Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01108/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01108-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Apple Inc.
Appellee
Openwave Systems, Inc.
Appellant
Research in Motion Corp.
Appellee
Research in Motion, Ltd.
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

OPENWAVE SYSTEMS, INC., NKA UNWIRED 

PLANET, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

APPLE INC., RESEARCH IN MOTION, LTD., 

RESEARCH IN MOTION CORP.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2015-1108

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in No. 1:11-cv-00765-RGA, Judge 

Richard G. Andrews.

______________________ 

Decided: December 15, 2015

______________________ 

 THEODORE STEVENSON, III, McKool Smith, P.C., 

Dallas, TX, argued for appellant. Also represented by 

MEREDITH ANNE ELKINS, JARED M. HOGGAN, NICHOLAS M.

MATHEWS; DANIEL L. GEYSER, Stris & Maher LLP, Los 

Angeles, CA.

 MARK ANDREW PERRY, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 

Washington, DC, argued for appellee Apple Inc. Also 

represented by BRIAN BUROKER; ALEXANDER N. HARRIS, 

San Francisco, CA; JOSH KREVITT, New York, NY; HERVEY 

Case: 15-1108 Document: 69-2 Page: 1 Filed: 12/15/2015
2 OPENWAVE SYSTEMS, INC. v. APPLE INC. 

MARK LYON, STUART ROSENBERG, Palo Alto, CA; BROOKE 

MYERS WALLACE, Los Angeles, CA.

 ALAN J. HEINRICH, Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, 

CA, for appellees Research in Motion, Ltd. and Research 

in Motion Corp. Also represented by GAVIN SNYDER,

BRUCE A. WESSEL. 

______________________ 

Before MOORE, O’MALLEY, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge. 

Openwave Systems, Inc., NKA Unwired Planet, Inc. 

(“Unwired Planet”) is the assignee of U.S. Patent Nos. 

6,405,037 (“the ’037 patent”), 6,430,409 (“the ’409 patent”), and 6,625,447 (“the ’447 patent”) (collectively, the

“patents-in-suit”). The patents-in-suit share a common 

specification.1

Unwired Planet first sued Apple Inc., Research in Motion, Ltd., and Research in Motion Corp. (collectively, the 

“Defendants”) on August 31, 2011, in the United States 

District Court for the District of Delaware. Shortly thereafter, on October 7, 2011, Unwired Planet initiated an 

action with the International Trade Commission (“ITC”). 

The district court stayed its litigation pending resolution 

of the ITC proceedings. After receiving an unfavorable 

claim construction ruling from the Administrative Law 

Judge (“ALJ”) overseeing the proceedings, Unwired 

Planet sought to dismiss the ITC investigation in its 

entirety. On November 13, 2012, the ITC terminated its 

proceedings. The district court lifted its stay on December 

28, 2012.

1 The patents-in-suit are all continuations of U.S. 

Patent No. 5,808,415, which was filed on December 11, 

1995.

 

Case: 15-1108 Document: 69-2 Page: 2 Filed: 12/15/2015
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS, INC. v. APPLE INC. 3

Unwired Planet informed the district court that if it 

adopted a construction of the disputed claim term that 

matched the construction from the ITC proceedings,

Unwired Planet would concede non-infringement by 

stipulation and file a motion to terminate the case. After 

considering the briefing and hearing oral argument, the 

district court issued an order adopting a construction that 

closely tracked that employed by the ALJ. Believing one

difference between the two constructions to be material, 

however, Unwired Planet did not immediately stipulate to 

non-infringement. Specifically, because the district court 

noted in a footnote that its construction excluding devices 

employing “computer modules” did not exclude devices 

employing “microprocessors,” Unwired Planet argued that 

a material question regarding infringement remained 

unresolved. 

