IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Save this PDF as:
 WORD  PNG  TXT  JPG

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE"

Transcription

1 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In the Inter Partes Review of: U.S. Patent No. 7,965,408 Trial Number: IPR Panel: To Be Assigned Filed: January 3, 2001 Issued: June 21, 2011 Inventor(s): Cyrus Kurosh Samari Assignee: Sorna Corporation Title: MEDICAL DATA RECORDING SYSTEM Mail Stop Inter Partes Review Commissioners for Patents P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 35 U.S.C. 311 AND 37 C.F.R i

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R (a)... 1 II. MANDATORY NOTICES 37 C.F.R. 42.8(A)(1)... 1 A. 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(1): Real Party-In-Interest... 1 B. 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters... 1 C. 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information... 2 D. PAYMENT OF FEES 37 C.F.R III. SUMMARY OF THE 408 PATENT... 3 A. Brief Description of the Technology at Issue... 3 B. Summary of the Prosecution History of the 408 Patent... 5 C. Claim Construction 37 C.F.R (b)(3) Parsing (Claim 1) and Extracting (Claim 14) DICOM Image Information Recording other files as defined by DICOM Autoloader control software Job Noting... 8 IV. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE 37 C.F.R (b)... 9 A. 37 C.F.R (b)(1): Claims for Which IPR Is Requested... 9 B. 37 C.F.R (b)(2): The Specific Art and Statutory Ground(s) on Which the Challenge Is Based... 9 V. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT ONE OR MORE CLAIMS OF THE 408 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE UNDER 37 C.F.R (b)(4) and (5) A. Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA)...10 B. Summary/Historical Understanding of the Art by the PHOSITA...10 C. Alleged Problem Solved by the Inventor Was Already Solved...14 VI. Claim-By-Claim Explanation of Grounds for Unpatentability...15 A. Ground 1 Claims 1-2, 4-11 and are obvious 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over Kahle in view of DICOMView and further in view of MicroTech Summary of Prior Art and Rationale to Combine...16 ii

3 2. Claim Claim Claim Claim Claim Claim Claim Claim Claim Claim Claim Claim Claim Claim B. Ground 2 Claims 3-5, 12 and 13 Are Obvious Under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over Kahle in view of DICOMView further in view of MicroTech and further in view of Farrell Claim Claim Claim Claim Claim VII. RELIEF REQUESTED...60 iii

4 EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit No. Description 1001 U.S. Patent No. 7,965,408 ( 408 Patent ) 1002 U.S. Patent No. 5,518,325 ( Kahle ) 1003 Heartlab s 1998 DICOMView User s Guide ( DICOMView ) MicroTech User s Manual ( MicroTech ) 1005 U.S. Patent No. 5,717,841 ( Farrell ) 1006 U.S. Patent No. 7,302,164 ( Wright ) 1007 Excerpts from the DICOM Standard 1998 ( DICOM Standard ) 1008 Excerpt from NEMA Standards Publication PS , Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Part 8: Network Communication Support for Message Exchange; ( DICOM Artim Timer ) 1009 File History of the 408 Patent 1010 Article: Nissen, Steven Evolution of the Filmless Cardiac Angiography Suite -- Am. J. Cardiology, August Declaration of Steven Horii 1012 Declaration of Corwin Nichols iv

5 1013 Declaration of Robert Petrocelli v

6 Pacsgear, Inc., which recently merged with Perceptive Software LLC (collectively hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner"), respectfully request Inter Partes review ("IPR") of claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,965,408 ("the '408 Patent") pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 311 and 37 C.F.R I. GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R (a) Petitioner hereby certifies that the '408 Patent is available for IPR and the Petitioner and its real parties of interest are not barred or estopped from requesting IPR of claims 1-19 on the grounds identified herein. Petitioner and its real parties of interest are not the owner of the '408 Patent. Petitioner and its real parties of interest have not previously initiated a civil action challenging the validity of any claims of the '408 Patent. Petitioner submits this petition less than one year after Petitioner or any of its real parties of interest were first served with a complaint alleging infringement of the '408 Patent. The estoppel provisions of 35 U.S.C. 315(e)(1) do not prohibit this IPR. II. MANDATORY NOTICES 37 C.F.R. 42.8(A)(1) A. 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(1): Real Party-In-Interest Real parties-in-interest for Petitioner are Pacsgear, Inc., Perceptive Software LLC, Lexmark International Technology, S.A., Lexmark International, Inc., and Perceptive Software USA, Inc. B. 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters 1

7 Sorna Corporation ("Sorna") has asserted the '408 Patent in Sorna Corp. v. Pacsgear, Inc., Case No. 13-CV ADM/LIB, in the United States District Court, District of Minnesota. This case may affect, or be affected by, a decision in this proceeding. C. 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Lead and Back-Up Counsel and Service Information Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(3) and 42.10(a), Petitioner provides the following designation of counsel. Lead Counsel Willmore F. Holbrow, III (Reg. No. 41,845) Postal and Hand-Delivery Address: Blakely, Sokoloff, Taylor & Zafman, LLP Wilshire Boulevard, 7th Floor Los Angeles, California Telephone: (310) Fax: (310) Back-up Counsel Matthew N. Nicholson (Reg. No. 62,889) Postal and Hand-Delivery Address: Blakely, Sokoloff, Taylor & Zafman, LLP 1279 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, California Telephone: (408) Fax: (408)

8 Pursuant to 37 C.F.R (b), several Powers of Attorney accompany this IPR. Service information for lead and back-up counsel is provided in the designation of lead and back-up counsel, above. Service of any documents via hand-delivery may be made at the postal mailing addresses designated above. D. PAYMENT OF FEES 37 C.F.R The undersigned authorizes the Office to charge $24,600 to Deposit Account No for the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R (a) for this Petition for Inter Partes review. Review of nineteen (19) claims is requested, so the undersigned authorizes $9,000 for the Inter Partes Review Request fee and $15,600 for the Inter Partes Review Post Institution fee. The undersigned further authorizes payment for any additional fees that may be due in connection with this Petition to be charged to the above-referenced Deposit Account. III. SUMMARY OF THE 408 PATENT A. Brief Description of the Technology at Issue The 408 Patent is titled Medical Data Recording System. The 408 Patent consists of 19 claims. Claims 1 and 14 are the only independent claims and for purposes of this analysis are essentially identical. The Background of the Invention section identifies the problems the purported invention was designed to overcome: 3

9 In the past medical imaging such as x-rays were recorded on film and digital images were stored on digital film using film laser printers, which is expensive, bulky and difficult to store. Ex at 1: The filing and record keeping of the images thus received is a problem. It is a labor-intensive and error-prone task to gather information about each disc, write out labels and attach the labels to the discs, or write directly on the disc for storing and filing. It is very useful to have the information contained on a disc printed on a disc for reference and filing and for automatically creating a directory of the information stored on all the discs recorded in an office. Ex at 1: The specification of the 408 Patent further identifies a point of novelty as follows: The present invention automatically scans data received for storage on a disc and prints selected fields of information directly on the discs for easy file management. Ex at 1: The 408 Patent claims a method for essentially (i) receiving medical image data in DICOM format for recording on a CD, (ii) retrieving patient and study information from the received data, (iii) recording the medical image data onto a 4

10 CD along with "viewing software (which allows one to view the images at any compatible computer) and (iv) labeling the CD with the patient and study information retrieved from the medical image data. Ex Cols As shown below, the concept of creating CDs containing medical images and viewing software from received medical image data and generating a label from the medical information that includes patient and study information to identify the contents of the CD would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), especially in view of the benefit of the prior art. B. Summary of the Prosecution History of the 408 Patent The patent owner filed the application for the 408 Patent (09/753,792) on January 3, 2001 and it did not issue until June 21, During the intervening 10- plus year period, all the original claims were withdrawn or substantially amended. The claims were not allowed until the addition of a limitation requiring recording on said recording media in response to the job, the medical data image viewing software and the medical data. Ex at pp , and Two of the references relied on in this Petition, Kahle and Farrell, were used in rejections during the prosecution of the 408 Patent. Neither Kahle nor Farrell disclose recording on said recording media in response to the job, the medical data image viewing software and the medical data. However, unbeknownst to the Examiner, recording medical data image viewing software and the medical data on the CD 5

