Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: March 29, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-02082
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`
`Paper 10
`Entered: March 29, 2018
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`UNILOC USA, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2017-02082
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`____________
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`CHARLES J. BOUDREAU Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`
`BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02082
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Google LLC1, filed a Petition requesting inter partes review of claims
`1–6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16–20, 23, 24, 26, 40–43, 46, 47, 49, 51–54, 57, 58, and
`60 of U.S. Patent No 7,535,890 B2, issued on May 19, 2009 (Ex. 1001, “the
`’890 patent”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319. Paper 2 (“Pet.”). Uniloc
`USA, Inc. filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 8 (“Prelim. Resp.”).
`Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response, upon
`authorization of the Board, to address Patent Owner’s arguments concerning
`application of the Board’s institution discretion under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a)
`and 325(d). Paper 9.
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be
`instituted unless “the information presented in the petition . . . and any
`response . . . shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner
`would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the
`petition.” Having considered the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we
`determine that the information presented does not show that there is a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the
`unpatentability of any of the challenged claims of the ’890 patent. For the
`reasons given below, we deny institution of an inter partes review.
`
`A. Related Matters
`Petitioner and Patent Owner represent that the ’890 patent is asserted
`in numerous actions before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
`Texas, including actions filed against Petitioner (Case Nos. 2:17-cv-465,
`
`
`1 Subsequent to filing this Petition, Google, Inc. changed its name to Google
`LLC. Paper 5.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02082
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`2:17-cv-466, 2:17-cv-467, 2:17-cv-231, 2:17-cv-224, 2:17-cv-214). Pet. 1–
`2; Paper 3, 2–3.
`In addition, the ’890 patent is the subject of several inter partes
`review proceedings before the Office. In IPR2017-00221, filed by Apple
`Inc., the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–6, 14, 15, 17–20,
`28, 29, 31–34, 40–43, 51–54, 62–65, and 68 of the ’890 patent on May 25,
`2017. Apple Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., Case IPR2017-00221 (PTAB May 25,
`2017) (Paper 9). Moreover, on September 11, 2017—concurrent with this
`Petition—Petitioner filed IPR2017-02083 and IPR2017-02084, which
`challenge different subsets of claims of the ’890 patent. Google, Inc. v.
`Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., Cases IPR2017-02083, IPR2017-02084 (PTAB),
`Paper 2.
`The ’890 patent was also previously the subject of IPR2017-00220,
`IPR2017-01523, IPR2017-01524, and IPR2017-01802, in which the Board
`denied institution. See Apple, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., Case IPR2017-00220
`(PTAB)2, Paper 9; Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc., Case IPR2017-
`01523, IPR2017-01524 (PTAB), Paper 7; Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v.
`Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., Case IPR2017-01802 (PTAB), Paper 8.
`
`A. The ’890 Patent
`The ’890 patent explains that “[v]oice messaging” and “instant text
`messaging” in both the Voice over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) and public
`switched telephone network environments are known. Ex. 1001, 2:11–35.
`
`2 IPR2017-01612 filed by Snap Inc. and IPR2017-01636 filed by Facebook,
`Inc. and WhatsApp Inc. were joined with IPR2017-00221. See Snap Inc. v.
`Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., Case IPR2017-01612 (PTAB Oct. 3, 2017) (Paper
`11); Facebook, Inc. v. Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., Case IPR2017-01636
`(PTAB Oct. 3, 2017) (Paper 10).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02082
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`In prior art instant text messaging systems, a server presents a user of a
`client terminal with a “list of persons who are currently ‘online’ and ready to
`receive text messages,” the user “select[s] one or more” recipients and types
`the message, and the server immediately sends the message to the respective
`client terminals. Id. at 2:23–35. According to the ’890 patent, however,
`“there is still a need in the art for . . . a system and method for providing
`instant VoIP messaging over an IP network,” such as the Internet. Id. at
`1:6–11, 2:36–48, 6:37–39.
`In one embodiment, the ’890 patent discloses local instant voice
`messaging (“IVM”) system 200, depicted in Figure 2 below. Id. at 6:12–14.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02082
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`
`As illustrated in Figure 2, local packet-switched IP network 204,
`which may be a local area network (“LAN”), “interconnects” IVM clients
`206, 208 and legacy telephone 110 to local IVM server 202. Id. at 6:40–61;
`see id. at 7:13–14, 7:51–55. Local IVM server 202 enables instant voice
`messaging functionality over network 204. Id. at 7:53–55.
