UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`EnviroLogix Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Ionian Technologies, Inc.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00405
`Patent 9,562,263
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`EnviroLogix Inc.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Ionian Technologies, Inc.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`Case IPR2018-00405
`Patent 9,562,263
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Request for Reconsideration
`
`Patent No. 9,562,263
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 4
`The Board’s conclusion that “side products” would render a
`A.
`target product undetectable results from a misapprehension of
`Ehses’s disclosure................................................................................. 4
`The Board also misapprehended and overlooked the arguments
`set forth in the Petition and disclosures in Ehses showing that
`the reaction protocol relied on by Petitioner inherently detects
`product within 10 minutes .................................................................... 7
`The Board’s misapprehensions were due to incorrect statements
`made in the POPR .............................................................................. 13
`The Board did not follow Rule 42.108 ............................................... 14
`D.
`III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 15
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................................................... 17
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,562,263
`
` Motion for Request for Reconsideration
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`EnviroLogix Inc. (“Petitioner”) requests reconsideration (rehearing) under
`
`§ 42.71(d) of the institution decision issued July 30, 2018 (the “Decision”) in the
`
`above-identified matter. The Board’s Decision misapprehended Petitioner’s
`
`argument and the corresponding disclosures in Petitioner’s prior art relative to two
`
`claim limitations.
`
`Specifically, the Board misapprehended the prior art’s disclosures in its
`
`analysis of the (a) “omitting a thermal denaturation” step (the “omitting step”) and
`
`(b) the “detecting the amplified product within 10 minutes after subjecting the
`
`reaction mixture to essentially isothermal conditions” step (the “detecting step”).
`
`(Decision at 10.)
`
`The prior art expressly discloses omitting thermal denaturation. (Petition at
`
`17 (citing Ex. 1002-Ehses at 177-¶3); Ex. 1008-Edwards at ¶¶71-72.) The Board
`
`agrees with Petitioner on this point. (See Decision at 11 (“Ehses teaches such a step
`
`may be omitted.”)) However, the Board “agree[d] with the Patent Owner that there
`
`is insufficient evidence . . . to show that a target product would be detectable when
`
`the thermal denaturation step is omitted[.]” (Id.) As discussed in detail below, this
`
`finding appears to be based on a misapprehension of Ehses’s disclosures regarding
`
`target product detection. (Id. at 10-11.) The Board misapprehends the evidence by
`
`focusing on disclosures identified in the Preliminary Patent Owner Response
`
`1
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,562,263
`
`
`(“POPR”), which are not relevant to detecting a target product in real time within 10
`
`Motion for Request for Reconsideration
`
`
`
`minutes under isothermal conditions. Instead, the evidence discussed in the POPR
`
`relates to Ehses detecting a target product using “staining.” (See Decision at 10-11.)
`
`This evidence is not relevant to detection in real time because staining does not
`
`detect a target product in real time, but is a form of end-point detection. In other
`
`words, staining detects product after the amplification reaction has concluded. (See
`
`Ex. 1002-Ehses at 176, lines 1-2 (“The reaction was stopped by addition of
`
`stop/loading dye . . .”).) Once a reaction has been stopped, the target product is no
`
`longer being detected in real time.
`
`Moreover, the Board misapprehended Petitioner’s argument regarding the
`
`detecting step occurring under isothermal conditions. (Decision at 10.) The
`
`evidence cited by Patent Owner relating to staining is not relevant to detection that
`
`occurs under isothermal conditions because prior to staining the target product
`
`undergoes thermal denaturation. (See Ex. 1002-Ehses at 176, lines 2-3 (“…and
`
`products were denatured at 95ºC for 10 min. Analysis was performed as described
`
`above.”).)
`
`Likewise, and at Patent Owner’s invitation to do so per arguments presented
`
`in the POPR, the Board misapprehended Petitioner’s arguments regarding whether
`
`a target product would be detectable within 10 minutes. Petitioner’s argument is
`
`based on inherency, and relates to detection of product as it occurs in real time during
`
`2
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,562,263
`
`
`isothermal incubation. (Petition at 22.) This type of detection is expressly disclosed
`
`Motion for Request for Reconsideration
`
`
`
`in the prior art—all that is missing from the disclosure of Ehses is an express
`
`statement that the amplified product is, in fact, detected “within 10 minutes.”
