`
`Filed on behalf of ABB, Inc.
`
`By: Richard D. Mc Leod (Reg. No. 46,921)
`Rick.mcleod@klarquist.com
`Michael D. Jones (Reg. No. 41,879)
`michael.jones@klarquist.com
`Klarquist Sparkman LLP
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`ABB, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`ROY-G-BIV CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`____________
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION TO FILE
`SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION (37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................................................... 1
`
`III. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`THE MARKMAN BRIEFING IS RELEVANT TO AT
`LEAST ONE CLAIM AT ISSUE IN THIS PROCEEDING ............... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Previously Filed
`
`1001 David W. Brown et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236, “Motion Control
`Systems”, Issued February 4, 2003.
`
`1002 Gertz, M.W., A Visual Programming Environment for Real-Time Control
`Systems. Ph.D. dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Nov. 22, 1994
`(“Gertz”).
`
`1003 Microsoft Corporation, WOSA (Windows Open Services Architecture)
`Extensions for Financial Services, April 14, 1994 (“WOSA/XFS”).
`
`1004 Stewart, D.B., Real-Time Software Design and Analysis of Reconfigurable
`Multi-Sensor Based Systems. Ph.D. dissertation, Carnegie Mellon
`University, April 1, 1994 (“Stewart”).
`
`1005 Morrow, J. Dan; Nelson, Bradley J.; and Khosla, Pradeep, Vision and
`Force Driven Sensorimotor Primitives for Robotic Assembly Skills.
`Institute for Software Research, paper 574, January 1, 1995 (“Morrow”).
`
`1006 Microsoft Press, MS Windows 3.1 Device Driver Adaptation Guide, ©
`1991, Chs. 1-2, 4, 10-12 (“DDAG”).
`
`1007 Hall, Marty and Mayfield, James, Improving the Performance of AI
`Software: Payoffs and Pitfalls in Using Automatic Memoization.
`Proceedings of Sixth International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence,
`Monterrey, Mexico, September 1993 (“Hall”).
`
`1008 Michael Wright et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,453,933, “CNC Control System,”
`issued Sept. 26, 1995 (“Wright”).
`
`1009 David B. Stewart et al., The Chimera II Real-Time Operating System for
`Advanced Sensor-Based Control Applications. Institute for Software
`Research, paper 613, January 1, 1992 (“Chimera II”).
`
`1010 Cashin, J., WOSA: Windows Open Services Architecture, January 11,
`1994 (“Cashin”).
`
`1011 Kevin Holloway, Motion Software Heads Toward Friendlier User
`Environments, published at www.roygbiv.com/XMCreview1.htm, January
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`21, 1997 (“Holloway”).
`
`1012 Plaintiff Roy-G-Biv Corporation’s Opening Markman Brief, Roy-G-Biv
`Corp., v. Fanuc Ltd., et al. (E.D.Tex., Nov. 21, 2008) (CASE NO. 2:07-
`CV-0418-DF-CE) (“RGB Markman Brief”).
`
`1013 Claim Construction Order, Roy-G-Biv Corp., v. Fanuc Ltd., et al.
`(E.D.Tex., Nov. 21, 2008) (CASE NO. 2:07-CV-0418-DF-CE)
`(“Markman Order”).
`
`1014 U.S. Patent No. 5,881,230, “Method and System for Remote Automation
`of Object Oriented Applications,” issued Mar. 9, 1999 (“Christensen”).
`
`1015 U.S. Patent No. 5,691,897, “Motion Control Systems,” issued Nov. 25,
`1997 (“the ’897 Patent”).
`
`1016 U.S. Patent No. 5,867,385, “Motion Control Systems,” issued Feb. 2, 1999
`(“the 385 Patent”).
`
`1017
`
`Jacob Tal, Step by Step Design of Motion Control Systems, Chapters 9 and
`10, Galil Motion Control, Inc., 1994 (“Tal”).
`
`1018 Hewlett Packard, Matrix/Plotter Programming, HP 9831A Desktop
`Computer, 1977 (“HP77”).
`
`1019 Hewlett Packard, Interface and Programming Manual, HP 7550 Graphics
`Plotter, 3rd ed., 1986 (“HP86”).
`
`1020 Hewlett Packard, User’s Guide, HP 7550 Plus Plotter, 1990 (“HP90”)
`
`1021 Martin L. Stone et al., An Intelligent Plotter for High-Throughput,
`Unattended Operation, Hewlett-Packard Journal, April, 1985 (“HP85”)
`
`1022 Preliminary Infringement Contentions, ROY-G-BIV Corp., v. ABB, Ltd.
`et al. (E.D.Tex., Sept. 14, 2012) (CASE NO. 6:11-CV-00622-LED)
`(“RGB PIC”).
`
`1023 Preliminary Infringement Contentions, Exhibit B, ROY-G-BIV Corp., v.
`ABB, Ltd. et al. (E.D.Tex., Sept. 14, 2012) (CASE NO. 6:11-CV-00622-
`LED) (“RGB PIC, Ex. B”).
`
`1024 U.S. Patent No. 6,516,236, Appendix A.
`
`iii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`1025 Excerpt of RGB Design Document - 3.2 Project Evolution With
`Compumotor Influence.
`
`1026 RGB’s April 26, 2013 Letter Brief to the District Court re Indefiniteness
`Dkt #150-1.
