UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
APPLE INC.
Petitioner
v.
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.
Patent Owner
Case No. IPR2016-01201
Patent 8,542,815
PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR REHEARING
PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 1
II. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS ....................................................................... 2
III. APPLICABLE STANDARDS ..................................................................... 3
IV. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY.................................................. 3
V. ARGUMENT................................................................................................. 6
a. The Board Misapprehended the Nature of the Proposed Combination of
Prior Art References. .......................................................................................... 7
b. The Board Misapprehended the Proposed Combination’s Application to
the Step Ordering Required by the Challenged Claims. ................................. 9
c. The Board Overlooked the Motivations to Combine the Prior Art
References. ......................................................................................................... 14
VI. CONCLUSION............................................................................................ 17
1
I. INTRODUCTION
Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”) hereby respectfully requests that the Patent Trial and
Appeal Board (“Board”) reconsider its Final Written Decision (Paper 53) upholding
the patentability of claims 1, 7, 27-28, 34, 54, 72-74, 92-93, and 111 of U.S. Patent
No. 8,542,815 (Ex. 1001, “the ’815 Patent”).
The Final Written Decision (“FWD”), issued by the Replacement Panel, rests
on an erroneous understanding of the Proposed Combination that was advanced by
Patent Owner in its Preliminary Response. The Institution Decision (“ID”), issued
by the Original Panel, rejected the same arguments, noting that they were premised
on Patent Owner’s mischaracterization of the Proposed Combinations. The Original
Panel again rejected the very same arguments in response to Patent Owner’s Request
for Rehearing of the ID and again noted that they were premised on Patent Owner’s
mischaracterization of the Proposed Combinations. After being twice rejected,
Patent Owner largely abandoned the mischaracterizations in its Response.
The Replacement Panel, in the FWD, adopted Patent Owner’s pre-institution
mischaracterization of the Proposed Combination, which had been twice-rejected by
the Original Panel and largely abandoned by Patent Owner. In so doing, the
Replacement Panel did not cite or otherwise discuss a single paper submitted by
Petitioner post-institution correcting the Patent Owner’s mischaracterizations and
supporting the actual Proposed Combination. Petitioner had specifically reiterated
the nature and operation of the Proposed Combination in its Reply and again at the
2
oral argument. The Replacement Panel’s failure to even cite to Petitioner’s postinstitution briefs is telling. Had the Replacement Panel considered the full record, it
would not have misapprehended the Proposed Combinations and it would not have
overlooked the ample record evidence supporting the instituted grounds.
Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board reconsider the
Final Written Decision in view of the actual Proposed Combinations and the totality
of the record, including Petitioner’s arguments submitted post-institution.
This request is timely filed by January 8, 2019—the deadline set forth in the
Board’s Order, Granting-in-Part Petitioner’s Motion for Sanctions. Paper 70 at 16.
II. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
By presenting the Request for Rehearing authorized by Paper 70, Petitioner
does not concede, expressly or by implication, the correctness of the Board’s Order
resolving Petitioner’s motion for sanctions. Patent Owner engaged in improper ex
parte communications that created at least the appearance of impropriety and
prejudiced Petitioner. Petitioner continues to maintain that, in addition to violating
the Board’s rules, this improper conduct violated both the Administrative Procedure
Act and the Due Process Clause. In the context of this proceeding, and given the
undisputed timing and nature of the events, Patent Owner’s violations, individually
or collectively, warrant a meaningful sanction to alleviate the prejudice to Petitioner.
The rehearing request authorized by Paper 70 is at most a partial remedy for Patent
Owner’s improper conduct.
3
III. APPLICABLE STANDARDS
“A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing.”
37 C.F.R. §42.71(d). “The request must specifically identify all matters the party
believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter
was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” Id. The Board
reviews a decision for an abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. §42.71(c). “An abuse of
discretion may arise if a decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of law, if a
factual finding is not supported by substantial evidence, or if an unreasonable
judgment is made in weighing relevant factors.” IPR2013-00298, Paper 24, at 2
(Feb. 11, 2014) (citations omitted).
