throbber
Universal Remote Control, Inc. v.
`Universal Electronics Inc.
`
`IPR2014-01102 (USPN 5,228,077)
`IPR2014-01103 (USPN 5,552,917)
`IPR2014-01104 (USPN 5,414,761)
`IPR2014-01106 (USPN 5,255,313)
`
`Oral Hearing, August 19, 2015
`Judges Blankenship, Medley and Pettigrew
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 1
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Overview
`
`Introduction to the Darbee Patents
`– USPN 5,228,077
`– USPN 5,255,313
`– USPN 5,552,917
`– USPN 5,414,761
`Lack of Motivation to Combine References
`Claim Construction
`Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness
`Real Party in Interest
`
`2
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 2
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Introduction to the Darbee Patents
`
`Remotely upgradeable universal remote controls
`Code data for controlling an appliance is downloaded to
`the remote through an input port
`
`(‘917 Patent, Ex. 1001, Fig. 20.)
`
`3
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 3
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Representative Claim of the Darbee Patents
`
`A remote control comprising input means including a
`1.
`set of keys or pushbuttons for inputting commands to the
`remote control, infrared signal output means for supplying an
`infrared signal to a controlled device including IR lamp driver
`circuitry, a central processing unit (CPU) coupled to said input
`means and to said signal output means, memory means
`coupled to said CPU, code data for generating infrared codes
`stored in said memory means, and two-way data coupling
`means coupled to said CPU for enabling at least one of
`instruction codes or of infrared code data for generating
`infrared codes to be supplied from outside said remote
`control through said two-way data coupling means directly to
`said CPU for entry into said memory means to enable a user
`of the remote control to operate a selected controlled device
`upon inputting commands to the remote control by
`depressing selected keys of the remote control and to be
`transmitted from said remote control through said two-way
`data coupling means to a computer.
`(‘917 Patent, Ex. 1001, Claim 1.)
`
`4
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 4
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Prior Art at Issue
`
`Ciarcia
`
`Hastreiter
`
`5
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 5
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Obviousness and Motivation to Combine: Law
`
`In assessing obviousness, one must:
`1. Determine the scope and content of the prior art;
`2. Ascertain the differences between the prior art;
`3. Resolve the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art;
`and
`4. Consider secondary considerations of non-
`obviousness.
`Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1,
`17–18 (1966).
`
`6
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 6
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`No Motivation to Combine Ciarcia and Hastreiter
`
`Petitioner has not articulated any motivation to
`combine
`Petitioner’s experts have not articulated any
`motivation to combine
`Ciarcia teaches away from any combination with
`Hastreiter
`
`7
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 7
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Expert’s Only Statements on Combining
`Ciarcia with Hastreiter
`
`“Hastreiter teaches that its design is ‘for minimizing the required
`number of interconnections with a microprocessor or other apparatus
`with which a keyboard is used.’ Hastreiter at FIGS. 1, 2 and 1:5-11.
`Thus, skilled artisans at the time understood that Hastreiter's keyboard
`circuit can be used in Ciarcia's remote to minimize the connections to
`the microprocessor.”
`(IPR 2014-01103, Bristow Decl., Ex. 1007 ¶ 54; IPR 2014-01102, Ex.
`1009 ¶ 60; IPR 2014-01104, Ex. 1013 ¶ 72; IPR 2014-1106, Ex.
`1011 ¶ 74 (emphasis added).)
`
`“can be used” does not mean that one of ordinary skill in the art
`would actually be motivated to combine.
`
`8
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 8
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Ciarcia Teaches Away from Any Combination with Hastreiter
`
`Hastreiter is concerned with reducing the number of
`interconnections between a keypad and a microprocessor
`– In Hastreiter, N interconnections permits up to
`
`(cid:1840)(cid:3400)(cid:4666)(cid:1840)(cid:3398)1(cid:4667) keys. (Hastreiter, Ex. 1004 at 5:42-45.)
`
`Interconnections Maximum # of Keys
`5
`20
`10
`90
`20
`380
`
`– The larger the keypad, the greater the benefit of
`Hastreiter’s design. (See, e.g. IPR 2014-01103, Cook
`Decl., Ex. 2029 ¶ 81.)
`
`9
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 9
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Ciarcia Teaches Away from Any Combination with Hastreiter
`
`Ciarcia, on the other hand, teaches reducing the
`overall number of keys.
`Ciarcia’s keypad only has six buttons.
`
`(Ciarcia, Ex. 1005 at 1, 9.)
`
`10
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 10
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Ciarcia Teaches Reducing the Overall Number of Keys
`
`Ciarcia considered a fixed matrix of keys to be a
`“major shortcoming” of known remote controls.
`(Ciarcia, Ex. 1005 at 1.)
`Ciarcia instead opted to design “something
`different.” (Id.)
`– A series of on-screen menus for selecting
`functions, with less keys (Id. at 2.)
`
`11
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 11
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Ciarcia Has No Need for Hastreieter’s Keypad
`
`Ciarcia’s keypad circuit has unused pins that could
`support more interconnections:
`
`Ciarcia has pins to spare! (Ciarcia, Ex. 1005 at Fig. 1.)
`
`12
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 12
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Expert Concedes that Ciarcia Has
`Unused Pins and Could Support a Larger Keypad
`
`Q Do you see that the LS -- I'm sorry
`– the 74LS240 has an unused spare
`input pin?
`A Yes.
`Q That's pin 8?
`A That's right.
`Q And do you also see that the
`74LS240 has two spare, unused
`output pins?
`A Yes.
`Q And those are pins 3 and 5?
`A That's right.
`(Gafford Dep., Ex. 2045 at 73:18-74:2.)
`
`Q Ciarcia does not use all of the input
`pins of the 74LS240; correct?
`A That's correct.
`Q It also does not use all of the output
`pins of the 74LS240 chip; correct?
`A Correct.
`Q So it's possible for Ciarcia to have
`a keypad with at least one more column
`and two more rows -- correct? -- without
`-- let me restate that. It is possible for
`Ciarcia to have a keypad that requires
`one more row and two -- one more
`column and two more rows without
`requiring any additional circuitry
`beyond the 74LS240; is that correct?
`A Yes. With his particular selection
`of components, you could have more
`rows and columns.
`(Gafford Dep., Ex. 2045 at 75:8-22
`(emphasis added).)
`
`13
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 13
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Ciarcia Would Have to be Altered to be
`Combined with Hastreiter
`
`Hastreiter’s keypad must be connected to a processor
`with bidirectional input/output ports:
`“The keyboard can be connected directly to any
`suitable data processor which has bidirectional
`input/output ports.”
`(Hastreiter, Ex. 1004 at 4:15-17.)
`Ciarcia’s keypad connects to the 74LS240 chip.
`– Does not connect to a processor.
`– Does not have bidirectional input/output ports.
`(Gafford Dep., Ex. 2045 at 99:2-100:10.)
`
`14
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 14
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Claim Construction
`
`Key term: “code data”
`
`Term appears in each challenged claim of each
`of the Darbee Patents
`
`15
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 15
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`What is “code data”?
`
`“instructions and timing
`information for generating an
`infrared signal”
`
`(See, e.g., IPR 2014-01103, Patent Owner Response, Paper
`No. 14 at 10-12.)
`
`16
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 16
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`The Darbee Specifications Confirm That “code data”
`Comprises Both Instructions and Timing Data
`
`In the method for learning or acquiring code data for infrared codes
`disclosed herein, no counting of pulses is carried out. Instead the
`method involves the following steps:
`…
`(c) transforming the recorded point-in-time data into a list of
`instructions for generating a replica of the train of pulses;
`(d) timing the duration of a train of the pulses;
`(e) timing the period between trains of pulses;
`(f) associating a function key of the universal remote control
`device 10 with the time duration of the train of pulses and the list
`of instructions for generating a replica of the train of pulses;
`…
`(i) noting that repetitions are present; and
`(j) storing for use in a universal remote control device, the information
`acquired in steps (c), (d), (e), (f) and (i).
`(‘917 Patent, Ex. 1001 at 8:63-9:19.)
`
`17
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 17
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`The Darbee Specifications Confirm That “code data”
`Comprises Both Instructions and Timing Data
`
`“The code data is stored in the RAM
`54 of the remote control device 10
`and the sequence of steps the
`circuitry 42 goes through to take the
`code data in the RAM 54 and
`generate the infrared code
`therefrom is set forth in this Figure
`[14].”
`(‘917 Patent, Ex. 1001 at 10:2-6, Fig. 14.)
`
`18
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 18
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Petitioner’s Expert Concedes that Welles Uses
`Instructions to Transmit IR Signals
`
`Q Well, let's stick with Welles for a moment, and
`in paragraph 45 of your declaration, you identify
`the routines LA1, LB1, LC1 and LF1?
`A Yes.
`Q Are those examples of machine instructions?
`A They are.
`(Gafford Dep., Ex. 2045 at 64:15-20.)
`
`Q Okay. So in order to -- for those -- for those
`schemes in Figure 1 that require a carrier, the
`routines LA1, LB1, LC1, and LF1 are necessary in
`order to transmit the infrared codes to the
`recipient device; correct?
`A For all of those schemes except 1-I, they play
`a part in the transmission of information from the
`remote.
`(Gafford Dep., Ex. 2045 at 65:7-14.)
`
`Q So absent those machine instructions that
`control the "pause" and "on" time counts, would
`Welles be able to transmit the -- the IR code
`depicted in Figure 1-I?
`A Be careful. It's machine instructions -- the
`thing that -- machine instructions exert the control
`but only as a precise function of stored timing
`data, time span data. So it's a combination of
`instructions in the microprocessor, plus the
`timing data those instructions are working
`with that create the information pattern that
`goes out on the LED from Welles.
`Q So a combination of instructions and
`timing data in Welles are what drive the LED
`output?
`MR. KANG: Objection to form.
`THE WITNESS: Yes. They have to because
`Welles is a microprocessor and the instructions
`do everything in, I think, the sense in which you
`are using "machine instructions."
`(Gafford Dep., Ex. 2045 at 67:14-68-7 (emphasis
`added).)
`
`19
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 19
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Ciarcia and Hastreiter Do Not Disclose “code data”
`
`Hastreiter does not discuss IR signals and therefore
`does not teach or suggest “code data.”
`– Petitioner does not allege that Hastreiter discloses
`“code data.”
`Ciarcia’s remote does not have or use “code data.”
`– When learning IR signals, Ciarcia does not break them
`down into instructions and timing data.
`– In Ciarcia, instructions are stored in a static EPROM,
`and menus and IR signals are stored in RAM.
`– Ciarcia does not download instructions from outside
`the remote.
`
`20
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 20
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Ciarcia Does Not Disclose “code data”
`
`When learning IR signals, Ciarcia does not break them down into
`instructions and timing data:
`
`(Ciarcia, Ex. 1005 at 2 (emphasis added).)
`
`21
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 21
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Ciarcia Does Not Disclose “code data”
`
`In Ciarcia, instructions are stored in a
`static EPROM, and menus and IR
`signals are stored in RAM:
`– “An Intel 8031 single-chip
`microprocessor running a
`program stored in a 2764
`EPROM directs the operation of
`the rest of the circuitry. (See
`photos 2 and 3 and figure 1.) The
`menus and IR signals are stored
`in a single 32K-byte battery-
`backed static RAM.” (Ciarcia, Ex.
`1005 at 2 (emphasis added).)
`– “The 8031’s system software is
`contained in a 2764 EPROM, and
`the LCD and IR data are
`contained in battery-backed
`RAM.” (Ciarcia, Ex. 1005 at 3
`(emphasis added).)
`
`EPROM
`- Stores instructions
`- Data cannot be
`modified
`
`RAM
`- Stores LCD
`and IR data
`- Data can be
`modified
`
`(Ciarcia, Ex. 1005 at 5.)
`
`22
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 22
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Ciarcia Does Not Disclose “code data”
`
`Ciarcia does not download instructions from outside
`the remote:
`“Ciarcia teaches the creation of menus on an IBM PC that
`can be downloaded to the Master Controller. Ciarcia
`states that these menus are stored in the RAM of the
`unit. Specifically, Ciarcia states: ‘An Intel 8031 single-chip
`microprocessor running a program stored in a 2764
`EPROM directs the operation of the rest of the
`circuitry.’ (Ciarcia, 2.) It is my opinion that Ciarcia does
`not teach downloading programming (computer
`instructions) to the Master Controller but instead teaches
`downloading menu data.”
`
`(See, e.g., IPR 2014-01103, Cook Decl., Ex. 2029 ¶ 59 (emphasis in original).)
`
`23
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 23
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Ciarcia Does Not Disclose “code data”
`
`Ciarcia does not download instructions from outside the
`remote:
`
`(Ciarcia, Ex. 1005 at 2 (emphasis
`added).)
`
`24
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 24
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`The Intel 8254 Chip Does Not Use Instructions
`
`Q. And writing a control word is the software programming of the 8254 referred to on
`the first page of the data sheet, correct?
`A. No. The 8254 does not have software programming. It's a peripheral device in
`that series of products by Intel. That's just a timer. The control words define how the
`hardware works with how the timer works, whether it interrupts correctly, how long it
`times, those kinds of things. It is not software that runs on the 8254.
`(Cook Dep., Exs. 1052-54 at 372:15-373:2.)
`
`Q. So in the 8254, there is an instruction sequence, it just not need to be special,
`correct?
`A. So you're conflating two ideas of programming and instructions. Where I talk
`about in Paragraph 59, computer instructions, that is the software that runs on the 8031.
`The 8254 does not have software that runs. It is programable [sic.] in the sense that
`it's not a fixed timer. Timing can be changed. Some of the operation can be changed in
`the way it does timing. Anybody from that period of time, from, say, mid '85, '86, through
`mid '90s, would have been accustomed to designing computer circuits using a CPU and
`peripheral chips made by either the same company or different companies that added
`capability to that. This is a peripheral chip that goes with another device.
`(Cook Dep., Exs. 1052-54 at 375:23-376:17.)
`
`25
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 25
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness
`
`Law
`– Generally
`– Nexus and Commercial Success
`– Licensing / Commercial Acquiescence
`– Burdens
`The Inventions of the Instituted Claims of the Darbee Patents
`Licensing of the Darbee Patents and Commercial Acquiescence
`The Commercial Success of the Darbee Patents
`Petitioner Fails to Rebut and Petitioner’s Expert Fails to
`Address the Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness
`
`26
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 26
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness:
`Law
`
`“Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved
`needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances
`surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented.” Graham v.
`John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
`“A prima facie case of nexus is established when the patentee shows both that
`there is commercial success, and that
`the product
`that
`is commercially
`successful is the invention disclosed and claimed in the patent.” Omron
`Oilfield & Marine, Inc. v. MD/TOTCO, IPR 2013-00265, Paper No. 11 at 14
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2013) (citing In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d 1573, 1580 (Fed. Cir.
`1995)) (emphasis added).
`“Testimony that a product was successful due to the patented features
`supports a finding of nexus.”
`Id. (citing Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild
`Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., 711 F.3d 1348, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2013)) (emphasis
`added).
`
`“[The district court] also based his conclusion of non-obviousness on . . . the
`commercial acquiescence of competitors, evidenced by RCA’s extensive
`licensing of the invention.” RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730
`F.2d 1440, 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (emphasis added).
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`27
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 27
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness:
`Law Regarding Burdens
`
`“Petitioner does not rebut any of this evidence. This lack
`of a rebuttal serves to bolster the case for commercial
`success.” Omron Oilfield & Marine, Inc. v. MD/TOTCO,
`IPR 2013-00265, Paper No. 11 at 14 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31,
`2013)(citing Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 598 F.3d
`1294, 1310-11 (Fed. Cir. 2010)) (emphasis added).
`
`28
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 28
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness: The
`Inventions of the Darbee Patents (Patent Owner’s Expert)
`
`“The [Darbee Patents] disclose[] a remote control system that includes
`an upgradeable universal
`remote control and a system for
`transmitting data to the upgradeable universal remote. . . . In the
`described upgradeable remote of the [Darbee Patents], the contents
`of all memory can be changed.” (See, e.g., IPR 2014-01103, Cook
`Decl., Ex. 2029 ¶¶ 33, 38.)
`
`29
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 29
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness:
`The Inventions of the Darbee Patents (Petitioner)
`
`“The [Darbee Patents] teach[] two ways for loading instructions and
`data into the RAM. . . . In this way, the programming computer, through
`the remote controller, can update the code data and
`the CPU of
`instructions in the remote’s RAM.” (IPR 2014-01103, Bristow Decl., Ex.
