Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 9
`Date: February 17, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`GREE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-01628
`Patent 9,561,439 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, HYUN J. JUNG, and
`RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 9
`Date: February 17, 2021
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SUPERCELL OY,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`GREE, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`IPR2020-01628
`Patent 9,561,439 B2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, HYUN J. JUNG, and
`RICHARD H. MARSCHALL, Administrative Patent Judges.
`JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review
`35 U.S.C. § 314
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01628
`Patent 9,561,439 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`A. Background and Summary
`Supercell Oy (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”)
`requesting institution of an inter partes review of claims 1–7 of U.S. Patent
`No. 9,561,439 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’439 patent”). GREE, Inc. (“Patent
`Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response (Paper 6, “Prelim. Resp.”). With our
`authorization, Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(c) (Paper 7, “Reply”), and Patent
`Owner filed a Sur-Reply to Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response (Paper 8, “Sur-reply”).
`After considering the parties’ briefs and the evidence of record, we
`exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny inter partes review.
`B. Real Parties in Interest
`Petitioner identifies only Supercell Oy as a real party in interest.
`Pet. 1. Patent Owner identifies only GREE, Inc. as a real party in interest.
`Paper 4, 2.
`C. Related Matters
`The parties indicate that the ’439 patent has been asserted in GREE,
`Inc. v. Supercell Oy, 2:19-cv-00311 (E.D. Tex.). Pet. 2; Paper 4, 3. The
`parties also indicate that a related patent is at issue in IPR2020-001633.
`Pet. 2; Paper 4, 2.
`D. The ’439 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`The ’439 patent issued on February 7, 2017 from an application filed
`on June 10, 2015 that is a division of an application filed on March 5, 2014
`that, in turn, claims priority to foreign applications, the earliest of which was
`filed on March 12, 2013. Ex. 1001, codes (22), (30), (45), (62), 1:8–12.
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01628
`Patent 9,561,439 B2
`According to the ’439 patent, it addresses reduced motivation for low
`level players when playing a social game with guilds or groups of players
`that may be of higher level. See Ex. 1001, 1:22–24, 1:56–59, 2:14–15, 2:17–
`22. In one embodiment, while the game is being played, certain game pieces
`appear based on the level of the user. See id. at 21:32–46. When players in
`a guild collect all the required game pieces, a reward is given. See id. at
`24:30–32. Thus, the appearance of some of the required game pieces to only
`users of a particular level encourages players to form a guild with both high
`and low level players. See id. at 24:22–29.
`E. Illustrative Claim
`The ’439 patent includes claims 1–7, all of which Petitioner
`challenges. Of those, claims 1, 6, and 7 are independent, and claim 1 is
`reproduced below.
`1.
`A game control method carried out by a game
`control device for providing a game to a plurality of
`communication terminals respectively used by a plurality of
`users, the game control device communicating with the plurality
`of communication terminals over a communication network and
`having a storage unit for storing information for each of the
`plurality of users, the method comprising the steps of:
`(a) grouping the plurality of users into one or more groups;
`(b) storing a correspondence between the plurality of users
`and the one or more groups in the storage unit;
`(c) transmitting information over the communication
`network to initiate a group event in which a first plurality of users
`forming a first group cooperatively participate in the game;
`(d) storing a parameter value for each of the plurality of
`users, wherein the parameter value for a respective user is
`increased as the respective user makes progress in the group
`event;
`(e) monitoring progress of the group event and updating
`the parameter value for each of the first plurality of users in
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01628
`Patent 9,561,439 B2
`accordance with the progress of the first group in the group
`event;
`(f) providing at least one of a plurality of game pieces to
`each of the first plurality of users in the group event, based on
`the parameter value for the corresponding user, wherein the
`plurality of game pieces are required to obtain a game item;
`(g) storing allocation information indicating which game
`piece has been provided to which user, in the storage unit;
`(h) determining whether all the required game pieces have
`been provided to the first plurality of users, based on the
`allocation information; and
`(i) allocating in a memory, the game item to the first group
`or at least one of the first plurality of users, when it is determined
`that all the required game pieces have been provided within a
`predetermined period of time during which the group event is
`taking place.
`Ex. 1001, 25:37–26:8.
`F. Asserted Prior Art and Proffered Testimonial Evidence
`Petitioner identifies the following references as prior art in the
`asserted grounds of unpatentability:
`Exhibit
`Name
`Reference
`1006
`Schulhof
`US 8,376,838 B2, issued Feb. 19, 2013
`1004
`Englman
`US 2011/0300926 A1, published Dec. 8, 2011
`1005
`Ronen
`US 2013/0190094 A1, published July 25, 2013
`Pet. 3; see also id. at 4 (arguing that the effective filing date is no earlier
`than March 12, 2013). Petitioner also provides a Declaration of Emmet J.