Given Unwired Planet’s refusal to concede noninfringement, Defendants filed a motion for summary 

judgment of non-infringement. The district court denied

the Defendants’ motion on the ground that it was unclear 

from the record whether the accused products actually fell 

within the claims as construed. The district court premised its summary-judgment ruling on the fact that it 

found the distinction between devices operating with 

microprocessors and those operating with computer 

modules to be sufficiently unclear at that stage of the 

proceedings to prohibit entry of a judgment of noninfringement as a matter of law. After the district court

entered that order in favor of Unwired Planet, however, 

Unwired Planet changed course and filed a stipulation of 

non-infringement after all. The district court entered 

final judgment of non-infringement as to all asserted 

patent claims in favor of Defendants on October 14, 2014. 

This appeal followed. Because we agree with the district 

court’s claim construction, we affirm.

Case: 15-1108 Document: 69-2 Page: 3 Filed: 12/15/2015
4 OPENWAVE SYSTEMS, INC. v. APPLE INC. 

BACKGROUND

There are three claim terms at issue: “mobile device” 

in the ’037 patent, “wireless mobile telephone” in the ’409 

patent, and “two-way communication device” in the ’447 

patent. Before both the ALJ and the district court, the 

parties agreed that the claim terms should be analyzed 

and construed together. Accordingly, we will construe 

them together under the umbrella term “mobile device.”

The only relevant issue on appeal is whether the 

claims should be given their ordinary meaning or whether, as the district court found, the patents, through repeated disparagement in the specification, disclaim 

mobile devices containing “computer modules.”

The patents-in-suit address perceived problems with 

the mobile device prior art. For example, the prior art 

“intelligent devices”2 could not be updated without physically changing the devices themselves because, at the 

time of the invention, applications on mobile devices were 

physically burned onto their read-only memories 

(“ROMs”) at the factory or were present on a ROM card. 

In order to install a new application, one would need to 

re-burn the ROM or install a new ROM card. ’037 patent 

col. 2 ll. 33–40. The “intelligent telephone” of the day, 

moreover, was too big in size, too expensive to produce, 

and had problems with battery life. Id. at col. 9 ll. 21–25. 

At the time of the invention—1995—mobile devices did 

not have processors that were both powerful enough and 

small enough to operate the devices without running into 

these commercialization problems.

2 The prior art “intelligent communication devices . . . include both the hardware necessary for a computer 

module and the hardware for a wireless communications 

module.” ’037 patent col. 1 ll. 55–58.

 

Case: 15-1108 Document: 69-2 Page: 4 Filed: 12/15/2015
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS, INC. v. APPLE INC. 5

To overcome these difficulties, the inventor of the patents-in-suit “devised ways to divide the computing power 

between a device and its remote server,” thus “eliminat[ing] the need for devices to employ full computing 

capacity on their own.” Unwired Planet Op. Br. 2. At 

issue is whether the claims cover only mobile devices with 

small “microcontrollers”—which facilitate communications between the client device and the server—or also 

cover mobile devices that contain more robust “computer 

modules”—which serve to localize more of the computational processes onto the mobile device itself.3

In answering this question, the district court found 

that “the specification makes clear that the invention does 

not encompass mobile devices containing computer modules.” Openwave Sys., Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. CV-11-765-

RGA, 2014 WL 651911, at *3 (D. Del. Feb. 19, 2014). The 

3 The specification of the patents-in-suit specifies 

that a “client module” is executed on the “microcontroller.” ’037 patent col. 6 ll. 65–66. The lightweight “client 

module” and the “microcontroller” of the patents-in-suit 

are distinguishable from the more robust “computer 

module” in terms of relative computing power. Although 

the district court noted that the distinction between 

“microcontrollers” on the one hand and “computer modules” on the other is not clear (Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) 10), 

we need not seek an exact dividing line where, as here, 

the patentee has stipulated to noninfringement under a 

claim construction that explicitly relies on this distinction. 

That is, if the distinction between “microcontroller” and 

“computer module” is clear enough for the patentee to 

stipulate that the accused devices do not infringe because 

they employ the latter, as that term was construed by the 

district court, it is clear enough for this court to apply the 

respective terms without the need to remand for additional factual determinations. 

