UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`___________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________________________________________________
`
`ZHONGSHAN BROAD OCEAN MOTOR CO., LTD.;
`BROAD OCEAN MOTOR LLC; and
`BROAD OCEAN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`NIDEC MOTOR CORPORATION
`
`Patent Owner
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,626,349
`Issue Date: December 1, 2009
`Title: LOW NOISE HEATING, VENTILATING AND/OR
`AIR CONDITIONING (HVAC) SYSTEMS
`
`PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. §42.71(d)
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00762
`
`NY 798901v.1
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF RELIEF
`REQUESTED..................................................................................................1
`LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................3
`II.
`III. BASIS FOR RELIEF REQUEST....................................................................4
`A.
`The Board’s Decision Is Contrary To The
`Consistent Interpretation Of 35 U.S.C. §315(c)
`Sought To Be Maintained By The Patent Office........................4
`Petitioner’s Second Petition Complied With
`35 U.S.C. §§311 & 312(a)(3)(B) ................................................8
`The Board Should Exercise Its Discretion And
`Grant The Joinder Motion.........................................................10
`IV. REQUEST FOR EXPANDED PANEL ON REHEARING.........................11
`V.
`CONCLUSION..............................................................................................13
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`NY 798901v.1
`
`- i -
`
`

`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`ABB Inc. v. Roy-G-Biv Corp., IPR2013-00288 .........................................................5
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd., IPR2012-00022.....................................4
`Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
`467 U.S. 837 (1984) ...............................................................................................7
`Lacavera v. Dudas, 441 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2006).............................................4, 8
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc., IPR2013-00109................................................4
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Virginia Innovation Scis., Inc., IPR2014-00557...................4
`Skyhawke Technologies, LLC v. L&G Concepts, LLC,
`Case IPR2014-01485 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2015) ......................................... 3, 7, 8, 12
`Sony Corp. v. Yissum Research Dev. Co., IPR2013-00327.......................................5
`Target Corp. v. Destiny Maternity Corp., IPR2014-00508............................. passim
`Volkswagen v. EmeraChem, IPR2014-01555............................................................9
`Yissum Research Dev. Corp. v. Sony Corp., Appeal No. 2015-1342........................2
`Zhongshan Broad Ocean v. Nidec Motor, IPR2014-01121 ......................................1
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. §311...........................................................................................................8
`35 U.S.C. §312(a)(3)(B) ........................................................................................8, 9
`35 U.S.C. §314(d) ....................................................................................................12
`35 U.S.C. §315(b) ..................................................................................................8, 9
`35 U.S.C. §315(c) ............................................................................................ passim
`Other Authorities
`PTAB Std. Oprt’g Proc. 1 §III(A)(2) (Rev. 14, May 8, 2015)................................12
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. §42.101(b) .................................................................................................8
`37 C.F.R. §42.122(b) ........................................................................................ 1, 8, 9
`37 C.F.R. §42.63(b) ...................................................................................................9
`37 C.F.R. §42.71(d) ...............................................................................................1, 4
`
`NY 798901v.1
`
`- ii -
`
`

`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.71(d), the Petitioner, Zhongshan Broad Ocean
`
`Motor Co., Ltd. et al. (“Petitioner”), requests rehearing of the Decision (Paper 12)
`
`denying Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder and the resulting denial of the institution
`
`of an inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 7,626,349 (“the ‘349 patent”) based on
`
`the sole ground raised in the Second Petition.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF RELIEF REQUESTED
`In the copending Zhongshan Broad Ocean v. Nidec Motor, IPR2014-01121,
`
`on January 21, 2015, the Board declined to institute an inter partes review of
`
`claims 1-3, 8-9, 12, 16 and 19 of the ‘349 patent under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) based on
`
`Hideji Japanese Patent Publication JP 2003-348885 (“Hideji”) due to a lack of an
`
`affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the filed English translation thereof, but did
`
`institute an inter partes review of those same claims under §103 based on Bessler
`
`and Kocybik. See IPR2014-01121, Paper 20 (Decision) at pp. 13 & 17. Within
`
`one month of that Decision, on February 20, 2015, Petitioner timely filed the
`
`subject Second Petition for
`
`inter partes review (IPR2015-00762) and an
`
`accompanying motion for joinder with IPR2014-01121. See 35 U.S.C. §315(c);
`
`37 C.F.R. §42.122(b). The Board concluded that there is a reasonable likelihood
`
`that claims 1-3, 8, 9, 12, 16 and 19 are anticipated by Hideji. See Decision
`
`(Paper 12) at p. 11. Nevertheless, the Board denied Petitioner’s motion for joinder
`
`because the Board narrowly interpreted the phrase “join as a party” in 35 U.S.C.
`
`NY 798901v.1
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`§315(c) to exclude a person who is already a party in the previously instituted IPR.
`
`See Decision (Paper 12) at pp. 12-13. Consequently, the Second Petition was
`
`denied and no inter partes review was instituted. See Decision (Paper 12) at p. 15.
`
`On June 25, 2015, after Petitioner filed its Reply in support of its motion for
`
`joinder (Paper 11) but before the Board’s July 20, 2015 Decision (Paper 12), the
`
`Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“Patent Office”) filed
`
`an Intervenor’s Brief with the Federal Circuit in Yissum Research Dev. Corp. v.
`
`Sony Corp., Appeal No. 2015-1342, which is attached hereto as Attachment A. In
`
`its Intervenor Brief, the Patent Office told the Federal Circuit that “the Board has
`
`consistently held [that] it …. has the discretion to join IPR proceedings, even if
`
`§315(b) would otherwise bar the later-filed petition, and even if the petitions are
`
`filed by the same party.” Attachment A at p. 18 (emphasis added). More
`
`importantly, the Patent Office further told the Federal Circuit that by the Target
`
`Decision Granting Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing (by expanded panel), “[t]he
`
`USPTO thus has acted to ensure that its pronouncements remain consistent on this
`
`issue, which is the antithesis of Yissum’s suggestion that the USPTO ‘can’t make
`
`up its mind about the proper interpretation’ of §315(c).” Attachment A at p. 20
`
`(quoting Appellant’s Br. at 33 (citing Skyhawke)). Lastly, in a footnote, the Patent
`
`Office distinguished the SkyHawke Decision which was also cited by the Board in
`
`the subject Decision (paper 12 at p. 12):
`
`NY 798901v.1
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`The Board also held in Skyhawke Technologies, LLC v.
`L&G Concepts, LLC, Case IPR2014-01485 (PTAB
`Mar. 20, 2015) (Paper 13), that §315(c) does not permit
`joinder of additional grounds by the same party. The
`petitioner in that proceeding did not seek rehearing, so
`the Board did not have the same opportunity to ensure
`consistency in that case as it had in Target.
`
`Attachment A at p. 20 n.4.
`
`Here, Petitioner seeks rehearing to have its motion for joinder reconsidered
`
`under the broader interpretation of the “join as a party” phrase in §315(c), as set
`
`forth in Target Corp. v. Destiny Maternity Corp., IPR2014-00508, Decision
`
`(Paper 28) (PTAB Feb. 12, 2015) (expanded panel), that the Patent Office told the
`
`Federal Circuit it consistently applies. Furthermore, because the Board abused its
`
`discretion in declining to adopt the broader interpretation of the phrase “join as a
`
`party” in 35 U.S.C. §315(c), as set forth in Target (expanded panel), Petitioner also
`
`requests that an expanded panel of the Board rehear and reverse the Board's
`
`Decision (Paper 12) and address the merits of Petitioner’s Joinder Motion (which
`
`should be granted) and, consequently, institute the inter partes review.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A request for rehearing “must specifically identify all matters the party
`
`believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each
`
`matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or reply.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`NY 798901v.1
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`§42.71(d).
`
`“An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is based on an
`
`erroneous interpretation of the law….” Lacavera v. Dudas, 441 F.3d 1380, 1383
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2006).
`
`III.
`
`BASIS FOR RELIEF REQUEST
`
`The Board abused its discretion by narrowly interpreting the phrase “join as
`
`a party” to exclude a person who is already a party (see Decision (Paper 12) at
`
`pp. 12-13) because it is inconsistent with the broader interpretation of that phrase
`
`set forth in Target (expanded panel) that the Patent Office had already, by that
`
`time, told the Federal Circuit it consistently applies.
`
`A.
`
`The Board’s Decision Is Contrary To The Consistent
`Interpretation Of 35 U.S.C. §315(c) Sought To Be Maintained By
`The Patent Office
`
`Section 315(c), 35 U.S.C., states “[i]f the Director institutes an inter partes
`
`review, the Director, in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes
`
`review any person who properly files a petition under section 311….” Pursuant to
`
`35 U.S.C. §315(c), the Board has frequently granted joinder of an additional
`
`petition or proceeding (as opposed to an additional person) to an instituted inter
`
`partes review. See Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd., IPR2012-00022
`
`(PTAB Sept. 2, 2014) (Paper 66); Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Virginia Innovation Scis.,
`
`Inc., IPR2014-00557 (PTAB June 13, 2014)
`
`(Paper 10); Microsoft Corp. v.
`
`Proxyconn, Inc., IPR2013-00109 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2013) (Paper 15); ABB Inc. v.
`
`NY 798901v.1
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Roy-G-Biv Corp., IPR2013-00288 (PTAB Aug. 9, 2013) (Paper 14); Sony Corp. v.
`
`Yissum Research Dev. Co., IPR2013-00327 (PTAB Sept. 24, 2013) (Paper 15) (on
`
`appeal to Fed. Cir.).
`
`Despite this prior case law, in the original Board panel Target decision, a
`
`three-judge majority of a five-judge panel held that the “join as a party” phrase in
`
`§315(c) “excludes persons who are already a party.” Target Corp. v. Destination
`
`Maternity Corp., Decision (Paper 18) at p. 5 n.2 (PTAB Sept. 25, 2014).
`
`In
`
`response to a motion for rehearing, a four-judge majority of a further expanded
`
`seven-judge panel held:
`
`§311(a) specifies who can file a petition for inter partes
`review. Under that section, ‘a person who is not the
`owner of a patent may file with the Office a petition to
`institute an inter partes review of the patent.’ Thus, when
`‘any person’ is read in light of §311(a), the only person
`excluded by the language is the owner of the patent at
`issue. More specifically, the statute does not exclude a
`person who is already a petitioner in an instituted review
`proceeding that is the subject of the joinder analysis.
`
`Target, Decision (Paper 28) at p. 7.
`
`The Patent Office told the Federal Circuit that in Target, the original Board
`
`panel was expanded in order to eliminate the inconsistency in the interpretation of
`
`35 U.S.C. §315(c) posed by the original panel decision.
`
`NY 798901v.1
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`in Target
`As both the majority and the dissent
`recognized, until that case, “the Board consistently ha[d]
`allowed joinder of additional grounds by the same party.”
`And the Board on rehearing found that the original Board
`panel’s
`inconsistent decision provided “a sufficient
`reason for expanding the panel” to eliminate the
`inconsistency. The USPTO thus has acted to ensure that
`its pronouncements remain consistent on this issue,
`which is the antithesis of Yissum’s suggestion that the
`USPTO “can’t make up its mind about
`the proper
`interpretation” of §315(c).
`
`Attachment A at p. 20 (citations omitted).
`
`When Petitioner filed its motion for joinder on February 20, 2015, the
`
`four-judge majority panel in Target had already rendered its decision on rehearing,
`
`and Petitioner cited to that Target decision in support of its interpretation of
`
`§315(c). See Motion for Joinder (Paper 4) at p. 4. As of February 20, 2015, there
`
`was no majority Board panel decision narrowly interpreting §315(c) so as to
`
`exclude a person who is already a party.
`
`Shortly after the filing of Petitioner’s motion for joinder, a three-judge panel
`
`held that the phrase “join as a party” excludes a person who is already a party.
`
`In our view, the phrase “join as a party” indicates that
`only a person who is not already a party to an instituted
`inter partes review can be joined to the proceeding. A
`
`NY 798901v.1
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`person cannot be joined as a party to a proceeding in
`which it is already a party. The statute does not refer to
`the joining of a petition or new patentability challenges
`presented therein, nor does the statute refer to the joining
`of a new issue (as opposed to a person).
`
`Skyhawke Techs., LLC v. L&H Concepts, LLC,
`
`IPR2014-01485, Decision
`
`(Paper 13) at pp. 3-4 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2015). The Patent Office told the Federal
`
`Circuit that it did not have the opportunity to conform this sole outlier decision
`
`with Target because Petitioner Skyhawke had not sought rehearing.
`
`The Board also held in Skyhawke Technologies, LLC v.
`L&H Concepts, LLC, Case IPR2014-01485 (PTAB
`Mar. 20, 2015) (Paper 13), that §315(c) does not permit
`joinder of additional grounds by the same party. The
`petitioner in that proceeding did not seek rehearing, so
`the Board did not have the same opportunity to ensure
`consistency in that case as it had in Target.
`
`Attachment A at p. 20 n.4.
`
`On June 25, 2015, the Patent Office publicly announced, via the Intervenor’s
`
`Brief, that §315(c) is to be broadly interpreted as set forth in Target. See
`
`Attachment A at pp. 17-22. Indeed, the Patent Office told the Federal Circuit that
`
`it should defer to the Board’s broad interpretation of §315(c) set forth in Target,
`
`citing Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837,
`
`842-43 (1984). See Attachment A at p. 19.
`
`NY 798901v.1
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`Subsequently, on July 20, 2015, in denying Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder,
`
`a two-judge majority Board panel adopted the narrow interpretation of §315(c) set
`
`forth in Skyhawke instead of the broader interpretation set forth in Target. See
`
`(Decision (Paper 12) at pp. 12-13. The Dissent, citing Target, is “of the opinion
`
`that 35 U.S.C. §315(c) permits the joinder of any person who properly files a
`
`petition under §311, including a petitioner who is already a party to the earlier
`
`instituted inter partes review.” Decision (Paper 12) at p. 1 (dissent). This
`
`two-judge majority Board panel’s adoption of the Skyhawke reasoning to narrowly
`
`interpret §315(c) is contrary to law for the reasons set forth in Target and the
`
`Patent Office’s Intervenor’s Brief (see Attachment A at pp. 17-22). The Board
`
`abused its discretion, Lacavera, 441 F.3d at 1383, and its decision should be
`
`reheard and reversed.
`
`B.
`
`Petitioner’s Second Petition Complied With 35 U.S.C. §§311 &
`312(a)(3)(B)
`
`The one-year time limit in 35 U.S.C. §315(b) does not apply when a second
`
`petition is filed under §311, along with a motion for joinder, within one month
`
`after institution of an inter partes review. See 35 U.S.C. §§315(b) & 315(c);
`
`37 C.F.R. §§42.101(b) & 42.122(b). There is no dispute that Petitioner’s Second
`
`Petition complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §311.
`
`Furthermore,
`
`Petitioner’s Second Petition fully complies with 35 U.S.C. §312(a)(3)(B). Cf.
`
`Decision (Paper 12) at p. 15 n.4. More specifically, the English translation of
`
`NY 798901v.1
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`Hideji filed with the Second Petition as Exhibit 1005 includes an attesting affidavit
`
`(see Ex. 1005 at p. 26), thereby complying with 37 C.F.R. §42.63(b).
`
`The Board correctly notes that Petitioner did not have the attesting affidavit
`
`upon the expiration of the one-year time limit in §315(b). See Decision (Paper 12)
`
`at pp. 13-15. The Board has not pointed to any statute, rule or case law that
`
`requires the Second Petition’s compliance with 35 U.S.C. §312(a)(3)(B) to be
`
`measured at the expiration of the one-year limit in §315(b) rather than as of its
`
`filing on February 20, 2015. To the contrary, the one-year time limit of §315(b) is
`
`inapplicable by operation of §315(c) and 37 C.F.R. §42.122(b).
`
`Once the omission of the attesting affidavit was brought to Petitioner’s
`
`attention, Petitioner quickly obtained an attesting affidavit from the original
`
`translator.
`
`See Motion for Joinder
`
`(Paper 4) at p. 2.
`
`In the instituted
`
`IPR2014-01121 proceeding, Petitioner tried every available procedural avenue to
`
`have the Board consider the affidavit attesting to the accuracy of the originally
`
`filed English translation of Hideji, but to no avail. See Id. at pp. 5-6. Petitioner
`
`did not deliberately delay seeking to file the attesting affidavit with the Board.
`
`To date, there has been no allegation that the English translation of Hideji is
`
`an incorrect translation. No credible prejudice to the Patent Owner has been called
`
`to the Board’s attention and none is remotely apparent. See Volkswagen v.
`
`EmeraChem, IPR2014-01555, Decision (Paper 20) at p. 6 (PTAB Mar. 16, 2015).
`
`NY 798901v.1
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`The circumstances surrounding the attesting affidavit that transpired prior to
`
`the filing of the Second Petition on February 20, 2015 do not warrant the denial of
`
`Petitioner’s motion for joinder. As noted by the Dissent, “the public interest in
`
`securing the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding would be
`
`served in this case more fully by considering the merits of the alleged ground of
`
`unpatentability based on Hideji rather than by denying consideration on reasons
`
`tied to Petitioner’s previous failure to attach the requisite attesting affidavit.” See
`
`Decision (Paper 12) at p. 2 (dissent). Petitioner should not continue to be punished
`
`for an error that
`
`it has studiously sought
`
`to correct
`
`in accordance with the
`
`applicable rules.
`
`C.
`
`The Board Should Exercise Its Discretion And Grant The Joinder
`Motion
`Patent Owner Nidec did not dispute that the Dell factors for assessing a
`
`joinder motion have been satisfied here. See Motion for Joinder (Paper 4) at
`
`pp. 4-10. Consequently, the Board can, and should, exercise its discretion and
`
`grant Petitioner’s motion for joinder for, at least, the reasons stated in the Dissent.
`
`See Decision (Paper 12) at pp. 2-3 (dissent).
`
`Patent Owner Nidec did not dispute that it is well familiar with Hideji.
`
`Indeed, Patent Owner Nidec was able to file its Preliminary Response, which
`
`substantively addressed Hideji, within the shortened, expedited time period. See
`
`NY 798901v.1
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`Order (Paper 9); Preliminary Response (Paper 10) at pp. 20-25. All three judges of
`
`the Board panel agreed that Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of
`
`prevailing on its challenge of claims 1-3, 8, 9, 12, 16 and 19 as anticipated by
`
`Hideji under §102(b). See Decision (Paper 12) at pp. 7-11 & p. 3 (dissent). This
`
`finding of a reasonable likelihood of invalidating the challenged claims further
`
`supports the grant of Petitioner’s motion for joinder in view of the public interest
`
`in seeing invalid patents formally invalidated. See Motion for Joinder (Paper 4) at
`
`pp. 7-8.
`
`IV. REQUEST FOR EXPANDED PANEL ON REHEARING
`
`In light of the importance of the issues raised in this Motion to the present
`
`proceeding, other IPR proceedings, and the IPR process generally, Petitioner
`
`respectfully requests that the Chief Judge or a Vice Chief Judge designate an
`
`expanded panel of the Board to rehear and assess the issues raised herein. The
`
`Board’s Standard Operating Procedure (Rev. 14) states:
`
`A.
`
`Reasons for expanding a panel include:
`*
`*
`*
`Consideration by an expanded panel is necessary
`2.
`to secure and maintain uniformity of
`the Board’s
`decisions, such as where different panels of the Board
`render conflicting decisions on issues of
`statutory
`interpretation or
`rule interpretation, or a substantial
`
`NY 798901v.1
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`difference of opinion among judges exists on issues of
`statutory interpretation or rule interpretation.
`
`PTAB Std. Oprt’g Proc. 1 §III(A)(2) (Rev. 14, May 8, 2015). This rationale for an
`
`expanded panel certainly applies here given the position of the Patent Office before
`
`the Federal Circuit, the conflicting interpretations of §315(c) in the Target and
`
`Skyhawke decisions, and the majority’s and dissent’s difference of opinion on the
`
`interpretation of §315(c)
`
`in this proceeding.
`
`In the wake of
`
`inconsistent
`
`interpretations of §315(c) by multiple panels of the Board and the Patent Office’s
`
`pronouncement that there is consistency in the interpretation of §315(c), the only
`
`way to ensure “the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding”
`
`going forward would be to have an expanded panel finally decide how the Patent
`
`Office will interpret §315(c) once and for all.1
`
`The need to decide this issue now is all the more pressing given that
`
`Petitioner cannot appeal the narrow interpretation of §315(c) set forth in the
`
`subject Decision (Paper 12) to the Federal Circuit.
`
`See 35 U.S.C. §314(d).
`
`Similarly, in the Intervenor’s Brief, the Patent Office argued that the Patent Owner
`
`cannot appeal the grant of a motion for joinder based on a broad interpretation of
`
`§315(c). See Attachment A at pp. 10-16. Thus, according to the Patent Office, the
`
`1 Petitioner would further request that an expanded panel’s decision, if any, be
`made precedential so that the public benefits from the certainty in the Board’s
`decisions that has thus far been placed into question.
`
`NY 798901v.1
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`
`Federal Circuit cannot resolve any conflicts in the Board panels’ constructions of
`
`§315(c).
`
`Therefore,
`
`the procedural strictures facing the Patent Office and
`
`Petitioner further warrant that there be an expanded panel designated to resolve the
`
`conflict in the Board’s interpretations of 35 U.S.C. §315(c). The public, including
`
`Petitioner and all other petitioners similarly situated, are entitled to know how the
`
`Patent Office will consistently interpret and apply the language of §315(c).
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`In view of the foregoing, Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board grant
`
`the present motion.
`
`Dated: August 18, 2015
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Steven F. Meyer
`Steven F. Meyer (Reg. No. 35,613)
`LOCKE LORD LLP
`Three World Financial Center
`New York, New York 10281-2101
`
`Attorneys for Petitioners Zhongshan
`Broad Ocean Motor Co., Ltd.;
`Broad Ocean Motor LLC; and
`Broad Ocean Technologies, LLC
`
`NY 798901v.1
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`ATTACHMENT A
`
`NY 798901v.1
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1342 Document: 26 Page: 1 Filed: 06/25/2015
`
`Appeal No. 2015-1342
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`YISSUM RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF THE
`HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM,
`Appellant,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`SONY CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office,
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2013-00219 & IPR2013-00327.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BRIEF FOR INTERVENOR – DIRECTOR OF
`THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NATHAN K. KELLEY
`Solicitor
`
`
`Appellee.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SCOTT C. WEIDENFELLER
`FRANCES M. LYNCH
`Office of the Solicitor – Mail Stop 8
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`571-272-9035
`
`Attorneys for the Director of the
`United States Patent and
`Trademark Office
`
`
`
`June 25, 2015
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1342 Document: 26 Page: 2 Filed: 06/25/2015
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311(a):
`
`Relevant Statutory Provisions
`
`
`(a) In General.—Subject to the provisions of this chapter, a person who is
`not the owner of a patent may file with the Office a petition to institute an
`inter partes review of the patent. The Director shall establish, by regulation,
`fees to be paid by the person requesting the review, in such amounts as the
`Director determines to be reasonable, considering the aggregate costs of the
`review.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b) & (c):
`
`(b) Patent Owner’s Action.—An inter partes review may not be instituted
`if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the
`date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner
`is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent. The time
`limitation set forth in the preceding sentence shall not apply to a request for
`joinder under subsection (c).
`
`(c) Joinder.—If the Director institutes an inter partes review, the Director,
`in his or her discretion, may join as a party to that inter partes review any
`person who properly files a petition under section 311 that the Director, after
`receiving a preliminary response under section 313 or the expiration of the
`time for filing such a response, determines warrants the institution of an inter
`partes review under section 314.
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1342 Document: 26 Page: 3 Filed: 06/25/2015
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ............................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES .................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ....................................................................... 3
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`
`Introduction ........................................................................................... 3
`
`Statutory And Regulatory Background ................................................. 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Inter Partes Review Procedures Under The AIA ........................ 4
`
`USPTO Rules For Inter Partes Review ...................................... 5
`
`Procedural History ................................................................................. 6
`
`
`1.
`The Board’s Decisions To Institute And Join The Inter
`Partes Reviews ............................................................................ 6
`
`
`2.
`
`The Board’s Final Written Decision ........................................... 7
`
`
`IV. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .............................................................. 8
`
`V. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`Standard Of Review .............................................................................. 9
`
`This Court Lacks Jurisdiction To Review The USPTO’s
`Decisions To Institute IPR2013-00327 And To Join It With
`Sony’s Other IPR .................................................................................. 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`This Court’s Precedent Forecloses Yissum’s Challenge .......... 10
`
`That Precedent Comports With The AIA Statutory
`Scheme ...................................................................................... 11
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1342 Document: 26 Page: 4 Filed: 06/25/2015
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page
`
`3. Mandamus Relief Is Not Available .......................................... 15
`
`If This Court Has Jurisdiction, Yissum Waived Any Challenge
`To The Board’s Institution And Joinder Decisions ............................ 16
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`
`D.
`
`
`
`If This Court Reaches The Merits, The Board Did Not Abuse
`Its Discretion In Instituting IPR2013-00327 And Joining The
`Inter Partes Review Proceedings ......................................................... 17
`
`
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 24
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1342 Document: 26 Page: 5 Filed: 06/25/2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page
`
`
`
`Cases:
`
`
`ABB Inc. v. Roy-G-Biv Corp.,
`Case IPR2013-00282 (PTAB Aug. 9, 2013) (Paper 15) ............................... 18
`
`
`Alappat, In re, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc) .............................. 17, 20
`
`Apple Inc. v. VirnetX, Inc.,
`Case IPR2014-00485 (PTAB Sept. 16, 2014) (Paper 18) ............................. 23
`
`
`Ariosa Diagnostics v. Isis Innovation Ltd.,
`Case IPR2012-00022 (PTAB Sept. 2, 2014) (Paper 166) ............................. 18
`
`
`Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) .................................................................. 9
`
`Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
`467 U.S. 837 (1984) .................................................................................. 9, 19
`
`
`Cuozzo Speed Techs., L.L.C., In re, 778 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015).......... passim
`
`Dominion Dealer Solutions, LLC, In re, 749 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......... 15
`
`GEA Process Eng’g v. Steuben Foods, Inc.,
`Nos. 2015-1536, -1537, -1538, -1539, -1540 (ECF 21)
`(Fed. Cir. June 23, 2015) (non-precedential) ...................................... 1, 10, 12
`
`
`GTNX, Inc. v. INTTRA, Inc., Nos. 2015-1349, -1350, -1352, -1353,
`2015 WL 3692319 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015) ......................................... passim
`
`
`Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602 (1984) ............................................................. 15
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Endotach LLC,
`Case IPR2014-00695 (PTAB Sept. 25, 2014) (Paper 18) ............................. 23
`
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
`Case IPR2013-00109 (PTAB Feb. 25, 2013) (Paper 15) .............................. 18
`
`
`Procter & Gamble Co., In re, 749 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................... 15
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1342 Document: 26 Page: 6 Filed: 06/25/2015
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases (continued):
`
`Promega Corp. v. Life Techs. Corp., 773 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............. 19
`
`R.R. Yardmasters of Am. v. Harris, 721 F.2d 1332 (D.C. Cir. 1982) ................ 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page
`
`
`
`Reloaded Games, Inc. v. Parallel Networks LLC,
`Case IPR2014-00950 (PTAB Oct. 22, 2014) (Paper 12) .............................. 23
`
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Va. Innovation Scis., Inc.,
`Case IPR2014-00557 (PTAB June 13, 2014) (Paper 10) .............................. 18
`
`
`Skyhawke Technologies, LLC v. L&H Concepts, LLC,
`Case IPR2014-01485 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2015) (Paper 13) ............................. 20
`
`
`St. Jude Med., Cardiology Div., Inc. v. Volcano Corp.,
`749 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................... 11
`
`
`Sullivan, In re, 362 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ................................................... 9
`
`Target Corp. v. Destination Maternity Corp.,
`Case IPR2014-00508 (PTAB Feb. 12, 2015) (Paper 28) ............ 18, 19, 20, 21
`
`
`United States v. L.A. Tucker Truck Lines, 344 U.S. 33 (1952) .................... 16, 17
`
`Watts, In re, 354 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..................................................... 16
`
`Statutes:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) ............................................................................................ 9
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A) .................................................................................... 2
`
`28 U.S.C. § 2072(a) ............................................................................................ 22
`
`28 U.S.C. § 2074(a) ............................................................................................ 22
`
`35 U.S.C. § 141(c) .................................................................................... 1, 12, 13
`
`iv
`
`

`
`Case: 15-1342 Document: 26 Page: 7 Filed: 06/25/2015
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Statutes (continued):
`
`35 U.S.C. § 143 ..................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1) .......................................................................................... 19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ..................................................................................... 4, 5, 18, 19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ............................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315