`Attorney Docket No. CA0006P2
`
`
`
`Patent No. US RE43,707 E
`Page 1 of 13
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`___________
`
`EIZO CORPORATION
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`BARCO N.V.
`Patent Owner
`___________
`
`Case IPR2014-00778
`Patent No. US RE43,707 E
`___________
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00778
`Attorney Docket No. CA0006P2
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent No. US RE43,707 E
`Page 2 of 13
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder filed July 21, 2014 seeks to join this
`
`proceeding to Case IPR2014-00358. Patent Owner Barco N.V. respectfully
`
`submits its opposition to that motion, said opposition being compliant with the
`
`time limits of Rule 42.25(a)(1) and the page limits of Rule 42.24(b)(3).
`
`Rule 42.1 states that Part 42 “shall be construed to secure the just, speedy,
`
`and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.”
`
`Rule 42.20(c) reads as follows: “Burden of proof. The moving party has the
`
`burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the requested relief.”
`
`The Office has stated that a motion for joinder “should address the reasons
`
`why joinder is appropriate, identify any new ground(s) of unpatentability asserted
`
`in the petition, and explain what impact (if any) joinder would have on the
`
`schedule for the existing review.” Frequently Asked Question (“FAQ”) H5 on the
`
`Board’s website at http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/prps.jsp.
`
`
`
`II. RESPONSE TO ALLEGED MATERIAL FACTS
`
`Alleged fact 2 is denied as to its representations of the Court’s reasons for
`
`staying the litigation pending resolution of the reissue proceedings. Those reasons
`
`are set forth in the Court’s own words in the two-page order of Exhibit 2001. In
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00778
`Attorney Docket No. CA0006P2
`
`
`this order, the Court specifically concluded “that a stay would not unduly prejudice
`
`Patent No. US RE43,707 E
`Page 3 of 13
`
`the plaintiffs” and “would simplify the issues in this case.” The Court also noted
`
`“that no trial date has been set” and that “the plaintiffs have broadened their reissue
`
`application since filing its complaint.”
`
`Alleged fact 6 is denied. Public Law 112-274 (the “Technical Corrections
`
`Act”) became effective on January 14, 2013, such that inter partes review of the
`
`‘707 Patent was available to the Petitioner by statute more than five months before
`
`the July 2, 2013 date it argues.
`
`Alleged fact 7 is denied. An inter partes procedure on the ‘707 Patent -- the
`
`inter partes reexamination requested by the Petitioner itself -- was already in
`
`progress when the Petitioner filed its request for ex parte reexamination.
`
`Alleged fact 8 is denied. All claims that were asserted to be infringed in the
`
`original complaint, which was served on the Petitioner on October 7, 2011,
`
`continued unamended in the ‘707 Patent. Under Section 252, the civil action
`
`continued on those claims of the ‘707 Patent, unaffected by the surrender and
`
`reissue.
`
`Alleged fact 15 is denied as to its representations of the Petitioner’s reasons
`
`for its actions and omissions, and also for the reasons set forth in the denial of
`
`alleged fact 8.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00778
`Attorney Docket No. CA0006P2
`
`
`
`Patent No. US RE43,707 E
`Page 4 of 13
`
`Alleged fact 20 is denied. In fact, claims 64 and 65 were among the claims
`
`challenged by the Petitioner in its first petition.
`
`
`
`III. STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`The Technical Corrections Act was enacted and became effective on
`
`January 14, 2013: less than three weeks after the Petitioner filed its request for ex
`
`parte reexamination.
`
`2.
`
`Even before the Petitioner filed its request for ex parte reexamination,
`
`it was common knowledge that a technical amendment to address the so-called
`
`“dead zone” was about to be enacted. See, e.g., Exhibits 2002, 2003.
`
`3.
`
`Patent Owner’s Amended Complaint was deemed filed as of January
`
`17, 2013 and was served on the Petitioner electronically via the District Court’s
`
`CM/ECF (Case Management / Electronic Case Filing) system. Exhibits 2004,
`
`2005.
`
`4.
