`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 IPR2014-00267
`Patent 7,409,437
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner OpenTV, Inc.’s
`Request for Rehearing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00267
`
`
`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. IPR2014-00267
`
`
`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)
`
`Stevens v. Tamai,
`366 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................ 2
`
`
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .......................................................................................................... 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .......................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ...................................................................................................... 1, 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .................................................................................................passim
`
`
`
`FEDERAL REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71 ................................................................................................... 1, 2
`
`
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`IPR2013-00186, Paper 34 (Oct. 23, 2013) ................................................................ 4
`
`IPR2012-00027, Paper 26 (Jun. 11, 2013) ................................................................. 5
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00267
`
`
`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.
`
`7,409,437 (Paper 13, the “Institution Decision”). The Institution Decision ordered
`
`review on two grounds of unpatentability: claim 1 as unpatentable under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Palmer (U.S. Patent No. 5,905,865) (“Palmer” or “the Palmer
`
`patent”) and Romesburg (U.S. Patent No. 5,113,259); and claims 2-4 as
`
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Palmer and Batchelor (U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,724,103). OpenTV requests that the Board reconsider and reverse its decision to
`
`institute on both Palmer grounds because the Decision misapprehended the law
`
`governing when the Board is authorized to institute (and prohibited from
`
`instituting) trial. Therefore, no trial should be instituted on the ’437 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`with particularity . . . the evidence that supports the grounds for the challenge to
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00267
`
`
`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 even arguably present or contain the
`
`necessary information. In particular, the Palmer grounds proposed in the Petition
`
`could not be instituted because the Petition did not show how any of the Palmer
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00267
`
`patent, filed after the ’437 patent, is or could be prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102. In
`
`particular, the Petition failed to show or even suggest how any of the cited subject
`
`matter of the Palmer patent is contained in an earlier filed provisional patent
`
`application (“the Palmer provisional”), even though that is the only way that any
`
`part of the Palmer patent could be prior art to the ’437 patent.1 Paper 11 at 14.
`
`Instead, the Petition simply stated that “[f]or each element of the Palmer patent
`
`identified below, there is a corresponding teaching in the provisional applications,”
`
`Paper 11 at 15 (citing Pet. 33-34), and listed a string of citations to pages of the
`
`Palmer provisional for some claim elements, see, e.g., Paper 11 at 15 (citing Pet.
`
`39 (“NTFX-1007 [the Palmer patent], 8:13-19; see NTFX-1008 [the Palmer
`
`provisional], pp. 1, 3.”)). But neither the mere assertion nor the string citations
`
`constitute a “show[ing]” under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) that the Palmer patent actually
`
`qualifies as prior art to any of the claims, because they are insufficient to establish
`
`grounds with the particularity required by 35 U.S.C. § 312. Indeed, the Board
`
`previously denied a request for rehearing premised on string citations in a petition
`
`because the petition did “not point out with particularity [a portion of a prior art
`
`reference] or how it satisfies certain claim limitations.” Paper 11 at 15 (citing
`
`
`1 No other application leading to the Palmer patent was filed before March 8, 1996,
`
`the effective filing date of the ’437 patent. NTFX-1007 at 1; NTFX-1001 at 1.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00267
`
`IPR2013-00186, Paper 34 (Oct. 23, 2013), at 3). The Petition thus fails to establish
`
`a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any claim as required by 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`The Decision instituting the Petition’s Palmer grounds overlooked the
`
`failings of the Petition related to the prior art status of the Palmer patent,
`
`erroneously supplementing the information presented in the Petition to create a
`
`showing instead of determining whether the Petition contained the required
`
`showing under 35 U.S.C. § 314. In particular, although the Decision correctly
`
`recognized that the Palmer patent is only prior art to the extent that its subject
`
`matter is disclosed in the Palmer provisional, Paper 13 at 13, the Decision did not
`
`identify any showing in the Petition of how the cited subject matter of the Palmer
`
`patent is disclosed in the Palmer provisional. Instead, the Decision simply cited
`
`particular passages of the Palmer provisional to cobble together and institute the
`
`Palmer grounds. Paper 13 at 12-19. But none of the Board’s showing was in the
`
`Petition, which just generally referenced multiple pages of the Palmer provisional
`
`in string citations. See, e.g., Paper 11 at 15 (citing Pet. 39). By filling in gaps in
`
`the showing of the Petition and taking it upon itself to make a case that a
`
`reasonable likelihood of prevailing could exist, the Board committed legal error.
`
`This error permeated the Decision to institute all of the challenged claims. Paper
`
`13 at 17-19.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00267
`
`
` 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 gaps in the Petition.
`
`Nonetheless, that is what the Institution Decision did, misapprehending and
`
`ignoring the clear mandate of 35 U.S.C. § 314.
`
`Consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Board’s role is to judge the
`
`sufficiency of a petition, not to make a case for a petitioner who failed to do so. 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 (Jun. 11, 2013), at 6. “An inter partes
`
`review is neither a patent examination nor a patent reexamination.” Id. at 7. By
`
`impermissibly creating its own showing and filling gaps in the Petition, as it did
`
`here, the Board misapprehended its role as an adjudicator. As the Board has
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2014-00267
`
`previously stated, its role is only to adjudicate the sufficiency of the petition, not to
`
`act as an examiner.
`
`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.
`
`IV. Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons, OpenTV requests that the Board deny the Palmer
`
`grounds proposed in the Petition, and decline to institute Inter Partes Review of
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By:
`Erika H. Arner
`Registration No. 57,540
`
`Joshua L. Goldberg
`Registration No. 59,369
`
`Counsel for OpenTV, Inc.
`
`the ’437 patent.
`
`
`
`Dated: July 8, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`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
`Scott Jarratt
`scott.jarratt.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