throbber
Filed on behalf of: Sequenom, Inc.
`By: Steven P. O’Connor
`
`Michele C. Bosch
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P.
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`Telephone: 202-408-4000
`Facsimile: 202-408-4400
`E-mail: steven.oconnor@finnegan.com
`
` michele.bosch@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`
` Paper No. ____
`Filed December 23, 2013
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`SEQUENOM, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
`THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY
`Patent Owner
`____________________
`
`Case IPR2013-00390
`Patent 8,195,415
`____________________
`
`
`SEQUENOM REQUEST FOR REHEARING
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c)
`
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................... 2 
`
`III.  ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 3 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Lo I Has an Earlier Filing Date Than Lo II, and thus
`Unpatentability Grounds 11-16 Based on Lo I Are Not
`Redundant to Instituted Grounds 1-6 Based on Lo II ........................... 4 
`
`The Disclosures of Lo I and Lo II Differ, as do the Facts and
`Substantive Arguments Underlying Their Respective Grounds
`of Unpatentability, and thus Grounds 11-16 Based on Lo I Are
`Not Redundant to Instituted Grounds 1-6 Based on Lo II .................... 7 
`
`IV.  CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 8 
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`
`Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC,
` IPR2012-00001, (PTAB Nov. 13, 2013) ............................................................. 5
`
`Illumina, Inc. v. Trustees of Columbia Univ.,
` IPR2012-0007, (PTAB May 10, 2013)................................................................ 6
`
`Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States,
` 393 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................... 3
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(g)(2) (former) .................................................................................. 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .................................................................................................2, 6
`
`Regulations 
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 .................................................................................................2, 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) ...................................................................................... 1, 2, 3, 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) .................................................................................................. 2
`
`ii
`
`
`

`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On December 9, 2013, the Board instituted inter partes review (“IPR”) of all
`
`claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,195,415 (Ex. 1001, “the ’415 patent”)1 based on six of
`
`the sixteen unpatentability grounds presented by Sequenom (“Petitioner”). Paper
`
`7. Specifically, the Board instituted IPR of claims 1-17 of the ’415 patent on
`
`grounds 1-6 based on Lo II (Ex. 1002). Paper 7 at 21-22.
`
`The Board, however, declined to institute IPR on additional grounds
`
`presented by Petitioner that were based not on Lo II, but on Lo I (Ex. 1003), a
`
`reference with an earlier filing date and different disclosure than Lo II.
`
`Specifically, the Board declined to authorize review on Petitioner’s asserted
`
`grounds 11-16 based on Lo I, having a filing date of July 23, 2007, because those
`
`grounds are allegedly redundant to instituted grounds 1-6 based on Lo II, having a
`
`filing date of July 23, 2008. Paper 7 at 21. Yet, as explained by Petitioner,
`
`because the Patent Owner may present evidence that Lo II is not prior art to the
`
`’415 patent as of Lo II’s filing date (see Paper 1 at 5), grounds 11-16 based on Lo
`
`I, having a one year-earlier filing date, are not redundant to the instituted grounds.
`
`
`
`
`1 All cited exhibits refer to the exhibits from Sequenom’s Petition for Inter Partes
`
`Review, Paper 1.
`
`

`
`Moreover, the disclosures of Lo II and Lo I differ, as do the facts and
`
`substantive arguments upon which their respective unpatentability attacks rely.
`
`And because the Patent Owner may, for example, present evidence that a claim
`
`element is not present in the art cited for the instituted grounds based on Lo II,
`
`when that same element is more clearly set forth in the art cited for the grounds
`
`based on Lo I, grounds 11-16 based on Lo I are not redundant to the instituted
`
`grounds.
`
`Petitioner therefore requests reconsideration by the Board under 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.71(c) and modification of the Decision to Institute IPR of the ’415 patent
`
`claims to include the additional grounds of unpatentability 11-16 based on Lo I.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`An IPR will be “instituted for a ground of unpatentability” when the Board
`
`decides that the evidence put forward in a petition “demonstrate[s] that there is a
`
`reasonable likelihood that at least one of the claims challenged in the petition is
`
`unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108.
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), “[a] party may request rehearing on a decision
`
`by the Board on whether to institute a trial pursuant to paragraph (d) of this
`
`section.” Section 42.71(d) provides in relevant part:
`
`A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a request for
`rehearing, without prior authorization from the Board. The
`burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the
`party challenging the decision. The request must specifically
`2
`
`
`