IV. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner requested Inter Partes Review of claims 1, 7, 27-28, 34, 54, 72-74,
92-93, and 111 of the ’815 Patent (“the Challenged Claims”) on two grounds (“the
Proposed Combinations”), both of which rely on the same base reference—Chu
’684—and similar secondary references—Chu ’366 and Chen (“the Secondary
References”). Paper 1, Petition at 5, 12-20, 37-41. Each of the Proposed
Combinations relies on Chu ’684 for its infrastructure, call classifying, and call
routing teachings, and the Secondary References for their caller profile and dialed
digit reformatting teachings. Id. The Proposed Combinations each propose that Chu
’684 would benefit if its users could employ short form dialing—as is common for
local PSTN calls on a standard landline (e.g., 555-1234)—rather than being required
4
to use full E.164-compliant numbers (e.g., +1-202-555-1234) as contemplated by
Chu ’684. Id. The primary difference between the two Proposed Combinations is
that Chen provided an earlier date.
Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response (“POPR”), arguing (1) that
Petitioner’s motivations to combine are insufficient and (2) that the Proposed
Combinations fail to properly account for the required ordering of certain limitations
of the Challenged Claims. Paper 5, POPR at 18-21, 39-42, 48-49, 59-62. In its ID,
the Original Panel rejected Patent Owner’s arguments, pointing out that Patent
Owner had mischaracterized the Proposed Combinations and ignored the Petition’s
reliance on the Secondary References for key teachings. Paper 6, ID at 19-24.
Patent Owner then filed a Request for Rehearing, again challenging the
adequacy of the Petitioner’s motivations to combine and the ordering issue. Paper 9,
Request for Rehearing at 2-3. The Original Panel once again rejected these
arguments, and again pointed out that Patent Owner had mischaracterized the
Proposed Combinations. Paper 11, Decision Denying Request for Rehearing at 3-6.
Patent Owner next filed its Response, which attempted to swear behind both
Chu ’366 and Chen, alleging that the Challenged Claims were actually reduced to
practice 17 months before filing. Paper 17, Response at 4-38. On the substance,
Patent Owner abandoned the mischaracterization of the Proposed Combinations it
had unsuccessfully advanced twice before. Instead, the Patent Owner introduced a
new theory that Chu ’684 allegedly did not contemplate E.164 dialing at all, and
5
instead requires that users “dial private numbers to place a call to the PBX private
network, or a PSTN access code (e.g., a prefix of ‘9’) followed by a PSTN number
based on local dialing conventions to call the PSTN.” Paper 17, Response at 46-57,
64-66. Patent Owner also advanced a new ordering theory, wholly different from its
original ordering argument, suggesting that the caller-specific profiles taught by the
Secondary References cannot (or would not) be incorporated into Chu ’684’s
infrastructure. Id. at 59-64.
Because Patent Owner had consistently mischaracterized the Proposed
Combinations in its early papers, Petitioner’s Reply reiterated the nature of the
Proposed Combinations set forth in the Petition and explained the ordering of the
combination. Paper 34, Reply at 15-16. Petitioner also addressed Patent Owner’s
new arguments. Id. at 16-24. And, finally, the Reply addressed Patent Owner’s
swear behind attempt. Id. at 1-15.
On June 7, 2017, the parties participated in a conference call with the Board
to discuss Patent Owner’s request for a sur-reply. Unbeknownst to Petitioner, the
Original Panel had been removed and new judges—Administrative Patent Judges
Josiah Cocks, Jennifer Meyer Chagnon, and John Hudalla (“Replacement Panel”)—
were appointed. This call was the first time Petitioner learned of the Replacement
Panel. Paper 37. There was no discussion or explanation for why the Replacement
Panel was appearing.
On November 20, 2017, the Replacement Panel issued its Final Written
6
Decision (“FWD”). See generally Paper 53, FWD. The two issues on which the
Replacement Panel found in favor of Patent Owner were (1) the original “ordering”
argument premised on the Patent Owner’s pre-Institution mischaracterizations of
the Proposed Combinations and (2) an alleged inadequate motivation to make the
mischaracterized Proposed Combinations. Id. at 18-24.
Petitioner subsequently moved for sanctions against Patent Owner after it
discovered that Patent Owner had engaged in an ex parte letter-writing campaign
with the Board and other officials. Paper 55.
On August 22, 2018, the Board issued an order assigning three new judges—
Deputy Chief Administrative Patent Judge Scott R. Boalick, Vice Chief
Administrative Patent Judge Jacqueline Wright Bonilla, and Vice Chief
Administrative Patent Judge Michael P. Tierney (“Third Panel”)—to this matter.
