Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 47
`Entered: June 10, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner
`
`and
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case CBM2014-001931
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, RAMA G. ELLURU,
`JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`1 CBM2015-00120 (Patent 8,061,598 B2) has been consolidated with this
`proceeding.
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`Paper 47
`Entered: June 10, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner
`
`and
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case CBM2014-001931
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`Before JENNIFER S. BISK, RAMA G. ELLURU,
`JEREMY M. PLENZLER, and MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`DECISION
`Denying Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71
`
`
`
`
`
`1 CBM2015-00120 (Patent 8,061,598 B2) has been consolidated with this
`proceeding.
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00193
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (“Samsung”),2 filed a
`Corrected Petition to institute covered business method patent review of
`claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 8,061,598 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’598 patent”)
`pursuant to § 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”).3 Paper 2
`(“Pet.”). On April 2, 2015, we instituted a covered business method patent
`review (Paper 7, “Institution Decision” or “Inst. Dec.”) based upon
`Samsung’s assertion that claim 7 (“the challenged claim”) is directed to
`patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Inst. Dec. 19.
`On April 30, 2015, Apple Inc. (“Apple”) filed a Petition to institute
`covered business method patent review of the same claim of the ’598 patent
`based on the same ground. Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC, Case CBM2015-
`00120 (Paper 2, “Apple Pet.”). Apple simultaneously filed a “Motion for
`Joinder” of its newly filed case with Samsung’s previously instituted case.
`CBM2015-00120 (Paper 3, “Apple Mot.”). On August 6, 2015, we granted
`Apple’s Petition and consolidated the two proceedings. Paper 29; Apple Inc.
`v. Smartflash LLC, Case CBM2015-00120, (Paper 13).
`Subsequent to institution, Smartflash LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`Patent Owner Response (Paper 20, “PO Resp.”) and Samsung and Apple
`(collectively, “Petitioner”) filed a Reply (Paper 28, “Pet. Reply”) to Patent
`Owner’s Response.
`
`
`2 Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, a petitioner at the time of
`filing, merged with and into Samsung Electronics America, Inc. as of
`January 1, 2015. Paper 6.
`3 Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 296–07 (2011).
`
`2
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00193
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`In our Final Decision, we determined that Petitioner had established,
`by a preponderance of the evidence, that claim 7 of the ’598 patent is
`unpatentable. Paper 45 (“Final Dec.”), 27.
`Patent Owner requests rehearing of the Final Decision. Paper 46
`(“Request” or “Req. Reh’g”). Having considered Patent Owner’s Request,
`we decline to modify our Final Decision.
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW
`In covered business method review, the petitioner has the burden of
`showing unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. 35 U.S.C.
`§ 326(e). The standard of review for rehearing requests is set forth in 37
`C.F.R. § 42.71(d), which states:
`The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with
`the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically
`identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended
`or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously
`addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.
`
`ANALYSIS
`Patent Owner’s Request is based on a disagreement with our
`determination that claim 7 is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
`Req. Reh’g 1. In its Request, Patent Owner presents arguments directed to
`alleged similarities between the challenged claim and those at issue in DDR
`Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Req.
`Reh’g 5–10) and alleged differences between the challenged claim and those
`at issue in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)
`(id. at 10–15).
`As noted above, our rules require that the requesting party
`“specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board
`
`3
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00193
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was
`previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R.
`42.71(d) (emphasis added). In its Request, however, Patent Owner does not
`identify any specific matter that we misapprehended or overlooked. Rather,
`the only citation to Patent Owner’s previous arguments are general citations,
`without explanation as to how we misapprehended or overlooked any
`particular matter in the record. For example, with respect to Patent Owner’s
`arguments regarding DDR Holdings, Patent Owner simply notes that “the
`issue of whether the claim was similar to those in DDR Holdings was
`previously addressed. See PO Resp. 1, 10–12.” Request 6 n.3. Similarly, in
`Patent Owner’s arguments regarding Alice, Patent Owner simply notes that
`“the issue of whether Claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea was previously
`addressed. See PO Resp. 9–20; see also Tr. 46:21–47:11” (id. at 10 n.5) and
`“the issue of whether the claim contains ‘additional features’ beyond an
`abstract idea was previously addressed. See PO Resp. 11–12” (id. at 12 n.7).
`These generic citations to large portions of the record do not identify, with
`any particularity, specific arguments that we may have misapprehended or
`overlooked.
`Rather than providing a proper request for rehearing, addressing
`particular matters that we previously misapprehended or overlooked, Patent
`Owner’s Request provides new briefing by expounding on argument already
`made. Patent Owner cannot simply allege that an “issue” (e.g., whether the
`claims are directed to an abstract idea) was previously addressed, generally,
`and proceed to present new argument on that issue in a request for rehearing.
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.71.
`
`4
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00193
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`Patent Owner’s arguments are either new or were addressed in our
`Final Decision. For example, Patent Owner’s argument that the challenged
`claims are not directed to an abstract idea (Req. Reh’g 10–12) is new, and
`therefore, improper in a request for rehearing, because Patent Owner did not
`argue the first step of the analysis articulated in Mayo and Alice in its Patent
`Owner Response (see PO Resp. passim (arguing only the second step of the
`Mayo and Alice test)). To the extent portions of the Request are supported
`by Patent Owner’s argument in the general citations to the record, we
`considered those arguments in our Final Decision, as even Patent Owner
`acknowledges. See, e.g., Req. Reh’g 6 (citing Final Dec. 14) (“The Board
`rejected Patent Owner’s reliance on DDR Holdings (at 14), holding that
`Claim 7 was not ‘rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a
`problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.’”). For
`example, Patent Owner’s arguments about inventive concept (Req. Reh’g 5–
`6, 12–15) were addressed at pages 9–12 and 16–17 of our Final Decision,
`Patent Owner’s arguments about preemption (Req. Reh’g. 6) were addressed
`at pages 17–20 of our Final Decision, and Patent Owner’s arguments about
`DDR Holdings (Req. Reh’g. 6–9) were addressed at pages 12–16 of our
`Final Decision. Mere disagreement with our Final Decision also is not a
`proper basis for rehearing.
`Accordingly, Patent Owner’s Request does not apprise us of sufficient
`reason to modify our Final Decision.
`
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Request is denied.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`CBM2014-00193
`Patent 8,061,598 B2
`
`PETITIONER:
`Walter Renner
`Thomas Rozylowicz
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`axf@fr.com
`cbm39843-0006cp1@fr.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Michael R. Casey
`J. Scott Davidson
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP
`mcasey@dbjg.com
`jsd@dbjg.com
`SmartFlash-CBM@dbjg.com
`
`6
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