`
`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.
`
`A request for rehearing must be filed “[w]ithin 14 days of the entry of . . . a
`
`decision to institute a trial as to at least one ground of unpatentability asserted in
`
`the petition.” Id.
`
`When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel reviews the decision for an
`
`abuse of discretion. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion occurs where
`
`the decision is based on an erroneous interpretation of the law, on factual findings
`
`that are not supported by substantial evidence, or represents an unreasonable
`
`judgment in weighing relevant factors.” Star Fruits S.N.C. v. United States, 393
`
`F.3d 1277, 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`Petitioner’s unpatentability grounds based on Lo I are not redundant to those
`
`based on Lo II for two distinct reasons: Lo I has (1) an earlier filing date, and (2) a
`
`different disclosure than Lo II. The Board first overlooked the potential
`
`significance of the different filing dates of the Lo I and Lo II references, and thus
`
`legally erred in concluding that grounds 11-16 based on Lo I are redundant to
`
`instituted grounds 1-6 based on Lo II. The Board also overlooked the different
`
`disclosures of Lo I and Lo II, and thus overlooked the different facts and
`
`substantive arguments Petitioner relied upon in grounds 11-16 based on Lo I
`
`3
`
`
`

`
`compared to the instituted grounds. Accordingly, the Board abused its discretion
`
`in declining to institute review of the ’415 patent claims on grounds 11-16, and
`
`should modify its decision instituting IPR to authorize review on these additional
`
`grounds.
`
`A. Lo I Has an Earlier Filing Date Than Lo II, and thus
`Unpatentability Grounds 11-16 Based on Lo I Are Not Redundant
`to Instituted Grounds 1-6 Based on Lo II
`
`By declining to institute IPR of the ’415 patent claims on grounds 11-16
`
`based on Lo I, the Board overlooked the significance of the earlier filing date of Lo
`
`I compared to Lo II, and thus erroneously concluded that unpatentability grounds
`
`11-16 based on Lo I are redundant to the instituted grounds 1-6 based on Lo II.
`
`Petitioner’s IPR petition sets forth sixteen grounds of unpatentability of the
`
`’415 patent claims. Paper 1 at 4-5. Petitioner based grounds 1-10 on Lo II,
`
`asserting that the claims of the ’415 patent are anticipated by Lo II or would have
`
`been obvious over Lo II in combination with other prior art. Id. at 4. Lo II has a
`
`filing date of July 23, 2008. Ex. 1002 at 1; Paper 7 at 3 n. 2. The ’415 patent’s
`
`earliest effective filing date is September 20, 2008, just two months after Lo II’s
`
`filing date. Ex. 1001 at 1. Petitioner thus included additional unpatentability
`
`grounds 11-16 based on Lo I, which has a priority date of July 23, 2007, a whole
`
`year earlier than Lo II’s filing date (Ex. 1003 at 91; Paper 7 at 4 n. 9), asserting that
`
`4
`
`
`

`
`the ’415 patent claims would have been obvious over Lo I in combination with
`
`other prior art. Paper 1 at 5.
`
`In adding unpatentability grounds 11-16 based on Lo I, Petitioner recognized
`
`that the Patent Owner may be able to provide sufficient evidence to establish
`
`priority of invention under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)(2) (former) to antedate Lo II’s July
`
`23, 2008, filing date,2 yet not to antedate Lo I’s earlier July 23, 2007, filing date.
`
`Such evidence may be presented by the Patent Owner in an IPR (see Garmin Int’l,
`
`Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, IPR2012-00001, slip op. 20-28 (PTAB Nov. 13,
`
`2013) (Paper 59) (Final Written Decision)), and might eliminate all unpatentability
`
`grounds based on Lo II, and thus all instituted grounds. But such evidence might
`
`not eliminate the non-instituted unpatentability grounds 11-16 based on Lo I given
`
`Lo I’s one-year earlier effective prior art date. Accordingly, grounds of
`
`unpatentability based on Lo I and Lo II do not necessarily stand or fall together and
`
`are, therefore, not redundant grounds. The Board’s conclusion that grounds 11-16
`
`are “redundant” of grounds 1-6 indicates that the Board overlooked the potential
`
`significance of the different filing dates for Lo I and Lo II.
`
`
`2 In fact, the ’415 patent and a Lo application that claims priority to Lo II are
`
`involved in an interference, Interference No. 105,922, declared on May 3, 2013.
`
`Paper 1 at 1 n. 1.
`
`5
`
`
`