11 was well known prior to the priority date of the 408 Patent (DICOMView, as will be discussed in greater detail below, teaches among other things recording medical data image viewing software and medical data on a CD). A Notice of Allowance issued on May 4, 2011 in which the Examiner essentially recited all the limitations from the independent claims, including the newly added limitation requiring the recording of viewing software. The combination of all such limitations, in the Examiner s opinion, was not disclosed in the prior art. The 408 Patent issued on June 21, C. Claim Construction 37 C.F.R (b)(3) In an IPR, claim terms in an unexpired patent are given their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R (b). Any terms not included in this discussion are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in the context of the disclosure as commonly understood by those of ordinary skill in the art. The claim constructions below are made only for the purposes of this IPR and Petitioner and its real parties in interest reserve the right to present different constructions in the related litigation. 1. Parsing (Claim 1) and Extracting (Claim 14) Claim 1 uses the term parsing and Claim 14 uses the term extracting. The 408 Patent does not specifically define the terms parsing or extracting. 6

12 For purposes of this IPR, the broadest reasonable interpretation of parsing and extracting is retrieving data from a data source. Ex at DICOM Image Information Independent claims 1 and 14 both use the term DICOM image information, which is not specifically defined in the 408 Patent. For purposes of this IPR, the broadest reasonable interpretation of DICOM image information is image data stored in DICOM format. Ex at Recording other files as defined by DICOM Independent claims 1 and 14 both use the term recording other files as defined by DICOM. Other files as defined by DICOM is not specifically defined in the 408 Patent. The 408 Patent also does not specifically define what the term other files means. In the context of claim 1 with respect to the term files, claim 1 includes receiving medical data information in DICOM format the medical data further comprising one or more files;. storing DICOM image information coming from the one or more files;.storing the parsed patient identification information and parsed study information coming from the one or more files; and recording said DICOM image information from the one or more files. For purposes of this IPR, the broadest reasonable interpretation of recording other files as defined by DICOM is recording at least two files that are in DICOM format (such as at least two files with image data stored in DICOM 7

13 format) that are not the one or more files referenced in claims 1 and 14. Ex at Autoloader control software Independent claims 1 and 14 both refer to autoloader control software, which is described as an existing, off-the-shelf product, named Buzzsaw in the patent specification. Ex at 5: The 408 Patent describes functions of Buzzsaw as instructing a CD autoloader to pick up a new CD and put it into the drive; and after recording data onto the CD, instructing the CD autoloader to place the CD into the printer. Ex at 5: Accordingly, for purposes of this IPR the broadest reasonable interpretation of autoloader control software is software that automatically facilitates the moving and recording of a CD and printing a label thereon. Ex at Job Claims 1 and 14 include the term job (e.g., creating a job ; and submitting the job ). For purposes of this IPR, the broadest reasonable interpretation of job is a specified amount of processing by a computer. Ex at Noting Claims 1 and 14 include the term noting the end of the received medical data information. Other than in the claims, the specification of the 408 Patent 8

14 does not include the term noting or note. For purposes of this IPR, the broadest reasonable interpretation of noting is observing. Ex at 40. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation noting the end of the received medical data information is observing the end of the received medical data information. IV. IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGE 37 C.F.R (b) A. 37 C.F.R (b)(1): Claims for Which IPR Is Requested Petitioner requests IPR of claims 1-19 of the 408 Patent. B. 37 C.F.R (b)(2): The Specific Art and Statutory Ground(s) on Which the Challenge Is Based IPR of claims 1-19 is requested in view of the following references: Ex U.S. Patent No. 5,518,325 ( Kahle ). Ex Heartlab s 1998 DICOMView User s Guide ( DICOMView ). Ex MicroTech User s Manual ( MicroTech ). Ex U.S. Patent No. 5,717,841 ( Farrell ). Ground Proposed Statutory Rejections for the 408 Patent 1 Claims 1-2, 6-11, and are obvious over Kahle in view of DICOMView and further in view of MicroTech 2 Claims 3-5 and are obvious over Kahle in view of DICOMView in view of MicroTech and further in view of Farrell 9

15 V. THERE IS A REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT ONE OR MORE CLAIMS OF THE 408 PATENT IS UNPATENTABLE UNDER 37 C.F.R (b)(4) and (5). A. Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) The 408 Patent relates to the design of systems implementing the electronic transfer and copying of data, namely DICOM medical image data, onto a CD and extracting data (e.g., patient and study information from the DICOM medical image data) and placing it on to the label of the CD. Ex A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had (i) several years of experience or education in computer programming, including use of the DICOM Standard, (ii) at least two years of experience at a medical facility relating to medical imaging (e.g., X-rays) (iii) at least three years of experience in the design, use and/or implementation of computer systems and software designed to receive, store and transfer data, and (iv) familiarity with the technology relating to recording data on a CD-R using a CD recorder capable of also printing a label on the CD-R. Ex at 30. B. Summary/Historical Understanding of the Art by the PHOSITA Dr. Steven Horii became board certified in diagnostic radiology in He joined the American College of Radiology National Electrical Manufacturers Association (ACR-NEMA) Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine 10

16 Committee shortly after it was formed in 1983 and served as clinical co-chairman of the ACR-NEMA, subsequently re-named the DICOM Standards Committee, from 1987 through During that time, he was Chairman of Working Group V (WG V) on Exchange Media from 1988 to WG V is responsible for the development of standards for exchanging DICOM images on various media. For his work on DICOM, he was named One of the Twenty Most Influential People in Radiology by Diagnostic Imaging magazine in Ex at 4-7. Dr. Horii describes the state of the art from a historical perspective as follows. For close to a century, radiologists used film to capture, view, transfer and store the images. If patients were transferred to other facilities, or if they needed their films for a second opinion, film libraries also provided the films (or copies) to patients for their patient folders. The organization of film libraries included the creation of film jackets that held a number of folders. The jacket served as a master folder and had space on the outside to record what folders were included. The folders themselves were typically organized by the type of image or by imaging technique and would contain subfolders if the patient had more than one of that particular imaging study along with any diagnostic reports. Ex at Early electronic medical systems were designed for communication of radiological images within hospitals, for the diagnosis and monitoring of a 11

17 patient s condition. These Picture Archiving and Communication Systems (PACS) were the early versions of the modern day PACS. However, because such PACS were hospital-based, most physicians outside the hospital did not have electronic access to patient images. For this reason, a very early method of distributing images from a PACS to non-hospital doctors was to print the images directly from the modality or other storage device on film and deliver them for viewing on the traditional lightbox. Ex at 17. The progress and development of digital media came from the consumer electronics industry. Vinyl analog records were replaced by digital Compact Discs (CD). Makers of personal computers took advantage of the large storage capacity of CDs and began to advocate for using the recordable CD for storage and distribution of digital information. Other medical specialties that used imaging, particularly cardiology, also made the transition to digital imaging. Conventional cardiac x-ray imaging used 35mm motion picture (cine) film, so cardiology film libraries contained many canisters of such films. Ex at 18. In 1983, the American College of Radiology and National Electrical Manufacturers Association (ACR-NEMA) formed an interdisciplinary committee of radiologists, members from industry and computer engineering experts to develop a uniform protocol to enable completely filmless distribution of radiological images. That effort ultimately led to the DICOM standard. The 12