`
`The Technical Corrections Act was already in effect when the
`
`amended complaint was served on the Petitioner on January 17, 2013.
`
`5.
`
`The Office’s final rules to implement the Technical Corrections Act
`
`became effective on March 25, 2013: less than one week after the Petitioner’s
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00778
`Attorney Docket No. CA0006P2
`
`
`request for ex parte reexamination was granted, and nearly six months before a
`
`Patent No. US RE43,707 E
`Page 5 of 13
`
`Final Office Action was issued in that proceeding.
`
`6. More than one year after the Technical Corrections Act became
`
`effective on January 14, 2013, the Petitioner filed its first petition on January 17,
`
`2014.
`
`7.
`
`The Petitioner never requested a stay of the ex parte reexamination it
`
`had initiated in the ‘707 Patent.
`
`8.
`
`The Petitioner’s second petition was filed on May 20, 2014: more than
`
`sixteen months after the amended complaint was served on the Petitioner.
`
`
`
`IV. RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS
`
`A.
`
`EFFICIENCY COMPELS DENIAL OF THE MOTION
`
`On page 8 of its motion, the Petitioner argues that joinder is proper because
`
`“it would be a waste of resources to have separate proceedings handled by different
`
`panels to conduct the review of the two Petitions.” The Patent Owner respectfully
`
`notes that this statement is misleading at best. In fact, there cannot be a separate
`
`review of the second petition, at least because it was filed more than one year after
`
`service of the amended complaint on the Petitioner. Standing alone, this petition is
`
`time-barred. In truth, therefore, the most efficient solution would clearly be to
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00778
`Attorney Docket No. CA0006P2
`
`
`deny the Petitioner’s motion, as this course would save the other parties from ever
`
`Patent No. US RE43,707 E
`Page 6 of 13
`
`having to review the second petition.
`
`At least because the Petitioner’s argument is based on a representation which
`
`is false, the Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Petitioner fails to sustain its
`
`burden of proving that it is entitled to the requested relief.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`THE MOTION FAILS TO IDENTIFY ANY OF THE NEW
`
`GROUNDS ASSERTED IN THE PETITION
`
`The Petitioner’s motion fails to identify a single one of the new grounds
`
`asserted in its second petition, arguing instead that “the number of issues raised by
`
`the joinder of the Petitions will not be substantially increased” (p. 8). In fact, this
`
`second petition raises numerous substantive issues that are not before the Board in
`
`Case IPR2014-00358.
`
`The trial in Case IPR2014-00358 involves four claims of the ’707 Patent
`
`(claims 101-104), a single ground of unpatentability, and two prior art references.
`
`IPR2014-00358, Paper 11 at 31. In its second petition, Petitioner (1) challenges
`
`thirty-five new claims (claims 64-66, 68-76, 80, 85-88, 91, 98-100, and 116-129);
`
`(2) asserts eleven new grounds of unpatentability; and (3) asserts nine prior art
`
`references, only two of which are at issue in the existing proceeding.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00778
`Attorney Docket No. CA0006P2
`
`
`
`Patent No. US RE43,707 E
`Page 7 of 13
`
`Among the thirty-five newly challenged claims, only claim 100 has a
`
`common antecedent to any of the four claims in Case IPR2014-00358. All thirty-
`
`eight of the other newly challenged claims are independent or depend from other
`
`claims not involved in Case IPR2014-00358. Further, among the nine asserted
`
`prior art references, only two (Greene and Kamada) were considered previously by
`
`the Board in Case IPR2014-00358. See IPR2014-00358, Paper 11 at 31.
`
`The legislative history states that the elevated threshold for instituting
`
`proceedings “will prevent challenges from ‘mushrooming’ after the review is
`
`instituted into additional arguments employing other prior art or attacking other
`
`claims.” 157 Cong. Rec. S1376 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011), col. 3, ll. 30-45. It is
`
`clear that by increasing the number of challenged claims by nearly ten times and
`
`increasing by over four times the number of prior art references to be considered,
`
`the relief requested in the Petitioner’s motion would produce exactly the
`
`“mushrooming” that Congress specifically intended to prevent.