`
`Importantly, because Ehses monitors the formation of amplified product in real time,
`
`the product is necessarily detected as it accumulates.
`
`The issue of whether the prior art inherently discloses the detecting step is at
`
`least a disputed issue of material fact. In the POPR, Patent Owner did not present
`
`any expert testimony to show that it is not inherently disclosed. The Petition and the
`
`supporting declaration of Dr. Edwards show otherwise. At this stage and for
`
`purposes of institution, such disputed issues of material fact must be resolved in
`
`Petitioner’s favor under § 42.108. The Board overlooked this rule and credited
`
`Patent Owner’s attorney argument about unrelated types of “detection.”
`
`Finally, the Board misapprehended the legal standard for analyzing
`
`anticipation by relying on the alleged “undesirability” of omitting an initial
`
`denaturation step from Ehses’s protocol. Specifically, Patent Owner argued that
`
`Ehses teaches that omitting a denaturation step undesirably results in side reactions.
`
`However, obviousness concepts including “undesirability” and “teaching away” are
`
`not relevant to Petitioner’s anticipation argument regarding Ehses.
`
`For the reasons identified above and explained in detail below, Petitioner
`
`requests reconsideration under § 42.71(d).
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,562,263
`
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`Under § 42.71(d), “[a] party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single
`
`Motion for Request for Reconsideration
`
`request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board … The request 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.” As shown below, the Board misapprehended Petitioner’s
`
`argument regarding two claim terms, labeled in the Introduction above as the
`
`omitting step and the detecting step.
`
`A.
`
`The Board’s conclusion that “side products” would render a target
`product undetectable results from a misapprehension of Ehses’s
`disclosure
`As the Board acknowledged, Ehses discloses an amplification reaction that
`
`omits a thermal denaturation step, which meets the claim limitation “without first
`
`subjecting the target nucleic acid to a thermal denaturation step associated with
`
`amplification of the target polynucleotide sequence[.]” (Petition at 17-18; Decision
`
`at 4 (listing the claimed steps) & 11 (“Ehses teaches such a step may be omitted”).)
`
`In the POPR, Patent Owner argued that Ehses teaches that omitting such a step is
`
`not desirable, because doing so has a tendency to result in side reactions. (Decision
`
`at 10 (citing POPR at 6).) Relying on the Patent Owner’s representations in the
`
`POPR, the Board concluded that the presence of such “side-reactions result in DNA
`
`product that is not detectable, for example with staining. See Ex. 1002, FIG 3C.”
`
`4
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,562,263
`
`
`(Decision at 10.) However, the reaction analyzed in FIG. 3C is so unrelated to the
`
`Motion for Request for Reconsideration
`
`
`
`embodiment of Ehses relied on by Petitioner that FIG. 3C is irrelevant to the question
`
`of whether a detectable product would be detected in real time within 10 minutes
`
`when a heat denaturation step is omitted (“Omitted Step Reaction”). These
`
`differences are summarized in Table 1 and detailed below.
`
`Ehses’s Omitted Step Reaction
`Omits a thermal denaturation step
`15 minute incubation time
`Real time detection
`Product detected under isothermal
`
`conditions
`
`TABLE 1
`Reaction analyzed in FIG. 3C
`Includes a thermal denaturation step
`90 minute incubation time
`Endpoint detection
`Product denatured at 95ºC prior to
`
`detection
`
`As indicated above in Table 1, FIG. 3C analyzes a DNA product that results
`
`from a reaction that includes a thermal denaturation step, whereas the reaction
`
`described by Ehses and relied on by Petitioner does not include a thermal
`
`denaturation step. (Petition at 14.) The reaction shown in FIG. 3C is incubated for
`
`90 minutes prior to detection by staining, whereas the Omitted Step Reaction of
`
`Ehses may be incubated for as little as 15 minutes and target product accumulation
`
`is monitored in real time during the reaction. (Petition at 21.) Petitioner’s expert,
`
`Dr. Edwards, explained:
`
`5
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,562,263
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Request for Reconsideration
`
`“Ehses discloses detecting the amplification of target nucleic acid in
`real time. Ehses states: ‘Upon addition of the enzymes, the
`amplification mixture was incubated 15–60 min in an ICycler
`(BioRAD) and the increase in fluorescence intensity was monitored.’
`Ehses, p. 175, ¶¶ 1, 3. Dyes that bind DNA, like TO-PRO-1, generate
`a fluorescent signal upon binding that can be detected. The ICycler
`machine used by Ehses couples thermal regulation with optical
`detection.” (Ex. 1008-Edwards at ¶82.)
`
`In contrast, the DNA product shown in FIG. 3C is denatured at 95ºC prior to loading
`
`on the gel, whereas product is detected under isothermal conditions in the Omitted
`
`Step Reaction. In addition, the product is detected using staining in FIG. 3C, which
`
`is an end-point detection method (i.e., not real time), whereas the Omitted Step
`
`Reaction detects the product in real-time. Further confounding the interpretation of
`
`FIG. 3C is the fact that only a small amount of starting material was used and the
`
`reaction time was increased, either of which could, independently, cause an increase
`
`in side-reactions. (See Ex. 1002-Ehses at 177-¶3.) Thus, the alleged connection
`
`between the tendency to side-reactions shown in FIG. 3C and the detectability of
`
`target product as claimed is so attenuated as to be irrelevant.
`
`Thus, the Decision misapprehended the disclosures in Ehses. Moreover, as
`
`explained in the next section, the actual reaction analyzed in the Petition and relied
`
`on by Petitioner inherently results in detecting product prior to ten minutes, as
`
`claimed. (See § II.B.)
`
`6
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,562,263
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Request for Reconsideration
`
`Finally, Petitioner notes that the POPR and Decision both reference Ehses’s
`
`purported disclosures regarding the “undesirability” of the omitting step. To the
`
`extent the Decision rests on an “undesirability” finding (i.e., “teaching away”), the
`
`Decision misapprehends the law. Undesirability is not relevant to anticipation. A
`
`reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then
`
`disparages it. MPEP § 2131.05; Celeritas Techs. Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150
`
`F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d
`
`1319, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1349
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1999).
`
`B.
`
`The Board also misapprehended and overlooked the arguments set
`forth in the Petition and disclosures in Ehses showing that the
`reaction protocol relied on by Petitioner inherently detects product
`within 10 minutes
`Ehses inherently discloses “detecting the amplified target polynucleotide
`
`sequence in real time within 10 minutes of subjecting the reaction mixture to
`
`essentially isothermal conditions.” (Petition at 21-22.)
`
`As an initial matter, Petitioner notes that there does not appear to be a dispute
`
`that Ehses discloses real-time detection. (Decision at 12.) As set forth in the
`
`Petition, this disclosure is express, not inherent. (Petition at 21-22 (citing Ex. 1002-
`
`Ehses at 175-¶¶1, 3).) In particular, Ehses states:
`
`7
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,562,263
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Request for Reconsideration
`
`“Upon addition of the enzymes, the amplification mixture was
`incubated 15–60 min[utes] in an ICycler (BioRAD) and the increase in
`fluorescence intensity was monitored.” (Id. (emphasis added).)
`
`Thus, it cannot be reasonably disputed that real-time detection using fluorescence is
`
`expressly disclosed in Ehses.
`
`In fact, as the Petition shows, Ehses discloses the same type of real-time
`
`detection that is described by the ’263 patent at examples 4, 5, and 6, which include
`
`a description of monitoring an amplification in real-time using Sybr II, an
`
`intercalating fluorescent dye. (Petition at 12 (citing Ex. 1001 at 27:1-47).) Ehses
`
`discloses the same type of real-time detection using an ICycler and “an intercalating
`
`fluorescence dye TOPRO-1.” (Ex. 1002-Ehses at 178-¶1 (emphasis added).) In
`
`operation, this means that during the incubation process, fluorescence is monitored
`
`and the increase in fluorescence correlates with increased product. (Petition at 21;
`
`Ex. 1008-Edwards at ¶82.). This discloses real time detection of the amplified
`
`product.