18 images originate with a variety of modalities including CT Scans, MRI s, Ultrasound, etc. The DICOM standard provides infrastructure so that these components can operate irrespective of the imaging equipment manufacturer, so long as the imaging equipment conforms to DICOM. In order to identify the medical images, the DICOM standard requires that image data contain a DICOM image and a header. The header consists of specific, accessible information relating to the image including patient name and study information, etc. See e.g., Ex at p. 58. The identifying information was placed in the header so that it could be easily accessed and extracted, as needed. Ex at 20 and 23. The DICOM committee selected the recordable CD (CD-R) as the medium for which to generate a standard. This led to the CD being selected as a portable storage medium of choice, as explicitly stated in the DICOM standard, specifically Part 10. Ex at 24. In 1996 the American College of Cardiology (ACC) took the opportunity at their annual meeting to demonstrate the benefits of the DICOM standard by providing a CD containing various DICOM medical images from a number of studies including angiograms, ultrasound images, several nuclear studies, and medical image viewing software on the CD, which enabled the recipients to review the images on any Windows based personal computer. The CD also featured a label with patient and study information on it. Ex at p. 3; Ex at

19 Importantly, the DICOM standard enabled a wide array of equipment manufacturers to make imaging devices (MRI, CT, etc.), PACS themselves, CD readers/writers, workstations and storage systems all speak the same language. Ex at 26. This enabled the performance of key tasks such as comparing a current study with a prior one or a study from a different type of modality to determine if a disease is getting worse or improving. Ex at 27. DICOM s adoption of the CD-R as the preferred portable recording medium shifted the industry to CD-Rs. Ex at 27. Labeling CDs with patient and study information was a natural, obvious development, as it would otherwise be essentially impossible to use, file, store and retrieve CDs because there would be no practical way of knowing their contents from a visual inspection. Ex at 28. C. Alleged Problem Solved by the Inventor Was Already Solved In light of the state of the art and its historical development, the concept of burning medical images onto CDs with viewing software and labeling the CDs was clearly well known. In addition to the discussion above: (i) in 1994 Rolf Kahle had developed a system which would record any type of received data on a CD and extract data ( title information ) from the received data for automatic placement on the label of a CD (Ex. 1002), (ii) in 1998, Robert Petrocelli s Heartlab company had developed a product specifically designed to extract patient and study 14

20 information and burn medical images and viewing software onto CDs (Ex. 1003) and (iii) in 1998, MicroTech had developed a system for recording data onto CDs, which used a timeout methodology to ensure that all the data was burned on the CD. Ex at p As discussed in more detail below, the prior art of record combined with the common sense and knowledge of a PHOSITA render all the claims of the 408 Patent unpatentable. VI. Claim-By-Claim Explanation of Grounds for Unpatentability As detailed below, claims 1-19 of the 408 Patent are unpatentable as being obvious. In support of the findings below, Petitioner submits a declaration by Dr. Steven Horii (Ex. 1011) explaining the perspective of a PHOSITA. A. Ground 1 Claims 1-2, 4-11 and are obvious 35 U.S.C. 103(a) over Kahle in view of DICOMView and further in view of MicroTech Claims 1-2, 4-11 and of the 408 Patent are obvious over Kahle in view of DICOMView and further in view of MicroTech. Kahle (Ex. 1002) issued on May 21, 1996 and therefore qualifies as prior art at least under 35 USC 102(b). DICOMView (Ex. 1003) was published in 1998 (Ex. 1013) and therefore also qualifies as prior art at least under 35 USC 102(a) and 35 USC 102(b). 1 MicroTech 1 A declaration from Robert Petrocelli (Ex. 1013) provides evidence that DICOMView qualifies as prior art. 15

21 (Ex. 1004) was published February 1998 (Ex. 1012) also qualifies as prior art at least under 35 USC 102(a) and 35 USC 102(b). 2 Kahle, DICOMView, and MicroTech are each analogous art to the 408 Patent. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In re Bigio, 381 F. 3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, the above references and the claimed invention are analogous art as they are all (i) from the same field of endeavor, namely each disclose a computer-based system including a computer and a CD recorder that allows for recording received data on a CD and (ii) the references are all very pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, namely burning received data onto a CD. Ex at 53 and Summary of Prior Art and Rationale to Combine Kahle, entitled Disk Label Printing, discloses a generic methodology for automatically labeling a recordable CD with information obtained directly from the data that will be recorded on the CD. Ex at 1:7-11; 5:45-6:7. The teachings 2 A declaration from Corwin Nichols (Ex. 1012) provides evidence that MicroTech qualifies as prior art. 16

22 of Kahle are not limited to any particular type of information being recorded on the CD nor any type of information to put on the CD s label, and thus are applicable to medical data information such as DICOM image information and medical data identification information such as patient identification information and study information. Ex at Kahle refers to the information recorded on the CD as digital information. Ex at 3: The digital information is not limited to any particular type of information. For example, Kahle provides an example of digital information as being customer records (Ex at 3:62-4:2) and also states that [o]ther examples are almost limitless. Ex at 4:2 (emphasis added). In addition, Kahle states: Digital information includes any kind of information that can be communicated by a person by sight or sound that has been put in the form of digital quanta, typically in binary form. Ex at 4:41-47 (emphasis added). Clearly, medical data information such as DICOM image information qualifies as any kind of information and would be in binary form. Ex at Kahle also does not limit the type of information obtained from the digital information for the CD s label. Kahle refers to the obtained information for labeling as title information. Ex at 2:13-18; 5: The title information identifies the information to be recorded on the CD and is not limited to any particular information. For example, Kahle explicitly states: 17

23 The title information will uniquely identify the information recorded on the CD-R. The title information can include, but is not limited to, the name of the particular database file being recorded on the CD-R, a brief description of the type of information recorded on the CD-R, a table of contents, or the like. Further, the title information can contain information relating to distribution, mailing, filing, retrieval, security, controlled copy number, etc. Ex at 4:11-18 (emphasis added). It is not surprising that Kahle does not limit the title information to any particular information because the specific type of information to include on the label would depend, at least in part, on the type of data being recorded on the CD. Ex at 55. Since the purpose of labeling a CD is to reflect its contents (see Ex at 1:28-30; and Ex at 1:29-36), in the case of medical data such as DICOM image information being recorded to a CD, a PHOSITA at the time of the alleged invention would have recognized that information to put on the label would include patient identification information and study information because it would allow for easy visual recognition of which patient and study and their associated DICOM images, are stored on the CD. Ex at 55 and 96. Thus, although Kahle does not explicitly describe recording medical data information to a CD or that the label includes medical identification information, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the alleged invention that 18

24 the teachings of Kahle, including automatically retrieving a portion of the digital stream to be recorded on the CD for use in printing a label for the CD, are applicable to any type of data to be recorded on the CD including medical data information such as DICOM image information and any type of desired information of the DICOM image information may be retrieved from the data for the CD s label. Ex at 47. A PHOSITA at the time of the alleged invention would, of course, recognize the importance of uniquely labeling a recordable CD to easily identify the contents of the recordable CD since the information recorded on the CD is typically unique and it otherwise would be difficult to file, store, and retrieve CDs with no other practical way of knowing the contents of the CDs. Ex at 28 and 49; See also Ex at 2:58-3:7. Moreover, the 408 Patent itself recognizes that the alleged invention is not unique to data for medical imaging. Ex at 1:45-47 (emphasis added): Although the invention is described in terms of storing medical imaging data any data imbedded with information useful for filing and label printing can be used with the invention. Although a PHOSITA at the time of the alleged invention would understand the teachings of Kahle to apply to medical data information such as DICOM image information and patient identification and study information, Kahle does not explicitly describe burning image viewing software on the CD. 19

25 DICOMView discloses a system where medical image data in DICOM format is written to a CD along with viewing software for viewing the images on any computer. Ex at pp. 14 and DICOMView also discloses retrieving patient identification information and study information from the medical data information in connection with selecting which images to record on a CD. Ex at pp DICOMView and Kahle are easily combinable under the expansive and flexible approach to obviousness articulated in KSR Int l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 27 S. Ct. 1727, 1739 (2007). DICOMView and Kahle are each analogous to the alleged invention as described above. Ex at 53. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the alleged invention to use the combined teachings of Kahle and DICOMView to write DICOM image information onto a CD, along with software to view the images, and extract patient identification information and study information from that data for the CD s label. Ex at 55. In short, this combination would allow for the highly desirable result of directly obtaining the label information from the digital information that is to be recorded on the CD without human intervention, thereby improving product quality and integrity as well as improving production cycle time. Ex at 6:2-7; 1: In addition, a PHOSITA would be motivated to make the combination so as to include image viewing software on the CD to allow the DICOM image information to be viewed on any compatible computer thereby increasing the 20

