Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 9
`Date: December 20, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CoO. LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`V.
`
`WEPAY GLOBAL PAYMENTS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`PGR2022-00045
`Patent D930,702 S
`
`Before GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN,SCOTT A. DANIELS,and
`MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`Per curiam.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Post-Grant Review
`35 USC. § 324
`
`Granting Motion for Joinder
`35 U.S.C. § 325(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.222
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 9
`Date: December 20, 2022
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CoO. LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`V.
`
`WEPAY GLOBAL PAYMENTS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`PGR2022-00045
`Patent D930,702 S
`
`Before GRACE KARAFFA OBERMANN,SCOTT A. DANIELS,and
`MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY,Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`Per curiam.
`
`DECISION
`Granting Institution of Post-Grant Review
`35 USC. § 324
`
`Granting Motion for Joinder
`35 U.S.C. § 325(c); 37 C.F.R. § 42.222
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00045
`Patent No. D930,702 S
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition requesting post-
`
`grant review of the sole claim of U.S. Patent No. D930,702 S (Ex. 1001, “the ’702
`
`patent’). Paper | (“Pet.”). The ’702 patentalso is the subject of PGR2022-00031
`
`filed by Early Warning Services, LLC. See Early Warning Services, LLC v. WePay
`
`Global Payments LLC, PGR2022-00031, Paper 1 (PTAB Apr. 5, 2022) (“PGR
`
`031’). On October 7, 2022, the Board entered a decision to institute review in PGR
`
`031. PGR 031, Paper 22. Petitioner timely filed a Motion for Joinder within one-
`
`month ofthe institution decision in PGR 031. See Paper 8 (“Mot.”’). WePay Global
`
`Payments LLC (“Patent Owner’), in this case, did notfile a preliminary response
`
`or an opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.!
`
`For reasons discussed below, weinstitute a post-grant review of the
`
`challenged claims and grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.
`
`B.|RELATED PROCEEDINGS
`
`In addition to PGR 031, Petitioner identifies twelve (12) district court cases
`
`as related to this proceeding and involving the ’702 patent (Mot. 3-4): (1) WePay
`
`Global Payments LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., 6:2021-cv-01095
`
`(W.D. Tex.); (2) WePay Global Payments LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:2022-
`
`cv-01061 (N.D. Ill.); (38) WePay Global Payments LLC v. Bank ofAmerica, N.A.,
`
`1:2022-cv-00105 (N.D. IIL.); (4) WePay Global Payments LLC v. JPMorgan Chase
`
`Bank, N.A., 1:2022-cv- 00103 (N.D. IIL); (5) WePay Global Payments LLC vy.
`
`McDonald's Corporation, 1:2022-cv-01064 (N.D. Ill); (6) WePay Global
`
`' Patent Ownerfiled a preliminary response and sur-reply in PGR 031. See
`PGR 031, Papers 12, 17.
`
`2
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00045
`Patent No. D930,702 S
`
`Payments LLC vy. PayPal, Inc., 6:2021-cv-01094 (W.D. Tex.); (7) WePay Global
`
`Payments LLC v. PNC Bank, N.A., 2:22-cv-00592 (W.D. Pa.); (8) WePay Global
`
`Payments LLC v. PNC Bank, N.A., 1:2021-cv-05052 (N.D. IIL.); (9) WePay Global
`
`Payments LLC vy. Apple Inc., No. 6:2022-cv-00223 (W.D. Tex.) (dismissed); (10)
`
`WePay Global Payments LLC v. Tesla, Inc., 6:2022-cv-00224 (W.D. Tex.); (11)
`
`WePay Global Payments LLC vy. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 1:2022-cv-01062 (N.D.
`
`Ill.) (dismissed); and (12) WePay Global Payments LLC vy. Wells Fargo Bank,
`
`N.A., 6:22-cv-00363 (W.D. Tex.).
`
`C.—REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST
`
`Petitioner identifies Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics
`
`AmericaInc. as real parties-in-interest. Pet. 9.
`
`Early Warning Services, LLC identifies itself as a real party-in-interest in its
`
`petition. PGR 031, Paper 1 at 7. Early Warning Services further identifies “Bank of
`
`America, N.A., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and PNC Bank, N.A.” as customers
`
`of Early Warning Services. /d.
`
`Patent Owneridentifies WePay Global Payments LLC as“the real party in
`
`interest” and ownerof the ’702 patent. Paper 4, 1 (Patent Owner’s Mandatory
`
`Notices).
