throbber
Paper No. 9
`Filed: December 23, 2013
`
`
`Filed on behalf of: Philips Electronics North America Corporation
`By:
`J. Michael Jakes
`
`Denise W. DeFranco
`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: mike.jakes@finnegan.com
`
` denise.defranco@finnegan.com
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ZOLL LIFECOR CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2013-00618
`Patent 5,607,454
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`to Petition for Inter Partes Review
`of U.S. Patent No. 5,607,454
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00618
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`The Petition Fails to Meet the Requirements for Instituting an
`Inter Partes Review ......................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`The Pending Petition Should Be Denied Under 35 U.S.C.
`§ 315(b) Based on the One-Year Litigation Bar ................................... 3
`
`1.
`
`Philips Served a Complaint on Zoll Medical Alleging
`Infringement of the ’454 Patent Three Years Before Zoll
`Lifecor Filed the Pending Petition .............................................. 4
`
`2.
`
`Zoll Medical Is a Real Party in Interest in this Proceeding ........ 6
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`Public Documents Show that Parent Zoll Medical
`Controls Its Wholly Owned Subsidiary, Zoll
`Lifecor ............................................................................... 8
`
`Zoll Medical Controls Zoll Lifecor’s Involvement
`in the Pennsylvania Action and in this Proceeding ........ 12
`
`3.
`
`Zoll Medical Is Also a Privy of the Petitioner, Zoll
`Lifecor ....................................................................................... 14
`
`a)
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`Zoll Medical Is a Privy Because of Its Relationship
`to the Infringing Product ................................................. 14
`
`As Zoll Lifecor’s Corporate Parent, Zoll Medical
`Has Standing, and “Could have Exercised Control
`Over” This Proceeding ................................................... 15
`
`Zoll Medical Is a Privy of the Petitioner, Zoll
`Lifecor, Because Their Relationship Justifies
`Applying Estoppel and Preclusion ................................. 18
`
`4.
`
`The Statute, Prior Board Decisions, and Legislative
`History Support Denying the Pending Petition ........................ 24
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00618
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`The Filing Date Should Be Vacated Because Petitioner Did Not
`Identify all Real Parties in Interest or Related Litigations, as
`Required by 35 U.S.C. § 312 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ............................ 28
`
`B.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Zoll Medical Is an Unidentified Real Party in Interest ............. 30
`
`The Petitioner Failed to Identify all Related Matters ............... 31
`
`III. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 37
`
`A. Overview of the ’454 Patent ................................................................ 37
`
`B.
`
`Claim Construction Standard and Prior Claim Construction
`Decisions ............................................................................................. 39
`
`C.
`
`Claim Terms ........................................................................................ 41
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`“monitoring” ............................................................................. 41
`
`“a function of” ........................................................................... 43
`
`“energy source” ......................................................................... 43
`
`“truncated exponential biphasic waveform” and
`“truncated exponential multiphasic waveform” ....................... 45
`
`“patient-dependent electrical parameter” .................................. 45
`
`“means for selectively limiting current flow through the
`electrodes” ................................................................................. 47
`
`“means for determining whether current flowing to the
`electrodes is below a predetermined level” .............................. 48
`
`“means for delivering a multiphasic waveform without
`the use of an inductor” .............................................................. 48
`
`IV. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 49
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00618
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`Astron Industrial Associates, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp.,
`405 F.2d 958 (5th Cir. 1968) ........................................................................ 19, 20
`
`Page(s)
`
`Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.,
`467 U.S. 752 (1984) ............................................................................................ 16
`
`Dalton v. Honda Motor Co.,
`425 F. App’x 886 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..............................................................passim
`
`Doe v. Urohealth Systems, Inc.,
`216 F.3d 157 (1st Cir. 2000) ................................................................... 20, 21, 22
`
`G & T Terminal Packaging Co. v. Consolidated Rail Corp.,
`719 F. Supp. 153 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) ..................................................................... 19
`
`Gambocz v. Yelencsics,
`468 F.2d 837 (3d Cir. 1972) ............................................................................... 19
`
`In re Rambus Inc.,
`694 F.3d 42 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................................. 39
`
`In re Vision Service Plan Tax Litigation,
`No. 2:07-md-1829, 2010 WL 2572076 (S.D. Ohio June 22, 2010) ............. 21, 22
`
`Mars Inc. v. Nippon Conlux Kabushiki-Kaisha,
`58 F.3d 616 (Fed. Cir. 1995) .................................................................. 20, 21, 27
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .......................................................................... 39
`
`Taylor v. Sturgell,
`553 U.S. 880 (2008) .............................................................................................. 7
`
`Universal Oil Products Co. v. Rexall Drug & Chemical Co.,