 

Case: 15-1108 Document: 69-2 Page: 5 Filed: 12/15/2015
6 OPENWAVE SYSTEMS, INC. v. APPLE INC. 

district court relied upon a number of passages in the 

specification that disparage the prior art implementation 

of a computer module on a mobile device, finding that the 

“repeated derogatory statements . . . reasonably may be 

viewed as a disavowal of that subject matter from the 

scope of the [p]atent’s claims.” Id. (alterations in original) 

(internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Chicago Bd. 

Options Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Sec. Exch., LLC, 677 F.3d 1361, 

1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Accordingly, “[t]he patents disclaim mobile devices containing computer modules.” Id.; 

see also J.A. 9 (specifying that “[t]he patents disclaimed 

mobile devices containing computer modules”). 

In light of this disavowal, the district court construed 

the term “mobile device” as “a portable wireless two-way 

communication device that does not contain a computer 

module.” Openwave, 2014 WL 651911, at *3. In a footnote, the district court “ma[d]e clear that this construction 

does not read out embodiments including microcontrollers.” Id. at n.3. As noted, after some hesitation, Unwired 

Planet ultimately stipulated to non-infringement under 

this construction. The district court then entered final 

judgment, from which Unwired Planet appeals. J.A. 17. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). 

DISCUSSION

“Where, as here, a plaintiff concedes noninfringement 

by stipulation, we need only address the district court’s 

construction of the pertinent claims” and affirm the 

judgment if this court determines that the claim construction is correct under the appropriate standard. Starhome 

GmbH v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 743 F.3d 849, 854 (Fed. 

Cir. 2014); see also Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 

F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (noting that “we need 

only address the district court’s construction of the 

claims” when a party stipulates to a judgment of noninfringement following a dispositive claim construction).

Case: 15-1108 Document: 69-2 Page: 6 Filed: 12/15/2015
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS, INC. v. APPLE INC. 7

We “review de novo the district court’s ultimate interpretation of the patent claims,” but apply “clear error

review” to any necessary “subsidiary factfinding.” Teva 

Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 839–40

(2015). Because the construction below was based entirely on intrinsic evidence, we review the issue de novo. 

The proper claim construction is “the meaning that 

the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the 

art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the 

effective filing date of the patent application.” Phillips v. 

AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en 

banc). The specification “is the single best guide to the 

meaning of a disputed term” and is usually “dispositive.” 

Id. at 1315 (citation omitted). In particular, “the specification may reveal an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, 

of claim scope by the inventor,” in which case “the inventor’s intention, as expressed in the specification, is regarded as dispositive.” Id. at 1316 (citing SciMed Life 

Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 

1337, 1343–44 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).

“The standard for disavowal of claim scope 

is . . . exacting.” Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. 

LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Disavowal 

requires that “the specification make[] clear that the 

invention does not include a particular feature.” SciMed 

Life Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d at 1341. To find disavowal, we 

must find that the specification is “both so clear as to 

show reasonable clarity and deliberateness, and so unmistakable as to be unambiguous evidence of disclaimer.” 

Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 

2012) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Omega 

Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1325–26 (Fed. 

Cir. 2003)).

To find disavowal of claim scope through disparagement of a particular feature, we ask whether “the specification goes well beyond expressing the patentee’s 

Case: 15-1108 Document: 69-2 Page: 7 Filed: 12/15/2015
8 OPENWAVE SYSTEMS, INC. v. APPLE INC. 

preference . . . [such that] its repeated derogatory statements about [a particular embodiment] reasonably may 

be viewed as a disavowal.” Chicago Bd. Options Exch., 

Inc., 677 F.3d at 1372; see also SafeTCare Mfg., Inc. v. 