`
`D.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’702 PATENT AND ASSERTED GROUNDS OF
`UNPATENTABILITY
`
`The °702 patent claims “[t]he ornamental design for a display screen portion
`
`with animated graphical user interface, as shown and described.” Ex 1001, code
`
`(57). We reproduce below Figures 1 and 2 of the *702 patent, which make up the
`
`first claimed embodiment./d. at Figs. 1, 2.
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00045
`Patent No. D930,702 S
`
`|
`
`”FIGURE 1 -
`
`FIGURE2
`
`Ex. 1001, Figs. 1, 2. Figure 1 displaysa first broken line square within the lower
`
`half of a large broken line rectangle; within the top two and bottom left corners of
`
`the square are smaller broken line squares, and inside the smaller squaresare solid
`
`black squares. /d. at Fig. 1. Immediately above the first square is broken line text
`
`“$0.00,” and below the first square is broken line text that reads, from left to right,
`
`“Send,” “Request,” and “Split.” /d. Figure 2 includes the samefirst square and
`
`rectangle, but the first square is empty and the broken line text below it reads
`
`“Cancel.” /d. at Fig. 2. The “$0.00”text of Figure 2 is in the upperhalf of the
`
`rectangle andin solid lines, instead of “$0.00” being located immediately above
`
`the square and in brokenlines. /d. Reproduced below are Figures 3-5 of the ’702
`
`patent, which make up the second claimed embodiment. /d. at Figs. 3-5.
`
`oe $0.00
`
`FIGURE 3
`
`FIGURE 4
`
`FIGURE 5
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00045
`Patent No. D930,702 S
`
`Ex. 1001, Figs. 3, 4, 5. Figures 3 and 5 are identical to Figures 1 and 2,
`
`respectively. /d. at Figs. 3, 5. Figure 4 displays the same rectangle but includes a
`
`broken line across the top ofit. /d. at Fig. 4. In the upper half of the rectangle but
`
`underthe broken line, there are two rowsof broken line circles. /d. Within the
`
`lower half of the rectangle, there 1s a column offour circles on the left side. /d.
`
`The broken lines represent unclaimed matter, and “[t]he process or period in
`
`which one imagetransitions to another image forms nopart of the claimed design.”
`
`Id. at Description.
`
`Wereproducethe asserted groundsin the following chart.
`
`
`
`Reddy, SGOR*
`
`103
`
`103
`
`Reddy
`
`? The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat.
`284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, effective March 16, 2013. Given
`that the application from which the *702 patent issued wasfiled after this date,
`the current versions of §§ 102 and 103 apply. Neither party directs us to
`information indicating that the result would change based on whichversion of the
`provisions is applied in this proceeding. Noris there any dispute, on this record,
`that the ’702 patentis eligible for post-grant review.
`3U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2018/0260806 A1, published Sept. 13, 2018
`(Ex. 1004).
`* Screenshots of YouTube video, “SGQR—Singapore Quick Response Code,”
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1 VmJm9imBp4 (Ex. 1005). Petitioner asserts
`a publication date of September 16, 2018. Pet. 25.
`> Screenshots of YouTubevideo, “GrabPay Standalone,”
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc84snlxTRce(Ex. 1006). Petitioner asserts a
`publication date of March 20, 2020. Pet. 32.
`5
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00045
`Patent No. D930,702 S
`
` 1
`
`Digital Debit Video,°
`Digital Debit Patent’
`
`Pet. 13.8
`
`II.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`Before deciding joinder questions, the Board first determines whether the
`
`petition “warrants the institution of a post-grant review under section 324.”
`
`See 35 U.S.C. §§ 325(c), 324(a) (stating that the petition “would demonstrate that
`
`it is more likely than notthat at least 1 of the claims challengedin the petition is
`
`unpatentable”); see also Facebook, Inc. v. Windy City Innovations, LLC, 973 F.3d
`
`1321, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (interpreting joinder requirements in inter partes
`
`review under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314(a), 315(c)). When a secondpetition is a “me-too”
`
`or “copycat”petition, the institution analysis may include a General Plastic
`
`analysis. See Apple, Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, IPR2020-00854, Paper 9 (PTAB Oct.
`
`28, 2020) (designated as precedential on December 4, 2020) (“Uniloc’’); General
`
`Plastic Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, 1PR2016-01357, Paper 19,
`
`at 16 (PTAB Sept. 6, 2017) (precedential as to § II.B.4.1).
`
`° Screenshots of YouTubevideo, “Digital Debit App Preview,”
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDqvQFJB8GA (Ex. 1007). Petitioner asserts
`a publication date of November 20, 2017. Pet. 39.
`TUS. Patent No. D857,054 S, issued August 20, 2019 (Ex. 1008).