`463 F.2d 1122 (C.C.P.A. 1972) .......................................................................... 17
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................ 42
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00618
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE DECISIONS
`Accord Healthcare, Inc., USA v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`IPR2013-00356, Paper 13 (PTAB Oct. 1, 2013) .........................................passim
`
`Apple Inc. v. VirnetX, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00348, Paper 14 (PTAB Dec. 13, 2013) ....................................... 25, 26
`
`Apple Inc. v. VirnetX, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00349, Paper 14 (PTAB Dec. 13, 2013) ....................................... 25, 26
`
`Apple Inc. v. VirnetX, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00354, Paper 20 (PTAB Dec. 13, 2013) ....................................... 25, 26
`
`Apple Inc. v. VirnetX, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00393, Paper 17 (PTAB Dec. 18, 2013) ....................................... 25, 26
`
`Apple Inc. v. VirnetX, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00394, Paper 15 (PTAB Dec. 18, 2013) ....................................... 25, 26
`
`Apple Inc. v. VirnetX, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00397, Paper 15 (PTAB Dec. 18, 2013) ....................................... 25, 26
`
`Apple Inc. v. VirnetX, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00398, Paper 16 (PTAB Dec. 18, 2013) ....................................... 25, 26
`
`BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc. v. Monosol RX, LLC,
`IPR2013-00315, Paper 31 (PTAB Nov. 13, 2013) ....................................... 25, 26
`
`In re Guan,
`Reexamination Proceeding, Control No. 95/001,045,
`Decision Vacating Filing Date (Aug. 25, 2008) ................................................. 30
`
`St. Jude Medical, Cardiology Division, Inc. v. Volcano Corp.,
`IPR2013-00258, Paper 29 (PTAB Oct. 16, 2013) ........................................ 25, 26
`
`Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
`IPR2012-00042, Paper 16 (PTAB Feb. 22, 2013) .............................................. 15
`
`Universal Remote Control, Inc. v. Universal Electronics, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00168, Paper 9 (PTAB Aug. 26, 2013) ................................... 24, 25, 26
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`Case IPR2013-00618
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ............................................................................................ 28, 29, 31
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 .................................................................................................passim
`
`REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8 ................................................................................................passim
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ....................................................................................... 29, 31, 37
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.106 ....................................................................................... 29, 31, 37
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) (to
`be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42) ....................................................................passim
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`1B James Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 0.411[1] (2d ed. 1965) ........... 19
`
`154 Cong. Rec. S9982 (daily ed. Sept. 27, 2008) .............................................. 19, 28
`
`157 Cong. Rec. S5402 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) ...................................................... 15
`
`18A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward A. Cooper, Federal
`Practice and Procedure § 4451 (2d ed. 2011) ....................................................... 7
`
`18A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward A. Cooper, Federal
`Practice and Procedure § 4460 (2d ed. 2011) ..................................................... 20
`
`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2258 (8th ed., Rev. 7) (July 2008)........ 39
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Case IPR2013-00618
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`Patent owner Philips Electronics North America Corporation (“Philips”)
`
`submits this Preliminary Response in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 313 and 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.07, responding to the Petition for Inter Partes Review of United States
`
`Patent No. 5,607,454 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319, 37 C.F.R. § 42 (the
`
`“petition”) filed by Zoll Lifecor Corporation (“Zoll Lifecor” or “petitioner”).
`
`This is one of eight petitions for inter partes review that Zoll Lifecor has
`
`filed against related patents, all owned by Philips. These patents relate to the core
`
`functionality of defibrillators, including the electrical signal or waveform that
`
`shocks a patient. Philips asserted these eight patents against Zoll Lifecor in a
`
`litigation filed a year before the pending petition was filed. Notably, Philips also
`
`asserted six of the eight patents, including U.S. Patent No. 5,607,454 (the “’454
`
`patent”) at issue in this proceeding, against Zoll Lifecor’s corporate parent more
`
`than three years before the pending petition was filed. Specifically, Philips served
`
`Zoll Medical Corporation (“Zoll Medical”) with a complaint alleging infringement
`
`of the ’454 patent in October of 2010. Zoll Lifecor is a wholly owned subsidiary
`
`of Zoll Medical, and Zoll Medical has stated that it operates the Lifecor business
`
`through its Zoll Lifecor subsidiary. As a result, Zoll Medical both controls and
`
`could have controlled Zoll Lifecor, yet petitioner Zoll Lifecor neither mentions its
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00618
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`parent corporation Zoll Medical nor the earlier-filed litigation against Zoll Medical
`
`in the pending petition.