Tele-Made, Inc., 497 F.3d 1262, 1269–70 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 

(finding disclaimer where the specification repeatedly 

indicated that the invention operated by “pushing (as 

opposed to pulling) forces,” and then characterized the 

“pushing forces” as “an important feature of the present 

invention”). We note also that:

A patent that discloses only one embodiment is 

not necessarily limited to that embodiment. 

Saunders Grp., Inc. v. Comfortrac, Inc., 492 F.3d 

1326, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “[I]t is improper to 

read limitations from a preferred embodiment described in the specification—even if it is the only 

embodiment—into the claims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record that the patentee intended the claims to be so limited.” Liebel–

Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 

(Fed. Cir. 2004).

GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 

1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (alteration in original). The dispositive inquiry in this appeal, therefore, is whether and to 

what extent the specification disparages mobile devices 

that include “computer modules.”

The district court found that one of the most telling 

examples of disclaimer was that the patents-in-suit

specify that “cellular telephone 100 is not a combination 

of a computer module and a wireless communication 

module as in prior art attempts to create an intelligent 

telephone,” ’037 patent col. 14 ll. 52–55, and that “cellular 

telephone 100 utilizes only a microcontroller found in 

telephone 100 and does not require[] a separate computer 

module as in the prior art,” id. at col. 15 l. 67–col. 16 l. 2. 

In this embodiment, “[t]he user is utilizing cellular teleCase: 15-1108 Document: 69-2 Page: 8 Filed: 12/15/2015
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS, INC. v. APPLE INC. 9

phone 100 as if cellular telephone 100 was a computer 

connected to network.” Id. at col. 14 ll. 47–48 (emphasis 

added). In this embodiment, cellular telephone 100 is not 

a computer connected to a network and is not a combination of a mobile device with a computer module.

This single embodiment clearly describes a mobile device that does not employ a computer module and draws a 

distinction between those that do and those that do not. 

Unwired Planet correctly argues, however, that reference 

to one embodiment—even the preferred embodiment—is 

insufficient to justify finding a disavowal. And Unwired 

Planet is correct that in GE Lighting Sols., LLC, 750 F.3d 

1304, we said just that. This one embodiment is not, 

however, the only portion of the specification upon which 

the district court relied to support finding a disavowal of 

claim scope. 

Indeed, the specification of the patents-in-suit is rife 

with remarks that disparage and, therefore, disclaim 

mobile devices that incorporate computer modules. Such 

remarks permeate the specification. Unwired Planet 

concedes as much. Unwired Planet Op. Br. 16 (“[I]t is 

assuredly true that the specification disparaged (repeatedly) devices with ‘computer modules’ . . . .”); id. at 23 (“It 

is absolutely true that the specification ‘disparaged’ the 

use of computer modules . . . .”); id. at 32 (“[T]he specification does indeed disparage the prior art . . . .”).

The Background of the Invention defines the problems 

that accompanied the prior art, which the invention 

purported to solve: 

For at least the last five years, the wireless communication industry has tried to merge computing 

with wireless communications. . . . 

After years of research and development, and 

hundreds of millions of dollars’ investment by 

some of the largest companies in the field such as 

Case: 15-1108 Document: 69-2 Page: 9 Filed: 12/15/2015
10 OPENWAVE SYSTEMS, INC. v. APPLE INC. 

Motorola, AT&T, Sony, Matsushita, Phillips and 

IBM, the results have been nothing but disappointing. Typically, the intelligent communication 

devices resulting from these efforts include both 

the hardware necessary for a computer module 

and the hardware for a wireless communications 

module. Examples of such products are Simon 

from IBM and Bell South, MagicLink from Sony, 

and Envoy from Motorola.

Fundamental design and cost problems arising directly from the approach taken by the designers of 

these intelligent communication devices have limited widespread market acceptance of these devices. The combination of a wireless communication 

module with a computing module leads to a device 

that is too bulky, too expensive, and too inflexible 

to address the market requirements. 

The combination of the two modules is too large 

and too heavy to fit in a user’s pocket. Pocket size 

is a key requirement of the mobile communication 

market which remains unmet by these devices. 