`
`Recognizing that different filing dates can preclude a decision of
`
`redundancy, the Board has held a distinction in effective filing dates to be a
`
`legitimate reason to authorize review based on a reference having an earlier filing
`
`date in granting a request for rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). Illumina, Inc.
`
`v. Trustees of Columbia Univ., IPR2012-0007, slip op. at 13 (PTAB May 10, 2013)
`
`(Paper 54). In the present case, the Board determined that Petitioner’s alternative
`
`grounds of unpatentability 11-16 are redundant to instituted grounds 1-6 without
`
`analyzing the different filing dates of Lo II and Lo I. But the same distinction in
`
`filing dates for which the Board modified its decision to institute IPR in Illumina
`
`applies here. And by stating that Petitioner’s alternative grounds 11-16 are
`
`redundant, the Board appears to have acknowledged that grounds based on Lo I
`
`would, like instituted grounds 1-6, also meet the standard required for the
`
`institution of IPR. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a); 37 C.F.R. § 42.108.
`
`In Illumina, the Board granted rehearing and modified the instituted grounds
`
`to substitute the earlier-filed reference for the later-filed one because Illumina’s
`
`unpatentability challenges for both references relied on the same factual basis.
`
`Illumina, IPR2012-0007, slip op. at 11-12, 18. In the present case, in contrast, as
`
`explained in more detail below, Lo I is not substitutable for Lo II because the facts
`
`and substantive arguments of unpatentability differ, with Lo II asserted as
`
`anticipatory of certain claims and Lo I asserted based on obviousness. Paper 1 at
`
`6
`
`
`

`
`4-5. Therefore, the Board should maintain the grounds under which it instituted
`
`IPR of the ’415 patent, and modify its decision to additionally institute review of
`
`the ’415 patent claims on Petitioner’s asserted grounds 11-16 based on Lo I.
`
`B.
`
`The Disclosures of Lo I and Lo II Differ, as do the Facts and
`Substantive Arguments Underlying Their Respective Grounds of
`Unpatentability, and thus Grounds 11-16 Based on Lo I Are Not
`Redundant to Instituted Grounds 1-6 Based on Lo II
`
`By declining to institute IPR of the ’415 patent claims on unpatentability
`
`grounds 11-16 based on Lo I, the Board also overlooked that the disclosures of Lo
`
`I and Lo II differ and, accordingly, the facts and substantive arguments of grounds
`
`11-16 based on Lo I differ from grounds 1-6 based on Lo II. Thus, for this distinct
`
`reason, grounds 11-16 are not redundant to the instituted grounds.
`
`Petitioner asserts in unpatentability ground 1, based on Lo II, that certain
`
`claims of the ’415 patent are anticipated by Lo II, that is, that Lo II teaches each
`
`and every limitation of these claims. Paper 1 at 4. In contrast, Petitioner asserts in
`
`ground 11, based on Lo I, that these same claims would have been obvious over Lo
`
`I in combination with other prior art. Id. at 5. Accordingly, unlike the instituted
`
`ground for these claims, which relies solely on Lo II’s disclosure, ground 11 relies
`
`on the disclosure of Lo I and the disclosure of other cited prior art references.
`
`Likewise, the obviousness combinations differ for grounds 12-16 based on Lo I
`
`and grounds 2-6 based on Lo II. Id. at 4-5, 30-31, 37-46, 59.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`

`
`Unsurprisingly, such anticipation and obviousness grounds are not redundant
`
`unpatentability grounds—they do not necessarily stand or fall together. For
`
`example, the Patent Owner may be able to show that a claim element is not present
`
`in Lo II, and thus that Lo II does not anticipate or would not render obvious the
`
`claims as asserted in the instituted grounds. This same claim element, however,
`
`may be more clearly set forth in a reference combined with Lo I, and thus grounds
`
`11-16 may independently establish unpatentability of the claims.
`
`In summary, the Board overlooked that the disclosures of Lo I and Lo II
`
`differ and, thus, that the Lo I and Lo II references have not been cited for the same
`
`factual teachings. Accordingly, unpatentability grounds 11-16 based on Lo I are
`
`not redundant to instituted grounds 1-6 based on Lo II for this second reason, and
`
`the Board should, in addition to grounds 1-6, institute review of the ’415 patent
`
`claims on Petitioner’s asserted grounds 11-16 based on Lo I.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, the Board should reconsider its December 9,
`
`2013, decision and institute inter partes review of ’415 patent claims 1-17 on
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`

`
`unpatentability grounds 11-16 based on Lo I in addition to instituted grounds 1-6
`
`based on Lo II.
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
` Dated: December 23, 2013 By: /Steven P. O’Connor /
` Steven P. O’Connor
` Reg. No. 41,225
`
` Counsel for Party Lo
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`

`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing “SEQUENOM
`
`REQUEST FOR REHEARING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c)” was served by
`
`electronic mail and Federal Express on this 23rd day of December 2013, upon the
`
`lead and backup counsel of record for the Patent Owner as follows:
`
`
`
`R. Danny Huntington, Esq. (dhuntington@rothwellfigg.com)
`Sharon E. Crane, Ph.D. (scrane@rothwellfigg.com)
`Rothwell, Figg, Ernst & Manbeck, P.C.
`Suite 800
`607 14th Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`By: /Steven P. O’Connor/
` Steven P. O’Connor
` Reg. No. 41,225
`
`   
`
`
`
`
`  

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