26 number of recipients that are able to view the images. Ex at pp Moreover, it is simply a matter of applying the known techniques of the prior art (e.g., (i) recording DICOM image information onto a CD along with image viewing software as disclosed by DICOMView (Ex at pp. 6, 14, and 44-46); and (ii) labeling the CD with identifying information that is retrieved directly from the data being recorded on the CD as disclosed by Kahle (Ex at 5:45-6:7)) to improve the CD recording process so that the CD is accurately labeled. Ex at 49. A PHOSITA at the time of the alleged invention would have recognized that the combination of Kahle and DICOMView would have the predictable result of writing DICOM image information and image viewing software on a CD and generating/printing a label with patient identification information and study information for the CD. Ex at 50. The independent claims further require noting the end of the received medical data information through the software module for each patient. The 408 Patent states that its alleged invention relates to determining [the] end of [an] incoming data stream in order to create jobs for recording and printing file information on a disc taken from the electronically stored information on the disc. Ex at 2: The 408 Patent describes using a timer and timeout period. Ex. 1001, 3:54-67: Timer_1 60 is programmed to check if an end-of-patient-data 21

27 timeout (MaxTime) 65 has occurred Max Time 65 is also user configurable via FilmX.ini and is set to 30 seconds for default. ; see also claim 7 of the 408 Patent. Although Kahle discloses a controller downloading the information to be written to the CD and then sending the information to the CD recorder for recording (Ex at 7:21-31) and DICOMView discloses a Copy Study function that allows a study to be copied from a source to a destination including onto a CD (Ex at p. 14), neither Kahle nor DICOMView explicitly discloses using a timer and timeout period to note the end of the received medical data information. MicroTech, however, discloses the use of a timer and a timeout period to observe the end of received data prior to recording the data onto the CD. For example, MicroTech states: There is usually nothing on an audio DAT which indicates the end of recording on the tape. Therefore AUDIODAT looks for several things which may signal where the end is. A long period of silence has passed, at least equal to the amount required to indicate the end-of-recording. This length of time is 30 seconds by default; it can be changed by using the e command-line option. Ex at p In fact, MicroTech discloses that the length of time of the timeout period is the same default value (30 seconds) as the default value of the MaxTime timer of the 408 Patent. 22

28 MicroTech does not disclose using its timer and timeout period for noting the end of received medical data information for each patient. MicroTech is analogous to the 408 Patent as it discloses a system that receives data, records it on a CD, and automatically labels the CD. Ex at pp A PHOSITA would be motivated to use the teachings of MicroTech related to a timer and timeout period to note the end of received medical data information for each patient. As noted by Dr. Horii, timeout periods are used quite often to ensure that a task is completed before moving onto another task. Ex at 58. In fact, he identified a timer and timeout period used in the DICOM standard, called the Artim Timer, which checks to see if a coupling is completed in a certain time period. Ex at 58. A PHOSITA, when faced with wanting to determin[e] [the] end of [an] incoming data stream in order to create jobs for recording (Ex. 1001, 2:14-16), would recognize that a timer and timeout period is a known technique to solve that problem. Ex at 59. Using MicroTech s teaching of the timer and timeout in the combination of Kahle and DICOMView would simply have been a matter of selecting an obvious design choice for the PHOSITA to obtain the predictable result of being able to presume whether the end of the data stream has been reached. Ex at

29 The obviousness of the claims will become even more apparent in light of the following comparison between the prior art references and the claims on a limitation by limitation basis to establish that all the claims are obvious: 2. Claim 1 a) A medical data recording method comprising: receiving medical data information in DICOM format through a software module and parsing patient identification information and study information from the received medical data information, the medical data further comprising one or more files Kahle discloses a controller receiving a data stream of a file for recording on a CD, parsing the data stream, extracting certain information from the data, and composing the information for labeling the CD. Ex at 5:45-6:7. This allows the CD to be labeled with information directly obtained from the data being recorded on the CD, without human intervention. Id. As discussed above, Kahle refers to the information being parsed and extracted for labeling as title information and does not limit the title information to any particular type of information. Ex at 4: Also as discussed above, Kahle also does not limit the source of the information from which the title information is parsed and extracted (the digital information ). Ex at 3:62-24

30 4:2; and 4: That being said, Kahle does not explicitly disclose that the received data is medical data in DICOM format nor that the information parsed from the received data is patient identification information and study information. However, a PHOSITA at the time of the alleged invention would understand that the teachings of Kahle including receiving a data stream of a file for recording on a CD, and parsing and extracting data fields from the data stream for generating the label are applicable to any type of data to be recorded on the CD including medical data information such as DICOM image information and any type of desired information of the DICOM image information may be parsed from the data for the CD s label. Ex at 47, 54, and 70. Moreover, receiving medical data information in DICOM format and parsing patient identification information and study information for a label on the CD is obvious in view of Kahle and DICOMView. Ex at DICOMView discloses a system in which patient and study information is retrieved from medical data information in DICOM format in connection with selecting which images are to be written to a CD. Ex at pp. 6 and 14. For example, DICOMView discloses software that receives medical data information in DICOM format when a user selects the Open Study or Copy Study function. The Copy Study function allows for the copying of a medical study from any available source media including a DICOM source to a CD writer. Ex at p. 25

31 14. As part of selecting a study, a user may search using patient identification information (e.g., patient name, patient ID, data of birth) and study information (e.g., procedure date, procedure physician, study status), thereby separating and retrieving the patient identification information and study information from the DICOM files. Ex at p. 22, Copy Study Dialog; see also table on p. 21. The medical data information includes one or more files as the Copy Study dialog allows you to copy any number of studies from any listed source to any listed destination. Ex at p. 25. It would be obvious to a PHOSITA that in the case of medical data, information desired to be put on the label would be patient identification information and study information (and thus parsed from the medical data). Ex at 28, 55, and 96. It would be obvious and simple for a PHOSITA to retrieve patient identification information and study information from the DICOM information in a data stream in view of Kahle and DICOMView for ultimate placement on the label of the CD containing the patient s study. Ex at 49. As discussed above, Kahle teaches retrieving desired data fields from a data stream and placing those on a label. Moreover, any difference between the data extracted in Kahle for labeling ( title information ) and the claimed patient identification information and study information (claim 1) is nothing more than the type of information and is therefore nothing more than merely dictated by the intended 26

32 use. Since the purpose of labeling a CD is to reflect its contents (see Ex at 1:28-30; and Ex at 1:29-36), it would have been simple for a PHOSITA recording medical data information onto a CD to apply the teachings of Kahle to automatically retrieve desired fields such as patient identification information and study information from the medical data being recorded on the CD without human intervention. Ex at 49. Moreover, the 408 Patent itself recognizes that the alleged invention is not unique to data for medical imaging. Ex at 1:45-47 (emphasis added): Although the invention is described in terms of storing medical imaging data any data imbedded with information useful for filing and label printing can be used with the invention. b) storing the parsed patient identification information and parsed study information, the stored parsed study information and patient information coming from the one or more files Kahle discloses software that uses parameter tables to parse[] the data stream, extract data fields, and compose the title information. Ex at 5:64-6:2. The parsed information must necessarily be stored at least temporarily for the software to extract the data fields and compose the title information. Ex at 73. Thus Kahle discloses storing the parsed information that was parsed from the data stream of at least one file. Again, as described above, Kahle does not explicitly disclose that the parsed information is patient identification 27