`Whitehead, Jr., Ph.D. (Ex. 1003).
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01628
`Patent 9,561,439 B2
`G. Asserted Ground
`Petitioner asserts that claims 1–7 would have been unpatentable on the
`following ground:
`Claims Challenged
`1–7
`
`References/Basis
`Englman, Ronen, Schulhof
`
`35 U.S.C. §
`103(a)1
`
`
`
`II. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`Patent Owner argues that “the Board should exercise its discretion
`under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) to deny the Petition because Petitioner raises
`substantially the same prior art and arguments in a parallel district court
`proceeding filed more than one year ago and scheduled for trial in
`approximately two months (March 1, 2021).” Prelim. Resp. 1.
`A. Legal Standards
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) states that
`[t]he Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be
`instituted unless the Director determines that the information
`presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response
`filed under section 313 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.
`The language of § 314(a) expressly provides the Director with
`discretion to deny institution of a post-grant review. See Cuozzo Speed
`Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision
`to deny a petition is a matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion.”);
`
`
`1 The relevant sections of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”),
`Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (Sept. 16, 2011), took effect on March 16,
`2013. Because the ’439 patent claims priority to an application filed before
`that date, our citations to 35 U.S.C. § 103 are to its pre-AIA version.
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01628
`Patent 9,561,439 B2
`Consolidated Trial Practice Guide November 2019 (“TPG”) at 55 (available
`at https://www.uspto.gov/TrialPracticeGuideConsolidated).
`In exercising the Director’s discretion under § 314(a), the Board may
`consider “events in other proceedings related to the same patent, either at the
`Office, in district court, or the ITC.” TPG at 58. NHK Spring explains that
`the Board may consider the advanced state of a related district court
`proceeding, among other considerations, as a “factor that weighs in favor of
`denying the Petition under § 314(a).” NHK Spring Co. v. Intri-Plex Techs.,
`Inc., IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 at 20 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) (precedential).
`Additionally, the Board’s precedential order in Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc.,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 5‒6 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (precedential) (“the
`Fintiv Order”) identifies several factors for analyzing issues related to the
`Director’s discretion to deny institution, with the goal of balancing
`efficiency, fairness, and patent quality.
`B. Applying the Fintiv Order Factors
`1. Whether the Court Granted a Stay or Evidence Exists that one
`may be Granted if a Proceeding is Instituted
`Petitioner argues that it “has not yet sought a stay but will do so
`should the IPR be instituted.” Pet. 63; see also Reply 3 (stating that “though
`no stay has yet been sought, Petitioner stipulates it will seek a stay in the
`parallel litigation should the IPR be instituted”) (replying to Prelim. Resp.
`7).
`
`Patent Owner responds that “Petitioner has not filed any motion to
`stay the parallel district court proceeding” and “there is little evidence here
`to suggest that the district court will grant a stay.” Prelim. Resp. 7. Patent
`Owner argues that a stay is “extremely unlikely” because stays are denied
`before institution and an institution decision is “not due until after the jury
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01628
`Patent 9,561,439 B2
`trial in the parallel district court proceeding.” Id. at 7–8 (citing Ex. 2013, 1).
`Patent Owner further replies that Petitioner’s stipulation “is not sufficient
`evidence that a stay will, in fact, be granted upon institution.” Sur-reply 1
`(citing Prelim. Resp. 7–9; Reply 3).
`Because the district court has not yet granted a stay and the record
`does not include any evidence that a stay, if requested, would be granted, we
`determine that the facts underlying this factor are neutral.
`2. Proximity of the Court’s Trial Date to the Board’s Projected
`Statutory Deadline for a Final Written Decision
`Petitioner argues that “[w]hile the trial date is currently scheduled to
`occur before the statutory deadline for the [final written decision], this factor
`should be afforded little weight, as the date is very likely to change.”
`Pet. 63. Petitioner also argues that trial dates reset when review is instituted
`and significantly slip after institution has been denied. Id. at 63–64 (citing
`Ex. 1014, 2; Ex. 1015, 3); see also Reply 3 (arguing similarly) (citing
`Ex. 1014, 2; Ex. 1015, 3).
`Patent Owner responds that a “jury trial in the parallel district court
`proceeding is set to begin on March 1, 2021” and thus, “scheduled to
`conclude more than twelve months before a final written decision would be
`due in this proceeding.” Prelim. Resp. 9. Patent Owner lists several
`proceedings where the Board has denied institution based on a smaller gap
`between trial date and due date for a final written decision. Id. at 9–10.
`Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner does not present any evidence that
`trial will not proceed as currently scheduled, the trial date should be taken at
`“face value,” and both fact discovery and expert discovery have closed. Id.
`at 12–14 (citing Ex. 2002, 1; Ex. 2012, 3; Ex. 2013, 4). Patent Owner
`further argues that, “even if trial is ultimately delayed by a few months, it
`
`7
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01628
`Patent 9,561,439 B2
`will still likely conclude well before a final written decision would be due in
`this proceeding, if the Board were to institute.” Id. at 15; see also Sur-reply
`2 (presenting similar argument).
`Petitioner replies the district court has postponed all in-person trials
`through February 2021 and the “pause is likely to have a downstream impact
`on the court’s schedule and delay the trial schedule in the parallel litigation.”
`Reply 3–4 (citing Ex. 1016, 1; Ex. 1017, 1). Patent Owner replies that the
`Board has previously rejected arguments that a trial date is uncertain based
`on articles and the district court did “not modify, let alone, continue the jury
`trial in the parallel proceeding, which is still scheduled for March 1, 2021.”
`Sur-reply 1–2 (citing Prelim. Resp. 12 n.3; Reply 3).
`The present record shows that, if review were instituted in this
`proceeding, a final written decision would be due twelve months after the
`currently scheduled trial date in the parallel district court proceeding.
`Ex. 2013, 1 (Eighth Amended Docket Control Order in the parallel district
`court case setting jury selection for March 1, 2021). Given the considerable
`overlap in claims, prior art, and arguments as described below, institution
`would create a potential for the district court proceeding and the review to
`arrive at inconsistent results spaced approximately one year apart.
`As for possible trial date adjustments due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
`the record shows all in-person trials have been postponed through February
`2021. Ex. 1016, 1 (Order continuing all in-person jury trials). The record
`also shows that the trial date for the parallel district court proceeding is still
`scheduled for March 2021. Ex. 2013, 1. Even if we accepted that the pause
`in all in-person trials from December 2020 through February 2021 would
`delay the related district court proceeding, we agree with Patent Owner that
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01628
`Patent 9,561,439 B2
`the trial would still finish many months before the due date for a final
`written decision in this proceeding. See Prelim. Resp. 15; Sur-reply 2.
`Thus, we determine that this factor weighs in favor of denying
`institution.
`3. Investment in the Parallel Proceeding by the Court and the
`Parties
`Petitioner argues that “[t]he district court proceeding . . . is only in its
`initial stages, and the court has not made any substantial investments in the
`merits of the invalidity positions.” Pet. 65. Patent Owner responds that the
`district court has issued its order on claim construction and, by the time
`institution is considered, will have completed, at least, fact discovery, expert
`discovery, briefing on dispositive and Daubert motions, and pretrial
`conference. Prelim. Resp. 17–18 (citing Ex. 2001, 1; Ex. 2002; Ex. 2012;
`Ex. 2013, 1–4). Patent Owner, thus, argues that the parallel district court
`proceeding is at an advanced stage and that the district court and parties will
`have invested substantial resources by the time institution is decided. Id. at
`18–19.
`Patent Owner also argues that Petitioner did not file its Petition until
`twelve months after the parallel district court proceeding was initiated and
`contends, with citations to other Board decisions, that the unexplained delay
`weighs in favor of denying institution. Prelim. Resp. 19–20 (citing
`Ex. 2004). Patent Owner further argues that the delay shows Petitioner must
`be using this proceeding “as a second-bite at the apple” to relitigate validity
`in a different venue, not as an alternative to district court litigation. Id. at 20.
`Patent Owner notes that Petitioner served the same grounds and asserted the
`same references in the same way more than five months before filing its
`Petition in this proceeding. Id. (citing Exs. 2005–2007).
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01628
`Patent 9,561,439 B2
`Petitioner replies that, because of difficulties during fact discovery,
`“the district court entered a revised schedule extending many of the
`deadlines by several weeks” and “has yet to substantively address [the
`challenged claims’] validity.” Reply 4 (citing Ex. 1018). Petitioner also
`argues that “[b]y the time the Board decides whether to institute, it will have
`already invested significant resources into considering the validity of the
`’439 patent.” Id. Petitioner further replies that “the timing of the filing
`enabled the Petition to take into account GREE’s amended infringement
`contentions and the court’s tentative claim constructions in the parallel
`litigation, which resulted in a more focused and thorough petition” and
`Patent Owner does not identify any unfair costs due to the timing of the
`filing of the Petition. Id. (citing Ex. 1019, Ex. 1020).