`
`Additionally, none of the newly challenged claims were in their present form
`
`when Petitioner’s first petition was filed. Indeed, some of these claims did not
`
`even exist as of that statutory bar date. By definition, every claim challenged in
`
`Petitioner’s petition raises new issues that did not exist until two months after the
`
`statutory bar date and which arose from a proceeding initiated by the Petitioner.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00778
`Attorney Docket No. CA0006P2
`
`
`
`Patent No. US RE43,707 E
`Page 8 of 13
`
`The Petitioner states that it “has been diligent in filing the Second Petition
`
`and timely in filing this motion to join the First and Second Petitions” (p. 9).
`
`However, the facts show that the Petitioner took nearly three months after the
`
`Notice of Intent to Issue in the ex parte reexamination, and seven weeks even after
`
`the Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate was issued, to file the second petition.
`
`Clearly, if the Petitioner was being diligent as it argues, this delay could only have
`
`been due to the large number of new issues to be addressed in the second petition.
`
`Consequently, the Petitioner’s own argument establishes that joinder would be
`
`inappropriate.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`THE PETITION AND MOTION ARE ANYTHING BUT TIMELY
`
`The Petitioner’s motion states that it “has in no way unduly delayed seeking
`
`inter partes review of the claims in the Second Petition” (p. 9). In fact, the
`
`Petitioner delayed seeking such review for more than sixteen months, as inter
`
`partes review of all claims of the ‘707 Patent was available by statute to the
`
`Petitioner as of January 14, 2013. Even if only the March 25, 2013 effective date
`
`of the Office’s Final Rules is considered, inter partes review of all claims of the
`
`‘707 Patent had been available to the Petitioner for nearly fourteen months when it
`
`finally filed its second petition.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00778
`Attorney Docket No. CA0006P2
`
`
`
`Patent No. US RE43,707 E
`Page 9 of 13
`
`The record shows that instead of seeking inter partes review in a timely
`
`manner, the Petitioner chose to allow the ex parte reexamination it had just
`
`initiated to proceed, past the Patent Owner’s initial response of May 18, 2013, past
`
`the Final Office Action of September 20, 2013, and finally to its resolution, all the
`
`while consuming Office resources and causing considerable expense and delay to
`
`the Patent Owner. With this motion, the Petitioner now seeks to nullify the
`
`outcome of that proceeding, representing to the Board that its hands were tied and
`
`that it could not have acted otherwise. In fact, it was the Petitioner who requested
`
`the ex parte reexamination in the first place, and it was the Petitioner who allowed
`
`that proceeding to continue while it delayed its petitions for inter partes review.
`
`The Patent Owner notes, for example, that the Board has been ordering stays in
`
`concurrent reexaminations since at least November 6, 2012 (see, e.g., Case
`
`IPR2013-00033, Order of Nov. 6, 2012) and that the Petitioner itself requested a
`
`stay in the related civil action. Pet. Mat. Fact 2.
`
`
`
`D.
`
`THE REQUESTED RELIEF WOULD SEVERELY PREJUDICE
`
`THE PATENT OWNER
`
`Having subjected the Patent Owner to the expense and delay of the ex parte
`
`reexamination, with this motion the Petitioner now seeks to overturn the result of
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00778
`Attorney Docket No. CA0006P2
`
`
`that proceeding and also to cause the Patent Owner to incur the considerable
`
`Patent No. US RE43,707 E
`Page 10 of 13
`
`additional expense and delay of a greatly expanded inter partes review proceeding.
`
`The Petitioner’s argument that joinder is proper because “there is no discernible
`
`prejudice to either party” (p. 7) is clearly contrary to fact.
