Hulu, LLCv.Intertainer, Inc.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 23, 2014

12587667 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2014)

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 11
571-272-7822 Entered: June 23, 2014

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

HULU, LLC,
Petitioner,

v.

INTERTAINER, INC.,
Patent Owner.

Case CBM2014-00053
Patent 8,468,099

Before MICHAEL W. KIM, SUSAN L. C. MITCHELL,
and JENNIFER M. MEYER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEYER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION
Denying Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
37 C.F.R. § 42.208
CBM2014-00053
Patent 8,468,099

2
I. INTRODUCTION
On December 20, 2013, Hulu, LLC (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for a
covered business method patent review of claims 13-15 and 18 of U.S.
Patent No. 8,468,099 (Ex. 1001, “the ’099 patent”). Paper 1. A corrected
Petition was filed on January 14, 2014. Paper 8 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner,
Intertainer, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) did not file a Preliminary Response.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 324. The standard for
instituting a covered business method patent review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
§ 324(a), which provides as follows:
THRESHOLD.—The Director may not authorize a post-
grant review to be instituted unless the Director determines that
the information presented in the petition filed under section
321, if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that
it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged
in the petition is unpatentable.
Petitioner challenges claims 13-15 and 18 of the ’099 patent as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 103 and 112. Upon consideration of the
information presented in the Petition, we conclude that the Petition does not
demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the challenged claims are
unpatentable. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324 and § 18(a) of the Leahy-Smith
America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (“AIA”), we
do not authorize a covered business method patent review to be instituted as
to claims 13-15 and 18 for the grounds of unpatentability asserted in the
Petition.
Accordingly, the Petition is DENIED.
CBM2014-00053
Patent 8,468,099

3
A. Related Proceedings
Petitioner has been sued for infringement of the ’099 patent in a
district court case titled, Intertainer, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, No. 2:13-cv-05499
(C.D. Cal.). Pet. 4. In addition to this proceeding, Petitioner has also
petitioned for covered business method patent review of certain claims of
Patent Owner’s U.S. Patent No. 8,479,246 B2 (CBM2014-00052). Id. at 5.
B. The ’099 Patent
The ’099 patent, titled “Digital Entertainment Service Platform,”
issued on June 18, 2013, based on application 12/587,667 (“the ’667
application”), filed October 10, 2009. The ’667 application is a continuation
of application 11/189,608, filed July 26, 2005 (abandoned), which is a
continuation of application 09/947,592, filed September 5, 2001, which
issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,925,469, which claims the benefit of provisional
application 60/280,653, filed March 30, 2001.
The ’099 patent relates to methods managing, distributing, and/or
retailing digital media assets from various content suppliers. Ex. 1001,
2:20-23. Content suppliers may provide media assets (e.g., streaming video)
to a digital services platform and receive payments based on use of the
media assets by consumers. Id. at 2:28-37, 2:65-3:2. The digital services
platform allows consumers to access content from multiple suppliers at a
single location, and allows content suppliers to define parameters regarding
distribution of the media asset. Id. at 2:37-43, 3:2-11. Additional
purchasing opportunities are embedded within the media assets, allowing
consumers, for example, to purchase a related product simply by clicking on
an embedded advertisement within a streaming video. Id. at 3:26-32,
6:39-54.
CBM2014-00053
Patent 8,468,099

4
C. Illustrative Claim
Of the challenged claims, only claim 13 is independent. Claim 13 of
the ’099 patent, reproduced below, is illustrative of the challenged claims:
13. A method for managing and marketing digital media
content supplied by media content suppliers to consumers, the
method comprising:
providing a digital media content service platform
operable to manage and distribute video content to a plurality of
the consumers in accordance with business rules supplied by
the media content suppliers, wherein distribution to geographic
locations is one of the business rules supplied by the media
content suppliers;
providing the media content suppliers access to the
digital media content service platform for permitting the media
content suppliers to directly supply the video content to the
digital media content service platform by electronic
transmission;
storing the video content supplied by the media content
suppliers on the digital media content service platform;
including coded information with the video content, the
coded information being advertising information associating at
least one advertisement with the video content;
specifying at least one of the business rules for
distributing the video content to a specified geographic
location;
grouping the consumers by a geographic location
associated with the consumers;
embedding purchasing opportunities for merchandise
with the video content, the merchandise being other than the
video content supplied to the digital media content service
platform and purchasable by the consumer interacting with the
embedded purchasing opportunities;
distributing the video content to the grouping of
consumers if the geographic location of the consumers
corresponds to the specified geographic location in the at least
CBM2014-00053
Patent 8,468,099

