PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`In the Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144
`Trial No.: Not Yet Assigned
`Issued:
`February 24, 2015
`Filed:
`August 24, 2006
`Inventor: Michael Tasler
`Assignee: Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG
`Title:
`ANALOG DATA GENERATING AND PROCESSING DEVICE
`HAVING A MULTI-USE AUTOMATIC PROCESSOR
`
`
`
`MAIL STOP PATENT BOARD
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`United States Patent & Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.100
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`IV. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`D. 
`
`Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`Grounds for Standing Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................ 2 
`II. 
`III.  Background Information for the ’144 Patent ................................................... 2 
`A.  Overview of the ’144 Patent Family and Prosecution History ............ 2 
`Identification of Challenge Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b) ....................... 5 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which Inter Partes
`A. 
`Review Is Requested ........................................................................... 5 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art and Specific Grounds
`on Which the Challenge to the Claims Is Based ................................. 5 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction ..................................... 7 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Construed Claims are
`Unpatentable ....................................................................................... 10 
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence ................................ 10 
`E. 
`V.  Mandatory Notices Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1) ................................. 10 
`A. 
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Parties-In-Interest ...................................... 10 
`B. 
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters ................................................. 11 
`C. 
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Lead and Back-up Counsel and
`Service Information ............................................................................ 14 
`VI.  Detailed Grounds for Unpatentability ........................................................... 21 
`A.  Overview of Murata ........................................................................... 21 
`B.  Murata Was Addressed in the Prosecution History ........................... 22 
`VII.  Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and obviousness of the challenged
`claims ............................................................................................................ 24 
`A. 
`Independent claims 1, 84, and 86 ....................................................... 24 
`1. 
`The preamble of claims 1, 84, and 86 ...................................... 24 
`2. 
`An input/output (i/o) port of claims 1, 84, and 86 ................... 25 
`3. 
`A program memory of claims 1, 84, and 86 ............................ 26 
`4. 
`A data storage memory of claims 1, 84, and 86 ...................... 26 
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`7. 
`
`8. 
`
`9. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`A sensor designed to transmit data of claims 1, 84, and
`86 .............................................................................................. 27 
`A processor of claims 1, 84, and 86 ......................................... 27 
`Processor adapted to be involved in a data generation
`process of claims 1, 84, and 86 ................................................ 28 
`The processor adapted to be involved in an automatic
`recognition process of claims 1, 84, and 86 ............................. 30 
`The processor that is further adapted to be involved in an
`automatic file transfer process ................................................. 44 
`Independent claim 84 (non-overlapping elements with claim 1) ....... 49 
`A processor adapted to cause ADGPD file system
`1. 
`information to be automatically sent to the i/o port ................. 50 
`The file system information comprises at least an
`indication of the type of a file system that is used to store
`the at least one file of digitized analog data in the data
`storage memory ........................................................................ 53 
`At least one parameter is consistent with the ADGPD
`being a mass storage device that operates in a manner
`consistent with a hard disk drive .............................................. 56 
`The processor and the program memory are adapted to be
`configured to cause file allocation table information to be
`sent to the i/o port ..................................................................... 56 
`A processor and a program memory are adapted to be
`configured to cause a virtual boot sequence to be sent to
`the i/o port ................................................................................ 58 
`Independent claim 86 (Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and
`obviousness) ....................................................................................... 61 
`D.  Dependent claim 2 (Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and
`obviousness) ....................................................................................... 63 
`Dependent claim 4 (Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and
`obviousness) ....................................................................................... 63 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`E. 
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`F. 
`
`Dependent claim 5 (Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and
`obviousness) ....................................................................................... 64 
`G.  Dependent claim 8 and 14 (Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and
`obviousness) ....................................................................................... 64 
`H.  Dependent claim 13 (Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and
`obviousness) ....................................................................................... 65 
`Dependent claims 15 and 16 (Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation
`and obviousness) ................................................................................ 65 
`Dependent claims 17-20, 71-74 (Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation
`and obviousness) ................................................................................ 66 
`K.  Dependent claims 27-28, 30-36 44-45, 47-48, 85, 87 (Grounds
`1 and 2: Anticipation and obviousness) ............................................. 67 
`Dependent claim 29 (Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and
`obviousness) ....................................................................................... 71 
`M.  Dependent claim 37 (Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and
`obviousness) ....................................................................................... 71 
`N.  Dependent claim 38 (Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and
`obviousness) ....................................................................................... 72 
`O.  Dependent claim 42 (Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and
`obviousness) ....................................................................................... 72 
`Dependent claims 43 and 46 (Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation
`and obviousness) ................................................................................ 73 
`Q.  Dependent claim 52 (Grounds 1 and 2: Anticipation and
`obviousness) ....................................................................................... 74 
`VIII.  Conclusion .................................................................................................... 75 
`
`I. 
`
`J. 
`
`L. 
`
`P. 
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`APPENDIX OF EXHIBITS
`
`TITLE
`
`Reserved
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,966,144 (“the ’144 patent”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,508,821 to Murata (“Murata”)
`
`Declaration of Dr. Paul F. Reynolds, Ph.D. (“Reynolds Decl.”)
`
`Papst Litigation Claim Constructions
`
`American National Standards Institute, “ANSI X3.131-1994 - Small
`Computer System Interface-2” (1994)
`
`American National Standards Institute, Procedures for the Development
`and Coordination of American National Standards, Approved by the
`ANSI Board of Directors (Sept. 9, 1993).
`
`Ray Duncan, ed., “The MS-DOS Encyclopedia,” Microsoft Press
`(1988)
`
`Frank G. Fiamingo, “Unix System Administration,” The Ohio State
`University (1996)
`
`EXHIBIT
`NO.
`
`1001-
`1100
`
`1101
`
`1102
`
`1103
`
`1104
`
`1105
`
`1106
`
`1107
`
`1108
`
`1109
`
`Declaration of Frank G. Fiamingo, Ph.D. (“Fiamingo Decl.”)
`
`1110
`
`Excerpts from Frisch, “Essential System Administration,” 2nd Edition,
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`O’Reilly & Associates (1995).
`
`1111
`
`1112
`
`1113
`
`1114
`
`1115
`
`1116
`
`1117
`
`1118
`
`1119
`
`1120
`
`1121
`
`Excerpts from McKusick, et al., “Design and Implementation of the
`4.4BSD Operating System,” Addison-Wesley Longman, Inc. (1996)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,731,834 to Huot et al. (“Huot”)
`
`JP H5-344283 to Takahashi (“Takahashi”) (including original certified
`English translation thereof)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,592,256 to Muramatsu (“Muramatsu”)
`
`Excerpt from the Microsoft Computer Dictionary (2nd ed. 1994)
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 11/467,073 (“the ‘073 Application”)
`
`Excerpt from the File History of the ‘073 Application: July 17, 2007
`Supplemental Preliminary Amendment (“7/17/07 Suppl. Prelim.
`Amendment”)
`
`Excerpt from the File History of the ‘073 Application: August 8, 2007
`Supplemental Preliminary Amendment (“8/8/07 Suppl. Prelim.
`Amendment”)
`
`Excerpt from the File History of the ‘073 Application: December 18,
`2007 Supplemental Preliminary Amendment (“12/18/07 Suppl. Prelim.
`Amendment”)
`
`Excerpt from the File History of the ‘073 Application: May 2, 2008
`Amendment (“5/2/08 Amendment”)
`
`Excerpt from the File History of the ‘073 Application: August 18, 2008
`Preliminary Amendment (“8/18/08 Prelim. Amendment”)
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`
`Excerpt from the File History of the ‘073 Application: September 12,
`2008 Amendment (“9/12/08 Amendment”)
`
`Excerpt from the File History of the ‘073 Application: August 13, 2009
`Amendment (“8/13/09 Amendment”)
`
`PCT Patent Application No. PCT/EP98/01187, Published as WO
`98/39710
`
`Excerpt from the File History of the ‘073 Application: December 21,
`2012 Decision on Appeal (“12/21/12 Decision”)
`
`Excerpt from the File History of the ‘073 Application: August 31, 2009
`Supplemental Amendment (“8/31/09 Suppl. Amendment”)
`
`1122
`
`1123
`
`1124
`
`1125
`
`1126
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The ’144 patent describes an interface device designed to facilitate the
`
`transfer of data between a data transmit/receive device and a host computer that
`
`allegedly obviates the need for installation of driver software specific to the data
`
`transmit/receive device on the computer. Ex. 1101 at 1:35-38; 7:17-26.