`In “record mode,” IVM client 208 “displays a list of one or more IVM
`recipients,” provided and stored by local IVM server 202, and the user
`selects recipients from the list. Id. at 7:47–49, 7:55–61. IVM client 208
`then transmits the selections to IVM server 202 and “records the user’s
`speech into . . . digitized audio file 210 (i.e., an instant voice message).” Id.
`at 7:61–8:1.
`
`When the recording is complete, IVM client 208 transmits audio file
`210 to local IVM server 202, which delivers the message to the selected
`recipients via local IP network 204. Id. at 8:5−19. “[O]nly the available
`IVM recipients, currently connected to . . . IVM server 202, will receive the
`instant voice message.” Id. at 8:23−25. IVM server 202 “temporarily saves
`the instant voice message” for any IVM client that is “not currently
`connected to . . . local IVM server 202 (i.e., is unavailable)” and “delivers it
`. . . when the IVM client connects to . . . local IVM server 202 (i.e., is
`available).” Id. at 8:24–29; see id. at 9:7–11. Upon receiving the instant
`voice message, the recipients can audibly play the message. Id. at 8:19–22.
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`Of the challenged claims, claims 1, 12, 14, 26, 40, 49, 51, and 60 are
`independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims at issue and is reproduced
`below:
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02082
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`
`1. An instant voice messaging system for delivering
`instant messages over a packet-switched network, the system
`comprising:
` a client connected to the network, the client selecting one
`or more recipients, generating an instant voice message
`therefor, and transmitting the selected recipients and the
`instant voice message therefor over the network; and
` a server connected to the network, the server receiving the
`selected recipients and the instant voice message
`therefor, and delivering the instant voice message to the
`selected recipients over the network, the selected
`recipients enabled to audibly play the instant voice
`message, and the server temporarily storing the instant
`voice message if a selected recipient is unavailable and
`delivering the stored instant voice message to the
`selected recipient once the selected recipient becomes
`available.
`Ex. 1001, 23:55–24:3.
`C. Grounds Asserted
`Petitioner asserts that the challenged claims would have been
`anticipated, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), by Zydney.3 Pet. 6. Petitioner also
`relies on a Declaration of Paul S. Min, Ph.D., filed as Exhibit 1003.
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`Claim Construction
`A.
`The Board interprets claim terms of an unexpired patent using the
`“broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent.”
`37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). We presume a claim term carries its plain meaning,
`which is the meaning customarily used by those of skill in the relevant art at
`
`
`3 PCT International Application Publication No. WO 01/11824 A2
`(published Feb. 15, 2001). Ex. 1004 (“Zydney”).
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02082
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`the time of the invention. Trivascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1062
`(Fed. Cir. 2016).
`The parties agree that, for purposes of this Decision, no claim terms of
`the ’890 patent require an express construction. Pet. 9–10; Prelim. Resp. 20.
`We agree. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co.
`Ltd., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. &
`Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that only claim
`terms that “are in controversy” need to be construed and “only to the extent
`necessary to resolve the controversy”).
`B. Anticipation by Zydney
`Petitioner contends that Zydney anticipates claims 1–6, 9, 10, 12, 14,
`16–20, 23, 24, 26, 40–43, 46, 47, 49, 51–54, 57, 58, and 60 of the ’890
`patent. Pet. 10–58. Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s anticipation
`assertions. Prelim. Resp. 19–26.
`Overview of Zydney
`1.
`Zydney discloses “a system and method for voice exchange and voice
`distribution” that allows software agent 22, in conjunction with central
`server 24, to “send, receive and store messages using voice containers.” Ex.
`1004,4 1, 10–11, Fig. 1A. In the disclosed “pack and send mode of
`operation,” the sender “selects one or more intended recipients,” and sending
`software agent 22 then “acquire[s], compresse[s,] and . . . store[s]” a
`“message . . . in a voice container[].” Id. at 11, 14; see id. at 14, Figs. 4, 6–
`7. Next, sending software agent 22 transmits the voice container over the
`Internet to the one or more recipient software agents 28, either directly or
`
`
`4 We refer to the page numbers of the original document as opposed to those
`added by Petitioner.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02082
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`indirectly through central server 24. Id. at 11; see id. at 1–2, 5, 12, 15–16,
`Fig. 1A. Each recipient software agent then “opens” or “unpack[s] the voice
`container and play[s] the message.” Id. at 13, 14.
