`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`NETAPP INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00776
`Patent No. 7,934,041
`____________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`

`

`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`2. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....................................................................... 1 
`INSTITUTION OF REVIEW SHOULD BE REJECTED UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 325(D) BECAUSE THE PETITION REQUESTS
`INSTITUTION ON GROUNDS PREVIOUSLY REJECTED BY
`THE BOARD ................................................................................................... 2 
`A. 
`Procedural Background of IPR2015-00776 .......................................... 2 
`1. 
`Petitioner Previously Brought the Same Arguments and
`Evidence in IPR2014-01177 ....................................................... 2 
`The Current Petition Merely Corrects the Deficiencies in
`the 1177 Petition ......................................................................... 5 
`The Board Should Exercise its Discretion to Deny the Petition
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) ..................................................................... 6 
`The Board Routinely Denies Similar Petitions as a “Second
`Bite at the Apple” ................................................................................ 16 
`1.  Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., IPR2014-00487, Paper
`8 (PTAB Sept. 11, 2014) (designated as “Informative”) .......... 16 
`Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc., IPR2014-
`00581, Paper 8 (PTAB Oct. 14, 2014) ...................................... 17 
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., v. Rembrandt Wireless
`Techs., LP, IPR2015-00118, Paper 14 (PTAB Jan. 28,
`2015) ......................................................................................... 20 
`Zimmer Holdings, Inc. v. Bonutti Skeletal Innovations
`LLC, IPR2014-01080, Paper 17 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2014). .......... 22 
`Samsung Electronics Co. v. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC,
`IPR2015-00820, Paper 12 (PTAB May 15, 2015) ................... 23 
`6.  Medtronic, Inc. v. Endotach LLC, IPR2014-00695, Paper
`18 (PTAB Sept. 25, 2014) ......................................................... 25 
`INSTITUTION ON GROUND “A” SHOULD BE REJECTED
`BECAUSE IT IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILIAR PRIOR ART AS
`SUBMITTED IN IPR2014-01463 ................................................................ 27 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`V. 
`
`IV.  TRIAL SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED ON GROUND “B”
`BECAUSE KIKUCHI IS NOT PRIOR ART TO THE ’041 PATENT ........ 30 
`THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE IT FAILS TO
`IDENTIFY THE REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST ...................................... 36 
`VI.  CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 41 
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Cooper v. Goldfarb,
`154 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................ 31
`
`Fleming v. Escort Inc.,
`774 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................ 31
`
`Gonzalez v. Banco Cent. Corp.,
`27 F.3d 751 (1st Cir. 1994) .................................................................................. 40
`
`Griffith v. Kanamaru,
`816 F.2d 624 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .............................................................................. 30
`
`Jones v. Evans,
`46 F.2d 197 (C.C.P.A. 1931) ............................................................................... 31
`
`Keizer v. Bradley,
`270 F.2d 396 (C.C.P.A. 1959) ............................................................................. 35
`
`Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc.,
`79 F.3d 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .............................................................................. 30
`
`Mycogen Plant Science, Inc. v. Monsanto Co.,
`252 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ............................................................................ 30
`
`Rey-Bellet v. Engelhardt,
`493 F.2d 1380 (C.C.P.A. 1974) ........................................................................... 30
`
`Thompson v. Dunn,
`166 F.2d 443 (C.C.P.A. 1948) ............................................................................. 35
`
`Tyco Healthcare Group LP v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.,
`774 F.3d 968 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 30
`
`Administrative Cases
`
`Aruze Gaming Macau, LTD. v. MGT Gaming, Inc.,
`IPR2014-01288, Paper 13 (PTAB February 20, 2015) ....................................... 37
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00581, Paper 8 (PTAB Oct. 14, 2014) ............................... 17, 18, 19, 20
`
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (informative opinion) .......... 12
`
`CustomPlay, LLC v. ClearPlay, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00783, Paper 9 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2014) .................................................. 11
`
`First Data Corp v. Cardsoft, LLC,
`IPR2014-00729, Paper 8 (PTAB October 17, 2014) ............................... 38, 40, 41
`
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`IPR2013-00324, Paper 19 (PTAB Nov. 21, 2013) ................................................ 6
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Endotach LLC,
`IPR2014-00695, Paper 18 (PTAB Sept. 25, 2014) .................................. 25, 26, 27
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc.,
`IPR2014-00487, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 11, 2014) (informative opinion) ...... 16, 17
`
`Samsung Electronics Co. v. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC,
`IPR2015-00820, Paper 12 (PTAB May 15, 2015) ................................... 23, 24, 25
`
`Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd. v. Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP,
`IPR2015-00118, Paper 14 (PTAB Jan. 28, 2015) .........................................passim
`
`Unilever, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`IPR2014-00506, Paper 17 (PTAB Jul. 7, 2014) (informative opinion) .............. 11
`
`Zimmer Holdings, Inc. v. Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC,
`IPR2014-01080, Paper 17 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2014) ................................. 7, 8, 22, 23
`
`ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00454, Paper 12 (Sept. 25, 2013) (informative opinion) ............... 10, 15
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 .................................................................................................. 36, 40
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 .............................................................................................. 6, 12, 26
`
`iv
`
`

`

`35 U.S.C. § 315 .................................................................................................passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325 .................................................................................................passim
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.1 ................................................................................. 7, 23, 26, 27, 29
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.6 ................................................................................................. 11, 12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71 ............................................................................................. 1, 4, 20
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ......................................................................................... 4, 11, 12
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.106 ................................................................................................... 40
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107 ................................................................................................... 33
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.108 ..................................................................................................... 6
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.120 ................................................................................................... 14
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Rules of Practice for Trials Before The Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Judicial
`Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions; Final Rule
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,612 (Aug. 14, 2012) ................................................................... 11
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt.1 (2011)..................................................................... 15, 19
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ............................................................. 34, 37
`
`v
`
`

`

`Patent Owner’s Exhibit List
`IPR2015-00776
`Description
`
`United State Patent No. 5,941,972 (the “’972 Patent”)
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`2001
`
`2002-2101
`
`[Reserved]
`
`2102
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2014-01197, Paper 1 (PTAB
`Jul. 23, 2014)
`
`2103-2108
`
`[Reserved]
`
`2109
`
`2110
`
`Proof of Service on Oracle Corporation in Crossroads Systems, Inc.
`v. Oracle Corporation, W.D. Tex. Case No. 1-13-cv-00895
`
`Proof of Service on NetApp, Inc. in Crossroads Systems, Inc. v.
`NetApp, Inc., W.D. Tex.Case No. 1-14-cv-00149
`
`2111-2112
`
`[Reserved]
`
`2113
`
`2114
`
`2115
`
`2116
`
`Revised Scheduling Order, IPR2014-01197, Paper 23 (PTAB May
`5, 2015)
`
`Revised Scheduling Order, IPR2014-01207, Paper 22 (PTAB May
`5, 2015)
`
`Revised Scheduling Order, IPR2014-01209, Paper 22 (PTAB May
`5, 2015)
`
`Revised Scheduling Order, IPR2014-01463, Paper 14 (PTAB May
`5, 2015)
`
`2117-2121
`
`[Reserved]
`
`2122
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2014-01209, Paper 1 (PTAB
`Jul. 25, 2014)
`
`2123-2129
`
`[Reserved]
`
`vi
`
`

`

`2130
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2014-01207, Paper 1 (PTAB
`Jul. 25, 2014)
`
`2131-2140
`
`[Reserved]
`
`2141
`
`2142
`
`2143
`
`2144
`
`2145
`
`2146
`
`2147
`
`2148
`
`2149
`
`2150
`
`2151
`
`2152
`
`Denial Decision, IPR2014-01177, Paper 13 (PTAB Jan. 28, 2015).
`
`Corrected Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2014-01177, Paper
`5 (PTAB Jul. 24, 2014)
`
`Ex. 1010 (Original Chase Declaration July 18, 2014) in IPR2014-
`01177
`
`Institution Decision, IPR2014-01463, Paper 9 (PTAB March 17,
`2015)
`
`HP Journal Article (Ex. 1006 in IPR2014-01463)
`
`CRD-5500 Data Sheet (Ex.1005 in IPR2014-01463)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2014-01463, Paper 3 (PTAB
`Sept. 8, 2014)
`
`[Reserved]
`
`Original Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2014-01177, Paper 1
`(PTAB Jul. 18, 2014)
`
`Ex. 1010 (Corrected Chase Declaration July 24, 2014) in IPR2014-
`01177
`
`Motion for Joinder, IPR2015-01066, Paper 3 (PTAB April 17,
`2015)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2015-01066, Paper 1 (PTAB
`April 17, 2015)
`
`2153-2299
`
`[Reserved]
`
`vii
`
`

`

`2300
`
`2301
`
`2302
`
`2303
`
`2304
`
`2305
`
`2306
`
`2307
`
`2308
`
`May 28, 1997 Fax from Geoffrey Hoese to Anthony Peterman
`(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7 in Trial of Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc.
`v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217 SS
`(W.D. Tex. 2001)
`
`Excerpts from Transcript of Trial in Crossroads Systems, (Texas),
`Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217
`SS (W.D. Tex. 2001)
`
`Excerpts from Deposition of Geoff Hoese, August 6, 2001, taken in
`Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage,
`Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217 SS (W.D. Tex. 2001)
`
`July 11, 1997 Letter and Draft Patent Application from Mr.
`Anthony Peterman (Baker & Botts LLP) to Mr. Geoffrey Hoese
`(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 266 in Trial of Crossroads Systems, (Texas),
`Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217
`SS (W.D. Tex. 2001)
`
`Excerpts from Deposition of Anthony Peterman, Nov. 14, 2000,
`taken in Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc. v. Chaparral Network
`Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217 SS (W.D. Tex. 2001)
`
`Declaration of John Middleton (May 22, 2015)
`
`Excerpts from Deposition of Geoff Hoese, Sept. 18-19, 2000, taken
`in Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc. v. Chaparral Network
`Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217 SS (W.D. Tex. 2001).
`
`Verrazano FC-SCSI Bridge Product Overview Presentation, June
`19, 1996
`(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4 in Trial of Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc.
`v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217 SS
`(W.D. Tex. 2001)
`
`Verrazano Software Development, Sept. 10, 1996
`(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 5 in Trial of Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc.
`v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217 SS
`(W.D. Tex. 2001)
`
`viii
`
`

`

`2309
`
`2310
`
`2311
`
`2312
`
`2313
`
`2314
`
`2315
`
`2316
`
`Verrazano: System Structure Drawings, Document Number
`DS04100, Jan. 22, 1997
`(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 6 in Trial of Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc.
`v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217 SS
`(W.D. Tex. 2001)
`
`Excerpts from Deposition of Jeffry Russell, Sept. 26, 2000, taken in
`Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage,
`Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217 SS (W.D. Tex. 2001).
`
`Conception and Reduction to Practice Timeline (Demonstrative)
`
`Verrazano Bare Board Drawings (latest revisions Sept. 3, 1997)
`CRDS 50579
`
`Engineering/Lab Notebook of Geoff Hoese
`(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 263 in Trial of Crossroads Systems, (Texas),
`Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217
`SS (W.D. Tex. 2001)
`(Exhibit 12 to Deposition of Geoff Hoese, Sept. 19, 2000, taken in
`Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage,
`Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217 SS (W.D. Tex. 2001)).
`
`Verrazano Enclosure Specification, Revision 2.1, June 5, 1997
`(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 264 in Trial of Crossroads Systems, (Texas),
`Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217
`SS (W.D. Tex. 2001)
`
`[Reserved]
`
`CP4x00 Product Specification (Preliminary)
`(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 267 in Trial of Crossroads Systems, (Texas),
`Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217
`SS (W.D. Tex. 2001)
`(Exhibit 10 to Deposition of Jeffry Russell, Sept. 26, 2000, taken in
`Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage,
`Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217 SS (W.D. Tex. 2001)).
`
`ix
`
`

`

`2317
`
`2318
`
`2319
`
`2320
`
`2321
`
`2322
`
`2323
`
`Verrazano Hardware Architecture, Revision 1.0, Aug. 25, 1997
`(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 268 in Trial of Crossroads Systems, (Texas),
`Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217
`SS (W.D. Tex. 2001)
`(Exhibit 2 to Deposition of Jeffry Russell, Sept. 26, 2000, taken in
`Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage,
`Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217 SS (W.D. Tex. 2001)).
`
`Verrazano: System Structure Drawings, Document Number
`DS04100, Sept. 3, 1997
`
`Verrazano Software Architecture, Revision 1.1, Aug. 27, 1997
`
`Verrazano Programmable Device Instructions, Version 1.1, Sept. 5,
`1997
`
`Verrazano Component List and Insertion List Report, Sept. 29,
`1997
`
`Engineering/Lab Notebook of Geoff Hoese
`(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 274 in Trial of Crossroads Systems, (Texas),
`Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217
`SS (W.D. Tex. 2001)
`(Exhibit 14 to Deposition of Geoff Hoese, Sept. 19, 2000, taken in
`Crossroads Systems, (Texas), Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage,
`Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217 SS (W.D. Tex. 2001)).
`
`December 31, 1997 Letter and Patent Application from Mr.
`William Hulsey (Baker & Botts LLP) to Mr. Dale Quisenberry
`(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 275 in Trial of Crossroads Systems, (Texas),
`Inc. v. Chaparral Network Storage, Inc., Docket No. A 00-CA-217
`SS (W.D. Tex. 2001)
`
`2324
`
`Declaration of Brian Bianchi (May 26, 2015)
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`Patent Owner Crossroads Systems, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) submits this
`
`Preliminary Response to the Petition for Inter Partes Review (the “Petition,” “776
`
`Petition” or “Pet.”) filed in IPR2015-00776 (the “776 IPR”) by NetApp, Inc.
`
`(“Petitioner”) seeking review of United States Patent No. 7,934,041 (the “’041
`
`Patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`The 776 Petition should be denied because it is nothing more than
`
`Petitioner’s attempt at a “second bite at the apple.” The 776 Petition is the second
`
`petition for inter partes review filed by Petitioner against the ’041 Patent and the
`
`third of six filed over nine months by defendants in co-pending litigation. In
`
`IPR2014-01177 (the “1177 IPR”), to which Petitioner was a party, the Board
`
`previously denied inter partes review of the same challenged claims on the same
`
`three grounds raised here. Rather than challenging the Board’s decision using the
`
`proper mechanism—a request for rehearing under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)—Petitioner
`
`filed this “do-over” Petition in an attempt to correct defects in the 1177 Petition.
`
`See Pet. at 58-59.
`
`Petitioner does not raise any new prior art or evidence or offer any
`
`arguments that could not have been submitted in the 1177 IPR. Petitioner merely
`
`presents the same art and evidence, rewording the Petition to address deficiencies
`
`pointed out by the Board. The Board routinely exercises its discretion under 35
`
`1
`
`

`

`U.S.C. § 325(d) to reject attempts by petitioners to use the Board’s prior decision
`
`as a “how-to” guide to bolster unsuccessful challenges, and should do the same
`
`here. Therefore, the 776 Petition should be denied.
`
`The Petition should also be denied for several additional reasons. First, the
`
`petition raises substantially the same prior art that was previously submitted in
`
`IPR2014-01463 (the “1463 IPR”). For this additional reason, the Board should
`
`exercise its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325. Second, with
`
`respect to the proposed combinations involving Kikuchi, the Petition should be
`
`denied because Kikuchi is not prior art to the ’041 Patent. Finally, the Petition
`
`should be denied because it fails to identify all real parties-in-interest and is time-
`
`barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`II.
`
`INSTITUTION OF REVIEW SHOULD BE REJECTED UNDER 35
`U.S.C. § 325(d) BECAUSE THE PETITION REQUESTS
`INSTITUTION ON GROUNDS PREVIOUSLY REJECTED BY THE
`BOARD
`A.
`
`Procedural Background of IPR2015-00776
`1.
`
`Petitioner Previously Brought the Same Arguments and
`Evidence in IPR2014-01177
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 1-53 of the ’041 Patent on
`
`the following grounds:
`
`Ground
`
`A
`
`References
`
`CRD-5500 User Manual, CRD-5500 Data
`Sheet, and Smith
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`1-53
`
`2
`
`

`

`B
`C
`
`Kikuchi and Bergsten
`Bergsten and Hirai
`
`
`Pet. at 3. Petitioner previously requested review of the same claims based on the
`
`1-53
`1-53
`
`same grounds in the 1177 IPR. See Ex. 2141 at 2, 6. However, in the 1177 IPR, the
`
`Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it
`
`would prevail on these challenges:
`
` “[W]e are not persuaded that the Petition demonstrates a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioners would prevail in their
`challenge of independent claims 1, 20 and 37 as obvious over
`the CRD-5500 User Manual, the CRD-5500 Data Sheet, and
`Smith. For the same reasons, we are not persuaded that the
`Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners
`would prevail in their challenge of claims 2-19, 21-36, and 38-
`53 . . . .” Id. at 10.
`
` “[W]e are not persuaded that the Petition demonstrates a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioners would prevail in their
`challenge of independent claims 1, 20 and 37 as obvious over
`Kikuchi and Bergsten. For the same reasons, we are not
`persuaded that the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood
`that Petitioners would prevail in their challenge of claims 2-19,
`21-36, and 38-53 . . . .” Id. at 13.
`
` “[W]e are not persuaded that the Petition demonstrates a
`reasonable likelihood that Petitioners would prevail in their
`challenge of independent claims 1, 20 and 37 as obvious over
`
`3
`
`

`

`Bergsten and Hirai. For the same reasons, we are not persuaded
`that the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that
`Petitioners would prevail in their challenge of claims 2-19, 21-
`36, and 38-53 . . . .” Id. at 15-16.
`
`The Board rejected the prior challenges because Petitioner improperly
`
`incorporated by reference arguments made in the accompanying Chase declaration,
`
`circumventing the page limits that apply to petitions. Id. at 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15;
`
`see also Paper 9 at 2 (“The ‘041 Patent is also the subject [of] IPR2014-01177 (not
`
`instituted due to incorporation by reference from the expert declaration) . . . .”). In
`
`citing only the Chase declaration in support of its arguments, Petitioner failed to
`
`specify where each element of the claim was found in the asserted grounds, as
`
`required by 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4). Thus, the Board agreed with Patent Owner
`
`that Petitioner attempted to establish its prima facie case without “explain[ing]
`
`adequately how the references teach the limitations of the claims.” Ex. 2141 at 8;
`
`see also id. at 10, 11, 13, 14, 15.
`
`The Board’s decision which denied institution for the claims and grounds
`
`asserted here issued on January 28, 2015. Ex. 2141 at 1. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.71(d)(2), Petitioner could have filed a request for rehearing within 30 days of
`
`that decision. Petitioner did not do so, choosing instead to file the current Petition
`
`on February 19, 2015.
`
`4
`
`

`

`2.
`
`The Current Petition Merely Corrects the Deficiencies in
`the 1177 Petition
`
`Petitioner admits that IPR2014-01177 “corresponds generally to this
`
`petition.” Pet. at 58. Petitioner acknowledges that the current Petition merely
`
`attempts to correct the deficiencies of the 1177 Petition, explaining that, while that
`
`petition “cited largely to the supporting declaration,” the current Petition “presents
`
`the prior art by identifying all of the prior art evidence within the four corners of
`
`the petition.” Id. at 59. The exact same exhibits, including the exact same expert
`
`declaration, are relied upon in both petitions. Compare Pet. at iv-vi with Ex. 2142
`
`at iv-vi; compare Ex. 1010 (corrected) with Ex. 2143 (Ex. 1010 in IPR2014-01177)
`
`(identical “original” expert Declaration executed by Dr. Chase on July 18, 2014);
`
`compare Ex. 1010 (original) with Ex 2150 (identical “substitute” expert
`
`Declaration executed by Dr. Chase on July 24, 2014).1
`
`
`1In IPR2014-01177, Petitioner originally filed the Chase Declaration dated July 18,
`
`2014 (the “July 18 Chase Decl.”)(Ex. 2143) and then submitted the Corrected
`
`Chase Declaration dated July 24, 2014 (the “July 24 Chase Decl.”)(Ex. 2150).
`
`Confusingly, Petitioner did the opposite in the current matter, first submitting the
`
`July 24 Chase Decl. as Exhibit 1010 and then filing the July 18 Chase Decl. as the
`
`corrected Exhibit 1010.
`
`5
`
`

`

`B.
`
`The Board Should Exercise its Discretion to Deny the Petition
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)
`
`In determining whether to institute an inter partes review, the Board may
`
`“deny some or all grounds for unpatentability for some or all of the challenged
`
`claims.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.108(b); see 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). Congress did not mandate
`
`that an inter partes review must be instituted under certain conditions; rather, by
`
`stating that review may not be instituted unless certain conditions are met,
`
`Congress made institution discretionary. Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina
`
`Cambridge Ltd., IPR2013-00324, Paper 19 at 4 (PTAB Nov. 21, 2013).
`
`In particular, the Director (and by extension the Board) has broad discretion
`
`to deny a petition that raises substantially the same prior art or arguments
`
`previously presented to the Office:
`
`Multiple Proceedings.— Notwithstanding sections 135 (a), 251,
`and 252, and chapter 30, during the pendency of any post-grant
`review under this chapter, if another proceeding or matter involving
`the patent is before the Office, the Director may determine the
`manner in which the post-grant review or other proceeding or
`matter may proceed, including providing for the stay, transfer,
`consolidation, or termination of any such matter or proceeding. In
`determining whether to institute or order a proceeding under
`this chapter, chapter 30, or chapter 31, the Director may take
`into account whether, and reject the petition or request
`because, the same or substantially the same prior art or
`arguments previously were presented to the Office.
`
`6
`
`

`

`35 U.S.C. § 325(d) (emphasis added). The Board recognized that, under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 325(d), “a petitioner is not entitled to multiple challenges against a patent.”
`
`Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd. v. Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP, IPR2015-00118,
`
`Paper 14 at 6 (PTAB Jan. 28, 2015) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)).
`
`In exercising its discretion under this section, the Board has been mindful of
`
`the direction of 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b), which states that the regulations governing
`
`proceedings before the Board “shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.” The Board has denied petitions
`
`seeking a second chance to assert the same art against the same claims because the
`
`Board was “not persuaded that a second chance would help ‘secure the just,
`
`speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every proceeding.’” Rembrandt, IPR2015-
`
`00118, Paper 14 at 6 (citing 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b)); see also Zimmer Holdings, Inc.
`
`v. Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC, IPR2014-01080, Paper 17 at 5-6 (PTAB Oct.
`
`31, 2014).
`
`In Rembrandt, the petitioner filed a first petition to review multiple claims
`
`based on anticipation by a particular reference. Rembrandt, IPR2015-00118, Paper
`
`14 at 4. The Board denied institution on certain claims because the petition did not
`
`establish that the reference taught specific claim elements. Id. at 4-5. Petitioner
`
`filed a second petition requesting review of the same claims providing additional
`
`argument that i) the reference “explicitly teaches the limitations [the Board] found
`
`7
`
`

`

`missing from Petitioner’s [first petition], . . . as explained in [the] institution
`
`decision in [the prior proceeding]” and ii) the missing limitations were rendered
`
`obvious by the reference. Id. at 5. According to the Board, “[t]he sole difference
`
`between what Petitioner present[ed] in [the second] proceeding and what Petitioner
`
`presented in [the first proceeding] . . . is the presence of additional reasoning to
`
`support the assertion of unpatentability over the same prior art.” Id. at 6.
`
`The Board found that the petitioner was “requesting, essentially, a second
`
`chance to address [previously challenged] claims.” Id. (emphasis added). The
`
`Board denied the second petition, stating that “[i]n this proceeding . . . we are not
`
`apprised of a reason that merits a second chance. Petitioner simply presents an
`
`argument now that it could have made in [the previous IPR] had it merely chosen
`
`to do so.” Id.; see also Zimmer Holdings, Inc., IPR2014-01080, Paper 17 at 5-6
`
`(denying petition where “Petitioner simply presents an argument now that it could
`
`have made in [the prior proceeding], had it merely chosen to do so.”)
`
`The present case is analogous in that Petitioner is seeking a second chance to
`
`show where elements can allegedly be found in the prior art.2 Petitioner candidly
`
`
`2 In actuality, Petitioner is seeking a third chance. Petitioner filed its initial petition
`
`in the 1177 IPR on July 18, 2014. Ex. 2149. Apparently recognizing errors in its
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`admits that the current Petition is nothing more than a “second bite at the apple,”
`
`where Petitioner has corrected the deficiencies in its prior petition. Pet. at 58-59.
`
`The only substantive changes identified by the Petitioner are the inclusion of cites
`
`to the prior art references, instead of cites to the supporting declaration. Id.3 Thus,
`
`like Rembrandt, the difference between the first petition and the second petition “is
`
`the presence of additional reasoning to support the assertion of unpatentability over
`
`the same prior art.” Rembrandt, IPR-2015-00118, Paper 14 at 6. The Petitioner is
`
`thus requesting exactly the type of “second chance to address [previously
`
`challenged claims]” that the Board found lacking in Rembrandt. Id. (emphasis
`
`
`submission, Petitioner improperly filed a Corrected Petition on July 24, 2014,
`
`without leave from the Board or any explanation. Ex. 2142.
`
`3 Although the Petition has been extensively reworded to incorporate the citations,
`
`Petitioner has not pointed out any arguments that are substantively different than
`
`those in the 1177 Petition. To the extent Petitioner may intend to include
`
`substantively different arguments, Petitioner does not provide any reason such
`
`arguments could not have been provided in the 1177 Petition or why such
`
`arguments justify a “second chance” petition. See, e.g., Rembrandt, IPR2015-
`
`00118, Paper 14 at 7.
`
`9
`
`

`

`added).
`
`Petitioner offers no justification or explanation for the deficiencies in its
`
`prior petition, offering, instead, only the statement that the Petition “is not filed for
`
`any improper purpose.” Pet. at 59. As in Rembrandt, Petitioner has not provided “a
`
`reason that merits a second chance” but simply “presents an argument now it could
`
`have made in [the prior petition], had it merely chosen to do so.” Thus, as in
`
`Samsung v. Rembrandt, the Board should likewise deny institution in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`Petitioner admits that the 1177 Petition improperly incorporated its expert
`
`declaration by reference. Paper 9 at 2. As the Board has previously explained,
`
`however, correcting deficiencies identified by an institution decision does not
`
`justify a second bite at the apple:
`
`The Board is concerned about encouraging, unnecessarily, the
`filing of petitions which are partially inadequate. A decision to
`institute review on some claims should not act as an entry ticket,
`and a how-to guide, . . . for filing a second petition to challenge
`those claims which it unsuccessfully challenged in the first petition.
`
`ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., IPR2013-00454, Paper 12 at 5-6 (Sept.
`
`25, 2013) (designated as “Informative”) (emphasis added). Likewise, the Board has
`
`denied institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), stating that “[b]ased on the
`
`information presented, we are persuaded that the instant Petition uses our prior
`
`10
`
`

`

`Decision on Institution
`
`to bolster challenges
`
`that were advanced,
`
`unsuccessfully, in the [prior] Petition.” Unilever, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co.,
`
`IPR2014-00506, Paper 17 at 8 (PTAB Jul. 7, 2014) (designated as “Informative”)
`
`(emphasis added). More recently, the Board denied institution stating:
`
`A decision to institute review on some claims in a first inter partes
`review, however, should not act as a how-to guide for the same
`Petitioner filing a second petition for inter partes review
`challenging claims that it unsuccessfully challenged in the first
`petition or claims that it reasonably could have challenged in the
`first petition.
`
`CustomPlay, LLC v. ClearPlay, Inc., IPR2014-00783, Paper 9 at 9 (PTAB Nov. 7,
`
`2014) (emphasis added).
`
`There is no reason that Petitioner could not have properly specified where
`
`each element of the claim is found in the relied-upon references when the 1177
`
`Petition was filed. The requirements of section 42.104(b), and the strictures against
`
`incorporation by reference found in section 42.6, were undoubtedly well known to
`
`Petitioner’s experienced and respected counsel. See, Rules of Practice for Trials
`
`Before The Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Judicial Review of Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board Decisions; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,612, 48,617 (Aug. 14, 2012)
`
`(“The prohibition against incorporation by reference minimizes the chance that an
`
`argument would be overlooked and eliminates abuses that arise from incorporation
`
`11
`
`

`

`and combination.”); see also Cisco Systems, Inc. v. C-Cation Techs., LLC,
`
`IPR2014-00454, Paper 12 at 10 (PTAB Aug. 29, 2014) (designated as
`
`“Informative”) (“In the Petition before us, incorporation by reference of numerous
`
`arguments from [the expert’s] Declaration into the Petition serves to circumvent
`
`the page limits . . ., while imposing on our time by asking us to sift through over
`
`250 pages of [the expert’s] Declaration . . . .”).
`
`Petitioner offers no rationale justifying its failure to comply with the
`
`regulations governing incorporation by reference (37 C.F.R. § 42.6(a)(3)), or those
`
`requiring that the petition specify where each element of the claim is found in the
`
`relied-upon references (37 C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(4)). Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), it
`
`was Petitioner’s burden to make its case. Petitioner failed to do that in the 1177
`
`Petition. Thus, there is no reason sufficient to justify the burden of instituting the
`
`776 Petition.
`
`Allowing Petitioner to correct the errors in the 1177 Petition, correcting the
`
`defic