`8 Although the Petition sets forth four numbered grounds, two distinct groundsare
`embedded within Petitioner’s second-numbered ground. See Pet. 13 (asserting, in
`the second-numbered ground, obviousness over Reddy “aloneor in view of”
`SGQR).
`
`6
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00045
`Patent No. D930,702 S
`
`A.—DECISION TO INSTITUTE POST-GRANT REVIEW
`
`Petitioner contendsthat the “Petition is materially the same as the petition
`
`filed in the 031 proceeding.” Mot. 1. Petitioner also asserts that the Petition
`
`“challenge[s] the same claim, on the same grounds, andrel[ies] on the same prior
`
`art and evidence, including an identical declaration from the same expert.” /d. Our
`
`review of the petitions and the evidence that supports both petitions confirms
`
`Petitioner’s representations. Compare Pet. 12-86, with PGR 031, Paper 1 at 10-88.
`
`For the samereasonsdiscussed in our Decision on Institution in PGR 031, we find
`
`Petitioner has demonstrated that it is more likely than not that the challenged claim
`
`of the ’702 patent is unpatentable. See PGR 031, Paper 22. Accordingly, we
`
`determine that the Petition warrants institution of post-grant review under 35
`
`US.C. § 324.
`
`B.|GENERAL PLASTIC ANALYSIS
`
`The Board’s decision in General Plastic articulates seven non-exhaustive
`
`factors to consider when deciding whether to discretionarily deny a petition, which
`
`challenges a patent previously challenged before the Board. These factors include:
`
`1. whether the same petitioner previously filed a petition directed to
`the same claimsof the same patent;
`2. whetherat the time offiling of the first petition the petitioner knew
`of the prior art asserted in the secondpetition or should have known
`ofit;
`3. whetherat the time of filing of the second petition the petitioner
`already received the patent owner’s preliminary responseto thefirst
`petition or received the Board’s decision on whetherto institute
`review in thefirst petition;
`4. the length of time that elapsed between the time the petitioner
`learned of the prior art asserted in the second petition andthe filing of
`the secondpetition;
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00045
`Patent No. D930,702 S
`
`5. whether the petitioner provides adequate explanation for the time
`elapsed between the filings of multiple petitions directed to the same
`claims of the same patent;
`6. the finite resources of the Board; and
`7. the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) to issueafinal
`determination not later than 1 year after the date on which the Director
`notices institution of review.
`
`General Plastic, Paper 19 at 9-10 (footnotes omitted).
`
`Despite Petitioner’s arguments otherwise, the Board finds it necessary to
`
`analyze the General Plastic factors under Uniloc. Mot. 9-10; Uniloc, Paper 9 at 5
`
`(PTAB Oct. 28, 2020).
`
`Factor 1: whether the same petitioner previouslyfiled a petition
`directed to the same claims of the same patent
`
`Petitioner has not previously challenged the ’702 patent. Mot. 10-11. On
`
`this record, moreover, no evidence has been presented that Petitioner has a
`
`significant relationship with the petitioner in PGR 031. See Valve Corp. v. Elec.
`
`Scripting Prods., Inc., 1PR2019-00062, Paper 11 at 9-10 (PTAB Apr.2, 2019)
`
`(precedential). Thus, the Board finds that the samepetitioner has not previously
`
`filed a petition related to the *702 patent, which weighsagainst discretionary
`
`denial.
`
`Factor 2: whetheratthe time offiling ofthe first petition the
`petitioner knew of the prior art asserted in the secondpetition or
`should have known ofit
`
`Becausethe petitioners are not the same, this factor is not applicable or, at
`
`minimum, weighs against discretionary denial. To the extent the factor is
`
`applicable, the asserted art in both petitions is the same. Compare Pet. 12-86, with
`
`PGR 031, Paper 1 at 10-88. The instant Petition “is a ‘copy’ of” the petition filed
`
`in PGR 031. Mot. 11. Thus, these facts do not raise concerns of a second petitioner
`
`8
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00045
`Patent No. D930,702 S
`
`using a first petition as a roadmap. This factor is neutral or weighsslightly against
`
`discretionary denial.
`
`Factor 3: whetheratthe time offiling of the secondpetition the
`petitioner already received the patent owner’s preliminary response
`to the first petition or received the Board's decision on whetherto
`institute review in the first petition
`
`Unlike Section 315(c), which applies to inter partes review, Section 325(c),
`
`applicable to this post-grant review proceeding, does not discuss preliminary
`
`responses in the context ofjoinder. Even so, the instant Petition wasfiled on
`
`June 9, 2022, approximately one month before Patent Ownerfiled a preliminary
`
`response in PGR 031. Pet. 88; PGR 031, Paper 12 (filed July 14, 2022). The
`
`Petitions are substantively identical; therefore, this is not an instance where
`
`Petitioner could have benefited from arguments madein a preliminary response or
`
`an institution decision. This factor weighs against discretionary denial.