`
`The only claim requirement that is not expressly disclosed in Ehses is that
`
`product is detected by monitoring fluorescence intensity in real-time during the first
`
`ten minutes of the reaction. This feature, however, is inherent because Ehses
`
`monitors the reaction from its inception. (Ex. 1008-Edwards at ¶82.) The Board
`
`misapprehended this aspect of Petitioner’s argument, and instead focused its analysis
`
`8
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,562,263
`
`
`on irrelevant disclosures in Ehses that relate to detection that occurs after the
`
`Motion for Request for Reconsideration
`
`
`
`reaction is stopped (i.e., not in real time):
`
`“In both the SDA and nicking SDA reactions described in Ehses, the
`amplification mixture was ‘incubated 15–60 [minutes] . . . and the
`increase in fluorescence intensity was monitored. The reaction was
`stopped by addition of denaturing Stop/Loading dye and products
`were denatured at 95°C for 10 [minutes].’ Following the standard
`procedure outlined in Ehses, the detection of product took minimally a
`15 minute incubation in addition to a 10 minute denaturation step
`before the product is finally detected on the gel. The reaction can
`proceed as long as 60 minutes.” (Decision at 11-12 (emphasis added,
`internal citations omitted).)
`
`The Board’s discussion of stopping the reaction by adding denaturing Stop/Loading
`
`dye and subsequent denaturing for 10 minutes is not relevant to any issue in this case
`
`because that portion of Ehses unequivocally relates to a type of detection that is not
`
`performed in real-time—it occurs after the reaction is stopped. Petitioner never
`
`argued that a post-reaction type of detection (e.g., staining) involving an additional
`
`10-minute denaturation step and a gel corresponds to the claimed detecting step.
`
`That type of detection is not real-time detection and cannot occur within ten minutes
`
`because detection occurs only after the reaction is stopped. Ehses’s disclosure of
`
`detection by staining has no bearing on whether Ehses’s separate disclosure of real-
`
`time detection inherently discloses the claimed detecting step.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,562,263
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Request for Reconsideration
`
`Instead of relying on irrelevant, post-reaction detection, the Petition relies on
`
`Ehses’s disclosure of real-time detection. (Petition at 21.) Although the Board
`
`recognized that real-time detection occurs in Ehses (Decision at 12), it
`
`misapprehended when it occurs. The Board reaches this conclusion by
`
`misapprehending the following disclosure in Ehses:
`
`“An indication of the amplification of non-specific products is also
`given by a two step kinetic profile. When using an intercalating
`fluorescence dye TOPRO-1 in real-time detection, after about 20 min
`the fluorescence intensity signal shows a steep increase.” (Decision
`at 12 (citing Ex. 1002-Ehses at 178-¶1, emphasis added).)
`
`Importantly, the Board misinterpreted this disclosure to mean that real-time
`
`detection of product occurs at the 20-minute mark:
`
`“Ehses also discloses the use of real-time detection, but indicates that
`fluorescence intensity increases after 20 minutes. Thus, the Ehses
`reference itself indicates that using real-time detection based on
`fluorescence intensity will take longer than 10 minutes.” (Decision at
`12 (emphasis added, internal citations omitted).)
`
`The Board has misapprehended Ehses. Ehses discloses that fluorescence, which is
`
`a read-out of product detection, was detectable prior to the 20-minute mark, but was
`
`present at a lower level during the first step in the two step kinetic profile. The 20-
`
`minute mark represents the second step in the kinetic profile where a “steep increase”
`
`in fluorescence occurred due to the accumulation of side products. An increase in
`
`10
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,562,263
`
`
`fluorescence is only possible when fluorescence is already present, albeit at a lower
`
`Motion for Request for Reconsideration
`
`
`
`level.
