`
`
`
`Paper No.
`Filed: January 13, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WINTEK CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`TPK TOUCH SOLUTIONS INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00567
`Case IPR2013-00568
`Patent 8,217,902
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Joint Motion to Stay Ex Parte Reexamination
`of U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00567 & 568
`Joint Motion to Stay Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`
`Brief Statement of Relief Requested
`
`I.
`
`In response to the Board’s order issued on January 9, 2014, Petitioner
`
`Wintek Corp. (“Wintek” or “Petitioner”) and Patent Owner TPK Touch Solutions
`
`Inc. (“TPK” or “Patent Owner”) jointly request the Board to stay the ex parte
`
`reexamination (control no. 90/012,869) of U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902 (“the ’902
`
`patent”) pending resolution of this inter partes review of the ’902 patent.
`
`II.
`
`1.
`
`Statement of Material Facts
`A. Litigation
`TPK asserted the ’902 patent against Wintek in a patent infringement
`
`litigation filed on May 15, 2013 in the Northern District of California (case
`
`no. 3:13-cv-2218).
`
`B.
`Ex Parte Reexamination Control No. 90/012,869
`On May 17, 2013, a request for ex parte reexamination of claims 1-68 of the
`
`2.
`
`’902 patent was filed, which was assigned control no. 90/012,869 (“the ’869
`
`reexamination”). The request proposed 18 grounds of rejection based on the
`
`following six references: Japanese Published Patent Application No.
`
`60-75927 (“Fujitsu”); U.S. Patent No. 6,137,427 (“Binstead”); Japanese
`
`Published Patent Application No. 61-84729 (“Honeywell”); Published UK
`
`Patent Application GB 2 168 816 A (“Lambert”); U.S. Patent Application
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00567 & 568
`Joint Motion to Stay Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`
`Publication No. 2005/0030048 (“Bolender”); and U.S. Patent No. 5,374,787
`
`(“Miller”).
`
`3.
`
`On June 20, 2013, the Office found that the prior art identified in the
`
`reexamination request raises substantial new questions of patentability of
`
`claims 1-68 of the ’902 patent and ordered ex parte reexamination.
`
`4.
`
`On November 15, 2013, the Office issued an office action, rejecting claims
`
`1-68 based on the 18 grounds of rejection proposed in the request.
`
`5.
`
`On January 6, 2014, TPK filed a response to the Office Action. In its
`
`response, TPK added 7 new independent claims 69-75. The ’869
`
`reexamination remains pending before the Office.
`
`C.
`IPR2013-00567 and IPR2013-00568
`On September 4, 2013, Wintek filed two petitions for inter partes review
`
`6.
`
`(“IPR”) of claims 1-68 of the ’902 patent. These petitions were assigned
`
`case nos. IPR2013-00567 (“the 567 Petition”) and IPR 2013-00568 (“the
`
`568 Petition”). The 567 and 568 Petitions collectively present a total of 18
`
`grounds that challenge the patentability of claims 1-68 of the ’902 patent.
`
`The IPR petitions also rely on substantially the same prior art identified in
`
`the ’869 reexamination, namely Fujitsu, Binstead, Honeywell, Lambert,
`
`Bolender, and Miller, and one additional reference, U.S. Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 2007/0229469 (“Seguine”). In particular, the 567 Petition
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00567 & 568
`Joint Motion to Stay Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`
`involves nine grounds based on two primary prior art references Binstead
`
`and Lambert, along with various combinations of those references with
`
`Honeywell, Bolender, Miller, and Seguine. The 568 Petition involves nine
`
`grounds based on two primary prior art references Fujitsu and Honeywell,
`
`along with various combinations of those references with Binstead, Miller,
`
`Seguine, and Bolender.
`
`7.
`
`TPK filed preliminary responses in the IPR2013-00567 and IPR2013-00568
`
`proceedings on December 11, 2013. The Board has not yet decided whether
`
`to institute trial in these two IPR proceedings.
`
`III. Full Statement of the Reasons for Stay
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(d), “if another proceeding or matter involving the
`
`patent is before the Office, the Director may determine the manner in which the
`
`inter partes review or other proceeding or matter may proceed, including providing
`
`for stay, transfer, consolidation, or termination of any such matter or proceeding.”
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(d); see also 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.122(a), 42.3(a). In determining
`
`whether to grant a stay of a pending reexamination proceeding, the Board
`
`considers several factors including: (1) whether claim amendments in one
`
`proceeding could interfere with another proceeding; (2) whether the proceedings
`
`include common issues, such that conducting the proceedings concurrently would
`
`result in an inefficient use of Office resources or produce inconsistent results; and
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`(3) whether an IPR proceeding could result in a decision on the merits before a
`
`Case IPR2013-00567 & 568
`Joint Motion to Stay Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`
`final decision in a reexamination, simplifying the issues remaining in the
`
`reexamination proceeding. See, e.g., Goertek, Inc. v. Knowles Elecs., LLC,
`
`IPR2013-00614, Paper 11 at 3 (Nov. 13, 2013).1 The issues involved with respect
`
`to the IPR2013-00567 and IPR2013-00568 proceedings and the ’869
`
`reexamination warrant granting a stay of the ’869 reexamination.
