” (Novell Application Launcher 2.0: Fast,
`Efficient Software Distribution and Application Deployment)
`(Ex. 1005).
`
`E. Ground Asserted
`
`
`
`Petitioner asserts one ground of unpatentability based on obviousness
`
`of claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 15–17, 22, 23, 30, 35, and 36 over Sonderegger, Hughes,
`
`Franklin, and NAL White Paper. Petitioner relies also on expert testimony
`
`from Dr. Vijay K. Madisetti (Ex. 1006, “Madisetti Decl.”).
`
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`
`A. Claim Construction
`
`In an inter partes review, claim terms in an unexpired patent are
`
`construed according to their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
`
`specification of the patent in which they appear. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b);
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Patent 6,510,466 B1
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46 (2016). Under
`
`that standard, claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in the
`
`context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249,
`
`1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There are, however, two exceptions to that rule: “1)
`
`when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer,” and
`
`“2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the
`
`specification or during prosecution.” See Thorner v. Sony Computer Entm’t
`
`Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Petitioner proposes constructions of means-plus-function terms recited
`
`in the claims. Pet. 2–9. Patent Owner addresses Petitioner’s proposed
`
`constructions of some of these terms. Prelim. Resp. 6–14. Other than the
`
`construction of “means for installing a plurality of application programs at
`
`the server” and terms within that limitation discussed below, we determine
`
`explicit construction of any other term is not necessary to resolve the issues
`
`before us. See Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795,
`
`803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “only those terms need be construed that
`
`are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`
`controversy”).
`
`In our analysis of “means for installing a plurality of application
`
`programs at the server,” we recognize that construing a means-plus-function
`
`limitation requires first defining the particular function of the limitation and
`
`then identifying the corresponding structure for that function in the
`
`specification. Golight Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 355 F.3d 1327, 1333-34
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2004). Further, under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3), “the petition must
`
`set forth . . . [h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed,” including
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Patent 6,510,466 B1
`
`identifying “the specific portions of the specification that describe the
`
`structure, material, or acts corresponding to each claimed function,” where
`
`the claim to be construed contains a “means-plus-function or step-plus-
`
`function limitation as permitted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).”
`
`The parties agree the function of this limitation is “installing a
`
`plurality of application programs at the server.” Pet. 3; Prelim. Resp. 7. A
`
`structure disclosed in the specification qualifies as “corresponding” structure
`
`only if the specification or prosecution history clearly links or associates that
`
`structure to the function recited in the claim. B. Braun Med. v. Abbott Labs.,
`
`124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The “clear linkage or association” in
`
`the specification of the structure to the function recited in the claim is
`
`determined based on the understanding of an artisan of ordinary skill. See
`
`AllVoice Computing PLC. v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc., 504 F.3d 1236, 1242
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2007). Thus, we begin by addressing the meaning of terms within
`
`the recited function.
`
`Regarding the term “application program,” the ’466 patent states: “As
`
`used herein, the term ‘application program’ generally refers to the code
`
`associated with the underlying program functions, for example, Lotus Notes
`
`or a terminal emulator program.” Ex. 1001, 14:24–27. That definition is
`
`consistent with the language of the independent claims, which recite
`
`“providing an instance of the selected one of the plurality of application
`
`programs to the client for execution responsive to the selection.” Id. at 23:6–
`
`8 (emphasis added). Thus, in the context of the claims, an “application
`
`program” is “code associated with underlying application program
`
`functions.”
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Patent 6,510,466 B1
`
`
`In addition, for “installing,” we determine that the ’466 patent
`
`distinguishes between installation and configuration or registration. E.g.,
`
`Ex. 1001, 4:15–16 (“install and register the application program on the on-
`
`demand server”), 4:20 (“install and register the program”), 18:27–29 (“[A]n
`
`administrator both sends a new application package to all supported on-
`
`demand servers and installs the program and configures (registers) it to be
`
`available for use.”). Thus, in the recited function, “installing” does not
`
`include configuring or registering.
`
`We next proceed to identify the corresponding structure that is clearly
`
`linked or associated with this function in the ’466 specification. Petitioner
`
`contends that the corresponding structure for “means for installing a
`
`plurality of application programs at the server” is a server or code
`
`programmed to:
`
`1) accept definitions of the application that describe the location
`and description of the application (block 250 [of Figure 5]); 2)
`accept definitions of users and groups that will access the
`system and the specific application (block 252); 3) accept
`control specifications defining which users and groups are
`authorized to access the new or updated application (block
`256); 4) obtain license policy information from an administrator
`or through an import file (block 254); and 5) update a database
`to maintain the input definitions and specifications for the new
`or updated application in a format accessible to the server
`(block 258).
`
`Pet. 3 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 4 (block 232), Fig. 5, 12:26–30, 13:1–23).
`
`Patent Owner contends that Petitioner’s alleged corresponding structure is
`
`incorrect because Petitioner ignores (1) the definition of “application
`
`program” in the ’466 specification, (2) other corresponding structure in the
`
`’466 specification, and (3) that the ’466 patent distinguishes between
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Patent 6,510,466 B1
`
`installing applications and configuring a directory to include information
`
`representative of installed applications. Prelim. Resp. 9–13.
`
`We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not identified
`
`corresponding structure for this limitation. In particular, we find that Figure
`
`5 of the ’466 patent relates to configuration and not installation. Ex. 1001,
`
`13:1–2 (“Referring now to FIG. 5, configuration operations from block 232
`
`will now be further described.”). We, therefore, do not adopt Petitioner’s
`
`proposed corresponding structure because it is not linked or associated with
`
`the recited function.
`
`Patent Owner provides the following proposed corresponding
`
`structure: “a processor executing computer program instructions, as
`
`described in 12:1-24, implementing the algorithms described in connection
`
`with FIG. 4, FIG. 5, FIG. 8, and FIG. 9C and at 12:25-30, 13:1-23, 14:24-53,
`
`17:17-51, 18:3-32, 20:1-59.” Prelim. Resp. 7. Patent Owner particularly
`
`highlights Figure 8 of the ’466 patent. Id. at 9–10 (citing Ex. 1001, Fig. 8,
`
`17:52–18:32). Of the corresponding structure proposed by Patent Owner,
`
`we determine that only the portion of Figure 8 related to installation and its
`
`associated description in the ’466 patent have the required clear linkage or
`
`association to the recited function. Specifically, we find that while Figure 4
`
`mentions a “New App.,” and the cited description mentions “a new software
`
`application for installation on server system 22,” neither discloses an
`
`algorithm for the recited “installing.” Ex. 1001, Fig. 4, 12:25–30. We
`
`further find that Figures 5 and 9C explicitly refer to configuration operations
`
`and not installation. Id. at 6:18–20, 13:1–23, 20:1–59. We also find that the
`
`portions of Figure 8 that involve execution of after-distribution programs
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Patent 6,510,466 B1
`
`and update of configuration information also involve configuration and not
`
`installation. Id. at 18:3–18.
`
`We determine the remainder of Figure 8 (i.e., steps 112–116) and the
`
`associated description of those steps in the ’466 patent (Ex. 1001, 17:55–67)
`
`have the required clear linkage or association to the recited function. Thus,
`
`we determine the corresponding structure for this claim limitation includes,
`
`at least, an algorithm for specifying application program source and
`
`destination locations, executing a pre-distribution program (if specified), and
`
`distributing the application program software to an on-demand server (and
`
`equivalents of such an algorithm). Ex. 1001, Fig. 8, steps 112–116, 17:55–
`
`67.