`
`Ehses’s disclosure regarding real time detection parallels the disclosure of the
`
`’263 patent at Example 4, which similarly describes the presence of side products,
`
`but indicates that side products are easily distinguished from true product because
`
`“The background products also generate fluorescence at a slower rate than the true
`
`product.” (Ex. 1001 at 27:9-11.) In view of this disclosure, it is disingenuous for
`
`the POPR to argue that the presence of side products would interfere with the
`
`detection of the true product.
`
`In practice, real time detection using fluorescence begins to show detectable
`
`levels of product after just a few minutes, and certainly prior to ten minutes, as
`
`discussed below. It appears that the Board has misapprehended what the results of
`
`monitoring a reaction in real-time using an ICycler would look like—it is not the
`
`case that only a “steep increase” would be detectable. This is confirmed by the Ehses
`
`dissertation, which is also in the record (Ex. 1003, translation in Ex. 1004). This
`
`dissertation includes a graph of real-time detection using fluorescence dye in Figure
`
`3.4, which clearly shows product accumulating within a few minutes:
`
`11
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,562,263
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Request for Reconsideration
`
`
`
`The graph shows that real-time detection using the intercalating dye TO-PRO-1 (as
`
`disclosed in Ex. 1002-Ehses at 178-¶1) begins near time zero when fluorescence
`
`begins to increase and continues during the reaction. The graph shows that there is
`
`a steep increase around the 12-minute mark in the exponential growth plot, but also
`
`shows that there were detectable levels of fluorescence far earlier in the process,
`
`after just a couple of minutes. Thus, there is record evidence, overlooked by the
`
`Board, tending to prove that the nSDA reaction described by Ehses would generate
`
`detectable product within that time frame.
`
`As explained in the Petition, the detecting step (and in particular detection
`
`within ten minutes) is inherently disclosed in Ehses because “nSDA is performed
`
`using the same components and under the same conditions as the claimed method,”
`
`12
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,562,263
`
`
`such that if detection using the claimed method in the ’263 patent results in detection
`
`Motion for Request for Reconsideration
`
`
`
`within ten minutes, the same must be true of the method disclosed in Ehses. (Petition
`
`at 22; Ex. 1008-Edwards at ¶84); Atlas, 190 F.3d at 1348 (“An inherent structure,
`
`composition, or function is not necessarily known. Once it is recognized that
`
`interstitial and porous air were inherent … [it] amounts to no more than a claim to
`
`the discovery of an inherent property of the prior art, not the addition of a novel
`
`element.”).
`
`Thus, as explained above with respect
`
`to §§ II.A-B,
`
`the Board
`
`misapprehended Petitioner’s argument and the disclosures in Ehses, and should
`
`reconsider its Decision by instituting inter partes review.
`
`C.
`
`The Board’s misapprehensions were due to incorrect statements
`made in the POPR
`The POPR includes several erroneous arguments that were adopted at least in
`
`part by the Decision. First, the POPR argues that including an initial denaturation
`
`step is desirable, and conversely that omitting such a step is undesirable. (POPR at
`
`6.) This argument is irrelevant to an anticipation analysis (e.g., to Ground 1).
`
`Desirability and teaching away are not applicable concepts with respect to
`
`anticipation. MPEP § 2131.05; Celeritas, 150 F.3d at 1361; Pamlab, 412 F.3d at
`
`1323; Atlas Powder, 190 F.3d at 1349. Nonetheless, as explained above, the Board
`
`13
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,562,263
`
`
`appeared to adopt aspects of this argument in rejecting Petitioner’s anticipation
`
`Motion for Request for Reconsideration
`
`
`
`ground based on Ehses. This misapprehends the law.
`
`Next, the POPR includes an argument that incubation must occur for at least
`
`15 minutes in Ehses, and consequently concluded that detectable product was not
`
`produced prior to that time. (POPR at 9.) However, the total incubation time has
`
`nothing to do with whether product is detectable using real time fluorescence
`
`monitoring in an ICycler. Likewise, a 15-minute reaction time does not suggest the
`
`absence of detectable product earlier than 15-minutes. That suggestion is
`
`erroneous—for example, it may simply be preferred to wait for additional detectable
`
`product to accumulate, even though product is detected earlier. Again, the Board
`
`focused its analysis of the detecting step on this argument that Ehses discloses
`
`running reactions for at least 15 minutes. (Decision at 12.) As shown above, this
`
`misapprehends Ehses and focuses on an irrelevant aspect of its disclosure.