In addition, the cost of these devices is close to the 

sum of the cost of the computer module and of the 

communications module, which is around a one 

thousand dollar end-user price. Market research 

indicates that the market for intelligent wireless 

communications devices is at prices around $300. 

Even with a 20% compound cost decline, it would 

take five years for the combination units to meet 

today’s customers’ price requirements. It is therefore unlikely that devices designed by combining a 

computer and a wireless module, no matter how 

miniaturized and cost reduced, can satisfy the cost 

requirement of the market during this decade. 

. . . . 

Case: 15-1108 Document: 69-2 Page: 10 Filed: 12/15/2015
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS, INC. v. APPLE INC. 11

. . . [T]he current crop of intelligent communication devices run only the few applications which 

were burned into their ROMs at the factory or 

which are contained in a ROM card plugged into a 

slot designed for this purpose. This scheme lacks 

the flexibility needed to run the thousands of applications required to address the fragmented requirements of the market and provides no simple 

method for updating the applications after the device has been sold.

’037 patent col. 1 l. 44–col. 2 l. 40 (emphases added). The 

import of this section of the specification could not be 

clearer: the perceived problem with the prior art “intelligent devices” was the attempt to combine mobile devices 

with computer modules, resulting in a device that was too 

expensive, too bulky, too inflexible, and, therefore, commercially infeasible.

This section similarly makes clear that any solution to 

this problem requires movement away from the prior art’s 

attempt to combine a computer module with a mobile 

device: 

Up to now, intelligent communication devices 

have combined a computing module with a wireless communications module. However, to gain 

widespread acceptance, a two-way data communication device with processing capability and the 

ability to run a wide variety of differing user applications is needed. In addition, such a device 

should be comparable in size, cost, and weight to a 

cellular telephone.

Id. at col. 3 ll. 29–35. The Summary of the Invention 

begins by continuing along these lines, distinguishing the 

invention of the patents-in-suit from the prior art devices 

that include computer modules:

Case: 15-1108 Document: 69-2 Page: 11 Filed: 12/15/2015
12 OPENWAVE SYSTEMS, INC. v. APPLE INC. 

According to the principles of this invention, the 

prior art limitations of combining a computer 

module with a wireless communication module 

have been overcome. In particular, a two-way data 

communication device of this invention, such as a 

cellular telephone, two-way pager, or telephone 

includes a client module that communicates with 

a server computer over a two-way data communication network.

Id. at col. 3 ll. 38–44 (emphasis added). The summary 

continues, indicating that “the two-way data communication device of this invention utilizes a client module to 

transmit a message including a resource locator selected 

by the user over the two-way data communication network to a server on a server computer on the computer 

network.” Id. at col. 4 ll. 40–44 (emphasis added). In this 

way, the patents-in-suit specify that the solution to the 

problems with the prior art is to employ a “client module” 

executed on a “microcontroller”—rather than a “computer 

module.” 

The lightweight “client module” and “microcontroller”

solve these problems, moreover, precisely because they

differ from the bulky, prior art “intelligent devices.” “The 

client module of this invention is lightweight, and thus 

requires only lightweight resources in a two-way data 

communication device.” Id. at col. 6 ll. 34–36 (emphasis 

added); see also id. at col. 9 ll. 16–24 (“The client module 

is small, e.g., under 64 KByte, and requires only low 

processing power congruent with the memory chips and 

built-in microcontrollers in two-way data communication 

devices such as cellular telephone 100, two-way pager 

101, and telephone 102. Thus, unlike the prior art attempts at an intelligent telephone, the cost, size, and 

battery life of either cellular telephones, two-way pagers, 

or telephones that incorporate this invention are not 

adversely affected.” (emphases added)). 

