`
`____________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`
`SUBARU OF AMERICA INC., TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA,
`INC., AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., FORD MOTOR
`COMPANY, JAGUAR LAND ROVER NORTH AMERICA LLC, VOLVO
`CARS OF NORTH AMERICA LLC, NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC.,
`FUJI HEAVY INDUSTRIES LTD., and HONDA PATENTS AND
`TECHNOLOGIES NORTH AMERICA, LLC
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Case IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463
`____________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. RELIEF REQUESTED ......................................................................... 1
`
`II. STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS ............................................. 2
`
`III. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................... 4
`
`A. Subaru, Toyota, Honda, Ford, Jaguar, Nissan and Volvo Are A
`Single “Petitioner” ..................................................................................... 4
`
`B. The Petition Was Defective For Failure To Identify Counsel
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 .............................................................................. 4
`
`C. Institution Based On A Defective Petition Was An Abuse Of
`Discretion .................................................................................................... 6
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00279 Attorney’s Docket No.: CCT0001-IPR
`Patent No: 6,324,463
`
`Page 1
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d), Patent Owner Cruise Control
`
`Technologies LLC (“Patent Owner”) files this Motion for Rehearing of the
`
`Board’s Decision to Institute Inter Partes Review. Paper 19 (Jul. 2, 2014).
`
`In particular, Patent Owner requests reconsideration of the Board’s
`
`Institution Decision, because the Petition is defective for failing to identify
`
`counsel as required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 and the defect was never corrected.
`
`Institution of inter partes review, despite Petitioner’s failure to comply with
`
`the rules, was an abuse of discretion.
`
`No fee is required for consideration of this Motion, but if any fee is
`
`due, the Patent Office is authorized to charge Deposit Account 50-4075
`
`(Customer No. 67050) the necessary fee.
`
`I.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`By this Motion, Patent Owner requests reconsideration of the Board’s
`
`Institution Decision. Because the Petition was defective for failure to
`
`identify counsel under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 and the defect was never corrected,
`
`the Board’s institution of inter partes review was an abuse of discretion.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner requests that the Board grant this motion and
`
`deny the Petition in toto.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00279 Attorney’s Docket No.: CCT0001-IPR
`Patent No: 6,324,463
`
`Page 2
`
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`On December 20, 2013, Subaru of America, Inc. (“Subaru”),
`
`Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (“Toyota”), American Honda Motor Co.,
`
`Inc. (“Honda”), Ford Motor Company (“Ford”), Jaguar Land Rover North
`
`America LLC (“Jaguar”), Volvo Cars of North America LLC (“Volvo”), and
`
`Nissan North America Inc. (“Nissan”) (collectively “Petitioner”) filed a
`
`petition (“Petition”) for inter partes review challenging claims 1–5, 12–16,
`
`18–21, 23, 25–31, and 34–36 of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,463 (the “‘463
`
`Patent”). IPR2014-00279, Paper 1, p. 1.
`
`2.
`
`In the Petition, Petitioner identified Matthew D. Satchwell
`
`(Reg. No. 58,870) of DLA Piper LLP (US) as Lead Counsel and five other
`
`attorneys as Backup Counsel: Steven J. Reynolds (Reg. No. 61,445) of
`
`DLA Piper LLP (US); William H. Mandir (Reg. No. 32,156) of Sughrue
`
`Mion PLLC; John M. Caracappa (Reg. No. 43,532) of Steptoe & Johnson
`
`LLP; Matthew J. Moore (Reg. No. 42,012) of Latham & Watkins LLP; and
`
`Wab Kadaba (Reg. No. 45,865) of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP.
`
`IPR2014-00279, Paper 1, pp. 3-4.
`
`3.
`
`Only Subaru has granted Mr. Satchwell and Mr. Reynolds full
`
`power of attorney to represent it in this proceeding. IPR2014-00279, Papers
`
`2 and 7. Neither Mr. Satchwell nor Mr. Reynolds represents or has authority
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00279 Attorney’s Docket No.: CCT0001-IPR
`Patent No: 6,324,463
`
`Page 3
`
`to conduct business on behalf of Toyota, Honda, Ford, Jaguar, Volvo or
`
`Nissan in this proceeding.