`
`Claim 16 recites “computer readable code means” for performing the
`
`recited functions, which triggers a rebuttable presumption that
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 applies. Williamson v. Citrix Online, 792 F.3d 1339,
`
`1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner appears to contend that this presumption is
`
`not rebutted because it provides the same analysis under § 112 ¶ 6 for this
`
`limitation in claim 16 as it does for the similar limitation in claim 15. Pet.
`
`49; see also id. at 3. Patent Owner contends claim 16 does not invoke pre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6 because it is directed to “‘[a] computer program
`
`product’ comprising ‘computer-readable program code’ for carrying out
`
`specific processes.” Prelim. Resp. 13–14. We note, however, that Patent
`
`Owner’s quotations omit the term “means,” and Patent Owner does not
`
`persuasively address that recitation to overcome the presumption.
`
`Because neither party has rebutted the presumption that § 112 ¶ 6
`
`applies to the “computer readable program code means,” for purposes of this
`
`Decision, we address this term as recited in claim 16 as a means-plus-
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Patent 6,510,466 B1
`
`function term. Accordingly, the limitation “computer readable program
`
`code means for installing a plurality of application programs at the server”
`
`has, at a minimum, the same corresponding structure as the similar limitation
`
`of claim 15 discussed above.
`
`In summary, we determine an “application program” is “code
`
`associated with underlying application program functions.” We further
`
`determine that “installing” does not encompass “configuring” or
`
`“registering” as those terms are used in the ’466 patent. We also determine
`
`that the corresponding structure for “means for installing a plurality of
`
`application programs at the server,” as recited in claim 15, and “computer
`
`readable program code means for installing a plurality of application
`
`programs at the server” as recited in claim 16, includes, at least, an
`
`algorithm for specifying application program source and destination
`
`locations, executing a pre-distribution program (if specified), and
`
`distributing the application program software to an on-demand server (and
`
`equivalents of such an algorithm).
`
`B.
`
`Legal Principles
`
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the differences
`
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`
`subject matter pertains. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`
`factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when in the record, objective
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Patent 6,510,466 B1
`
`evidence of nonobviousness. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
`
`17–18 (1966). In that regard, an obviousness analysis “need not seek out
`
`precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
`
`claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
`
`C. Asserted Obviousness over Sonderegger, Hughes, Franklin, and
`NAL White Paper
`
`1. Overview of References
`
`Sonderegger is titled “Managing Application Programs in a Computer
`
`Network By Using a Database of Application Objects,” and issued on
`
`November 25, 1997. Ex. 1002, at [54], [45]. Petitioner contends
`
`Sonderegger is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 12.
`
`Sonderegger utilizes a “modified hierarchical database which includes
`
`application objects that represent applications and their execution
`
`environments.” Ex. 1002, at [57]. In Sonderegger, “[e]ach application
`
`object includes the location of an executable code for a given application, an
`
`icon, a working directory name, drive mappings, printer port captures,
`
`command line parameters, and similar information.” Id.
`
`Hughes is a book titled “Novell’s Guide to NetWare 4.1 Networks,”
`
`with a copyright date of 1996. Ex. 1003, 1, 5.2 Petitioner contends Hughes
`
`is prior art under at least under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 12.
`
`Franklin is titled “Licensing Controller Using Network Directory
`
`Services,” and issued on August 15, 2000. Ex. 1004, at [54], [45].
`
`
`2 Unless otherwise specified, we refer to the portion of Hughes that
`Petitioner filed as Ex. 1003-1 and the page numbers added by Petitioner
`thereto.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Patent 6,510,466 B1
`
`Petitioner contends Franklin is prior art under at least 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
`
`Pet. 12.
`
`NAL White Paper is titled “Novell Application Launcher 2.0: Fast,
`
`Efficient Software Distribution and Application Deployment.” Ex. 1005, 1.
`
`Petitioner contends NAL White Paper is prior art under at least
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Pet. 12–13.