`
`First, claim amendments made in the ’869 reexamination could interfere
`
`with the conduct of the IPR2013-00567 and IPR2013-00568 proceedings. Indeed,
`
`TPK added seven new independent claims in its response to the first Office Action
`
`in the ’869 reexamination, demonstrating the potential for amendments in that
`
`proceeding. The new claims include some limitations that track those of issued
`
`claims 1-68 of the ’902 patent. These and/or any other claim amendments
`
`introduced in the ’869 reexamination could interfere with the IPR2013-00567 and
`
`
`1 See also Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd. v. Fractus, S.A., IPR2014-00008, Paper 14 at 4
`
`(Nov. 12, 2013); Google, Inc. v. Grandeye, Ltd., IPR2013-00548, Paper 7 at 2
`
`(Sept. 30, 2013); Lumondi Inc. v. Lennon Image Techs. LLC, IPR2013-00432,
`
`Paper 7 at 2 (Aug. 6, 2013); CB Distributors, Inc. v. Ruyan Investments (Hldgs.)
`
`Ltd., IPR2013-00387, Paper 6 at 2 (July 24, 2013); The Scotts Co., LLC v. Encap,
`
`LLC, IPR2013-00110, Paper 10 at 2-3 (May 13, 2013).
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00568 proceedings by changing or affecting the scope of the claims at
`
`Case IPR2013-00567 & 568
`Joint Motion to Stay Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`
`issue before the Board. Similarly, any amendments to the claims (including new
`
`claims) in this IPR2013-00567 and IPR2013-00568 proceedings could interfere
`
`with the ’869 reexamination. Staying the ’869 reexamination would prevent
`
`proliferation of inconsistent claim amendments between the reexamination and IPR
`
`proceedings.
`
`Second, conducting the ’869 reexamination concurrently with the
`
`IPR2013-00567 and IPR2013-00568 proceedings would result in inefficient use of
`
`the Office resources and could produce inconsistent results in the three
`
`proceedings. All three proceedings involve the same claims and substantially the
`
`same prior art, and raise substantially similar issues. Specifically, the ’869
`
`reexamination involves the patentability of issued claims 1-68 of the same ’902
`
`patent. Likewise, the IPR2013-00567 and IPR2013-00568 proceedings challenge
`
`the patentability of the same issued claims. Further, the two IPR proceedings rely
`
`on substantially the same prior art and raise substantially similar patentability
`
`challenges as in the ’869 proceeding. Thus, for example, the Office’s Central
`
`Reexamination Unit and the Board may reach contrasting positions, at different
`
`stages of the proceedings in connection with interpretations of the claims, the prior
`
`art, or other issues. Given the similarity of the prior art and the issues between the
`
`reexamination and IPR proceedings, conducting the ’869 reexamination
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`concurrently with the IPR2013-00567 and/or IPR2013-00568 proceedings would
`
`Case IPR2013-00567 & 568
`Joint Motion to Stay Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`
`result in an inefficient use of Office resources and could produce inconsistent
`
`results.
`
`Third, the Board’s final determination in the IPR2013-00567 and
`
`IPR2013-00568 proceedings could simplify issues in the ’869 reexamination. The
`
`Board must determine whether to institute an inter partes review within three
`
`months of the filing of a preliminary response by the patent owner. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 314(b). If instituted, the Board will be required to issue its final determination
`
`within one year of the date of institution of trial, absent good cause for an
`
`extension up to six months. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11). Here, because TPK filed its
`
`preliminary responses in the IPR2013-00567 and IPR2013-00568 proceedings on
`
`December 11, 2013, the Board must determine whether to institute trials in these
`
`IPR proceedings by March 11, 2014, and, if instituted, issue a final written
`
`decision by March 11, 2015 (absent an extension). It is thus likely that any final
`
`written decision issued by the Board in the IPR2013-00567 and/or IPR2013-00568
`
`proceedings will precede any final decision in the ’869 reexamination. Staying the
`
`’869 reexamination, therefore, would most likely simplify the issues remaining in
`
`that proceeding based on the Board’s decision(s) in the IPR matters.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00567 & 568
`Joint Motion to Stay Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`
`IV. Conclusion
`For at least the reasons set forth above, Petitioner and Patent Owner jointly
`
`request that the Board stay the ’869 reexamination until the IPR2013-00567 and
`
`IPR2013-00568 proceedings are completed, whether by final written decision,
`
`decision not to institute inter partes review, or other mechanisms provided for by
`
`the Rules.
`
`Dated: January 13, 2014
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys (Lead Counsel for Wintek)
`Registration No. 46,508
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett
` & Dunner, LLP
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 20190-5675
`(571) 203-2700
`
`By: /Joseph J. Richetti, Reg. No. 47024/
`Joseph J. Richetti (Lead Counsel for TPK)
`Registration No. 47,024
`BRYAN CAVE, LLP
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104
`General Tel: (212) 541-2000
`Direct Tel: (212) 541-1092
`Fax: (212) 541-4630
`Email: joe.richetti@bryancave.com
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00567 & 568
`Joint Motion to Stay Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on this 13th day of January 2014, a copy of Joint
`
`Motion to Stay Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,217,902 was
`
`served by electronic mail upon the Lead and Backup Counsel for TPK Touch
`
`Solutions Inc.:
`
`Joseph J. Richetti (Lead Counsel for TPK)
`BRYAN CAVE, LLP
`1290 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10104
`General Tel: (212) 541-2000
`Direct Tel: (212) 541-1092
`Fax: (212) 541-4630
`Email: joe.richetti@bryancave.com
`
`Dated: January 13, 2014
`
`David Bilsker (Backup Counsel for TPK)
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`General Tel: (415) 875-6600
`Direct Tel: (415) 875-6432
`Fax: (415) 875-6700
`Email: davidbilsker@quinnemanuel.com
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Registration No. 46,508
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett
` & Dunner, LLP
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 20190-5675
`(571) 203-2700
`
`Counsel for Wintek Corp.
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`