`Zydney defines “[t]he term ‘voice container[]’” to “refer[] to a
`container object that contains no methods, but contains voice data or voice
`data and voice data properties.” Id. at 12. The “voice data properties
`components” include originator’s code 302, one or more recipient’s code
`304, originating time 306, delivery time(s) 308, number of plays 310, source
`312, reuse restrictions 314, delivery priority 322, session values 324, and
`repeating information 330. Id. at 23, Fig. 3. The voice container also
`contains “information concerning codec type, size, sample rate, and data.”
`Id. at 23.
`
`Discussion
`2.
`Each of the challenged claims require an “instant voice message.”
`Ex. 1001, 23:55–24:37, 28:21–29:16. Independent claims 1, 12, 14, and 26
`are directed to “[a]n instant voice messaging system for delivering instant
`messages over [a/a plurality of] packet-switched network[/s],” whereas
`independent claims 40, 49, 51 and 60 are directed to a corresponding
`“method for instant voice messaging over [a/a plurality of] packet-switched
`network[/s].” Id. at 23:55–57, 24:47–41, 25:21–23, 26:28–30, 28:21–22,
`30:8–10, 31:18–20. These claims recite numerous specific requirements for
`the claimed “instant voice message” regarding its generation at the client,
`transmission, receipt by the server, temporary storage, delivery from the
`server to selected recipients, and audible playback by the recipients. Id.
`Moreover, several of the challenged dependent claims feature additional
`requirements regarding the “instant voice message.” For example, claims 6,
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02082
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`20, 43, and 54 additionally recite that “the client records,” or the client
`“recording,” “the instant voice message in an audio file,” which is
`transmitted to and delivered by the server. Id. at 24:16–21, 25:65–26:2,
`28:51–59, 30:43–49. In addition, claims 9, 23, 46, and 57 require that “the
`client is enabled to attach,” or the client “attaching,” “one or more files to
`the instant voice message.” Id. at 24:34–36, 26:15–18, 29:11–14, 31:3–7.
`Petitioner argues that Zydney teaches the “instant voice message”
`recited in the challenged claims, including each of the particular
`requirements for this claim element. See generally Pet. 13–58. In the
`Petition and Dr. Min’s supporting Declaration, however, Petitioner
`interchangeably maps—without explanation—the “instant voice message”
`of the challenged claims to either (1) Zydney’s voice container or (2) the
`voice data or message that is stored in Zydney’s voice container.
`In other words, to meet the limitations of claim 1, Petitioner must
`show that an “instant voice message” is generated and transmitted by a
`client, received by a server, delivered to selected recipients, and stored
`temporarily on the server in certain circumstances. Ex. 1001, 23:58–24:3.
`Those recipients must be enabled to audibly play the “instant voice
`message.” Id. at 23:65–66. It is unclear, however, what structure in Zydney
`Petitioner relies on to show an instant message with all of these
`characteristics—Zydney’s voice container itself or the voice data stored
`within the voice container.
`For example, the Petition alleges that Zydney’s voice container
`qualifies as and equates to the claimed “instant voice message” in its
`analysis of “generating an instant voice message,” affirmatively representing
`that “Zydney’s ‘voice containers’ are the claimed ‘instant voice messages.’”
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02082
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`Id. at 16. However, in addressing the “receiving” limitation, the Petition
`expressly represents that “[w]hen the server is ‘uploading the voice
`container(s),’ the server is ‘receiving the . . . the instant voice message’
`contained in the voice container, just as claimed.” Id. at 19 (citing Ex. 1004,
`12, Fig. 8) (emphasis added). For the “audibly play” limitation, Petitioner
`explains that “Zydney explains that recipient software agents include
`functionality to ‘unpack the voice container and play the message.” Id. at 22
`(citing Ex. 1004, 25).
`Dr. Min’s Declaration suffers from the same problem. Like the
`Petition, Dr. Min’s testimony vacillates between identifying the “instant
`voice message” as Zydney’s voice container and the voice data or message
`stored therein, and Dr. Min fails to explain this inconsistent mapping of the
`claim element. E.g., compare Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 87–88, 104, 111, 135, 156, with
`id. ¶¶ 132, 162. For example, in addressing the “generating” limitation of
`independent claim 1, Dr. Min equates Zydney’s voice containers with the
`claimed “instant voice message”—testifying that “Zydney’s voice containers
`are instant voice messages . . . .” Id. ¶ 48. However, in addressing the
`“audibly play” limitation, Dr. Min relies on the same disclosure of Zydney,
`discussed above, that discusses unpacking the voice container and playing
`the message. Id. ¶ 58 (citing Ex. 1004, 13).