Paper 69. On December 21, 2018, the Third Panel found that Patent Owner engaged
in sanctionable conduct and granted-in-part Petitioner’s motion for sanctions. As a
remedy, the Board permitted Petitioner to file this rehearing request. Paper 70.
V. ARGUMENT
In the FWD, the Replacement Panel concluded that the Proposed
Combinations did not disclose the ordering of steps required by the Challenged
Claims, and that Petitioner had not met its burden to show a motivation to combine
the Proposed Combinations. In reaching these conclusions, the Panel
misapprehended the nature of the Proposed Combinations and failed to address
7
Petitioner’s Reply arguments.
a. The Board Misapprehended the Nature of the Proposed
Combination of Prior Art References.
The Replacement Panel did not understand the Proposed Combinations.
Because the Patent Owner had twice attempted to mischaracterize the Proposed
Combination, Petitioner began its Reply (the first opportunity it had to address
Patent Owner’s mischaracterization attempts) by explaining the Proposed
Combinations in a step-wise fashion:
1) First, a caller’s profile is accessed, which includes caller attributes
(e.g., IDD, NDD, area code, etc.). The Secondary References teach
accessing a caller profile. See, e.g., Paper 1, Petition at 22-23
(describing use of calling attributes from Secondary References); see
also, Ex. 2043, Houh Trans. at 18:5-22:24 (explaining that the Chu
‘366 “call origin profile” includes calling attributes and that Chu ‘684
includes the user-specific infrastructure to support accessing the userspecific profile from Chu ‘366); 33:24-35:3 (same explanation
regarding Chen).
2) Next, dialed digits are received by the caller pursuant to standard
public dialing conventions, e.g., 123-4567 for a local call. The number
reformatting taught by the Secondary References is performed, which
results in an E.164-compliant callee identifier, e.g., 1-202-123-4567.
See, e.g., Paper 1, Petition at 22-23.
3) Finally, Chu ‘684 uses the reformatted E.164 number to determine
whether the callee is on the private IP network or the public PSTN and
generates routing messages accordingly. See, e.g., id. at 23-24.
8
Paper 34, Reply at 15-16. As explained in the Petition, the Proposed Combinations
recognized that Chu ’684 required a user to dial a complete (long form) E.164
compatible number in order to reach a destination phone as was typical of such VoIP
systems. Paper 1, Petition at 17. By combining the Chu ’684 system with the
Secondary References’ short form dialing and reformatting teachings, a customer
would be able to enjoy the benefit of familiar short form dialing and the Chu ’684
system could continue to receive and process long form E.164 compatible numbers
as per its normal disclosed operation. See Paper 34, Reply at 21-23 (establishing that
Chu ’684 processes E.164 compatible numbers to route calls). Put simply, the
Secondary References provide for short form dialing to be reformatted into E.164
numbers that Chu ’684 may then process to route a call. The Replacement Panel did
not discuss these (or any other) portions of the Reply.
Multiple statements in the FWD suggest that the Replacement Panel did not
apprehend the Proposed Combinations. For example, the Replacement Panel stated:
Petitioner seems to advocate that Chu ’684, itself, contemplates a
“reformatted” callee identifier when determining the public or
private network affiliation of a call. [ ]
[I]f Chu ’684’s dialed digits are reformatted prior to determining the
local or non-local (i.e., PSTN) nature of a call, then it stands to reason
that they no longer constitute the dialed digits. Petitioner has not
explained adequately why or how Chu ’684’s step of assessing the
dialed digits is applicable to a number that has been reformatted
into a number that is no longer the dialed digits.
Paper 53, FWD at 22-23 (emphasis added). Petitioner never suggested that Chu ’684,
itself, contemplates a “reformatted” callee identifier. Chu ’684 contemplates
receiving long form E.164 compatible numbers. The Secondary References
contemplate receiving short form numbers and reformatting them to E.164
compatible numbers. Thus, in the Proposed Combinations, short form dialing may
be used and, after the reformatting contemplated by the Secondary References, Chu
’684 receives the same long form E.164 compatible numbers it expressly
contemplates.