`Patent Owner replies that Petitioner cannot dispute the substantial
`resources expended in the parallel district court proceeding. Sur-reply 3
`(citing Prelim. Resp. 16–19). Patent Owner also argues that the due dates
`that were extended have passed and “[f]orcing Patent Owner to re-litigate
`Petitioner’s same invalidity challenges . . . in this forum necessarily imposes
`unfair costs to Patent Owner.” Id. (citing Reply 4).
`In the parallel district court proceeding, a Claim Construction
`Memorandum Opinion and Order has been issued and by this time, the
`parties have, inter alia, completed expert discovery, filed dispositive
`motions and motions to strike expert testimony, served pretrial disclosures,
`and attended a pretrial conference. Ex. 2011; Ex. 2013, 1–4. The district
`court and the parties have made substantial investments in the parallel
`proceeding. The parties still have to expend significant resources to conduct
`the trial itself, as well as potential post-trial proceedings.
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01628
`Patent 9,561,439 B2
`Based on the record, weighing the investments thus far made and yet
`to be made, we determine that substantial investments have been made in the
`parallel proceeding, and thus, this factor weighs in favor of denying
`institution.
`4. Overlap Between Issues Raised in the Petition and in the Parallel
`Proceeding
`Petitioner argues that the Petition asserts a combination of references
`that includes a reference not raised in the parallel district court litigation,
`raises a ground not before the district court, and brings forth significant
`issues related to the claims that would be unaddressed if institution is denied.
`Pet. 64. 2 Petitioner, thus, argues there are no significant concerns regarding
`duplicative efforts or potentially conflicting outcomes. Id.
`Patent Owner responds that “[t]here is substantial overlap between the
`claims, grounds, arguments, and evidence presented in the Petition and what
`has been, and continues to be, litigated in the parallel district court
`proceeding.” Prelim. Resp. 21; see also Sur-reply 3 (arguing similarly).
`According to Patent Owner, Petitioner asserts the same prior art against the
`exact same claims in the district court proceeding and any additionally cited
`prior art is immaterial to this factor. Prelim. Resp. 22–25 (citing Pet. 1, 3,
`20–28, 30–57; Ex. 2005, 1, 3, 8–9, 12; Ex. 2006; Ex. 2007; Ex. 2008
`¶¶ 221–228, 283–292, 404–471). Patent Owner argues the inclusion of
`another reference (Schulhof) that is not asserted in the district court
`proceeding does not differentiate meaningfully the arguments in this
`
`
`2 Petitioner also argues that the “patent ineligibility standard” at the Office
`“is different” from the standard for jury trials. Pet. 64. However, because
`patent ineligibility has not and cannot be asserted in the present Petition, we
`do not need to address this argument.
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01628
`Patent 9,561,439 B2
`proceeding from the arguments in district court. Id. at 27–29 (citing Pet. 40–
`43; Ex. 2005, 8–9; Ex. 2006; Ex. 2007; Ex. 2008).
`Petitioner replies that the Board has declined to exercise discretion
`when a reference asserted in the Petition is not at issue in the related
`litigation. Reply 1 (citing, inter alia, Snap, Inc. v. SRK Technology LLC,
`IPR2020-00820, Paper 15 at 15 (PTAB Oct. 21, 2020) (precedential)).
`Petitioner contends that Patent Owner minimizes a crucial distinction
`between this proceeding and the parallel district court litigation because
`Schulhof is cited for teaching the purported solution of the ’439 patent. Id.
`at 1–2 (citing Pet. 29–30, 41–43, 57–62; Prelim. Resp. 27). Petitioner also
`argues that including Schulhof in this proceeding obviates concerns of
`duplicative efforts and potentially conflicting decisions. Petitioner further
`“stipulates that, should IPR be instituted, Petitioner will not pursue the same
`grounds in the litigation.” Id. at 2–3.
`Patent Owner replies that “[t]his factor expressly does not require
`complete duplication of grounds and evidence.” Sur-reply 3 (citing Prelim.
`Resp. 27–28). Patent Owner asserts that Petitioner’s challenges are
`substantially similar to those in district court. Id. at 3–4 (citing Prelim.
`Resp. 27–29; Reply 1–2). Patent Owner also argues that, in Snap, the
`district court proceeding was stayed, and that “Petitioner’s stipulation is
`meaningless, as the parties will likely have completed a jury trial by the
`time this Board decides whether to institute a trial” and does not extend to
`any ground raised or that could have reasonably been raised in this
`proceeding. Id. at 4–5 (citing Prelim. Resp. 17–18; Reply 1–3).