`
`The ’144 Patent is part of a chain of applications dating back to 1997, which
`
`were acquired in 2006 by Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG (“Papst” or the “Patent
`
`Owner”), a German patent licensing company. Papst has filed multiple patent
`
`infringement suits based on this patent family against Petitioners, and during the past
`
`decade in which those patent suits have been pending, Papst has continued to
`
`serially file continuation applications in an attempt to broaden the claims of its
`
`patents and capture Petitioner’s accused products.
`
`But the patent family to which the ’144 Patent belongs does not cover the
`
`technology that Papst has accused of infringement. Thus, Papst presented claims to
`
`the Patent Office through Application No. 11/467,073 (“the ’073 application”)
`
`(Exhibit 1116), from which the ’144 Patent issued, that are broad in scope, go
`
`beyond what is disclosed in its specification and read directly on the prior art.
`
`Because of this, Papst spent nine years prosecuting the ’073 application, presented
`
`326 different claims for consideration, and submitted fourteen different
`
`amendments, until it ultimately achieved issuance in 2015.
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`Based on the presented grounds, the Board should institute Inter Partes
`
`Review of the ’144 patent and cancel the challenged claims.
`
`II. Grounds for Standing Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a)
`
`Petitioners certify that the ’144 patent is available for inter partes review and
`
`that Petitioners are not barred or estopped from requesting inter partes review
`
`challenging the claims on the grounds identified herein.
`
`III. Background Information for the ’144 Patent
`
`A. Overview of the ’144 Patent Family and Prosecution History
`The ’073 application was filed on August 24, 2006, and issued almost nine
`
`years later on February 24, 2015 as the ’144 patent. Ex. 1101. The ’144 patent
`
`stems from the fourth application filed in a family of seven U.S. non-provisional
`
`applications. The ’144 patent’s written description describes a device alleged to
`
`facilitate the transfer of data between a data transmit/receive device from which data
`
`is to be acquired and a host computer. Id. at 1:18-22. The written description states
`
`that, while interface devices were known at the time of the invention, existing
`
`devices had limitations, including disadvantageous sacrifices of data-transfer speed
`
`or of flexibility as to which computers and data devices they were compatible. Id. at
`
`1:26-2:19. The ’144 patent purports to describe an interface device to overcome
`
`these limitations.
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`Normally, when a computer detects that a new device has been connected to
`
`one of its input-output (i/o) ports: the host asks the new device what type of device it
`
`is; the connected device responds; the host determines whether it already possesses
`
`drivers for the identified type of device; and if it does not, an appropriate driver must
`
`be installed on the host and loaded into memory before proceeding. In the ’144
`
`patent family, however, when the interface device is connected between a data
`
`transmit/receive device and a host, the interface device responds to the host’s request
`
`for identification by stating that it is a type of device, such as a hard drive, for which
`
`the computer already has a driver. By purposefully mis-identifying itself to the host
`
`as to the type of device the host is communicating with, the interface device induces
`
`the host to treat it like a device already familiar to the host. Thereafter, when the
`
`host communicates with the interface device to request data from or control the
`
`operation of the data device, the host uses its customary driver. Ex. 1103, ¶¶ 38-44;
`
`Ex. 1101 at 3:29-4:41.
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`FIG. 1 is a block diagram of the interface device that includes a first connecting
`
`device 12 for connecting to the host computer and a second connecting device 15 for
`
`connecting to the data transmit/receive device. A digital signal processor 13 and a
`
`memory 14 manage communications between the computer and the data
`
`transmit/receive device. Ex. 1101 at 4:62-5:10.
`
`
`
`The prosecution history of the ’144 patent was lengthy, with Papst cancelling
`
`all of the pending claims seven times, replacing them with new sets of claims. See
`
`Exs. 1117-1118. Eight interviews were held, and over the course of the 14
`
`responses submitted by Papst, 131 pages of arguments were piled on the Examiner,
`
`mostly arguing why certain camera-based prior art did not render the claims
`
`obvious.
`
`
`
`Based on Papst’s focus on digital camera prior art and burying of relevant
`
`references in a pile of over 600, the Examiner was diverted from focusing on certain
`
`highly relevant prior art to the claims of the ’144 patent. The Board ultimately
`
`allowed the ‘144 patent because the cited references failed to show: “a peripheral
`
`processor which executes an instruction set causing identification information to be
`
`sent to a host processor, as set forth in independent claims 237, 321, and 323.” Ex.
`
`1125 at 7.
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`
`IV.
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`Identification of Challenge Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)
`A.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(1): Claims for Which Inter Partes Review
`
`Is Requested
`
`Inter partes review is requested for claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 13-20, 27-38, 42-48,
`
`52, 71-74, and 84-86 of the ’144 patent (collectively the “Challenged Claims”).
`
`B.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(2): The Prior Art and Specific Grounds on
`
`Which the Challenge to the Claims Is Based
`
`The one-year time bar under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b) is measured from the
`
`effective U.S. filing date of the ‘144 patent, which is March 3, 1998, the date of the
`
`PCT application to which the ‘144 patent claims priority (PCT/EP98/01187). Exs.
`
`1101, 1124.
`
`Inter partes review is requested in view of the below references and the prior
`
`art discussed in the ’144 patent (“Admitted Art”):
`
` U.S. Patent No. 5,508,821 to Murata (“Murata”) (Ex. 1102). Murata was
`
`filed on March 23, 1993 and issued on April 16, 1996, and is prior art to
`
`the ’144 patent under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
` American National Standards Institute, “ANSI X3.131-1994 - Small
`
`Computer System Interface-2” (“SCSI Reference”) (Ex. 1105). The SCSI
`
`Reference was published by the American National Standards Institute in
`
`1994, more than one year before the earliest claimed priority date of the
`
`’144 Patent. Ex. 1105 at 3; Ex. 1106 at 17-18 (detailing ANSI publication
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`requirements met by the SCSI Specification). This reference is § 102(b)
`
`prior art because it was published more than one year before the ’144
`
`patent’s effective U.S. filing date.
`
` The MS-DOS Encyclopedia by Ray Duncan, General Editor (“MS-DOS
`
`Reference”) (Ex. 1107) was published in 1988. This reference is § 102(b)
`
`prior art because it was published more than one year before the ’144
`
`patent’s effective U.S. filing date.
`
` Frank G. Fiamingo, “Unix System Administration,” The Ohio State
`
`University (“UNIX-A Reference”) (Ex. 1108) was published in 1996. See
`
`Ex. 1109, Fiamingo Decl. This reference is § 102(b) prior art because it
`
`was published more than one year before the ’144 patent’s effective U.S.
`
`filing date.
`
` Frisch, “Essential System Administration”, 2nd Edition, O’Reilly &
`
`Associates (“UNIX-B Reference”) (Ex. 1110) was published in 1995.
`
`This reference is § 102(b) prior art because it was published more than one
`
`year before the ’144 patent’s effective U.S. filing date.
`
` McKusick, et al., “Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating
`
`System,” Addison-Wesley Longman, Inc. (“UNIX-C Reference”) (Ex.
`
`1111) was published in 1996). This reference is § 102(b) prior art because
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`it was published more than one year before the ’144 patent’s effective U.S.
`
`filing date.
`
`Petitioners herein refer to the SCSI, MS-DOS, UNIX-A, UNIX-B, and
`
`UNIX-C References as the “Basic SCSI/DOS/UNIX References.”
`
`Petitioners ask that the Board find all Challenged Claims unpatentable under
`
`both: §102(b) as anticipated by Murata (“Ground 1”), and (2) §103 as obvious over
`
`Murata in view of the Admitted Art and the Basic SCSI/DOS/UNIX References
`
`(“Ground 2”).
`
`C.
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
`A claim subject to inter partes review shall be given “its broadest reasonable
`
`construction in light of the specification of the patent in which it appears” to one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.100(b) and 42.103(b)(3); In re Cuozzo
`
`Speed Techs., LLC, 778 F.3d 1271, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Petitioner expressly
`
`reserves its right to advance different constructions in district court litigation, which
`
`employs a different claim construction standard.
`
`For purposes of this proceeding only, Petitioners propose adopting, as the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim terms, the following claim
`
`constructions proposed by Papst in related litigation in the District of Columbia (Ex.
`
`1104):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`
`Claim Term
`
`“automatic recognition process”
`
`Adopted BRI
`
`“process by which
`
`the
`
`computer
`
`recognizes the ADGPD upon connection
`
`with the computer without requiring any
`
`user intervention other than to start the
`
`process”
`
`“without requiring any end user to load
`
`“without requiring the end user to install
`
`any software onto
`
`the [first/second]
`
`or load specific drivers or software for
`
`computer at any time”
`
`the [ADGPD/analog data acquisition
`
`
`
`device/analog data
`
`acquisition
`
`and
`
`“without requiring any user-loaded file
`
`interface device] beyond that included in
`
`transfer enabling software to be loaded
`
`the operating system or BIOS”
`
`on or installed in the computer at any
`
`time”
`
`“processor”
`
`“any kind of microprocessor, including
`
`a digital signal processor”
`
`In addition to the above terms, Petitioners propose the following construction
`
`as the broadest reasonable interpretation:
`
`“customary driver”
`
`“driver normally part of commercially
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`
`available computer systems at the time of
`
`the invention”
`
`In the related district court litigation, Petitioners and Papst disagree as to
`
`whether the phrase “at the time of the invention” should be included in the
`
`construction. It is a fundamental notion of patent law, however, that “[a] claim
`
`cannot have different meanings at different times; its meaning must be interpreted as
`
`of its effective filing date.” PC Connector Solutions. LLC v. SmartDisk Corp., 406
`
`F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Circ. 2005); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1333 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Even though Papst’s construction is incorrect for a number
`
`of reasons, the construction of the term “customary driver” does not affect the result
`
`that Murata anticipates and/or renders obvious the Challenged Claims. That is
`
`because Murata discloses the use of drivers that were customary prior to, at, and
`
`after the time of invention, and therefore meet this term under any construction.
`
`In addition, the term “end user” should be construed as an actual end user, as
`
`opposed to a system administrator or manufacturer. In amendments dated August
`
`13, 2009, the Applicant amended the claims to change the term “user” to “end user.”
`
`Ex. 1123. These amendments were made in order to try to overcome cited prior art
`
`references (Hashimoto, Smith, Ristelhueber, Kerigan, and Shinohara), as explained
`
`by Patent Owner in the Remarks section of the Response filed on August 13, 2009,
`
`at page 25. See id. 24-27, 29-30, 36 (e.g., arguing at 29 that cited references do not
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`contain “any disclosure of a peripheral device complying with the protocols of a
`
`generic class of devices that respond to a generic driver already present on a PC
`
`when the PC was purchased by its first end user.”).
`
`D.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4): How the Construed Claims are
`
`Unpatentable
`
`
`
`An explanation of how the Challenged Claims are unpatentable, including
`
`identification of how each claim feature is found in the prior art, is set forth in
`
`Sections VI and VII.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(5): Supporting Evidence
`
`E.
`An Appendix of Exhibits supporting this Petition is included. Included at
`
`Exhibit 1103 is a Declaration of Dr. Paul F. Reynolds. In addition, the relevance of
`
`the evidence to the challenged claims, including an identification of the specific
`
`portions of the evidence supporting the challenge, is included in Sections VI and
`
`VII.
`
`V. Mandatory Notices Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(1), the mandatory notices identified in 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.8(b) are provided below as part of this Petition.