`
`
`
`Currently Filed
`
`1027 RGB Corporation’s Opening Markman Brief, Dkt #151
`
`1028 Defendants’ Joint Claim Construction Brief, Dkt #157
`
`1029 RGB Corporation’s Reply Markman Brief, Dkt #167
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`On April 18, 2013, Trial was instituted against claims 1-4 and 8-10 of the
`
`’236 Patent. Prior to May 18, 2013, the undersigned requested authorization to file
`
`supplemental information related to Markman briefing in the concurrent litigation.
`
`This issue was discussed at the Initial Scheduling Conference convened by the
`
`Board, wherein it was noted that RGB Corporation’s Reply Markman Brief was
`
`expected to be filed on May 24, 2013. RGB’s Opening Markman Briefing was
`
`filed on April 26, 2013. Accordingly, the Markman Briefing was not available to
`
`the Petitioner when the petition was filed in November 2012, or to the Board prior
`
`to the institution of Trial.
`
`On May 23, 2013, the Board authorized the filing of the instant motion to
`
`file supplemental information, specifically related to claim construction in the
`
`concurrent litigation.
`
`The district court has scheduled a Markman hearing for June 19, 2013, and
`
`the district court’s construction of claim terms is expected long before Trial in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`II. RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`ABB asks the Board to enter the following documents into the record:
`
`Exh. 1027 – RGB Corporation’s Opening Markman Brief
`
`Exh. 1028 – Defendants’ Joint Claim Construction Brief
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to File Supplemental Information
`
`Page 1
`
`
`
`Exh. 1029 – RGB Corporation’s Reply Markman Brief
`
`ABB further asks for leave to submit the district court’s Markman Order
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`(when issued) without further motion practice.
`
`
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`Claim construction in the course of litigation is often relevant to an
`
`administrative review of patentability. The Supreme Court has long held that a
`
`patent owner may not take advantage of a broader claim interpretation to capture
`
`an alleged infringer, while advancing a narrower interpretation to avoid
`
`invalidating prior art. Thus, the district courts apply the same construction for
`
`deciding both infringement and invalidity.
`
`Logically, the patent owner may not obtain the benefit of a narrower
`
`construction in this proceeding than it has advanced in the litigation.
`
`As a corollary, prior prosecution arguments (even if successful in the past)
`
`have little or no weight where there has been no clear disclaimer of claim scope,
`
`such as where a patent owner actively repudiates its prior prosecution argument(s)
`
`by seeking a claim interpretations that do not honor its prior arguments for
`
`patentability. See e.g., Exh. 1029, RGB’s Markman Reply Brief at 1(asserting that
`
`prosecution history disclaimers discussed in Exh. 1028, Defendants’ Joint Claim
`
`Construction Brief are non-existent).
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to File Supplemental Information
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`Additionally, RGB’s Markman briefing establishes that it regards the
`
`material in Appendix A and B as the preferred embodiment in the specification
`
`(Exh. 1029, RGB’s Reply Brief at 3-4), and not merely a “specification for a
`
`product.” (Cf. Board Decision, Paper 28 at 8.)
`
`
`
`A. THE MARKMAN BRIEFING IS RELEVANT TO AT
`LEAST ONE CLAIM AT ISSUE IN THIS PROCEEDING
`
`Trial has been instituted against claims 1-4 and 8-10. These claims include
`
`many of the claim terms at issue in the Markman Briefing.
`
`In this proceeding, the Board has construed the claim term “motion control
`
`device” to include any hardware device with a controller and a mechanical system
`
`that translates signals generated by the controller into the movement of an object.
`
`(Paper 23 at 11.)
`
`By comparison, the Patent Owner seeks an even broader construction in the
`
`litigation: “a device comprising a controller and a mechanical system.” (Ex. 1027,
`
`RGB’s Opening Markman Brief at 16).
`
`For many other claim terms, the Board has not expressly adopted a
`
`construction as yet. However, should the Board find it necessary to construe other
`
`terms during the course of this proceeding, both RGB’s proposed constructions and
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to File Supplemental Information
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`whatever constructions are ultimately adopted by the district court are relevant to
`
`the Board’s consideration.
`
`Accordingly, these documents are material to these proceedings and should
`
`be part of the record. Further, the district court’s claim construction order is likely
`
`to be material to these proceedings, and entry of this document should be pre-
`
`authorized in the interest of efficiency and avoiding further motion practice.
`
`
`
`Dated: May 30, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Richard D. Mc Leod/
`Richard D. Mc Leod
`Registration No. 46,921
`Michael D. Jones (Reg. No. 41,879)
`michael.jones@klarquist.com
`Klarquist Sparkman LLP
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`
`Petitioner’s Motion to File Supplemental Information
`
`Page 4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00062
`Patent 6,516,236 B1
`
`
`Certificate of Service in Compliance With 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4)
`
`The undersigned certifies that a complete copy of this Petitioner’s Motion
`
`to File Supplemental Information was served on counsel of record for the ’236
`
`Patent owner:
`
`RICHARD T. BLACK
`JOEL B. ARB
`FOSTER PEPPER PLLC
`1111 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3400
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3299
`TEL: (206) 447-6251
`FAX: (206) 749-2062
`BLACR@FOSTER.COM
`ARDJO@FOSTER.COM
`
`
`via EXPRESS MAIL, on May 30, 2013.
`
`By /Richard D. Mc Leod/
`Richard D. Mc Leod
`Registration No. 46,921
`One World Trade Center, Suite 1600
`121 S.W. Salmon Street
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503) 595-5300
`Facsimile: (503) 595-5301
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`