33 information or study information. However any such difference would have been obvious to a PHOSITA in view of DICOMView which, as previously described, focuses on creating CDs featuring medical images in DICOM format that has patient identification information and study information. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the alleged invention to store the patient identification information and study information prior to using that information when generating the label. Ex at 74. c) storing DICOM image information coming from the one or more files Kahle discloses the controller storing the information to be written on the CD. Ex at 7: Again, as described above, Kahle does not explicitly disclose that the information stored is DICOM image information. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the alleged invention that in the case of medical data, DICOM image information would be stored for writing on the CD. Ex at 76 and 96. For example, DICOMView discloses that a study includes DICOM image information. Ex at p. 14 ( The copying of images can take a while depending on how many studies were selected ); p. 25 ( The Copy Study dialog allows you to copy any number of studies from any listed source to any listed destination. The Copy button will copy all images in the selected series from the selected source to 28

34 the selected destination. ). Prior to writing the image information to a CD, DICOMView discloses that the image information is stored on a local hard disk to prepare the image files for writing to the CD. Ex at p. 45 ( In order to write a CD, DICOMView must have a staging area on a local hard disk to prepare the image files for writing to the CD-R media.this means that your c:drive must have enough free space on it to write the image files to the staging area on your c:drive. ) d) noting the end of the received medical data information through the software module for each patient The 408 Patent states that its alleged invention relates to determining [the] end of [an] incoming data stream in order to create jobs for recording and printing file information on a disc taken from the electronically stored information on the disc. Ex at 2: The 408 Patent describes using a timer and timeout period. Ex. 1001, 3:54-67: Timer_1 60 is programmed to check if an endof-patient-data timeout (MaxTime) 65 has occurred Max Time 65 is also user configurable via FilmX.ini and is set to 30 seconds for default. ; see also claim 7 of the 408 Patent; Ex at 7: Although Kahle discloses a controller downloading the information to be written to the CD and then sending the information to the CD recorder for recording (Ex at 7:21-31) and DICOMView discloses a Copy Study 29

35 function that allows a study to be copied from a source to a destination including onto a CD (Ex at p. 14), neither Kahle nor DICOMView explicitly discloses using a timer and timeout period to note the end of the received medical data information. However using a timer and timeout period to note the end of the received medical data information is obvious in light of the teachings of MicroTech. Ex at 79. MicroTech discloses the use of a timer and a timeout period to assess the end of received data prior to recording the data onto the CD. For example, MicroTech states: There is usually nothing on an audio DAT which indicates the end of recording on the tape. Therefore AUDIODAT looks for several things which may signal where the end is A long period of silence has passed, at least equal to the amount required to indicate the end-of-recording. This length of time is 30 seconds by default; it can be changed by using the e command-line option. Ex at p In fact, MicroTech discloses that the length of time of the timeout period is the same default value (30 seconds) as the default value of the MaxTime timer of the 408 Patent. MicroTech does not disclose using its timer and timeout period for noting the end of received medical data information for each patient. However, a PHOSITA would be motivated to use the teachings of MicroTech related to a timer and timeout period to note the end of received medical data information for each 30

36 patient. Ex at 79. As noted by Dr. Horii, timeout periods are used quite often to ensure that a task is completed before moving onto another task. Ex at In fact, he identified a timer and timeout period used in the DICOM standard at least no later than 1996, called the Artim Timer, which checks to see if a coupling is completed in a certain time period. Ex at 58. A PHOSITA, when faced with wanting to determin[e] [the] end of [an] incoming data stream in order to create jobs for recording (Ex. 1001, 2:14-16), would recognize that a timer and timeout period is a known technique to solve that problem. Ex at 60. Using MicroTech s teaching of the timer and timeout in the combination of Kahle and DICOMView would simply have been a matter of selecting an obvious design choice for the PHOSITA to obtain the predictable result of being able to presume whether the end of the data stream has been reached. Ex at e) creating a job containing medical data for a patient, and medical data image viewing software, and Kahle discloses creating a job for writing data to a CD. Ex at 7:22-27; and 7: Kahle, however, does not explicitly disclose that the job contains medical data or medical data image viewing software. However, creating a job containing medical data for a patient and medical data image viewing software is obvious in view of the teachings of DICOMView. 31

37 DICOMView discloses creating a job for burning both the medical data for a patient (e.g., the DICOM medical images) and viewing software that allows the images burned on the CD to be viewed. Ex at pp ( In addition to writing the DICOM information onto the CD-R media, DICOMview also writes a program which will enable the CD to play itself back on any Windows 95/NT PC. You can therefore distribute the media and be sure any recipient with a Windows 95/NT PC will be able to view the images."). DICOMView does not use the term job. Although Kahle and DICOMView do not use the term job, writing data to a CD is a specified amount of processing by a computer and is therefore a job. Ex at 42 and 79. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to modify the teachings of Kahle to explicitly write medical data information and medical data image viewing software to a CD because it would allow the images on the CD to be viewed on any compatible computer, thereby increasing the number of recipients that are able to view the images. Ex at pp ; Ex at 82. f) providing print information for an autoloader control software, the print information having selected fields obtained from an automatic scan of the stored parsed patient identification information and the stored parsed study information, 32

38 Kahle discloses a controller with software that uses parameter tables to parse the data stream, extract data fields, and compose title information for printing on a label. Ex at 5:57-6:2. As discussed above with respect to limitation 1(b), the parsed information must necessarily be stored at least temporarily in order for the software to obtain the data fields and compose the title information. Ex at 83. Thus Kahle describes obtaining fields of the parsed information (using parameter tables) to generate the information for the title information. The title information is sent to the printer for printing the label on the CD. Ex at 5: This allows the CD to be labeled with information obtained directly from the information recorded on the CD without human intervention. Ex at 6:2-7. Kahle further discloses that a controller that controls a CD recorder that automatically delivers a blank CD to the recorder, records the digital information to the CD, ejects the CD, and then automatically delivers the CD to the printer to be labeled, thereby facilitating printing of the label. Ex at 8:63-9:6. Kahle also discloses that the CD recorder can extract the title information and deliver the title information to the printer. Ex at 6:19-27; 7: Kahle does not explicitly disclose that the print information for the label is patient identification information and study information. However, as discussed above, retrieving patient identification information and study information for the print information for the label on the CD is obvious in view of Kahle and DICOMView, and 33

39 therefore providing print information that includes patient identification information and study information obtained from the parsed information of the data stream is obvious in view of Kahle and DICOMView. Ex at 84 and 87. g) submitting the job to the autoloader control software, and Kahle discloses a job in the form of selecting the data that is written to the CD and identifying information for the label of the CD. Kahle discloses submitting the job to the CD recorder that automatically provides a blank disk to the recorder, records the digital information, ejects the CD, and automatically delivers the CD to the printer for labeling. Ex at 8:65-9:6. Kahle, however, does not explicitly disclose that the job contains medical data or medical data image viewing software. However, submitting a job containing medical data for a patient and medical data image viewing software is obvious in view of the teachings of DICOMView which discloses a job for burning both the medical data for a patient (e.g., the DICOM medical images) and viewing software that allows the images to be viewed. Ex at pp It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to modify the teachings of Kahle to explicitly write medical data information and medical data image viewing software to a CD because it would allow the images on the CD to be viewed on any compatible computer, thereby increasing the number of recipients that are able to view the images. Ex at pp ; Ex at

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,301,833 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,301,833 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,301,833 Trial No.: Not Yet Assigned Issued: October 30, 2012 Filed: September 29, 2008 Inventors: Chi-She

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. APPLE INC. Petitioner,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. APPLE INC. Petitioner, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Paper No. 1 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD APPLE INC. Petitioner, v. VIRNETX, INC. AND SCIENCE APPLICATION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Patent Owner Title:

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. Filing Date: Nov. 27, 2002 CONTROL PLANE SECURITY AND TRAFFIC FLOW MANAGEMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. Filing Date: Nov. 27, 2002 CONTROL PLANE SECURITY AND TRAFFIC FLOW MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In re Patent of: Smethurst et al. U.S. Patent No.: 7,224,668 Issue Date: May 29, 2007 Atty Docket No.: 40963-0006IP1 Appl. Serial No.: 10/307,154 Filing

More information

Paper 13 Tel: Entered: January 16, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper 13 Tel: Entered: January 16, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper 13 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: January 16, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD DELL INC. Petitioner v. ACCELERON, LLC Patent Owner

More information

Paper Entered: January 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: January 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 9 571-272-7822 Entered: January 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SYMANTEC CORP., Petitioner, v. FINJAN, INC., Patent Owner.