`
`Factors 4 & 5: the length of time that elapsed between the time the
`petitioner learned ofthe prior art asserted in the secondpetition and
`the filing ofthe secondpetition, and the explanation ofthe time
`elapsed
`
`Petitioner argues that these factors are inapplicable because Petitioner would
`
`take an “understudy role” in PGR 031. Mot. 12. The Board disagrees. These
`
`factors relate to the timing of Petitioner’s discovery of the asserted prior art and
`
`filing of the Petition, not the level of involvement Petitioner will haveif the
`
`proceedings are joined. Petitioner does not otherwise address these factors. /d.
`
`Although the decision in Uniloc informsthat a petitioner’s failure to
`
`adequately address these factors may weigh in favor of discretionary denial, this
`
`case is distinguishable because Petitioner has not previously filed a petition
`
`challenging the validity of the *702 patent claim. See, e.g., Uniloc, Paper 9 at 11.
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00045
`Patent No. D930,702 S
`
`ThePetition is substantively the same as the petition in PGR 031 and includes
`
`notice of Petitioner’s intention to file the joinder motion. See Pet. 1; Mot. 1-2. This
`
`factor is neutral given Petitioner’s willingness “to proceed solely on the grounds,
`
`evidence, and arguments advanced, or that will be advanced, in’ PGR 031. Mot. 1—
`
`2.
`
`Factor 6: the finite resources of the Board
`
`The Board finds this factor to weigh against discretionary denial because the
`
`petitions are identical and deciding them together would be a moreeffective use of
`
`the Board’s resources.
`
`Factor 7: the requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1 1) to issue a
`final determination not later than I year after the date on which the
`Director notices institution ofreview.
`
`The Board sees no reason whyinstitution in this case would affect the
`
`Board’s ability to issue a decision within one yearof the institution date of
`
`PGR 031. Petitioner has not sought to introduce a declaration of an expert different
`
`from the declaration submitted in support of the petition in PGR 031, and avers,
`
`moreover, that it “will not seek additional depositions or deposition time” should
`
`this proceeding be joined with PGR 031. Mot. 2; see Ex. 1002 (Declaration of
`
`Gonzalo R. Arce, Ph.D., as filed in PGR 031). Accordingly, at this juncture, we
`
`agree with Petitioner that “the proposed joinder will neither unduly complicate”
`
`PGR 031 “nor delay its schedule.” Mot. 2.
`
`In any event, the one-year statutory deadline for a final written decision
`
`provided under Section 326(a)(11) may be adjusted in the case ofjoinder under
`
`Section 325(c). 35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(11). The Board may also adjust the time period
`
`in which Patent Owner’s Responseis due. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.220. Accordingly,
`
`this factor weighs against discretionary denial.
`
`10
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00045
`Patent No. D930,702 S
`
`Conclusion on the General Plastic Factors
`
`Basedon the particular facts of this proceeding, we concludethat the
`
`General Plastic factors do not weigh in favor of exercising discretion to deny
`
`institution.
`
`C.|MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`Joinder in post-grant review is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 325(c), which
`
`provides:
`
`(c) JOINDER.—If more than | petition for a post-grant review under
`this chapter is properly filed against the same patent and the Director
`determines that more than 1 of these petitions warrants the institution
`of a post-grant review under section 324, the Director may consolidate
`such reviewsinto a single post-grant review.
`
`A motion for joinder must be filed “no later than one month after the institution
`
`date of any post-grant review for which joinderis requested.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.222(b). Petitioner timely filed the Motion for Joinder on October 28, 2022,
`
`within one month of the Decision of Institution in PGR 031. See Mot. 14;
`
`PGR 031, Paper 22. The Petition indicates Petitioner’s intent to file the Motion for
`
`Joinder. See Pet. 1. The Petition is substantively identical to the petition in
`
`PGR 031 and, accordingly, presents no new grounds. Mot. 6-8. Because Petitioner
`
`seeks only to join the first proceeding as a party, and makes no arguments inits
`
`Petition that differ from those already being addressed in PGR 031, wegrant the
`
`Motion for Joinder. In so doing, we take account of Petitioner’s assertions that
`
`joinder will not impact the trial schedule because there are no new groundsand,
`
`furthermore, Petitioner “consents to any trial schedule adopted in” PGR 031.
`
`Mot. 7-8. The Board agrees that joinder should not impact the trial schedule.