`1007 ¶¶ 24, 26; IPR 2014-01102, Bristow Decl., Ex. 1009 ¶¶ 24, 26;
`IPR 2014-01106, Bristow Decl., Ex. 1011 ¶¶ 24, 26; IPR 2014-01104,
`Bristow Decl., Ex. 1013 ¶¶ 24, 26.)
`loading instructions and data into
`teach[]
`“The [Darbee Patents]
`RAM using an RS-232 connection . . . In this way, the programming
`computer, through the CPU of the remote controller, can update the
`code data and instructions in the remote’s RAM.” (Gafford Decl., Ex.
`1063 ¶ 34.)
`“The [Darbee Patents] disclose[] a universal remote control.” (IPR
`2014-01103, Petition, Paper No. 1 at 8; IPR 2014-01102, Petition,
`Paper No. 1 at 8; IPR 2014-01104, Petition, Paper No. 1 at 8; IPR
`2014-1106, Petition, Paper No. 1 at 8.)
`
`30
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 30
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness: Licensing of
`the Darbee Patents and Commercial Acquiescence—Logitech
`
`Petitioner and its expert assert that the inventions of the Darbee
`Patents are universal remote controls that can upload and download
`information:
`“The [Darbee Patents] disclose[] a universal remote control.”
`(IPR
`2014-01103, Petition, Paper No. 1 at 8;
`IPR 2014-01102, Petition,
`Paper No. 1 at 8; IPR 2014-01104, Petition, Paper No. 1 at 8; IPR
`2014-1106, Petition, Paper No. 1 at 8.)
`loading instructions and data into
`“The [Darbee Patents]
`teach[]
`RAM using an RS-232 connection . . . In this way, the programming
`computer, through the CPU of the remote controller, can update the
`code data and instructions in the remote’s RAM.” (Gafford Decl., Ex.
`1063 ¶ 34.)
`
`32
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 31
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness:
`The Commercial Success of the Darbee Patents
`
`Licensee Logitech has been the market leader in consumer aftermarket
`remote controls since 2007. (Id. ¶ 26.)
`Since 2007 sales of Licensee Logitech’s remote controls have accounted for
`more than approximately $100 million in worldwide, annual sales.
`(Id.; See
`also Ex. 2041.) A considerable portion of those remote controls are covered by
`the Darbee Patents. (Id., Ex. 2031 ¶ 1.6 (First license); Exs. 2032-2038 (Second
`license).)
`
`UEI is the market leader in original equipment manufacturing of remote controls
`for cable and satellite television providers and has generated approximately
`$1.6 billion in gross worldwide sales of remote controls covered by the
`Darbee Patents to cable television providers from 2000 to 2013. (Ammari Decl.,
`Ex. 2030 ¶¶ 30-31; See also Ex. 2048.)
`
`UEI’s Nevo remote controls for custom installation are covered by the Darbee
`Patents and realized approximately $17 million in sales from 2005 to 2010.
`(Id. ¶ 32; See also Ex. 2043.)
`
`33
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 32
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness:
`The Commercial Success of the Darbee Patents—Logitech Products
`
`Mr. Ammari testified that the Logitech Harmony remote control products are covered by the
`Darbee Patents.
`(Ammari Decl., Ex. 2030 ¶¶ 18-27; See also, e.g., Ex. 1050 at 235-36,
`Ex. 1051 at 290, 309.)
`
`During the patent infringement lawsuit that culminated in the second Logitech license, UEI
`and its attorneys served claim charts pursuant to the N.D. Cal. local patent rules that show
`on an element-by-element basis that the Logitech Harmony remotes are covered by the
`Darbee Patents. (See, e.g.,
`IPR 2014-01103, Ex. 2032 at 30 (“Update your remote Once
`you’ve added your devices and your Activities, it’s time to update the information to
`your remote. 1. Make sure your remote is connected to your computer.”)
`
`Logitech’s manuals show that the Logitech Harmony remotes are covered by the Darbee
`Patents. (See Exs. 2034-2038.)