`
`Because of the prior litigation between Philips and Zoll Medical, as well as
`
`Zoll Lifecor’s failure to notify the Board of the litigation and Zoll Medical, inter
`
`partes review should not be instituted. Specifically, the pending petition is time-
`
`barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). Based on Zoll Medical’s corporate relationship
`
`with its wholly owned subsidiary, petitioner Zoll Lifecor, as well as public
`
`documents showing the significant control Zoll Medical exercises over all aspects
`
`of Zoll Lifecor’s business and legal proceedings, Zoll Medical is both a “real party
`
`in interest” as well as a “privy of the petitioner.” In either situation, § 315(b) bars
`
`the pending petition based on Philips’s earlier-filed complaint alleging
`
`infringement of the ’454 patent by Zoll Medical.
`
`Further, Zoll Lifecor’s failure to notify the Board of the related litigation and
`
`its corporate parent Zoll Medical leads to other defects requiring the Board, under
`
`the relevant statutes and regulations, to vacate the current filing date. First, Zoll
`
`Lifecor violated a specific statutory requirement by failing to identify its parent,
`
`Zoll Medical, as an additional “real party in interest” in this proceeding. Second,
`
`by remaining silent on the earlier litigation in which the same patent was asserted
`
`against its parent corporation, Zoll Lifecor violated a requirement that petitioners
`
`identify all “related matters” as a part of the petition. Based on any one of these
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00618
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`three defects, Philips requests that the Board not institute the requested inter partes
`
`review.
`
`II. The Petition Fails to Meet the Requirements for Instituting an
`Inter Partes Review
`A. The Pending Petition Should Be Denied Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)
`Based on the One-Year Litigation Bar
`
`Based on the plain language of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) and prior decisions of the
`
`Board, the pending petition should be denied. Under the statute, “[a]n inter partes
`
`review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more
`
`than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of
`
`the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” 35
`
`U.S.C. § 315(b) (2012) (emphasis added). That provision squarely applies to bar
`
`the pending petition.
`
`Under the statute, Philips’s earlier complaint against Zoll Medical bars the
`
`pending petition if Zoll Medical is either a “real party in interest,” or a “privy of
`
`the petitioner.” Here, Zoll Medical both controls and could have controlled both
`
`the business and legal proceedings of its wholly owned subsidiary Zoll Lifecor.
`
`Indeed, after acquiring Lifecor Inc., Zoll Medical announced that it would “operate
`
`the Lifecor business through its ZOLL Lifecor subsidiary.” Ex. 2001 at 1 (Zoll
`
`Medical Corp., Zoll Medical Completes Acquisition of Business of LifeCor, Inc.,
`
`http://www.zoll.com/news-releases/2006/04-10-06-zoll-acquisition-lifecor/
`
`(last
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00618
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`visited Dec. 9, 2013) (“Press Release”)). According to specific guidance provided
`
`by the Patent and Trademark Office, such actual or potential control indicates that
`
`Zoll Medical is both a “privy” of Zoll Lifecor and a “real party in interest” in this
`
`proceeding. Under either alternative, § 315(b) bars the pending petition.
`
`1.
`
`Philips Served a Complaint on Zoll Medical Alleging
`Infringement of the ’454 Patent Three Years Before Zoll
`Lifecor Filed the Pending Petition
`The pending petition seeks inter partes review of a patent asserted by Philips
`
`in two different district court actions: (1) an earlier action alleging infringement by
`
`Zoll Medical based on certain external defibrillator products, known as AED Plus
`
`and AED Pro, and (2) a later action alleging infringement by Zoll Lifecor based on
`
`a wearable defibrillator product, known as LifeVest.
`
`In the first action, which began in 2010, Philips asserted the ’454 patent and
`
`five other related patents against Zoll Medical, Zoll Lifecor’s corporate parent, in
`
`the United States District Court for
`
`the District of Massachusetts (the
`
`“Massachusetts Action”). Ex. 2002 (Complaint, Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V. v.
