IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 B2
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.
`110797-0004-655
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`______________
`
`Case IPR2014-01181*
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`______________
`
`Before the Honorable KEVIN F. TURNER, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETITIONERS’ FIVE-PAGE SUBMISSION RESPONSIVE TO
`PATENT OWNER’S SUBMISSION (PAPER 26)**
`
`*Case Nos. IPR2014-01182 and IPR2014-01184 have been consolidated with the
`
`instant proceeding. See IPR2014-01181, Paper 15; IPR2014-01182, Paper 15; and
`
`IPR2014-01184, Paper 15.
`
`**Per the PTAB’s Sept. 23, 2015 email from Maria Vignone, Petitioners limit their
`
`submission to responding to the pages and line numbers explicitly identified on
`
`pages 1-5 of Patent Owner’s submission (Paper 26), and not citations or arguments
`
`identified in Exhibit A to Paper 26 that are not explicitly identified on pages 1-5 of
`
`Patent Owner’s submission.
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 B2
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.
`110797-0004-655
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`______________
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC
`Patent Owner
`______________
`
`Case IPR2014-01181*
`Patent 8,532,641 B2
`______________
`
`Before the Honorable KEVIN F. TURNER, LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, and
`JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PETITIONERS’ FIVE-PAGE SUBMISSION RESPONSIVE TO
`PATENT OWNER’S SUBMISSION (PAPER 26)**
`
`*Case Nos. IPR2014-01182 and IPR2014-01184 have been consolidated with the
`
`instant proceeding. See IPR2014-01181, Paper 15; IPR2014-01182, Paper 15; and
`
`IPR2014-01184, Paper 15.
`
`**Per the PTAB’s Sept. 23, 2015 email from Maria Vignone, Petitioners limit their
`
`submission to responding to the pages and line numbers explicitly identified on
`
`pages 1-5 of Patent Owner’s submission (Paper 26), and not citations or arguments
`
`identified in Exhibit A to Paper 26 that are not explicitly identified on pages 1-5 of
`
`Patent Owner’s submission.
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 B2
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.
`110797-0004-655
`
`GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Shorthand
`
`Description
`
`BRI
`
`IPR
`
`P1
`
`P2
`
`P3
`
`PO
`
`R##
`
`RP##
`
`Pap.
`
`Q1##
`
`Q2##
`
`Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`IPR2014-01181, Paper 4, Corrected Petition For Inter Partes Re-
`view of United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`IPR2014-01182, Paper 4, Corrected Petition For Inter Partes Re-
`view of United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`IPR2014-01184, Paper 4, Corrected Petition For Inter Partes Re-
`view of United States Patent No. 8,532,641
`
`Patent Owner
`
`IPR2014-01181, Paper 20, Patent Owner’s Response at p. ##
`
`IPR2014-01181, Paper 23, Petitioners’ Reply (“Reply”) at p##
`
`Paper
`
`Ex. 1023 (July 23, 2014 Declaration of Dr. Quackenbush, sub-
`mitted in IPR2014-001181) ¶¶##
`
`Ex. 1023 (July 23, 2014 Declaration of Dr. Quackenbush, sub-
`mitted in IPR2014-001182 (now joined with IPR2014-01181))
`¶¶##
`
`QR##
`
`Ex. 1025 (August 31, 2015 Rebuttal Declaration of Dr.
`Quackenbush, submitted in IPR2014-01184) ¶¶##
`
`W##
`
`Ex. 2005 (Declaration of Dr. Wolf) ¶¶##
`
`
`Note: All emphasis herein added unless otherwise stated.
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 B2
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.
`110797-0004-655
`
`
`
`While PO argues the Reply and every reply exhibit “must be stricken . . . for
`
`improperly exceeding the scope of reply,” it fails to identify even a single new
`
`argument or exhibit that constitutes “improper reply evidence.” The Reply and Dr.
`
`Quackenbush’s Rebuttal Decl. expressly link each argument and piece of reply
`
`evidence with PO’s arguments they are rebutting, underscoring that each is proper
`
`rebuttal evidence. E.g., 77 Fed. Reg. at 48,620 (“replies may rely upon appropriate
`
`evidence”); IPR2014-00164, Pap51 at 24 (“the very nature of a reply is to respond
`
`to the opposition”); id. (“The need for relying on evidence not previously discussed
`
`in the Petition may not exist until a certain argument has been raised in the [PO]
`
`Response.”); CBM2012-00002, Pap. 66 at 86-69; IPR2013-00292, Pap.93 at 59-60
`
`(evidence “directly responsive” to arguments in PO’s Response is proper rebuttal).
`
`In instituting trial, the Board concluded that Petitioners made a prima facie case of
`
`invalidity based on the evidence submitted with the Petitions. Petitioners’ rebuttal
`
`evidence, in contrast, responded to PO’s efforts to attack Petitioners’ prima facie
`
`case. While the Reply continued to urge the grounds instituted by the Board, this is
`
`entirely proper—it certainly did not transform Petitioners’ rebuttal evidence into
`
`part of its prima facie case, or otherwise make it untimely or improper.
`
`I.
`
`PO is wrong that the Reply improperly includes arguments and evidence on
`
`claim construction. In the Petitions, Petitioners proposed constructions for
`
`“stream” / “streaming audio signal”, “[wireless] communication rate,” and “CD
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 B2
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.
`110797-0004-655
`
`quality listening experience.” P1 10-12; P2 10-12; P3 25-26. For all other terms,
`
`Petitioners expressly applied the BRI in light of the specification. Id. PO’s Re-
`
`sponse proposed constructions for “wireless telephone device,” “stream a signal” /
`
`“streaming audio signal,” “portable electronic device,” “communication rate that
`
`provides for a CD quality listening experience,” and “while.” R4-11. Petitioners’
`
`Reply properly responds to these claim construction arguments raised in PO’s Re-
`
`sponse. See, e.g., IPR2014-00164, Pap. 51 at 24 (“[PO’s] proposed claim construc-
`
`tion was raised for the first time in these proceedings in [PO’s] Response. The Re-
`
`ply complies with 37 C.F.R. §42.23 as it only responds to arguments raised in PO’s
`
`response.”). In particular, with respect to “communication rate that provides for a
`
`CD quality listening experience,” the Reply (RP6-9; QR51-58 and Exs. 1030-1035)
`
`directly responds to PO’s arguments (R10-11; W128-134,175) to show how PO’s
`
`proposed construction is inconsistent with the BRI.
`
`For “means for recharging,” PO argued that “claim 14 involves means-plus-
`
`function claiming” and that Petitioners did not identify structure under §112(6).
`
`R39-40,69-70,118-120. The Reply directly responds
`
`to PO’s argument—
`
`explaining that the term is not governed by §112(6). RP28-29,39,50-51. And Peti-
`
`tioners did not “bury” this term as PO asserts—PO only raised this issue with re-
`
`spect to discussion of claim 14, not in its claim construction section. Petitioners
`
`accordingly responded to this issue in its discussion of claim 14.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 B2
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.
`110797-0004-655
`
`II.
`
`The Reply properly responds to PO’s arguments in its Response regarding
`
`priority. Petitioners’ priority arguments in its Reply (RP41-46) are directly respon-
`
`sive to the priority arguments first made in PO’s Response (R73-109), and Dr.
`
`Quackenbush’s rebuttal testimony (QR187-207) directly responds to Dr. Wolf’s
`
`testimony (W283-293). In particular, PO argued in its Response that the ’812 ap-
`
`plication “makes clear that a [GUI] can be present on a variety of electronic devic-
`
`es” and that “one such electronic device is the recipient device.” R98. The Reply is
`
`directly responsive to PO’s argument—explaining that none of the passages PO
`
`cited (R81-101) discloses that a “recipient device” displays the GUI. RP43-44. In
`
`addition, Petitioners directly rebut PO’s arguments regarding related proceedings
`
`on the ’228 patent (RP45 rebuts R106-109), ’833 patent (RP45-46 rebuts R102-
`
`103), and ’926 patent (RP46 rebuts R103-105). Finally, there is no basis for a sur-
`
`reply: Petitioners bear the ultimate burden of persuasion to prove unpatentability
`
`and the final burden of production to respond to PO’s priority arguments. Dynamic
`
`Drinkware, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 15764 at *6, 9-10 (Fed. Cir. 2015); CBM2012-
`
`00010, Ex. 2300 at 26:6-8 (“[P]etitioner gets the last word. That’s the rule. They
`
`bear the burden.”).
`
`III. PO is wrong that the Reply includes “improper new substantive arguments
`
`and evidence.” Contrary to PO’s assertions, Ericsson Review 3 (Ex. 1007A/1108A)
`
`is not “a new reference” at all—it was cited in the Petitions (P1 15,25; P2 15-16)
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 B2
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.
`110797-0004-655
`
`and in Dr. Quackenbush’s opening declarations (Q1 34,62,63,74,76; Q2 72,74,84),
`
`and is incorporated by reference in Chennakeshu (Ex. 1105 5:4-8). It was cited
`
`again in the Reply (RP16-17) to rebut PO’s argument regarding Chennakeshu’s
`
`teachings (R65-66). In addition, Petitioners’ “obvious to try” argument (RP19) di-
`
`rectly responds to PO’s argument that adding Bluetooth to Abecassis’ system
`
`would not have been obvious (R49-51,66). And all asserted “new citations to Abe-
`
`cassis” (RP14) directly respond to PO’s argument regarding Abecassis’s teachings
`
`(R62-64,51). In addition, the Reply exhibits (RP12, citing QR95-98, Exs.
`
`1037,1038A,1039A,1059) directly respond to PO’s argument regarding the obvi-
`
`ousness of claims 1 and 9 (R59-61; W241). Finally, PO’s general cites (Pap.25 at 5)
`
`fail to “specifically identif[y]” arguments and evidence, and include arguments and
`
`evidence that are not new and material that is proper rebuttal. For each of PO’s
`
`cites to the Reply, Petitioners identify below in brackets the specific portions of
`
`PO’s Response and the Wolf Declaration that justify the arguments and evidence
`
`that PO cites from the Reply: RP10:14-16 [R54:13-56:10; W226-230] / RP11:3-4,
`
`12 [R56:11- 57:14, 68:1-7; W232-233] / RP12:4-8 [R59:15-17; 60:9-61:2; W241]
`
`/ RP14:2-3, 8-9, 15 [R62:1-12, 63:1-64:5, 51:16-20; W246-255] / RP15:5-7, 18-
`
`20 [R63:1-64:5, 51:16-20; W248-255] / RP16:1 [R63:1-64:5, 51:16-20; W248-
`
`255] / RP17:1-9 [R65:13-66:2; W259-261] / RP19:6-9, 11-18 [R49:1-51:15, 66:6-
`
`22; W262-265] / RP20:11-19 [R50:4-14, 66:19-21; W211-214, 219, 266-267] /
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 B2
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.
`110797-0004-655
`
`RP21:3-5,14-15 [R50:15- 51:6, 67: 2-4; W212-214, 218, 219, 267] / RP22:1-4, 8,
`
`10-12 [R50:15-51:2, 51:12-14; W213, 215] / RP24:6-8, 17-18 [R72:6-20, 47:12-
`
`48:21; W279-282, 196-203] / RP25:1-2 [R47:12-48:21; W196-203] / RP26:18-20
`
`[R52:12-54:2; W223-225] / RP27:1-2, 8-13 [R52:12-54:2; W223-225] / RP28:1-2,
`
`8- 20 [R69:1-70:16; W226-233] / RP29:1, 3-13 [R69:1-70:16; W226-233] /
`
`RP30:6-15 [R32:1-5; W167-168] / RP31:2-6 [R36:4-14; W170-172] / RP32:12-
`
`16 [R31:4-37:5; W148] / RP34:11-12, 19 [R26:1-31:3; W145-147, 156-166] /
`
`RP35:1, 7-16 [R28:10-30:11, 25:12-21, 30:1-11; W160-166, 153-155] / RP36:6-
`
`10, 15-16 [R37:13-39:3; W128-134, 175-178] / RP37:7-14 [R37:13-39:3; W128-
`
`134, 175-178] / RP38:15-17 [R43:6-45:21; W183-190] / RP39:7-13 [R39:4-42:15;
`
`W179-181] / RP41:12-20 [R77:4-79:15] / RP42:1-19 [R77:4-79:15, 79:16-101:3;
`
`W283-293] / RP43:1-12, 16-20 [R79:16-101:3; W283-293] / RP44:1-21 [R79:16-
`
`101:3, 101:4-109:18; W283-293] / RP47:20 [R111:15-20; W297-299] / RP48:1-2,
`
`18-20 [R111:5-112:14; W297-299, 294-296] / RP49:1, 10-12 [R111:5-112:14,
`
`112:15-115:21; W294-296, 128-134, 300-305] / RP50:7-14 [R112:15-115:21;
`
`W128-134, 300-305] / RP51:1, 19-21 [R118:7-122:5; W310-312] / RP52:1-6
`
`[R118:7-122:5; W310-312]
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`By:/J. Steven Baughman/
`J. Steven Baughman, Lead Counsel; Gabrielle E. Higgins, Backup Counsel;
`ROPES & GRAY LLP, Attorneys for Petitioners, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
`and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`September 28, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2014-01181
`U.S. Patent No. 8,532,641 B2
`
`
`
`
`Attorney Docket No.
`110797-0004-655
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of petitioners’ Five-Page Sub-
`
`
`
`mission Responsive To Patent Owner’s Submission (Paper 26) have been served in
`
`their entirety by causing the aforementioned documents to be electronically mailed,
`
`pursuant to Petitioners’ and Patent Owner’s agreement, to the following attorneys
`
`of record for the Patent Owner listed below:
`
`
`Ryan M. Schultz
`ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
`800 LaSalle Ave.
`2800 LaSalle Plaza
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`rmschultz@rkmc.com
`
`Thomas R. DeSimone
`ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.
`One Atlantic Center
`1201 West Peachtree St., Suite 2200
`Atlanta, CA 30309
`TRDeSimone@rkmc.com
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated:
`
`
`September 28, 2015
`
`
`/Carolyn L. Redding/
`Carolyn L. Redding
`
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`1
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
