InvestorsHub Logo
Boards
News
Market Data
Markets
Discover
Discover
Subscribe Login/Register
S&P 500
5,482.87
(
0.09%
)
US TECH 100
19,276.00
(
0.32%
)
Dow Jones
39,164.06
(
0.09%
)
Brent Oil
85.42
(
1.12%
)
Bitcoin
61,443.55
(
1.04%
)
Post# of 96905
Next 10
Reply Private New
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Replies (3) Keep Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Replies (3) Next 10 Prev Next

I_Am_Ram

Send PM Follow Ignore
Followers 104
Posts 8353
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 02/02/2017

I_Am_Ram

Re: None

Monday, 07/31/2017 8:55:10 PM

Monday, July 31, 2017 8:55:10 PM

Post# of 96905
https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2016-01744/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._7941822/docs/07-31-2017-Petitioner/Reply-15-Petitioners_Reply_to_Patent_Owners_Response_to_Petition.pdf

Here it is everyone. I noticed they did not submit the deposition. I've read the first few pages and they seem to be attacking the word "channel" used in the patent. Saying it wasn't defined well enough. When you start attacking wording you've lost. You're no longer attacking the IP itself. I'll keep reading and post my thoughts. Very short document.
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Replies (3) Keep Last Read Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Replies (3) Next 10 Prev Next

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.

Sign Up