In a similar misapprehension, the Replacement Panel criticizes Petitioner for
failing to explain how Chu ’684 can process a reformatted number. There was no
such failure. In the Proposed Combination, the reformatted number supplied to Chu
’684 is in the same E.164 compatible format that Chu ’684 expressly contemplates
using. The Replacement Panel should not have required an explanation for why or
how Chu ’684 would process the same format of dialed digits its disclosure expressly
contemplates using. Had the Replacement Panel considered, at a minimum, the
Reply’s reiterated explanation of the Proposed Combinations, the Replacement
Panel would have analyzed the actual operation of the Proposed Combinations.
b. The Board Misapprehended the Proposed Combination’s
Application to the Step Ordering Required by the
Challenged Claims.
The Replacement Panel’s misapprehension of the Proposed Combination and
apparent disregard of the Reply’s step-wise explanation of the Proposed
10
Combinations led to incorrect conclusions. Specifically, the Replacement Panel
incorrectly concluded that the Proposed Combinations failed to account for the “step
ordering that is required by the claims of the ’815 patent.” Paper 53, FWD at 23-24.
The Replacement Panel found that Petitioner relied on step 610 from Chu ’684 to
teach the caller dialing profile limitation and step 608 from Chu ’684 to teach the
limitation directed to evaluating caller attributes to produce public or private routing
messages. Id. at 23-24. With this misunderstanding of the Proposed Combination,
the Replacement Panel made the following finding:
That Petitioner relies on Chu ’684’s “step 610” for “locating a caller
dialing profile,” and then relies on Chu ’684’s prior “step 608” for the
subsequent steps of “determining a match” and “classifying the call” is
at odds, or is inconsistent, with the step ordering that is required by the
claims of the ’815 patent.
Id. at 24 (emphasis in original).
This precise argument was presented by Patent Owner twice—in its
Preliminary Response (Paper 5 at 18-21) and in its Request for Rehearing (Paper 9
at 3-7). In both instances, the Original Panel correctly rejected the argument as being
premised on a mischaracterization of the Proposed Combination set forth in the
Petition. See Paper 6, ID at 22-23 (noting “Petitioner does not rely exclusively on
Chu ’684 for teaching the [pertinent limitations]” and criticizing Patent Owner for
“address[ing] Chu ’684 and Chu ’366 individually, and does not consider the
combined teachings of the references”); Paper 11 at 3-5 (rejecting Patent Owner’s
11
argument “that the Board overlooked the argument that Petitioner’s obviousness
analysis fails to account for performing the ‘locating’ step before the ‘producing’
steps,” noting that “Patent Owner’s attempt to distinguish the single reference
Chu ’684 did not address Petitioner’s showing that the combination teaches the
claimed steps,” and pointing out that “Petitioner[] reli[es] on both Chu ’684 and
Chu ’366 for teaching the locating step, including Petitioner’s reliance on Chu
’366 for teaching call original profiles”) (emphasis added).
As recognized by the Original Panel and as described in the preceding section,
the Proposed Combinations do not rely on step 610 of Chu ’684 alone for the caller
profile limitation. Instead, the Secondary References provide the caller profile
comprising caller attributes that is then used to reformat dialed digits (callee
identifier) before the callee identifier is used in classification step 608 (to determine
whether public or private) and before routing step 610 to produce either a public or
private routing message. Petitioner explained this clearly in the above-referenced
step-wise description and further explained that:
Petitioner’s two proposed obviousness combinations . . . rely on Chu
‘684 as a base reference for its infrastructure, call classifying, and call
routing disclosures . . . [and] rely on their respective secondary
references . . . for their caller profile and dialed digit reformatting
disclosures.
Paper 34, Reply at 15 (emphasis added). Petitioner’s Reply similarly explained that
the Secondary References provide the user-specific caller profiles and that the
12
citations to Chu ’684 for the “locating” limitation establish that Chu ’684 includes
the infrastructure necessary to make use of the Secondary Reference caller profiles
and number reformatting, not that Chu ’684 itself is relied upon for locating a caller
profile:
[T]he combinations rely on the user-specific profiles taught by the
Secondary References. Indeed, this is the principle purpose of making
the combination in the first place. As Petitioner’s expert explained, Chu
‘684 discloses the infrastructure required to locate a caller-specific
dialing profile like those in the Secondary References. Namely, the
servers in Chu ‘684 necessarily maintain user-specific information in
order to effectively route calls. Accordingly, they are fully equipped to
perform caller-specific lookups as contemplated by the combination.
See Ex. 2043, Houh Trans. at 19:22-22:24.
Id. at 23-24 (emphasis added).
The Replacement Panel’s conclusions are premised on a mapping that is not
consistent with the Proposed Combinations set forth in the Petition and further
explained in the Reply. Further illustrating the Replacement Panel’s failure to
apprehend the full record, not even Patent Owner continued to pursue the
mischaracterization of Petitioner’s Proposed Combinations beyond its PreInstitution papers. For example, Patent Owner’s Response acknowledges that
Petitioner relies on the Secondary References for their dialed digit reformatting that
takes place before Chu ’684’s classification step 608:
Petitioner proposes modifying Chu ‘684 by inserting the public
13
number reformatting method of Chu ‘366 or Chen before the
classification step 608 in Chu ’684[.]
Paper 17, Response at 50 (emphasis added). Patent Owner’s Response recognized
that the Proposed Combinations rely on caller profiles from the Secondary
References and instead argued that the Petition included inadequate support:
Chu ‘684 discloses that an enterprise “dial plan” is shared by a group
of users. Chu ‘366 discloses user-specific “call origin location profiles”
and Chen discloses a user’s fixed dial plan. [] Ex. 2016 at ¶ 57. The
record is silent as to how to combine caller-specific individualized
profiles with an enterprise’s IP-PBX network-specific “dial plan.”
Id. at 63-64. Nonetheless, the Replacement Panel did not appreciate that the Patent
Owner had moved away from its Pre-Institution attempts to mischaracterize the
Proposed Combination. The Replacement Panel appears to have reverted to preInstitution arguments, twice rejected by the Original Panel, abandoned by the Patent
Owner, and fully addressed in Petitioner’s Reply.
In sum, by failing to consider the full record and accepting the flawed ordering
argument from Patent Owner’s pre-Institution papers, the Replacement Panel
misapprehended and overlooked the actual Proposed Combinations at issue in this
proceeding. The Replacement Panel’s error is particularly egregious in light of (1)
the Original Panel having twice rejected the same argument, (2) Petitioner having
repeatedly explained the nature of its Proposed Combinations, and (3) Patent Owner
having abandoned the argument in its Response.
14
c. The Board Overlooked the Motivations to Combine the Prior
Art References.
With a proper understanding of the Proposed Combinations, the motivations
to combine are straightforward—the benefit gained is to allow customers to dial
using the short form numbers (PSTN) they are used to using (using the reformatting
of the Secondary References) while employing IP call processing systems that rely
on E.164 compatible dialing (like Chu ’684). Here, the Replacement Panel
concluded that “Petitioner’s reasons for combining the teachings of Chu ’684 and
Chu ’366 [were] conclusory and insufficient to carry the burden of demonstrating
unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.” Paper 53, FWD at 21. In
reaching this conclusion, however, the Replacement Panel accepted Patent Owner’s
representation that the full extent of Petitioner’s motivations to combine are
described in two paragraphs of the Petition and the expert declaration paragraphs
cited therein. Compare Paper 53, FWD at 18-21 (analyzing only these portions of
the record) with Paper 5, POPR at 39-42 (characterizing Petitioner’s motivation to
combine as being entirely contained within these same portions of the record).
The Replacement Panel entirely overlooked the explanation of the motivation
to combine provided in the Petition. The Petition explains that Chu ’684 teaches a
“telecommunications system[] in which a VoIP subscriber can place a call to either
another VoIP subscriber on a private packet-based network or to a customer on the
public PSTN.” Paper 1, Petition at 12. The Petition then explains why it would have
been beneficial to combine the Chu ’684 VoIP system with the dialed digit
15
reformatting described in Chu ’366 based on the express disclosure of Chu ’366:
Chu ’366 explains why such comparison and reformatting is necessary
in a VoIP system. Namely, “E.164 [ ] provides a uniform means for
identifying any telephone number in the world to any telephony user in
the world. . . . When making telephone calls via a traditional PSTN,
a subscriber is able to enter abbreviated numbers for local and
national telephone calls. For example, for a local call in the United
States, a user may simply enter the seven digit telephone number
without an E.164 prefix, the country code or the area code. Local
and national calls are possible with PSTN systems because the fixedline phones from which such calls are made are hardwired directly to
the local PSTN center. By contrast, there is no such concept of local,
long distance or national calls when making a call via Internet
telephony. VoIP calls use the Internet, which is world-wide and not
tied to any single location.” Ex. 1003, Chu ’366 at 1:18-47. By using
caller attributes to reformat dialed digits into an E.164 compatible
number, “a user is able to enter telephone numbers for VoIP
telephone calls as they would according to a traditional telephone
numbering plan for land-line telephone calls.” Id. at 2:1-4. In other
words, both Chu ’366 and the ’815 Patent allow VoIP customers to
enter dialed digits as if they were calling from a standard PSTN
telephone, and the system then reformats the number using
attributes of the caller (e.g., national and area codes).
Id. at 17 (emphasis added); see also id. at 39 (same for Chen combination).
This benefit of allowing customers to use standard dialing formats that are
then reformatted into E.164 compatible numbers is the motivation to make the
16
Proposed Combination. The motivation is expressly provided by the Secondary
References themselves. This discussion appears to have been ignored by the
Replacement Panel. In fact, the Final Written Decision does not discuss the
motivations provided by the Secondary References at all. At the Oral Hearing,
Petitioner stressed again that the Secondary references themselves provided a
motivation to combine the prior art:
Patent Owner has argued that we failed to provide any particularized
reasoning for the motivation to combine. Let's start with the secondary
references themselves. They provide some of the best explanation
for a motivation to combine here.
Paper 52, Hearing Trans. at 21:17-21 (emphasis added). An extensive discussion of
the motivations to combine, including the motivations provided by the Secondary
References, was also provided in Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion
to Exclude. Paper 44, Opposition to Mtn. to Exclude at 7-11. This Opposition further
rebutted many of the critiques advanced in the FWD, but it was not cited or even
acknowledged by the Replacement Panel.
At no point in the Replacement Panel’s discussion of the motivations to
combine is there any recognition of these key motivations proposed in the Petition.
Namely, by ignoring the substantive discussion of the Proposed Combinations and
focusing only on the conclusion paragraphs, the Replacement Panel appears to have
entirely overlooked that the Petition proposed modifying Chu ’684 such that short
form dialing (e.g., 555-1234) could be supported as if callers were using a standard
17
PSTN phone. This is the “intuitive” and “user-friendly” modification of Chu ’684
that is the focus of the Proposed Combinations.
The Replacement Panel levies general criticisms at Petitioner, contending that
the Petition fails to establish that “one of ordinary skill in the art would have regarded
Chu ’684’s teachings as deficient.” However, the Replacement Panel did not
apprehend that Chu ’684 did not contemplate allowing short form dialing and that
the combination of Secondary References was necessary to supply that benefit. The
Replacement Panel did not appreciate the nature of the Proposed Combinations and
overlooked or failed to understand that the motivations to make the combinations
are expressly supplied by the Secondary References themselves.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the New Board should reconsider the Final Written
Decision and enter a new decision cancelling all Challenged Claims.
Respectfully submitted,
Date: January 8, 2019 /s/ Adam P. Seitz
Adam P. Seitz, Reg. No. 52,206
Eric A. Buresh, Reg. No. 50,394
ERISE IP, P.A.
7015 College Blvd., Suite 700
Overland Park, KS 66211
(913) 777-5600 Phone
(913) 777-5601 Fax
eric.buresh@eriseip.com
adam.seitz@eriseip.com
Paul R. Hart, Reg. No. 59,646
ERISE IP, P.A.
5600 Greenwood Plaza Blvd., Suite 200
18
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
(913) 777-5600 Phone
(913) 777-5601 Fax
paul.hart@eriseip.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER
19
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PATENT OWNER
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), the undersigned certifies that on January 8,
2019, a true and correct copy of this PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR
REHEARING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) was served on the counsel for Patent
Owner by electronic means at the following addresses of record:
Kerry S. Taylor
John M. Carson
Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP
2040 Main Street, 14th Floor
Irvin, CA 92614
BoxDigifonica@knobbe.com
Kevin Malek
Malek Moss PLLC
340 Madison Avenue, FL19
New York, NY 10173
kevin.malek@malekmoss.com
Ryan Thomas (pro hac vice)
thomasattorney711@gmail.com
Stephen Melvin
Zytek Communication Corporation
114 W. Magnolia Street, Suite 400-113
Bellingham, WA 98225
melvin@zytek.com
Respectfully submitted,
BY: /s/ Paul R. Hart
Paul R. Hart, Reg. No. 59,646
ATTORNEY FOR PETITION
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