`
`4.
`
`Only Toyota has granted Mr. Mandir full power of attorney to
`
`represent it in this proceeding. IPR2014-00279, Paper 3. Mr. Mandir does
`
`not represent or have authority to conduct business on behalf of Subaru,
`
`Honda, Ford, Jaguar, Volvo or Nissan in this proceeding.
`
`5.
`
`Only Honda has granted Mr. Caracappa full power of attorney
`
`to represent it in this proceeding. IPR2014-00279, Paper 4. Mr. Caracappa
`
`does not represent or have authority to conduct business on behalf of Subaru,
`
`Toyota, Ford, Jaguar, Volvo or Nissan in this proceeding.
`
`6.
`
`Only Ford, Jaguar and Volvo have granted Mr. Moore full
`
`power of attorney to represent them (individually) in this proceeding.
`
`IPR2014-00279, Papers 6, 8, 10. Mr. Moore does not represent or have
`
`authority to conduct business on behalf of Subaru, Toyota, Honda or Nissan
`
`in this proceeding.
`
`7.
`
`Only Nissan has granted Mr. Kadaba full power of attorney to
`
`represent it in this proceeding. IPR2014-00279, Paper 9. Mr. Kadaba does
`
`not represent or have authority to conduct business on behalf of Subaru,
`
`Toyota, Honda, Ford, Jaguar or Volvo in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00279 Attorney’s Docket No.: CCT0001-IPR
`Patent No: 6,324,463
`
`Page 4
`
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Subaru, Toyota, Honda, Ford, Jaguar, Nissan and Volvo
`Are A Single “Petitioner”
`
`The instant petition lists seven companies as the petitioner: Subaru,
`
`Toyota, Honda, Ford, Jaguar, Nissan and Volvo. Statement of Material
`
`Facts (“SOMF”), ¶1. The Board has held, “[i]n circumstances not involving
`
`a motion for joinder or consolidation of separate proceedings, for each
`
`‘petition’ there is but a single party filing the petition, no matter how many
`
`companies are listed as petitioner.” CBM2014-00014, Paper 11, p. 3; see
`
`also CMB2014-00013, Paper 22, p. 9. Accordingly, Subaru, Toyota,
`
`Honda, Ford, Jaguar, Nissan and Volvo are treated as a single “Petitioner”
`
`and must fulfill all the requirements of a “petitioner” set forth in 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.1 et seq. as though they were a single entity.
`
`B. The Petition Was Defective For Failure To Identify
`Counsel Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8
`
`In the Petition, Petitioner provided mandatory notices as required by §
`
`42.8. IPR2014-00279, Paper 1, pp. 1-4. However, Petitioner’s identification
`
`of lead and back-up counsel under § 42.8(b)(3) is defective. Not one of the
`
`practitioners identified as lead or back-up counsel represents or has authority
`
`to conduct business on behalf of all of the seven companies comprising
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00279 Attorney’s Docket No.: CCT0001-IPR
`Patent No: 6,324,463
`
`Page 5
`
`Petitioner. Accordingly, the Petition is defective for failure to identify a lead
`
`counsel and a back-up counsel under § 42.8(b)(3).
`
`Under § 42.8, if a petitioner is represented by counsel, it is required to
`
`identify lead and back-up counsel in the petition. § 42.8(a)(1), (b)(3).
`
`Under § 42.10, the petitioner “must designate a lead counsel and a back-up
`
`counsel who can conduct business on behalf of the lead counsel,” and “a
`
`power of attorney must be filed with the designation of counsel.” §
`
`42.10(a), (b) (emphasis added). Thus, in a petition listing more than one
`
`company as a petitioner, all such companies must (i) identify at least one
`
`lead counsel that can conduct business on all of their behalves, (ii) identify
`
`at least one backup counsel that can conduct business on behalf of the lead
`
`counsel, and (iii) grant their respective powers of attorney to the same lead
`
`and back-up counsel.
`
`In the Petition, Petitioner designated Mr. Satchwell as lead counsel
`
`and five other practitioners as backup counsel. SOMF, ¶ 2. With the
`
`Petition, each company filed a separate power of attorney. SOMF, ¶¶ 3-7.
`
`However, only Subaru granted Mr. Satchwell power of attorney in this
`
`proceeding. SOMF, ¶ 3. Thus, Mr. Satchwell is only counsel for Subaru
`
`and does not represent or have authority to conduct business on behalf of
`
`Toyota, Honda, Ford, Jaguar, Volvo or Nissan in this proceeding.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00279 Attorney’s Docket No.: CCT0001-IPR
`Patent No: 6,324,463
`
`Page 6
`
`Accordingly, Mr. Satchwell is not lead counsel for Petitioner, because he is
`
`not counsel for six of the seven companies which comprise Petitioner.
`
`Similarly, none of the back-up counsel identified in the Petition represents or
`
`has authority to conduct business on behalf of all seven companies which
`
`comprise Petitioner. SOMF, ¶¶ 3-7.
`
`Therefore, the Petition does not meet the requirements set forth in §
`
`42.8(b)(3).
`
`C. Institution Based On A Defective Petition Was An Abuse
`Of Discretion
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c), a panel reviews a decision to institute
`
`trial for an abuse of discretion. It cannot be disputed that the Petition is
`
`defective for failing to meet the requirements of § 42.8(b)(3). Further, the
`
`defect has never been corrected. Accordingly, it was an abuse of discretion
`
`for the Board to institute inter partes review.
`
`The PTO has stated that “[i]f any regulatory requirement [e.g.,
`
`identification of lead and back-up counsel] is not met, the petition is
`
`defective” and “the defect must be corrected within one week.”
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/prps.jsp (Answer to Question D3) (last
`
`visited July 9, 2014). Here, the Petition does not meet the regulatory
`
`requirement of § 42.8(b)(3), and Petitioner has not made any effort to correct
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00279 Attorney’s Docket No.: CCT0001-IPR
`Patent No: 6,324,463
`
`Page 7
`
`the defect. Accordingly, instituting inter partes review based on the
`
`defective, uncorrected Petition was an abuse of discretion, and the Petition
`
`should be denied.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth herein, Patent Owner respectfully requests
`
`that this motion be granted and the Petition be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /John R. Kasha/
`John R. Kasha
`Registration No. 53,100
`
`KASHA LAW LLC
`14532 Dufief Mill Rd.
`North Potomac, MD 20878
`Tel. 703-867-1886
`Date: July 10, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JRK
`
`Customer No. 67050
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case No.: IPR2014-00279 Attorney’s Docket No.: CCT0001-IPR
`Patent No: 6,324,463
`
`Page 1
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`In accordance with 37 C.F.R § 1.550(f), a copy of Patent Owner’s
`
`Motion for Rehearing of the Board’s Decision to Institute Inter Partes
`
`Review, filed by Cruise Control Technologies LLC on July 10, 2014, was
`
`duly served via electronic mail upon Subaru-CCT-IPR@dlapiper.com –
`
`counsel of record for Petitioner Subaru of America Inc., Toyota Motor North
`
`America, Inc., American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Ford Motor Company,
`
`Jaguar Land Rover North America LLC, Volvo Cars of North America LLC,
`
`Nissan North America Inc., Fuji Heavy Industries LTD., and Honda Patents
`
`and Technologies North America, LLC (collectively “Petitioner”).
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/John R. Kasha/
`Registration No. 53,100
`Attorney for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Kasha Law LLC
`14532 Dufief Mill Rd.
`North Potomac, MD 20878
`(703) 867-1886, telephone
`(301) 340-3022, facsimile
`Email: john.kasha@kashalaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`