`
`D. The Board did not follow Rule 42.108
`The Board rejected all of Petitioner’s grounds, including Ground 1 based on
`
`anticipation by Ehses. (Decision at 6, 12.) Ground 1 was denied based on the
`
`Board’s determination that Ehses does not inherently anticipate. Although the
`
`Decision misapprehended and overlooked Petitioner’s actual argument, as explained
`
`in the preceding section, the Decision also expresses agreement with Patent Owner’s
`
`factual assertion that Ehses does not inherently disclose the detecting limitation. The
`
`14
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,562,263
`
`
`inherent teaching of a reference is a question of fact. In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731,
`
`Motion for Request for Reconsideration
`
`
`
`739 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The POPR presents attorney argument without any
`
`corresponding expert declaration to support that attorney argument. The POPR also
`
`raises arguments that are demonstrably incorrect based on Ehses, including that real-
`
`time detection can only occur after a reaction is concluded. (See, e.g., POPR at 10.)
`
`At worst, this is a disputed issue of material fact; namely, whether Ehses inherently
`
`discloses real-time detection using fluorescence that begins when the reaction starts
`
`in an ICycler and stops when the incubation stops. (Ex. 1008-Edwards at ¶82
`
`(explaining Ehses’s use of real-time detection and incubation).) Under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.108, disputed issues of material must be resolved in Petitioner’s favor. Here, that
`
`did not occur, and that misapprehends and overlooks the Board’s own rules.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner respectfully requests rehearing under
`
`Rule 42.71, and requests an inter partes review trial with the respect to the
`
`Challenged Claims of the ’263 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,562,263
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: August 29, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Request for Reconsideration
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`
`
`By: /s/ Jonathan D. Ball
`Jonathan D. Ball, Ph.D.
`Registration No. 59,928
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`MetLife Building
`200 Park Avenue, 38th Floor
`New York, New York, 10166
`ballj@gtlaw.com
`Phone: (212) 801-2223
`Fax: (212) 801-6400
`
`Melissa Hunter-Ensor, Ph.D.
`Registration No. 55,289
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`One International Place, Suite 2000
`Boston, MA 02110
`hunterensorm@gtlaw.com
`Phone: (617) 310-6224
`Fax: (617) 310-6001
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`16
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,562,263
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Request for Reconsideration
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing and any
`
`supporting exhibits were served on counsel of record on August 29, 2018 by email
`
`to:
`
`
`
`Aaron F. Barkoff, Ph.D. (Reg. No. 52,591)
`Christopher P. Singer, Ph.D. (Reg. No. 48,701)
`MCANDREWS, HELD & MALLOY, LTD.
`500 W. Madison St., 34th Floor
`Chicago, IL 60661
`Tel: (312) 775-8000
`Fax: (312) 775-8100
`Email: abarkoff@mcandrews-ip.com
`Email: csinger@mcandrews-ip.com
`Email: IonianIPR@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`
`
`Date: August 29, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`
`
`By: /Jonathan Ball, Ph.D./
`Jonathan D. Ball, Ph.D.
`Registration No. 59,928
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`MetLife Building
`200 Park Avenue, 38th Floor
`New York, New York, 10166
`ballj@gtlaw.com
`Phone: (212) 801-2223
`Fax: (212) 801-6400
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`17
`
`
`
`Patent No. 9,562,263
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Request for Reconsideration
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`This Petitioner’s Motion for Request for Reconsideration complies with the
`
`type-volume limitation of 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(1)(v), which permits 15 pages for
`
`Petitioner’s Motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: August 29, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`
`
`By: /Jonathan Ball, Ph.D./
`Jonathan D. Ball, Ph.D.
`Registration No. 59,928
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`MetLife Building
`200 Park Avenue, 38th Floor
`New York, New York, 10166
`ballj@gtlaw.com
`Phone: (212) 801-2223
`Fax: (212) 801-6400
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`18
`
`
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