`Each of the above, alone, is evidence of nexus, i.e., that the commercially
`successful Logitech Products are covered by the Darbee Patents
`
`34
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 33
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness:
`The Commercial Success of the Darbee Patents—UEI Products
`
`Mr. Ammari testified that the remote control products UEI provides to
`cable and satellite providers are upgradeable, covered by the Darbee
`Patents, and that UEI is the market leader in that space.
`(Ammari
`Decl., Ex. 2030 ¶¶ 28-31; See also, e.g., Ex. 1050 at 202, Ex. 1051 at
`334.)
`
`Mr. Ammari testified that UEI’s Nevo-branded remote control products
`are upgradeable and covered by the Darbee Patents.
`(Id. ¶¶ 32, See
`also, e.g., Ex. 1051 at 335, 337, 339, 346.)
`Each of the above, alone, is evidence of nexus, i.e., that the
`commercially successful UEI Products are covered by the
`Darbee Patents
`
`35
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 34
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness: Petitioner Fails to
`Rebut the Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness
`
`•
`
`•
`
`“Once the patentee demonstrates a prima facie nexus, the burden
`of coming forward with evidence in rebuttal shifts to the
`challenger.” Omron Oilfield & Marine,
`Inc. v. MD/TOTCO,
`IPR
`2013-00265, Paper No. 11 at 14 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2013) (citing
`Demaco Corp. v. F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387,
`1393 (Fed. Cir. 1988)) (emphasis added).
`
`“Petitioner does not rebut any of this evidence. This lack of a
`rebuttal serves to bolster the case for commercial success.” Id.
`(citing Crocs, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 598 F.3d 1294, 1310-11
`(Fed. Cir. 2010)) (emphasis added).
`
`36
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 35
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness:
`Petitioner’s Expert Failed to Address the Secondary Considerations of
`Nonobviousness
`
`Despite stating that he considered Patent Owner’s responses
`regarding each of the Darbee Patents—which included evidence of
`secondary considerations of nonobviousness (see Gafford Decl., Ex.
`1063, Appendix B (citing Patent Owner’s April 1, 2015, responses))
`—Petitioner’s expert Mr. Gafford failed to address secondary
`considerations in his June 24, 2015, declarations.
`(See
`generally, Ex. 1063.)
`Petitioner's expert Mr. Gafford did not review Mr. Ammari’s
`declarations regarding secondary considerations or the exhibits
`cited in Mr. Ammari’s declarations. (See Gafford Decl., Ex. 1063,
`Appendix B.)
`
`37
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 36
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness:
`Petitioner Fails to Rebut and Petitioner’s Expert Fails to Address the
`Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness
`Petitioner fails to rebut that:
`
`– Logitech products are covered by the Darbee Patents;
`
`– The Logitech products charted in the litigation that culminated in the
`second Logitech license are covered by the Darbee Patents;
`– Logitech has been the market
`leader
`in consumer aftermarket
`remote controls since 2007;
`– Since 2007, sales of Logitech’s remote controls have accounted for
`more than approximately $100 million in worldwide, annual sales;
`(See, e.g., IPR 2014-01103, Petitioner’s Reply, Paper No. 20 at 19-22.)
`
`38
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 37
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness:
`Petitioner Fails to Rebut and Petitioner’s Expert Fails to Address the
`Secondary Considerations of Nonobviousness
`Petitioner fails to rebut that:
`– UEI’s original equipment remote controls for cable and satellite
`television providers are covered by the Darbee Patents;
`– UEI is the market leader in original equipment manufacturing
`of remote controls for cable and satellite television providers
`and has generated approximately $1.6 billion in gross
`worldwide sales of remote controls from 2000 to 2013; and
`– UEI’s Nevo products for custom installation are covered by the
`Darbee Patents and realized approximately $17 million in
`sales from 2005 to 2010.
`(See, e.g., IPR 2014-01103, Petitioner’s Reply, Paper No. 20 at
`19-22.)
`
`39
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 38
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Real Party in Interest: Law
`
`A petition for inter partes review “may be considered only if … the
`petition identifies all real parties in interest.” 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2)
`(emphasis added).
`“A common consideration is whether the non-party exercised or
`could have exercised control over a party’s participation in a
`proceeding.” Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,759 (Aug. 14,
`2012) (citing Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 895 (2008)) (emphasis
`added).
