`
`________________
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`________________
`
`
`
`MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`D’AGOSTINO, JOHN
`Patent Owner
`
`________________
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00543
`Patent 8,036,988
`
`________________
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S
`MOTION TO STAY EX PARTE REEXAMINATION PROCEEDING 90/012517
`
`
`
`
`
`1. Introduction
`
`
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board deny Petitioner’s motion
`
`to stay Ex Parte Reexamination Proceeding 90/012,517 (“the Reexamination”) of
`
`U.S. Patent 8,036,988 (“the ‘988 patent”). The Board should deny Petitioner’s
`
`motion because (1) staying the Reexamination at its current progress would be
`
`directly opposite of the Board’s policy; (2) denying the stay would not prejudice
`
`Petitioner; and (3) Patent Owner would be highly prejudiced by an eleventh hour
`
`stay that would only serve to stop publication of a Reexamination Certificate.
`
`2. Argument
`
`A. Staying the Reexamination at its current progress would be directly
`opposite of the Board’s policy.
`
`The Board’s underlying policy to stay a reexamination running parallel with
`
`
`
`an inter partes review is (1) to prevent duplicate efforts by the Patent Office, (2) to
`
`simplify issues in the reexamination proceeding, (3) to avoid complicating the inter
`
`partes review by reexamination claim amendments, and (4) to prevent inconsistent
`
`results between the two proceedings. IPR2013-00033, paper 15, at 2-3 (Nov. 6,
`
`2013); IPR2013-00110, paper 10, at 2-3 (May 13, 2013); IPR2013-00122, paper
`
`15, at 2 (Apr. 2, 2013). Absent these factors, the Board will not ordinarily stay a
`
`reexamination because reexaminations are conducted with special dispatch. Id.; 35
`
`U.S.C. § 305.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Here, the first three factors simply do not exist because the Reexamination
`
`has been terminated. Staying the Reexamination at its late stage will not prevent
`
`duplicate efforts because the only step remaining in the Reexamination is
`
`publication of the Reexamination Certificate. Further, since the Reexamination has
`
`been closed, there cannot be any reexamination claim amendments, and whatever
`
`issues that might have been simplified by the instant inter partes review are now
`
`moot.
`
`
`
`Turning to the fourth factor, in Toshiba Corporation v. Intellectual Ventures
`
`II LLC,1 the Board addressed the issue of inconsistencies between an inter partes
`
`review and a reexamination where a Notice of Intent to Issue a Reexamination
`
`Certificate (“NIRC”) was issued. In Toshiba, the Petitioner requested authorization
`
`to file a motion to stay the reexamination after the CRU had issued a NIRC and
`
`argued the stay was necessary to prevent inconsistencies between the two
`
`proceedings. Id. at 2. Unpersuaded by the Petitioner, the Board denied the
`
`Petitioner’s request because “[t]he results of the Examiner’s decision [were]
`
`already known and public.” Id at 3. The Board concluded “…granting [the] stay
`
`would not change the publicly disclosed Examiner’s decision and any potential
`
`inconsistency with a decision on institution in the instant proceeding would still be
`
`evident.” Id.
`
`
`1 IPR2014-00317, paper 10 (May 6, 2014).
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Here, similar to Toshiba, the CRU has issued a NIRC and the Examiner’s
`
`results are known and public. And, as the Board concluded in Toshiba, any
`
`inconsistencies between the two proceedings here are already evident and this
`
`would not be changed by staying the Reexamination.
`
`B.
`
` Denying the stay would not prejudice Petitioner.
`
`
`
`Petitioner would not be prejudiced by denying its request to stay the
`
`Reexamination because Petitioner has a pending validity challenge on all claims of
`
`the ‘988 patent in the instant inter partes review. Petitioner urges this Board to
`
`accept that it will be prejudiced by publication of a Reexamination Certificate
`
`because Petitioner is unable to appeal the CRU’s issuance of the NIRC and because
`
`of inconsistencies between the instant inter partes review and the Reexamination.
`
`Petitioner Mot. at 3. Petitioner further argues that the NIRC would not have issued
`
`if the CRU had the benefit of the Board’s Decision to institute inter partes review.
`
`Id. The Board should not accept these arguments.