`
`Zoll Med. Corp., Civ. A. No. 1:10-cv-11041 (D. Mass. June 18, 2010), ECF No. 1)
`
`(“Massachusetts Action Complaint”). Zoll Medical received service of the
`
`amended complaint on October 13, 2010. Ex. 2003 (Amended Complaint,
`
`Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V. v. Zoll Med. Corp., Civ. A. No. 1:10-cv-11041 (D.
`
`Mass. Oct. 13, 2010), ECF No. 7) (“Amended Massachusetts Action Complaint”);
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00618
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Ex. 2004 (Affidavit of Process Server, Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V. v. Zoll Med.
`
`Corp., Civ. A. No. 1:10-cv-11041 (D. Mass. Oct. 14, 2010), ECF No. 8).
`
`Almost two years after commencing the Massachusetts Action, Philips filed
`
`a second action, this time in the United States District Court for the Western
`
`District of Pennsylvania, alleging infringement of the ’454 patent and seven other
`
`patents by Zoll Lifecor (the “Pennsylvania Action”). Ex. 2005 (Complaint,
`
`Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V. v. Zoll Lifecor Corp., Civ. A. No. 2:12-cv-01369
`
`(W.D. Pa. Sept. 21, 2012), ECF No. 1) (“Pennsylvania Action Complaint”). The
`
`complaint in the Pennsylvania Action, which was served on September 21, 2012,
`
`identified the LifeVest as the accused product. Id.; Ex. 2006 at 2 (Summons in a
`
`Civil Action, Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V. v. Zoll Lifecor Corp., Civ. A. No.
`
`2:12-cv-01369 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 28, 2012), ECF No. 7)).
`
`On September 23, 2013, approximately one year after receiving service of
`
`the complaint in the Pennsylvania Action, Zoll Lifecor filed petitions for inter
`
`partes review of all eight Philips patents asserted in that action, including the ’454
`
`patent. See Petition at 2, 60. Notably, six of the eight patents for which Zoll
`
`Lifecor currently seeks review are the six patents Philips asserted against Zoll
`
`Medical over three years earlier in the Massachusetts Action:
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case IPR2013-00618
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`U.S. Patent
`No.
`
`5,607,454
`5,735,879
`5,749,905
`5,803,927
`5,836,978
`6,047,212
`5,593,427
`5,749,904
`
`Asserted
`Against Zoll
`Medical in
`Massachusetts
`Action
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Asserted
`against Zoll
`Lifecor in
`Pennsylvania
`Action
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Inter Partes
`Review
`Requested by
`Zoll Lifecor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In all eight petitions, Zoll Lifecor notified the Board about the Pennsylvania
`
`Action but did not mention the Massachusetts Action, despite the significant
`
`overlap in patents involved. See Petition at 2. Further, Zoll Lifecor did not
`
`mention the existence of, or its close relationship to, its corporate parent, Zoll
`
`Medical, despite Zoll Medical’s consistent control over Zoll Lifecor’s business and
`
`legal proceedings.
`
`Zoll Medical Is a Real Party in Interest in this Proceeding
`
`2.
`Zoll Lifecor did not notify the Board regarding its relationship with Zoll
`
`Medical and remained silent regarding the prior related litigation, even though Zoll
`
`Lifecor knew it involved the ’454 patent. In its petition, Zoll Lifecor identified
`
`itself as the only real party in interest. See Petition at 1–2. Prior public statement
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00618
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`by both Zoll Medical and Zoll Lifecor, however, show that Zoll Medical is also a
`
`real party in interest in this proceeding.
`
`One common consideration in helping to identify a “real party in interest”
`
`(as well as a “privy of the petitioner”)—as highlighted in the Patent and Trademark
`
`Office’s Patent Trial Practice Guide—is “whether the non-party exercised or could
`
`have exercised control over a party’s participation in a proceeding.” See Office
`
`Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,759 (Aug. 14, 2012) (to be
`
`codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42) (the “Practice Guide”) (citing Taylor v. Sturgell, 553
`
`U.S. 880, 895 (2008) (noting an exception to the rule against non-party preclusion
`
`if the party “‘assume[d] control’ over the litigation in which that judgment was
`
`rendered”) and 18A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward A. Cooper,
`
`Federal Practice and Procedure § 4451 (2d ed. 2011)); see also Practice Guide, 77
`
`Fed. Reg. at 48,759 (stating that the “‘real party-in-interest’ may be the petitioner
`
`itself, and/or it may be the party or parties at whose behest the petition has been
`
`filed”). Here, Zoll Medical has exercised control over Zoll Lifecor’s business in
`
`general, including its legal proceedings, and also (as will be discussed in relation to
`
`privity) legally could have exercised control over this proceeding.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00618
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`
`Public Documents Show that Parent Zoll Medical
`Controls Its Wholly Owned Subsidiary, Zoll Lifecor
`
`a)
`
`Public documents reflect the close relationship between Zoll Medical and
`
`Zoll Lifecor, and show that corporate parent Zoll Medical has exercised consistent
`
`control over Zoll Lifecor’s business. In its corporate disclosure statement in the
`
`Pennsylvania Action, Zoll Lifecor stated that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of
`
`Zoll Medical. Ex. 2007 at 1 (Zoll Lifecor Corporation’s Disclosure Statement,
`
`Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V. v. Zoll Lifecor Corp., Civ. A. No. 2:12-cv-01369
`
`(W.D. Pa. Nov. 9, 2012), ECF No. 25). In a press release from April of 2006, Zoll
`
`Medical stated that it had recently acquired all the assets of a company called
`
`Lifecor, Inc.—assets totaling over $15 million. Ex. 2001 at 1 (Press Release). The
`
`press release further stated that “ZOLL [Medical] will operate the Lifecor business
`
`through its ZOLL Lifecor subsidiary, based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.” Id.
`
`Likewise, according to its public financial statements filed soon after that
`
`acquisition, Zoll Medical “now manufactures and markets [a] wearable external
`
`defibrillator system [i.e., LifeVest] through its subsidiary, ZOLL Lifecor
`
`Corporation.” Ex. 2008 at 10 (Zoll Medical Corp., Annual Report (Form 10-K)
`
`(Dec. 15, 2006)) (“Zoll Medical 2006 Form 10-K”); see also id. at 62 (discussing
`
`the acquisition and stating that Zoll Medical “now utilizes those assets in its ZOLL
`
`Lifecor subsidiary”), 18 (discussing a manufacturing facility in Pittsburgh, where
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00618
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`LifeVest is manufactured), 19 (noting that Zoll Medical has a “dedicated sales
`
`force[]” to sell the LifeVest product). Zoll Medical made clear that it considers the
`
`facility
`
`in Pittsburg (where Zoll Lifecor
`
`is
`
`located) as Zoll Medical’s
`
`“manufacturing facility” for the LiveVest product. Ex. 2009 at 39 (Zoll Medical
`
`Corp., Annual Report (Form 10-K) (Nov. 23, 2011)) (“Zoll Medical 2011 Form
`
`10-K”) (describing Pittsburgh as “where our LifeVest manufacturing facility is
`
`located”) (emphasis added). In fact, Zoll Medical exercised an option to purchase
`
`the Pittsburgh manufacturing facility for $10.8 million rather than continuing to
`
`lease the facility. Id. at 49 (“On October 11, 2011, [Zoll Medical] exercised our
`
`option to purchase the LifeVest facility in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania for cash in the
`
`amount of $10.8 million.”); id. at 39.
`
`Further, its financial statements show that Zoll Medical took responsibility
`
`for the clinical trials of the LifeVest product. Ex. 2010 at 27 (Zoll Medical Corp.,
`
`Annual Report (Form 10-K) (Dec. 8, 2008)) (“Zoll Medical 2008 Form 10-K”)
`
`(“We are conducting clinical trials related to . . . the LifeVest.”). With these
`
`statements, Zoll Medical has demonstrated its active involvement and control over
`
`the LifeVest product at issue in the related Pennsylvania Action.
`
`Moreover, a review of Zoll Lifecor’s website (www.lifecor.com) shows that
`
`LifeVest is Zoll Lifecor’s only product. Indeed, the website says “Welcome to
`
`Zoll LifeVest.” Ex. 2011 (Zoll LifeVest - Welcome to Zoll LifeVest, Screenshot
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00618
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`of Webpage). By controlling the LifeVest product, Zoll Medical does more than
`
`just control the product at issue in the Pennsylvania Action—it controls the only
`
`product of Zoll Lifecor.
`
`Zoll Lifecor’s website further shows that Zoll Medical exercises control over
`
`Zoll Lifecor in all aspects of its operations. For instance, it shows that Zoll
`
`Medical controls hiring at Zoll Lifecor. A link to “Careers” on Zoll Lifecor’s
`
`website leads to a page identifying the Zoll LifeVest product and referring to the
`
`Zoll Pittsburgh facility. Ex. 2012 (Zoll LifeVest - Careers, Screenshot of
`
`Webpage). And clicking on any of the identified options, such as “Search and
`
`Apply for Current Opportunities” or “Embedded Software Engineer” leads the user
`
`away from Zoll Lifecor’s website and onto Zoll Medical’s website. Ex. 2013 (Zoll
`
`Corporate Information - Careers, Screenshot of Webpage); Ex. 2014 (Zoll
`
`Corporate Information - Embedded Software Engineer Posting, Screenshot of
`
`Webpage). As another example of Zoll Medical’s control, the bottom of Zoll
`
`Lifecor’s website indicates copyright ownership by Zoll Medical and also indicates
`
`that Zoll Medical owns the trademark rights for “LifeVest.” Ex. 2011 (Zoll
`
`LifeVest - Welcome to Zoll LifeVest, Screenshot of Webpage).
`
`Also, throughout the Pennsylvania Action, Zoll Lifecor referred to itself and
`
`its parent Zoll Medical as one collective entity, showing the closeness of the
`
`relationship and Zoll Medical’s control over Zoll Lifecor. For example, in an
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00618
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`effort to stay the Pennsylvania Action based on the earlier-filed Massachusetts
`
`Action, Zoll Lifecor repeatedly merged itself with Zoll Medical, seeking to show
`
`the alleged prejudice to them together as one collective corporate entity, which
`
`Zoll Lifecor referred to as “ZOLL.” Ex. 2015 at 1 (Memorandum in Support of
`
`Zoll’s Motion to Stay, Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V. v. Zoll Lifecor Corp., Civ.
`
`A. No. 2:12-cv-01369 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 9, 2012), ECF No. 27) (“Pennsylvania
`
`Action Stay Brief”) (stating that Philips has “now sued ZOLL Medical Corporation
`
`or its wholly owned subsidiary ZOLL Lifecor Corporation (collectively, ‘ZOLL’)
`
`in three different venues”) (emphasis added); id. at 10 (asserting that a stay in the
`
`Pennsylvania Action “would reduce the unfair burden to ZOLL of serial lawsuits
`
`without unfairly prejudicing Philips”). Further, Zoll Lifecor credited this
`
`collective entity, “ZOLL,” (rather than Zoll Lifecor or Lifecor, Inc.) with
`
`“introduc[ing] its LifeVest product to the market” in 2001. Id. at 2 (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`Similarly, in a failed attempt to maintain a stay granted by the court in the
`
`Pennsylvania Action, Zoll Lifecor characterized that action as “one battle in a
`
`broader, multi-state patent war that Philips initiated against ZOLL.” Ex. 2016 at 2
`
`(Zoll Lifecor Corporation’s Opposition to Philips’s Motion to Lift Stay,
`
`Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V. v. Zoll Lifecor Corp., Civ. A. No. 2:12-cv-01369
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00618
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`(W.D. Pa. July 8, 2013), ECF No. 85) (“Pennsylvania Action Brief to Maintain
`
`Stay”).
`
`Through their public statements, Zoll Medical and Zoll Lifecor have shown
`
`that Zoll Medical controls Zoll Lifecor in all ways relevant to this proceeding.
`
`b)
`
`Zoll Medical Controls Zoll Lifecor’s Involvement in
`the Pennsylvania Action and in this Proceeding
`
`In addition to controlling Zoll Lifecor’s business generally, Zoll Medical
`
`also controls its subsidiary’s involvement in the Pennsylvania Action and in this
`
`proceeding. This control has been demonstrated in various ways. First, Zoll
`
`Lifecor admitted in pleadings in the Pennsylvania Action that no officers from Zoll
`
`Lifecor even attended the court-ordered mediation in that case, let alone handled
`
`the negotiations. Instead, Zoll Medical sent three of its own corporate officers: its
`
`President Jonathan Rennert, Vice-President and General Counsel Aaron Grossman,
`
`and Director of Intellectual Property Robert Follett. Ex. 2017 at 6–7, 9 (Zoll’s
`
`Brief in Support of its Motion for Sanctions for Plaintiffs’ Failure to Mediate in
`
`Good Faith, Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V. v. Zoll Lifecor Corp., Civ. A. No. 2:12-
`
`cv-01369 (W.D. Pa. May 4, 2013), ECF No. 56) (“Pennsylvania Action Sanctions
`
`Brief”); Ex. 2016 at 1 (Pennsylvania Action Brief to Maintain Stay) (“Despite
`
`ZOLL’s best efforts—it brought its President, General Counsel, Director of
`
`Intellectual Property, and its lead outside litigation counsel—the mediation was
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00618
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`unsuccessful.”). Cf. Ex. 2018 (Zoll Medical - Management Team, Screenshot of
`
`Webpage) with Ex. 2019 (Zoll LifeVest - Management, Screenshot of Webpage)
`
`(showing Rennert and Grossman in the management team of Zoll Medical, not Zoll
`
`Lifecor, and showing Robert Follett on neither team). Thus, it was Zoll Medical
`
`controlling potential settlement of the Pennsylvania Action, not Zoll Lifecor.
`
`Second, counsel selected by Zoll Medical for the earlier-filed Massachusetts
`
`Action—Fish & Richardson, P.C.—also serve as counsel to Zoll Lifecor in both
`
`the Pennsylvania Action and in all eight of the pending proceedings, including this
`
`one involving the ’454 patent. Ex. 2017 at 3 (Pennsylvania Action Sanctions
`
`Brief) (admitting that “ZOLL” retained the same law firm in both the Pennsylvania
`
`Action and the Massachusetts Action, among others); Ex. 2020 at 42 (Defendant’s
`
`Answer to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V. v. Zoll
`
`Med. Corp., Civ. A. No. 1:10-cv-11041 (D. Mass. July 18, 2011), ECF No. 15)
`
`(listing Fish & Richardson, P.C. as counsel); Petition at 2 (same)).
`
`Third, an expert witness disclosed by Zoll Medical in the Massachusetts
`
`Action—Dr. Wayne C. McDaniel—also serves as an expert in support of the
`
`pending petition. Ex. 2021 (Email from Proshanto Mukherji, Fish & Richardson,
`
`P.C., to Philips-Zoll listserv (June 4, 2012, 2:50 p.m. EDT)) (disclosing Dr.
`
`McDaniel in the Massachusetts Action); Ex. 1003 (Declaration of Wayne C.
`
`McDaniel, Ph.D.).
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00618
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`Fourth, Zoll Lifecor asserted that the stay in the Pennsylvania Action should
`
`remain in place because “the parties are busy preparing for trial” in the
`
`Massachusetts Action. See Ex. 2016 at 3 (Pennsylvania Action Brief to Maintain
`
`Stay) (emphasis added); see also id. at 4 (“There simply is no reason, at a time
`
`when the parties are focusing their resources on preparing for the October trial [in
`
`the Massachusetts Action], to ramp up activity in [the Pennsylvania Action].”)
`
`(emphasis added). For that statement to make sense, Zoll Medical must be viewed
`
`as controlling Zoll Lifecor. Otherwise, there could be no prejudice to Zoll Lifecor
`
`in the Pennsylvania Action based on Zoll Medical’s trial preparations in the
`
`Massachusetts Action.
`
`Because Zoll Medical controls both this proceeding and the related
`
`Pennsylvania Action, it should be deemed a real party in interest.
`
`Zoll Medical Is Also a Privy of the Petitioner, Zoll Lifecor
`
`3.
`For at least three independent bases, Zoll Medical should also be deemed a
`
`privy of its wholly owned subsidiary, Zoll Lifecor, barring the pending petition.
`
`See Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,759; 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`a)
`
`Zoll Medical Is a Privy Because of Its Relationship to
`the Infringing Product
`
`The concept of privity was discussed during the Senate proceedings related
`
`to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. At that time, a “privy” was defined as “a
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case IPR2013-00618
`Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response
`
`party that has a direct relationship to the petitioner with respect to the allegedly
`
`infringing product.” Ex. 2022 at 31 (157 Cong. Rec. S5402 (daily ed. Sept. 8,
`
`2011) (statement of Mr. Schumer)). Here, the product alleged to infringe in the
`
`Pennsylvania Action is LifeVest. And, as described above, Zoll Medical has a
`
`direct relationship to petitioner Zoll Lifecor with respect to the Lif

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