5
one of the business rules, wherein the video content being
distributed corresponds to a localized market for the grouping
of consumers; and
offering the merchandise to the consumers for purchase
via the embedded purchasing opportunities.
Ex. 1001, 15:1-16:10.
D. The Applied References
Petitioner relies upon the following references. Pet. 5.
Patent No. Date of Issuance Exhibit No.
U.S. Patent No. 6,201,536
(“Hendricks ’536”)
Mar. 13, 2001 Ex. 1004
U.S. Patent No. 6,463,585
(“Hendricks ’585”)
Oct. 8, 2002 Ex. 1005
U.S. Patent No. 5,774,664
(“Hidary”)
Jun. 30, 1998 Ex. 1006
U.S. Patent No. 6,950,804
(“Strietzel”)
Sept. 27, 2005 Ex. 1007
U.S. Patent No. 6,820,277
(“Eldering”)
Nov. 16, 2004 Ex. 1008
Petitioner further relies on the Declaration of V. Michael Bove, Jr.
(“Bove Declaration,” Ex. 1012).
E. The Asserted Grounds
Petitioner challenges claims 13-15 and 18 on the following grounds.
Pet. 5.
Claims
Challenged
Basis Reference(s)
13-15, 18 § 103 Hendricks ’536, Hendricks ’585, and
Hidary
13-15, 18 § 103 Strietzel, Eldering, and Hidary
13 § 112,
indefiniteness
Not applicable
CBM2014-00053
Patent 8,468,099

6
II. ANALYSIS
A. Claim Construction
In a covered business method patent review, a “claim in an unexpired
patent shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the
specification of the patent in which it appears.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.300(b).
Under this standard, we construe claim terms using “the broadest reasonable
meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood
by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever
enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by
the written description contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We presume that claim terms
have their ordinary and customary meaning. See In re Translogic Tech.,
Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The ordinary and customary
meaning is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary
skill in the art in question.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks
omitted)). This presumption, however, may be rebutted when the patentee
acts as his own lexicographer, giving the term a particular meaning in the
specification with “reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision.” In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Petitioner has not provided proposed constructions for the claim terms
“directly supply,” “embedded purchasing opportunity,” and “coded
information,” but contends each of these terms is indefinite under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112. In construing the claims, we have applied the broadest reasonable
interpretation, taking into account the plain meaning of the terms and their
usage in the specification.
CBM2014-00053
Patent 8,468,099

7
1. “directly supply”
Independent claim 13 recites, among other things, “providing the
media content suppliers access to the digital media content service platform
for permitting the media content suppliers to directly supply the video
content to the digital media content service platform by electronic
transmission.” Petitioner asserts that the language “directly supply” in this
claim limitation is indefinite. Pet. 54. Specifically, Petitioner asserts it is
not clear if the video content must go from the media content supplier to the
digital media content service platform without passing through intermediate
systems and/or networks. Id. We disagree.
The ’099 patent does not define explicitly “directly supply.” The
specification, however, describes that the content supplier may deliver media
assets “electronically using file transfer protocol methods or other known
means of delivering digital data.” Ex. 1001, 4:29-32. The specification
further describes a supplier console that is, for example, a computer
“operable to run an enterprise software application permitting a content
supplier to remotely deposit its media assets,” among other functions. Id. at
8:18-24. As further described, this “enterprise software application is
preferably installed at the content supplier’s location to facilitate the remote
communication between the content supplier and [the digital services]
platform.” Id. at 8:39-42. Accordingly, as the specification discloses that
the media assets are supplied via intermediate networks and systems, such as
FTP and enterprise servers, we are not persuaded that “directly supply”
excludes passing through intermediate systems and/or networks.
Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary defines “directly” as “in a
direct way” and defines “direct” as “coming straight from a source.”
CBM2014-00053
Patent 8,468,099