`
`2. Obviousness
`
`Petitioner contends that claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 15–17, 22, 23, 30, 35, and 36
`
`would have been obvious over Sonderegger, Hughes, Franklin, and NAL
`
`White Paper. Pet. 12–62. We have reviewed the information provided by
`
`Petitioner, including the relevant portions of the supporting Madisetti
`
`Declaration (Ex. 1006), along with Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence,
`
`and are persuaded, based on the current record, that Petitioner has not
`
`demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its obviousness
`
`challenge.
`
`For independent claims 15 and 16, we determine in Section II.A.
`
`above that Petitioner has not identified sufficient corresponding structure for
`
`“means for installing a plurality of application programs at the server.” For
`
`this limitation of claim 15, Petitioner’s analysis focuses on its proposed
`
`corresponding structure, which we do not adopt, and does not address
`
`whether the relied-upon teachings in Sonderegger and Hughes meet the
`
`corresponding structure discussed above (i.e., steps 112–116 of Figure 8 and
`
`the associated description (Ex. 1001, 17:55–67) (and their equivalents)).
`
`Pet. 19–28. For independent claim 16, Petitioner relies on its analysis of this
`
`limitation for claim 15. Id. at 49. Because Petitioner has not shown the
`
`references describe the corresponding structure for performing “installing a
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Patent 6,510,466 B1
`
`plurality of application programs at the server,” we determine Petitioner has
`
`not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to
`
`independent claims 15 and 16 and claims 17, 22, 23, 30, 35, and 36
`
`depending therefrom.
`
`For claim 1, Petitioner relies on its analysis of this limitation for claim
`
`15. Pet. 15. We acknowledge that claim 1 is a method claim and so is not
`
`limited to the corresponding structure required for claims 15 and 16.
`
`Nevertheless, we determine that Petitioner has not adequately shown the
`
`references describe “installing a plurality of application programs at the
`
`server,” as recited in claim 1. In particular, Petitioner relies on application
`
`objects that are created in Sonderegger, and further relies on Hughes for
`
`“further details on the purpose and properties of user and/or group objects
`
`and guides an administrator in creating such objects using the NetWare
`
`Administrator software.” Id. at 19–24. Patent Owner contends Petitioner’s
`
`analysis of this limitation is deficient because the relied-upon objects in
`
`Sonderegger and Hughes are not application programs, but only
`
`representative of application programs. Prelim. Resp. 14.
`
`We agree with Patent Owner. As discussed above in Section II.A., we
`
`construe “application program” as “code associated with underlying
`
`application program functions.” We determine that Sonderegger’s
`
`application objects do not comport with that construction because they
`
`contain only information about application programs (i.e., the location of an
`
`executable code for a given application, an icon, a working directory name,
`
`drive mappings, printer port captures, command line parameters, and similar
`
`information). Ex. 1002, at [57], 3:1–15. Thus, Petitioner’s contentions,
`
`which focus on application objects, do not adequately show that either
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Patent 6,510,466 B1
`
`Sonderegger or Hughes teaches “installing a plurality of application
`
`programs at the server,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we determine
`
`Petitioner has not shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its
`
`challenge to independent claim 1 and claims 2, 7, and 8 depending therefrom
`
`
`
`III. SUMMARY
`
`
`
`We determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable
`
`likelihood of prevailing on its challenge to claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 15–17, 22, 23,
`
`30, 35, and 36 of the ’466 patent.
`
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`It is, therefore,
`
`ORDERED that the Petition is DENIED and no trial is instituted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2017-01290
`Patent 6,510,466 B1
`
`PETITITONER:
`
`Eric Buresh
`eric.buresh@eriseip.com
`
`Mark Lang
`mark.lang@eriseip.com
`
`Kathleen Fitterling
`kathleen.fitterling@eriseip.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brett Mangrum
`brett.mangrum@unilocusa.com
`
`Sean Burdick
`sean.burdick@unilocusa.com
`
`Ryan Loveless
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
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