`
`Petitioner also asserts that joinder will not add to the complexity of briefing
`
`or discovery. While accepting an “‘understudy’ role,” Petitioner agrees that, unless
`
`11
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00045
`Patent No. D930,702 S
`
`Early Warning Servicesis no longer a party in PGR 031, Petitioner will 1) join
`
`Early Warning Services’ filings unlessit solely concerns Petitioner; 2) not raise
`
`any new grounds or arguments; 3) be bound by any discovery agreements; and 4)
`
`not seek additional discovery beyondthat permitted in 37 C.F.R. § 42.53.? Mot. 8—
`
`9. In view of those concessions, we find that joinder would not add to the
`
`complexity of briefing or discovery.
`
`Patent Ownerhasfiled two mandatory notices and a powerof attorney in
`
`this proceeding. See Papers 4, 5, 6. The optional preliminary response wasdue in
`
`this proceeding on September 22, 2022, three-monthsafter the Petition’s accorded
`
`filing date. See 35 U.S.C. § 323,37 C.F.R. § 42.207. Although Patent Owner has
`
`not substantively respondedto the instant Petition or Motion for Joinder, Patent
`
`Ownerdid, however,file a preliminary response and sur-reply in PGR 031. See
`
`PGR 031, Papers 12, 17. We take note that Patent Owner’s lead counsel in PGR
`
`031, which is the same lead counsel identified in the instant proceeding, has sought
`
`to withdraw from representation in PGR 031. See PGR 031, Paper 27 (pending
`
`motion to withdraw); Ex. 1089 (transcript of teleconference explaining the reasons
`
`for counsel’s motion to withdraw). On this record, we are directed to no reason
`
`why the pendency of lead counsel’s motion to withdraw in PGR 031 tips the scales
`
`against a grant of the request for joinder.
`
`The Boardfinds that consolidation of these proceedings should simplify the
`
`post-grant review process for the Board and the parties, including Patent Owner.
`
`Instead of responding in multiple proceedings that involve essentially the same
`
`petitions, joinder would allow both Petitioners and Patent Owner to focus on one
`
`proceeding.
`
`” In the joined proceeding, Petitioner similarly shall be bound by the provisions of
`37 C.F.R. § 42.224.
`
`12
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00045
`Patent No. D930,702 S
`
`Thus, wefind that joinder is warranted under 35 U.S.C. § 325(c). In
`
`reaching that decision, the Board recognizes that Patent Owner’s lack of
`
`meaningful communication with its counsel may explain why Patent Ownerdid
`
`not file a response to Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder or the instant Petition. See
`
`PGR 031, Ex. 1089, 6:7—-14. However, even if Patent Owner had responded to
`
`those papers in the instant proceeding, joinder would be warranted for the reasons
`
`discussed above.
`
`Accordingly, we grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.
`
`IN. ORDER
`
`It is
`
`ORDEREDthat, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324, we institute a post-grant
`
`review of the 702 patent claim based on the groundsraised in the Petition;
`
`FURTHER ORDEREDthat the Motion for Joinder with PGR2022-00031 is
`
`granted, and Petitioner is joined as a petitioner to PGR2022-00031;
`
`FURTHER ORDEREDthat Petitioner’s role shall be limited as stated by
`
`Petitioner in the Motion for Joinder;
`
`FURTHER ORDEREDthat the case caption in PGR2022-00031 shall be
`
`changedto reflect joinder of Samsung, Electronics Co., Ltd. as a petitioner in
`
`accordance with the attached example;
`
`FURTHER ORDEREDthat a copy of this Decision shall be entered into the
`
`record of PGR2022-00031.
`
`13
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00045
`Patent No. D930,702 S
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Eliot D. Williams
`Neil Sirota
`David Tobin
`Boyang Zhang
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P
`eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`neil.sirota@bakerbotts.com
`david.tobin@bakerbotts.com
`boyang.zhang@bakerbotts.com
`
`Justin Krieger
`Darin Gibby
`Michael Bertelson
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
`jkrieger@kilpatricktownsend.com
`dgibby@kilpatricktownsend.com
`mbertelson@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Henry Ohanian
`OHANIANIP
`artoush@ohanian-iplaw.com
`
`John Biggers
`BIGGERS LAW
`john@biggerslaw.com
`
`14
`
`
`
`PGR2022-00045
`Patent No. D930,702 S
`
`[Example Case Caption]
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`EARLY WARNING SERVICES, LLC, and SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS Co., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`V.
`
`WEPAY GLOBAL PAYMENTS LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`PGR2022-0003 1
`PGR2022-00045
`Patent D930,702 S
`
`15
`
`
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