`
`
`
`First, the Reexamination was initiated by Petitioner. See Ex. 2002, Civil
`
`Action No. 1:13-cv-00738 (D. Del.), Def.'s Answer to Am. Compl. & Countercl.,
`
`¶47, at p. 8. And Petitioner took the risk of not being able to appeal a final decision
`
`when it filed the Reexamination. The Board should not allow Petitioner to use this
`
`inter partes review as a means to circumvent that risk and stop the publication of
`
`the Reexamination Certificate because the results are unfavorable to Petitioner.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Second, as discussed above, the Board has held that inconsistencies between
`
`a NIRC in a reexamination and a decision on institution in an inter partes review is
`
`not sufficient cause to stay the reexamination to stop the Office from publishing a
`
`Reexamination Certificate. IPR2014-00317, paper 10, at 3.
`
`
`
`Finally, it is pure speculation that the CRU did not consider the Board’s
`
`Decision to institute inter partes review before issuing the NIRC. This is especially
`
`true since the Patent Owner notified the CRU of the related inter partes review
`
`when he filed his Appeal Brief and the NIRC was issued after the CRU considered
`
`that brief. Ex. 2003, Appeal Brief, at 4.
`
`C. Patent Owner would be highly prejudiced by an eleventh hour stay that
`would only serve to stop the Office from publishing a Reexamination
`Certificate.
`
`For the past two years Patent Owner has expended considerable resources in
`
`
`
`prosecuting the Reexamination to conclusion. Contrary to Petitioner’s portrayal of
`
`the Reexamination, the CRU has thoroughly reexamined the ‘988 patent including
`
`the originally assigned patent examiner and conferees denying the initial
`
`reexamination request, the CRU Director ordering reexamination, two thorough
`
`office actions issued by a second patent examiner and new conferees, and an
`
`appeal brief. Finally, after considering the extensive appeal brief, the second patent
`
`examiner and the new conferees withdrew all of the rejections and issued the
`
`NIRC. See Ex. 1021.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Staying the Reexamination now, when in the final stages of the proceeding,
`
`for the sole purpose of preventing the Office from publishing a Reexamination
`
`Certificate would not only be against the “special dispatch” requirements and
`
`Board policy, it would also be entirely inequitable and a great injustice.
`
`
`
`Moreover, while the Patent Owner once requested the Board’s authorization
`
`to stay the Reexamination, this request was made at a time when further efforts
`
`were required in the Reexamination. The NIRC has eliminated all of the issues
`
`upon which the Patent Owner based his previous request. And the Patent Owner is
`
`entitled to change his position since the NIRC has now rendered his prior request
`
`moot.
`
`3. Conclusion
`
`
`
`In summary, staying the Reexamination would only serve to stop publication
`
`of a Reexamination Certificate. A stay would not prevent the Office from
`
`duplicating efforts, would not simplify issues in the Reexamination, or prevent
`
`reexamination claim amendments. Moreover, the Board has held that
`
`inconsistencies between a NIRC issued in reexamination and a pending inter partes
`
`review is not sufficient cause to stay the reexamination. Finally, Patent Owner
`
`would be highly prejudiced by staying the Reexamination after two years of
`
`prosecuting the Reexamination to conclusion.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Stephen Lewellyn
`Stephen J. Lewellyn (Reg. No. 51,942)
`Brittany J Maxey (Reg. No. 57,621)
`Maxey Law Offices, PLLC
`100 Second Avenue South
`Suite 401 North Tower
`St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
`Telephone: 727-230-4949
`Facsimile: 727-230-4827
`s.lewellyn@maxeyiplaw.com
`b.maxey@maxeyiplaw.com
`Agent and Attorney for Patent Owner,
`John D’Agostino
`
`
`
`September 26, 2014
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 26th day of September 2014, a copy of this
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S
`
`MOTION TO STAY EX PARTE REEXAMINATION PROCEEDING
`
`90/012517, including all exhibits, has been served in its entirety by Email, on the
`
`following counsel of record for MasterCard:
`
`
`
`Robert Scheinfeld, Lead Counsel
`Baker Botts LLP
`30 Rockefeller Plaza, 44th Floor
`New York, New York 10112-4498
`Service Email: robert.scheinfeld@bakerbotts.com
`
`Eliot William, Back-up Counsel
`Baker Botts LLP
`1001 Page Mill Road
`Building One, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1007
`Service Email: eliot.williams@bakerbotts.com
`
`
`
`Dated: September 26, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/Stephen Lewellyn
`Stephen J. Lewellyn
`Reg. No. 51,942
`Agent for Patent Owner