`
`As demonstrated above, the Petitioner’s motion seeks to join numerous new
`
`issues that arose only because of the Petitioner’s own actions and which did not
`
`even exist as of the filing date of the first petition and statutory bar date. The
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that as a matter of justice, when a petitioner
`
`initiates a reexamination, causing the patent owner considerable expense and delay
`
`while consuming Office resources, it would be unconscionable to then allow that
`
`petitioner to expand an existing inter partes review proceeding with an otherwise
`
`time-barred petition in which the petitioner seeks to nullify the results of the
`
`reexamination it requested. The resulting inequity would be especially severe in a
`
`case such as this one, where the Petitioner made no attempt to stay the
`
`reexamination and now seeks to increase the number of challenged claims in the
`
`existing proceeding by nearly ten times.
`
`
`
`E.
`
`THE MOTION FAILS TO EXPLAIN THE IMPACT JOINDER
`
`WOULD HAVE ON THE SCHEDULE FOR THE EXISTING REVIEW
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00778
`Attorney Docket No. CA0006P2
`
`
`
`Patent No. US RE43,707 E
`Page 11 of 13
`
`Patent Owner Barco N.V. respectfully notes that it is now nearly seven
`
`months since the petition in Case 2014-00358 was filed. In that proceeding, the
`
`October 14, 2014 due date of Patent Owner’s response and motion to amend is
`
`already less than two months away. Clearly, the greatly expanded relief requested
`
`by the Petitioner’s motion would adversely affect the schedule of the existing
`
`proceeding.
`
`The Patent Owner recognizes that the time set forth in 37 CFR 42.100(c) can
`
`be extended by up to six months for good cause or adjusted by the Board in the
`
`case of joinder. The Patent Owner respectfully submits that by seeking a “do-
`
`over” of a proceeding which was initiated by the Petitioner itself and has already
`
`cost the Patent Owner considerable expense, and moreover by seeking such relief
`
`for the first time months after the filing date of the first petition and statutory bar
`
`date, the Petitioner’s motion fails to demonstrate any good cause.
`
`The Patent Owner also respectfully notes that the concurrent stayed
`
`litigation has already incurred nearly two years of delays since the ‘707 Patent
`
`issued on October 2, 2012, solely because of the panopoly of post-grant
`
`proceedings that have been initiated by the Petitioner.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00778
`Attorney Docket No. CA0006P2
`
`
`
`Patent No. US RE43,707 E
`Page 12 of 13
`
`For at least the reasons above, Patent Owner Barco N.V. respectfully
`
`submits that granting the relief requested in the Petitioner’s motion would be
`
`neither just, nor speedy, nor inexpensive. The Patent Owner respectfully reiterates
`
`that the Petitioner bears the burden of proof to establish that it is entitled to the
`
`requested relief. It is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner’s motion fails to
`
`sustain that burden and should be denied.
`
`The Board is hereby authorized to charge any fees or costs associated with
`
`this submission to Deposit Account No. 506021.
`
`
`Date: August 21, 2014
`
`Reg. No. 41,818
`Tel. No. (703) 499-9594
`Fax No. (703) 499-9594
`Customer No. 49108
`
`
`____/Kerry Hartman/____________
`Signature of Practitioner
`Kerry T. Hartman
`HARTMAN PATENTS PLLC
`3399 Flint Hill Pl.
`Woodbridge, VA 22192
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00778
`Attorney Docket No. CA0006P2
`
`
`
`Patent No. US RE43,707 E
`Page 13 of 13
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of this document has been
`
`served in its entirety (including a copy of this certificate and copies of the five
`
`exhibits referenced herein) on the Petitioner via FedEx International Priority
`
`service directed to the following name and address, via electronic mail directed to
`
`marcweinstein@quinnemanuel.com, and via the Patent Review Processing
`
`System:
`
`
`
`Marc K. Weinstein
`
`Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, NBF Hibiya Bldg., 25F,
`
`1-1-7 Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011, Japan
`
`
`
`Date: August 21, 2014
`
`Reg. No. 41,818
`Tel. No. (703) 499-9594
`Fax No. (703) 499-9594
`Customer No. 49108
`
`
`____/Kerry Hartman/____________
`Signature of Practitioner
`Kerry T. Hartman
`HARTMAN PATENTS PLLC
`3399 Flint Hill Pl.
`Woodbridge, VA 22192
`
`