UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`v.
`CROSSROADS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`Case IPR2015-01064
`Patent No. 7,051,147
`____________
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`
`
`101235273v.1
`
`

`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................ 1
`THE BOARD SHOULD DENY THE PETITION BECAUSE IT IS
`PETITIONER’S THIRD BITE AT THE APPLE ................................ 2
`A.
`Procedural Background .............................................................. 3
`1.
`Petitioner Previously Brought the Same Arguments and
`Evidence in IPR2014-01209 ............................................ 3
`Petitioner Previously Challenged Claims 14-39 in
`IPR2014-01207, and Trial on those Challenges is
`Currently Proceeding ....................................................... 5
`The Current Petition Merely Corrects the Deficiencies in
`the 1209 Petition .............................................................. 6
`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” ..................................................................... 15
`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
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`
`III.
`
`III.
`
`INSTITUTION ON GROUND “A” SHOULD BE REJECTED
`
`BECAUSE IT IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO PRIOR ART
`
`SUBMITTED IN IPR2014-01544 ................................................... ..27
`
`IV.
`
`TRIAL SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED ON GROUND “B”
`
`BECAUSE KIKUCHI IS NOT PRIOR ART TO THE ’147
`
`INSTITUTION ON GROUND “A” SHOULD BE REJECTED
`BECAUSE IT IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO PRIOR ART
`SUBMITTED IN IPR2014-01544 ..................................................... 27
`IV. TRIAL SHOULD NOT BE INSTITUTED ON GROUND “B”
`BECAUSE KIKUCHI IS NOT PRIOR ART TO THE ’147
`PATENT ............................................................................................. 29
`THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE IT FAILS TO
`IDENTIFY THE REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST .......................... 35
`VI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 40
`
`PATENT ........................................................................................... ..29
`
`V.
`
`THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED BECAUSE IT FAILS TO
`
`IDENTIFY THE REAL PARTIES-IN-INTEREST ........................ .. 35
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................. .
`
`. 40
`
`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) ................................................................................. 39
`
`Griffith v. Kanamaru,
`816 F.2d 624 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ............................................................................. 30
`
`Jones v. Evans,
`46 F.2d 197 (C.C.P.A. 1931) .............................................................................. 30
`
`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) ................................................. 12
`
`First Data Corp v. Cardsoft, LLC,
`IPR2014-00720, Paper 8 (PTAB October 17, 2014) .............................. 38, 39, 40
`
`Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.,
`IPR2013-00324, Paper 19 (PTAB Nov. 21, 2013) ............................................... 7
`
`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) ............. 12
`
`Zimmer Holdings, Inc. v. Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC,
`IPR2014-01080, Paper 17 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2014) ................................ 8, 9, 22, 23
`
`ZTE Corp. v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2013-00454, Paper 12 (Sept. 25, 2013) (informative opinion) .............. 11, 14
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ......................................................................................................... 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312 ................................................................................................. 36, 39
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`
`35 U.S.C. § 314 ............................................................................................. 7, 13, 26
`
`35 U.S.C. § 315 ................................................................................................ passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 325 ................................................................................................ passim
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.FR. § 42.1 ................................................................................................ passim
`
`37 C.FR. § 42.6 ................................................................................................. 12, 13
`
`37 C.FR. § 42.71 ............................................................................................. 1, 5, 20
`
`37 C.FR. § 42.104 ......................................................................................... 5, 12, 13
`
`37 C.FR. § 42.106 ................................................................................................... 40
`
`37 C.FR. § 42.107 ................................................................................................... 33
`
`37 C.FR. § 42.108 ..................................................................................................... 7
`
`37 C.FR. § 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) .................................................................. 12
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt.1 (2011).................................................................... 13, 18
`
`Office Patent Trial Practice Guide
`77 Fed. Reg. 48,756 (Aug. 14, 2012) ............................................................ 33, 37
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`
`Patent Owner’s Exhibit List
`IPR2015-01064
`
`
`Description
`United State Patent No. 5,941,972 (the “’972 Patent”)
`
`[Reserved]
`
`Ex. 1005 of IPR2014-01207 and IPR2014-01209
`
`Ex. 1004 of IPR2014-01297 and IPR2014-01209
`
`Exhibit No.
`2001
`2002-2017
`
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020-2108
`
`[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
`
`2111-2120
`
`[Reserved]
`
`2121
`
`2122
`
`2123
`
`2124
`
`2125
`
`2126
`
`2127
`
`Institution Decision, IPR2014-01209, Paper 12 (PTAB Jan. 30,
`2015).
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2014-01209, Paper 1 (PTAB
`Jul. 23, 2014)
`
`Ex. 1010 (Chase Declaration) in IPR2014-01209
`
`Institution Decision, IPR2014-01544, Paper 9 (PTAB April 3,
`2015)
`
`HP Journal (Ex. 1006 in IPR2014-01544)
`
`CRD-5500 Data Sheet (Ex. 1005 in IPR2014-01544)
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2014-01554, Paper 3 (PTAB
`Sept. 25, 2014)
`
`2128
`
`[Reserved]
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`
`Exhibit No.
`2129
`
`Description
`Institution Decision IPR2014-01207
`
`2130
`
`Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2014-01207, Paper 1 (July
`25, 2014)
`
`2131-2133
`
`2134
`
`2135-2299
`
`2300
`
`2301
`
`2302
`
`2303
`
`2304
`
`[Reserved]
`Revised Scheduling Order, IPR2014-01544, Paper 14 (PTAB May
`5, 2015)
`
`
`[Reserved]
`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)
`
`2305
`
`Declaration of John Middleton (May 22, 2015)
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`
`Exhibit No.
`2306
`
`2307
`
`2308
`
`2309
`
`2310
`
`2311
`
`2312
`
`2313
`
`Description
`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)
`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)).
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`
`Exhibit No.
`2314
`
`Description
`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)
`
`2315
`
`2316
`
`2317
`
`2318
`
`2319
`
`2320
`
`2321
`
`[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)).
`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
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`
`Exhibit No.
`2322
`
`2323
`
`Description
`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,” “1064
`
`Petition” or “Pet.”) filed in IPR2015-01064 (the “1064 IPR”) by Oracle Corporation
`
`(“Petitioner” or “Oracle”) seeking review of United States Patent No. 7,051,147 (the
`
`“‘147 Patent”) (Ex. 1001).
`
`I.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`The 1064 Petition should be denied because it is nothing more than
`
`Petitioner’s attempt at a “second bite at the apple.” The 1064 Petition is the fourth
`
`petition for inter partes review filed by Petitioner against the ‘147 Patent, and the
`
`last of six filed over nine months by defendants in co-pending litigation. In
`
`IPR2014-01209 (the “1209 IPR”), to which Petitioner was a party, the Board
`
`previously denied inter partes review of the same challenged claims on the same
`
`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 has
`
`filed two “do-over” petitions in an attempt to overcome the defects of the 1209
`
`Petition. Accompanying the first, in IPR2015-00852, was a motion to join IPR2015-
`
`01544. This second “do-over” petition is accompanied by a motion to join IPR2015-
`
`00773, which is itself a “do-over” petition brought by NetApp, Inc., Petitioner’s co-
`
`petitioner in the 1209 IPR. See Pet. at 59-60.
`
`Petitioner does not raise any new prior art or evidence or offer any arguments
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`that could not have been submitted in the 1209 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 U.S.C. § 325(d) to
`
`reject attempts by petitioners to use the Board’s prior decisions as a “how-to” guide
`
`to bolster unsuccessful challenges, and should do the same here. Therefore, the 1064
`
`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
`
`IPR2014-01544 (the “1544 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 ’147 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
`Petitioner seeks to join IPR2015-00773 (the “773 IPR”), which was filed by
`
`NetApp; the Petition purportedly “copies verbatim the challenges set forth” in the
`
`773 IPR. Paper 3 at 1. It also “relies on the same expert declaration offered in support
`
`of [the 773 IPR]”; to wit, Professor Chase’s July 25, 2014 declaration. Id.
`2
`
`
`
`

`
`A.
`
`Petitioner Has Previously Filed Multiple Overlapping Challenges
`to the ’047 Patent Based on the Same Grounds
`1.
`Petitioner Previously Brought the Same Arguments and
`Evidence in IPR2014-01209
`Petitioner requests inter partes review of claims 1-13 of the ’147 Patent on
`
`the following grounds:
`
`References
`
`CRD-5500 User Manual, CRD-5500 Data
`Sheet, and Smith
`Kikuchi and Bergsten
`Bergsten and Hirai
`
`Claims
`Challenged
`1-13
`
`3, 6-9 and 12
`3, 6-9 and 12
`
`Ground
`
`A
`
`B
`D1
`
`
`Pet. at 3. Petitioner previously requested review of the same claims based on the
`
`same grounds in the 1209 IPR. See Ex. 2121 at 2, 4-5. However, in the 1209 IPR,
`
`the Board found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it
`
`would prevail on these challenges:
`
`• “[T]he
`the Petition does not
`in
`information presented
`demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-13 are
`unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over CRD-5500 User’s
`Manual, CRD-5500 Data Sheet, and Smith.” Id. at 8.
`
`• “Petitioners have not met their burden in establishing a
`reasonable likelihood that claim 3 is unpatentable [under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kikuchi and Bergsten].” Id. at 10.
`
`
`1 Petitioner did not present a Grounds “C”. See Pet. at 3.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`• “For the reasons discussed for claim 3, Petitioners have not met
`their burden in establishing a reasonable likelihood that
`independent claim 6, claims 7-9, which depend from claim 6, and
`claim 12 are unpatentable [under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Kikuchi and Bergsten].” Id.
`
`• “Petitioners have not met their burden in establishing a
`reasonable likelihood that claim 3 is unpatentable [under 35
`U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bergsten and Hirai].” Id. at 13.
`
`• “For the reasons discussed for claim 3, Petitioners have not met
`their burden in establishing a reasonable likelihood that
`independent claim 6, claims 7-9, which depend from claim 6, and
`claim 12 are unpatentable [under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
`Bergsten and Hirai].” Id. 2
`
`The Board rejected the prior challenges because Petitioner improperly
`
`incorporated by reference arguments made in the accompanying Chase declaration,
`
`
`2 The Board did grant inter partes review on Petitioner’s challenges to (1) claims 1,
`
`2, 4, 10, 11, and 13 based on Kikuchi and Bergsten, (2) claim 5 based on Kikuchi,
`
`Bergsten and Smith, (3) claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 13 based on Bergsten and Hirai,
`
`(2) claim 5 based on Bergsten, Hirai, and Smith. Ex. 2121 at 15. Accordingly,
`
`Petitioner does not challenge those claims based on those specific grounds again
`
`here.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`circumventing the page limits that apply to petitions. Id. at 7-8, 9-10, 12-13. 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 specifying “where each claim
`
`element of the claims is found in the applied references” and without including “a
`
`detailed explanation of the significance of the evidence.” Id. at 7-8.
`
`The Board’s decision denying institution for the claims and grounds asserted
`
`here issued on January 30, 2015. Id. 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 a second petition on March 6, 2015
`
`in IPR2015-00852 (the “852 IPR”), seeking joinder to the 1544 IPR), and a third
`
`petition (the instant petition) on April 17, 2015 (which seeks joinder to the 773 IPR).
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner Previously Challenged Claims 14-39 in IPR2014-
`01207, and Trial on those Challenges is Currently
`Proceeding
`In IPR2014-01207 (the “1207 IPR”), Petitioner (along with NetApp and
`
`Huawei) requested inter partes review of claims 14-39 of the ’147 Patent based on
`
`the CRD-5500 User Manual, the CRD-5500 Data Sheet, and Smith. See Ex. 2129
`
`at 2, 4-5. The Board found that the 1207 petition demonstrated a reasonable
`
`likelihood that the petitioners would prevail on the asserted grounds, and instituted
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`trial on all challenged claims as to these references. Id. at 7, 12.
`
`3.
`
`The Petition is Petitioner’s Fourth Attempt to Challenge the
`‘147 Patent on the Same Grounds
`Petitioner admits that the 1209 IPR “corresponds generally to this petition.”
`
`Pet. at 59. Petitioner acknowledges that the current Petition merely attempts to
`
`correct the deficiencies of the 1209 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 59-60. The exact same exhibits, including the exact same expert declaration,
`
`are relied upon in both petitions. Compare Pet. at iv-vi with Ex. 2122 at iv-vi;
`
`compare Ex. 1010 with Ex. 2123 (Ex. 1010 in IPR2014-01209).
`
`Moreover, after the 1209 Petition was partially denied, Petitioner filed the
`
`petition in the 852 IPR, seeking to join the 1544 IPR. The 852 petition was
`
`purportedly a verbatim copy of the 1544 petition. The instituted grounds in the 1544
`
`IPR include the same CRD-5500 User Manual that Petitioner relied upon in the 1207
`
`and 1209 IPRs. Ex. 2124 at 4. The instituted grounds also include the HP Journal,
`
`which the Board has noted includes (at pages 99-112) the Smith reference Petitioner
`
`relied upon in the 1207 and 1209 IPRs (as well as the current proceeding). Ex. 2124
`
`at 6-7; compare Ex. 2125 with Ex. 2018 (Ex. 1005 of IPR2014-01207 and 1209). As
`
`noted by the Board, the 1544 Petition also cited the CRD-5500 Data Sheet that
`
`Petitioner relied upon in the 1207 and 1209 IPRs, and here. Ex. 2124 at 17; compare
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`Ex. 2126 with Ex. 2019 (Ex. 1004 of IPR2014-01207 and 1209). Thus, the 1544
`
`Petition and the 852 Petition assert the same prior art previously asserted by
`
`Petitioner in the 1207 and 1209 IPRs, and asserted yet again in the 773 IPR and here.
`
`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,
`7
`
`
`
`

`
`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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`a second petition requesting review of the same claims providing additional
`
`argument that i) the reference “explicitly teaches the limitations [the Board] found
`
`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 another chance to
`
`show where elements can allegedly be found in the prior art. Petitioner essentially
`
`admits that the current Petition is nothing more than a “second bite at the apple,”
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`where Petitioner has corrected the deficiencies in its prior petition.3 See Pet. at 59-
`
`60. 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.4 As
`
`in 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. Petitioner is thus
`
`requesting exactly the type of “second chance to address [previously challenged
`
`claims]” that the Board found lacking in Rembrandt. Id. (emphasis added).
`
`
`3 As previously discussed, this is actually Petitioner’s fourth bite at the ’147 Patent
`
`apple after IPR2015-01207, the 1209 IPR, and the 852 IPR. All in all, there are now
`
`six separate proceedings challenging the ‘147 Patent on essentially the same
`
`grounds.
`
`4 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 1209 Petition. To the extent Petitioner may have intended to include
`
`substantively different arguments, Petitioner has not provided any reason such
`
`arguments could not have been provided in the 1209 Petition or why such arguments
`
`justify a “second chance” petition. See, e.g., Rembrandt, IPR2015-00118, Paper 14
`
`at 7.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Petitioner offers absolutely no justification or explanation for the deficiencies
`
`in its prior petition, nor does it explain why the instant Petition is not redundant
`
`under § 325(d). 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 Rembrandt, the Board
`
`should deny institution in this proceeding.
`
`Petitioner admits that the Board found the 1209 Petition deficient for
`
`improperly incorporating its expert declaration by reference. Pet. at 59. The Board
`
`has previously explained that 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 (PTAB
`
`Sept. 25, 2013) (designated as “Informative”) (emphasis added). Likewise, the
`
`Board has denied institution under § 325(d), stating that “[b]ased on the information
`
`presented, we are persuaded that the instant Petition uses our prior Decision on
`
`Institution to bolster challenges that were advanced, unsuccessfully, in the
`
`[prior] Petition.” Unilever, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., IPR2014-00506, Paper
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`17 at 8 (PTAB Jul. 7, 2014) (designated as “Informative”) (emphasis added). More
`
`recently, the Board denied institution stating:
`
`A decision to inst