UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`________________________
`
`Case CBM2015-00016
`
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE TRIAL AS TO CLAIM 1
`
`
`
`
`
`________________________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________
`APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMARTFLASH LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`________________________
`
`Case CBM2015-00016
`
`Patent 8,033,458 B2
`
`________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO TERMINATE TRIAL AS TO CLAIM 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`I.I.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEFINTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF
`REQUESTED ................................................................................................. 1
`
`REQUESTED ............................................................................................... ..1REQUESTED ............................................................................................... ..1
`
`II.
`
`II.II.
`
` STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED ......... 2
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED ....... ..2STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED ....... ..2
`
`III. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 4
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ ..4III. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ ..4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Exhibit Number
`
` PATENT OWNER’S LIST OF EXHIBITS
`Exhibit Description
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`Reserved
`
`Redline Showing “Corrected Petition” Compared to Original
`Petition in CBM2015-00016
`
`Reserved
`
`Congressional Record - House, June 23, 2011, H4480-4505
`
`Congressional Record - Senate, Sep. 8, 2011, S5402-5443
`
`2006-2048
`
`Reserved
`
`2049
`
`2050
`
`Report and Recommendation (on Defendants’ Motions for
`Summary Judgment of Invalidity Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §
`101), from Smartflash LLC, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al., Case
`No. 6:13-CV-447 (E.D. Tex.) and Smartflash LLC, et al. v.
`Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd, et al., Case No. 6:13-CV-448
`(E.D. Tex.), dated Jan. 21, 2015
`
`Order adopting Report and Recommendation (on
`Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment of Invalidity
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101), from Smartflash LLC, et al. v.
`Apple Inc., et al., Case No. 6:13-CV-447 (E.D. Tex.) and
`Smartflash LLC, et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd, et al.,
`Case No. 6:13-CV-448 (E.D. Tex.), dated Feb. 13, 2015
`
`2051-2057
`
`Reserved
`
`2058
`
`Memorandum Opinion and Order (on Defendants’ Motions
`
`ii
`
`
`
`for Stay Pending the Outcome of CBMs) from Smartflash
`LLC, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al., Case No. 6:13-CV-447 (E.D.
`Tex.), Smartflash LLC, et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd,
`et al., Case No. 6:13-CV-448 (E.D. Tex.), Smartflash LLC, et
`al. v. Google, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:14-CV-435 (E.D. Tex.),
`and Smartflash LLC, et al. v. Amazon, Inc., et al., Case No.
`6:14-CV-992 (E.D. Tex.) dated May 29, 2015
`
`2059-2067
`
`Reserved
`
`2068
`
`2069
`
`2070
`
`Deposition Transcript of Anthony J. Wechselberger dated
`May 28, 2015
`
`Reserved
`
`Declaration of Emily E. Toohey in Support of Patent
`Owner’s Response
`
`2071-2072
`
`Reserved
`
`2073
`
`2074
`
`Apple’s Preliminary Claim Constructions and Extrinsic
`Evidence filed in Smartflash LLC, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al.,
`Case No. 6:13-cv-447-MHS-KNM (E.D. Tex.)
`
`Civil Docket Report from Smartflash LLC, et al. v. Apple
`Inc., et al., Case No. 6:13-CV-447 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`2075-2099
`
`Reserved
`
`2100
`
`Objections To Admissibility Of Evidence
`
`2101-2012
`
`Reserved
`
`iii
`
`
`
`2103
`
`2104
`
`2105-2116
`2117
`
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., __ F. App’x __, 2015 WL
`4603820, at *6 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2015)
`157 Cong. Rec. S936-S953 at S952 (Senate Debate, February
`28, 2011; Senator Grassely)
`Reserved
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., Order, Cases 16-1435, -1445,
`1446, 1447 (Fed. Cir. March 4, 2016)
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF PRECISE RELIEF
`REQUESTED
`
`Patent Owner Smartflash LLC hereby moves to terminate this Covered
`
`Business Method Review (“CBM Review”) as to claim 1 of U.S. Patent 8,033,458
`
`(“the ’458 Patent”) as moot. On March 10, 2016, the PTAB authorized (via an e-
`
`mail from Maria Vignone, PTAB Paralegal Operations Manager) Smartflash to file
`
`this motion by March 16, 2016.