`The concept of control generally means that “it should be enough
`the nonparty has the actual measure of control or opportunity to
`control that might reasonably be expected between two formal
`coparties.” Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,759 (citing Wright
`& Miller §4451) (emphasis added); See also Decision Denying
`Patent Owner’s Motion for Additional Discovery, Paper No. 13 at 5.
`
`40
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 39
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Real Party in Interest: Law
`
`“[T]he spirit of that formulation as to IPR . . . proceedings means
`that, at a general level, the ‘real party-in-interest’ is the party that
`desires review of the patent. Thus, the ‘real party-in-interest’ may be
`the petitioner itself, and/or it may be the real party or parties at
`whose behest the petition has been filed.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48,759
`(Aug. 14, 2012) (emphasis added).
`Ultimately, whether a non-party should have been named as a real
`party-in-interest is an equitable question that turns upon the fairness
`of applying the statutory estoppel provision against that non-party as
`a privy having a sufficiently close relationship to the party to which
`estoppel unquestionably applies. Id.
`
`41
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 40
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Real Party in Interest: Facts Supporting That
`Ohsung is a Real Party in Interest
`
`Ohsung makes all of URC’s remote control products. (See, e.g.,
`Ex. 2019 at 6, 17; Ex. 2050 ¶ 2.4.; Ex. 2017 at 1791:17-22.)
`
`Ohsung’s U.S. office is also URC’s office. On Ohsung’s website,
`Ohsung’s “American Office” is identified as “Ohsung Electronics
`U.S.A. New York Office, 500 Mamaroreck Ave., Suite 502, Harrison
`NY 10528” (see Ex. 2020)—which is URC’s principal office (see Ex.
`2028).
`
`Ohsung does not pay rent for its U.S. office. (Ex. 2022 ¶ 24.)
`
`URC’s CEO testified that URC and Ohsung have a “very close
`relationship.” (Ex. 2017 at 596:22-24.)
`
`44
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 41
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Real Party in Interest: Facts Supporting That
`Ohsung is a Real Party in Interest
`
`the
`URC and Ohsung were both sued for infringement of
`Darbee Patents in UEI v. URC and Ohsung, Case No. 13-cv-984
`(C.D. Cal.) (“URC 3”)
`
`Petitioner URC’s counsel is also Ohsung’s counsel in URC 3
`and the parties share the same counsel in URC 3. (See, e.g., Ex.
`2022 (Petitioner’s counsel signing Ohsung’s Answer); Ex. 2026
`(Petitioner’s counsel signing the joint stipulation to stay the case on
`behalf of Ohsung pending the IPRs)).
`
`URC and Ohsung made joint representations regarding the
`scope of a continued stay pending the IPRs and petitioner’s
`counsel signed on behalf of both URC and Ohsung.
`(See Ex.
`2027 at 3, 5.)
`
`45
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 42
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104
`
`

`
`Real Party in Interest: Facts Supporting That
`Ohsung is a Real Party in Interest
`
`Mr. Jak You, an Ohsung employee, is also a URC employee.
`– In UEI v. URC, Case No. 12-cv-329 (C.D. Cal.) (“URC 2”), URC
`identified Mr. You in its initial disclosures as “URC’s director of
`engineering,” his contact address was listed as URC’s address, and
`he was to be contacted through counsel for URC. (Ex. 2018 at 9.)
`
`– URC subsequently amended its initial disclosures in URC 2 and
`identified Mr. You as an Ohsung employee at the same contact
`address and stated “Mr. You is Ohsung Electronics USA’s contact in
`the New York office.” (Ex. 2021 at 9 (emphasis added).)
`– Mr. You’s LinkedIn page identifies him as “VP at Universal Remote
`Control” and Mr. You has an email address with a
`“universalremote.com” extension. (Ex. 2023; Ex. 2020.)
`
`– In URC 2, Mr. You was designated by URC to testify on URC’s
`behalf. (Ex. 2023; Ex. 2025.)
`
`46
`
`Universal Electronics Exhibit 2072, Page 43
`Universal Remote Control v. Universal Electronics, Inc., Trial No. IPR2014-01104

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket