`Filed: July 8, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NETFLIX, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`OPENTV, INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00252
`Patent 8,107,786
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner OpenTV, Inc.’s
`Request for Rehearing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00252
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Introduction and Statement of Relief Requested ............................................. 1
`
`Legal Standards ............................................................................................... 1
`
`III. The Board Misapprehended, and Thus Failed to Adhere to, the Law
`Governing When Institution Is Permitted ........................................................ 2
`
`IV. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00252
`
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wash.,
`334 F.3d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................ 2
`
`Page(s)
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
`383 U.S. 1 (1966) .................................................................................................. 3
`
`Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc.,
`IPR2012-00027, (Paper 26) .................................................................................. 5
`
`Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................ 3
`
`Stevens v. Tamai,
`366 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 2
`
`
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) ......................................................................................... 1, 2, 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ............................................................................................passim
`
`
`
`FEDERAL REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) ............................................................................................... 1, 2
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) .............................................................................................. 1, 2
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00252
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction and Statement of Relief Requested
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.71(c)-(d), Patent Owner, OpenTV, Inc., requests
`
`rehearing of the Decision instituting Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,107,786 (Paper 13, the “Institution Decision”). The Institution Decision ordered
`
`review on two grounds of unpatentability: claims 1-6 as anticipated by Plotnick
`
`(U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2005/0097599); and claim 7 as obvious over Plotnick in view
`
`of Eldering (U.S. Patent No. 6,820,277). OpenTV requests that the Board
`
`reconsider and reverse its decision to institute on both grounds because the
`
`Decision misapprehended the law governing when the Board is authorized to
`
`institute and prohibited from instituting review. Therefore, no trial should be
`
`instituted on the ’786 patent.
`
`II. Legal Standards
`“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.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (emphasis added).
`
`Consistent with this statute, 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) provides that “[a] petition under
`
`section 311 may be considered only if . . . the petition identifies, in writing and
`
`1
`
`
`
`with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00252
`
`
`each claim.”
`
`A request for rehearing “must specifically 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.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.71(d). “When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the
`
`decision for an abuse of discretion.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c). “An abuse of discretion
`
`occurs where the decision (1) is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary, or fanciful; (2) is
`
`based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) rests on clearly erroneous fact
`
`findings; or (4) involves a record that contains no evidence on which the Board
`
`could rationally base its decision.” Stevens v. Tamai, 366 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2004) (quoting Eli Lilly & Co. v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wash., 334
`
`F.3d 1264, 1266-67 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
`
`III. The Board Misapprehended, and Thus Failed to Adhere to, the Law
`Governing When Institution Is Permitted
`
`A petition for inter partes review may not be instituted unless the petition
`
`itself shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that at least one claim is
`
`unpatentable. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The Institution Decision violated this provision
`
`by instituting trial when the Petition did not present the necessary information. In
`
`particular, the anticipation ground proposed in the Petition could not be instituted
`
`because the Petition did not show how the disparate portions of Plotnick it relied
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00252
`
`
`on taught all of the elements of the claims as arranged in the claim—a requirement
`
`for any prima facie case of anticipation. Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545
`
`F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Paper 11 at 3-6. For the obviousness ground,
`
`the Petition did not show how the disparate teachings of Plotnick relied on would
`
`have been arranged or combined with each other and Eldering to reach the alleged
`
`obviousness combination. The Petition therefore failed to show facts necessary to
`
`determine the scope and content of the prior art—a requirement of any a prima
`
`facie case of obviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
`
`Paper 11 at 18-24. The Petition thus failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on any claim, 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), and did not identify, with sufficient
`
`particularity, the evidence on which the proposed grounds were based. 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 312(a)(3).
`
`The Decision instituting the Petition’s anticipation and obviousness grounds
`
`overlooked the failings of the Petition and erroneously looked beyond the
`
`information presented in the Petition to support its conclusion that there was a
`
`reasonable likelihood that Netflix would prevail on any claim. For example, in
`
`response to OpenTV’s argument that the Petition’s anticipation ground for claims
`
`1-3 was deficient for failing to show how the disparate disclosures of Plotnick
`
`taught various claim elements as arranged in these claims, the Board stated that
`
`OpenTV did not “appear to consider Plotnick’s disclosures [in ¶ 0096] that a VoD
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00252
`
`
`system is a type of PVR . . . .” Decision at 10. But the Petition did not discuss
`
`Plotnick’s ¶ 0096 or show how it might relate to the claims. Nor did the Petition
`
`consider any of the 20 other paragraphs of Plotnick discussed by the Board.
`
`Compare, e.g., Pet. at 9-20 with Decision at 8-10. By filling in evidentiary gaps of
`
`the Petition and taking it upon itself to establish that a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing existed, the Board committed legal error. This error permeated the
`
`Decision to institute all of the challenged claims. See, e.g., Decision at 8-10
`
`(discussing claims 1-3), 12 (discussing claims 4-6), 15 (discussing claim 7).
`
` 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)—the statute that governs when the Board is permitted
`
`to institute trial—states that “[t]he Director may not authorize an inter partes
`
`review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information
`
`presented in the petition . . . 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.” (Emphasis added). This provision of the statute expressly prohibits the
`
`Board from instituting inter partes review if the information presented in the
`
`Petition itself does not show a reasonable likelihood that the Petitioner would
`
`prevail. It does not allow the Board to make its own case to establish that a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing might exist by filling in evidentiary gaps in the
`
`Petition. Nonetheless, that is what the Institution Decision did, misapprehending
`
`and ignoring the clear mandate of 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00252
`
`
`Consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Board’s role is to judge the
`
`sufficiency of a petition rather than to make a case for a Petitioner who fails to
`
`meet its own burden that an inter partes review should be instituted. As the Board
`
`has stated, an inter partes review is more akin to an adjudicatory proceeding than
`
`an examination of the challenged patent. Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc.,
`
`IPR2012-00027, Paper 26, at 6. “An inter partes review is neither a patent
`
`examination nor a patent reexamination.” Id. at 7. By taking up its own analysis
`
`and filling the evident gaps in what the Petition showed, as it did here, the Board
`
`misapprehends its role as an adjudicator. As the Board has previously stated, its
`
`role at the institution stage is only to adjudicate the sufficiency of the petition.
`
`By failing to judge the Petition on its contents alone and looking beyond the
`
`information presented in the Petition to establish a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing, the Institution Decision violated 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). This was
`
`improper, so the Board should reconsider and reverse its institution decision.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00252
`
`
`IV. Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, OpenTV requests that the Board deny Grounds 1
`
`and 2 in the Petition, and decline to institute Inter Partes Review of the ’786
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By:
`Erika H. Arner
`Registration No. 57,540
`
`Joshua L. Goldberg
`Registration No. 59, 369
`
`Counsel for OpenTV, Inc.
`
`
`
`6
`
`patent.
`
`
`
`Dated: July 8, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing Patent Owner
`
`
`
`OpenTV, Inc.’s Request for Rehearing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) was served
`
`on July 8, 2014 via FedEx and email directed to counsel of record for the Petitioner
`
`at the following:
`
`Andrew S. Ehmke
`andy.ehmke.ipr@haynesboone.com
`Dustin Johnson
`dustin.johnson.ipr@haynesboone.com
`HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
`2323 Victory Ave., Suite 700
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Ashley F. Cheung/
`Ashley F. Cheung
`Case Manager
`
`
`
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, LLP