`
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`LG DISPLAY CO., LTD.
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2015-00885
`Patent 7,202,843
`
`_______________
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO BOARD ORDER OF MAY 13, 2016
`BY PATENT OWNER SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00885
`Patent No. 7,202,843
`
`
`
`
`In response to the Board’s Order dated May 13, 2016, Patent Owner
`
`SURPASS TECH INNOVATION LLC submits that the Board should not enter
`
`judgment against claims 4, 8, and 9 of the subject patent. As explained below,
`
`claims 4, 8, and 9 have been fully and finally adjudicated in a prior inter partes
`
`review. Accordingly, the Board should terminate this proceeding as to claims 4, 8,
`
`and 9 under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72 as moot.
`
`
`
`1.
`
`The patentability of claims 4, 8, and 9 has been fully and finally
`
`adjudicated in IPR2015-00021
`
`
`
`The patent at issue in this proceeding, U.S. Patent No. 7,202,843 (“the ‘843
`
`Patent”) was also at issue in IPR2015-00021 previously pending before this Board.
`
`In IPR2015-00021, the Board issued a final written decision on February 26, 2016
`
`that held claims 4, 8, and 9 of the ‘843 patent to be unpatentable. The period to
`
`appeal the final written decision expires after 63 days from the date of the final
`
`written decision. This deadline to file a notice of appeal, by Patent Owner’s
`
`calculation, was April 29, 2016. As of that deadline and the date signed below,
`
`Patent Owner has not appealed the final written decision in IPR2015-00021, which
`
`is now final.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`There is no Article III standing to adjudicate the patentability of
`
`claims 4, 8, and 9
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00885
`Patent No. 7,202,843
`
`
`
`A party who seeks to invoke federal jurisdiction must establish Article III
`
`standing, which is now absent in this case. Consumer Watchdog v. Wis. Alumni
`
`Research Found., 753 F.3d 1258, 1260-61 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`To meet the constitutional minimum for [Article III] standing, the
`
`party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction must satisfy three
`
`requirements. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112
`
`S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). First, the party must show that it
`
`has suffered an "injury
`
`in fact"
`
`that
`
`is both concrete and
`
`particularized, and actual or imminent (as opposed to conjectural or
`
`hypothetical). Id. at 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130. Second, it must show that
`
`the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action. Id. at 560, 112
`
`S.Ct. 2130. Third, the party must show that it is likely, rather than
`
`merely speculative, that a favorable judicial decision will redress the
`
`injury. Id. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130.
`
`Id. As of this date, claims 4, 8, and 9 are fully and finally unpatentable. Should the
`
`Board decide to adjudicate the patentability of claims 4, 8, and 9 again in this
`
`current proceeding, Patent Owner would have no Article III standing to appeal that
`
`judgment; in that instance, there would be no “injury in fact” in the Board’s
`
`determination that unpatentable claims 4, 8, and 9 are unpatentable. Further, an
`
`appeal of the current inter partes review would have no effect on the Board’s
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00885
`Patent No. 7,202,843
`
`determination in IPR2015-00021 that claims 4, 8, and 9 are unpatentable. These
`
`factors confirm that the patentability of claims 4, 8, and 9 is now moot.
`
`The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued an
`
`informative Opinion that addressed three IPRs decided against a common patent.
`
`In IPR2014-00110, the Board determined that claims 16-19 of the patent-at-issue
`
`were unpatentable. See IPR2014-00110, Paper 46 at 22. In IPR2014-00111, the
`
`Board determined that claims 20-24 of the same patent- at-issue were unpatentable.
`
`See IPR2014-00111, Paper 47 at 32. Then, in IPR2014-00395, the Board
`
`determined that claims 16 and 19-24 were unpatentable. See IPR2014-00395,
`
`Paper 41 at 30. The patent owner appealed these cases to the Federal Circuit.
`
`In deciding these cases on appeal, the Court affirmed the Board in the first
`
`two cases, IPR2014-00110 and IPR2014-00111. And since those two cases fully
`
`addressed the patentability of claims 16 and 19-24 at issue in IPR2014-00395, the
`
`Court dismissed the appeal of IPR2014-00395 as moot. See Norred v. Medtronic,
`
`Inc. et al., Case No. 2015-1731 (Fed. Cir., May 10, 2016) (nonprecedential).
`
`Similarly here, this case is moot as to the question of whether claims 4, 8, and 9 are
`
`unpatentable. The issue has been fully and finally decided, and the property rights
`
`embodied in claims 4, 8, and 9 no longer exist for adjudication.
`
`In this circumstance, Patent Owner submits that the proper action is for the
`
`Board to terminate this inter partes review as to claims 4, 8, and 9 as moot.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00885
`Patent No. 7,202,843
`
`Termination without rendering a final decision as to these claims is appropriate
`
`here, where the patent rights in these claims are already extinguished. Authority is
`
`granted to the Board for such termination under 37 C.F.R. § 42.72.
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Wayne M. Helge
`
`Registration No. 56,905
`
`Lead Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 23, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00885
`Patent No. 7,202,843
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on May 23, 2016, a true and correct copy of the
`
`
`
`foregoing Response to Board Order by Patent Owner Surpass Tech Innovation
`
`LLC was served via email to the Petitioner by serving the correspondence
`
`addresses of record as follows:
`
`Robert G. Pluta
`Registration No. 50,970
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`71 S. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: 312-701-8641
`Facsimile: 312-701-7711
`rpluta@mayerbrown.com
`
`cc: SURPASSIPR843@mayerbrown.com
`
`William J. Barrow
`Registration No. 62,813
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`1999 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`Telephone: 202.263.3000
`Facsimile: 202.263.3300
`wbarrow@mayerbrown.com
`
`Amanda K. Streff
`Registration No. 65,224
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`71 S. Wacker Drive
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: 312-701-8645
`Facsimile: 312-701-7711
`astreff@mayerbrown.com
`
`
`By: /s/ Wayne M. Helge
` USPTO Reg. No. 56,905
` Counsel for Patent Owner
`
`
`
`5