`The “instant voice message” claim element is central to the challenged
`claims, and the identity of the “instant voice message” is a critical
`component of Petitioner’s anticipation case. Yet Petitioner offers no
`explanation for mapping the recited “instant voice message” to different
`elements of Zydney throughout its analysis of the challenged claims in the
`Petition and Dr. Min’s Declaration. Specifically, Petitioner does not proffer
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02082
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`a construction of the claim term “instant voice message.” Pet. 9 (“Under
`these conditions, no express constructions are necessary. . . .”). Nor does
`Petitioner state that it is arguing in the alternative as to the alleged identity of
`the recited “instant voice message”—whether based on a claim interpretation
`or otherwise—or apply the alternative mappings of the “instant voice
`message” consistently throughout its analysis of each claim limitation that
`requires an “instant voice message.” Nor does Petitioner argue that the
`elements of Zydney to which the Petition maps the recited “instant voice
`message,” i.e., Zydney’s voice container and the voice data or message
`stored therein, are equivalent.
`In fact, Zydney’s voice container and the voice data or message stored
`therein are distinct in the context of Petitioner’s anticipation arguments. See,
`e.g., Ex. 1003 ¶ 41 (opining that “Zydney’s system allows a user . . . to
`locally record a voice message that is ‘stored in a voice container’”); Pet. 12
`(“Zydney describes two modes . . . where ‘the [entire] message is first
`acquired, compressed and then stored in a voice container (26).”). Zydney
`further explains that “[t]he term ‘voice container[]’ as used throughout this
`application refers to a container object that contains no methods, but
`contains voice data or voice data and voice data properties.” Ex. 1004, 12
`(emphases added). Zydney elaborates, and illustrates in Figure 3, that the
`“voice data properties components . . . include: “an originator’s code
`302 . . . , one or more recipient’s code 304, originating time 306, delivery
`time(s) 308, number of ‘plays’ 310, voice container source 312,” etc.
`Ex. 1004, 23, Fig. 3 (emphasis added); see id. at 34:4–8. According to
`Zydney, the voice container “[a]dditionally . . . will have information
`concerning codec type, size, sample rate, and data.” Ex. 1004, 23.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02082
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`
`Even assuming that Zydney’s disclosures may be interpreted such that
`Zydney’s voice container could consist exclusively of the underlying voice
`data or message in the container—without any voice data properties or any
`other data or components—such a situation is not encompassed by
`Petitioner’s anticipation assertions. Rather, for the challenged independent
`claims—and also, therefore, all challenged dependent claims—Petitioner
`explicitly relies on Zydney’s voice container storing not only the underlying
`voice data or message but also “one or more recipient’s code 304,” i.e., a
`voice data properties component that identifies the selected recipients. Pet.
`17–18. Accordingly, in the context of Petitioner’s anticipation assertions for
`all challenged claims, Zydney’s voice container is distinct from—and does
`not equate to—the voice data or message stored in the voice container.
`It is not our role to pick a theory for Petitioner regarding the identity
`of the recited “instant voice message” in Zydney between the conflicting
`options presented without explanation in the Petition and Dr. Min’s
`Declaration, and then to apply that selected theory consistently in applying
`Zydney to the challenged independent and dependent claims where
`Petitioner has failed to do so. Cf. Schumer v. Lab. Comput. Sys., Inc., 308
`F.3d 1304, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“It is not our task, nor is it the task of the
`district court, to attempt to interpret confusing or general testimony to
`determine whether a case of invalidity has been made out . . . .”). We will
`not, and cannot, piece together Petitioner’s inconsistent and contradictory
`arguments into a cogent and coherent explanation that supports anticipation.
`Rather, we must evaluate the Petition’s arguments as presented. See In re
`Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`(stating that the Board “must base its decision on arguments that were
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02082
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`advanced by a party, and to which the opposing party was given a chance to
`respond,” and is not “free to adopt arguments on behalf of petitioners”
`(citations omitted)).