`
`By Final Written Decision in CBM2014-00106 dated September 25, 2015
`
`the Board determined claim 1 of the ‘458 Patent to be unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103. Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC, CBM2014-00106, Final Written
`
`Decision, Paper 52 at 31 (PTAB September 25, 2015). In this CBM Review of
`
`claim 1 of the ‘458 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101, by Order dated November 4,
`
`2015, the Board determined that the estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1) is
`
`applicable to Apple and dismissed Apple as a party with respect to claim 1. Apple
`
`Inc. v. Smartflash LLC, CBM2015-00016, Order, Paper 50 at 3, 8 (PTAB
`
`November 4, 2015). On March 4, 2016, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b), the
`
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed Smartflash LLC’s
`
`appeal of the Board’s decision in CBM2014-00106 that claim 1 of the ‘458 Patent
`
`was unpatentable. Thus, claim 1 of the ‘458 Patent has been finally adjudicated to
`
`be unpatentable. The eligibility of claim 1 of the ‘458 Patent here in CBM2015-
`
`00016 is moot. The Board should therefore terminate trial as to claim 1 of the ‘458
`
`1
`
`
`
`Patent without rendering a Final Written Decision on that claim pursuant to 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.72.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`On petitions filed by Apple Inc., the Board instituted Covered Business
`
`Method review on 35 U.S.C. § 101 grounds of claim 1 only of the ‘221 Patent in
`
`CBM2015-00015 (CBM2015-00015, Paper 23 at 21-22), on claims 1, 6, 8, and 10
`
`of U.S. Patent 8,033,458 (“the ‘458 Patent”) in CBM2015-000161 (CBM2015-
`
`0016, Paper 23 at 26) and on claim 18 only of U.S. Patent 7,942,317 (“the ‘317
`
`Patent”) in CBM2015-00018 (CBM2015-00018, Paper 15 at 14).
`
`Also on petitions filed by Apple Inc., on September 25, 2015 the Board
`
`issued Final Written Decisions, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 328(a), finding certain
`
`claims invalid on 35 U.S.C. § 103 grounds in CBM2014-00102 (claims 1, 2, and
`
`11-14 of the ‘221 Patent (CBM2014-00102, Paper 52 at 43)); CBM2014-00106
`
`(claim 1 of the ‘458 Patent, (CBM2014-00106, Paper 52 at 31)); and CBM2014-
`
`00112 (claims 1, 6-8, 12, 13, 16, and 18 of the ‘317 Patent (CBM2014-00112,
`
`Paper 48 at 29)).
`
`By Order dated November 4, 2015, the Board determined that the estoppel
`
`provision of 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1) is applicable to Apple with respect to claim 1 of
`
`
`1 The Board also instituted review of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. §112, second
`
`paragraph in CBM2015-00016.
`
`2
`
`
`
`the ’221 Patent in CBM2015-00015, claim 1 of the ’458 patent in CBM2015-
`
`00016, and claim 18 of the ‘317 Patent in CBM2015-00018 and dismissed Apple
`
`as a Petitioner from CBM2015-00015, from CBM2015-00016 with respect to
`
`claim 1 of the ’458 patent, and from CBM2015-00018. CBM2015-00015, Paper
`
`49 at 3, 8; CBM2015-00016, Paper 50 at 3, 8; CBM2015-00018, Paper 37 at 3, 8.
`
`On March 4, 2016, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b), the United States
`
`Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed Smartflash LLC’s appeal of the
`
`Board’s decisions in CBM2014-00102 that claim 1 of the ‘221 Patent is
`
`unpatentable, in CBM2014-00106 that claim 1 of the ‘458 Patent is unpatentable,
`
`and in CBM2014-00112 that claim 18 of the ‘317 Patent is unpatentable. Exhibit
`
`2117, Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., Order, Cases 16-1435, -1445, 1446, 1447
`
`(Fed. Cir. March 4, 2016).
`
`Thus, claim 1 of the ‘458 Patent has been finally adjudicated to be
`
`unpatentable. The issue of that claim’s eligibility here is moot. The Board has
`
`authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 to terminate trial as to claim 1 of the ‘458 Patent
`
`without rendering a Final Written Decision on that claim. Termination in this
`
`circumstance is consistent with 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b)’s requirement that “[t]his part
`
`shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every
`
`proceeding.”
`
`3
`
`
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the forgoing reasons, Patent Owner Smartflash LLC respectfully
`
`requests that the Board terminate trial on the eligibility of claim 1 of the ‘458
`
`Patent without rendering a Final Written Decision on that claim pursuant to 37
`
` /
`
` Michael R. Casey /
`
`
`Michael R. Casey
`Registration No. 40,294
`Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Drive
`Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`Telephone: (571) 765-7705
`Fax: (571) 765-7200
`Email: mcasey@dbjg.com
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`C.F.R. § 42.72.
`
`
`
`Dated: March 15, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that this PATENT OWNER’S MOTION
`
`TO TERMINATE TRIAL AS TO CLAIM 1 (including Patent Owner’s List of
`
`Exhibits) and Exhibit 2117 in CBM2015-00016 were served today by emailing a
`
`copy to counsel for the Petitioner as follows:
`
`
`J. Steven Baughman (steven.baughman@ropesgray.com)
`Ching-Lee Fukuda (ching-lee.fukuda@ropesgray.com)
`Megan Raymond (megan.raymond@ropesgray.com)
`ApplePTABService-SmartFlash@ropesgray.com
`
`
` /
`
` Michael R. Casey /
`
`
`Michael R. Casey
`Registration No. 40,294
`Davidson Berquist Jackson & Gowdey, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Drive
`Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`Telephone: (571) 765-7705
`Fax: (571) 765-7200
`Email: mcasey@dbjg.com
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 15, 2016
`
`
`
`5
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