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ESET, LLC and ESET spol s.r.o Petitioners

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ESET, LLC and ESET spol s.r.o Petitioners Paper No. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ESET, LLC and ESET spol s.r.o Petitioners v. FINJAN, Inc. Patent Owner Patent No. 7,975,305 Issue Date: July

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Petitioner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, Petitioner Paper No. Filed on behalf of Hewlett-Packard Company By: Stuart P. Meyer, Reg. No. 33,426 Jennifer R. Bush, Reg. No. 50,784 Fenwick & West LLP 801 California Street Mountain View, CA 94041 Tel: (650) 988-8500

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In re Patent of: Finn U.S. Patent No.: 8,051,211 Issue Date: Nov. 1, 2011 Atty Docket No.: 40963-0008IP1 Appl. Serial No.: 10/282,438 PTAB Dkt. No.: IPR2015-00975

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In the Inter Partes Review of: Trial Number: To Be Assigned U.S. Patent No. 8,237,294 Filed: January 29, 2010 Issued: August 7, 2012 Inventor(s): Naohide

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ServiceNow, Inc. Petitioner. BMC Software, Inc.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ServiceNow, Inc. Petitioner. BMC Software, Inc. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ServiceNow, Inc. Petitioner v. BMC Software, Inc. Patent Owner Filing Date: August 30, 2000 Issue Date: May 17, 2005 TITLE:

More information

Paper 10 Tel: Entered: October 10, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper 10 Tel: Entered: October 10, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 Tel: 571 272 7822 Entered: October 10, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD IRON DOME LLC, Petitioner, v. CHINOOK LICENSING

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. In the Inter Partes Review of: Attorney Docket No.:

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. In the Inter Partes Review of: Attorney Docket No.: IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In the Inter Partes Review of: Attorney Docket No.: 044029-0025 U.S. Patent No. 6,044,382 Filed: June 20, 1997 Trial Number: To Be Assigned Panel: To Be

More information

Paper Entered: June 23, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: June 23, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 11 571 272 7822 Entered: June 23, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD FIELDCOMM GROUP, Petitioner, v. SIPCO, LLC, Patent Owner.

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. KYOCERA CORPORATION, and MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC Petitioners,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. KYOCERA CORPORATION, and MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC Petitioners, Kyocera PX 1052_1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD KYOCERA CORPORATION, and MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC Petitioners, v. SOFTVIEW LLC, Patent Owner. SUPPLEMENTAL

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. APPLE INC. Petitioner,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. APPLE INC. Petitioner, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Paper No. 1 BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD APPLE INC. Petitioner, v. VIRNETX, INC. AND SCIENCE APPLICATION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Patent Owner Title:

More information

Paper 7 Tel: Entered: January 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper 7 Tel: Entered: January 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper 7 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: January 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., Petitioner, v. SIPCO, LLC,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Attorney Docket: COX-714IPR IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Inter Partes Review Case No. IPR2015- Inter Partes Review of: U.S. Patent No. 7,907,714 Issued: March 15, 2011 To: Paul G. Baniak

More information

Paper Date Entered: June 9, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Date Entered: June 9, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 33 571-272-7822 Date Entered: June 9, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD APPLE INC., GOOGLE INC., and MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Unified Patents Inc., Petitioner v.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Unified Patents Inc., Petitioner v. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Unified Patents Inc., Petitioner v. Hall Data Sync Technologies LLC Patent Owner IPR2015- Patent 7,685,506 PETITION FOR

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. HULU, LLC, NETFLIX, INC., and SPOTIFY USA INC.

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. HULU, LLC, NETFLIX, INC., and SPOTIFY USA INC. IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD HULU, LLC, NETFLIX, INC., and SPOTIFY USA INC. Petitioners v. CRFD RESEARCH, INC. Patent Owner U.S. Patent No.

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD CERNER CORPORATION, CERNER HEALTH SERVICES, INC., ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC., EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION, and

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In re Patent of: Jeffrey C. Hawkins, et al. U.S. Patent No.: 9,203,940 Attorney Docket No.: 39521-0049IP1 Issue Date: December 1, 2015 Appl. Serial No.:

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. NETFLIX, INC., Petitioner, COPY PROTECTION LLC, Patent Owner.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. NETFLIX, INC., Petitioner, COPY PROTECTION LLC, Patent Owner. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD NETFLIX, INC., Petitioner, v. COPY PROTECTION LLC, Patent Owner. IPR Case No. Not Yet Assigned Patent 7,079,649 PETITION

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. GOOGLE INC., Petitioner,

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. GOOGLE INC., Petitioner, NO: 426479US IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD GOOGLE INC., Petitioner, v. MOBILESTAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Patent Owners. Case IPR2015-00090 Patent

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD AMAZON.COM, INC., - vs. - SIMPLEAIR, INC.

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD AMAZON.COM, INC., - vs. - SIMPLEAIR, INC. Paper No. 1 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD AMAZON.COM, INC., - vs. - Petitioner SIMPLEAIR, INC., Patent Owner Patent No. 8,572,279 Issued: October

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD AT&T MOBILITY, LLC AND CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS Petitioners v. SOLOCRON MEDIA, LLC Patent Owner Case

More information

Paper Entered: May 1, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: May 1, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571-272-7822 Entered: May 1, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ORACLE CORPORATION Petitioners, v. CLOUDING IP, LLC Patent

More information

Paper Date Entered: September 9, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper Date Entered: September 9, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper 18 571-272-7822 Date Entered: September 9, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS

More information

Vivek Ganti Reg. No. 71,368; and Gregory Ourada Reg. No UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Vivek Ganti Reg. No. 71,368; and Gregory Ourada Reg. No UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE By: Vivek Ganti (vg@hkw-law.com) Reg. No. 71,368; and Gregory Ourada (go@hkw-law.com) Reg. No. 55516 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Mail Stop PATENT

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. FACEBOOK, INC., WHATSAPP INC., Petitioners

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. FACEBOOK, INC., WHATSAPP INC., Petitioners UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD FACEBOOK, INC., WHATSAPP INC., Petitioners v. UNILOC USA, INC., UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A., Patent Owners TITLE: SYSTEM AND

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. Filed on behalf of Apple Inc. By: Lori A. Gordon Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. Tel: (202) 371-2600 Fax: (202) 371-2540 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. GOOGLE INC., Petitioner,

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. GOOGLE INC., Petitioner, NO: 426476US IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD GOOGLE INC., Petitioner, v. ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP, Patent Owner. Case IPR2015- Patent U.S. 6,128,298

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. SAS INSTITUTE, INC. Petitioner. COMPLEMENTSOFT, LLC Patent Owner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. SAS INSTITUTE, INC. Petitioner. COMPLEMENTSOFT, LLC Patent Owner Trials@uspto.gov Paper 9 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: August 12, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SAS INSTITUTE, INC. Petitioner v. COMPLEMENTSOFT,

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Texas Association of REALTORS Petitioner,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Texas Association of REALTORS Petitioner, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Texas Association of REALTORS Petitioner, v. POI Search Solutions, LLC Patent Owner PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF

More information

Paper Date Entered: October 20, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper Date Entered: October 20, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper 29 571-272-7822 Date Entered: October 20, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD PARROT S.A. and PARROT, INC., Petitioner, v. DRONE

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. LG ELECTRONICS, INC. Petitioner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. LG ELECTRONICS, INC. Petitioner UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD LG ELECTRONICS, INC. Petitioner v. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. Patent Owner Case No.: IPR2015-00328 Patent 5,898,849

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. Filed on behalf of Apple Inc. By: Lori A. Gordon Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. Tel: (202) 371-2600 Fax: (202) 371-2540 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. THE MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD.

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. THE MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD. NO: IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD THE MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD. Petitioner, v. VIRNETX INC., Patent Owner. Case IPR2015- Patent U.S.

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. APPLE INC. Petitioner,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. APPLE INC. Petitioner, Paper No. 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD APPLE INC. Petitioner, v. VIRNETX, INC. AND SCIENCE APPLICATION INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Patent Owner. Patent

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ITRON, INC., Petitioner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ITRON, INC., Petitioner UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ITRON, INC., Petitioner v. SMART METER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Patent Owner Case: IPR2017-01199 U.S. Patent No. 7,058,524

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Oracle Corporation Petitioner,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Oracle Corporation Petitioner, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Oracle Corporation Petitioner, v. Crossroads Systems, Inc. Patent Owner. IPR2015- U.S. Patent No. 7,934,041 PETITION FOR

More information

Paper Entered: March 6, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: March 6, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 8 571-272-7822 Entered: March 6, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD HULU, LLC, Petitioner, v. INTERTAINER, INC., Patent Owner.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD In the Inter Partes Review of: ) ) Trial Number: To be assigned U.S. Patent No.: 7,126,940 ) ) Attorney Docket

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. Petitioner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. Petitioner Trials@uspto.gov 571-272-7822 Paper No. 61 Date Entered: April 24, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. Petitioner v. MOBILE

More information

Paper 22 Tel: Entered: January 29, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper 22 Tel: Entered: January 29, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper 22 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: January 29, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RACKSPACE HOSTING, INC., Petitioner, v. CLOUDING

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 35 U.S.C. 311 AND 37 C.F.R

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW UNDER 35 U.S.C. 311 AND 37 C.F.R IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In the Inter Partes Review of: Trial Number: To Be Assigned U.S. Patent No. 5,839,108 Filed: June 30, 1997 Issued: November 17, 1998 Inventor(s): Norbert

More information

Paper Entered: July 15, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: July 15, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 14 571-272-7822 Entered: July 15, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SYMANTEC CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. RPOST COMMUNICATIONS

More information

a'^ DATE MAILED 119/lfi/2004

a'^ DATE MAILED 119/lfi/2004 Â UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITEl> STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Unilcd Slalcs Patent and Trademark Office Additss COMNflSSIONEK FOR I'ATEWTS PO Bin l4ul Ali-xiiinlri;~ Viryniiii22313-I450

More information

Case 1:17-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 1:17-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF DELAWARE Case 1:17-cv-01586-UNA Document 1 Filed 11/03/17 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF DELAWARE PURE DATA SYSTEMS, LLC Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. GOOGLE INC., Petitioner,

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. GOOGLE INC., Petitioner, NO: 439226US IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD GOOGLE INC., Petitioner, v. MOBILESTAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Patent Owner. Case IPR2015- Patent U.S. 6,333,973

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case :0-cv-00-MRP -FFM Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of Page ID #:0 0 0 Frank M. Weyer, Esq. (State Bar No. 0 TECHCOASTLAW 0 Whitley Ave. Los Angeles CA 00 Telephone: (0 - Facsimile: (0-0 fweyer@techcoastlaw.com

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. TALARI NETWORKS, INC., Petitioner,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. TALARI NETWORKS, INC., Petitioner, Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 32 571.272.7822 Filed: November 1, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TALARI NETWORKS, INC., Petitioner, v. FATPIPE NETWORKS

More information

Paper Entered: February 27, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: February 27, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 39 571-272-7822 Entered: February 27, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD DELL INC., HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY, and NETAPP, INC.,

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. TALARI NETWORKS, INC., Petitioner,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. TALARI NETWORKS, INC., Petitioner, Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 32 571.272.7822 Filed: November 1, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TALARI NETWORKS, INC., Petitioner, v. FATPIPE NETWORKS

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ServiceNow, Inc. Petitioner. Hewlett Packard Company Patent Owner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ServiceNow, Inc. Petitioner. Hewlett Packard Company Patent Owner UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ServiceNow, Inc. Petitioner v. Hewlett Packard Company Patent Owner Filing Date: May 14, 2003 Issue Date: April 12, 2011

More information

5/15/2015. Mangosoft v. Oracle. Case No. C JM. Plaintiff s Claim Construction Hearing Presentation. May 19, U.S.

5/15/2015. Mangosoft v. Oracle. Case No. C JM. Plaintiff s Claim Construction Hearing Presentation. May 19, U.S. Mangosoft v. Oracle Case No. C02-545-JM Plaintiff s Claim Construction Hearing Presentation May 19, 2015 1 U.S. Patent 6,148,377 2 1 U.S. Patent No. 5,918,229 3 The Invention The 377 patent, Abstract 4

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. MICROSOFT CORPORATION Petitioner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. MICROSOFT CORPORATION Petitioner Filed on behalf of Petitioners By: Richard D. Mc Leod (Reg. No. 46,921) Rick.mcleod@klarquist.com Klarquist Sparkman LLP One World Trade Center, Suite 1600 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portland, Oregon 97204

More information

Case 2:16-cv Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1

Case 2:16-cv Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1 Case 2:16-cv-01268 Document 1 Filed 11/14/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION SMART AUTHENTICATION IP, LLC, Plaintiff, Civil

More information

Paper Date: January 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Date: January 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 9 571-272-7822 Date: January 14, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SYMANTEC CORP., Petitioner, v. FINJAN, INC., Patent Owner

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In re Patent of: Backman et al. U.S. Pat. No.: 5,902,347 Attorney Docket No.: 00037-0002IP1 Issue Date: May 11, 1999 Appl. Serial No.: 08/835,037 Filing

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. Filed on behalf of SanDisk Corporation By: Lori A. Gordon Robert E. Sokohl Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. Tel: (202) 371-2600 Fax: (202) 371-2540 UNITED

More information

Paper Entered: May 24, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: May 24, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 18 571-272-7822 Entered: May 24, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD AVAYA INC. Petitioner v. NETWORK-1 SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. GOOGLE INC., Petitioner,

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. GOOGLE INC., Petitioner, NO: 439244US IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD GOOGLE INC., Petitioner, v. MobileStar Technologies LLC, Patent Owner. Case IPR2015- Patent U.S. 6,333,973

More information

Paper 17 Tel: Entered: September 5, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper 17 Tel: Entered: September 5, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper 17 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: September 5, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD FACEBOOK, INC., Petitioner, v. SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS,

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. AVOCENT HUNTSVILLE CORP. AND LIEBERT CORP.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. AVOCENT HUNTSVILLE CORP. AND LIEBERT CORP. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD AVOCENT HUNTSVILLE CORP. AND LIEBERT CORP., Petitioners v. CYBER SWITCHING PATENTS, LLC Patent Owner Case IPR2015-01438

More information

Paper 62 Tel: Entered: October 9, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper 62 Tel: Entered: October 9, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper 62 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: October 9, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SIPNET EU S.R.O. Petitioner, v. STRAIGHT PATH IP

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit FUZZYSHARP TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 3DLABS INC., LTD., Defendant-Appellee. 2010-1160

More information

Case 1:14-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 01/03/14 Page 1 of 49 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 1:14-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 01/03/14 Page 1 of 49 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE Case 1:14-cv-00004-UNA Document 1 Filed 01/03/14 Page 1 of 49 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE MPHJ TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS, LLC, v. DILLARD S, INC., Plaintiff,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In re Patent of: Howard G. Sachs U.S. Patent No.: 5,463,750 Attorney Docket No.: 39521-0009IP1 Issue Date: Oct. 31, 1995 Appl. Serial No.: 08/146,818 Filing

More information

Paper Entered: May 19, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: May 19, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 50 571-272-7822 Entered: May 19, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD CORELOGIC, INC., Petitioner, v. BOUNDARY SOLUTIONS, INC.,

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. MasterImage 3D, Inc. and MasterImage 3D Asia, LLC Petitioner,

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. MasterImage 3D, Inc. and MasterImage 3D Asia, LLC Petitioner, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MasterImage 3D, Inc. and MasterImage 3D Asia, LLC Petitioner, v. RealD, Inc. Patent Owner. Issue Date: July 17, 2012 Title:

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE In re Inter Partes Review of: ) U.S. Patent No. 8,468,174 ) Issued: June 18, 2013 ) Application No.: 13/301,448 ) Filing Date: Nov. 21, 2011 ) For: Interfacing

More information

GOOGLE S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH PATENT RULE

GOOGLE S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH PATENT RULE Aloft Media, LLC v. Google, Inc. Doc. 52 Att. 2 GOOGLE S MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH PATENT RULE 3-1 Exhibit 1 Dockets.Justia.com ALOFT MEDIA, LLC, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. In Re: U.S. Patent 7,191,233 : Attorney Docket No

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. In Re: U.S. Patent 7,191,233 : Attorney Docket No UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD In Re: U.S. Patent 7,191,233 : Attorney Docket No. 081841.0106 Inventor: Michael J. Miller : Filed: September 17, 2001

More information

Paper No Entered: February 22, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper No Entered: February 22, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 17 571.272.7822 Entered: February 22, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD GENBAND US LLC and GENBAND MANAGEMENT SERVICES CORP.,

More information

Paper No Entered: January 15, 2019 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper No Entered: January 15, 2019 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 68 571-272-7822 Entered: January 15, 2019 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD GOOGLE LLC, Petitioner, v. SPRING VENTURES LTD.,

More information

Paper Entered: February 6, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: February 6, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 29 571-272-7822 Entered: February 6, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD UNIFIED PATENTS INC., Petitioner, v. HARRY HESLOP AND

More information

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO

PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO Filed on behalf of Global Tel*Link Corporation By: Michael B. Ray, Reg. No. 33,997 Michael D. Specht, Reg. No. 54,463 Ryan C. Richardson, Reg. No. 67,254 Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. 1100

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC and MCM PORTFOLIO LLC, v. Plaintiffs, CANON INC. et al., Defendants. / No. C -0 CW ORDER GRANTING

More information

Appeal decision. Tokyo, Japan Patent Attorney ISONO INTERNATIONAL PATENT Office, P. C.

Appeal decision. Tokyo, Japan Patent Attorney ISONO INTERNATIONAL PATENT Office, P. C. Appeal decision Appeal No. 2017-10881 Tokyo, Japan Appellant HITACHI APPLIANCES, INC. Tokyo, Japan Patent Attorney ISONO INTERNATIONAL PATENT Office, P. C. The case of appeal against the examiner's decision

More information

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 10/08/18 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 10/08/18 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION Case 1:18-cv-00851 Document 1 Filed 10/08/18 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION UNILOC 2017 LLC and UNILOC LICENSING USA, LLC, v. APPLE INC.,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE United States Patent No.: 8,532,641 Attorney Docket No.: Inventors: Russell W. White, 110797-0004-658 Kevin R. Imes Customer No. 28120 Formerly Application

More information

PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF DOCUMENT REQUESTS TO THE DEFENDANT. Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs ArrivalStar S.A.

PLAINTIFFS FIRST SET OF DOCUMENT REQUESTS TO THE DEFENDANT. Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs ArrivalStar S.A. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ARRIVALSTAR S.A. AND MELVINO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-00977-TSZ Plaintiffs, v. CENTRAL PUGET SOUND REGIONAL

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. HULU, LLC Petitioner v.

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. HULU, LLC Petitioner v. IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD HULU, LLC Petitioner v. Chinook Licensing DE, LLC Patent Owner Patent No. 7,047,482 PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Cisco Systems, Inc., Petitioner, AIP Acquisition LLC, Patent Owner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. Cisco Systems, Inc., Petitioner, AIP Acquisition LLC, Patent Owner UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Cisco Systems, Inc., Petitioner, v. AIP Acquisition LLC, Patent Owner PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT

More information

Paper Entered: April 6, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: April 6, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 17 571-272-7822 Entered: April 6, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Petitioner, v. UNILOC USA, INC. and

More information

Paper Entered: December 15, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: December 15, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 36 571-272-7822 Entered: December 15, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD GENBAND US LLC and GENBAND MANAGEMENT SERVICES CORP.,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. GoPro, Inc. Petitioner, Contour, LLC Patent Owner

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. GoPro, Inc. Petitioner, Contour, LLC Patent Owner IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD GoPro, Inc. Petitioner, v. Contour, LLC Patent Owner U.S. Patent No. 8,896,694 to O Donnell et al. Issue Date:

More information

Case 1:17-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 06/13/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 1:17-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 06/13/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE Case 1:17-cv-00752-UNA Document 1 Filed 06/13/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE KALDREN LLC Plaintiff, v. KIK US, INC. Defendant. C.A. No. JURY

More information

Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Part 1: Introduction and Overview

Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Part 1: Introduction and Overview Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Part 1: Introduction and Overview Published by National Electrical Manufacturers Association 1300 N. 17th Street Rosslyn, Virginia 22209 USA Copyright

More information

Case 1:17-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2017 Page 1 of 21

Case 1:17-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2017 Page 1 of 21 Case :-cv--fam Document Entered on FLSD Docket 0//0 Page of 0 0 Coleman Watson, Esq. Watson LLP S. Orange Avenue, Suite 0 Orlando, FL 0 coleman@watsonllp.com CODING TECHNOLGIES, LLC, vs. Plaintiff, MERCEDES-BENZ

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. Case No. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT THE PARTIES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. Case No. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT THE PARTIES IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION UNILOC 2017 LLC, Case No. v. Plaintiff, PATENT CASE BLACKBERRY CORPORATION, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant. COMPLAINT

More information

Paper Entered: March 17, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: March 17, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 41 571-272-7822 Entered: March 17, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD PALO ALTO NETWORKS, INC., Petitioner, v. FINJAN, INC.,

More information

Case 2:18-cv Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1

Case 2:18-cv Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1 Case 2:18-cv-00074 Document 1 Filed 03/13/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION UNILOC USA, INC. and UNILOC LUXEMBOURG, S.A.,

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CRIMINAL DIVISION FELONY BRANCH

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CRIMINAL DIVISION FELONY BRANCH SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CRIMINAL DIVISION FELONY BRANCH In the Matter of the Search of www.disruptj20.org ) Special Proceeding No. 17 CSW 3438 that Is Stored at Premises Owned, Maintained,

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. FedEx Corporate Services, Inc., Petitioner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. FedEx Corporate Services, Inc., Petitioner Paper No. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD FedEx Corporate Services, Inc., Petitioner v. Catharon Intellectual Property, LLC, Patent Owner Patent No. 6,065,046

More information

Case 5:18-cv LHK Document 55 Filed 12/06/18 Page 1 of 7

Case 5:18-cv LHK Document 55 Filed 12/06/18 Page 1 of 7 Case :-cv-00-lhk Document Filed /0/ Page of 0 0 Aaron S. Jacobs (CA No. ajacobs@princelobel.com One International Place, Suite 00 Boston, MA 00 --000 Matthew D. Vella (CA No. mvella@princelobel.com 0 Broadway

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED Petitioner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED Petitioner Paper No. 1 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED Petitioner v. LEON STAMBLER Patent Owner Case Number (to be assigned)

More information

Kyocera Corporation and Motorola Mobility LLC (Petitioners) v. SoftView LLC (Patent Owner)

Kyocera Corporation and Motorola Mobility LLC (Petitioners) v. SoftView LLC (Patent Owner) DX-1 Petitioners Exhibit 1054-1 Kyocera Corporation and Motorola Mobility LLC (Petitioners) v. SoftView LLC (Patent Owner) CASE IPR2013-00004; CASE IPR2013-00007; CASE IPR2013-00256; CASE IPR2013-00257

More information