`As a result of the deficiencies in Petitioner’s anticipation showing,
`outlined above, we deny institution of inter partes review on this asserted
`ground for two independent reasons. First, as detailed above, Petitioner
`inconsistently maps the recited “instant voice message” to different elements
`of Zydney without sufficient explanation for this incongruity. Thus,
`Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood of demonstrating that
`Zydney anticipates independent claims 1, 12, 14, 26, 40, 49, 51, and 60, as
`well as dependent claims 2–6, 9, 10, 16–20, 23, 24, 41–43, 46, 47, 52–54,
`57, and 58, of the ’890 patent.
`Second, the Petition’s arguments and supporting evidence regarding
`the recited “instant voice message” violate the statutory and regulatory
`requirements for a petition. Under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), a petition “may be
`considered only if . . . the petition identif[ies], in writing and with
`particularity, . . . the grounds on which the challenge to each claim is based,
`and the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to each claim”
`(emphasis added). As such, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
`Circuit has recognized that “the Petitioner has the burden from the onset to
`show with particularity why the patent it challenges is unpatentable.”
`Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`(emphasis added) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 322(a)(3), which is equivalent to
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) other than that it applies to post-grant reviews).
`Our rules further address the showing required in a petition. In
`particular, 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4) provides that “[t]he petition must specify
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02082
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`where each element of the claim is found in the prior art patents or printed
`publications relied upon” (emphasis added). Moreover, 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(b)(5) adds that the Petition must “identify[] specific portions of the
`evidence that support the challenge” (emphasis added). Similarly, 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.22(a)(2) mandates that a petition include “[a] full statement of the
`reasons for the relief requested, including a detailed explanation of the
`significance of the evidence.”
`Here, given Petitioner’s unexplained inconsistent arguments and
`conflicting theories regarding the identity of the recited “instant voice
`message” in Zydney within its analysis of the challenged claims, the Petition
`lacks clarity regarding precisely which element or portion of Zydney
`Petitioner is alleging discloses the “instant voice message” of the challenged
`claims. The Petition, therefore, fails to “specify where each element of the
`claim is found in” Zydney for the challenged claims—in violation of 37
`C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). In addition, more generally, the Petition fails to
`identify and explain adequately the reasoning and evidence that supports its
`assertion of anticipation, as 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), 37 C.F.R. § 42.22(a)(2),
`and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5) require.
`In sum, the Petition fails to comply with the basic statutory and
`regulatory requirements for particularity of arguments and supporting
`evidence in a petition, as set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.22(a)(2), and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)–(5). For this reason, as well as
`Petitioner’s failure to show a reasonable likelihood of establishing
`unpatentability, we deny institution of inter partes review of claims 1–6, 9,
`10, 12, 14, 16–20, 23, 24, 26, 40–43, 46, 47, 49, 51–54, 57, 58, and 60 of the
`’890 patent on the asserted ground of anticipation over Zydney.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02082
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`As explained in our analysis above, we determine that the information
`presented in the Petition does not establish a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioner would prevail in showing that any of the challenged claims of the
`’890 patent—claims 1–6, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16–20, 23, 24, 26, 40–43, 46, 47, 49,
`51–54, 57, 58, and 60—are unpatentable. Moreover, the Petition fails to
`comply with the requirements set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3), 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.22(a)(2), and 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)–(5). Therefore, we do not
`institute an inter partes review of any of the challenged claims on any of the
`asserted grounds.
`
`IV. ADDITIONAL PATENT OWNER ARGUMENTS
`Patent Owner has advanced a variety of additional arguments
`concerning an alleged failure on the part of Petitioner to name all real
`parties-in-interest, 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), and the constitutionality of inter
`partes review proceedings. Prelim. Resp. 2–17, 26. We have considered
`those arguments, but in view of our determination not to institute trial on the
`basis of Petitioner’s substantive grounds, we do not address those arguments
`further herein.
`
`IV. ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Petition is denied,
`and no trial is instituted as to any claim of U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890 B2.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2017-02082
`Patent 7,535,890 B2
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Jeffrey Miller
`jmillerptab@apks.com
`
`Michael Hawkins
`Kim Leung
`Patrick Bisenius
`Kenneth Darby
`Nicholas Stephens
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`hawkins@fr.com
`leung@fr.com
`bisenius@fr.com
`kdarby@fr.com
`nstephens@fr.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Brett Mangrum
`Sean Burdick
`Uniloc USA, Inc.
`Brett.mangrum@unilocusa.com
`Sean.burdick@unilocusa.com
`
`Ryan Loveless
`Etheridge Law Group
`ryan@etheridgelaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
