`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No.
`Filed: November 22, 2019
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`THE MANGROVE PARTNERS MASTER FUND, LTD., and APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`VIRNETX INC.,
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-010461
`Patent No. 6,502,135
`
`
`
`
`
`Reply in Support of Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Apple Inc., who filed a petition in IPR2016-00062, has been joined as a Petitioner
`in the instant proceeding.
`
`
`
`Petitioners ask the Board to deny Patent Owner VirnetX Inc.’s (“VirnetX’s”)
`
`request for rehearing with respect to the issues VirnetX raised under Arthrex, Inc.
`
`v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 18-2140, 2019 WL 5616010 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 31,
`
`2019). Petitioners raise two arguments. First, Petitioners analogize the Board’s
`
`discovery orders to institution decisions, and argue they do not raise the same
`
`constitutional concerns as final written decisions. Second, Petitioners contend that
`
`because Arthrex left undisturbed other non-final orders, it does not require vacatur
`
`of discovery order here. Both arguments miss the mark.
`
`First, discovery orders are not analogous to institution decisions from the
`
`standpoint of the Appointments Clause. The Federal Circuit in Arthrex found “no
`
`constitutional infirmity” in the institution decisions because “the statute clearly
`
`bestows such authority on the Director,” who is properly appointed as a principal
`
`officer. 2019 WL 5616010, at *12 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 314) (emphasis added).
`
`While the Director has “delegated that authority to the Board,” Arthrex, 2019 WL
`
`5616010, at *1 n.1, the statute explicitly vests the authority to institute inter partes
`
`reviews with the Director. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) (“The Director may not
`
`authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless … .”). Congress did not
`
`vest the Director with similar authority with respect to orders governing discovery.
`
`These orders are entered by the Board pursuant to its statutorily conferred authority
`
`to “conduct inter partes reviews.” 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(4); see also 35 U.S.C. § 316(c)
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`(“The Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall, in accordance with section 6, conduct
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`
`
`each inter partes review instituted under this chapter.”). The Board does not enter
`
`discovery orders pursuant to any delegation from the Director (who lacks any
`
`statutory authority over such orders in the first place).
`
`Implicitly conceding this fact, Petitioners contend that the Director could
`
`theoretically grant to himself “the authority to review Board discovery orders” by
`
`virtue of his ability to “promulgate regulations governing discovery in an inter
`
`partes review.” Opp’n 3 (citing 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5)). But Section 316(a)(5)
`
`only authorizes the Director to issue regulations on the “standards and procedures
`
`for discovery.” 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5). Nothing in this provision permits the
`
`Director to arrogate to himself authority to review the Board’s discovery decisions.
`
`Petitioners’ argument, moreover, is contrary to Arthrex. There, the Federal
`
`Circuit considered the Director’s analogous “authority to promulgate regulations
`
`governing the conduct of inter partes review.” 2019 WL 5616010, at *5 (citing 35
`
`U.S.C. § 316); see also 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(4) (“The Director shall prescribe
`
`regulations … establishing and governing inter partes review under this chapter
`
`… .”). The Federal Circuit nevertheless concluded that this supervisory authority
`
`did not outweigh the other factors—such as the absence of review or removal
`
`power—that counseled towards finding that the APJs were principal officers under
`
`the Appointments Clause. 2019 WL 5616010, at *8. Under Petitioners’ logic, the
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Director could issue a regulation allowing him to review the Board’s final written
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`
`
`decisions. But Arthrex held that the statute does not allow him to do so. Id. at *5.
`
`Second, Arthrex’s observation that the new Board panel may proceed “on
`
`the existing written record,” 2019 WL 5616010, at *12, in no way suggests that
`
`discovery orders are immune from an Appointments Clause challenge. As an
`
`initial matter, Petitioners offer no response to VirnetX’s explanation (Reh’g
`
`Request 6) that, even if a principal officer “on occasion performs duties that may
`
`be performed by” an inferior officer, that “does not transform his status under the
`
`Constitution.” Freytag v. Comm’r, 501 U.S. 868, 882 (1991). Under Freytag, any
`
`action by a principal officer whose appointment does not comport with the
`
`Appointments Clause is constitutionally infirm. See Reh’g Request 6.
`
`Nor are the ministerial orders in Arthrex—a scheduling order, an order
`
`granting pro hac vice motion, and an order on the scope of the hearing, Opp’n 4—
`
`analogous to discovery orders. As Arthrex observed, the Board’s ability to
`
`“oversee discovery” goes to the very heart of what gives APJs “significant
`
`discretion.” 2019 WL 5616010, at *3. Moreover, nothing in Arthrex precluded the
`
`parties from seeking reconsideration of these orders by the newly constituted
`
`panel. And at least two of those orders—the scheduling order and the order on the
`
`scope of the hearing—were effectively vacated given Arthrex’s instruction for the
`
`Board to hold “a new hearing” on remand. 2019 WL 5616010, at *12.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 22, 2019
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-01046
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Registration No. 46,508
`
`Counsel for VirnetX Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I certify that I caused to be served on the
`
`counsel for Petitioner a true and correct copy of the foregoing Patent Owner’s
`
`Reply in Support of Request for Rehearing by electronic means on the date below
`
`at the following addresses of record:
`
`Abraham Kasdan (akasdan@wiggin.com)
`James T. Bailey (jtb@jtbaileylaw.com)
`IP@wiggin.com
`
`Jeffrey P. Kushan
`Scott Border
`Thomas A. Broughan III
`iprnotices@sidley.com
`
`
`Dated: November 22, 2019
`
`By: /Joseph E. Palys/
`Joseph E. Palys
`Registration No. 46,508
`
`Counsel for VirnetX Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`