`The record shows that the same statutory grounds, the same
`arguments, and substantially the same prior art evidence are at issue with
`respect to the exact same challenged claims. “[I]f the petition includes the
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01628
`Patent 9,561,439 B2
`same or substantially the same claims, grounds, arguments, and evidence as
`presented in the parallel proceeding, this fact has favored denial” because
`“concerns of inefficiency and the possibility of conflicting decisions [are]
`particularly strong.” Fintiv Order, Paper 11 at 12. We agree with Patent
`Owner that Petitioner’s stipulation does not address effectively concerns
`about duplicative efforts and potentially conflicting decisions because the
`stipulation may have no effect until the parties complete nearly all work on
`these issues in the parallel proceeding, including a potential jury trial. Sur-
`reply 4–5.
`On this record, we determine that this factor slightly weighs in favor
`of denying institution.
`5. Whether Petitioner and the Defendant in the Parallel Proceeding
`are the Same Party
`Patent Owner argues that “Petitioner and Patent Owner are the
`defendant and plaintiff, respectively, in the parallel district court
`proceeding.” Prelim. Resp. 24 (citing Pet. 1; Exs. 2001–2003). Petitioner
`replies that “[t]he ‘same party’ factor should be given little weight, as the
`petitioner-defendant is the party most motivated to challenge the patent.”
`Reply 5. Patent Owner replies that this argument has been rejected as
`inconsistent with Fintiv. Sur-reply 5.
`The record shows that Petitioner and defendant in the parallel
`proceeding are the same. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of denying
`institution.
`6. Other Circumstances that Impact the Board’s Exercise of
`Discretion, Including the Merits
`Regarding the merits, Petitioner argues that Englman, Ronen, and
`Schulhof would have rendered obvious claims 1–7 of the ’439 patent with
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01628
`Patent 9,561,439 B2
`citations to these references and declarant testimony. Pet. 30–62. Based on
`the present record, Petitioner adequately makes an initial showing that these
`references teach or suggest the limitations of the challenged claims and that
`one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the asserted references.
`The record indicates sufficient argument and evidence for instituting trial,
`but the merits do not appear overwhelmingly strong on this preliminary
`record.
`Patent Owner disputes that Englman teaches or suggests two steps of
`claim 1 and argues that Petitioner’s reason for combining the references is
`insufficient. Prelim. Resp. 36–49. Patent Owner’s arguments about the
`teachings of Englman are based on claim interpretation and raise a factual
`issue. See id. at 36–41; Sur-reply 6–7. Also, the present disputes would be
`best decided on a full record, not the preliminary record before us.
`For at least the foregoing reasons, based on the incomplete record
`before us, an initial review of the merits of Petitioner’s only ground suggests
`that the merits are neither weak nor strong. Thus, we determine that this
`factor is neutral.
`7. Holistic Analysis of Fintiv Order Factors
`We undertake a holistic analysis of the Fintiv Order factors,
`considering “whether efficiency and integrity of the system are best served
`by denying or instituting review.” Fintiv Order, Paper 11 at 6. As discussed
`above, based on the facts in the record at hand, factors 1 and 6 are neutral,
`but factors 2–5 weigh toward denying institution.
`The facts of the present record indicate that duplication of efforts and
`potential for inconsistent results exist, because both the district court and the
`Board would consider substantially identical issues and the district court will
`reach trial many months before we would issue a final written decision. We
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01628
`Patent 9,561,439 B2
`determine that the facts underlying factors 2–5 collectively outweigh the
`facts underlying factors 1 and 2. Accordingly, we determine that the
`circumstances presented weigh in favor of denying institution under
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`Based on our application of the precedential Fintiv Order factors to
`the record before us, we exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`and deny institution of inter partes review.
`
`
`IV. ORDER
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims, and
`no trial is instituted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01628
`Patent 9,561,439 B2
`FOR PETITIONER:
`Rajiv P. Patel
`Brian Hoffman
`Kevin X. McGann
`Jennifer R. Bush
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`rpatel-ptab@fenwick.com
`bhoffman-ptab@fenwick.com
`kmcgann-ptab@fenwick.com
`jbush-ptab@fenwick.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`John C. Alemanni
`Andrew Rinehart
`Joshua H. Lee
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
`jalemanni@kilpatricktownsend.com
`arinehart@ kilpatricktownsend.com
`jlee@ kilpatricktownsend.com
`Scott A. McKeown
`ROPES & GRAY
`Scott.McKeown@ropesgray.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