8
MERRIAM-WEBSTER, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/directly
(last visited May 19, 2014); Id. at http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/direct (last visited May 19, 2014). Merriam-
Webster’s Online Dictionary defines “supply” as “to provide someone or
something with (something that is needed or wanted).” Id. at
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supply (last visited May 19,
2014). When considered together, the focus of the definitions are the source
and destination.
Given the disclosure in the specification and these definitions, we
construe “permitting the media content suppliers to directly supply the video
content to the digital media content service platform by electronic
transmission” as “the media content suppliers themselves (not another
entity) provide the video content to the digital media content service
platform.”
2. “embedded purchasing opportunities”
Independent claim 13 recites, among other things, “embedding
purchasing opportunities for merchandise with the video content, the
merchandise being other than the video content supplied to the digital media
content service platform and purchasable by the consumer interacting with
the embedded purchasing opportunities.” Petitioner asserts that the language
“embedding/embedded purchasing opportunities” in this claim limitation is
indefinite. Pet. 55. Specifically, Petitioner asserts “it is not clear if a hyper-
link inserted within a video-stream which when selected opens a separate
webpage which includes a form that may be completed for purchasing a
product would constitute an ‘embedded purchasing opportunity.’” Id.
CBM2014-00053
Patent 8,468,099

9
The ’099 patent does not provide an explicit definition for “embedded
purchasing opportunities.” The specification, however, provides examples
of what may constitute embedded purchasing opportunities. One such
example includes a point and click option embedded in a video stream,
through which a user can purchase an item “through a user interface of the
platform, which includes an electronic commerce fulfillment system to ship
the product to the consumer.” Ex. 1001, 3:26-32, see Ex. 1001, 6:42-45.
The Oxford Online Dictionary defines “embed” in the computing
context as “incorporate (a text or code) within the body of a file or
document.” OXFORD DICTIONARIES,
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/embed
(last visited May 19, 2014).
Given the disclosure in the specification and this definition, we
construe “embedded purchasing opportunities” in the context of claim 13 as
“text or code incorporated within video content, with which the consumer
may interact, and thereby purchase merchandise via such interaction.”
3. “coded information”
Independent claim 13 recites, among other things, “including coded
information with the video content, the coded information being advertising
information associating at least one advertisement with the video content.”
Petitioner asserts that the language “coded information” in this claim
limitation is indefinite. Pet. 55-56.
The ’099 patent does not provide an explicit definition for “coded
information.” The specification, however, defines “intelligent media” as
“content that includes coded information regarding the use of the content for
tracking or targeting purposes.” Ex. 1001, 5:46-48. This intelligent media
CBM2014-00053
Patent 8,468,099

10
may include “advertising information to associate one or more
advertisements with the media asset.” Id. at 5:55-56. Intelligent media, and
coded information, is further discussed in application 09/605,695 (“the ’695
application”), which was incorporated by reference into the ’099 patent. See
id. at 5:57-62. The ’695 application
1
describes a “smart media object”
which is a media object associated with a “coded header representing a
profile of that media object, the profile being derived at least partially from
captured user activity information and other information associated with the
media object,” e.g., advertising information. Ex. 3001 ¶ 0019. According to
the ’695 application, a “coded header is preferably an encoded descriptor
(i.e., data) associated with a specific media object that includes targeting
information unique to a media object.” Id. ¶ 0018. As further described in
the ’695 application, “any suitable coding system may be used” to generate
the coded header. Id. ¶ 0029.
Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary defines “code” in the
computing context as “to change (information) into a set of letters, numbers,
or symbols that can be read by a computer.” MERRIAM-WEBSTER,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/code (last visited May 19,
2014).
Given the disclosure in the specification and this definition, we
construe “coded information,” consistent with its ordinary meaning, as
“information that has been changed into a form that can be read by a
computer.”

1
Citations to the ’695 application are to U.S. Appl. Pub. 2009/0144154
(Ex. 3001).
CBM2014-00053
Patent 8,468,099

11
B. Covered Business Method Patent
A “covered business method patent” is a patent that “claims a method
or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other
operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial
product or service, except that the term does not include patents for
technological inventions.” AIA § 18(d)(1); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a). For
purposes of determining whether a patent is eligible for a covered business
method patent review, the focus is on the claims. See Transitional Program
for Covered Business Method Patents—Definitions of Covered Business
Method Patent and Technological Invention; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg.
48,734, 48,736 (Aug. 14, 2012). A patent need have only one claim directed
to a covered business method to be eligible for review. Id.
1. Financial Product or Service
In promulgating rules for covered business method patent reviews, the
Office considered the legislative intent and history behind the AIA’s
definition of “covered business method patent.” Id. at 48,735-36. The
“legislative history explains that the definition of covered business method
patent was drafted to encompass patents ‘claiming activities that are
financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a
financial activity.’” Id. at 48,735 (citing 157 CONG. REC. S5432 (daily ed.
Sept. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Schumer)). The legislative history
indicates that “‘financial product or service’ should be interpreted broadly.”
Id.
Petitioner contends that the ’099 patent is a covered business method
patent because it claims activity that is “financial in nature,” and it is in a
classification that the Office presumes to contain covered business method
CBM2014-00053
Patent 8,468,099

12
patents. Pet. 2-4. As Petitioner notes, classification in class 705 raises a
presumption that a patent is a covered business method. Pet. 4 (citing 157
CONG. REC. S1368, S1379 (daily ed. March 8, 2011) (statement of Sen.
Kyl)); see 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,739. The’099 patent is classified in class 705,
subclass 59.
We agree with Petitioner that the ’099 patent claims subject matter
that is “financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity or
complementary to a financial activity.” See 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,735. As
noted by Petitioner, the claims are directed to the “use and availability of
advertising information that may be used to allow for the purchase of
merchandise,” which is a financial activity. Pet. 3. Specifically, claim 13 is
directed to “[a] method for managing and marketing digital media content”
including “embedding purchasing opportunities for merchandise with the
video content, the merchandise being . . . purchasable by the consumer
interacting with the embedded purchasing opportunities.” Ex. 1001,
15:1-16:10. The specification of the ’099 patent further confirms the
claimed method’s connection to financial activities. For example, the
specification discloses an embodiment in which the distributed video is “a
first-run movie with digital commerce opportunities embedded in the video
stream and accessible by the consumer (e.g. using an intuitive point and
click)” through which the consumer can purchase an item. Id. at 3:26-32.
We, thus, conclude that independent claim 13 satisfies the “financial product
or service” component of the definition set forth in § 18(d)(1) of the AIA.
2. Exclusion for Technological Inventions
The definition of “covered business method patent” in § 18(d)(1) of
the AIA does not include patents for “technological inventions.” To
CBM2014-00053
Patent 8,468,099

13
determine whether a patent is for a technological invention, we consider
“whether the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a technological
feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art; and solves a technical
problem using a technical solution.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b). The following
claim drafting techniques, for example, typically do not render a patent a
“technological invention”:
(a) Mere recitation of known technologies, such as
computer hardware, communication or computer networks,
software, memory, computer-readable storage medium,
scanners, display devices or databases, or specialized machines,
such as an ATM or point of sale device.
(b) Reciting the use of known prior art technology to
accomplish a process or method, even if that process or method
is novel and non-obvious.
(c) Combining prior art structures to achieve the normal,
expected, or predictable result of that combination.
Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,763-64 (Aug.
14, 2012).
Petitioner contends that the ’099 patent does not claim a technological
feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art, nor does it solve a
technical problem using a technical solution. Pet. 3-4. Specifically,
Petitioner contends that the claims of the ’099 patent are “directed to
providing streaming video to consumers combined with advertisements
allowing purchasing of merchandise,” both of which were well known in the
art. Id. at 3. We agree with Petitioner that the ’099 patent is not for a
technological invention, because we are unable to identify any limitation of
claim 13 that is a technological feature that is novel or unobvious over the
prior art.
CBM2014-00053
Patent 8,468,099

14
Because both prongs must be satisfied for a patent to be excluded
from covered business method patent review for being a technological
invention, we conclude that claim 13 does not define a “technological
invention” within the meaning of 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b), and that the
’099 patent is eligible for a covered business method patent review.
C. The Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability Based upon 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) Prior Art References
Petitioner’s grounds asserting obviousness of the challenged claims
are defective because each ground relies on one or more references that are
asserted to be prior art to the challenged claims only under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 102(e). Such § 102(e) references do not qualify as prior art on
which a covered business method patent review may be based. See AIA
§ 18(a)(1)(C); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., CBM2012-
00010, slip op. at 28 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2013) (Paper 16) (recognizing that
§ 102(e) references do not qualify as prior art under AIA § 18(a)(1)(C));
MeridianLink, Inc. v. DH Holdings, LLC, CBM2013-00008, slip op. at 2
(PTAB Sept. 12, 2013) (Paper 24) (stating that, although a reference may be
prior art under § 102(e), it does not meet the criteria to support a challenge
under AIA § 18(a)(1)(C)).
The ’099 patent was filed October 10, 2009, and claims priority to
application 09/947,592, filed September 5, 2001, and to provisional
application 60/280,653, filed March 30, 2001. Ex. 1001.
Hendricks ’585 issued in 2002 from an application filed in 1998, and
was not published prior to issuance. Ex. 1005. Thus, Hendricks ’585 is
prior art to the ’099 patent only under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), as
CBM2014-00053
Patent 8,468,099