Case: 15-1108 Document: 69-2 Page: 12 Filed: 12/15/2015
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS, INC. v. APPLE INC. 13

In the Detailed Description section of the specification, the patents-in-suit disclose that prior art computer 

networks already were dividing computing power between 

a client and a remote server. The patents-in-suit extend 

this same concept to mobile devices: “[w]hile client/server 

architectures have been used extensively in computer 

networks, a client/sever [sic] architecture implements [sic]

using two-way communication data devices such as cellular telephone 100, two-way pager 101, or telephone 102

yields new and unexpected results.” Id. at col. 9 ll. 25–29. 

Because client/server architectures in computer networks were in the prior art, Unwired Planet’s argument 

must be that, by employing a microprocessor it invented

the combination of the prior art “computer module” with a 

mobile device. Yet that combination constitutes the very 

embodiment that gives rise to the problems the invention 

purports to solve (namely, the bulk, cost, inflexibility, and 

short battery life of intelligent devices).

It is the lightweight nature of the patents’ “client 

module,” run on the “microcontroller,” that gives rise to 

the benefits of the claimed invention, avoiding the problems identified with the prior art “intelligent devices”:

Despite the robustness of the client module in interpreting a wide variety of application [sic], typically, the client process is lightweight and thus 

requires only lightweight resources, e.g., 60 

Kbytes of read-only memory (ROM) for the client 

module, 10 Kbytes of random access memory 

(RAM), and less than one million instructions per 

second (MIPS) of processing power. Since the client process needs only these lightweight resources 

in a two-way data communication device, the client can use existing resources in such a device 

and therefore does not add to the cost of the twoway data communication device such as data capable cellular telephone 100. 

Case: 15-1108 Document: 69-2 Page: 13 Filed: 12/15/2015
14 OPENWAVE SYSTEMS, INC. v. APPLE INC. 

Id. at col. 16 ll. 24–36 (emphases added). The specification continues: “Again, note that this invention does not 

require a separate processor and instead can utilize the 

processing power that already exists in cellular telephone 

600, because as described above, the client process of this 

invention is so lightweight.” Id. at col. 20 ll. 56–60 (emphasis added). The specification repeatedly and clearly 

distinguishes the invention of the patents-in-suit from 

more powerful—and therefore more costly—mobile devices in combination with “computer modules.” Such mobile 

devices being more powerful and more costly, the patentsin-suit repeatedly disparage them for their failure to meet 

the demands of the market.4

There is no doubt a high bar to finding disavowal of 

claim scope through disparagement of the prior art in the 

specification. In this case, however, it is difficult to envisage how, in light of the repeated disparagement of mobile 

devices with “computer modules” discussed above, one 

could read the claims of the patents-in-suit to cover such 

devices. We agree with the district court that they do not.

We affirm the district court’s claim construction that 

a “mobile device” is “a portable wireless two-way commu4 Unwired Planet argues that the repeated disparagement of mobile devices with “computer modules” in the 

specification is meant only to denigrate those devices as 

“commercially infeasible, not technically infeasible.” 

Unwired Planet Op. Br. 32. But we see no reason to 

conclude that a specification’s repeated recitation of 

marketing deficiencies cannot give rise to a finding of 

claim scope disavowal. The fact that a combination 

product—one with both a microprocessor and a computer 

module—might work does not mean that the invention 

claimed encompassed such a product, particularly where 

that product would retain all the deficiencies of the prior 

art. 

 

Case: 15-1108 Document: 69-2 Page: 14 Filed: 12/15/2015
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS, INC. v. APPLE INC. 15

nication device that does not contain a computer module” 

and that “this construction does not read out embodiments including microcontrollers.” Openwave, 2014 WL 

651911, at *3 & n.3. On this ground, we affirm the judgment of non-infringement premised on that construction.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, and because we find that 

Unwired Planet’s remaining arguments are without 

merit, we conclude that the district court properly construed the claim terms at issue and properly entered 

judgment of non-infringement. Accordingly, the district 

court’s judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-1108 Document: 69-2 Page: 15 Filed: 12/15/2015