Bomtech Electronics, Co. Ltd. v Medium-Tech Medizingeräte GMBHDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 22, 201409671650 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2014) Copy Citation Trials@uspto.gov Paper 8 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: April 22, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _______________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _______________ BOMTECH ELECTRONICS, CO. LTD. Petitioner v. MEDIUM-TECH MEDIZINGERÄTE GMBH Patent Owner _______________ Case IPR2014-00137 Patent 6,345,553 B1 _______________ Before KARL D. EASTHOM, BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, and PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review 37 C.F.R. § 42.108 Case IPR2014-00137 Patent 6,345,553 B1 2 I. INTRODUCTION A. Background Petitioner filed a Petition to institute an inter partes review of claims 1–14, 22, 23, 26–28, and 30 of U.S. Patent No. 6,345,553. Paper 3 (“Pet.”); Ex. 1002 (“the ’553 Patent”). Patent Owner filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). The Board has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 314. The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), which provides as follows: THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition. On this record, Petitioner does not establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim of the ’553 Patent. Accordingly, we deny the Petition and declines to institute an inter partes review of the ’553 Patent. B. Related Proceedings Petitioner filed a Petition requesting review of U.S. Patent No. 6,505,530 B2 (“the ’530 Patent”) in IPR2014-00138. The ’553 Patent claims foreign priority to German Patent No. DE 299 19 199 U1, while the ’530 Patent claims continuity to the ’553 Patent and foreign priority to the German patent. The ’530 Patent and the ’553 Patent are asserted against Petitioner in Medium-Tech Medizingeräte GmbH Case IPR2014-00137 Patent 6,345,553 B1 3 v. Bomtech Electronics Co., No. 1:13-cv-2933 (E.D.N.Y. filed May 17, 2013). See Ex. 1001. C. The ’553 Patent The ’553 Patent describes an ink application device for tattooing or applying permanent make-up. The device includes a removable, sterile, disposable module, which releasably attaches to a reusable basic module. The disposable module includes a needle, an ink reservoir, and a diaphragm to seal the ink in the disposable module. The reusable basic module functions as a handle and a drive for the needle. Ex. 1002, Abstract; col. 1, ll. 7–11; col. 2, ll. 13–49. Figure 2 from the ’553 Patent follows: Figure 2 depicts disposable module 1, 2, and basic module 20. In disposable module 1, 2, resilient diaphragm 5 and bearing 4 prevent ink from leaking from ink chamber 14 into basic module 20. Id. at col. 4, ll. 9–22. Collar 6 covers a hole for Case IPR2014-00137 Patent 6,345,553 B1 4 introducing ink into chamber 14 of disposable module 1, 2. Id. at col. 3, l. 63–col. 4, l. 5. Basic module 20 includes drive 21 (attached to 31) for driving needle shaft 12 (not shown) of needle 3 in disposable module 1, 2. Id. at col. 3, ll. 41–46; col. 4, ll. 23–31. Figure 3 from the ’553 Patent, depicting the disposable module, follows: Figure 3 depicts ink module 11 attached to removable, disposable module 1, 2, which, as noted above, includes ink chamber 14, needle shaft 13, and diaphragm 5. In operation, removing needle cap 9 allows ink to exit, via movement of needle 3, through needle nozzle 8. Id. at col. 1, ll. 46–50; col. 4, ll. 38–46. Independent claims 1, 10, 27, and 30 follow: Case IPR2014-00137 Patent 6,345,553 B1 5 1. An ink application device for tattooing or for making permanent make-up, comprising: a basic module having a handle and an integrated needle drive; and a sterilized disposable module having a housing that includes a needle disposed therein, a needle nozzle disposed on one end of the sterilized disposable module, another end of the sterilized disposable module having a portion that is connectable to the integrated needle drive through a resilient diaphragm, and a bearing element disposed inside the housing and supporting the needle in the housing so that the needle, the diaphragm, the bearing element and the housing form a unit that is detachable from the basic module, whereby all components of the device that could be infected by the bodily fluids of a user are integrated into the sterilized disposable module. 10. An ink application device for tattooing or for making permanent make-up comprising: a basic module having a handle and an integrated needle drive; a sterilized disposable module having a needle disposed therein, a needle nozzle disposed on one end of the sterilized disposable module, and another end of the sterilized disposable module having a portion that is connectable to the integrated needle drive, whereby all components of the device that could be infected by the bodily fluids of a user are integrated into the sterilized disposable module; and a resilient diaphragm disposed between an ink tank and the basic module so as to prevent ink from passing from the ink tank to the basic module. 27. A sterilized disposable module for an ink application device for tattooing or for making permanent make-up, the module having a housing that includes a needle Case IPR2014-00137 Patent 6,345,553 B1 6 disposed therein, a needle nozzle disposed on one end of the sterilized disposable module, another end of the sterilized disposable module having a portion that is connectable to an integrated needle drive through a resilient diaphragm, and a bearing element disposed inside the housing and supporting the needle in the housing so that the needle, the diaphragm, the bearing element and the housing form a unit that is attachable to an ink application device. 30. A sterilized disposable module for an ink application device for tattooing or for making permanent make-up, the module having a housing that includes a needle disposed therein, a needle nozzle disposed on one end of the sterilized disposable module, another end of the sterilized disposable module having a portion that is connectable to an integrated needle drive, and a resilient diaphragm disposed between a front housing part and a rear housing part. D. References Petitioner relies upon the following references: Theiss et al. US 6,033,421 Mar. 7, 2000 Ex. 1005 Zhan TW 326643B Feb. 11, 1998 Ex. 1006 1 Trott et al. US 4,796,624 Jan. 10, 1989 Ex. 1007 Stocking et al. US 5,704,914 Jan. 6, 1998 Ex. 1008 1 Exhibit 1006 includes both the foreign publication and an English translation thereof. References to page and line numbers are made with respect to the English translation. Case IPR2014-00137 Patent 6,345,553 B1 7 Proni US 5,580,030 Dec. 3, 1996 Ex. 1009 Chou US 5,586,473 Dec. 24, 1996 Ex. 1010 Hsieh US 5,741,290 Apr. 21, 1998 Ex. 1011 Beuchat US 4,671,277 June 9, 1987 Ex. 1012 Bailey US 4,582,060 Apr. 15, 1986 Ex. 1013 E. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability Petitioner asserts the unpatentability of claims 1–14, 22, 23, 26–28, and 30 based on the following grounds: Reference(s) Basis Under 35 U.S.C. Claims Challenged Theiss § 102(e) 1–4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 22, 23, 26–28, and 30 Zhan § 102(b) 1–4, 10–14, 22, 23, 26–28, and 30 Trott § 102(b) 1–4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 22, 23, 26–28, and 30 Theiss and Zhan § 103 1–4, 10–14, 22, 23, 26–28, and 30 Theiss and Trott § 103 1–4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 22, 23, 26–28, and 30 Theiss and Stocking § 103 1–4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 22, 23, 26–28, and 30 Theiss and Proni § 103 1–4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 22, 23, 26–28, and 30 Chou and Zhan § 103 1–4, 10–14, 22, 23, 26–28, and 30 Hsieh and Zhan § 103 1–4, 10–14, 22, 23, 26–28, and 30 Zhan and Beuchat § 103 5–9 Thiess and Bailey § 103 13, 14, and 23 See Pet. 3–4. Case IPR2014-00137 Patent 6,345,553 B1 8 II. DISCUSSION A. Claim Construction Consistent with the statute and the legislative history of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), the Board construes the claims of an unexpired patent using the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b); Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Claim terms carry their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in question and in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Any special definition for a claim term must be set forth in the specification with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 1. “sterilized disposable module” Each of the claims of the ’553 Patent requires a “sterilized disposable module.” Petitioner does not propose any claim construction for the term “sterilized,” in either the Petition or the Declaration of Matthew Stein (Ex. 1022) (“Decl.”), which Petitioner submits in support of the Petition. Patent Owner does not propose any claim construction for the term “sterilized.” As pointed out by Patent Owner, however, the term “sterilized” has as ordinary and customary meaning different from mere disinfection. See Prelim. Resp. 18. According to an applicable definition in a technical dictionary, “sterilized” is a form of the verb “sterilize,” which is defined as “[t]o make free from live bacteria or other microorganisms.” THE AMERICAN HERITAGE® STEDMAN’S MEDICAL DICTIONARY Case IPR2014-00137 Patent 6,345,553 B1 9 (2002), http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sterilize (last visited April 10, 2014). Ex. 3001. We note that this definition is in contrast to that of the verb “disinfect,” which is defined as “[t]o cleanse something so as to destroy or prevent the growth of disease-carrying microorganisms.” Id. at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disinfected (last visited April 10, 2014). Ex. 3002. Therefore, for the purposes of this Decision, “sterilized” means “free from all live bacteria and microorganisms, not just disease-carrying microorganisms.” Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposes any claim construction for the term “disposable.” The ordinary and customary definition of the noun “disposable,” as set forth in a dictionary, is “designed to be used once and then thrown away.” MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S ADVANCED LEARNER’S ENGLISH DICTIONARY 481 (2008). Ex. 3003. This definition is consistent with the use of the term in the specification of the ’553 Patent, which describes disposable components as being thrown away after one use, and which contrasts such components with parts that are used several times. See Ex. 1002, Abstract; col. 1, ll. 33–36; col. 2, ll. 30–45. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner proposes any claim construction for the term “module.” The ordinary and customary definition of the noun “module,” as set forth in a dictionary, is “one of a set of parts that can be connected or combined to build or complete something.” MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S ADVANCED LEARNER’S ENGLISH DICTIONARY 1047 (2008). Ex. 3004. Examples of modules include “factories that build engines, transmissions, brakes, and other modules for cars,” or a “memory module for storing information.” Id. Therefore, a module is a set of Case IPR2014-00137 Patent 6,345,553 B1 10 parts that is connectable to something else. This definition is consistent with the use of the term in the ’553 Patent, which describes a set of parts that is “releasably connected” to a basic module in order to form a complete ink application device. Ex. 1002, Abstract; col. 1, ll. 33–36; col. 2, ll. 30–45. Although the three terms (i.e., “sterilized,” “disposable,” and “module”) in isolation may be defined as they are above, Petitioner has not identified the meaning of the three terms when combined together (i.e., a “sterilized disposable module”) beyond the terms’ individual meanings. Petitioner has the burden to identify “how the challenged claim is to be construed.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3). We therefore adopt these meanings for purposes of this decision (i.e., “sterilized” as “free from all live bacteria and microorganisms, not just disease-carrying microorganisms,” “disposable” as “designed to be used once and then thrown away,” and “module” as “one of a set of parts that can be connected or combined to build or complete something”). B. Anticipation 1. Theiss Petitioner contends that Theiss anticipates claims 1–4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 22, 23, 26–28, and 30. Pet. 15–27. Petitioner identifies how the claims allegedly read on Theiss’s tattooing device. Id. at 18-27 (citing Ex. 1005). Nevertheless, Petitioner does not identify sufficiently where Theiss allegedly teaches a “sterilized disposable module,” as required by all of the challenged claims. For example, the claim charts identifying how independent claims 1 and 10 read on Theiss fail to address how Theiss teaches the “sterilized” limitation. See id. at 19–20, 22–23. Although the Declaration of Matthew Stein contends that column 3, lines 10–12 of Case IPR2014-00137 Patent 6,345,553 B1 11 Theiss teaches a sterilized module (Ex. 1022, 8), this portion of Theiss does not state that anything is sterilized, but only describes removal and replacement of a driven grip tube from a drive unit housing. Ex. 1008, col. 3, ll. 10-12. Patent Owner points out Petitioner’s deficiency, and thus contends that the Petition does not demonstrate that Theiss teaches a “sterilized disposable module.” See Prelim. Resp. 12–14. We agree with Patent Owner. Based on the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that any of claims 1–4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 22, 23, 26–28, and 30 are unpatentable over Theiss. 2. Zhan Petitioner contends that Zhan anticipates claims 1–4, 10–14, 22, 23, 26–28, and 30. Pet. 27–34. Petitioner identifies how the claims allegedly read on Zahn’s tattooing device. Id. at 28–34 (citing Ex. 1006). Petitioner does not identify sufficiently, however, where Zahn allegedly teaches a “sterilized disposable module.” For example, the claim charts identifying how claims 1–4, 11–14, 22, 23, 26, and 28 read on Zahn fail to address how Zahn teaches the “sterilized” limitation. See id. at 28–29, 32–34. The Declaration of Matthew Stein does not allege clearly that Zahn teaches the “sterilized” limitation, much less identify with specificity where Zahn does so. See Ex. 1022 at 12. Thus, Petitioner has not established that Zahn teaches a “sterilized disposable module.” Based on the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that any of claims 1–4, 10–14, 22, 23, 26–28, and 30 are unpatentable over Zhan. Case IPR2014-00137 Patent 6,345,553 B1 12 3. Trott Petitioner contends that Trott anticipates claims 1–4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 22, 23, 26–28, and 30. Pet. 34–39. Petitioner identifies how the claims allegedly read on Trott’s tattooing device. Id. at 35–39 (citing Ex. 1007). Specifically, Petitioner provides the following quote from Trott as teaching the “sterilized disposable module” limitation: The end member 16 comprises a needle guide 62 shown as a tubular metallic member secured to an outer end 64 of the end member 16. . . . The end member 16 is preferably made of a unitary plastic material which is received within the second end 52 of the body member 14. . . . The needle guide 62 slidably mounts the needle means 18 therein and provides a guide for the reciprocating needle means 18. Pet. 35 (citing Ex. 1007, col. 5, ll. 9-14, 16-19). Petitioner has not persuaded us that Trott teaches the “sterilized disposable module” limitation. As set forth above in the claim construction section, Petitioner has not explained how the limitation of a “sterilized disposable module” is to be construed, much less explained how the structure it identifies above in Trott as corresponding to that limitation is either “disposable” or a “module.” Petitioner merely states that end member 16 “can be a disposable unit,” because it is “preferably made of a unitary plastic material which is received within the second end 52 of the body member 14.” Id. This statement is not persuasive, because it does not address all of the structure identified above in Trott, and does not explain why being made of a “unitary plastic material” suggests that the structure in Trott is “disposable” or a “module.” Further, Petitioner does not establish that the structure identified above in Trott ever exists as a “sterilized disposable module”— Case IPR2014-00137 Patent 6,345,553 B1 13 that is, that Trott teaches “a set of parts that can be connected . . .” (i.e., before connection) which is “free from all live bacteria and microorganisms . . .” and is “designed to be used once and then thrown away.” Moreover, in the claim charts identifying how claims 1–4, 11, 13, 14, 22, 23, 26, and 28 read on Trott, there is only one reference to where Trott allegedly teaches that a component is “sterilized,” and it is not in the context of the “sterilized disposable module” limitation. See id. at 35–36, 38–39 (citing Ex. 1007, col. 3, ll. 10–12). This cited portion of Trott states in its entirety that “[t]he apparatus may be also specifically designed to be easily sterilized and to be transported in a sterile container.” At best, this teaches that Trott’s entire apparatus is sterilized, but does not address specifically the structure identified above in Trott as teaching the “sterilized disposable module” or explain why this structure should be considered a “sterilized disposable module.” Based on the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that any of claims 1–4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 22, 23, 26–28, and 30 are unpatentable over Trott. C. Obviousness 1. Theiss and Zhan, Trott, Stocking, or Proni Petitioner contends that Theiss and Zhan render obvious claims 1–4, 10–14, 22, 23, 26–28, and 30. Pet. 39–41 (citing Ex. 1005; Ex. 1006). For the reasons discussed above in sections B.1. and B.2., Petitioner has not established that either Theiss or Zhan teaches a “sterilized disposable module.” Further, neither the Petition nor the Declaration of Matthew Stein proposes combining elements of Theiss and Zhan to result in such a module. Instead, Petitioner proposes Case IPR2014-00137 Patent 6,345,553 B1 14 incorporating the seal of Zahn into the device of Theiss. Thus, Petitioner has not established that the combination teaches a “sterilized disposable module.” See Prelim. Resp. 23–24. Petitioner contends that Theiss and Trott render obvious claims 1–4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 22, 23, 26–28, and 30. Pet. 41–42 (citing Ex. 1005; Ex. 1007). For the reasons discussed above in sections B.1. and B.3., Petitioner has not established that either Theiss or Trott teaches a “sterilized disposable module.” Further, neither the Petition nor the Declaration of Matthew Stein proposes combining elements of Theiss and Trott to result in such a module. Instead, Petitioner proposes incorporating the seal of Trott into the device of Theiss. See id.; see also Ex. 1022, 24–25. Thus, Petitioner has not established that the combination teaches a “sterilized disposable module.” Petitioner contends that Theiss and Stocking render obvious claims 1–4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 22, 23, 26–28, and 30. Pet. 42–43 (citing Ex. 1005; Ex. 1008). For the reasons discussed in section B.1., Petitioner has not established that Theiss teaches a “sterilized disposable module.” Further, neither the Petition nor the Declaration of Matthew Stein alleges that Stocking teaches such a module, or that elements of Theiss and Stocking could be combined to result in a “sterilized disposable module.” Instead, Petitioner proposes incorporating the diaphragm of Stocking into the device of Theiss. See id.; see also Ex. 1022, 25–26. Thus, Petitioner has not established that the combination teaches a “sterilized disposable module.” See Prelim. Resp. 33. Petitioner contends that Theiss and Proni render obvious claims 1–4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 22, 23, 26–28, and 30. Pet. 44–45 (citing Ex. 1005; Ex. 1009). For the Case IPR2014-00137 Patent 6,345,553 B1 15 reasons discussed in section B.1., Petitioner has not established that Theiss teaches a “sterilized disposable module.” Further, neither the Petition nor the Declaration of Matthew Stein alleges that Proni teaches such a module, or that elements of Theiss and Proni could be combined to result in a “sterilized disposable module.” Petitioner instead proposes incorporating the diaphragm of Proni into the device of Theiss. See id.; see also Ex. 1022, 26–27. Thus, Petitioner has not established that the combination teaches a “sterilized disposable module.” See Prelim. Resp. 36. Based on the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that: any of claims 1–4, 10–14, 22, 23, 26–28, and 30 are unpatentable over Theiss and Zahn; any of claims 1–4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 22, 23, 26– 28, and 30 are unpatentable over Theiss and Trott; any of claims 1–4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 22, 23, 26–28, and 30 are unpatentable over Theiss and Stocking; or any of claims 1–4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 22, 23, 26–28, and 30 are unpatentable over Theiss and Proni. 2. Chou and Zhan Petitioner contends that Chou and Zhan render obvious claims 1–4, 10–14, 22, 23, 26–28, and 30. Pet. 45–46 (citing Ex. 1010; Ex. 1006). For the reasons discussed in section B.2., Petitioner has not established that Zhan teaches a “sterilized disposable module.” Further, neither the Petition nor the Declaration of Matthew Stein alleges that Chou teaches such a module, or that elements of Chou and Zhan could be combined to result in a “sterilized disposable module.” Instead, Petitioner proposes incorporating the diaphragm of Chou into the device of Zhan. See id.; see also Ex. 1022, 27–28. Thus, Petitioner has not established that the combination teaches a “sterilized disposable module.” See Prelim. Resp. 38-39. Case IPR2014-00137 Patent 6,345,553 B1 16 Based on the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that any of claims 1–4, 10–14, 22, 23, 26–28, and 30 are unpatentable over Chou and Zahn. 3. Hsieh and Zhan Petitioner contends that Hsieh and Zhan render obvious claims 1–4, 10–14, 22, 23, 26–28, and 30. Pet. 46–50 (citing Ex. 1011; Ex. 1006). For the reasons discussed in section B.2., Petitioner has not established that Zhan teaches a “sterilized disposable module.” Further, neither the Petition nor the Declaration of Matthew Stein alleges that Hsieh teaches such a module, or that elements of Hsieh and Zhan could be combined to result in a “sterilized disposable module.” Instead, Petitioner proposes incorporating the diaphragm of Hsieh into the device of Zhan. See id.; see also Ex. 1022, 28–29. Thus, Petitioner has not established that the combination teaches a “sterilized disposable module.” See Prelim. Resp. 42. Based on the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that any of claims 1–4, 10–14, 22, 23, 26–28, and 30 are unpatentable over Hsieh and Zahn. 4. Zhan and Beuchat Petitioner contends that Zhan and Beuchat render obvious claims 5–9. Pet. 50–54 (citing Ex. 1006; Ex. 1012). For the reasons discussed in section B.2., Petitioner has not established that Zhan teaches a “sterilized disposable module.” Further, neither the Petition nor the Declaration of Matthew Stein alleges that Beuchat teaches such a module, or that elements of Beuchat and Zhan could be combined to result in a “sterilized disposable module.” See id. Thus, Petitioner Case IPR2014-00137 Patent 6,345,553 B1 17 has not established that the combination teaches a “sterilized disposable module.” See Prelim. Resp. 43. Based on the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that any of claims 5-9 are unpatentable over Zahn and Beuchat. 5. Theiss and Bailey Petitioner contends that Theiss and Bailey render obvious claims 13, 14, and 23. Pet. 54–56 (citing Ex. 1005; Ex. 1013). For the reasons discussed in section B.1., Petitioner has not established that Theiss teaches a “sterilized disposable module.” Further, neither the Petition nor the Declaration of Matthew Stein alleges that Bailey teaches such a module, or that elements of Bailey and Theiss could be combined to result in a “sterilized disposable module.” See id. Thus, Petitioner has not established that the combination teaches a “sterilized disposable module.” See Prelim. Resp. 46. Based on the foregoing, we determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that any of claims 13, 14, and 23 are unpatentable over Theiss and Bailey. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner has not demonstrated that there is a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one claim of the ’553 Patent. IV. ORDER For the reasons given, it is ORDERED that the Petition is denied. Case IPR2014-00137 Patent 6,345,553 B1 18 For PETITIONER: Douglas Robinson Anthony Fussner Kisuk Lee Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC drobinson@hdp.com afussner@hdp.com klee@hdp.com For PATENT OWNER: Michael Dzwonczyk Brian Shelton SUGHRUE MION PLLC mdzwonczyk@sughrue.com bshelton@sughrue.com Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation