Trials@uspto.gov Paper No. 9
`571-272-7822 Date Entered: June 20, 2013
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SOFTVIEW, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00256
`Patent 7,461,353
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before, SCOTT R. BOALICK, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
`BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`571-272-7822 Date Entered: June 20, 2013
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SOFTVIEW, LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00256
`Patent 7,461,353
`____________
`
`
`
`
`Before, SCOTT R. BOALICK, BRYAN F. MOORE, and
`BRIAN J. McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`McNAMARA, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`
`DECISION
`Institution of Inter Partes Review
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00256
`Patent 7,461,353
`
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Motorola Mobility LLC (Petitioner) requests inter partes review of claims 1,
`
`33, 36, 43, 48, 51, 52, 58, 59, 66, 118, 138, 139, 149, 183, 252, 283, and 317 of US
`
`Patent 7,461,353 (the ´353 patent) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311 et seq. Petitioner
`
`represents that the instant Petition asserts the same grounds of unpatentability as
`
`those on which the Board initiated inter partes review in Kyocera Corporation v.
`
`Softview LLC, Case IPR2013-00007 (the Kyocera IPR). Petitioner has separately
`
`moved that the instant proceeding be joined with the Kyocera IPR (Motion for
`
`Joinder). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §314.
`
`During a teleconference on May 29, 2013, the Board set June 17, 2013 as the
`
`date for SoftView LLC (Patent Owner) to exercise its option of filing a Patent
`
`Owner’s Preliminary Response under 37 C.F.R. §42.107(b) in the instant
`
`proceeding. Patent Owner did not file a Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response.
`
`The standard for instituting an inter partes review is set forth in 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(a) which provides as follows:
`
`THRESHOLD -- The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be
`instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in
`the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313
`shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail
`with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.
`
`Petitioner challenges the claims on the same grounds as those on which we
`
`have already instituted IPR 2013-00007. In that case, we instituted inter partes
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00256
`Patent 7,461,353
`
`
`review on the following grounds: (i) claims 1, 33, 36, 43, 48, 51, 52, 58, 59, 118,
`
`138, 139, 149, 183, 252, 283 and 317 as obvious based on the combination of
`
`Zarus and Pad++ ; (ii) claims 1, 33, 36, 43, 48, 51, 52, 58, 59, 118, 138, 139, 149,
`
`183, 252, 283 and 317 as obvious based on the combination of Zarus,
`
`Tsutsumitake, and Hara; (iii) claim 66 as obvious based on the combination of
`
`Zarus, Pad++ and SVG; and (iv) Claim 66 based on the combination of Zarus,
`
`Tsutsumitake, Hara and SVG. We did not institute inter partes review on the
`
`following asserted grounds: (i) claims 33, 43, 58, 183 and 283 based on the
`
`combination of Zarus, Pad++ and SVG ; (ii) claims 33, 43, 58, 183 and 283 based
`
`on the combination of Zarus, Tsutsumitake, Hara and SVG; and (iii) claims 33, 43,
`
`183 and 283 based on the combination of Zarus, Hara, Tsutsumitake, and SVF; and
`
`(iv) claims 33, 43, 183, and 283 based on the combination of Zarus, Hara,
`
`Tsutsumitake and VML
`
`We incorporate by reference our decision instituting IPR2013-00007 and
`
`grant the instant Petition challenging claims 1, 33, 36, 43, 48, 51, 52, 58, 59, 66,
`
`118, 138, 139, 149, 183, 252, 283, and 317 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 on the same
`
`grounds as those on which we instituted inter partes review in IPR2013-00007.
`
`We do not authorize inter partes review on any other grounds. In a separate
`
`decision, entered today, we also grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00256
`Patent 7,461,353
`
`
`
`
`SUMMARY
`
`I. The Petition is GRANTED as to the following grounds asserted under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103:
`
`Claims 1, 33, 36, 43, 48, 51, 52, 58, 59, 118, 138, 139, 149, 183, 252,
`
`283 and 317 based on the combination of Zarus and Pad++;
`
`Claims 1, 33, 36, 43, 48, 51, 52, 58, 59, 118, 138, 139, 149, 183, 252,
`
`283 and 317 based on the combination of Zarus, Tsutsumitake, and Hara;
`
`Claim 66 based on the combination of Zarus, Pad++ and SVG;
`
`Claim 66 based on the combination of Zarus, Tsutsumitake, Hara and
`
`SVG.
`
`II. We do not authorize an inter partes review on any other grounds.
`
`ORDER
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that the Petition is granted,
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) an inter partes
`
`review of the ´353 patent is hereby instituted, commencing on the entry date of this
`
`Order, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(c) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4, notice is hereby
`
`given of the institution of a trial,
`
`FURTHER ORDRED that the trial is limited to the grounds identified in
`
`Section I. of the above Summary, and no other grounds are authorized.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00256
`Patent 7,461,353
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC: (via electronic transmission)
`John. C. Alemanni
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
`Email:jalemanni@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER SOFTVIEW LLC: (via electronic transmission)
`Ben Yorks
`Babak Redjaian
`Irell & Manella, LLP
`Email: byorks@irell.com
`Email: bredjaian@irell.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