`
`A. C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1): Real Parties-In-Interest
`The following are the Petitioners and real parties-in-interest: Canon Inc.;
`
`Canon USA, Inc.; Canon Financial Services, Inc.; FUJIFILM Corporation;
`
`FUJIFILM Holdings America Corporation; FUJIFILM North America Corporation;
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`JVC KENWOOD Corporation; JVCKENWOOD USA Corporation; Nikon
`
`Corporation; Nikon Inc.; Olympus Corporation; Olympus America Inc.; Panasonic
`
`Corporation; Panasonic Corporation of North America; Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`Ltd.; and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`In addition, out of an abundance of caution, Petitioners bring to the Board’s
`
`attention Hanwha Techwin Co., Ltd. (f/k/a Samsung Techwin Co., Ltd.); Samsung
`
`Opto-Electronics America, Inc.; Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.; Sanyo North America
`
`Corp.; and HP Inc. (f/k/a/ Hewlett-Packard Company), who are co-defendants with
`
`some of the Petitioners in the pending multi-district litigation identified below but
`
`are not real parties-in-interest to this proceeding. None of these parties financed or
`
`controlled this petition (or had the opportunity to exercise control over this petition)
`
`or otherwise meets the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2).
`
`B. C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(2): Related Matters
`To the best knowledge of Petitioners, the ’144 Patent is involved in the
`
`following litigations and matters:
`
`Case Name
`
`Case No.
`
`Court
`
`In
`
`re: Papst Licensing Digital
`
`1:07-mc-00493 D.D.C.
`
`
`Filed
`
`Nov. 16, 2007
`
`Camera Patent Litigation – MDL No.
`
`1880
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`3:16-cv-00575 N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2016
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`HP Inc.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01095 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01099 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`LG Electronics, Inc. et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01100 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`ZTE Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01102 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01111 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`Lenovo (United States) Inc. et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`6:15-cv-01115 E.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2015
`
`Huawei Technologies, et al.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-01692 D.D.C.
`
`Oct. 15, 2015
`
`Canon Inc. et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-01693 D.D.C.
`
`Oct. 15, 2015
`
`FUJIFILM Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. 1:15-cv-01747 D.D.C.
`
`Oct. 15, 2015
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`
`JVCKENWOOD Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-01748 D.D.C.
`
`Oct. 15, 2015
`
`Nikon Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-01749 D.D.C.
`
`Oct. 15, 2015
`
`Olympus Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-01750 D.D.C.
`
`Oct. 15, 2015
`
`Panasonic Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00495 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`Canon Inc. et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00496 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`FUJIFILM Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00497 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`HP Inc.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00498 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`JVCKENWOOD Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00499 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`Nikon Corporation et al
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`1:15-cv-00500 D. Del.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`Olympus Corporation et al
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`1:15-cv-00501 D. Del.
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v.
`
`June 15, 2015
`
`Panasonic Corporation et al
`
`Hewlett-Packard Company v. Papst
`
`3:15-cv-02101 N.D. Cal. May 8, 2015
`
`Licensing GmbH & Co. KG
`
`
`Additionally, Petitioners are filing additional petitions for inter partes review
`
`of the ’144 patent, and for the following patent, which is related to the ’144 patent:
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,504,746.
`
`C. C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) and (4): Lead and Back-up Counsel and
`
`Service Information
`
`Petitioners provide the following designation of counsel:
`
`Lead Counsel
`Dion M. Bregman
`
`Back-up Counsel
`Andrew V. Devkar (pro hac vice
`
`Reg. No. 45,645
`
`application to be submitted)
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`
`1400 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA
`
`1601 Cloverfield Blvd., Suite 2050N
`
`94304.
`
`Santa Monica, CA 90404-4082
`
`Telephone: 650.843.7519
`
`Telephone: 310-255-9070
`
`Facsimile: 650.843.4001
`
`Facsimile: 310-907-2000
`
`dion.bregman@morganlewis.com
`
`andrew.devkar@morganlewis.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`
`Chris Mizumoto
`
`Reg. No. 42,899
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`
`24th Floor, Roppongi Hills Mori Tower
`
`6-10-1, Roppongi, Minato-ku
`
`Tokyo 106-6124, Japan
`
`Telephone: +83.3.4578.2505
`
`Facsimile: +81.3.4578.2501
`
`chris.mizumoto@morganlewis.com
`
`
`
`Ahren C. Hsu-Hoffman
`
`Reg. No. 50,862
`
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`
`1400 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA
`
`94304.
`
`Telephone: 650.843.7250
`
`Facsimile: 650.843.4001
`
`ahren.hsu-hoffman@morganlewis.com
`
`
`
`T. Vann Pearce, Jr.
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`
`Reg. No. 58,945
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`
`1152 15th Street, N.W.
`
`Washington, DC 20005-1706
`
`Telephone: (202) 339-8400
`
`Facsimile: (202) 339-8500
`
`vpearce@orrick.com
`
`
`
`Christopher J. Higgins
`
`Reg. No. 66,422
`
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`
`1152 15th Street, N.W.
`
`Washington, DC 20005-1706
`
`Telephone: (202) 339-8400
`
`Facsimile: (202) 339-8500
`
`chiggins@orrick.com
`
`
`
`Gregory S. Cordrey (Reg. No. 44,089)
`
`Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP
`
`3 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`Telephone: 949-623-7200
`
`Facsimile: 949-623-7201
`
`gcordrey@jmbm.com
`
`
`
`Rachel Capoccia (pro hac vice application
`
`to be submitted)
`
`Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP
`
`1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th floor
`
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`
`Telephone: 310-203-8080
`
`Facsimile: 310-203-0567
`
`rcapoccia@jmbm.com
`
`
`
`David L. Witcoff (Reg. No. 31,443)
`
`JONES DAY
`
`77 West Wacker
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60601-1692
`
`Telephone: 312- 269-4259
`
`Facsimile: 312- 782-8585
`
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`
`dlwitcoff@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`Marc S. Blackman (Reg. No. 43,501)
`
`JONES DAY
`
`77 West Wacker
`
`Chicago, Illinois 60601-1692
`
`Telephone: 312- 269-4369
`
`Facsimile: 312-782-8585
`
`msblackman@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`David M. Maiorana (Reg. No. 41,449)
`
`JONES DAY
`
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1190
`
`Telephone: (216) 586-7499
`
`Fax: (216) 579-0212
`
`dmaiorana@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`F. Drexel Feeling (Reg. No. 40,602)
`
`JONES DAY
`
`-18-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`
`901 Lakeside Avenue
`
`Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1190
`
`Telephone: (216) 586-7199
`
`Fax: (216) 579-0212
`
`f.dfeeling@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`Matthew W. Johnson (Reg. No. 59,108)
`
`JONES DAY
`
`500 Grant Street, Suite 4500
`
`Pittsburgh, PA 15219-2514
`
`Telephone: (412) 394-9524
`
`Fax: (412) 394-7959
`
`mwjohnson@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`Brian C. Rupp (Reg. No. 35,665)
`
`DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`
`191 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 3700
`
`Chicago, IL 60606
`
`Telephone: 312-569-1000
`
`Facsimile: 312-569-3000
`
`
`
`
`-19-
`
`
`
`

`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,966,144
`
`
`Brian.Rupp@dbr.com
`
`
`
`Carrie A. Beyer (Reg. No. 59,195)
`
`DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`
`191 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 3700
`
`Chicago, IL 60606
`
`Telephone: 312-569-1000
`
`Facsimile: 312-569-3000
`
`Carrie.Beyer@dbr.com
`
`
`
`Nikola Colic (Reg. No. 62,412)
`
`DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
`
`1500 K Street, N.W. , Suite 1100
`
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`Telephone: 202-230-5115
`
`Facsimile: 202-842-8465
`
`Nick.Colic@dbr.com
`
`
`Powers of Attorney accompany this Petition. Please address all
`
`correspondence to lead and back-up counsel. Petitioners consent to service by
`
`email at: PapstPTABPetit