throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 13 (CBM2014-00190)
`Paper 11 (CBM2014-00192)
`Paper 11 (CBM2014-00193)
`Paper 14 (CBM2014-00194)
`Paper 14 (CBM2014-00199)
`Entered: May 6, 2015
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Cases1
`CBM2014-00190 (Patent 7,334,720 B2)
`CBM2014-00192 (Patent 8,033,458 B2)
`CBM2014-00193 (Patent 8,061,598 B2)
`CBM2014-00194 (Patent 8,118,221 B2)
`CBM2014-00199 (Patent 8,118,221 B2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, RAMA G. ELLURU, GREGG I. ANDERSON,
`MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and PETER P. CHEN,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`1 This order addresses issues that are the same in all identified cases. We
`exercise our discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case. The
`parties, however, are not authorized to use this style heading in subsequent
`papers, except the filing of the transcript for this teleconference.
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00190 (Patent 7,334,720 B2)
`CBM2014-00192 (Patent 8,033,458 B2)
`CBM2014-00193 (Patent 8,061,598 B2)
`CBM2014-00194 (Patent 8,118,221 B2)
`CBM2014-00199 (Patent 8,118,221 B2)
`ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`An initial teleconference was held in these cases on May 5, 2015,
`among respective counsel for Petitioner Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”), Patent Owner Smartflash
`LLC (“Smartflash”), and Judges Elluru, Bisk, Clements, Anderson, and
`Chen. A court reporter transcribed the teleconference at the request of
`Smartflash.
`Smartflash submitted a list of proposed motions. Paper 12.2 Samsung
`
`did not submit such a list.
`
`Patent Owner requested authorization to file a motion for “routine
`discovery” under 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(1)(iii)3 to obtain “documents from
`[Samsung] related to any allegations by [Samsung] (1) that any of
`[Samsung’s] products do not infringe the challenged claim[s] and (2) that
`acceptable non-infringing alternatives exist to the challenged claim[s].” Id.
`Smartflash argued that such documents are inconsistent with Samsung’s
`
`
`2 Paper numbers refer to papers in CBM2014-00190, unless otherwise
`indicated.
`3 Rule 42.51(b)(1)(iii) states in pertinent part that “[u]nless previously
`served, a party must serve relevant information that is inconsistent with a
`position advanced by the party during the proceeding concurrent with the
`filing of the documents or things that contains the inconsistency.”
`
`2
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00190 (Patent 7,334,720 B2)
`CBM2014-00192 (Patent 8,033,458 B2)
`CBM2014-00193 (Patent 8,061,598 B2)
`CBM2014-00194 (Patent 8,118,221 B2)
`CBM2014-00199 (Patent 8,118,221 B2)
`assertion in the petitions that the challenged claims result in preemption, and
`thus, should have been served with the petitions.
`We decided that Petitioner’s alleged evidence of non-infringement
`and non-infringing alternatives in the district court is not inconsistent with
`Samsung’s assertion in these cases that the challenged claims are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We noted, for example, that a different
`claim construction standard is applicable in the district court in determining
`infringement than the broadest reasonable interpretation standard we apply
`in determining patentability. Samsung also stated that the question of
`whether the challenged claims preempt a field is a question of “relative”
`preemption. Smartflash did not point us to any authority that an accused
`infringer who pleads in the alternative that the challenged claims are
`unpatentable under § 101, a question of law, is taking an inconsistent
`position with its non-infringement position. In addition, to the extent that
`Samsung’s assertion of non-infringement in district court is inconsistent with
`its assertion in these cases that the challenged claims are unpatentable under
`§ 101, Smartflash is already aware of such alleged inconsistency, and has the
`“evidence” that Samsung took such allegedly inconsistent positions. We are
`not persuaded that the details of Samsung’s non-infringement positions shed
`light on the § 101 issue.
`Smartflash next proposed moving to stay these proceedings in light of
`the district court’s ruling in favor of Smartflash on the patentability of the
`challenged claims under § 101. Smartflash argued that it is an improper use
`of Board resources to re-litigate issues that have been resolved in district
`court and that our rules direct us to conduct these proceedings in a speedy,
`
`3
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00190 (Patent 7,334,720 B2)
`CBM2014-00192 (Patent 8,033,458 B2)
`CBM2014-00193 (Patent 8,061,598 B2)
`CBM2014-00194 (Patent 8,118,221 B2)
`CBM2014-00199 (Patent 8,118,221 B2)
`efficient, and inexpensive manner. We decided that there is no justification
`to stay these proceedings given our statutory deadline to complete these
`proceedings within one-year of institution. See 35 U.S.C. § 326(a)(11). We
`noted that the parties cannot control the timing of the district court trial
`and/or possible subsequent appeal to the Federal Circuit, even if we were to
`extend the deadlines in these cases by up to six months. See id.
`Smartflash next proposed to file a motion to extend the due dates of
`the present proceedings by a time sufficient to allow the Board to rule on the
`requests for rehearing and coordinate the schedules of the present
`proceedings and CBM2014-00200 and CBM2014-00204, should those cases
`be instituted on rehearing. Smartflash stated that it was making such a
`request in order to allow for a single deposition of Petitioner’s declarant.
`We stated that we will issue decisions resolving the requests for rehearing in
`a prompt manner and should we institute trials in those cases, we will
`reconsider the relevant schedules at that time.
`Smartflash noted that the scheduled oral hearing dates of (a)
`CBM2014-00190, -192, -193, -194, and -199 and (b) CBM2015-00015, -16,
`-17, and -18, are currently October 29, 2015, and November 9, 2015,
`respectively. We stated that we will follow the current schedules of record
`in these proceedings and reconsider the oral hearing dates at a later time.
`Lastly, the parties agreed to take a single deposition of any declarant
`in all related cases such that a single deposition transcript can be used in all
`related proceedings, but filed separately in each proceeding. The parties also
`agreed to the length of deposition times for a declarant. We were amenable
`to both agreements by the parties.
`
`4
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00190 (Patent 7,334,720 B2)
`CBM2014-00192 (Patent 8,033,458 B2)
`CBM2014-00193 (Patent 8,061,598 B2)
`CBM2014-00194 (Patent 8,118,221 B2)
`CBM2014-00199 (Patent 8,118,221 B2)
`It is
`ORDERED that Smartflash shall file the transcript of the present
`teleconference in each of the cases identified above; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Smartflash is not authorized to file a
`motion to compel routine discovery, a motion to stay these proceedings, or a
`motion to change or extend the due dates in the current Scheduling Orders.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`CBM2014-00190 (Patent 7,334,720 B2)
`CBM2014-00192 (Patent 8,033,458 B2)
`CBM2014-00193 (Patent 8,061,598 B2)
`CBM2014-00194 (Patent 8,118,221 B2)
`CBM2014-00199 (Patent 8,118,221 B2)
`PETITIONER:
`
`Walter Renner
`Thomas Rozylowicz
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`axf@fr.com
`CBM39843-0007CP2@fr.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Michael R. Casey
`J. Scott Davidson
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP
`mcasey@dbjg.com
`jsd@dbjg.com
`
`6

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket