`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`SUMMIT 6 LLC,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-00806
`Patent No. 7,765,482
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO
`STAY EX PARTE REEXAMINATION 90/012,987
`
`
`US2008 7626265 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`The Board should deny Summit 6’s Motion to Stay Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`No. 90/012,987 (the “reexam”). Affirming the rejections of the claims at issue in
`
`the reexam may substantially simplify the issues in this proceeding. Thus allowing
`
`the reexam to proceed may conserve the resources of the Board and the parties.
`
`The reexam was filed by a third party more than two years ago and long
`
`before Petitioner filed its Petition for inter partes review (“IPR”). During that time
`
`the Examiner has issued a final rejection, the Patent Owner has appealed, and the
`
`Board has scheduled an oral argument in early November. The Board will hear
`
`oral argument in the reexam before Patent Owner even files its Response in the
`
`IPR, and, in all likelihood, the Board will issue a final decision in the reexam
`
`before Petitioner files its Reply. If the Board confirms the Examiner’s finding that
`
`the claims are invalid, the scope of this proceeding will be narrowed substantially.
`
`Thus, allowing the reexam to continue may conserve resources of both the Board
`
`and the parties by simplifying the issues in this IPR.
`
`II. Statement of Undisputed Facts
`
`The reexam was filed on September 10, 2013. The Examiner issued a Final
`
`Office Action on May 21, 2014 articulating three grounds of rejection: (1) claims
`
`38, 40, 44-46, and 49 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as anticipated by U.S.
`
`Patent No. 6,930,709 (“Creamer”), (2) claims 38, 40, 44-46, and 49 rejected under
`
`
`US2008 7626265 2
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`
`35 U.S.C. §102(e) as anticipated by U.S Patent No. 6,038,295 (“Mattes”), and (3)
`
`claim 46 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Mattes in view of
`
`Creamer. (Ex. 2040) Patent Owner appealed the Examiner’s decision to the Board
`
`on September 22, 2014. (Ex. 2041) The Board scheduled oral argument for
`
`November 10, 2015. (Ex. 2043)
`
`The petition for inter partes review was filed almost 18 months after the
`
`reexam. (Paper 1) In this proceeding the Board instituted review of claims 12, 13,
`
`16, 18, 19, 21-25, 35-37, 38, 40, 44-46, and 49 for two grounds of obviousness
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 103: (1) the combination of Creamer in view of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,223,190 (“Aihara”), and (2) the combination of U.S. Patent No. 6,018,774
`
`(“Mayle”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,035,323 (“Narayen”). (Paper 19) Unless
`
`the parties amend the schedule, Patent Owner’s Response and/or Amendment will
`
`be due on November 25, 2015, more than two weeks after the oral argument in the
`
`reexam. (Paper 20) Oral argument (if requested) in this proceeding is set for May
`
`4, 2016, almost six months after the oral argument in the reexam. (Paper 20)
`
`III. Summary of Argument
`
`The Board generally “will not stay a reexamination proceeding because, in
`
`the absence of good cause, the reexamination proceeding ‘will be conducted with
`
`special dispatch.’” Chicago Mercantile Exch., Inc. v. 5th Mkt., Inc., CBM2014-
`
`00114, Paper 20 at 3 (Jan. 9, 2015) (citing 35 U.S.C. § 305). The Board is not
`
`
`US2008 7626265 2
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`
`required to stay a reexamination simply because a concurrent proceeding involves
`
`the “same patent, a number of the same claims, and some overlap in the prior art”
`
`because 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.122(a) use permissive, rather than
`
`mandatory language, in authorizing the Board to enter any appropriate order to
`
`manage multiple proceedings. Id.
`
`When determining whether to stay a pending reexamination, the Board
`
`commonly weighs the following factors: (1) whether the claims are the same; (2)
`
`whether the grounds of rejection are based on the same or similar prior art; (3)
`
`whether the proceedings could lead to duplication of effort or inconsistent results;
`
`and (4) whether the requesters in the proceedings are the same. CBS Interactive v.
`
`Helferich Patent Licensing, IPR2013-00033, Paper 15 at 2 (Nov. 6, 2012).
`
`Patent Owner improperly considered the facts at issue here and failed to give
`
`proper weight to the advanced stage of the reexam. Indeed, Patent Owner simply
`
`ignored the fourth factor of the analysis, relegating it to a footnote. As detailed
`
`below, when properly considered each of these four factors is either neutral or
`
`strongly favors denying Patent Owner’s Motion to Stay.
`
`IV. Whether the Claims are the Same
`
`The claims currently rejected in the reexam are a small subset of the claims
`
`under review in this proceeding. However, due to the late stage of the reexam, this
`
`factor militates against a stay. If the Board affirms the Examiner’s finding that
`
`
`US2008 7626265 2
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`
`claims 38, 40, 44-46, and 49 are anticipated, and Patent Owner does not appeal to
`
`the Federal Circuit, the Board will not have to determine whether those claims are
`
`also obvious in this proceeding. This will narrow this proceeding.
`
`Further, given the usual speed of the reexam appeal process, it is likely that
`
`the Board will issue a decision in the reexam before it issues a decision here. Of
`
`the 51 pending ex parte reexamination appeals before the Board, none has been
`
`pending before the Board for more than 14 months.1 Assuming the Board
`
`maintains this trend, a final decision on the reexam can be expected later this year
`
`or early next year, before the conclusion of briefing in this proceeding and well
`
`before a final decision in this proceeding. Accordingly, this factor weights in favor
`
`of allowing the reexam to continue.
`
`V. Whether the Grounds of Rejection are Based on the Same or
`Similar Prior Art
`
`This factor weighs against a stay. The prior art issues raised in the two
`
`proceedings are different. The reexam raises anticipation rejections over Creamer
`
`and Mattes, and an obviousness rejection of one claim in view of Creamer and
`
`Mattes. In contrast, every claim in this proceeding is challenged under
`
`obviousness in view of two different combinations: (1) Creamer and Aihara; and
`
`
`1 See August 2015 P.T.A.B. Data (last visited Sept. 26, 2015)
`
`http://www.uspto.gov/dashboards/patenttrialandappealboard/main.dashxml
`
`
`US2008 7626265 2
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`
`(2) Mayle and Narayen. Thus, only one prior art reference is common between the
`
`two proceedings. The Board has declined to stay where concurrent proceedings
`
`have only one common prior art reference. See Chicago Mercantile, CBM2014-
`
`00114, Paper 20 at 5. Further, Creamer is used differently in the two proceedings
`
`– in an anticipation rejection in the reexam and in an obviousness rejection here –
`
`this further distinguishes the prior art issues in the two proceedings.
`
`Patent Owner incorrectly asserts that analyzing the challenged claims in
`
`light of Creamer will simplify the issues in the reexam. First, the scope of review
`
`in the reexam is different from that of the instant proceeding. See Kaiser
`
`Aluminum v. Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC, IPR2014-01002,
`
`Paper 24 at 3. The instant proceeding includes information that is not involved in
`
`the reexam, including the Declaration of Paul Clark (Ex. 1003) and additional
`
`obviousness rejections. Second, the reexam addresses invalidity for anticipation
`
`rather than obviousness. Patent Owner’s analysis of this factor ignores that a claim
`
`that is anticipated by a reference is certainly obvious in view of that reference, but
`
`the converse is not necessarily true.
`
`For the foregoing reasons this factor weighs against a stay.
`
`VI. Whether the Proceedings Could Lead to Duplication of Effort or
`Inconsistent Results
`
`There is minimal risk of duplicative effort or inconsistent results should
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Stay be denied. First, the reexam has been pending for
`
`-5-
`US2008 7626265 2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`
`more than two years, while this proceeding was instituted just a few weeks ago.
`
`The Board is likely to issue a final decision in the reexam before it issues a
`
`decision in this proceeding. Allowing such a decision to issue may narrow the
`
`issues to be addressed in this proceeding, thus reducing duplication of effort.
`
`Second, as discussed above, the grounds of rejection in the reexam and the grounds
`
`of unpatentability in this proceeding are different. Thus, there is little risk of an
`
`inconsistent result by allowing the reexam to continue.
`
`As the Board noted in its Institution Decision, many of the independent
`
`claims of the ’482 Patent recite comparable limitations. (Paper 19 at 14) A
`
`finding in the reexam that Creamer anticipates one or more of these elements
`
`would inform the Board’s analysis as to whether Creamer, in combination with
`
`Aihara, renders obvious comparable limitations. This is an efficient use of the
`
`Board’s resources with little risk of duplication or inconsistency since a final
`
`decision on the merits in this proceeding is almost a year away.
`
`Patent Owner argues that the lack of a statutory deadline for a final decision
`
`in ex parte reexamination favors a stay of the reexam. However, this ignores the
`
`statutory requirement that reexamination proceedings be conducted with “special
`
`dispatch” within the Office. 35 U.S.C. § 305. Indeed, based on past data, a final
`
`decision in the reexam is likely to issue before the due date for Petitioner’s Reply
`
`to Patent Owner’s Response. See Note 1 supra.
`
`
`US2008 7626265 2
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`
`Patent Owner also suggests that it may amend claims at issue in this
`
`proceeding, which may produce inconsistent results in the reexam. The Board
`
`should discount such arguments as both speculative and unlikely. In the past the
`
`Board has afforded little weight, if any, to speculative statements about possible
`
`amendments in light of a patent owner’s previous litigation posture. Motionpoint
`
`Corp. v. Transperfect Glob., Inc., CBM2014-00060, Paper 16 at 3-4 (Aug. 19,
`
`2014) (“We agree with Petitioner’s assessment that Patent Owner’s litigation
`
`posture suggests that Patent Owner is unlikely to amend claims 1–28 in this
`
`proceeding.”). Patent Owner has borne the expense of litigating the ’482 Patent,
`
`securing a jury verdict, obtaining an award of damages, and defending the award
`
`before the Federal Circuit. Patent Owner has gone through more than two years of
`
`reexamination of the ’482 Patent without amending the original claims. Patent
`
`Owner is unlikely to do so now.
`
`VII. Whether the Requesters in the Proceedings are the Same
`This factor weighs against a stay, and Patent Owner did not substantively
`
`address this factor. Petitioner is not a requester in the reexam. Petitioner (which
`
`originally included HTC, a party to related litigation of the ’482 Patent) was
`
`obligated to file its Petition when it did, prior to the statutory deadline imposed by
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
`
`
`US2008 7626265 2
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`
`VIII. Prejudice to the Petitioner
`Courts routinely weigh the prejudice suffered by a nonmoving party in
`
`considering whether to deny a motion to stay a litigation. See, e.g., VirtualAgility
`
`Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., 759 F.3d 1307, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Destination
`
`Maternity Corp. v. Target Corp., 12 F. Supp. 3d. 762, 766 (E.D. Pa. 2014). The
`
`Board should consider this factor. As discussed above the reexam may resolve
`
`issues under consideration in this proceeding, narrowing the issues Petitioner must
`
`address in its Reply and at Oral Argument. Thus, if the reexam is stayed Petitioner
`
`will be prejudiced by being forced to expend time and resources to continue
`
`challenging claims that are already fully briefed and before the Board.
`
`IX. Conclusion
`For the foregoing reasons Petitioner requests the Board deny the request to
`
`stay the reexam.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`John Alemanni
`Registration No. 47,384
`Lead Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`US2008 7626265 2
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of this PETITIONER’S
`
`OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO STAY EX PARTE
`
`REEXAMINATION 90/012,987 has been served via electronic mail on
`
`September 30, 2015, upon the following:
`
`Peter J. Ayers
`peter@leehayes.com
`John Shumaker
`jshumaker@leehayes.com
`Brian Mangum
`brianm@leehayes.com
`LEE & HAYES, PLLC
`11501 Alterra Parkway, Suite 450
`Austin, TX 78758
`
`
`
`Date: September 30, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`John C. Alemanni (Reg. No. 47,384)
`
`
`
`
`Lead Counsel
`John Alemanni
`Registration No. 47,384
`JAlemanni@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1001 West Fourth Street
`
`Back-Up Counsel
`Michael Morlock
`Registration No. 62,245
`MMorlock@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Postal and Hand-Delivery Address:
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1001 West Fourth Street
`
`
`US2008 7626265 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2015-00806
`
`Winston-Salem, NC 27101-2400
`Telephone: (336) 607-7311
`Fax: (336) 607-7500
`
`Winston-Salem, NC 27101-2400
`Telephone: (336) 607-7391
`Fax: (336) 607-7500
`
`
`
`US2008 7626265 2