15
Petitioner acknowledges. Pet. 17. Accordingly, Hendricks ’585 is not prior
art upon which a covered business method patent review may be instituted.
Strietzel issued in 2005 from an application filed in February 2001,
and was published in August 2002. Ex. 1007. Thus, Strietzel is prior art to
the ’099 patent only under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), as Petitioner
acknowledges. Pet. 31. Accordingly, Strietzel is not prior art upon which a
covered business method patent review may be instituted.
Eldering issued in 2004 from an application filed in 2000, and was not
published prior to issuance. Ex. 1008. Thus, Eldering is prior art to the ’099
patent only under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), as Petitioner acknowledges.
Pet. 33. Accordingly, Eldering is not prior art upon which a covered
business method patent review may be instituted.
Because each of Petitioner’s obviousness grounds relies upon one or
more of Hendricks ’585, Strietzel, and Eldering, references that are
unavailable as prior art on which a covered business method patent review
may be instituted, we deny review on each of those grounds.
D. 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2 Ground of Unpatentability
Petitioner contends that claim 13 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112
¶ 2.
2
Pet. 53-56. Petitioner contends that the claim terms “directly supply,”

2
Section 4(c) of the AIA re-designated 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2, as 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b). Because the ’099 patent has a filing date before September 16,
2012 (the effective date of the relevant section of the AIA), we will refer to
the pre-AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 112 in this decision. We also note that,
although the Petition cites to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1, the asserted ground and all
arguments are directed to indefiniteness, which is brought appropriately
under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2. Thus, we address the arguments herein in view
of 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.
CBM2014-00053
Patent 8,468,099

16
“embedded purchasing opportunity,” and “coded information,” render claim
13 indefinite. Id. at 54. Petitioner argues that no definition is given in the
specification for any of these claim terms, nor does the prosecution history
offer any definition or other objective basis to determine the bounds of these
claim terms. Id. at 54-56. We are not persuaded that Petitioner has
demonstrated that it is more likely than not that the claims are indefinite.
The scope of the claims must be sufficiently definite to inform the
public of the bounds of the protected invention, i.e., what subject matter is
covered by the exclusive rights of the patent. Halliburton Energy Servs. Inc.
v. M–I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Petitioner contends that the claim term “directly supply” lacks a
“meaningfully precise claim scope.” Pet. 54. As discussed above, we have
construed the phrase “permitting the media content suppliers to directly
supply the video content to the digital media content service platform by
electronic transmission” as “the media content suppliers themselves (not
another entity) provide the video content to the digital media content service
platform.” Petitioner argues “it is not clear if the data must go from the
supplier to the platform without passing through intermediate systems and/or
networks.” Id. This, however, is a statement that the term is broad, not that
it is indefinite. See In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788 (CCPA 1970)
(“Breadth is not indefiniteness.”).
Petitioner also contends that the claim term “embedded purchasing
opportunities” lacks a “meaningfully precise claim scope.” Pet. 55. We
have construed “embedded purchasing opportunities” as “text or code
incorporated within video content, with which the consumer may interact,
and thereby purchase merchandise via such interaction.” Petitioner argues
CBM2014-00053
Patent 8,468,099

17
“it is not clear if a hyper-link inserted within a video-stream which when
selected opens a separate webpage which includes a form that may be
completed for purchasing a product would constitute an ‘embedded
purchasing opportunity.’” Id. Again, this is a statement that the term is
broad, not that it is indefinite.
Petitioner further contends that the claim term “coded information” is
not defined within the specification. Id. at 55-56. We have construed
“coded information” as “information that has been changed into a form that
can be read by a computer.” Petitioner provides no other arguments with
respect to this claim term.
We are not persuaded Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence as to
why a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the specification, would
not have understood the scope of claim 13. For the foregoing reasons, we
determine that Petitioner fails to demonstrate that it is more likely than not
that claim 13, and claims 14, 15, and 18 which depend therefrom, are
indefinite under § 112 ¶ 2.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the information presented in the Petition
does not demonstrate that claims 13-15 and 18 of the ’099 patent, more
likely than not, are unpatentable.
IV. ORDER
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) and § 18(a) of the
AIA, a covered business method patent review is hereby DENIED as to
claims 13-15 and 18 of the ’099 patent.
CBM2014-00053
Patent 8,468,099

18
PETITIONER:
Eliot Williams
Harper Batts
BAKER BOTTS LLP
eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
Harper.batts@bakerbotts.com
PATENT OWNER:
Amedeo F. Ferraro
Thomas H. Martin
MARTIN & FERRARO, LLP
aferraro@martinferraro.com
docketing@martinferraro.com